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

From: Richard Wordingham
Message: 22667
Date: 2003-06-05

--- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com,
Jens ElmegÄrd 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