Re: more English orthography

Marcus Smith wrote:
>*kye    *sye [Se]       *zye [dZe]      *tye [tSe]      *dye [dZe]
>*kyi    *syi [Si]               *zyi [dZi]      *tyi [tSi]
*dyi
>[dZi]
>
>In otherwords, the "phonemes" S, tS, dZ are palatalized obstruents.
Assuming
>this analysis, the match with what is actually found is perfect.>
    Thanks for the useful chart! My Japanese is hazy to
non-existent......But there IS [tSi] as in "ichiban" and [dZi] in "Iwo
Jima", which spring to mind.  There may well be other forms of both these
particular words that show what the underlying consonant is-- but generally
speaking, Classical Phonemics would have had to throw dice to decide whether
any given [tSi] should be viewed as plain /t/ + /i/ or palatalized /t,/ +
/i/, and so on.  We with our superior knowledge know that [tSa] [tSo] and
[tSu] show palatalized /t,/-- but where would that leave "...chi..."?
Especially if you're not allowed to know about the native syllabary?  But
this is largely ancient history, since current theories probably handle the
problem more neatly.

Speaking of that:  a month or two back, someone (I think Dirk Elzinga)
mentioned 2 intro textbooks that dealt with Optimality Theory.  I can't
locate the post, or my notes.  Could someone refresh my memory?