Mixing
The difference between a regular consonant and a syllabic consonant
Clash Royale CLAN TAG#URR8PPP
up vote
1
down vote
favorite
Trying to understand the difference between regular consonants and Syllabic Consonants. Two examples are from Danish.
- [ð̩] skinnede
- [l̩] solen
To start (for some context), the way I would naturally pronounce solen is "só-lin", but hearing the pronunciation above, it is more like "soul-lán", with a sort of pausing/lengthening around the l, and the l seems to occur in both syllables (end of one and start of another), not sure if that's relevant. For skinnede I hear "skinew", I don't hear the d (ð̩) as in "the".
From reading about syllabic consonants:
[It] is a consonant that forms a syllable on its own, like the m, n and l in the English words rhythm, button and bottle, or is the nucleus of a syllable, like the r sound in the American pronunciation of work.
I understand rhythm, since it's like rhyth-m, two syllables basically (more like rhyth-thm, where the first syllable starts the th sound, and the next syllable finishes it. Same with button, it's like but-n, and bottle as bot-l.
So wondering if one could better explain what a syllabic consonant is by providing a comparison with regular consonants. For example, comparing solen with golen or some other random word (just made that up). Something close but that demonstrates a non-syllabic consonant. Also knowing how syllabic consonants relate to the nucleus would help make it more understandable.
phonology consonants syllables syllabic-consonants
edited 7 mins ago
curiousdannii
2,52131328
asked 1 hour ago
Lance Pollard
637310
add a comment |Â
up vote
1
down vote
favorite
Trying to understand the difference between regular consonants and Syllabic Consonants. Two examples are from Danish.
- [ð̩] skinnede
- [l̩] solen
To start (for some context), the way I would naturally pronounce solen is "só-lin", but hearing the pronunciation above, it is more like "soul-lán", with a sort of pausing/lengthening around the l, and the l seems to occur in both syllables (end of one and start of another), not sure if that's relevant. For skinnede I hear "skinew", I don't hear the d (ð̩) as in "the".
From reading about syllabic consonants:
[It] is a consonant that forms a syllable on its own, like the m, n and l in the English words rhythm, button and bottle, or is the nucleus of a syllable, like the r sound in the American pronunciation of work.
I understand rhythm, since it's like rhyth-m, two syllables basically (more like rhyth-thm, where the first syllable starts the th sound, and the next syllable finishes it. Same with button, it's like but-n, and bottle as bot-l.
So wondering if one could better explain what a syllabic consonant is by providing a comparison with regular consonants. For example, comparing solen with golen or some other random word (just made that up). Something close but that demonstrates a non-syllabic consonant. Also knowing how syllabic consonants relate to the nucleus would help make it more understandable.
phonology consonants syllables syllabic-consonants
edited 7 mins ago
curiousdannii
2,52131328
asked 1 hour ago
Lance Pollard
637310
The example isn't the word "American", but the American pronunciation of "work" (as opposed to RP or Australian or…).
– Draconis
1 hour ago
Lol haha, oops.
– Lance Pollard
1 hour ago
add a comment |Â
up vote
1
down vote
favorite
up vote
1
down vote
favorite
Trying to understand the difference between regular consonants and Syllabic Consonants. Two examples are from Danish.
- [ð̩] skinnede
- [l̩] solen
To start (for some context), the way I would naturally pronounce solen is "só-lin", but hearing the pronunciation above, it is more like "soul-lán", with a sort of pausing/lengthening around the l, and the l seems to occur in both syllables (end of one and start of another), not sure if that's relevant. For skinnede I hear "skinew", I don't hear the d (ð̩) as in "the".
From reading about syllabic consonants:
[It] is a consonant that forms a syllable on its own, like the m, n and l in the English words rhythm, button and bottle, or is the nucleus of a syllable, like the r sound in the American pronunciation of work.
I understand rhythm, since it's like rhyth-m, two syllables basically (more like rhyth-thm, where the first syllable starts the th sound, and the next syllable finishes it. Same with button, it's like but-n, and bottle as bot-l.
So wondering if one could better explain what a syllabic consonant is by providing a comparison with regular consonants. For example, comparing solen with golen or some other random word (just made that up). Something close but that demonstrates a non-syllabic consonant. Also knowing how syllabic consonants relate to the nucleus would help make it more understandable.
phonology consonants syllables syllabic-consonants
edited 7 mins ago
curiousdannii
2,52131328
asked 1 hour ago
Lance Pollard
637310
Trying to understand the difference between regular consonants and Syllabic Consonants. Two examples are from Danish.
