Richard:
> Is the restriction of CCVC to initial syllables so very odd?
Whoa. I don't want people playing "possibility games"
again. That solves nothing. We can't allow for every
possibility in a theory otherwise we don't HAVE a theory!
A theory needs structure, which requires restrictions.
No, CCVC isn't bizarre but that's beside the point. My
point is that allowing such syllables in this pre-Syncope
stage is unnecessarily complex and thus violates Occam's
Razor. Ever heard of "KISS": Keep It Simple Stupid?
A hypothetical **ROOT** like CVCCCVC, I said, could serve
to show that consonant clusters are necessary in the syllable
shape (because it can only be divided into CVC-CCVC or
CVCC-CVC, always ending up with a cluster within the
syllable). There is no such root or anything similar to
negate an earlier, simple CVC-structure. So CCVC must die.
> Thai can be interpreted as having 'sesquisyllables'
That's interesting and all but it has no bearing on
IE unless you wish to show how we _must_ reconstruct
sesquisyllables for this pre-Syncope stage. If not,
forever hold your peace. KEEP IT SIMPLE STUPID!
> CVCCCVC words are not incompatible with a basic CV(C)
> structure -
Now we're not even talking about IE. Show me a CVCCCVC
root in IE. Otherwise, this conjecture has no purpose.
> I suppose any general discussion of these issues (i.e.
> outside IE) should proceed on PhoNet.
Yes, it should. I will stick to this forum continuing
to discuss specifically _IE_. Not Thai, Eskimo or Zulu,
unless it applies to IE itself.
And you should too >:P To keep things ordered, it would
be preferable if any new examples that anyone wishes to
show are connected somehow to IE syllabics, not just
to any language in general.
= gLeN