On syllabification

[sasasha]

In the context of e.g. singing in a choir, I would try to linger on the vowels in the first syllable for the duration of the first note and then quickly pass to the consonants at the start of the next note, which could be interpreted as using the syllabifications "si-nning, re-sting, si-nging, li-fting", although I wouldn't necessarily consider this to be a matter of syllabification.

On the other hand, if I imagine a word game where I'm supposed to transform the input into the output by repeating the last syllable, it does come fairly naturally to say forms like "resting-sting", "sinning-ning" but of course not "singing-nging" or "lifting-fting". (And "sitting-ting" doesn't sound right in this context.)

This reminds me of discussions that come up in choirs when singing staccato phrases. A choirmaster has to decide which type they want: either you put consonants on the end of the short notes, or, if the effect is to be really clipped, you do indeed get things like “si-! fting!”. But, I wouldn't expect to hear “si-! fti-! ngthrough!”: /ŋ/ seems to be spared the guillotine.

On weird second thoughts I might not be surprised to hear “si-! ftiŋ-! kthrough!”. Strange that [g] might surface (and devoice) here. (...The Sandhi of Staccato Singing sounds like one of those ‘fun’ paper subtitles)

[Man in Space]

Why can’t we just say “English disprefers lax vowels in final open syllables”? It seems to me that if it’s word-internal and open that it doesn’t really care.

[Travis B.]

Why can’t we just say “English disprefers lax vowels in final open syllables”? It seems to me that if it’s word-internal and open that it doesn’t really care.

Agreed. There are some cases where English syllabifies in such a fashion that it prefers closed syllables for word-internal lax vowels such as a certain pronunciation of Wisconsin that you occasionally hear, i.e. [wɘsˈkʰãntsɘ̃(ː)n]. (I think most younger people here use [wɘˈskãntsɘ̃(ː)n] though.)

(It seems my dad has the former pronunciation, while I the vast majority of the time have the latter pronunciation.)

[Estav]

Why can’t we just say “English disprefers lax vowels in final open syllables”? It seems to me that if it’s word-internal and open that it doesn’t really care.

You can say that. It's just not obvious that it is correct to analyze words like sitting as starting with an open syllable. The problem isn't that it is difficult to come up with any workable analysis of English syllabification; it is that there are too many competing, mutually contradictory analyses, each of which can be argued to have some plausibility. If they can't all be true, then to prove one is correct you have to disprove all the others.

"Lax" or short vowels are generally not found word-finally in stressed syllables. They also are not found in stressed syllables before other vowels (e.g. no words have forms like /ˈstɛ.ɪd/, /ˈnæ.ɪk/). In other words, they are only found before consonants. This makes it fairly natural to consider the possibility that they can only occur before a coda consonant (in stressed syllables, at least).

In some accents, lax/short vowels arguably might be possible at the end of unstressed syllables (e.g. if we identify commA as ending with the STRUT vowel, or happY as ending with the KIT vowel; another tricky case is "tattoo", where the first syllable might have secondary stress but in any case is less stressed than the following syllable).

[Travis B.]

Why can’t we just say “English disprefers lax vowels in final open syllables”? It seems to me that if it’s word-internal and open that it doesn’t really care.

You can say that. It's just not obvious that it is correct to analyze words like sitting as starting with an open syllable. The problem isn't that it is difficult to come up with any workable analysis of English syllabification; it is that there are too many competing, mutually contradictory analyses, each of which can be argued to have some plausibility. If they can't all be true, then to prove one is correct you have to disprove all the others.

I personally would analyze intervocalic consonants (and even some phonemic consonant clusters such as /nt/) except for those at the start of stressed syllables as ambisyllabic; this explains the patterning of flapping of /t d n nt/ and sometimes /nd/, and things such as the distribution of the voicing of /b d g/ and both the aspiration and the glottalization of /p t tʃ k/.

"Lax" or short vowels are generally not found word-finally in stressed syllables. They also are not found in stressed syllables before other vowels (e.g. no words have forms like /ˈstɛ.ɪd/, /ˈnæ.ɪk/). In other words, they are only found before consonants. This makes it fairly natural to consider the possibility that they can only occur before a coda consonant (in stressed syllables, at least).

Like many NAE dialects, the dialect here has frequent elision of flaps in post-tonic positions, and in these cases, a "lax" vowel that finds itself before another vowel very frequently forms a diphthong with that following vowel, or if that following vowel is a phonemic schwa followed by /r/ or /l/, merges with it to become a lengthened vowel (long if previously short, overlong if previously long).

In some accents, lax/short vowels arguably might be possible at the end of unstressed syllables (e.g. if we identify commA as ending with the STRUT vowel, or happY as ending with the KIT vowel; another tricky case is "tattoo", where the first syllable might have secondary stress but in any case is less stressed than the following syllable).

The only permitted final "lax" vowel outside monosyllabic interjections and like in the dialect here is commA; note that I would not call this STRUT, because STRUT is distinctly different from a schwa here (here it is a clear unrounded open-mid back vowel), and a number of different vowels may alternate with schwas morphophonemically, so calling it STRUT is an arbitrary choice.

[anteallach]

My accent allows the TRAP vowel in word final position, but it's more or less restricted to obvious French loanwords pronounced as such: fracas, pain au chocolat (which also has a nasal vowel), etc.