Re: Why "aren't I"?
- From: Harlan Messinger <hmessinger.removethis@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Thu, 29 Jun 2006 14:56:48 -0400
Brian M. Scott wrote:
<Amnesty> is irrelevant: the /n/ is a syllable onset, not a
nucleus. Even if you really do split <amn't> between the
/m/ and the /n/, which I find hard to believe,
It seems to me that
(a) a claim that we have trouble with adjacent nasals in the same syllable and,
(b) a claim that given a choice between treating the /m/ in "amn't" as being in the same syllable as the "n" and *not* being in the same syllable as the "n", the latter is hard to believe
are mutually inconsistent. If (a) were true, it seems to me that it would follow that the /m/ in "amn't" would *very likely* be in the first syllable. If on the other hand the /m/ is *in fact* in the second syllable, then that seems to make claim (a) unlikely.
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: Why "aren't I"?
- From: Brian M. Scott
- Re: Why "aren't I"?
- References:
- Why "aren't I"?
- From: Thomas Carter
- Re: Why "aren't I"?
- From: Brian M. Scott
- Re: Why "aren't I"?
- From: Harlan Messinger
- Re: Why "aren't I"?
- From: Brian M. Scott
- Re: Why "aren't I"?
- From: Harlan Messinger
- Re: Why "aren't I"?
- From: Brian M. Scott
- Why "aren't I"?
- Prev by Date: Re: Why "aren't I"?
- Next by Date: Re: Why "aren't I"?
- Previous by thread: Re: Why "aren't I"?
- Next by thread: Re: Why "aren't I"?
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|