Re: more English orthography

Marcus Smith wrote:
> This gap should make you suspicious.  Another thing that should make you
> suspicious it that only the alveolar obstruents cannot be palatalized.  Why
> not
> and is there a connection?  Absolutely!  Palatalization may only occur before
> the vowel /a, o, u/, not before /e, i/.  You can have, for example, kya, kyo,
> kyu but not *kye, *kyi.  Alveolar obstruents are palatalized before /i/: s ->
> S, t -> tS, z -> dZ, d -> dZ before /i/.  The reason is an obvious
> assimilation.
Historically, yes, but from a *synchronic* perspective, they are
distinct phonemes.  Indeed, with new borrowings, forms like /ti/ (e.g.,
tiimu) and /tSe/ (e.g., cheen) are possible, seeming to indicate that
they have ceased to be analyzed as /tj/, etc.

> In otherwords, the "phonemes" S, tS, dZ are palatalized obstruents.  Assuming
> this analysis, the match with what is actually found is perfect.
That's one way to analyze it, altho it breaks down with more recent
borrowings, but borrowings can occasionally violate the regular
phonology of a language.  However, I prefer to view /S/ and /s/ as
separate phonemes, which were *historically* the same phoneme.  /S/ and
/s/ are both single units, one does not say */Sj/, so it makes no sense
to call something that is obviously a single phone *two* phones.  You
could say that in native words, /S/ is *underlyingly* /sj/, but in terms
of surface phonemes, it is not.

--
"If the stars should appear one night in a thousand years, how would men
believe and adore, and preserve for many generations the remembrance of
the city of God!" - Ralph Waldo Emerson
"Glassín wafilái pigasyúv táv pifyániivav nadusakyáavav sussyáiyatantu
wawailáv ku suslawayástantu ku usfunufilpyasváditanva wafpatilikániv
wafluwáiv suttakíi wakinakatáli tiDikáufli!" - nLáf mÁldu nÍmasun
ICQ: 18656696
AIM Screen-Name: NikTailor