Re: Is this a realistic phonology?

"Raymond A. Brown" wrote:

> To which Nik replied:
> ........
> >It's a debate over terminology, in effect.  Traditionally, nasals were
> >not considered stops, but nowadays some linguists reffer to them as
> >"nasal stops", meaning that air is stopped in the mouth, but it's still
> >nasal.  Traditional stops are then referred to as "oral stops".
> >Personally, I prefer the traditional definitions.
>
> Indeed, Tom was voicing a somewhat controversial view.  By no means all
> phonologists regard nasals as stops.  Like Nik, I am a 'traditionalist' on
> this issue as, indeed, is the redoubtable Mark Line who used to express his
> points somewhat forcibly on this list at one time :)
Eh.  It's all in how you view it.  I don't have any particularly strong
views about the matter.   That's the way they teach it at UT, but I
can easily see the other point of view.

> Indeed, if you want to be really, really picky, *voiceless* nasals cannot
> by any stretch of the imagination be voiced stops :)
No, certainly not.  But they could be viewed as stops, yesno? :)

> Personally I think debating whether nasals are a subdivision of stops will
> get us nowhere.
I totally agree.  It's all pretty much just another _Gedankensexperiment_.


=======================================================
Tom Wier <artabanos@...>
ICQ#: 4315704   AIM: Deuterotom
Website: <http://www.angelfire.com/tx/eclectorium/>
"Cogito ergo sum, sed credo ergo ero."

There's nothing particularly wrong with the
proletariat. It's the hamburgers of the
proletariat that I have a problem with. - Alfred Wallace
========================================================