term for a word with only one POS tag/lexical category?

[Adam Funk]

Is there a linguistic term to describe a word that can have only one
POS tag or lexical category (e.g., "the" is always a determiner,
whereas "dog" can be a noun or a verb)?

I'd expect to find a pair of terms analogous with monosemous &
polysemous, but I can't recall anything.



--
The internet is quite simply a glorious place. Where else can you find
bootlegged music and films, questionable women, deep seated xenophobia
and amusing cats all together in the same place? [Tom Belshaw]

[Guy Barry]

"Adam Funk" wrote in message news:5nf10ax...@news.ducksburg.com...

>
>Is there a linguistic term to describe a word that can have only one
>POS tag or lexical category (e.g., "the" is always a determiner,
>whereas "dog" can be a noun or a verb)?

Bad example. "The" can be an adverb, as in "I am none the wiser", or "the
sooner the better".

Don't know the answer, though.

--
Guy Barry

[Arnaud Fournet]

Le mercredi 27 février 2013 15:20:16 UTC+1, Guy Barry a écrit :
> "Adam Funk" wrote in message news:5nf10ax...@news.ducksburg.com...
>
> >
>
> >Is there a linguistic term to describe a word that can have only one
>
> >POS tag or lexical category (e.g., "the" is always a determiner,
>
> >whereas "dog" can be a noun or a verb)?
>
>
>
> Bad example. "The" can be an adverb, as in "I am none the wiser", or "the
>
> sooner the better".

***

I disagree.

"the sooner the better".

=
le plus tôt sera le mieux

Nobody would dare imagine that <le> is an adverb here.

A.

[Peter T. Daniels]

On Feb 27, 10:36 am, Arnaud Fournet <fournet.arn...@wanadoo.fr> wrote:
> Le mercredi 27 février 2013 15:20:16 UTC+1, Guy Barry a écrit :> "Adam Funk"  wrote in messagenews:5nf10ax...@news.ducksburg.com...

>
> > >Is there a linguistic term to describe a word that can have only one
>
> > >POS tag or lexical category (e.g., "the" is always a determiner,
>
> > >whereas "dog" can be a noun or a verb)?
>
> > Bad example.  "The" can be an adverb, as in "I am none the wiser", or "the
>
> > sooner the better".
>
> ***
>
> I disagree.
>
> "the sooner the better".
> =
> le plus tôt sera le mieux
>
> Nobody would dare imagine that <le> is an adverb here.

There's no verb in the English construction.

[Arnaud Fournet]

***

Irrelevant.

Besides the in these English constructions was just an instrumental case of the article in Old English.
How come some people make it an adverb??

A.

[Nathan Sanders]

In article <5nf10ax...@news.ducksburg.com>,

Adam Funk <a24...@ducksburg.com> wrote:

> Is there a linguistic term to describe a word that can have only one
> POS tag or lexical category (e.g., "the" is always a determiner,
> whereas "dog" can be a noun or a verb)?

I've seen "mono(-)categorial" used this way, as in Elghamry's 2004
Indiana University dissertation (p.164).

But I've also seen it used to refer to languages that don't
distinguish lexical categories (or more accurately, that don't
distinguish between nouns and verbs), as in James Hurford's 2012 _The
Origins of Grammar: Language in the Light of Evolution_ (p.403).

But I don't think either of these uses is common enough to be used
without explanation.

Nathan

--
Department of Linguistics
Swarthmore College
http://sanders.phonologist.org/

[Nathan Sanders]

In article <xCoXs.310639$s36....@fx22.fr7>,

"Guy Barry" <guy....@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:

> "Adam Funk" wrote in message news:5nf10ax...@news.ducksburg.com...
> >
> >Is there a linguistic term to describe a word that can have only one
> >POS tag or lexical category (e.g., "the" is always a determiner,
> >whereas "dog" can be a noun or a verb)?
>
> Bad example. "The" can be an adverb, as in "I am none the wiser", or "the
> sooner the better".

Whenever I see "used as an adverb", I interpret it as "I have no idea
what's really going on here". :-)

[Peter T. Daniels]

On Feb 27, 3:14 pm, Nathan Sanders <sand...@alum.mit.edu> wrote:
> In article <xCoXs.310639$s36.75...@fx22.fr7>,
>  "Guy Barry" <guy.ba...@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
>
> > "Adam Funk"  wrote in messagenews:5nf10ax...@news.ducksburg.com...

>
> > >Is there a linguistic term to describe a word that can have only one
> > >POS tag or lexical category (e.g., "the" is always a determiner,
> > >whereas "dog" can be a noun or a verb)?
>
> > Bad example.  "The" can be an adverb, as in "I am none the wiser", or "the
> > sooner the better".
>
> Whenever I see "used as an adverb", I interpret it as "I have no idea
> what's really going on here".  :-)

Well, of course. At least since Fries's grammars of American English
in the 30s, "adverb" has been recognized as a euphemism for
"elsething."

The point is that "the" doesn't function _only_ as an article/
determiner/whatever.

[Jerry Friedman]

On Feb 27, 6:53 am, Adam Funk <a24...@ducksburg.com> wrote:
> Is there a linguistic term to describe a word that can have only one
> POS tag or lexical category (e.g., "the" is always a determiner,
> whereas "dog" can be a noun or a verb)?
>
> I'd expect to find a pair of terms analogous with monosemous &
> polysemous, but I can't recall anything.

I suppose "monomerous" and "polymerous" are taken.

--
Jerry Friedman

[Adam Funk]

Oops, good point.

(Adding AUE back, since I probably shouldn't have set FUs to SL.)


--
A: Because it messes up the order in which people normally read text.
Q: Why is top-posting such a bad thing?
A: Top-posting.
Q: What is the most annoying thing on usenet and in e-mail?

[Adam Funk]

Say it carefully, or people might hear "polyamorous".


--
A recent study conducted by Harvard University found that the average
American walks about 900 miles a year. Another study by the AMA found
that Americans drink, on average, 22 gallons of alcohol a year. This
means, on average, Americans get about 41 miles to the gallon.
http://www.cartalk.com/content/average-americans-mpg

[Adam Funk]

On 2013-02-27, Guy Barry wrote:

The COCA WWW search gives 8989 results for "the.[r*]" (which, if I'm
reading the documentation correctly, means token "the" with any
adverbial POS tag). But I can't figure out how to get the itemized
results to show the POS tags --- anyone know how?


--
"Mrs CJ and I avoid clichés like the plague."

[Adam Funk]

On 2013-02-27, Nathan Sanders wrote:

> In article <xCoXs.310639$s36....@fx22.fr7>,
> "Guy Barry" <guy....@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
>
>> "Adam Funk" wrote in message news:5nf10ax...@news.ducksburg.com...
>> >
>> >Is there a linguistic term to describe a word that can have only one
>> >POS tag or lexical category (e.g., "the" is always a determiner,
>> >whereas "dog" can be a noun or a verb)?
>>
>> Bad example. "The" can be an adverb, as in "I am none the wiser", or "the
>> sooner the better".
>
> Whenever I see "used as an adverb", I interpret it as "I have no idea
> what's really going on here". :-)

Sure, "adverb" usually includes "miscellaneous". AIUI, the problem is
that there are a few common categories (with lots of member words)
lumped in there:

1. words that modify verbs;
2. words that modify verbs or adjectives;
3. words that modify adjectives;

and then a lot of small miscellaneous categories & syntactic oddities.
In a formalism like HPSG, you just handle all of them by specifying
the syntax; but outside a framework like that, you need to come up
with reasonable names for all these miscellaneous categories.


--
I used to be better at logic problems, before I just dumped
them all into TeX and let Knuth pick out the survivors.
-- plorkwort

[Adam Funk]

On 2013-02-27, Nathan Sanders wrote:

> In article <5nf10ax...@news.ducksburg.com>,
> Adam Funk <a24...@ducksburg.com> wrote:
>
>> Is there a linguistic term to describe a word that can have only one
>> POS tag or lexical category (e.g., "the" is always a determiner,
>> whereas "dog" can be a noun or a verb)?
>
> I've seen "mono(-)categorial" used this way, as in Elghamry's 2004
> Indiana University dissertation (p.164).
>
> But I've also seen it used to refer to languages that don't
> distinguish lexical categories (or more accurately, that don't
> distinguish between nouns and verbs), as in James Hurford's 2012 _The
> Origins of Grammar: Language in the Light of Evolution_ (p.403).
>
> But I don't think either of these uses is common enough to be used
> without explanation.

OK. A colleague was asking if I knew a term for this situation. I'll
pass that on.


--
Slade was the coolest band in England. They were the kind of guys
that would push your car out of a ditch. --- Alice Cooper

[Adam Funk]

Oops, forgot the link:

http://corpus.byu.edu/coca/

[Nathan Sanders]

In article <1vg60ax...@news.ducksburg.com>,

Adam Funk <a24...@ducksburg.com> wrote:

> On 2013-02-27, Nathan Sanders wrote:
>
> > In article <xCoXs.310639$s36....@fx22.fr7>,
> > "Guy Barry" <guy....@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
> >
> >> "Adam Funk" wrote in message news:5nf10ax...@news.ducksburg.com...
> >> >
> >> >Is there a linguistic term to describe a word that can have only one
> >> >POS tag or lexical category (e.g., "the" is always a determiner,
> >> >whereas "dog" can be a noun or a verb)?
> >>
> >> Bad example. "The" can be an adverb, as in "I am none the wiser", or "the
> >> sooner the better".
> >
> > Whenever I see "used as an adverb", I interpret it as "I have no idea
> > what's really going on here". :-)
>
> Sure, "adverb" usually includes "miscellaneous". AIUI, the problem is
> that there are a few common categories (with lots of member words)
> lumped in there:
>
> 1. words that modify verbs;
> 2. words that modify verbs or adjectives;
> 3. words that modify adjectives;

A further problem is the usually vague notion of "modify" that comes
along with the vague notion of what an adverb is (or any lexical
category, for that matter). It is usually some unholy mix of
structure and meaning, demonstrating little concern for the difference
between syntax and semantics.

Consider a sentence like "he is surprisingly very enthusiastic about
work on Mondays". Each of "surprisingly", "very", "about work", and
"on Mondays" can be argued to "modify" the adjective "enthusiastic" in
some way, but they all do so differently, with fundamentally different
syntactic and semantic relationships to "enthusiastic".

> and then a lot of small miscellaneous categories & syntactic oddities.
> In a formalism like HPSG, you just handle all of them by specifying
> the syntax; but outside a framework like that, you need to come up
> with reasonable names for all these miscellaneous categories.

I don't see why they all need the same name. If two groups of
linguistic objects consistently have differences between them with
respect to their syntactic behavior, their morphology, and/or they way
they contribute to the semantics, it seems reasonable to give them
different names.

[Adam Funk]

On 2013-03-01, Nathan Sanders wrote:

> Adam Funk <a24...@ducksburg.com> wrote:
>> On 2013-02-27, Nathan Sanders wrote:

>> > Whenever I see "used as an adverb", I interpret it as "I have no idea
>> > what's really going on here". :-)
>>
>> Sure, "adverb" usually includes "miscellaneous". AIUI, the problem is
>> that there are a few common categories (with lots of member words)
>> lumped in there:
>>
>> 1. words that modify verbs;
>> 2. words that modify verbs or adjectives;
>> 3. words that modify adjectives;
>
> A further problem is the usually vague notion of "modify" that comes
> along with the vague notion of what an adverb is (or any lexical
> category, for that matter). It is usually some unholy mix of
> structure and meaning, demonstrating little concern for the difference
> between syntax and semantics.
>
> Consider a sentence like "he is surprisingly very enthusiastic about
> work on Mondays". Each of "surprisingly", "very", "about work", and
> "on Mondays" can be argued to "modify" the adjective "enthusiastic" in
> some way, but they all do so differently, with fundamentally different
> syntactic and semantic relationships to "enthusiastic".

In a formalism like HPSG, you can make those distinctions. How can
one that in a dictionary, apart from citing examples? (I'm not being
argumentative --- I'm interested in ideas.)

>> and then a lot of small miscellaneous categories & syntactic oddities.
>> In a formalism like HPSG, you just handle all of them by specifying
>> the syntax; but outside a framework like that, you need to come up
>> with reasonable names for all these miscellaneous categories.
>
> I don't see why they all need the same name. If two groups of
> linguistic objects consistently have differences between them with
> respect to their syntactic behavior, their morphology, and/or they way
> they contribute to the semantics, it seems reasonable to give them
> different names.

