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

--- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com,
Piotr Gasiorowski
<piotr.gasiorowski@...> wrote:

>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Jens Elmegaard Rasmussen
> To: cybalist@yahoogroups.com
> Sent: Friday, June 06, 2003 12:01

AM

> Subject: Re: [tied] Abstractness

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

>
>
> > Why not? The two phones are in

complementary distribution in
Avestan and

> do in fact there represent

rule-governed realizations of /h/,
IIr. /s/.

>
> Richard has already made a similar

point. We discussed the phenomenon
of

> "rhinoglottophilia" some time ago

on the phoNet list. What I mean in
the

> present context is not that [h]

and [N] are necessarily different in

> phonemic terms, but that they are

not combined into a single phoneme
in

> English (despite their

complementary distribution) BECAUSE
there are no

> independently motivated rules

relating them to each other (unlike
the case

> of [t] : [?] in British English),

so their hypothetically allophonic
status

> can't be supported. One needs

really compelling evidence to unite
two phones

> that are so different

phonetically. The minimal pair test
is not a

> watertight criterion: English [h]

and [Z] ("zh") don't contrast either

> because of their defective

distribution,
Do you reject the pair I gave in
Message 14256, namely 'Ha! Ha!'
versus 'Zsazsa'? I could offer
'hoe' and 'zho' (given in Onions'
Oxford Etymological Dictionary), but
most English speakers only know the
latter as the scrabble word 'zo'.
Richard.
------End--of--Message-----
while [N] and [Z] may be found in

> similar contexts (e.g. <hanger> :

<azure>) but accidentally fail to
occur in

> a minimal pair because of their

rarity.

>
> Piotr