Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
"Proto-Iranian" questioned
38 views
Skip to first unread message
anal...@hotmail.com
Jan 22, 2012, 12:13:18 PM1/22/12
to
Studies in the History and Language of the Sarmatians
J. Harmatta
http://www.kroraina.com/sarm/jh/jh3_2.html#42.
"Following a critical hint by J. Schmidt, Kretschmer has pointed out
long ago that certain linguistic phenomena, though present in all
separate languages, must not, in every case, be regarded as
characteristic of the fundamental language, while conversely, it is
sometimes only one language that preserves ancient linguistic traits.
[40] But it is not only the linguistics methods of the family-tree
theory that have aroused grave doubts: its historical assumptions,
too, have proved untenable. There is no doubt that one cannot assume
the existence of populous societies possessing a unitary organization
and speaking a homogeneous language in the early periods of history
[41] — though this assumption is implicit in the family-tree theory.
There is an increasing body of evidence, derived especially from
archaeological research, which shows that the idea of homogeneous
linguistic communities, and of corresponding homogeneous peoples, has
to be dropped entirely. [42] But even if we refrain from discussing
the whole problem of the family-tree theory, and do not go beyond the
reconstruction of the Proto-Iranian linguistic state, the deficiencies
of this method are obvious."
..............................
"According to Bartholomae's theory, the Aryan Parent Language split up
into two essentially homogeneous languages one of which he simply
called 'Proto-Iranian', This 'Proto-Iranian language' was, however, a
purely formal linguistic concept, the contents of which were
determined by the changes which took place in 'Proto-Iranian' from the
time of its separation from the Aryan parent language until its
disintegration. On these premises Bartholomae acted quite logically
when he utilized, in reconstructing the Proto-Iranian linguistic
state, those changes which he found both in Old Persian and in the
language of the Avesta, since, according to his theory these common
changes must have occurred in Proto-Iranian while changes peculiar to
one of them must have taken place in the separate Old Iranian
languages. [50] This theory is entirely logical: yet historically —
even apart from its unproved and unsubstantiated premises — it is
extremely unlikely. As we have pointed out above, only two of the Old
Iranian languages supply us with a fair number of linguistic remains;
of these, the language of the Avesta has undergone considerable
distortion during the process of transmission, so that its value as a
source for the history of phonemes is frequently open to doubt; while
the language of the Old Persian inscriptions only gives us some
insight into the language of a single Persian tribe. It follows that,
actually, we have only data about an insignificant proportion of Old
Iranian languages or dialects; this circumstance makes the
reconstruction of a 'Proto-Iranian language' an ardous and rather
hopeless task. There is no evidence whatever to show the changes,
common to the Old Persian inscriptions and the language of the Avesta,
took place also in the numerous other Old Iranian languages and
dialects unknown to us; consequently, the changes determining the
'Proto-Iranian language' necessarily elude our grasp. Similarly, there
are no indications whatever to show whether some, or even a
considerable part, of the changes peculiar to one language alone, do
not go back to Proto-Iranian times."
J. Harmatta
http://www.kroraina.com/sarm/jh/jh3_2.html#42.
"Following a critical hint by J. Schmidt, Kretschmer has pointed out
long ago that certain linguistic phenomena, though present in all
separate languages, must not, in every case, be regarded as
characteristic of the fundamental language, while conversely, it is
sometimes only one language that preserves ancient linguistic traits.
[40] But it is not only the linguistics methods of the family-tree
theory that have aroused grave doubts: its historical assumptions,
too, have proved untenable. There is no doubt that one cannot assume
the existence of populous societies possessing a unitary organization
and speaking a homogeneous language in the early periods of history
[41] — though this assumption is implicit in the family-tree theory.
There is an increasing body of evidence, derived especially from
archaeological research, which shows that the idea of homogeneous
linguistic communities, and of corresponding homogeneous peoples, has
to be dropped entirely. [42] But even if we refrain from discussing
the whole problem of the family-tree theory, and do not go beyond the
reconstruction of the Proto-Iranian linguistic state, the deficiencies
of this method are obvious."
..............................
"According to Bartholomae's theory, the Aryan Parent Language split up
into two essentially homogeneous languages one of which he simply
called 'Proto-Iranian', This 'Proto-Iranian language' was, however, a
purely formal linguistic concept, the contents of which were
determined by the changes which took place in 'Proto-Iranian' from the
time of its separation from the Aryan parent language until its
disintegration. On these premises Bartholomae acted quite logically
when he utilized, in reconstructing the Proto-Iranian linguistic
state, those changes which he found both in Old Persian and in the
language of the Avesta, since, according to his theory these common
changes must have occurred in Proto-Iranian while changes peculiar to
one of them must have taken place in the separate Old Iranian
languages. [50] This theory is entirely logical: yet historically —
even apart from its unproved and unsubstantiated premises — it is
extremely unlikely. As we have pointed out above, only two of the Old
Iranian languages supply us with a fair number of linguistic remains;
of these, the language of the Avesta has undergone considerable
distortion during the process of transmission, so that its value as a
source for the history of phonemes is frequently open to doubt; while
the language of the Old Persian inscriptions only gives us some
insight into the language of a single Persian tribe. It follows that,
actually, we have only data about an insignificant proportion of Old
Iranian languages or dialects; this circumstance makes the
reconstruction of a 'Proto-Iranian language' an ardous and rather
hopeless task. There is no evidence whatever to show the changes,
common to the Old Persian inscriptions and the language of the Avesta,
took place also in the numerous other Old Iranian languages and
dialects unknown to us; consequently, the changes determining the
'Proto-Iranian language' necessarily elude our grasp. Similarly, there
are no indications whatever to show whether some, or even a
considerable part, of the changes peculiar to one language alone, do
not go back to Proto-Iranian times."
Peter T. Daniels
Jan 22, 2012, 1:11:20 PM1/22/12
to
On Jan 22, 12:13 pm, "analys...@hotmail.com" <analys...@hotmail.com>
wrote:
of a standard, orthodox linguistic theory of language change, he or
she posts it here as if it were some sort of great revelation?
Analys... would spare him- or herself great ridicule if he or she
would simply study historical linguistics in an organized fashion,
with a competent, though necessarily incredibly patient, teacher.
wrote:
> Studies in the History and Language of the Sarmatians
> J. Harmatta
Isn't it amazing how every time analys... comes across a presentation
> J. Harmatta
of a standard, orthodox linguistic theory of language change, he or
she posts it here as if it were some sort of great revelation?
Analys... would spare him- or herself great ridicule if he or she
would simply study historical linguistics in an organized fashion,
with a competent, though necessarily incredibly patient, teacher.
anal...@hotmail.com
Jan 22, 2012, 2:33:32 PM1/22/12
to
TWO LINGUISTIC MYTHS: BALTO-SLAVIC AND COMMON BALTIC
HARVEY E. MAYER
California State University, Fullerton
"Thus there is no firm evidence for either Balto-Slavic or Common
Baltic as protolanguages. We will have to consider them, therefore, as
myths. This is especially necessary since the attested dialects
involved are conservative fundamentally with respect to Central Indo-
European, a phonological type arrived at independently by all Indo-
European dialects reflecting it."
anal...@hotmail.com
Jan 22, 2012, 5:26:49 PM1/22/12
to
On Jan 22, 2:33 pm, "analys...@hotmail.com" <analys...@hotmail.com>
wrote:
> European dialects reflecting it."- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
http://languagecontinuity.blogspot.com/2009/08/comparative-philology-and-proto.html
Jesus Sanchis citing Andrew Garrett
"Recently, I have read an interesting article by the American linguist
Andrew Garrett: Convergence in the formation of Indo-European:
Philogeny and Chronology (2006). After analysing some phonological and
morphologiccal features of ancient Greek dialects, he comes to the
conclusion that the idea of a Greek proto-language derived from a
common IE proto-language is not tenable. The linguistic materials from
ancient Greek dialects point in a completely different direction, and
this could be also applied to other IE branches. (p. 139): "the
familiar branches arose not by the differentiation of earlier higher-
order subgroups - from 'Italo-Celtic' to Italic and Celtic, and so on
- but by convergence among neighbouring dialects in a continuum"; (p.
141): "detailed analysis reduces the dossier of demonstrable and
uniquely Proto-Greek innovations in phonology and inflectional
morphology to nearly zero"; (p. 139): "I will suggest that
conventional models of IE philogeny are wrong". I think Garrett's
innovative ideas about the formation of Greek and IE are highly
interesting, and they may open interesting new lines of research in
historical linguistics. I agree with him completely when he says: (p.
139) "Convergence together with loss of intermediate dialects in the
prehistoric continuum, has created the historical mirage of a branchy
IE family with its many distinctive subgroups". - The mirage of order,
structure, rules, laws."
wrote:
>
> - Show quoted text -
http://languagecontinuity.blogspot.com/2009/08/comparative-philology-and-proto.html
Jesus Sanchis citing Andrew Garrett
"Recently, I have read an interesting article by the American linguist
Andrew Garrett: Convergence in the formation of Indo-European:
Philogeny and Chronology (2006). After analysing some phonological and
morphologiccal features of ancient Greek dialects, he comes to the
conclusion that the idea of a Greek proto-language derived from a
common IE proto-language is not tenable. The linguistic materials from
ancient Greek dialects point in a completely different direction, and
this could be also applied to other IE branches. (p. 139): "the
familiar branches arose not by the differentiation of earlier higher-
order subgroups - from 'Italo-Celtic' to Italic and Celtic, and so on
- but by convergence among neighbouring dialects in a continuum"; (p.
141): "detailed analysis reduces the dossier of demonstrable and
uniquely Proto-Greek innovations in phonology and inflectional
morphology to nearly zero"; (p. 139): "I will suggest that
conventional models of IE philogeny are wrong". I think Garrett's
innovative ideas about the formation of Greek and IE are highly
interesting, and they may open interesting new lines of research in
historical linguistics. I agree with him completely when he says: (p.
139) "Convergence together with loss of intermediate dialects in the
prehistoric continuum, has created the historical mirage of a branchy
IE family with its many distinctive subgroups". - The mirage of order,
structure, rules, laws."
Peter T. Daniels
Jan 22, 2012, 6:27:29 PM1/22/12
to
On Jan 22, 5:26 pm, "analys...@hotmail.com" <analys...@hotmail.com>
> http://languagecontinuity.blogspot.com/2009/08/comparative-philology-...
I think Andrew Garrett is learn`ed enough to know how to spell
<phylogeny>, so I suspect that this "Jesus Sanchis" is no more
competent to discuss the findings of standard historical linguistics
than you are.
>
> Jesus Sanchis citing Andrew Garrett
>
> "Recently, I have read an interesting article by the American linguist
> Andrew Garrett: Convergence in the formation of Indo-European:
> Philogeny and Chronology (2006). After analysing some phonological and
> morphologiccal features of ancient Greek dialects, he comes to the
> conclusion that the idea of a Greek proto-language derived from a
> common IE proto-language is not tenable. The linguistic materials from
> ancient Greek dialects point in a completely different direction, and
> this could be also applied to other IE branches. (p. 139): "the
> familiar branches arose not by the differentiation of earlier higher-
> order subgroups - from 'Italo-Celtic' to Italic and Celtic, and so on
> - but by convergence among neighbouring dialects in a continuum"; (p.
> 141): "detailed analysis reduces the dossier of demonstrable and
> uniquely Proto-Greek innovations in phonology and inflectional
> morphology to nearly zero"; (p. 139): "I will suggest that
> conventional models of IE philogeny are wrong". I think Garrett's
> innovative ideas about the formation of Greek and IE are highly
> interesting, and they may open interesting new lines of research in
> historical linguistics. I agree with him completely when he says: (p.
> 139) "Convergence together with loss of intermediate dialects in the
> prehistoric continuum, has created the historical mirage of a branchy
> IE family with its many distinctive subgroups". - The mirage of order,
> structure, rules, laws."-
> Jesus Sanchis citing Andrew Garrett
>
> "Recently, I have read an interesting article by the American linguist
> Andrew Garrett: Convergence in the formation of Indo-European:
> Philogeny and Chronology (2006). After analysing some phonological and
> morphologiccal features of ancient Greek dialects, he comes to the
> conclusion that the idea of a Greek proto-language derived from a
> common IE proto-language is not tenable. The linguistic materials from
> ancient Greek dialects point in a completely different direction, and
> this could be also applied to other IE branches. (p. 139): "the
> familiar branches arose not by the differentiation of earlier higher-
> order subgroups - from 'Italo-Celtic' to Italic and Celtic, and so on
> - but by convergence among neighbouring dialects in a continuum"; (p.
> 141): "detailed analysis reduces the dossier of demonstrable and
> uniquely Proto-Greek innovations in phonology and inflectional
> morphology to nearly zero"; (p. 139): "I will suggest that
> conventional models of IE philogeny are wrong". I think Garrett's
> innovative ideas about the formation of Greek and IE are highly
> interesting, and they may open interesting new lines of research in
> historical linguistics. I agree with him completely when he says: (p.
> 139) "Convergence together with loss of intermediate dialects in the
> prehistoric continuum, has created the historical mirage of a branchy
> IE family with its many distinctive subgroups". - The mirage of order,
I think Andrew Garrett is learn`ed enough to know how to spell
<phylogeny>, so I suspect that this "Jesus Sanchis" is no more
competent to discuss the findings of standard historical linguistics
than you are.
Peter T. Daniels
Jan 22, 2012, 6:25:22 PM1/22/12
to
So now you know that the questions about "Balto-Slavic" go back more
than 30 years.
If you actually looked into the history of Baltic studies, you'd
discover that "there's nothing new under the sun."
And that questions about the nature of Balto-Slavic were raised
_precisely_ because of Neogrammarian studies of regular sound change.
yangg
Jan 23, 2012, 4:12:51 AM1/23/12
to
On Jan 22, 7:11 pm, "Peter T. Daniels" <gramma...@verizon.net> wrote:
> On Jan 22, 12:13 pm, "analys...@hotmail.com" <analys...@hotmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> > Studies in the History and Language of the Sarmatians
> > J. Harmatta
>
> Isn't it amazing how every time analys... comes across a presentation
> of a standard, orthodox linguistic theory of language change, he or
> she posts it here as if it were some sort of great revelation?
>
> Analys... would spare him- or herself great ridicule if he or she
> would simply study historical linguistics in an organized fashion,
> with a competent, though necessarily incredibly patient, teacher.
>
***
> On Jan 22, 12:13 pm, "analys...@hotmail.com" <analys...@hotmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> > Studies in the History and Language of the Sarmatians
> > J. Harmatta
>
> Isn't it amazing how every time analys... comes across a presentation
> of a standard, orthodox linguistic theory of language change, he or
> she posts it here as if it were some sort of great revelation?
>
> Analys... would spare him- or herself great ridicule if he or she
> would simply study historical linguistics in an organized fashion,
> with a competent, though necessarily incredibly patient, teacher.
>
(s)he's looking for some ambiguous or contradictory statement by
someone, who is competent.
Then (s)he would orgasmically propagate it in the whole Out-of-India
Loonosphere.
Look, look, look, look, I found a good one!
Those OIT loonies do not understand that discussing the meaning and
contents of scientific theories is not a weakness but a strength.
They don't understand what the whole thing is about.
And they don't understand either that even the most orthodox
comparatists do not all agree on everything.
I guess (s)he thinks that kind of posts greatly improves the status of
the OIT.
If you've read one of them, you know all of them. Always the same
pseudo-debate predictably warmed up over and over.
All they blame others for is what characterize them best.
They keep on thinking that a scientific theory can be refuted with
polemical methods that belong to politics.
That basically originates in the fact their approach of the issue is
political, not scientific.
A.
yangg
Jan 23, 2012, 4:19:33 AM1/23/12
to
***
A kind of loonie and friend of the Lord of All Trolls: Octavia.
He has a blog.
http://languagecontinuity.blogspot.com/
A.
yangg
Jan 23, 2012, 4:21:05 AM1/23/12
to
Don't be too harsh.
The OIT is 200 years old.
At least (s)he's reading something "recent".
A.
anal...@hotmail.com
Jan 23, 2012, 8:05:35 PM1/23/12
to
passed on from generation of generation.
According to Melchert who can be considered to have written the book
on Hittite,
http://www.linguistics.ucla.edu/people/Melchert/hittitevocalism.pdf
apparently it has only 4 short vowels - something you never hear about
in boilerplate ululations about "laryngeals" - Melchert puts a brave
face on it and claims /e/ is for real also and that doubts about the
lack of contrast between it and /i/ are unjustified.
OK lets give Hittite its /e/ - which settles the question what happens
to the IE vowel space when you back in time - the vowel space is more
compact in the oldest attested languages! This completely blows the
boilerplate PIE vowel system out of the water. As you move forward in
time, Old Indian starts out with [a i u ] in complete stability and
order and as the language spreads out - the vowels spread too and the
languages become phonological messes- Hittile gets an /e/ (just like
Modern Hindi has now acquired an [e] before [h]) and the
whippersnapper European languages proceed to acquire short /o/ too.
Also explains why not a single instance of an "older" e or o is to be
found in the Mitanni Aryan material (boilerplatists have only the
"ai" in "aika" to clutch for dear life) - because they are not older
(supporting evidence from the total Hittite corpus) - instead these
are later corruptions of the original Old Indian.
benl...@ihug.co.nz
Jan 23, 2012, 9:27:44 PM1/23/12
to
On Jan 24, 2:05 pm, "analys...@hotmail.com" <analys...@hotmail.com>
wrote:
These "boilerplate ululations" sound like a particularly nasty form of
tinnitus that must be causing you great distress. I'd advise you to
seek medical help.
Melchert puts a brave
> face on it and claims /e/ is for real also and that doubts about the
> lack of contrast between it and /i/ are unjustified.
>
> OK lets give Hittite its /e/ - which settles the question what happens
> to the IE vowel space when you back in time - the vowel space is more
> compact in the oldest attested languages!
...except, of course, when it isn't, as in the other two.
This completely blows the
> boilerplate PIE vowel system out of the water.
With the number of explosions taking place in your bathtub, your
mother must be getting worried.
As you move forward in
> time, Old Indian starts out with [a i u ] in complete stability
...whereas the [e o] in Old Indian are...?unstable? How could this
be?
wrote:
tinnitus that must be causing you great distress. I'd advise you to
seek medical help.
Melchert puts a brave
> face on it and claims /e/ is for real also and that doubts about the
> lack of contrast between it and /i/ are unjustified.
>
> OK lets give Hittite its /e/ - which settles the question what happens
> to the IE vowel space when you back in time - the vowel space is more
> compact in the oldest attested languages!
This completely blows the
> boilerplate PIE vowel system out of the water.
mother must be getting worried.
As you move forward in
> time, Old Indian starts out with [a i u ] in complete stability
be?
Adam Funk
Jan 24, 2012, 8:16:25 AM1/24/12
to
On 2012-01-24, benl...@ihug.co.nz wrote:
> On Jan 24, 2:05 pm, "analys...@hotmail.com" <analys...@hotmail.com>
> On Jan 24, 2:05 pm, "analys...@hotmail.com" <analys...@hotmail.com>
>> apparently it has only 4 short vowels - something you never hear about
>> in boilerplate ululations about "laryngeals" -
>
> These "boilerplate ululations" sound like a particularly nasty form of
> tinnitus that must be causing you great distress. I'd advise you to
> seek medical help.
Sounds like an explosion risk to me; get all the rivets checked soon.
>> in boilerplate ululations about "laryngeals" -
>
> These "boilerplate ululations" sound like a particularly nasty form of
> tinnitus that must be causing you great distress. I'd advise you to
> seek medical help.
--
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]
anal...@hotmail.com
Jan 24, 2012, 8:29:38 PM1/24/12
to
http://www.amazon.com/review/R2449G50KC0M9Y
It could be argued that Kelkar's "review" is just a graffiti scrawl -
but the same can be said of a lot of scholarly hist ling.
> Melchert puts a brave
>
> > face on it and claims /e/ is for real also and that doubts about the
> > lack of contrast between it and /i/ are unjustified.
>
> > OK lets give Hittite its /e/ - which settles the question what happens
> > to the IE vowel space when you back in time - the vowel space is more
> > compact in the oldest attested languages!
>
> ...except, of course, when it isn't, as in the other two.
>
> This completely blows the
>
> > boilerplate PIE vowel system out of the water.
>
> With the number of explosions taking place in your bathtub, your
> mother must be getting worried.
>
> As you move forward in
>
> > time, Old Indian starts out with [a i u ] in complete stability
>
> ...whereas the [e o] in Old Indian are...?unstable? How could this
> be?
>
> and
>
>
>
> > order and as the language spreads out - the vowels spread too and the
> > languages become phonological messes- Hittile gets an /e/ (just like
> > Modern Hindi has now acquired an [e] before [h]) and the
> > whippersnapper European languages proceed to acquire short /o/ too.
>
> > Also explains why not a single instance of an "older" e or o is to be
> > found in the Mitanni Aryan material (boilerplatists have only the
> > "ai" in "aika" to clutch for dear life) - because they are not older
> > (supporting evidence from the total Hittite corpus) - instead these
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
yangg
Jan 26, 2012, 5:30:10 AM1/26/12
to
On Jan 24, 2:05 am, "analys...@hotmail.com" <analys...@hotmail.com>
wrote:
If it were easier to see how your statements about xyz interconnect
logically with abc and 123, instead of that hit-and-run criss-cross
jumpee-jumpoo rhetorics,
it would be clearer what you mean by "insanity".
A.
***
>
> According to Melchert who can be considered to have written the book
> on Hittite,
>
> http://www.linguistics.ucla.edu/people/Melchert/hittitevocalism.pdf
>
> apparently it has only 4 short vowels - something you never hear about
> in boilerplate ululations about "laryngeals" - Melchert puts a brave
> face on it and claims /e/ is for real also and that doubts about the
> lack of contrast between it and /i/ are unjustified.
***
Can't see how laryngeals and a 4-Vowel system are logically
connected!?
Please explain.
A.
***
>
> OK lets give Hittite its /e/ - which settles the question what happens
> to the IE vowel space when you back in time - the vowel space is more
> compact in the oldest attested languages! This completely blows the
> boilerplate PIE vowel system out of the water. As you move forward in
> time, Old Indian starts out with [a i u ] in complete stability and
> order and as the language spreads out - the vowels spread too and the
> languages become phonological messes- Hittile gets an /e/ (just like
> Modern Hindi has now acquired an [e] before [h]) and the
> whippersnapper European languages proceed to acquire short /o/ too.
***
I'm afraid you bumped your head into the bathroom door too strongly
one of these last days,
and thought that was the Big Bang.
It wasn't.
Nothing of cosmic importance happened.
A.
***
>
> Also explains why not a single instance of an "older" e or o is to be
> found in the Mitanni Aryan material (boilerplatists have only the
> "ai" in "aika" to clutch for dear life)
***
Note that neither cuneiform nor old alphabets can wrote o.
A.
***
- because they are not older
> (supporting evidence from the total Hittite corpus) - instead these
> are later corruptions of the original Old Indian.-
***
ok
So finally dare to state your dogma.
That was predictable.
A.
wrote:
> On Jan 22, 12:13 pm, "analys...@hotmail.com" <analys...@hotmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>
> The whole of IE hist ling must be the result of collective insanity
> passed on from generation of generation.
***
> wrote:
>
>
> The whole of IE hist ling must be the result of collective insanity
> passed on from generation of generation.
