El Wed, 12 Oct 2005 13:41:36 -0400, "Peter T. Daniels" <grammatim@...> escribió:

>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.

Dear Mr Daniels:

As we all have reached this point in the conversation I think it would be interesting a revealing recapitulation of the facts.

First off, if we talk about *two completely different phonemes, one palatal and another one alveolar*, how could one talk about, for example, the tilde virgulilla as being the sign for the palatal feature of the phoneme represented by <ñ>? or how could one say that the doubling of the <l> is the sign of the palatal feature of the phoneme represented by <ll>? or, specially, how could one hold that the <h> is the sign of the palatal feature in the phoneme represented by whatever digraph it was (taking in account in the latter case, moreover, that in Spanish there is only an unique digraph like this, as I already pointed in my message on Wed, 05 Oct 2005)? Please, I beg you to think slowly about it. I'll go back to this subject below.

In my view, to palatalize is in Linguistics -it's is the context in which I must understand and assume everybody writes in this forum; if it isn't, please, make me know- adding the palatal feature to a given phoneme. In no one of the mentioned cases -and particularly in the case of the <ñ>- is produced a "palatalization" because *there is no one palatalization*, the phonemes represented by <n> and <ñ> are completely different, with points of articulation quite different. The tilde virgulilla of the <ñ> is not *for* indicating an alleged palatalization of the phoneme /n/.

I obviously agree with Mr. Cimarosti's assertions when he repeated that tilde in Spanish is not a functional mark, only being a pure graphical (and historical, I'd add) distinction between <n> and <ñ>. As far as my basic semiologic and linguistic knowledge goes, I think that nobody could call that difference a "palatalization function" in any way. I also agree that if the tilde really had this function, it would probably be used productively to show palatalization in throughout.

In answering to Mr. Sherwood's interesting objection using the "m", reminded by me, you answered to Mr Cimarosti: "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." It seems that, unlike what you asserted on Tue, 04 Oct 2005, now the history does matter for you in the configuration of the signs. I'm glad of your change of mind, because now you surely will have no difficulty in recognizing that the tilde virgulilla is not a mark of palatalization of the system but it is the rest of an ancient Latin sign of abbreviation, *used in nowadays like a clue for children -for example- to be able to distinguish between <ñ> from <n>* [*as the right leg of the <m> is also a clue to distinguish this letter from <n> but it is not a mark of labialization*]. But now, following your line of arguments (i.e.: when you said talking about "n/ñ", "The only graphic distinction between that
phoneme and the dental nasal is the tilde [...] Thus the tilde indicates the palatalization of n"), I wonder whether, in Spanish, the adding of another "l" to the "l" or the adding of the letter <h> to the letter <c>, for example, still indicates for you *the palatalization of "l" or "c" respectively*.

Finally I'm going to facilitate a little exercise of historic memory (very salutary in all the debates): the sequence of your direct assertions about the subject. Perhaps you haven't perceived yet the transformation of your own thinking and that's why I hope it is useful for you in order to have the opportunity to realize it. I will add my comments between brackets. In short and summarizing:

1.- «The word "tilde" refers in English [...] the Spanish palatalization mark [...]» [clear and categorical expression of your true original thinking]

2.- «The only function of the Spanish tilde is to indicate the palatalization of n.» [before the reality, first self correction/restriction]

3.- «the tilde indicates the palatalization of n. (Its history is immaterial.)» [this after my explanation of the true ancient Latin origin of the tilde virgulilla over the <ñ>]

4.- «the only function of the Spanish tilde is [...] only to indicate the palatalization of n.» [this after my explanation about the tilde virgulilla and other alleged devices only applied in an unique way]

5.- «The tilde IS thus the sign for the palatal feature of that phoneme.» [here you don't talk about palatalization any more but about palatal feature: bravo!]

6.- «Its entire function in Spanish is to distinguish the letter for the palatal nasal from the letter for the alveolar nasal» [Here you only talk about purely graphic distinctions, nothing about the sign referring the palatalization mark in Spanish, as you asserted at first, i.e., it seems that we have already convinced you] [All these facts are confirmed by the self negation of your original assertion when you recently say:]

7.- «It is a functional mark in the letter <ñ> [...] it does not mark palatalization. It marks off the palatal phoneme as distinct from the alveoloar phoneme» [here you make a bigger restriction, now it's only *within* the sign of the <ñ> itself, and you insist in identifying the linguistic expression "functional mark" with "means for a graphical distinction", despite we all know that both things aren't the same; and now you also specify that you don't refer to "mark" but to "mark off"].

Regards,
Agustín Barahona