Re: phonology of Plan B

And Rosta wrote:
> R A Brown, On 08/07/2007 15:23:
>
>> And Rosta wrote:
[snip]
>>> and the alternatives that Joerg & Ray put forward fail to account for
>>> the systematic equivalence of consonants and vowel phonemes.
>>
>> What???
I asked 'what' because I did not understand what you meant. I see from
below you are referring to a peculiar feature of Plan B's  _morphology_.

Part of the problem is, I think, exactly what we mean by 'phoneme'. I
was using it to mean "The minimal unit in the sound system of a
language, according to traditional phonological theories" [Crystal]. I
thought it was clear that I have consistently been talking strictly in
terms of phonology. This seems to be the case with Jörg also.

I know that there are different definitions of 'phoneme' given by
differing schools of linguists. But the variant allophones of a phoneme
are IME normally considered to similar in some manner or other.

>
> I suspect we are working with crucially different assumptions about Plan
> B (mine perhaps incorrect), so let me clarify this first. If after this
> we still disagree, then I'll reply to your lengthy messages in detail. ;)
>
> The crucial assumption I was making is that a morpheme can begin with a
> consonantal or vocalic allophone, depending on which sort of allophone
> the previous morpheme ends with.
This is true.

> So suppose the language ('Pentaphon') has 5 phonemes:
>
> /1/ [g, i]
> /2/ [h, e]
> /3/ [d, a]
> /4/ [f, o]
> /5/ [b, u]
While I imagine a language in which [b] and [u] might be variants of the
same phoneme, I find it difficult to see what [d] and [a] have in
common, still less what [ej] and [S] has in common on Plan B.

Listing the morphemes as /1/, /2/, /3/ etc looks to me just a fudge.
Normally (always?) when morphemes are given between slashes the
character is a phonetic one that _broadly_ denotes the range of sounds
the phoneme has in a particular language.

> -- Then a morpheme /123/ can be [ged] or [iha]. It's because of these
> systematic equivalences that I think the 5-phoneme analysis is correct.
We are here, surely, dealing with a _morphophonemic_ level of analysis.
Morphophonemes are normally symbolized with upper case letters as, e.g.
English {najF} which some posit as the morphophoneme of English _knife ~
knives_.

Yes, in Pentaphone one could consider that the morphophoneme {123} may
be be realized as [ged] or [iha].

> If, on the other hand, morphemes in the language ('Bogstandard') were
> made up of strings of CV syllables, composed of one of 5 onsets and one
> of 5 nuclei, I would not defend a 5-phoneme analysis.
Notwithstanding your correct analysis of Plan B, it is still true that
the morphemes of Plan B do consist of strings of syllables. One can
quite easily derive a BNF representation showing the generation of valid
strings in Plan B.

> So, if Plan B is like Pentaphon, then I insist I'm right and you're
> wrong.
As I say, it depends how one defines 'phoneme'. Jeff Prothero does not
use the term in his description of his language. It is also clear to me
that he was not particularly interested in how it was pronounced, but
simply a gave a ad_hoc scheme whereby a string of four-bit groups could
be given a human pronounceable sound, without bothering what this might
imply for phonological or morphophonemic analysis.

But IMO treating
 > /1/ [g, i]
 > /2/ [h, e]
 > /3/ [d, a]
 > /4/ [f, o]
 > /5/ [b, u]

... as five _phonemes_ merits the satire of Jacques Guy's "Plan C."

--
Ray
==================================
ray@carolandray.plus.com
http://www.carolandray.plus.com
==================================
Nid rhy hen neb i ddysgu.
There's none too old to learn.
[WELSH PROVERB]

Reply