Pronunciation of "L'état, c'est moi!"

33 views
Skip to first unread message

Jarel

unread,
Jul 29, 2003, 12:39:15 AM7/29/03
to
Everyone knows this famous Louis XIV quote. In modern French it is
pronounced: [leta sE mwa]. I know 'état' and 'moi' would not really be
considered a rhyme although the final [a] is the same. Part of this quote's
catchy ring I think is this same vowel. Although during Louis XIV's time,
wouldn't this sentence been pronounced: [leta sE mwE]? With this
pronunciation, it doesn't quite have the "rhyme". I wonder if he actually said
this line at all... Of course Louis XV's more cynical "Après moi, le déluge"
is even more priceless.

Jarel

Sous ses lois l'Amour veut qu'on jouisse
D'un bonheur qui jamais ne finisse;
Tendres coeurs venez tous
En jouir avec nous.

-Jean Galbert de Campistron (1686)
from the pastorale Acis et Galatee
by Jean-Baptiste Lully


David Thomas

unread,
Jul 29, 2003, 4:33:16 AM7/29/03
to
In article <20030729003915...@mb-m07.aol.com>,
nah...@aol.comnotojunk (Jarel) writes:

> Everyone knows this famous Louis XIV quote. In modern French it is
>pronounced: [leta sE mwa]. I know 'état' and 'moi' would not really be
>considered a rhyme although the final [a] is the same. Part of this quote's
>catchy ring I think is this same vowel. Although during Louis XIV's time,
>wouldn't this sentence been pronounced: [leta sE mwE]? With this
>pronunciation, it doesn't quite have the "rhyme". I wonder if he actually
>said
>this line at all... Of course Louis XV's more cynical "Après moi, le déluge"
>is even more priceless.

These monarchs just have all these one-liners laying around!

For me, BTW, that's /le'ta {brief pause} se'm^wa/--the carat is to indicate
that the w ought to be superscripted, to indicate labialization rather than
simply a w, but it's so close anyhow...

Sleep, Fate, Death, and I sat one sunday down at tea.
Fate offered up his Ziggy mug before I poured,
Sleep yawned in his PJs, seeming mildly bored,
And Death politely asked, "Another pirouline?"
- Vae

Peter T. Daniels

unread,
Jul 29, 2003, 10:35:55 AM7/29/03
to
David Thomas wrote:
>
> In article <20030729003915...@mb-m07.aol.com>,
> nah...@aol.comnotojunk (Jarel) writes:
>
> > Everyone knows this famous Louis XIV quote. In modern French it is
> >pronounced: [leta sE mwa]. I know 'état' and 'moi' would not really be
> >considered a rhyme although the final [a] is the same. Part of this quote's
> >catchy ring I think is this same vowel. Although during Louis XIV's time,
> >wouldn't this sentence been pronounced: [leta sE mwE]? With this
> >pronunciation, it doesn't quite have the "rhyme". I wonder if he actually
> >said
> >this line at all... Of course Louis XV's more cynical "Après moi, le déluge"
> >is even more priceless.
>
> These monarchs just have all these one-liners laying around!
>
> For me, BTW, that's /le'ta {brief pause} se'm^wa/--the carat is to indicate
> that the w ought to be superscripted, to indicate labialization rather than
> simply a w, but it's so close anyhow...

You're claiming that French has phonemic labialization??? What's your
evidence for that??????
--
Peter T. Daniels gram...@att.net

mb

unread,
Jul 29, 2003, 1:28:47 PM7/29/03
to
nah...@aol.comnotojunk (Jarel) wrote
...

> Part of this quote's
> catchy ring I think is this same vowel. Although during Louis XIV's time,
> wouldn't this sentence been pronounced: [leta sE mwE]? With this
> pronunciation, it doesn't quite have the "rhyme".
...

Right. A good number of people still keep the mwE, at least in their
regional speech, or use a closed a. Never thought there would be a
catchy ring there anyway, and the author certainly didn't intend it.

Prai Jei

unread,
Jul 29, 2003, 4:19:51 PM7/29/03
to
"Jarel" <nah...@aol.comnotojunk> wrote in message
news:20030729003915...@mb-m07.aol.com...

> Of course Louis XV's more cynical "Après moi, le déluge"
> is even more priceless.

