Re: Romanized Orthography of My Conlang

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).  (I think you might have brought that up once
before on the list, Nik; I apologize if I'm just repeating you.)

I think some kind of phonetic similarity or a perception of being the
"same sound" on the part of a speaker is necessary too.

Christophe, you might also consider history.  It is sheer coincidence
that there are no syllable-final [h] or syllable-initial [N] in
English -- the processes that led to the situation are completely
unrelated.  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.)

---------------------------------------------------------------
Ed doesn't know everything, but he hasn't figured that out yet.
Please break it to him gently.              edheil@postmark.net
---------------------------------------------------------------

Nik Taylor wrote:

> "Grandsire, C.A." wrote:
> > What are /2/ and /9/ then? Can I call them allophones even if the native
> > speaker feels they are not the same sound but they are still in
> > complementary distribution?
>
> Well, in English, [V] and [@] are in complementary distribution, [V]
> used in stressed syllables, [@] in unstressed.  Nevertheless, they sound
> different to many people; indeed, dictionaries usually indicate them
> with different characters in giving the pronunciation.  However, part of
> that may be that other vowels are collapsed into /@/ when unstressed (as
> in pairs like /d@'mAkr@si/ - /"dIm@'kr&tIk/, where the /A/ of
> "democracy" is collapsed to /@/ when the stress shifts, and the /&/ of
> "democratic" is realized as /@/ when the stress is shifted).
>
> It reminds me of something I read about Quechua, where [e] and [i] are
> allophones (same applies to [o] and [u]), but written as tho they were
> phonemes.  But in that case, it's because of the Spanish influence.
> Literate Quechua-speakers are usually heavily exposed to Spanish,
> wherein /e/ and /i/ are distinct phonemes.  So, altho [e] and [i] are in
> allophonic distribution ([e] and [o] occur when adjacent to /q/, IIRC),
> they are perceived as distinct sounds, and thus written as such.
>
> --
> "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
>