Article on Finno-Ugric in the Economist
Marc Adler
The sentence that is mutually comprehensible (translated as "The living
fish swims in water" in the article) is at the bottom of the article.
Estonian: Elav kala ujub vee all.
Finnish: Elävä kala ui veden alla.
Hungarian: Eleven hal úszkál a víz alatt.
Shouldn't this be "the living fish swims _underwater_ (veden _alla_)"?
And is the last one really comprehensible at first sight to the
untutored Estonian or Finnish eye?
Another page (http://www.antimoon.com/forum/t52-15.htm) has a different
Finnish sentence which looks closer to Hungarian.
Hungarian: Eleven hal úszkál a víz alatt
Finnish: Elävä kala uiskelee veden alla
Are the verb forms equivalent?
Marc
Peter T. Daniels
>
> http://www.economist.com/world/europe/displaystory.cfm?story_id=5323735
>
> The sentence that is mutually comprehensible (translated as "The living
> fish swims in water" in the article) is at the bottom of the article.
>
> Estonian: Elav kala ujub vee all.
>
> Finnish: Elävä kala ui veden alla.
>
> Hungarian: Eleven hal úszkál a víz alatt.
>
> Shouldn't this be "the living fish swims _underwater_ (veden _alla_)"?
What (in English) is the difference?
> And is the last one really comprehensible at first sight to the
> untutored Estonian or Finnish eye?
>
> Another page (http://www.antimoon.com/forum/t52-15.htm) has a different
> Finnish sentence which looks closer to Hungarian.
>
> Hungarian: Eleven hal úszkál a víz alatt
> Finnish: Elävä kala uiskelee veden alla
>
> Are the verb forms equivalent?
--
Peter T. Daniels gram...@att.net
Marc Adler
> What (in English) is the difference?
They translate it as "in water" in the article.
Marc
Jukka K. Korpela
> http://www.economist.com/world/europe/displaystory.cfm?story_id=5323735
The article contains several inaccuracies, starting from the very first
sentence: it contains a purported Finnish statement, which however does not
even use Finnish punctuation (we always leave a space around a dash, and
normally use en dash, not em dash) or the real form of the slogan
"Suur-Suomi". It gets worse rather fast, since the "Suur-Suomi" ideology does
not belong to "dying days of the Tsarist empire" but to the 20s, 30s, and
especially early 40s.
Thus, the expectations on linguistic accuracy cannot be very high.
> The sentence that is mutually comprehensible (translated as "The living
> fish swims in water" in the article) is at the bottom of the article.
>
> Estonian: Elav kala ujub vee all.
>
> Finnish: Elävä kala ui veden alla.
>
> Hungarian: Eleven hal úszkál a víz alatt.
It's far from being mutually comprehensible. This example has often (at least
from the 60s I think) been mentioned as illustrating similarities between
Finnish and Hungarian, but never before have I seen it presented as an
example of mutual comprehensibility. We can see the similarities if we look
at the sentences (in spoken language, the similarities are more difficult to
observe), but hardly any Finn would understand the Hungarian sentence without
previous knowledge about Hungarian.
Between Estonian and Finnish, there is some mutual comprehensibility, since
the languages are much more closely related to each other than to Hungarian.
But it's hardly _intuitive_ comprehensibility. Rather, Estonians and Finns
can learn each others' language more easily than foreign languages in general
(though there are pitfalls too - common words with quite different meanings).
> Shouldn't this be "the living fish swims _underwater_ (veden _alla_)"?
I don't quite understand the question. What's the difference between
"underwater" and "underwater"?
> And is the last one really comprehensible at first sight to the
> untutored Estonian or Finnish eye?
Certainly not.
> Hungarian: Eleven hal úszkál a víz alatt
> Finnish: Elävä kala uiskelee veden alla
>
> Are the verb forms equivalent?
I don't think they are. They are derivations of from a verb of common origin,
but the similarity of anything past the first sound is probably coincidental.
--
Yucca, http://www.cs.tut.fi/~jkorpela/
timo.l...@gmail.com
> http://www.economist.com/world/europe/displaystory.cfm?story_id=5323735
>
> The sentence that is mutually comprehensible (translated as "The living
> fish swims in water" in the article) is at the bottom of the article.
>
> Estonian: Elav kala ujub vee all.
>
> Finnish: Elävä kala ui veden alla.
>
> Hungarian: Eleven hal úszkál a víz alatt.
>
> Shouldn't this be "the living fish swims _underwater_ (veden _alla_)"?
The correct translation of at least the Finnish and Estonian sentences
is "the living fish swims underwater". Don't know about Hungarian, but
it seems like 'alatt' were the same postposition as FIN 'alla' (under),
and apparently it has the same meaning (= underwater).
> And is the last one really comprehensible at first sight to the
> untutored Estonian or Finnish eye?
>
> Another page (http://www.antimoon.com/forum/t52-15.htm) has a different
> Finnish sentence which looks closer to Hungarian.
>
> Hungarian: Eleven hal úszkál a víz alatt
> Finnish: Elävä kala uiskelee veden alla
>
> Are the verb forms equivalent?
At least the Finnish translation is incorrect, the verb form should be
either 'ui' (= swims) or 'uiskentelee' (= sth like 'keep on swimming in
different directions').
According a small dictionary:
http://www.finnhun.com/index.php?p=dictionary&PHPSESSID=bf93c417caa9385fe459c0c0b8544495&language=angol
FIN uida (to swim) is HUN úszik
FIN uiskennella (to keep on swiming etc.) is HUN úszkál
and then the translations from HUN to ENG
HUN úszkál ENG swim about
HUN úszik ENG swim, ride, float, drift
So, it seems that Hungarian at least in this case has a kind of verb
modificator similar to that of Finnish. Finnish language has a very
rich verb modificator system. Often some ten modifications can be
derived from one base verb (intransitive/transitive, having done type,
momenteanous, frequentative etc.)
Timo
Marc Adler
> I don't quite understand the question. What's the difference between
> "underwater" and "underwater"?
The article has "in water" as the translation for some reason.
Marc
Peter T. Daniels
>
> "Marc Adler" <marc....@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > http://www.economist.com/world/europe/displaystory.cfm?story_id=5323735
>
> The article contains several inaccuracies, starting from the very first
> sentence: it contains a purported Finnish statement, which however does not
> even use Finnish punctuation (we always leave a space around a dash, and
> normally use en dash, not em dash)
Whoa -- a spaced en-dash is _British_ style, and a closed-up em-dash is
_American_ style, and The Economist is a British magazine!
Harlan Messinger
Isn't The Economist the British magazine that also uses the US
convention for numbers in the billions and trillions?
Aidan Kehoe
Ar an seachtú lá is fiche de mí na Nollaig, scríobh Harlan Messinger:
> >>>http://www.economist.com/world/europe/displaystory.cfm?story_id=5323735
> >>
> >>The article contains several inaccuracies, starting from the very first
> >>sentence: it contains a purported Finnish statement, which however does
> >>not even use Finnish punctuation (we always leave a space around a
> >>dash, and normally use en dash, not em dash)
> > Whoa -- a spaced en-dash is _British_ style, and a closed-up em-dash is
> > _American_ style, and The Economist is a British magazine!
>
> Isn't The Economist the British magazine that also uses the US convention
> for numbers in the billions and trillions?
The UK took up that convention three decades ago or so.
Jack Lynch--zombie Irish Taoiseach teaching English at Rutgers!--says spaces
around the dash are a matter of house
style. http://andromeda.rutgers.edu/~jlynch/Writing/d.html#dash
--
I AM IN JAIL AND ALLOWED SEND ONLY ONE CABLE SINCE WAS ARRESTED WHILE
MEASURING FIFTEEN FOOT WALL OUTSIDE PALACE AND HAVE JUST FINISHED COUNTING
THIRTY EIGHT THOUSAND FIVE HUNDERED TWENTY TWO NAMES WHOS WHO IN MIDEAST.
Jukka K. Korpela
- -
> > > Whoa -- a spaced en-dash is _British_ style, and a closed-up em-dash
> > > is _American_ style, and The Economist is a British magazine!
> >
> > Isn't The Economist the British magazine that also uses the US
> > convention for numbers in the billions and trillions?
>
> The UK took up that convention three decades ago or so.
Which UK, which convention? Two conventions were mentioned. You seem to mean
the dash issue. Can you please cite the authority that has the right to
express the opinion of the United Kingdom in such matters, or cite a reliable
study that shows that the population of the United Kingdom has approved such
a convention?
> Jack Lynch--zombie Irish Taoiseach teaching English at Rutgers!--says
> spaces around the dash are a matter of house
> style. http://andromeda.rutgers.edu/~jlynch/Writing/d.html#dash
Sorry, but anyone who writes that an em dash has the width of "m" cannot be
taken seriously in matters of dash usage. Besides, using spaces around an em
dash is just pointless (though it was previously common in Finnish too). The
spaces around an en dash compensate for the shortness of the dash as compared
with an em dash. You would mix two typographic traditions for no good reason.
The original dash issue here was the use of the em dash without spaces in a
quotation purported to be Finnish. That's simply absolutely wrong.
A quotation presented in quotation marks shall be a verbatim quotation,
including the original punctuation. (It was not a quotation at all, just a
distorted phrase.)
--
Yucca, http://www.cs.tut.fi/~jkorpela/
Aidan Kehoe
Ar an seachtú lá is fiche de mí na Nollaig, scríobh Jukka K. Korpela:
> > > > Whoa -- a spaced en-dash is _British_ style, and a closed-up em-dash
> > > > is _American_ style, and The Economist is a British magazine!
> > >
> > > Isn't The Economist the British magazine that also uses the US
> > > convention for numbers in the billions and trillions?
> >
> > The UK took up that convention three decades ago or so.
>
> Which UK,
The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland.
> which convention?
The US convention for numbers in the billions and trillions.
> Two conventions were mentioned. [You seem to mean the dash issue.] Can you
> please cite the authority that has the right to express the opinion of
> the United Kingdom in such matters, or cite a reliable study that shows
> that the population of the United Kingdom has approved such a convention?
http://alt-usage-english.org/excerpts/fxbill00.html :
“[...] in 1974 [...] Prime Minister Harold Wilson announced to the House of
Commons that the meaning of "billion" in papers concerning Government
statistics would thenceforth be 10^9, in conformity with U.S. usage.
Despite this, the U.S. meaning is still rare outside journalism and
finance, [...]”
Which is to say, the US meaning is still rare outside those circles that
have occasion to the word.
> > Jack Lynch--zombie Irish Taoiseach teaching English at Rutgers!--says
> > spaces around the dash are a matter of house
> > style. http://andromeda.rutgers.edu/~jlynch/Writing/d.html#dash
>
> Sorry, but anyone who writes that an em dash has the width of "m" cannot
> be taken seriously in matters of dash usage.
Or maybe he’s been exposed to different publishers ...
> Besides, using spaces around an em dash is just pointless (though it was
> previously common in Finnish too). The spaces around an en dash
> compensate for the shortness of the dash as compared with an em dash. You
> would mix two typographic traditions for no good reason.
It’s the only convention used in the Livre de Poche books I’ve seen (in
French); I’ve just confirmed it with their _Apostille au Nom de la Rose._
> The original dash issue here was the use of the em dash without spaces in a
> quotation purported to be Finnish. That's simply absolutely wrong.
Is it absolutely wrong to use ASCII quotation marks for a piece of German
text cited in English? If not, what’s the difference with your case?
> A quotation presented in quotation marks shall be a verbatim quotation,
> including the original punctuation. (It was not a quotation at all, just a
> distorted phrase.)
If you’re using “shall” in its specialised internet RFC meaning, then
sure. If you’re using it descriptively, nope, that is not so. Cf. _Bulletin
de la société de linguistique de Paris, 1871_, p. clxxiv:
M. Whitley Stokes, qui me transmet cette explication, la regarde comme
très-probable et fournit, dans la langue même du pays, des analogies à cette
perversion du sens étymologique et original :
« I think it very likely, dit-il, that _mahaut_ ＝ _mahâmâtra ‘man of great
wealth’ is merely an ironical title. […]
(punctuation as in original, except that use underscores surrounding a word
instead of italicising it.) Or, look at the OED citations for esprit
d’escalier--none of them use guillemets.
Jukka K. Korpela
> > Which UK,
>
> The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland.
And who has the authority to speak for her?
> > which convention?
>
> The US convention for numbers in the billions and trillions.
Really? Yet you wrote about the other convention (dashes).
> “[...] in 1974 [...] Prime Minister Harold Wilson announced to the
> House of Commons that the meaning of "billion" in papers concerning
> Government statistics would thenceforth be 10^9, in conformity with U.S.
> usage.
Usage in papers concerning Government statistics covers about one thousandth
(or less) of all English language used in the UK. What about the rest?
> Despite this, the U.S. meaning is still rare outside journalism and
> finance, [...]”
