John Cowan wrote:

>
> Peter T. Daniels scripsit:
>
> > > All three analyzable as /zj/.
> >
> > Absolutely not. This is H. A. Gleason, this is ultra-orthodox
> > descriptive linguistics. Such "analysis" wouldn't even be invented until
> > half a decade later.
>
> I didn't say that *Gleason* could analyze them as /zj/.

You appended that as a comment to Gleason's discussion.

> > You would do well to read Gleason on phonemic analysis and minimal
> > pairs!
>
> Perhaps I would, but I do not see the particular significance of
> monosyllables in minimal-pair analysis.

You've never done a phonemic analysis of a language?

> > > I will bet there are dialects in which all three of these show /dZ/.
> >
> > We aren't describing a "dialect." We're describing General American, in
> > particular as instantiated by Henry Allan Gleason, Jr.
>
> It is preposterous to claim that General American is not a dialect.

"Dialects" in which those three words have /dZ/ are not General
American.

> > > 1) Whether in some dialects all instances of /Z/ are analyzable as /zj/.
> > >
> > > 2) Whether there is any dialect in which /Z/ is *not* analyzable as /zj/
> > > apart from limited lexical exceptions without minimal pairs.
> >
> > As you can see from the above remarks, such questions are entirely
> > dependent on the linguistic theory you espouse. They are not questions
> > of fact.
>
> Whether the Earth orbits the Sun or the Sun orbits the Earth is also
> theory-laden, but we are reasonably confident of the correct answer
> nevertheless. The notion that "rouge" is underlyingly /ruzj/ is
> absurd.

Obviously.
--
Peter T. Daniels grammatim@...