[tied] Re: Unreality of One-Vowel Systems (was: Bader's article on

--- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, enlil@... wrote:

> It has been 'denied' because ABSTRACT monovocalism, as opposed to
> phonemic monovocalism, is without a purpose in this debate.

I was the one introducing the concept (well, Saussure was first, an
then generative phonology), an you were the one to deny it. Now you
accept it as intended. Thank you.

> So is this what you're trying to say?

Guess so, depends on what you now mean by "this".

> That then I don't object
> to, as long as it is kept seperate from an insistence on phonemic
> monovocalism.

Phonemic analysis varies from doctrine to doctrine. They are both
equally close, indeed very close, to being phonemically monovocalic.

> ... Which isn't a parallel afterall because it is only ABSTRACTLY
> monovocalic at best.

Good or bad, they are both abstract, and equally so. That's what
makes them so parallel.

Jens