So even your source says that the UK adopted no such convention.
> > Sorry, but anyone who writes that an em dash has the width of "m"
> > cannot be taken seriously in matters of dash usage.
>
> Or maybe he’s been exposed to different publishers ...
Irrelevant. Either you know what you are writing about, or you don't.
> Is it absolutely wrong to use ASCII quotation marks for a piece of German
> text cited in English?
What are you asking about? The quotation marks around a quotation belong to
the language of the quoting document, so you should naturally use English
quotation marks around a piece of text quoted in a document in English, no
matter what the language of the quoted text is. If the quoted text contains
quoted text, then it's a different problem, with no good solution, except the
method of presenting the quotation using typographic means (e.g., indentation
of a block quotation, perhaps with different font), so that no quotation
marks are used around the quoted text as a whole and its internal quotation
marks can be conveniently retained.
ASCII quotation marks are of course wrong in any case. If you are forced to
use them due to technical limitations, you might be excused. Using _wrong_
dashes when you can use dashes is surely wrong, with no excuse. It is even
more wrong to use a dash without spaces around it when purportedly presenting
a verbatim quote of a text in a language that never uses and never used a
punctuation dash that way.
> > A quotation presented in quotation marks shall be a verbatim quotation,
> > including the original punctuation. (It was not a quotation at all,
> > just a distorted phrase.)
>
> If you’re using “shall” in its specialised internet RFC meaning,
> then sure.
Don't be ridiculous. This is not an RFC context.
> If you’re using it descriptively, nope, that is not so. Cf.
> _Bulletin de la société de linguistique de Paris, 1871_, p. clxxiv:
"Shall" means "shall" unless specified otherwise. In this case, it is a
matter of a norm of civilized language. You either quote the original, or
you present some translation. Using something in between, like original text
with messed-up punctuation or orthography, is just barbaric. Quoting sources
that violate such principles proves nothing.
--
Yucca, http://www.cs.tut.fi/~jkorpela/
Peter T. Daniels
That's quite wrong. Consult the Chicago Manual of Style. Em-dash vs.
spaced en-dash is a matter of typetics, not typemics, and is adjusted in
quotations just as single vs. double quotation marks is adjusted to the
quoted context, not repeated from the original publication.
And "em" and "en" dashes most certainly are named for the letters m and
n. An em-space (called an em-quad) is the width of an m (and a square
piece of type -- an em-quad is as wide as it is high); an en-quad is the
width of an n.
Jukka K. Korpela
> That's quite wrong.
Which "that"? You quoted my message in extenso, yet apparently comment on
some point(s) only. It is regarded as good practice in Usenet (and elsewhere)
to quote just the relevant part, especially when the original is easily
available to readers.
> Consult the Chicago Manual of Style.
I often do, though this issue - punctuation in foreign quotations - is far
more general in nature than the recommended style for US English according to
a publishing organization.
Which part do you mean? The newest (15th) edition expresses, in clause 11.85,
quite explicitly the principle that foreign-language quotations "are
punctuated as in the original except that quotation marks replace guillemets
(or their equivalents) and ellipsis points are spaced". The quotation marks
are a special problem, as I mentioned, and the spacing of ellipsis points
could (arguably) be regarded as typographical only. In any case, the Manual
says that other punctuation be retained as in original, and surely this
includes dashes. Your witness is thus my witness.
> Em-dash vs.
> spaced en-dash is a matter of typetics, not typemics,
Please stop playing with cryptic neologisms. To speak normal English, the
difference between the em dash and the en dash is orthographical, especially
in the computer era: you need to select U+2013 or U+2014, and this difference
is in the text, in character data, not in typesetting rules.
> and is adjusted in
> quotations just as single vs. double quotation marks is adjusted to the
> quoted context, not repeated from the original publication.
It is a quite different case, since the eventual adaptation of quotation
marks is due to rules of nesting quotations. We adapt even same-language
quotations as regards to quotation marks inside them.
> And "em" and "en" dashes most certainly are named for the letters m and
> n.
Nobody said the opposite. The issue was their width.
> An em-space (called an em-quad) is the width of an m (and a square
> piece of type -- an em-quad is as wide as it is high); an en-quad is the
> width of an n.
That's a different issue, though you are equally or more wrong here; see
http://home2.swipnet.se/%7Ew-20547/stylework/typograph1-en.html
for a thorough explanation.
Regarding the width of dashes, why don't you do this: open your favorite word
processor and type the letter m, the em dash, the letter n, and the en dash,
each on a line of its own. Then view this piece of text using different
fonts. You will easily see how the widths vary. If the en dash equals the
letter n in width, it is quite coincidental. Even more so for the em dash,
which is in most fonts considerably wider than the letter m (or even the
uppercase M).
--
Yucca, http://www.cs.tut.fi/~jkorpela/
aslans...@yahoo.com
> "Marc Adler" <marc....@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > http://www.economist.com/world/europe/displaystory.cfm?story_id=5323735
>
> The article contains several inaccuracies, starting from the very first
> sentence: it contains a purported Finnish statement, which however does not
> even use Finnish punctuation (we always leave a space around a dash, and
> normally use en dash, not em dash) or the real form of the slogan
> "Suur-Suomi". It gets worse rather fast, since the "Suur-Suomi" ideology does
> not belong to "dying days of the Tsarist empire" but to the 20s, 30s, and
> especially early 40s.
>
> Thus, the expectations on linguistic accuracy cannot be very high.
>
> > The sentence that is mutually comprehensible (translated as "The living
> > fish swims in water" in the article) is at the bottom of the article.
> >
> > Estonian: Elav kala ujub vee all.
> >
> > Finnish: Elävä kala ui veden alla.
> >
> > Hungarian: Eleven hal úszkál a víz alatt.
>
I couldn't help seeing the similarities to some words in Turkic.
1- alt means under in Turkish which obviously seems similar to alatt
2- yüz- means swim in Turkish which seems (not-so-obviously) similar
to Hungarian úsz-
3- ya$ayan means living in Turkish. There is no similarity at first but
replace ya$ with the other Turkic equivalent yil you have yilayan and
there we go it seems similar to Hungarian eleven.
One sentence, 3 similarities. Not bad at all.
Joachim Pense
>
> That's quite wrong. Consult the Chicago Manual of Style. Em-dash vs.
> spaced en-dash is a matter of typetics, not typemics, and is adjusted in
Is the word pair "typetics" vs. "typemics" standard in the jargons of
typography or linguistics?
What about related notions in grammatology? You seem to discourage the use
of "grapheme" in TWWS. Are there suggested preferred terminologies in that
area?
Joachim
Peter T. Daniels
>
> "Peter T. Daniels" <gram...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>
> > That's quite wrong.
>
> Which "that"? You quoted my message in extenso, yet apparently comment on
> some point(s) only. It is regarded as good practice in Usenet (and elsewhere)
> to quote just the relevant part, especially when the original is easily
> available to readers.
I quoted what I was responding to, and corrected your two errors. Stop
telling me not to quote what I'm commenting on.
> > Consult the Chicago Manual of Style.
>
> I often do, though this issue - punctuation in foreign quotations - is far
> more general in nature than the recommended style for US English according to
> a publishing organization.
>
> Which part do you mean? The newest (15th) edition expresses, in clause 11.85,
> quite explicitly the principle that foreign-language quotations "are
> punctuated as in the original except that quotation marks replace guillemets
> (or their equivalents) and ellipsis points are spaced". The quotation marks
> are a special problem, as I mentioned, and the spacing of ellipsis points
> could (arguably) be regarded as typographical only. In any case, the Manual
> says that other punctuation be retained as in original, and surely this
> includes dashes. Your witness is thus my witness.
Tell me where it discusses em vs. spaced en-dash.
I, OTOH, if I could remember whether it was Anthony Burgess or David
Lodge, coould perhaps direct you to his account of first seeing an
American edition of one of his novels -- the change of dash style is one
of the things he mentioned as particularly noticeable.
And when I typeset for Routledge, I was directed to make the change.
> > Em-dash vs.
> > spaced en-dash is a matter of typetics, not typemics,
>
> Please stop playing with cryptic neologisms.
Did you not understand the point?
And who is a _Finn_ to complain about morphological creativity???
> To speak normal English, the
> difference between the em dash and the en dash is orthographical, especially
> in the computer era: you need to select U+2013 or U+2014, and this difference
> is in the text, in character data, not in typesetting rules.
>
> > and is adjusted in
> > quotations just as single vs. double quotation marks is adjusted to the
> > quoted context, not repeated from the original publication.
>
> It is a quite different case, since the eventual adaptation of quotation
> marks is due to rules of nesting quotations. We adapt even same-language
> quotations as regards to quotation marks inside them.
>
> > And "em" and "en" dashes most certainly are named for the letters m and
> > n.
>
> Nobody said the opposite. The issue was their width.
That's why you should't snip relevant material. You certainly did so
say.
> > An em-space (called an em-quad) is the width of an m (and a square
> > piece of type -- an em-quad is as wide as it is high); an en-quad is the
> > width of an n.
>
> That's a different issue, though you are equally or more wrong here; see
> http://home2.swipnet.se/%7Ew-20547/stylework/typograph1-en.html
> for a thorough explanation.
>
> Regarding the width of dashes, why don't you do this: open your favorite word
> processor and type the letter m, the em dash, the letter n, and the en dash,
> each on a line of its own. Then view this piece of text using different
> fonts. You will easily see how the widths vary. If the en dash equals the
> letter n in width, it is quite coincidental. Even more so for the em dash,
> which is in most fonts considerably wider than the letter m (or even the
> uppercase M).
I really don't care what poor computer imitations of type do or do not
do.
Of course em- and en-dashes differ in width in different fonts;
different fonts have different x-heights that all sit on the same body
size, e.g. 10 pt.
Learn about hot-type typography, which is where the terminology comes
from. ("Real" points, in fact, don't even come exactly 72 to the inch!)
Peter T. Daniels
>
> Am Wed, 28 Dec 2005 04:48:40 GMT schrieb Peter T. Daniels:
>
> >
> > That's quite wrong. Consult the Chicago Manual of Style. Em-dash vs.
> > spaced en-dash is a matter of typetics, not typemics, and is adjusted in
>
> Is the word pair "typetics" vs. "typemics" standard in the jargons of
> typography or linguistics?
Of course not. I'm writing to linguists, so I expect them to understand
a basic concept.
> What about related notions in grammatology? You seem to discourage the use
> of "grapheme" in TWWS. Are there suggested preferred terminologies in that
> area?
I "discourage" "grapheme" because there is no unit in a writing system
for which that label is appropriate, because there is no level in
writing that is equivalent to "double articulation" (Martinet) /
"duality of patterning" (Hockett), which is the (innate, human)
characteristic that is encapsulated in the suffix -eme.
Christian Weisgerber
> The original dash issue here was the use of the em dash without spaces in a
> quotation purported to be Finnish. That's simply absolutely wrong.
> A quotation presented in quotation marks shall be a verbatim quotation,
> including the original punctuation.
You are wildly overreacting. I would have to check a style manual
on how to handle foreign typography in a quotation. Most people
probably aren't even aware that there are differences in typography
related to the language of a text.
--
Christian "naddy" Weisgerber na...@mips.inka.de
Jukka K. Korpela
> Stop telling me not to quote what I'm commenting on.
Actually, even the copyright laws (in civilized countries) limit the right to
quote other people's works more than is justified for the purpose of the
quotation. I am thus within my rights to demand that you quote only the
relevant part(s), though I primarily just gave advice on Usenet conduct.
>> > Consult the Chicago Manual of Style.
- -
> Tell me where it discusses em vs. spaced en-dash.
I am not going to read it for you. It has a handy index, in addition to a
detailed table of contents. However, our topic was whether punctuation be
retained in foreign-language quotations. I pointed out that your witness
supports what I wrote. Or do you wish to say that dashes, when used as
punctuation marks, are not punctuation marks?
>> > Em-dash vs.
>> > spaced en-dash is a matter of typetics, not typemics,
>>
>> Please stop playing with cryptic neologisms.
>
> Did you not understand the point?
I can figure it out, and you are wrong, and I actually explained the dash
issue in plain English (well, normal English) words. I was just trying to
help you present _your_ view in understandable terms. Using invented words
with ridiculously low frequency of use isn't really good argumentation, and
I would hate to win an argument just because the opponent cannot express his
position.
> And who is a _Finn_ to complain about morphological creativity???
What is that - argumentum ad nationalitatem? Besides, even when discussing in
Finnish, we don't just throw in invented words that we soup up from foreign
ingredients. Well, some of us do, but few people take them seriously.
>> > And "em" and "en" dashes most certainly are named for the letters m
>> > and n.
>>
>> Nobody said the opposite. The issue was their width.
>
> That's why you should't snip relevant material. You certainly did so
> say.
