After writing the words you listed in T.O., IPA, and in Shavian, I
still think that my rule explains all of them perfectly. If the l is
followed by a vowel sound, then it is not syllabic. If the l is not
followed by a vowel sound (including in final position), then it is
syllabic. The only case I can think of where there might be a
distinction is in the environment of consonant + l + vowel. This
occurs because, in this position, the vowel before the l is seperate
from it. But perhaps I just need more examples.
-AllegroX
--- In shavian@..., "paul vandenbrink"
<pvandenbrink@s...> wrote:
> Hi Joe
>
> Just to clarify a few of your points. You have made some over-
> generalizations.
> First, I think you are more or less correct in the rule that
> If an l is followed by a consonant, it is generally syllabic
> (but not necessarily in all cases), and before a vowel it is not.
> However, that rule applys more to the Roman Alphabet, than the Shaw
> Alphabet. It works, because in the Roman Alphabet it is common to
> double the L, in order to indicate a short vowel or syllabic L.
> For example, Ellen, Elaine, Ilene, Alvin, Earl, tail, elephant,
> elavator, electric.
> The Shaw Alphabet does not have the luxury of inserting null
letters,
> to indicate an alternate pronunciation.
> Also L followed by an "e" or an L at the end of a word is
frequently
> syllabic. But I really don't want to have to learn all the I before
E
> except after C rules that make the Roman Alphabet such a headache.
> I think the situation of when "r" is syllabic is much more complex
> than "l".
> Also most Non-Rhotic English speakers do pronounce the "r" after a
> vowel at the end word, if the next word begins with a vowel.
> By the way,
> I am glad I speak a Rhotic form of English, so I don't have to
spell
> out different variants of the same word, based on context.
> The r diagraphs are a nice way to isolate this speach variation.
>
> Regards, Paul V.
>
> Regards, Paul V.
>
> --- In shavian@..., "Joe" <allegrox_2000@y...> wrote:
> > The syllabic l differs from a schwer in that it is not a vowel,
but
> a
> > a glide from a schwa to the l consonant. For that reason, I
> usually
> > spell it as a schwa followed by an l. The IPA indicates a
> syllabic
> > l by placing a superscript schwa before it. But I'm never
certain
> > how to deal with either of these sounds. It seems to me that
when
> an
> > l is followed by a consonant, it is generally syllabic (but not
> > necessarily in all cases), and before a vowel it is not. For the
> > most part, at least, this is decided by position.
> > I wonder if, perhaps, r sounds could be treated the same
way.
> > If you ask an average American whether a final r is a consonant
or
> a
> > vowel, I'd wager that almost everone would think of it as a
> > consonant, even though it isn't really. So, why can't we just
use
> r
> > for a syllabic r as well? In this case, I would spell the
> > word "roar" as "rOr." I would then spell the word "ear"
as "Ir."
> > Readers would know that the r in "array" is not syllabic because
> it's
> > followed by a vowel. The r in "board" is syllabic because it is
> not
> > followed by a vowel. Since most Americans don't distinguish
> between
> > them, we can hardly consider them seperate phonemes. These are
> just
> > different realizations of the same phoneme (it is hardly uncommon
> for
> > a single phoneme to come out differently in different
> environments).
> > Non-rhotic accents like British, however, are an entirely
different
> > matter. The syllabic r in these accents can just be left out
since
> > it isn't pronounced.
> >
> > -Joe
> >
> >
Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
ADVERTISEMENT
<http://rd.yahoo.com/M=245327.3079700.4403303.1612068/D=egroupweb/S=1705213030:HM/A=1430287/R=2/id=noscript/*http://www.poetry.com/contest/contest.asp?Suite=A33405>
<http://us.adserver.yahoo.com/l?M=245327.3079700.4403303.1612068/D=egroupmail/S=:HM/A=1430287/rand=854864204>
Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service <http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/> .