29

You mention the pronunciation /ˈfɹæb.dʒəs/ in the comments; this is how I would pronounce it too. Phonotactics are usually explained in terms of constraints ("you can't do this"), so the short answer is that it doesn't violate any of those constraints. If we look at all the parts individually: /fɹ/ is a valid onset, as in "frog" /æb/ is ...


8

It's also a widely-held axiom in linguistics (phonology, specifically) that segments are always syllabified, in all languages. But that is not an empirically well-supported claim. There are certainly a number of languages which provide various kinds of evidence that the syllable can be a thing, just as [ʕ] can be a segment of a language, but not every ...


6

It's a widely-held axiom in linguistics that syllabification is never phonemic. In other words, words aren't stored in your brain pre-broken-down into syllables; that syllabification happens later according to regular rules. The reasoning behind this axiom is a bit circular, since it sometimes requires you to finagle your underlying phonemic forms to encode ...


5

The same page has a list of final consonant clusters further down: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/English_phonology#Coda However, medial clusters are a third situation, in the sense that the medial clusters that appear in non-compound words are much more restricted than every possible combination of word final + word initial clusters. If you're trying to list ...


5

As a new contributor myself, I have to post this as an answer, though it's slight enough that it should really be a comment on Draconis' excellent answer (specifically a response to TKR's comment on it). I think the spelling makes <frabjous> look a bit less English than it sounds. Draconis enumerates lots of good reasons for why it's phonotactically ...


4

The standard linguistic approach to this problem is based on the phonological theory of features. The premise is that spoken language (the basis for rhyme) is a string of segments organized into syllables, and each segment is a network of "features", that is properties of sounds (such as "nasal", "labial", "voiced"). ...


3

The term ‘pre-fortis clipping’ refers not only to the shortening of vowels, but also any sonorants (i.e. approximants or nasals) that may intervene before the fortis obstruent in the coda of the syllable. The reason given in the blog for the invention of the term pre-fortis clipping is indeed that the previously used term shortening can cause confusion—...


3

You don't "break down" words into phonemes, you first transcribe a spoken word into a language-neutral alphabet which represents how the word is actually pronounced, and then you analyze the transcriptions according to some principles of phonemic analysis to decide what phonemes are present. The first task is extremely difficult (requires extensive ...


3

The main reason is that the claim about Arrente is not self-evidently true, but that language has the distinction that a credible argument has been made. If you had asked "Why have so few such persuasive arguments been made", I would point to the larger problem of making persuasive arguments in phonology (an analogous question is "why have so ...


2

There's an Australian language Lardil that has both of the features the OP is asking for: there's no phonemic glottal stop, in fact, there are no glottal consonants each syllable starts with a consonant (there may be exceptions, but I don't think there are any in Lardil)


Only top voted, non community-wiki answers of a minimum length are eligible