Re: Optimum number of symbols

At 11:14 pm +0200 23/5/02, Christophe Grandsire wrote:
>En réponse à "Mike S." <mcslason@...>:
[snip]
>> As far as your claims of Mandarin resisting phonemic analysis,
>> I must admit that is news to me.  I would be *very* interested to
>> learn more though.
>>
>
>Well, I'm not a specialist, but I've read about Mandarin being extremely
>difficult to analyse beyond the level of the syllable. The interaction between
>the proposed phonemes are so strong that the very notion of phoneme loses all
>value in the analysis.
That's somewhat an exaggeration. It's perfectly possible to analyze and,
indeed, not difficult to analyze Mandarin beyond the syllable; and altho
much of this analysis can be done in terms of phonemes, there are important
areas of controversy.  It doesn't lend itself to neat "phonematization" in
the way that some natlangs do.

The points of controversy are:
1. The status of the palatal series ( Pinyin {q}, {j}, {x}; X-SAMPA [tCh],
[tC], [C])
These consonants occur only before [i], [y] and diphthongs and triphthongs
beginning with semivovalic [i] and [y].
Now the retroflex series ({ch}, {zh} and {sh}; [ts`h], [ts`], [s`]) occur
before all vowels _except_ [i] and [y]*.  Fine, then we say the palatals
are allophones of the retroflex consonants before [i] and [y]?
Well, no - thre is a slight complication  :)
Mandarin has two other similar series which may also occur before all
vowels except [i] and [y], namely:
Dental: {c}, {z}, {s}; [tsh], [ts], [s]
 Velar: {k}, {g}, {x}; [kh], [k], [x]

So, of which series are the palatals allophones?  If of one, then why don't
the other two series show occurrences before [i] and [y]?  Or maybe,
they're allophones of all three? Does the phonemic theory allow that?  Does
it mean that a phonemic alphabet must allow, say, {qu} [tshy], to be
written in three possible ways?

*btw, I know the retroflex series has a 4th member: {r} [j\]

2. All the phonemic analyses I've seen seem to agree that there is
phonemically only one mid-vowel phoneme which is realized as [e], [@], [7]
or [o] according to the phonemic environment; phonemically, I guess, we'd
probably repesent as /@/.  But nearly all attempts at Romanization use both
{e} and {o} mainly, I guess, because we can't actually bring ourselves to
write [o] as {e}!   But, in any case, the phonemic statis of [o] is
disputed.  The sound certainly occurs in the diphthong {uo} [uo],
phonemically /u@/ or /w@/ according to analysis.  Otherwise it occurs only
after bilabials ({p}, {b}, {m}; [ph], [p], [m]) and the labiodental {f}
[f].  Is it an allophone of /@/ after these consonants, or is it, as other
think, a variant of /u@/ after these consonants.

3.  What is the status of [j] and [w]?  Most Romanizations, including
Pinyin, certainly suggest they have phonemic status; and, indeed, some
phonologists think this is correct.  Others, however, regard them as not
being phonemically distinctive, being merely the onset of syllables
beginning with [i], [y] (in the case of [j]) or [u] (in the case of [w]) .
(Or is [y] an allophone /u/ after initial [j]?)

4. Indeed [y] has very restricted distribution.  Should it be counted as an
allophone of /u/ which occurs only after palatal consonants where [u] never
occurs?  The official Pinyin system suggests this is so.  But the darned
vowel comes after /l/ and /n/ also - but nowhere else. Perhaps [ly] and
[ny] are really phonemically /lju/ and /nju/ - but then wouldn't we expect
the /l/ and /n/ to be palatized?

Also apart from these conroversial isues, there is the slight snag that
phonemes are concerned with segmental features.  Important to the Chinese
syllable is suprasegmental feature called tone!  Yes, a phonemic
orthography - supposing the phonemes of Mandarin to be agreed - could use
suprasegmental marking like the little suprascript numerals in the
Wade-Giles system (ach!) or the diacritics in the Pinyin system.  They
could even, of course, be incorporated into the spelling using ordinary
Roman letters as in the Gwoyeu Romatzyh system (but that makes it sort of
'supraphonemic')

Obviously Mandarin can be written in the Roman script; Matteo Ricci was
doing that as early as 1603 - and there have been many other systems
proposed since.  In the days of my youth, as a diversion from yet another
English spelling reform, I'd devise yet another Chinese Romanization (and I
guess I'm not the only one on this list to have done so  :)

But, to return to where Christophe started - yes, it is my contention that
the phonology of modern standard Chinese cannot be adequately described
simply in terms of the traditional phoneme; thus while it can be, and has
been, written in an alphabet, it cannot IMO be written phonemically.

Ray.

=======================================================
Speech is _poiesis_ and human linguistic articulation
is centrally creative.
                                 GEORGE STEINER.
=======================================================

Reply