minimal pairs (was: PIE e/o Ablaut)

[proto-language]

Dear Bob and IEists:

 ----- Original Message -----
From: "Robert Whiting" <whiting at cc.helsinki.fi>
Sent: Friday, April 14, 2000 11:12 AM

> On Tue, 4 Apr, proto-language <proto-language at email.msn.com> wrote:

> <snip>

>> [RWp]

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

>> [PRp]

> [ moderator snip ]

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

[RW]

> So what?

[PR]

Admitting this puts us on a better track.

[RW]

> Do you assume therefore that anything that is a
> component of a minimal pair is a phoneme?  I know that you have
> said that using logic is childish, but you really ought to try it
> sometime.

[PR]

I have never in my entire life said or implied that "using logic is
childish" or anything like it. On the contrary, I try on principle as well
as I am able to consistently apply logic to all questions in my life. To
assert that I have said such a thing is inaccurate, mildly defamatory, and a
token of incipient memory problems.

To answer your other question, if one adds the semantic qualification
(eliminating pairs like 'half/halve'), yes, I do believe that any one
segment of a minimal pair is, at least, synchronically, a phoneme --- and I
reject the qualification of 'native/foreign' perception as naif in extremis
(leaving pairs like 'ether/either'). Education entails a respect for the
written word but, even a linguist such as yourself, might remember that a
pre-school child who learns the words 'either' and 'ether' is not going to
be aware automatically or instructed that 'ether' follows different
phonological rules than 'either'.

[RW]

> Saying that anything that occurs in a minimal pair is a phoneme
> because all phonemes occur in minimal pairs is like saying that
> anything that is black is a raven because all ravens are black.

> I know you won't understand what I'm talking about, but any
> textbook on logic will tell you that for any universal statement
> (all S are P) the simple converse (all P are S) is not valid.
> The minimum valid conversion of "all S are P" is "some P are S".

[PR]

In looking at the logic textbook I studied under Professor Wilfred Payne
some 40 years ago, which, of course, has a section on undistributed middles,
another section which describes logical fallacies, including argumenta ad
hominem, which I consider "I know you won't understand what I'm talking
about") as a good example. Employing logical fallacies in a discussion seems
to me to be the definition of displaying illogic, would you not agree?

> [RWp]

>>> 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/).

[PRp]

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

[RW]

> Yes, of course you would.  I wouldn't expect you to do anything
> else.

[RWp]

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

>> [PRp]

>> What in Heaven's name is a "voiced environment"?

[RW]

> An environment that is voiced.

[PR]

Sibylline answers such as this do not help elucidate problems.

[PRp]

>> What is environmentally voiced in 'bathe' as opposed to 'bath'?

[RWp]

> This is a morphophonemic alternation.  You can make as long a
> list as you want of such alternations and wherever there is a
> distinction between [th] and [dh], [th] will occur in a
> substantive and [dh] will appear in a verb that is derived from
> it.  Very rarely, [dh] will appear also in the substantive, but
> it will always appear in the verb.

> [RW]

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

>> [PR]

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

[RW]

> And here you would have the full support of Stanley Friesen.  But
> rules are rules, whether they are phonological, morphological, or
> lexical.  It is just a question of how much one area of language
> can affect another.

[PR]

How refreshing to be in agreement with someone on the list!

> [RWp]

>>> 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.'

>> [PRp]

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

[RW]

> Which is your strongest argument.  Which is why you should be
> supporting my argument instead of claiming that distribution by
> rule is less important than minimal pairs in determining
> phonemicity.

[PR]

What I do not think you grasp is that I have arrived at a similar position
to yours based on a semantic qualification although rejecting your
'native/foreign' perception qualification.

[RW]

> You don't seem to realize that, while what I have
> said does not directly support your position, it does give you
> a stronger position to argue from.  I know that thinking things
> through is not your forte, but you really should learn to think
> in terms of how the various parts of a problem relate to each
> other.

[PR]

This gratuitous insult speaks nothing for your argument.

