Re: [tied] Nominative: A hybrid view

Jens:

>English [z] is not in allophonic variation with [s], not even
>word-finally. The two are opposed to each other in hence : hens,

Yes they are. This [z] is an allophone of [s] in the plural as shown
by my examples. Of course, [z] is also a distinct phoneme in words
like "zag" (as opposed to "sag") but this doesn't change the fact
that [s] and [z] also alternate in English in suffixes.

>Now, elsewhere /z/ has a markedly lower frequency than /s/, so this
>is indeed a misbehaving language judged by the standards you set up.

If the plural were ONLY [z] then, yes, it would be strange. But it's not.
As I say, in the plural or the 3ps, [z] alternates with [s]. Underlying
it all and historically, the phoneme is /s/, the more common phoneme.

>I do not think it is true that fricative [T] (thorn) is of such a high
>frequency that your principles would permit its being used as a word-final
>morpheme in the language.

That's ridiculous. You don't know English if you think that "th" is
uncommon. Hell, I just used [T] in the previous sentence (think)!
Not very rare.

>Again, this is not a relevant objection. I am not suggesting that /z/ was
>ever *more frequent* than /s/ in the prehistory of PIE, let alone that it
>was the *only* sibilant of the language; I am merely saying they both
>existed, as separate phonemes which later coalesced.

We don't need a special *z to explain IE phenomenon. This is, and remains,
unnecessary assumption. Again, all you're doing is demonstrating the
"possibility" of this being so without showing how this MUST be so.


- gLeN

_________________________________________________________________
The new MSN 8: smart spam protection and 2 months FREE*
http://join.msn.com/?page=features/junkmail