If it were easier to see how your statements about xyz interconnect
logically with abc and 123, instead of that hit-and-run criss-cross
jumpee-jumpoo rhetorics,
it would be clearer what you mean by "insanity".
A.
***
>
> According to Melchert who can be considered to have written the book
> on Hittite,
>
> http://www.linguistics.ucla.edu/people/Melchert/hittitevocalism.pdf
>
> apparently it has only 4 short vowels - something you never hear about
> in boilerplate ululations about "laryngeals" - Melchert puts a brave
> face on it and claims /e/ is for real also and that doubts about the
> lack of contrast between it and /i/ are unjustified.
Can't see how laryngeals and a 4-Vowel system are logically
connected!?
Please explain.
A.
***
>
> OK lets give Hittite its /e/ - which settles the question what happens
> to the IE vowel space when you back in time - the vowel space is more
> compact in the oldest attested languages! This completely blows the
> boilerplate PIE vowel system out of the water. As you move forward in
> time, Old Indian starts out with [a i u ] in complete stability and
> order and as the language spreads out - the vowels spread too and the
> languages become phonological messes- Hittile gets an /e/ (just like
> Modern Hindi has now acquired an [e] before [h]) and the
> whippersnapper European languages proceed to acquire short /o/ too.
I'm afraid you bumped your head into the bathroom door too strongly
one of these last days,
and thought that was the Big Bang.
It wasn't.
Nothing of cosmic importance happened.
A.
***
>
> Also explains why not a single instance of an "older" e or o is to be
> found in the Mitanni Aryan material (boilerplatists have only the
> "ai" in "aika" to clutch for dear life)
Note that neither cuneiform nor old alphabets can wrote o.
A.
***
- because they are not older
> (supporting evidence from the total Hittite corpus) - instead these
***
ok
So finally dare to state your dogma.
That was predictable.
A.
yangg
Jan 26, 2012, 5:35:10 AM1/26/12
to
On Jan 25, 2:29 am, "analys...@hotmail.com" <analys...@hotmail.com>
wrote:
He forgot to use the magic OIT word "debunk".
OIT loonies just love the word "debunk".
Causes them to reach near orgasmic satisfaction.
Repeat slowly: deee-buungkk
Try again.
A.
***
wrote:
> On Jan 23, 9:27 pm, "benli...@ihug.co.nz" <benli...@ihug.co.nz> wrote:
>
>
> OITs can dish out distress too:
>
> http://www.amazon.com/review/R2449G50KC0M9Y
>
> It could be argued that Kelkar's "review" is just a graffiti scrawl -
> but the same can be said of a lot of scholarly hist ling.
>
***
>
>
> OITs can dish out distress too:
>
> http://www.amazon.com/review/R2449G50KC0M9Y
>
> It could be argued that Kelkar's "review" is just a graffiti scrawl -
> but the same can be said of a lot of scholarly hist ling.
>
He forgot to use the magic OIT word "debunk".
OIT loonies just love the word "debunk".
Causes them to reach near orgasmic satisfaction.
Repeat slowly: deee-buungkk
Try again.
A.
***
anal...@hotmail.com
Jan 26, 2012, 9:04:19 PM1/26/12
to
On Jan 26, 5:30 am, yangg <fournet.arn...@wanadoo.fr> wrote:
> On Jan 24, 2:05 am, "analys...@hotmail.com" <analys...@hotmail.com>
> wrote:> On Jan 22, 12:13 pm, "analys...@hotmail.com" <analys...@hotmail.com>
> > wrote:
>
> > The whole of IE hist ling must be the result of collective insanity
> > passed on from generation of generation.
>
> ***
>
> If it were easier to see how your statements about xyz interconnect
> logically with abc and 123, instead of that hit-and-run criss-cross
> jumpee-jumpoo rhetorics,
> it would be clearer what you mean by "insanity".
>
> A.
> ***
>
Laryngeals, for starters.
> On Jan 24, 2:05 am, "analys...@hotmail.com" <analys...@hotmail.com>
> wrote:> On Jan 22, 12:13 pm, "analys...@hotmail.com" <analys...@hotmail.com>
> > wrote:
>
> > The whole of IE hist ling must be the result of collective insanity
> > passed on from generation of generation.
>
> ***
>
> If it were easier to see how your statements about xyz interconnect
> logically with abc and 123, instead of that hit-and-run criss-cross
> jumpee-jumpoo rhetorics,
> it would be clearer what you mean by "insanity".
>
> A.
> ***
>
Jesus Sanchis:
"According to Ringe (2006: 9): "There seems to have been very few
constraints on the distribution of (...) the laryngeals (...) *h2 was
perhaps the second most common [obstruent] in a lexical count".
Constraints on laryngeals? What for? They can appear everywhere and
they can be nearly anything, from vowels to consonants and also semi-
vowels and semi-consonants. They are like jokers in a card-game."
what a gibbering idiot - the second most frequent obstruent all but
disappeared? It will probably turn out that if Hittite had
"laryngeals" in words of IE origin (just what fraction of alleged
Hittite words are supposed to be IE anyway?) it was nothing but the
plain old "h" as in "hat" or "Harry" or "hill".
The phantasm called PIE didn't even have 'sh' and it supposedly had
all these fricatives that don't behave like fricatives but instead
their function seems to be to conveniently disappear and make some
phonetically unmotivated changes and impose some pseudo-order on
attested words.
Do you know when they started reconstructing two laryngeals next to
each other?
Then the insanity that there was only one vowel - except that it is
non-existent or only marginally present in the oldest attested
languages - doesn't logic dictate that the older the attestation, the
more frequent 'e' should be?
I know - eventually even 'e' will be derived from Laryngeals.
*b turns out to be extremely rare - which absurdity destroys
everything by itself - the answer to that - "glottalic theory" is just
doubling down on absurdity.
>
>
> > According to Melchert who can be considered to have written the book
> > on Hittite,
>
> >http://www.linguistics.ucla.edu/people/Melchert/hittitevocalism.pdf
>
> > apparently it has only 4 short vowels - something you never hear about
> > in boilerplate ululations about "laryngeals" - Melchert puts a brave
> > face on it and claims /e/ is for real also and that doubts about the
> > lack of contrast between it and /i/ are unjustified.
>
> ***
>
> Can't see how laryngeals and a 4-Vowel system are logically
> connected!?
>
> Please explain.
>
> A.
> ***
>
>
>
> > OK lets give Hittite its /e/ - which settles the question what happens
> > to the IE vowel space when you back in time - the vowel space is more
> > compact in the oldest attested languages! This completely blows the
> > boilerplate PIE vowel system out of the water. As you move forward in
> > time, Old Indian starts out with [a i u ] in complete stability and
> > order and as the language spreads out - the vowels spread too and the
> > languages become phonological messes- Hittile gets an /e/ (just like
> > Modern Hindi has now acquired an [e] before [h]) and the
> > whippersnapper European languages proceed to acquire short /o/ too.
>
> ***
>
> I'm afraid you bumped your head into the bathroom door too strongly
> one of these last days,
> and thought that was the Big Bang.
> It wasn't.
> Nothing of cosmic importance happened.
>
> A.
> ***
>
>
>
> > Also explains why not a single instance of an "older" e or o is to be
> > found in the Mitanni Aryan material (boilerplatists have only the
> > "ai" in "aika" to clutch for dear life)
>
> ***
>
> Note that neither cuneiform nor old alphabets can wrote o.
OK so Sumerian/Akkadian writing systems couldn't write it - if the
>
> > OK lets give Hittite its /e/ - which settles the question what happens
> > to the IE vowel space when you back in time - the vowel space is more
> > compact in the oldest attested languages! This completely blows the
> > boilerplate PIE vowel system out of the water. As you move forward in
> > time, Old Indian starts out with [a i u ] in complete stability and
> > order and as the language spreads out - the vowels spread too and the
> > languages become phonological messes- Hittile gets an /e/ (just like
> > Modern Hindi has now acquired an [e] before [h]) and the
> > whippersnapper European languages proceed to acquire short /o/ too.
>
> ***
>
> I'm afraid you bumped your head into the bathroom door too strongly
> one of these last days,
> and thought that was the Big Bang.
> It wasn't.
> Nothing of cosmic importance happened.
>
> A.
> ***
>
>
>
> > Also explains why not a single instance of an "older" e or o is to be
> > found in the Mitanni Aryan material (boilerplatists have only the
> > "ai" in "aika" to clutch for dear life)
>
> ***
>
> Note that neither cuneiform nor old alphabets can wrote o.
sound was present surely recorders of Hittite would have invented a
symbol for it or used "au" for it or something?
But 'o' not being recorded and 'e' only marginally present in
Anatolian is not very healthy for the biolerplate vowel system.
Spreading from Old Indian [a i u] is the most logical explanation.
Still - Mitanni Aryan being practically Sanskrit barring <= 3 quibbles
is staring boilerpaltists in the face. There were so many
opprtunities for the "older" e to manifest (*Verunos" for varuna etc.
and that MIA "satta" for "seven' - not good at all for the
establishment.
But this little noticed fact no 'sh' in PIE or Greek or Latin (how
about Anatolian?) - is shattering and as Holmes would say "Watson, my
case is now complete".
Peter T. Daniels
Jan 26, 2012, 10:32:43 PM1/26/12
to
On Jan 26, 9:04 pm, "analys...@hotmail.com" <analys...@hotmail.com>
wrote:
> Jesus Sanchis:
>
> "According to Ringe (2006: 9): "There seems to have been very few
> constraints on the distribution of (...) the laryngeals (...) *h2 was
> perhaps the second most common [obstruent] in a lexical count".
> Constraints on laryngeals? What for? They can appear everywhere and
> they can be nearly anything, from vowels to consonants and also semi-
> vowels and semi-consonants. They are like jokers in a card-game."
>
> what a gibbering idiot - the second most frequent obstruent all but
> disappeared?
Since even you can recognize that "Jesus Sanchis" is a gibbering
idiot, why are you quoting him at length?
wrote:
> Jesus Sanchis:
>
> "According to Ringe (2006: 9): "There seems to have been very few
> constraints on the distribution of (...) the laryngeals (...) *h2 was
> perhaps the second most common [obstruent] in a lexical count".
> Constraints on laryngeals? What for? They can appear everywhere and
> they can be nearly anything, from vowels to consonants and also semi-
> vowels and semi-consonants. They are like jokers in a card-game."
>
> what a gibbering idiot - the second most frequent obstruent all but
> disappeared?
idiot, why are you quoting him at length?
anal...@hotmail.com
Jan 28, 2012, 10:32:08 AM1/28/12
to
change.
"Laryngeals". We know that when the gibbering idiot Saussure proposed
them, he didn't call them that - just "Sonant Coefficients" or some
such thing. Now if boilerplate says that the laryngeals were real
sounds except that we don't know what they were exactly - thats funky
- but we can let it slide. Which means that they must be sounds that
are known from other human languages. The most common candidates as I
understand it are Semitic aleph ayin etc (in general, throat-clearing
and gargling sounds).
Now the original frog-in-a-well scholars who developed IE theory used
actually attested sound changes they saw in European languages (Latin
> Romance providing lots of examples like "palatalization") to deduce
the PIE sound system.
But has anybody looked for evidence that candidate-sounds for PIE
"laryngeals" actually underwent/produced the sound changes posited in
IE in any real language - such as e,a,o coloring, unaspirated stop +
laryngeal > aspirated stop etc. ?
Just to show that every Western IE scholar can behave as gibbering
idiot , here are some quotes from Winfred P Lehmann:
http://www.utexas.edu/cola/centers/lrc/books/piep03.html
Its hilarious how the claims get gradually watred down, all in the
same article!
"Hittite, in which were found forms with orthographical evidence for
reflexes of laryngeals, has replaced it as a source of forms to
provide actual evidence for laryngeals."
"Even though Hittite has supplied the clinching evidence for the
laryngeal theory, the Hittite evidence is not without difficulty, and
almost disappointing as a support for the theory."
"Since Hittite provides no eḫḫ : eḫ, or aḫḫ : aḫ contrast, but merely
an aḫḫ : eḫ contrast, it is not wholly certain that we can distinguish
different laryngeals from this orthographical variation."
"Whatever may be the causes of variation, it is clear that the
description of Hittite is left with many problems; before these are
solved Indo-Europeanists must use Hittite material with caution."
"For these reasons with our present store of Hittite materials we are
left with deductions from other IE dialects as our most secure
evidence for the laryngeal theory. Hittite has served to put the
theory on a firm basis; the theory must be refined from analysis of
phonological developments such as ablaut in the various IE dialects."
In other words, Hittite presents no evidence at all!
Peter T. Daniels
Jan 28, 2012, 4:02:58 PM1/28/12
to
On Jan 28, 10:32 am, "analys...@hotmail.com" <analys...@hotmail.com>
wrote:
glance at W. P. Lehmann's *Theoretical Bases of Indo-European
Linguistics* (1993), e.g. p. 95: the laryngeals are simply /x G h ?/.
The name "laryngeal" was assigned to Saussure's "coefficents
sonantiques" (obviously you've never looked at his work either) by
Moeller, because he wanted IE and Semitic to be closely related. The
name "laryngeal" has little to nothing to do with the phonetic
properties of the posited sounds.
> Now the original frog-in-a-well scholars who developed IE theory used
> actually attested sound changes they saw in European languages (Latin> Romance providing lots of examples like "palatalization") to deduce
>
> the PIE sound system.
>
> But has anybody looked for evidence that candidate-sounds for PIE
> "laryngeals" actually underwent/produced the sound changes posited in
> IE in any real language - such as e,a,o coloring, unaspirated stop +
> laryngeal > aspirated stop etc. ?
Isn't it time you did a little investigating on your own? Most of the
major 19th-century works on IE philology were translated from German
to English, and they all seem to be available on google books.
> Just to show that every Western IE scholar can behave as gibbering
> idiot , here are some quotes from Winfred P Lehmann:
>
> http://www.utexas.edu/cola/centers/lrc/books/piep03.html
>
> Its hilarious how the claims get gradually watred down, all in the
> same article!
>
> "Hittite, in which were found forms with orthographical evidence for
> reflexes of laryngeals, has replaced it as a source of forms to
> provide actual evidence for laryngeals."
>
> "Even though Hittite has supplied the clinching evidence for the
> laryngeal theory, the Hittite evidence is not without difficulty, and
> almost disappointing as a support for the theory."
>
> "Since Hittite provides no eḫḫ : eḫ, or aḫḫ : aḫ contrast, but merely
> an aḫḫ : eḫ contrast, it is not wholly certain that we can distinguish
> different laryngeals from this orthographical variation."
>
> "Whatever may be the causes of variation, it is clear that the
> description of Hittite is left with many problems; before these are
> solved Indo-Europeanists must use Hittite material with caution."
>
> "For these reasons with our present store of Hittite materials we are
> left with deductions from other IE dialects as our most secure
> evidence for the laryngeal theory. Hittite has served to put the
> theory on a firm basis; the theory must be refined from analysis of
> phonological developments such as ablaut in the various IE dialects."
>
> In other words, Hittite presents no evidence at all!-
Or rather, you're too stupid to realize that Lehmann was writing
("piep03" is chapter 3 of *Proto-Indo-European Phonology*, 1952) long
before Hittite grammar, orthography, and phonology were well
understood, and that he himself was not a cuneiformist, but primarily
a Germanicist.
wrote:
> On Jan 26, 10:32 pm, "Peter T. Daniels" <gramma...@verizon.net> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Jan 26, 9:04 pm, "analys...@hotmail.com" <analys...@hotmail.com>
> > wrote:
>
> > > Jesus Sanchis:
>
> > > "According to Ringe (2006: 9): "There seems to have been very few
> > > constraints on the distribution of (...) the laryngeals (...) *h2 was
> > > perhaps the second most common [obstruent] in a lexical count".
> > > Constraints on laryngeals? What for? They can appear everywhere and
> > > they can be nearly anything, from vowels to consonants and also semi-
> > > vowels and semi-consonants. They are like jokers in a card-game."
>
> > > what a gibbering idiot - the second most frequent obstruent all but
> > > disappeared?
>
> > Since even you can recognize that "Jesus Sanchis" is a gibbering
> > idiot, why are you quoting him at length?
>
> Don't be a gibbering idiot and contribute something useful for a
> change.
>
> "Laryngeals". We know that when the gibbering idiot Saussure proposed
> them, he didn't call them that - just "Sonant Coefficients" or some
> such thing. Now if boilerplate says that the laryngeals were real
> sounds except that we don't know what they were exactly - thats funky
> - but we can let it slide. Which means that they must be sounds that
> are known from other human languages. The most common candidates as I
> understand it are Semitic aleph ayin etc (in general, throat-clearing
> and gargling sounds).
It's a shame you "understand" so little. I take it you've never had a
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Jan 26, 9:04 pm, "analys...@hotmail.com" <analys...@hotmail.com>
> > wrote:
>
> > > Jesus Sanchis:
>
> > > "According to Ringe (2006: 9): "There seems to have been very few
> > > constraints on the distribution of (...) the laryngeals (...) *h2 was
> > > perhaps the second most common [obstruent] in a lexical count".
> > > Constraints on laryngeals? What for? They can appear everywhere and
> > > they can be nearly anything, from vowels to consonants and also semi-
> > > vowels and semi-consonants. They are like jokers in a card-game."
>
> > > what a gibbering idiot - the second most frequent obstruent all but
> > > disappeared?
>
> > Since even you can recognize that "Jesus Sanchis" is a gibbering
> > idiot, why are you quoting him at length?
>
> Don't be a gibbering idiot and contribute something useful for a
> change.
>
> "Laryngeals". We know that when the gibbering idiot Saussure proposed
> them, he didn't call them that - just "Sonant Coefficients" or some
> such thing. Now if boilerplate says that the laryngeals were real
> sounds except that we don't know what they were exactly - thats funky
> - but we can let it slide. Which means that they must be sounds that
> are known from other human languages. The most common candidates as I
> understand it are Semitic aleph ayin etc (in general, throat-clearing
> and gargling sounds).
glance at W. P. Lehmann's *Theoretical Bases of Indo-European
Linguistics* (1993), e.g. p. 95: the laryngeals are simply /x G h ?/.
The name "laryngeal" was assigned to Saussure's "coefficents
sonantiques" (obviously you've never looked at his work either) by
Moeller, because he wanted IE and Semitic to be closely related. The
name "laryngeal" has little to nothing to do with the phonetic
properties of the posited sounds.
> Now the original frog-in-a-well scholars who developed IE theory used
> actually attested sound changes they saw in European languages (Latin> Romance providing lots of examples like "palatalization") to deduce
>
> the PIE sound system.
>
> But has anybody looked for evidence that candidate-sounds for PIE
> "laryngeals" actually underwent/produced the sound changes posited in
> IE in any real language - such as e,a,o coloring, unaspirated stop +
> laryngeal > aspirated stop etc. ?
major 19th-century works on IE philology were translated from German
to English, and they all seem to be available on google books.
> Just to show that every Western IE scholar can behave as gibbering
> idiot , here are some quotes from Winfred P Lehmann:
>
> http://www.utexas.edu/cola/centers/lrc/books/piep03.html
>
> Its hilarious how the claims get gradually watred down, all in the
> same article!
>
> "Hittite, in which were found forms with orthographical evidence for
> reflexes of laryngeals, has replaced it as a source of forms to
> provide actual evidence for laryngeals."
>
> "Even though Hittite has supplied the clinching evidence for the
> laryngeal theory, the Hittite evidence is not without difficulty, and
> almost disappointing as a support for the theory."
>
> "Since Hittite provides no eḫḫ : eḫ, or aḫḫ : aḫ contrast, but merely
> an aḫḫ : eḫ contrast, it is not wholly certain that we can distinguish
> different laryngeals from this orthographical variation."
>
> "Whatever may be the causes of variation, it is clear that the
> description of Hittite is left with many problems; before these are
> solved Indo-Europeanists must use Hittite material with caution."
>
> "For these reasons with our present store of Hittite materials we are
> left with deductions from other IE dialects as our most secure
> evidence for the laryngeal theory. Hittite has served to put the
> theory on a firm basis; the theory must be refined from analysis of
> phonological developments such as ablaut in the various IE dialects."
>
Or rather, you're too stupid to realize that Lehmann was writing
("piep03" is chapter 3 of *Proto-Indo-European Phonology*, 1952) long
before Hittite grammar, orthography, and phonology were well
understood, and that he himself was not a cuneiformist, but primarily
a Germanicist.
anal...@hotmail.com
Jan 28, 2012, 4:44:51 PM1/28/12
to
Laryngeals are wrong,right?
> The name "laryngeal" was assigned to Saussure's "coefficents
> sonantiques" (obviously you've never looked at his work either) by
> Moeller, because he wanted IE and Semitic to be closely related. The
> name "laryngeal" has little to nothing to do with the phonetic
> properties of the posited sounds.
>
> > Now the original frog-in-a-well scholars who developed IE theory used
> > actually attested sound changes they saw in European languages (Latin> Romance providing lots of examples like "palatalization") to deduce
>
> > the PIE sound system.
>
> > But has anybody looked for evidence that candidate-sounds for PIE
> > "laryngeals" actually underwent/produced the sound changes posited in
> > IE in any real language - such as e,a,o coloring, unaspirated stop +
> > laryngeal > aspirated stop etc. ?
>
> Isn't it time you did a little investigating on your own? Most of the
> major 19th-century works on IE philology were translated from German
> to English, and they all seem to be available on google books.
>
>
the dustbin pretty soon. The mechanical aspects will be redone
completely by underemployed mathematicians with computers and real
investigations such as Arnaud's PIE horse will be done by inspired
amateurs only.
>
The article is flawed in and of itself - saying something and steadily
watering it down in the same article. Was he writing stream of
consciousness? And why doesn't somebody update it on his behalf?
Peter T. Daniels
Jan 28, 2012, 7:44:55 PM1/28/12
to
On Jan 28, 4:44 pm, "analys...@hotmail.com" <analys...@hotmail.com>
obsessed with, you would _learn_ what there is to investigate. You
would _learn_ what the evidence is.
> > > In other words, Hittite presents no evidence at all!-
>
> > Or rather, you're too stupid to realize that Lehmann was writing
> > ("piep03" is chapter 3 of *Proto-Indo-European Phonology*, 1952) long
> > before Hittite grammar, orthography, and phonology were well
> > understood, and that he himself was not a cuneiformist, but primarily
> > a Germanicist.- Hide quoted text -
>
> The article is flawed in and of itself - saying something and steadily
> watering it down in the same article. Was he writing stream of
> consciousness? And why doesn't somebody update it on his behalf?
It's not an article, it's a book chapter.
What makes you think it hasn't been "updated"?
wrote:
> On Jan 28, 4:02 pm, "Peter T. Daniels" <gramma...@verizon.net> wrote:
> > On Jan 28, 10:32 am, "analys...@hotmail.com" <analys...@hotmail.com>
> > wrote:
> > > But has anybody looked for evidence that candidate-sounds for PIE
> > > "laryngeals" actually underwent/produced the sound changes posited in
> > > IE in any real language - such as e,a,o coloring, unaspirated stop +
> > > laryngeal > aspirated stop etc. ?
>
> Apparently no such evidence is readily (if at all) available.
>
> > Isn't it time you did a little investigating on your own? Most of the
> > major 19th-century works on IE philology were translated from German
> > to English, and they all seem to be available on google books.
