Re: A question on palatalization.
|From:||Thomas R. Wier <trwier@...>|
|Date:||Thursday, January 2, 2003, 16:09|
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,
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