- [ð̩] skinnede
- [l̩] solen
To start (for some context), the way I would naturally pronounce solen is "só-lin", but hearing the pronunciation above, it is more like "soul-lán", with a sort of pausing/lengthening around the l, and the l seems to occur in both syllables (end of one and start of another), not sure if that's relevant. For skinnede I hear "skinew", I don't hear the d (ð̩) as in "the".
From reading about syllabic consonants:
[It] is a consonant that forms a syllable on its own, like the m, n and l in the English words rhythm, button and bottle, or is the nucleus of a syllable, like the r sound in the American pronunciation of work.
I understand rhythm, since it's like rhyth-m, two syllables basically (more like rhyth-thm, where the first syllable starts the th sound, and the next syllable finishes it. Same with button, it's like but-n, and bottle as bot-l.
So wondering if one could better explain what a syllabic consonant is by providing a comparison with regular consonants. For example, comparing solen with golen or some other random word (just made that up). Something close but that demonstrates a non-syllabic consonant. Also knowing how syllabic consonants relate to the nucleus would help make it more understandable.
phonology consonants syllables syllabic-consonants
phonology consonants syllables syllabic-consonants
edited 7 mins ago
curiousdannii
2,52131328
asked 1 hour ago
Lance Pollard
637310
edited 7 mins ago
curiousdannii
2,52131328
asked 1 hour ago
Lance Pollard
637310
edited 7 mins ago
curiousdannii
2,52131328
edited 7 mins ago
curiousdannii
2,52131328
edited 7 mins ago
curiousdannii
2,52131328
2,52131328
asked 1 hour ago
Lance Pollard
637310
asked 1 hour ago
Lance Pollard
637310
asked 1 hour ago
Lance Pollard
637310
637310
The example isn't the word "American", but the American pronunciation of "work" (as opposed to RP or Australian or…).
– Draconis
1 hour ago
Lol haha, oops.
– Lance Pollard
1 hour ago
add a comment |Â
The example isn't the word "American", but the American pronunciation of "work" (as opposed to RP or Australian or…).
– Draconis
1 hour ago
Lol haha, oops.
– Lance Pollard
1 hour ago
The example isn't the word "American", but the American pronunciation of "work" (as opposed to RP or Australian or…).
– Draconis
1 hour ago
The example isn't the word "American", but the American pronunciation of "work" (as opposed to RP or Australian or…).
– Draconis
1 hour ago
Lol haha, oops.
– Lance Pollard
1 hour ago
Lol haha, oops.
– Lance Pollard
1 hour ago
add a comment |Â
2 Answers
2
active
oldest
votes
up vote
1
down vote
The question of "syllabicity" comes down to syllable structure. Every known language has some sort of prosodic unit that we can call a "syllable", usually (but not always!) smaller than a whole word and larger than a single phoneme. In languages with morae, like Japanese, syllables are also larger than morae.
And in particular, every syllable seems to be built around a nucleus, potentially with other things before and after it. This nucleus is always something that can be extended to an arbitrary length (so usually not a plosive—but even a plosive nucleus is attested in certain African languages!) and it's always there, never entirely missing.
This nucleus is said to be syllabic, since it's the core of a syllable. And anything that's not a syllable nucleus is non-syllabic. Vowels by default are syllabic, and consonants are not. But this is a very arbitrary distinction that the IPA chooses to draw, rather than any real phonetic property! While [j] is a "voiced palatal approximant" and [i] is a "high front unrounded vowel", the only real difference between the two is that [i] is syllabic and [j] is not. So [dai] is two syllables unless otherwise specified, while [daj] is one.
One way to tell the difference between them is that a syllabic sound can stand on its own, while a non-syllabic one can't. Try saying [m] without a vowel next to it, then the same for [b]. This is a hint that that in English, [m] can be syllabic while [b] can't. Or, look for words where that sound is a syllable nucleus: that's the only way to really be sure.
answered 1 hour ago
Draconis
6,735731
"So [dai] is two syllables unless otherwise specified" Wouldn't that be a diphthong unless otherwise specified?
