Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site spar.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!bonnie!akgua!gatech!seismo!lll-crg!lll-lcc!vecpyr!amd!amdcad!decwrl!spar!ellis
From: ellis@spar.UUCP (Michael Ellis)
Newsgroups: net.nlang
Subject: Syllabic Sibilants
Message-ID: <686@spar.UUCP>
Date: Mon, 2-Dec-85 03:54:39 EST
Article-I.D.: spar.686
Posted: Mon Dec  2 03:54:39 1985
Date-Received: Thu, 5-Dec-85 06:29:47 EST
References: <2176@brl-tgr.UUCP> <7100022@iuvax.UUCP>
Reply-To: ellis@spar.UUCP (Michael Ellis)
Organization: Schlumberger Palo Alto Research, CA
Lines: 41

> reilly

>	Perhaps it is an ad hoc move to claim that /s/ is syllabic in
>English.  But that still does not explain what the /s/ is doing
>there in the first place.  What I mean is that if one accepts the
>Sonority Hierarchy as defining the canonical syllable as an increase
>up to the vocalic nucleus and a decrease in sonority (by sonority
>hierarchy, i mean stop < low fricative < high fricative (eg /s/) <
>nasal < liquid < glide (r,y,w) < vowel constitutes a hierachy of
>sonority--except for nasals, this corresponds basically to how open
>your mouth is!), then you have to face the question:  what is the
>s doing there in words like sky, scrunch, etc.

    Assuming that syllable nuclei occur at points of highest sonority, this
    approach is fairly successful at predicting the general features of
    phonetic structure in most languages: /trat/ or /tart/ are indeed much
    more likely syllables than /rtat/ or /tatr/, for example.  Similarly,
    `carl' /k<a>r>l/ is more likely to be monosyllabic than `collar'
    /k<a>l<r/, which often `breaks' into the disyllabic /k<a>l<0>r/
    
    However, the frequency of English /sk-/, /st-/ and /sp-/ is not the
    only problem with `sonority hierarchy'; where are all those initials like
    /ts-/, /pf-/, /fn-/, /dn-/ that `ought' to exist? The only such
    sounds that are common in English are /tsh-/ and /dzh-/ (CHew, Joke).

    A reverse problem occurs in finals; if /tsh-/ is a `good' initial, then
    /-sht/ should be a `good' final, yet /-sht/ is rare in most languages
    I know. Likewise, the frequency of /-ps/, /-ts/ /-ks/, (and /-bz/,
    /-dz/, /-gz/ in English) is as inexplicable as that of /sp-/, /sk-/, 
    /st-/.

    I think it's fair to say that /s/ (and /z/, in English) is an
    unusual sound in most (european) languages.

>Selkirk says you can dispense with the major features (consonantal, vocalic,
>syllabic) by using sonority, and I think she is right.

     If you have the time and interest, I'd enjoy hearing more about this.

-michael