Theiling Online    Sitemap    Conlang Mailing List HQ   

Re: Allophone Problem

From:Roger Mills <rfmilly@...>
Date:Wednesday, June 6, 2007, 19:12
John Vertical wrote:

> Joseph Fatula wrote: > (...) > > Let's try again: > > > >- [tes] > [teza] > >- [tiz] > [tiza] > >- [kef] > [keva] > >- [kiv] > [kiva] > > Well, you might explain that the lowering of /i/ is not triggered by the > unvoiced fricativ *phones*, but the *phonemes*; ie. that [teza] is still > underlyingly /tisa/,
Yes, and [tes], [kef] are /tis/, /kif/-- min.prs. underlyingly but not at the surface. (I _knew_ it was something like this-- ya beat me to it...) Would it affect /u/ as well? [tos] vs. [tuz], [toza] vs. [tuza]? If so a very simple (though peculiar) phonetic rule: (Early rule) Hi V --> lowered to mid / __[vl.fricative](V) produces tes < tis AND tesa < tisa (/tiz/ is not affected) (Later rule) [-voi fric.] --> [+voi fric] / V__V produces teza < tesa (tiz-a is not affected) Less peculiar, and more consistent IMHO, you might want the change to take place before _all_ vl.sounds (assuming your structure allows them)-- just restricting it to vl.frics. is odd. So you'd also have [tep] Vs. [tib], [teba] vs. [tiba], [tek] [tig] etc. The origin could well be something like the Engl. vd.cons/length rule-- peace [pis] // peas [pi:z]-- then the short V lowers, and the long V shortens.
> I'd find it less contrived, however, to just > consider them different phonemes with a quirky distribution. >
Quirky but entirely predictable, therefore, not phonemic.