If you don't know what's relevant and what is not, maybe you should read
again before commenting. Comprehensive quoting is _not_ a substitute for
comprehensive reading.
Can you identify the exact sentence where I said something about the origin
of the names "em dash" and "en dash"? You cannot. Yet you claim that I
certainly did so say.
> I really don't care what poor computer imitations of type do or do not
> do.
This reminds me of a story about some astronomers who preferred to keep their
ideas instead of actually looking at the stars.
> Of course em- and en-dashes differ in width in different fonts;
That was not the issue. The fact that you refuse to look at is that your
claim about the widths of em and en dashes is patently false: the widths are
in no fixed relationship to the widths of "m" and "n" or any other letter.
--
Yucca, http://www.cs.tut.fi/~jkorpela/
Jukka K. Korpela
> Jukka K. Korpela <jkor...@cs.tut.fi> wrote:
>
>> The original dash issue here was the use of the em dash without spaces
>> in a quotation purported to be Finnish. That's simply absolutely wrong.
>> A quotation presented in quotation marks shall be a verbatim quotation,
>> including the original punctuation.
>
> You are wildly overreacting.
I don't think so. I am simply pointing out that the purported Finnish
quotation is all wrong, even in punctuation. The reason is that it is no
quotation but something invented, perhaps constructed on the basis of actual
statements.
> I would have to check a style manual
> on how to handle foreign typography in a quotation.
Yes, you would, if you wish to quote text in a foreign language and you are
uncertain about the matter.
> Most people
> probably aren't even aware that there are differences in typography
> related to the language of a text.
Or that there are different languages in the world. The point is that a
writer is supposed to know the language of his quotations, at least
superficially. Moreover, when you actually _quote_ written text, instead of
making things up, you can easily see and copy the original punctuation.
In fact, it is normally easier to do a simple copy operation than to modify
the punctuation.
--
Yucca, http://www.cs.tut.fi/~jkorpela/
Peter T. Daniels
modify
> the punctuation.
Except that that's not how it's done.
I've been (among other things) a copyeditor for more than 30 years. Why
don't you go teach your grandmother how to suck eggs?
Jukka K. Korpela
> Jukka K. Korpela wrote:
>
> modify
>> the punctuation.
>
> Except that that's not how it's done.
You still haven't learned to quote, have you? You are supposed to quote the
relevant part of the text you are commenting on. The quotation should contain
enough material to express the basic idea; no more, no less. If this is not
possible using a direct quotation, rephrase the idea you are commenting on;
this will help others to see how you understood the idea.
(You are now saying that you did not understand what I wrote or that you were
unable to recognize the key statement you wish to comment on. Besides, you
make the very common mistake - though an odd mistake for a linguist - of
using a pronoun that does not really refer to anything identifiable.
"It" is one of the most obscure words of English, especially when used
in commenting other people's texts.)
More hints: http://www.xs4all.nl/~wijnands/nnq/nquote.html
> I've been (among other things) a copyeditor for more than 30 years.
If you have mishandled foreign-language quotations by changing their
punctuation to match your taste that long, then it's really time to learn
how to quote.
--
Yucca, http://www.cs.tut.fi/~jkorpela/
Peter T. Daniels
>
> "Peter T. Daniels" <gram...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>
> > Jukka K. Korpela wrote:
> >
> > modify
> >> the punctuation.
> >
> > Except that that's not how it's done.
>
> You still haven't learned to quote, have you? You are supposed to quote the
> relevant part of the text you are commenting on. The quotation should contain
> enough material to express the basic idea; no more, no less. If this is not
> possible using a direct quotation, rephrase the idea you are commenting on;
> this will help others to see how you understood the idea.
The basic idea was that everything you wrote was BS and not worth
quoting.
> (You are now saying that you did not understand what I wrote or that you were
> unable to recognize the key statement you wish to comment on. Besides, you
> make the very common mistake - though an odd mistake for a linguist - of
> using a pronoun that does not really refer to anything identifiable.
> "It" is one of the most obscure words of English, especially when used
> in commenting other people's texts.)
>
> More hints: http://www.xs4all.nl/~wijnands/nnq/nquote.html
>
> > I've been (among other things) a copyeditor for more than 30 years.
>
> If you have mishandled foreign-language quotations by changing their
> punctuation to match your taste that long, then it's really time to learn
> how to quote.
Look, smartass, I defy you to show me _one_ book published by a
reputable publisher (academic or commercial) in the US that retains the
typographic conventions of a foreign language -- such as French spacing
before punctuation -- when quoting in an American work.
Jukka K. Korpela
> Look, smartass,
I am impressed by the nature and style of your messages. You seem unable or
unwilling to discuss our little differences of opinions in a civilized
manner.
I suspect that you could actually behave better, but your lack of any
comments on my arguments is eloquent. You referred to a style manual, and I
showed that it supports my view, not yours. I would expect you to call other
witnesses if you have any. When you start writing vulgar personal attacks, on
me and my deceased grandparents, it seems fair to deduce that you have no
arguments.
> I defy you to show me _one_ book published by a
> reputable publisher (academic or commercial) in the US that retains the
> typographic conventions of a foreign language -- such as French spacing
> before punctuation -- when quoting in an American work.
_You_ referred to a style manual. Are you now trying to change the burden of
proof when I showed that your witness does not support you?
I'm not sure whether you count "The World's Writing Systems" as an American
work (my copy says "printed in the United States of America", and the
publisher's address is in New York). The publisher is surely and
justly reputable, and so is the book. The sample of German in it, on p. 646,
uses German quotation marks.
--
Yucca, http://www.cs.tut.fi/~jkorpela/
Aidan Kehoe
Ar an t-ochtú lá is fiche de mí na Nollaig, scríobh Jukka K. Korpela:
> > > Which UK,
> >
> > The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland.
>
> And who has the authority to speak for her?
The government of a country has the authority to speak for that country in
many capacities, but that’s mostly irrelevant here, because I said “The UK
took up [this] convention three decades ago” and as I cited, it was Her
Majesty’s Government that took up the convention. As such, “the UK” means
the same thing as it does in:
“The Foreign Secretary says the UK has to show some flexibility in budget
negotiations [...]” -- from http://www.fco.gov.uk/
“The UK has several overseas territories, including Gibraltar and the
Falkland Islands [...]” -- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Kingdom
“The UK has made spam a criminal offence to try to stop the flood of
unsolicited messages.” -- http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/3120628.stm
> > > which convention?
> >
> > The US convention for numbers in the billions and trillions.
>
> Really? Yet you wrote about the other convention (dashes).
I wrote about two conventions in two separate paragraphs; I do beg your
pardon if you found that confusing.
> > [...] in 1974 [...] Prime Minister Harold Wilson announced to the
> > House of Commons that the meaning of "billion" in papers concerning
> > Government statistics would thenceforth be 10^9, in conformity with U.S.
> > usage.
>
> Usage in papers concerning Government statistics covers about one
> thousandth (or less) of all English language used in the UK. What about
> the rest?
Journalism and finance use the “billion” = ten to the ninth convention. The
number of fields that have a need to describe the concept often is not
large, but my 1999 Oxford Duden English-German dictionary gives the
definition for the English word as so, where „die Billion“ is ten to the
twelfth and „die Milliarde“ is ten to the ninth:
billion /ˈbɪljən/ n. -> 1352 A (thousand million) Milliarde, die; B
(esp. Brit. dated: million million) Billion, die
The table of numerals in English on page 1352 to which it refers doesn’t
even list the ten to the twelfth convention. And while it describes American
English too, this dictionary is not biased towards it.
> > Despite this, the U.S. meaning is still rare outside journalism and
> > finance, [...]
>
> So even your source says that the UK adopted no such convention.
It doesn’t say any such thing.
> > > Sorry, but anyone who writes that an em dash has the width of "m"
> > > cannot be taken seriously in matters of dash usage.
> >
> > Or maybe he’s been exposed to different publishers ...
>
> Irrelevant. Either you know what you are writing about, or you don't.
And it seems that on this, you don’t.
> > Is it absolutely wrong to use ASCII quotation marks for a piece of
> > German text cited in English?
>
> What are you asking about? The quotation marks around a quotation belong
> to the language of the quoting document,
I regard them as a border between the two, and I don’t see a reason--beyond
typographic convenience--to prefer the language of the first document for
them.
Note also that ten years ago, citations in US books from English-language
sources that didn’t use US spelling conventions would be respelled without
a second thought, and vice versa. This is changing with more exposure to
typeset matter from the other tradition.
> [...] ASCII quotation marks are of course wrong in any case. If you are
> forced to use them due to technical limitations, you might be
> excused. Using _wrong_ dashes when you can use dashes is surely wrong,
> with no excuse.
It’s not surely wrong, when there is no universal convention for the
behaviour in question.
> It is even more wrong to use a dash without spaces around it when
> purportedly presenting a verbatim quote of a text in a language that
> never uses and never used a punctuation dash that way.
If it’s conformant to house style, and there’s no more universally accepted
convention, then it can’t be ‘wrong.’ This is not mathematics.
> [...] "Shall" means "shall" unless specified otherwise. In this case, it
> is a matter of a norm of civilized language. You either quote the
> original, or you present some translation. Using something in between,
> like original text with messed-up punctuation or orthography, is just
> barbaric. Quoting sources that violate such principles proves nothing.
Well, sufficent sources would ideally prove that your stated norm for
civilised language isn’t observed in actuality, and as such the entire world
(less Peter T. Daniels’ WWS, of course) is barbaric in your view. Such a
perspective is not optimal for winning arguments.
Artur Jachacy
> _You_ referred to a style manual. Are you now trying to change the burden of
> proof when I showed that your witness does not support you?
From The Oxford Guide to Style by Robert Ritter:
'Punctuation of the extract should be exactly as in the original, with
two exceptions.... Secondly, when reproducing matter that previously has
been set using forms of punctuation differing from house style, you may
silently impose the usual conventions, such as replacing double quotation
marks with single, em rules or hyphens with en rules, expanding ampersands
to and, or otherwise standardizing foreign or antiquated typographical
constructions.'
> I'm not sure whether you count "The World's Writing Systems" as an American
> work (my copy says "printed in the United States of America", and the
> publisher's address is in New York). The publisher is surely and
> justly reputable, and so is the book. The sample of German in it, on p. 646,
> uses German quotation marks.
'Do not, however, impose any silent emendations - in spelling,
punctuation, or typography - where it is important to reproduce copy in
facsimile, as in legal and many scholarly works, or for bibliographical
study or textual criticism.'
Joachim Pense
I don't understand those terms (double articulartion, duality of
patterning).
I am not so sure if innateness should be so relevant here.
I understand that a system is needed that somehow labels the strokes /
wedges / lines versus the composition parts / radicals versus signs
(Chinese characters, letters, ...) versus higher units.
As a(n ex research-) mathematician, I am used to creating appropriate
terminologies for constellations coming up as an everyday exercise. Is this
really so difficult?
Joachim
Tommi Nieminen
> I "discourage" "grapheme" because there is no unit in a writing system
> for which that label is appropriate, because there is no level in
> writing that is equivalent to "double articulation" (Martinet) /
> "duality of patterning" (Hockett),
Errm... Could you elaborate on that? AFAIK, Martinet's double
articulation principle (with which I'm more familiar than with Hockett's
"duality of patterning") states only that in language, there are lots of
meaningful units or signs, each of which is entirely composed of a much
smaller set of meaningless units or speech sounds.
It's is an etic-emic relationship, as not only the emic "forms" of the
signs but their allo-variants as well need be composed of the exactly
same set of sounds. However, those sounds in question are emic, i.e.,
phonemes.
Thus, a sign like <word> is entirely composed of three or four English
phonemes. But likewise in writing, it is entirely composed of four
distinctive segmental letters, each of which has a variety of differing
forms (allo-forms) -- like different letter-forms etc. Doesn't that make
up enough excuse to use the word "grapheme"?
> which is the (innate, human) characteristic that is encapsulated in
> the suffix -eme.
I don't quite follow you; neither innateness nor species-specificity is
a major concern in double articulation.
--
.... Tommi Nieminen .... http://www.saunalahti.fi/~tommni/ ....
It is a very sad thing that nowadays there is so little
useless information. -Oscar Wilde-
.... tommi dot nieminen at campus dot jyu dot fi ....
Peter T. Daniels
>
> Peter T. Daniels:
>
> > Joachim Pense wrote:
> >>
> >> Am Wed, 28 Dec 2005 04:48:40 GMT schrieb Peter T. Daniels:
> >>
> >> >
> >> > That's quite wrong. Consult the Chicago Manual of Style. Em-dash vs.
> >> > spaced en-dash is a matter of typetics, not typemics, and is adjusted
> >> > in
> >>
> >> Is the word pair "typetics" vs. "typemics" standard in the jargons of
> >> typography or linguistics?
> >
> > Of course not. I'm writing to linguists, so I expect them to understand
> > a basic concept.
