Print

Print


R A Brown, On 18/11/2011 08:56:
> On 17/11/2011 20:52, BPJ wrote:
>  > So why can't /paa/ be [pa.a], [paha] or [pa?a] ad lib?
>
> No reason at all, that I am aware of.
>
> The problem is that as things stand at the moment, it seems to me
> that neither ['pi.a] and ['pija] nor ['pu.a] and ['puwa] will
> realistically be distinguished. The only way of doing that is to
> insist that /a/ _must_ be preceded by [h] or [?] or some other sound.
> If it must be so proceeded then that sound is surely no longer
> 'ad_lib' but assumes phonemic status.

To me it (i.e. [?a, ha]) would look like an obligatory allophone of /a/.

--And.