>
> Whats there to investigate? Just about all of it will be confined to
> the dustbin pretty soon. The mechanical aspects will be redone
> completely by underemployed mathematicians with computers and real
> investigations such as Arnaud's PIE horse will be done by inspired
> amateurs only.
If you would get off your ass and _study_ the subject you are so
> On Jan 28, 4:02 pm, "Peter T. Daniels" <gramma...@verizon.net> wrote:
> > On Jan 28, 10:32 am, "analys...@hotmail.com" <analys...@hotmail.com>
> > wrote:
> > > But has anybody looked for evidence that candidate-sounds for PIE
> > > "laryngeals" actually underwent/produced the sound changes posited in
> > > IE in any real language - such as e,a,o coloring, unaspirated stop +
> > > laryngeal > aspirated stop etc. ?
>
> Apparently no such evidence is readily (if at all) available.
>
> > Isn't it time you did a little investigating on your own? Most of the
> > major 19th-century works on IE philology were translated from German
> > to English, and they all seem to be available on google books.
>
> Whats there to investigate? Just about all of it will be confined to
> the dustbin pretty soon. The mechanical aspects will be redone
> completely by underemployed mathematicians with computers and real
> investigations such as Arnaud's PIE horse will be done by inspired
> amateurs only.
obsessed with, you would _learn_ what there is to investigate. You
would _learn_ what the evidence is.
> > > In other words, Hittite presents no evidence at all!-
>
> > Or rather, you're too stupid to realize that Lehmann was writing
> > ("piep03" is chapter 3 of *Proto-Indo-European Phonology*, 1952) long
> > before Hittite grammar, orthography, and phonology were well
> > understood, and that he himself was not a cuneiformist, but primarily
> > a Germanicist.- Hide quoted text -
>
> The article is flawed in and of itself - saying something and steadily
> watering it down in the same article. Was he writing stream of
> consciousness? And why doesn't somebody update it on his behalf?
What makes you think it hasn't been "updated"?
anal...@hotmail.com
Jan 28, 2012, 9:19:14 PM1/28/12
to
On Jan 28, 7:44 pm, "Peter T. Daniels" <gramma...@verizon.net> wrote:
> On Jan 28, 4:44 pm, "analys...@hotmail.com" <analys...@hotmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Jan 28, 4:02 pm, "Peter T. Daniels" <gramma...@verizon.net> wrote:
> > > On Jan 28, 10:32 am, "analys...@hotmail.com" <analys...@hotmail.com>
> > > wrote:
> > > > But has anybody looked for evidence that candidate-sounds for PIE
> > > > "laryngeals" actually underwent/produced the sound changes posited in
> > > > IE in any real language - such as e,a,o coloring, unaspirated stop +
> > > > laryngeal > aspirated stop etc. ?
>
> > Apparently no such evidence is readily (if at all) available.
>
> > > Isn't it time you did a little investigating on your own? Most of the
> > > major 19th-century works on IE philology were translated from German
> > > to English, and they all seem to be available on google books.
>
> > Whats there to investigate? Just about all of it will be confined to
> > the dustbin pretty soon. The mechanical aspects will be redone
> > completely by underemployed mathematicians with computers and real
> > investigations such as Arnaud's PIE horse will be done by inspired
> > amateurs only.
>
> If you would get off your ass and _study_ the subject you are so
> obsessed with, you would _learn_ what there is to investigate. You
> would _learn_ what the evidence is.
>
<sigh>. We have been through all this. There is no evidence
> On Jan 28, 4:44 pm, "analys...@hotmail.com" <analys...@hotmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Jan 28, 4:02 pm, "Peter T. Daniels" <gramma...@verizon.net> wrote:
> > > On Jan 28, 10:32 am, "analys...@hotmail.com" <analys...@hotmail.com>
> > > wrote:
> > > > But has anybody looked for evidence that candidate-sounds for PIE
> > > > "laryngeals" actually underwent/produced the sound changes posited in
> > > > IE in any real language - such as e,a,o coloring, unaspirated stop +
> > > > laryngeal > aspirated stop etc. ?
>
> > Apparently no such evidence is readily (if at all) available.
>
> > > Isn't it time you did a little investigating on your own? Most of the
> > > major 19th-century works on IE philology were translated from German
> > > to English, and they all seem to be available on google books.
>
> > Whats there to investigate? Just about all of it will be confined to
> > the dustbin pretty soon. The mechanical aspects will be redone
> > completely by underemployed mathematicians with computers and real
> > investigations such as Arnaud's PIE horse will be done by inspired
> > amateurs only.
>
> If you would get off your ass and _study_ the subject you are so
> obsessed with, you would _learn_ what there is to investigate. You
> would _learn_ what the evidence is.
>
whatsoever for PIE and one of these days I'll find the Meillet
citation to that effect. There is evidence within IE that some sound
changes claimed to have happened in the prehistoric period actually
did happen in the historic period. But not so for "laryngeals". So I
am asking if there is historical evidence for laryngeals (no quotes)
in languages outside of IE to have behaved as they allegedly did
within IE in the prehistoric period.
> > > > In other words, Hittite presents no evidence at all!-
>
> > > Or rather, you're too stupid to realize that Lehmann was writing
> > > ("piep03" is chapter 3 of *Proto-Indo-European Phonology*, 1952) long
> > > before Hittite grammar, orthography, and phonology were well
> > > understood, and that he himself was not a cuneiformist, but primarily
> > > a Germanicist.- Hide quoted text -
>
> > The article is flawed in and of itself - saying something and steadily
> > watering it down in the same article. Was he writing stream of
> > consciousness? And why doesn't somebody update it on his behalf?
>
> It's not an article, it's a book chapter.
>
>
If that means that it has been updated - it is the most elementary
courrtesy to provide a reference.
Peter T. Daniels
Jan 29, 2012, 12:42:31 AM1/29/12
to
On Jan 28, 9:19 pm, "analys...@hotmail.com" <analys...@hotmail.com>
Meillet died in 1937.
> > > > > In other words, Hittite presents no evidence at all!-
>
> > > > Or rather, you're too stupid to realize that Lehmann was writing
> > > > ("piep03" is chapter 3 of *Proto-Indo-European Phonology*, 1952) long
> > > > before Hittite grammar, orthography, and phonology were well
> > > > understood, and that he himself was not a cuneiformist, but primarily
> > > > a Germanicist.- Hide quoted text -
>
> > > The article is flawed in and of itself - saying something and steadily
> > > watering it down in the same article. Was he writing stream of
> > > consciousness? And why doesn't somebody update it on his behalf?
>
> > It's not an article, it's a book chapter.
>
> > What makes you think it hasn't been "updated"?-
>
phonology in the past 60 years, do you?
> > > > > In other words, Hittite presents no evidence at all!-
>
> > > > Or rather, you're too stupid to realize that Lehmann was writing
> > > > ("piep03" is chapter 3 of *Proto-Indo-European Phonology*, 1952) long
> > > > before Hittite grammar, orthography, and phonology were well
> > > > understood, and that he himself was not a cuneiformist, but primarily
> > > > a Germanicist.- Hide quoted text -
>
> > > The article is flawed in and of itself - saying something and steadily
> > > watering it down in the same article. Was he writing stream of
> > > consciousness? And why doesn't somebody update it on his behalf?
>
> > It's not an article, it's a book chapter.
>
> > What makes you think it hasn't been "updated"?-
>
> If that means that it has been updated - it is the most elementary
> courrtesy to provide a reference.
You don't actually think that nothing has been published on PIE
> courrtesy to provide a reference.
phonology in the past 60 years, do you?
yangg
Jan 31, 2012, 4:08:35 AM1/31/12
to
On Jan 29, 3:19 am, "analys...@hotmail.com" <analys...@hotmail.com>
wrote:
You still do not seem to understand that the IE languages are the
evidence for PIE.
A.
***
and one of these days I'll find the Meillet
> citation to that effect. There is evidence within IE that some sound
> changes claimed to have happened in the prehistoric period actually
> did happen in the historic period. But not so for "laryngeals". So I
> am asking if there is historical evidence for laryngeals (no quotes)
> in languages outside of IE to have behaved as they allegedly did
> within IE in the prehistoric period.
***
Akkadian is a good place to start.
Many dialects of colloquial Arabic as well.
A.
***
wrote:
> On Jan 28, 7:44 pm, "Peter T. Daniels" <gramma...@verizon.net> wrote:
>
>
> <sigh>. We have been through all this. There is no evidence
> whatsoever for PIE
***
>
>
> <sigh>. We have been through all this. There is no evidence
> whatsoever for PIE
You still do not seem to understand that the IE languages are the
evidence for PIE.
A.
***
and one of these days I'll find the Meillet
> citation to that effect. There is evidence within IE that some sound
> changes claimed to have happened in the prehistoric period actually
> did happen in the historic period. But not so for "laryngeals". So I
> am asking if there is historical evidence for laryngeals (no quotes)
> in languages outside of IE to have behaved as they allegedly did
> within IE in the prehistoric period.
Akkadian is a good place to start.
Many dialects of colloquial Arabic as well.
A.
***
yangg
Jan 31, 2012, 4:15:56 AM1/31/12
to
On Jan 28, 4:32 pm, "analys...@hotmail.com" <analys...@hotmail.com>
wrote:
For your information, Celtic lost *p, which was a frequent sound,
causing Celtic words to look quite unusual.
A.
***
> > Since even you can recognize that "Jesus Sanchis" is a gibbering
> > idiot, why are you quoting him at length?
>
> Don't be a gibbering idiot and contribute something useful for a
> change.
>
> "Laryngeals". We know that when the gibbering idiot Saussure proposed
> them, he didn't call them that - just "Sonant Coefficients" or some
> such thing. Now if boilerplate says that the laryngeals were real
> sounds except that we don't know what they were exactly - thats funky
> - but we can let it slide.
***
Physics posits unobserved entities all the time.
A.
***
Which means that they must be sounds that
> are known from other human languages. The most common candidates as I
> understand it are Semitic aleph ayin etc (in general, throat-clearing
> and gargling sounds).
>
> Now the original frog-in-a-well scholars who developed IE theory used
> actually attested sound changes they saw in European languages (Latin> Romance providing lots of examples like "palatalization") to deduce
> the PIE sound system.
***
No they resorted to the comparative method,
something that you still fail to understand.
A.
***
***
Can you understand that Hittite is an evolved language? and it's
written in a fairly obscure system.
A.
wrote:
> On Jan 26, 10:32 pm, "Peter T. Daniels" <gramma...@verizon.net> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Jan 26, 9:04 pm, "analys...@hotmail.com" <analys...@hotmail.com>
> > wrote:
>
> > > Jesus Sanchis:
>
> > > "According to Ringe (2006: 9): "There seems to have been very few
> > > constraints on the distribution of (...) the laryngeals (...) *h2 was
> > > perhaps the second most common [obstruent] in a lexical count".
> > > Constraints on laryngeals? What for? They can appear everywhere and
> > > they can be nearly anything, from vowels to consonants and also semi-
> > > vowels and semi-consonants. They are like jokers in a card-game."
>
> > > what a gibbering idiot - the second most frequent obstruent all but
> > > disappeared?
***
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Jan 26, 9:04 pm, "analys...@hotmail.com" <analys...@hotmail.com>
> > wrote:
>
> > > Jesus Sanchis:
>
> > > "According to Ringe (2006: 9): "There seems to have been very few
> > > constraints on the distribution of (...) the laryngeals (...) *h2 was
> > > perhaps the second most common [obstruent] in a lexical count".
> > > Constraints on laryngeals? What for? They can appear everywhere and
> > > they can be nearly anything, from vowels to consonants and also semi-
> > > vowels and semi-consonants. They are like jokers in a card-game."
>
> > > what a gibbering idiot - the second most frequent obstruent all but
> > > disappeared?
For your information, Celtic lost *p, which was a frequent sound,
causing Celtic words to look quite unusual.
A.
***
> > Since even you can recognize that "Jesus Sanchis" is a gibbering
> > idiot, why are you quoting him at length?
>
> Don't be a gibbering idiot and contribute something useful for a
> change.
>
> "Laryngeals". We know that when the gibbering idiot Saussure proposed
> them, he didn't call them that - just "Sonant Coefficients" or some
> such thing. Now if boilerplate says that the laryngeals were real
> sounds except that we don't know what they were exactly - thats funky
> - but we can let it slide.
Physics posits unobserved entities all the time.
A.
***
Which means that they must be sounds that
> are known from other human languages. The most common candidates as I
> understand it are Semitic aleph ayin etc (in general, throat-clearing
> and gargling sounds).
>
> Now the original frog-in-a-well scholars who developed IE theory used
> actually attested sound changes they saw in European languages (Latin> Romance providing lots of examples like "palatalization") to deduce
> the PIE sound system.
No they resorted to the comparative method,
something that you still fail to understand.
A.
***
Can you understand that Hittite is an evolved language? and it's
written in a fairly obscure system.
A.
yangg
Jan 31, 2012, 4:03:52 AM1/31/12
to
***
One of his tutors, Talageri, does not cite much that is recent.
A.
yangg
Jan 31, 2012, 4:33:47 AM1/31/12
to
On Jan 27, 3:04 am, "analys...@hotmail.com" <analys...@hotmail.com>
***
Most of it,
Anything that is not Hurrian or Sumero-Akkadian.
A.
***
it was nothing but the
> plain old "h" as in "hat" or "Harry" or "hill".
>
> The phantasm called PIE didn't even have 'sh'
***
So what?
There's nothing compulsory in having sh or not having it.
A.
***
and it supposedly had
> all these fricatives that don't behave like fricatives but instead
> their function seems to be to conveniently disappear and make some
> phonetically unmotivated changes and impose some pseudo-order on
> attested words.
>
> Do you know when they started reconstructing two laryngeals next to
> each other?
***
Like in which words?
A.
***
>
> Then the insanity that there was only one vowel - except that it is
> non-existent or only marginally present in the oldest attested
> languages - doesn't logic dictate that the older the attestation, the
> more frequent 'e' should be?
***
I don't think present-day indo-europeanists state there was only one
vowel.
A.
***
>
> I know - eventually even 'e' will be derived from Laryngeals.
>
> *b turns out to be extremely rare - which absurdity destroys
> everything by itself - the answer to that - "glottalic theory" is just
> doubling down on absurdity.
***
No.
A.
***
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > > According to Melchert who can be considered to have written the book
> > > on Hittite,
>
> > >http://www.linguistics.ucla.edu/people/Melchert/hittitevocalism.pdf
>
> > > apparently it has only 4 short vowels - something you never hear about
> > > in boilerplate ululations about "laryngeals" - Melchert puts a brave
> > > face on it and claims /e/ is for real also and that doubts about the
> > > lack of contrast between it and /i/ are unjustified.
>
> > ***
>
> > Can't see how laryngeals and a 4-Vowel system are logically
> > connected!?
>
> > Please explain.
>
> > A.
> > ***
>
> There is nothing logical about Laryngeals.
***
There is nothing logical about ** the way you misunderstand **
Laryngeals.
A.
They invented four signs wa, we, wi, wu out of an indeterminate wV
They probably did not have /o/
A.
***
>
> But 'o' not being recorded and 'e' only marginally present in
> Anatolian
***
I can see no support for this claim about e.
A.
***
is not very healthy for the biolerplate vowel system.
> Spreading from Old Indian [a i u] is the most logical explanation.
***
No, this is just false.
Old Indian cannot account for other languages.
The raw comparison between IE languages shows that five vowels are
necessary a, e, o, i, u.
A.
***
>
> Still - Mitanni Aryan being practically Sanskrit
***
Complete nonsense.
A.
***
barring <= 3 quibbles
> is staring boilerpaltists in the face. There were so many
> opprtunities for the "older" e to manifest (*Verunos" for varuna etc.
> and that MIA "satta" for "seven' - not good at all for the
> establishment.
***
satta in Hurrian can be explain by Hurrian phonetic constraints.
A.
***
>
> But this little noticed fact no 'sh' in PIE or Greek or Latin (how
> about Anatolian?) - is shattering and as Holmes would say "Watson, my
> case is now complete".-
***
Still don't understand how this nonsense about sh has any relevancy.
A.
Most of it,
Anything that is not Hurrian or Sumero-Akkadian.
A.
***
it was nothing but the
> plain old "h" as in "hat" or "Harry" or "hill".
>
> The phantasm called PIE didn't even have 'sh'
So what?
There's nothing compulsory in having sh or not having it.
A.
***
and it supposedly had
> all these fricatives that don't behave like fricatives but instead
> their function seems to be to conveniently disappear and make some
> phonetically unmotivated changes and impose some pseudo-order on
> attested words.
>
> Do you know when they started reconstructing two laryngeals next to
> each other?
Like in which words?
A.
***
>
> Then the insanity that there was only one vowel - except that it is
> non-existent or only marginally present in the oldest attested
> languages - doesn't logic dictate that the older the attestation, the
> more frequent 'e' should be?
I don't think present-day indo-europeanists state there was only one
vowel.
A.
***
>
> I know - eventually even 'e' will be derived from Laryngeals.
>
> *b turns out to be extremely rare - which absurdity destroys
> everything by itself - the answer to that - "glottalic theory" is just
> doubling down on absurdity.
No.
A.
***
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > > According to Melchert who can be considered to have written the book
> > > on Hittite,
>
> > >http://www.linguistics.ucla.edu/people/Melchert/hittitevocalism.pdf
>
> > > apparently it has only 4 short vowels - something you never hear about
> > > in boilerplate ululations about "laryngeals" - Melchert puts a brave
> > > face on it and claims /e/ is for real also and that doubts about the
> > > lack of contrast between it and /i/ are unjustified.
>
> > ***
>
> > Can't see how laryngeals and a 4-Vowel system are logically
> > connected!?
>
> > Please explain.
>
> > A.
> > ***
>
> There is nothing logical about Laryngeals.
***
Laryngeals.
A.
***
>
> > Note that neither cuneiform nor old alphabets can wrote o.
>
> OK so Sumerian/Akkadian writing systems couldn't write it - if the
> sound was present surely recorders of Hittite would have invented a
> symbol for it or used "au" for it or something?
***
>
> > Note that neither cuneiform nor old alphabets can wrote o.
>
> OK so Sumerian/Akkadian writing systems couldn't write it - if the
> sound was present surely recorders of Hittite would have invented a
> symbol for it or used "au" for it or something?
They invented four signs wa, we, wi, wu out of an indeterminate wV
They probably did not have /o/
A.
***
>
> But 'o' not being recorded and 'e' only marginally present in
> Anatolian
I can see no support for this claim about e.
A.
***
is not very healthy for the biolerplate vowel system.
> Spreading from Old Indian [a i u] is the most logical explanation.
No, this is just false.
Old Indian cannot account for other languages.
The raw comparison between IE languages shows that five vowels are
necessary a, e, o, i, u.
A.
***
>
> Still - Mitanni Aryan being practically Sanskrit
Complete nonsense.
A.
***
barring <= 3 quibbles
> is staring boilerpaltists in the face. There were so many
> opprtunities for the "older" e to manifest (*Verunos" for varuna etc.
> and that MIA "satta" for "seven' - not good at all for the
> establishment.
satta in Hurrian can be explain by Hurrian phonetic constraints.
A.
***
>
> But this little noticed fact no 'sh' in PIE or Greek or Latin (how
> about Anatolian?) - is shattering and as Holmes would say "Watson, my
***
Still don't understand how this nonsense about sh has any relevancy.
A.
Peter T. Daniels
Jan 31, 2012, 8:45:52 AM1/31/12
to
merged into glottal stop (does "analys..." think that counts as a
"laryngeal"?), but two of them colored /a/ to /e/ before disappearing.
Which Arabic colloquials have lost "laryngeals"? Maltese, under heavy
Italian influence?
yangg
Jan 31, 2012, 2:33:12 PM1/31/12
to
Indeed.
A.
***
>
> Which Arabic colloquials have lost "laryngeals"? Maltese, under heavy
***
Many people do not say ra?S "head" with ? in my opinion.
A.
Yusuf B Gursey
Jan 31, 2012, 3:01:36 PM1/31/12
to
colloquials, and in fact had disapeeared in the dialect of the Qur'an.
> A.
Yusuf B Gursey
Jan 31, 2012, 3:17:26 PM1/31/12
to
On Jan 31, 2:33 pm, yangg <fournet.arn...@wanadoo.fr> wrote:
at he end) and others such as pharyngeals and other post-velars remain
intact.
> A.
Peter T. Daniels
Jan 31, 2012, 6:10:32 PM1/31/12
to
Nathan Sanders
Jan 31, 2012, 6:43:46 PM1/31/12
to
In article
<2b38f1eb-0ab7-4a89...@bs8g2000vbb.googlegroups.com>,
Where is *your* glottis located?!?
Nathan
--
Department of Linguistics
Swarthmore College
http://sanders.phonologist.org/
<2b38f1eb-0ab7-4a89...@bs8g2000vbb.googlegroups.com>,
Nathan
--
Department of Linguistics
Swarthmore College
http://sanders.phonologist.org/
Brian M. Scott
Jan 31, 2012, 6:59:13 PM1/31/12
to
On Tue, 31 Jan 2012 18:43:46 -0500, Nathan Sanders
<san...@alum.mit.edu> wrote in
<news:sanders-3109AB...@atoulouse-552-1-42-74.w92-136.abo.wanadoo.fr>
in sci.lang:
> In article
> <2b38f1eb-0ab7-4a89...@bs8g2000vbb.googlegroups.com>,
> "Peter T. Daniels" <gram...@verizon.net> wrote:
[...]
>> Its very name tells you that a _glottal_ stop isn't laryngeal.
> Where is *your* glottis located?!?
Same place his head is? <g>
Brian
<san...@alum.mit.edu> wrote in
<news:sanders-3109AB...@atoulouse-552-1-42-74.w92-136.abo.wanadoo.fr>
in sci.lang:
> In article
> <2b38f1eb-0ab7-4a89...@bs8g2000vbb.googlegroups.com>,
> "Peter T. Daniels" <gram...@verizon.net> wrote:
>> Its very name tells you that a _glottal_ stop isn't laryngeal.
> Where is *your* glottis located?!?
Brian
Trond Engen
Jan 31, 2012, 7:02:52 PM1/31/12
to
Nathan Sanders:
> Peter T. Daniels:
>
>> Yusuf B Gursey:
>>
>>> yangg:
--
Trond Engen
> Peter T. Daniels:
>
>> Yusuf B Gursey:
>>
>>> yangg:
>>>
>>>> Many people do not say ra?S "head" with ? in my opinion.
>>>
>>> other than th eglottal stop the other laryngeals (h, except
>>> soemtimes at he end) and others such as pharyngeals and other
>>> post-velars remain intact.
>>
>> Its very name tells you that a _glottal_ stop isn't laryngeal.
>
> Where is *your* glottis located?!?
Which of them. We're polyglots here.
>>>> Many people do not say ra?S "head" with ? in my opinion.
>>>
>>> other than th eglottal stop the other laryngeals (h, except
>>> soemtimes at he end) and others such as pharyngeals and other
>>> post-velars remain intact.
>>
>> Its very name tells you that a _glottal_ stop isn't laryngeal.
>
> Where is *your* glottis located?!?
