Re: THEORY: phonemics (was: RE: [CONLANG] Optimum number of symbols

Mike S:
> On Sat, 25 May 2002 20:58:54 +0100, And Rosta <a-rosta@...> wrote:
>
> >Mike S:
> >> On Tue, 21 May 2002 01:27:25 +0100, And Rosta <a-rosta@...>
> wrote:
> >> >
> >> >I do fully accept that phonemics is a very useful tool for creating
> >> >writing systems -- indeed, that was the driving force behind the
> >> >early development of phonemic analysis. But as I said in another
> >> >message, the writing systems that result are practical but kludgey,
> >> >especially at the conceptual level.
> >
> >Do note that final paragraph of mine, so as to make sure we don't
> >inadvertently end up arguing about something we in fact agree on!
>
> Understood :-)  My purpose here is to understand your system in theory
> that I might use it, or parts of it, in a formal phonological
> description, if I so choose.
OK.

> >> I am intrigued by your rejection of the notion of the phoneme, and
> >> what it suggests in the way of producing a phonological decription
> >> of a given language, but I am still a little unclear in a few areas.
> >> The following are the questions foremost in my mind:
> >>
> >> (1) In a given language, each phonotactic position will specify
> >> a set of contrastive phonological segments.  I am gathering that
> >> each contrastive phonological segment in a given set/phonotactic
> >> position will be invariant to about the same degree that a phone
> >> is invariant in a classical phonemic description of a language.
> >> Is this correct?
> >
> >I'm afraid I can't work out what 'phone' and 'invariant' mean here,
> >but if we confine our attention to a single phonotactic environment
> >then the criteria for establishing the phoneme inventory would be
> >the same as for classical phonemics.
>
> I believe I understand the criteria for establishing the phoneme
> inventory for each single phonotactic environment.  What I meant by,
> and was trying to point out by, the term 'invariant' is that it seems
> to me that each positional-phoneme in a given set will be much more
> precisely defined featurally than a phoneme in classical phonemics
> --insofar as a phoneme in classical phonemics is truly defined at all.
OK. I understand. In that case, you're half right and half wrong.
Allophonic variations that are conditioned positionally (e.g.
alternation between clear and dark realizations of /l/ in some
Eng accents) would disappear. But that still leaves us with
allophonic variation that is not conditioned positionally, which
is why I gave the example of English /t/ in foot-internal
intervocalic position, which can, inter alia, be [t] or tap [D].

> In my view, classical phonemes *aren't* truly defined featurally.
Quite right. They are defined contrastively.

> For example, the statement "/p/ is an unvoiced phoneme" is not
> literally true.  We regularly interpret that to mean "the phoneme
> /p/ has allophones most (or all) of which are unvoiced."
Right.

> To take
> the first statement literally is to miss the point.  Phonemes are
> rendered by allophones which are defined featurally;  phonemes
> themselves are not defined featurally and speaking about them as
> if they are is actually verbal shorthand for speaking about the
> allophones.  It is only because the allophones are *pragmatically
> assigned* to a particular phoneme that phonemes even appear to be
> defined featurally.  Thus, when you call phonemics arbitrary and
> unprincipled, I don't completely disagree with you.
>
> Getting back to your system, in the example you give below, fricative
> + plosive clusters in English onsets, one would identify 3 positional-
> phonemes here. These would be identifiable with neither /p, t, k/ nor
> /b, d, g/, since these sets are defined by a voice contrast.  Fair
> enough.  But certainly, each of these will be regularly rendered
> in speech as a relatively well-defined segment.  For example, the
> bilabial of the set can be described as [p]--a voiceless, unaspired,
> bilabial plosive, and never otherwise.  This is what I meant by
> 'invariant'.  A positional-phoneme in a given set will generally
> be pronounced the same way each time;  it will not vary with any
> feature.
>
> I better stop here to see if I am making any sense.
You make complete sense. But as I say above, I don't think it
is true that allophonic variation disappears in the positional-phoneme
model, though it is true that there is less of it.

--And.