Re: Math/Phonological formulae

Composite reply....
First an important correction:
I wrote: "Robert T. Harris "Introduction to Phonological Theory" (pb.,
> Prentice Hall 1968)"
Dirk Elzinga wrote: You mean *Harms*, don't you?

YES. I need new glasses. Have been staring at this &*#% computer screen for
far too long :-((
----------------------------------------
David Peterson wrote:
> Roger replied to a message of mine, but he was over the 5 message
> limit.  O Master of Instrumentality: Does this mean that his message
> will reappear automatically after 24 hours?  Roger seems to think so...
As in much else, I was mistaken. The Listserv said I would have to re-send.
I won't; it's too long. David replies to the salient points...
---------------------------------
(More from DP)
> Roger:
> <<
> > No way cheating!!! :-) It's simply an abbreviation of the
> > theoretically
> > full form of the rule:
> >
> > [+cons (all necessary features) +lat +voi] --> [+cons (all
> > nec.features)
> > +lat -voi] (no env.bar is necessary).
>  >>
>
> No, you were referring to the wrong part of the rule.  Here's the
> rule you wrote again:
>
> [+voice] --> [-voice] / [+lateral ___]
>
> I was saying that the [+lateral] was cheating.  Actually, I don't
> think the rule as it's written makes sense...  What corresponds to
> the _?  A feature?  If so, which feature?
As I think I explained, my form of the rule changes the feature [voi] _in
the env. of_ (understood) the full matrix that contains +lat--(provided
there's only one /l/, uniquely identified by [+lat])

It's equivalent to writing:
 (full matrix of /l/ including +voi) --> (full matrix of /l/ but -voi)

If nothing else, it saves a lot of space...and grief for the typesetters.  I
guess the rules/customs are, "only the feature(s) to be changed should
appear on the left-hand side" and "only features that describe the
segment(s) involved need to appear on the right-hand side, and the env.bar
__ within the matrix indicates where the change takes place". At least
that's my understanding........

A rule devoicing vd.stops in word-final would look like:
[+voi] --> [-voi] / [+C +obs -cont __]#
>
> Roger:
> <<
> > If all, or certain groups, of C devoice in a given env., that could be
> > handled (I think), but it might be a very complicated statement
> > (probably
> > with lots of Greek-letter variables, which I haven't gone into).
>  >>>
> Duh!  Geez, not even a year out of graduate school, and I've already
> forgotten the basics!  Yes, Greek variables make everything easier
> (though they do make it look like there's a connection where sometimes
> there isn't).  Hard to type in ASCII, though.
That may be a Mac (and of course general e-mail) problem. In MSWord and OO
Writer it's...well, relatively...easy :-) Either just "Insert>Spec.Char" for
isolated use, or assign keystrokes to alpha, beta, IPA chars. et al. for
frequent use (MUCH easier in Word than in OO :-( )
-----------------------------------------------------
> Roger (on DP's palatalization rule, where he used "COR, DOR" etc.):
> <<
> > Unless you're working with some other theory, features are _by
> > definition_
> > binary in Jakobsonian/C&H/orthodox Gen.Phon. Multiple-value
> > features have
> > been proposed (in fact, they work well for stress), but aren't
> > generally
> > accepted.
>
> Referring to the features CORONAL, DORSAL and LABIAL. Yes,
> this is a different theory--by most accounts, an updated version
> of the theory.  .....
> In the updated version (and I don't know who was responsible),
> it was reasoned that the place features (this almost looks like the
> place nodes of feature geometry...) don't have +'s or -'s: they're
> just places.  So you'd say it's CORONAL, and then within the
> coronal realm, you'd say whether it was +/- anterior, to distinguish
> alveolars from alveo-palatals and palatals.  DORSAL, then, has
> it's own features, as does LABIAL, and the features only apply
> within those domains.  So something can't be DORSAL and +ant,
> because [anterior] isn't a feature of dorsal consonants.  This does
> kind of break down the whole binary features thing, which, if
> it's considered as vital as it has been, calls into question whether
> someone who uses DORSAL is even operating within the theory.
Ah. Not a theory/technique I'm familiar with. To paraphrase Mr.Rumsfeld:
"you do phonology with the rules you have" :-)))
---------------------------------------
> Roger: (replying to DP's--
"And then, of course, I'll have to decide what point in the imagined
history of the language I'm going to be creating vocabulary.  There's
already plenty of words with disappearing high vowels, but I haven't
yet created any where the palatal consonants are full-fledged phonemes
that can appear everywhere other members of their class can appear.")

