I removed belittled from the examples of syllables that end with three or four consonants. Dictionary.com says it's be-lit-tled. I substituted strength, which is one syllable. — Triskaideka 15:20, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)
sixths ends with four letters, but it does not contain 4 separate sounds (as english orthography and phonetics do not match up), and should be removed from the list of four-consonant-endings.
Similarly, I replace strongest with stoutest, so that the onset exactly matches the coda. Is there a 3-phoneme cluster that serves as onset and coda in the ssame word? -- Solo Owl 19:36, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
Suggestions:
- Ish ishwar 18:57, 2005 Jan 28 (UTC)
I don't know about Bella Coola, but is the given sentence really syllable-less? It seems to me it uses the velarized alveolar lateral approximant
This
level-4 vital article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: |
|||||||||||||||||
|
[ɫ] as nuclei, exactly like the second syllable of the English word bottle. It is written with ł (ł), but maybe it's actually ɫ (ɫ). They look so similar it's no wonder there's a confusion. - TAKASUGI Shinji 02:10, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Does "sixths" really count as a syllable that ends in four consonant phonemes? It's nearly impossible to say 'ksths'. "Prompts", the other example given in the article, is a little easier, but still no one actually fully pronounces the "mpts" when they say the word. Maybe "contexts" would be a better example. Actually, scratch that, no one completely pronounces "ksts" either. I think it's fair to say that English phonlology only allows three consonant sounds in a syllable coda. Morphology may create impossible syllables, but those are simplified when used in spoken English.
Stress in Latin is determined by syllable length, with no distiction between syllables having one or more coda(e) and syllables just having a long nucleus. E.g. laudāre and monēre are both stressed on the last but one syllable, even though both -dā- and -nē- have no coda. -- FAeR 16:16, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
What the hell is "parsed into 0 syllables" supposed to mean? You can't divide a thing into zero parts. If you refuse to divide something, you have one part, non zero. I corrected that, but Ish ishwar reverted that. -- Army1987 09:36, 8 August 2005 (UTC)
What's relevant of course is whether syllables are meaningful to speakers of these languages. To my ears, these words do sound like they are fully syllabified. Sequences of voiced plosives are separated by epenthetic schwas, and sequences of voiceless plosives are separated by (epenthetic?) aspiration. I suppose we could argue that the epenthetic vowels and aspiration function as syllabic nuclei, and that in a word like sxs the middle fricative is a nucleus. Either that or syllables are a meaningless concept in these words. Either way, long sequences of stops do not form syllables. kwami 01:51, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
None of the external references are working, not atleast from my terminal. I suggest some editor, not from IIT Kharagpur, India check if the links are active and accessible. VijitJain 15:17, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
In the examples of "ambisyllabicity" from Received British Pronunciation, ([ˈærəʊ], [ˈerə], [ˈmɪrə], [ˈbɒrəʊ], [ˈbʌrəʊ]) it is stated that these words, due to their rhotic elements, cannot be "divided into separately pronounceable syllables." Due to the interaction of phonological rules here, should they be separately pronounceable? While I'm not sure of the official analysis, British English seems to me to have underlying rhotics that cannot surface in coda position, and thus must move to an onset position, when available, before a following vowel. Therefore, though the underlying forms for these vowels could be the diphthongs /ær, eɪ̯r/, the surface forms would split these elements between syllables and have some effect on the diphthongization of /eɪ̯/ (I'm a speaker of North American English, where this would be represented as the diphthong /er̯/, so I'm not sure if this is the general analysis for RP). I'm not sure how well documented a phenomenon ambisyllabicity is, but I'd be interested in hearing what other people think on the subject or what research has been done. This section of the article is not referenced, so I'm not sure if this is widely accepted or if it is some original research, but at first glance such a claim seems like a cop-out. Coyne025 16:12, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
The Japanese language has only several hundred syllables, Mandarin has around 1280 syllables, and Vietnamese is capable of representing 6200 syllables. I propose an article that is a list of the number of possible syllables in each language. Badagnani 21:52, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