– curiousdannii
5 mins ago
add a comment |Â
up vote
1
down vote
A syllabic consonant is a term for when the nucleus of a syllable is a consonant and not a vowel. Normally, vowels form the nucleus of a syllable because they are the most sonorous.
For example,
in the word, "Alabama" [æ.lə.ˈbæ.mə] there are four syllables separated by the .symbol.
Do you see how each syllable has a vowel (as its nucleus, in fact)?
In English, it is common to form words that contain syllables which have no vowels at all, as in "rythm" [ɹɪ.ðm̩]. So, we say that the [m] in the second syllable of the word "rythm" is a syllabic consonant because it forms the nucleus of the syllable. In IPA, the diacritic that you use to mark a syllabic consonant is a small vertical line (placed underneath the syllabic consonant, see example). Some languages, like Spanish, don't permit syllabic consonants (an exception being Mexican Spanish beacuse of the -tl suffix from nahuatl)
If this doesn't make sense, you should read some introductory phonology, I recommend the book "Introductory Phonology" by Bruce Hayes.
answered 1 hour ago
axme100
1518
I don't understand why it needs to be marked though in IPA, it seems like it's built into the structure of how you make the sounds.
– Lance Pollard
39 mins ago
I suppose it doesn't need to be marked into the IPA and people would still know it's a syllabic consonant because there is no vowel for a given syllable, at least for English. In English, and probably in most languages, syllabic consonants can only be liquids and nasals. Maybe it would be used to clear up ambiguity for a language in which you don't know which consonant is the nucleus.
– axme100
32 mins ago
Also: many languages don't have syllabic consonants, so it's an interesting thing to mark. Some English language, learners, for example struggle with the pronunciation of syllabic consonants and may insert vowels to avoid pronouncing a syllabic consonant.
– axme100
22 mins ago
add a comment |Â
2 Answers
2
active
oldest
votes
2 Answers
2
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
up vote
1
down vote
The question of "syllabicity" comes down to syllable structure. Every known language has some sort of prosodic unit that we can call a "syllable", usually (but not always!) smaller than a whole word and larger than a single phoneme. In languages with morae, like Japanese, syllables are also larger than morae.
And in particular, every syllable seems to be built around a nucleus, potentially with other things before and after it. This nucleus is always something that can be extended to an arbitrary length (so usually not a plosive—but even a plosive nucleus is attested in certain African languages!) and it's always there, never entirely missing.
This nucleus is said to be syllabic, since it's the core of a syllable. And anything that's not a syllable nucleus is non-syllabic. Vowels by default are syllabic, and consonants are not. But this is a very arbitrary distinction that the IPA chooses to draw, rather than any real phonetic property! While [j] is a "voiced palatal approximant" and [i] is a "high front unrounded vowel", the only real difference between the two is that [i] is syllabic and [j] is not. So [dai] is two syllables unless otherwise specified, while [daj] is one.
One way to tell the difference between them is that a syllabic sound can stand on its own, while a non-syllabic one can't. Try saying [m] without a vowel next to it, then the same for [b]. This is a hint that that in English, [m] can be syllabic while [b] can't. Or, look for words where that sound is a syllable nucleus: that's the only way to really be sure.
answered 1 hour ago
Draconis
6,735731
"So [dai] is two syllables unless otherwise specified" Wouldn't that be a diphthong unless otherwise specified?
– curiousdannii
5 mins ago
add a comment |Â
up vote
1
down vote
The question of "syllabicity" comes down to syllable structure. Every known language has some sort of prosodic unit that we can call a "syllable", usually (but not always!) smaller than a whole word and larger than a single phoneme. In languages with morae, like Japanese, syllables are also larger than morae.
And in particular, every syllable seems to be built around a nucleus, potentially with other things before and after it. This nucleus is always something that can be extended to an arbitrary length (so usually not a plosive—but even a plosive nucleus is attested in certain African languages!) and it's always there, never entirely missing.
This nucleus is said to be syllabic, since it's the core of a syllable. And anything that's not a syllable nucleus is non-syllabic. Vowels by default are syllabic, and consonants are not. But this is a very arbitrary distinction that the IPA chooses to draw, rather than any real phonetic property! While [j] is a "voiced palatal approximant" and [i] is a "high front unrounded vowel", the only real difference between the two is that [i] is syllabic and [j] is not. So [dai] is two syllables unless otherwise specified, while [daj] is one.