Adopted during WW2 as the motto of the Dambusters


David Thomas

unread,
Jul 29, 2003, 11:16:39 PM7/29/03
to
In article <3F2686...@worldnet.att.net>, "Peter T. Daniels"
<gram...@worldnet.att.net> writes:

>> These monarchs just have all these one-liners laying around!
>>
>> For me, BTW, that's /le'ta {brief pause} se'm^wa/--the carat is to indicate
>> that the w ought to be superscripted, to indicate labialization rather than
>> simply a w, but it's so close anyhow...
>
>You're claiming that French has phonemic labialization??? What's your
>evidence for that??????
>--
>Peter T. Daniels gram...@att.net

Naw...

That I pronounce it like that. The implication here is that some French people
speak that way, hardly all of them. Much less am I putting forth such a vast
linguistic argument! Heh...

During my trip I noticed that I was understood better in the south--in
Nice--better than in Paris, so perhaps it's dialectical, but this is all based
solely on my quite subjective perceptions. The important thing, however, is
that, for some French people, 'L'état, c'est moi' rhymes quite well.

Peter T. Daniels

unread,
Jul 30, 2003, 8:22:35 AM7/30/03
to
David Thomas wrote:
>
> In article <3F2686...@worldnet.att.net>, "Peter T. Daniels"
> <gram...@worldnet.att.net> writes:
>
> >> These monarchs just have all these one-liners laying around!
> >>
> >> For me, BTW, that's /le'ta {brief pause} se'm^wa/--the carat is to indicate
> >> that the w ought to be superscripted, to indicate labialization rather than
> >> simply a w, but it's so close anyhow...
> >
> >You're claiming that French has phonemic labialization??? What's your
> >evidence for that??????
> >--
> >Peter T. Daniels gram...@att.net
>
> Naw...
>
> That I pronounce it like that. The implication here is that some French people
> speak that way, hardly all of them. Much less am I putting forth such a vast
> linguistic argument! Heh...

Then why did you use phoneme-slants?

> During my trip I noticed that I was understood better in the south--in
> Nice--better than in Paris, so perhaps it's dialectical, but this is all based
> solely on my quite subjective perceptions. The important thing, however, is
> that, for some French people, 'L'état, c'est moi' rhymes quite well.

Now, but not when Mr. Bourbon first said it.

David Thomas

unread,
Jul 31, 2003, 7:43:40 AM7/31/03
to
In article <3F27B8...@worldnet.att.net>, "Peter T. Daniels"
<gram...@worldnet.att.net> writes:

>> That I pronounce it like that. The implication here is that some French
>people
>> speak that way, hardly all of them. Much less am I putting forth such a
>vast
>> linguistic argument! Heh...
>
>Then why did you use phoneme-slants?

Because I always do. Sue me. ::shrug::

Aside, I'm using Kirshenbaum's ASCII-IPA mapping, which seems to be its own set
of phonemes--much like the IPA itself, it's not 'really' phonetic.

But if you still insist that I've committed a great linguistic sin, then I'll
simply rewrite:

[le'ta {brief pause} se'm^wa]

Any which way, the vowels are more important in the rhyming than the consants,
so it doesn't really matter how you pronounce 'moi,' so long as the last vowel
is /a/ (or [a] for that matter).

>> During my trip I noticed that I was understood better in the south--in
>> Nice--better than in Paris, so perhaps it's dialectical, but this is all
>based
>> solely on my quite subjective perceptions. The important thing, however,
>is
>> that, for some French people, 'L'état, c'est moi' rhymes quite well.
>
>Now, but not when Mr. Bourbon first said it.
>--
>Peter T. Daniels gram...@att.net

Unsurprising, though, considering, for instance, that 'love' and 'move' could
once be used to rhyme couplets in an English sonnet... of course, maybe there's
still a particular accent in which they're still pronounced alike?

Peter T. Daniels

unread,
Jul 31, 2003, 9:19:44 AM7/31/03
to
David Thomas wrote:
>
> In article <3F27B8...@worldnet.att.net>, "Peter T. Daniels"
> <gram...@worldnet.att.net> writes:
>
> >> That I pronounce it like that. The implication here is that some French
> >people
> >> speak that way, hardly all of them. Much less am I putting forth such a
> >vast
> >> linguistic argument! Heh...
> >
> >Then why did you use phoneme-slants?
>
> Because I always do. Sue me. ::shrug::

Have you been taking Bob Cunningham lessons?

