Mixing
Why English is missing some phoneme sequences
Clash Royale CLAN TAG#URR8PPP
up vote
1
down vote
favorite
Wondering why English is missing some phoneme sequences. By that I mean, I understand English doesn't have some primitive phonemes like Ç, but I'm wondering about sequences of phonemes, not sure if there is a better term for it.
But an example is something like gauv or gouv, pronounced like couch. Maybe it's because it is too close to galv as in galvanize. And there is oup. The word out exists, which is similar, but I don't know if I've heard of an oup or owp. There is cloud and clout too, but no cloup.
Wondering if the reason for this is one of these:
- It just happens to not be there.
- It has a sound that English doesn't like.
- There are ~strict~ rules preventing it.
- It sounds too much like other sounds in English.
- Other.
In general wondering why English doesn't have certain phonemes.
english phonology
asked 2 hours ago
Lance Pollard
525210
add a comment |Â
up vote
1
down vote
favorite
Wondering why English is missing some phoneme sequences. By that I mean, I understand English doesn't have some primitive phonemes like Ç, but I'm wondering about sequences of phonemes, not sure if there is a better term for it.
But an example is something like gauv or gouv, pronounced like couch. Maybe it's because it is too close to galv as in galvanize. And there is oup. The word out exists, which is similar, but I don't know if I've heard of an oup or owp. There is cloud and clout too, but no cloup.
Wondering if the reason for this is one of these:
- It just happens to not be there.
- It has a sound that English doesn't like.
- There are ~strict~ rules preventing it.
- It sounds too much like other sounds in English.
- Other.
In general wondering why English doesn't have certain phonemes.
english phonology
asked 2 hours ago
Lance Pollard
525210
The symbol you inserted does not display in any font I have on my system; please include some sort of other identifier, or at least a Unicode code-point number...
– Jeff Zeitlin
1 hour ago
Hopefully Ç works. It is chi, I copied from wikipedia.
– Lance Pollard
1 hour ago
1
Much better, thanks.
– Jeff Zeitlin
1 hour ago
add a comment |Â
up vote
1
down vote
favorite
up vote
1
down vote
favorite
Wondering why English is missing some phoneme sequences. By that I mean, I understand English doesn't have some primitive phonemes like Ç, but I'm wondering about sequences of phonemes, not sure if there is a better term for it.
But an example is something like gauv or gouv, pronounced like couch. Maybe it's because it is too close to galv as in galvanize. And there is oup. The word out exists, which is similar, but I don't know if I've heard of an oup or owp. There is cloud and clout too, but no cloup.
Wondering if the reason for this is one of these:
- It just happens to not be there.
- It has a sound that English doesn't like.
- There are ~strict~ rules preventing it.
- It sounds too much like other sounds in English.
- Other.
In general wondering why English doesn't have certain phonemes.
english phonology
asked 2 hours ago
Lance Pollard
525210
Wondering why English is missing some phoneme sequences. By that I mean, I understand English doesn't have some primitive phonemes like Ç, but I'm wondering about sequences of phonemes, not sure if there is a better term for it.
But an example is something like gauv or gouv, pronounced like couch. Maybe it's because it is too close to galv as in galvanize. And there is oup. The word out exists, which is similar, but I don't know if I've heard of an oup or owp. There is cloud and clout too, but no cloup.
Wondering if the reason for this is one of these:
- It just happens to not be there.
- It has a sound that English doesn't like.
- There are ~strict~ rules preventing it.
- It sounds too much like other sounds in English.
- Other.
In general wondering why English doesn't have certain phonemes.
english phonology
english phonology
asked 2 hours ago
Lance Pollard
525210
asked 2 hours ago
Lance Pollard
525210
edited 1 hour ago
asked 2 hours ago
Lance Pollard
525210
asked 2 hours ago
Lance Pollard
525210
asked 2 hours ago
Lance Pollard
525210
525210
The symbol you inserted does not display in any font I have on my system; please include some sort of other identifier, or at least a Unicode code-point number...
– Jeff Zeitlin
1 hour ago
Hopefully Ç works. It is chi, I copied from wikipedia.
– Lance Pollard
1 hour ago
1
Much better, thanks.