> >
> >> What about related notions in grammatology? You seem to discourage the
> >> use of "grapheme" in TWWS. Are there suggested preferred terminologies in
> >> that area?
> >
> > I "discourage" "grapheme" because there is no unit in a writing system
> > for which that label is appropriate, because there is no level in
> > writing that is equivalent to "double articulation" (Martinet) /
> > "duality of patterning" (Hockett), which is the (innate, human)
> > characteristic that is encapsulated in the suffix -eme.
>
> I don't understand those terms (double articulartion, duality of
> patterning).
Isn't it time you read some basic linguistics books?
> I am not so sure if innateness should be so relevant here.
>
> I understand that a system is needed that somehow labels the strokes /
> wedges / lines versus the composition parts / radicals versus signs
> (Chinese characters, letters, ...) versus higher units.
>
> As a(n ex research-) mathematician, I am used to creating appropriate
> terminologies for constellations coming up as an everyday exercise. Is this
> really so difficult?
Peter T. Daniels
>
> Peter T. Daniels kirjoitti:
>
> > I "discourage" "grapheme" because there is no unit in a writing system
> > for which that label is appropriate, because there is no level in
> > writing that is equivalent to "double articulation" (Martinet) /
> > "duality of patterning" (Hockett),
>
> Errm... Could you elaborate on that? AFAIK, Martinet's double
> articulation principle (with which I'm more familiar than with Hockett's
> "duality of patterning") states only that in language, there are lots of
> meaningful units or signs, each of which is entirely composed of a much
> smaller set of meaningless units or speech sounds.
Which doesn't apply to writing systems, overall.
> It's is an etic-emic relationship, as not only the emic "forms" of the
> signs but their allo-variants as well need be composed of the exactly
> same set of sounds. However, those sounds in question are emic, i.e.,
> phonemes.
>
> Thus, a sign like <word> is entirely composed of three or four English
> phonemes. But likewise in writing, it is entirely composed of four
> distinctive segmental letters, each of which has a variety of differing
> forms (allo-forms) -- like different letter-forms etc. Doesn't that make
> up enough excuse to use the word "grapheme"?
For what? Is <a> a grapheme? What about <A>? In language, there's
nothing like the relation between capital and small letters.
Is <ea> a grapheme? <ee>? What about <e_e>?
In Chinese, where are the "graphemes": the characters? the components
("radical" and "phonetic")? the 7 basic brushstrokes?
and on and on.
> > which is the (innate, human) characteristic that is encapsulated in
> > the suffix -eme.
>
> I don't quite follow you; neither innateness nor species-specificity is
> a major concern in double articulation.
It's a presupposition. "Duality of patterning" is _the_ key "design
feature," as Hockett termed them, of language.
Peter T. Daniels
>
> On Wed, 28 Dec 2005 18:28:14 +0000, Jukka K. Korpela wrote:
> > _You_ referred to a style manual. Are you now trying to change the burden of
> > proof when I showed that your witness does not support you?
>
> From The Oxford Guide to Style by Robert Ritter:
> 'Punctuation of the extract should be exactly as in the original, with
> two exceptions.... Secondly, when reproducing matter that previously has
> been set using forms of punctuation differing from house style, you may
> silently impose the usual conventions, such as replacing double quotation
> marks with single, em rules or hyphens with en rules, expanding ampersands
> to and, or otherwise standardizing foreign or antiquated typographical
> constructions.'
Thank you.
> > I'm not sure whether you count "The World's Writing Systems" as an American
> > work (my copy says "printed in the United States of America", and the
> > publisher's address is in New York). The publisher is surely and
> > justly reputable, and so is the book. The sample of German in it, on p. 646,
> > uses German quotation marks.
>
> 'Do not, however, impose any silent emendations - in spelling,
> punctuation, or typography - where it is important to reproduce copy in
> facsimile, as in legal and many scholarly works, or for bibliographical
> study or textual criticism.'
Thank you. I think you can see why my irritation with Jukka continues to
grow.
(In case you -- and apparently Jukka -- didn't know, I typeset WWS
myself. The publisher had nothing to do with, and in fact knew nothing
of, the content except for the number of words they would be paying
authors for, until the completed PostScript files were delivered.)
I haven't noticed your name before; welcome!
Joachim Pense
> Joachim Pense wrote:
>>
>> Peter T. Daniels:
>>
>>> Joachim Pense wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Am Wed, 28 Dec 2005 04:48:40 GMT schrieb Peter T. Daniels:
>>>>
>>>> >
>>>> > That's quite wrong. Consult the Chicago Manual of Style. Em-dash vs.
>>>> > spaced en-dash is a matter of typetics, not typemics, and is adjusted
>>>> > in
>>>>
>>>> Is the word pair "typetics" vs. "typemics" standard in the jargons of
>>>> typography or linguistics?
>>>
>>> Of course not. I'm writing to linguists, so I expect them to understand
>>> a basic concept.
>>>
>>>> What about related notions in grammatology? You seem to discourage the
>>>> use of "grapheme" in TWWS. Are there suggested preferred terminologies in
>>>> that area?
>>>
>>> I "discourage" "grapheme" because there is no unit in a writing system
>>> for which that label is appropriate, because there is no level in
>>> writing that is equivalent to "double articulation" (Martinet) /
>>> "duality of patterning" (Hockett), which is the (innate, human)
>>> characteristic that is encapsulated in the suffix -eme.
>>
>> I don't understand those terms (double articulartion, duality of
>> patterning).
>
> Isn't it time you read some basic linguistics books?
>
It looks like it.
Joachim
Joachim Pense
> Tommi Nieminen wrote:
>>
>> Peter T. Daniels kirjoitti:
>>
>>> I "discourage" "grapheme" because there is no unit in a writing system
>>> for which that label is appropriate, because there is no level in
>>> writing that is equivalent to "double articulation" (Martinet) /
>>> "duality of patterning" (Hockett),
>>
>> Errm... Could you elaborate on that? AFAIK, Martinet's double
>> articulation principle (with which I'm more familiar than with Hockett's
>> "duality of patterning") states only that in language, there are lots of
>> meaningful units or signs, each of which is entirely composed of a much
>> smaller set of meaningless units or speech sounds.
>
> Which doesn't apply to writing systems, overall.
>
>> It's is an etic-emic relationship, as not only the emic "forms" of the
>> signs but their allo-variants as well need be composed of the exactly
>> same set of sounds. However, those sounds in question are emic, i.e.,
>> phonemes.
>>
>> Thus, a sign like <word> is entirely composed of three or four English
>> phonemes. But likewise in writing, it is entirely composed of four
>> distinctive segmental letters, each of which has a variety of differing
>> forms (allo-forms) -- like different letter-forms etc. Doesn't that make
>> up enough excuse to use the word "grapheme"?
>
> For what? Is <a> a grapheme? What about <A>? In language, there's
> nothing like the relation between capital and small letters.
"Time" / "time" is a distinguishing pair in written English. (cf. Alice in
Wonderland). (Disregarding rules about sentence-starts at this point)
Joachim
Peter T. Daniels
Are <T> and <t> two graphemes? If so, what about the intimate
relationship between them, paralleled by nothing in language?
Jukka K. Korpela
> From The Oxford Guide to Style by Robert Ritter:
Does the quoted text deal with _foreign-language_ quotations, and can you
specify any _actual_ examples of barbarization of such quotations (i.e.,
writing them against the rules of the language of the original)?
>> I'm not sure whether you count "The World's Writing Systems" as an
>> American work (my copy says "printed in the United States of America",
>> and the publisher's address is in New York). The publisher is surely and
>> justly reputable, and so is the book. The sample of German in it, on p.
>> 646, uses German quotation marks.
>
> 'Do not, however, impose any silent emendations - in spelling,
> punctuation, or typography - where it is important to reproduce copy in
> facsimile, as in legal and many scholarly works, or for bibliographical
> study or textual criticism.'
So how often does one include foreign-language quotations in other than
scholarly etc. works? You are trying to explain away the only evidence about
actual usage as an exception. It seems that your evidence, too, speaks
_against_ messing around with punctuation in quoted texts (except perhaps
modernizing or "standardizing" same-language quotations - something that
is rather questionable too, but a different issue).
--
Yucca, http://www.cs.tut.fi/~jkorpela/
Jukka K. Korpela
> Are <T> and <t> two graphemes?
Yes. I would have expected you to know this, especially when a minimal pair
had been mentioned.
> If so, what about the intimate
> relationship between them, paralleled by nothing in language?
I don't know what they do intimately with each other, but any relationship
between them does not change the grapheme status. Besides, their relationship
is paralleled quite well by their relationship between <A> and <a>, or
between uppercase omega and lowercase omega.
--
Yucca, http://www.cs.tut.fi/~jkorpela/
Jukka K. Korpela
> Are <T> and <t> two graphemes?
Yes. I would have expected you to know this, especially when a minimal pair
had been mentioned. But it seems that you have a religion-like attitude to
this issue.
> If so, what about the intimate relationship between them, paralleled
> by nothing in language?
I don't know what they do intimately with each other, but any relationship
between them does not change the grapheme status. Besides, their
relationship is paralleled quite well by the relationship between <A> and
Peter T. Daniels
>
> "Peter T. Daniels" <gram...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>
> > Are <T> and <t> two graphemes?
>
> Yes. I would have expected you to know this, especially when a minimal pair
> had been mentioned.
If you think it's so simple, you've never read anything whatsoever on
"graphemic theory." You might start with Gerhard Augst's very fat book.
> > If so, what about the intimate
> > relationship between them, paralleled by nothing in language?
>
> I don't know what they do intimately with each other, but any relationship
> between them does not change the grapheme status. Besides, their relationship
> is paralleled quite well by their relationship between <A> and <a>, or
> between uppercase omega and lowercase omega.
You just want to argue about anything, don't you.
There is nothing whatsoever in any emic relationship that is like
capital/lower case in the European alphabets
Peter T. Daniels
>
> Artur Jachacy <arturj...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > From The Oxford Guide to Style by Robert Ritter:
>
> Does the quoted text deal with _foreign-language_ quotations, and can you
> specify any _actual_ examples of barbarization of such quotations (i.e.,
> writing them against the rules of the language of the original)?
I asked you first.
I can show you plenty of examples of quotations of foreign texts with
the punctuation changed to fit the host text's standards and practices.
> >> I'm not sure whether you count "The World's Writing Systems" as an
> >> American work (my copy says "printed in the United States of America",
> >> and the publisher's address is in New York). The publisher is surely and
> >> justly reputable, and so is the book. The sample of German in it, on p.
> >> 646, uses German quotation marks.
> >
> > 'Do not, however, impose any silent emendations - in spelling,
> > punctuation, or typography - where it is important to reproduce copy in
> > facsimile, as in legal and many scholarly works, or for bibliographical
> > study or textual criticism.'
>
> So how often does one include foreign-language quotations in other than
> scholarly etc. works? You are trying to explain away the only evidence about
> actual usage as an exception. It seems that your evidence, too, speaks
> _against_ messing around with punctuation in quoted texts (except perhaps
> modernizing or "standardizing" same-language quotations - something that
> is rather questionable too, but a different issue).
You can't tell the difference between "important to reproduce copy in
facsimile" and ordinary quotation of a passage in a foreign language?
Jukka K. Korpela
> I said “The UK
> took up [this] convention three decades ago”
You quoted that the Prime Minister said that a convention will be
applied "in papers concerning Government statistics". As I already
pointed out, that covers but a minuscule part of the use of English in
the UK.
> I wrote about two conventions in two separate paragraphs;
Once again, obscure references to quoted text using vague pronouns made
the message unnecessarily confused.
> > > Despite this, the U.S. meaning is still rare outside journalism and
> > > finance, [...]
> >
> > So even your source says that the UK adopted no such convention.
>
> It doesn’t say any such thing.
It clearly says that the UK has not adopted the convention, despite
government efforts for a fairly long time. The only thing that the
government policy has achieved is uncertainty and obscurity so that it
is now surely best to avoid the word "billion" completely. Just as we
would not use "million" (but express numbers in some different way) if
the word meant 1,000,000 to most people but 1,000 in government
statistics and some other contexts. Actually, the situation is similar
in many other countries as well. I have seen too many wrong translations
in Finnish press that mechanically translate "billion" as "biljoona"
that I know that I do not know what the word means without making some
analysis or checking facts from reliable sources.
> > > > Sorry, but anyone who writes that an em dash has the width of "m"
> > > > cannot be taken seriously in matters of dash usage.
> > >
> > > Or maybe he’s been exposed to different publishers ...
> >
> > Irrelevant. Either you know what you are writing about, or you don't.
>
> And it seems that on this, you don’t.
Apparently you, too, refuse to make an actual experiment with the em
dash character in different fonts, comparing its width with the width of
"m". Such stubbornness would be worth a more noble cause.
