Re: English Haplology and Degemination

--- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "Brian M. Scott" <BMScott@...> wrote:

>
> At 8:24:49 PM on Friday, February 29, 2008, Richard
> Wordingham wrote:
>
> > --- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "Brian M. Scott"
> > <BMScott@> wrote:

> None (except later the starred form): I'm objecting to the
> step /febjU&ri:/ > /febj&ri:/, on the grounds that the third
> syllable of your /febjU&ri:/ bears secondary stress.

I'm not sure if Rick has answered this point, but *my* /febjU&ri:/ (I
can't vouch for the Simpsons') does not have secondary stress, though
I have a strong tendency to avoid tetrasyllabic feet.

> >>> I don't think "parall'ism" is as clear case as it may
> >>> seem. <parallel> may be pronounced as a single foot,
> >>> /"p{r&l&l/,
>
> >> While I don't doubt that it has been, I've never heard it so
> >> pronounced, however. In my experience it always has
> >> secondary stress on the final syllable, ['pEr&,lEl] or
> >> ['pær&,lEl], which makes the rest of the derivation rather
> >> less likely.
>
> > Try the near tongue twister 'parallel lines'.
>
> For me there's still perceptible stress on [lEl]; at the
> moment I'm too self-conscious to say whether it's tertiary
> or equal secondary with [laInz]. If any syllable is going
> to drop out, it's the second. (And far from being a near
> tongue-twister, for me it's a rather ordinary expression!)

That's because *you* don't come close to have a sequence of
non-syllabic, syllabic and then non-syllabic /l/. I was struck to
notice that I pronounce the adjective and noun _parallel_ differently.
This might possibly come from a register or tempo difference - I seem
to have poor register control.

Richard.