Syllabicity

[Ralf-Stefan Georg]

>>An /e:/ which is the result of phonological processes or morphology
>>still cannot be considered a phoneme IMHO. For me to accept the
>>phonemic status of [e:], I would need to see two roots: Ce/oC and
>>Ce:/o:C, with different meanings. And yes, I meant to write e:/o:. If
>>e: is phonemic, we should expect to see it participating in Ablaut.

>Pat, I regret to have to say so again, but you simply do not understand what a
>phoneme is.  Phonemes are minimal distinctive units of *sound*, not of
>*meaning*.  Do study up on this.

The ability to *differentiate* meanings (not to *have* them) is, in *my*
humble opinion, part and parcel of every non-avantgardistic definition of
the notion "phoneme", n'est-ce pas ? Minimal pairs have different meanings,
or are my textbooks hopefully outdated ?

Also, if anyone subscribes to the last but one sentence in the quoted
passage above (which would then lead to the last, of course), how would
this anyone define the notion "distinctive" in this passage ?

Always willing to learn, but, as W. Brandt used to say "Wir waren schon mal
weiter ...".

Stefan Georg
Heerstrasse 7
D-53111 Bonn
FRG
+49-228-69-13-32