I think that's what I meant. Let's say the usual "adverb" bin
includes the 3 main categories above plus (just for the sake of
argument) 10 lexical categories with 1 to 10 words each --- you'll
need 10 distinct names & POS tags for those piddling categories. (In
practice, at least from what I've seen, curators of corpora usually
fall back more or less to the rough but traditional "adverb" dumping
zone.)


--
There's a statute of limitations with the law, but not with your wife.
[Ray Magliozzi, Car Talk 2011-36]

[Nathan Sanders]

In article <nb8a0ax...@news.ducksburg.com>,

By giving them different names. (True) adverb for "surprisingly",
degree word for "very", complement for "about work", and adjunct for
"on Mondays".

> >> and then a lot of small miscellaneous categories & syntactic oddities.
> >> In a formalism like HPSG, you just handle all of them by specifying
> >> the syntax; but outside a framework like that, you need to come up
> >> with reasonable names for all these miscellaneous categories.
> >
> > I don't see why they all need the same name. If two groups of
> > linguistic objects consistently have differences between them with
> > respect to their syntactic behavior, their morphology, and/or they way
> > they contribute to the semantics, it seems reasonable to give them
> > different names.
>
> I think that's what I meant. Let's say the usual "adverb" bin
> includes the 3 main categories above plus (just for the sake of
> argument) 10 lexical categories with 1 to 10 words each --- you'll
> need 10 distinct names & POS tags for those piddling categories.

The category "article" has only two members (or three, if you count
"some"), so I see no problem with having other similar small
categories. Why not? If they are indeed demonstrably different
objects, why shouldn't they be given their own category?

> (In
> practice, at least from what I've seen, curators of corpora usually
> fall back more or less to the rough but traditional "adverb" dumping
> zone.)

Traditional grammatical "analysis" is pretty much worthless, and
should never be used as a model for anything, except for what not to
do.

[DKleinecke]

On Mar 1, 2:37 pm, Nathan Sanders <sand...@alum.mit.edu> wrote:
> In article <1vg60axofd....@news.ducksburg.com>,

>  Adam Funk <a24...@ducksburg.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On 2013-02-27, Nathan Sanders wrote:
>

> > > In article <xCoXs.310639$s36.75...@fx22.fr7>,
> > >  "Guy Barry" <guy.ba...@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
>
> > >> "Adam Funk"  wrote in messagenews:5nf10ax...@news.ducksburg.com...

Another contributing factor has been the general neglect of language
structure at a higher level than the sentence. Currently I am calling
it "discourse" just to have a name for it. In your sample sentence "He
is surprisingly very enthusiastic about work on Mondays" "surprising"
reads to me as a discourse word - one modifying the entire sentence.
And, incidentally I think "on Mondays" belongs with "worK' and not
with "enthusiatic". And, of course, words (like "very") modifying
"adjectives" should never have been lumped with words modifying verbs
- adadjectives ?

Oops. I just realized the sentence is ambiguous - "(he is
(surprisingly very enthusiastic about work)) (on Mondays)". Versus "he
is (surprisingly very enthusiastic about (work on Mondays))". I think
my initial reading was not the one you intended. Such is life in the
parsing world.

As to the original question I now take the position that English
lexical items should not be assigned to the categories "noun" or
"verb". We still have parts of speech though and this one might be
called "root". Then a root can be used verbal or nominally according
to, I guess, what is called the pragmatics of the situation,

[Arnaud Fournet]

Le dimanche 3 mars 2013 02:38:29 UTC+1, Nathan Sanders a écrit :

>
> Traditional grammatical "analysis" is pretty much worthless, and
>
> should never be used as a model for anything, except for what not to
>
> do.
>

***

Quite funny that as a true-born Chimpskyist you think tradition is worthless when you idol said it was good.

A.

[Arnaud Fournet]

***

It's an interesting point.
It depends on what you call a sign.

The lexicographic approach is that a sign is a sound plus a meaning, the assignment to parts of speech is an attribute of the sign.

You point out that there's a problem in that approach.

In English and in French as well, there's plenty of undetermined stems that have a nominal or verbal role depending on the **syntax**.
IMO generalization of articles and pre-verbal pronouns is linked to that issue.

je cours => a verb
le cours => a masc. noun
la cour => a fem. noun

all sound [kuR]

English more or less works the same.

A.

[Peter T. Daniels]

Are they somehow the "same word," or are they accidental homonyms?

> English more or less works the same.

We have differently stressed noun/verb pairs, like convict, conduct,
and we have accidental homonyms (sometimes kept apart by the spelling,
like bear/bare, sometimes not, like bear n./bear v.), and we have lots
of "zero conversion," like Shakespeare's "but me no buts."

[Arnaud Fournet]

Le dimanche 3 mars 2013 15:43:17 UTC+1, Peter T. Daniels a écrit :
> On Mar 3, 6:47 am, Arnaud Fournet <fournet.arn...@wanadoo.fr> wrote:
>
> > Le dimanche 3 mars 2013 03:27:39 UTC+1, DKleinecke a écrit :
>
> >
>
> > > On Mar 1, 2:37 pm, Nathan Sanders <sand...@alum.mit.edu> wrote:
>
> >
>
> > > As to the original question I now take the position that English
>
> >
>
> > > lexical items should not be assigned to the categories "noun" or
>
> >
>
> > > "verb". We still have parts of speech though and this one might be
>
> >
>
> > > called "root". Then a root can be used verbal or nominally according
>
> >
>
> > > to, I guess, what is called the pragmatics of the situation,
>
> >
>
> > ***
>
> >
>
> > It's an interesting point.
>
> > It depends on what you call a sign.
>
> >
>
> > The lexicographic approach is that a sign is a sound plus a meaning, the assignment to parts of speech is an attribute of the sign.
>
> >
>
> > You point out that there's a problem in that approach.
>
> >
>
> > In English and in French as well, there's plenty of undetermined stems that have a nominal or verbal role depending on the **syntax**.
>
> > IMO generalization of articles and pre-verbal pronouns is linked to that issue.
>
> >
>
> > je cours => a verb
>
> > le cours => a masc. noun
>
> > la cour => a fem. noun
>
> >
>
> > all sound [kuR]
>
>
>
> Are they somehow the "same word," or are they accidental homonyms?
>

***

your question shows you understood nothing,

as usual would I dare say.

A.
***

>
>
> > English more or less works the same.
>
>
>
> We have differently stressed noun/verb pairs, like convict, conduct,
>
> and we have accidental homonyms (sometimes kept apart by the spelling,
>
> like bear/bare, sometimes not, like bear n./bear v.), and we have lots
>
> of "zero conversion," like Shakespeare's "but me no buts."

***

zero conversion is indeed what's at stake.

A.

[Peter T. Daniels]

Yet you fail to answer it. Do you have some "secret" definition of
"word" (or, even less appropriate, "stem") like analyst41's "secret"
theories?

> > > English more or less works the same.
>
> > We have differently stressed noun/verb pairs, like convict, conduct,
> > and we have accidental homonyms (sometimes kept apart by the spelling,
> > like bear/bare, sometimes not, like bear n./bear v.), and we have lots
> > of "zero conversion," like Shakespeare's "but me no buts."
>
> ***
>
> zero conversion is indeed what's at stake.

So now you're claiming that 'court' and 'run' are a zero-derivation in
one or the other direction? ('Course' may etymologically relate to
'run', but that is synchronically irrelevant -- read again Saussure.)

AND FIX YOUR FUCKING NEWSREADER TO STOP PUTTING IN DOUBLE LINE SPACING.

[Arnaud Fournet]

***

don't know where the problem comes from,

I suspect the CIA ordered google.groups to screw up my computer so that a lot of mishaps keep pop out of no-shit-knows-where, because I'm a **[...]** [censured] bloody goddamned [uncensored] piece of frog spawn [copyrighted trademark].
But I admit I'm a bit paranoid sometimes.

Life entails that we accept a few things that we can't understand.

A.

[Peter T. Daniels]

On Mar 3, 10:27 am, Arnaud Fournet <fournet.arn...@wanadoo.fr> wrote:
> Le dimanche 3 mars 2013 16:09:09 UTC+1, Peter T. Daniels a écrit :
>
> > On Mar 3, 10:02 am, Arnaud Fournet <fournet.arn...@wanadoo.fr> wrote:
>
> > > Le dimanche 3 mars 2013 15:43:17 UTC+1, Peter T. Daniels a écrit :
>
> > AND FIX YOUR FUCKING NEWSREADER TO STOP PUTTING IN DOUBLE LINE SPACING.
>
> ***
>
> don't know where the problem comes from,

Long ago, Telex machines required both a "line feed" and a "carriage
return" at the end of each line. Early computer applications imitated
that practice.

> I suspect the CIA ordered google.groups to screw up my computer so that a lot of mishaps keep pop out of no-shit-knows-where, because I'm a **[...]** [censured] bloody goddamned [uncensored] piece of frog spawn [copyrighted trademark].
> But I admit I'm a bit paranoid sometimes.
>
> Life entails that we accept a few things that we can't understand.

Such as the claim that "je cours," "le cours," and "la cour" are all
somehow the "same stem"?

[Adam Funk]

On 2013-03-03, Peter T. Daniels wrote:

> AND FIX YOUR FUCKING NEWSREADER TO STOP PUTTING IN DOUBLE LINE SPACING.

It's "google groups" that's causing the double-spacing problem ---
perhaps only for users who don't click on the option to use the old
version. What are you going to do when they withdraw that?


--
"Mandrake, have you never wondered why I drink only distilled water,
or rain water, and only pure grain alcohol?" [Dr Strangelove]

[Peter T. Daniels]

On Mar 3, 4:06 pm, Adam Funk <a24...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On 2013-03-03, Peter T. Daniels wrote:
>
> > AND FIX YOUR FUCKING NEWSREADER TO STOP PUTTING IN DOUBLE LINE SPACING.
>
> It's "google groups" that's causing the double-spacing problem ---

For only a single poster among all of us who use it?

> perhaps only for users who don't click on the option to use the old
> version.  What are you going to do when they withdraw that?

They don't seem to be in any hurry to do so. They can probably count
the number of users who try it for a day and immediately revert to the
good version.

[Nathan Sanders]

In article <c26fc315-da3d-4c88...@googlegroups.com>,

Arnaud Fournet <fournet...@wanadoo.fr> wrote:

> Le dimanche 3 mars 2013 02:38:29 UTC+1, Nathan Sanders a écrit :
>
> >
> > Traditional grammatical "analysis" is pretty much worthless, and
> >
> > should never be used as a model for anything, except for what not to
> >
> > do.
>

> Quite funny that as a true-born Chimpskyist you think tradition

"Traditional grammatical 'analysis'" refers to prescriptive grammar,
what gets taught in grammar schools.

I used scare quotes for a reason.

> is worthless
> when you idol said it was good.

As I have said repeatedly, I disagree with Chomsky on quite a lot.

[unruh]

On 2013-03-03, Adam Funk <a24...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On 2013-03-03, Peter T. Daniels wrote:
>
>> AND FIX YOUR FUCKING NEWSREADER TO STOP PUTTING IN DOUBLE LINE SPACING.
>
>
> It's "google groups" that's causing the double-spacing problem ---
> perhaps only for users who don't click on the option to use the old
> version. What are you going to do when they withdraw that?

AGreed it is google that is causing the problem. I hope that all the
users that this is happening to complain, or there will be yet another
reason for banning google groups.
>
>

[DKleinecke]

There aren't too many stress changing roots but they pose a
theoretical problem. Are they two roots or one, and if one, which one?
The easiest way out might be to define roots as having no stress and
then assign stress as part of the noun-verb pragmatics. Since my model
for stress has only two cases - first syllable or second syllable -
that leaves four possible kinds of roots - FF, FS, SF and SS (verb
then noun) - and, that in turn, leaves me with a new question - are
there any FS roots in English?

[Dr. HotSalt]

Test posting with Old Google Groups.

See double line spacing here?


Dr. HotSalt

[Nathan Sanders]

In article
<c3f69cfc-bbfa-4479...@kw7g2000pbb.googlegroups.com>,

The meaning of a particular zero-derived (or partially zero-derived,
in the case of stress shift) verb/noun isn't systematically
predictable from the original noun/verb (e.g., consider the add-to
verbs "shoe/paint/water" versus the remove-from verbs
"skin/gut/milk"). Furthermore, not every noun or verb readily
undergoes zero-derivation anyway, even when there are
semantically-related words that do (e.g., generally unverbable noun
"noise" versus the noun/verb "sound", and the generally unnounable
verb "see" versus the verb/noun "look").

