Re: A question on palatalization.

Quoting michael poxon <m.poxon@...>:

> Part of the problem lies in the symbol, which can't help but suggest the
> idea that this one phoneme is a coalescence of two. I much prefer the
> American version of c+hacek, and j+hacek for /dZ/. As far as I know,
> the existence of /tS/ has nothing to do with /S/ at all.
Although you're right that the use of two tied symbols for one phoneme
has more to do with politics -- the IPA was invented mostly by francophones
-- there are sound reasons (if you'll pardon the pun) for treating it
that way.  [t] is a [-continuant] segment, and [S] is a [+continuant]
segment.  Some languages have rules whereby [tS] behaves on one side
as [-cont] and on the other as [+cont], as if there were "really"
two segments underlyingly, even though in these same languages there is
clear evidence for the phonemic status of /tS/.

> Mind you, there are a lot of languages with
> skewed phonologies (Omeina has turned out to have one: no /p/ /f/ or /v/
> but /b/ and /m/ - a very short labial group!)
Indeed.  In Atkan Aleut, the only reason for any labials of any
kind is borrowing from Russian and English. Ditto for Onondaga,
mutatis mutandis.

 =========================================================================
Thomas Wier            "I find it useful to meet my subjects personally,
Dept. of Linguistics    because our secret police don't get it right
University of Chicago   half the time." -- octogenarian Sheikh Zayed of
1010 E. 59th Street     Abu Dhabi, to a French reporter.
Chicago, IL 60637