phonological markedness [was Re: Happy New Year (to some)]

From:    Nik Taylor <yonjuuni@...>
> "Thomas R. Wier" wrote:
> > > "ra" is subject, "ro" (direct) object, "ru" the verb.
> >
> > This seems to be an unlikely kind of alliteration in a natural
> > language.  The only phonological difference between agents and
> > patients appears to be the fact that the vowel of one particle
> > is [+low], and the other is [-low], and are otherwise identical!
>
> Well, Japanese has wa for topic (frequently, tho not always, subject)
> and wo for accusative.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't <wo> phonologically /o/?
Besides which, my point was that such a circumstance is
unlikely, not that it can't happen!  The point of phonological
contrast is, afterall, to have contrast.

>  And Latin had things like -us/-um or -a/-am.
> Also quite similar markers.
Those are bigger differences, though. No less than four features
differ between /s/ and /m/:  [+-nasal], [+-continuant], [+-voice]
not to mention their place of articulation.  (This assumes an early
stage of Latin where the /m/ was actually pronounced.) A better
example of what you're talking about is late Latin [a] vs. [a~],
after /m/ had already fallen away but leaving nasalization on the
preceding vowel.

 =========================================================================
Thomas Wier            "I find it useful to meet my subjects personally,
Dept. of Linguistics    because our secret police don't get it right
University of Chicago   half the time." -- octogenarian Sheikh Zayed of
1010 E. 59th Street     Abu Dhabi, to a French reporter.
Chicago, IL 60637

Reply