One way to tell the difference between them is that a syllabic sound can stand on its own, while a non-syllabic one can't. Try saying [m] without a vowel next to it, then the same for [b]. This is a hint that that in English, [m] can be syllabic while [b] can't. Or, look for words where that sound is a syllable nucleus: that's the only way to really be sure.
answered 1 hour ago
Draconis
6,735731
"So [dai] is two syllables unless otherwise specified" Wouldn't that be a diphthong unless otherwise specified?
– curiousdannii
5 mins ago
add a comment |Â
up vote
1
down vote
up vote
1
down vote
The question of "syllabicity" comes down to syllable structure. Every known language has some sort of prosodic unit that we can call a "syllable", usually (but not always!) smaller than a whole word and larger than a single phoneme. In languages with morae, like Japanese, syllables are also larger than morae.
And in particular, every syllable seems to be built around a nucleus, potentially with other things before and after it. This nucleus is always something that can be extended to an arbitrary length (so usually not a plosive—but even a plosive nucleus is attested in certain African languages!) and it's always there, never entirely missing.
This nucleus is said to be syllabic, since it's the core of a syllable. And anything that's not a syllable nucleus is non-syllabic. Vowels by default are syllabic, and consonants are not. But this is a very arbitrary distinction that the IPA chooses to draw, rather than any real phonetic property! While [j] is a "voiced palatal approximant" and [i] is a "high front unrounded vowel", the only real difference between the two is that [i] is syllabic and [j] is not. So [dai] is two syllables unless otherwise specified, while [daj] is one.
One way to tell the difference between them is that a syllabic sound can stand on its own, while a non-syllabic one can't. Try saying [m] without a vowel next to it, then the same for [b]. This is a hint that that in English, [m] can be syllabic while [b] can't. Or, look for words where that sound is a syllable nucleus: that's the only way to really be sure.
answered 1 hour ago
Draconis
6,735731
The question of "syllabicity" comes down to syllable structure. Every known language has some sort of prosodic unit that we can call a "syllable", usually (but not always!) smaller than a whole word and larger than a single phoneme. In languages with morae, like Japanese, syllables are also larger than morae.
And in particular, every syllable seems to be built around a nucleus, potentially with other things before and after it. This nucleus is always something that can be extended to an arbitrary length (so usually not a plosive—but even a plosive nucleus is attested in certain African languages!) and it's always there, never entirely missing.
This nucleus is said to be syllabic, since it's the core of a syllable. And anything that's not a syllable nucleus is non-syllabic. Vowels by default are syllabic, and consonants are not. But this is a very arbitrary distinction that the IPA chooses to draw, rather than any real phonetic property! While [j] is a "voiced palatal approximant" and [i] is a "high front unrounded vowel", the only real difference between the two is that [i] is syllabic and [j] is not. So [dai] is two syllables unless otherwise specified, while [daj] is one.
One way to tell the difference between them is that a syllabic sound can stand on its own, while a non-syllabic one can't. Try saying [m] without a vowel next to it, then the same for [b]. This is a hint that that in English, [m] can be syllabic while [b] can't. Or, look for words where that sound is a syllable nucleus: that's the only way to really be sure.
answered 1 hour ago
Draconis
6,735731
answered 1 hour ago
Draconis
6,735731
answered 1 hour ago
Draconis
6,735731
answered 1 hour ago
Draconis
6,735731
6,735731
"So [dai] is two syllables unless otherwise specified" Wouldn't that be a diphthong unless otherwise specified?
– curiousdannii
5 mins ago
add a comment |Â
"So [dai] is two syllables unless otherwise specified" Wouldn't that be a diphthong unless otherwise specified?
– curiousdannii
5 mins ago
"So [dai] is two syllables unless otherwise specified" Wouldn't that be a diphthong unless otherwise specified?
– curiousdannii
5 mins ago
"So [dai] is two syllables unless otherwise specified" Wouldn't that be a diphthong unless otherwise specified?
– curiousdannii
5 mins ago
add a comment |Â
up vote
1
down vote
A syllabic consonant is a term for when the nucleus of a syllable is a consonant and not a vowel. Normally, vowels form the nucleus of a syllable because they are the most sonorous.
For example,
in the word, "Alabama" [æ.lə.ˈbæ.mə] there are four syllables separated by the .symbol.
Do you see how each syllable has a vowel (as its nucleus, in fact)?