– Jeff Zeitlin
1 hour ago
add a comment |Â
The symbol you inserted does not display in any font I have on my system; please include some sort of other identifier, or at least a Unicode code-point number...
– Jeff Zeitlin
1 hour ago
Hopefully Ç works. It is chi, I copied from wikipedia.
– Lance Pollard
1 hour ago
1
Much better, thanks.
– Jeff Zeitlin
1 hour ago
The symbol you inserted does not display in any font I have on my system; please include some sort of other identifier, or at least a Unicode code-point number...
– Jeff Zeitlin
1 hour ago
The symbol you inserted does not display in any font I have on my system; please include some sort of other identifier, or at least a Unicode code-point number...
– Jeff Zeitlin
1 hour ago
Hopefully Ç works. It is chi, I copied from wikipedia.
– Lance Pollard
1 hour ago
Hopefully Ç works. It is chi, I copied from wikipedia.
– Lance Pollard
1 hour ago
1
1
Much better, thanks.
– Jeff Zeitlin
1 hour ago
Much better, thanks.
– Jeff Zeitlin
1 hour ago
add a comment |Â
2 Answers
2
active
oldest
votes
up vote
3
down vote
accepted
There is a descriptive rule that sequences of the diphthong /aʊ/ + a labial consonant don't exist in English vocabulary. From a certain standpoint, this can be explained by looking at the historical sound changes that created the modern English /aʊ/ diphthong. Most instances of /aʊ/ in English originated from Middle English /uËÂ/ via the "Great Vowel Shift", and this change of /uËÂ/ to /aʊ/ was inhibited before labial consonants. So, for example, Old English "dÅ«n" corresponds to Modern English down, Old English "rÅ«m" corresponds to Modern English room.
I would guess that this exception to the sound change can probably be explained at least in part on articulatory grounds. I'm not sure exactly how to formulate an explanation like this, though. We don't see a similar effect after labial consonants—modern English has words with /maʊ/, like mouth, from Old English mūþ—so an articulatory explanation would have to account for why coda labial consonants had this effect on a preceding /uËÂ/, but onset labial consonants did not similarly affect a following /uËÂ/.
Whether or not there is a rule in the sense of "active constraint" in the phonology of modern English against sequences like /aʊm/ and /aʊp/ is kind of disputable. Clearly, it's not that difficult for most English speakers to pronounce something like /aʊm/, e.g. in words of foreign origin that are used in English like "lebensraum". I think English speakers would intuitively feel that words containing sequences like /aʊm/ or /aʊp/ don't sound very "native English", but such a feeling might arise from the absence of native words that are pronounced this way, even if there is no current "rule" per se against these sequences.
/aʊ/ also doesn't occur before coda velar consonants
It's commonly noted that /aʊ/ also does not occur before a tautosyllabic velar consonant in modern English (we don't see words with /aʊk/, /aʊg/ or /aʊŋ/). The historical explanation for the absence of /aʊ/ + velar sequences seems to be a bit different than the explanation for the absence of /aʊ/ + labial sequences:
In the case of /aʊg/, it fits with the general absence of /g/ after "long vowels" or diphthongs in native English words, because native English /g/ was vocalized except for when it was a geminate or "long" consonant.
Likewise, /aʊŋ/ can be explained in terms of the origins of /ŋ/ from the heavy cluster /ng/.
The absence of /aʊk/ in modern English seems almost accidental: the only cases I know of where we would expect to see it but don't are the verbs brook (< OE brÅ«can) and suck (< OE sÅ«can) which both have shortened vowels instead, but there is also a word “louk†< OE lÅ«can (now obsolete or dialectal) which as far as I can tell has been pronounced with /aʊk/. It seems to me that there aren't really enough examples to establish a clear generalization for the development of OE Å«k / Middle English /uËÂk/, but there does seem to be some support for the idea that /aʊk/ was somehow avoided by the application of various sound changes to words that would otherwise be expected to have /aʊk/.
