[h] and [x]. Phonemes or allophones?

Would you call the [x] in ''loch'' a phoneme or an allophone of /h/? I say it's a phoneme but it could equally just be an allophone of /h/.

It's either an allophone of /k/ or it's own phoneme depending on your dialect (or idiolect). It's definitely its own phoneme in some parts of Britian (notably Scotland) but generally not so outside.

[k] is an allophone of [x] in standard pronunciations.

By which Mxsmanic refers to Mid-western USA, RP and (maybe) Esturay English but definitely not Scottish nor Welsh nor Cornish.

Yes.

''It's either an allophone of /k/ or it's own phoneme depending on your dialect (or idiolect).''

Jim, What is the difference between a dialect and an idiolect. Aren't they the same thing?

Mxsmanic,

Just making things clear.

Fisherman,

An idiolect is the language, the grammar/pronunciation/vocab./etc., of an individual person. A dialect is the language of a group of people.

''An idiolect is the language, the grammar/pronunciation/vocab./etc., of an individual person. A dialect is the language of a group of people.''

So, therefore, the correct thing to say would be that the phoneme /K/ exists in my idiolect and not my dialect.

Does /K/ exist in your idiolect?

Also, how many phonemes are in your accent or in English. See linked thread,

http://www.antimoon.com/forum/2004/5904.htm

I might exist in your dialect ... if you're Scottish, for example.

"I might exist in your dialect ..." I think not. Typo: "It might exist in your dialect ..."

Well since [x] only appears in one word in English, that being loch, it seems impossible to believe that they are not allophones. Unless someone can find me a minimal pair where they assign different meaning.

Och y' cannae right on that one laddie ... only one word? Nay. And by the way, "loch" and "lock" mean different things.

I think James Rose was talking about [x] and [h] not [x] and [k].

[h] only ever occurs at the beginning of a word and [x] only ever occurs at the end of a word and they are very similar sounds too. So, therefore you could say that [x] and [h] are allophones.

[x] and [h] sound similar enough to be considered allophones.

Only most people who don't use [x] would use [k] in its place. Hence if you've got no [x], then it's an allophone of /k/ not /h/.

I agree.
I pronounce the word "or-chid"
with [x]
most people pronounce it with a [k].

Regards, Paul V.