Re: Allophones Question

Dirk Elzinga scripsit:

> But if [D] is only considered an allophone of a more basic /d/, then
> there should be no confusion of [D] with [T], which belongs to a separate
> phoneme. That is, there is no version of /T/ which is pronounced [D];
> [D] can only be /d/. So your example casts doubt on your analysis of
> underlying/d/.
I don't follow your reasoning.  To recap what Christophe said:

        /d/ is realized as [D] or [d], in complementary distribution;
        /T/ is always realized [T];
        [d] where [D] is expected is perceived as /d/;
        [D] where [d] is expected is perceived as /T/.

Among anglophones who actually voice their voiced stops, we have a
identical pattern:

        /p/ is realized as [p] or [p_h], in complementary distribution;
        /b/ is always realized [b];
        [p_h] where [p] is expected is perceived as /p/;
        [p] where [p_h] is expected is perceived as /b/.

So which is more basic (notational convenience aside), [p] or [p_h]?
This removes the question of speaker intuition entirely, and bases things
on objectively testable questions.

--
I suggest you call for help,                    John Cowan
or learn the difficult art of mud-breathing.    jcowan@reutershealth.com
        --Great-Souled Sam                      http://www.ccil.org/~cowan

Reply