The absence of /aʊ/ + velar consonant may be relevant for certain theories about the phonology of modern English because it means that the coda consonants that /aʊ/ does combine with can be described as those that belong to a particular phonological class: they are all "coronal consonants". In some theories, coronal consonants may be expected to have some kind of special status that allows them to occur more freely than other kinds of consonants at the end of words (or syllables). For comparison, English also has one (not too infrequent) word that ends in /aɪnt/—pint—but no words that end in /aɪmp/ or /aɪŋk/.
answered 1 hour ago
sumelic
7,39711440
add a comment |Â
up vote
1
down vote
There is a gap which as far as I know escapes explanation, and that is the "blort-generalization". The rule is that there are no root syllables with CLV̆LC, where V̆ is a short / lax vowel, C is a consonant, and L is a liquid l,r or. Examples of such a sequence would be "flæl, blɔrt, slɪlm, krɛlm...". "Blurt" = [blɹ̩t] does not have that pattern, since it lacks a vowel-plus-liquid sequence. I do not know if such sequences existed in Proto-Indo-European and were mutilated in some fashion, or does this reflect a gap in the PIE lexicon. There are certainly ample numbers of CL onsets and LC codas: with respect to grammar and mental representation of language, I favor analysis 1 – there just aren't any.
answered 24 mins ago
user6726
29k11655
I think -V̆LC is itself somewhat uncommon because of certain lengthening and vocalization changes. E.g. words like cold, old, child have long vowels/diphthongs, walk, talk, yolk, folk, palm, psalm have lost /l/, vowels before /r/ of course have undergone extensive changes in most dialects (including the development of /ɪr/ and /ʌr/ to the sound that you transcribe here as [ɹ̩])
– sumelic
3 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
3
down vote
accepted
There is a descriptive rule that sequences of the diphthong /aʊ/ + a labial consonant don't exist in English vocabulary. From a certain standpoint, this can be explained by looking at the historical sound changes that created the modern English /aʊ/ diphthong. Most instances of /aʊ/ in English originated from Middle English /uËÂ/ via the "Great Vowel Shift", and this change of /uËÂ/ to /aʊ/ was inhibited before labial consonants. So, for example, Old English "dÅ«n" corresponds to Modern English down, Old English "rÅ«m" corresponds to Modern English room.
I would guess that this exception to the sound change can probably be explained at least in part on articulatory grounds. I'm not sure exactly how to formulate an explanation like this, though. We don't see a similar effect after labial consonants—modern English has words with /maʊ/, like mouth, from Old English mūþ—so an articulatory explanation would have to account for why coda labial consonants had this effect on a preceding /uËÂ/, but onset labial consonants did not similarly affect a following /uËÂ/.
Whether or not there is a rule in the sense of "active constraint" in the phonology of modern English against sequences like /aʊm/ and /aʊp/ is kind of disputable. Clearly, it's not that difficult for most English speakers to pronounce something like /aʊm/, e.g. in words of foreign origin that are used in English like "lebensraum". I think English speakers would intuitively feel that words containing sequences like /aʊm/ or /aʊp/ don't sound very "native English", but such a feeling might arise from the absence of native words that are pronounced this way, even if there is no current "rule" per se against these sequences.
/aʊ/ also doesn't occur before coda velar consonants
It's commonly noted that /aʊ/ also does not occur before a tautosyllabic velar consonant in modern English (we don't see words with /aʊk/, /aʊg/ or /aʊŋ/). The historical explanation for the absence of /aʊ/ + velar sequences seems to be a bit different than the explanation for the absence of /aʊ/ + labial sequences:
In the case of /aʊg/, it fits with the general absence of /g/ after "long vowels" or diphthongs in native English words, because native English /g/ was vocalized except for when it was a geminate or "long" consonant.
Likewise, /aʊŋ/ can be explained in terms of the origins of /ŋ/ from the heavy cluster /ng/.
The absence of /aʊk/ in modern English seems almost accidental: the only cases I know of where we would expect to see it but don't are the verbs brook (< OE brÅ«can) and suck (< OE sÅ«can) which both have shortened vowels instead, but there is also a word “louk†< OE lÅ«can (now obsolete or dialectal) which as far as I can tell has been pronounced with /aʊk/. It seems to me that there aren't really enough examples to establish a clear generalization for the development of OE Å«k / Middle English /uËÂk/, but there does seem to be some support for the idea that /aʊk/ was somehow avoided by the application of various sound changes to words that would otherwise be expected to have /aʊk/.