> Aside, I'm using Kirshenbaum's ASCII-IPA mapping, which seems to be its own set
> of phonemes--much like the IPA itself, it's not 'really' phonetic.

That's about the most incoherent thing one could say and remain
grammatical.

> But if you still insist that I've committed a great linguistic sin, then I'll
> simply rewrite:
>
> [le'ta {brief pause} se'm^wa]
>
> Any which way, the vowels are more important in the rhyming than the consants,
> so it doesn't really matter how you pronounce 'moi,' so long as the last vowel
> is /a/ (or [a] for that matter).

But, as I mention just below, it wasn't when M. Bourbon said it.

David Thomas

unread,
Jul 31, 2003, 10:42:08 PM7/31/03
to
>> >Then why did you use phoneme-slants?
>>
>> Because I always do. Sue me. ::shrug::
>
>Have you been taking Bob Cunningham lessons?

I'm afraid I don't know him, though from your suggested tone, I probably should
be glad.

And no, I haven't. Though I wouldn't be much better off taking lessons from
you.

>> Aside, I'm using Kirshenbaum's ASCII-IPA mapping, which seems to be its own
>set
>> of phonemes--much like the IPA itself, it's not 'really' phonetic.
>
>That's about the most incoherent thing one could say and remain
>grammatical.

And since you're a linguist you must understand it entirely. I take your lack
of comment as silent agreement with it. Or should I?

>> But if you still insist that I've committed a great linguistic sin, then
>I'll
>> simply rewrite:
>>
>> [le'ta {brief pause} se'm^wa]
>>
>> Any which way, the vowels are more important in the rhyming than the
>consants,
>> so it doesn't really matter how you pronounce 'moi,' so long as the last
>vowel
>> is /a/ (or [a] for that matter).
>
>But, as I mention just below, it wasn't when M. Bourbon said it.

And, as I noted, you are most likely correct, and this has nothing to do with
anything I've said. If you mean to suggest that I've said it ever was, then
you have clearly misunderstood.

It's somewhat sad that you don't respond with more informative posts. Instead,
one only receives coldly unwelcoming one-liners...

Peter T. Daniels

unread,
Aug 1, 2003, 7:45:37 AM8/1/03
to
David Thomas wrote:
>
> >> >Then why did you use phoneme-slants?
> >>
> >> Because I always do. Sue me. ::shrug::
> >
> >Have you been taking Bob Cunningham lessons?
>
> I'm afraid I don't know him, though from your suggested tone, I probably should
> be glad.
>
> And no, I haven't. Though I wouldn't be much better off taking lessons from
> you.
>
> >> Aside, I'm using Kirshenbaum's ASCII-IPA mapping, which seems to be its own set
> >> of phonemes--much like the IPA itself, it's not 'really' phonetic.
> >
> >That's about the most incoherent thing one could say and remain grammatical.
>
> And since you're a linguist you must understand it entirely. I take your lack
> of comment as silent agreement with it. Or should I?

How can I agree with something that is incoherent?

Before you throw around words like "phoneme," you should learn what they
mean.

A notational system is not, ever, a "set of phonemes."

ASCII-IPA _is_ "the IPA itself," simply using typable symbols instead of
the standard glyphs.

What is "'really' phonetic"? If you use it for a phonetic transcription,
it's phonetic. If you use it for a phonemic transcription, it's
phonemic.

> >> But if you still insist that I've committed a great linguistic sin, then I'll
> >> simply rewrite:
> >>
> >> [le'ta {brief pause} se'm^wa]
> >>
> >> Any which way, the vowels are more important in the rhyming than the
> >consants,
> >> so it doesn't really matter how you pronounce 'moi,' so long as the last
> >vowel
> >> is /a/ (or [a] for that matter).
> >
> >But, as I mention just below, it wasn't when M. Bourbon said it.
>
> And, as I noted, you are most likely correct, and this has nothing to do with
> anything I've said. If you mean to suggest that I've said it ever was, then
> you have clearly misunderstood.
>
> It's somewhat sad that you don't respond with more informative posts. Instead,
> one only receives coldly unwelcoming one-liners...
>
> Sleep, Fate, Death, and I sat one sunday down at tea.
> Fate offered up his Ziggy mug before I poured,
> Sleep yawned in his PJs, seeming mildly bored,
> And Death politely asked, "Another pirouline?"
> - Vae

How many times do you have to be told to put a graphic mark between your
message and your .sig?

