Re: Optimum number of symbols

En réponse à Andreas Johansson <and_yo@...>:

>
> Well, pretty much everything in a given language at a given time is
> either
> left there by linguistic history or later analogy. An explanation
> which
> invoked the appearance of unpronounced phonemes where they couldn't be
> explained by historical developments or analogy with other words would
> be
> decidedly suspect.
>
True. Yet it can happen, when things get so messy that historical developments
and analogy happen together several times at random :)) .

>
> Ok. So, a word like "grand" has a bunch of allomorphs that aren't
> phonologically predictable?
>
Indeed. To predict them, one has to use a mix of phonological and morphological
explanations. Things like liaison often lie at the exact border between
phonology and morphology, which makes them difficult to explain correctly in
those terms.

Christophe.

http://rainbow.conlang.free.fr

Take your life as a movie: do not let anybody else play the leading role.