Breaking doubled consonants into syllables

Thu Aug 30 14:45:30 UTC 2012

I agree that parsing in tradspel (traditional spelling) rather than foespel (phonetic spelling) has been traditionally different, but I'd like to pull them together.  For instance how should one parse the word "spelling" in tradspel.  spell-ing, spel-ling, or spe-lling.
If it is to be parsed the way we speak, then in my mind it would be spe-lling because the way we speak is in consonant-vowel pairs.  Yet this is not realized in dictionaires which prefer a visual look rather than a aural one.
How about the word "syllable"  I see in thefreedictionary.com that it's tradparsed syl-la-ble and phonetically parsed ~sil-i-bool (in truespel to avoid special characters).  But if parsing follows pronunciation, then I would go with tradspel sy-lla-ble and phonetic ~si-li-bool.  The double ll only has the value of a single l.
This is just my take on prosody and how we say things;  Which still leads me to say that double consonants never take longer to say and by parsing c-v such as spe-lling it indicates the double ll is just there as a convention, (silent e) but means nothing in terms of length of pronunciation or parsing.  For me to say SILL-uh-bull is more stilted than saying SIH-luh-bull just because the pronsody is off a little.

Tom Zurinskas, Conn 20 yrs, Tenn 3, NJ 33, now Fl 9.
See how English spelling links to sounds at http://justpaste.it/ayk