Since these facts are unpredictable, they must be memorized for each
word, either as in two sub-entries of a single root or in two separate
entries for two homophonous roots. That is, for "shoe", you could
have:

LEXICON #1
shoe: N 'footwear'; V 'put a shoe on'

LEXICON #2
shoe_1: N 'footwear'
shoe_2: V 'put a shoe on'

But either way, the information has to be stored, not productively
derived by general rules, so why does it matter whether we choose #1
or #2? What observable facts about the language are captured by one
that can't be captured by the other?

(Note that I'm talking about human language usage, not dictionaries.
Obviously, dictionaries have a reason to use #1 when the two meanings
are etymologically related., and #2 when they are not.)

[Peter T. Daniels]

I see the shithead crossposted to the cretin group again.

The cretin who responded has no idea what the problem is and pretended
to be testing "Old Google Groups" and probably put in "double line
spacing" by hand.

[Peter T. Daniels]

What's a "stress-changing root"? All the examples I can think of are
Latinate prefix+root, and the stress shifts from root to prefix (or
vice versa, depending on your viewpoint).

I don't know what your formulas mean, since you seem to be claiming
that a "root" can have two first syllables, two second syllables, or
one of each.

[Arnaud Fournet]

Le dimanche 3 mars 2013 23:30:23 UTC+1, Nathan Sanders a écrit :
> In article <c26fc315-da3d-4c88...@googlegroups.com>,
>
> Arnaud Fournet <fournet...@wanadoo.fr> wrote:
>
>
>
> > Le dimanche 3 mars 2013 02:38:29 UTC+1, Nathan Sanders a écrit :
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> > > Traditional grammatical "analysis" is pretty much worthless, and
>
> > >
>
> > > should never be used as a model for anything, except for what not to
>
> > >
>
> > > do.
>
> >
>
> > Quite funny that as a true-born Chimpskyist you think tradition
>
>
>
> "Traditional grammatical 'analysis'" refers to prescriptive grammar,
>
> what gets taught in grammar schools.
>

***

Chimpskyism is highly prescriptivist,
as everything has to be crammed into a totalitarian huge shred-and-extrude device.

Chimpskyism is notoriously unable to handle basic variationist issues.

A.
***

>
>
> I used scare quotes for a reason.
>
>
>
> > is worthless
>
> > when you idol said it was good.
>
>
>
> As I have said repeatedly, I disagree with Chomsky on quite a lot.
>

***

Maybe you think it's a lot,
I would say you disagree on details but accept most of the framework and groundwork. You are basically in this bubble, not out of it.

A.

[Ruud Harmsen]

Sun, 3 Mar 2013 07:27:20 -0800 (PST): Arnaud Fournet
<fournet...@wanadoo.fr> schreef/wrote:

>Le dimanche 3 mars 2013 16:09:09 UTC+1, Peter T. Daniels a écrit :
>> On Mar 3, 10:02 am, Arnaud Fournet <fournet.arn...@wanadoo.fr> wrote:
>>
>> > Le dimanche 3 mars 2013 15:43:17 UTC+1, Peter T. Daniels a écrit :
>
>>
>> AND FIX YOUR FUCKING NEWSREADER TO STOP PUTTING IN DOUBLE LINE SPACING.
>***
>
>don't know where the problem comes from,

From one of Google's news interfaces. It can be corrected manually. Or
you could use a real newsagent.

[Nathan Sanders]

In article <c891a34c-5335-4c8d...@googlegroups.com>,
Arnaud Fournet <fournet...@wanadoo.fr> wrote:

> Le dimanche 3 mars 2013 23:30:23 UTC+1, Nathan Sanders a �crit�:

> > In article <c26fc315-da3d-4c88...@googlegroups.com>,
> >
> > Arnaud Fournet <fournet...@wanadoo.fr> wrote:
> >

> > > Le dimanche 3 mars 2013 02:38:29 UTC+1, Nathan Sanders a �crit�:

> >
> > > > Traditional grammatical "analysis" is pretty much worthless, and
> > > > should never be used as a model for anything, except for what not to
> > > > do.
> >
> > > Quite funny that as a true-born Chimpskyist you think tradition
> >
> > "Traditional grammatical 'analysis'" refers to prescriptive grammar,
> > what gets taught in grammar schools.
>

> Chimpskyism is highly prescriptivist,

I wasn't talking about Chomsky, or any kind of formal linguistic
analysis, so I don't see the relevance here.

> Chimpskyism is notoriously unable to handle basic variationist issues.

All the more reason for me to disagree with him.

Seriously, I don't need any convincing.

> > As I have said repeatedly, I disagree with Chomsky on quite a lot.
>

> Maybe you think it's a lot,

I disagree with minimalism.

I disagree with SPE. In fact, I disagree with the very notion of
rule-based phonology (but especially SPE, which was a horrid
instantiation of rule-based phonology).

I even disagree with the fundamental notion that the input to the
phonology is made of units with a single consistent form, such as the
Chomskyan "underlying representation".

> I would say you disagree on details but accept most of the framework
> and groundwork.

Since I reject both minimalism (his most up-to-date "framework") and
the notion of rules/transformations (the "groundwork"), I'm not sure
what it is that you think I accept about his ideas (beyond agreeing
with him that something about human language is universal, though he
and I would disagree on whether that universality is specific to
language alone, rather than being an epiphenomenon of more basic
cognitive functions).

Nor do I understand why you are so obsessed with both Chomsky and me,
to the point of constantly bringing up what you erroneously believe to
be my idol worship of him, especially in conversation where he is
utterly irrelevant.

[Adam Funk]

On 2013-03-03, Peter T. Daniels wrote:

> On Mar 3, 10:27 am, Arnaud Fournet <fournet.arn...@wanadoo.fr> wrote:
>> Le dimanche 3 mars 2013 16:09:09 UTC+1, Peter T. Daniels a écrit :
>>
>> > On Mar 3, 10:02 am, Arnaud Fournet <fournet.arn...@wanadoo.fr> wrote:
>>
>> > > Le dimanche 3 mars 2013 15:43:17 UTC+1, Peter T. Daniels a écrit :
>>
>> > AND FIX YOUR FUCKING NEWSREADER TO STOP PUTTING IN DOUBLE LINE SPACING.
>>
>> ***
>>
>> don't know where the problem comes from,
>
> Long ago, Telex machines required both a "line feed" and a "carriage
> return" at the end of each line. Early computer applications imitated
> that practice.

Windows still uses CR+LF (inherited from DOS). (Unix uses LF, & IIRC
Mac OS uses CR only.)


--
They do (play, that is), and nobody gets killed, but Metallic K.O. is
the only rock album I know where you can actually hear hurled beer
bottles breaking against guitar strings. --- Lester Bangs

[Arnaud Fournet]

Le lundi 4 mars 2013 08:49:10 UTC+1, Ruud Harmsen a écrit :
> Sun, 3 Mar 2013 07:27:20 -0800 (PST): Arnaud Fournet
>

>

> From one of Google's news interfaces. It can be corrected manually.

***

where and how?

***

Or
>
> you could use a real newsagent.

***

Like which one?

A.

[Arnaud Fournet]

Le lundi 4 mars 2013 08:53:38 UTC+1, Nathan Sanders a écrit :
> In article <c891a34c-5335-4c8d...@googlegroups.com>,

>

>
> I disagree with SPE. In fact, I disagree with the very notion of
>
> rule-based phonology (but especially SPE, which was a horrid
>
> instantiation of rule-based phonology).
>
>
>
> I even disagree with the fundamental notion that the input to the
>
> phonology is made of units with a single consistent form, such as the
>
> Chomskyan "underlying representation".
>

***

hm!?

your explanations about the word golova were very much consistent with that kind of things.

A.
***

>
>
> > I would say you disagree on details but accept most of the framework
>
> > and groundwork.
>
>
>
> Since I reject both minimalism (his most up-to-date "framework") and
>
> the notion of rules/transformations (the "groundwork"), I'm not sure
>
> what it is that you think I accept about his ideas (beyond agreeing
>
> with him that something about human language is universal, though he
>
> and I would disagree on whether that universality is specific to
>
> language alone, rather than being an epiphenomenon of more basic
>
> cognitive functions).
>
>
>
> Nor do I understand why you are so obsessed with both Chomsky and me,
>
> to the point of constantly bringing up what you erroneously believe to
>
> be my idol worship of him, especially in conversation where he is
>
> utterly irrelevant.

***

I have that impression that you are very much in line with all that stuff.

A.

[Brian M. Scott]

On Sun, 03 Mar 2013 21:41:04 -0500, Nathan Sanders
<san...@alum.mit.edu> wrote in
<news:sanders-7B43D7...@news.eternal-september.org>
in sci.lang:

[...]

> Furthermore, not every noun or verb readily undergoes
> zero-derivation anyway, even when there are
> semantically-related words that do (e.g., generally
> unverbable noun "noise" versus the noun/verb "sound",

Not the best of examples: 'Don't noise it about' and many
others, though usually with 'about'.

> and the generally unnounable verb "see" versus the
> verb/noun "look").

But, curiously enough, 'a look-see'.

[...]

Brian

[Arnaud Fournet]

Le lundi 4 mars 2013 12:30:58 UTC+1, Brian M. Scott a écrit :
> On Sun, 03 Mar 2013 21:41:04 -0500, Nathan Sanders

>

> > and the generally unnounable verb "see" versus the
>
> > verb/noun "look").
>
>
>
> But, curiously enough, 'a look-see'.
>

***

what does it mean?

A.

[Peter T. Daniels]

On Mar 4, 2:53 am, Nathan Sanders <sand...@alum.mit.edu> wrote:
> In article <c891a34c-5335-4c8d...@googlegroups.com>,

>  Arnaud Fournet <fournet.arn...@wanadoo.fr> wrote:

> > Le dimanche 3 mars 2013 23:30:23 UTC+1, Nathan Sanders a écrit :
> > > In article <c26fc315-da3d-4c88...@googlegroups.com>,

> > >  Arnaud Fournet <fournet.arn...@wanadoo.fr> wrote:

> > > > Le dimanche 3 mars 2013 02:38:29 UTC+1, Nathan Sanders a écrit :
>
> > > > > Traditional grammatical "analysis" is pretty much worthless, and
> > > > > should never be used as a model for anything, except for what not to
> > > > > do.
>
> > > > Quite funny that as a true-born Chimpskyist you think tradition
>
> > > "Traditional grammatical 'analysis'" refers to prescriptive grammar,
> > > what gets taught in grammar schools.
>
> > Chimpskyism is highly prescriptivist,
>
> I wasn't talking about Chomsky, or any kind of formal linguistic
> analysis, so I don't see the relevance here.
>
> > Chimpskyism is notoriously unable to handle basic variationist issues.
>
> All the more reason for me to disagree with him.
>
> Seriously, I don't need any convincing.
>
> > > As I have said repeatedly, I disagree with Chomsky on quite a lot.
>
> > Maybe you think it's a lot,
>
> I disagree with minimalism.
>
> I disagree with SPE.  In fact, I disagree with the very notion of
> rule-based phonology (but especially SPE, which was a horrid
> instantiation of rule-based phonology).

I suppose you would have come up with something vastly superior the
very first time you tried?

> I even disagree with the fundamental notion that the input to the
> phonology is made of units with a single consistent form, such as the
> Chomskyan "underlying representation".

Oh, goody. We're about to get an exposition of your view of the mental
lexicon.

> > I would say you disagree on details but accept most of the framework
> > and groundwork.
>
> Since I reject both minimalism (his most up-to-date "framework") and
> the notion of rules/transformations (the "groundwork"), I'm not sure
> what it is that you think I accept about his ideas (beyond agreeing
> with him that something about human language is universal, though he
> and I would disagree on whether that universality is specific to
> language alone, rather than being an epiphenomenon of more basic
> cognitive functions).
>
> Nor do I understand why you are so obsessed with both Chomsky and me,
> to the point of constantly bringing up what you erroneously believe to
> be my idol worship of him, especially in conversation where he is
> utterly irrelevant.

Your fundamental orientation is undeniable.

[Peter T. Daniels]

Either 'a peek' or 'an examination'.

Presumably from mock Chinese Pidgin English.

[Brian M. Scott]

On Mon, 4 Mar 2013 03:59:23 -0800 (PST), Arnaud Fournet
<fournet...@wanadoo.fr> wrote in
<news:08078e64-b89a-476b...@googlegroups.com>
in sci.lang:

> Le lundi 4 mars 2013 12:30:58 UTC+1, Brian M. Scott a écrit :

>> On Sun, 03 Mar 2013 21:41:04 -0500, Nathan Sanders

>>> and the generally unnounable verb "see" versus the
>>> verb/noun "look").

>> But, curiously enough, 'a look-see'.

> what does it mean?

