Re: Is this a realistic phonology?

Tom Wier wrote:
> I'm not sure about that -- I mean, if you take the simple case
> of the history of English, we used to have only two phonemic
> nasals, /m/ and /n/, where [N] was merely an allophone of
> /n/ before velar stops.  Some sounds just tend not to be
> phonemic in lots of languages (like [N]).   The point being,
> of course, that just because there's a tendency for features to
> spread to all places of articulation, that doesn't mean they
> have to.
Hmm, good point.  I concede the point.

> But doesn't he say about that /r/ = [R]?  Well, I favor the theory that
> postvocalic /r/ in rhotic dialects of English, at least, is really not a consonant
> at all, but really just the remnants of some former truly consonantal /r/ that has
> left its mark on preceding vowels.
Something like that, I agree with.  It's really a syllabic sound, like
<le> in words like "little", or, in some people's pronunciation, /n/ in
words like "carton".