Re: Advice required: phonologic or phonetic?
|From:||François Herrscher <fchauvet@...>|
|Date:||Monday, July 12, 2004, 6:28|
To my post:
>> How would you call a (part of) consonant (e.g. /k/, phonemic) which is
>> still considered the same consonant when it becomes /g/ (allophone) and
>> the /k/--/g/ opposition has grammatical meaning? Knowing, of course,
>> that the native script uses the same symbol for both?
>> (This last point is very important: due to intensive use of infixes, the
>> very fact that [k]aned [g] are considered the "same" consonant is theonly
>> way to distinguish, e.g., /LOT/ from /LOK/, while phonetically they may
>> become [luG] or [lowD] respectively)
>> It is just a matter of technical vocabulary and notation, I think. But,
>> I would like to avoid any misunderstanding.
> It's much more than a matter of technical vocabulary and notation.
> /k/ and /g/ are different *phonemes*, according to your description.
> If [lok] and [log] contrast, even if the contrast is a grammatical
> one, then [g] is not an allophone of /k/.
> Here are two alternative possible analytical strategies:
> A. /k/ and /g/ are different phonemes, but lexical forms (stems?)
> are composed not of phonemes but of archiphonemes, such as 'L',
> 'O', 'K'. (Morpho)phonological rules specify which phoneme
> realizes a given archiphoneme in a given environment. The native
> script's symbols represent archiphonemes.
> Strategy A sounds like it might be the more appropriate one in
> the present instance.
This is it. Precisely and concisely what I was expecting. I had been
aware of archiphonemes, but had forgotten about them...
Thank you very, very much, And.