In English, it is common to form words that contain syllables which have no vowels at all, as in "rythm" [ɹɪ.ðm̩]. So, we say that the [m] in the second syllable of the word "rythm" is a syllabic consonant because it forms the nucleus of the syllable. In IPA, the diacritic that you use to mark a syllabic consonant is a small vertical line (placed underneath the syllabic consonant, see example). Some languages, like Spanish, don't permit syllabic consonants (an exception being Mexican Spanish beacuse of the -tl suffix from nahuatl)
If this doesn't make sense, you should read some introductory phonology, I recommend the book "Introductory Phonology" by Bruce Hayes.
answered 1 hour ago
axme100
1518
I don't understand why it needs to be marked though in IPA, it seems like it's built into the structure of how you make the sounds.
– Lance Pollard
39 mins ago
I suppose it doesn't need to be marked into the IPA and people would still know it's a syllabic consonant because there is no vowel for a given syllable, at least for English. In English, and probably in most languages, syllabic consonants can only be liquids and nasals. Maybe it would be used to clear up ambiguity for a language in which you don't know which consonant is the nucleus.
– axme100
32 mins ago
Also: many languages don't have syllabic consonants, so it's an interesting thing to mark. Some English language, learners, for example struggle with the pronunciation of syllabic consonants and may insert vowels to avoid pronouncing a syllabic consonant.
– axme100
22 mins ago
add a comment |Â
up vote
1
down vote
A syllabic consonant is a term for when the nucleus of a syllable is a consonant and not a vowel. Normally, vowels form the nucleus of a syllable because they are the most sonorous.
For example,
in the word, "Alabama" [æ.lə.ˈbæ.mə] there are four syllables separated by the .symbol.
Do you see how each syllable has a vowel (as its nucleus, in fact)?
In English, it is common to form words that contain syllables which have no vowels at all, as in "rythm" [ɹɪ.ðm̩]. So, we say that the [m] in the second syllable of the word "rythm" is a syllabic consonant because it forms the nucleus of the syllable. In IPA, the diacritic that you use to mark a syllabic consonant is a small vertical line (placed underneath the syllabic consonant, see example). Some languages, like Spanish, don't permit syllabic consonants (an exception being Mexican Spanish beacuse of the -tl suffix from nahuatl)
If this doesn't make sense, you should read some introductory phonology, I recommend the book "Introductory Phonology" by Bruce Hayes.
answered 1 hour ago
axme100
1518
I don't understand why it needs to be marked though in IPA, it seems like it's built into the structure of how you make the sounds.
– Lance Pollard
39 mins ago
I suppose it doesn't need to be marked into the IPA and people would still know it's a syllabic consonant because there is no vowel for a given syllable, at least for English. In English, and probably in most languages, syllabic consonants can only be liquids and nasals. Maybe it would be used to clear up ambiguity for a language in which you don't know which consonant is the nucleus.
– axme100
32 mins ago
Also: many languages don't have syllabic consonants, so it's an interesting thing to mark. Some English language, learners, for example struggle with the pronunciation of syllabic consonants and may insert vowels to avoid pronouncing a syllabic consonant.
– axme100
22 mins ago
add a comment |Â
up vote
1
down vote
up vote
1
down vote
A syllabic consonant is a term for when the nucleus of a syllable is a consonant and not a vowel. Normally, vowels form the nucleus of a syllable because they are the most sonorous.
For example,
in the word, "Alabama" [æ.lə.ˈbæ.mə] there are four syllables separated by the .symbol.
Do you see how each syllable has a vowel (as its nucleus, in fact)?
In English, it is common to form words that contain syllables which have no vowels at all, as in "rythm" [ɹɪ.ðm̩]. So, we say that the [m] in the second syllable of the word "rythm" is a syllabic consonant because it forms the nucleus of the syllable. In IPA, the diacritic that you use to mark a syllabic consonant is a small vertical line (placed underneath the syllabic consonant, see example). Some languages, like Spanish, don't permit syllabic consonants (an exception being Mexican Spanish beacuse of the -tl suffix from nahuatl)
If this doesn't make sense, you should read some introductory phonology, I recommend the book "Introductory Phonology" by Bruce Hayes.
answered 1 hour ago
axme100
1518
A syllabic consonant is a term for when the nucleus of a syllable is a consonant and not a vowel. Normally, vowels form the nucleus of a syllable because they are the most sonorous.
