> Date: Sat, 23 Oct 2010 15:31:01 +0100 > From: [log in to unmask] > Subject: Re: LLL idea > To: [log in to unmask] > > Eugene Oh, On 22/10/2010 18:17: > > 2010/10/22 And Rosta<[log in to unmask]> > >> IMO English 'sp,st,sk' clusters are actually /sb,sd,sg/, so if the /s/ were > >> lost, you'd end up with /b,d,g/. > >> > > I'm interested in this analysis. Tell us more? > > The default obstruent 'sonants' are /b, d, g, v, ð, z/. Each has a 'sharp' version, /b♯, d♯, g♯, v♯, D♯, z♯/, or (notationally equivalent) /p, t, k, f, θ, s/. In any cluster of obstruents, either none is sharp or only the first is sharp. 'St' is /sd/: the obvious alternative analyses to 'st' being /sd/ are (i) /st/ and (ii) /zd/ (or with archiphonemes, /ST/, amounting to much the same analysis). Word-initially, grounds for choosing between /sd/ and /zd/ are meagre, but elsewhere, e.g. in _east_, it is clearly /sd/, not /zd/, because the sharp /s/ triggers prefortis clipping, and there is a contrast with /zd/ (cf _eased_). Arguments against /st/ are as follows. 'Onset' /p,t,k/ are aspirated, but you don't get aspirated [p_h, t_h, k_h] following an obstruent. 'Coda' /t/ is realized [?] in many accents, but you don't get [?] following an obstruent. And _mist_ and _missed_ (_rift_ and _riffed_, etc etc) are homophonous, which is to be expected if they are /misd/ an > d /mis+d/, where /+d/ is the _ed_ suffix. > > --And. Hi, Maybe it's me, but I don't see what is the advantage of this description over the down to earth "/t/ is realized as |t| after /s/ and as |t_h| elsewhere" kind. Is it more comprehensive, or does it provide a description of English phonotactics at a lesser algorithmic entropy? To me, it seems to be merely an alternative -perhaps as valid, but surely more difficult- description of the same thing, with no advantage over the traditional description that I can see. (Of course, I'd accept a link or a reference for an answer if it's too much to fit in an email.) Maxime.