Does a difference of tense count as a difference of meaning in a minimal pair?
Does a difference in tense count as a difference in meaning in a minimal pair?
Here's a made up example to illustrate my question:
If we know that:
- [wuga] means "read"
- [wugi] means "reading"
Can we say that [wuga] and [wugi] are a minimal pair and that [a] and [i] contrast?
tense minimal-pairs
asked 3 hours ago
dawnchandlerdawnchandler
133
New contributor
dawnchandler is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
add a comment |
Does a difference in tense count as a difference in meaning in a minimal pair?
Here's a made up example to illustrate my question:
If we know that:
- [wuga] means "read"
- [wugi] means "reading"
Can we say that [wuga] and [wugi] are a minimal pair and that [a] and [i] contrast?
tense minimal-pairs
asked 3 hours ago
dawnchandlerdawnchandler
133
New contributor
dawnchandler is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
add a comment |
Does a difference in tense count as a difference in meaning in a minimal pair?
Here's a made up example to illustrate my question:
If we know that:
- [wuga] means "read"
- [wugi] means "reading"
Can we say that [wuga] and [wugi] are a minimal pair and that [a] and [i] contrast?
tense minimal-pairs
asked 3 hours ago
dawnchandlerdawnchandler
133
New contributor
dawnchandler is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
Does a difference in tense count as a difference in meaning in a minimal pair?
Here's a made up example to illustrate my question:
If we know that:
- [wuga] means "read"
- [wugi] means "reading"
Can we say that [wuga] and [wugi] are a minimal pair and that [a] and [i] contrast?
tense minimal-pairs
tense minimal-pairs
asked 3 hours ago
dawnchandlerdawnchandler
133
New contributor
dawnchandler is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
asked 3 hours ago
dawnchandlerdawnchandler
133
New contributor
dawnchandler is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
asked 3 hours ago
dawnchandlerdawnchandler
133
New contributor
dawnchandler is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
asked 3 hours ago
dawnchandlerdawnchandler
133
asked 3 hours ago
dawnchandlerdawnchandler
133
133
New contributor
dawnchandler is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
New contributor
dawnchandler is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
dawnchandler is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
add a comment |
add a comment |
2 Answers
2
active
oldest
votes
Yes. A minimal pair is meant to differ in one phoneme, to demonstrate that a speaker of the language can distinguish between the two words, and therefore that the contrast is phonemic. Since the difference between the words is on the level of phonology, it doesn't matter whether the difference in meaning is grammatical or lexical.
answered 3 hours ago
b ab a
1,6071225
add a comment |
Well, the issue is not as clear as the preceding answer states.
One issue here is morpheme-boundary.
It's not good policy to look for minimal pairs that involve morpheme boundaries. For example, drink drank drunk is ok because there is no boundary involved here, but there is the well-known case of Scottish English where vowel length normally does not exist, but some long vowels actually exist in words like Preterite laid < lay+ed. In other words, your pair wugi / wuga is not a fully satisfactory minimal pair. It might involve interferences caused by morpheme boundaries. So I would recommend to look for another minimal pair that does not involve that kind of issues.
answered 1 hour ago
Arnaud FournetArnaud Fournet
77827
add a comment |
Your Answer
StackExchange.ready(function() {
var channelOptions = {
tags: "".split(" "),
id: "312"
};
initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);
StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function() {
// Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled) {
StackExchange.using("snippets", function() {
createEditor();
});
}
else {
createEditor();
}
});
function createEditor() {
StackExchange.prepareEditor({
heartbeatType: 'answer',
autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
convertImagesToLinks: false,
noModals: true,
showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
reputationToPostImages: null,
bindNavPrevention: true,
postfix: "",
imageUploader: {
brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
allowUrls: true
},
noCode: true, onDemand: true,
discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
});
}
});
dawnchandler is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2flinguistics.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f30847%2fdoes-a-difference-of-tense-count-as-a-difference-of-meaning-in-a-minimal-pair%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
2 Answers
2
active
oldest
votes
2 Answers
2
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
Yes. A minimal pair is meant to differ in one phoneme, to demonstrate that a speaker of the language can distinguish between the two words, and therefore that the contrast is phonemic. Since the difference between the words is on the level of phonology, it doesn't matter whether the difference in meaning is grammatical or lexical.
