Syllabicity

[CONNOLLY at LATTE.MEMPHIS.EDU]

[ moderator re-formatted ]

Leo (mistakenly attributed by Pat to R-S):

>> The lack of contrast between [phin] and non-existent *[pin] ([p] normal in
>> _spin_) shows that aspiration is not significant in English, or in other
>> words, that [ph] and [p] must be assigned to the same phoneme.  Well and
>> good.  Knowing this, we can tell that [phaet] and [baet] are different
>> words.  But this does not mean that [ph] and [b], or /p/ and /b/, actually
>> *have* meaning, as some of the unfortunate wording in Larry's dictionary led
>> Pat to conclude.  If they did, we'd have to say that /p-/ and /b-/were
>> prefixes attached to the roots /aet/ and /in/.

>Pat responds:

>Sorry that my phrasing was such that obviously you and Leo thought that a
>misinterpretation by me of the wording in Larry's dictionary had led to my
>believing that phonemes have meaning. I do not believe that for any modern
>human language.

What does "modern" have to do with it?  A human language is a human language...

Leo

(BTW, I'm also the one responsible for "Wir vielleicht schon...")

Leo A. Connolly                         Foreign Languages & Literatures
connolly at latte.memphis.edu              University of Memphis