Editor for this issue: <>
According to William Welmers (African Language Structures, U. California Press 1973), the 1957 President's address to the LSA, by W. Freeman Twaddell, was entitled simply "[c(with hachek)]?", and went into the same issues that are being discussed here now. Welmers' own treatment of the topic (ibid. pp. 53 ff.), from the point of view of the fieldworker, is also illuminating. His point, well known to structuralist phonologists, was that sounds that are audibly indistinguishable may have several different phonemic interpretations, and he offers examples of different solutions for different languages, with rationales. Ellen Contini-MoravaMail to author|Respond to list|Read more issues|LINGUIST home page|Top of issue
Let's not get confused, folks: the question of what the sounds are is distinct from the question of how they are analyzed at a particular level in a particular theory. If you believe in both phonemes and underlying representations, for example, there are probably cases where underlying /t+S/ is phonemic /tS/ in some varieties of German and in some positions in all and in all positions in some varieities of Polish, for example. In pointing out that the phonetic distinction is audible, I was of course concerned with the phonetic facts, not with any possible analysis at hypothetical deeper levels. Now, some of those who have written in deny the possibility of hearing the contrast. I am prepared to demonstrate it and teach people to hear it either by phone or in person, for the cost of the phone call or airfare and accomodations. No, really, it is not that hard, alkthough of course I do the unfair advantage of having been to the contrast born. I would add that if someone really cannot hear it that does not mean much, since there are lots of people who cannot hear all the tonal distinctions of, say, Cantonese (I am such a person), and yet no one would deny that they are phonetically real. But I do think the afficates are easier: if you are an English speaker but are familiar with German, compare the way English speakers typically render somehting like tsunami with the German z. I would add that syllabification is not crucial here, since in Polish, for example, the two-segment /t+S/ between vowels syllabifies the same as a one-segment /tS/, that is, with the fllowing vowel. The real question regarding forms like entscheiden and Wirtschaft is whether they have the same sound as tschuess. Alexis MRMail to author|Respond to list|Read more issues|LINGUIST home page|Top of issue