From: fournet.arnaud
Message: 55545
Date: 2008-03-20
----- Original Message -----
From: Patrick Ryan
> ==================
>
> Hey, Calm down,
>
> In writing "H3 is not voiced per se"
> I'm talking to the orthodoxists who blithely handle
> only one H3, thinking it can be "voiced" per se.
> It can't be so, my point of view is there are at least two H3
> a voiced one and an unvoiced one,
> accounting for the fact that the voiced one does not assimilate
> and causes p to become b.
>
> In English (and FRench) there is only one /l/
> which is voice-neutral.
> the /l/ in people does not trigger peo-b-le
> If H3.1 is not contrasting with another H3.2
> you will never get pipH3.1 > pib
> you'll get pipH and nothing else.
> You need *Relevant Contrastive* voiceness
> to explain that.
>
> Arnaud
>
> ===============
It is not elitist nor orthodoxist to insist that a word, like 'voice', have
some irreducible meaning. Otherwise, communication cannot successfully be
accomplished.
Patrick
==========
There is no irreducible truth in phonology.
Voice makes sense for those particular phonemes
which contrast with unvoiced phonemes.
In the case of voice-neutral phonemes
it just means nothing.
Arnaud
============
This is fine with American academics who think that imprecision is tolerant
and democratic.
But frankly, I do expect more from Continental culture.
=============
Continental !?
Your English little gene got awakened ?
The USA is about as big as Europe
and from what I saw,
there is plenty of dry ground to which
apply the word "continental".
Arnaud
==============
If there were two different sets of causation inherent in what we call *H3,
then say *H3 and *H3a, or *H4, and count them as two rather than as one - at
least for the time when its effect (*H3) bifurcated into two sets of
effects.
==================
H1 H2 and H3 primarily differentiate
because H1 colors *e into *e, H2 colors into *a
and H3 colors into *o.
After that primary branching,
there are still plenty of reasons why
any set of H1 phonemes, or H2 phonemes, or H3
are not the same, including voice and place of articulation.
Arnaud
==============
I do not believe /l/ is voice-neutral. In situations which are minimally
phonotactically affected, it is voiced.
It is only unvoiced when in immediate contact with a voiceless consonant so
[L] is an allophone of [l].
Voice can be physically measured. A consonant is either voiced or unvoiced.
Patrick
============
This statement shows you don't understand phonology
but I had already come to this conclusion before.
Now it's even more obvious.
You are confusing phonetic substance
and phonological relevant features.
English /l/ is voice-neutral and that's
the reason why it accommodates to the rest
of consonants which are *not* voice-neutral.
Arnaud
=============
'Relevant Contrastive Voice' is a fuzzy concept Brian might accept but I
will not.
=============
I'm glad to learn Brian understands phonology.
One point for him.
Relevant contrastive voice is not "fuzzy" at all.
At least not the way I use this word.
Arnaud
=============