# Syllabification



## Arabus

Hello,

Strength,
Stretch,

How do you divide these? If I am to rely on my musical ear, I would say str.ength and str.etch; but it seems that dictionaries have them as monosyllabic, are they really?


----------



## bibliolept

If you look up each word in the WordReference dictionary, you will see a little "loudspeaker" symbol and links to sample pronunciations.

Yes, they are single syllable words.


----------



## Esca

Yes, they are really monosyllabic. There are many other words starting with "str" that are also one syllable, such as "street," "strange," "straight," "string," etc.
If you aren't sure how to say them, try listening to the sound clips in the WR dictionary.
<http://www.wordreference.com/definition/stretch>


----------



## Cypherpunk

I am confused by the way you think these words are pronounced. There is only one vowel in each of those words. 'Str' does not have a vowel sound, on its own. English speakers generally add a vowel sound, so that you can hear the sound, if it's pronounced in isolation, but it has no vowel sound, as part of a word.


----------



## Arabus

Cypherpunk said:


> I am confused by the way you think these words are pronounced. There is only one vowel in each of those words. 'Str' does not have a vowel sound, on its own. English speakers generally add a vowel sound, so that you can hear the sound, if it's pronounced in isolation, but it has no vowel sound, as part of a word.



The English r is an approximant and it is almost a vowel. Approximants can be syllable nuclei. I am still confused why _strength_ and _splend_id are considered one syllables. It does not feel right.


----------



## researcher616

Arabus said:


> I am still confused why _strength_ and _splend_id are considered one syllables. It does not feel right.



Splendid is two syllables.


----------



## Esca

I'm sorry, but I can't think of an example in English where "r" is the nucleus or "vowel" of a syllable.

We can all agree that "rip" is one syllable, right? Just as "rip" is one syllable, "trip" is one syllable (beginning with a "tr" blend) and furthermore, "strip" is also one syllable. It begins with a "str" consonant blend. Just as "strip" is one syllable, "strength" is also one syllable.

I don't know how else you would pronounce it... "_stir-rength_"? It doesn't make sense. Just listen to the audio clip in the WR dictionary. There is only one way to pronounce it, and it is only with one syllable.


----------



## Arabus

Esca said:


> I'm sorry, but I can't think of an example in English where "r" is the nucleus or "vowel" of a syllable.
> 
> We can all agree that "rip" is one syllable, right? Just as "rip" is one syllable, "trip" is one syllable (beginning with a "tr" blend) and furthermore, "strip" is also one syllable. It begins with a "str" consonant blend. Just as "strip" is one syllable, "strength" is also one syllable.
> 
> I don't know how else you would pronounce it... "_stir-rength_"? It doesn't make sense. Just listen to the audio clip in the WR dictionary. There is only one way to pronounce it, and it is only with one syllable.



Can you give me an example of a "triconsonantal" syllable onset in which the third "consonant" is not a sonorant? That would convince me that it is possible to have a triconsonantal syllable onset.


----------



## Esca

Arabus said:


> Can you give me an example of a "triconsonantal" syllable onset in which the third "consonant" is not a sonorant? That would convince me that it is possible to have a triconsonantal syllable onset.



It seems that in English the longest possible _initial_ cluster is three consonants. On this website (http://www.richardbrodie.com/CPG/CPGConsonantBlendOverview.htm) the seven possible leading triple blends are /skl-/ /skr-/ /skw-/ /sky-/ /spl-/ /spr-/ and /str-/. As you can see in all of these blends, the third consonant is always a sonorant or an approximant.

This isn't very pertinent, because I'm not sure how you think this means that the third consonant has its own _syllable_. Here's another example. /R/ and /y/ are both approximants. The word "cue" /kyu/ is one syllable, with a /ky-/ blend. Similarly "crew" /kru/ is one syllable, as is "screw" /skru/. 
Many different languages have different lists of what consonants may be combined together into one cluster, but in English, all of these blends are standard initial consonant clusters. They do not create an extra syllable. Where are you imagining this extra syllable fits in?


----------



## Arabus

Esca said:


> you think this means that the third consonant has its own _syllable_.



I did not say that. I was just looking for an indirect way to prove what I am saying. Yes _trip _is one syllable, but _strip _is not. Just how _real _is not one syllable (as confirmed by dictionaries). The only way that _strip _is one syllable would be if the transition between _r_ and _i_ was felt to be like a "diphthong" of some sort, and I think this is why they considered these combinations single syllables, although I am not sure, because the transition between _r_ and _i_ does not feel gradual to me. I don't know, it just feels two separate syllables str-ip (like re-al).


