Invention of the Alphabet
Dennis
http://www.geocities.com/ctesibos/alphabet/index.html
although it's still a bit ragged. I made use of recent
remarks made here. I would appreciate any comments!
Dennis
Peter T. Daniels
You seem not to have ever read anything I've written, or you couldn't
include the spurious commonplace "The Greek language cannot be
represented nearly as well without vowels as the Semitic languages can,
so it may have been done out of necessity." If that were true, how would
it be possible for Persian (and many other Iranian languages) to be
written with varieties of Aramaic scripts?
--
Peter T. Daniels gram...@att.net
Dennis
True. It's also true that many shorthand systems leave out
vowels.
However, I question how well, and whether, one could write
Greek, or English, without vowels if also one did not write
word divisions, as was the custom at first.
I'm sure you can understand this.
M sr y cn ndrstnd ths
Msrycnndrstndths
I think Greek would be rather like English in that regard,
with about the same sort of consonant cluster sizes. How
about Ukrainian? This site is an example of what can go
wrong if one leaves out both vowels and word divisions there.
http://home.att.net/~oko/home.htm
Is Persian written without word divisions? How about Urdu?
I doubt it, though I don't know.
Dennis
Peter T. Daniels
>
> Peter T. Daniels wrote:
>
> >> I just updated my website on the Invention of the Alphabet:
> >>
> >>http://www.geocities.com/ctesibos/alphabet/index.html
> >>
> >>although it's still a bit ragged. I made use of recent
> >>remarks made here. I would appreciate any comments!
> >
> > You seem not to have ever read anything I've written, or you couldn't
> > include the spurious commonplace "The Greek language cannot be
> > represented nearly as well without vowels as the Semitic languages can,
> > so it may have been done out of necessity." If that were true, how would
> > it be possible for Persian (and many other Iranian languages) to be
> > written with varieties of Aramaic scripts?
>
> True. It's also true that many shorthand systems leave out vowels.
If you don't transcribe your "notes" within a few days, you can't read
them. This has nothing to do with omitted vowels, however.
> However, I question how well, and whether, one could write
> Greek, or English, without vowels if also one did not write
> word divisions, as was the custom at first.
>
> I'm sure you can understand this.
>
> M sr y cn ndrstnd ths
>
> Msrycnndrstndths
If you're going to do this silly exercise, don't leave out notation for
initial vowels (and don't use digraphs):
@mSrycn@ndrstndDs.
> I think Greek would be rather like English in that regard,
> with about the same sort of consonant cluster sizes. How
> about Ukrainian? This site is an example of what can go
> wrong if one leaves out both vowels and word divisions there.
>
> http://home.att.net/~oko/home.htm
>
> Is Persian written without word divisions? How about Urdu?
> I doubt it, though I don't know.
Persian and Urdu are written with the Arabic script, which marks the
ends of words by means other than additional space.
What, though, is a word?
Do you have any trouble reading Thai or Chinese? No word divisions in
either script.
Joachim Pense
>
> Do you have any trouble reading Thai or Chinese? No word divisions in
> either script.
People are reported having trouble reading Chinese (classical in particular)
for exactly that reason.
Joachim
Prai Jei
<dchlg...@enews4.newsguy.com>:
> I'm sure you can understand this.
>
> M sr y cn ndrstnd ths
>
> Msrycnndrstndths
A more appropriate rendering would be
¿ ¿m sr y¿ cn ¿ndrstnd ths
where an additional character (chosen to be devoid of any accepted
pronunciation) indicates a "silent" consonant (cf. Hebrew aleph, Arabic
alif) i.e. a vowel without a consonant sound before it.
--
A couple of questions. How do I stop the wires short-circuiting, and what's
this nylon washer for?
Interchange the alphabetic letter groups to reply
Peter T. Daniels
Where did you get such reports?
Alan
"Peter T. Daniels" <gram...@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
news:42ECD8...@worldnet.att.net...>
> Do you have any trouble reading Thai or Chinese? No word divisions in
> either script.
> --
> Peter T. Daniels gram...@att.net
Am I misunderstanding you? Thai "script" may very well have no word
divisions, but how can you say the same for Chinese? Every word has its own
character and all characters are distinct and stand independent of one
another. Whether the Chinese text is written top-to-bottom, right-to-left,
or left-to-right, even someone totally unfamiliar with Chinese would
certainly be able to perceive the boundaries between the words.
Peter T. Daniels
If all the boundaries are identical, then there are no boundaries.
Anyway, in Modern Chinese most "words" are two characters, and there
most certainly is not extra space, or anything else, to distinguish
them.
Harlan Messinger
> "Peter T. Daniels" <gram...@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
> news:42ECD8...@worldnet.att.net...>
>
>>Do you have any trouble reading Thai or Chinese? No word divisions in
>>either script.
>>--
>>Peter T. Daniels gram...@att.net
>
>
> Am I misunderstanding you? Thai "script" may very well have no word
> divisions, but how can you say the same for Chinese? Every word has its own
> character
That's a misconception. Many words in Chinese consist of multiple
syllables/characters, such as Chong1guo2, the name for China, or
ci2dian3, a word for "dictionary", or fu2wu4yuan2, a word meaning "waiter".
Dennis
>> However, I question how well, and whether, one could write
>>Greek, or English, without vowels if also one did not write
>>word divisions, as was the custom at first.
>>
>> I'm sure you can understand this.
>>
>> M sr y cn ndrstnd ths
>>
>> Msrycnndrstndths
>
> If you're going to do this silly exercise, don't leave out notation for
> initial vowels (and don't use digraphs):
>
> @mSrycn@ndrstndDs.
I'll have to give this some more thought. As you know,
that leaves room for a lot of ambiguity. I think Woodard
talked about all this in his book, that Greek can indeed be
written without vowels, and pointing out that ambiguities
arise in Semitic as well without vowels. However, would you
agree that vowels are needed more in Greek and Indo-European
languages in general than in Semitic ones? I did say that
it was relative, after all.
>> I think Greek would be rather like English in that regard,
>>with about the same sort of consonant cluster sizes. How
>>about Ukrainian? This site is an example of what can go
>>wrong if one leaves out both vowels and word divisions there.
>>
>>http://home.att.net/~oko/home.htm
Obviously something like Ukrainian is worse without vowels,
since it has more consonant clusters. That is how this
fellow gets the freedom to read what he wants.
>> Is Persian written without word divisions? How about Urdu?
>> I doubt it, though I don't know.
>
>
> Persian and Urdu are written with the Arabic script, which marks the
> ends of words by means other than additional space.
>
> What, though, is a word?
>
> Do you have any trouble reading Thai or Chinese? No word divisions in
> either script.
I don't think that's a proper comparison. Thai is pretty
phonemic, while Chinese is logographic. So there all you
lack is the word divisions. And, of course, we've already
said that ancient Greek writing lacked word divisions.
AFAIK, Etruscan was the only thing from that time period
that did include them.
The question of what is a word does indeed arise there. I
think the Chinese consider each syllable a word, but in fact
multi-syllable units often form words. I'm not sure that's
germane to this discussion.
Dennis
Richard Herring
<tsalag...@asus.net> writes
Ahem. Thai writing is not phonemic, *unless* you can first identify the
segment boundaries, which in general you can't do without additional
information.
>while Chinese is logographic. So there all you lack is the word
>divisions. And, of course, we've already said that ancient Greek
>writing lacked word divisions. AFAIK, Etruscan was the only thing from
>that time period that did include them.
>
> The question of what is a word does indeed arise there. I think
>the Chinese consider each syllable a word, but in fact multi-syllable
>units often form words. I'm not sure that's germane to this discussion.
>
--
Richard Herring
Peter T. Daniels
I'm not sure what "this discussion" is -- you lumped together
vowellessness and spacelessness, which are two different and unrelated
things. IE languages _have been written_ vowellessly for millennia, so
that's not an interesting topic; and many languages _are still written_
spacelessly, suggesting that if English didn't have spaces, it wouldn't
be a terrible burden to learn to read it that way.
Spacelessness in Greek is less problematic because very few letters can
be word-final, and spacelessness in the Arabic family of scripts is less
problematic because of word-final flourishes.
António Marques
> And, of course, we've already said that ancient Greek writing lacked
> word divisions. AFAIK, Etruscan was the only thing from that time
> period that did include them.
Damn, such an advanced çanguages and look where it's gone.
--
am
laurus : rhodophyta : brezoneg : smalltalk : stargate
Lee Sau Dan
>>> Do you have any trouble reading Thai or Chinese? No word
>>> divisions in either script. -- Peter T. Daniels
>>> gram...@att.net
>> Am I misunderstanding you? Thai "script" may very well have no
>> word divisions, but how can you say the same for Chinese? Every
>> word has its own character
Harlan> That's a misconception. Many words in Chinese consist of
Harlan> multiple syllables/characters, such as Chong1guo2, the
Harlan> name for China,
Aren't Chong1 and guo2 themselves root-words? It's comparable to
"United Kingdom". Two words used together to refer to something
specific. Is "United Kingdom" one word? 2 words?
Harlan> or ci2dian3, a word for "dictionary",
Isn't <ci2> a word? Isn't <dian3> a word? <ci2dian3> is just a
compound. Comparable to English "word list". Is "word list" one
word, or two?
Harlan> or fu2wu4yuan2, a word meaning "waiter".
Again, just a compound of 3 root words. Compare that with "bus driver
license". Is that one word? 3 words? 2 words? or what?
And English doesn't mark the boundary of "book store", "bus fare",
"washing machine" "train station", etc. with other expressions before
or after them. How is Chinese that different? (BTW, is "washing
machine" one word or two words? What are the criteria?)
--
Lee Sau Dan 李守敦 ~{@nJX6X~}
E-mail: dan...@informatik.uni-freiburg.de
Home page: http://www.informatik.uni-freiburg.de/~danlee
Peter T. Daniels
Have you ever looked at a Chinese-English dictionary?
Single characters rarely even have a definition; the definitions are for
the two-character units listed under the characters.
Lee Sau Dan
>> And English doesn't mark the boundary of "book store", "bus
>> fare", "washing machine" "train station", etc. with other
>> expressions before or after them. How is Chinese that
>> different? (BTW, is "washing machine" one word or two words?
>> What are the criteria?)
Peter> Have you ever looked at a Chinese-English dictionary?
Yes. I used to have one, but I can't find it anymore.
Have you ever looked at a Chinese-Chinese dictionary, too?
Peter> Single characters rarely even have a definition;
Mine does. And most, if not all, Chinese-Chinese dictionary have
definitions for every single character. Indeed, we have 2 types of
dictionaries. There are <zi4dian3> for explaining single characters,
as well as <ci2dian3> for explaining multi-character combinations.
