🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <Bx2J3G.H7x@nic.umass.edu> zgilbert@titan.ucc.umass.edu (Zvi Gilbert) writes:
>lee@uhunix.uhcc.Hawaii.Edu (Greg Lee) writes:
>zgilbert@titan.ucc.umass.edu (Zvi Gilbert) writes:
>>>...
>>>First look at the facts: "extra" is syllabified as TWO syllables in English.
>>>[ek.stra]; there's no doubt that that is the case.
>>
>>I doubt it.  What's your evidence?
>
>Mea culpa.  I was just informed via email that there is some phonetic research
>which suggests that the /s/ may be in the first syllable; i.e., that the 
>syllabification may be [eks.tra].  So I don't really know, and evidence from
>phonetics would have to help us decide.  It doesn't alter the point that I
>was making, which was that [extra] has TWO syllables, even though it has 
>THREE sonority peaks.

Well, then, what's your evidence that "extra" has two syllables?

>...
>nature of the universe are best stated in terms of them.  Analogously, certain
>facts about the distribution of segments in natural languages are best stated
>by using the notion of the syllable.  This is evidence for the syllable as
>a "real" element in language: it has predictive power as a model, and it's
>robust. 

I doubt there is a good analogy?  Do physicists go around arguing what statement
is "best"?  I doubt I would agree with you about what is "best".  What facts
about distribution cannot be stated without reference to syllable or resort
to an inferior statement?  What does the syllable predict that is both true
and not predictable without the syllable?

>>Consider as an alternative Saussure's theory, according to which segments have
>>a feature explosive versus implosive.  Instead of saying consonants occur
>>at the beginning of a syllable, one may characterize them as explosive.
>
>But they are only explosive before a vowel or other syllable nucleus; i.e., 
>in syllable initial position.

My overly concise statement has misled you about Saussure's theory.  All the
consonants in the onset of a syllable are "explosive"; all those in the offset
are implosive.  See the General Course in Linguistics.

>  Just saying that they are "explosive" doesn't
>help, since they can shift from explosive to implosive as syllable boundaries
>shift (e.g., final aspiration in Marathi).

So?  Why shouldn't segments shift from explosive to implosive, or vice versa,
under appropriate circumstances?  They shift from voiced to voiceless, or
oral to nasal, or etc.  What is magic about shifting syllable boundary as
against describing the same facts by changing explosiveness?

>...
>>You mean, implosive obstruents are devoiced and that implosives do not
>>have laryngeal constrasts?  (See?  No "notion" of a syllable.)
>
>Greg, your theory doesn't work.  WHERE do your implosive segments occur?
>HOW do you characterize their distribution?

You don't know what my theory is.  Just as one must make assumptions about
syllabification which differ somewhat from language to language, so in a
syllable-free theory along Saussurean lines one must make assumptions
about the distribution of explosive and implosive segments.  I've worked
a little on this, but not on Polish or Thai.  Given the facts, you could
work it out yourself, I'll guess.  Since the segmental facts which syllables
are usually invoked for concern strength of articulation, and since explosive
implies strongly articulated, I think you will find that rephrasals in terms
of Saussure's distinction are somewhat more direct.

>If you look, you will 
>find that they occur after syllable nuclei (like vowels, syllabic consonants,
>etc.)  While you may characterize obstruents as "explosive" and "implosive," 
>(and there are interesting recent attempts to do so), you still must explain
>why they occur where they do.  Even if you don't call it a syllable, you're
>making reference to the NOTION of the syllable if you say that "implosives
>occur in position X, and explosives occur in position Y."

Here, you appeal to your conclusion.  If you are going to argue for the
existence of syllables, you must be able to conceive of an alternative,
to avoid this unfortunate circularity.  You see, the way _I_ look at it,
even though you make no reference to explosive/implosive, when you speak
of syllables, you are making implicit reference to the NOTION of explosive
versus implosive.

>...
>--Zvi

--
Greg Lee <lee@uhunix.uhcc.hawaii.edu>