--
Trond Engen
Nathan Sanders
Jan 31, 2012, 7:07:05 PM1/31/12
to
Yusuf B Gursey
Jan 31, 2012, 9:37:57 PM1/31/12
to
anal...@hotmail.com
Jan 31, 2012, 9:46:50 PM1/31/12
to
Take a gander at
http://www.jstor.org/stable/pdfplus/593722.pdf?acceptTC=true
It is old, - but I like works like this better that those of modern
day pikers like Ringe,Hamp,Colarusso (of the ' "HHdhghwA" = fish '
fame). You either do hist ling like your horse paper or the older
works that linger discursively over the subject matter without trying
to present a simulacrum of 'rigor'.
What did they do to Kronasser - how come it is next to impossible to
get hold of his works?
> it was nothing but the> plain old "h" as in "hat" or "Harry" or "hill".
>
> > The phantasm called PIE didn't even have 'sh'
>
> ***
>
> So what?
>
> There's nothing compulsory in having sh or not having it.
>
> A.
> ***
>
> and it supposedly had> all these fricatives that don't behave like fricatives but instead
> > their function seems to be to conveniently disappear and make some
> > phonetically unmotivated changes and impose some pseudo-order on
> > attested words.
>
> > Do you know when they started reconstructing two laryngeals next to
> > each other?
>
> ***
>
> Like in which words?
>
> A.
> ***
>
>
widows' hwidhwehhi' or some such thing (and all said and done it is
just a funhouse mirror version of Old Indian "vidhawe").
>
> > Then the insanity that there was only one vowel - except that it is
> > non-existent or only marginally present in the oldest attested
> > languages - doesn't logic dictate that the older the attestation, the
> > more frequent 'e' should be?
>
> ***
>
> I don't think present-day indo-europeanists state there was only one
> vowel.
>
> A.
> ***
>
>
>
> > I know - eventually even 'e' will be derived from Laryngeals.
>
> > *b turns out to be extremely rare - which absurdity destroys
> > everything by itself - the answer to that - "glottalic theory" is just
> > doubling down on absurdity.
>
> ***
>
> No.
>
> A.
> ***
>
much like Sanskrit - hardly a scientific motivation for theorizing.
For all the sniping at Sanskrit ("palatalization" - which never
happened b the way) - It still holds together the way "PIE" supposedly
held together as a highly inflected, prefixing and suffixing language
with case, gender, and number equalling or surpassing all the others.
They say that Lithuanian comes close - but Greek Latin etc. show
obvious signs of erosion of the structure fully present in Old
Indian. English and French have become highly ordered but in a
significantly different form. Hittite isn't even worth considering,
considering how deficient it is in structure.
> A.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
Peter T. Daniels
Jan 31, 2012, 10:47:59 PM1/31/12
to
On Jan 31, 6:43 pm, Nathan Sanders <sand...@alum.mit.edu> wrote:
> In article
> <2b38f1eb-0ab7-4a89-8bc4-d824bf91a...@bs8g2000vbb.googlegroups.com>,
phonetics?
> In article
> <2b38f1eb-0ab7-4a89-8bc4-d824bf91a...@bs8g2000vbb.googlegroups.com>,
> "Peter T. Daniels" <gramma...@verizon.net> wrote:
>
> > On Jan 31, 3:17 pm, Yusuf B Gursey <ygur...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Jan 31, 2:33 pm, yangg <fournet.arn...@wanadoo.fr> wrote:
>
> > > > Many people do not say ra?S "head" with ? in my opinion.
>
> > > other than th eglottal stop the other laryngeals (h, except soemtimes
> > > at he end) and others such as pharyngeals and other post-velars remain
> > > intact.
>
> > Its very name tells you that a _glottal_ stop isn't laryngeal.
>
> Where is *your* glottis located?!?
Have you never looked at an anatomy textbook? Or a treatise on Arabic
>
> > On Jan 31, 3:17 pm, Yusuf B Gursey <ygur...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Jan 31, 2:33 pm, yangg <fournet.arn...@wanadoo.fr> wrote:
>
> > > > Many people do not say ra?S "head" with ? in my opinion.
>
> > > other than th eglottal stop the other laryngeals (h, except soemtimes
> > > at he end) and others such as pharyngeals and other post-velars remain
> > > intact.
>
> > Its very name tells you that a _glottal_ stop isn't laryngeal.
>
> Where is *your* glottis located?!?
phonetics?
Nathan Sanders
Jan 31, 2012, 11:20:49 PM1/31/12
to
In article
<2e2b1fcc-ccfc-4052...@hs8g2000vbb.googlegroups.com>,
Of course I have, and any reputable anatomy textbook will show you
that the glottis is in the larynx. Therefore, glottal stop, as a
glottal sound, is also a laryngeal sound.
But if you don't believe me, maybe you'll believe Daniel Jones:
"_Glottal_ or _laryngal_ sounds, viz. sounds articulated in the
glottis: example [glottal stop]" (p.14)
"*Laryngal consonants*, see *Glottal consonants*" (p.201)
(Page numbers are for the 1992 version of _An Outline of English
Phonetics_.)
> Or a treatise on Arabic phonetics?
Why does that matter? Do you think the Arabic glottal stop is made
with a different glottis than the one in the larynx?
<2e2b1fcc-ccfc-4052...@hs8g2000vbb.googlegroups.com>,
that the glottis is in the larynx. Therefore, glottal stop, as a
glottal sound, is also a laryngeal sound.
But if you don't believe me, maybe you'll believe Daniel Jones:
"_Glottal_ or _laryngal_ sounds, viz. sounds articulated in the
glottis: example [glottal stop]" (p.14)
"*Laryngal consonants*, see *Glottal consonants*" (p.201)
(Page numbers are for the 1992 version of _An Outline of English
Phonetics_.)
> Or a treatise on Arabic phonetics?
with a different glottis than the one in the larynx?
Nathan Sanders
Jan 31, 2012, 11:23:29 PM1/31/12
to
Nathan Sanders
Feb 1, 2012, 12:06:56 AM2/1/12
to
In article
<sanders-90D480...@atoulouse-552-1-42-74.w92-136.abo.wanad
But maybe you think you know more than Daniel Jones does. Would you
defer to Edward Sapir instead, say, his 1924 _American Anthropologist_
article, "Personal names among the Sarcee Indians"?
"Laryngeal: _'_, glottal stop; _h_, as in English" (p.109)
Or in case you really do think the Arabic glottal stop is made with
some other glottis, how about something by Arabic linguists, say,
Saleh et al. (2007), writing about there data from Egyptian Arabic:
"They were all front consonants whether bilabial, alveolar or palatal,
except the laryngeal /?/ and /h/." (p.236)
http://content.karger.com/produktedb/produkte.asp?typ=pdf&file=00010446
1
<sanders-90D480...@atoulouse-552-1-42-74.w92-136.abo.wanad
defer to Edward Sapir instead, say, his 1924 _American Anthropologist_
article, "Personal names among the Sarcee Indians"?
"Laryngeal: _'_, glottal stop; _h_, as in English" (p.109)
Or in case you really do think the Arabic glottal stop is made with
some other glottis, how about something by Arabic linguists, say,
Saleh et al. (2007), writing about there data from Egyptian Arabic:
"They were all front consonants whether bilabial, alveolar or palatal,
except the laryngeal /?/ and /h/." (p.236)
http://content.karger.com/produktedb/produkte.asp?typ=pdf&file=00010446
1
yangg
Feb 1, 2012, 4:53:48 AM2/1/12
to
***
No, he's wrong.
Laryngeal with extra <e> is a fuzzy word designed to describe any back
phone.
Laryngal is the phonetic and anatomic precise word.
As usual PTD is just blathering his lawyerese BS and exposing his
incompetence.
A.
yangg
Feb 1, 2012, 5:07:45 AM2/1/12
to
On Feb 1, 3:46 am, "analys...@hotmail.com" <analys...@hotmail.com>
wrote:
Your problem is that you don't understand that handling PIE requires a
minimum level of technicalities.
A.
***
>
>
>
> > > Then the insanity that there was only one vowel - except that it is
> > > non-existent or only marginally present in the oldest attested
> > > languages - doesn't logic dictate that the older the attestation, the
> > > more frequent 'e' should be?
>
> > ***
>
> > I don't think present-day indo-europeanists state there was only one
> > vowel.
>
> > A.
> > ***
>
> Do you then agree that Saussure was a retard?
***
Saussure invented modern linguistics.
It took one century for the German Indo-Europeanists to understand
what he wrote.
I don't know if he can be called a genious or not.
In all cases when the Chomskyan brainwash is over linguistics will get
back to Saussure.
A.
***
>
>
>
> > > I know - eventually even 'e' will be derived from Laryngeals.
>
> > > *b turns out to be extremely rare - which absurdity destroys
> > > everything by itself - the answer to that - "glottalic theory" is just
> > > doubling down on absurdity.
>
> > ***
>
> > No.
>
> > A.
> > ***
>
> I remmeber one of the glottalics complaining that PIE is still too
> much like Sanskrit - hardly a scientific motivation for theorizing.
> For all the sniping at Sanskrit ("palatalization" - which never
> happened b the way) - It still holds together the way "PIE" supposedly
> held together as a highly inflected, prefixing and suffixing language
> with case, gender, and number equalling or surpassing all the others.
***
This omniperfect theory is certainly a good reason to hold it in high
doubt.
A.
***
>
> They say that Lithuanian comes close - but Greek Latin etc. show
> obvious signs of erosion of the structure fully present in Old
> Indian. English and French have become highly ordered but in a
> significantly different form. Hittite isn't even worth considering,
> considering how deficient it is in structure.
***
Hittite is certainly closer to the original PIE than such a highly
intellectualized language like Sankrit,
Which is not far from meaning "artificially made" language.
A.
***
>
>
> > barring <= 3 quibbles> is staring boilerpaltists in the face. There were so many
> > > opprtunities for the "older" e to manifest (*Verunos" for varuna etc.
> > > and that MIA "satta" for "seven' - not good at all for the
> > > establishment.
>
> > ***
>
> > satta in Hurrian can be explain by Hurrian phonetic constraints.
>
> > A.
> > ***
***
As usual, you did not address the points that put your whole castle of
cards in danger.
A.
***
>
> > > But this little noticed fact no 'sh' in PIE or Greek or Latin (how
> > > about Anatolian?) - is shattering and as Holmes would say "Watson, my
> > > case is now complete".-
>
> > ***
>
> > Still don't understand how this nonsense about sh has any relevancy.
>
> Wait and see.
>
***
What about delivering something soon?
A.
wrote:
> On Jan 31, 4:33 am, yangg <fournet.arn...@wanadoo.fr> wrote:
>
>
> > > Do you know when they started reconstructing two laryngeals next to
> > > each other?
>
> > ***
>
> > Like in which words?
>
> > A.
> > ***
>
> Jesus Sanchis has a lot of fun with Ringe's (I think) PIE for 'two
> widows' hwidhwehhi' or some such thing (and all said and done it is
> just a funhouse mirror version of Old Indian "vidhawe").
***
>
>
> > > Do you know when they started reconstructing two laryngeals next to
> > > each other?
>
> > ***
>
> > Like in which words?
>
> > A.
> > ***
>
> Jesus Sanchis has a lot of fun with Ringe's (I think) PIE for 'two
> widows' hwidhwehhi' or some such thing (and all said and done it is
> just a funhouse mirror version of Old Indian "vidhawe").
Your problem is that you don't understand that handling PIE requires a
minimum level of technicalities.
A.
***
>
>
>
> > > Then the insanity that there was only one vowel - except that it is
> > > non-existent or only marginally present in the oldest attested
> > > languages - doesn't logic dictate that the older the attestation, the
> > > more frequent 'e' should be?
>
> > ***
>
> > I don't think present-day indo-europeanists state there was only one
> > vowel.
>
> > A.
> > ***
>
> Do you then agree that Saussure was a retard?
Saussure invented modern linguistics.
It took one century for the German Indo-Europeanists to understand
what he wrote.
I don't know if he can be called a genious or not.
In all cases when the Chomskyan brainwash is over linguistics will get
back to Saussure.
A.
***
>
>
>
> > > I know - eventually even 'e' will be derived from Laryngeals.
>
> > > *b turns out to be extremely rare - which absurdity destroys
> > > everything by itself - the answer to that - "glottalic theory" is just
> > > doubling down on absurdity.
>
> > ***
>
> > No.
>
> > A.
> > ***
>
> I remmeber one of the glottalics complaining that PIE is still too
> much like Sanskrit - hardly a scientific motivation for theorizing.
> For all the sniping at Sanskrit ("palatalization" - which never
> happened b the way) - It still holds together the way "PIE" supposedly
> held together as a highly inflected, prefixing and suffixing language
> with case, gender, and number equalling or surpassing all the others.
This omniperfect theory is certainly a good reason to hold it in high
doubt.
A.
***
>
> They say that Lithuanian comes close - but Greek Latin etc. show
> obvious signs of erosion of the structure fully present in Old
> Indian. English and French have become highly ordered but in a
> significantly different form. Hittite isn't even worth considering,
> considering how deficient it is in structure.
Hittite is certainly closer to the original PIE than such a highly
intellectualized language like Sankrit,
Which is not far from meaning "artificially made" language.
A.
***
>
>
> > barring <= 3 quibbles> is staring boilerpaltists in the face. There were so many
> > > opprtunities for the "older" e to manifest (*Verunos" for varuna etc.
> > > and that MIA "satta" for "seven' - not good at all for the
> > > establishment.
>
> > ***
>
> > satta in Hurrian can be explain by Hurrian phonetic constraints.
>
> > A.
> > ***
As usual, you did not address the points that put your whole castle of
cards in danger.
A.
***
>
> > > But this little noticed fact no 'sh' in PIE or Greek or Latin (how
> > > about Anatolian?) - is shattering and as Holmes would say "Watson, my
> > > case is now complete".-
>
> > ***
>
> > Still don't understand how this nonsense about sh has any relevancy.
>
> Wait and see.
>
What about delivering something soon?
A.
yangg
Feb 1, 2012, 5:16:41 AM2/1/12
to
On Feb 1, 1:07 am, Nathan Sanders <sand...@alum.mit.edu> wrote:
> In article <e2q5b8knspl5.1f6lffo8nbsja$....@40tude.net>,
To PTD:
Incidentally on the same year Moeller called them laryngeals, Henry
Sweet called them glottids.
Got it, sucker?
“Saussure does not attempt to determine the real nature of the
supposed consonantal elements of the roots in (eA) and (eO). Moeller
in the passage already quoted gives a good hint, suggesting that (A)
may have been the ‘sonant glottal spirant’, (E) the same voiceless,
and (O) the glottal r. [...] It may be remarked that no consonants are
more liable to be absorbed into the preceding vowels than these
‘glottids’.” Sweet (1880:146-147)
A.
> In article <e2q5b8knspl5.1f6lffo8nbsja$....@40tude.net>,
> "Brian M. Scott" <b.sc...@csuohio.edu> wrote:
>
>
> > >> Its very name tells you that a _glottal_ stop isn't laryngeal.
>
> > > Where is *your* glottis located?!?
>
> > Same place his head is? <g>
>
> Oh dear.
>
> Nathan
>
***
>
>
> > >> Its very name tells you that a _glottal_ stop isn't laryngeal.
>
> > > Where is *your* glottis located?!?
>
> > Same place his head is? <g>
>
> Oh dear.
>
> Nathan
>
To PTD:
Incidentally on the same year Moeller called them laryngeals, Henry
Sweet called them glottids.
Got it, sucker?
“Saussure does not attempt to determine the real nature of the
supposed consonantal elements of the roots in (eA) and (eO). Moeller
in the passage already quoted gives a good hint, suggesting that (A)
may have been the ‘sonant glottal spirant’, (E) the same voiceless,
and (O) the glottal r. [...] It may be remarked that no consonants are
more liable to be absorbed into the preceding vowels than these
‘glottids’.” Sweet (1880:146-147)
A.
Peter T. Daniels
Feb 1, 2012, 7:41:00 AM2/1/12
to
<laryngal>, and AHD5 lists it as a variant spelling (pronounced the
same).
yangg
Feb 1, 2012, 12:20:34 PM2/1/12
to
***
Most dictionaries of English do not contain synchronic and diachronic.
So what does that prove?
Got it sucker?
A.
Peter T. Daniels
Feb 1, 2012, 12:35:28 PM2/1/12
to
out your ass, as so often.
> Got it sucker?
Yep, I got it. You don't know what you're talking about, as so often.
Peter T. Daniels
Feb 1, 2012, 12:53:29 PM2/1/12
to
> <2b38f1eb-0ab7-4a89-8bc4-d824bf91a...@bs8g2000vbb.googlegroups.com>,
the larynx.
I don't know how definitive the Wolf-Heidegger Color Atlas of Human
Anatomy, 6th ed. rev. Dr. Petra Köpf-Meyer (2004) is, but the term
"glottis" does not appear in it ("epiglottis" does) so is presumably
not used by anatomists. On p. 175 it is labeled "Vestibular fold,
laryngeal ventricle, vocal fold." P. 182 shows the "vocal ligament."
> "Peter T. Daniels" <gramma...@verizon.net> wrote:
>
> > On Jan 31, 3:17 pm, Yusuf B Gursey <ygur...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Jan 31, 2:33 pm, yangg <fournet.arn...@wanadoo.fr> wrote:
>
> > > > Many people do not say ra?S "head" with ? in my opinion.
>
> > > other than th eglottal stop the other laryngeals (h, except soemtimes
> > > at he end) and others such as pharyngeals and other post-velars remain
> > > intact.
>
> > Its very name tells you that a _glottal_ stop isn't laryngeal.
>
> Where is *your* glottis located?!?
I understand the vocal fold to be the boundary between the trachea and
>
> > On Jan 31, 3:17 pm, Yusuf B Gursey <ygur...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Jan 31, 2:33 pm, yangg <fournet.arn...@wanadoo.fr> wrote:
>
> > > > Many people do not say ra?S "head" with ? in my opinion.
>
> > > other than th eglottal stop the other laryngeals (h, except soemtimes
> > > at he end) and others such as pharyngeals and other post-velars remain
> > > intact.
>
> > Its very name tells you that a _glottal_ stop isn't laryngeal.
>
> Where is *your* glottis located?!?
the larynx.
I don't know how definitive the Wolf-Heidegger Color Atlas of Human
Anatomy, 6th ed. rev. Dr. Petra Köpf-Meyer (2004) is, but the term
"glottis" does not appear in it ("epiglottis" does) so is presumably
not used by anatomists. On p. 175 it is labeled "Vestibular fold,
laryngeal ventricle, vocal fold." P. 182 shows the "vocal ligament."
yangg
Feb 1, 2012, 1:30:20 PM2/1/12
to
On Feb 1, 6:35 pm, "Peter T. Daniels" <gramma...@verizon.net> wrote:
> On Feb 1, 12:20 pm, yangg <fournet.arn...@wanadoo.fr> wrote:
>
>
> Yep, I got it. You don't know what you're talking about, as so often.-
> On Feb 1, 12:20 pm, yangg <fournet.arn...@wanadoo.fr> wrote:
>
>
***
Talking about yourself, as usual?
A.
Nathan Sanders
Feb 1, 2012, 2:20:19 PM2/1/12
to
In article
<3ceec4b1-62b8-419e...@z31g2000vbt.googlegroups.com>,
> to be the boundary between the trachea and
> the larynx.
You understand incorrectly. The vocal folds (plural) (a.k.a. the
vocal cords) are the membranes that stretch across the inside of the
larynx, from the the middle of the thyroid cartilage in the front to
the arytenoid cartilage in the back. The glottis is the vocal folds
plus the rima glottidis (the opening between the vocal folds).
The cricoid cartilage is part of the larynx, and lies below the
thyroid and arytenoid cartilages. The topmost cartilage of the
trachea is connected to the cricoid. So if anything is considered the
boundary between the larynx and trachea, it would be the cricoid:
http://www.bartleby.com/107/illus953.html
http://www.bartleby.com/107/illus954.html
"The Cricoid Cartilage (cartilago cricoidea) is smaller, but thicker
and stronger than the thyroid, and forms the lower and posterior parts
of the wall of the larynx. It consists of two parts: a posterior
quadrate lamina, and a narrow anterior arch, one-fourth or one-fifth
of the depth of the lamina." (Gray's Anatomy, XI 1b #12)
> I don't know how definitive the Wolf-Heidegger Color Atlas of Human
> Anatomy, 6th ed. rev. Dr. Petra Köpf-Meyer (2004) is, but the term
> "glottis" does not appear in it ("epiglottis" does) so is presumably
> not used by anatomists. On p. 175 it is labeled "Vestibular fold,
> laryngeal ventricle, vocal fold." P. 182 shows the "vocal ligament."
You should try a better anatomy book. "Glottis" shows up eight times
in the Gray's entry for the pharynx (XI 1a), and not once in the entry
for the trachea (XI 1b). An example:
"In considering the actions of the muscles of the larynx, they may be
conveniently divided into two groups, vix.: 1. Those which open and
close the glottis. 2. Those which regulate the degree of tension of
the vocal folds." (XI 1a #60)
The glottis is part of the larynx. That's why linguists classify
glottal sounds as laryngeal sounds (and not as tracheal sounds).
<3ceec4b1-62b8-419e...@z31g2000vbt.googlegroups.com>,
> On Jan 31, 6:43 pm, Nathan Sanders <sand...@alum.mit.edu> wrote:
> > In article
> > <2b38f1eb-0ab7-4a89-8bc4-d824bf91a...@bs8g2000vbb.googlegroups.com>,
> > "Peter T. Daniels" <gramma...@verizon.net> wrote:
> >
> > > On Jan 31, 3:17 pm, Yusuf B Gursey <ygur...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > > > On Jan 31, 2:33 pm, yangg <fournet.arn...@wanadoo.fr> wrote:
> >
> > > > > Many people do not say ra?S "head" with ? in my opinion.
> >
> > > > other than th eglottal stop the other laryngeals (h, except soemtimes
> > > > at he end) and others such as pharyngeals and other post-velars remain
> > > > intact.
> >
> > > Its very name tells you that a _glottal_ stop isn't laryngeal.
> >
> > Where is *your* glottis located?!?
>
> I understand the vocal fold
You only have one?!?
> > In article
> > <2b38f1eb-0ab7-4a89-8bc4-d824bf91a...@bs8g2000vbb.googlegroups.com>,
> > "Peter T. Daniels" <gramma...@verizon.net> wrote:
> >
> > > On Jan 31, 3:17 pm, Yusuf B Gursey <ygur...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > > > On Jan 31, 2:33 pm, yangg <fournet.arn...@wanadoo.fr> wrote:
> >
> > > > > Many people do not say ra?S "head" with ? in my opinion.
> >
> > > > other than th eglottal stop the other laryngeals (h, except soemtimes
> > > > at he end) and others such as pharyngeals and other post-velars remain
> > > > intact.
> >
> > > Its very name tells you that a _glottal_ stop isn't laryngeal.
> >
> > Where is *your* glottis located?!?
>
> I understand the vocal fold
> to be the boundary between the trachea and
> the larynx.
vocal cords) are the membranes that stretch across the inside of the
larynx, from the the middle of the thyroid cartilage in the front to
the arytenoid cartilage in the back. The glottis is the vocal folds
plus the rima glottidis (the opening between the vocal folds).
