Don't touch my phonemes (was: minimal pairs ex: PIE e/o Ablaut)

[Stanley Friesen]

At 06:36 PM 11/14/00 +0200, Robert Whiting wrote:

>So you can't just start shifting contrasts around one at a time.
>You have to consider the effect on rest of the phonological
>system.  If we wanted to use [p] and [p'] contrastively, we would
>probably have to give up /b/ as a phoneme.  And the same is true

This is not necessarily true.  Classical Greek had all three sounds as
distinct phonemes: pi, phi, and beta.  (And similarly for the other stops:
the consonants that are *now* pronounced as voiceless fricatives were
originally voiceless aspirates).

>And I still say that the fact that a person can hear and
>recognize the difference between two sounds does not ipso facto
>make those sounds phonemes of his language.  I can hear the
>difference between bright l and dark l.  You might say that I can
>only do this because I have studied Russian and Arabic.  But I

I think this very likely - as I certainly cannot normally distinguish them
(except when I am listening *very* carefully, and the speaker is speaking
slowly and clearly).  Nor can most people I know.

>The problem is that 'thigh' and 'thy' were always different
>words.  So the question is, for those who insist that differences
>in meaning must mean the presence of different phonemes, what

This does not sound like any rule I have ever heard suggested
before.  (Though in the case in point the distinction seems to have
originally been phonemic accent).

>I have explained my reasons for not considering 'thigh' and 'thy'
>a minimal pair above.

And I find it unconvincing.  The categorical difference may once have been
significant, but I doubt it is currently "real" in the minds of most
speakers, which is a minimal requirement for some linguistic pattern to be
available for use in phonemic rules.

>   My reasons for not considering 'ether' /
>'either' a minimal pair are similar (ultimately relying on the
>fact that the pronunciations are required by rules), but if you
>prefer, I could invent a silent phoneme that blocks the voicing
>of intervocalic [th] in loanwords (there is no need for this

Such a rule can *only* exist if normal, non-specialist speakers "know" that
the words belong to different categories (even if they do not know what the
categories originally represented).  Speakers cannot apply a rule based on
some category they are unaware of.  Since I see no *synchronic* evidence
that any non-linguist feels these words to belong to different relevant
categories, there is no way such a rule could exist in the minds of such
speakers.

Yes, the pattern *exists*, but *most* living speakers are *not* *aware*
*of* *it*, so they cannot have any rule involving it.

>Everyone seems to object to my using these rules to determine
>whether the sounds involved are phonemes or not, saying "you
>can't use these rules because they aren't phonological rules."

Not me.  I object on the grounds that the average English speaker is
unaware of the antecedents in the suggested rules, and so is incompetent to
apply them.

In order to enable these supposed rules you must *first* show by some set
of behavioral differences that the average speaker is *aware* of the
distinctions the rule makes use of.  If the difference in pronunciation is
the *only* difference in behavior, it requires fewer theoretical constructs
(per Occam's Razor) to simply posit the sounds involved are phonemes.

>development of /z/ and /v/.  All I say is "where is the evidence?"
>Where are all the contrasts that would show unequivocally that
>that [th] and [dh] are phonemes as there are contrasts that show
>that /z/ and /v/ are phonemes.  And I don't consider 'thigh' and
>'thy' or 'ether' and 'either' any more indicative of the
>phonemicity of [th] and [dh] than 'Kuhchen' and 'Kuchen' are
>indicative of the phonemicity of German [c,] and [x].

The difference here is that the basis for this rule is patently and
obviously known by all speakers of German, since the -chen suffix is still
*productive* in German.  Thus it is clear on *independent* *grounds* that
the speakers are aware of the difference in structure (or category) of the
two words.  Thus we know *a* *priori* that this difference is available for
use in various rules.

None of the suggested rules you have proposed meet this requirement.  They
almost all involve *dia*chronic patterns that few living speakers are even
*aware* of, unless they are unusually educated in linguistic matters (such
as all of us here).

>convincing.  For instance, one might say that [x] could be used
>as a phoneme in English by forming new words where it contrasts
>with /k/ or /g/.  Since these words could be formed without any

The difference here is that:
A. All speakers would consider the word to be "odd" and think it sounds
foreign.
B. A great many speakers would hear it as having a /k/.  (Check out how
most people perceive German words with [x]: 'ik leebe dik' is how most
English speakers pronounce "ich liebe dich").

>between [th] and [dh].  It's a good thing the pronunciation is
>predictable.

Only if you are a linguist and know what categories the words *used* to
belong to.

>One thing you can say for sure though is that <dh> never
>represents [dh] (except in the name of the character 'edh').

So?  The natural spelling for [dh] in English is not <dh>.

>Otherwise it is regularly realized as [d] ('dhow', 'dharma',
>'jodhpurs') and generally indicates a foreign word (except, of
>course, in native compounds where it represents two sounds [e.g.,
>'madhouse', 'deadhead', etc.]).  Incidentally, I'm still looking
>for an explanation of why words from languages with phonemic /dh/
>don't come into English with [dh].  It seems curious, what with

Well, the examples you give above do not establish this point.  Those are
Indic words, and the <dh> there represents a "voiced aspirate" (or murmured
voiced stop) not a voiced fricative.

You need to find *recent* borrowing from language with phonemic [dh] to
establish this "fact".  (Recent is necessary because any borrowing prior to
the establishment of [dh] as a phoneme would *naturally* be treated that way).

>Maybe not, but you don't get any help from the orthography on how
>to pronounce them.  And although there are only five vowel

So?  Pronunciation is prior, orthography secondary.  Writing is just a set
of "hints" as to how to say something.  Some writing systems are more
explicit about these hints than others.  English falls in the middle, it is
less explicit than Russian or German or Latin, but more so than Hebrew or
Heiroglyphic Egyptian.  Indeed unpointed Hebrew shows just *how*
"incomplete" a writing system can be and still remain adequate for
representing a language.

People normally learn words not from *reading* but from *listening* -
certainly during the first five years of life, and largely even
afterwards.  How a particular word is written is largely arbitrary.

--------------
May the peace of God be with you.         sarima at ix.netcom.com