Re: [lojban] Re: ancient clicks

[And Rosta <arosta@uclan.ac.uk>]

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.
#> 
#> {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 
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.