Newsgroups: sci.lang
Path: cantaloupe.srv.cs.cmu.edu!das-news2.harvard.edu!news2.near.net!news.mathworks.com!udel!gatech!howland.reston.ans.net!ix.netcom.com!netcom.com!alderson
From: alderson@netcom.com (Richard M. Alderson III)
Subject: Re: Question: Vowelless word
In-Reply-To: peabody@wam.umd.edu's message of 15 Mar 1995 21:45:41 GMT
Message-ID: <aldersonD5K7zz.5rB@netcom.com>
Reply-To: alderson@netcom.com
Fcc: /u52/alderson/postings
Organization: NETCOM On-line Communication Services (408 261-4700 guest)
References: <3jtjjn$s5k@spam.maths.adelaide.edu.au>
	<3k6086$ist$2@mhadg.production.compuserve.com>
	<3k7n65$9a4@cville-srv.wam.umd.edu>
Date: Fri, 17 Mar 1995 00:57:35 GMT
Lines: 27
Sender: alderson@netcom20.netcom.com

In article <3k7n65$9a4@cville-srv.wam.umd.edu> peabody@wam.umd.edu
(Ned Flanders) writes:

>The only English word that I can think of as "avocalic" is "rhythm."  If one
>counts the "y" as a consonant, then it works.  That being the case, then that
>word has six consonants (Much like the Bulgarian word "ygyl," which to a
>Russian has no vowels).

How many legs does a dog have, if you call his tail a leg?

Four:  Calling a tail a leg doesn't make it a leg.

The *grapheme* <y> in rhythm represents the vocalic phone [I].  Thus, this is
not an English word with no vowels.

In fact, there is a second syllabic peak in the word, written <m>.

>To tell the truth, aside from ejectives and "nth," English has no real words
>that are avocalic.  A condition had to be put on "rhythm" for that word to
>work.

I think you meant "interjections."
-- 
Rich Alderson		[Tolkien quote temporarily removed in favour of
alderson@netcom.com	 proselytizing comment below --rma]

Please support the creation of the humanities hierarchy of newsgroups!