> > What are you asking about? The quotation marks around a quotation belong
> > to the language of the quoting document,
>
> I regard them as a border between the two, and I don’t see a reason--beyond
> typographic convenience--to prefer the language of the first document for
> them.
It's a matter of orthography, not typography. Quotation marks are part
of a language, not in some no man's land between languages.
> Note also that ten years ago, citations in US books from English-language
> sources that didn’t use US spelling conventions would be respelled without
> a second thought, and vice versa. This is changing with more exposure to
> typeset matter from the other tradition.
Or perhaps due to the fact that people in the US are becoming better
aware of the existence of language forms other than US English. But
quoting British English in a text in US English can hardly be
characterized as a _foreign-language_ quotation.
> > [...] ASCII quotation marks are of course wrong in any case. If you are
> > forced to use them due to technical limitations, you might be
> > excused. Using _wrong_ dashes when you can use dashes is surely wrong,
> > with no excuse.
>
> It’s not surely wrong, when there is no universal convention for the
> behaviour in question.
Universal civilized treatment of foreign languages requires that they be
written according to their own rules as far as technically possible. We
don't need universal rules for punctuation. It suffices that there are
official established rules for the language used, whether in quotation
or elsewhere. If you can use dashes, it is surely wrong to use an em
dash without spaces for a purported quotation in a language with a rule
on using an en dash with spaces.
> If it’s conformant to house style, and there’s no more universally accepted
> convention, then it can’t be ‘wrong.’
Of course it can. House styles can be wrong, as any style. For example,
if a house style requires the omission of diacritic marks from foreign
names especially in languages where they are distinctive and important,
then the style is just wrong. Any norm can be considered in the light of
a more fundamental norm, up to the level of ultimate values such as
respect for other people, languages, and cultures.
> Well, sufficent sources would ideally prove that your stated norm for
> civilised language isn’t observed in actuality,
First, that would not prove it. Most people break the norm that forbids
stealing, at least in small scale and there is no risk of getting
caught; this does not make the norm "do not steal" wrong.
Second, no sources have been cited to show that the norm is not observed
in actuality. I am sure that such sources exist, too, but it's really
not my task to find them, even though my opponents keep finding sources
that support _my_ view.
Artur Jachacy
Sure, seems like I'm in for a share of my own.
> (In case you -- and apparently Jukka -- didn't know, I typeset WWS
> myself. The publisher had nothing to do with, and in fact knew nothing
> of, the content except for the number of words they would be paying
> authors for, until the completed PostScript files were delivered.)
I haven't thought about that, but it does seem obvious.
BTW, unspaced em rule is OUP's house style.
> I haven't noticed your name before; welcome!
Thank you. I've made (literally) a few posts before, nothing significant.
Artur
Artur Jachacy
> Artur Jachacy <arturj...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> From The Oxford Guide to Style by Robert Ritter:
>
> Does the quoted text deal with _foreign-language_ quotations, and can
> you specify any _actual_ examples of barbarization of such quotations
> (i.e., writing them against the rules of the language of the original)?
The quoted text deals with quotations in general. What do you think
'foreign or antiquated typographical constructions' refers to?
>>> I'm not sure whether you count "The World's Writing Systems" as an
>>> American work (my copy says "printed in the United States of America",
>>> and the publisher's address is in New York). The publisher is surely
>>> and justly reputable, and so is the book. The sample of German in it,
>>> on p. 646, uses German quotation marks.
>>
>> 'Do not, however, impose any silent emendations - in spelling,
>> punctuation, or typography - where it is important to reproduce copy in
>> facsimile, as in legal and many scholarly works, or for bibliographical
>> study or textual criticism.'
>
> So how often does one include foreign-language quotations in other than
> scholarly etc. works?
If one's name is e.g. Edgar Allan Poe, that would be quite often. And
please note that the above advice only concerns scholarly works in which
'it is important to reproduce copy in facsimile'.
> You are trying to explain away the only evidence about actual usage as
> an exception.
This thread began with evidence of actual usage.
> It seems that your evidence, too, speaks _against_ messing
> around with punctuation in quoted texts (except perhaps modernizing or
> "standardizing" same-language quotations - something that is rather
> questionable too, but a different issue).
Only if you choose to read it that way. You seem to have missed the word
'foreign' again.
Artur
Lee Sau Dan
>> "Time" / "time" is a distinguishing pair in written
>> English. (cf. Alice in Wonderland). (Disregarding rules about
>> sentence-starts at this point)
Peter> Are <T> and <t> two graphemes?
Aren't they? Isn't "turkey from Turkey" a minimal pair? Or "china
from China"?
Peter> If so, what about the intimate relationship between them,
Peter> paralleled by nothing in language?
You mean homonyms? Are the differences between "fair"/"fare",
"see"/"sea", etc. paralleled by anything in spoken English?
--
Lee Sau Dan 李守敦 ~{@nJX6X~}
E-mail: dan...@informatik.uni-freiburg.de
Home page: http://www.informatik.uni-freiburg.de/~danlee
Peter T. Daniels
> > (In case you -- and apparently Jukka -- didn't know, I typeset WWS
> > myself. The publisher had nothing to do with, and in fact knew nothing
> > of, the content except for the number of words they would be paying
> > authors for, until the completed PostScript files were delivered.)
>
> I haven't thought about that, but it does seem obvious.
> BTW, unspaced em rule is OUP's house style.
By that time I'd already been copyediting for the University of Chicago
Press for quite a few years, so the Manual was already second nature.
(The _design_ of the book was by a freelancer hired by Oxford -- I think
she did a great job -- and she had to make decisions about a number of
arcane points that I'm sure she'd never had to worry about before.)
OUP-NY doesn't seem to use the famous Oxford style guides; if I ever
found a copy at a usedbook store, I'd buy it!
Jukka K. Korpela
> There is nothing whatsoever in any emic relationship that is like
> capital/lower case in the European alphabets
That's irrelevant. Someone's fixed idea of some "emic relationship" is
irrelevant when discussing the grapheme concept, which can be defined and
used quite well without any highly abstract concepts like "emic".
The grapheme is simply a useful concept for analysis and communication about
phenomena of (written) language.
--
Yucca, http://www.cs.tut.fi/~jkorpela/
Jukka K. Korpela
>> You are trying to explain away the only evidence about actual usage as
>> an exception.
>
> This thread began with evidence of actual usage.
It began with a misquotation (something that was presented as direct quote
but isn't) and with my pointing out the mistake, mentioning that one of the
symptoms of misquotation was incorrect use of punctuation.
--
Yucca, http://www.cs.tut.fi/~jkorpela/
Jukka K. Korpela
> I can show you plenty of examples of quotations of foreign texts with
> the punctuation changed to fit the host text's standards and practices.
Yet you have given none, and you are trying to explain away an actual example
taken from a book that you co-edited. So much for the empiric side.
Regarding what's correct (as opposite to what is actually used), you have
given no arguments against my arguments on preserving the orthography of
texts exactly, if a text is presented as direct quotation. (If one is allowed
to change punctuation marks, next comes the orthography of words, and where
would this end?)
--
Yucca, http://www.cs.tut.fi/~jkorpela/
Carl Taylor
[...]
> Are <T> and <t> two graphemes? If so, what about the intimate
> relationship between them, paralleled by nothing in language?
Does the word "allograph" appear in the literature in this context?
Carl Taylor
Peter T. Daniels
Prove it.
State some "graphemic" analysis that's clearer than an analysis that
doesn't use the label.
Peter T. Daniels
>
> "Peter T. Daniels" <gram...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>
> > I can show you plenty of examples of quotations of foreign texts with
> > the punctuation changed to fit the host text's standards and practices.
>
> Yet you have given none,
If you come to my house, I will show you books.
> and you are trying to explain away an actual example
> taken from a book that you co-edited. So much for the empiric side.
What the fucking hell are you talking about?
In your typically profligate snippage, you have removed the mention of
the very few occasions in which the exact reproduction of original
typography is appropriate.
> Regarding what's correct (as opposite to what is actually used), you have
> given no arguments against my arguments on preserving the orthography of
> texts exactly, if a text is presented as direct quotation. (If one is allowed
> to change punctuation marks, next comes the orthography of words, and where
> would this end?)
Oh, NOW you're introducing some notion of "correct"?
Finally, you state that you are expressing nothing but your personal
opinion of how foreign-language materials SHOULD be quoted, and not any
facts at all about how they actually ARE quoted?
When you own a publishing house, you can impose whatever cockamamie
restrictions you choose.
But your books might not sell very well.
Peter T. Daniels
I don't know what "the literature" may be, but I have no problem using
it: the final forms of Gk. sigma and of several Hebrew letters, for
instance, are conditioned allographs.
Note, though, that capital sigma doesn't have allographic variants.
What does "grapheme" mean?
There is no coherent definition.
Tommi Nieminen
>> Martinet's double articulation principle (with which I'm more
>> familiar than with Hockett's "duality of patterning") states only
>> that in language, there are lots of meaningful units or signs, each
>> of which is entirely composed of a much smaller set of meaningless
>> units or speech sounds.
>
> Which doesn't apply to writing systems, overall.
Well, much more so than to speech, which cannot really be segmented at
all. The so-called "phonetic segmentation" is not "phonetic" (nor is it
"segmentation"!), it's just something linguists are used to do because
of writing system bias.
I think a term like "grapheme" could very well be applied to segmental
characters -- and not their constituent parts in systems like the
Chinese: after all, neither do you break phonemes into phonological
features when discussing "double articulation".
> For what? Is <a> a grapheme? What about <A>? In language, there's
> nothing like the relation between capital and small letters.
"Nothing like"? How about, say, utterance-initial and utterance-final
allophones?
> Is <ea> a grapheme? <ee>? What about <e_e>?
Why should they be? <ea> is composed of two segmental characters, <e>
and <a>, both of which have different manifestations: the capitals,
different shapes in different fonts, etc.
>> I don't quite follow you; neither innateness nor
>> species-specificity is a major concern in double articulation.
>
> It's a presupposition. "Duality of patterning" is _the_ key "design
> feature," as Hockett termed them, of language.
That's giving a lot of weight to one single feature. And how about sign
languages -- do they have "duality of patterning"? Last time I checked,
people studying sign languages used concepts like "(sign) phonetics",
"(sign) phonology", "(sign) phonemes" etc. quite fluently.
--
... Tommi Nieminen ... http://www.saunalahti.fi/~tommni/ ...
There is no sweeter sound than the crumbling of your fellow man.
-Groucho Marx-
... tommi dot nieminen at campus dot jyvaskyla dot fi ...
Ruud Harmsen
<gram...@worldnet.att.net>: in sci.lang:
>Jukka K. Korpela wrote:
>>
>> "Peter T. Daniels" <gram...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>>
>> > I can show you plenty of examples of quotations of foreign texts with
>> > the punctuation changed to fit the host text's standards and practices.
>>
>> Yet you have given none,
>
>If you come to my house, I will show you books.
>
>> and you are trying to explain away an actual example
>> taken from a book that you co-edited. So much for the empiric side.
>
>What the fucking hell are you talking about?
Sigh.
Peter T. Daniels again.
--
Ruud Harmsen - http://rudhar.com
Helmut Richter
> I don't know what "the literature" may be, but I have no problem using
> it: the final forms of Gk. sigma and of several Hebrew letters, for
> instance, are conditioned allographs.
And yet there are minimal pairs for Hebrew final letters:
M"M is an abbreviation of millimeter or of mikkol maqom (anyway)
M"m is the name of the letter Mem
Helmut Richter
Peter T. Daniels
>
> Fri, 30 Dec 2005 18:54:40 GMT: "Peter T. Daniels"
> >What the fucking hell are you talking about?
>
> Sigh.
> Peter T. Daniels again.
Rude Fucking Netcop at it again.
Read what Idiot Jukka said, and tell me why I should not be exasperated
beyond restraint.
Peter T. Daniels
The name of the letter mem isn't an abbreviation, so why should it have
the double-prime in it?
Peter T. Daniels
>
> Peter T. Daniels kirjoitti:
>
> >> Martinet's double articulation principle (with which I'm more
> >> familiar than with Hockett's "duality of patterning") states only
> >> that in language, there are lots of meaningful units or signs, each
> >> of which is entirely composed of a much smaller set of meaningless
> >> units or speech sounds.
> >
> > Which doesn't apply to writing systems, overall.
>
> Well, much more so than to speech, which cannot really be segmented at
> all. The so-called "phonetic segmentation" is not "phonetic" (nor is it
> "segmentation"!), it's just something linguists are used to do because
> of writing system bias.
There's no such thing as "phonetic segmentation," so I don't know what
you're talking about.
> I think a term like "grapheme" could very well be applied to segmental
> characters -- and not their constituent parts in systems like the
> Chinese: after all, neither do you break phonemes into phonological
> features when discussing "double articulation".
So in your scheme, Chinese has an open class of 60,000+ graphemes, most
of which are never used? That's ridiculous.