> > Well now you're in the "underlying form" dilemma-- how
> > "abstract/historical" are underlying forms? The proto-lang. had no
> > palatals; the modern lang. does. If palatalization is absolutely no
> > longer
> > active in the modern lang., then _modern_ underlying forms will have
> > palatals (in effect, the morpheme structure rules have changed in the
> > transition from proto to modern-- that's very common).  OTOH, if
> > palatalization is still an active rule, then your underlying forms may
> > have to be more historical in appearance.
>
> DP: The palatalization is still active, in a sense.  So if you have a
> noun like
> [cet], there's no way to know whether it was originally *ket or *tet--
> that's opaque.
Right; if /c/ is now a full-fledged phoneme (appearing in modern underlying
forms), speaker probably has no idea where it came from; just as Mod.E.
speakers don't know whether <ch> is from OE *k+front V (church, churl) or
some later French loan (chance, choose?).

DP: > However, if you add a suffix (like /-en/), you get
> [cecen].  This variation a speaker can pick up on easily.  Oh, I should
> read ahead before responding...
>
> Roger:
> <<
> > Or again (on the third hand), it
> > may be that palat. has operated fully on proto-forms, but now
> > sequences
> > can arise in the modern lang. where it may apply again--  in that
> > case,
> > palat. might be a relatively late rule in the underlying>>surface
> > rules.
>  >>
>
> Yes, this is the case (as illustrated above).
>
> So here's the question: Given that state of the language, let's say
> that,
> for whatever reason, a speaker wants to coin a brand new word with
> a brand new phonological form (it happens.  Think about product names.
> Clorox had to come from somewhere).
(From Saint Clorox, patron saint of cleanliness) In pedant style, of course,
the plural is "Cloroces" ['klOr\@siz] :-). But seriously, if we introduce a
verb "to nist", and decide that "the action/result of nisting" can take
the -tion suffix, we'll have nistion ['nIstS@n]. All relevant rules apply to
new words, unless they're specifically marked for some variant feature
("alumnus" presumably is marked something like [+Latin plural]) -- I think
C&H SPE also used [±native] to indicate that a form does/does not undergo
certain rules.
>
> That's the question I've been struggling.  Because, if this is the case,
> then perhaps new words should have sequences of palatal consonants
> followed by non-palatalizing vowels.
But "new words" are either coinages (rare IMO) or borrowings, and in that
case it depends on whether they're "nativized" or not. Brit. ['gErIdZ]
'garage' is, Amer. [g@'raZ] isn't; Amer. [grAdZ] is sorta halfway.
============================================================
And then Dirk Elzinga wrote (concerning curly-braces):
"In practice they're used to abbreviate rule disjunction; either the
first rule applies, or the second, but not both."

Thanks for reminding me of the correct term and procedure.

and "I think that McCawley overstates his case, since I don't think that the
rule notation found in SPE was intended to be interpretable in first-order
logic, which is what he tries to do."

Probably true. I tended to remember only McC's bon mots; when he went off
into Logicland I got lost.... (Anyway, sometimes curly braces work :-)) )

On the matter of /l/ as + or - cont-- Both David and Dirk corrected my
dogmatic statement that it's [+cont]. /l/ can apparently be either/both at
times, even in the same language, depending (I hate when that happens....)