The cricoid cartilage is part of the larynx, and lies below the
thyroid and arytenoid cartilages. The topmost cartilage of the
trachea is connected to the cricoid. So if anything is considered the
boundary between the larynx and trachea, it would be the cricoid:
http://www.bartleby.com/107/illus953.html
http://www.bartleby.com/107/illus954.html
"The Cricoid Cartilage (cartilago cricoidea) is smaller, but thicker
and stronger than the thyroid, and forms the lower and posterior parts
of the wall of the larynx. It consists of two parts: a posterior
quadrate lamina, and a narrow anterior arch, one-fourth or one-fifth
of the depth of the lamina." (Gray's Anatomy, XI 1b #12)
> I don't know how definitive the Wolf-Heidegger Color Atlas of Human
> Anatomy, 6th ed. rev. Dr. Petra Köpf-Meyer (2004) is, but the term
> "glottis" does not appear in it ("epiglottis" does) so is presumably
> not used by anatomists. On p. 175 it is labeled "Vestibular fold,
> laryngeal ventricle, vocal fold." P. 182 shows the "vocal ligament."
in the Gray's entry for the pharynx (XI 1a), and not once in the entry
for the trachea (XI 1b). An example:
"In considering the actions of the muscles of the larynx, they may be
conveniently divided into two groups, vix.: 1. Those which open and
close the glottis. 2. Those which regulate the degree of tension of
the vocal folds." (XI 1a #60)
The glottis is part of the larynx. That's why linguists classify
glottal sounds as laryngeal sounds (and not as tracheal sounds).
Peter T. Daniels
Feb 1, 2012, 4:51:31 PM2/1/12
to
> <3ceec4b1-62b8-419e-8102-955914740...@z31g2000vbt.googlegroups.com>,
I'm sure Dr. Köpf-Meyer of the Freie Universitaet Berlin will welcome
your input. "Nomenclature for the atlas was prepared according to the
_Terminologia Anatomica_ in consultation with Dr. Arthur W. English.
Dr. English is professor of anatomy and cell biology at Emory
University in Atlanta," I find on the flyleaf.
> "In considering the actions of the muscles of the larynx, they may be
> conveniently divided into two groups, vix.: 1. Those which open and
> close the glottis. 2. Those which regulate the degree of tension of
> the vocal folds." (XI 1a #60)
>
> The glottis is part of the larynx. That's why linguists classify
> glottal sounds as laryngeal sounds (and not as tracheal sounds).
Which edition of Gray's are you using?
Linguists of Arabic don't. Hamza doesn't have the same effects on
adjacent vowels as the laryngeals do.
your input. "Nomenclature for the atlas was prepared according to the
_Terminologia Anatomica_ in consultation with Dr. Arthur W. English.
Dr. English is professor of anatomy and cell biology at Emory
University in Atlanta," I find on the flyleaf.
> "In considering the actions of the muscles of the larynx, they may be
> conveniently divided into two groups, vix.: 1. Those which open and
> close the glottis. 2. Those which regulate the degree of tension of
> the vocal folds." (XI 1a #60)
>
> The glottis is part of the larynx. That's why linguists classify
> glottal sounds as laryngeal sounds (and not as tracheal sounds).
Linguists of Arabic don't. Hamza doesn't have the same effects on
adjacent vowels as the laryngeals do.
yangg
Feb 1, 2012, 5:11:48 PM2/1/12
to
On Feb 1, 10:51 pm, "Peter T. Daniels" <gramma...@verizon.net> wrote:
> On Feb 1, 2:20 pm, Nathan Sanders <sand...@alum.mit.edu> wrote:
>
>
> Linguists of Arabic don't. Hamza doesn't have the same effects on
> adjacent vowels as the laryngeals do.-
> On Feb 1, 2:20 pm, Nathan Sanders <sand...@alum.mit.edu> wrote:
>
>
> Linguists of Arabic don't. Hamza doesn't have the same effects on
***
Read this, idiot:
http://books.google.fr/books?id=l0M2KFuz_kQC&pg=PA217&dq=hamza+laryngeal&hl=fr&sa=X&ei=PrgpT8eeOsKI8gOjodHUAw&sqi=2&ved=0CDkQ6AEwAQ#v=onepage&q=hamza%20laryngeal&f=false
A.
Peter T. Daniels
Feb 1, 2012, 5:44:23 PM2/1/12
to
On Feb 1, 5:11 pm, yangg <fournet.arn...@wanadoo.fr> wrote:
> On Feb 1, 10:51 pm, "Peter T. Daniels" <gramma...@verizon.net> wrote:> On Feb 1, 2:20 pm, Nathan Sanders <sand...@alum.mit.edu> wrote:
>
> > Linguists of Arabic don't. Hamza doesn't have the same effects on
> > adjacent vowels as the laryngeals do.-
>
> ***
>
> Read this, idiot:
>
> http://books.google.fr/books?id=l0M2KFuz_kQC&pg=PA217&dq=hamza+laryng...
> On Feb 1, 10:51 pm, "Peter T. Daniels" <gramma...@verizon.net> wrote:> On Feb 1, 2:20 pm, Nathan Sanders <sand...@alum.mit.edu> wrote:
>
> > Linguists of Arabic don't. Hamza doesn't have the same effects on
> > adjacent vowels as the laryngeals do.-
>
> ***
>
> Read this, idiot:
>
"Cette page ne fait pas partie de la section consultable ou vous avez
dépassé le nombre de pages que vous êtes autorisé à consulter pour ce
livre," jackass.
Nathan Sanders
Feb 1, 2012, 6:05:21 PM2/1/12
to
In article
<f0cfa054-e560-4a55...@s9g2000vbc.googlegroups.com>,
What input does he need from me? In the picture on page 175, he
places the vocal folds in their correct place: attached to the middle
of thyroid cartilage, well above the cricoid cartilage, which is above
the trachea.
> > "In considering the actions of the muscles of the larynx, they may be
> > conveniently divided into two groups, vix.: 1. Those which open and
> > close the glottis. 2. Those which regulate the degree of tension of
> > the vocal folds." (XI 1a #60)
> >
> > The glottis is part of the larynx.
>
> > That's why linguists classify
> > glottal sounds as laryngeal sounds (and not as tracheal sounds).
>
that also do that I haven't yet cited.
For example, in _Perspectives on Arabic Linguistics XII_ (1999, edited
by Elabbas Benmamoun), "laryngeal" seems to only occur in exactly one
piece, David Testen's "On ?inna, ?anna, et alia". When he uses
"laryngeal", he refers primarily to glottal stop (as in the words in
the title!), but also sometimes to [h]. He explicitly calls glottal
stop laryngeal on p.158: "the laryngeal ?-".
There's also Munther Younes's contribution to _Perspectives on Arabic
Linguistics XII_, in which he says "if a pharyngeal ([barred-h],
[reversed glottal stop]) or laryngeal (h, ?) consonant immediately
follows the low vowel" (p.126).
And of course, there's Janet Watson's _The Phonology and Morphology of
Arabic_ (2002). She gives a table of consonants for Cairene Arabic on
page 20, with glottal stop and h listed under a column called
"Laryngeal".
And how about Bushra Adnan Zawaydeh's "The interaction of the
phonetics and phonology of gutturals", from _Phonetic Interpretation:
Papers in Laboratory Phonology VI_, vol. 6 (2004), which says "the
laryngeal consonants [?] and [h] or Arabic behave as members of the
guttutal class".
But I suppose you'll just ignore them, just as you're ignoring Daniel
Jones and Edward Sapir's use of "laryngeal" to include glottal stop.
I don't doubt that you use "laryngeal" to classify sounds based on
something other than being produced in the larynx, but your usage is
not universal, nor very logical (cf. "pro-drop").
<f0cfa054-e560-4a55...@s9g2000vbc.googlegroups.com>,
places the vocal folds in their correct place: attached to the middle
of thyroid cartilage, well above the cricoid cartilage, which is above
the trachea.
> > "In considering the actions of the muscles of the larynx, they may be
> > conveniently divided into two groups, vix.: 1. Those which open and
> > close the glottis. 2. Those which regulate the degree of tension of
> > the vocal folds." (XI 1a #60)
> >
> > The glottis is part of the larynx.
>
> Which edition of Gray's are you using?
The one I posted links to.
> > That's why linguists classify
> > glottal sounds as laryngeal sounds (and not as tracheal sounds).
>
> Linguists of Arabic don't.
Except the ones I cited, of course (Saleh et al.), and all the others
that also do that I haven't yet cited.
For example, in _Perspectives on Arabic Linguistics XII_ (1999, edited
by Elabbas Benmamoun), "laryngeal" seems to only occur in exactly one
piece, David Testen's "On ?inna, ?anna, et alia". When he uses
"laryngeal", he refers primarily to glottal stop (as in the words in
the title!), but also sometimes to [h]. He explicitly calls glottal
stop laryngeal on p.158: "the laryngeal ?-".
There's also Munther Younes's contribution to _Perspectives on Arabic
Linguistics XII_, in which he says "if a pharyngeal ([barred-h],
[reversed glottal stop]) or laryngeal (h, ?) consonant immediately
follows the low vowel" (p.126).
And of course, there's Janet Watson's _The Phonology and Morphology of
Arabic_ (2002). She gives a table of consonants for Cairene Arabic on
page 20, with glottal stop and h listed under a column called
"Laryngeal".
And how about Bushra Adnan Zawaydeh's "The interaction of the
phonetics and phonology of gutturals", from _Phonetic Interpretation:
Papers in Laboratory Phonology VI_, vol. 6 (2004), which says "the
laryngeal consonants [?] and [h] or Arabic behave as members of the
guttutal class".
But I suppose you'll just ignore them, just as you're ignoring Daniel
Jones and Edward Sapir's use of "laryngeal" to include glottal stop.
I don't doubt that you use "laryngeal" to classify sounds based on
something other than being produced in the larynx, but your usage is
not universal, nor very logical (cf. "pro-drop").
yangg
Feb 1, 2012, 7:21:45 PM2/1/12
to
I've had no problem.
Maybe there's a sensor to detect that * you * are a jackass.
A.
yangg
Feb 1, 2012, 7:28:58 PM2/1/12
to
Anyway, any search in google.books with <hamza laryngeal> shows you
are a clown as usual.
A.
anal...@hotmail.com
Feb 1, 2012, 8:20:50 PM2/1/12
to
On Jan 31, 3:17 pm, Yusuf B Gursey <ygur...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Jan 31, 2:33 pm, yangg <fournet.arn...@wanadoo.fr> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Jan 31, 2:45 pm, "Peter T. Daniels" <gramma...@verizon.net> wrote:
>
> > > On Jan 31, 4:08 am, yangg <fournet.arn...@wanadoo.fr> wrote:
>
> > > > and one of these days I'll find the Meillet> citation to that effect. There is evidence within IE that some sound
> > > > > changes claimed to have happened in the prehistoric period actually
> > > > > did happen in the historic period. But not so for "laryngeals". So I
> > > > > am asking if there is historical evidence for laryngeals (no quotes)
> > > > > in languages outside of IE to have behaved as they allegedly did
> > > > > within IE in the prehistoric period.
>
> > > > ***
>
> > > > Akkadian is a good place to start.
> > > > Many dialects of colloquial Arabic as well.
>
> > > What "behaviors" are you thinking of? In Akkadian, 5 PSem phonemes
> > > merged into glottal stop (does "analys..." think that counts as a
> > > "laryngeal"?), but two of them colored /a/ to /e/ before disappearing.
>
> > ***
>
> > Indeed.
>
> > A.
> > ***
>
> > > Which Arabic colloquials have lost "laryngeals"? Maltese, under heavy
> > > Italian influence?-
>
> > ***
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Jan 31, 2:45 pm, "Peter T. Daniels" <gramma...@verizon.net> wrote:
>
> > > On Jan 31, 4:08 am, yangg <fournet.arn...@wanadoo.fr> wrote:
>
> > > > and one of these days I'll find the Meillet> citation to that effect. There is evidence within IE that some sound
> > > > > changes claimed to have happened in the prehistoric period actually
> > > > > did happen in the historic period. But not so for "laryngeals". So I
> > > > > am asking if there is historical evidence for laryngeals (no quotes)
> > > > > in languages outside of IE to have behaved as they allegedly did
> > > > > within IE in the prehistoric period.
>
> > > > ***
>
> > > > Akkadian is a good place to start.
> > > > Many dialects of colloquial Arabic as well.
>
> > > What "behaviors" are you thinking of? In Akkadian, 5 PSem phonemes
> > > merged into glottal stop (does "analys..." think that counts as a
> > > "laryngeal"?), but two of them colored /a/ to /e/ before disappearing.
>
> > ***
>
> > Indeed.
>
> > A.
> > ***
>
> > > Which Arabic colloquials have lost "laryngeals"? Maltese, under heavy
> > > Italian influence?-
>
> > ***
>
> > Many people do not say ra?S "head" with ? in my opinion.
>
> other than th eglottal stop the other laryngeals (h, except soemtimes
> at he end) and others such as pharyngeals and other post-velars remain
> intact.
>
>
>
>
> other than th eglottal stop the other laryngeals (h, except soemtimes
> at he end) and others such as pharyngeals and other post-velars remain
> intact.
>
>
>
> > A.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
I had an Iranian friend who expressed distaste for Arabic because of
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
the "back-of-the-mouth" sounds. Would you be so kind as to list these
sounds from Arabic, Hebrew and Caucasian languages and pick the
winner in the "extreme speech sound" derby. And diachronically, are
these languages gradually losing or fronting these sounds (plain old
[h] doesn't count) ?
anal...@hotmail.com
Feb 1, 2012, 9:44:57 PM2/1/12
to
On Jan 31, 4:33 am, yangg <fournet.arn...@wanadoo.fr> wrote:
> On Jan 27, 3:04 am, "analys...@hotmail.com" <analys...@hotmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>
> On Jan 27, 3:04 am, "analys...@hotmail.com" <analys...@hotmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>
> > *b turns out to be extremely rare - which absurdity destroys
> > everything by itself - the answer to that - "glottalic theory" is just
> > doubling down on absurdity.
>
Apparently Dutch doesn't have /g/ as a native phoneme. Therefore, *b
> > everything by itself - the answer to that - "glottalic theory" is just
> > doubling down on absurdity.
>
being rare cannot be counted as a strike against the standard model
and the Glottalic Theory is solving a non-existent problem.
Nathan Sanders
Feb 1, 2012, 10:07:29 PM2/1/12
to
In article
<fff155b3-3733-4944...@l14g2000vbe.googlegroups.com>,
There is a well-known asymmetry in articulatory difficulty between [b]
and [g], which is why there is a typological asymmetry.
Voiced sounds require continuous airflow into the oral cavity to keep
the vocal cords vibrating.
Oral stops require a raised velum and some other closure in the oral
tract, so that all air from the lungs stays trapped and increases the
air pressure, so that the stop release is loud.
The stop closure for [g] is much farther back in the mouth than
closure for [b], so [g] has a smaller cavity for air to flow into.
All else being equal, pressure is inversely proportional to volume, so
the pressure inside a smaller cavity gets greater faster, so
maintaining the stop closure against the air pressure [g] is more
difficult for [g] than for [b].
Consequently, phoneme inventories are more likely to be missing /g/
than /b/ or /d/: the UCLA Phonological Segment Inventory Database has
56 languages with a gapped voiced stop system (missing one of /bdg/),
with 48 of those (86%) are missing /g/ (and the remaining 8 are
questionable; at least one of them is wrong, and doesn't have a gapped
system at all).
Summary: there is very good articulatory and typological evidence to
call into question a reconstructed /-dg/ system of voiced stops.
<fff155b3-3733-4944...@l14g2000vbe.googlegroups.com>,
and [g], which is why there is a typological asymmetry.
Voiced sounds require continuous airflow into the oral cavity to keep
the vocal cords vibrating.
Oral stops require a raised velum and some other closure in the oral
tract, so that all air from the lungs stays trapped and increases the
air pressure, so that the stop release is loud.
The stop closure for [g] is much farther back in the mouth than
closure for [b], so [g] has a smaller cavity for air to flow into.
All else being equal, pressure is inversely proportional to volume, so
the pressure inside a smaller cavity gets greater faster, so
maintaining the stop closure against the air pressure [g] is more
difficult for [g] than for [b].
Consequently, phoneme inventories are more likely to be missing /g/
than /b/ or /d/: the UCLA Phonological Segment Inventory Database has
56 languages with a gapped voiced stop system (missing one of /bdg/),
with 48 of those (86%) are missing /g/ (and the remaining 8 are
questionable; at least one of them is wrong, and doesn't have a gapped
system at all).
Summary: there is very good articulatory and typological evidence to
call into question a reconstructed /-dg/ system of voiced stops.
Peter T. Daniels
Feb 1, 2012, 11:03:22 PM2/1/12
to
> <f0cfa054-e560-4a55-8467-55bf88c51...@s9g2000vbc.googlegroups.com>,
You think Petra is the name of a male?
> > > "In considering the actions of the muscles of the larynx, they may be
> > > conveniently divided into two groups, vix.: 1. Those which open and
> > > close the glottis. 2. Those which regulate the degree of tension of
> > > the vocal folds." (XI 1a #60)
>
> > > The glottis is part of the larynx.
>
> > Which edition of Gray's are you using?
>
> The one I posted links to.
Oh, when you posted "bartleby," that was a Gray? So it's at least a
century old?
Except for David, they are not Arabists, but linguists using the
terminology of contemporary phonology, which often shows no respect
for traditional terminology.
> I don't doubt that you use "laryngeal" to classify sounds based on
> something other than being produced in the larynx, but your usage is
> not universal, nor very logical (cf. "pro-drop").
How nice of you to recall that I abominate the anglocentric term "pro-
drop"!
Are you aware that this "discussion" is because of the foolish habit
of calling Saussure's "coefficients sonantiques" "laryngeals" because
Moeller wanted IE to look like Semitic?
Of course you're not, because the only reason you looked at the thread
was to try to catch me in what you could twist yourself into thinking
was a mistake.
> > > "In considering the actions of the muscles of the larynx, they may be
> > > conveniently divided into two groups, vix.: 1. Those which open and
> > > close the glottis. 2. Those which regulate the degree of tension of
> > > the vocal folds." (XI 1a #60)
>
> > > The glottis is part of the larynx.
>
> > Which edition of Gray's are you using?
>
> The one I posted links to.
century old?
terminology of contemporary phonology, which often shows no respect
for traditional terminology.
> I don't doubt that you use "laryngeal" to classify sounds based on
> something other than being produced in the larynx, but your usage is
> not universal, nor very logical (cf. "pro-drop").
drop"!
Are you aware that this "discussion" is because of the foolish habit
of calling Saussure's "coefficients sonantiques" "laryngeals" because
Moeller wanted IE to look like Semitic?
Of course you're not, because the only reason you looked at the thread
was to try to catch me in what you could twist yourself into thinking
was a mistake.
Nathan Sanders
Feb 1, 2012, 11:35:31 PM2/1/12
to
In article
<b7c10f8f-91b2-4e61...@w4g2000vbc.googlegroups.com>,
Dodge!
> > > > "In considering the actions of the muscles of the larynx, they may be
> > > > conveniently divided into two groups, vix.: 1. Those which open and
> > > > close the glottis. 2. Those which regulate the degree of tension of
> > > > the vocal folds." (XI 1a #60)
> >
> > > > The glottis is part of the larynx.
> >
> > > Which edition of Gray's are you using?
> >
> > The one I posted links to.
>
> Oh, when you posted "bartleby," that was a Gray? So it's at least a
> century old?
The human body doesn't evolve fast enough for the glottis to move out
of larynx within 100 years. The glottis was in the larynx in 1918,
and it was still there in 2004, as your cherished Dr. Köpf-Meyer also
showed in her pictures. That she didn't use "glottis" just shows that
she doesn't respect traditional terminology.
So you think terminology from Gray's is "old", but terminology that
dates back at least as far back as Jones and Sapir in the 1920s counts
as "contemporary"?!?
You have a very warped sense of time.
> which often shows no respect
> for traditional terminology.
Do you not consider Jones and Sapir to be "traditional"? Why don't
you respect their terminology? Why don't you care that Dr. Köpf-Meyer
doesn't respect traditional terminology from Gray's?
> > I don't doubt that you use "laryngeal" to classify sounds based on
> > something other than being produced in the larynx, but your usage is
> > not universal, nor very logical (cf. "pro-drop").
>
> How nice of you to recall that I abominate the anglocentric term "pro-
> drop"!
How nice of you to ignore the point!
> Are you aware that this "discussion" is because of the foolish habit
> of calling Saussure's "coefficients sonantiques" "laryngeals" because
> Moeller wanted IE to look like Semitic?
Glottal stop is laryngeal, despite your claim to the contrary.
> the only reason you looked at the thread was to try to catch me
The reason I "looked at the thread" was to read the messages in it.
That you made a silly overstatment that contradicts a century of
phonetics, phonology, and anatomy was just another Tuesday.
<b7c10f8f-91b2-4e61...@w4g2000vbc.googlegroups.com>,
> > > > "In considering the actions of the muscles of the larynx, they may be
> > > > conveniently divided into two groups, vix.: 1. Those which open and
> > > > close the glottis. 2. Those which regulate the degree of tension of
> > > > the vocal folds." (XI 1a #60)
> >
> > > > The glottis is part of the larynx.
> >
> > > Which edition of Gray's are you using?
> >
> > The one I posted links to.
>
> Oh, when you posted "bartleby," that was a Gray? So it's at least a
> century old?
of larynx within 100 years. The glottis was in the larynx in 1918,
and it was still there in 2004, as your cherished Dr. Köpf-Meyer also
showed in her pictures. That she didn't use "glottis" just shows that
she doesn't respect traditional terminology.
dates back at least as far back as Jones and Sapir in the 1920s counts
as "contemporary"?!?
You have a very warped sense of time.
> which often shows no respect
> for traditional terminology.
you respect their terminology? Why don't you care that Dr. Köpf-Meyer
doesn't respect traditional terminology from Gray's?
> > I don't doubt that you use "laryngeal" to classify sounds based on
> > something other than being produced in the larynx, but your usage is
> > not universal, nor very logical (cf. "pro-drop").
>
> How nice of you to recall that I abominate the anglocentric term "pro-
> drop"!
> Are you aware that this "discussion" is because of the foolish habit
> of calling Saussure's "coefficients sonantiques" "laryngeals" because
> Moeller wanted IE to look like Semitic?
> the only reason you looked at the thread was to try to catch me
That you made a silly overstatment that contradicts a century of
phonetics, phonology, and anatomy was just another Tuesday.
yangg
Feb 2, 2012, 3:22:32 AM2/2/12
to
On Feb 2, 2:20 am, "analys...@hotmail.com" <analys...@hotmail.com>
wrote:
> [h] doesn't count) ?-
***
That question is nonsense.
And again you fail to understand that the comparative method studies
languages.
It makes to sense to replace linguistic data by some pre-conceived and
impressionistic scale.
A.
wrote:
***
That question is nonsense.
And again you fail to understand that the comparative method studies
languages.
It makes to sense to replace linguistic data by some pre-conceived and
impressionistic scale.
A.
yangg
Feb 2, 2012, 3:24:38 AM2/2/12
to
On Feb 2, 3:44 am, "analys...@hotmail.com" <analys...@hotmail.com>
wrote:
??
Still cannot undestand how your brain utilizes logical connectors.
A.
***
*b
> being rare cannot be counted as a strike against the standard model
> and the Glottalic Theory is solving a non-existent problem.
***
It's at least a serious oddity, and to some extent a puzzle.
A.