Amalgamated from various dictionaries: 'a general survey; a
quick survey or glance; a brief inspection or look'. It's
informal, and usage varies a bit. E.g., brevity isn't
necessary for some speakers: 'Let's (go) take a look-see'
and 'Let's (go) have a look' are synonymous for me and
others I've known, though I very rarely use the term myself.

Brian

[Arnaud Fournet]

Le lundi 4 mars 2013 13:48:08 UTC+1, Brian M. Scott a écrit :
> On Mon, 4 Mar 2013 03:59:23 -0800 (PST), Arnaud Fournet
>

>

> Amalgamated from various dictionaries: 'a general survey; a
>
> quick survey or glance; a brief inspection or look'. It's
>
> informal, and usage varies a bit. E.g., brevity isn't
>
> necessary for some speakers: 'Let's (go) take a look-see'
>
> and 'Let's (go) have a look' are synonymous for me and
>
> others I've known, though I very rarely use the term myself.
>

***

A French colloquialism is voir à voir: look to look,
faut voir à voir: must look to look
it means: needs more checking

faudrait voir à voir: you should be more careful about what you're doing.

I suppose it's not in Academic Dictionaries.

A.

[Adam Funk]

On 2013-03-03, Nathan Sanders wrote:

> Adam Funk <a24...@ducksburg.com> wrote:
>> On 2013-03-01, Nathan Sanders wrote:

>> > A further problem is the usually vague notion of "modify" that comes
>> > along with the vague notion of what an adverb is (or any lexical
>> > category, for that matter). It is usually some unholy mix of
>> > structure and meaning, demonstrating little concern for the difference
>> > between syntax and semantics.
>> >
>> > Consider a sentence like "he is surprisingly very enthusiastic about
>> > work on Mondays". Each of "surprisingly", "very", "about work", and
>> > "on Mondays" can be argued to "modify" the adjective "enthusiastic" in
>> > some way, but they all do so differently, with fundamentally different
>> > syntactic and semantic relationships to "enthusiastic".
>>
>> In a formalism like HPSG, you can make those distinctions. How can
>> one that in a dictionary, apart from citing examples? (I'm not being
>> argumentative --- I'm interested in ideas.)
>
> By giving them different names. (True) adverb for "surprisingly",
> degree word for "very", complement for "about work", and adjunct for
> "on Mondays".
...
>> (In
>> practice, at least from what I've seen, curators of corpora usually
>> fall back more or less to the rough but traditional "adverb" dumping
>> zone.)


Well, I've taken a look at COCA's list, which turns out to distinguish
more kinds of "adverb" than I'd expected! Oops.

RA adverb, after nominal head (e.g. else, galore)
REX adverb introducing appositional constructions (namely, e.g.)
RG degree adverb (very, so, too)
RGQ wh- degree adverb (how)
RGQV wh-ever degree adverb (however)
RGR comparative degree adverb (more, less)
RGT superlative degree adverb (most, least)
RL locative adverb (e.g. alongside, forward)
RP prep. adverb, particle (e.g about, in)
RPK prep. adv., catenative (about in be about to)
RR general adverb
RRQ wh- general adverb (where, when, why, how)
RRQV wh-ever general adverb (wherever, whenever)
RRR comparative general adverb (e.g. better, longer)
RRT superlative general adverb (e.g. best, longest)
RT quasi-nominal adverb of time (e.g. now, tomorrow)
XX not, n't

http://ucrel.lancs.ac.uk/claws7tags.html


--
The three-martini lunch is the epitome of American efficiency.
Where else can you get an earful, a bellyful and a snootful at
the same time? [Gerald Ford, 1978]

[Nathan Sanders]

In article <gwvhqqtpcr5u.1p...@40tude.net>,

"Brian M. Scott" <b.s...@csuohio.edu> wrote:

> On Sun, 03 Mar 2013 21:41:04 -0500, Nathan Sanders
> <san...@alum.mit.edu> wrote in
> <news:sanders-7B43D7...@news.eternal-september.org>
> in sci.lang:
>
> [...]
>
> > Furthermore, not every noun or verb readily undergoes
> > zero-derivation anyway, even when there are
> > semantically-related words that do (e.g., generally
> > unverbable noun "noise" versus the noun/verb "sound",
>
> Not the best of examples: 'Don't noise it about' and many
> others, though usually with 'about'.

Oh, interesting. I wasn't familiar with that before.

I could have picked something more nouny that more strongly resists
verbification, like "sonance" or "decibel", but I wanted something
that would at least be plausible as a verb. Looks like I was right!

[Nathan Sanders]

In article
<a69dba73-ce6a-4905...@m12g2000yqp.googlegroups.com>,

"Peter T. Daniels" <gram...@verizon.net> wrote:

> On Mar 4, 2:53 am, Nathan Sanders <sand...@alum.mit.edu> wrote:
>
> > I disagree with SPE.  In fact, I disagree with the very notion of
> > rule-based phonology (but especially SPE, which was a horrid
> > instantiation of rule-based phonology).
>
> I suppose you would have come up with something vastly superior the
> very first time you tried?

I certainly wouldn't have tried to encode the entirety of the history
of English into the synchronic phonology, no.

> > I even disagree with the fundamental notion that the input to the
> > phonology is made of units with a single consistent form, such as the
> > Chomskyan "underlying representation".
>
> Oh, goody. We're about to get an exposition of your view of the mental
> lexicon.

Only if you ask nicely.

> Your fundamental orientation is undeniable.

I stopped denying my fundamental orientation almost 20 years ago.

[Nathan Sanders]

In article <e166d93f-c4f4-472e...@googlegroups.com>,
Arnaud Fournet <fournet...@wanadoo.fr> wrote:

> Le lundi 4 mars 2013 08:53:38 UTC+1, Nathan Sanders a �crit�:

>
> > I even disagree with the fundamental notion that the input to the
> > phonology is made of units with a single consistent form, such as the
> > Chomskyan "underlying representation".
>

> hm!?
>
> your explanations about the word golova were very much consistent with that
> kind of things.

I explicitly said that the explanation of "golova" I gave was the
*standard* analysis, not my analysis.

My personal view of linguistic analysis is definitely non-standard,
and certainly not Chomskyan. I've said this numerous times, and have
pointed to relevant work. Look at exemplar theory, adaptive
dispersion, quantal theory, dispersion-focalization, and evolutionary
phonology if you want to get a general idea of the way I tilt.

> I have that impression that you are very much in line with all that stuff.

Like PTD, you read what you want to read so you'll have an excuse to
have a fight.

[Arnaud Fournet]

Le lundi 4 mars 2013 17:36:26 UTC+1, Nathan Sanders a écrit :
> In article <e166d93f-c4f4-472e...@googlegroups.com>,
>
> Arnaud Fournet <fournet...@wanadoo.fr> wrote:
>
>
>
> > Le lundi 4 mars 2013 08:53:38 UTC+1, Nathan Sanders a écrit :
>
> >
>
> > > I even disagree with the fundamental notion that the input to the
>
> > > phonology is made of units with a single consistent form, such as the
>
> > > Chomskyan "underlying representation".
>
> >
>
> > hm!?
>
> >
>
> > your explanations about the word golova were very much consistent with that
>
> > kind of things.
>
>
>
> I explicitly said that the explanation of "golova" I gave was the
>
> *standard* analysis, not my analysis.
>

***

standard according to what??
standard according to which standard??

PPPFfff...

you're a clown.

****

>
>
> My personal view of linguistic analysis is definitely non-standard,
>
> and certainly not Chomskyan. I've said this numerous times, and have
>
> pointed to relevant work. Look at exemplar theory, adaptive
>
> dispersion, quantal theory, dispersion-focalization, and evolutionary
>
> phonology if you want to get a general idea of the way I tilt.

***

you're definitely on the Chimpskyan side of linguistics,

A.
***

>
>
>
> > I have that impression that you are very much in line with all that stuff.
>
>
>
> Like PTD, you read what you want to read so you'll have an excuse to
>
> have a fight.

***

BS

A.
***

[Brian M. Scott]

On Mon, 04 Mar 2013 11:16:14 -0500, Nathan Sanders
<san...@alum.mit.edu> wrote in
<news:sanders-8B289D...@news.eternal-september.org>
in sci.lang:

> In article
> <a69dba73-ce6a-4905...@m12g2000yqp.googlegroups.com>,
> "Peter T. Daniels" <gram...@verizon.net> wrote:

[...]

>> Your fundamental orientation is undeniable.

> I stopped denying my fundamental orientation almost 20
> years ago.

<SPLORK!!>

(+1)

Brian

[Brian M. Scott]

On Mon, 04 Mar 2013 11:36:26 -0500, Nathan Sanders
<san...@alum.mit.edu> wrote in
<news:sanders-C5BB01...@news.eternal-september.org>
in sci.lang:

[...]

> My personal view of linguistic analysis is definitely
> non-standard, and certainly not Chomskyan. I've said
> this numerous times, and have pointed to relevant work.
> Look at exemplar theory, adaptive dispersion, quantal
> theory, dispersion-focalization, and evolutionary
> phonology if you want to get a general idea of the way I
> tilt.

Useful search terms. Interesting reading. And I do wish
that academic books weren't quite so expensive; Blevins's
_Evolutionary Phonology_ looks very interesting.

[...]

Brian

[Brian M. Scott]

On Mon, 04 Mar 2013 11:13:37 -0500, Nathan Sanders
<san...@alum.mit.edu> wrote in
<news:sanders-2782FE...@news.eternal-september.org>
in sci.lang:

> In article <gwvhqqtpcr5u.1p...@40tude.net>,
> "Brian M. Scott" <b.s...@csuohio.edu> wrote:

>> On Sun, 03 Mar 2013 21:41:04 -0500, Nathan Sanders
>> <san...@alum.mit.edu> wrote in
>> <news:sanders-7B43D7...@news.eternal-september.org>
>> in sci.lang:

>> [...]

>>> Furthermore, not every noun or verb readily undergoes
>>> zero-derivation anyway, even when there are
>>> semantically-related words that do (e.g., generally
>>> unverbable noun "noise" versus the noun/verb "sound",

>> Not the best of examples: 'Don't noise it about' and many
>> others, though usually with 'about'.

> Oh, interesting. I wasn't familiar with that before.

That surprised me enough that I went to the online OED, in
which <noise> as verb has a December 2003 entry. The second
definition, the only one in current non-dialect, non-poetic
use, is:

To spread as a report; to report, rumour. Also (in
weakened use): to say, maintain. Freq. with _about_,
_abroad_.

This is exactly my sense of the word. In impersonal phrases
the citations range from a1419 (It is so notory & so y
noysed in all þis lordship þat ...) to 1994 (Richmond (VA)
Times-Dispatch: It's not noised about, but this ...).
Examples in the passive range from c1425 (Sche ... Dide a
synne ... Whiche noised was þ kouþe þoruȝ þe heuene) to 1992
(Vernor Vinge: You've tripped onto something that should not
be noised about). Citations for active use with a simple
object, with direct speech, or with a clausal object range
from c1440 (‘I noyse nat ... God al-oonly to be serued be
wordes but be good deedis) to 2001 (Christian Science
Monitor: 'OK,' I noised, 'if you can make it on your own,
you can stay'). That last one surprised me a little: it's a
usage that I've almost never seen.

[...]

Brian

[Nathan Sanders]

In article <581b1708-6766-47c7...@googlegroups.com>,
Arnaud Fournet <fournet...@wanadoo.fr> wrote:

> Le lundi 4 mars 2013 17:36:26 UTC+1, Nathan Sanders a �crit�:

>
> > My personal view of linguistic analysis is definitely non-standard,
> > and certainly not Chomskyan. I've said this numerous times, and have
> > pointed to relevant work. Look at exemplar theory, adaptive
> > dispersion, quantal theory, dispersion-focalization, and evolutionary
> > phonology if you want to get a general idea of the way I tilt.
>

> you're definitely on the Chimpskyan side of linguistics,

Tell that to Juliette Blevins, Jean-Luc Schwartz, or Bjorn Lindblom.

> > Like PTD, you read what you want to read so you'll have an excuse to
> > have a fight.
>

> BS

Call your fights whatever you want. They are still fights.

[Nathan Sanders]

In article <11hg17t80ptny.1...@40tude.net>,

"Brian M. Scott" <b.s...@csuohio.edu> wrote:

It is. She has some really interesting ideas. It didn't click with
me when I first read it, but the more I read and think about it, the
more I like and agree with it.

