Theiling Online    Sitemap    Conlang Mailing List HQ   

Re: THEORY: And wrote:

From:And Rosta <a.rosta@...>
Date:Wednesday, October 23, 2002, 19:13
Rob Nierse:
> And wrote: > > >It's certainly misleading to describe a language with the basic 5 > >vowels, in long/short, oral/nasal, breathy/creaky/modal versions > >as having a lot of vowels (viz 5 * 2 * 2 * 3 = 60) > > I've been thinking about this since I learned Waorani > It used to be written as if it was Spanish, so 'I see' was written > 'abo' and 'I am' was written 'amo'. I had trouble finding out what > the first person suffix was, -bo or -mo? In the end I realised that > they were allophones, 'to see' is 'a' and 'to be' is 'a~' and the 'b' > gets assimilated when preceded by a nasal vowel > > In this languages it is misleading *not* to describe the vowels > in oral and nasal
But the point is whether to treat a-oral and a-nasal as basic phonological elements, or whether to treat |a| and |nasal| as basic elements.
> >And similarly > >for consonants > > In Dutch I make a difference between 'pot' and 'bot' > Do I use different phonemes ('p' vs. 'b') or do I use > different versions of one sounds, i.e. a bilabial stop? > I think the first. Or is my thought the result of education?
The question is whether the elements out of which phonological structures are composed are /b/ and /p/ or (say) |labial-stop| and |voice|. For a language like Dutch, the latter does not lead to much simplification level, at least at a superficial level of analysis. But for a language where the phoneme inventory is arrived at by crossclassification of many different attributes (voice, place, manner, airstream, secondary articulation, etc.) without many gaps in the paradigm, much simplification is possible if you don't arbitrarily decree that the basic element of phonological structure is the segment. --And.