🚀 go-pugleaf

(In general, I kind of prefer it when posters trim down the articles they
are responding to, removing everything but the points they are responding
to.  Of course, this is just me.)

In article <1cq9e3INNjfh@uwm.edu> hahn@csd4.csd.uwm.edu writes:
>
>There is a nice theory that Clements put  out on sonority and the
>syllable.  Instead of chopping up fricatives, stops continuants, etc...
>using some different features (such as vocoid), a scale  such as 
>O<N<L<G<W seems  to suffice.  (Obstruents, Nasals, Liquids, Glides,
>and vowels.) 

Sounds interesting, but are the sonority measurements acoustically
based, or is the definition circular (i.e. to they peek ahead to see
what they are being used to prove, namely which ones go where in
these supposed syllables)?


-- 

   -Richard L. Goerwitz              goer%midway@uchicago.bitnet
   goer@midway.uchicago.edu          rutgers!oddjob!ellis!goer