[tied] Abstractness (Was Re: [j] v. [i])

--- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, Robert B Wilson <han_solo55@...>
wrote:

>
> On Fri, 06 Jun 2003 01:01:38 -0000 "Richard Wordingham"
> <richard.wordingham@...> writes:
> >
> > I expect the complementary distribution became apparent when
> > someone mechanically went through all the pairs of consonant
> > phonemes. Does anyone know the history of the observation? Why
> > aren't /w/ v. /N/ and /y/ v. /N/ considered problem pairs? Is it
> > because some Americans would actually accept 'low' v. 'lung' and
> > 'toy' v. 'tong' (or, using a word of limited

distribution, 'dray'

> > v. 'dren= > g')
> > as minimal pairs?
>
> well, in some american englishes 'toy' vs. 'tong' is a minimal

pair. i

> pronounce them as [t_hOj] and [t_hONg_}] ([Ng_}] is the actual

phonetic

> realization of /N/ in my dialect). i'd assume 'dray' and 'dreng'

would be

> [dZr\Ej] and [dZrENg_}] so that's another one. 'low' [loU]

vs. 'lung'

> [lVNg_}] wouldn't be an exact minimal pair because they have

different

> vowels, but 'law' [lOw] vs. 'long' [lONg_}] and 'saw' [sOw]

vs. 'song'

> [sONg_}] would be...
> so we have exact minimal pairs for /w/ vs. /N/ and /j/ vs. /N/ in
> american english, but YDMV...

Apart from the side issue that in your dialect [N] seems still to be
an allophone of /n/, Europeans are uneasy about such biphonemic
analyses of English long vowels and diphthongs. It's not an issue of
dialect.

Richard.