Re: Bopomofo and pinyin

At 4:47 am -0500 26/1/00, Vasiliy Chernov wrote:
>On Tue, 25 Jan 2000 18:53:59 +0100, Raymond Brown <ray.brown@...>
>wrote:
>
>>The phoneme inventory is controversial.
>>
>>Do the palatals ( {q}, {j}, {x}; SAMPA [ts\_h], [ts\], [s\] ) form a
>>separate set of phonemes?  They occur only before [i] and [y], and
>>diphthongs & triphthongs beginning with the corresponding semivowels.
>>
>>On the other hand, the dental series ({c}, {z}, {s}; [ts_h], [ts], [s]),
>>the retroflex series ({ch}, {zh}, {sh}; [ts`_h], [ts`], [s`]) and the velar
>>series ({k}, {g}, {h}; [k_h], [k], [x]) occur before all vowels, diphthongs
>>& triphthongs _except_ those beginning with [i], [y], [j] or [H].
>>
>>If the palatals are allophones of one of the three series in the preceeding
>>paragraph, of which of the three series are they allophones?
>
>What if they are perceived as separate phonemes just *because* it is
>difficult to identify them with any particular series?
That is, indeed, what some scholars do.  But it does not sit comfortably
with the phoneme theory as developed by western linguists.

I was merely pointing out to another conlanger that the phoneme inventory
of Mandarin is a matter of controversy - as, indeed, it is - without giving
a solution.  IMO it brings into question the universality of the strict
applicability of the phonemic theory; and that, I think, is no bad thing -
no human theories are likely to be 100% watertight   :)

>Historically they developed from dental sibilants and velars.
id scio.

Ray.

=========================================
A mind which thinks at its own expense
will always interfere with language.
                   [J.G. Hamann 1760]
=========================================