Re: / / vs [ ]
| From: | Elliott Lash <al260@...> |
|---|
| Date: | Saturday, January 5, 2002, 8:11 |
|---|
Philip Newton <Philip.Newton@...> writes:
> On 5 Jan 02, at 1:25, Sven Sommerfeld wrote:
>
> > the phoneme /d/ may have the allophones [d] and [t] as
> > in German "Hund" that is /hUnd/ but [hUnt].
>
> I disagree there... for me, "Hund" rhymes exactly with "bunt", so I'd
> write both of those as /hUnt/ and /bUnt/. If they sound the same, then
> they're one phoneme. Don't be mislead by the spelling! Or even by the
> fact that a final /t/ can turn into a medial /d/ when an ending is
> added.
But that's EXACTLY the point! Phonemes are UNDERLYING forms whereas phones are
SURFACE representations.
so that VOICED OBSTRUENTS -> UNVOICED /__#
This is a phonetic rule. However, once an ending is added the UNDERLYING voiced
obstruent is nolonger at the word boundary, so that the rule does not operate,
yeilding such allophonic variation as:
[hunt] ~ [hund@]
Proving that [d] and [t] are allophones of the phoneme /d/ (but only in this
possition). German of course does have a phoneme /t/, but this is totally
separate.
Elliott
Reply