answered 3 hours ago
b ab a
1,6071225
add a comment |
Yes. A minimal pair is meant to differ in one phoneme, to demonstrate that a speaker of the language can distinguish between the two words, and therefore that the contrast is phonemic. Since the difference between the words is on the level of phonology, it doesn't matter whether the difference in meaning is grammatical or lexical.
answered 3 hours ago
b ab a
1,6071225
add a comment |
Yes. A minimal pair is meant to differ in one phoneme, to demonstrate that a speaker of the language can distinguish between the two words, and therefore that the contrast is phonemic. Since the difference between the words is on the level of phonology, it doesn't matter whether the difference in meaning is grammatical or lexical.
answered 3 hours ago
b ab a
1,6071225
Yes. A minimal pair is meant to differ in one phoneme, to demonstrate that a speaker of the language can distinguish between the two words, and therefore that the contrast is phonemic. Since the difference between the words is on the level of phonology, it doesn't matter whether the difference in meaning is grammatical or lexical.
answered 3 hours ago
b ab a
1,6071225
answered 3 hours ago
b ab a
1,6071225
answered 3 hours ago
b ab a
1,6071225
answered 3 hours ago
b ab a
1,6071225
1,6071225
add a comment |
add a comment |
Well, the issue is not as clear as the preceding answer states.
One issue here is morpheme-boundary.
It's not good policy to look for minimal pairs that involve morpheme boundaries. For example, drink drank drunk is ok because there is no boundary involved here, but there is the well-known case of Scottish English where vowel length normally does not exist, but some long vowels actually exist in words like Preterite laid < lay+ed. In other words, your pair wugi / wuga is not a fully satisfactory minimal pair. It might involve interferences caused by morpheme boundaries. So I would recommend to look for another minimal pair that does not involve that kind of issues.
answered 1 hour ago
Arnaud FournetArnaud Fournet
77827
add a comment |
Well, the issue is not as clear as the preceding answer states.
One issue here is morpheme-boundary.
It's not good policy to look for minimal pairs that involve morpheme boundaries. For example, drink drank drunk is ok because there is no boundary involved here, but there is the well-known case of Scottish English where vowel length normally does not exist, but some long vowels actually exist in words like Preterite laid < lay+ed. In other words, your pair wugi / wuga is not a fully satisfactory minimal pair. It might involve interferences caused by morpheme boundaries. So I would recommend to look for another minimal pair that does not involve that kind of issues.
answered 1 hour ago
Arnaud FournetArnaud Fournet
77827
add a comment |
Well, the issue is not as clear as the preceding answer states.
One issue here is morpheme-boundary.
It's not good policy to look for minimal pairs that involve morpheme boundaries. For example, drink drank drunk is ok because there is no boundary involved here, but there is the well-known case of Scottish English where vowel length normally does not exist, but some long vowels actually exist in words like Preterite laid < lay+ed. In other words, your pair wugi / wuga is not a fully satisfactory minimal pair. It might involve interferences caused by morpheme boundaries. So I would recommend to look for another minimal pair that does not involve that kind of issues.
answered 1 hour ago
Arnaud FournetArnaud Fournet
77827
Well, the issue is not as clear as the preceding answer states.
One issue here is morpheme-boundary.
It's not good policy to look for minimal pairs that involve morpheme boundaries. For example, drink drank drunk is ok because there is no boundary involved here, but there is the well-known case of Scottish English where vowel length normally does not exist, but some long vowels actually exist in words like Preterite laid < lay+ed. In other words, your pair wugi / wuga is not a fully satisfactory minimal pair. It might involve interferences caused by morpheme boundaries. So I would recommend to look for another minimal pair that does not involve that kind of issues.
answered 1 hour ago
Arnaud FournetArnaud Fournet
77827
answered 1 hour ago
Arnaud FournetArnaud Fournet
77827
answered 1 hour ago
Arnaud FournetArnaud Fournet
77827
answered 1 hour ago
Arnaud FournetArnaud Fournet
77827
77827
add a comment |
add a comment |
dawnchandler is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.
dawnchandler is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.
dawnchandler is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.
dawnchandler is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.
Thanks for contributing an answer to Linguistics Stack Exchange!
- Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!
But avoid …
- Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.
- Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.
To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2flinguistics.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f30847%2fdoes-a-difference-of-tense-count-as-a-difference-of-meaning-in-a-minimal-pair%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
