2 ms·

> The definition of a phoneme is that there exists some pair of words that are only distinguishable because of a difference in that specific sound (called 'mini

> The definition of a phoneme is that there exists some pair of words that are only distinguishable because of a difference in that specific sound (called 'minimal pairs'). As a trivial example: "hat" and "bat" => /h/ and /b/ are phonemes. Okay, what about “cot” and “caught”? In some English dialects those are distinct phonemes, while in other dialects they are not. Yet someone who speaks a dialect without the cot-caught merger can still understand someone who speaks a dialect with the merger, even in the rare case that they use the words “cot” and “caught”, probably because you would never sleep on a caught or say that you cot a cold. Surely the “caught” vowel is one of the nine phonemes between 40 and 49, but I’m arguing that if you can drop nine whole phonemes and still remain mutually intelligible, you could probably drop a couple more and still be understood. For instance, while it isn’t any standard native dialect, Elmer Fudd’s “r/w” merger, while rendering him an object of ridicule, doesn’t seem to impede his intelligibility.

lolinder 2y ago
Conceded. I'd assumed you were trying to figure out if English really had about as complicated a phonology as Navajo, and fiddling about with dropping phonemes isn't a useful approach for that because you could apply it to Navajo just as easily if you knew Navajo. If you get American English down to 35 I'd assume you could also get Navajo down to 40 by the same processes. But yes, you can drop phonemes and be understood from other context as long as there is other context (which there usually is).
- philwelch 2y ago
  I don't know if you could get Navajo down by the same amount though. English speakers are accustomed to dealing with a wide variety of dialects so the language is clearly well adapted to sloppy and inconsistent phonology. Is the same true of Navajo, or are Navajo speakers accustomed to a more limited and consistent set of dialects? I don't know and I'm not really trying to argue a point here, it's just something to ponder.

lolinder 2y ago

Conceded. I'd assumed you were trying to figure out if English really had about as complicated a phonology as Navajo, and fiddling about with dropping phonemes isn't a useful approach for that because you could apply it to Navajo just as easily if you knew Navajo. If you get American English down to 35 I'd assume you could also get Navajo down to 40 by the same processes. But yes, you can drop phonemes and be understood from other context as long as there is other context (which there usually is).

philwelch 2y ago
I don't know if you could get Navajo down by the same amount though. English speakers are accustomed to dealing with a wide variety of dialects so the language is clearly well adapted to sloppy and inconsistent phonology. Is the same true of Navajo, or are Navajo speakers accustomed to a more limited and consistent set of dialects? I don't know and I'm not really trying to argue a point here, it's just something to ponder.