> > For what? Is <a> a grapheme? What about <A>? In language, there's
> > nothing like the relation between capital and small letters.
>
> "Nothing like"? How about, say, utterance-initial and utterance-final
> allophones?
Indistinguishable by the speaker or hearer (by definition).
> > Is <ea> a grapheme? <ee>? What about <e_e>?
>
> Why should they be? <ea> is composed of two segmental characters, <e>
> and <a>, both of which have different manifestations: the capitals,
> different shapes in different fonts, etc.
So in your scheme, graphemes have nothing to do with the relation of
sign to sound? That puts you in a very lonely minority, and also makes
the term otiose -- we already have "letter."
> >> I don't quite follow you; neither innateness nor
> >> species-specificity is a major concern in double articulation.
> >
> > It's a presupposition. "Duality of patterning" is _the_ key "design
> > feature," as Hockett termed them, of language.
>
> That's giving a lot of weight to one single feature. And how about sign
> languages -- do they have "duality of patterning"? Last time I checked,
> people studying sign languages used concepts like "(sign) phonetics",
> "(sign) phonology", "(sign) phonemes" etc. quite fluently.
Of course they do. That's the main reason we eventually realized they're
languages and not just strings of gestures. See Stokoes' "cheremic"
analysis -- he simply substituted a Greek root that didn't mean 'sound'
for the result of his phonemic analysis of ASL.
(And, of course, Hockett withdrew the design feature that involved
transmision by sound.)
Joachim Pense
I expected that the study of written language that deals with terms like
"grapheme" would try to analyse it as a self-contained system and find out
how the "graphical elements" (letters, characters, parts of characters,
strokes, wedges, dots "graphemes", whatever) function without the relation
of sign to sound.
A separate study would look at the relation of sign to sound.
Joachim
Joachim Pense
> Tommi Nieminen wrote:
>>
>> Peter T. Daniels kirjoitti:
>>
>>>> Martinet's double articulation principle (with which I'm more
>>>> familiar than with Hockett's "duality of patterning") states only
>>>> that in language, there are lots of meaningful units or signs, each
>>>> of which is entirely composed of a much smaller set of meaningless
>>>> units or speech sounds.
>>>
>>> Which doesn't apply to writing systems, overall.
>>
>> Well, much more so than to speech, which cannot really be segmented at
>> all. The so-called "phonetic segmentation" is not "phonetic" (nor is it
>> "segmentation"!), it's just something linguists are used to do because
>> of writing system bias.
>
> There's no such thing as "phonetic segmentation," so I don't know what
> you're talking about.
>
>> I think a term like "grapheme" could very well be applied to segmental
>> characters -- and not their constituent parts in systems like the
>> Chinese: after all, neither do you break phonemes into phonological
>> features when discussing "double articulation".
>
> So in your scheme, Chinese has an open class of 60,000+ graphemes, most
> of which are never used? That's ridiculous.
>
I guess there is a scheme accepted by most linguists, only I don't know it.
Using my uneducated gut feeling, in Chinese writing I would call the
strokes "graphemes" (of course these are abstractions of strokes - they are
rendered differently in different writing styles), the elementary signs of
which the characters are composed for example the radicals) would be
something like "graphical syllables", and a character would be - well, a
character. A word in modern Chinese typically takes more than one
character.
Joachim
Tommi Nieminen
> There's no such thing as "phonetic segmentation," so I don't know what
> you're talking about.
Oo-kay. Wow. You just flushed the whole of structuralist phonology down
the toilet. If there's no phonetic segmentation, there can be no phones,
and if there are no phones, you can't talk about phonemes and their
allophones either. What do have left?
> So in your scheme, Chinese has an open class of 60,000+ graphemes, most
> of which are never used? That's ridiculous.
Chinese (just as, say, English) has an open class of 100,000+ morphemes,
most of which are never used. I don't think that's ridiculous.
>>> For what? Is <a> a grapheme? What about <A>? In language, there's
>>> nothing like the relation between capital and small letters.
>> "Nothing like"? How about, say, utterance-initial and utterance-final
>> allophones?
>
> Indistinguishable by the speaker or hearer (by definition).
What?! Allo- prefix doesn't mean 'indistinguishable' but quite the
contrary. If you cannot hear the difference between two sounds, you
don't label them "allophones".
> So in your scheme, graphemes have nothing to do with the relation of
> sign to sound? That puts you in a very lonely minority,
Why would sound have to be taken into account when studying the written
system? After all, *phonemes* have nothing to do with the relation of
sound to visual signs (where "sign", of course, is a particularly
unfortunate choice of words).
>> Last time I checked, people studying sign languages used concepts like
>> "(sign) phonetics", "(sign) phonology", "(sign) phonemes" etc. quite
>> fluently.
>
> Of course they do. That's the main reason we eventually realized they're
> languages and not just strings of gestures.
It's still a curious practice -- not only because the etymology of the
words refers to 'sound' but also because it is bound to result in a
bias: whatever you find in the spoken language, you immediately transfer
to the signed ones. I'd say it'd be better to give up the notion of
"double articulation" altogether, if it doesn't align with the facts.
--
.... Tommi Nieminen .... http://www.saunalahti.fi/~tommni/ ....
It is a very sad thing that nowadays there is so little
useless information. -Oscar Wilde-
.... tommi dot nieminen at campus dot jyu dot fi ....
Aidan Kehoe
Ar an naoú lá is fiche de mí na Nollaig, scríobh Jukka K. Korpela:
> > I said “The UK took up [this] convention three decades ago”
>
> You quoted that the Prime Minister said that a convention will be applied
> "in papers concerning Government statistics". As I already pointed out, that
> covers but a minuscule part of the use of English in the UK.
And I’ve already cited a recent, British, dictionary that listed the billion
as ten to the twelfth convention as the second meaning of the word, and
described it as dated and British. But, your original criticism was of my
“The UK took up [this] convention three decades ago” sentence and I’ve
demonstrated that as exact.
> > I wrote about two conventions in two separate paragraphs;
>
> Once again, obscure references to quoted text using vague pronouns made
> the message unnecessarily confused.
Ah, so you’d prefer I be direct about what I perceive as your reading
comprehension difficulties, instead of accepting an apology. Right; I think
you had trouble understanding what I wrote, and what I wrote was plenty
clear enough.
> > > > Despite this, the U.S. meaning is still rare outside journalism and
> > > > finance, [...]
> > > > So even your source says that the UK adopted no such convention.
> > It doesn’t say any such thing.
>
> It clearly says that the UK has not adopted the convention,
Nope. A legitimate meaning for “the UK” is its government.
> [...] despite government efforts for a fairly long time. The only thing
> that the government policy has achieved is uncertainty and obscurity so
> that it is now surely best to avoid the word "billion" completely.
The uncertainty and obscurity existed before the government policy, and in
the long term, it’s eliminating it. Find an English twenty-year-old and ask
them what “billion” means to them. There won’t be any ambiguity.
> > > > > Sorry, but anyone who writes that an em dash has the width of "m"
> > > > > cannot be taken seriously in matters of dash usage.
> > > >
> > > > Or maybe he’s been exposed to different publishers ...
> > >
> > > Irrelevant. Either you know what you are writing about, or you don't.
> > And it seems that on this, you don’t.
>
> Apparently you, too, refuse to make an actual experiment with the em dash
> character in different fonts, comparing its width with the width of
> "m". Such stubbornness would be worth a more noble cause.
Your lack of knowledge of what you’re writing about is demonstrated by the
limited relation between what you say on the treatment of punctuation in
foreign-language quotations and reality, not especially by the length of the
em dash.
> > > What are you asking about? The quotation marks around a quotation
> > > belong to the language of the quoting document,
> >
> > I regard them as a border between the two, and I don’t see a
> > reason--beyond typographic convenience--to prefer the language of the
> > first document for them.
>
> It's a matter of orthography, not typography. Quotation marks are part of a
> language, not in some no man's land between languages.
And which language they’re part of is open to question; indeed, much of the
time for quotations from a foreign language, they’re not used at all, the
typeface is just changed to italic.
> > Note also that ten years ago, citations in US books from English-language
> > sources that didn’t use US spelling conventions would be respelled without
> > a second thought, and vice versa. This is changing with more exposure to
> > typeset matter from the other tradition.
>
> Or perhaps due to the fact that people in the US are becoming better aware
> of the existence of language forms other than US English. But quoting
> British English in a text in US English can hardly be characterized as a
> _foreign-language_ quotation.
It’s a language, and it’s foreign; why not?
> [...]
> > If it’s conformant to house style, and there’s no more universally
> > accepted convention, then it can’t be ‘wrong.’
>
> Of course it can. House styles can be wrong, as any style. For example,
> if a house style requires the omission of diacritic marks from foreign
> names especially in languages where they are distinctive and important,
> then the style is just wrong. Any norm can be considered in the light of
> a more fundamental norm, up to the level of ultimate values such as
> respect for other people, languages, and cultures.
And it can and should be considered in the light of the knowledge of other
people, languages and cultures of both the writer and the copy-editor. Which
knowledge is necessarily limited; how much confidence can a copy-editor with
no command of Japanese have of the accuracy and orthographic correctness of
a Japanese quotation in Kanji and Kana?
> > Well, sufficent sources would ideally prove that your stated norm for
> > civilised language isn’t observed in actuality,
>
> First, that would not prove it. Most people break the norm that forbids
> stealing, at least in small scale and there is no risk of getting caught;
> this does not make the norm "do not steal" wrong.
Right, so you have no interest in the evidence? Then arguing with you is, on
the face of it, a waste of time.
> Second, no sources have been cited to show that the norm is not observed in
> actuality. I am sure that such sources exist, too, but it's really not my
> task to find them, even though my opponents keep finding sources that
> support _my_ view.
I cited two sources; you ignored them.
--
I AM IN JAIL AND ALLOWED SEND ONLY ONE CABLE SINCE WAS ARRESTED WHILE
MEASURING FIFTEEN FOOT WALL OUTSIDE PALACE AND HAVE JUST FINISHED COUNTING
THIRTY EIGHT THOUSAND FIVE HUNDERED TWENTY TWO NAMES WHOS WHO IN MIDEAST.
Peter T. Daniels
> I expected that the study of written language that deals with terms like
> "grapheme" would try to analyse it as a self-contained system and find out
> how the "graphical elements" (letters, characters, parts of characters,
> strokes, wedges, dots "graphemes", whatever) function without the relation
> of sign to sound.
> A separate study would look at the relation of sign to sound.
And that's one of the many, many ways a writing system differs from a
language system -- most basically, because writing is man-made and
language "just growed."
It's harder to find competent books on writing than linguistics
textbooks, but you should read one of those, too. (Not Coulmas's.)
Peter T. Daniels
> I guess there is a scheme accepted by most linguists, only I don't know it.
> Using my uneducated gut feeling, in Chinese writing I would call the
> strokes "graphemes" (of course these are abstractions of strokes - they are
> rendered differently in different writing styles), the elementary signs of
> which the characters are composed for example the radicals) would be
> something like "graphical syllables", and a character would be - well, a
> character. A word in modern Chinese typically takes more than one
> character.
So you do see the problem.
Why wouldn't the components be the graphemes, with the strokes something
like phonetic features?
Why wouldn't the characters be the graphemes, since they're the units
that have actual functions in the writing system itself? Writers don't
recombine the strokes or the components freely to make writing-units.
Peter T. Daniels
>
> Peter T. Daniels kirjoitti:
>
> > There's no such thing as "phonetic segmentation," so I don't know what
> > you're talking about.
>
> Oo-kay. Wow. You just flushed the whole of structuralist phonology down
> the toilet. If there's no phonetic segmentation, there can be no phones,
> and if there are no phones, you can't talk about phonemes and their
> allophones either. What do have left?
There is no such thing as phonetic segmentation, and certainly since the
declassification of spectrograms after WWII, and probably long before
then, phoneticians knew that. The founding document of "structuralist
phonology," Jakobson, Fant & Halle 1951, is _based_ on phonetic
spectrograms.
> > So in your scheme, Chinese has an open class of 60,000+ graphemes, most
> > of which are never used? That's ridiculous.
>
> Chinese (just as, say, English) has an open class of 100,000+ morphemes,
> most of which are never used. I don't think that's ridiculous.
That's not true. I don't know what the count of English morphemes is,
but it doesn't remotely approach 100,000+. That's a count of words.
> >>> For what? Is <a> a grapheme? What about <A>? In language, there's
> >>> nothing like the relation between capital and small letters.
> >> "Nothing like"? How about, say, utterance-initial and utterance-final
> >> allophones?
> >
> > Indistinguishable by the speaker or hearer (by definition).
>
> What?! Allo- prefix doesn't mean 'indistinguishable' but quite the
> contrary. If you cannot hear the difference between two sounds, you
> don't label them "allophones".
