"syllabicity"

[Patrick C. Ryan]

[ moderator re-formatted ]

Dear Leo and IEists:

 ----- Original Message -----
From: <CONNOLLY at LATTE.MEMPHIS.EDU>
Sent: Saturday, April 24, 1999 12:39 AM

>Some responses to Pat's critique of my remarks re. Lehmann's "syllabicity":

<snip>

>>Why do you not explain why you consider it "nonsensical".

>No need to, since I was not claiming that it was, but only that it *struck*
>me as such some years ago.  If you want reasons, the ambiguity of his
>formulations,

W. P. Lehmann is one of the finest IEists of this century; and his writing
has been considered by most IEists lucid and cogent. If by "ambiguity" you
mean "uncertainness" or "doubtfulness", you are certainly entitled to your
opinion, unshared as it will be. If by "ambiguity" you mean "susceptibility
of multiple interpretations", then most readers of Lehmann will not share
your opinion. His writing is unusually concise and exacting.

>and his insistance that syllabicity was a "prosodic feature" rather than a
>segmental phone would be reason enough.

You are betraying your age. In the 1950's, J. R. Firth defined "prosody"
somewhat differently you you seem to think is appropriate *now* *for you*.
Obviously, you are unfamiliar with this concept of "prosody" which had a
certain popularity at the time. In keeping with Firth's idea of "prosody"
("a wide range of [other] phonetic and phonological characteristics";
Larry's dictionary of  Phonetics, p. 293). Now whether you personally
subscribe to Firth or not, to judge Lehmann's writing of 1955 in terms of
*your* present preference for usage of the word is nonsensical. Lehmann was
not required to tailor his vocabulary to your ability to understand its
terms of reference 45  years later.

>>>My gut feeling aside, there's an obvious problem with it even in terms of
>>>structuralist theory.  On p. 112 Lehmann states: "If we find no phonemes in
>>>complemetary distribution at the peak of the syllable, we cannot assume a
>>>segmental phoneme for this position."

>>My own gut feeling is that there is no problem whatsoever.

>[Lehmann quote omitted]

>>All Lehmann is saying is that since no specific vowel can be specified at
>>the syllabic peak, one that becomes phonemic by contrast with other phonemic
>>vowels (where "phonemic" is defined as providing a semantic differentiation:
>>CVC is a different word than CV{1}C), we cannot assume *one* specific vowel
>>(e or anything else) at the syllabic peak in stressed positions.
>>"Syllabicity" is just a innovative way of describing V{?}.

>Innovative to the point that a vowel is somehow not a vowel.  But let it
>pass.  You're missing the meaning of what I wrote next:

Sorry you insist on understanding it only in your own terms. Can you not
grasp the concept of "undefined vowel", you know, what we mean we we write
<V> today?

>>>Surely not "phonemes in complementary distribution" -- *contrasting*
>>>phonemes, or something of the sort.

>>"Complementary distribution" in Trask's dictionary means "The relation which
>>holds in a given speech variety between two phones which never occur in the
>>same environment."

>Right!  "Phones."  That is, raw sounds.  Allophones of a single phoneme. But
>Lehmann wrote "phonemes", which makes no sense in that context.  That's why
>I suggested "contrasting phonemes".

I almost feel you have some personal axe to grind here since you insist on
being, what to me, appears to be obtuse. May I suggest that you obtain some
good dictionary of phonetics (like Larry's)? -- where you can read on p.
265: "Both the British school and the American Structuralists regard the
phoneme as indivisible and as minimally abstract, a conception often
labelled the autonomous (or classical) phoneme. In this view, the phoneme is
essentially a structureless object which none the less has  identifiable
phonetic characteristics; it may be realized in speech by phonetically
different phones in different environments." Again, it appears to mean that
Lehmann's use of the terminology is perhaps not yours but was shared with a
number of other linguists 45 years ago.

>>With the exception of the qualification "two", this describes the situation
>>that Lehmann has supposed for the stress-period of IE (e e{sub} e:).  You
>>may question his analysis but his terminology seems perfectly in accordance
>>with standard usage.

>No way.

What do you not expand on that a bit?

>>>Whether complementary or contrastive, the supposed difficulty arises
>>>because Lehmann (against Brugmann & Co.) arbitrarily defines [i u] as
>>>syllabic allophones of resonant phonemes /y w/ --

A totally separate question.

>>There is nothing arbitrary about this at all. If we assume that IE and AA
>>are related through Nostratic (which you may not prefer to do), the decision
>>is mandatory. IE CiC does not show up in AA as normal C-C but rather always
>>as C-y-C.

