Editor for this issue: Karen Milligan <karen
linguistlist.org>
For an entirely different perspective on what an allophone is, check out this week's Back Bench (date 11/27). The image has a sign which says 'ALLOPHONES'. To the right of the sign is a row of telephone booths. In the penultimate phone-booth, is a fellow saying: 'ALLO?' <><><><><><><><><><> Dr. S. Urbanczyk Department of Linguistics University of CalgaryMail to author|Respond to list|Read more issues|LINGUIST home page|Top of issue
At 14:39 30/11/99 -0500, Dan Moonhawk Alford wrote: >What a bizarre set of postings on this topic! "Grown" linguists treating >allophones as "things," abstract entities just like phones and phonemes! thank you very much. >I was either taught or learned by experience that "allophone", written by >itself, is a giant "STAR!" The only safe way to use the form is in the >phrase "[X] IS AN ALLOPHONE OF /Y/ IN LANGUAGE Z", as in "flap is an >allophone of /t/ and /d/ in English". So there is no such "thing" as an >allophone, only phones being in ALLOPHONIC RELATIONSHIP to phonemes. Are you saying that the phrase "[X] IS AN ALLOPHONE OF /Y/ IN LANGUAGE Z" is equivalent to "[X] IS AN ALLOPHONIC RELATION OF /Y/ IN LANGUAGE Z"? Are you saying that we must begin the definition of the word/concept ALLOPHONE with "a kind of relation..." or "the relation..."? With the phrase "[X] IS AN ALLOPHONE OF /Y/ IN LANGUAGE Z", are you saying that [B] (i.e. [labial, aproximant, voiced, etc.]) is an allophonic relation of /b/ in Galician or in Spanish? I think that the phone [B] is in allophonic relation to the phone [b], because they are allophones of the phoneme /b/ in Galician or in Spanish. The allophones are entities (defined or) characterized by maintaining some kind of relations: this relations are allophonic. What is allophonic is the relation, and the relation is allophonic because it is between allophones. We need to define what is an allophone to knowing what is an allophonic relation. In my humble opinion, the concept 'allophone' is nearer to a thing than to a relation.Mail to author|Respond to list|Read more issues|LINGUIST home page|Top of issue