Theiling Online    Sitemap    Conlang Mailing List HQ   

Re: Romanized Orthography of My Conlang

From:Nik Taylor <fortytwo@...>
Date:Friday, October 22, 1999, 1:01
Ed Heil wrote:
> > Of course, just because two phones are in complementary distribution > doesn't mean they *have* to be allophones -- otherwise, [h] and [N] in > English would be allophones (one is only syllable-initial, the other > only syllable-final).
Well, for one thing, [h] and [N] are not in complementary distribution - both can occur in intervocalic position, e.g. "reheat" (/rihit/) and "singing" (/siNiN/).
> I think some kind of phonetic similarity or a perception of being the > "same sound" on the part of a speaker is necessary too.
Right, that's part of the definition I've always heard as well, which is why [E] and [e] are allophones in Spanish (where they're complimentary) while /h/ and /N/ aren't in English, where they're ALMOST in complementary distribution.
> If that's the case in your language for [2] and [9] in > your lang, then definitely consider them different phonemes. If on > the other hand, they are reflexes of the same vowel in a > proto-language in different environments, you might want to call them > allophones. (I'm mixing synchronic and diachronic linguistics here, I > know, but it seems like a reasonable way to make a judgement in > absence of other criteria.)
I disagree. Determining phonemes must be taken synchronically. Language exists only in the brains of the speakers, and the speakers don't know anything about history when they're learning it. -- "Cats are rather delicate creatures and they are subject to a good many ailments, but I never heard of one who suffered from insomnia." -- Joseph Wood Krutch http://members.tripod.com/~Nik_Taylor/X-Files/ http://members.tripod.com/~Nik_Taylor/Books.html ICQ #: 18656696 AIM screen-name: NikTailor