***
wrote:
> On Jan 31, 4:33 am, yangg <fournet.arn...@wanadoo.fr> wrote:
>
> > On Jan 27, 3:04 am, "analys...@hotmail.com" <analys...@hotmail.com>
> > wrote:
>
> > > *b turns out to be extremely rare - which absurdity destroys
> > > everything by itself - the answer to that - "glottalic theory" is just
> > > doubling down on absurdity.
>
> Apparently Dutch doesn't have /g/ as a native phoneme. Therefore,
***
>
> > On Jan 27, 3:04 am, "analys...@hotmail.com" <analys...@hotmail.com>
> > wrote:
>
> > > *b turns out to be extremely rare - which absurdity destroys
> > > everything by itself - the answer to that - "glottalic theory" is just
> > > doubling down on absurdity.
>
> Apparently Dutch doesn't have /g/ as a native phoneme. Therefore,
??
Still cannot undestand how your brain utilizes logical connectors.
A.
***
*b
> being rare cannot be counted as a strike against the standard model
> and the Glottalic Theory is solving a non-existent problem.
It's at least a serious oddity, and to some extent a puzzle.
A.
***
yangg
Feb 2, 2012, 3:26:30 AM2/2/12
to
> <fff155b3-3733-4944-aadd-9312952ed...@l14g2000vbe.googlegroups.com>,
***
Very interesting data !
Looks like this has never been stated before, or has it?
A.
Very interesting data !
Looks like this has never been stated before, or has it?
A.
yangg
Feb 2, 2012, 3:31:11 AM2/2/12
to
On Feb 2, 5:03 am, "Peter T. Daniels" <gramma...@verizon.net> wrote:
> On Feb 1, 6:05 pm, Nathan Sanders <sand...@alum.mit.edu> wrote:
>
>
> > > > That's why linguists classify
> > > > glottal sounds as laryngeal sounds (and not as tracheal sounds).
>
> > > Linguists of Arabic don't.
>
>
> On Feb 1, 6:05 pm, Nathan Sanders <sand...@alum.mit.edu> wrote:
>
>
> > > > That's why linguists classify
> > > > glottal sounds as laryngeal sounds (and not as tracheal sounds).
>
> > > Linguists of Arabic don't.
>
>
> Except for David, they are not Arabists, but linguists using the
> terminology of contemporary phonology, which often shows no respect
> for traditional terminology.
***
> terminology of contemporary phonology, which often shows no respect
> for traditional terminology.
Sibawayhi is the first to describe glottal stop as a laryngeal, idiot.
See my previous reference.
A.
>
> Are you aware that this "discussion" is because of the foolish habit
> of calling Saussure's "coefficients sonantiques" "laryngeals" because
> Moeller wanted IE to look like Semitic?
Sweet called them glottids on the same year.
A.
***
>
> Of course you're not, because the only reason you looked at the thread
> was to try to catch me in what you could twist yourself into thinking
***
The thread shows you are a bad-faithed incompetent retard.
A.
anal...@hotmail.com
Feb 2, 2012, 5:33:36 AM2/2/12
to
On Feb 1, 10:07 pm, Nathan Sanders <sand...@alum.mit.edu> wrote:
> In article
> <fff155b3-3733-4944-aadd-9312952ed...@l14g2000vbe.googlegroups.com>,
>
> In article
> <fff155b3-3733-4944-aadd-9312952ed...@l14g2000vbe.googlegroups.com>,
>
> "analys...@hotmail.com" <analys...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > On Jan 31, 4:33 am, yangg <fournet.arn...@wanadoo.fr> wrote:
> > > On Jan 27, 3:04 am, "analys...@hotmail.com" <analys...@hotmail.com>
> > > wrote:
>
> > > > *b turns out to be extremely rare - which absurdity destroys
> > > > everything by itself - the answer to that - "glottalic theory" is just
> > > > doubling down on absurdity.
>
> > Apparently Dutch doesn't have /g/ as a native phoneme. Therefore, *b
> > being rare cannot be counted as a strike against the standard model
> > and the Glottalic Theory is solving a non-existent problem.
>
> There is a well-known asymmetry in articulatory difficulty between [b]
> and [g], which is why there is a typological asymmetry.
>
How many times does it have to be stated that mechanical ease/
> > On Jan 31, 4:33 am, yangg <fournet.arn...@wanadoo.fr> wrote:
> > > On Jan 27, 3:04 am, "analys...@hotmail.com" <analys...@hotmail.com>
> > > wrote:
>
> > > > *b turns out to be extremely rare - which absurdity destroys
> > > > everything by itself - the answer to that - "glottalic theory" is just
> > > > doubling down on absurdity.
>
> > Apparently Dutch doesn't have /g/ as a native phoneme. Therefore, *b
> > being rare cannot be counted as a strike against the standard model
> > and the Glottalic Theory is solving a non-existent problem.
>
> There is a well-known asymmetry in articulatory difficulty between [b]
> and [g], which is why there is a typological asymmetry.
>
difficulty of producing a sound is only one factor in determining its
occurrence/non-occurrence in a language?
> Voiced sounds require continuous airflow into the oral cavity to keep
> the vocal cords vibrating.
>
> Oral stops require a raised velum and some other closure in the oral
> tract, so that all air from the lungs stays trapped and increases the
> air pressure, so that the stop release is loud.
>
> The stop closure for [g] is much farther back in the mouth than
> closure for [b], so [g] has a smaller cavity for air to flow into.
>
> All else being equal, pressure is inversely proportional to volume, so
> the pressure inside a smaller cavity gets greater faster, so
> maintaining the stop closure against the air pressure [g] is more
> difficult for [g] than for [b].
>
> Consequently, phoneme inventories are more likely to be missing /g/
> than /b/ or /d/: the UCLA Phonological Segment Inventory Database has
> 56 languages with a gapped voiced stop system (missing one of /bdg/),
> with 48 of those (86%) are missing /g/ (and the remaining 8 are
> questionable; at least one of them is wrong, and doesn't have a gapped
> system at all).
>
> Summary: there is very good articulatory and typological evidence to
> call into question a reconstructed /-dg/ system of voiced stops.
>
> Nathan
>
Do we have data for holes in the unvoiced stops and how they compare
against holes in the voiced stops?
anal...@hotmail.com
Feb 2, 2012, 5:41:10 AM2/2/12
to
Wiki on Arabic phonology says
"^3 The so-called "voiced pharyngeal fricative" /ʕ/ (ع) is in fact
neither pharyngeal nor fricative, but is more correctly described as a
creaky-voiced epiglottal approximant.[16] Its unvoiced counterpart /ħ/
(ح) is likewise epiglottal, although it is a true fricative. Thelwall
asserts that the sound of ع is actually a pharyngealized glottal stop
[ʔˤ].[17] Similarly, McCarthy (1994) points to dialectal and
idiolectal variation between stop and continuant variations of /ʕ/ in
Iraq and Kuwait, noting that the distinction is superficial for Arabic
speakers and carries "no phonological consequences."[18]"
I just wanted to hear a natve's take on them. And also whether there
is tendency over time for these sounds to move forward in the mouth.
Peter T. Daniels
Feb 2, 2012, 7:47:19 AM2/2/12
to
> <b7c10f8f-91b2-4e61-8d4e-9895fa349...@w4g2000vbc.googlegroups.com>,
Your ignorance is my dodge?
> > > > > "In considering the actions of the muscles of the larynx, they may be
> > > > > conveniently divided into two groups, vix.: 1. Those which open and
> > > > > close the glottis. 2. Those which regulate the degree of tension of
> > > > > the vocal folds." (XI 1a #60)
>
> > > > > The glottis is part of the larynx.
>
> > > > Which edition of Gray's are you using?
>
> > > The one I posted links to.
>
> > Oh, when you posted "bartleby," that was a Gray? So it's at least a
> > century old?
>
> The human body doesn't evolve fast enough for the glottis to move out
> of larynx within 100 years. The glottis was in the larynx in 1918,
> and it was still there in 2004, as your cherished Dr. Köpf-Meyer also
> showed in her pictures. That she didn't use "glottis" just shows that
> she doesn't respect traditional terminology.
Why do phoneticians persist in using outmoded, archaic terminology?
Neither Daniel Jones nor Edward Sapir was an Arabist. Jones used many
words (including "phoneme") in ways that are not used today.
> You have a very warped sense of time.
>
> > which often shows no respect
> > for traditional terminology.
>
> Do you not consider Jones and Sapir to be "traditional"? Why don't
> you respect their terminology? Why don't you care that Dr. Köpf-Meyer
> doesn't respect traditional terminology from Gray's?
>
> > > I don't doubt that you use "laryngeal" to classify sounds based on
> > > something other than being produced in the larynx, but your usage is
> > > not universal, nor very logical (cf. "pro-drop").
>
> > How nice of you to recall that I abominate the anglocentric term "pro-
> > drop"!
>
> How nice of you to ignore the point!
The point, clearly stated, was that in Arabic, the laryngeals comprise
a natural class (on the basis of their effects on adjacent vowels)
that does not include the glottal stop.
> > Are you aware that this "discussion" is because of the foolish habit
> > of calling Saussure's "coefficients sonantiques" "laryngeals" because
> > Moeller wanted IE to look like Semitic?
>
> Glottal stop is laryngeal, despite your claim to the contrary.
>
> > the only reason you looked at the thread was to try to catch me
>
> The reason I "looked at the thread" was to read the messages in it.
False. When have you ever claimed, or exhibited, interest in matters
of "Proto-Iranian" or "Common Baltic"?
> That you made a silly overstatment that contradicts a century of
> phonetics, phonology, and anatomy was just another Tuesday.
"Just another Tuesday" was your looking at my postings in an attempt
to score points against me.
> > > > > "In considering the actions of the muscles of the larynx, they may be
> > > > > conveniently divided into two groups, vix.: 1. Those which open and
> > > > > close the glottis. 2. Those which regulate the degree of tension of
> > > > > the vocal folds." (XI 1a #60)
>
> > > > > The glottis is part of the larynx.
>
> > > > Which edition of Gray's are you using?
>
> > > The one I posted links to.
>
> > Oh, when you posted "bartleby," that was a Gray? So it's at least a
> > century old?
>
> The human body doesn't evolve fast enough for the glottis to move out
> of larynx within 100 years. The glottis was in the larynx in 1918,
> and it was still there in 2004, as your cherished Dr. Köpf-Meyer also
> showed in her pictures. That she didn't use "glottis" just shows that
> she doesn't respect traditional terminology.
words (including "phoneme") in ways that are not used today.
> You have a very warped sense of time.
>
> > which often shows no respect
> > for traditional terminology.
>
> Do you not consider Jones and Sapir to be "traditional"? Why don't
> you respect their terminology? Why don't you care that Dr. Köpf-Meyer
> doesn't respect traditional terminology from Gray's?
>
> > > I don't doubt that you use "laryngeal" to classify sounds based on
> > > something other than being produced in the larynx, but your usage is
> > > not universal, nor very logical (cf. "pro-drop").
>
> > How nice of you to recall that I abominate the anglocentric term "pro-
> > drop"!
>
> How nice of you to ignore the point!
a natural class (on the basis of their effects on adjacent vowels)
that does not include the glottal stop.
> > Are you aware that this "discussion" is because of the foolish habit
> > of calling Saussure's "coefficients sonantiques" "laryngeals" because
> > Moeller wanted IE to look like Semitic?
>
> Glottal stop is laryngeal, despite your claim to the contrary.
>
> > the only reason you looked at the thread was to try to catch me
>
> The reason I "looked at the thread" was to read the messages in it.
of "Proto-Iranian" or "Common Baltic"?
> That you made a silly overstatment that contradicts a century of
> phonetics, phonology, and anatomy was just another Tuesday.
to score points against me.
Peter T. Daniels
Feb 2, 2012, 7:54:06 AM2/2/12
to
that Arabic has no /g/ and no /p/ (and no /v/)? And that the reasons
for this have never been studied? Have you never even heard of Roman
Jakobson?
Peter T. Daniels
Feb 2, 2012, 7:49:43 AM2/2/12
to
On Feb 2, 3:31 am, yangg <fournet.arn...@wanadoo.fr> wrote:
> On Feb 2, 5:03 am, "Peter T. Daniels" <gramma...@verizon.net> wrote:
>
> > On Feb 1, 6:05 pm, Nathan Sanders <sand...@alum.mit.edu> wrote:
>
> > > > > That's why linguists classify
> > > > > glottal sounds as laryngeal sounds (and not as tracheal sounds).
>
> > > > Linguists of Arabic don't.
>
> > Except for David, they are not Arabists, but linguists using the
> > terminology of contemporary phonology, which often shows no respect
> > for traditional terminology.
>
> ***
>
> Sibawayhi is the first to describe glottal stop as a laryngeal, idiot.
> See my previous reference.
The one to a page not included in the amazon preview?
> On Feb 2, 5:03 am, "Peter T. Daniels" <gramma...@verizon.net> wrote:
>
> > On Feb 1, 6:05 pm, Nathan Sanders <sand...@alum.mit.edu> wrote:
>
> > > > > That's why linguists classify
> > > > > glottal sounds as laryngeal sounds (and not as tracheal sounds).
>
> > > > Linguists of Arabic don't.
>
> > Except for David, they are not Arabists, but linguists using the
> > terminology of contemporary phonology, which often shows no respect
> > for traditional terminology.
>
> ***
>
> Sibawayhi is the first to describe glottal stop as a laryngeal, idiot.
> See my previous reference.
If you have a Sibawaihi reference, why don't you simply provide it, so
that I can look it up in Sibawayhi?
> > Are you aware that this "discussion" is because of the foolish habit
> > of calling Saussure's "coefficients sonantiques" "laryngeals" because
> > Moeller wanted IE to look like Semitic?
>
> ***
>
> Sweet called them glottids on the same year.
> > Of course you're not, because the only reason you looked at the thread
> > was to try to catch me in what you could twist yourself into thinking
> > was a mistake.-
>
> ***
>
> The thread shows you are a bad-faithed incompetent retard.
yangg
Feb 2, 2012, 9:18:42 AM2/2/12
to
On Feb 2, 1:49 pm, "Peter T. Daniels" <gramma...@verizon.net> wrote:
> On Feb 2, 3:31 am, yangg <fournet.arn...@wanadoo.fr> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Feb 2, 5:03 am, "Peter T. Daniels" <gramma...@verizon.net> wrote:
>
> > > On Feb 1, 6:05 pm, Nathan Sanders <sand...@alum.mit.edu> wrote:
>
> > > > > > That's why linguists classify
> > > > > > glottal sounds as laryngeal sounds (and not as tracheal sounds).
>
> > > > > Linguists of Arabic don't.
>
> > > Except for David, they are not Arabists, but linguists using the
> > > terminology of contemporary phonology, which often shows no respect
> > > for traditional terminology.
>
> > ***
>
> > Sibawayhi is the first to describe glottal stop as a laryngeal, idiot.
> > See my previous reference.
>
> The one to a page not included in the amazon preview?
***
> On Feb 2, 3:31 am, yangg <fournet.arn...@wanadoo.fr> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Feb 2, 5:03 am, "Peter T. Daniels" <gramma...@verizon.net> wrote:
>
> > > On Feb 1, 6:05 pm, Nathan Sanders <sand...@alum.mit.edu> wrote:
>
> > > > > > That's why linguists classify
> > > > > > glottal sounds as laryngeal sounds (and not as tracheal sounds).
>
> > > > > Linguists of Arabic don't.
>
> > > Except for David, they are not Arabists, but linguists using the
> > > terminology of contemporary phonology, which often shows no respect
> > > for traditional terminology.
>
> > ***
>
> > Sibawayhi is the first to describe glottal stop as a laryngeal, idiot.
> > See my previous reference.
>
> The one to a page not included in the amazon preview?
What "amazon" idiot??
I refered to "google.books".
No surprise, I can perceive your Rumsfeldian tendency to mess up the
obvious.
A.
***
>
> If you have a Sibawaihi reference, why don't you simply provide it, so
> that I can look it up in Sibawayhi?
Stop wormingly wriggling about your inability about reading google-
books references.
Nobody else but you complains.
You are just proved to be an incompentent clown.
A.
***
>
> > > Are you aware that this "discussion" is because of the foolish habit
> > > of calling Saussure's "coefficients sonantiques" "laryngeals" because
> > > Moeller wanted IE to look like Semitic?
>
> > ***
>
> > Sweet called them glottids on the same year.
>
> And who, pray tell, has followed him with a word "glottid"?
Sweet's quotation just shows once more that you are just a miserable
bubble of fraudulent incompetence.
A.
****
>
> > > Of course you're not, because the only reason you looked at the thread
> > > was to try to catch me in what you could twist yourself into thinking
> > > was a mistake.-
>
> > ***
>
> > The thread shows you are a bad-faithed incompetent retard.
>
***
Fart.
A.
***
yangg
Feb 2, 2012, 9:12:43 AM2/2/12
to
On Feb 2, 1:47 pm, "Peter T. Daniels" <gramma...@verizon.net> wrote:
> On Feb 1, 11:35 pm, Nathan Sanders <sand...@alum.mit.edu> wrote:
>
>
> > Dodge!
>
> Your ignorance is my dodge?
***
> On Feb 1, 11:35 pm, Nathan Sanders <sand...@alum.mit.edu> wrote:
>
>
> > Dodge!
>
> Your ignorance is my dodge?
You keep dodging the very fact of your sheer incompetence.
A.
***
>
> > > > > > "In considering the actions of the muscles of the larynx, they may be
> > > > > > conveniently divided into two groups, vix.: 1. Those which open and
> > > > > > close the glottis. 2. Those which regulate the degree of tension of
> > > > > > the vocal folds." (XI 1a #60)
>
> > > > > > The glottis is part of the larynx.
>
> > > > > Which edition of Gray's are you using?
>
> > > > The one I posted links to.
>
> > > Oh, when you posted "bartleby," that was a Gray? So it's at least a
> > > century old?
>
> > The human body doesn't evolve fast enough for the glottis to move out
> > of larynx within 100 years. The glottis was in the larynx in 1918,
> > and it was still there in 2004, as your cherished Dr. Köpf-Meyer also
> > showed in her pictures. That she didn't use "glottis" just shows that
> > she doesn't respect traditional terminology.
>
> Why do phoneticians persist in using outmoded, archaic terminology?
>
And what about you, fraudulent idiot?
A.
***
About everything you say is at odds with what people say today,
retard.
A.
***
> > You have a very warped sense of time.
>
> > > which often shows no respect
> > > for traditional terminology.
>
> > Do you not consider Jones and Sapir to be "traditional"? Why don't
> > you respect their terminology? Why don't you care that Dr. Köpf-Meyer
> > doesn't respect traditional terminology from Gray's?
>
> > > > I don't doubt that you use "laryngeal" to classify sounds based on
> > > > something other than being produced in the larynx, but your usage is
> > > > not universal, nor very logical (cf. "pro-drop").
>
> > > How nice of you to recall that I abominate the anglocentric term "pro-
> > > drop"!
>
> > How nice of you to ignore the point!
>
> The point, clearly stated, was that in Arabic, the laryngeals comprise
> a natural class (on the basis of their effects on adjacent vowels)
> that does not include the glottal stop.
>
Read Sibawayhi first, idiot.
A.
***
Peter T. Daniels
Feb 2, 2012, 10:25:34 AM2/2/12
to
If you have a reference, provide it.
Peter T. Daniels
Feb 2, 2012, 10:24:17 AM2/2/12
to
On Feb 2, 9:18 am, yangg <fournet.arn...@wanadoo.fr> wrote:
> On Feb 2, 1:49 pm, "Peter T. Daniels" <gramma...@verizon.net> wrote:
> > On Feb 2, 3:31 am, yangg <fournet.arn...@wanadoo.fr> wrote:
> > > On Feb 2, 5:03 am, "Peter T. Daniels" <gramma...@verizon.net> wrote:
> > > > On Feb 1, 6:05 pm, Nathan Sanders <sand...@alum.mit.edu> wrote:
>
> > > > > > > That's why linguists classify
> > > > > > > glottal sounds as laryngeal sounds (and not as tracheal sounds).
>
> > > > > > Linguists of Arabic don't.
>
> > > > Except for David, they are not Arabists, but linguists using the
> > > > terminology of contemporary phonology, which often shows no respect
> > > > for traditional terminology.
>
> > > ***
>
> > > Sibawayhi is the first to describe glottal stop as a laryngeal, idiot.
> > > See my previous reference.
>
> > The one to a page not included in the amazon preview?
>
> ***
>
> What "amazon" idiot??
>
> I refered to "google.books".
Your link -- which was provided in some sort of abbreviated form,
> On Feb 2, 1:49 pm, "Peter T. Daniels" <gramma...@verizon.net> wrote:
> > On Feb 2, 3:31 am, yangg <fournet.arn...@wanadoo.fr> wrote:
> > > On Feb 2, 5:03 am, "Peter T. Daniels" <gramma...@verizon.net> wrote:
> > > > On Feb 1, 6:05 pm, Nathan Sanders <sand...@alum.mit.edu> wrote:
>
> > > > > > > That's why linguists classify
> > > > > > > glottal sounds as laryngeal sounds (and not as tracheal sounds).
>
> > > > > > Linguists of Arabic don't.
>
> > > > Except for David, they are not Arabists, but linguists using the
> > > > terminology of contemporary phonology, which often shows no respect
> > > > for traditional terminology.
>
> > > ***
>
> > > Sibawayhi is the first to describe glottal stop as a laryngeal, idiot.
> > > See my previous reference.
>
> > The one to a page not included in the amazon preview?
>
> ***
>
> What "amazon" idiot??
>
> I refered to "google.books".
whatever you may have started with -- took me to amazon.fr.
> No surprise, I can perceive your Rumsfeldian tendency to mess up the
> obvious.
>
> A.
> ***
>
>
>
> > If you have a Sibawaihi reference, why don't you simply provide it, so
> > that I can look it up in Sibawayhi?
>
> ***
>
> Stop wormingly wriggling about your inability about reading google-
> books references.
>
> Nobody else but you complains.
> You are just proved to be an incompentent clown.
>
> A.
> ***
>
>
>
> > > > Are you aware that this "discussion" is because of the foolish habit
> > > > of calling Saussure's "coefficients sonantiques" "laryngeals" because
> > > > Moeller wanted IE to look like Semitic?
>
> > > ***
>
> > > Sweet called them glottids on the same year.
>
> > And who, pray tell, has followed him with a word "glottid"?
>
> ***
>
> Sweet's quotation just shows once more that you are just a miserable
> bubble of fraudulent incompetence.
> > > > Of course you're not, because the only reason you looked at the thread
> > > > was to try to catch me in what you could twist yourself into thinking
> > > > was a mistake.-
>
> > > ***
>
> > > The thread shows you are a bad-faithed incompetent retard.
>
> > It reveals yet another field in which you are ignorant.-
>
> ***
>
> Fart.
Peter T. Daniels
Feb 2, 2012, 10:27:14 AM2/2/12
to
> for this have never been studied? Have you never even heard of Roman
> Jakobson?-
yangg
Feb 2, 2012, 11:25:21 AM2/2/12
to
Already done, shitload of fraud.
A.
***
yangg
Feb 2, 2012, 11:29:18 AM2/2/12
to
On Feb 2, 4:24 pm, "Peter T. Daniels" <gramma...@verizon.net> wrote:
> On Feb 2, 9:18 am, yangg <fournet.arn...@wanadoo.fr> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Feb 2, 1:49 pm, "Peter T. Daniels" <gramma...@verizon.net> wrote:
> > > On Feb 2, 3:31 am, yangg <fournet.arn...@wanadoo.fr> wrote:
> > > > On Feb 2, 5:03 am, "Peter T. Daniels" <gramma...@verizon.net> wrote:
> > > > > On Feb 1, 6:05 pm, Nathan Sanders <sand...@alum.mit.edu> wrote:
>
> > > > > > > > That's why linguists classify
> > > > > > > > glottal sounds as laryngeal sounds (and not as tracheal sounds).