----------



## researcher616

Arabus said:


> Yes _trip _is one syllable, but _strip _is not.



I politely disagree.  It is true that there are more sounds of letters in the word _strip_, but it is still pronounced as one syllable.


----------



## Arabus

I don't know. Thanks anyway.


----------



## researcher616

I don't know if this will help, but think of a syllable not as a conglomeration of sounds, but as a drumbeat.  With every syllable, the drum strikes.


----------



## Arabus

Honestly, I always thought of these words as monosyllabic. I just started getting confused when I learned that r and l can be syllable nuclei. Maybe I need some time to adjust to that knowledge.


----------



## Forero

In the word _theatre_, the final _e_ is silent, and the _r_ is nuclear, but in the word _strength_, the _r_ is normally  liquid, part of the consonant cluster. In fact, the _r_ in _strength_ is usually unvoiced and has audible friction.

It is possible to pronounce the _r_ as a nucleus, as in Tony the Tiger's "grrrrreat!", and we still recognize the word, but this is not the norm.

Similarly, the first _l_ in _little_ is a consonant, but the second _l_ is nuclear. It is possible to linger over the first _l_ so that it becomes another syllable, but that would be unusual indeed.


----------



## Arabus

Thank you. It feels like you're saying that a nuclear l is always _long_ /lː/ (at least in English?)

Now here is a dilemma: the French word table [taːbl] is one syllable, but the English table [teɪ.bl] is two ... why?

The only reason I can think of is what you're saying, the English l in table is _long_, whereas the French l in the same word is _short_. The problem is that I've never seen table transcribed [teɪ.bll] or [teɪ.blː], but always [teɪ.bl], with a _short_ l, which makes me wonder-- what is the difference between the English and the French word (besides the intuitive feeling about the number of the syllables)?


----------



## Cypherpunk

You are confusing different words and pronunciations and thinking the same rule applies to all.
Many words were added to English from French during the Medieval period, including table. Many of them have a final e, despite the fact that these words are pronounced with a final syllable. As Forero just mentioned, theatre is one of these words. The American spelling is theater. Regardless of spelling, it is pronounced as written the American way, and -ter/-tre is a separate syllable. 
Neither the Americans nor the British spell table as tabel, but the idea is the same. There are two distinct syllables, and the last is pronounced -bel. The sound comes not from a _long_ l, but from the e, which in this case is pronounced /ə/.


----------



## berndf

Arabus said:


> The English r is an approximant and it is almost a vowel. Approximants can be syllable nuclei. I am still confused why _strength_ and _splend_id are considered one syllables. It does not feel right.


In some Indo-European languages "r" can be a syllable nucleus, like in Serbian _Srbija_. The same is true for "l" like in English _little_.

But this can never happen in front of a vowel, especially not in front of a root vowel. Indo-European roots are always mono-syllabic being composed of _consonant cluster-root vowel-consonant cluster_ where each _consonant cluster_ can also be null and root vowel may be diphthong. Bi-syllabic pronunciation e.g. of _string_ as _str'ing_ would render the word unintelligible because _-ing_ would be identified as a suffix syllable and not as part of the root.

To preempt a possible objection you might raise: The bi-syllabic word _real_ is not a single root but is derived from Latin _realis_ which is derived from _res_ (_=thing, matter, issue_) plus the adjective suffix _–alis_.
 
PS: A suffix syllable may "steal" (part of) the root syllable coda, as in _loa-ded _or _res-ted _but never the nucleus as the root vowel (or diphthong) is the pivot point of the root. Indo-European languages differ in this respect fundamentally from Semitic languages.


----------



## Forero

English does not have a long _l_, but a syllabic _l_ takes longer to say than a consonantal _l_ just as the vowel _oo_ takes longer to say than the semivowel _w_.

French uses different rules for syllables than English, and the _l_ is often fundamentally different ("light" where we use "dark").

In English _table_ rhymes with _label_. Both can be pronounced with syllabic _l_ or with a vowel before the _l_, but not with a vowel after the _l_. French _table_ never has a vowel between the _b_ and the _l_, nor does it have a syllabic _l_.


----------



## berndf

I take it that by "syllabic _l"_ you mean that _l_ is the syllable nucleus. In this case I agree with all observations. Just about the very last one I am not sure. I think the _l_ in French _table_ can be a nucleus, if the _e_ is completely mute and if there is no liaison with a subsequent word starting with a vowel.


