On Fri, Apr 10, 2009 at 6:31 AM, Mark J. Reed <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> On Fri, Apr 10, 2009 at 9:07 AM, caeruleancentaur
> <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>> --- In [log in to unmask], R A Brown <ray@...> wrote:
>> But 'ketchup' is divided differently, /kEtS.Vp/.
> Huh, the AHD indeed has "ketch-up".  I would have expected "ket-chup",
>  /kEt.tS)Vp/.   I might even have a geminate t there, come to think of
> it...
> But in general, syllable breaks confuse me.  For one thing, sometimes
> y'all talk about phonetic ones, which makes no sense whatsoever to me.
>  You have two nuclei and something centered in between them; how do
> you determine which nucleus that something goes with?  Even
> phonemically, though, the rules for placing the breaks in English
> don't seem to correspond to my native-speaker intuition.

It's not always easy, and sometimes there's no one right answer.
Especially when you consider that some consonants in medial position
can be ambisyllabic, straddling the boundary between syllables and
more or less belonging to both.

On Fri, Apr 10, 2009 at 9:18 AM, Tristan McLeay <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> Renown English phonetician John C. Wells argues that intervocallic
> /tr/ [1] must be a coda because it is glottalised, i.e. a word like
> "Patrick" has to be syllabified as /p&tr.Ik/ because it is
> [p_h&tr)_?Ik] [2]. This leads us to the I think unhappy conclusion that
> /tr/ can be an onset and it can be a coda, but only if a vowel follows.
> Other phonologists have claimed that in non-rhotic English varieties,
> /r/ is likewise permitted in the onset, but can only be in the coda if
> a vowel follows, so that "arid" (say) is [&r.@d]. I forget the exact
> justification for this, but it's at least partly to let the linking [r]
> go in the coda. I personally think this is a funny desire, given that
> the entire reason for a linking consonant is to make sure every
> syllable has an onset! (if no word was before, the onset is of course
> [?]; if a word ending in a consonant was before, the onset the
> consonant that was before --- this is especially clear in varieties
> like RP which alternate between dark [5] in codas and light [l] in
> onsets; a word like "little" ends in [5] unless a vowel-initial word
> follows, when it's [l]).

Wow, that's a funny claim. For me the first syllable is pretty clearly open.

My 'lect seems to have a muta cum liquida rule, blocked by morpheme boundaries

> On 10/04/09 15:07:28, caeruleancentaur wrote:
>> BTW, "An Etymological Dictionary of Modern English" says that
>> 'catsup'
>> is incorrect.
> Yeah, but so's "ketchup". The stuff's called "(tomato) sauce". Or, on a
> dog's eye (meat pie), "dead horse". When I worked in the restaurant in
> Ikea there were lots of kids who either didn't know what "ketchup"
> meant or clearly took pride in showing off their knowledge to their
> siblings/friends. (Yeah, the reason I replied to this post was to make
> sure you know I'm Australian ;)

For me, "tomato sauce" is stewed tomato puree (usually canned),
usually used as the main ingredient in marinara sauce for pasta. Now
I've got a mental image of spaghetti covered in ketchup. BRB,