For example,
in the word, "Alabama" [æ.lə.ˈbæ.mə] there are four syllables separated by the .symbol.
Do you see how each syllable has a vowel (as its nucleus, in fact)?
In English, it is common to form words that contain syllables which have no vowels at all, as in "rythm" [ɹɪ.ðm̩]. So, we say that the [m] in the second syllable of the word "rythm" is a syllabic consonant because it forms the nucleus of the syllable. In IPA, the diacritic that you use to mark a syllabic consonant is a small vertical line (placed underneath the syllabic consonant, see example). Some languages, like Spanish, don't permit syllabic consonants (an exception being Mexican Spanish beacuse of the -tl suffix from nahuatl)
If this doesn't make sense, you should read some introductory phonology, I recommend the book "Introductory Phonology" by Bruce Hayes.
answered 1 hour ago
axme100
1518
edited 29 mins ago
answered 1 hour ago
axme100
1518
answered 1 hour ago
axme100
1518
answered 1 hour ago
axme100
1518
1518
I don't understand why it needs to be marked though in IPA, it seems like it's built into the structure of how you make the sounds.
– Lance Pollard
39 mins ago
I suppose it doesn't need to be marked into the IPA and people would still know it's a syllabic consonant because there is no vowel for a given syllable, at least for English. In English, and probably in most languages, syllabic consonants can only be liquids and nasals. Maybe it would be used to clear up ambiguity for a language in which you don't know which consonant is the nucleus.
– axme100
32 mins ago
Also: many languages don't have syllabic consonants, so it's an interesting thing to mark. Some English language, learners, for example struggle with the pronunciation of syllabic consonants and may insert vowels to avoid pronouncing a syllabic consonant.
– axme100
22 mins ago
add a comment |Â
I don't understand why it needs to be marked though in IPA, it seems like it's built into the structure of how you make the sounds.
– Lance Pollard
39 mins ago
I suppose it doesn't need to be marked into the IPA and people would still know it's a syllabic consonant because there is no vowel for a given syllable, at least for English. In English, and probably in most languages, syllabic consonants can only be liquids and nasals. Maybe it would be used to clear up ambiguity for a language in which you don't know which consonant is the nucleus.
– axme100
32 mins ago
Also: many languages don't have syllabic consonants, so it's an interesting thing to mark. Some English language, learners, for example struggle with the pronunciation of syllabic consonants and may insert vowels to avoid pronouncing a syllabic consonant.
– axme100
22 mins ago
I don't understand why it needs to be marked though in IPA, it seems like it's built into the structure of how you make the sounds.
– Lance Pollard
39 mins ago
I don't understand why it needs to be marked though in IPA, it seems like it's built into the structure of how you make the sounds.
– Lance Pollard
39 mins ago
I suppose it doesn't need to be marked into the IPA and people would still know it's a syllabic consonant because there is no vowel for a given syllable, at least for English. In English, and probably in most languages, syllabic consonants can only be liquids and nasals. Maybe it would be used to clear up ambiguity for a language in which you don't know which consonant is the nucleus.
– axme100
32 mins ago
I suppose it doesn't need to be marked into the IPA and people would still know it's a syllabic consonant because there is no vowel for a given syllable, at least for English. In English, and probably in most languages, syllabic consonants can only be liquids and nasals. Maybe it would be used to clear up ambiguity for a language in which you don't know which consonant is the nucleus.
– axme100
32 mins ago
Also: many languages don't have syllabic consonants, so it's an interesting thing to mark. Some English language, learners, for example struggle with the pronunciation of syllabic consonants and may insert vowels to avoid pronouncing a syllabic consonant.
– axme100
22 mins ago
Also: many languages don't have syllabic consonants, so it's an interesting thing to mark. Some English language, learners, for example struggle with the pronunciation of syllabic consonants and may insert vowels to avoid pronouncing a syllabic consonant.
– axme100
22 mins ago
add a comment |Â
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
StackExchange.ready(
function ()
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2flinguistics.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f29170%2fthe-difference-between-a-regular-consonant-and-a-syllabic-consonant%23new-answer', 'question_page');
);
Post as a guest
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
The example isn't the word "American", but the American pronunciation of "work" (as opposed to RP or Australian or…).
– Draconis
1 hour ago
Lol haha, oops.
– Lance Pollard
1 hour ago