[RW]

> You say that the distribution of *e and *o is governed
> by rule and that only a minimal pair would prove their phonemic
> status.  And I say that even a minimal pair wouldn't necessarily
> demonstrate their phonemicity so long as they can still be
> predicted by rule and then you say no, all phonemes occur in
> minimal pairs so anything that occurs in a minimal pair must be a
> phoneme.  And you claim that this is a rational line of thought?

[PR]

In my opinion, it is possibly your lack of rigorous logic which is causing
the problem. And, you are recasting the argument in your terms. If we are
dealing with a present/perfect alteration of vowel, my reason for rejecting
such a pair as minimal would be from the stanpdoint of their only minimally
differentiated semantics --- not "governed by rule". My view of the Ablaut
is that it was, at least, originally phonologically motivated although some
examples, like *wo'ida, might be attributable not to deletion of the
reduplication but to simple analogy  with forms like *de'dorka. We may never
know a definitive answer to that question.

[RW]]

> But if you claim that [th] and [dh] must be phonemes because they
> occur as morphophonemic variants as you did above (bath, bathe),
> then you have lost your argument about *e and *o because they are
> also morphophonemic variants.  Indeed, it was in part their
> morphophonemic alternation that led, through internal
> reconstruction, to the laryngeal theory.

[PR]

I am not sure I understand your point here.

[RW]

> So if morphophonemic
> alternation (conditioned variance) demonstrates phonemicity, then
> *e and *o are separate phonemes.  Which position do you want to
> support?

[PR]

I believe I have made that fairly clear above.

>> [RWp]

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

>> [PRp]

>> I find this totally unacceptable.

[RW]

> Yes, I can see why it would confuse you.

[PR]

Another gratuitous insult! If there is any confusion, it is about the
decorum of a discussion.

[RW]

> The second part of the
> statement is not entirely clear.  So I will try to explain it in
> more detail and write very slowly and distinctly.

[PR]

Write as comes naturally.

[RW]

> Minimal pairs is a heuristic.  A heuristic is a way of finding
> things that might prove significant.  Minimal pairs is a useful
> way of looking for phonemes.  Now if a heuristic works regularly,
> people tend to start thinking of it as a law.  Minimal pairs is
> so successful at predicting phonemes that often no further
> investigation is done and a minimal pair is considered a
> sufficient condition for phonemicity.  This is the position taken
> by you and Stanley Friesen (and probably a lot of other people).

[PR]

So, I am not the only illogical, confused person out there. What a relief!

[RW]

> But a lot of people also realize that minimal pairs is not a
> necessary condition for establishing phonemicity (I realize that
> you probably don't understand this stuff about "necessary" and
> "sufficient" conditions because it has to do with logic, but bear
> with me) and this is where you and Stanley part company.

[PR]

Strangely, I believe I can handle the difference between "necessary" and
"sufficient". As I have indicated above, I believe minimal pairs are
"necessary" but not "sufficient" lacking the semantic qualification.

[RW]

> Now I believe that minimal pairs is not even a sufficient
> condition for establishing phonemicity, particularly when the
> number of minimal pairs is minimal.  I believe that distribution
> of sounds by rule is more important than what may appear to be
> minimal pairs in determining whether two sounds are distinct
> phonemes or not.  I also believe that the rule that determines
> the distribution of the sounds does not have to be phonological.
> This is where you and Stanley join up again, in the belief that
> the conditioning environment must be phonetic.

[PR]

Absolutely correct.

[RW]

> What I meant by "contrastive environments" is, as I said, not
> entirely clear from the statement (but I'm not entirely sure that
> saying "non-contrasting" would have been better).

[PR]

A "rule" apparently so difficult to articulate must be rather tricky (or
arbitrary) to apply.

[RW]

> What I had in
> mind is that the different phonemes provide the only contrast,
> and this contrast must be completely arbitrary for the two sounds
> to be separate phonemes.  That is to say that the phonemes
> themselves can tell you nothing about the words involved except
> that they are different.  If a sound regularly occurs only in a
> certain class of words and a similar but different sound
> regularly occurs elsewhere, then this is complementary
> distribution.  And complementary distribution of similar sounds
> points to no phonemic distinction between them.