The absence of /aʊ/ + velar consonant may be relevant for certain theories about the phonology of modern English because it means that the coda consonants that /aʊ/ does combine with can be described as those that belong to a particular phonological class: they are all "coronal consonants". In some theories, coronal consonants may be expected to have some kind of special status that allows them to occur more freely than other kinds of consonants at the end of words (or syllables). For comparison, English also has one (not too infrequent) word that ends in /aɪnt/—pint—but no words that end in /aɪmp/ or /aɪŋk/.
answered 1 hour ago
sumelic
7,39711440
add a comment |Â
up vote
3
down vote
accepted
There is a descriptive rule that sequences of the diphthong /aʊ/ + a labial consonant don't exist in English vocabulary. From a certain standpoint, this can be explained by looking at the historical sound changes that created the modern English /aʊ/ diphthong. Most instances of /aʊ/ in English originated from Middle English /uËÂ/ via the "Great Vowel Shift", and this change of /uËÂ/ to /aʊ/ was inhibited before labial consonants. So, for example, Old English "dÅ«n" corresponds to Modern English down, Old English "rÅ«m" corresponds to Modern English room.
I would guess that this exception to the sound change can probably be explained at least in part on articulatory grounds. I'm not sure exactly how to formulate an explanation like this, though. We don't see a similar effect after labial consonants—modern English has words with /maʊ/, like mouth, from Old English mūþ—so an articulatory explanation would have to account for why coda labial consonants had this effect on a preceding /uËÂ/, but onset labial consonants did not similarly affect a following /uËÂ/.
Whether or not there is a rule in the sense of "active constraint" in the phonology of modern English against sequences like /aʊm/ and /aʊp/ is kind of disputable. Clearly, it's not that difficult for most English speakers to pronounce something like /aʊm/, e.g. in words of foreign origin that are used in English like "lebensraum". I think English speakers would intuitively feel that words containing sequences like /aʊm/ or /aʊp/ don't sound very "native English", but such a feeling might arise from the absence of native words that are pronounced this way, even if there is no current "rule" per se against these sequences.
/aʊ/ also doesn't occur before coda velar consonants
It's commonly noted that /aʊ/ also does not occur before a tautosyllabic velar consonant in modern English (we don't see words with /aʊk/, /aʊg/ or /aʊŋ/). The historical explanation for the absence of /aʊ/ + velar sequences seems to be a bit different than the explanation for the absence of /aʊ/ + labial sequences:
In the case of /aʊg/, it fits with the general absence of /g/ after "long vowels" or diphthongs in native English words, because native English /g/ was vocalized except for when it was a geminate or "long" consonant.
Likewise, /aʊŋ/ can be explained in terms of the origins of /ŋ/ from the heavy cluster /ng/.
The absence of /aʊk/ in modern English seems almost accidental: the only cases I know of where we would expect to see it but don't are the verbs brook (< OE brÅ«can) and suck (< OE sÅ«can) which both have shortened vowels instead, but there is also a word “louk†< OE lÅ«can (now obsolete or dialectal) which as far as I can tell has been pronounced with /aʊk/. It seems to me that there aren't really enough examples to establish a clear generalization for the development of OE Å«k / Middle English /uËÂk/, but there does seem to be some support for the idea that /aʊk/ was somehow avoided by the application of various sound changes to words that would otherwise be expected to have /aʊk/.
The absence of /aʊ/ + velar consonant may be relevant for certain theories about the phonology of modern English because it means that the coda consonants that /aʊ/ does combine with can be described as those that belong to a particular phonological class: they are all "coronal consonants". In some theories, coronal consonants may be expected to have some kind of special status that allows them to occur more freely than other kinds of consonants at the end of words (or syllables). For comparison, English also has one (not too infrequent) word that ends in /aɪnt/—pint—but no words that end in /aɪmp/ or /aɪŋk/.
answered 1 hour ago
sumelic
7,39711440
add a comment |Â
up vote
3
down vote
accepted
up vote
3
down vote
accepted
There is a descriptive rule that sequences of the diphthong /aʊ/ + a labial consonant don't exist in English vocabulary. From a certain standpoint, this can be explained by looking at the historical sound changes that created the modern English /aʊ/ diphthong. Most instances of /aʊ/ in English originated from Middle English /uËÂ/ via the "Great Vowel Shift", and this change of /uËÂ/ to /aʊ/ was inhibited before labial consonants. So, for example, Old English "dÅ«n" corresponds to Modern English down, Old English "rÅ«m" corresponds to Modern English room.
