Re: THEORY: phonemes and Optimality Theory tutorial

And Rosta wrote:

>One can't really argue with what you find more intuitive and realistic.
>But does not all rationalistic theorizing strive for a reductionist
>approach, in the sense of one that, other things being equal, is maximally
>simple? Or by 'reductionist' do you mean 'simplifying to the extent of
>ignoring significant differences and contrasts'?
What I took a difference with is the conclusion that E and O are formed
from A+I and A+U respectively. Under your analysis, there is A, I, U which
can occur anywhere. In stressed syllables, the language allows A+I = E and
A+U = O. So you have a phonotactic constraint that says A can combine with
I and U only in stressed syllables. I, on the other hand, would say that
the language has A, E, I, O, U, but does not allow E and O to occur in
unstressed syllables. Which approach is better? I don't see any objective
way of deciding in this case.

But try the classical problem in English that /N/ and /h/ are always in
complementary distribution. The only sensible thing to say is that N and h
are separate entities that accidentally are not contrastive. You would not
want to derive either one from other units. You simple state that N cannot
occur word initially and h may not occur word finally. This partially
parallels the case above, where E and O do not occur in unstressed
syllables. I would suggest that you should use the same methodology in both
cases.

Basically, I don't think "maximally simple" is desirable. I think
simplification should be taken to a reasonable level, which is, of course,
hard to define and different for everybody. If you could find good evidence
that E and O are A+I and A+U, then I would go along with it. But under the
simple situation you presented, it is reduction for the sake of reduction;
the system is not simpler or better because of it, except on a purely
subjective level.


===============================
Marcus Smith
AIM:  Anaakoot
"When you lose a language, it's like
dropping a bomb on a museum."
   -- Kenneth Hale
===============================