[PR]

If this were really an example of logic applied, I confess to preferring
illogicality.

When you are allowed to introduce non-phonological characteristics (such as
"pronominal') into phonological explanations, you have opened Pandora's box
to any kind of cockamamie qualification to explain phonological facts (or
data, or whatever you prefer).

[RW]

> If you can
> always predict which sound will be present from the environment,
> then the sounds are not different phonemes (in that environment).

[PR]

And how does your theory predict /dher/ ('there')? Is it 'pronominal' or is
this the 'adverbial' class of exceptions?

[RW]

> Phonemes should tell you nothing about words except that they are
> different (i.e., they shouldn't tell you that one word is a noun
> and the other is a verb or that one word is a pronoun and the
> other is not, or that one is singular and the other plural, etc.).

[PRp]

>> Show me contrastive phonological environments.

[RW]

> Sorry, "phonological" wasn't mentioned in my statement, so you
> will have to provide your own.

[PR]

Does /dher/ tell you something that it is not telling me?

>> [RWp]

>>> 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]

If they are using identical definitions, there should be no legitimate
disagreement.

>> [PR]

>> Apparently, it is fated for you and me to never agree.

[RW]

> Well, so long as you disagree with everything I say, even if you
> have to destroy your own arguments to do it, just because I have
> said it, this is doubtless true.

[PR]

Methinks the lady protesteth too much.

I have nothing against you or anyone on this list personally.

[RW]

> But I wouldn't call it fate,
> I'd call it a conditioned reflex.  I myself would have phrased it
> differently, and would have said that I will agree with you when
> you are right, but perhaps this is actually exactly the same
> thing that you have said.

[PR]

So, I am a contrary Mary. My arguments are motivated solely by perversity.
Do you really believe that?

[PRp]

>> I will state that in private correspondence, a second professional
>> linguist has affirmed the non-phonemic status of IE *o.

[RW]

> I will let you answer this one yourself because:

>  On Thu, 27 May 1999, Patrick C. Ryan wrote:

>  >Whether any given linguist did or did not accept the validity of
>  >my studies is not a proof or disproof of my work.

> Now here is something that I can agree with you on.  Who agrees
> or disagrees with a theory is not proof pro or con.  Who makes a
> statement does not affect its validity.  Who proposes or accepts
> the theory is immaterial.  It matters not whether the proponent
> of a theory is well or poorly educated, is a "professional
> linguist" (PL) or a known crackpot (not necessarily different
> things), has been convicted of income tax evasion, or wets the
> bed.  All that matters is the evidence and the argumentation.

[PR]

Essentially, I would agree. But a consensus of "poorly educated people"
would not be a desideratum whereas a consensus of professional linguists
would be a sufficient but not necessary indication of eventual vindication.

[RW]

> A theory is not automatically wrong because it is proposed by
> Patrick Ryan, and it is not automatically correct because it is
> proposed by a PL.  So whether a PL agrees with your ideas or not
> is irrelevant, as you yourself pointed out on 27 May 1999.
> Obviously PL's are not automatically correct in your mind or you
> wouldn't be telling PL's that they are wrong on a daily basis.  If
> PL's are always right, then citing a PL is a good argument, but
> if they are only right when they agree with you and wrong
> otherwise, it rather vitiates your appeal to the authority of an
> unnamed "professional linguist".  This doesn't mean that you are
> wrong though; it just means that it isn't a valid argument.  And
> all that matters is the evidence and the argumentation.

[PR]

When you're right, you're right.

But, if you think I am casting myself as a Devil's Advocate against
professional linguists, you are wrong. I agree with them far more than I
disagree; and, in the basal question (*e/*o phonemicity), I do substantially
agree with at least one profssional linguist of high regard: Professor
Winfred Lehmann.

To get back to the point you seem to be attempting to make, if every
linguist agreed with me, we could all be wrong, but the burden on the
corrector would be very heavy.

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)