Re: Paucity of Phonemes (was Re: Thagojian phonology...
| From: | Thomas R. Wier <artabanos@...> |
|---|
| Date: | Saturday, February 26, 2000, 23:59 |
|---|
Kristian Jensen wrote:
> Nik Taylor wrote:
>
> >Kristian Jensen wrote:
> >> where; /t[/ and /d[/ are laminal denti-alveolar, /L/ is a lateral
> >> fricative, /3/ is a consonantal version of /@/ (schwa - or
> >> more specifically a raised and centralized close-mid back
> >> vowel).
> >
> >What? How can /@/ be pronounced as a consonant?
>
> Easy! Consider English /r/ and then the American English retroflexed
> vowel in words like 'bird' and 'heard'. English /r/ could be seen as a
> consonantal version of the retroflexed vowel.
That's true, but that doesn't change the fact that /@/ (as opposed to
[@]) can't be a consonant. /@/ in most dialects either has no allophones
at all, or can alternate only with another vowel, [V], but in no case that I know
of can it be allophonically a consonant. Moreover, /r/, /r=/ and /@/ are
all separate phonemes, with only the first, a retroflex approximant, being
nonvocalic (approximants are technically neither vowels nor consonants).
======================================
Tom Wier <artabanos@...>
ICQ#: 4315704 AIM: trwier
"Cogito ergo sum, sed credo ergo ero."
======================================