--- In phoNet@yahoogroups.com, "wtsdv" <liberty@p...> wrote:

> --- In phoNet@yahoogroups.com, "Richard Wordingham"
> <richard.wordingham@n...> wrote:
> >
> > Don't agree. I think 'Singing' is [sIN.IN]. This may be
> > because it alternates in my speech with [sIN.gIN], especially
> > when humming 'Singing in the Rain'!
>
> That is strange to me. For although I think I'm coming
> around to what you say about the syllabification of the
> diphthongs, I definitely sing [sIIIII.NI.NIn.D&.reeeeIIIn],
> and now have been singing it for the last few days. Thanks
> alot! I did try intentionally saying [sIN.IN] and [sIN.gIN],
> but the first one I can hardly get out without a glottal
> stop [sIN.?IN] and the second one sounds really strange,
> something like you would here in deaf people's speech.

My production is along the lines of [sIIIIIN.IN.In.D&.reeeeIIIn],
though I'm not sure of the final diphthong, and the second syllable
can be [gIN].

> I've been able to pronounce N- for many years. I had a
> teacher from S. Africa in high school named Ms. Ngungu
> [NuNu].
>
> > If so, how easy was it in the beginning?
>
> Fairly easy. I just took words like 'singing' and got
> rid of the first syllable. (-:
>
> > I've been trying on and off (sometimes by necessity) to
> > pronounce it in Thai for five years, and I still have no
> > confidence in what I produce.

You've persuaded me that you syllabify differently to me.

> > There may be a problem with this test. Is 'city' ['si.ti] or
> ['sit.i]? I did a
> > quick scan of the hyphenation in the 'Sunday Times', and noticed
> that
> > short, stressed vowels do not get separated from the following
> > consonants. Perhaps the answer is to declare the [t] here as
> > being 'ambisyllabic'. Certainly the nearest I come to ['si] is
> ['si?]. (That
> > happens to be exactly what is wanted in Standard Thai - it has

the

> > same rule about short stressed vowels having to be followed by a
> > consonant, if only a glottal stop. However, there the preferred
> analysis
> > is to have underlying [?] after apparently short open syllables

and

> apply
> > a deletion rule in non-final word/phrase position for normal
> tempo. I
> > cite Fangkuei Li.'s sketch of Siamese.)
>
> O.K. now you've really unsettled me and convinced me once
> and for all that I don't what I'm talking about. I had no
> idea that such things were normal. I always thought that
> the natural syllabification of a sequence like CVCVCV was
> CV.CV.CV in all languages. I would never have thought that
> 'city' could be [sIt.i]!

I thought that way about syllabification once, particularly after
being taught how to analyse the metre of Latin poetry. It's
conceivable that I do say [sI?tI], but I don't hear it. Maybe there
actually is some sense behind one of Tolkien's scripts (as on the
Doors of Durin) syllabifying VC.VC.VC. I had assumed it was just a
playful perversion of the principle of devanagari and other Indian
scripts. (Note to lurkers: the devanagari script syllabifies
bharanti 'they carry' as bha.ra.nti)

A horroble though just occurred to me. Maybe I've truly got
underlying /sI?tI/, realised as [sItI]!

Richard.