David Thomas

unread,
Aug 1, 2003, 10:35:53 PM8/1/03
to
In article <3F2A52...@worldnet.att.net>, "Peter T. Daniels"
<gram...@worldnet.att.net> writes:

>David Thomas wrote:

>How can I agree with something that is incoherent?

::sigh::

>Before you throw around words like "phoneme," you should learn what they
>mean.
>
>A notational system is not, ever, a "set of phonemes."

Well then do forgive me...

>ASCII-IPA _is_ "the IPA itself," simply using typable symbols instead of
>the standard glyphs.

That may be your opinion, but it's hardly passable as pure fact.

>What is "'really' phonetic"? If you use it for a phonetic transcription,
>it's phonetic. If you use it for a phonemic transcription, it's
>phonemic.

If you must know every aspect of my mindset before you attempt to understand
what I'm saying, then I shall spell it out for you:

Phonetic notation is usually very *specific.* That is, it marks every aspect
of articulation, within fairly reasonable parameters--that is, all properties
of the articulation considered as contrastive within the field of linguistics
are marked in a phonetic notation. Nothing is ignored that could at all be
significant. No aspect is taken for granted, even if, say, the language
transcribed in the notation does not distinguish aspirated and unaspirated
stops--aspiration (or lack) still is recorded.

Phonemic notations ignore irrelevant details with respect to a certain
reference, usually a language. So, for instance, aspiration of stops in
English may be ignored. This is all by definition, as you shall no doubt point
out...

ASCII-IPA, and IPA also, both require extra markers to distinguish, say,
aspirated and unaspirated /p/. Even writing [p] is not phonetic, as one still
knows not whether it has aspiration or not. Thus, (ASCII-)IPA is phonemic, and
it shouldn't be a surprize to anyone that I'm using it with 'phoneme slants.'
I've used it that way several times and noone's jumped me for it, and I see no
reason for you to assault me with random accusations of assertions that would
be nonsensical anyhow.

I can only conclude that you:

a) must deal with far too many kooks, and/or,
b) don't have enough to do.

>> Sleep, Fate, Death, and I sat one sunday down at tea.
>> Fate offered up his Ziggy mug before I poured,
>> Sleep yawned in his PJs, seeming mildly bored,
>> And Death politely asked, "Another pirouline?"
>> - Vae
>
>How many times do you have to be told to put a graphic mark between your
>message and your .sig?
>--
>Peter T. Daniels gram...@att.net

Oh, there's no number. I don't see any reason to do it, and so I shan't. If
anyone regards this as rude, then that's their prerogative. I apologize for it
in advance, though to me it's more like someone taking unusual issue with
something completely irrelevant, as my signature hardly can be easily confused
with the content of my posts. If it's really that much of a bother, however, I
shall reverse the order of its elements, so that it shall read as thus:

- Vae

Peter T. Daniels

unread,
Aug 1, 2003, 10:52:51 PM8/1/03
to

Phonetic notation is as specific as necessary for the discussion of
whatever point is at issue.

> Phonemic notations ignore irrelevant details with respect to a certain
> reference, usually a language. So, for instance, aspiration of stops in
> English may be ignored. This is all by definition, as you shall no doubt point
> out...

What does "usually a language" mean? Unless you want to get into
anthropologists' (misleading, IMO) use of "emic" and "etic," what are we
talking about besids language?

> ASCII-IPA, and IPA also, both require extra markers to distinguish, say,
> aspirated and unaspirated /p/. Even writing [p] is not phonetic, as one still
> knows not whether it has aspiration or not. Thus, (ASCII-)IPA is phonemic, and
> it shouldn't be a surprize to anyone that I'm using it with 'phoneme slants.'
> I've used it that way several times and noone's jumped me for it, and I see no
> reason for you to assault me with random accusations of assertions that would
> be nonsensical anyhow.

