Peter T. Daniels wrote:

> Agustín Barahona wrote:
> [...]
> > In your new message you are not talking about palatalization marks but

about graphical distinctions.

> > But I imagine you realize that, as I've said, one thing is to use a sign

like a visual index in order

> > to distinguish two signs (like when it's taught to little kids, for

example) and another very

> > different one is that that sign is a functional mark of the writing

system. Otherwise, the rightmost

> > stroke of "m", for example, could be considered as a mark of the written

system -as so adequately poin

>
> At what point did I _ever_ suggest it's "a functional mark of the
> writing system"? Its entire function in Spanish is to distinguish the
> letter for the palatal nasal from the letter for the alveolar nasal.

Well, when you say that "its entire *FUNCTION* is to..." you are in fact
saying tht it is a "*FUNCTIONAL* mark".

But I agree with Agustín that tilde in Spanish it is NOT a functional mark,
i.e. that it does NOT have a "function".

It indeed is the only distinction between dental (or alveolar!?) "n" and
palatal "ñ", but you can't call this a "palatalization function".

If the tilde really had this function, it would probably be used
productively to show palatalization in throughout. E.g., the sounds actually
written "ch", "ll" and "y" would probably be written something like "C with
tilde", "L with tilde", "G with tilde".

> I don't see how you can deny that.

The way Augustín did: the tilde on "ñ" is not a palatalization mark more
than the righ-hand leg of "m" is a labialization mark. Although, indeed,
that tilde and that leg are the only things which graphically distinguish a
palatal "ñ" or a labial "m" from a "n".

> > By the way, just a minor correction, the "n" is not in Spanish a dental

phoneme but an alveolar one.

>
> How English of it!

Se l'inglese dei latini non Le piace, perché non continuiamo la discussione
in italiano o in spagnolo?

--
Marco