On Thu, 27 May 2004 16:11:38 -0500, Mark P. Line <mark@...>
wrote:
>(I assume you mean "allomorphic" instead of "allophonic". If you really
>meant "allophonic", then I don't understand your question.)
Yes, I think I did mean "allomorphic." Thanks for pointing that out :)
>I think there are phonological processes that cause non-emphasized forms
>to be "reduced". These processes are highly sensitive to rate of speech as
>well as pragmatic intent.
I agree.
>As you imply, these forms are not allomorphs today to the extent that they
>are semantically or pragmatically distinctive (there *are* two allomorphs
>of one morpheme that we write "the", but there is also a second morpheme
>that we write the same way).
>
>But what makes you think they ever *were* allomorphic?
Perhaps "allomorphic" is the wrong term to use. But it seems clear to me
now that the long-vowel forms are the emphatic ones with "the" and "a,"
while the short forms with "to" and "you" are effectively clitics.
- Rob