Print

Print


----- Original Message ----
> From: Philip Newton <[log in to unmask]>
> I think the point is not "those aren't phonological words" but "those
> words do contain vowels". In the sense that [S:] (when you want
> someone to be quiet) is a single vowel, I suppose.

I agree, but I think we can quickly get into the theoretical weeds. Given these two statements:

1. [S] is a meaningful, independent morpheme in X language.
2. All words must contain one phonological vowel.

Do we (a) stretch the definition of "phonological vowel" to included /S/, thus having two definitions of "vowel" depending on whether we're in phonological (i.e., mental representation) space or phonetic (i.e., articulatory) space*; (b) assume an underlying phonological vowel (e.g., /8S/) and a corresponding rule for dropping it when articulated; or (c) change the framing of the rule in (2)? Occam would tell us to do (c), I'd think. Doing (a) feels like making the data conform to the rules, not vice versa, which is bad science and weakens whatever relevance the consonant/vowel distinction had in the first place.

-- Paul

* While [S:] is not strictly speaking a morpheme of English, it does have a consistent meaning ("Hush!"), as do [m:] ("I'm thinking"), [n:h] ("Darn it!"), [ps:t] ("Hey! You!"), and even [!!!!!] ("Shame on you!").