>
> > > > > > > Linguists of Arabic don't.
>
> > > > > Except for David, they are not Arabists, but linguists using the
> > > > > terminology of contemporary phonology, which often shows no respect
> > > > > for traditional terminology.
>
> > > > ***
>
> > > > Sibawayhi is the first to describe glottal stop as a laryngeal, idiot.
> > > > See my previous reference.
>
> > > The one to a page not included in the amazon preview?
>
> > ***
>
> > What "amazon" idiot??
>
> > I refered to "google.books".
>
> Your link -- which was provided in some sort of abbreviated form,
> whatever you may have started with -- took me to amazon.fr.
***
> On Feb 2, 9:18 am, yangg <fournet.arn...@wanadoo.fr> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Feb 2, 1:49 pm, "Peter T. Daniels" <gramma...@verizon.net> wrote:
> > > On Feb 2, 3:31 am, yangg <fournet.arn...@wanadoo.fr> wrote:
> > > > On Feb 2, 5:03 am, "Peter T. Daniels" <gramma...@verizon.net> wrote:
> > > > > On Feb 1, 6:05 pm, Nathan Sanders <sand...@alum.mit.edu> wrote:
>
> > > > > > > > That's why linguists classify
> > > > > > > > glottal sounds as laryngeal sounds (and not as tracheal sounds).
>
> > > > > > > Linguists of Arabic don't.
>
> > > > > Except for David, they are not Arabists, but linguists using the
> > > > > terminology of contemporary phonology, which often shows no respect
> > > > > for traditional terminology.
>
> > > > ***
>
> > > > Sibawayhi is the first to describe glottal stop as a laryngeal, idiot.
> > > > See my previous reference.
>
> > > The one to a page not included in the amazon preview?
>
> > ***
>
> > What "amazon" idiot??
>
> > I refered to "google.books".
>
> Your link -- which was provided in some sort of abbreviated form,
> whatever you may have started with -- took me to amazon.fr.
A new invention of yours, fraud?
This is your problem, idiot.
A.
***
>
>
>
>
>
> > No surprise, I can perceive your Rumsfeldian tendency to mess up the
> > obvious.
>
> > A.
> > ***
>
> > > If you have a Sibawaihi reference, why don't you simply provide it, so
> > > that I can look it up in Sibawayhi?
>
> > ***
>
> > Stop wormingly wriggling about your inability about reading google-
> > books references.
>
> > Nobody else but you complains.
>
> Nobody else bothers to even try to take you halfway seriously.
can't you see that you're sinking into nonsense?
A.
***
>
>
>
>
>
> > You are just proved to be an incompentent clown.
>
> > A.
> > ***
>
> > > > > Are you aware that this "discussion" is because of the foolish habit
> > > > > of calling Saussure's "coefficients sonantiques" "laryngeals" because
> > > > > Moeller wanted IE to look like Semitic?
>
> > > > ***
>
> > > > Sweet called them glottids on the same year.
>
> > > And who, pray tell, has followed him with a word "glottid"?
>
> > ***
>
> > Sweet's quotation just shows once more that you are just a miserable
> > bubble of fraudulent incompetence.
>
> Oh, do explain your chain of inference!
You're just a shitload of nonsensical incompetence.
Shut up, Troll.
A.
***
>
> > > > > Of course you're not, because the only reason you looked at the thread
> > > > > was to try to catch me in what you could twist yourself into thinking
> > > > > was a mistake.-
>
> > > > ***
>
> > > > The thread shows you are a bad-faithed incompetent retard.
>
> > > It reveals yet another field in which you are ignorant.-
>
> > ***
>
> > Fart.
>
****
Trollish BS.
A.
***
Yusuf B Gursey
Feb 2, 2012, 11:52:01 AM2/2/12
to
On Feb 2, 5:41 am, "analys...@hotmail.com" <analys...@hotmail.com>
in Iraq and Kuwait, the `ayn is glottalized, and `ayn replaces the
glottal stop of in loans from Classical Arabic. this seems to have
been true for ancient times as well, since the medieval Arabic
grammarians noted the tendency of replacing the glottal stop with `ayn
for Eastern Arabia (calling it the characteristic of the tribe of
Tamim) and the sound change is attested for other parts of Arabia in
loans from foreign languages. however, Arabs know the distinction
between the glottal stop and the `ayn well. most studies agree with
the fricative nature of `ayn.
glottal stop of in loans from Classical Arabic. this seems to have
been true for ancient times as well, since the medieval Arabic
grammarians noted the tendency of replacing the glottal stop with `ayn
for Eastern Arabia (calling it the characteristic of the tribe of
Tamim) and the sound change is attested for other parts of Arabia in
loans from foreign languages. however, Arabs know the distinction
between the glottal stop and the `ayn well. most studies agree with
the fricative nature of `ayn.
Nathan Sanders
Feb 2, 2012, 1:29:58 PM2/2/12
to
In article
<715c29ca-8bb8-41cd...@k6g2000vbz.googlegroups.com>,
perceptual factors, and their interplay with articulatory factors.
> > Summary: there is very good articulatory and typological evidence to
> > call into question a reconstructed /-dg/ system of voiced stops.
>
> Do we have data for holes in the unvoiced stops and how they compare
> against holes in the voiced stops?
I don't have the numbers from UPSID available, but it's well-known
that typologically, the overwhelmingly most likely missing member
among voiceless stops is /p/.
The voiceless stops are all roughly equally easy to produce, since
they don't require continuous airflow like voiced stops do, so
maintaining a stop closure against continuously rising air pressure
throughout the closure is not an issue. This means that perception
can come into prominence instead.
Of [ptk], [p] is the perceptually weakest member of [ptk]. One of the
most salient perceptual features of voiceless stops is the release
burst, and the release bursts for [t] and [k] are significantly louder
than for [p]. (This is related to the air pressure issue discussed
above: because [t] and [k] have smaller cavities behind the stop
closure, they can build up greater air pressure, and a greater air
pressure differential with the outside air results in a louder burst
upon release.)
You might ask why the same perceptual factors for release burst don't
play a role for the voiced stops, favoring [g] over [b] just as [k] is
favored over [p]. The answer is pretty straightforward: the release
bursts of voiced stops are heavily dampened, often not even audible at
all. This is true across the board for voiced stops, so the
difference between the release burst of [b] and [g] isn't nearly as
big as the difference between [p] and [k]. So, for voiced stops,
perceptual factors are dominated by articulatory factors (favoring
easier [b] over harder [g]), but for voiceless stops, it's the reverse
(favoring louder [k] over softer [p]).
Note that Arabic showcases both of these gaps: it's missing both /g/
and /p/ from it's phoneme inventory.
Nathan
<715c29ca-8bb8-41cd...@k6g2000vbz.googlegroups.com>,
"anal...@hotmail.com" <anal...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> On Feb 1, 10:07 pm, Nathan Sanders <sand...@alum.mit.edu> wrote:
> > In article
> > <fff155b3-3733-4944-aadd-9312952ed...@l14g2000vbe.googlegroups.com>,
> >
> > "analys...@hotmail.com" <analys...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > > On Jan 31, 4:33 am, yangg <fournet.arn...@wanadoo.fr> wrote:
> > > > On Jan 27, 3:04 am, "analys...@hotmail.com" <analys...@hotmail.com>
> > > > wrote:
> >
> > > > > *b turns out to be extremely rare - which absurdity destroys
> > > > > everything by itself - the answer to that - "glottalic theory" is just
> > > > > doubling down on absurdity.
> >
> > > Apparently Dutch doesn't have /g/ as a native phoneme. Therefore, *b
> > > being rare cannot be counted as a strike against the standard model
> > > and the Glottalic Theory is solving a non-existent problem.
> >
> > There is a well-known asymmetry in articulatory difficulty between [b]
> > and [g], which is why there is a typological asymmetry.
>
> How many times does it have to be stated that mechanical ease/
> difficulty of producing a sound is only one factor in determining its
> occurrence/non-occurrence in a language?
Who said it was? It certainly wasn't me: much of my work looks at
> On Feb 1, 10:07 pm, Nathan Sanders <sand...@alum.mit.edu> wrote:
> > In article
> > <fff155b3-3733-4944-aadd-9312952ed...@l14g2000vbe.googlegroups.com>,
> >
> > "analys...@hotmail.com" <analys...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > > On Jan 31, 4:33 am, yangg <fournet.arn...@wanadoo.fr> wrote:
> > > > On Jan 27, 3:04 am, "analys...@hotmail.com" <analys...@hotmail.com>
> > > > wrote:
> >
> > > > > *b turns out to be extremely rare - which absurdity destroys
> > > > > everything by itself - the answer to that - "glottalic theory" is just
> > > > > doubling down on absurdity.
> >
> > > Apparently Dutch doesn't have /g/ as a native phoneme. Therefore, *b
> > > being rare cannot be counted as a strike against the standard model
> > > and the Glottalic Theory is solving a non-existent problem.
> >
> > There is a well-known asymmetry in articulatory difficulty between [b]
> > and [g], which is why there is a typological asymmetry.
>
> How many times does it have to be stated that mechanical ease/
> difficulty of producing a sound is only one factor in determining its
> occurrence/non-occurrence in a language?
perceptual factors, and their interplay with articulatory factors.
> > Summary: there is very good articulatory and typological evidence to
> > call into question a reconstructed /-dg/ system of voiced stops.
>
> The typological evidence - yes. Articulatory maybe just coincidence.
Not really.
> Do we have data for holes in the unvoiced stops and how they compare
> against holes in the voiced stops?
that typologically, the overwhelmingly most likely missing member
among voiceless stops is /p/.
The voiceless stops are all roughly equally easy to produce, since
they don't require continuous airflow like voiced stops do, so
maintaining a stop closure against continuously rising air pressure
throughout the closure is not an issue. This means that perception
can come into prominence instead.
Of [ptk], [p] is the perceptually weakest member of [ptk]. One of the
most salient perceptual features of voiceless stops is the release
burst, and the release bursts for [t] and [k] are significantly louder
than for [p]. (This is related to the air pressure issue discussed
above: because [t] and [k] have smaller cavities behind the stop
closure, they can build up greater air pressure, and a greater air
pressure differential with the outside air results in a louder burst
upon release.)
You might ask why the same perceptual factors for release burst don't
play a role for the voiced stops, favoring [g] over [b] just as [k] is
favored over [p]. The answer is pretty straightforward: the release
bursts of voiced stops are heavily dampened, often not even audible at
all. This is true across the board for voiced stops, so the
difference between the release burst of [b] and [g] isn't nearly as
big as the difference between [p] and [k]. So, for voiced stops,
perceptual factors are dominated by articulatory factors (favoring
easier [b] over harder [g]), but for voiceless stops, it's the reverse
(favoring louder [k] over softer [p]).
Note that Arabic showcases both of these gaps: it's missing both /g/
and /p/ from it's phoneme inventory.
Nathan
Nathan Sanders
Feb 2, 2012, 1:35:12 PM2/2/12
to
In article
<af490b44-88fa-4645...@hb4g2000vbb.googlegroups.com>,
Westbury and Keating 1986. My discussion above is summarized from a
paper I currently have under review. Oddly enough, the paper is about
articulatory ease in American Sign Language, so it's not obvious that
this is where you'd look for this discussion!
I have a handout from an invited talk I gave that is essentially the
paper in (dense!) handout form:
http://sanders.phonologist.org/Papers/sanders-sb-handout.pdf
The relevant discussion, with some nice pictures, is on the righthand
side of the first page.
<af490b44-88fa-4645...@hb4g2000vbb.googlegroups.com>,
> Very interesting data !
>
> Looks like this has never been stated before, or has it?
The basic phonetic explanation goes back at least to Ohala 1983 and
>
> Looks like this has never been stated before, or has it?
Westbury and Keating 1986. My discussion above is summarized from a
paper I currently have under review. Oddly enough, the paper is about
articulatory ease in American Sign Language, so it's not obvious that
this is where you'd look for this discussion!
I have a handout from an invited talk I gave that is essentially the
paper in (dense!) handout form:
http://sanders.phonologist.org/Papers/sanders-sb-handout.pdf
The relevant discussion, with some nice pictures, is on the righthand
side of the first page.
Nathan Sanders
Feb 2, 2012, 1:37:18 PM2/2/12
to
In article
<506567cd-c9be-4df5...@t30g2000vbx.googlegroups.com>,
/p/ are prone to absence from phoneme inventories. See my other post
for discussion of the reasons.
<506567cd-c9be-4df5...@t30g2000vbx.googlegroups.com>,
> > Very interesting data !
> >
> > Looks like this has never been stated before, or has it?
>
> ... demonstrating your ignorance of Arabic. Do you _really_ not know
> that Arabic has no /g/ and no /p/ (and no /v/)? And that the reasons
> for this have never been studied? Have you never even heard of Roman
> Jakobson?
What?! Of course they've been studied! It's well-known why /g/ and
> >
> > Looks like this has never been stated before, or has it?
>
> ... demonstrating your ignorance of Arabic. Do you _really_ not know
> that Arabic has no /g/ and no /p/ (and no /v/)? And that the reasons
> for this have never been studied? Have you never even heard of Roman
> Jakobson?
/p/ are prone to absence from phoneme inventories. See my other post
for discussion of the reasons.
Nathan Sanders
Feb 2, 2012, 2:12:34 PM2/2/12
to
In article
<7d8ca51e-ff80-4e1b...@o14g2000vbo.googlegroups.com>,
Your focusing on an irrelevancy (my not caring about the gender of the
author) rather than responding to the substantive content (my asking
what input the author needs from me) is the dodge.
> > > > > > "In considering the actions of the muscles of the larynx, they may
> > > > > > be
> > > > > > conveniently divided into two groups, vix.: 1. Those which open and
> > > > > > close the glottis. 2. Those which regulate the degree of tension of
> > > > > > the vocal folds." (XI 1a #60)
> >
> > > > > > The glottis is part of the larynx.
> >
> > > > > Which edition of Gray's are you using?
> >
> > > > The one I posted links to.
> >
> > > Oh, when you posted "bartleby," that was a Gray? So it's at least a
> > > century old?
> >
> > The human body doesn't evolve fast enough for the glottis to move out
> > of larynx within 100 years. The glottis was in the larynx in 1918,
> > and it was still there in 2004, as your cherished Dr. Köpf-Meyer also
> > showed in her pictures. That she didn't use "glottis" just shows that
> > she doesn't respect traditional terminology.
>
> Why do phoneticians persist in using outmoded, archaic terminology?
Why do you? (Hint: your use of "traditional" is just the first-person
conjugation of your use of "archaic".)
Of course, I still can't even imagine where you got the ridiculous
notion that either "glottis" 'vocal folds and the space between them'
or "laryngeal" 'of or having to do with the larynx' is remotely
"outmoded" or "archaic".
> > > > > > That's why linguists classify
> > > > > > glottal sounds as laryngeal sounds (and not as tracheal sounds).
> >
> > > > > Linguists of Arabic don't.
> >
> > > > Except the ones I cited, of course (Saleh et al.), and all the others
> > > > that also do that I haven't yet cited.
> >
> Jones used many
> words (including "phoneme") in ways that are not used today.
So you agree that he is not "contemporary". Good!
> > > which often shows no respect
> > > for traditional terminology.
> >
> > Do you not consider Jones and Sapir to be "traditional"? Why don't
> > you respect their terminology? Why don't you care that Dr. Köpf-Meyer
> > doesn't respect traditional terminology from Gray's?
Why do you refuse to answer this line of questioning? What makes
Jones, Sapir, and Gray "archaic" (and thus, to be ignored), but the
use of "laryngeal" to mean 'a set of sounds that happens to exclude a
notable sound made solely in the larynx' "traditional" (and thus, to
be respected)?
> > > > I don't doubt that you use "laryngeal" to classify sounds based on
> > > > something other than being produced in the larynx, but your usage is
> > > > not universal, nor very logical (cf. "pro-drop").
> >
> > > How nice of you to recall that I abominate the anglocentric term "pro-
> > > drop"!
> >
> > How nice of you to ignore the point!
>
> The point, clearly stated, was that in Arabic, the laryngeals comprise
> a natural class (on the basis of their effects on adjacent vowels)
> that does not include the glottal stop.
The point is that this usage of "laryngeal" is as non-sensical as
"pro-drop" or certain uses of "ergative" that you find abhorrent. Why
would someone so vehemently opposed to "pro-drop" and incorrect
"ergative" turn around and vehemently advocate continuing to use a
name for a class of sounds, when that name has a pre-existing meaning
(of or having to do with the larynx), and when that class of sounds
*excludes* one of the most well-known representatives of that
pre-existing meaning?
> > > Are you aware that this "discussion" is because of the foolish habit
> > > of calling Saussure's "coefficients sonantiques" "laryngeals" because
> > > Moeller wanted IE to look like Semitic?
> >
> > Glottal stop is laryngeal, despite your claim to the contrary.
> >
> > > the only reason you looked at the thread was to try to catch me
> >
> > The reason I "looked at the thread" was to read the messages in it.
>
> False. When have you ever claimed, or exhibited, interest in matters
> of "Proto-Iranian" or "Common Baltic"?
I didn't realize I needed to file a statement of interest in a topic
before der Fuhrer would allow me to read about it.
Does this mean you will stop reading and commenting on discussions
about English phonetics, since you have *explicitly* stated that you
have no interest in it?
> > That you made a silly overstatment that contradicts a century of
> > phonetics, phonology, and anatomy was
>
> "Just another Tuesday"
Indeed.
<7d8ca51e-ff80-4e1b...@o14g2000vbo.googlegroups.com>,
author) rather than responding to the substantive content (my asking
what input the author needs from me) is the dodge.
> > > > > > "In considering the actions of the muscles of the larynx, they may
> > > > > > be
> > > > > > conveniently divided into two groups, vix.: 1. Those which open and
> > > > > > close the glottis. 2. Those which regulate the degree of tension of
> > > > > > the vocal folds." (XI 1a #60)
> >
> > > > > > The glottis is part of the larynx.
> >
> > > > > Which edition of Gray's are you using?
> >
> > > > The one I posted links to.
> >
> > > Oh, when you posted "bartleby," that was a Gray? So it's at least a
> > > century old?
> >
> > The human body doesn't evolve fast enough for the glottis to move out
> > of larynx within 100 years. The glottis was in the larynx in 1918,
> > and it was still there in 2004, as your cherished Dr. Köpf-Meyer also
> > showed in her pictures. That she didn't use "glottis" just shows that
> > she doesn't respect traditional terminology.
>
> Why do phoneticians persist in using outmoded, archaic terminology?
conjugation of your use of "archaic".)
Of course, I still can't even imagine where you got the ridiculous
notion that either "glottis" 'vocal folds and the space between them'
or "laryngeal" 'of or having to do with the larynx' is remotely
"outmoded" or "archaic".
> > > > > > That's why linguists classify
> > > > > > glottal sounds as laryngeal sounds (and not as tracheal sounds).
> >
> > > > > Linguists of Arabic don't.
> >
> > > > Except the ones I cited, of course (Saleh et al.), and all the others
> > > > that also do that I haven't yet cited.
> >
> > > > But I suppose you'll just ignore them, just as you're ignoring Daniel
> > > > Jones and Edward Sapir's use of "laryngeal" to include glottal stop.
> >
> > > Except for David, they are not Arabists, but linguists using the
> > > terminology of contemporary phonology,
> >
> > So you think terminology from Gray's is "old", but terminology that
> > dates back at least as far back as Jones and Sapir in the 1920s counts
> > as "contemporary"?!?
>
> Neither Daniel Jones nor Edward Sapir was an Arabist.
Nor are they representative of "contemporary phonology"!
> > > > Jones and Edward Sapir's use of "laryngeal" to include glottal stop.
> >
> > > Except for David, they are not Arabists, but linguists using the
> > > terminology of contemporary phonology,
> >
> > So you think terminology from Gray's is "old", but terminology that
> > dates back at least as far back as Jones and Sapir in the 1920s counts
> > as "contemporary"?!?
>
> Neither Daniel Jones nor Edward Sapir was an Arabist.
> Jones used many
> words (including "phoneme") in ways that are not used today.
> > > which often shows no respect
> > > for traditional terminology.
> >
> > Do you not consider Jones and Sapir to be "traditional"? Why don't
> > you respect their terminology? Why don't you care that Dr. Köpf-Meyer
> > doesn't respect traditional terminology from Gray's?
Jones, Sapir, and Gray "archaic" (and thus, to be ignored), but the
use of "laryngeal" to mean 'a set of sounds that happens to exclude a
notable sound made solely in the larynx' "traditional" (and thus, to
be respected)?
> > > > I don't doubt that you use "laryngeal" to classify sounds based on
> > > > something other than being produced in the larynx, but your usage is
> > > > not universal, nor very logical (cf. "pro-drop").
> >
> > > How nice of you to recall that I abominate the anglocentric term "pro-
> > > drop"!
> >
> > How nice of you to ignore the point!
>
> The point, clearly stated, was that in Arabic, the laryngeals comprise
> a natural class (on the basis of their effects on adjacent vowels)
> that does not include the glottal stop.
"pro-drop" or certain uses of "ergative" that you find abhorrent. Why
would someone so vehemently opposed to "pro-drop" and incorrect
"ergative" turn around and vehemently advocate continuing to use a
name for a class of sounds, when that name has a pre-existing meaning
(of or having to do with the larynx), and when that class of sounds
*excludes* one of the most well-known representatives of that
pre-existing meaning?
> > > Are you aware that this "discussion" is because of the foolish habit
> > > of calling Saussure's "coefficients sonantiques" "laryngeals" because
> > > Moeller wanted IE to look like Semitic?
> >
> > Glottal stop is laryngeal, despite your claim to the contrary.
> >
> > > the only reason you looked at the thread was to try to catch me
> >
> > The reason I "looked at the thread" was to read the messages in it.
>
> False. When have you ever claimed, or exhibited, interest in matters
> of "Proto-Iranian" or "Common Baltic"?
before der Fuhrer would allow me to read about it.
Does this mean you will stop reading and commenting on discussions
about English phonetics, since you have *explicitly* stated that you
have no interest in it?
> > That you made a silly overstatment that contradicts a century of
> > phonetics, phonology, and anatomy was
>
Indeed.
Brian M. Scott
Feb 2, 2012, 4:16:38 PM2/2/12
to
On Thu, 02 Feb 2012 13:29:58 -0500, Nathan Sanders
<san...@alum.mit.edu> wrote in
<news:sanders-64D48D...@atoulouse-552-1-42-74.w92-136.abo.wanadoo.fr>
in sci.lang:
[...]
> Note that Arabic showcases both of these gaps: it's
> missing both /g/ and /p/ from it's phoneme inventory.
Definitely a GaP. Or maybe better, a gAp.
Brian
<san...@alum.mit.edu> wrote in
<news:sanders-64D48D...@atoulouse-552-1-42-74.w92-136.abo.wanadoo.fr>
in sci.lang:
[...]
> Note that Arabic showcases both of these gaps: it's
> missing both /g/ and /p/ from it's phoneme inventory.
