From one point of view, the modern output of phonemic papers may be pretty sharply divided into two kinds, those which consider alternative possibilities and those which do not; the latter are hereinafter termed assertive. The difference reflects neither schools, in the sense of theoretical biases, nor linguistic sophistication, which has not been lacking in the English-language and Americanist fields since these have come to serve as testing grounds for advances in methodology. For assertive phonemicization our examples are from Hoijer, Whorf, Bloomfield, Trager and Bloch and Smith, Swadesh, Harris and Voegelin. Alternative solutions are considered by Wonderly, Harris, Kluckhohn and McLeish, Wolff, Robinett, Trager, and Pike. Recognition of the two contrasting approaches is all that is asked for in these introductory remarks to a study concerned with an alternative dialect phonemicization. The remarks which now follow are intended to be neither an exposition of the weakness of assertive phonemic treatments nor a plea for alternative presentations. (The former includes some of the best linguistic work—where the field worker makes experimental tries at various solutions but presents only that result which turns out to be an experimental success. The latter includes some trivial work—where the alternative presentation is little more than a critique of a previously published solution.)