No naive English-speaker knows that /p t k/ is unaspirated after /s/,
aspirated elsewhere. That's why [p] and [p<h>] are allophones.
> > So in your scheme, graphemes have nothing to do with the relation of
> > sign to sound? That puts you in a very lonely minority,
>
> Why would sound have to be taken into account when studying the written
> system? After all, *phonemes* have nothing to do with the relation of
> sound to visual signs (where "sign", of course, is a particularly
> unfortunate choice of words).
Because writing is the visual representation of language, and the mode
of language is sound (or, of course, gesture). Writing is secondary.
> >> Last time I checked, people studying sign languages used concepts like
> >> "(sign) phonetics", "(sign) phonology", "(sign) phonemes" etc. quite
> >> fluently.
> >
> > Of course they do. That's the main reason we eventually realized they're
> > languages and not just strings of gestures.
>
> It's still a curious practice -- not only because the etymology of the
> words refers to 'sound' but also because it is bound to result in a
> bias: whatever you find in the spoken language, you immediately transfer
> to the signed ones. I'd say it'd be better to give up the notion of
> "double articulation" altogether, if it doesn't align with the facts.
As I said, Stokoe tried to introduce the term "cheremics," but it didn't
catch on.
You're wrong both in your interpretation of sign linguistics and,
apparently, in your understanding of duality of patterning (I prefer the
English to the French term).
Joachim Pense
That's not a question of finding the truth ("what are the graphemes") but
just a question of finding the most usable definition. But, of course, the
situation in writing systems differs in many respects than the situation in
spoken language (and is probably more complicated, but I'm not 100% sure
about that) - so I guess that a whole set of terms will take the place that
"phoneme" holds for spoken language. Also, it will probably be difficult to
find a set of terms that will apply to all types of writing systems.
Joachim
Joachim Pense
>
>>>>> For what? Is <a> a grapheme? What about <A>? In language, there's
>>>>> nothing like the relation between capital and small letters.
>>>> "Nothing like"? How about, say, utterance-initial and utterance-final
>>>> allophones?
>>>
>>> Indistinguishable by the speaker or hearer (by definition).
>>
>> What?! Allo- prefix doesn't mean 'indistinguishable' but quite the
>> contrary. If you cannot hear the difference between two sounds, you
>> don't label them "allophones".
>
> No naive English-speaker knows that /p t k/ is unaspirated after /s/,
> aspirated elsewhere. That's why [p] and [p<h>] are allophones.
>
But every German knows the difference between [x] and [C] (as in "ach"
versus "ich".) It's the fact that they are allophones that has to be told
to the naive speakers.
Joachim
Tommi Nieminen
> There is no such thing as phonetic segmentation, and certainly since the
> declassification of spectrograms after WWII, and probably long before
> then, phoneticians knew that.
Yes, *phoneticians* know that, but be that as it may, phonology is based
on the assumption that the speech flow *can* be segmented in phones.
> That's not true. I don't know what the count of English morphemes is,
> but it doesn't remotely approach 100,000+. That's a count of words.
Now what are you talking about?! Each and every English word contains
one or more morpheme. If that count of words is 100,000+, the count of
morphemes is *higher*.
>> What?! Allo- prefix doesn't mean 'indistinguishable' but quite the
>> contrary. If you cannot hear the difference between two sounds, you
>> don't label them "allophones".
>
> No naive English-speaker knows that /p t k/ is unaspirated after /s/,
> aspirated elsewhere. That's why [p] and [p<h>] are allophones.
It's not a question of knowing, but *distinguishing*.
> Because writing is the visual representation of language, and the mode
> of language is sound (or, of course, gesture). Writing is secondary.
You haven't read Roy Harris lately, have you? :)
> You're wrong both in your interpretation of sign linguistics and,
> apparently, in your understanding of duality of patterning (I prefer the
> English to the French term).
It may also be that the "duality of patterning" is slightly different
from the "double articulation" I'm more familiar with. That would take
some spare time to look into, and after all, it's New Year's Eve now.....
--
... Tommi Nieminen ... http://www.saunalahti.fi/~tommni/ ...
There is no sweeter sound than the crumbling of your fellow man.
-Groucho Marx-
... tommi dot nieminen at campus dot jyvaskyla dot fi ...
Peter T. Daniels
Exactly. And that's why "grapheme" shouldn't be one of them. "Phonemic
analysis" (and all the other levels of doing grammar) apply to all human
languages. But all writing systems have nothing necessarily in common
with each other, except for being a way of representing a language in
terms of its sounds.
Peter T. Daniels
But they're not. There was quite a discussion of exactly this phenomenon
in the 1950s (reprinted in Joos's Readings in Linguistics), and minimal
pairs exist.
The only complication is that the pairs differ in the presence of a
morpheme boundary, and the discussion was whether morphological
information could ever be taken into account in doing a phonological
analysis.
Peter T. Daniels
>
> Peter T. Daniels kirjoitti:
>
> > There is no such thing as phonetic segmentation, and certainly since the
> > declassification of spectrograms after WWII, and probably long before
> > then, phoneticians knew that.
>
> Yes, *phoneticians* know that, but be that as it may, phonology is based
> on the assumption that the speech flow *can* be segmented in phones.
It's unfortunate that contemporary approaches to phonology (the ones
that jettisoned the notion of "phoneme" entirely, that don't believe in
phoneme inventories or "discovery procedures" for identifying tham)
still operate in terms of "C" and "V" instead of units that better
reflect reality, such as overlapping Jakobsonian features (and others
discovered since his work, like ATR).
> > That's not true. I don't know what the count of English morphemes is,
> > but it doesn't remotely approach 100,000+. That's a count of words.
>
> Now what are you talking about?! Each and every English word contains
> one or more morpheme. If that count of words is 100,000+, the count of
> morphemes is *higher*.
Don't be ridiculous! Most words are combinations of morphemes. (Duality
of patterning.) Morphemes recur: recur, occur, concur. Bookcase,
briefcase, suitcase.
> >> What?! Allo- prefix doesn't mean 'indistinguishable' but quite the
> >> contrary. If you cannot hear the difference between two sounds, you
> >> don't label them "allophones".
> >
> > No naive English-speaker knows that /p t k/ is unaspirated after /s/,
> > aspirated elsewhere. That's why [p] and [p<h>] are allophones.
>
> It's not a question of knowing, but *distinguishing*.
No naive English-speaker can distinguish between those sounds. (Look at
their difficulty in learning, e.g., Chinese -- or Finnish!)
> > Because writing is the visual representation of language, and the mode
> > of language is sound (or, of course, gesture). Writing is secondary.
>
> You haven't read Roy Harris lately, have you? :)
Roy Harris is despicable. (In all his bloviating in books with "Writing"
in the title, he's never provided his own definition of writing.)
> > You're wrong both in your interpretation of sign linguistics and,
> > apparently, in your understanding of duality of patterning (I prefer the
> > English to the French term).
>
> It may also be that the "duality of patterning" is slightly different
> from the "double articulation" I'm more familiar with. That would take
> some spare time to look into, and after all, it's New Year's Eve now.....
Enjoy!
Joachim Pense
>
> Exactly. And that's why "grapheme" shouldn't be one of them. "Phonemic
> analysis" (and all the other levels of doing grammar) apply to all human
> languages. But all writing systems have nothing necessarily in common
> with each other, except for being a way of representing a language in
^^
> terms of its sounds.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
How do the sounds come in here? In principle, a writing system need not be
related to sounds (and IIRC there are writing systems for sign languages,
and in TWWS there is even a section on writing systems for notation of
ballet dancing).
Joachim
Joachim Pense
> Joachim Pense wrote:
>>
>> Am Sat, 31 Dec 2005 14:41:51 GMT schrieb Peter T. Daniels:
>>
>> >
>> >>>>> For what? Is <a> a grapheme? What about <A>? In language, there's
>> >>>>> nothing like the relation between capital and small letters.
>> >>>> "Nothing like"? How about, say, utterance-initial and
>> >>>> utterance-final allophones?
>> >>>
>> >>> Indistinguishable by the speaker or hearer (by definition).
>> >>
>> >> What?! Allo- prefix doesn't mean 'indistinguishable' but quite the
>> >> contrary. If you cannot hear the difference between two sounds, you
>> >> don't label them "allophones".
>> >
>> > No naive English-speaker knows that /p t k/ is unaspirated after /s/,
>> > aspirated elsewhere. That's why [p] and [p<h>] are allophones.
>> >
>>
>> But every German knows the difference between [x] and [C] (as in "ach"
>> versus "ich".) It's the fact that they are allophones that has to be told
>> to the naive speakers.
>
> But they're not. There was quite a discussion of exactly this phenomenon
> in the 1950s (reprinted in Joos's Readings in Linguistics), and minimal
> pairs exist.
Even if you exclude imported words?
>
> The only complication is that the pairs differ in the presence of a
> morpheme boundary, and the discussion was whether morphological
> information could ever be taken into account in doing a phonological
> analysis.
Joachim
Brian M. Scott
<jkor...@cs.tut.fi> wrote in
<news:Xns973A9749B52F...@193.229.4.246> in
sci.lang:
> Aidan Kehoe <keh...@parhasard.net> wrote:
> - -
>>> > Whoa -- a spaced en-dash is _British_ style, and a closed-up em-dash
>>> > is _American_ style, and The Economist is a British magazine!
>>> Isn't The Economist the British magazine that also uses the US
>>> convention for numbers in the billions and trillions?
>> The UK took up that convention three decades ago or so.
> Which UK, which convention?
Obviously 'the US convention for numbers in the billions and
trillions'; in this context no other could possibly be meant
(unless the writer were hopelessly inept).
[...]
Brian
Brian M. Scott
<jkor...@cs.tut.fi> wrote in
<news:Xns973CC571814D...@193.229.4.246> in
sci.lang:
> Artur Jachacy <arturj...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> You are trying to explain away the only evidence about actual usage as
>>> an exception.
>> This thread began with evidence of actual usage.
> It began with a misquotation (something that was presented as direct quote
> but isn't) and with my pointing out the mistake, mentioning that one of the
> symptoms of misquotation was incorrect use of punctuation.
Clearly you still don't understand the difference between
quotation and (approximate) facsimile reproduction.
Brian
Brian M. Scott
<jkor...@cs.tut.fi> wrote in
<news:dp1khc$3op$1...@phys-news4.kolumbus.fi> in sci.lang:
> Aidan Kehoe wrote:
>> I said “The UK
>> took up [this] convention three decades ago”
[...]
>> I wrote about two conventions in two separate paragraphs;
> Once again, obscure references to quoted text using vague
> pronouns made the message unnecessarily confused.
No. It's perfectly clear to any literate native speaker.
Here's the exchange again:
>> Isn't The Economist the British magazine that also uses
>> the US convention for numbers in the billions and
>> trillions?
> The UK took up that convention three decades ago or so.
In context 'that convention' can only refer to the
convention just mentioned, namely, 'the US convention for
numbers in the billions and trillions'.
[...]
Brian
Yusuf B Gursey
aslans...@yahoo.com wrote:
> Jukka K. Korpela yazdi:
> > "Marc Adler" <marc....@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > > http://www.economist.com/world/europe/displaystory.cfm?story_id=5323735
> >
> > The article contains several inaccuracies, starting from the very first
> > sentence: it contains a purported Finnish statement, which however does not
> > even use Finnish punctuation (we always leave a space around a dash, and
> > normally use en dash, not em dash) or the real form of the slogan
> > "Suur-Suomi". It gets worse rather fast, since the "Suur-Suomi" ideology does
> > not belong to "dying days of the Tsarist empire" but to the 20s, 30s, and
> > especially early 40s.
> >
> > Thus, the expectations on linguistic accuracy cannot be very high.
> >
> > > The sentence that is mutually comprehensible (translated as "The living
> > > fish swims in water" in the article) is at the bottom of the article.
> > >
> > > Estonian: Elav kala ujub vee all.
> > >
> > > Finnish: Elävä kala ui veden alla.
> > >
> > > Hungarian: Eleven hal úszkál a víz alatt.
> >
>
> I couldn't help seeing the similarities to some words in Turkic.
> 1- alt means under in Turkish which obviously seems similar to alatt
> 2- yüz- means swim in Turkish which seems (not-so-obviously) similar
> to Hungarian úsz-
> 3- ya$ayan means living in Turkish. There is no similarity at first but
> replace ya$ with the other Turkic equivalent yil you have yilayan and
> there we go it seems similar to Hungarian eleven.
>
> One sentence, 3 similarities. Not bad at all.
the last one is certainly no similarity at all.
Colin Fine
>
> And "em" and "en" dashes most certainly are named for the letters m and
> n. An em-space (called an em-quad) is the width of an m (and a square
> piece of type -- an em-quad is as wide as it is high); an en-quad is the
> width of an n.
Indeed, I learned them as 'muttons' and 'nuts', and only later
understood why.
Colin
Colin Fine
t.