Brian
Nathan Sanders
Feb 2, 2012, 4:19:41 PM2/2/12
to
Peter T. Daniels
Feb 2, 2012, 5:31:18 PM2/2/12
to
Peter T. Daniels
Feb 2, 2012, 5:37:40 PM2/2/12
to
> <506567cd-c9be-4df5-80bb-dce91d93a...@t30g2000vbx.googlegroups.com>,
Jackass. The message was amended three hours before you posted this
response to this version with a tangled argument structure.
(If you didn't approach everything I write in bad faith, you would
have recognized what I had intended to say.) (Unless you, too, have
never heard of Roman Jakobson.)
response to this version with a tangled argument structure.
(If you didn't approach everything I write in bad faith, you would
have recognized what I had intended to say.) (Unless you, too, have
never heard of Roman Jakobson.)
DKleinecke
Feb 2, 2012, 8:59:30 PM2/2/12
to
On Feb 2, 10:29 am, Nathan Sanders <sand...@alum.mit.edu> wrote:
> Note that Arabic showcases both of these gaps: it's missing both /g/
> and /p/ from it's phoneme inventory.
This is not the only way to look at the phonemes of Arabic.
> Note that Arabic showcases both of these gaps: it's missing both /g/
> and /p/ from it's phoneme inventory.
Some Arabic dialects actually have sounds described as 'g' where the
mainline transliteration shows 'j'. In any case the consonant written
as 'j' patterns as though it were 'g'.
So far as I know all Arabic dialects have the sound described as 'f'
where related languages - at least Hebrew - have 'p'. And 'f'
patterns as 'p'.
There is a real gap in the pattern in that there is nothing
corresponding to an emphatic 'p' in Arabic - or, so far as I know, in
any other Semitic language apart from recent Ethiopian languages
(where it is said to innovative). The fact that PIE has, essentially,
no 'b' has led people into theories where voiced PIE stops are
reconstructed as "emphatic" - but that is a different matter.
If one admits to the emphatic 'p' gap the 24 Arabic non-sonants
pattern very nicely into three series - voiced / voiceless / emphatic
- of eight "points of articulation"
b p #
t d x
th dh xh
z s sh
c ch
g k q
gh
anal...@hotmail.com
Feb 2, 2012, 9:09:46 PM2/2/12
to
On Jan 22, 12:13 pm, "analys...@hotmail.com" <analys...@hotmail.com>
wrote:
"The theory is thus provable in a concrete sense, and it removes a
typological objection against the older reconstruction of PIE stops"
Page 129 of his Comp IE Ling 2nd edition 2011.
wrote:
"The theory is thus provable in a concrete sense, and it removes a
typological objection against the older reconstruction of PIE stops"
Page 129 of his Comp IE Ling 2nd edition 2011.
DKleinecke
Feb 2, 2012, 9:22:50 PM2/2/12
to
> Note that Arabic showcases both of these gaps: it's missing both /g/
> and /p/ from it's phoneme inventory.
My earlier reply was broken off accidentally while I was building up
> and /p/ from it's phoneme inventory.
the pattern of non-sonants.
The complete pattern is
b p #
t d x
th dh xh
z s sh
g k q
gh kh h
o e '
Arabic has lost one sibilant contrast. There are six sonants which you
can force into this table if you want to - but I feel that is going
too far. The sonants pattern better by pairs
w y
m n
r l
for those who consider my transliteration too exotic - 'o' is ayin and
'e' is ha. 'c' is sad and 'ch' is dad. 'q' should, according to this
pattern should be written 'kh', 'kh' as 'q' and 'h' as 'qh" but I felt
I had to give in to tradition on these three sounds.
The eight series move successively back in the mouth. Older books in
English call all of the last
six sounds guttural. Whether that is the same as laryngeal is probably
a matter of taste. Unless, of course, one is a phonetician concerned
with a precise statement of just exactly how a particular sound is
produced.
As to what the phoneme inventory of Arabic consists of is also a
matter taste. Everybody knows, or should know, there is no THE
phonemes of any language.
pauljk
Feb 3, 2012, 12:17:59 AM2/3/12
to
"Nathan Sanders" <san...@alum.mit.edu> wrote in message
news:sanders-62C7C3...@atoulouse-552-1-42-74.w92-136.abo.wanadoo.fr...
pjk
news:sanders-62C7C3...@atoulouse-552-1-42-74.w92-136.abo.wanadoo.fr...
> In article <s4441uzx1xfm.1mvjcjld3iiwt$.d...@40tude.net>,
> "Brian M. Scott" <b.s...@csuohio.edu> wrote:
>
>> On Thu, 02 Feb 2012 13:29:58 -0500, Nathan Sanders
>> <san...@alum.mit.edu> wrote in
>> <news:sanders-64D48D...@atoulouse-552-1-42-74.w92-136.abo.wanadoo.
>> fr>
>> in sci.lang:
>>
>> [...]
>>
>> > Note that Arabic showcases both of these gaps: it's
>> > missing both /g/ and /p/ from it's phoneme inventory.
>>
>> Definitely a GaP. Or maybe better, a gAp.
>
> Nice!
It's a medical whodunit: The Case Of a Missing GP.
> "Brian M. Scott" <b.s...@csuohio.edu> wrote:
>
>> On Thu, 02 Feb 2012 13:29:58 -0500, Nathan Sanders
>> <san...@alum.mit.edu> wrote in
>> <news:sanders-64D48D...@atoulouse-552-1-42-74.w92-136.abo.wanadoo.
>> fr>
>> in sci.lang:
>>
>> [...]
>>
>> > Note that Arabic showcases both of these gaps: it's
>> > missing both /g/ and /p/ from it's phoneme inventory.
>>
>> Definitely a GaP. Or maybe better, a gAp.
>
> Nice!
pjk
Trond Engen
Feb 3, 2012, 7:29:04 AM2/3/12
to
Nathan Sanders:
> yangg:
>
>> Nathan Sanders:
>>
>>> "analys...@hotmail.com":
>>>
>>>> yangg:
>>>>
>>>>> "analys...@hotmail.com":
I suppose that those here who are linguists (and some dedicated groupies
like me) have seen this review (on Linguist List yesterday):
| EDITORS: Daniel Recasens, Fernando Sánchez Miret; Kenneth J. Wireback
| TITLE: Experimental phonetics and sound change
| SERIES TITLE: LINCOM Studies in Phonetics 05
| PUBLISHER: Lincom Europa
| YEAR: 2010
|
| Erin Ament, Department of English, College of William and Mary
|
| SUMMARY
| This is an edited volume of articles based on a workshop on
| sound change that took place in Salamanca, Spain in May 2009.
| The workshop was focused on gaining a better understanding of
| sound change through the study of articulatory, acoustic, and
| perceptual data. The majority of the articles combine a
| discussion of historical sound changes with experimental data
| that either supports or contradicts the existing historical
| analyses.
|
| The first article, by Silvia Calamai and Irene Ricci, is titled
| "Speech rate and articulatory reduction in Italian alveolar and
| velar nasal + stop clusters". [...]
|
| The second article is Chiara Celata's "Rhotic retroflexion in
| Romance. Acoustic data for an articulation-driven sound change".
| It investigates the retroflexion of /t(:)r/ clusters in Sicilian.
| [...]
|
| The third article by Juan Felipe García Santos is an updated
| summary of a book by the same author in 2002. In "Experimental
| analysis of some acoustically driven phonetic changes in Medieval
| Spanish", [...]
|
| The fourth article is Daniel Recasens and Aina Espinosa's "A
| perceptual analysis of the articulatory and acoustic factors
| triggering dark /l/ vocalization". This article examines the
| perception of dark /l/ as /w/ in Catalan. [...]
|
| The fifth article is "The effect of word final unstressed high
| vowels on stressed vowel duration and its consequences for
| metaphonic diphthongization in Southern Italian" by Fernando
| Sánchez Miret. [...]
|
| The sixth article, by Kenneth Wireback, is titled "A
| reexamination of the palatalization of Latin /kt/ in the light
| of phonetic research". [...]
|
| The seventh and final article is by Marzena Żygis, "On changes
| in Slavic sibilant systems and their perceptual motivation". The
| article clearly presents extensive articulatory, acoustic, and
| perceptual data about sibilants in several Slavic languages.[...]
More at <http://linguistlist.org/issues/23/23-502.html>.
--
Trond Engen
> yangg:
>
>> Nathan Sanders:
>>
>>> "analys...@hotmail.com":
>>>
>>>> yangg:
>>>>
>>>>> "analys...@hotmail.com":
like me) have seen this review (on Linguist List yesterday):
| EDITORS: Daniel Recasens, Fernando Sánchez Miret; Kenneth J. Wireback
| TITLE: Experimental phonetics and sound change
| SERIES TITLE: LINCOM Studies in Phonetics 05
| PUBLISHER: Lincom Europa
| YEAR: 2010
|
| Erin Ament, Department of English, College of William and Mary
|
| SUMMARY
| This is an edited volume of articles based on a workshop on
| sound change that took place in Salamanca, Spain in May 2009.
| The workshop was focused on gaining a better understanding of
| sound change through the study of articulatory, acoustic, and
| perceptual data. The majority of the articles combine a
| discussion of historical sound changes with experimental data
| that either supports or contradicts the existing historical
| analyses.
|
| The first article, by Silvia Calamai and Irene Ricci, is titled
| "Speech rate and articulatory reduction in Italian alveolar and
| velar nasal + stop clusters". [...]
|
| The second article is Chiara Celata's "Rhotic retroflexion in
| Romance. Acoustic data for an articulation-driven sound change".
| It investigates the retroflexion of /t(:)r/ clusters in Sicilian.
| [...]
|
| The third article by Juan Felipe García Santos is an updated
| summary of a book by the same author in 2002. In "Experimental
| analysis of some acoustically driven phonetic changes in Medieval
| Spanish", [...]
|
| The fourth article is Daniel Recasens and Aina Espinosa's "A
| perceptual analysis of the articulatory and acoustic factors
| triggering dark /l/ vocalization". This article examines the
| perception of dark /l/ as /w/ in Catalan. [...]
|
| The fifth article is "The effect of word final unstressed high
| vowels on stressed vowel duration and its consequences for
| metaphonic diphthongization in Southern Italian" by Fernando
| Sánchez Miret. [...]
|
| The sixth article, by Kenneth Wireback, is titled "A
| reexamination of the palatalization of Latin /kt/ in the light
| of phonetic research". [...]
|
| The seventh and final article is by Marzena Żygis, "On changes
| in Slavic sibilant systems and their perceptual motivation". The
| article clearly presents extensive articulatory, acoustic, and
| perceptual data about sibilants in several Slavic languages.[...]
More at <http://linguistlist.org/issues/23/23-502.html>.
--
Trond Engen
yangg
Feb 3, 2012, 8:20:53 AM2/3/12
to
On Feb 2, 11:31 pm, "Peter T. Daniels" <gramma...@verizon.net> wrote:
> On Feb 2, 11:25 am, yangg <fournet.arn...@wanadoo.fr> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Feb 2, 4:25 pm, "Peter T. Daniels" <gramma...@verizon.net> wrote:> On Feb 2, 9:12 am, yangg <fournet.arn...@wanadoo.fr> wrote:
>
> > > > On Feb 2, 1:47 pm, "Peter T. Daniels" <gramma...@verizon.net> wrote:
> > > > > The point, clearly stated, was that in Arabic, the laryngeals comprise
> > > > > a natural class (on the basis of their effects on adjacent vowels)
> > > > > that does not include the glottal stop.
>
> > > > ***
>
> > > > Read Sibawayhi first, idiot.
>
> > > I've read a hell of a lot more Sibawayhi than you have, poseur.
***
> On Feb 2, 11:25 am, yangg <fournet.arn...@wanadoo.fr> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Feb 2, 4:25 pm, "Peter T. Daniels" <gramma...@verizon.net> wrote:> On Feb 2, 9:12 am, yangg <fournet.arn...@wanadoo.fr> wrote:
>
> > > > On Feb 2, 1:47 pm, "Peter T. Daniels" <gramma...@verizon.net> wrote:
> > > > > The point, clearly stated, was that in Arabic, the laryngeals comprise
> > > > > a natural class (on the basis of their effects on adjacent vowels)
> > > > > that does not include the glottal stop.
>
> > > > ***
>
> > > > Read Sibawayhi first, idiot.
>
> > > I've read a hell of a lot more Sibawayhi than you have, poseur.
It's fun to read insults (?) that look like pseudo-French words that
have no meaning in French.
bouffon !
A.
***
>
> > > If you have a reference, provide it.
>
> > ***
>
> > Already done, shitload of fraud.
>
> That's a lie.
You are certainly the most arrogant and bad-faithed troll I know.
So much so that you are closer to being a clown than a troll.
A.
yangg
Feb 3, 2012, 8:26:36 AM2/3/12
to
On Feb 3, 3:09 am, "analys...@hotmail.com" <analys...@hotmail.com>
wrote:
***
You should certainly read Salmon's book on Glottalic PIE.
A.
wrote:
You should certainly read Salmon's book on Glottalic PIE.
A.
yangg
Feb 3, 2012, 8:24:45 AM2/3/12
to
What do your symbols stand for?
A.
yangg
Feb 3, 2012, 8:33:59 AM2/3/12
to
On Feb 3, 3:22 am, DKleinecke <dkleine...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Feb 2, 10:29 am, Nathan Sanders <sand...@alum.mit.edu> wrote:
>
> > Note that Arabic showcases both of these gaps: it's missing both /g/
> > and /p/ from it's phoneme inventory.
>
> My earlier reply was broken off accidentally while I was building up
> the pattern of non-sonants.
>
> The complete pattern is
>
> b p #
> t d x
> th dh xh
> z s sh
> # c ch
> g k q
> gh kh h
> o e '
>
***
> On Feb 2, 10:29 am, Nathan Sanders <sand...@alum.mit.edu> wrote:
>
> > Note that Arabic showcases both of these gaps: it's missing both /g/
> > and /p/ from it's phoneme inventory.
>
> My earlier reply was broken off accidentally while I was building up
> the pattern of non-sonants.
>
> The complete pattern is
>
> b p #
> t d x
> th dh xh
> z s sh
> # c ch
> g k q
> gh kh h
> o e '
>
Actually the pattern is:
p b /
t d t.
th dh z. (spirants)
s z s.
sh / d. (ex-lateralized)
k g q
kh gh / (spirants)
h. & /
/ h ?
A.
Ruud Harmsen
Feb 3, 2012, 9:31:55 AM2/3/12
to
"anal...@hotmail.com" <anal...@hotmail.com> schreef/wrote:
>On Jan 31, 4:33 am, yangg <fournet.arn...@wanadoo.fr> wrote:
>> On Jan 27, 3:04 am, "analys...@hotmail.com" <analys...@hotmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>
http://rudhar.com/fonetics/szfvgch/nl.htm
(A badly written article, I think in hindsight:
http://rudhar.com/fonetics/szfvgch/bdwritnl.htm . I found a typo in it
in 2012, so I didn't spell check my web articles back then!)
--
Ruud Harmsen,
http://rudhar.com/new
>On Jan 31, 4:33 am, yangg <fournet.arn...@wanadoo.fr> wrote:
>> On Jan 27, 3:04 am, "analys...@hotmail.com" <analys...@hotmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>
>> > *b turns out to be extremely rare - which absurdity destroys
>> > everything by itself - the answer to that - "glottalic theory" is just
>> > doubling down on absurdity.
>>
>
>
>Apparently Dutch doesn't have /g/ as a native phoneme. Therefore, *b
>being rare cannot be counted as a strike against the standard model
>and the Glottalic Theory is solving a non-existent problem.
They are marginal phonemes:
>> > everything by itself - the answer to that - "glottalic theory" is just
>> > doubling down on absurdity.
>>
>
>
>Apparently Dutch doesn't have /g/ as a native phoneme. Therefore, *b
>being rare cannot be counted as a strike against the standard model
>and the Glottalic Theory is solving a non-existent problem.
http://rudhar.com/fonetics/szfvgch/nl.htm
(A badly written article, I think in hindsight:
http://rudhar.com/fonetics/szfvgch/bdwritnl.htm . I found a typo in it
in 2012, so I didn't spell check my web articles back then!)
--
Ruud Harmsen,
http://rudhar.com/new
Ruud Harmsen
Feb 3, 2012, 9:34:55 AM2/3/12
to
Ruud Harmsen <r...@rudhar.com> schreef/wrote:
foreign words (and as a assimilated allophone of /k/: <zakdoek> =
/zAkduk/ = [zAgduk] )
Please ignore this, it is irrelevant.
>>Apparently Dutch doesn't have /g/ as a native phoneme. Therefore, *b
>>being rare cannot be counted as a strike against the standard model
>>and the Glottalic Theory is solving a non-existent problem.
Sorry, I misread that. I can confirm that [g] only ever appears in
>>being rare cannot be counted as a strike against the standard model
>>and the Glottalic Theory is solving a non-existent problem.
foreign words (and as a assimilated allophone of /k/: <zakdoek> =
/zAkduk/ = [zAgduk] )
Please ignore this, it is irrelevant.
Peter T. Daniels
Feb 3, 2012, 11:24:13 AM2/3/12
to
On Feb 3, 8:20 am, yangg <fournet.arn...@wanadoo.fr> wrote:
> On Feb 2, 11:31 pm, "Peter T. Daniels" <gramma...@verizon.net> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Feb 2, 11:25 am, yangg <fournet.arn...@wanadoo.fr> wrote:
>
> > > On Feb 2, 4:25 pm, "Peter T. Daniels" <gramma...@verizon.net> wrote:> On Feb 2, 9:12 am, yangg <fournet.arn...@wanadoo.fr> wrote:
>
> > > > > On Feb 2, 1:47 pm, "Peter T. Daniels" <gramma...@verizon.net> wrote:
> > > > > > The point, clearly stated, was that in Arabic, the laryngeals comprise
> > > > > > a natural class (on the basis of their effects on adjacent vowels)
> > > > > > that does not include the glottal stop.
>
> > > > > ***
>
> > > > > Read Sibawayhi first, idiot.
>
> > > > I've read a hell of a lot more Sibawayhi than you have, poseur.
>
> ***
>
> It's fun to read insults (?) that look like pseudo-French words that
> have no meaning in French.
"Poseur" is an English word, dating from 1869 (a bit early to have
> On Feb 2, 11:31 pm, "Peter T. Daniels" <gramma...@verizon.net> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Feb 2, 11:25 am, yangg <fournet.arn...@wanadoo.fr> wrote:
>
> > > On Feb 2, 4:25 pm, "Peter T. Daniels" <gramma...@verizon.net> wrote:> On Feb 2, 9:12 am, yangg <fournet.arn...@wanadoo.fr> wrote:
>
> > > > > On Feb 2, 1:47 pm, "Peter T. Daniels" <gramma...@verizon.net> wrote:
> > > > > > The point, clearly stated, was that in Arabic, the laryngeals comprise
> > > > > > a natural class (on the basis of their effects on adjacent vowels)
> > > > > > that does not include the glottal stop.
>
> > > > > ***
>
> > > > > Read Sibawayhi first, idiot.
>
> > > > I've read a hell of a lot more Sibawayhi than you have, poseur.
>
> ***
>
> It's fun to read insults (?) that look like pseudo-French words that
> have no meaning in French.
been introduced by Oscar Wilde).
> bouffon !
"Bouffon" is the name of a celebrated 18th-century naturalist, but it
is not a word in English. Perhaps you were groping for "buffoon."
> > > > If you have a reference, provide it.
>
> > > ***
>
> > > Already done, shitload of fraud.
>
> > That's a lie.
But you've already demonstrated you know nothing about Arabic;
probably you can't even read Jahn's German rendition (more a midrash)
of Sibawayhi. (Both the Arabic and the German text reside on my
computer, ready to provide confirmation of your interpretation.)
yangg
Feb 3, 2012, 5:32:20 PM2/3/12
to
On Feb 3, 5:24 pm, "Peter T. Daniels" <gramma...@verizon.net> wrote:
> On Feb 3, 8:20 am, yangg <fournet.arn...@wanadoo.fr> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Feb 2, 11:31 pm, "Peter T. Daniels" <gramma...@verizon.net> wrote:
>
> > > On Feb 2, 11:25 am, yangg <fournet.arn...@wanadoo.fr> wrote:
>
> > > > On Feb 2, 4:25 pm, "Peter T. Daniels" <gramma...@verizon.net> wrote:> On Feb 2, 9:12 am, yangg <fournet.arn...@wanadoo.fr> wrote:
>
> > > > > > On Feb 2, 1:47 pm, "Peter T. Daniels" <gramma...@verizon.net> wrote:
> > > > > > > The point, clearly stated, was that in Arabic, the laryngeals comprise
> > > > > > > a natural class (on the basis of their effects on adjacent vowels)
> > > > > > > that does not include the glottal stop.
>
> > > > > > ***
>
> > > > > > Read Sibawayhi first, idiot.
>
> > > > > I've read a hell of a lot more Sibawayhi than you have, poseur.
>
> > ***
>
> > It's fun to read insults (?) that look like pseudo-French words that
> > have no meaning in French.
>
> "Poseur" is an English word, dating from 1869 (a bit early to have
> been introduced by Oscar Wilde).
>
> > bouffon !
>
> "Bouffon" is the name of a celebrated 18th-century naturalist, but it
> is not a word in English. Perhaps you were groping for "buffoon."
***
> On Feb 3, 8:20 am, yangg <fournet.arn...@wanadoo.fr> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Feb 2, 11:31 pm, "Peter T. Daniels" <gramma...@verizon.net> wrote:
>
> > > On Feb 2, 11:25 am, yangg <fournet.arn...@wanadoo.fr> wrote:
>
> > > > On Feb 2, 4:25 pm, "Peter T. Daniels" <gramma...@verizon.net> wrote:> On Feb 2, 9:12 am, yangg <fournet.arn...@wanadoo.fr> wrote:
>
> > > > > > On Feb 2, 1:47 pm, "Peter T. Daniels" <gramma...@verizon.net> wrote:
> > > > > > > The point, clearly stated, was that in Arabic, the laryngeals comprise
> > > > > > > a natural class (on the basis of their effects on adjacent vowels)
> > > > > > > that does not include the glottal stop.
>
> > > > > > ***
>
> > > > > > Read Sibawayhi first, idiot.
>
> > > > > I've read a hell of a lot more Sibawayhi than you have, poseur.
>
> > ***
>
> > It's fun to read insults (?) that look like pseudo-French words that
> > have no meaning in French.
>
> "Poseur" is an English word, dating from 1869 (a bit early to have
> been introduced by Oscar Wilde).
>
> > bouffon !
>
> "Bouffon" is the name of a celebrated 18th-century naturalist, but it
> is not a word in English. Perhaps you were groping for "buffoon."
His name is <Buffon>, you buffoon.
Anytime you try to say something, you make a clown of yourself. Once
more.
I wrote <bouffon> in French in response to your pseudo-French
<poseur>.
A.
***
>
> > > > > If you have a reference, provide it.
>
> > > > ***
>
> > > > Already done, shitload of fraud.
>
> > > That's a lie.
>
> Still no reference.
>
> But you've already demonstrated you know nothing about Arabic;
Lol.
A.
***
> probably you can't even read Jahn's German rendition (more a midrash)
> of Sibawayhi. (Both the Arabic and the German text reside on my
***
Why don't you try to read the original, buffoon?
A.
It is loading more messages.
0 new messages