minimal pairs (was: PIE e/o Ablaut)

[proto-language]

[ moderator re-formatted ]

Dear Stanley and IEists:

 ----- Original Message -----
From: "Robert Whiting" <whiting at cc.helsinki.fi>
Sent: Thursday, March 30, 2000 1:00 PM

> On Tue, 28 Mar 2000, Larry Trask wrote:

>>> [PRp]

>>> Sorry, I just cannot accept that. If /o/ is an IE phoneme, it should occur
>>> in true minimal pairs. I have this on the authority of a degreed linguist
>>> with whom I have consulted on this question. Your reluctance to accept this
>>> basic method of establishing a phoneme continues to amaze me!

[LT]

>> This is *a* method of establishing phonemes.  But it is not *the only*
>> method of establishing phonemes.  If the distribution of two sounds cannot
>> be stated by rule, then they can't be assigned to a single phoneme.

[RW]

> I would say that even a minimal pair is not a sufficient condition to
> establish two sounds as separate phonemes.

[PR]

I would have to say that you are wrong.

There is no phoneme in any language which has not been established as a
component of a minimal pair.

[RW]

> The distribution by rule takes precedence.  Take the English minimal pair

>          'thigh'  /  'thy'

>          (the pair 'thistle'  /  'this'll' [contraction of 'this will']
>          is clearly marginal)

> Most people would not insist on phonemic status for both [th] and [dh] in
> English on the basis of this minimal pair (although some would doubtless
> claim that there has been a phomemic split similar to what occurred with
> /s/ and /z/).

That is exactly what I would claim. I would claim phonemic status for both.

> This is because otherwise the sounds are in complementary distribution, [dh]
> occuring in voiced environments

[PR]

What in Heaven's name is a "voiced environment"? What is environmentally
voiced in 'bathe' as opposed to 'bath'?

[RW]

> and in deictic words and pronouns, [th] otherwise.

[PR]

I think it most illegitimate to suggest non-phonological conditioning factors.

[RW]

> Thus it is not only as Larry says "If the distribution of two sounds cannot
> be stated by rule, then they can't be assigned to a single phoneme," but also
> 'If the distribution of similar sounds can be stated by rule, then they can't
> be assigned to separate phonemes.'

[PR]

I am claiming that the *e/*o-Ablaut can be described by a rule.

[RW]

> Minimal pairs are a shortcut to finding phonemes, but contrastive
> environments are a clincher.

[PR]

I find this totally unacceptable. Show me contrastive phonological
environments.

[RW]

> As in the comparative method and internal reconstruction, similar items that
> are in complementary distribution are usually aspects of the same thing.  But
> believe it or not, linguists will still disagree on the phonemic status of
> sounds and different analyses may result in different numbers of phonemes
> claimed for a particular language.

[PR]

Apparently, it is fated for you and me to never agree. I will state that in
private correspondence, a second professional linguist has affirmed the
non-phonemic status of IE *o.

Pat

PATRICK C. RYAN | PROTO-LANGUAGE at email.msn.com (501) 227-9947 * 9115 W. 34th
St. Little Rock, AR 72204-4441 USA WEBPAGES: PROTO-LANGUAGE:
http://www.geocities.com/proto-language/ and PROTO-RELIGION:
http://www.geocities.com/proto-language/proto-religion/indexR.html "Veit ek,
at ek hekk, vindga meipi, nftr allar nmu, geiri undapr . . . a ~eim meipi er
mangi veit hvers hann af rstum renn." (Havamal 138)