There is absolutely no justification or legitimacy for the "Thus" in the
third line. NO transcription is phonemic if it does not result from a
full phonological analysis of the language/dialect/idiolect in question.

And there is no difference between ASCII-IPA and IPA written with a
standard font, other than the graphic shapes of the glyphs.

> I can only conclude that you:
>
> a) must deal with far too many kooks, and/or,

Who was it? Huxley? about Wilberforce? Probably apocryphal anyway.

> b) don't have enough to do.

Look at the time I'm doing this ng. (EDT; convert as necessary.)

David Thomas

unread,
Aug 1, 2003, 11:30:34 PM8/1/03
to
In article <3F2B27...@worldnet.att.net>, "Peter T. Daniels"
<gram...@worldnet.att.net> writes:

>David Thomas wrote:

>Phonetic notation is as specific as necessary for the discussion of
>whatever point is at issue.

In that case I would have to argue that, from my viewpoint at least, there is
no such thing as phonetic notation... which is somewhat reasonable given that
even the most specific descriptions of articulations do leave out enough
information that precision is more important than accuracy.

>> Phonemic notations ignore irrelevant details with respect to a certain
>> reference, usually a language. So, for instance, aspiration of stops in
>> English may be ignored. This is all by definition, as you shall no doubt
>>point out...
>
>What does "usually a language" mean? Unless you want to get into
>anthropologists' (misleading, IMO) use of "emic" and "etic," what are we
>talking about besids language?

I mean a specific language. /p/ in French and /p/ in English are two different
phonemes, both written /p/. The meaning of /p/ varies with respect to the
subject--usually, that is, the language under scrutiny. The meaning of a truly
phonetic notation would not vary.

>> ASCII-IPA, and IPA also, both require extra markers to distinguish, say,
>> aspirated and unaspirated /p/. Even writing [p] is not phonetic, as one
still
>> knows not whether it has aspiration or not. Thus, (ASCII-)IPA is phonemic,
and
>> it shouldn't be a surprize to anyone that I'm using it with 'phoneme
slants.'
>> I've used it that way several times and noone's jumped me for it, and I see
no
>> reason for you to assault me with random accusations of assertions that
would
>> be nonsensical anyhow.
>
>There is absolutely no justification or legitimacy for the "Thus" in the
>third line. NO transcription is phonemic if it does not result from a
>full phonological analysis of the language/dialect/idiolect in question.

Y... okay. Any which way you look at it, though, the IPA is not always used
phonetically. In fact, it is a rare thing to see a linguist write out all the
details of an articulation. If the IPA's not phonemic, it's still certainly
not phonetic. If you absolutely refuse to even consider that it can be
regarded as its own set of phonemes, then I'm not sure what it is. However, it
contains its own self-defined sounds whose values are considered unitary, and
details outside of contrastive concerns are, in practice, ignored. This is why
I regard it as a set of phonemes. Perhaps there's a better word, but I've not
heard it myself, and you've yet to utter anything such.

>And there is no difference between ASCII-IPA and IPA written with a
>standard font, other than the graphic shapes of the glyphs.

Perhaps that's a statement with which you're quite comfortable; however, I am
not. Even assuming that there is no great difference apart from the shapes of
the glyphs, that is still, I believe, reason enough to distinguish between
them. If it leads to my typing more than most anyone else, then it is surely
no great bother to you, nor anyone else save my fingers...

>> I can only conclude that you:
>>
>> a) must deal with far too many kooks, and/or,
>
>Who was it? Huxley? about Wilberforce? Probably apocryphal anyway.

I'm not sure I understand properly, but that's okay...

>> b) don't have enough to do.
>
>Look at the time I'm doing this ng. (EDT; convert as necessary.)
>--
>Peter T. Daniels gram...@att.net

No wonder your posts are always so hurried.

Brian M. Scott

unread,
Aug 2, 2003, 12:33:48 AM8/2/03
to
On 02 Aug 2003 03:30:34 GMT, vael...@aol.comUspamo (David
Thomas) wrote:

>In article <3F2B27...@worldnet.att.net>, "Peter T. Daniels"
><gram...@worldnet.att.net> writes:

>>David Thomas wrote:

>>Phonetic notation is as specific as necessary for the discussion of
>>whatever point is at issue.

