Abstractness (Was Re: [j] v. [i])

--- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com,
Jens Elmegård Rasmussen <jer@...>
wrote:

> --- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com,

Piotr Gasiorowski

> <piotr.gasiorowski@...> wrote:
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: Jens Elmegaard Rasmussen
> > To: cybalist@yahoogroups.com
> > Sent: Wednesday, June 04, 2003

9:41 PM

> > Subject: Re: [tied] Abstractness

(Was Re: [j] v. [i])

> >
> >
> > > Well, that's funny, for /e, i,

u/ by an analysis along these

> lines was
> > exactly what Kurylowicz and

Benveniste made for IE - and that
was

> rejected
> > on *typological* grounds. Is

typological wisdom only a matter of

> > terminology?
> >
> > No. I said /a, i, u/ was

impeccable (and common). /e, i, u/

> (with /e/ a
> > distinctively [+front] vowel,

which is what makes the difference)

> is indeed
> > too odd.

Does /e/ allow low back allophones?
I think not.

> > A quadrangular system such as

/E, O, i, u/ (with a pair

> of low
> > vowels, one front, one back)

would be acceptable, and the
five-term

> > inventory /a, e, o, i, u/ is

possibly the most common type of

> vowel system
> > on earth.
>
> But /e, i, u/ and /a, i, u/ are

equivalent since the phonemes are

> only defined by being different

from each other. If the choice of

> the notation /e/ in the former

analysis was not meant to exclude
its

> having a-like allophones, and the

choice /a/ of the latter does not

> exclude an e-like realization,

then the two notations mean exactly

> the same thing. And then one

cannot exclude one of them and
accept the other.
So is /i, y, M/ equivalent? (M =
high back unrounded.) I think not.
Richard.

> the other.
>
> Jens