Peter> the definitions are for the two-character units listed
Peter> under the characters.
Maybe, that's because it's easier to find *English equivalents* when
considering 2-character units. That doesn't mean single characters do
not mean anything, nor that the 2-character units aren't compounds.
According to your argument, shall I call English expression "train
station" 1 word, because a French-English dictionary puts it under
"gare (n. f.)"? And because a German-English dictionary puts it under
"Bahnhof (n. m.)"? And English "central station" and French "station
centrale" are both 1 word expressions, because it's "Hauptbahnhof" in
a German-English or German-French dictionary?
Harlan Messinger
>>>>>>"Harlan" == Harlan Messinger <hmessinger...@comcast.net> writes:
>
>
> >>> Do you have any trouble reading Thai or Chinese? No word
> >>> divisions in either script. -- Peter T. Daniels
> >>> gram...@att.net
> >> Am I misunderstanding you? Thai "script" may very well have no
> >> word divisions, but how can you say the same for Chinese? Every
> >> word has its own character
>
> Harlan> That's a misconception. Many words in Chinese consist of
> Harlan> multiple syllables/characters, such as Chong1guo2, the
> Harlan> name for China,
>
> Aren't Chong1 and guo2 themselves root-words?
Yes.
It's comparable to
> "United Kingdom". Two words used together to refer to something
> specific. Is "United Kingdom" one word? 2 words?
Which proves that not every pair of words in English collapses into a
single word. Which isn't saying much.
>
>
> Harlan> or ci2dian3, a word for "dictionary",
>
> Isn't <ci2> a word? Isn't <dian3> a word? <ci2dian3> is just a
> compound. Comparable to English "word list". Is "word list" one
> word, or two?
Your English is good enough that your oversight of terms like
"vineyard", "cupboard", etc., must be intentional.
[snip]
Peter T. Daniels
>
> >>>>> "Peter" == Peter T Daniels <gram...@worldnet.att.net> writes:
>
> >> And English doesn't mark the boundary of "book store", "bus
> >> fare", "washing machine" "train station", etc. with other
> >> expressions before or after them. How is Chinese that
> >> different? (BTW, is "washing machine" one word or two words?
> >> What are the criteria?)
>
> Peter> Have you ever looked at a Chinese-English dictionary?
>
> Yes. I used to have one, but I can't find it anymore.
>
> Have you ever looked at a Chinese-Chinese dictionary, too?
Where would I even find one? It would do me no good at all.
> Peter> Single characters rarely even have a definition;
>
> Mine does. And most, if not all, Chinese-Chinese dictionary have
Your what? C-E or C-C?
> definitions for every single character. Indeed, we have 2 types of
> dictionaries. There are <zi4dian3> for explaining single characters,
> as well as <ci2dian3> for explaining multi-character combinations.
>
> Peter> the definitions are for the two-character units listed
> Peter> under the characters.
>
> Maybe, that's because it's easier to find *English equivalents* when
> considering 2-character units. That doesn't mean single characters do
> not mean anything, nor that the 2-character units aren't compounds.
I didn't say they don't mean anything at all. I said they don't function
on their own.
> According to your argument, shall I call English expression "train
> station" 1 word, because a French-English dictionary puts it under
> "gare (n. f.)"? And because a German-English dictionary puts it under
> "Bahnhof (n. m.)"? And English "central station" and French "station
> centrale" are both 1 word expressions, because it's "Hauptbahnhof" in
> a German-English or German-French dictionary?
What a peculiar way of arguing you have.
Yusuf B Gursey
I agree very much. spaceless arabic script writing, for decorative or
other reasons is not infrequent.
Peter T. Daniels
> I agree very much. spaceless arabic script writing, for decorative or
> other reasons is not infrequent.
Well, let's not get into decorative calligraphy!
Yusuf B Gursey
Peter T. Daniels wrote:
> Yusuf B Gursey wrote:
>
> > I agree very much. spaceless arabic script writing, for decorative or
> > other reasons is not infrequent.
>
> Well, let's not get into decorative calligraphy!
it's the best example of spaceless arabic script writing I know of.
Peter T. Daniels
But the point was legibility.
Dennis
>>>> However, I question how well, and whether, one could write
>>>>Greek, or English, without vowels if also one did not write
>>>>word divisions, as was the custom at first.
>>>>
>>>> I'm sure you can understand this.
>>>>
>>>> M sr y cn ndrstnd ths
>>>>
>>>> Msrycnndrstndths
>>>
>>>If you're going to do this silly exercise, don't leave out notation for
>>>initial vowels (and don't use digraphs):
>>>
>>>@mSrycn@ndrstndDs.
I understand the syllable marker. It's still not clear to
me that this is sufficiently unambiguous. It might be if
one got used to it. Is that your point?
>>>> I think Greek would be rather like English in that regard,
>>>>with about the same sort of consonant cluster sizes. How
>>>>about Ukrainian? This site is an example of what can go
>>>>wrong if one leaves out both vowels and word divisions there.
>>>>
>>>>http://home.att.net/~oko/home.htm
>>
>> Obviously something like Ukrainian is worse without vowels,
>>since it has more consonant clusters. That is how this
>>fellow gets the freedom to read what he wants.
>> I'm not sure that's
>>germane to this discussion.
>
> I'm not sure what "this discussion" is -- you lumped together
> vowellessness and spacelessness, which are two different and unrelated
> things.
I agree, they *are* different and unrelated. My question
is, if one omits *both* vowels and word divisions, does one
have too much ambiguity, in ancient Greek, modern English,
or IE languages in general?
> IE languages _have been written_ vowellessly for millennia, so
> that's not an interesting topic;
Agreed.
> and many languages _are still written_
> spacelessly, suggesting that if English didn't have spaces, it wouldn't
> be a terrible burden to learn to read it that way.
Most likely.
> Spacelessness in Greek is less problematic because very few letters can
> be word-final,
That may be the important factor! The issue, of course,
isn't spaces as such, but word breaks.
> and spacelessness in the Arabic family of scripts is less
> problematic because of word-final flourishes.
Yes, that's how you get word breaks there.
Once again, if you leave out both word divisions, in some
form, and vowels, can you get away with it, and in what
languages? The crackpot Ukrainian site linked above rather
suggests it won't work there - although he does *not*
provide a blank syllable start marker where a syllable
starts without a consonant.
OTOH, what you said about Greek suggests it *would* work
there. If one grants that, how then would you explain the
Greeks' introduction of vowels into the Phoenician abjad?
You'll have to cut me a little slack; I'm not a
professional linguist, just an amateur. ;-)
Dennis
Peter T. Daniels
>
> Peter T. Daniels wrote:
>
> >>>> However, I question how well, and whether, one could write
> >>>>Greek, or English, without vowels if also one did not write
> >>>>word divisions, as was the custom at first.
> >>>>
> >>>> I'm sure you can understand this.
> >>>>
> >>>> M sr y cn ndrstnd ths
> >>>>
> >>>> Msrycnndrstndths
> >>>
> >>>If you're going to do this silly exercise, don't leave out notation for
> >>>initial vowels (and don't use digraphs):
> >>>
> >>>@mSrycn@ndrstndDs.
>
> I understand the syllable marker. It's still not clear to
> me that this is sufficiently unambiguous. It might be if
> one got used to it. Is that your point?
It's not a "syllable marker." it notes the presence of an initial vowel.
> >>>> I think Greek would be rather like English in that regard,
> >>>>with about the same sort of consonant cluster sizes. How
> >>>>about Ukrainian? This site is an example of what can go
> >>>>wrong if one leaves out both vowels and word divisions there.
> >>>>
> >>>>http://home.att.net/~oko/home.htm
> >>
> >> Obviously something like Ukrainian is worse without vowels,
> >>since it has more consonant clusters. That is how this
> >>fellow gets the freedom to read what he wants.
>
> >> I'm not sure that's
> >>germane to this discussion.
> >
> > I'm not sure what "this discussion" is -- you lumped together
> > vowellessness and spacelessness, which are two different and unrelated
> > things.
>
> I agree, they *are* different and unrelated. My question
> is, if one omits *both* vowels and word divisions, does one
> have too much ambiguity, in ancient Greek, modern English,
> or IE languages in general?
Clearly not, since lots of scripts omit one or both.
> > IE languages _have been written_ vowellessly for millennia, so
> > that's not an interesting topic;
>
> Agreed.
>
> > and many languages _are still written_
> > spacelessly, suggesting that if English didn't have spaces, it wouldn't
> > be a terrible burden to learn to read it that way.
>
> Most likely.
>
> > Spacelessness in Greek is less problematic because very few letters can
> > be word-final,
>
> That may be the important factor! The issue, of course,
> isn't spaces as such, but word breaks.
>
> > and spacelessness in the Arabic family of scripts is less
> > problematic because of word-final flourishes.
>
> Yes, that's how you get word breaks there.
>
> Once again, if you leave out both word divisions, in some
> form, and vowels, can you get away with it, and in what
> languages? The crackpot Ukrainian site linked above rather
> suggests it won't work there - although he does *not*
> provide a blank syllable start marker where a syllable
> starts without a consonant.
>
> OTOH, what you said about Greek suggests it *would* work
> there. If one grants that, how then would you explain the
> Greeks' introduction of vowels into the Phoenician abjad?
I have published the explanation too many times to want to retype it
here!
Can you get at Blackwell's *Handbook of Linguistics*, ed. Aronoff &
Rees-Miller?
Or the Eerdman's One-Volume Dictionary of the Bible, ed. D. N. Freedman?
Or the Oxford Encyclopedia of Archeology in the Near East?
> You'll have to cut me a little slack; I'm not a
> professional linguist, just an amateur. ;-)
Yusuf B Gursey
Prai Jei wrote:
> Dennis (or somebody else of the same name) wrote thusly in message
> <dchlg...@enews4.newsguy.com>:
>
> > I'm sure you can understand this.
> >
> > M sr y cn ndrstnd ths
> >
> > Msrycnndrstndths
>
> A more appropriate rendering would be
>
> ¿ ¿m sr y¿ cn ¿ndrstnd ths
>
> where an additional character (chosen to be devoid of any accepted
> pronunciation) indicates a "silent" consonant (cf. Hebrew aleph, Arabic
> alif) i.e. a vowel without a consonant sound before it.
in arabic and hebrew the alif / aleph represents the glottal stop
preceding the vowel (i.e. vowels have initial glottalic onset), i.e. a
consonant. but many other languages using these scripts don't have this
onset, so then the letters alif / aleph become as you say in initial
position.
Lee Sau Dan
>> Have you ever looked at a Chinese-Chinese dictionary, too?
Peter> Where would I even find one? It would do me no good at all.