>In that case I would have to argue that, from my viewpoint at least, there is
>no such thing as phonetic notation...

Measurements are given as precisely as is necessary for the
purpose at hand (if possible). Is there no such thing as a
physical measurement because absolute precision is impossible?

[...]

>Y... okay. Any which way you look at it, though, the IPA is not always used
>phonetically. In fact, it is a rare thing to see a linguist write out all the
>details of an articulation. If the IPA's not phonemic, it's still certainly
>not phonetic.

It is; it simply doesn't (and can't) specify

> If you absolutely refuse to even consider that it can be
>regarded as its own set of phonemes, then I'm not sure what it is.

It certainly can't, by the very definition of 'phoneme'.

> However, it
>contains its own self-defined sounds whose values are considered unitary, and
>details outside of contrastive concerns are, in practice, ignored. This is why
>I regard it as a set of phonemes. Perhaps there's a better word, but I've not
>heard it myself, and you've yet to utter anything such.

It provides a standard representation of phones according to
their place and manner of articulation, together with ways of
specifying them with greater precision when necessary.

>>And there is no difference between ASCII-IPA and IPA written with a
>>standard font, other than the graphic shapes of the glyphs.

>Perhaps that's a statement with which you're quite comfortable; however, I am
>not.

Why? It's essentially true ('essentially' because at least some
ASCII versions of IPA are incomplete).

[...]

Brian

David Thomas

unread,
Aug 2, 2003, 2:02:54 PM8/2/03
to
In article <3f2b3d56....@enews.newsguy.com>, b.s...@csuohio.edu (Brian
M. Scott) writes:

>On 02 Aug 2003 03:30:34 GMT, vael...@aol.comUspamo (David
>Thomas) wrote:
>
>>In article <3F2B27...@worldnet.att.net>, "Peter T. Daniels"
>><gram...@worldnet.att.net> writes:
>
>>>David Thomas wrote:
>
>>>Phonetic notation is as specific as necessary for the discussion of
>>>whatever point is at issue.
>
>>In that case I would have to argue that, from my viewpoint at least, there
>>is no such thing as phonetic notation...
>
>Measurements are given as precisely as is necessary for the
>purpose at hand (if possible). Is there no such thing as a
>physical measurement because absolute precision is impossible?

These are two different arenas, of course, but you're both in my vein of
thought and out of it. Physical measurements are regarded as having only a
certain level of accuracy and precision by their very nature--thus, significant
figures, which I've always hated. They are, however, a necessary evil.

There is no such thing as a measurement without variance in accuracy, though,
and that's why I don't think it's reasonable to call anything 'phonetic.' Of
course, do mind that the IPA can be used phonetically, but there are not single
symbols for each contrast in articulation, and when I was writing earlier I was
using only unspecific symbols--I didn't bother specifying whether the t was
aspirated, or whether the vowels were long. I was certainly not writing
phonetically, and I find it reasonable to use phoneme slants in such a case. I
am befuddled that this reasoning has caused such a fuss, myself.

>[...]
>
>>Y... okay. Any which way you look at it, though, the IPA is not always used
>>phonetically. In fact, it is a rare thing to see a linguist write out all
>>the details of an articulation. If the IPA's not phonemic, it's still
certainly
>>not phonetic.
>
>It is; it simply doesn't (and can't) specify

I'm not sure what you mean by 'doesn't (and can't) specify...' After all, as I
pointed out, you can certain use extra symbols and markers to write suitably
phonetically with the IPA--that is, with enough precision that one need not
worry about losing any accuracy in measurement.

>> If you absolutely refuse to even consider that it can be
>>regarded as its own set of phonemes, then I'm not sure what it is.
>
>It certainly can't, by the very definition of 'phoneme'.

Would you care to define that for me? I must admit, I am an amateur, and
perhaps I've been misled thus far. Or maybe I'm overgeneralizing the word...
though even then I still don't understand what's wrong about it.

>> However, it
>>contains its own self-defined sounds whose values
>>are considered unitary, and details outside of contrastive
>>concerns are, in practice, ignored. This is why I regard it
>>as a set of phonemes. Perhaps there's a better word,
>>but I've not heard it myself, and you've yet to utter
>>anything such.
>
>It provides a standard representation of phones according to
>their place and manner of articulation, together with ways of
>specifying them with greater precision when necessary.

