Newsgroups: sci.lang
Path: cantaloupe.srv.cs.cmu.edu!rochester!udel!gatech!news.mathworks.com!tank.news.pipex.net!pipex!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: Acquisition of phonemes thfough foreign influences
Message-ID: <rte-0410951102040001@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: <43q7i7$93b@ixnews2.ix.netcom.com> <rte-2609950957510001@mac-118.lz.att.com> <44f9ri$285@netsrv2.spss.com> <rte-2909951109590001@mac-118.lz.att.com> <44s493$bc8@netsrv2.spss.com>
Date: Wed, 4 Oct 1995 16:02:04 GMT
Lines: 115

In article <44s493$bc8@netsrv2.spss.com>, markrose@spss.com (Mark
Rosenfelder) wrote:

> In article <rte-2909951109590001@mac-118.lz.att.com>,
> Ralph T. Edwards <rte@elmo.lz.att.com> wrote:
> >markrose@spss.com (Mark Rosenfelder) wrote:
> >> Ralph T. Edwards <rte@elmo.lz.att.com> wrote:
> >> markrose@spss.com (Mark Rosenfelder) wrote:
> > the [Z] in words like 'measure'
> >> >> got reinterpreted as phonemic /Z/.
> >> >
> >> >Why reinterpreted?  Once the shift has occurred, it's already a phoneme.
> >> 
> >> I have trouble making any sense of this except as a denial of the
difference
> >> between phones and phonemes.
> >
> >Work a little harder.  If /Z/ was an allophone of /z/ then there would
> >have to be some context to disambiguate it. What do you propose?  Surely
> >not spelling.
> 
> The following /u/.  You haven't provided any evidence that the /u/ in 
> words like 'measure' had weakened to /@/ before or at the same time as
> the change [zj] -> [Z].  I mentioned that some English dialects preserve
> more distinctions before final r than General American English does;
> it seems very possible to me, then, that the [u] was preserved in 'measure'
> well after the appearance of [Z].

There is no /u/ in measure. /u/ is, by sci.lang convention (see the FAQ)
a symbol for the vowel phoneme of tool /tul/.  The second syllable of all
the -sure words is pronounced /-ZR/ by the majority of Americans and /-Z@/
by the rest of Americans and most British speakers.  This can be checked in any
dictionary. My English Dialect Dictionary appears to deny the existence of /Z/
in the dialects.  Says it's /mez@r/ in Scotland for example
for measure.  (Dialect in this case means ancient local variety, not
modified local standard.)  I have already conceded that /u/ persisted
after the appearance of /Z/.  Once it's gone it's gone, its ghost doesn't
somehow linger alongside the spelling.  I don't really see the relevance
of dialect pronunciations.  (And as far as I can see you won't get any
help there anyway.)  I guess your question is when did it disappear.

/R/ is my symbol for the central retroflex vowels of worker, sometimes
spelled with two symbols /@r/.  The IPA is upside down e with an r hook on
it.
/@/ is the symbol for the vowels of abut.  The IPA is upside down e.
There is a u (the spelled letter), but it hasn't been pronounced in any unique
way for some time; probably before the separation of British and American
standards, since they agree.  The spelled u does not provide context. 
Context for allophones must be spoken.  There are also the -sion words,
which also lack
any phonological context to distinguish /Z/ from /z/.  Vision rhymes with
prison, except for the /Z/-/z/ contrast.  Do you propose the v versus pr
provides the context?  Written io or u just doesn't count for anything but
clues to the history of the words.  

> 
> >>  English once presumably had no [Z] at all.
> >> The sound change [zj] -> [Z] occurs.  In what way is it "already a
phoneme"?
> >
> >Because it is kept separate without any context and is capable of
> >distinguishing words.
> 
> What words?  Have you got a pair contrasting /z/ and /Z/ before /u/?

I dont even know any words with /Z/ before /u/. Can you propose one?
The /u/ would have to be stressed, and then the /zj/ wouldn't go to /Z/.
(And the s wouldn't be a /z/ in most cases.)
By the way, you never said how you pronounce disclosure.  It's in my dictionary
as /dIskl"oZR/, while discloser is /dIskl"ozR/.  I use " to show primary
accent here. 

> 
> >> >disclosure-discloser.  On this native base new borrwings may occur.
> >> >I'm not a believer in the theory that we carry around some sort of
underlying
> >> >structure that recapitulates the phonological history of the language.
> >> >That is I think measure is stored as /mEZR/ not /mEzjR/ with sound shift
> >> >applied.
> >> 
> >> I agree; but in that case the present phonemic representation of 'measure' 
> >> isn't a good guide to its history or to that of the invididual phonemes,
> >is it?  
> >
> >What's your point?  At some point all context to disambiguate /z/ from /Z/
> >was lost, even if not immediately.  At that point it's a phoneme.
> 
> So we have two events:
> a) The context to differentiate /z/ from /Z/ in words like 'measure'
gets lost.
> b) /Z/ is acquired in a number of borrowings, such as 'mirage'.
> 
> You haven't provided any evidence that (a) preceded (b).  Until you do,
> you haven't proved your case.

And the contrary is somehow evident until I do?  According to the Oxford
Etymological Dictionary the -sure words are mostly 16th century.  I would
guess
the /Z/ pronunciation and the /u/ to /@/ shift appeared before the split of
American and British standards (?1700?).  Anyone got a good source on the
historical development of English phonology? 
Garage is 20th century, I'll look up mirage. (My dictionary is at home.)

If someone can propose a good source for the historical development of -sure
and -sion we can probably pin this down.  Hey I need a good book on
English phonological history anyway.  I'm sure my wife will agree.  Are we
using
//s and []s the same way?  I use //s for phonemes and []s only for
subphonemic distinctions.  That is [o], [oU] and [@U] are various
realizations of /o/.

Regards

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