Obviously: in the country where this script was invented.
Peter> Single characters rarely even have a definition;
>> Mine does. And most, if not all, Chinese-Chinese dictionary
>> have
Peter> Your what? C-E or C-C?
My Chinese->English dictionary.
Peter> the definitions are for the two-character units listed
Peter> under the characters.
>> Maybe, that's because it's easier to find *English
>> equivalents* when considering 2-character units. That doesn't
>> mean single characters do not mean anything, nor that the
>> 2-character units aren't compounds.
Peter> I didn't say they don't mean anything at all. I said they
Peter> don't function on their own.
Neither do most English word function on their own. You need to
formulate a sentence.
And most Chinese character do function on their own -- at least as
"abbreviations". We often do that when writing headlines.
>> According to your argument, shall I call English expression
>> "train station" 1 word, because a French-English dictionary
>> puts it under "gare (n. f.)"? And because a German-English
>> dictionary puts it under "Bahnhof (n. m.)"? And English
>> "central station" and French "station centrale" are both 1 word
>> expressions, because it's "Hauptbahnhof" in a German-English or
>> German-French dictionary?
Peter> What a peculiar way of arguing you have.
You're running out of arguments?
Maybe, you should tell me why it is justifiable for you to judge the
'wordness' of Chinese characters based on your Chinese->English (or
English->Chinese) dictionaries, but at the same time it is
unjustifiable for me to analogously argue about the 'wordness' of
English expressions based on English<->German and English<->French
dictionaries.
Lee Sau Dan
Harlan> That's a misconception. Many words in Chinese consist of
Harlan> multiple syllables/characters, such as Chong1guo2, the
Harlan> name for China,
>> Aren't Chong1 and guo2 themselves root-words?
Harlan> Yes.
Harlan> It's comparable to
>> "United Kingdom". Two words used together to refer to
>> something specific. Is "United Kingdom" one word? 2 words?
Harlan> Which proves that not every pair of words in English
Harlan> collapses into a single word. Which isn't saying much.
If you consider "United Kingdom" to be "2 words NOT collapsed into a
single word", then why would you consider "Zhong1 guo2" to be "2 words
COLLAPSED into a single word"?
You're so inconsistent, and mislead by the spacing.
Harlan> or ci2dian3, a word for "dictionary",
>> Isn't <ci2> a word? Isn't <dian3> a word? <ci2dian3> is just
>> a compound. Comparable to English "word list". Is "word list"
>> one word, or two?
Harlan> Your English is good enough that your oversight of terms
Harlan> like "vineyard", "cupboard", etc., must be intentional.
You're simply evading to answer my question: Is "word list" one word?
Peter T. Daniels
>
> >>>>> "Peter" == Peter T Daniels <gram...@worldnet.att.net> writes:
>
> >> Have you ever looked at a Chinese-Chinese dictionary, too?
>
> Peter> Where would I even find one? It would do me no good at all.
>
> Obviously: in the country where this script was invented.
So you'll buy me a plane ticket and a hotel reservation so I can go to
Anyang to see a dictionary?
I know what books about Chinese tell me.
Chinese-English dictionaries follow the analysis by linguists who study
Chinese.
Jeez.
Peter T. Daniels
I don't know "word list." "Wordlist" is one word.
Lee Sau Dan
>> You're simply evading to answer my question: Is "word list"
>> one word?
Peter> I don't know "word list." "Wordlist" is one word.
And "name list"? "Shopping list"? "mailing list"?
Joachim Pense
> Joachim Pense wrote:
>>
>> Peter T. Daniels:
>>
>> >
>> > Do you have any trouble reading Thai or Chinese? No word divisions in
>> > either script.
>>
>> People are reported having trouble reading Chinese (classical in
>> particular) for exactly that reason.
>
> Where did you get such reports?
Sorry, I messed it up. I was referring to the missing *sentence* divisions,
and that is something different.
Joachim
Peter T. Daniels
Thai does use clause divisions -- and these days Chinese has even
imported Western punctuation marks.
Peter T. Daniels
>
> >>>>> "Peter" == Peter T Daniels <gram...@worldnet.att.net> writes:
>
> >> You're simply evading to answer my question: Is "word list"
> >> one word?
>
> Peter> I don't know "word list." "Wordlist" is one word.
>
> And "name list"? "Shopping list"? "mailing list"?
I don't know "name list." The other two are two-word phrases.
Lee Sau Dan
>> >> You're simply evading to answer my question: Is "word list"
>> >> one word?
>>
Peter> I don't know "word list." "Wordlist" is one word.
>> And "name list"? "Shopping list"? "mailing list"?
Peter> I don't know "name list." The other two are two-word
Peter> phrases.
Why aren't they "one word"?
Richard Herring
<gram...@worldnet.att.net> writes
>Joachim Pense wrote:
>>
>> Peter T. Daniels:
>>
>> > Joachim Pense wrote:
>> >>
>> >> Peter T. Daniels:
>> >>
>> >> >
>> >> > Do you have any trouble reading Thai or Chinese? No word divisions in
>> >> > either script.
>> >>
>> >> People are reported having trouble reading Chinese (classical in
>> >> particular) for exactly that reason.
>> >
>> > Where did you get such reports?
>>
>> Sorry, I messed it up. I was referring to the missing *sentence* divisions,
>> and that is something different.
>
>Thai does use clause divisions
For some suitably vague definition of "clause". It doesn't seem to
correspond to the notion of "sentence".
> -- and these days Chinese has even
>imported Western punctuation marks.
--
Richard Herring
Peter T. Daniels
>
> In message <42F00C...@worldnet.att.net>, Peter T. Daniels
> <gram...@worldnet.att.net> writes
> >Joachim Pense wrote:
> >>
> >> Peter T. Daniels:
> >>
> >> > Joachim Pense wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >> Peter T. Daniels:
> >> >>
> >> >> >
> >> >> > Do you have any trouble reading Thai or Chinese? No word divisions in
> >> >> > either script.
> >> >>
> >> >> People are reported having trouble reading Chinese (classical in
> >> >> particular) for exactly that reason.
> >> >
> >> > Where did you get such reports?
> >>
> >> Sorry, I messed it up. I was referring to the missing *sentence* divisions,
> >> and that is something different.
> >
> >Thai does use clause divisions
>
> For some suitably vague definition of "clause". It doesn't seem to
> correspond to the notion of "sentence".
"Sentence" isn't a technical term in linguistics.
> > -- and these days Chinese has even
> >imported Western punctuation marks.
--
Peter T. Daniels gram...@att.net
Peter T. Daniels
>
> >>>>> "Peter" == Peter T Daniels <gram...@worldnet.att.net> writes:
>
> >> >> You're simply evading to answer my question: Is "word list"
> >> >> one word?
> >>
> Peter> I don't know "word list." "Wordlist" is one word.
> >> And "name list"? "Shopping list"? "mailing list"?
>
> Peter> I don't know "name list." The other two are two-word
> Peter> phrases.
>
> Why aren't they "one word"?
Because there's a space inside them.
I can anticipate your next question:
"Why is there a space inside them?"
Stress patterns, for one thing.
Richard Herring
>Richard Herring wrote:
>>
>> In message <42F00C...@worldnet.att.net>, Peter T. Daniels
>> <gram...@worldnet.att.net> writes
>> >Joachim Pense wrote:
>> >>
>> >> Peter T. Daniels:
>> >>
>> >> > Joachim Pense wrote:
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Peter T. Daniels:
>> >> >>
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > Do you have any trouble reading Thai or Chinese? No word divisions in
>> >> >> > either script.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> People are reported having trouble reading Chinese (classical in
>> >> >> particular) for exactly that reason.
>> >> >
>> >> > Where did you get such reports?
>> >>
>> >> Sorry, I messed it up. I was referring to the missing *sentence*
>> >>divisions,
>> >> and that is something different.
>> >
>> >Thai does use clause divisions
>>
>> For some suitably vague definition of "clause". It doesn't seem to
>> correspond to the notion of "sentence".
>
>"Sentence" isn't a technical term in linguistics.
But it prompted you to write about clause divisions as though they are
something related. So would you care to offer a definition of what the
"clauses" are, for which Thai marks divisions?
>
>> > -- and these days Chinese has even
>> >imported Western punctuation marks.
--
Richard Herring
Peter T. Daniels
A clause has a subject and a predicate.
Lee Sau Dan
Peter> I don't know "word list." "Wordlist" is one word.
>> >> And "name list"? "Shopping list"? "mailing list"?
>>
Peter> I don't know "name list." The other two are two-word
Peter> phrases.
>> Why aren't they "one word"?
Peter> Because there's a space inside them.
Peter> I can anticipate your next question:
No. Your guess is wrong.
My next question: A chinese sentence is written without spacing. So,
the whole sentence is one single word?
Dennis
>> >> >> You're simply evading to answer my question: Is "word list"
>> >> >> one word?
>> >>
>> Peter> I don't know "word list." "Wordlist" is one word.
>> >> And "name list"? "Shopping list"? "mailing list"?
>>
>> Peter> I don't know "name list." The other two are two-word
>> Peter> phrases.
>>
>>Why aren't they "one word"?
>
> Because there's a space inside them.
>
> I can anticipate your next question:
>
> "Why is there a space inside them?"
>
> Stress patterns, for one thing.
This is something I've wondered about. Take the single
German word "Bundesrepublik" "Federal Republic". As a term
it would be stressed in English "Féderal Republic" with
only one primary stress. Contrast the statement "It's a
féderal repúblic" with two primary stresses. So, as a term
is it one word but as used in the statement is it two words?
The German is certainly written as one word.
Dennis
Peter T. Daniels
>
> >>>>> "Peter" == Peter T Daniels <gram...@worldnet.att.net> writes:
>
> Peter> I don't know "word list." "Wordlist" is one word.
> >> >> And "name list"? "Shopping list"? "mailing list"?
> >>
> Peter> I don't know "name list." The other two are two-word
> Peter> phrases.
> >> Why aren't they "one word"?
>
> Peter> Because there's a space inside them.
>
> Peter> I can anticipate your next question:
>
> No. Your guess is wrong.
>
> My next question: A chinese sentence is written without spacing. So,
> the whole sentence is one single word?
You're beginning to look like gilgames.
Chinese has no spacing. Therefore spacing has no significance in
Chinese.
Peter T. Daniels
> This is something I've wondered about. Take the single
> German word "Bundesrepublik" "Federal Republic". As a term
> it would be stressed in English "Féderal Republic" with
> only one primary stress. Contrast the statement "It's a
> féderal repúblic" with two primary stresses. So, as a term
> is it one word but as used in the statement is it two words?
> The German is certainly written as one word.
