Christopher B Wright sikyal:

> Jesse Bangs sekalge:
> >Let's get those orthographies right, people.  You mean to say [arxa], I
> >assume--a *phonetic* value.  The underlying *phonemic* value is /arka/
> no
> >matter what.
> NO!
> I did not make a mistake, and I didn't provide *any* orthography. The
> letter in question is actually written [c].

Calm down here, Christopher.  The fact of the matter is that you *did*
make a mistake, but it's one all people make sometimes.  You can argue
with me, if you'd like, but you'll still be wrong.  Now let's go over this
again.  There are three different levels of representation:

Orthographic.  This is written with {braces} <angle brackets> or |pipes|
(although that last usage is peculiar to this list).  Thus, a small glass
or plastic bauble is either a {bead}, a <bead>, or a |bead|.

Phon_emic_.  This is put between /slashes/.  This is the level of
abstract, underlying representation, which doesn't necessarily have
anything to do with orthography and may be different from actual
pronunciation.  Thus, the word given above as |bead| is /bid/.

Phon_etic_.  This is in [square brackets].  This is the level of actual
physical pronunciation, which follows from the phonemic level.  Thus, the
word |bead|~/bid/ is phonetically [bi:d] in my dialect of English.

Your comment "The letter in question is actually written [c]" proves that
you don't understand this system, because when you're talking about
*writing* then you're at the orthographic level.  What you wanted to say
was, "The letter in question is actually written |c|."

> >So your question depends.  Do you want it to be [arxa]?  If so you just
> >rewrite your rule so that /k/ goes to [x] at the end of a morpheme.  If
> >you want [arka], then make /k/ only go to [x] at the end of a word.
> NO!
> Sound changes *only* affect the complete forms of the words. They know no
> borders or boundaries; if you waved your little morpheme marker in front
> of a word, the sound change would pay no attention. The only way to
> accomplish that is through analogy.

Not true.  I'm sorry, but sound changes *do* pay attention to morphemes,
and it's perfectly plausible to have a rule that changes /k/ to [x] at the
end of a morpheme.  David Peterson gave a good example from Sudanese in a
different e-mail, which you should note.  You also might note this example
from English (and pay attention to my use of brackets and slashes):

In my dialect of English the difference between [N] and [Ng] can be
predicted by morphemes and phonemes.  Note that both [N] and [Ng] are
written |ng|.  The underlying phonemes, I argue, are /ng/ as well.

Now, here's the rule:
/ng/ --> [N] *at the end of a morpheme.*
Example: /sIng/ --> [sIN]
Orthography: |sing|

This also accounts for |singer|.  Here, I'll use /$/ to show the position
of the morpheme boundary:
/sIng$@r/ --> [sIN=r]
Orthography: |singer|

But in |finger|, there is no morpheme boundary, so the rule doesn't apply:
/fIng@r/ --> [fINg=r]

See?  In |singer|, because there is a morpheme boundary after the /ng/,
the /g/ is completely absorbed into the preceding /n/, and you get plain
[N] on the surface.  But in |finger| there is no morpheme boundary, so you
still have a [g] in the actual pronunciation.

(This example is not uncontroversial, but it's the best one I can think of
for English.)

> And if you're providing help, don't be as rude as I was in my first post
> to the list. I merely wish to remove ignorance from myself. In five
> years, I'll be providing this help and still accepting help from others.

That's a great attitude.  I hope I've helped out and haven't been rude.

Jesse S. Bangs [log in to unmask]

"If you look at a thing nine hundred and ninety-nine times, you are
perfectly safe; if you look at it the thousandth time, you are in
frightful danger of seeing it for the first time."
--G.K. Chesterton