So, what's wrong with calling it a set of 'standard phonemes?' Is the idea of
a phoneme as a contrastive unit from a *particular language* so hardwired that
I sound so unreasonable in my use of the word?

>>>And there is no difference between ASCII-IPA and IPA written with a
>>>standard font, other than the graphic shapes of the glyphs.
>
>>Perhaps that's a statement with which you're quite comfortable;
>>however, I am not.
>
>Why? It's essentially true ('essentially' because at least some
>ASCII versions of IPA are incomplete).

Well, there's that, for one...

And, for me, just that they're different symbols makes a huge difference.
Knowing the IPA, for instance, hardly makes one able to use ASCII-IPA, and vice
versa.

>[...]
>
>Brian

Well, at least I'm learning something here, one hopes...

Brian M. Scott

unread,
Aug 3, 2003, 1:20:34 AM8/3/03
to
On 02 Aug 2003 18:02:54 GMT, vael...@aol.comUspamo (David
Thomas) wrote:

>In article <3f2b3d56....@enews.newsguy.com>, b.s...@csuohio.edu (Brian
>M. Scott) writes:

>>On 02 Aug 2003 03:30:34 GMT, vael...@aol.comUspamo (David
>>Thomas) wrote:

>>>In article <3F2B27...@worldnet.att.net>, "Peter T. Daniels"
>>><gram...@worldnet.att.net> writes:

>>>>David Thomas wrote:

>>>>Phonetic notation is as specific as necessary for the discussion of
>>>>whatever point is at issue.

>>>In that case I would have to argue that, from my viewpoint at least, there
>>>is no such thing as phonetic notation...

>>Measurements are given as precisely as is necessary for the
>>purpose at hand (if possible). Is there no such thing as a
>>physical measurement because absolute precision is impossible?

>These are two different arenas, of course, but you're both in my vein of
>thought and out of it. Physical measurements are regarded as having only a
>certain level of accuracy and precision by their very nature--thus, significant
>figures, which I've always hated. They are, however, a necessary evil.

And so is the imprecision in any phonetic notation; the two
situations are quite analogous.

>There is no such thing as a measurement without variance in accuracy, though,
>and that's why I don't think it's reasonable to call anything 'phonetic.' Of
>course, do mind that the IPA can be used phonetically, but there are not single
>symbols for each contrast in articulation, and when I was writing earlier I was
>using only unspecific symbols--I didn't bother specifying whether the t was
>aspirated, or whether the vowels were long. I was certainly not writing
>phonetically, and I find it reasonable to use phoneme slants in such a case. I
>am befuddled that this reasoning has caused such a fuss, myself.

I suspect that this befuddlement indicates a lack of real
understanding of what is meant by a phoneme; see below.

>>>Y... okay. Any which way you look at it, though, the IPA is not always used
>>>phonetically. In fact, it is a rare thing to see a linguist write out all
>>>the details of an articulation. If the IPA's not phonemic, it's still
>>>certainly not phonetic.

>>It is; it simply doesn't (and can't) specify

>I'm not sure what you mean by 'doesn't (and can't) specify...'

Sorry; meant to come back and finish the response, and then
forgot to do so. Finish the sentence 'sounds/phones with
complete precision'.

[...]

>>> If you absolutely refuse to even consider that it can be
>>>regarded as its own set of phonemes, then I'm not sure what it is.

>>It certainly can't, by the very definition of 'phoneme'.

>Would you care to define that for me? I must admit, I am an amateur, and
>perhaps I've been misled thus far. Or maybe I'm overgeneralizing the word...
>though even then I still don't understand what's wrong about it.

A phoneme is a minimal contrastive segment within a specific
language. Different languages break up the possibilities
differently. In some varieties of English [?] is an allophone of
/t/; there is no English phoneme /?/. Modern literary Arabic, on
the other hand, has a phoneme /?/. For most Americans [r"], the
alveolar flap, is an allophone of /t/ (e.g., in <matter>); in
Italian and Spanish it's the usual realization of /r/, and
according to Mike Wright it's treated as a realization of /l/ in
Holo.

