Re: [tied] PIE *h3 and PPIE **n

On Fri, 15 Dec 2000 10:58:57 +0100, Miguel Carrasquer Vidal
<mcv@...> wrote:

>>It's a commonly known linguistic term and is the necessary substantiation
>>for your **n^ => *y/*n equation.
>
>No, Glen. A minimal pair is "pair" ~ "hair" (demonstrating that in
>English /p/ and /h/ are distinct phonemes). A minimal pair is what I
>might need to prove that in (pre-)PIE *n and *n^ were distinct
>phonemes (gee, there's one right there: *n^em- "to take" ~ *nem- "to
>bow"). The term you're looking for is "conditioning factors". Except
>that I don't actually *need* them (though they would be nice). Look up
>"Wellentheorie", for instance.

It's funny though. I had wanted to say "a minimal pair is what I
gave: Latvian <jemt> ~ <n,emt> `to take'", except that it isn't. Of
course, /j/ and /ñ/ can be shown to be different phonemes in Latvian
using other words (I suppose), but in <jemt> ~ <n,emt> the phonetical
difference does *not* change the meaning, and the pair is thus not a
"minimal pair" in the phonological sense.

=======================
Miguel Carrasquer Vidal
mcv@...