Print

Print


I was asking about synchronic phonetics, not diachronic development. Under
your hypothesis, both "finger" and "singer" have phonemic /ng/ in their
middles.  Further, as far as I can tell, those /ng/s are in identical
environments (ɪ_ɚ). Doesn't that mean they should have identical phonetic
realizations?

Instead, one turns into [ŋ] and one turns into [ŋg].  As far as I can tell,
there's no contrastive value there; I can't think of any minimal pairs. But
I don't see how they can be considered realizations of the same phoneme
sequence when the same environment can produce two different realizations.

So, are they not actually the same environment phonetically?  What am I
missing?


On Wed, Aug 5, 2015 at 1:54 PM, Jason Cullen <[log in to unmask]>
wrote:

> >
> >
> >
> > In that case, what determines whether /ng/ becomes [ŋg] (finger) vs just
> > [ŋ]
> > (singer)?
> >
>
> I suspect two things. First, English loves Maximize Onset, where coda
> consonants move to occupy empty onsets. (Example: "teach" [tiːtʃ], but
> "teacher" [ˈtiː.tʃɚ] (/tʃ/ moves from coda of the stem to the onset of the
> suffix, creating a CVCV word). However, English has a constraint */ŋ/ in
> onsets. (Which is why so many Americans nearly go mad trying to learn
> Tibetan or Cantonese, where you have 'ng' in onsets.) So /ŋ/--> [g]/s[__
> (That is, a velar nasal becomes a velar stop when it is in the onset of a
> syllable.)
>
>
> > On Wed, Aug 5, 2015 at 1:28 PM, And Rosta <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> >
> > > J. 'Mach' Wust, On 05/08/2015 07:14:
> > >
> > >> On Tue, 4 Aug 2015 15:08:48 +0200, Jörg Rhiemeier wrote:
> > >>
> > >> The German glottal stop
> > >>> certainly is not an "ordinary" segmental phoneme: it occurs only in
> > >>> syllable onsets, never in codas, and only when no other consonant is
> > >>> present in that onset,
> > >>>
> > >>
> > >> Such distributional restrictions can occur in ordinary phonemes.
> > >>
> > >
> > > You're replying to Joerg, I acknowledge, but in my message that Joerg
> was
> > > replying to I hadn't disputed that such distributional restrictions are
> > > possible; rather I'd noted that an analysis with a distributionally
> > > restricted phoneme is more complicated than the alternative.
> > >
> > > In English, /S/+C in onsets (_shmuck, shlong, shnozz, shtoom,_ etc.) is
> > > restricted to word-initial position. That's not exactly an instance of
> a
> > > phoneme confined to a particular position, but it is an example of a
> > > particular phonological configuration restricted to word-initial
> > positions,
> > > so I accept there are instances of such restrictions.
> > >
> > > For instance, German (or English) /h/ has this exact distribution,
> > >> while /ŋ/ (if it is counted as a phoneme and not a realization of
> > >> /ng/) has an opposite distribution, which led to the question why two
> > >> sounds are not allophones of each other when they cannot be in
> > >> opposition.
> > >>
> > >
> > > FWIW, I would indeed take [ŋ] to be a realization of /ng/ for all
> > dialects
> > > of English. /h/ is more challenging to deal with: I have an analysis of
> > > English in which [h] is a position-sensitive realization of a
> > phonological
> > > element that isn't itself restricted to those positions in which it is
> > > realized as [h], but it's too elaborate to essay a quick and
> > comprehensible
> > > description here. I don't know German well enough to know whether these
> > > analyses would extend to German (-- tho I had supposed that in German
> > > /h/=/ç/=/x/, which would not be the case for present-day English
> (except
> > > maybe Scots)). At any rate, to repeat what I said above, the challenge
> is
> > > to find the simplest description; we don't start out with a
> specification
> > > of what is impossible, and specifications of impossiblity enter into
> the
> > > description only if they serve to simplify it.
> > >
> > > I think there are two reasons why the glottal stop is not normally
> > >>>
> > >> counted as a phoneme of German: (1) It only occurs in certain
> > >> varieties, while others do not have it, and (2) it is not written.
> > >>
> > >
> > > You may well be right, because standard analyses of phoneme inventory
> > tend
> > > to be based on tradition --- self-perpetuating standardness. But that
> > > doesn't mean it's not actually better to not count [?] as a phoneme.
> > >  --And.
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > Mark J. Reed <[log in to unmask]>
> >
>
>
>
> --
> Jason Cullen
> MA Applied English Linguistics
>



-- 
Mark J. Reed <[log in to unmask]>