I would guess that this exception to the sound change can probably be explained at least in part on articulatory grounds. I'm not sure exactly how to formulate an explanation like this, though. We don't see a similar effect after labial consonants—modern English has words with /maʊ/, like mouth, from Old English mūþ—so an articulatory explanation would have to account for why coda labial consonants had this effect on a preceding /uËÂ/, but onset labial consonants did not similarly affect a following /uËÂ/.
Whether or not there is a rule in the sense of "active constraint" in the phonology of modern English against sequences like /aʊm/ and /aʊp/ is kind of disputable. Clearly, it's not that difficult for most English speakers to pronounce something like /aʊm/, e.g. in words of foreign origin that are used in English like "lebensraum". I think English speakers would intuitively feel that words containing sequences like /aʊm/ or /aʊp/ don't sound very "native English", but such a feeling might arise from the absence of native words that are pronounced this way, even if there is no current "rule" per se against these sequences.
/aʊ/ also doesn't occur before coda velar consonants
It's commonly noted that /aʊ/ also does not occur before a tautosyllabic velar consonant in modern English (we don't see words with /aʊk/, /aʊg/ or /aʊŋ/). The historical explanation for the absence of /aʊ/ + velar sequences seems to be a bit different than the explanation for the absence of /aʊ/ + labial sequences:
In the case of /aʊg/, it fits with the general absence of /g/ after "long vowels" or diphthongs in native English words, because native English /g/ was vocalized except for when it was a geminate or "long" consonant.
Likewise, /aʊŋ/ can be explained in terms of the origins of /ŋ/ from the heavy cluster /ng/.
The absence of /aʊk/ in modern English seems almost accidental: the only cases I know of where we would expect to see it but don't are the verbs brook (< OE brÅ«can) and suck (< OE sÅ«can) which both have shortened vowels instead, but there is also a word “louk†< OE lÅ«can (now obsolete or dialectal) which as far as I can tell has been pronounced with /aʊk/. It seems to me that there aren't really enough examples to establish a clear generalization for the development of OE Å«k / Middle English /uËÂk/, but there does seem to be some support for the idea that /aʊk/ was somehow avoided by the application of various sound changes to words that would otherwise be expected to have /aʊk/.
The absence of /aʊ/ + velar consonant may be relevant for certain theories about the phonology of modern English because it means that the coda consonants that /aʊ/ does combine with can be described as those that belong to a particular phonological class: they are all "coronal consonants". In some theories, coronal consonants may be expected to have some kind of special status that allows them to occur more freely than other kinds of consonants at the end of words (or syllables). For comparison, English also has one (not too infrequent) word that ends in /aɪnt/—pint—but no words that end in /aɪmp/ or /aɪŋk/.
answered 1 hour ago
sumelic
7,39711440
There is a descriptive rule that sequences of the diphthong /aʊ/ + a labial consonant don't exist in English vocabulary. From a certain standpoint, this can be explained by looking at the historical sound changes that created the modern English /aʊ/ diphthong. Most instances of /aʊ/ in English originated from Middle English /uËÂ/ via the "Great Vowel Shift", and this change of /uËÂ/ to /aʊ/ was inhibited before labial consonants. So, for example, Old English "dÅ«n" corresponds to Modern English down, Old English "rÅ«m" corresponds to Modern English room.
I would guess that this exception to the sound change can probably be explained at least in part on articulatory grounds. I'm not sure exactly how to formulate an explanation like this, though. We don't see a similar effect after labial consonants—modern English has words with /maʊ/, like mouth, from Old English mūþ—so an articulatory explanation would have to account for why coda labial consonants had this effect on a preceding /uËÂ/, but onset labial consonants did not similarly affect a following /uËÂ/.
Whether or not there is a rule in the sense of "active constraint" in the phonology of modern English against sequences like /aʊm/ and /aʊp/ is kind of disputable. Clearly, it's not that difficult for most English speakers to pronounce something like /aʊm/, e.g. in words of foreign origin that are used in English like "lebensraum". I think English speakers would intuitively feel that words containing sequences like /aʊm/ or /aʊp/ don't sound very "native English", but such a feeling might arise from the absence of native words that are pronounced this way, even if there is no current "rule" per se against these sequences.
