Marco Cimarosti wrote:

>
> 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".

I said "it is not a functional mark of the writing system."

It is a functional mark in the letter <ñ>.

> 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".

No, it does not mark palatalization. It marks off the palatal phoneme as
distinct from the alveoloar phoneme.

> 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".

It doesn't have that function within the writing system.

> > 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".

Except that the right leg of <m> is not an addition to <n>, either
historically or synchronically. Their shapes have converged over
centuries of estheticization.

> > > 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?

You talkin' to me?

I have the impression that English's alveolar "dentals" are almost
unique in the world. I haven't seen them attributed to Spanish before.
(In the South Side of Chicago, the /T/ ~ /t/ distinction has changed
from manner of articulation (fricative vs. stop) to place of
articulation (dental stop vs. alveolar stop) -- the phonemic system
hasn't changed, only its realizations -- giving rise to the "Da Bears"
joke on Saturday Night Live. For of course the dental stop is heard by
everyone else as an allophone of the /d/ phoneme rather than of the /D/
phoneme.
--
Peter T. Daniels grammatim@...