Message-Id: <se80bc14.009@gwise-gw1.uclan.ac.uk>
Date: Tue, 25 Mar 2003 20:28:51 +0000
To: cowan <cowan@mercury.ccil.org>
Cc: cowan <cowan@ccil.org>, jjllambias <jjllambias@hotmail.com>, 
    lojban <lojban@yahoogroups.com>
Subject: Re: [lojban] Re: ancient clicks
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Content-Disposition: inline
From: And Rosta <arosta@uclan.ac.uk>
Content-Length: 1016
Lines: 30

John:
#And Rosta scripsit:
#> John:
#> #Jorge Llambias scripsit:
#> #> If {tcomoluNmas} is marked as having a different pronunciation
#> #> than {tcomolunmas}, I don't see how they can still be called
#> #> allophones.
#> #
#> #Because there are no minimal pairs in which [n] vs. [N] makes the
#> #difference.
#>=20
#> {tcomoluNmas} and {tcomolunmas} would be such a pair.
#
#Only if we say they are distinct words, and we don't say that.  The
#allophony creates allolexy, or vice versa.

They would be distinct words in the sense of being distinct targets
in production and recognition, even though they have the same=20
semantic and grammatical properties. That is, distinct phonological
words, but not distinct lexemes. And phonemic distinctions are those
sufficient to create distinct phonological words.

That would make n & N contrastive, even if Lojban stipulated that
they could never signal a contrast between distinct lexemes. I can't
think of any natural language analogues of this.

--And.