/aʊ/ also doesn't occur before coda velar consonants
It's commonly noted that /aʊ/ also does not occur before a tautosyllabic velar consonant in modern English (we don't see words with /aʊk/, /aʊg/ or /aʊŋ/). The historical explanation for the absence of /aʊ/ + velar sequences seems to be a bit different than the explanation for the absence of /aʊ/ + labial sequences:
In the case of /aʊg/, it fits with the general absence of /g/ after "long vowels" or diphthongs in native English words, because native English /g/ was vocalized except for when it was a geminate or "long" consonant.
Likewise, /aʊŋ/ can be explained in terms of the origins of /ŋ/ from the heavy cluster /ng/.
The absence of /aʊk/ in modern English seems almost accidental: the only cases I know of where we would expect to see it but don't are the verbs brook (< OE brÅ«can) and suck (< OE sÅ«can) which both have shortened vowels instead, but there is also a word “louk†< OE lÅ«can (now obsolete or dialectal) which as far as I can tell has been pronounced with /aʊk/. It seems to me that there aren't really enough examples to establish a clear generalization for the development of OE Å«k / Middle English /uËÂk/, but there does seem to be some support for the idea that /aʊk/ was somehow avoided by the application of various sound changes to words that would otherwise be expected to have /aʊk/.
The absence of /aʊ/ + velar consonant may be relevant for certain theories about the phonology of modern English because it means that the coda consonants that /aʊ/ does combine with can be described as those that belong to a particular phonological class: they are all "coronal consonants". In some theories, coronal consonants may be expected to have some kind of special status that allows them to occur more freely than other kinds of consonants at the end of words (or syllables). For comparison, English also has one (not too infrequent) word that ends in /aɪnt/—pint—but no words that end in /aɪmp/ or /aɪŋk/.
answered 1 hour ago
sumelic
7,39711440
edited 1 hour ago
answered 1 hour ago
sumelic
7,39711440
answered 1 hour ago
sumelic
7,39711440
answered 1 hour ago
sumelic
7,39711440
7,39711440
add a comment |Â
add a comment |Â
up vote
1
down vote
There is a gap which as far as I know escapes explanation, and that is the "blort-generalization". The rule is that there are no root syllables with CLV̆LC, where V̆ is a short / lax vowel, C is a consonant, and L is a liquid l,r or. Examples of such a sequence would be "flæl, blɔrt, slɪlm, krɛlm...". "Blurt" = [blɹ̩t] does not have that pattern, since it lacks a vowel-plus-liquid sequence. I do not know if such sequences existed in Proto-Indo-European and were mutilated in some fashion, or does this reflect a gap in the PIE lexicon. There are certainly ample numbers of CL onsets and LC codas: with respect to grammar and mental representation of language, I favor analysis 1 – there just aren't any.
answered 24 mins ago
user6726
29k11655
I think -V̆LC is itself somewhat uncommon because of certain lengthening and vocalization changes. E.g. words like cold, old, child have long vowels/diphthongs, walk, talk, yolk, folk, palm, psalm have lost /l/, vowels before /r/ of course have undergone extensive changes in most dialects (including the development of /ɪr/ and /ʌr/ to the sound that you transcribe here as [ɹ̩])
– sumelic
3 mins ago
add a comment |Â
up vote
1
down vote
There is a gap which as far as I know escapes explanation, and that is the "blort-generalization". The rule is that there are no root syllables with CLV̆LC, where V̆ is a short / lax vowel, C is a consonant, and L is a liquid l,r or. Examples of such a sequence would be "flæl, blɔrt, slɪlm, krɛlm...". "Blurt" = [blɹ̩t] does not have that pattern, since it lacks a vowel-plus-liquid sequence. I do not know if such sequences existed in Proto-Indo-European and were mutilated in some fashion, or does this reflect a gap in the PIE lexicon. There are certainly ample numbers of CL onsets and LC codas: with respect to grammar and mental representation of language, I favor analysis 1 – there just aren't any.