[DKleinecke]

On Mar 3, 6:41 pm, Nathan Sanders <sand...@alum.mit.edu> wrote:
> In article
> <c3f69cfc-bbfa-4479-bcce-302ddc226...@kw7g2000pbb.googlegroups.com>,

I am visualizing a lexicon where an entry must be a single entry if
its semantics (inside the head) is of a piece. There are words with
more than one semantics (for example, one pike is a weapon and another
is a fish) but most multiple meanings are semantically related. The
meaning of such a root entry is obviously not precise. That is, unlike
the example you give, a lexical entry is not precise and, in fact,
whether there are one, two, three (add horse shoe) or whatever is
meaningless. The precision rises out of the context.

In my model of language the starting place of an utterance is a few of
these diffuse entries. Then habitual (learned) behaviors merge these
entries into something utterable. And, of course, hearing is the same
process in reverse. Chomsky imagines (or at least used to imagine)
what I called "merge" to be genetically provided. I view it as
behavior learned by a much more simplified mind.

The underlying question is ancient (at least as old as Herodotos) and
there is scant evidence. I am inclined to read the evidence of the
wolf children as saying that without a childhood in a speaking
community it is unlikely that people will speak (as in language). But
I am aware of relatively high functioning people with developmental
disabilities who do not speak - but all of such people as I have ever
met seem to understand speech. Since real people are involved we are
unlikely to get more evidence very rapidly.

[DKleinecke]

As far as I know Latinate prefix+root are the only stress-changing
roots (in the sense that I redefined the word). No one seems to
suggest any others.

My formula XY is a root whose verb form is stressed on syllable X and
noun form is stressed on syllable Y where X and Y can be either F
(stressed on the first syllable) or S (stressed on the second
syllable). I intend F to mean stressed on odd-numbered syllables and S
to mean stressed on even number syllables - but there some residual
problems with those defintions. The Latinate prefix+root is FS and,
apparently, there are no SF roots.

I view the lexicon as having no notion of immediate constituents of a
root and therefore "Latinate prefix+root" is not meaningful in the
lexicon. If I were building a computer model of human semantics I
might want to use decomposition into constituents to make the model
more efficient (and incidentally reflect historical truth) but I don't
think the human mind does that. Humans are dimly aware of the way the
lexicon is built up (some cultures more than others - Arabic speakers
seem quite aware of the tri-consonantal roots) and are quite ready to
use what they think is a lexical process to produce a new lexical item
(like Shakespeare's "but" root).

[Nathan Sanders]

In article
<92aa29bb-8ab0-4a45...@l4g2000pbn.googlegroups.com>,

DKleinecke <dklei...@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Mar 3, 8:32�pm, "Peter T. Daniels" <gramma...@verizon.net> wrote:
>
> > What's a "stress-changing root"? All the examples I can think of are
> > Latinate prefix+root, and the stress shifts from root to prefix (or
> > vice versa, depending on your viewpoint).
>

> As far as I know Latinate prefix+root are the only stress-changing
> roots (in the sense that I redefined the word). No one seems to
> suggest any others.

There's offset, overflow, overlap, overload, overlook, override,
uplift, upload, upset, etc., plus some Germanic roots prefixed with
Latinate re- (redo, refill, remake, reset, retake, rewrite, etc.). (I
believe some of these may have initial stress as verbs for some
people, like "upload").

And, though the noun-verb pairs aren't perfectly identical, there are
examples like outgrow-outgrowth and foresee-forsight.

The stress shift isn't restricted solely to Latinate roots, or even
Latinate prefixes.

[Arnaud Fournet]

Le mardi 5 mars 2013 00:03:11 UTC+1, Nathan Sanders a écrit :
> In article <581b1708-6766-47c7...@googlegroups.com>,

>

>
> > > Like PTD, you read what you want to read so you'll have an excuse to
>
> > > have a fight.
>
> >
>
> > BS
>
>
>
> Call your fights whatever you want. They are still fights.
>

***

Asserting where you stand is not a fight,

and commenting on where you think you are is not a fight either.

My diagnosis is that you are very much Chomskyistic, but apparently you deny that feature.

A.

[Nathan Sanders]

In article <5ee807a0-5590-4f97...@googlegroups.com>,

Arnaud Fournet <fournet...@wanadoo.fr> wrote:

> Le mardi 5 mars 2013 00:03:11 UTC+1, Nathan Sanders a écrit :
>
> > Call your fights whatever you want. They are still fights.
>

> Asserting where you stand is not a fight,
> and commenting on where you think you are is not a fight either.

When your assertions and comments contradict known reality and are
inserted into unrelated discussions, then yes, they constitute trying
to start a fight.

> My diagnosis is that you are very much Chomskyistic,

Name three of Chomsky's ideas that you think I agree with (and with
which you disagree, of course).

> but apparently you deny that feature.

Because I accept reality.

[Arnaud Fournet]

Le mardi 5 mars 2013 08:33:06 UTC+1, Nathan Sanders a écrit :
> In article <5ee807a0-5590-4f97...@googlegroups.com>,
>
> Arnaud Fournet <fournet...@wanadoo.fr> wrote:
>
>
>
> > Le mardi 5 mars 2013 00:03:11 UTC+1, Nathan Sanders a écrit :
>
> >
>
> > > Call your fights whatever you want. They are still fights.
>
> >
>
> > Asserting where you stand is not a fight,
>
> > and commenting on where you think you are is not a fight either.
>
>
>
> When your assertions and comments contradict known reality

***

It would appear that i'm not alone in thinking that you erroneously believe to be different from mainstream Chomskyism.

A.
***

and are
>
> inserted into unrelated discussions, then yes, they constitute trying
>
> to start a fight.
>

***

You assign me non-existing intentions.

A.
***

>
>
> > My diagnosis is that you are very much Chomskyistic,
>
>
>
> Name three of Chomsky's ideas that you think I agree with (and with
>
> which you disagree, of course).

**

When the word golova was being discussed, your approach of what is a phoneme and what the phonemic description of golova should be was distinctly unstructuralist.

A.
***

>
>
>
> > but apparently you deny that feature.
>
>
>
> Because I accept reality.
>

***

This sounds a bit arrogant.

A.

[Peter T. Daniels]

There was a flurry of pedagogical literature in the late 70s showing
that SPE's circular "if you know the distribution of tense/lax in the
"underlying form," you can predict the stress" and "if you know the
stress, you can predict the tense/lax" is resolved via the
orthography: see Dickerson, English Orthography: A Guide to Word
Stress and Vowel Quality, International Review of Applied Linguistics
in Language Teaching 16/2 (1978): 127-47 [don't try to find it on
line; that number of the journal was missing from the U of Michigan's
copy that was digitized], and especially Oswalt, English Orthography
as a Morphophonemic System: Vowel Quality, Linguistics 102 (1973):
3-40 [very long delay in publication: it was written pre-SPE].


Is there any evidence that _non-literate_ Arabic speakers are "quite
aware" of the triconsonantal roots?

[Nathan Sanders]

In article <c1f20244-0b8a-4537...@googlegroups.com>,

Arnaud Fournet <fournet...@wanadoo.fr> wrote:

> It would appear that i'm not alone in thinking that you erroneously believe
> to be different from mainstream Chomskyism.

Yes, you and PTD share a delusion.

> > Name three of Chomsky's ideas that you think I agree with (and with
> > which you disagree, of course).

[none given]

> When the word golova was being discussed, your approach

...was never put on the table. No one asked for it, and I never
offered it, though I did hint at it (I know I mentioned exemplar
theory at least once in that discussion).

You want to know *my* approach? As a reminder, here are the relevant
data again:

[g@l6"va] 'head (nom)'
[g6"lofk@] 'head (dim)'
["gol@vu] 'head (acc)'

I would not give the stem 'head' a single consistent underlying
representation /golov-/.

I would not give the word 'head (nom)' a single consistent phonemic
representation /golova/, nor the word 'head (dim)' a single consistent
phonemic representation /galova/, nor the word 'head (acc)' a single
consistent phonemic representation /golavu/.

I would not give the stem 'head' a single consistent morphophonemic
representation {golov-}.

I would give the meaning 'head (nom)' interconnected clouds of
auditory and articulatory memories, corresponding respectively to
perceptual and production events in the speaker's lifetime, with the
most recent memories having the strongest connections to the others.

Similarly, 'head (dim)' and 'head (acc)' would have their own clouds.
And crucially, the memories across these three clouds would all be
connected to each other. And the memories in the 'head (nom)' cloud
would all be connected to all of the memories in all of the other
'(nom)' clouds, and likewise for the '(dim)' and '(acc)' clouds. As
the connections between any two memories grows, their bond
strengthens. So the speaker's memory of his mother saying 'head
(nom)' yesterday would be very strongly connected to his memory of his
mother saying it today, and less strongly connected to his memory of
her saying 'head (acc)' last week, etc.

I'd probably even include negative inhibitory memories, corresponding
to events when other people have said 'head (nom)' but it was not
perceived quickly or correctly the speaker, as well as events when the
speaker articulated 'head (nom)' in ways in which he believes other
people didn't perceive quickly or correctly.

The speaker must also have a similarity metric, which measures whether
a new auditory memory he gains from perceiving someone else's
pronunciation can be categorized within a given cloud of connected
auditory memories, and how reliable that categorization is, something
like a difference from the average given in standard deviation. Every
time a new auditory memory is added to a given cloud, the center of
that cloud shifts.

There must also be an implementation function, which looks at the
cloud of articulatory memories, finds the center, and attempts to
reproduce it. Again, every time the speaker articulates 'head (nom)',
a new articulatory memory is added to the cloud, and the center shifts.

Meanings themselves (as well as sociolinguistic factors like register
and gender, and a host of other properties) would also have similar
interconnected memories, so the relationship isn't between a single
meaning and a cloud of phonetic memories, but between multiple meaning
memories and phonetic memories (and memories for register, gender,
etc.), all part of a big cloud of interconnected memories.

Nowhere in any of this do I have anything at all like the notion of a
single consistent abstract representation for a given word/morpheme, a
notion shared by Chomskyan and structuralism.

> of what is a phoneme
> and what the phonemic description of golova should be was distinctly
> unstructuralist.

Goalpost shift. Chomskyanism is only one of many ways not to be
structuralist.

> > Because I accept reality.

>
> This sounds a bit arrogant.

I am comfortable being called "arrogant" for stating what I know to be
true about the reality of what thoughts I do and do not have.

[Arnaud Fournet]

Le mardi 5 mars 2013 17:23:15 UTC+1, Nathan Sanders a écrit :
> In article <c1f20244-0b8a-4537...@googlegroups.com>,
>
> Arnaud Fournet <fournet...@wanadoo.fr> wrote:
>
>
>
> > It would appear that i'm not alone in thinking that you erroneously believe
>
> > to be different from mainstream Chomskyism.
>
>
>
> Yes, you and PTD share a delusion.
>

***

Not just PTD...

A.
***

>
>
> > > Name three of Chomsky's ideas that you think I agree with (and with
>
> > > which you disagree, of course).
>
>
>
> [none given]
>
>
>
> > When the word golova was being discussed, your approach
>
>
>
> ...was never put on the table. No one asked for it, and I never
>
> offered it, though I did hint at it (I know I mentioned exemplar
>
> theory at least once in that discussion).
>
>
>
> You want to know *my* approach? As a reminder, here are the relevant
>
> data again:
>
>
>
> [g@l6"va] 'head (nom)'
>
> [g6"lofk@] 'head (dim)'
>
> ["gol@vu] 'head (acc)'
>
>
>
> I would not give the stem 'head' a single consistent underlying
>
> representation /golov-/.

***

So your theory is what you ** not ** think.

A.
***

>
>
>
> I would not give the word 'head (nom)' a single consistent phonemic
>
> representation /golova/, nor the word 'head (dim)' a single consistent
>
> phonemic representation /galova/, nor the word 'head (acc)' a single
>
> consistent phonemic representation /golavu/.
>

***

ok

so your theory is what you ** not ** think, again.

a.
***

>
>
> I would not give the stem 'head' a single consistent morphophonemic
>
> representation {golov-}.
>

***

ok,

so once again, again,

your theory is what you ** not ** think, again, again.

A.

***

>
>
> I would give the meaning 'head (nom)' interconnected clouds of
>
> auditory and articulatory memories, corresponding respectively to
>
> perceptual and production events in the speaker's lifetime, with the
>
> most recent memories having the strongest connections to the others.
>

***

metaphysical BS

A.
***

>
>
> Similarly, 'head (dim)' and 'head (acc)' would have their own clouds.
>
> And crucially, the memories across these three clouds would all be
>
> connected to each other. And the memories in the 'head (nom)' cloud
>
> would all be connected to all of the memories in all of the other
>
> '(nom)' clouds, and likewise for the '(dim)' and '(acc)' clouds. As
>
> the connections between any two memories grows, their bond
>
> strengthens. So the speaker's memory of his mother saying 'head
>
> (nom)' yesterday would be very strongly connected to his memory of his
>
> mother saying it today, and less strongly connected to his memory of
>
> her saying 'head (acc)' last week, etc.
>

***

Garbage again, again,

A.
***

***

huge outpour of crap...