Where did you get your data about the English stresses? They're wrong.
Dennis
From myself. Yes, I'm a native speaker, and I goofed.
Nonetheless, you probably understand the point. I've heard
that in English, stress patterns in some word combinations
indicate that they are one (syntactic) word, such that in
something like German they would be written as such. True?
Dennis
Peter T. Daniels
Any examples? The standard example in the olden days was "lighthouse
keeper" vs. "light housekeeper."
Lee Sau Dan
>> My next question: A chinese sentence is written without
>> spacing. So, the whole sentence is one single word?
Peter> You're beginning to look like gilgames.
Peter> Chinese has no spacing. Therefore spacing has no
Peter> significance in Chinese.
So, you lack a common yardstick to define the notion of "word" for
Chinese in a way consistent with English.
And your previous yardstick of "one entry in a *foreigner language*
dictionary" also turned out to be useless because that would make the
English term "train station" one word as it has its own entry in a
French dictionary ("gare") or German dictionary ("Bahnhof").
Richard Herring
>Richard Herring wrote:
>>
>> In message <42F0C7...@worldnet.att.net>, Peter T. Daniels
>> <gram...@worldnet.att.net> writes
>> >Richard Herring wrote:
>> >>
>> >> In message <42F00C...@worldnet.att.net>, Peter T. Daniels
>> >> <gram...@worldnet.att.net> writes
>> >> >Joachim Pense wrote:
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Peter T. Daniels:
>> >> >>
>> >> >> > Joachim Pense wrote:
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> Peter T. Daniels:
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> >
>> >> >> >> > Do you have any trouble reading Thai or Chinese? No word
>> >> >> >> >
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> People are reported having trouble reading Chinese (classical in
>> >> >> >> particular) for exactly that reason.
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > Where did you get such reports?
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Sorry, I messed it up. I was referring to the missing *sentence*
>> >> >>divisions,
>> >> >> and that is something different.
>> >> >
>> >> >Thai does use clause divisions
>> >>
>> >> For some suitably vague definition of "clause". It doesn't seem to
>> >> correspond to the notion of "sentence".
>> >
>> >"Sentence" isn't a technical term in linguistics.
>>
>> But it prompted you to write about clause divisions as though they are
>> something related. So would you care to offer a definition of what the
>> "clauses" are, for which Thai marks divisions?
>
>A clause has a subject and a predicate.
"Thai words are not written with spaces between them as is done in
writing English and other European languages. All words within a phrase
or clause (or within a sentence containing a single clause) are written
together without any spacing, as is customary in writing Sanskrit and
other languages using the Devanagari or one of its derivatives. Example:
[...]"
"Spaces, on the other hand, set off the end of a phrase, clause or
sentence and are therefore used in places where we normally use the
comma and the period, e.g. [...]"
"Thai printed matter (as opposed to typewritten matter) is arranged so
that the righthand margin is even, just as is dome in our own printed
books. But in Thai this can mean that the end of a sentence is unmarked
in any way. If the end of the sentence is flush with the righthand
margin, there will be no special mark to set it off as the end of a
sentence. Contrariwise, in order to adjust the righthand margin the
printer will sometimes insert an extra space or two which is not meant
to be interpreted as the end of a phrase or clause."
- Mary R. Haas, "The Thai System of Writing", pp 89-90.
--
Richard Herring
Peter T. Daniels
>
> >>>>> "Peter" == Peter T Daniels <gram...@worldnet.att.net> writes:
>
> >> My next question: A chinese sentence is written without
> >> spacing. So, the whole sentence is one single word?
>
> Peter> You're beginning to look like gilgames.
>
> Peter> Chinese has no spacing. Therefore spacing has no
> Peter> significance in Chinese.
>
> So, you lack a common yardstick to define the notion of "word" for
> Chinese in a way consistent with English.
>
> And your previous yardstick of "one entry in a *foreigner language*
> dictionary" also turned out to be useless because that would make the
> English term "train station" one word as it has its own entry in a
> French dictionary ("gare") or German dictionary ("Bahnhof").
I can only handle one gilgames at a time.
Fortunately, they tend to appear only one at a time (and I won't name
any names lest they be summoned from the vasty deep).
Des Small
> Lee Sau Dan wrote:
> >
> > >>>>> "Peter" == Peter T Daniels <gram...@worldnet.att.net> writes:
> >
> > >> My next question: A chinese sentence is written without
> > >> spacing. So, the whole sentence is one single word?
> >
> > Peter> You're beginning to look like gilgames.
> >
> > Peter> Chinese has no spacing. Therefore spacing has no
> > Peter> significance in Chinese.
> >
> > So, you lack a common yardstick to define the notion of "word" for
> > Chinese in a way consistent with English.
> >
> > And your previous yardstick of "one entry in a *foreigner language*
> > dictionary" also turned out to be useless because that would make the
> > English term "train station" one word as it has its own entry in a
> > French dictionary ("gare") or German dictionary ("Bahnhof").
>
> I can only handle one gilgames at a time.
(Sigh. Why is it so very often, although by no means always, me?)
LSD! Your point is not a point, since it is false.
PTD's yardstick was that one criterion for Chinese wordiness would be
the headwords in the CHINESE TO ENGLISH side of a Chinese-English
dictionary.
For your comparison with English words to make sense, the only honest
thing to do would be to consider the ENGLISH TO SOMETHING side of an
English-Something dictionary.
Of the dictionaries to hand (Collins Gem French-English,
Langenscheidts Universal Wörterbuch Englisch-Deutsch, Berlitz
Dutch-English, Norsted's Engelska Fickordbok), none - not a single
one! - has an entry for "train station" under "train" in the English
to Foreign side.
But presumably this wasn't what you meant anyway, since your Usenet
debating technique hardly gives the impression that you value honesty
highly.
Des
supposes it's good arguing training, at least
Peter T. Daniels
> (Sigh. Why is it so very often, although by no means always, me?)
Fundamental competence?
> Des
> supposes it's good arguing training, at least
--
Peter T. Daniels gram...@att.net
Harlan Messinger
I'm not evading anything. You asked basically the same question with
several different examples. I answered it once for "United Kingdom", and
I told you why your question was beside the point. I didn't see any
point in answering the same question over and over, so I directed your
attention to what you were willfully overlooking.
Harlan Messinger
>>>>>>"Peter" == Peter T Daniels <gram...@worldnet.att.net> writes:
>
>
> >> My next question: A chinese sentence is written without
> >> spacing. So, the whole sentence is one single word?
>
> Peter> You're beginning to look like gilgames.
>
> Peter> Chinese has no spacing. Therefore spacing has no
> Peter> significance in Chinese.
>
> So, you lack a common yardstick to define the notion of "word" for
> Chinese in a way consistent with English.
He doesn't, really, because after all linguists are able to discuss what
constitutes a word even in languages that don't have a written form.
Out of curiosity, can you tell us your interpretation of the distinction
between 字(zi4) and 詞 (ci2) ?
Greg Lee
But English "train station" is a compound word, so the appropriateness
of the yardstick as LSD applied it is confirmed.
--
Greg Lee <gr...@ling.lll.hawaii.edu>
Lee Sau Dan
Des> LSD! Your point is not a point, since it is false.
Des> PTD's yardstick was that one criterion for Chinese wordiness
Des> would be the headwords in the CHINESE TO ENGLISH side of a
Des> Chinese-English dictionary.
Des> For your comparison with English words to make sense, the
Des> only honest thing to do would be to consider the ENGLISH TO
Des> SOMETHING side of an English-Something dictionary.
Easy. Take English-French. What's "railway" in French? "Chemin de
fer". So, "chemin de fer" must be _one single word_, right? Even
though "chemin" means "road" and "fer" means "iron"?
Des> Of the dictionaries to hand (Collins Gem French-English,
Des> Langenscheidts Universal Wörterbuch Englisch-Deutsch, Berlitz
Des> Dutch-English, Norsted's Engelska Fickordbok), none - not a
Des> single one! - has an entry for "train station" under "train"
Des> in the English to Foreign side.
English German? Then "remember (inf.)" maps to "sich erinnern
(inf.)". So, the Germans lexicographers are all wrong to write "sich
erinnern" with a space in between. Since it's one word in English, it
must be also 1 word in German, right?
--
Lee Sau Dan
Lee Sau Dan
Greg> But English "train station" is a compound word, so the
Greg> appropriateness of the yardstick as LSD applied it is
Greg> confirmed.
What's a compound word? Aren't its components words by themselves?
But most Chinese 2-syllable words are also compound words. So, why
reject the claim that each syllable in those bisyllabic words are also
words by themselves?
Lee Sau Dan
Harlan> Out of curiosity, can you tell us your interpretation of
Harlan> the distinction between 字(zi4) and 詞 (ci2) ?
There is no clear distinction. Much like there is no clear-cut line
separating black and white in the grayscale spectrum. The boundary is
fuzzy.
Greg Lee
> >>>>> "Greg" == Greg Lee <gr...@ling.lll.hawaii.edu> writes:
> Greg> But English "train station" is a compound word, so the
> Greg> appropriateness of the yardstick as LSD applied it is
> Greg> confirmed.
> What's a compound word?
A word made up of words, or at least non-affixes.
> Aren't its components words by themselves?
Yes, ordinarily.
> But most Chinese 2-syllable words are also compound words. So, why
> reject the claim that each syllable in those bisyllabic words are also
> words by themselves?
I didn't reject such a claim.
--
Greg Lee <gr...@ling.lll.hawaii.edu>
Des Small
> >>>>> "Des" == Des Small <des....@bristol.ac.uk> writes:
>
> Des> LSD! Your point is not a point, since it is false.
>
> Des> PTD's yardstick was that one criterion for Chinese wordiness
> Des> would be the headwords in the CHINESE TO ENGLISH side of a
> Des> Chinese-English dictionary.
>
> Des> For your comparison with English words to make sense, the
> Des> only honest thing to do would be to consider the ENGLISH TO
> Des> SOMETHING side of an English-Something dictionary.
>
> Easy. Take English-French. What's "railway" in French? "Chemin de
> fer". So, "chemin de fer" must be _one single word_, right?
Wrong.
The correct conclusion is that "railway" is a single word in English,
which after all it is. Your persistent non-sequiturs are becoming
very tiresome. The proposal was to use the CHINESE headwords in the
CHINESE TO ENGLISH side of a bilingual dictionary as evidence of
lexical elements IN CHINESE.
Your "analogous" example above is simply and obviously not analogous,
of course, but you are starting to persuade me it is as much genuine
stupidity as ill-will that is preventing you from acknowleging this.
> Even though "chemin" means "road" and "fer" means "iron"?
