Re: THEORY: Allophones

That is ENTIRELY dependent on which theory of phonology you personally
happen to hold.  Either, or both, if you like.

+ Ed Heil ---------------------- edheil@postmark.net +
|    "What matter that you understood no word!       |
|    Doubtless I spoke or sang what I had heard      |
|           In broken sentences."  --Yeats           |
+----------------------------------------------------+

FFlores wrote:

> I know we discussed this before, but I have a doubt
> concerning allophones and phonetic change rules.
> Suppose there's a language allowing a syllable
> structure CVF (F = fricative or liquid), where you
> can compound roots not necessarily conforming to
> CVF, and you have, say,
>
>         /kak/ + /tat/ = /kaxtat/
>
> (there's /x/ in the language independently from the
> one related to /k/). Now, what's the /x/ in /kaxtat/,
> an allophone of /k/ or merely an /x/ coming from /k/
> via a phonetic change rule?
>
>
> --Pablo Flores
>