----------



## CapnPrep

The standard view is that French _table_ is only one syllable, and it is with respect to many criteria, but the [bl] also behaves like the onset of a new syllable, followed by a kind of mini-vowel or maybe "release" of the [l] articulation. I actually don't find the phonetic realizations of _table_ in English and French all that different rhythmically, but they are interpreted differently by the phonologies of the two languages.

I think the pronunciation Arabus has in mind for _string_ would be like American English pronunciation of _stirring_, but stressed on the second syllable. Which would indeed sound like Tony the Tiger. Or Father Jack.



Arabus said:


> I just started getting confused when I learned that r and l can be syllable nuclei.


"Can" ≠ "always must"


----------



## Arabus

Thank you all for the information, but you didn't really answer my question. If table really has a vowel in the second syllable, then:



why is this vowel not transcribed (the word is transcribed [teɪ.bl] not [teɪ.bǝl])
why is this vowel not the nucleus of the syllable?


----------



## Agró

Arabus said:


> Thank you all for the information, but you didn't really answer my question. If table really has a vowel in the second syllable, then:
> 
> 
> 
> why is this vowel not transcribed (the word is transcribed [teɪ.bl] not [teɪ.bǝl])
> why is this vowel not the nucleus of the syllable?


In fact it is transcribed as /'teɪbəl/

Pocket Oxford Spanish Dictionary © 2005 Oxford University Press:
table /'teɪbəl/ (from WR dictionary)

the _schwa_ being the nucleus of the second syllable.


----------



## Arabus

Forero said:


> English does not have a long _l_, but a syllabic _l_ takes longer to say than a consonantal _l_ just as the vowel _oo_ takes longer to say than the semivowel _w_.



Thanks. So are you saying that a nuclear l is of different nature than approximant l? You seem to be saying that the first is a vowel not an approximant ...?


----------



## berndf

CapnPrep said:


> I think the pronunciation Arabus has in mind for _string_ would be like American English pronunciation of _stirring_, but stressed on the second syllable. Which would indeed sound like Tony the Tiger. Or Father Jack.


This this were true, it would still be a different issue. You are inserting a "real" vowel. If I understand you correctly, you mean [stɚ'ɹIŋ]. This is different from /r/ being a syllable nucleus. But I still very much doubt this really exists in real life.


----------



## Agró

Arabus said:


> Can you give me an example of a "triconsonantal" syllable onset in which the third "consonant" is not a sonorant? That would convince me that it is possible to have a triconsonantal syllable onset.


The po*sts* in this thread are really interesting.


----------



## Arabus

Agró said:


> In fact it is transcribed as /'teɪbəl/
> 
> Pocket Oxford Spanish Dictionary © 2005 Oxford University Press:
> table /'teɪbəl/ (from WR dictionary)
> 
> the _schwa_ being the nucleus of the second syllable.



Sorry. I am sure I saw it transcribed teɪbl somewhere.

Yes I agree, all these words have schwas (even "little"), so I just don't know why the l is called syllabic in these words. I am certain I read that the l is syllabic in table too, but now the dictionary says another thing.


----------



## berndf

Arabus said:


> Thank you all for the information, but you didn't really answer my question. If table really has a vowel in the second syllable, then:
> 
> 
> 
> why is this vowel not transcribed (the word is transcribed [teɪ.bl] not [teɪ.bǝl])
> why is this vowel not the nucleus of the syllable?


He is speaking of a "mini-vowel" following the "l", not preceding it. In French [tablə] is a possible variant of [tabl].


----------



## Arabus

I was thinking though that English table can really be thought of as having a nuclear l in the second syllable if the l was thought of as a _long _sound [teɪ.bll], and this would be the difference between it and the French word.


----------



## berndf

Arabus said:


> all these words have schwas (even "little")


I disagree. The tip of the tongue stays pressed against the upper alveolar ridge with a lateral plosive release of the "t". There is no room for a Schwa which (like any other vowel) would require the air-flow constriction to be lifted.


----------



## Arabus

berndf said:


> He is speaking of a "mini-vowel" following the "l", not preceding it. In French [tablə] is a possible variant of [tabl].



Who said that? and I don't think what you say is correct because the French table is definitely one syllable.


----------



## CapnPrep

berndf said:


> You are inserting a "real" vowel. If I understand you correctly, you mean [stɚ'ɹIŋ]. This is different from /r/ being a syllable nucleus.


Is it? What is the difference between [stɝ] and [stɹ̩]?


