Re: Optimum number of symbols

Thomas Wier wrote:
>
>Actually, I was referring to different forms:  <Rad> and <Rat>
>are homophonous in the singular, and yet are phonologically
>distinct in the plural:  <Räder> /RE:d@/ and <Räter> /RE:t@/.
>This does bear on the criticism of a true phonemic system, since
>a true phonemic system will fail to capture phonological
>neutralizations like that in the German data I presented.
>That is, /Rat/ is really two distinct words: /Rat/-1 and /Rat/-2,
>which German's *morphophonological* spelling system captures
>because it *ignores* the phonological homophony in order to
>satisfy another goal, semantic difference.
>
>In other words, purely phonemic scripts, which would insist on
>one written form for the two meanings of /Rat/, may in fact be
>less useful to the speakers involved. And afterall, writing's
>_raison d'etre_ is to serve speakers interests, in whatever
>way seems to them most useful. You cannot tell objectively
>(and I think this was one of Nik's points) what the speakers
>will feel is the most salient interest.
Interesting. This is rather the opposite of what I was taught.

In a phonology book I read some years ago, the very pair "Rad" and "Rat" was
mentioned as an example of phonemic writing, since no matter how identically
the two words are realized in speech, the spelling maintains the phonemic
contrast in the underlaying forms /rad/ and /rat/. The underlaying /d/ of
"Rad" makes it's presence clear when no longer final, as in "Räder" [rE:d6]
([r]=whatever rhotic you use when speaking German).

                                                       Andreas

_________________________________________________________________
Send and receive Hotmail on your mobile device: http://mobile.msn.com

Reply