Re: Romanized Orthography of My Conlang

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