Don't touch my phonemes

[Robert Orr]

>Larry Trask writes:

>>> pet - spin   : both have  /p/, even though one is aspirated, the other not

>>More complicated.  The ordinary contrast between /p/ and /b/ is neutralized
>>in this position.  Our orthography writes <p>, and our intuitions --
>>at least among those of us who are literate -- is that this voiceless
>>unaspirated [p] is still /p/.  But there is another analysis, in which
>>this [p] is assigned instead to the phoneme /b/.  Hardly anybody has
>>ever seen this second analysis as attractive, but I don't think we can
>>simply dismiss it as plainly wrong.

>Okay, so we transcribe <spin> /sbIn/, <stem> /sdEm/, <skin> /sgIn/, etc.
>with the /s/ devoicing the following stop. Let's see how well this scheme
>works. Consistency requires us to write <pin> [phIn] as /bhIn/ where the /h/
>devoices the preceding /b/. No problem, since English doesn't use *[bhIn] or
>*[pIn], only [phIn] and [bIn]. Likewise we have <tin> /dhIn/, <kin> /ghIn/,
>etc.

Scottish Gaelic orthography makes allowances for something similar, cf.
sgurr, sgian, taisbeanadh, eisd, gasda, iasg, etc.

cf. Irish scian, taispeain, eist, gasta, iasc, etc.

Robert Orr