Talk:Syllable coda

[untitled]

Shouldn't the l's in tall and milk be dark l's (ł)? Correct me if i'm wrong...not totally sure on that one though...Retroviseur 20:16, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Doesn't pie and boy end with the same consonant, and would thus also have codas?

Well, not all dialects of English use dark l's in the final position... Some use only clear l's, as I am led to believe. Brilantastelo (talk) 04:09, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

The article is using broad phonemic transcription anyway. The point is that the words in question end in the phoneme /l/, regardless of whether it's realized as "dark" or "light". (And yes, Hiberno-English is one example of an accent where /l/ is light in all positions.) +Angr 09:26, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

This article is confusing, I don't get it. Was isn't a coda? 72.14.165.102 (talk) 21:17, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

All possible syllable codas?

At first, I thought the table was intended to only cover English syllable codas, so I fixed the wording accordingly (while still wondering what the hell "but sourced from other languages where necessary" was supposed to be for). Then I saw things such as /çt/ with examples from German, and reverted myself.

Now, a table for all possible syllable codas from all languages would be a daunting (and, IMO, pointless) task. Also, using phonemic transcriptions for different languages in the same context is going to be confusing, and using phonetic ones would be really pointless in an article about phonotactics. So I propose to just have English codas. What do you think?

The table seems to be a fork from English phonology#Coda, so it would be a pointless task even with that restriction. I'm not sure listing all codas of one language makes for a very good example. --Trɔpʏliʊm • blah 20:04, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

OTOH, making a table of all possible codas would be almost infeasible, and removing the table altogether would make it a sub-stub. So I have a few options in my mind:

1. keeping the table, but making it sound like a list of examples, rather than an extensive list; or
2. merging this article, "Syllable onset", "Syllable nucleus" and "Syllable rime" all into "Syllable"; or
3. creating a new article, titled "Syllable structure" or something, and merging this article, "Syllable onset", "Syllable nucleus" and "Syllable rime" there.

What would you suggest? (For now, I've implemented the first one.) ___A. di M. 22:08, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

IMHO, the table in its present form is hardly illustrative. I think we should make quick generalizations about English syllable structure, linking to English phonology#Coda for readers who want greater depth. Then we can use the table to indicate variations in what sorts of syllable codas are possible. So, for example, Hawai'ian allows no syllable codas. Japanese only allows nasals, many Slavic languages lose voicing distinctions in the coda, San’ani Arabic allows three consonants only in word-final syllable codas, etc. Generalizations about the range of syllable codas amongst different languages can be much more illustrative than unexplained examples of syllable codas. — Ƶ§œš¹ _{[aɪm ˈfɻɛ̃ⁿdˡi]} 21:24, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Diphthongs

Judging from the examples, this article tacitly assumes that diphthongs, triphthongs, &c., are always in the nucleus. This should be clarified.

When I made a brief attempt to learn Chinese, I came away with the impression that the second part of a diphthong, e.g., -ao, -ai, -ei, ui, etc., was thought of as a coda, like the final -n that occurs so frequently. Do the Chinese grammarians think of it this way? Is that because historically most of these forms used to have consonantal codas (retained in many related languages in China)? If so, should this be mentioned here? — Solo Owl (talk) 15:22, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

It's not really an assumption as much as it is a definition. If the second part of Chinese -ao is part of the syllable coda, then it's technically not a diphthong. There's some looseness in how terms like diphthong and semivowel are used in literature; I've seen the term "liquid diphthong" in reference to Proto-Slavic vowel-liquid sequences. I don't know the details of Chinese, though. — Ƶ§œš¹ _{[aɪm ˈfɹ̠ˤʷɛ̃ɾ̃ˡi]} 18:45, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Article or section?

"Onset" and "Nucleus" (as well as "Coda") are sections of the article "Syllable", but "Syllable coda" is the only part of the syllable that has its own article. For consistency, which solution is preferable? To roll this article into "Syllable", or to write new articles on "Syllable onset" and "Syllable nucleus"? Kotabatubara (talk) 19:14, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

I agree and will make this page into a redirect now. — Christoph Päper 11:48, 19 July 2012 (UTC)