1000090429

~•t

~e•}

and

~o1, ~o"1, ~:)Y:f

without the vsriation to

and

~u~

which

frequent (or often more noruel) eleewhere. Speakero of

Stand&rd Spanish who are und to five vowels notice theae leoser

variante and an&lyse them as their

own

fe/

and /o/ and therefore

aesert tbat there are five vowela in QUechua and

.4ymar&l

a, e, i,

o, u. In this payohologioal reinterpretetion they are not al-ya

conoiatent, ao tbat there is sometimeo considerable argumont on

specif'ic words as to which variant they ought to write, and tbis

ar~nt

ia increased by the f'act tbat aome other oonaonants, notably

/rf, tend to oondition the vowel alao; but they do not lower them

ea mucb a e the back velara do, so tbat one is often .at a loes when

one has to write /1/ or

fef,

inasmuoh as the sound is more apt to

be raised

~·"'~

or lowered -4iv1, The atrong Spaniah trad1tion of

wr1t1ng QUechua in five vowels 1s hard to override since ita

protagonista are so very numeroua and ao very ardent. Hence a

atrange 11 tuation waa present at the Conference in that the larga

mejority of missionaris s, while granting that there were only three

aignificant sound unite and that it would be preferable for reading

campaign e and for advanced readers to bave only three vowels written,

still preferred to write five vowsla rather tban riak tbe antagcnism

of people who did not aocept the prinoiple of Premisa Tbree, Rence

they votad to ueo the five vowels. However, this deliberate over–

riding of tha linguietio aituation in whioh three vowels are phonemic

immediately brought out a train of minor 11ngcistio difficultiee,

Tbe auggestion which sounda

si~le

and obvious, that i s, that ths

vowels should be written as pronounoed, la by no means so simple as

1t sounds, beoauoe of the variation alraady desoribed. liben a word

will one momsnt be pronounced with

~o~

and anotbar with

~u+,

wbich is

to be written? If the author writea whiohever he hears, there could

be extremo confusion between different writings of the aams word.

The next IJII)Bt obviouo answsr is tbat' "e" and •o• should be written

only next to the coneonanta wbioh give· tbe most variant conditioning,

namely the baok velare

fqf,

fqb/ and fq'/• But this also leaves

aeveral difficultiea. First, how far from a back velar consonant

muat /i/ or

/uf

be, befara it is no longar cbanged to

~e}

~o~,

and how far mey (.e1 or

tOt

phonetically approaoh

~11

and

~u1

before

they are beet wri t ten that ny? Wbat should be done next to "r"

where the cond1tion1ng

not

co~lete?

How is one to persuade

people wbo can hear the contreat between t11 and te+, and

~u}

and

~ot,that

in otber situations where the back velar does not occur

they should all be apellad "i" and "u" regerdless of bow thet

particular pronunoiation seems to sound to them? Tha Conference

triad to formulate

co~lete

rules but only partially succeeded. The

best it could do waa to indicate that next to the back velara

/qf,

/ qh/ and fq •/, variants

~e¡.

and

~ot

should be conaistently cbosen

(witb one or two exoeptiona euch as when "ll" Collows in the

ooxt syllable and overcomsa this conditioning aituation), tbat {e}

and

tot

ehould be written even if one or two eyllables removed from

the back velar in the aame word

the low varianto seemsd to be

persi stently pronounced; and tbat elaewhere, in words which do not

contain the back velara, only the "1" and "u" should be used {oo

tbat a word like •apu" would be eo epelled even if some varietiea

happened to sound like tapol'h In Ecuador, where the strong con–

dit1oning 11ack velar consonante do not oceur, it would be preferal>le

only to uee the three vowele.