From pycyn@aol.com Mon Nov 26 14:09:17 2001 Return-Path: X-Sender: Pycyn@aol.com X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-8_0_0_1); 26 Nov 2001 22:09:17 -0000 Received: (qmail 25550 invoked from network); 26 Nov 2001 22:09:17 -0000 Received: from unknown (216.115.97.171) by m4.grp.snv.yahoo.com with QMQP; 26 Nov 2001 22:09:17 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO imo-m07.mx.aol.com) (64.12.136.162) by mta3.grp.snv.yahoo.com with SMTP; 26 Nov 2001 22:09:17 -0000 Received: from Pycyn@aol.com by imo-m07.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v31_r1.9.) id r.116.84b6150 (4533) for ; Mon, 26 Nov 2001 17:09:13 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <116.84b6150.29341788@aol.com> Date: Mon, 26 Nov 2001 17:09:12 EST Subject: Re: [lojban] stress, capitalization & audiovisual isomorphism To: lojban@yahoogroups.com MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="part1_116.84b6150.29341788_boundary" X-Mailer: AOL 6.0 for Windows US sub 10535 From: pycyn@aol.com X-Yahoo-Profile: kaliputra --part1_116.84b6150.29341788_boundary Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit In a message dated 11/26/2001 11:44:00 AM Central Standard Time, arosta@uclan.ac.uk writes: > #Indeed, it would be: specifically, it would cease to be an isomorphism, > #since would sometimes mean [@] and sometimes [j]. > > but -adjacent-to-V would always mean [@] and -not-adjacent > to-V would always mean [j]. And vice versa from sound to spelling. > So why is this less of an isomorphism than -in-penult-syllable > = stressed-[V] and -not-in-penult = unstressed-[V]? > Hard to argue the point, except to say that the isomorphism would likely fail at the phonemic level, since the y-glide is an allophone of /i/, not /y/. And there is the added glyph w for something that is only an allophone of /u/. On the other hand, it gets rid of ', an unsightly object, which nonetheless represents a real sound and not an allophone of anything (except non-juncture). So, as Chao would say, we could reanalyse the sound system, making the ' be an automatic reflex of vowel-vowel contact when glottal stop was absent. But then we would always have to write in glottal stops (or maybe just be more careful about spaces). While we're at it, why not make the glide an allophone of /y/ -- and make w also apply to the buffering vowel yer, allowing one to write out dialects? --part1_116.84b6150.29341788_boundary Content-Type: text/html; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit In a message dated 11/26/2001 11:44:00 AM Central Standard Time, arosta@uclan.ac.uk writes:


#Indeed, it would be: specifically, it would cease to be an isomorphism,
#since <y> would sometimes mean [@] and sometimes [j].

but <y>-adjacent-to-V would always mean [@] and <y>-not-adjacent
to-V would always mean [j]. And vice versa from sound to spelling.
So why is this less of an isomorphism than <V>-in-penult-syllable
= stressed-[V] and <V>-not-in-penult = unstressed-[V]?


Hard to argue the point, except to say that the isomorphism would likely fail at the phonemic level, since the y-glide is an allophone of /i/, not /y/.  And there is the added glyph w for something that is only an allophone of /u/.  On the other hand, it gets rid of ', an unsightly object, which nonetheless represents a real sound and not an allophone of anything (except non-juncture).  So, as Chao would say, we could reanalyse the sound system, making the ' be an automatic reflex of vowel-vowel contact when glottal stop was absent.  But then we would always have to write in glottal stops (or maybe just be more careful about spaces).  While we're at it, why not make the glide an allophone of /y/  -- and make w also apply to the buffering vowel yer, allowing one to write out dialects? --part1_116.84b6150.29341788_boundary--