[Peter] Minimal pairs are not enough to establish the existence of a
phonemic
contrast.
---
[Davius] We can try to reformalate the principle in the following way: "If
we have a minimal pair, the two word must have different phonological
unferlaying sequences explaining the minimal pair" [*]. In this way the
diferences in French between minimal pair [vE~] 'wine' / [vE] 'I see' do not
say us that necesarily it is a contrast between /E~/ and /E/ but there are
diferent underlaying representations /vin/ - /vE/. The alternace [-in-] /
[E] can bee seen por example in <divine/divin> confirmin that [E~] is
represented underlaying as /in/ not as /E~/ despite the existence of the
minimal pair [vE~] / [vE]. Why do not use all manuals directly the version
[*] of the phonemic principle?
Davius S.