From: elmeras2000
Message: 32338
Date: 2004-04-27
--- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, enlil@... wrote:
[JER:]
> > No, if the pronuncation really was that way, the phonemes
involved
> > are really /setstos/.
>
> ?? That's like saying, "If the pronunciation of /speak/ were really
> that way, then inaspirate /p/ would be a seperate phoneme from
> /pH/. Erh. No. It's simply called allophony and you learn it in
> first year linguistics.
This may indeed be the logical consequence. It was drawn by
Hjelmslev for the phonology of Danish when he reinterpreted
traditional /p/ : /b/ as a cluster /bh/ vs. simple /b/. That is
generally accepted now because of its close correspondence with the
actual phonetics, but if we are talking phonemic interpretation that
is really beside the point, and so it should be just as valid for
English. In that case it may be possible that the correct (i.e.,
maximum consistent) phonemicization of Eng. <peak> : <beak> :
<speak> would be /bhi:hg/ : /bi:hg/ : /sbi:hg/. The change in the
order in the notation of final tenues is from Hjemlslev also. I am
not advocating this interpretation which seems generally to move on
a different, more abstract, level than the one really aimed at in
phonemic analysis.
The point about /setstos/ is this: If PIE has /s/ and /t/ as
phonemes, then there is no reason not to interpret a sequence
[setstos] as a concatenation of precisely the phonemes /setstos/. It
is only on a more abstract level that it is discovered that *[tt]
and *[dt] do not exist, so that [tst] can just as well be
interpreted as /tt/ or as /dt/ (and as /dst/ too for that matter).
But since phonemic analysis acts on a level preceding identification
of morphological connections, the knowledge that the root of (at
least some realisations of) [setstos] is [sed-] in other contexts
has no part in it.
> > There is another Danish example of multiple degrees of length,
> > [...]
> > Now, besides /sba/ we have:
> >
> > II. /sba:/ <spare> '(to) save, spare'
> > III. /sba::/ <sparer> prs. 'save(s), spare(s)', '(a) saver'
> > (one who saves money on a savings account).
> > IV. /sba:::/ <sparere> pl. 'savers' (who save money on a savings
> > account).
>
> Again, I don't get what you're trying to prove. You're claiming
that
> there is a contrast of length, and yes, this is true phonetically
> from the above examples.
>
> However, phonemically, there would be no /a:::/ from these
examples.
> Clearly! What you have is something like /spa:-a/ and /spa:-a-a/
> which are phonetically realized as what seems to be [sba::] and
> [sba:::]. So we see that /a/ is a phoneme and /a:/ is another
phoneme
> but where [a::] arises, it is inevitably a combination of the two
> aforementioned phonemes when put side-by-side by whatever
morphological
> process happens to string them together.
>
> So back to the first sentence: Phonetics and phonemics are
different
> things.
>
> Don't just "wow" it. Accept it. From the above, it looks as though
> you haven't grasped this simple principle and I'm not sure why.
My use of just about any device to get the message across that there
were cases of lengthening of already-long vowels in the history of
PIE has been fiercely criticised as theoretically impossible by a
brain which now fully allows for it in the above statements. If it
is now acknowledged that [a], [a:], [a::] and [a:::] may coexist in
the same language (for which I am quite sure of the three degrees
while being a bit reserved as for the last distinction), then it can
no longer be dismissed as a priori impossible that there was such a
stage as *[pé::dz] (meaning with "[e]" whatever vowel it was that
yielded PIE /e/ in cases of undisturbed development) in the making
of PIE nom.sg. *pó:ds 'foot'. It is immaterial for the purpose
whether one chooses to enter this is an alphabetic lexicon
as /pé::dz/, as /pé:edz/ or as /péeedz/, or even as /pée:dz/.
Depending on what is permitted on the day for the facts of Danish
one may accept any one of these analyses and reformulate one's
statements about the further developmemnt accordingly without
causing any trouble. So whoever has an unquenchable desire to
criticise it out of existence must find some other reason.
Jens