CARRIED —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.6.166.236 ( talk) 00:31, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
Is "people" a one-syllable word? Many people pronounce the word "people" as a two-syllable word, although dictionaries regard it as a one-syllable word (IPA in the OED: [ˈpiːpl]). Which one is correct? One-syllable or two-syllable? -- ( talk) 02:47, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
The mention of Japanese was unsourced and seemed to be skating on majorly thin ice, so I cut a few words out. Explanation: first, /n/ does not end a coda. /ɴ/ is the phoneme meant, but it's misleading to say /ɴ/ ends a coda anyway as it's timed as a separate mora. In Japanese, a word root like /ka/, is half as short as /kaɴ/ (and this is crucial to pronunciation, and allows no leeway). Since Japanese is mora-timed, it seems best to avoid this /ɴ/ issue, or if not, avoid Japanese altogether in this article. My personal feeling is that, in Japanese, a mora equals a syllable, i.e. a syllable cannot be longer than a mora. ( Ejoty ( talk) 09:56, 28 July 2009 (UTC))
I understand what you're saying. Since you have access to those sources, I wish you would add the footnotes. What you're telling me is interpretation and not proof. A syllable is not an absolute concept and applies well to English but not well to other languages, and doesn't apply at all to some. I can say that Japanese has moras and does not have syllables as per my own interpretation. I feel my interpretation is more useful than yours in understanding the language. Think about how the phoneme /N/, pronounced as [m] is used in singing to match one note just the way any other mora, such as /ka/, is used to match a note in the melody. It's just like how you write in kana. /N/ doesn't stick to /ka/ in one beat or burst the way it would in a syllable. I kindly ask you again to please source what you wrote, or cut out the part that's open to interpretation. ( Ejoty ( talk) 14:05, 29 July 2009 (UTC))
That's an interesting idea, but speaking and listening to Japanese, it's obvious to me that regardless of kana and poetic traditions, Japanese pronunciation follows moraic boundaries. In short, it would not be considered syllabic. Any change from that would be a change in the language itself and not merely in interpretation. Did you mean the mental affects of writing in an alphabet would replace mora-timing with syllable-timing? Thanks for the reference. I guess there's no problem. However, I would like to say that, in its mention of Japanese, this little section of the article seems to treat the syllable as an absolute concept (i.e. a real thing in the noumenal world). On the other hand, other parts of the article hold that certain languages can challenge the existence of the syllable. Doesn't it seem at odds with itself? ( Ejoty ( talk) 08:32, 4 August 2009 (UTC))
It's been proposed that the stubs syllable onset, syllable nucleus, syllable coda, and syllable rime be merged here, so I'm opening discussion. — kwami ( talk) 20:01, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
Might be a good idea to add a section discussing how languages can divide syllables into onset and rime (e.g., English) or into body and coda (e.g., Korean). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.189.24.161 ( talk) 21:19, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
The paragraph that gives examples of Hebrew and Arabic names would be greatly improved if someone could insert the IPA for the phonemes in Tiberian Hebrew and Quranic Arabic. Thanks. — Solo Owl ( talk) 17:42, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
I came here from "vowel" to quickly find out what "nucleus" means. I don't feel that "...every syllable contains a nucleus" explains very much. 202.179.16.64 ( talk) 14:02, 29 April 2012 (UTC)
With L and Mu both connected to a single leaf, the diagram isn't really a tree but a graph. A tree would have them both connected to separate nodes, perhaps both with the value of omega. -- bleeding_heart ( talk) 21:41, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
The "Tree" not a directed acyclic graph has not been fixed as of 2017. Mhark314 ( talk) 12:04, 6 May 2017 (UTC)
I'm guessing this is about the diagram labelled a " directed graph" now - is there a reason it doesn't have arrows on the edges? Valenoern ( talk) 04:47, 23 March 2018 (UTC)
The term 'rime' is used throughout the article, but on graphical charts, the word is spelt 'rhyme'. This is in consistent. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.238.217.68 ( talk) 12:56, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
The diagrams use the symbols C, V, H and T along with + and *. These are not described anywhere in the article. The only reference to them is the line: "This syllable can be abstracted as a consonant-vowel-consonant syllable, abbreviated CVC." in the Structure section.
