Print

Print


dirk elzinga wrote:

> Up until now, I have been reluctant to admit the possibility
> of ambisyllabicity *as a possible structure*, regardless of the
> dialect under consideration. This reluctance is admittedly based on
> theory-internal arguments, but there are other analyses available
> which account for the "ambisyllabic" facts without invoking
> ambisyllabicity.

It seems to me that there isn't any possible ambisyllabicity that can't
be accounted for as a covert gemination.  If [X] (some random sound)
seems to be treated as part of two adjacent syllables, you can postulate
an underlying [XX] in every case.  And vice versa.

In short, ambisyllabicity and covert gemination are "equivalent" theories:
either of them can account for every possible datum.

--
There is / one art                   || John Cowan <[log in to unmask]>
no more / no less                    || http://www.reutershealth.com
to do / all things                   || http://www.ccil.org/~cowan
with art- / lessness                 \\ -- Piet Hein