--- In
cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "Richard Wordingham"
<richard.wordingham@...> wrote:
> > > [...]
> Does /e/ allow low back allophones?
> I think not.
That depends on the point of view taken about phonemic analysis in
general. If "/e/" is only chosen as a notation of the prestage of
later /e/, then, in a system posited as /e, i, u/, /e/ can have all
sorts of allophones, as long as they are kept apart from those
of /i, u/. Actually the widespread (in my view misguided) notation
of [ax] and [xa] as *-eH2-/*-H2e- explicitly ascribes low allophones
to a phoneme posited as /e/. Few object to that. I would accept it
if there were no unconditioned /a/, but I can't do without it, and
then [ax] is /aH2/ (even if the /a/ is here a neutralization product
of the two phonemes /a/ and /e/). It's all a matter of convention,
so if you "think not", then that's the way it is for you. It simply
cannot be decided objectively.
[...]
> So is /i, y, M/ equivalent? (M =
> high back unrounded.) I think not.
Equivalent with each other? In a system that does not distinguish
between them, yes. It may not be practical, though: One could invent
a notation in which [l] is /p/ and [p] is /l/; that would work
without contradiction, but it's hardly advisable.
Jens