answered 24 mins ago
user6726
29k11655
I think -V̆LC is itself somewhat uncommon because of certain lengthening and vocalization changes. E.g. words like cold, old, child have long vowels/diphthongs, walk, talk, yolk, folk, palm, psalm have lost /l/, vowels before /r/ of course have undergone extensive changes in most dialects (including the development of /ɪr/ and /ʌr/ to the sound that you transcribe here as [ɹ̩])
– sumelic
3 mins ago
add a comment |Â
up vote
1
down vote
up vote
1
down vote
There is a gap which as far as I know escapes explanation, and that is the "blort-generalization". The rule is that there are no root syllables with CLV̆LC, where V̆ is a short / lax vowel, C is a consonant, and L is a liquid l,r or. Examples of such a sequence would be "flæl, blɔrt, slɪlm, krɛlm...". "Blurt" = [blɹ̩t] does not have that pattern, since it lacks a vowel-plus-liquid sequence. I do not know if such sequences existed in Proto-Indo-European and were mutilated in some fashion, or does this reflect a gap in the PIE lexicon. There are certainly ample numbers of CL onsets and LC codas: with respect to grammar and mental representation of language, I favor analysis 1 – there just aren't any.
answered 24 mins ago
user6726
29k11655
There is a gap which as far as I know escapes explanation, and that is the "blort-generalization". The rule is that there are no root syllables with CLV̆LC, where V̆ is a short / lax vowel, C is a consonant, and L is a liquid l,r or. Examples of such a sequence would be "flæl, blɔrt, slɪlm, krɛlm...". "Blurt" = [blɹ̩t] does not have that pattern, since it lacks a vowel-plus-liquid sequence. I do not know if such sequences existed in Proto-Indo-European and were mutilated in some fashion, or does this reflect a gap in the PIE lexicon. There are certainly ample numbers of CL onsets and LC codas: with respect to grammar and mental representation of language, I favor analysis 1 – there just aren't any.
answered 24 mins ago
user6726
29k11655
answered 24 mins ago
user6726
29k11655
answered 24 mins ago
user6726
29k11655
answered 24 mins ago
user6726
29k11655
29k11655
I think -V̆LC is itself somewhat uncommon because of certain lengthening and vocalization changes. E.g. words like cold, old, child have long vowels/diphthongs, walk, talk, yolk, folk, palm, psalm have lost /l/, vowels before /r/ of course have undergone extensive changes in most dialects (including the development of /ɪr/ and /ʌr/ to the sound that you transcribe here as [ɹ̩])
– sumelic
3 mins ago
add a comment |Â
I think -V̆LC is itself somewhat uncommon because of certain lengthening and vocalization changes. E.g. words like cold, old, child have long vowels/diphthongs, walk, talk, yolk, folk, palm, psalm have lost /l/, vowels before /r/ of course have undergone extensive changes in most dialects (including the development of /ɪr/ and /ʌr/ to the sound that you transcribe here as [ɹ̩])
– sumelic
3 mins ago
I think -V̆LC is itself somewhat uncommon because of certain lengthening and vocalization changes. E.g. words like cold, old, child have long vowels/diphthongs, walk, talk, yolk, folk, palm, psalm have lost /l/, vowels before /r/ of course have undergone extensive changes in most dialects (including the development of /ɪr/ and /ʌr/ to the sound that you transcribe here as [ɹ̩])
– sumelic
3 mins ago
I think -V̆LC is itself somewhat uncommon because of certain lengthening and vocalization changes. E.g. words like cold, old, child have long vowels/diphthongs, walk, talk, yolk, folk, palm, psalm have lost /l/, vowels before /r/ of course have undergone extensive changes in most dialects (including the development of /ɪr/ and /ʌr/ to the sound that you transcribe here as [ɹ̩])
– sumelic
3 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%2f29051%2fwhy-english-is-missing-some-phoneme-sequences%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 symbol you inserted does not display in any font I have on my system; please include some sort of other identifier, or at least a Unicode code-point number...
– Jeff Zeitlin
1 hour ago
Hopefully Ç works. It is chi, I copied from wikipedia.
– Lance Pollard
1 hour ago
1
Much better, thanks.
– Jeff Zeitlin
1 hour ago