>
>
> Or that there are different languages in the world. The point is that a
> writer is supposed to know the language of his quotations, at least
> superficially. Moreover, when you actually _quote_ written text, instead of
> making things up, you can easily see and copy the original punctuation.
> In fact, it is normally easier to do a simple copy operation than to modify
> the punctuation.
>
Ah, I see a puncteme coming on. Two marks (or layouts) which are
allopunctic in the quoter's language but distinct punctemes in the
original.
Happy New Thing
Colin
Aidan Kehoe
Ar an t-aonú lá is triochad de mí na Nollaig, scríobh Colin Fine:
> Ah, I see a puncteme coming on. Two marks (or layouts) which are allopunctic
> in the quoter's language but distinct punctemes in the original.
Hahah! Fantastic.
> Happy New Thing
To you too. Einen guten Rutsch ins neue Ding.
Peter T. Daniels
>
> Peter T. Daniels:
>
> >
> > Exactly. And that's why "grapheme" shouldn't be one of them. "Phonemic
> > analysis" (and all the other levels of doing grammar) apply to all human
> > languages. But all writing systems have nothing necessarily in common
> > with each other, except for being a way of representing a language in
> ^^
> > terms of its sounds.
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>
> How do the sounds come in here? In principle, a writing system need not be
> related to sounds
Absolutely incorrect. See DeFrancis, *Visible Speech* (1989), for
extensive arguments.
> (and IIRC there are writing systems for sign languages,
Of course. The successful one for ASL (I don't know about any others)
notates the "cheremes," which everyone except its creator, William
Stokoe, calls "phonemes."
> and in TWWS there is even a section on writing systems for notation of
> ballet dancing).
We call it WWS. And no, there is a section on "Movement Notation" (at
the author's insistence), in which you'll find an extremely condensed
account of Stokoe's system, and also an example of her use of
Labanotation (devised for dance) to record Plains Sign (which may or may
not be a full-fledged language; not enough about it may have been
recorded when it was in serious use). (It is, of course, in the part on
"Secondary Notation Systems," along with numbers, music, shorthand, and
phonetics; and the word "writing" is avoided there.)
Peter T. Daniels
I didn't include the example I could remember, because I'm not certain
that I've got it right, and I'm not going upstairs to check again, but
'calf' and 'kitchen' are one -- Kuchen and Kuhchen?
Peter T. Daniels
>
> On Tue, 27 Dec 2005 22:58:06 +0000 (UTC), "Jukka K. Korpela"
> <jkor...@cs.tut.fi> wrote in
> <news:Xns973A9749B52F...@193.229.4.246> in
> sci.lang:
>
> > Aidan Kehoe <keh...@parhasard.net> wrote:
PTD wrote:
> > - -
> >>> > Whoa -- a spaced en-dash is _British_ style, and a closed-up em-dash
> >>> > is _American_ style, and The Economist is a British magazine!
I glanced at it at the cash register just now ("Evolution" is the cover
story -- merely a one-page "leader" [US: editorial]), and it puts commas
and periods outside quotation marks, Brit-style, but the quotation marks
are double, like the em-dashes US style.
> >>> Isn't The Economist the British magazine that also uses the US
> >>> convention for numbers in the billions and trillions?
>
> >> The UK took up that convention three decades ago or so.
>
> > Which UK, which convention?
>
> Obviously 'the US convention for numbers in the billions and
> trillions'; in this context no other could possibly be meant
> (unless the writer were hopelessly inept).
You didn't answer the question "Which UK?"
(Just trying to help, here.)
Peter T. Daniels
I've never seen that. "Muttons" wouldn't do over here, since we never
encounter it.
Peter T. Daniels
Got any examples?
Brian M. Scott
<gram...@worldnet.att.net> wrote in
<news:43B71B...@worldnet.att.net> in sci.lang:
[...]
> I didn't include the example I could remember, because I'm not certain
> that I've got it right, and I'm not going upstairs to check again, but
> 'calf' and 'kitchen' are one -- Kuchen and Kuhchen?
Also <Pfauchen> and <pfauchen>, <Vauchen> and <fauchen>, and
<Tauchen> and <tauchen>.
Brian
Brian M. Scott
<gram...@worldnet.att.net> wrote in
<news:43B71C...@worldnet.att.net> in sci.lang:
> Brian M. Scott wrote:
>>> Aidan Kehoe <keh...@parhasard.net> wrote:
> PTD wrote:
>>> Which UK, which convention?
Much obliged: on present evidence a little extra
disambiguation can't hurt!
Brian
Joachim Pense
No, that's "Kalb" and "Küche". Perhaps "Küken" and "Küchen"? ('chick' and
'kitchens")? But that would be [kI.ken] and [kI.cen], so it wouldn't be an
example.
The rule is that after a, o, u, it's [x], and after all other vowels, it's
[c], so there cannot be a minimal pair for the sounds following a vowel.
There is no word-initial [x] or [c] in native German words. For loanwords
like "China" or "Chor", we either use the following vowel in place of the
non-existent preceding vowel to decide between [x] and [c], or we replace
it by [k] altogether (depending on idio- and regiolect). I do not see a
minimal pair for word-initial [c], [x] either.
I would be much interested to a minimal pair for [x] and [c] in German.
Happy new year: Joachim
Joachim Pense
Hey, that's right! It's embarrassing again for me to learn that I don't
know my own mother tongue!
And indeed the reason is the presence of a morpheme boundary before the
"ch" (-chen is a diminuitive suffix).
So a happy new year to you, too!
Joachim
Lee Sau Dan
Peter> Why wouldn't the components be the graphemes, with the
Peter> strokes something like phonetic features?
Some strokes have variant forms, which can be replaced without
affecting the meaning. e.g. a diagonal stroke from upper-left to
lower-right can be replaced with a dot.
So, glyph shape<->phonetic feature; stroke<->phonemic feature
Peter> Why wouldn't the characters be the graphemes, since they're
Peter> the units that have actual functions in the writing system
Peter> itself? Writers don't recombine the strokes or the
Peter> components freely to make writing-units.
Because many components have variants, which can be freely replaced.
e.g. the water radical on the left, which contains 3 dots, could be
replaced by a vertical stroke in fast writing. The fire radicial,
which is 4 dots below, could also be replaced by a horizontal stroke.
The simplified "radicals" in the simplified character set is another
set of examples. It's still understood as the same character if you
replace a traditional component in a traditional character with its
simpiflied equivalent. Of course, that may not always result in an
official simplified character, but people would otherwise still
recognize it.
So, on this level, component<->phonetic feature; character<->phonemic
feature.
There are multiple levels of abstractions, beginning from the
"stroke", then "components" (which include radicals), then
"characters". Each abstraction level has elements which may have
variants that different only on the lower level.
--
Lee Sau Dan 李守敦 ~{@nJX6X~}
E-mail: dan...@informatik.uni-freiburg.de
Home page: http://www.informatik.uni-freiburg.de/~danlee
Joachim Pense
> Joachim Pense wrote:
>
>> I guess there is a scheme accepted by most linguists, only I don't know it.
>> Using my uneducated gut feeling, in Chinese writing I would call the
>> strokes "graphemes" (of course these are abstractions of strokes - they are
>> rendered differently in different writing styles), the elementary signs of
>> which the characters are composed for example the radicals) would be
>> something like "graphical syllables", and a character would be - well, a
>> character. A word in modern Chinese typically takes more than one
>> character.
>
> So you do see the problem.
>
> Why wouldn't the components be the graphemes, with the strokes something
> like phonetic features?
>
Because components can be composed of other components, up to two or three
hierarchy levels. If you want to call the components "graphemes", you might
analogously also want to consider to call the Japanese syllables
"phonemes".
Joachim
Colin Fine
I don't know whether it had any general currency. I learned it from my
parents, who had been jobbing printers before I was born. It may have
been their private slang.
Colin
Colin Fine
No. And I doubt there are any convincing ones - I was playing.
The closest I can think of is reproducing a quotation from German, but
with English capitalisation. In most cases this will produce text that
is perfectly comprehensible but wrong according to German orthography.
In a very few cases it will introduce ambiguity (an example came up in a
fruitless argument about case sensitivity I'm joined in with on
comp.lang.php: "Helft den armen Vögeln." and "Helft den Armen vögeln.")
But it's marginal, and there's also a question as to whether you call
this punctuation or spelling.
Colin
Helmut Richter
> No, that's "Kalb" and "Küche". Perhaps "Küken" and "Küchen"? ('chick' and
> 'kitchens")? But that would be [kI.ken] and [kI.cen], so it wouldn't be an
> example.
Perhaps "Kühchen" (does this exist at all?) and "Küchen" but this one
differs in vowel quality and length. "Kuhchen" is a dialectal word and
thus cannot count.
Is something a word if there are no occurences of it other than in
articles constructing minimal pairs? Please show me any occurence of
"Tauchen" (little rope) or "Vauchen" (little letter V) in any other text.
"Frauchen" (female owner of pet) does exist but and is, to my knowledge,
the only German word where the diminutive suffix -chen is appended to a
word ending with -a, -o, -au, or -u without causing an umlaut. Normally,
it is not appended at all to words ending with a vowel other than Schwa
(which then is lost).
Helmut Richter
Helmut Richter
> The name of the letter mem isn't an abbreviation, so why should it have
> the double-prime in it?
Do not ask me, I did not invent the convention of writing letter names
with gershayim. Nor am I so frequently exposed to Hebrew texts containing
letter names that I could check whether the remark in the textbook holds
water:
Damit Buchstaben in Texten als solche erkannt und gelesen werden, ist es
üblich, sie mit Gerschajim zu schreiben: BY"T, W"W, YW"D.
(Simon, H.: Lehrbuch der modernen hebräischen Sprache, Leipzig 1988,
ISBN 3-324-00100-5, S.161)
Helmut Richter
Joachim Pense
>
> Is something a word if there are no occurences of it other than in
> articles constructing minimal pairs? Please show me any occurence of
> "Tauchen" (little rope) or "Vauchen" (little letter V) in any other text.
> "Frauchen" (female owner of pet) does exist but and is, to my knowledge,
> the only German word where the diminutive suffix -chen is appended to a
> word ending with -a, -o, -au, or -u without causing an umlaut. Normally,
> it is not appended at all to words ending with a vowel other than Schwa
> (which then is lost).
In earlier times, the -chen would have triggered umlauting the vowel of the
preceding syllable. But this rule is not productive anymore (although I
think it is not _totally_ gone yet). So, any neologisms of more recent
times ("Frauchen") or ad-hoc constructions ("Vauchen") will indeed have the
[c] after a back vowel, because the morpheme .chen seems to be evaluated
(including the "ch") before the whole word is produced.
So, to me the question remains how a phoneme starting with "ch" could come
into existence in the first place.
Joachim
Peter T. Daniels
>
> Joachim Pense:
>
> > No, that's "Kalb"
So what does "Kuhchen" mean? Are Germans more sophisticated about
cattlebreeding terminology than Americans, who certainly know words like
"heifer" and "brindle" but couldn't tell you exactly what they mean?
> > and "Küche". Perhaps "Küken" and "Küchen"? ('chick' and
> > 'kitchens")? But that would be [kI.ken] and [kI.cen], so it wouldn't be an
> > example.
Then obviously it's not relevant, is it.
> Perhaps "Kühchen" (does this exist at all?) and "Küchen" but this one
> differs in vowel quality and length. "Kuhchen" is a dialectal word and
> thus cannot count.
??????????????? Why not?
Peter T. Daniels
>
> Helmut Richter:
>
> >
> > Is something a word if there are no occurences of it other than in
> > articles constructing minimal pairs? Please show me any occurence of
> > "Tauchen" (little rope) or "Vauchen" (little letter V) in any other text.
> > "Frauchen" (female owner of pet) does exist but and is, to my knowledge,
> > the only German word where the diminutive suffix -chen is appended to a
> > word ending with -a, -o, -au, or -u without causing an umlaut. Normally,
> > it is not appended at all to words ending with a vowel other than Schwa
> > (which then is lost).
>
> In earlier times, the -chen would have triggered umlauting the vowel of the
> preceding syllable. But this rule is not productive anymore (although I
> think it is not _totally_ gone yet). So, any neologisms of more recent
> times ("Frauchen") or ad-hoc constructions ("Vauchen") will indeed have the
> [c] after a back vowel, because the morpheme .chen seems to be evaluated
> (including the "ch") before the whole word is produced.
So you have proved by your own statement that /x/ and /ç/ are different
phonemes.
> So, to me the question remains how a phoneme starting with "ch" could come
> into existence in the first place.
Excuse me? What does "phoneme starting with 'ch'" mean?
Peter T. Daniels
So we've come no further in trying to decide where the term "grapheme"
would apply in Chinese writing.
Peter T. Daniels
Exactly. There's no coherent way to apply the term "grapheme" to the
Chinese writing system.