Re: IPA griefs

Danny Wier wrote:

> (To comment on an earlier post, English /Z/ and /dZ/ are really
> allophonic; I can't think of a single minimal pair right offhand.)
Doesn't follow :-)

The reason there are no minimal pairs is because /Z/ has limited
distribution in English words [almost all occurences are associated with
a limited set of affixes], and is therefore unlikely to have a minimal
pair with /dZ/. Not because they're allophonic.

To be allophonic it must be true that, should a minimal pair be invented,
a native speaker will recognise the new word as unfamiliar rather than
assuming it to be a variant on the original.

Now for an experiment. Approach any English speaker, and ask: "What does
['medZ@] mean?"

 - Responses along the lines of funny looks indicate that conlanging is
   above and beyond the call of mere mortals. But we knew that already.
 - Responses similar to "It's a weird pronunciation of ['meZ@]" indicate
   that /dZ/ is allophonic with /Z/.
 - Responses similar to "I don't know" or "It doesn't exist" indicate
   that /dZ/ is not allophonic with /Z/ in English, even if no minimal
   pairs exist.

--
web.       | Here and there I like to preserve a few islands of sanity
netyp.com/ | within the vast sea of absurdity which is my mind.
member/    | After all, you can't survive as an eight foot tall
dragon     | flesh eating dragon if you've got no concept of reality.