So your theory is what you ** not ** think, again, again,
or
a huge outpour of metaphysical crap.

I wonder why I could not cite three points where you disagree with Chimpsky...

A.

[Brian M. Scott]

On Tue, 05 Mar 2013 11:23:15 -0500, Nathan Sanders
<san...@alum.mit.edu> wrote in
<news:sanders-56C7EC...@news.eternal-september.org>
in sci.lang:

[...]

> Again, every time the speaker articulates 'head (nom)', a
> new articulatory memory is added to the cloud, and the
> center shifts.

Things fall apart; the centre cannot hold. (Sorry, but that
was irresistible!)

[...]

Brian

[Nathan Sanders]

In article <cb4a7e4e-641f-43c9...@googlegroups.com>,
Arnaud Fournet <fournet...@wanadoo.fr> wrote:

> Le mardi 5 mars 2013 17:23:15 UTC+1, Nathan Sanders a �crit�:

> > In article <c1f20244-0b8a-4537...@googlegroups.com>,
> >
> > Arnaud Fournet <fournet...@wanadoo.fr> wrote:
> >
> > > It would appear that i'm not alone in thinking that you erroneously
> > > believe
> > > to be different from mainstream Chomskyism.
> >
> > Yes, you and PTD share a delusion.
>

> Not just PTD...

Who else has suggested that my approach is Chomskyan?

> > > > Name three of Chomsky's ideas that you think I agree with (and with
> > > > which you disagree, of course).
> >
> > [none given]

Still none given. Apparently, yangggg think he knows it when he sees
it, but can't tell you what it is.

> > I would not give the stem 'head' a single consistent underlying
> > representation /golov-/.
>

> So your theory is what you ** not ** think.

What I "think" is something along the lines of the exemplar/cloud
model that I described. While it's not "my" theory, because I didn't
create it, it's the theory I have the strongest beliefs in, so in that
sense, it is "my" theory. It depends on what your use of the
possessive was intended to mean.

> > I would not give the word 'head (nom)' a single consistent phonemic
> > representation /golova/, nor the word 'head (dim)' a single consistent
> > phonemic representation /galova/, nor the word 'head (acc)' a single
> > consistent phonemic representation /golavu/.
>

> so your theory is what you ** not ** think, again.

That is neither my theory nor what I think. My theory doesn't have
phonemes, nor do I think they exist.

> > I would not give the stem 'head' a single consistent morphophonemic
> > representation {golov-}.
>

> so once again, again,
> your theory is what you ** not ** think, again, again.

Once again, that is neither my theory nor what I think. My theory
doesn't have morphophonemes, nor do I think they exist.

> > I would give the meaning 'head (nom)' interconnected clouds of
> > auditory and articulatory memories, corresponding respectively to
> > perceptual and production events in the speaker's lifetime, with the
> > most recent memories having the strongest connections to the others.
>

> metaphysical BS

Actually, it's exactly the opposite. It is a rather concrete theory,
with no unnecessary abstractions like phonemes or morphophonemes or
underlying representations or rules or derivations. There are
memories and connections between memories, both of which we have
sufficient evidence to be confident in their existence.

But regardless of whether my theory is metaphysical BS or not, it is
definitely not at all Chomksyan, as you have erroneously claimed.

> I wonder why I could not cite three points where you disagree with
> Chimpsky...

Because you obviously don't understand what my theory is based on (I
doubt you have read even one of Hintzman 1984, Johnson 1997, and
Pierrehumbert 2001), and quite possibly, you also don't understand
what Chomsky's theories are.

And/or, as I strongly suspect, you're more interested in fighting over
trivialities than having a substantive discussion about meaningful
content.

REFERENCES

Hintzman, Douglas L. 1984. MINERVA 2: A simulation model of human
memory. _Behavior Research Methods, Instruments, and Computers_
16.2:96�101.

Johnson, Keith. 1997. Speech perception without speaker normalization:
An exemplar model. In K. Johnson and J. W. Mullennix, eds. _Talker
Variability in Speech Processing_. 145-165.

Pierrehumbert, Janet. 2001. Exemplar dynamics: Word frequency,
lenition and contrast. In P. Hopper and J. Bybee, eds. _Frequency and
the Emergence of Linguistic Structure_. 137-157.

[Arnaud Fournet]

Le mardi 5 mars 2013 22:00:18 UTC+1, Nathan Sanders a écrit :
> In article <cb4a7e4e-641f-43c9...@googlegroups.com>,
>
> Arnaud Fournet <fournet...@wanadoo.fr> wrote:
>
>
>
> > Le mardi 5 mars 2013 17:23:15 UTC+1, Nathan Sanders a écrit :
>
> > > In article <c1f20244-0b8a-4537...@googlegroups.com>,
>
> > >
>
> > > Arnaud Fournet <fournet...@wanadoo.fr> wrote:
>
> > >
>
> > > > It would appear that i'm not alone in thinking that you erroneously
>
> > > > believe
>
> > > > to be different from mainstream Chomskyism.
>
> > >
>
> > > Yes, you and PTD share a delusion.
>
> >
>
> > Not just PTD...
>
>
>
> Who else has suggested that my approach is Chomskyan?
>
>
>
> > > > > Name three of Chomsky's ideas that you think I agree with (and with
>
> > > > > which you disagree, of course).
>
> > >
>
> > > [none given]
>
>
>
> Still none given. Apparently, yangggg think he knows it when he sees
>
> it, but can't tell you what it is.
>

***

It's hard to discuss with some escapist chicken, who keeps not stating what he really thinks.

A.
***

>
>
> > > I would not give the stem 'head' a single consistent underlying
>
> > > representation /golov-/.
>
> >
>
> > So your theory is what you ** not ** think.
>
>
>
> What I "think" is something along the lines of the exemplar/cloud
>
> model that I described.

***

You described nothing.

You keep hitting around the bush and never stating what you think.

A.
***

While it's not "my" theory, because I didn't
>
> create it, it's the theory I have the strongest beliefs in, so in that
>
> sense, it is "my" theory. It depends on what your use of the
>
> possessive was intended to mean.
>

***

So far, you have asserted nothing.

A.
***

>
>
> > > I would not give the word 'head (nom)' a single consistent phonemic
>
> > > representation /golova/, nor the word 'head (dim)' a single consistent
>
> > > phonemic representation /galova/, nor the word 'head (acc)' a single
>
> > > consistent phonemic representation /golavu/.
>
> >
>
> > so your theory is what you ** not ** think, again.
>
>
>
> That is neither my theory nor what I think. My theory doesn't have
>
> phonemes, nor do I think they exist.
>

***

then what does it have?

A.
***

>
>
> > > I would not give the stem 'head' a single consistent morphophonemic
>
> > > representation {golov-}.
>
> >
>
> > so once again, again,
>
> > your theory is what you ** not ** think, again, again.
>
>
>
> Once again, that is neither my theory nor what I think. My theory
>
> doesn't have morphophonemes, nor do I think they exist.
>

***

then what does it have?

A.
***

>
>
> > > I would give the meaning 'head (nom)' interconnected clouds of
>
> > > auditory and articulatory memories, corresponding respectively to
>
> > > perceptual and production events in the speaker's lifetime, with the
>
> > > most recent memories having the strongest connections to the others.
>
> >
>
> > metaphysical BS
>
>
>
> Actually, it's exactly the opposite. It is a rather concrete theory,
>
> with no unnecessary abstractions like phonemes or morphophonemes or
>
> underlying representations or rules or derivations. There are
>
> memories and connections between memories, both of which we have
>
> sufficient evidence to be confident in their existence.
>

***

For the time being, we don't even know if you have a theory at all...

A.
***

>
>
> But regardless of whether my theory is metaphysical BS or not, it is
>
> definitely not at all Chomksyan, as you have erroneously claimed.
>

***

I can assert nothing on something that remains the shadow of a ghost.

A.
***

>
>
> > I wonder why I could not cite three points where you disagree with
>
> > Chimpsky...
>
>
>
> Because you obviously don't understand what my theory is based on (I
>
> doubt you have read even one of Hintzman 1984, Johnson 1997, and
>
> Pierrehumbert 2001), and quite possibly, you also don't understand
>
> what Chomsky's theories are.
>

***

Maybe I can get a chance of understanding what your theory is, when you've taken the time to assert what it is.

A.
***

>
>
> And/or, as I strongly suspect, you're more interested in fighting over
>
> trivialities than having a substantive discussion about meaningful
>
> content.
>

***

And you seriously think you have provided any meaningful content???????

A.

[Nathan Sanders]

In article <ac6b8a34-7dd0-4913...@googlegroups.com>,
Arnaud Fournet <fournet...@wanadoo.fr> wrote:

> Le mardi 5 mars 2013 22:00:18 UTC+1, Nathan Sanders a �crit�:

> > In article <cb4a7e4e-641f-43c9...@googlegroups.com>,
> > Arnaud Fournet <fournet...@wanadoo.fr> wrote:

> > > Le mardi 5 mars 2013 17:23:15 UTC+1, Nathan Sanders a �crit�:

> > > > In article <c1f20244-0b8a-4537...@googlegroups.com>,
> > > > Arnaud Fournet <fournet...@wanadoo.fr> wrote:
> >
> > > > > It would appear that i'm not alone in thinking that you erroneously
> > > > > believe
> > > > > to be different from mainstream Chomskyism.
> >
> > > > Yes, you and PTD share a delusion.
> >
> > > Not just PTD...
> >
> > Who else has suggested that my approach is Chomskyan?

I take your lack of response as "no one".

> > > > > > Name three of Chomsky's ideas that you think I agree with (and with
> > > > > > which you disagree, of course).
> >
> > > > [none given]
> >
> > Still none given. Apparently, yangggg think he knows it when he sees
> > it, but can't tell you what it is.

Still none given.

> It's hard to discuss with some escapist chicken, who keeps not stating what
> he really thinks.

I described in great detail exactly what my theory is. How much more
do you need? Are you just incapable of understanding it because I
don't use phonetic symbols and slashes and brackets?

> So far, you have asserted nothing.

Says the person who still has yet to provide even one clear example of
a linguistic belief he thinks I share with Chomsky, but not with
yangggg.

> > That is neither my theory nor what I think. My theory doesn't have
> > phonemes, nor do I think they exist.
>

> then what does it have?

Memories of perceptual and articulatory events, and connections
between those memories.

Are you asking for the neurochemical details of how memory works?

> > Because you obviously don't understand what my theory is based on (I
> > doubt you have read even one of Hintzman 1984, Johnson 1997, and
> > Pierrehumbert 2001), and quite possibly, you also don't understand
> > what Chomsky's theories are.
>

> Maybe I can get a chance of understanding what your theory is, when you've
> taken the time to assert what it is.

Okay, so you haven't read Hintzman 1984, Johnson 1997, or
Pierrehumbert 2001. I thought as much.

[DKleinecke]

On Mar 4, 9:26 pm, Nathan Sanders <sand...@alum.mit.edu> wrote:

> There's offset, overflow, overlap, overload, overlook, override,
> uplift, upload, upset, etc., plus some Germanic roots prefixed with
> Latinate re- (redo, refill, remake, reset, retake, rewrite, etc.). (I
> believe some of these may have initial stress as verbs for some
> people, like "upload").
>

I believe every last one of these is stressed initially as both a noun
and verb in my speech.

Where does the speech you are using as a source accent "overflow" etc,
as a verb? If it is "flow" then that counts as initial stress in my
phonological model.

[DKleinecke]

I am not up to discussing SPE beyond deploring it.

There are a number of hadiths demonstrating recognition of the tri-
consonants - for example, one of them speaks of the first time the
narrator heard the plural of "dajjal" - broken plural, of course. I do
not see how broken plurals could have arisen without using analogy on
implicit consonantal roots. I could probably make a case for awareness
based on the verbal forms alone.

[DKleinecke]

On Mar 5, 8:23 am, Nathan Sanders <sand...@alum.mit.edu> wrote:
> In article <c1f20244-0b8a-4537...@googlegroups.com>,

It sounds to me like our models of phonology are very similar. Yours
is probably further developed than mine. One difference - which is not
a distinction - is that I am comfortable calling the cloud belonging
to head (nom) "golova" or something like that (I might treat the
vowels differently). I think the point that matters - and we agree on
- is that the cloud is not a STRING of phonemes. Phonemes are an
artifact that appears at a later stage (perhaps as late as the hearing
action).