Rhdunn ( talk) 12:36, 23 November 2013 (UTC)
Cyberbot II has detected that page contains external links that have either been globally or locally blacklisted. Links tend to be blacklisted because they have a history of being spammed, or are highly innappropriate for Wikipedia. This, however, doesn't necessarily mean it's spam, or not a good link. If the link is a good link, you may wish to request whitelisting by going to the request page for whitelisting. If you feel the link being caught by the blacklist is a false positive, or no longer needed on the blacklist, you may request the regex be removed or altered at the blacklist request page. If the link is blacklisted globally and you feel the above applies you may request to whitelist it using the before mentioned request page, or request its removal, or alteration, at the request page on meta. When requesting whitelisting, be sure to supply the link to be whitelisted and wrap the link in nowiki tags. The whitelisting process can take its time so once a request has been filled out, you may set the invisible parameter on the tag to true. Please be aware that the bot will replace removed tags, and will remove misplaced tags regularly.
Below is a list of links that were found on the main page:
\bhalshs\.archives-ouvertes\.fr
on the global blacklistIf you would like me to provide more information on the talk page, contact User:Cyberpower678 and ask him to program me with more info.
From your friendly hard working bot.— cyberbot II NotifyOnline 15:23, 27 March 2014 (UTC)
Resolved This issue has been resolved, and I have therefore removed the tag, if not already done. No further action is necessary.— cyberbot II NotifyOnline 07:12, 29 March 2014 (UTC)
Proto-Elamite, 3200 BC, Iraq. Not Sumerian. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-19964786
I'd also idly point out that the analysis of bella coola is limited - there are multiple different theories about the structure of the language; some of them argue that bella coola has normal syllables, but a large range of possible extrasyllabic consonants, and thus has no vowel-less syllables; some of them argue that bella coola has unusually broad permitted nucleuses, including sonorants, and thus has no nucleus-less syllables. This article currently falsely suggests a single consensus in a complex field; not sure whether it needs expanding with a whole load more information, or something like reducing it to a very brief summary and linking it into Main Article: Bella Coola or something. 192.76.8.39 ( talk) 19:06, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
Parts of this section seem to be written in rather confused English that doesn't make sense in places. It needs editing. RoachPeter ( talk) 17:33, 4 January 2015 (UTC)
The section headed 'Coda' starts with what looks like the diagrammatic representation of a four-syllable utterance. It looks as if it ought to have a caption to explain what is represented - the reader has no way of figuring this out. RoachPeter ( talk) 10:10, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
User:Kwamikagami recently added this sentence, among others, to the Coda section: “In Japanese, for example, a coda may only be a nasal (homorganic with any following consonant) or, in the middle of a word, gemination of the following consonant.” I know that you will find many sources claiming exactly that, but if I remember correctly it has been debunked as a myth that results from the seemingly regular syllabic writing system. That means, Japanese speakers truly believe to pronounce and hear final /u/ (or schwa) in certain words, but it’s just not there. I think there was an anecdote of Japanese engineers trying to build a speech synthesizer or recognizer but failed until foreigners told them to expect other simple codas besides ン/ん. Sorry, I cannot find a source right now. — Christoph Päper 08:33, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
Thailand and Vietnam are not located in East Asia and there is no language group called "East Asian languages". One might think Japanese and Korean are tonal because their respective countries are in East Asia. -- 2.245.162.180 ( talk) 22:27, 24 February 2016 (UTC)
What is a complex coda? I am a little curious. Initially, I made an educated guess that a complex coda was a coda with more than one consonant. However, from what I obtained from Labov [1], it seems that "can't" has a complex coda but "and" doesn't. LakeKayak ( talk) 19:34, 4 April 2017 (UTC)
The difference should be elucidated. Otherwise, the difference should be gotten rid of. Mhark314 ( talk) 12:01, 6 May 2017 (UTC)
Many linguists know little about the physiology of speech. Here I see nothing about the processes behind the formation of syllables. Either they are seen as acoustic units, or they are seen as groups of phonemes. These are two totally different concepts, neither of which can explain how syllables are formed.
