Re: more English orthography

On Wed, 17 May 2000 16:02:49 -0400, Roger Mills <romilly@...> wrote:

>>Nik Tailor wrote:
>>>I suppose it depends on which definition you use of "phoneme".  The
>>>definitions I learned and use do not allow two phonemes to share an
>>>allophone (at least in the same environment).
>>
>Marcus Smith replied:
>>That is a definition I haven't heard before.>
>
>        Ah me, times do change!  Nik's definition is also the one I
>learned-- pretty much "Classical (American) Phonemics" as it was
>Pre-Chomsky.  It's still a useful tool for beginning analysis, and still
>works for some languages, like Spanish; but it could not handle
>neutralization.  Theoretically, you were supposed to be be able to  deduce
>Phonemics from Phonetics, _and vice-versa_......
Yes, that's also the system as I learned it. That's why I described Jarrda
spelling as morphophonemic rather than phonemic. (by the way, I'm leaning
toward "gy", as in "Magyar", to spell the [J\] sound, which would change
the language's name to Gyarrda.)

But I might as well consider it a phonemic spelling, according to the new
definition, since assimilation and devoicing are the only reasons it
wouldn't be considered phonemic under the old definition.

--
languages of Azir------> ----<http://www.io.com/~hmiller/languages.html>---
    h i l r i . o         "If all Printers were determin'd not to print any
     m l e @ o c m       thing till they were sure it would offend no body,
   (Herman Miller)       there would be very little printed." -Ben Franklin