The Pure Truth About Latin S Impurum: Exposing the Fiction of Extrasyllabicity

In Latin phonology and poetry, so-called <i>s impurum</i> refers chiefly to word-initial <i>s</i> + stop clusters, e.g. in <i>stā.re </i>‘to stand’. When preceded by a vowel, the cluster is heterosyllabic, e.g. /re + stāre/ <i>res.tā.re</i> ‘to remain’. To make sense of this apparent inconsistency, Cser (2012) posits that this medial <i>s</i> is “extrasyllabic” but that a stipulation prohibiting extrasyllabic segments from neighboring a nucleus obliges it to become a coda via “leftward resyllabification.” Parker (2002:9) considers such contrivances “painful.”Rejecting the inherently exceptional “extrasyllabic” analysis of <i>s impurum,</i> this paper proposes an exception-free Optimality Theoretic (OT) account relying solely on necessary, cross-linguistic generalizations. Hierarchically arranged, these “constraints” collaboratively drive the syllabification of every <i>s,</i> each syllabification being the best fit for its respective environment. Notably, the constraint hierarchy never references the segment [s].A testament to the robust coherence and parsimony of this analysis, the same constraint hierarchy—without modifications or stipulations—(1) accounts for the exceptional behavior of other clusters <i>(ps, mn); </i>(2) elucidates <i>x</i>'s seemingly exceptional effect on meter; and (3) refutes the supposed “unknowability” of whether the purportedly extrasyllabic, “trapped” [s] in e.g. <i>dexter</i> [dekster] ‘right’ is an onset or coda (Cser 2016). Additionally, the paper critiques the argumentation underpinning the extrasyllabicity account by identifying several overlapping fallacies that undermine the hypothesis.The study also examines why Latin poets <b>avoided</b> <i>s impurum</i> in “non-neutral” positions, e.g. <i>un.de.#ski.at </i>(in Lucretius) vs. <i>nul.la#s.pēs</i> (Catullus), speculating on the cognitive and sociolinguistic benefits afforded by the avoidance of this superficially ambiguous structure. Though poets avoided non-neutral <i>s impurum, </i>their distinct preferences for syllabifying it as an onset vs. coda are depicted here in terms of the optimal output of distinct but intimately related constraint hierarchies.The analysis underscores the importance of prioritizing necessary generalizations over ad hoc stipulations in phonological analysis and offers insights into a dilemma faced by the poets. Demonstrating economy, elegance, and intuitive appeal, the proposed OT approach dispels the pejorative bias of “uncleanliness” that <i>“s impurum” </i>carries and illustrates that its syllabification ceases to be a curiosity when examined through the lens of OT tableaux.<br>