>
>
> Des> Of the dictionaries to hand (Collins Gem French-English,
> Des> Langenscheidts Universal Wörterbuch Englisch-Deutsch, Berlitz
> Des> Dutch-English, Norsted's Engelska Fickordbok), none - not a
> Des> single one! - has an entry for "train station" under "train"
> Des> in the English to Foreign side.
>
> English German? Then "remember (inf.)" maps to "sich erinnern
> (inf.)". So, the Germans lexicographers are all wrong to write "sich
> erinnern" with a space in between. Since it's one word in English, it
> must be also 1 word in German, right?
No, for the same reason as above and for the same reason as in
the previous post. It's one (1) word in English, and the number of
words it is in English is one (1), and the language in which the
number of words it is by looking for English headwords in a bilingual
dictionary is English (in which the number of words it is is one (1)).
I no longer think I can cause you to understand the argument, though,
trivial though it is.
Des
will leave it to you to claim triumph
O-V R:nen
> Des> For your comparison with English words to make sense, the
> Des> only honest thing to do would be to consider the ENGLISH TO
> Des> SOMETHING side of an English-Something dictionary.
> Easy. Take English-French. What's "railway" in French? "Chemin de
> fer". So, "chemin de fer" must be _one single word_, right? Even
> though "chemin" means "road" and "fer" means "iron"?
For your comparison with French words to make sense, the
only honest thing to do would be to consider the FRENCH TO
SOMETHING side of an French-Something dictionary.
ovr
plays Des on tv
Des Small
> Des Small <des....@bristol.ac.uk> wrote:
> > LSD! Your point is not a point, since it is false.
>
> > PTD's yardstick was that one criterion for Chinese wordiness would be
> > the headwords in the CHINESE TO ENGLISH side of a Chinese-English
> > dictionary.
>
> > For your comparison with English words to make sense, the only honest
> > thing to do would be to consider the ENGLISH TO SOMETHING side of an
> > English-Something dictionary.
>
> > Of the dictionaries to hand (Collins Gem French-English,
> > Langenscheidts Universal Wörterbuch Englisch-Deutsch, Berlitz
> > Dutch-English, Norsted's Engelska Fickordbok), none - not a single
> > one! - has an entry for "train station" under "train" in the English
> > to Foreign side.
>
> > But presumably this wasn't what you meant anyway, since your Usenet
> > debating technique hardly gives the impression that you value honesty
> > highly.
>
> > Des
> > supposes it's good arguing training, at least
>
> But English "train station" is a compound word, so the appropriateness
> of the yardstick as LSD applied it is confirmed.
Not as he actually applied it, of course. I'm not sure whether he was
claiming that looking up "gare" and finding "train station" implied
(by Peter's argument) that "train station" was one word (the data
exists, but the argument wasn't that) or that looking up "train
station" and finding "gare" implied that "train station" was one word
(which fails for lack of any such entry, even if you happen to have
other grounds to reach the same conclusion).
I'll leave it to Peter to argue about how many words "train station"
actually is if he wants to, but my position is closer to the one
Harlan implied (and which LSD duly ritually misunderstood in turn):
independent of the question of whether sequences of elements in
langwidges which use freeish compounding is a "word" (call this a
"morphological word" for the time being) there is also the question of
whether such a compound as a whole has achieved a level of
non-transparency in terms of the meaning of its components that it
requires an independent entry in the lexicon (for which a dictionary
can act as a reasonable proxy): call this, in turn, a "lexical word".
Regardless of the morphological decomposeability of "cupboard", as
Harlan remarked, it has to have a lexical entry of its own; many
Chinese "compound" words, it has been alleged, have acquired a similar
degree indecomposeability, and it is not unparsimonious to call them
"words" (in the lexical sense) too.
A sufficiently tenacious Chinese chauviniste could still argue that
these were _idioms_ rather than words, composed by syntax rather than
morphology. I have no dog in that fight, and I'm Not Even Going
There, although I certainly think I know where a suitably tenacious
chauviniste could be found if you happen to want to pursue the matter.
Des
cannot, in good faith, recommend it
Des Small
Why thank you kindly, good sir or madam!
Des
plays himself in real life, although the script is lousy
Peter T. Daniels
> But English "train station" is a compound word, so the appropriateness
> of the yardstick as LSD applied it is confirmed.
You told LSD what a compound word is, but you didn't say what a word is.
Peter T. Daniels
>
> >>>>> "Harlan" == Harlan Messinger <hmessinger...@comcast.net> writes:
>
> Harlan> Out of curiosity, can you tell us your interpretation of
>
> There is no clear distinction. Much like there is no clear-cut line
> separating black and white in the grayscale spectrum. The boundary is
> fuzzy.
I believe that represents a change of position from many years ago, when
this topic was done (one thought) to death here.
Peter T. Daniels
>
> >>>>> "Des" == Des Small <des....@bristol.ac.uk> writes:
>
> Des> LSD! Your point is not a point, since it is false.
>
> Des> PTD's yardstick was that one criterion for Chinese wordiness
> Des> would be the headwords in the CHINESE TO ENGLISH side of a
> Des> Chinese-English dictionary.
>
> Des> For your comparison with English words to make sense, the
> Des> only honest thing to do would be to consider the ENGLISH TO
> Des> SOMETHING side of an English-Something dictionary.
>
> Easy. Take English-French. What's "railway" in French? "Chemin de
> fer". So, "chemin de fer" must be _one single word_, right? Even
> though "chemin" means "road" and "fer" means "iron"?
I believe most Gallicists would agree that "chemin de fer" is one word,
but not for the reason you state. Perhaps you define "word" as 'thing
with spaces around it'. But, back in my first posting that aroused your
ire, did I use the term "word," or did I say "lexical item" or some
such? (I know I didn't say "lexeme.")
> Des> Of the dictionaries to hand (Collins Gem French-English,
> Des> Langenscheidts Universal Wörterbuch Englisch-Deutsch, Berlitz
> Des> Dutch-English, Norsted's Engelska Fickordbok), none - not a
> Des> single one! - has an entry for "train station" under "train"
> Des> in the English to Foreign side.
>
> English German? Then "remember (inf.)" maps to "sich erinnern
> (inf.)". So, the Germans lexicographers are all wrong to write "sich
> erinnern" with a space in between. Since it's one word in English, it
> must be also 1 word in German, right?
--
Peter T. Daniels gram...@att.net
Greg Lee
> Greg Lee wrote:
> > But English "train station" is a compound word, so the appropriateness
> > of the yardstick as LSD applied it is confirmed.
> You told LSD what a compound word is, but you didn't say what a word is.
I don't know in general what a word is.
--
Greg Lee <gr...@ling.lll.hawaii.edu>
Peter T. Daniels
>
> Peter T. Daniels <gram...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
> > Greg Lee wrote:
>
> > > But English "train station" is a compound word, so the appropriateness
> > > of the yardstick as LSD applied it is confirmed.
>
> > You told LSD what a compound word is, but you didn't say what a word is.
>
> I don't know in general what a word is.
Neither does anyone else.
Dennis
Sort of like what I was thinking, but both examples are
written as two words. Could "lighthouse keeper" be
considered one word?
Perhaps we use stress in English to clear up syntactic
ambiguity. How about German Bundesnachrichtdienst, Federal
Intelligence Agency (their version of the US CIA). In
English you could say *Federal* Intelligence Agency to
emphasize that it's a federal agency and not a regional one,
Federal *Intelligence* Agency to emphasize that it's an
intelligence agency and not a social services agency, or put
about equal stress on all words and say them quickly (I
think) to refer to that specific organization. So, does that
mean that English "Federal Intelligence Agency" is one word?
I've no idea how that would all come out in German,
though obviously the name of the organization itself is a
single word.
I read about this in an old book that I know is outdated,
and I wondered what the current thinking is. Can't think of
any examples from that book.
Dennis
Lee Sau Dan
Des> I'll leave it to Peter to argue about how many words "train
Des> station" actually is if he wants to, but my position is
Des> closer to the one Harlan implied (and which LSD duly ritually
Des> misunderstood in turn): independent of the question of
Des> whether sequences of elements in langwidges which use freeish
Des> compounding is a "word" (call this a "morphological word" for
Des> the time being) there is also the question of whether such a
Des> compound as a whole has achieved a level of non-transparency
Des> in terms of the meaning of its components that it requires an
Des> independent entry in the lexicon (for which a dictionary can
Des> act as a reasonable proxy): call this, in turn, a "lexical
Des> word".
Even such an opaqueness cannot be easily determined. It's not
all-or-nothing. There is a big grey area between opaque and
transparent. Sometimes it's translucent. Take the Chinese expression
<mao2dun4> "contradiction" as an example. Many people use and
understand it opaquely. But since most native speakers know the story
behind this term, when you ask a native speaker what <mao2> and <dun4>
separately, they can tell you the story about a man selling both
spears (<mao2>) and shields (<dun4>) and why this combination has got
the meaning "contradiction". So, is it really that opaque?
Des> Regardless of the morphological decomposeability of
Des> "cupboard", as Harlan remarked, it has to have a lexical
Des> entry of its own; many Chinese "compound" words, it has been
Des> alleged, have acquired a similar degree indecomposeability,
Des> and it is not unparsimonious to call them "words" (in the
Des> lexical sense) too.
But how about compounds like <fu1qi1> = <fu1> + <qi1> = husband + wife
==> couple? It's both opaque and transparent. It's opaque that we
often use <fu1qi1> in the way that you'd use "couple". It's
transparent in that it is fully transparent: <fu1> is used so often to
mean "husband" that nobody would be unable to recognize it, and so is
<qi1>.
Similar compounds include <fu4zi3> = brother + son ==>
"brother-and-son relation", <jie3di4> = elder sister + younger brother
==> "relation between an elder sister and a younger brother", etc.
These are both opaque and transparent.
Des> A sufficiently tenacious Chinese chauviniste could still
Des> argue that these were _idioms_ rather than words, composed by
Des> syntax rather than morphology.
Exactly!
Lee Sau Dan
>> I don't know in general what a word is.
Peter> Neither does anyone else.
But you have been pretending to.
Lee Sau Dan
Peter> I believe most Gallicists would agree that "chemin de fer"
Peter> is one word, but not for the reason you state. Perhaps you
Peter> define "word" as 'thing with spaces around it'. But, back
Peter> in my first posting that aroused your ire, did I use the
Peter> term "word," or did I say "lexical item" or some such? (I
Peter> know I didn't say "lexeme.")
See my other posting for Chinese expressions like <mao2dun4>,
<fu1qi1>, etc. Are they lexemes or compound words?
