[Lingtyp] [ɸ] - [h]

[Christian Lehmann]

Dear Jérémy and everybody,

you are drawing attention to the fact that, no matter whether we call 
the feature [labial] or [rounded], it is shared by /u/ and /o/. This 
calls into question the initial assumption:

No labiality or roundedness feature is responsible for [h] becoming [ɸ] 
before [u]/[ɯ]. What seems to count, instead, is [+high, +back]. 
However, [ɸ] does not share [+back] with these vowels, and shares 
[+high] with front vowels, too.

Your solution is that [+high, +back] increases the value of [labial] to 
[++ labial]. (For both [u] and [ɯ]?)

An alternative approach would be to doubt that [h] -> [ɸ] / __ [u]/[ɯ] 
is at all a process of assimilation. But what is it then?

Cheers,

Christian

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Am 24.05.2023 um 16:35 schrieb PASQUEREAU Jeremy:
> Dear Christian,
>
> I saw your message on LingTyp and, if I understood the issue 
> correctly, it seems to me you may be facing a similar problem as the 
> one I faced a few years ago when describing the phonology of Karata 
> (Nakh-Daghestanian): there’s a phonological rule (C labialization in 
> Karata) that occurs in the context of some rounded vowels (/u/) but 
> not others (/o/). How to discriminate between /u/ and /o/ given that 
> they are both [+round] (or [labial] if using privative features)? I 
> wrote a paper <https://muse.jhu.edu/article/712106> on this where I 
> make the proposal that in at least some languages the labial feature 
> is scalar and therefore phonological rules can make reference to one 
> and not other labial features. Regardless of the analytical innovation 
> I proposed, you may find the paper useful in that it discusses the 
> range of phonetic (articulatory, perceptual) and phonological evidence 
> in favor of distinguishing different degrees of rounding and it also 
> discusses other phonological phenomena that the proposal can be 
> brought to bear on.
>
> Best regards,
>
> *Jérémy Pasquereau*
> chargé de recherche — https://jeremy-pasquereau.jimdo.com/ 
> <https://jeremy-pasquereau.jimdo.com/>
> Laboratoire de Linguistique de Nantes (LLING) UMR 6310, CNRS & Nantes 
> Université — https://lling.univ-nantes.fr/ <https://lling.univ-nantes.fr/>
>
>
>> Le 23 mai 2023 à 14:40, Christian Lehmann 
>> <christian.lehmann at uni-erfurt.de> a écrit :
>>
>> Dear Miren and everybody,
>>
>> I find this problem interesting. Nowadays everybody appears to agree 
>> that syntactic and morphological classes are essentially distribution 
>> classes although the elements in question have meaning. In the same 
>> spirit, the distributionalists conceived of the phoneme in terms of 
>> the distribution of phones although these have physical properties. 
>> And the basic phonological features like [consonantal] and [syllabic] 
>> essentially relate to the distribution of segments in phonotactic 
>> patterns. Questions such as whether [ts] consists of two segments 
>> /ts/ or is one affricate /ʦ/ are not solvable by phonetics (to the 
>> best of my knowledge), but are resolved by analyzing the distribution 
>> of this element. Again, it is true that distribution alone leads to 
>> unsatisfactory classes. The complementary distribution of [h] and [ŋ] 
>> in several languages including English is one such example. 
>> Apparently a distribution class counts as a natural class only if it 
>> has a phonetic motivation.
>>
>> My impression is that a full phonological description works with a 
>> heterogeneous set of features: It does not abide by purely 
>> distributional phonological features, but  also needs features which 
>> are essentially phonetic and have no direct relation to the 
>> distribution of the segments characterized by them. This may concern, 
>> in particular, features involved in processes of assimilation. If a 
>> consonant assimilates to an adjacent vowel, it means they share a 
>> feature despite their appurtenance to distinct distribution classes.
>>
>> Net result for my initial question: Assuming that I want a rule that 
>> assimilates a fricative to a following [u], producing [ɸ], I will 
>> have to accept an articulatory feature like [labial] in my phonology. 
>> Does this correspond to the state of the art in phonology?
>>
>> Christian
>>
>> -- 
>>
>> Prof. em. Dr. Christian Lehmann
>> Rudolfstr. 4
>> 99092 Erfurt
>> Deutschland
>>
>> Tel.: 	+49/361/2113417
>> E-Post: 	christianw_lehmann at arcor.de
>> Web: 	https://www.christianlehmann.eu
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Lingtyp mailing list
>> Lingtyp at listserv.linguistlist.org
>> https://listserv.linguistlist.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lingtyp
>
-- 

Prof. em. Dr. Christian Lehmann
Rudolfstr. 4
99092 Erfurt
Deutschland

Tel.: 	+49/361/2113417
E-Post: 	christianw_lehmann at arcor.de
Web: 	https://www.christianlehmann.eu
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://listserv.linguistlist.org/pipermail/lingtyp/attachments/20230524/d94a867f/attachment.htm>