Newsgroups: sci.lang
Path: cantaloupe.srv.cs.cmu.edu!rochester!udel!news.mathworks.com!news.ultranet.com!usenet.eel.ufl.edu!news-feed-1.peachnet.edu!hobbes.cc.uga.edu!cssun.mathcs.emory.edu!emory!swrinde!pipex!uknet!festival!edcogsci!iad
From: iad@cogsci.ed.ac.uk (Ivan A Derzhanski)
Subject: Re: Russian vowel  bI
Message-ID: <D6J46F.C1H@cogsci.ed.ac.uk>
Organization: Centre for Cognitive Science, Edinburgh, UK
References: <1995Mar31.164904.9015@grace.rt.cs.boeing.com> <3ljtaq$erc@usenet.srv.cis.pitt.edu> <D6DAv9.n24@eskimo.com>
Date: Tue, 4 Apr 1995 21:11:00 GMT
Lines: 45

In article <D6DAv9.n24@eskimo.com> rickw@eskimo.com (Richard Wojcik) writes:
>In fact, we are probably agreed that the present cyrillic system is
>superior to a purely one-to-one correspondence for Russian, which would
>require more symbols to represent the palatalized/nonpalatalized split in
>the consonantal system.

Would a system not count as one-to-one if, in recognition of the fact
that palatalisation is a secondary feature, it marks it with a diacritic
on the corresponding letter instead of using a second set of unrelated
letter shapes?

>Orthographies can take advantage of symmetries in the phonemic
>inventory, and the Slavs are lucky that the alphabet makers
>got to them before thelost the jers.  :-)

Actually, in Old Slavic palatalisation was often marked with a cap accent
(an inverted breve) above the letter or an apostrophe after it.  One such
diacritic would put eight of the current Russian letters out of business.

Regarding those place names where _y_ appears in syllable-initial position,
I vote that they be counted as words of the language, because they decline
(that is, when one of them doesn't, it's because its final prevents it from
so doing, not the initial or medial _y_).  This is a criterion which only
works in one direction: not every Russian noun declines, but everything
that declines like a Russian noun is one.

This would mean that the distinction between the two allophones of the
phoneme /i/ has been phonemicised.

Now [N] also exists as an allophone of /n/ before velar stops, but
the distinction between [n] and [N] isn't likely to become phonemic
any time soon, even under an avalanche of English loanwords.  How is
the case of [n N] different from the case of [i y]?  Does the fact
that the latter distinction is reflected in the orthography make
all the difference?

And if an English speaker pronounces _Xhosa_ with a click or _Nahuatl_
or _Klingon_ with a lateral affricate, does that make those consonants
phonemes of (his variety of) English?

-- 
`"Haud oan there a meenit," says the king tae Joseph, "I've been thinkin."'
Ivan A Derzhanski (iad@cogsci.ed.ac.uk)    (J Stuart, _Auld Testament Tales_)
* Centre for Cognitive Science,  2 Buccleuch Place,   Edinburgh EH8 9LW,  UK
* Cowan House E113, Pollock Halls, 18 Holyrood Pk Rd, Edinburgh EH16 5BD, UK