--
Lee Sau Dan 李守敦 ~{@nJX6X~}
E-mail: dan...@informatik.uni-freiburg.de
Home page: http://www.informatik.uni-freiburg.de/~danlee
Des Small
> >>>>> "Des" == Des Small <des....@bristol.ac.uk> writes:
>
> Des> I'll leave it to Peter to argue about how many words "train
> Des> station" actually is if he wants to, but my position is
> Des> closer to the one Harlan implied (and which LSD duly ritually
> Des> misunderstood in turn): independent of the question of
> Des> whether sequences of elements in langwidges which use freeish
> Des> compounding is a "word" (call this a "morphological word" for
> Des> the time being) there is also the question of whether such a
> Des> compound as a whole has achieved a level of non-transparency
> Des> in terms of the meaning of its components that it requires an
> Des> independent entry in the lexicon (for which a dictionary can
> Des> act as a reasonable proxy): call this, in turn, a "lexical
> Des> word".
>
> Even such an opaqueness cannot be easily determined. It's not
> all-or-nothing. There is a big grey area between opaque and
> transparent. Sometimes it's translucent. Take the Chinese expression
> <mao2dun4> "contradiction" as an example. Many people use and
> understand it opaquely. But since most native speakers know the story
> behind this term,
Knowing the etymology doesn't make it synchronously transparent or
even translucent. If you need an etymology, folk or otherwise, it's
opaque.
Your arguments here make it clear just how good an idea it is to use a
Chinese to Something dictionary as a proxy for lexicality.
> when you ask a native speaker what <mao2> and <dun4>
> separately, they can tell you the story about a man selling both
> spears (<mao2>) and shields (<dun4>) and why this combination has got
> the meaning "contradiction". So, is it really that opaque?
Yes.
> Des> Regardless of the morphological decomposeability of
> Des> "cupboard", as Harlan remarked, it has to have a lexical
> Des> entry of its own; many Chinese "compound" words, it has been
> Des> alleged, have acquired a similar degree indecomposeability,
> Des> and it is not unparsimonious to call them "words" (in the
> Des> lexical sense) too.
>
> But how about compounds like <fu1qi1> = <fu1> + <qi1> = husband + wife
> ==> couple? It's both opaque and transparent. It's opaque that we
> often use <fu1qi1> in the way that you'd use "couple". It's
> transparent in that it is fully transparent: <fu1> is used so often to
> mean "husband" that nobody would be unable to recognize it, and so is
> <qi1>.
If it's conventionally used or usable for unmarried couples it's
opaque.
Obviously this process is susceptible to vagueness; any number of
tedious goons on a.u.e will surely insist that many English idioms
which opaque to any sane person are really transparent to them. And
"cupboard" and "strawberry" were once transparent compounds in
English, and in the latter case I happen to know how come. It's no
less synchronously opaque for that, though.
Look up "sorites paradox", why don't you, and then come back to us
once you've solved it; in the meantime, we'll just have to live with
some vagueness. There is a lot of it about, although I don't know
exactly how much.
> Similar compounds include <fu4zi3> = brother + son ==>
> "brother-and-son relation", <jie3di4> = elder sister + younger brother
> ==> "relation between an elder sister and a younger brother", etc.
> These are both opaque and transparent.
>
>
> Des> A sufficiently tenacious Chinese chauviniste could still
> Des> argue that these were _idioms_ rather than words, composed by
> Des> syntax rather than morphology.
>
> Exactly!
Quite.
Des
doesn't find the distinction (or the chauvinism) interesting
Peter T. Daniels
>
> Peter T. Daniels wrote:
>
> >>>> This is something I've wondered about. Take the single
> >>>>German word "Bundesrepublik" "Federal Republic". As a term
> >>>>it would be stressed in English "Féderal Republic" with
> >>>>only one primary stress. Contrast the statement "It's a
> >>>>féderal repúblic" with two primary stresses. So, as a term
> >>>>is it one word but as used in the statement is it two words?
> >>>> The German is certainly written as one word.
> >>>
> >>>Where did you get your data about the English stresses? They're wrong.
> >>
> >> From myself. Yes, I'm a native speaker, and I goofed.
> >>Nonetheless, you probably understand the point. I've heard
> >>that in English, stress patterns in some word combinations
> >>indicate that they are one (syntactic) word, such that in
> >>something like German they would be written as such. True?
> >
> > Any examples? The standard example in the olden days was "lighthouse
> > keeper" vs. "light housekeeper."
>
> Sort of like what I was thinking, but both examples are
> written as two words. Could "lighthouse keeper" be
> considered one word?
Define "word."
Would "lighthousekeeper training" be done by the Coast Guard or by the
Maids For You Agency?
No, we wouldn't run it together that way.
> Perhaps we use stress in English to clear up syntactic
> ambiguity. How about German Bundesnachrichtdienst, Federal
> Intelligence Agency (their version of the US CIA). In
> English you could say *Federal* Intelligence Agency to
> emphasize that it's a federal agency and not a regional one,
> Federal *Intelligence* Agency to emphasize that it's an
> intelligence agency and not a social services agency, or put
> about equal stress on all words and say them quickly (I
> think) to refer to that specific organization. So, does that
> mean that English "Federal Intelligence Agency" is one word?
> I've no idea how that would all come out in German,
> though obviously the name of the organization itself is a
> single word.
>
> I read about this in an old book that I know is outdated,
> and I wondered what the current thinking is. Can't think of
> any examples from that book.
As Greg and I mentioned yesterday, there's no universal definition of
"word."
Can you think of the name of the book?
Peter T. Daniels
>
> >>>>> "Peter" == Peter T Daniels <gram...@worldnet.att.net> writes:
>
> Peter> I believe most Gallicists would agree that "chemin de fer"
> Peter> is one word, but not for the reason you state. Perhaps you
> Peter> define "word" as 'thing with spaces around it'. But, back
> Peter> in my first posting that aroused your ire, did I use the
> Peter> term "word," or did I say "lexical item" or some such? (I
> Peter> know I didn't say "lexeme.")
>
> See my other posting for Chinese expressions like <mao2dun4>,
> <fu1qi1>, etc. Are they lexemes or compound words?
You really have turned into gilgames. Maybe Antonio can straighten it
out for _you_, too.
Peter T. Daniels
>
> >>>>> "Peter" == Peter T Daniels <gram...@worldnet.att.net> writes:
>
> >> I don't know in general what a word is.
>
> Peter> Neither does anyone else.
>
> But you have been pretending to.
Do you know what "in general" means?
Peter T. Daniels
> But how about compounds like <fu1qi1> = <fu1> + <qi1> = husband + wife
> ==> couple? It's both opaque and transparent. It's opaque that we
> often use <fu1qi1> in the way that you'd use "couple". It's
> transparent in that it is fully transparent: <fu1> is used so often to
> mean "husband" that nobody would be unable to recognize it, and so is
> <qi1>.
Is a gay or lesbian couple a fu1qi1? (And don't hide behind the Maoist
lie that homosexuality doesn't exist in China.)
Harlan Messinger
>>>>>>"Harlan" == Harlan Messinger <hmessinger...@comcast.net> writes:
>
>
> Harlan> Out of curiosity, can you tell us your interpretation of
> Harlan> the distinction between 字(zi4) and 詞 (ci2) ?
>
> There is no clear distinction. Much like there is no clear-cut line
> separating black and white in the grayscale spectrum. The boundary is
> fuzzy.
Obviously you recognize a distinction between them, and I'm sure you
could articulate what that distinction is, even while acknowledging it
to be a fuzzy one. At the very least, since 字 zi4 refers to an
individual character, and 詞 ci2 is not the same as 字 zi4, it follows
that 詞 ci2 refers, at least sometimes, to something *other* than an
individual character. Can you explain the difference in those terms? I'm
curious, because I was pretty sure that 詞 ci2 referred to sequences of
one *or more* 字 zi4, such sequences corresponding to the term "word" as
Peter and I are using it.
Andre Keshave
"Lee Sau Dan" <dan...@informatik.uni-freiburg.de>
>>>>> "Peter" == Peter T Daniels <gram...@worldnet.att.net> writes:
Peter> I believe most Gallicists would agree that "chemin de fer"
Peter> is one word, but not for the reason you state. Perhaps you
Peter> define "word" as 'thing with spaces around it'. But, back
Peter> in my first posting that aroused your ire, did I use the
Peter> term "word," or did I say "lexical item" or some such? (I
Peter> know I didn't say "lexeme.")
See my other posting for Chinese expressions like <mao2dun4>,
<fu1qi1>, etc. Are they lexemes or compound words?
***********
<mao2dun4> seems to be, semantically speaking, a word rather than a compound
word because, from what you explained, <mao2dun4> is understood primarily to
mean "contradiction" and not as spear + shield, even though morphologically
and broadly speaking it's a "compound word", or at least a compound.
Lee Sau Dan
Des> Regardless of the morphological decomposeability of
Des> "cupboard", as Harlan remarked, it has to have a lexical
Des> entry of its own; many Chinese "compound" words, it has been
Des> alleged, have acquired a similar degree indecomposeability,
Des> and it is not unparsimonious to call them "words" (in the
Des> lexical sense) too.
>> But how about compounds like <fu1qi1> = <fu1> + <qi1> =
>> husband + wife ==> couple? It's both opaque and transparent.
>> It's opaque that we often use <fu1qi1> in the way that you'd
>> use "couple". It's transparent in that it is fully
>> transparent: <fu1> is used so often to mean "husband" that
>> nobody would be unable to recognize it, and so is <qi1>.
Des> If it's conventionally used or usable for unmarried couples
Des> it's opaque.
Even when it's so easily and obviously decomposable into the
constitutents? They're much more transparent than idioms!
Des> Obviously this process is susceptible to vagueness; any
Des> number of tedious goons on a.u.e will surely insist that many
Des> English idioms which opaque to any sane person are really
Des> transparent to them. And "cupboard" and "strawberry" were
Des> once transparent compounds in English, and in the latter case
Des> I happen to know how come. It's no less synchronously opaque
Des> for that, though.
So, shall we consider all idioms to be 'one word', because of the
opaqueness? Something like "to kick the bucket" should be 'one word',
then? And all phrasal verbs should be 'one word', shouldn't they?
Des> Look up "sorites paradox", why don't you, and then come back
Des> to us once you've solved it; in the meantime, we'll just have
Des> to live with some vagueness. There is a lot of it about,
Des> although I don't know exactly how much.
So, the term "word" or "lexeme" is not well-defined. The vagueness
you're talking about is no more concrete than the distinction between
"dialect" and "language". And failing to draw the border clearly, you
can't even define the count meaningful.
Lee Sau Dan
>> I read about this in an old book that I know is outdated, and I
>> wondered what the current thinking is. Can't think of any
>> examples from that book.
