This 35th collection of students’ pearls of wisdom, laboriously digitised from hand-
Why would a syllable like [mukt] be a better syllable than [mutk]?
-kt- and -tk- are known as syllabic consonants. The both words are possible.
Because only mukt follows phototactic constraints.
[mukt] follows phononartical rules of English.
Words cannot end in a [k]. Velar cannot follow vowel.
Because [mukt] obeys the sonority principal.
[mukt] is possible due to the seniority scale, which has a falling sequence.
‘mukt’ is better because t only occurs in coda. ‘mutk’ cannot be because k is never in coda.
Stops can only be followed by alveolar consonants.
Because kt can be found in the word ‘sixth’. The tongue moves to the velum to elucidate [k].
‘t’ is coronal and so can occupy its possible. Coronals are words that are articulated with the tongue.
‘mukt’ is a case of assimilation, back vowel + back consonant, that’s why the word is more possible.
Based on intuitive phonology, there is gradual progression of the position of the tongue from voiced high back [u] to [k] which has a complete closure in the nasal cavity, the velum is lowered.
Both words are not possible, though mukt is possible.
[mutk] does not fulfil the phonological and morphological criterion of the English language, as it is not consistently phonetically sound and does not have a consistent morphological shape.
In -tk- it is not possible to pronounce an alveolar first followed by a velar. One would have to withdraw one’s tongue.
More to come...