🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <1cu7rtINN8t4@uwm.edu> hahn@csd4.csd.uwm.edu writes:
>> 
>> This is one of those facts about syllabification in English and many other 
>> languages; /s/ can do many things that are not permitted to any other 
>> consonants.  It violates the sonority hierarchy all the time, in words like
>> "extra" and "straw" (three sonority peaks, but clearly only two syllables)...
> 
>Some consider these to be one sound, i.e. /st/ or /sp/,  and some  
>say  that they are extrasyllabic, thus not part of the delinquent sonority
>peaks.

I've always love the terms "extrametrical" and "extrasyllabic."  Let me
translate:  We don't know what the hell to do with them, but we'll tack
them on somehow or other.  What I'd like to know is whether the extramet-
rical objects are rigidly defined by the system, so that their presence
is predictable and systematically accounted for.  Sometimes I just get
the gut feeling that they're a kludge.  Stick 'em in when things don't
otherwise work out.  This makes them mere notational add-ons, without any
legitimate predictive power - testimonials to the fact that human speech
on the deep structure level (if such a thing exists) does not conform to
metrical theory (fully).

Don't be intimidated by my statements:  I'm a philologist, and my per-
ceptions and impressions are probably skewed.  Net lurkers who feel I've
misrepresented things, please express yourselves!

I'd really hoped that somebody would discuss the objective evidence that
syllables, in fact, exist before giving everything names.  Despite the
rush of work in syllabic and metrical phonology, there still appear to be
a lot of phonologists who don't accept the notion of a deep-structure
syllable.  Contrast this school with those who note that alphabetic analy-
sis of language is not inherent, and that syllabic breakdown might be more
"primitive."  (Hence most early human scripts start logographic, later
becoming syllabic; alphabetic scripts require a more complex leap, and
don't always even develop unless imposed from without).  


  These plateaus and peaks just may be exceptions,  as there are
>relatively few language wide.  (Consider  English, lots  of words
>that violates the sonority hierarchy, but actually only a couple  of
>combinations that do this.) 
>
>I think that these are both wishy washy answers.  Then  again I don't
>have a better answer.    
>
>-- 
>			     David Hahn
> 		   University of Wisconsin - Milwaukee
>		         hahn@csd4.csd.uwm.edu


-- 

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