Peter> As Greg and I mentioned yesterday, there's no universal
Peter> definition of "word."
Then, why do you insist that it is incorrect to say that a Chinese
character is a word?
Lee Sau Dan
Peter> Lee Sau Dan wrote:
>> But how about compounds like <fu1qi1> = <fu1> + <qi1> = husband
>> + wife ==> couple? It's both opaque and transparent. It's
>> opaque that we often use <fu1qi1> in the way that you'd use
>> "couple". It's transparent in that it is fully transparent:
>> <fu1> is used so often to mean "husband" that nobody would be
>> unable to recognize it, and so is <qi1>.
Peter> Is a gay or lesbian couple a fu1qi1? (And don't hide behind
Peter> the Maoist lie that homosexuality doesn't exist in China.)
No. Homosexual *marraige* is neither _legally_ nor _morally_
recognized in the Far East... yet. So, by definition, there are no
homosexual <fu1qi1>.
A pair of homosexual partners can be referred to as <ai4l"u3> "lovers"
or <ban4l"u3> "buddies", but these terms do not distinguish between
hetersexual and homosexual love. You can comfortably use them for a
man and a woman who love each other.
Des Small
> >>>>> "Des" == Des Small <des....@bristol.ac.uk> writes:
>
> Des> Regardless of the morphological decomposeability of
> Des> "cupboard", as Harlan remarked, it has to have a lexical
> Des> entry of its own; many Chinese "compound" words, it has been
> Des> alleged, have acquired a similar degree indecomposeability,
> Des> and it is not unparsimonious to call them "words" (in the
> Des> lexical sense) too.
> >> But how about compounds like <fu1qi1> = <fu1> + <qi1> =
> >> husband + wife ==> couple? It's both opaque and transparent.
> >> It's opaque that we often use <fu1qi1> in the way that you'd
> >> use "couple". It's transparent in that it is fully
> >> transparent: <fu1> is used so often to mean "husband" that
> >> nobody would be unable to recognize it, and so is <qi1>.
>
> Des> If it's conventionally used or usable for unmarried couples
> Des> it's opaque.
>
> Even when it's so easily and obviously decomposable into the
> constitutents? They're much more transparent than idioms!
Except when they're not, of course. This is (do I repeat myself?
Very well, I repeat myself) why the occurrence as a head word in a
Chinese to Something dictionary is such a very excellent test of
synchronic lexicality.
My German dictionaries expect me to decompose most transparent
compounds, but they have entries for non-transparent ones.
> Des> Obviously this process is susceptible to vagueness; any
> Des> number of tedious goons on a.u.e will surely insist that many
> Des> English idioms which opaque to any sane person are really
> Des> transparent to them. And "cupboard" and "strawberry" were
> Des> once transparent compounds in English, and in the latter case
> Des> I happen to know how come. It's no less synchronously opaque
> Des> for that, though.
>
> So, shall we consider all idioms to be 'one word', because of the
> opaqueness? Something like "to kick the bucket" should be 'one word',
> then? And all phrasal verbs should be 'one word', shouldn't they?
Obviously not. But it isn't the idiomaticity that stops them being
so, but the convenience of analysing them at a syntactic level. If
the past tense was "kick-the-bucketed" you'd have a point, for sure,
but it isn't.
> Des> Look up "sorites paradox", why don't you, and then come back
> Des> to us once you've solved it; in the meantime, we'll just have
> Des> to live with some vagueness. There is a lot of it about,
> Des> although I don't know exactly how much.
>
> So, the term "word" or "lexeme" is not well-defined. The vagueness
> you're talking about is no more concrete than the distinction between
> "dialect" and "language". And failing to draw the border clearly, you
> can't even define the count meaningful.
I've persisted in defending Peter's very concrete and explicit test
for opacity. You've countered by variously ignoring it,
misunderstanding it, insisting on the (non-existence) relevance of
native speakers' knowledge of etymology and an open admission that
you're motivated by chauvinisme.
It is not only because I am on holiday as of now that I consider this
conversation to be over.
Des
is off toe het Nederland, hoera!
Lee Sau Dan
Harlan> Out of curiosity, can you tell us your interpretation of
Harlan> the distinction between 字(zi4) and 詞 (ci2) ?
>> There is no clear distinction. Much like there is no
>> clear-cut line separating black and white in the grayscale
>> spectrum. The boundary is fuzzy.
Harlan> Obviously you recognize a distinction between them, and
Harlan> I'm sure you could articulate what that distinction is,
Harlan> even while acknowledging it to be a fuzzy one. At the very
Harlan> least, since 字 zi4 refers to an individual character, and
Harlan> 詞 ci2 is not the same as 字 zi4, it follows that 詞 ci2
Harlan> refers, at least sometimes, to something *other* than an
Harlan> individual character. Can you explain the difference in
Harlan> those terms? I'm curious, because I was pretty sure that
Harlan> 詞 ci2 referred to sequences of one *or more* 字 zi4, such
Harlan> sequences corresponding to the term "word" as Peter and I
Harlan> are using it.
ci2 is more like "compound words", but not yet idioms. e.g.
<wan3j"u4cang3> "toy factory" is a ci2. The individual characters
<wan3> "play", <j"u4> "object" and <cang3> "factory" are 3 separate
zi4's. Another example: <dian4deng1pao1> "light bulb" is another ci2,
with the 3 constituent zi4's being <dian4> "electricity", <deng1>
"lantern", <pao1> "bulb".
We also have <cheng2y"u3> (<cheng2>: "ready-made"; <y"u3>:
expression), which are more similar to "idioms" in that they're very
opaque. Even if you know the meaning of the composing characters, you
can still not make any sense of the meaning of the <cheng2y"u3>, or
derive a wrong meaning. Many modern <cheng2y"u3> are actually
'preserved' Classical Chinese expressions, and hence become more
transparent as one gains more knowledge of Classical Chinese.
Going to larger units, we have <yan4y"u3>, which are sentence-level
idioms. Maybe, "proverb" is a closer translation. They're usually
used without changing any words in them. But the meaning is more
transparent than <cheng2y"u3">. So, they're easily comprehensible
sentences, with historical wisdom crystallised into them.
One interesting thing that have no equivalents in English are
<xie1hou4y"u3>. I don't know how to explain. But it's an interesting
part of Chinese, and people like to create and use them orally.
Greg Lee
...
> I've persisted in defending Peter's very concrete and explicit test
> for opacity.
But LSD makes the points that opaque expressions are not necessarily
words and that compound words are not necessarily opaque. Therefore,
a test for opacity is not a good test for words. These are good
points.
--
Greg Lee <gr...@ling.lll.hawaii.edu>
Harlan Messinger
>>>>>>"Harlan" == Harlan Messinger <hmessinger...@comcast.net> writes:
>
>
> Harlan> Out of curiosity, can you tell us your interpretation of
> Harlan> the distinction between 字(zi4) and 詞 (ci2) ?
> >> There is no clear distinction. Much like there is no
> >> clear-cut line separating black and white in the grayscale
> >> spectrum. The boundary is fuzzy.
>
> Harlan> Obviously you recognize a distinction between them, and
> Harlan> I'm sure you could articulate what that distinction is,
> Harlan> even while acknowledging it to be a fuzzy one. At the very
> Harlan> least, since 字 zi4 refers to an individual character, and
> Harlan> 詞 ci2 is not the same as 字 zi4, it follows that 詞 ci2
> Harlan> refers, at least sometimes, to something *other* than an
> Harlan> individual character. Can you explain the difference in
> Harlan> those terms? I'm curious, because I was pretty sure that
> Harlan> 詞 ci2 referred to sequences of one *or more* 字 zi4, such
> Harlan> sequences corresponding to the term "word" as Peter and I
> Harlan> are using it.
>
> ci2 is more like "compound words", but not yet idioms. e.g.
> <wan3j"u4cang3> "toy factory" is a ci2. The individual characters
> <wan3> "play", <j"u4> "object" and <cang3> "factory" are 3 separate
> zi4's. Another example: <dian4deng1pao1> "light bulb" is another ci2,
> with the 3 constituent zi4's being <dian4> "electricity", <deng1>
> "lantern", <pao1> "bulb".
Here's the comment from Peter that began this whole argument:
Anyway, in Modern Chinese most "words" are two characters,
and there most certainly is not extra space, or anything else,
to distinguish them.
How much money would it take to persuade you that Peter was effectively
referring to ci2, *acknowledging* by his use of quotation marks around
the term that the correspondence isn't *exact*, that it might be subject
to debate, but still believing it relevant to point out the true fact
that in Chinese, no special spacing exists to delineate ci2? This is
*so* obvious to me and, now that you've shown, above, your understanding
of ci2 to be pretty much what I had thought it should be, I can't
believe it wasn't obvious to you from the beginning and that the
argument you began wasn't a deliberate waste of words and time.
Des Small
> Des Small <des....@bristol.ac.uk> wrote:
> ...
> > I've persisted in defending Peter's very concrete and explicit test
> > for opacity.
> ...
>
> But LSD makes the points that opaque expressions are not necessarily
> words
They're either lexical words or idioms. Since they lack internal
features, everyone except Chinese chauvinistes tends to call them
words, and I continue not to see a reason not to.
"Non-transparently decomposable morpheme-compounds with no interior
morphological structure (other than compounding)" is usefully
distinguishable from "word" in what way or manner? LSD had to cheat
with "kick the bucket"; even he hasn't claimed "strawberry" isn't a
word - would you?
> and that compound words are not necessarily opaque.
He's calling them compound _words_ in Chinese? News to me.
> Therefore, a test for opacity is not a good test for words. These
> are good points.
You think?
Des
doesn't
Peter T. Daniels
>
> >>>>> "Peter" == Peter T Daniels <gram...@worldnet.att.net> writes:
>
> Peter> Lee Sau Dan wrote:
> >> But how about compounds like <fu1qi1> = <fu1> + <qi1> = husband
> >> + wife ==> couple? It's both opaque and transparent. It's
> >> opaque that we often use <fu1qi1> in the way that you'd use
> >> "couple". It's transparent in that it is fully transparent:
> >> <fu1> is used so often to mean "husband" that nobody would be
> >> unable to recognize it, and so is <qi1>.
>
> Peter> Is a gay or lesbian couple a fu1qi1? (And don't hide behind
> Peter> the Maoist lie that homosexuality doesn't exist in China.)
>
> No. Homosexual *marraige* is neither _legally_ nor _morally_
> recognized in the Far East... yet. So, by definition, there are no
> homosexual <fu1qi1>.
Define "Far East."
Then, obviously, "by definition" fu1qi1 doesn't mean "couple."
