Aidan Grey wrote:
>Okay, if I understand you right, the standard practice is to include all
>possible phones, so that the list will include both /i/ and /I/ from my
>example. Then in the chunk on allophony, I can explain details.
>I am trying to do something fairly standard in the description, and by
>standard I mean what linguists do with real world languages here. As a
>phonologist, you're the ideal person to know this, Dirk!
Dirk is right-on. But the question arises: are you proposing an analysis of
English? or a new conlang. For Engl. it would be _possible_ but somewhat
obtuse to propose that [i ~ I] are allophones conditioned by the
presence/absence of a following double cons. But for some other language or
a conlang, it might be a valid approach, if the pronounciation of /sin:/ is