----------------------------------------
> Date: Wed, 29 Aug 2012 22:59:31 -0400
> From: hfwstahlke at GMAIL.COM
> Subject: Re: Breaking doubled consonants into syllables
> To: ADS-L at LISTSERV.UGA.EDU
>
> ---------------------- Information from the mail header -----------------------
> Sender: American Dialect Society <ADS-L at LISTSERV.UGA.EDU>
> Poster: Herb Stahlke <hfwstahlke at GMAIL.COM>
> Subject: Re: Breaking doubled consonants into syllables
> -------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Larry brought up the distinction between Level 1 and Level 2 affixes
> in English, which is useful here. The prefix "con-" in your examples
> is a Level 1 affix. You can tell this from the fact that it has no
> consistent meaning of its own, as morphemes typically do, and often
> the stem it's attached to does not exist separately as a word. This
> is certainly true of "-ceit" and the semantic connection between
> "-note" and "note" is at best loose. And the meanings of the words
> you suggest are not the combination of a prefix and a stem. The
> actual long consonants I talked about occur in compounds and in words
> with Level 2 prefixes, like "un-" and "non-". "Conceit" and "connote"
> do not fit those analyses.
>
> I suspect you're right that the <n> of "conceit" lasts longer than the
> <nn> of "connote." I don't have access to a phonetics lab to test
> this, but if I remember right, and others on the list may correct me,
> syllable-final nasals tend to be longer than intervocalic nasals.
> This difference in length, however, has nothing to do with spelling.
> It is strictly phonetic.
>
> Herb
> >
> > I disagree that double consonants are held longer than single ones. Anyone=
> > got data? For example=2C take the "n"s in "conceit" and "connote". I'd s=
> > ay the "n" in "conceit" lasts longer by a microsecond than the double "nn"s=
> > of "connote" because the transition to the ~s seems to hold it. How about=
> > "demand" and "command" - same thing.
> >
> > About truespel phonetics=2C it's an alternative to the stupid phonetics we =
> > now have in dictionaries and academia that actually thwart the use of phone=
> > tics in our schools because of user unfriendliness. Phonetics are not taug=
> > ht in grammar schools=2C not used in newspapers=2C nor even in government p=
> > ublications. And the phonetics that is used in these publications doesn't =
> > even have a name. I call it CAP-dash phonetics.
> > I'd like an experiment done. For those in college=2C ask incoming freshmen=
> > to spell three sounds "ah" "uh" and "awe" (don't say "awe" like "ah"). I =
> > bet 99% can't do it. (maybe language or English majors can). In USA I'm s=
> > ure none will use IPA. Take note of where they are from and age.=20
> >
> > Tom Zurinskas=2C Conn 20 yrs=2C Tenn 3=2C NJ 33=2C now Fl 9.
> > See how English spelling links to sounds at http://justpaste.it/ayk
> >
> >
> > =20
> > =20
> >
> >
> >> ---------------------- Information from the mail header -----------------=
> > ------
> >> Sender: American Dialect Society <ADS-L at LISTSERV.UGA.EDU>
> >> Poster: Herb Stahlke <hfwstahlke at GMAIL.COM>
> >> Subject: Re: Breaking doubled consonants into syllables
> >> -------------------------------------------------------------------------=
> > ------
> >>=20
> >> Truespel aside=2C because I'm not always sure what you're trying to
> >> accomplish with it=2C long consonants do occur in speech. In lots of
> >> languages the contrast between single and double or geminate
> >> consonants is important and manifests itself as a difference in how
> >> long it takes to say the consonant. In English=2C this occurs only in
> >> compounds=2C and forms like "un-" and "non-" behave like compounding
> >> elements=2C even though that don't stand as orthographic words
> >> themselves. In compounds it is also possible to have two adjacent
> >> stressed syllables. In English=2C double consonants=2C which are held
> >> longer than single consonants=2C don't occur within morphemes--only
> >> across morpheme boundaries as in compounds.
> >>=20
> >> Herb
> >>=20
> >> On Wed=2C Aug 29=2C 2012 at 9:03 AM=2C Tom Zurinskas <truespel at hotmail.co=
> > m> wrote:
> >> > ---------------------- Information from the mail header ---------------=
> > --------
> >> > Sender: American Dialect Society <ADS-L at LISTSERV.UGA.EDU>
> >> > Poster: Tom Zurinskas <truespel at HOTMAIL.COM>
> >> > Subject: Re: Breaking doubled consonants into syllables
> >> > -----------------------------------------------------------------------=
> > --------
> >> >
> >> > Herb=3D2C
> >> > With truespel phonetics there is a vowel for every syllable (no voweliz=
> > ed c=3D
> >> > onsonants). So to make parsing easy I suggest ending each phonetic syl=
> > labl=3D
> >> > e with a vowel (except for the last). Now this may seem very nuts but =
> > it w=3D
> >> > orks nicely and ends the controversy about syllabication ~si-la-bi-kkae=
> > -shi=3D
> >> > n (kk shows stressed syllable)."breaking double consonants c=
> > ontr=3D
> >> > oversy"~brae-keeng du-bool kaa-nsoe-nints kaa-ntroe-ver-see (~er is a v=
> > owel=3D
> >> > form because the "r" changes the "e" sound)
> >> > Is it possible to have two sequential syllables both stressed? Is it p=
> > ossi=3D
> >> > ble to "hold" a plosive longer when doubled "tt" or "pp" or "cc" than w=
> > hen =3D
> >> > single? How do you lengthen a plosive?I don't think either of these th=
> > ings=3D
> >> > happen.
> >> >
> >> > Tom Zurinskas=3D2C Conn 20 yrs=3D2C Tenn 3=3D2C NJ 33=3D2C now Fl 9.
> >> > See how English spelling links to sounds at http://justpaste.it/ayk
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > > ---------------------- Information from the mail header ------------=
> > ----=3D
> >> > -------
> >> >> Sender: American Dialect Society <ADS-L at LISTSERV.UGA.EDU>
> >> >> Poster: Herb Stahlke <hfwstahlke at GMAIL.COM>
> >> >> Subject: Re: Breaking doubled consonants into syllables
> >> >> ----------------------------------------------------------------------=
> > ---=3D
> >> > ------
> >> >>=3D20
> >> >> Tom=3D2C
> >> >>=3D20
> >> >> If you want to see what really does happen in the slosh of typical
> >> >> speech=3D2C a nice phrase=3D2C by the way=3D2C you have to transcribe =
> > phonetica=3D
> >> > lly
> >> >> directly from sound spectrograms--voiceprints. There's been a fair
> >> >> amount of work on this=3D2C and the results can be astonishing in term=
> > s of
> >> >> the amount of reduction that goes on. However=3D2C in what are called
> >> >> "citation forms=3D2C" for example=3D2C the way we pronounce the headwo=
> > rd of a
> >> >> dictionary entry=3D2C separate consonants don't have to be separated b=
> > y a
> >> >> vowel sound. This is obvious when the two consonants aren't
> >> >> identical=3D2C like the "st" in "stir=3D2C" "rest=3D2C" or "rested." =
> > When the =3D
> >> > two
> >> >> consonants are identical=3D2C as "unnatural=3D2C" "non-native=3D2C" "t=
> > hick crus=3D
> >> > t=3D2C"
> >> >> etc.=3D2C the two last longer than in words like "illegal=3D2C" "atten=
> > d=3D2C" e=3D
> >> > tc.
> >> >> This is particularly true when the syllables containing the two
> >> >> identical consonants are both stressed.
> >> >>=3D20
> >> >> Herb
> >> >>=3D20
> >> >>=3D20
> >> >> On Tue=3D2C Aug 28=3D2C 2012 at 4:52 AM=3D2C Tom Zurinskas <truespel at h=
> > otmail.co=3D
> >> > m> wrote:
> >> >>=3D20
> >> >> >
> >> >> > Yeah but what does really happen in the slosh of typical speech. Fo=
> > r i=3D
> >> > nsta=3D3D
> >> >> > nce the word "non-negative". If we were to say "nah negative" it wo=
> > uld=3D
> >> > be =3D3D
> >> >> > closer to the way we actually say it. The final "n" of "non" bleeds=
> > in=3D
> >> > to t=3D3D
> >> >> > he leading "n" of negative. No pause or gap which to me would be ne=
> > ede=3D
> >> > d to=3D3D
> >> >> > hyphenate it there aurally. Take the word "syllable" ~silibool or =
> > si-=3D
> >> > li-b=3D3D
> >> >> > ool (~bool rhymes with "wool"). We don't aurally split those l's au=
> > ral=3D
> >> > ly.
> >> >> > In truespel phonetics stress default is on the first syllable but sh=
> > ift=3D
> >> > s to=3D3D
> >> >> > the vowel after a double consonant like "desert" and "dessert". So=
> > un=3D
> >> > natu=3D3D
> >> >> > ral is ~unnacherool. I find that double consonants are subtle indic=
> > ato=3D
> >> > rs o=3D3D
> >> >> > f stress on a following vowel (but for silent e suffix rules).
> >> >> >
> >> >> > Tom Zurinskas=3D3D2C Conn 20 yrs=3D3D2C Tenn 3=3D3D2C NJ 33=3D3D2C n=
> > ow Fl 9.
> >> >> > See how English spelling links to sounds at http://justpaste.it/ayk
> >> >> >
> >> >> >
> >> >> > >=3D3D20
> >> >>=3D20
> >> >> ------------------------------------------------------------
> >> >> The American Dialect Society - http://www.americandialect.org
> >> > =3D
> >> >
> >> > ------------------------------------------------------------
> >> > The American Dialect Society - http://www.americandialect.org
> >>=20
> >> ------------------------------------------------------------
> >> The American Dialect Society - http://www.americandialect.org
> > =
> >
> > ------------------------------------------------------------
> > The American Dialect Society - http://www.americandialect.org
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------
> The American Dialect Society - http://www.americandialect.org

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