Theiling Online    Sitemap    Conlang Mailing List HQ   

Re: / / vs [ ]

From:Philip Newton <philip.newton@...>
Date:Saturday, January 5, 2002, 8:28
On 5 Jan 02, at 3:10, Elliott Lash wrote:

> 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.
Hm... it makes a little sense to me, but I must say I'm still a little confused. Take the examples <Haus> --> <Häuser>. How would you write that in phonemic notation? /haws/ --> /hawsa/? We have here an [aw] that changed to [Oj] and a [s] that goes to [z]. Should either of those changes be represented in phonemic notation? If so, why? If not, why not? I would be inclined to write /haws/ --> /hOjza/, but perhaps it should be /hawz/ --> /hawzEr/ since <s> is usually [z] but turns into [s] in syllable-final position, so could (should?) be considered an allophone? Cheers, Philip -- Philip Newton <Philip.Newton@...>


Tristan Alexander McLeay <anstouh@...>
Philip Newton <philip.newton@...>
Henrik Theiling <theiling@...>