>John and I have a comment on some of the examples that are in the
>
>pairs such as hide/lied; erect/wrecked etc. are not strictly speaking
>minimal pairs. The ones with morphology on like lied/wrecked are treated
>as syllable+appendix. This is for the most part not consequential for us,
>but beware: in "erect" the stressed syllable is heavy because it has a
>branching coda; but in "wrecked" it is *light* because the coda does not
>branch. the final consonant is treated as an appendix. This will also
>disambiguate words like tax/tacks.
Thanks for the comments. Yes, I noticed the morph boundaries in there, but
decided to leave the tokens in anyway -- as long as we can identify them
eventually as containing appendices, we're going to need examples of both
morphologically simple and complex syllables anyway. It'll be a matter of
coding. As far as feet are concerned, "wrecked" and "lied" are still
monosyllabic in my book!
Thanks too for the stuff through the post which I hope to look at soon. Am
about to monitor Mark doing a first bash at the database...
Jill