Phonology question

[David Borowitz]

A possible explanation for syllabifying "distaste" as "dis.taste" jumps to
mind: s followed by an aspirated t is not a valid onset, and aspiration
somehow happens before syllabification. So "di.staste" would need to have an
aspirated t, which is not allowed, hence "dis.taste." (Not that I have the
energy to reword that in proper OT...)

I don't know that my explanation has to do with certain prefixes per se,
except insofar as different prefixes can have different lexical
stress-shifting properties, which in turn affects aspiration. Nor am I
really claiming the MOP is still popular among phonologists, not being one
myself.

On Fri, Mar 14, 2008 at 1:35 PM, Scot LaFaive <scotlafaive at gmail.com> wrote:

> ---------------------- Information from the mail header
> -----------------------
> Sender:       American Dialect Society <ADS-L at LISTSERV.UGA.EDU>
> Poster:       Scot LaFaive <scotlafaive at GMAIL.COM>
> Subject:      Re: Phonology question
>
> -------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> >Where doesn't it work?
>
> It seems like the principle doesn't work for some prefixes, such as
> "distaste," but perhaps it isn't supposed to work there. I honestly know
> some about it, though phonology wasn't a large part of my program and we
> were merely told about the principle and that it works. Are there more
> intricacies about it?
>
> Scot
>
> On Thu, Mar 13, 2008 at 6:58 PM, Dennis Preston <preston at msu.edu> wrote:
>
> > ---------------------- Information from the mail header
> > -----------------------
> > Sender:       American Dialect Society <ADS-L at LISTSERV.UGA.EDU>
> > Poster:       Dennis Preston <preston at MSU.EDU>
> > Subject:      Re: Phonology question
> >
> >
> -------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> >
> > Lots of us still like it. Where doesn't it work?
> >
> > dInIs
> >
> > >---------------------- Information from the mail header
> > >-----------------------
> > >Sender:       American Dialect Society <ADS-L at LISTSERV.UGA.EDU>
> > >Poster:       Scot LaFaive <scotlafaive at GMAIL.COM>
> > >Subject:      Phonology question
> >
> >
> >-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> > >
> > >This isn't a dialect question, but I know there are some smart
> > phonologists
> > >on this list who can answer my question. I'm curious if the Maximal
> Onset
> > >Principle is still considered valid in today's linguistics. I ask this
> > >because sometimes it doesn't seem to be working in speech and I don't
> > know
> > >if another theory has taken its place. (Or maybe there are certain
> > >environments it doesn't work in that I'm unaware of.)
> > >
> > >Scot
> > >
> > >------------------------------------------------------------
> > >The American Dialect Society - http://www.americandialect.org
> >
> >
> > --
> > Dennis R. Preston
> > University Distinguished Professor
> > Department of English
> > Morrill Hall 15-C
> > Michigan State University
> > East Lansing, MI 48864 USA
> >
> > ------------------------------------------------------------
> > The American Dialect Society - http://www.americandialect.org
> >
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------
> The American Dialect Society - http://www.americandialect.org
>



--
It is better to be quotable than to be honest.
-Tom Stoppard

Borowitz

------------------------------------------------------------
The American Dialect Society - http://www.americandialect.org