Re: [tied] -osyo 4 (was: Nominative Loss. A strengthened theory?)

--- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, enlil@... wrote:

> Richard:
> > If you accepted the phonetics as correct, why would you still not
> > accept this as a 3-way phonemic contrast?
>
> Phonetics and phonemics are different things. Phonetics involve
> the precise pronunciation of a language, allophones and all,
> whereas phonemics are to do with the standard sounds that make
> up the words of a language. They aren't the same thing. Using IE
> as an example, we write *sedtos but we know that there is evidence
> to show that two dental stops side by side caused an interloping
> s-sound. Thus *sedtos may be written phonetically as [setstos]
> or even [setstoz] if we come part way with Jens concerning *z.
> Of course, that doesn't mean that we write *setstos, because the
> phonemes involved are really *d and *t and we know that in this
> rare instance where they come together, it is pronunced thus.
>
> Similarly, in English, we write "speak" and "play" and phonemically
> acknowledge /p/ in both, even though on the phonetic level, the
> sibilant prevents aspiration of "p" yielding [p] in "speak" but

this

> plays no part in the latter word where we have unaffected [pH]
> instead. Does that mean that there are two phonemes /p/ and /pH/ in
> English? No. It means that the normally aspirated stop /p/ has some
> allophonic variation, just as IE has allophonic variation regarding
> the stop *d.
>
> So, you're telling me that there is a difference between "bid"
> [bI.d] and "bit" [bI?] showing conclusively that there is a
> three-way contrast (that is, if we factor in longer vowels in

English)

> but you fail to recognize that you're speaking on a PHONETIC level.

No, I would have hoped that you remembered that I said 3 chrones but
2 chronemes. Chrone : phone :: chroneme : phoneme.

On the other hand, the reported 3-way contrast of <mettre> ~ <mètre>
~ <maître> looks like a textbook example of the establishment of
phonemes. So what is your phonemic analysis in this case? That
<mettre> is /mEt:r/? In message 32228 you said, 'Again, I'd like to
know what French dictionary would ever describe
French has having a phonemic three-way length contrast. If you're
talking about PHONETICS, then alright maybe (or rather, "maybe"
with a big giant question mark next to it), but never
phonemically.'. That is what I asked you to expand on. Or does it
all turn on beliving that <maître> is /me:tr/?

> Hooray, more proof that I'm not crazy :) One day I'll get a

certificate

> stating "We hereby acknowledge that gLeN gOrDoN is quite clearly

sane

> and should be allowed to operate a vehicle without supervision."

Please don't blow the test by inattention!

Richard.