> A pair of homosexual partners can be referred to as <ai4l"u3> "lovers"
> or <ban4l"u3> "buddies", but these terms do not distinguish between
> hetersexual and homosexual love. You can comfortably use them for a
> man and a woman who love each other.
--
Peter T. Daniels gram...@att.net
Peter T. Daniels
>
> >>>>> "Peter" == Peter T Daniels <gram...@worldnet.att.net> writes:
>
> >> I read about this in an old book that I know is outdated, and I
> >> wondered what the current thinking is. Can't think of any
> >> examples from that book.
>
> Peter> As Greg and I mentioned yesterday, there's no universal
> Peter> definition of "word."
>
> Then, why do you insist that it is incorrect to say that a Chinese
> character is a word?
For the same reason that I don't say that a Chinese character is a
phoneme.
And, there are better candidates for word-hood in Chinese than
individual characters.
Greg Lee
> > Des Small <des....@bristol.ac.uk> wrote:
> > ...
> > > I've persisted in defending Peter's very concrete and explicit test
> > > for opacity.
> > ...
> >
> > But LSD makes the points that opaque expressions are not necessarily
> > words
> They're either lexical words or idioms. Since they lack internal
> features, everyone except Chinese chauvinistes tends to call them
> words, and I continue not to see a reason not to.
What's "they"? Opaque expressions? I can't make sense of this.
> "Non-transparently decomposable morpheme-compounds with no interior
> morphological structure (other than compounding)" is usefully
> distinguishable from "word" in what way or manner?
It leaves out words that are not compounds, and it leaves out
words that are transparent compounds, like "lighthouse keeper".
> LSD had to cheat
> with "kick the bucket"; even he hasn't claimed "strawberry" isn't a
> word - would you?
> > and that compound words are not necessarily opaque.
> He's calling them compound _words_ in Chinese? News to me.
> > Therefore, a test for opacity is not a good test for words. These
> > are good points.
> You think?
> Des
> doesn't
--
Greg Lee <gr...@ling.lll.hawaii.edu>
Dennis
>> Perhaps we use stress in English to clear up syntactic
>>ambiguity. How about German Bundesnachrichtdienst, Federal
>>Intelligence Agency (their version of the US CIA). In
>>English you could say *Federal* Intelligence Agency to
>>emphasize that it's a federal agency and not a regional one,
>>Federal *Intelligence* Agency to emphasize that it's an
>>intelligence agency and not a social services agency, or put
>>about equal stress on all words and say them quickly (I
>>think) to refer to that specific organization. So, does that
>>mean that English "Federal Intelligence Agency" is one word?
>> I've no idea how that would all come out in German,
>>though obviously the name of the organization itself is a
>>single word.
>>
>> I read about this in an old book that I know is outdated,
>>and I wondered what the current thinking is. Can't think of
>>any examples from that book.
>
> As Greg and I mentioned yesterday, there's no universal definition of
> "word."
I guess that's my answer, that it would depend how you
define "word". So, the Germans think of the name BND as one
word, but the Federal Intelligence Agency, in English, isn't
one word, even though stress patterns give further
information.
> Can you think of the name of the book?
I think it was Hall, Robert A., Jr. "There's Nothing Wrong
with Your Language." Linguistics and Your Language. 1960.
Bloomfield was the state of the art in this book. I had
just started reading about linguistics.
Dennis
Peter T. Daniels
> > As Greg and I mentioned yesterday, there's no universal definition of
> > "word."
>
> I guess that's my answer, that it would depend how you
> define "word". So, the Germans think of the name BND as one
> word, but the Federal Intelligence Agency, in English, isn't
> one word, even though stress patterns give further
> information.
>
> > Can you think of the name of the book?
>
> I think it was Hall, Robert A., Jr. "There's Nothing Wrong
> with Your Language." Linguistics and Your Language. 1960.
> Bloomfield was the state of the art in this book. I had
> just started reading about linguistics.
Originally published in 1951 as *Leave Your Language Alone!*. I've never
come across a copy with the original title.
My teacher Hall fancied himself a student of Bloomfield's (see his 1987
biography of him), but he seems to have taken just one one-semester
course with him at Yale, just before Bloomfield's incapacitating stroke.
He was very very much the non-prescriptivist: he encouraged the
pronunciations "Febuary" and "liberry" because that was how the people
pronounced those words.
But I wonder how the notion of "word" came up in that volume ... maybe
I'll remember to check ...
Lee Sau Dan
>> Then, why do you insist that it is incorrect to say that a
>> Chinese character is a word?
Peter> For the same reason that I don't say that a Chinese
Peter> character is a phoneme.
Peter> And, there are better candidates for word-hood in Chinese
Peter> than individual characters.
It's a better notion even if it is not well-defined?
Lee Sau Dan
>> No. Homosexual *marraige* is neither _legally_ nor _morally_
>> recognized in the Far East... yet. So, by definition, there
>> are no homosexual <fu1qi1>.
Peter> Define "Far East."
Peter> Then, obviously, "by definition" fu1qi1 doesn't mean
Peter> "couple."
"married couple".
Peter T. Daniels
>
> >>>>> "Peter" == Peter T Daniels <gram...@worldnet.att.net> writes:
>
> >> No. Homosexual *marraige* is neither _legally_ nor _morally_
> >> recognized in the Far East... yet. So, by definition, there
> >> are no homosexual <fu1qi1>.
>
> Peter> Define "Far East."
>
> Peter> Then, obviously, "by definition" fu1qi1 doesn't mean
> Peter> "couple."
>
> "married couple".
So gay or lesbian couples in Canada, Massachusetts, and I think Sweden
are fu1qi1, but not in other polities?
Lee Sau Dan
Peter> Then, obviously, "by definition" fu1qi1 doesn't mean
Peter> "couple."
>> "married couple".
Peter> So gay or lesbian couples in Canada, Massachusetts, and I
Peter> think Sweden are fu1qi1, but not in other polities?
No. <fu1qi1> is a heterosexual pair. For a homosexual pair, I'd only
say <dui4> "pair", or use other terms I've mentioned before.
Dennis
>> OTOH, what you said about Greek suggests it *would* work
>>there. If one grants that, how then would you explain the
>>Greeks' introduction of vowels into the Phoenician abjad?
>
> I have published the explanation too many times to want to retype it
> here!
>
> Can you get at Blackwell's *Handbook of Linguistics*, ed. Aronoff &
> Rees-Miller?
I did get to look at this. You say that the Greeks simply
didn't hear the Semitic consonants at the beginnings of
'aleph, yod, waw, and `ayin, so they thought that those
letters stood for the vowels. If the Greeks involved
didn't know Phoenician, that makes excellent sense. Further
evidence is that (?later) the various Semitic scripts used
'aleph, yod, and waw as matres lectionis.
`ayin becoming omicron isn't as clear to me. The
pharyngeal voiced fricative is a harsh sound that I don't
think the Greeks would have missed, though they might have
thought it was just the Phoenician's strange 'accent' and
not realized it was supposed to mean something. However,
the vowel following the pharyngeal is /a/ and not /o/. Was
`ayin ever used as a mater lectionis?
When did the use of matres lectionis start? I read
somewhere, I think in *The World's Writing Systems*, that
the Phoenician script never did use them, but that the Punic
script did. When did that happen, and could the Punic
script have been the one the Greeks encountered? I'm not
sure what the difference was. It sounds unlikely, but could
the Greeks have known about the use of matres lectionis? If
so, I suppose that could have been a factor in creating
vowel-only glyphemes.
Dennis
Peter T. Daniels
>
> Peter T. Daniels wrote:
>
> >> OTOH, what you said about Greek suggests it *would* work
> >>there. If one grants that, how then would you explain the
> >>Greeks' introduction of vowels into the Phoenician abjad?
> >
> > I have published the explanation too many times to want to retype it
> > here!
> >
> > Can you get at Blackwell's *Handbook of Linguistics*, ed. Aronoff &
> > Rees-Miller?
>
> I did get to look at this. You say that the Greeks simply
> didn't hear the Semitic consonants at the beginnings of
> 'aleph, yod, waw, and `ayin, so they thought that those
> letters stood for the vowels. If the Greeks involved
> didn't know Phoenician, that makes excellent sense. Further
> evidence is that (?later) the various Semitic scripts used
> 'aleph, yod, and waw as matres lectionis.
Not later.
> `ayin becoming omicron isn't as clear to me. The
> pharyngeal voiced fricative is a harsh sound that I don't
> think the Greeks would have missed, though they might have
> thought it was just the Phoenician's strange 'accent' and
> not realized it was supposed to mean something. However,
> the vowel following the pharyngeal is /a/ and not /o/. Was
> `ayin ever used as a mater lectionis?
Yes, but for /e/. `ayin, being a very back consonant, can color /a/
toward [o]. I find highly incredible the suggestion that <`> > <o>
because both "`ayin" and "ophthalmos" mean 'eye'.
> When did the use of matres lectionis start? I read
The earliest Aramaic inscription yet found (the Fekheriye bilingual, ca.
850) already has some matres.
> somewhere, I think in *The World's Writing Systems*, that
> the Phoenician script never did use them, but that the Punic
> script did. When did that happen, and could the Punic
> script have been the one the Greeks encountered? I'm not
Punic vocalization is taken from Greek. (When were the Punes? Hannibal
was Punic. Do you know Hannibal's date?)
> sure what the difference was. It sounds unlikely, but could
> the Greeks have known about the use of matres lectionis? If
> so, I suppose that could have been a factor in creating
> vowel-only glyphemes.
As I point out, if there had been matres in the model script, there
would have been no reason to come up with vowel letters; Greek
orthography would be like Persian orthography.
PS I just invented the word "Pune" -- don't use it in a serious context!
Peter T. Daniels
>
> >>>>> "Peter" == Peter T Daniels <gram...@worldnet.att.net> writes:
>
> Peter> Then, obviously, "by definition" fu1qi1 doesn't mean
> Peter> "couple."
> >> "married couple".
>
> Peter> So gay or lesbian couples in Canada, Massachusetts, and I
> Peter> think Sweden are fu1qi1, but not in other polities?
>
> No. <fu1qi1> is a heterosexual pair. For a homosexual pair, I'd only
> say <dui4> "pair", or use other terms I've mentioned before.
So you oppose equal rights. Tsk, tsk.
Brian M. Scott
<gram...@worldnet.att.net> wrote in
<news:42F609...@worldnet.att.net> in sci.lang:
[...]
> Hannibal was Punic. Do you know Hannibal's date?)
ca.247 BCE - ca.183 BCE
[...]
Brian
Peter T. Daniels
Mr. Scott, have you met Mr. Socrates yet?
Can you now draw the inference as to whether the appearance of some
matres in Punic texts can have influenced Greek orthography, or vice
versa?