[DKleinecke]

On Mar 5, 3:13 pm, Nathan Sanders <sand...@alum.mit.edu> wrote:
> In article <ac6b8a34-7dd0-4913...@googlegroups.com>,

>  Arnaud Fournet <fournet.arn...@wanadoo.fr> wrote:

>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > Le mardi 5 mars 2013 22:00:18 UTC+1, Nathan Sanders a écrit :
> > > In article <cb4a7e4e-641f-43c9...@googlegroups.com>,

> > >  Arnaud Fournet <fournet.arn...@wanadoo.fr> wrote:

> > > > Le mardi 5 mars 2013 17:23:15 UTC+1, Nathan Sanders a écrit :
> > > > > In article <c1f20244-0b8a-4537...@googlegroups.com>,

Since Chomsky actually has shown little interest in phonology - and
had a disaster with his one excursion into it - and you are a
phonologist there isn't enough overlap to produce three agreements.

Do you have a syntactic theory? Have you been simply stating what you
to believe to be the standard opinion among linguistics in most of
your contributions?

Since, by head count, the majority of linguists (in my opinion) are
Chomskians simply stating the majority opinion as the standard opinion
will make you sound like a Chomskian. You have been too successful in
hiding you own ideas and presenting yourself as an impartial source of
facts (much like Yusuf does - in his case quite successfully).

[Nathan Sanders]

In article
<3ed206a4-30e6-47f2...@kk9g2000pbc.googlegroups.com>,

DKleinecke <dklei...@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Mar 4, 9:26 pm, Nathan Sanders <sand...@alum.mit.edu> wrote:
>
> > There's offset, overflow, overlap, overload, overlook, override,
> > uplift, upload, upset, etc., plus some Germanic roots prefixed with
> > Latinate re- (redo, refill, remake, reset, retake, rewrite, etc.). (I
> > believe some of these may have initial stress as verbs for some
> > people, like "upload").
> >
>
> I believe every last one of these is stressed initially as both a noun
> and verb in my speech.

For me, all of them are stressed on the first syllable as a noun, and
usually on the final syllable as a verb, though I can get initial
stress on the verb for some.

> Where does the speech you are using as a source accent "overflow" etc,
> as a verb? If it is "flow" then that counts as initial stress in my
> phonological model.

How is "flow" initial in "overflow"? There are two whole syllables
and one whole prefix separating it from the beginning of the word!

[Nathan Sanders]

In article
<78dbea19-01b8-46f9...@iq8g2000pbc.googlegroups.com>,

DKleinecke <dklei...@gmail.com> wrote:

> It sounds to me like our models of phonology are very similar. Yours
> is probably further developed than mine. One difference - which is not
> a distinction - is that I am comfortable calling the cloud belonging
> to head (nom) "golova" or something like that (I might treat the
> vowels differently).

Yeah, I'm fine with an informal label for it; I would use /golova/ or
[g@l6"va]. I would never label it /galova/.

> I think the point that matters - and we agree on
> - is that the cloud is not a STRING of phonemes. Phonemes are an
> artifact that appears at a later stage (perhaps as late as the hearing
> action).

I don't think they appear at all, but I do think something
phoneme-like is an epiphenomenon.

[Nathan Sanders]

In article
<d3d324e7-4b6c-4791...@vh9g2000pbb.googlegroups.com>,

DKleinecke <dklei...@gmail.com> wrote:

> Since Chomsky actually has shown little interest in phonology - and
> had a disaster with his one excursion into it - and you are a
> phonologist there isn't enough overlap to produce three agreements.

Which is why I find it curious why yangggg and PTD insist I am
Chomskyan!

> Do you have a syntactic theory?

Nothing well-developed, no. I don't like minimalism at all, and
that's Chomsky's current theory.

So I don't agree with him on phonology or syntax. And as with
phonology, he ignores semantics and sociolinguistics, so I can't agree
with him there, either.

> Have you been simply stating what you
> to believe to be the standard opinion among linguistics in most of
> your contributions?

As I said repeatedly in the "golova" discussion, I was giving the
current standard analysis.

> Since, by head count, the majority of linguists (in my opinion) are
> Chomskians

I don't keep track of those sorts of things, because I'm not hung up
on this stupid argument about who is and isn't a Chomskyan. I think
it's a waste of time. Either someone's arguments are valid, or they
are not. If they are not, give the counter-evidence or explain the
flaw in their argument. Dismissing someone as Chomskyan without
critically engaging their analysis just demonstrates either laziness
or pettiness.

> simply stating the majority opinion as the standard opinion
> will make you sound like a Chomskian.

I don't give the majority opinion; I give the standard analysis. In
science, that's the consensus analysis.

> You have been too successful in hiding you own ideas
> and presenting yourself as an impartial source of
> facts (much like Yusuf does - in his case quite successfully).

I frequently refer to my own ideas and work, and explicitly mark them
as such when I do so.

But I don't go into great detail about them here though, because this
isn't an academic journal, and I figure most posters here don't care
about advanced theoretical linguistics and/or don't have the
background to understand why I might believe what I believe.

My main concern here is data, which is why I get on to PTD when he
insists that his analysis of the the data is The One True Analysis
(recall how uppity he gets when he inists upon T-G phonemecization of
English, as if a language could be given only one proper phonemic
analysis; cf. Chao 1934).

[Peter T. Daniels]

So English-speakers are _aware_ of IE ablaut, because they get sing-
sang-sung-song right?

Are non-literate German-speakers _aware_ of umlaut?

If you assert that, then you are a perfect Chomskyan!

[Tak To]

On 3/4/2013 4:43 AM, Adam Funk wrote:
> On 2013-03-03, Peter T. Daniels wrote:
>
>> On Mar 3, 10:27 am, Arnaud Fournet <fournet.arn...@wanadoo.fr> wrote:
>>> Le dimanche 3 mars 2013 16:09:09 UTC+1, Peter T. Daniels a écrit :
>>>
>>>> On Mar 3, 10:02 am, Arnaud Fournet <fournet.arn...@wanadoo.fr> wrote:
>>>
>>>>> Le dimanche 3 mars 2013 15:43:17 UTC+1, Peter T. Daniels a écrit :
>>>
>>>> AND FIX YOUR FUCKING NEWSREADER TO STOP PUTTING IN DOUBLE LINE SPACING.
>>>
>>> ***
>>>
>>> don't know where the problem comes from,
>>
>> Long ago, Telex machines required both a "line feed" and a "carriage
>> return" at the end of each line. Early computer applications imitated
>> that practice.
>
>
> Windows still uses CR+LF (inherited from DOS). (Unix uses LF, & IIRC
> Mac OS uses CR only.)

IIRC, all text based TCP/IP protocols are CR+LF by default:
FTP, TELNET, as well as all TELNET based protocols such as
NNTP, SMTP etc.

Tak
--
----------------------------------------------------------------+-----
Tak To ta...@alum.mit.eduxx
--------------------------------------------------------------------^^
[taode takto ~{LU5B~}] NB: trim the xx to get my real email addr

[Arnaud Fournet]

Le jeudi 7 mars 2013 15:08:11 UTC+1, Tak To a écrit :
> On 3/4/2013 4:43 AM, Adam Funk wrote:
>
> > On 2013-03-03, Peter T. Daniels wrote:
>
> >
>
> >> On Mar 3, 10:27 am, Arnaud Fournet <fournet.arn...@wanadoo.fr> wrote:
>
> >>> Le dimanche 3 mars 2013 16:09:09 UTC+1, Peter T. Daniels a écrit :
>
> >>>
>
> >>>> On Mar 3, 10:02 am, Arnaud Fournet <fournet.arn...@wanadoo.fr> wrote:
>
> >>>
>
> >>>>> Le dimanche 3 mars 2013 15:43:17 UTC+1, Peter T. Daniels a écrit :
>
> >>>
>
> >>>> AND FIX YOUR FUCKING NEWSREADER TO STOP PUTTING IN DOUBLE LINE SPACING.
>
> >>>
>
> >>> ***
>
> >>>
>
> >>> don't know where the problem comes from,
>
> >>
>
> >> Long ago, Telex machines required both a "line feed" and a "carriage
>
> >> return" at the end of each line. Early computer applications imitated
>
> >> that practice.
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > Windows still uses CR+LF (inherited from DOS). (Unix uses LF, & IIRC
>
> > Mac OS uses CR only.)
>
>
>
> IIRC, all text based TCP/IP protocols are CR+LF by default:
>
> FTP, TELNET, as well as all TELNET based protocols such as
>
> NNTP, SMTP etc.
>
>
>
> Tak
>

***

Nice,

How do we get rid of the problem?

A.

[DKleinecke]

On Mar 5, 7:49 pm, Nathan Sanders <sand...@alum.mit.edu> wrote:
>
> How is "flow" initial in "overflow"?  There are two whole syllables
> and one whole prefix separating it from the beginning of the word!>

In the model of English I am using syllables in words alternate
stressed and unstressed so there are only two kinds of words - those
stressed on the first syllable and those stressed on the second
syllable. If "overflow" feels stressed on the third syllable then it
is also stressed on the first syllable. Hence initially. My model does
not allow for any recognition of prefixes as something special.

I grant you that a sophisticated speaker of English might divide
"overflow" in her mind into "over" and "flow" and thus become prefix-
aware. However I think it better not to assume sophistication.
Moreover it seems to me that your personal phonology would act the
same way and would not assume the speaker recognizes "over" as a
prefix.

[DKleinecke]

On Mar 5, 7:53 pm, Nathan Sanders <sand...@alum.mit.edu> wrote:
>
> > I think the point that matters - and we agree on
> > - is that the cloud is not a STRING of phonemes. Phonemes are an
> > artifact that appears at a later stage (perhaps as late as the hearing
> > action).
>
> I don't think they appear at all, but I do think something
> phoneme-like is an epiphenomenon.

I think the phenomenon of understanding speech is probably very
different than that of producing speech. I haven't seen much phonology
devoted to this side of mind-speech interaction. Since phonemes seem
to appear as a generalization of sub-syllabic orthography I am
inclined to suspect a connection to the act of listening.

[DKleinecke]

On Mar 5, 8:04 pm, Nathan Sanders <sand...@alum.mit.edu> wrote:

>
>  DKleinecke <dkleine...@gmail.com> wrote:

> > Since, by head count, the majority of linguists (in my opinion) are
> > Chomskians
>
> I don't keep track of those sorts of things, because I'm not hung up
> on this stupid argument about who is and isn't a Chomskyan.  I think
> it's a waste of time.  Either someone's arguments are valid, or they
> are not.  If they are not, give the counter-evidence or explain the
> flaw in their argument.  Dismissing someone as Chomskyan without
> critically engaging their analysis just demonstrates either laziness
> or pettiness.

It is imperative to understand the conceptual framework an article is
written in in order to understand it enough to agree or disagree. In
cases like discussions of minimalist notions I know before I start
that I am going to reject the specific being discussed because I
reject the entire context. And I suspect you do too. So far as I can
tell most of such articles are inhouse arguments about whatever theory
they espouse (what I would call scholastic) and cannot be evaluated in
the real world. I think it a fair evaluation of my time and energy to
simply not waste any time on Chomskian fantasies from the last forty
(more-or-less) years.

> > simply stating the majority opinion as the standard opinion
> > will make you sound like a Chomskian.
>
> I don't give the majority opinion; I give the standard analysis.  In
> science, that's the consensus analysis.
>

That assumes there is a standard analysis. Linguistics cannot be done
in such pseudo-scientific manner. So far as I can tell there are no
assured results in linguistics in any way comparable to the assured
results of the hard sciences. There is no possibility of anything
being consensual.

> My main concern here is data, which is why I get on to PTD when he
> insists that his analysis of the the data is The One True Analysis
> (recall how uppity he gets when he inists upon T-G phonemecization of
> English, as if a language could be given only one proper phonemic
> analysis; cf. Chao 1934).
>

I consider that ad hominem - but I leave it to Peter to complain.

[DKleinecke]

Please don't take my off-hand observations about how much speakers of
a language are aware too far.

Most English speakers do seem to be dimly aware of ablaut (now a long
way from IE). The best example I know is the "snuck" past of "sneak".
It is quite common in spite of being disparaged by every known
authority. Sophisticated speakers will do more of that for comic
effect - "I wung the deer", "The coin plunk", etc.

I doubt if naive German speakers are aware of umlaut as a process.

I don't remember Chomsky saying anything about this matter. If you
think I believe awareness is innate I feel I must insist that I
believe such awareness arises because people listen to what they say
and draw conclusions.

[Nathan Sanders]

In article
<8f884ced-b52f-4535...@h1g2000pbg.googlegroups.com>,

Huh?

"overflow" has greater stress on the first syllable when it is a noun,
and greater stress on the final syllable when it is a verb.

