Re: CHAT: More enter-bringings

Jesse:
> Since phonology's the topic of the day, I think I'll start with a problem
> that's been bothering me lately.  I've traditionally described
> Y(ivríndil) phonology with seven phonemes: /i I e I a o u/,
should that second I be E?

> with dipthongs /ai oi ui ao/.
> However, I've recently thought about re-describing the system to
> eliminate /i/ and /e/ as distinctive phonemes with a generative approach.
> Here's the main arguments: /i/ and /e/ occur in complementary
> distribution with the dipthongs /ai oi ui/
If that is really true, then you could or even should treat all 5 as a
single phoneme. Or do I misunderstand you?

> and share some
> properties--they're all rare in noun nuclei, but are the normal results
> of a "vowel lengthening" mutation required in some morphological
> processes.  For example: ['aras]/[ar'aisEva] "land/my land" and
> ['ElEd]/[El'edEva] "home/my home".  There's also extensive neutralization
> between /I E/ and /i e/--the former are disallowed finally and before
> vowels and some consonants.
So they contrast just before certain consonants? Which?

> Thus, it might be convenient to describe [i e] as underlying dipthongs
> /Ii Ei/,
Why?

> even though those phonetic forms
> never occur on the surface.  Allophonic rules would describe /I E/ --> [i
> e] for the other appropriate environments.
>
> This solution requires me to posit the existence of another phoneme /i/,
> though, which would only occur as the second element of a dipthong
Why? Assuming that it is old /i/ that is reanalysed as a diphthong, why
not analyse it as /I+I/ and the other diphthongs as A+I, E+I, O+I and U+I,
which looks pleasingly elegant. That leaves you with 5 vowel phonemes,
A, E, I, O, U.

--And.