Radius Solis wrote:Salmoneus wrote:While it's all fine and dandy busting out the skepticism when it comes to marginal distinction ... , but that doesn't mean that we can seriously claim that our 'phonetic intuitions' can't be trusted in clear-cut cases, like /k/ vs /m/ or, in this case, /@/ vs /I/.
"Evidence is irrelevant if I believe really really hard in my preferred answer!" is an even less valid argument than KathAveara's word salad, and that is truly impressive.
Congratulations, you have discovered skepticism. Yes, everything we think we know MIGHT be wrong. Similarly, there's no point doing, say, spectrographic analysis, because while you might THINK that the graphs say one thing, you MIGHT be wrong. You might be deluding yourself, or being mislead by a malicious demon, or you might be living in a virtual reality constructed by robots determined to make you think that /I/ is not a phoneme.
But the fact that you can IMAGINE commonsense impressions being misleading is not evidence that they ARE misleading.
You've taken two random phonemes and asserted that they're the same. And your evidence for this is that... everyone might be wrong about being able to distinguish them. Well yes, they might, and I guess that's a good reason not to stake the existence of the universe on the assumption that what seems true is true. But that's not actually evidence that they aren't distinguished.
This would be more appealing if you'd chosen some apparent 'fact' that seemed dubious or marginal, the sort of thing small enough for people to be easily mislead about it. People thinking that the stop in 'pin' is the same as the stop in 'spin', for instance - that's the sort of thing where the more you think about it, the less clearly true it appears, and eventually you can actually adduce evidence that they're not (i.e. putting your hand in front of your mouth). But 'do "Rosa's" and "roses" have the same vowel in the second syllable?' is such an obvious and unambiguous 'yes' that it would take some really persuasive evidence to overcome the evidence of the senses. Given that it's an issue where popular opinion, careful introspective evidence and the opinions of experts all coincide... sorry, but it'll take more than reasoning of the 'ahh, but how do you KNOW your teeth aren't made of cheese!?' kind to make the contrary opinion seem respectable. Because yes, popular opinion, careful introspective evidence and the opinions of experts CAN all be wrong, and can even all be wrong at the same time... but that's not a reason to believe that they ARE wrong!
Otherwise you float down the Pyrrhonian/Ungerian "oh but nobody can ever know anything because any belief that there is evidence may itself be a mistaken belief" waterway to sitting very still not able to do anything in case the imaginary crocodile eats you, because you can never know for sure that it's NOT there.
ETA: maybe you're confused because "Rosa's" and "roses" aren't words that often have to be distinguished. But there can surely be no reasonable doubt that the vowels are different in 'Lennin' and 'Lennon', 'purest' and 'purist', or 'illusion' or 'allusion'!
Another minimal pair: razors vs raises.
P.S. if you're determined to do away with schwa, it seems a lot more sensible to say that non-reduced schwa is an allophone of /r/. Though this isn't entirely convincing itself.