If your theory has only one kind of stress, then it can't capture that
distinction.

[Peter T. Daniels]

Nathan has clearly not got the point of Chao 1934.

[Nathan Sanders]

In article
<f6a95ca5-063c-4011...@n2g2000yqg.googlegroups.com>,

The point I get from it is that "given the sounds of a language, there
are usually more than possible way of reducing them to a system of
phonemes, and that these different systems or solutions are not simply
correct or incorrect, but may be regarded only as being good or bad
for various purposes."

[Adam Funk]

On 2013-03-07, Tak To wrote:

> On 3/4/2013 4:43 AM, Adam Funk wrote:
>> On 2013-03-03, Peter T. Daniels wrote:

>>> Long ago, Telex machines required both a "line feed" and a "carriage
>>> return" at the end of each line. Early computer applications imitated
>>> that practice.
>>
>>
>> Windows still uses CR+LF (inherited from DOS). (Unix uses LF, & IIRC
>> Mac OS uses CR only.)
>
> IIRC, all text based TCP/IP protocols are CR+LF by default:
> FTP, TELNET, as well as all TELNET based protocols such as
> NNTP, SMTP etc.

Good point; I was only thinking about the files.


--
You're the last hope for vaudeville.
--- Groucho Marx to Alice Cooper

[Peter T. Daniels]

On Mar 7, 11:35 pm, Nathan Sanders <sand...@alum.mit.edu> wrote:
> In article
> <f6a95ca5-063c-4011-8b38-9b8105ab9...@n2g2000yqg.googlegroups.com>,

>  "Peter T. Daniels" <gramma...@verizon.net> wrote:
>
> > On Mar 7, 8:53 pm, DKleinecke <dkleine...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > On Mar 5, 8:04 pm, Nathan Sanders <sand...@alum.mit.edu> wrote:
>
> > > > My main concern here is data, which is why I get on to PTD when he
> > > > insists that his analysis of the the data is The One True Analysis
> > > > (recall how uppity he gets when he inists upon T-G phonemecization of
> > > > English, as if a language could be given only one proper phonemic
> > > > analysis; cf. Chao 1934).
>
> > > I consider that ad hominem - but I leave it to Peter to complain.
>
> > Nathan has clearly not got the point of Chao 1934.
>
> The point I get from it is that "given the sounds of a language, there
> are usually more than possible way of reducing them to a system of
> phonemes, and that these different systems or solutions are not simply
> correct or incorrect, but may be regarded only as being good or bad
> for various purposes."

That would be "alternative," rather than "coexistent."

No one, obviously, has ever denied that more than one phonemic
analysis of a language is possible.

[Brian M. Scott]

On Fri, 8 Mar 2013 05:26:24 -0800 (PST), "Peter T. Daniels"
<gram...@verizon.net> wrote in
<news:7dc768a4-7b76-4507...@r13g2000yqg.googlegroups.com>
in sci.lang:

> On Mar 7, 11:35 pm, Nathan Sanders <sand...@alum.mit.edu> wrote:

>> In article
>> <f6a95ca5-063c-4011-8b38-9b8105ab9...@n2g2000yqg.googlegroups.com>,
>>  "Peter T. Daniels" <gramma...@verizon.net> wrote:

[...]

>>> Nathan has clearly not got the point of Chao 1934.

>> The point I get from it is that "given the sounds of a
>> language, there are usually more than possible way of
>> reducing them to a system of phonemes, and that these
>> different systems or solutions are not simply correct or
>> incorrect, but may be regarded only as being good or bad
>> for various purposes."

> That would be "alternative," rather than "coexistent."

It would obviously be both: 'for various purposes' clearly
allows for coexistent systems.

[Peter T. Daniels]

On Mar 8, 8:33 am, "Brian M. Scott" <b.sc...@csuohio.edu> wrote:
> On Fri, 8 Mar 2013 05:26:24 -0800 (PST), "Peter T. Daniels"

> <gramma...@verizon.net> wrote in

You could try reading the article. It's in Joos.

[Tak To]

On 3/8/2013 7:29 AM, Adam Funk wrote:
> On 2013-03-07, Tak To wrote:
>
>> On 3/4/2013 4:43 AM, Adam Funk wrote:
>>> On 2013-03-03, Peter T. Daniels wrote:
>
>>>> Long ago, Telex machines required both a "line feed" and a "carriage
>>>> return" at the end of each line. Early computer applications imitated
>>>> that practice.
>>>
>>>
>>> Windows still uses CR+LF (inherited from DOS). (Unix uses LF, & IIRC
>>> Mac OS uses CR only.)
>>
>> IIRC, all text based TCP/IP protocols are CR+LF by default:
>> FTP, TELNET, as well as all TELNET based protocols such as
>> NNTP, SMTP etc.
>
> Good point; I was only thinking about the files.

And then there are the runtime libraries of the
programming languages. For example, if you use
C/C++ under Windows and you use the "text mode"
procedures consistently, you don't have to
deal with the EOL format issue at all.

[Tak To]

(1) Identify the culprit programmer. Execute him/her.
Donate his/her properties to charity. Identify his/her
PHM (pointy-hair manager) and execute the latter and
donate his/her properties. Repeat until the chain
is exhausted.

(2) Make available the source code of reader/server
programs (and the runtime libraries they use) online.
Let netters correct the mistakes.

[DKleinecke]

On Mar 7, 6:27 pm, Nathan Sanders <sand...@alum.mit.edu> wrote:
> In article
> <8f884ced-b52f-4535-8aa1-4dd2935e1...@h1g2000pbg.googlegroups.com>,

It is not, in my opinion a real distinction. I hear both the stressed
syllables in "overflow" as equally stressed (up to intonation) and
identical in noun and verb.

[pauljk]

"Tak To" <ta...@alum.mit.eduxx> wrote in message news:khd8ms$eon$1...@dont-email.me...

> On 3/7/2013 11:15 AM, Arnaud Fournet wrote:

>> Le jeudi 7 mars 2013 15:08:11 UTC+1, Tak To a �crit :

>>> On 3/4/2013 4:43 AM, Adam Funk wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 2013-03-03, Peter T. Daniels wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>>> On Mar 3, 10:27 am, Arnaud Fournet <fournet.arn...@wanadoo.fr> wrote:
>>>

>>>>>> Le dimanche 3 mars 2013 16:09:09 UTC+1, Peter T. Daniels a �crit :

>>>
>>>>>>
>>>
>>>>>>> On Mar 3, 10:02 am, Arnaud Fournet <fournet.arn...@wanadoo.fr> wrote:
>>>
>>>>>>
>>>

>>>>>>>> Le dimanche 3 mars 2013 15:43:17 UTC+1, Peter T. Daniels a �crit :

>>>
>>>>>>
>>>
>>>>>>> AND FIX YOUR FUCKING NEWSREADER TO STOP PUTTING IN DOUBLE LINE SPACING.
>>>
>>>>>>
>>>
>>>>>> ***
>>>
>>>>>>
>>>
>>>>>> don't know where the problem comes from,
>>>
>>>>>
>>>
>>>>> Long ago, Telex machines required both a "line feed" and a "carriage
>>>
>>>>> return" at the end of each line. Early computer applications imitated
>>>
>>>>> that practice.
>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>> Windows still uses CR+LF (inherited from DOS). (Unix uses LF, & IIRC
>>>
>>>> Mac OS uses CR only.)
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> IIRC, all text based TCP/IP protocols are CR+LF by default:
>>>
>>> FTP, TELNET, as well as all TELNET based protocols such as
>>>
>>> NNTP, SMTP etc.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Tak
>>>
>> ***
>>
>> Nice,
>>
>> How do we get rid of the problem?
>
> (1) Identify the culprit programmer. Execute him/her.
> Donate his/her properties to charity. Identify his/her
> PHM (pointy-hair manager) and execute the latter and
> donate his/her properties. Repeat until the chain
> is exhausted.

How the problem is usually dealt with?

(1) Identify the culprit programmer. Promote him/her
to administration/management. Charge him/her with task
of hiring a programmer to fill the vacated position.

> (2) Make available the source code of reader/server
> programs (and the runtime libraries they use) online.
> Let netters correct the mistakes.

(2) Celebrate the successful solution of the problem.

pjk

[Nathan Sanders]

In article
<3a289857-22a9-4a95...@pl9g2000pbc.googlegroups.com>,

> It is not, in my opinion a real distinction.

You're welcome to have your own opinion, but you can't have your own
reality.

> I hear both the stressed
> syllables in "overflow" as equally stressed (up to intonation)

Intonation (pitch) is part of stress in English: stress correlates
with greater intensity, longer duration, and higher pitch.

> and identical in noun and verb.

This is me pronouncing the verb and the noun:

http://sanders.phonologist.org/overflow.wav

These are not "identical", neither impressionistically (to me) nor
objectively in their acoustic properties: The first syllables differ
in peak intensity (72 dB in the verb versus 74 dB in the noun),
average intensity (70 dB versus 72 dB), duration (0.10 s versus 0.14
s), peak pitch (121 Hz versus 190 Hz), and average pitch (110 Hz
versus 123 Hz). Every single measure points to the first syllable of
the noun having greater stress than the first syllable of the verb.

The final syllables likewise point to greater stress on the verb: 75
dB peak intensity in the verb versus 72 dB in the noun, 70 dB versus
67 dB average intensity, 0.35 s versus 0.28 s duration, 272 Hz versus
106 Hz peak pitch, and 185 Hz versus 92 Hz average pitch.

[anal...@hotmail.com]

On Mar 9, 12:27 am, Nathan Sanders <sand...@alum.mit.edu> wrote:
> In article

> <3a289857-22a9-4a95-87d6-9741494ab...@pl9g2000pbc.googlegroups.com>,

> Swarthmore Collegehttp://sanders.phonologist.org/- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

You forgot the most important difference - /v/ is [v] when the first
[o] is not stressed and [w] when stressed - after the expediture of
energy for the [o] - you must have saved some energy by leniting [v]
to [w].

Here is a fertile field for research, especially with respect to
English - the vocabulary is so enormous that large number of words
(especially 'learned' ones) may not have a standard pronunciation.
Users of these rarer words wouldn't have had the opportunity to
standardize by hearing it many times and are probably making up the
pronunciation either from "visible" etymology, analogy etc.

[Tak To]

On 3/8/2013 10:19 PM, pauljk wrote:
>
> "Tak To" <ta...@alum.mit.eduxx> wrote in message news:khd8ms$eon$1...@dont-email.me...
>> On 3/7/2013 11:15 AM, Arnaud Fournet wrote:

In reality, I would be surprised if the stated problem
is recognized as an actionable item in the first place.
Forget about identifying the culprit programmer.

>> (2) Make available the source code of reader/server
>> programs (and the runtime libraries they use) online.
>> Let netters correct the mistakes.
>
> (2) Celebrate the successful solution of the problem.

[Peter T. Daniels]

On Mar 9, 8:35 am, "analys...@hotmail.com" <analys...@hotmail.com>
wrote:

("overflow")

> You forgot the most important difference - /v/ is [v] when the first
> [o] is not stressed and [w] when stressed - after the expediture of
> energy for the [o] - you must have saved some energy by leniting [v]
> to [w].

Nathan is not describing Indian English.

> Here  is a fertile field for research, especially with respect to
> English - the vocabulary is so enormous that large number of words
> (especially 'learned' ones) may not have a standard pronunciation.
> Users of these rarer words wouldn't have had the opportunity to
> standardize by hearing it many times and are probably making up the
> pronunciation either from "visible" etymology, analogy etc.

There's nothing "learned" about "overflow."

[anal...@hotmail.com]

On Mar 9, 5:36 pm, "Peter T. Daniels" <gramma...@verizon.net> wrote:
> On Mar 9, 8:35 am, "analys...@hotmail.com" <analys...@hotmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> ("overflow")
>
> > You forgot the most important difference - /v/ is [v] when the first
> > [o] is not stressed and [w] when stressed - after the expediture of
> > energy for the [o] - you must have saved some energy by leniting [v]
> > to [w].
>
> Nathan is not describing Indian English.

Nathan has given zero evidence of being Indian.

For single-digit IQ folks, the remarks above apply to the sound-
samples he uploaded.

>
> > Here  is a fertile field for research, especially with respect to
> > English - the vocabulary is so enormous that large number of words
> > (especially 'learned' ones) may not have a standard pronunciation.
> > Users of these rarer words wouldn't have had the opportunity to
> > standardize by hearing it many times and are probably making up the
> > pronunciation either from "visible" etymology, analogy etc.
>
> There's nothing "learned" about "overflow."

That inference from what I wrote is an indication of a low IQ or a
comprehension problem.