Roger Mills wrote:
> One would think that if they were truly syllabic, there could be
> alternations with non-syllabic, [C=] ~ [C].
Why? That would represent the loss of a syllable. In a pronunciation
like [kIt?n=], I can't see any way of interpreting that sound as
anything but syllabic. The adjective would be [kIt?n=IS], three
> Note too that in "bottom" the _t_ is flapped
There's also no syllabic nasal, at least in my dialect. For me, only
/n/ can be syllabic, and only when following /t/ or /d/, "bottom" is
> rhythm ~ rhythmic and the other -thm words yes, but they're weird furrin
Again, in my dialect, those are /rID@m/ - /rIDmIk/, and I don't think
I've ever heard a syllabic /m/ in that word.
> We do get alternations with final /r, l/: ['fajr=] ~ ['fajrIn] 'fire,
> firing', ['b&tr=] ~['b&trIN] 'batter, battering'
In your dialect, perhaps, but I say ['fajr=iN] and [b&*r=iN].
(this last maybe more
> typical of British than US, but permissible here in fast speech) or ['bAtl=]
> ~ ['bAtlIN] 'bottle, bottling', ['sEtl=] ~ [sEtlr=] 'settle, settler'.
Again [bAtl=] ~ [bAtl=iN], [sEtl=] - [sEtl=r=], maybe [sEtlr=] in rapid
> Personally I've always preferred to indicate the schwa in these cases, if
> only becuase in a phonological derivation it's simpler to account for
> vowel-deletion than to account for a change in syllabicity.
Even if you don't pronounce the schwa? Except in the most careful
speech, I have no schwa in any of those words. I could see positing an
*underlying* schwa (but then why not do the same for [r=] and [l=]?),
but if there's no schwa on the surface, why show it in a phonetic
"There's no such thing as 'cool'. Everyone's just a big dork or nerd,
you just have to find people who are dorky the same way you are." -
AIM Screen-Name: NikTaylor42