----------



## Arabus

berndf said:


> I disagree. The tip of the tongue stays pressed against the upper alveolar ridge with a lateral plosive release of the "t". There is no room for a Schwa which (like any other vowel) would require the air-flow constriction to be lifted.



No actually I've just looked at Merriam Webster online and they have a schwa in the second syllable of little.  Table and little are identical in this regard-- you must analyze them the same way.


----------



## berndf

Arabus said:


> I was thinking though that English table can really be thought of as having a nuclear l in the second syllable if the l was thought of a _long _sound [teɪ.bll], and this would be the difference between it and the French word.


I think so too. If you would lengthen the word "table" in French you would add a Schwa and not prolong the "l".

An even more prominent example of an /l/ as syllable nucleus would be the Austro-Bavarian diminutive suffix _-l_ as in _Dirndl_ (but this is a very idiosyncratic realization of /l/ as it is inter-dental).


----------



## berndf

Arabus said:


> No actually I've just looked at Merriam Webster online and they have a schwa in the second syllable of little. Table and little are identical in this regard-- you must analyze them the same way.


There is actuall a difference as * is not an alveolar consonant but [t] is ("t" is a "sun-consonant" as you would say in Arabic while "b" is a "moon-consonant"). Webster transcribes "little" and "table" differently. "Little" has a superscript Schwa which means that it is a kind of a "felt" Schwa which is not actually realized.*


----------



## Arabus

I would rather think that they mean something like a _schwa mobile_. You're familiar with Hebrew, so you should have known superscript schwas before. In Hebrew phonology, the schwa mobile functions as a full vowel with regard to accent and everything else. I think the same should apply to little.


----------



## Arabus

berndf said:


> "t" is a "sun-consonant" as you would say in Arabic while "b" is a "moon-consonant"



 true, but these terms are only used when talking about the assimilation of the definite article. Otherwise, "dental" and "labial" are used.


----------



## Forero

I think a syllabic velarized _l_ on the one hand and a velarized schwa followed by _l_ on the other are in free variation in English _table_. I don't distinguish [əˠ] followed by [l] from simultaneously pronounced [ɤ] and [l] as a syllable nucleus in words like _table_. I think this is what our dictionaries mean by the superscript schwa in front of an _l_: we have the option of pronouncing the vowel separately.


----------



## CapnPrep

berndf said:


> Webster transcribes "little" and "table" differently. "Little" has a superscript Schwa which means that it is a kind of a "felt" Schwa which is not actually realized.





Arabus said:


> I would rather think that they mean something like a _schwa mobile_. You're familiar with Hebrew, so you should have known superscript schwas before.





Forero said:


> I think this is what our dictionaries mean by the superscript schwa in front of an _l_: we have the option of pronouncing the vowel separately.


There is no need to guess about this, just download their Pronunciation Guide from this page. ﻿﻿﻿

\ᵊl\ indicates syllabic [l] and it is distinct from \əl\. Like Forero, I take this to be a difference of phonetic realization. In phonemic representation I think we can assume /əl/ for both _little_ and _table_ (or /l̩/ for both).


----------



## berndf

Arabus said:


> true, but these terms are only used when talking about the assimilation of the definite article. Otherwise, "dental" and "labial" are used.


I mentioned this because a similar phonetic phenomenon is at work here: "Sun-consonants" are all alveolar, palatal or dental (with the exception of "sh" but that letter was most probably dental in classical Arabic), i.e. have a position of the tongue close to that of the "l" which causes the assimilation.


----------



## berndf

CapnPrep said:


> There is no need to guess about this, just download their Pronunciation Guide from this page.


Excatly:



> The symbol \«\ preceding these consonants does not itself represent a sound. It signifies instead that the following consonant is syllabic.


(the "« " should be a superscript Schwa, lost in copy/paste). This corresponds to what I wrote.


----------



## Arabus

> In the pronunciation of some French or French-derived
> words \«\ is placed immediately after \l\, \m\, \r\ to indicate
> one nonsyllabic pronunciation of these consonants, as
> in the French words table »table,¼ prisme »prism,¼ and titre
> »title,¼ each of which in isolation and in some contexts
> is a one-syllable word.



They don't really do that. Table is spelled with -bəl not -blə. Anyway, what I understand from them is that the l in table can be syllabic or not, depending on the context.


----------



## CapnPrep

No, they're talking about how they _would_ represent the French pronunciations of those words, if they were listed in the dictionary as loanwords (which they are not, so these are very poorly chosen examples). Have a look at these examples instead: fin de siècle, enfant terrible, oeuvre, raison d'être.


----------

