Re: [MTLR] RE: The Vocalic Theory (PIE *al-)

--- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "fournet.arnaud" <fournet.arnaud@...>
wrote:

Arnaud wrote, long ago.

> >> In the first place,
> >> the long vowels e: o: a: do not appear in some specific contexts,
> >> such as C_nC-
> >> The conclusion is that these long vowels are not phonemic
> >> but must be analyzed as (phonemic) short vowel + something else.

> The criterion I describe has been standard phonology for years.
> Gleason, 1966, An introduction to Descriptive Linguistics,
> The English Vowel System p28
> "This closely knit of sequence of phonemes must sometimes be studied

as a

> single unit. We will call it a syllable nucleus, since it serves as the
> center of a syllable. A syllable nucleus will be defined as a vowel,

or a

> vowel and a following semivowel."
> Gleason then proceeds with examples.
> In other words, /a/ /e/ /i/ /o/ /u/ /V/ (but) and /aj/ /ow/ /aw/ are
> phonemes in English because they appear in any context including C_nC.

But some are rather lacking before a velar nasal in English. The
sequence /eN/ is rather artificial in English (I take issue with J.D.
O'Connor here, while using his evidence) - it occurs in _dreng_, as a
borrowing from Old English, but the regularly derived form is dialect
_dring_. Long vowels and clear diphthongs are rather lacking before
/N/ - the only examples I can think of are the interjection _boing_,
the mispronunciation of _Laing_ as /leinN/, and the _Oink! Oink!_ of
pigs.

Would you argue the Classical Arabic lacked phonemes /i:/ and /u:/
because they do not occur before consonant clusters, thus giving the
untidy vowel phoneme set /a/, /a:/, /i/ and /u/?

In short, I do not find your argument convincing.

Richard.