minimal pairs (was: PIE e/o Ablaut)

[proto-language]

Dear Larry and IEists:

 ----- Original Message -----
From: "Larry Trask" <larryt at cogs.susx.ac.uk>
Sent: Tuesday, March 28, 2000 2:33 PM

[PRp]

>>>> True minimal pairs, a paltry requirement for phonemicity that would be
>>>> undisputed in any other language.

<snip>

[LT]

>>> Not at all.  Many phonemes are accepted as such *without* minimal pairs
>>> even in living languages.

>> [PRp]

>> Your (SF's) assertion by itself does not convince me.

>> Would you mind citing an example of any phoneme in any language that is not
>> in a minimal pair?

[LT]

> Easy.  English /h/ and [eng] -- the velar nasal, as in 'sing' -- do not
> form even a single minimal pair.

[PR]

Now I am really confused. I would have thought that /h/ could be established
by many minimal pairs like [her] / [per] and /ng/ by many minimal pairs like
[bang] / [ban], along the lines of your dictionary's: "The existence of such
a pair demonstrates conclusively that the two segments which are different
must belong to two different phonemes."

I really do not see where phonotactics has much to do with the question
since there is no phonological similarity.

[LT]

> They can't, because they are in
> complementary distribution: broadly, /h/ only occurs syllable-initially,
> while [eng] only occurs syllable-finally.  But we still count them as
> two phonemes, and not as allophones of a single phoneme, since their
> degree of phonetic similarity is so low.

> The existence of minimal pairs may be a *sufficient* condition to
> establish a phonemic contrast, but it is not a *necessary* condition.

[PR]

So what other condition is "*sufficient*" to establish a phonemicity?

[ moderator snip ]

>> [PRp]

>> Sorry, I just cannot accept that. If /o/ is an IE phoneme, it should occur
>> in true minimal pairs. I have this on the authority of a degreed linguist
>> with whom I have consulted on this question. Your reluctance to accept this
>> basic method of establishing a phoneme continues to amaze me!

[LT]

> This is *a* method of establishing phonemes.  But it is not *the only*
> method of establishing phonemes.  If the distribution of two sounds
> cannot be stated by rule, then they can't be assigned to a single
> phoneme.

[PR]

Ah, a diplomatic answer.

Well, a rule that has been proposed to account for IE /o/ is that it results
when the (tonal-/stress) accent of an /e/ is shifted to another syllable.

Additionally of interest is that no IE verbal root seems to contain /o/.

So, applying your insight, is IE /o/ a phoneme or not?

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)