Re: THEORY: Allophones

Adam Raizen wrote:

> In Modern Hebrew, I don't think that [b] and [v], [p] and [f], [k] and
> [x] are only one phoneme (respectively) anymore, even when they're
> spelled with the same letter, at least not anymore than [f] and [v] are
> still one phoneme in Modern English.
Robert Hetzron (in Comrie's _The World's Major Languages_) firmly
agrees with you, p. 693:

# Because of the tightly regulated syllable structure (only aggravated
# by some loop-holes), it is impossible to decide which one(s) of the
# following features: spirantization, vocalic length, gemination,
# and shwa, were phonemically relevant in Biblical Hebrew.  By
# dropping length, Modern Hebrew unequivocally phonemicized
# spirantization: [biblical] *sapar* 'he counted' and [medieval]
# *sappar* 'barber' respectively became Modern Hebrew /safar/ and
# /sapar/.

--
John Cowan      http://www.ccil.org/~cowan              cowan@ccil.org
        You tollerday donsk?  N.  You tolkatiff scowegian?  Nn.
        You spigotty anglease?  Nnn.  You phonio saxo?  Nnnn.
                Clear all so!  'Tis a Jute.... (Finnegans Wake 16.5)