>Even if your Nostratic correspondence is correct, it would still tell us
>nothing about the phonemic situation of any stage of PIE, since the phonemes
>of any stage of any language must be defined in terms of that stage alone.

If you do not think that a phoneme which is <i> in some positions, which can
become a <y> in other positions, is different, from say an <e>, then all I
can say is that your are entitled to your opinion but I consider it
illogical.

>We need reasons within PIE itself why [i u] must be analyzed as /y w/ rather
>than /i u/.

And Beekes has obviously found them.

>And while I realize that the matter is debated, Lehmann's notion of
>syllabicity seems to entail the consonantal analysis,

It does entail. And, on the basis of AA cognates (among other indications),
that is certainly the correct view.

>else [e] etc. *must* be analyzed as one or more segmental vowel phonemes.

No idea what this is supposed to mean: too ambiguous.

>But let's be real:  regardless of what has been done in the past, would any
>competent phonologist now analyze a language with at least contrasting [i u
>e] as having *no* vowel phonemes?

You insist on misunderstanding Lehmann. While the contrast [e {sub}e e:] may
be minimal, it is still a contrast; and you are missing the obvious point:
that the actual phonetic quality of the vowel is immaterial because not
differentiating.

>[stuff omitted]

>>So far, the only information there we have to support your position is
>>Bomhard's *mention* of a paper by Gamkrelidze and Ivanov *with no details*.
>>Do you have any arguments for your position?

>huh?  I don't make the connection here to anything your or I have said.

Bomhard cited a paper by G&I as "proving" the existence of "pure" <i> and
<u> for IE, which is, I assume, your as yet unsupported position.

>[more omitted]

>>>With /i u/ there is contrast in position between non-syllabics,

>>I have no idea what this means. Could you explain it?

>I just did, but in case I wasn't clear: Lehmann's analysis of [e e: e{sub}] as
>something other than a vowel phoneme is possible only because he posits no
>other vowel phonemes.

I think you might want to review Lehmann again, and try to understand the
distinction between the pre-stress and stress periods.

>With [i u] analyzed as /y w/, this is weird and forced, but perhaps not
>wholly impossible: the language would have had no other vowel phonemes
>between two consonants, hence [e] etc. need not be analyzed as a segmental
>phoneme, since it would not be *contrasting* with any vowel phonemes.

Now you are getting closer to Lehmann's meaning whether you agree with it or
not.

>But if [i u] are analyzed as vowel phonemes /i u/, then *contrasting vowels*
>between consonants are possible, and any justification for treating [e] etc.
>as something other than a vowel phoneme falls by the wayside.  Remember that
>phonemes are *contrasting* sounds; they are not in complementary
>distribution, though the allophones (realizations) of any given phoneme may
>be (and usually are).

Again, I suggest you attempt to distinguish between the stress and
pre-stress periods.

>>>-- I should add that on p. 113, Lehmann incautiously says that at the next
>>>stage of PIE, with phonemic stress, syllabicity with minimum stress
>>>"remains non-segmental between obstruents..."  "Between"?  How so?
>>>Anything that can be between phonemes sounds segmental enough to me!

>>How about zero-grade "vowels"?

>That puzzles me for a variety of reasons, but leads to a question.  I don't
>mean to be snide, and I hope you won't be offended; but how familiar are you
>with phonemic theory (any version will do)?  "Prosodic features" and
>"non-segmental" items are generally called "suprasegmentals", because they
>apply on top of some segmental phoneme or sequence of phonemes.  Pitch and
>stress have a domain of at least one syllable.  It makes no sense to say that
>they occur between segmental phonemes, and no one claims they do.  Yet
>Lehmann claims here that one such suprasegmental does exactly that. -- A more
>modern version could analyze the zero grade more neatly: a sequence /CVC/
>might be realized in various ways, depending on stress: [CVC] or even [CV:C]
>under stress, [C at C] or even [CC] when not stressed.  This last is zero grade
>(but not a "zero-grade 'vowel'").  But this works only if /V/ is a real vowel
>phoneme, which Lehmann did not want to concede.

I am familiar with the way in which you would like to define these words.
But you may not insist that Lehmann, writing 45 years ago, defines them in
exactly the same way you choose to do now.

Pat

PATRICK C. RYAN (501) 227-9947; FAX/DATA (501)312-9947 9115 W. 34th St.
Little Rock, AR 72204-4441 USA WEBPAGES:
http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Forum/2803 and PROTO-RELIGION:
http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Forum/2803/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)