¹ J. Donald Bowen and Robert P. Stockwell, The phonemic interpretation of semivowels in Spanish, Lg. 31.236–40 (1955).

² In addition to the treatments listed in fn. 1 of the cited article, the problem has been dealt with by the following: Emilio Alarcos Llorach, Fonología española² 129–35, 137–40 (Madrid, 1954); George L. Trager, The phonemic treatment of semivowels, Lg. 18.220–3 (1942) ; Charles F. Hockett, Manual of phonology 54–5, 81 (Indiana University publications in anthropology and linguistics, Memoir 11 ; 1955). For statements similar to that of Bowen and Stockwell, see B. Pottier's review of E. Alarcos Llorach, op.cit. (1st ed. 1950), Romance philology 5.263 (1952), and Washington Vásquez, El fonema /s/ en el español del Uruguay, Revista de la Facultad de Humanidades y Ciencias 10.87–94 (1953), with the same solution as the one proposed by Bowen and Stockwell, but with no discussion.

³ An alternative solution is possible, involving the distribution of allophones in terms of syllable position : /i/ is [y̌] in syllable-initial position, but [y] in syllable-medial and final position. Abyecto is /ab-iékto/, abierto is /a-biérto/. But since Bowen and Stockwell admit that they ‘do not know where all the syllable boundaries are’ (237 fn. 4), presumably they could not use them as criteria.

⁴ In part the problem stems from the attempt to devise a single phonemic transcription that will represent many different varieties of Spanish at the same time. In that case, one might revise the wording in the text to read, ‘phones with potential palatal friction’, where ‘potential’ means roughly ‘in other speakers’ pronunciation of the same morpheme'. Such a procedure is open to question, however; cf. Bernard Bloch's statement, A set of postulates for phonemic analysis, Lg. 24.9 (1948), that ‘phonological analysis of a given idiolect does not reveal the phonological system of any idiolect belonging to a different dialect.‘

⁵ Alarcos Llorach, following the Prague tradition, suggests that /y/ and /i/ be considered members of the archiphoneme /I/; the two are neutralized in certain (morphologically determined) positions. He would write ley and leyes /lèI/ and /léIes/.

⁶ For this pair there are several alternative analyses, of varying (lack of) merit. One can (a) posit a contrast between /nn/ and /n/; (b) introduce /+/ in one or both of the examples; (c) assign both [w̌] and [w] to /u/ and contrast /n/ with /ŋ/ (elsewhere members of one phoneme); (d) indicate syllabic onset, as in fn. 3; or (e) analyze [w̌] as a cluster /gu/.

⁷ One could equally well transcribe unstressed /i/ in prohibir and nonsyllabic // in oigamos: /proibir, oigámos/. But see Hockett 54–5 for the position that ‘no such contrast exists’. It is not clear how he would provide for the difference.

⁸ One could maintain that (f) should be transcribed with /+/. But see Hockett's statement (55) that ‘there is no convincing evidence for an internal open juncture in Spanish’.

⁹ Bowen and Stockwell do not list /ow/ (written /ou/ in this note) among their syllabic nuclei. It occurs in admittedly rare forms such as bou ‘fishing with a net dragged by two boats’ and the proper name Bousoño.

¹⁰ In these dialects, incidentally, the Bowen-Stockwell analysis would yield a final cluster /-ys/ in these forms. Except in recent loanwords (such as golf), Spanish has no final clusters.