Richard:
> If you accepted the phonetics as correct, why would you still not
> accept this as a 3-way phonemic contrast?
Phonetics and phonemics are different things. Phonetics involve
the precise pronunciation of a language, allophones and all,
whereas phonemics are to do with the standard sounds that make
up the words of a language. They aren't the same thing. Using IE
as an example, we write *sedtos but we know that there is evidence
to show that two dental stops side by side caused an interloping
s-sound. Thus *sedtos may be written phonetically as [setstos]
or even [setstoz] if we come part way with Jens concerning *z.
Of course, that doesn't mean that we write *setstos, because the
phonemes involved are really *d and *t and we know that in this
rare instance where they come together, it is pronunced thus.
Similarly, in English, we write "speak" and "play" and phonemically
acknowledge /p/ in both, even though on the phonetic level, the
sibilant prevents aspiration of "p" yielding [p] in "speak" but this
plays no part in the latter word where we have unaffected [pH]
instead. Does that mean that there are two phonemes /p/ and /pH/ in
English? No. It means that the normally aspirated stop /p/ has some
allophonic variation, just as IE has allophonic variation regarding
the stop *d.
So, you're telling me that there is a difference between "bid"
[bI.d] and "bit" [bI?] showing conclusively that there is a
three-way contrast (that is, if we factor in longer vowels in English)
but you fail to recognize that you're speaking on a PHONETIC level.
You are misunderstanding the concept of allophony. Here, both
phonetic [I.] and [I] are allophones of _one_ phoneme. They
alternate based on the voicing of the following segment and
thus which form of the two they take on can be predicted by that
simple rule.
It's allophony and so, no, English doesn't have a three-way length
contrast afterall. An example like "bit - bid - beat - bead"
certainly doesn't qualify as a four-way contrast (!!) because the
first two are allophonic variations of /I/ and the last two are
variations of /i/, two distinct vowels. We know that they are
distinct vowels because the quality between /i/ and /I/ distinguishes
two different words: "beat" and "bit". However, there is just no
such distinction between [bI?] and a hypothetical *[bI.?].
> I must admit I too am startled by the reported 3-way contrast - does
> this mean that _elle appelle_ (from _appeler_ 'to call') and _elle
> agnèle_ (from _agneler_ 'to lamb') do not rhyme?
I think that they do rhyme for most francophones but that's Miguel's
hole and he must dig himself out. The way I speak French, I make
no distinction between the "e" of "appelle" and the "è" of "agnèle,
all being /E/. However, some may pronounce "bête" as /bEt/ while
others like myself still choose the vowel /E/, homophonous with "è".
The e-circonflexe often comes from a lost "s" as with "forêt", "août"
and "île", so this is why some dialects still continue on the tradition
by making a distinction. That has nothing to do with what Miguel said
though.
> The last issue (1970) of the IPA's old journal, 'Le Maître
> Phonétique', spells its name [l&\ mE:tr&\ fOnetik] (transcribed in X-
> SAMPA, with '&\' for schwa to avoid mangling by Yahoo to hide e-mail
> addresses). No superlong vowel here!
Hooray, more proof that I'm not crazy :) One day I'll get a certificate
stating "We hereby acknowledge that gLeN gOrDoN is quite clearly sane
and should be allowed to operate a vehicle without supervision." Teehee,
one day.
= gLeN