Newsgroups: sci.lang
Path: cantaloupe.srv.cs.cmu.edu!bb3.andrew.cmu.edu!nntp.sei.cmu.edu!news.psc.edu!hudson.lm.com!godot.cc.duq.edu!news.duke.edu!news.mathworks.com!newsfeed.internetmci.com!howland.reston.ans.net!nntp.crl.com!pacbell.com!gw2.att.com!nntpa!mac-118.lz.att.com!user
From: rte@elmo.lz.att.com (Ralph T. Edwards)
Subject: Re: The story of /Z/ - was acquisition of phonemes from ...
Message-ID: <rte-0710951842020001@mac-118.lz.att.com>
Sender: news@nntpa.cb.att.com (Netnews Administration)
Nntp-Posting-Host: mac-118.lz.att.com
Organization: AT&T Bell Labs
References: <rte-0510951400230001@mac-118.lz.att.com> <DG338s.8rn@eskimo.com>
Date: Sat, 7 Oct 1995 23:42:02 GMT
Lines: 46

In article <DG338s.8rn@eskimo.com>, rickw@eskimo.com (Richard Wojcik) wrote:

> In article <rte-0510951400230001@mac-118.lz.att.com>,
> Ralph T. Edwards <rte@elmo.lz.att.com> wrote:
> >...
> >So the sequence is:
> >
> >1. 11-14th century Engish acquires /z/ and /v/ from French where previously
> >[s] and [z] were allophones of /s/ and [f] and [v] were allophones of /f/.
> 
> If the question was whether English acquired such phonemic contrasts from
> French, then this statement begs it.  Did your sources consider the
> possibility that the phonemic contrasts developed in the population before
> the borrowings took place?  Did they say why they rejected that possibility?

Nope, in fact it says the contrasts did exist, I missed it in my first
reading. f/v, s/z and T/D existed in (I guess) late OE/early ME.  No
specific time given. see my other posting for details.

> 
> >2. 14th-17th century through loss of endings and /zj/->/Z/ shift, English
> >acquires contrasting T/D and S/Z. (/S/ was previously acquired from /sk/)
> 
> What is the evidence that T/D and S/Z were not phonemic during the Middle
> English period?  Did your sources cite manuscripts in which spellings for
> the two sounds were confused?

They were phonemic intervocalically, before borrowings, see other posting.

>  (BTW, although you called these items
> "data", they are really just conclusions.  The interesting issue is how the
> conclusions were arrived at.)

I meant only the pronunciation spellings and first citations to be
considered data.  The rest is indeed interpretation.


> >The defense rests.
> 
> Uh, oh.  You don't happen to be litigating this in California, do you?  ;-)

Crackpot defenses, blonds, surfers, and brain-dead jurors are
constitutionally protected in CA.:-(.

-- 
R.T.Edwards rte@elmo.att.com 908 576-3031
