On Wed, 25 Nov 2009 16:25:43 +0000, Sam Stutter
<[log in to unmask]> wrote:

>However "I fled" resolves as "spr&y"Nu"m" which ought to be [spr&amp;.

Everyone so far seems to have seized on the hiatus and not the thing which
troubles me most on first sight, which is the position of the second
syllable division.  That's a really weird thing to do, VC.V is;
crosslinguistically languages really really prefer putting a single C in
this position in the onset, empty codas being a beautifully fine state of
affairs and empty onsets being a mite uncomfortable.  (English may be one of
the few exceptions -- Wells argues this, at least, to account for the
phenomena like "happy" [h&p.i] where [&] is a closed-syllable-only vowel. 
But it's certainly not the common behaviour.)

I do wonder how you're pronouncing it in such a way that it's clearly
[aIN.u:] and not [aI.Nu:].  Distinguishing those by extra segmental material
could well feel be an awkward affair.  

On Wed, 25 Nov 2009 18:09:17 -0000, Michael Poxon <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

>For instance, my own
>lang goes out of its way to avoid syllable reduplication 


On Wed, 25 Nov 2009 11:19:06 -0800, Adam Walker <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

>Carrajina also actively deletes reduplicated syllables and does not like
having more than one occurence of any particular vowel pretonicly.  

This is really strange to me.  In every natlang case that I'm familiar with,
haplology is unmistakably a sporadic phenomenon, and I can't name a single
instance in which it's regular enough that it might be counted as a
phonotactic rule.  Can anyone?