THEORY: phonemics (was: RE: [CONLANG] Optimum

And Rosta scripsit:

> > >But that still leaves us with
> > >allophonic variation that is not conditioned positionally, which
> > >is why I gave the example of English /t/ in foot-internal
> > >intervocalic position, which can, inter alia, be [t] or tap [D].
On reflection, I don't understand this one at all.  For me, [t] vs
flap is completely positional, and I thought the dialects for which
this is not so don't have flap at all.

> I deliberately chose the [t]/[D] allophony because it can't be
> defined by underspecification: whereas the final /p/ allophony can be
> defined by not specifying relase or aspiration, the intervocalic /t/
> allophony can be defined only extensionally, as the list {[t], [D]}.
They are both alveolars, though, and the idea of a category that
unites stop and flap (which can be thought of as a stop of minimal
length) is not absurd.
--
John Cowan <jcowan@...>     http://www.reutershealth.com
I amar prestar aen, han mathon ne nen,    http://www.ccil.org/~cowan
han mathon ne chae, a han noston ne 'wilith.  --Galadriel, _LOTR:FOTR_

Reply