'Chest pulse' or 'breath pulse' are key concepts. I find almost nothing about them, even in books devoted to the physiology of speech. It is breath pulse which makes speech different to singing. Is there anyone who knows more about this subject? Luo Shanlian ( talk) 04:53, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
More proper terminology would "Sinitic" or "Mainland Southeast Asian Sprachbund" Model — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yoandri Dominguez Garcia ( talk • contribs) 23:28, 16 May 2018 (UTC)
There is a lot wrong with the opening paragraph of the lead. The statement that "the use of both vowels and consonants creates a rhythmic punctuation" makes no sense, either literally or metaphorically. Equally meaningless is "Syllabic form arises from a principle ...". It is demonstrably false that "consonants are of short duration while vowels cand be of long duration": a recording of my pronunciation of the word 'fish', for example, shows time values of 320ms for the first consonant, 210ms for the vowel and 390 for the final consonant. I can't guess any meaning for the statement that vowels "are delivered with some restraint". It is not possible to understand what is meant by "In most modern languages, the usage of sounds is restricted to only consonants and vowels, avoiding clicks and whirrs", nor to see how this is relevant to the definition of the syllable. RoachPeter ( talk) 20:38, 12 October 2018 (UTC)
I have two main problems with this article.
Firstly, it doesn't really contain a definition of what a syllable even is. Like it talks about how a syllable is made of a nucleus and onset and coda, but why? Why do we define these things this way in the first place? I feel like there needs to be a more general definition for what a syllable is which *motivates* why we define it and describe it with this model. Something about how most languages exhibit these "peaks of sonority" (like if you analyse the voice recording), and this leads us to define "auditory/phonetic syllables". And then we also notice that the phonological and morphological rules of a language are often naturally expressed in terms of units which mostly correspond to the phonetic syllables, and we can call these units "phonological/morphological syllables", etc. Basically explain what syllables actually physically *are*, rather than just saying "syllables have an onset and coda (which are usually consonant sequences), and a nucleus (which is usually a vowel or syllablic consonant)". Give some phonetic and phonological motivation for the definitions.
Secondly, it doesn't seem to mention the phenomenon in English where words like "fire", "real", "beer", "hour", "while", etc, can be analysed as either having 1 or 2 syllables. I've heard people often argue whether these words actually have 1 or 2 syllables. In fact, I would argue that depending on the person, these words *can* be pronounced as one syllable, as two syllables, or as something in between. (which shows that "syllable" is a fuzzy definition, just like everything in linguistics). The issue is whether the final /l/ and /r/ are the coda of the syllable, or the nucleus of their own syllable. Thus "fire" can be pronounced either as 1) /faɪ̯ɹ/ with the /ɹ/ acting as the coda of the syllable (or possibly the last part of the "triphthong" /aɪ̯ɹ/ if you want to analyse /ɹ/ as vowel-like), or 2) as /faɪ̯.(j)ɹ̩/, with /(j)ɹ̩/ being a second syllable.
-- AndreRD ( talk) 15:36, 23 September 2019 (UTC)
While some words do indeed begin with a phonemic glottal stop that doesn't get removed regardless of what comes before it, there are many words that begin with a vowel and a non-phonemic glottal stop that does get removed when preceded by another word. In Arabic, we call it ألف الوصل or "connecting alif". Examples of such words are the definite article ال /æl/, اسم /ɪsm/ "name", ابن /ɪbn/ "son", اثنان /ɪðnæ:n/ "two" and many others. — Preceding unsigned comment added by RaphaelSantiago53 ( talk • contribs) 15:34, 29 December 2019 (UTC)
A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Syllable structure. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 June 25#Syllable structure until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Soumya-8974 talk contribs subpages 08:17, 25 June 2020 (UTC)
In addition, the stress mark ⟨ˈ⟩ is placed immediately...
Alas, it renders right under the brackets in some browsers.
OK, I'll try adding a space:
⟨ˈ⟩ ⟨ ˈ ⟩ ⟨ ˈ⟩ ⟨ˈ ⟩
OK, let's see how they render:
Hmmm...