>>> However, it
>>>contains its own self-defined sounds whose values
>>>are considered unitary, and details outside of contrastive
>>>concerns are, in practice, ignored. This is why I regard it
>>>as a set of phonemes. Perhaps there's a better word,
>>>but I've not heard it myself, and you've yet to utter
>>>anything such.

>>It provides a standard representation of phones according to
>>their place and manner of articulation, together with ways of
>>specifying them with greater precision when necessary.

>So, what's wrong with calling it a set of 'standard phonemes?' Is the idea of
>a phoneme as a contrastive unit from a *particular language* so hardwired

It's not hardwired: it's part of the definition.

>that I sound so unreasonable in my use of the word?

I'm afraid so; misuse of technical terminology generally sounds
unreasonable.

>>>>And there is no difference between ASCII-IPA and IPA written with a
>>>>standard font, other than the graphic shapes of the glyphs.

>>>Perhaps that's a statement with which you're quite comfortable;
>>>however, I am not.

>>Why? It's essentially true ('essentially' because at least some
>>ASCII versions of IPA are incomplete).

>Well, there's that, for one...

>And, for me, just that they're different symbols makes a huge difference.
>Knowing the IPA, for instance, hardly makes one able to use ASCII-IPA, and vice
>versa.

Perfectly true, but not particularly relevant to IPA and the
various ASCII IPAs as systems. (After all, the same argument
would make 'children' and 'CHILDREN' hugely different!)

Brian

David Thomas

unread,
Aug 4, 2003, 5:14:32 AM8/4/03
to
In article <3f2c13a9....@enews.newsguy.com>, b.s...@csuohio.edu (Brian
M. Scott) writes:

>And so is the imprecision in any phonetic notation; the two
>situations are quite analogous.

Well, I'm not saying that using the word (phonetic, that is) is illegal or
anything... but the idea should be taken with a great grain of salt.

>>>It is; it simply doesn't (and can't) specify
>
>>I'm not sure what you mean by 'doesn't (and can't) specify...'
>
>Sorry; meant to come back and finish the response, and then
>forgot to do so. Finish the sentence 'sounds/phones with
>complete precision'.
>
>[...]

Or perhaps you mean 'absolute accuracy?'

>A phoneme is a minimal contrastive segment within a specific
>language. Different languages break up the possibilities
>differently. In some varieties of English [?] is an allophone of
>/t/; there is no English phoneme /?/. Modern literary Arabic, on
>the other hand, has a phoneme /?/. For most Americans [r"], the
>alveolar flap, is an allophone of /t/ (e.g., in <matter>); in
>Italian and Spanish it's the usual realization of /r/, and
>according to Mike Wright it's treated as a realization of /l/ in
>Holo.

I still don't see what's so inherently wrong in treating the IPA as a standard
set of phonemes...

One way or another, though, it's certainly a standard set of phones.

>It's not hardwired: it's part of the definition.

Point conceded...

Yet I do not find my generalization to be a complete linguistic sin...

After all, IPA is more or less a generalized and standardized method for
writing the phonemes encountered in the languages of Earth...

>>that I sound so unreasonable in my use of the word?
>
>I'm afraid so; misuse of technical terminology generally sounds
>unreasonable.

'Misuse' is very subjective, no matter the field, I must say.

>>And, for me, just that they're different symbols makes a huge difference.
>>Knowing the IPA, for instance, hardly makes one able to use ASCII-IPA, and
>>vice versa.
>
>Perfectly true, but not particularly relevant to IPA and the
>various ASCII IPAs as systems. (After all, the same argument
>would make 'children' and 'CHILDREN' hugely different!)
>
>Brian

And indeed they are!

Peter T. Daniels

unread,
Aug 4, 2003, 7:50:15 AM8/4/03
to
David Thomas wrote:

> >A phoneme is a minimal contrastive segment within a specific
> >language. Different languages break up the possibilities
> >differently. In some varieties of English [?] is an allophone of
> >/t/; there is no English phoneme /?/. Modern literary Arabic, on
> >the other hand, has a phoneme /?/. For most Americans [r"], the
> >alveolar flap, is an allophone of /t/ (e.g., in <matter>); in
> >Italian and Spanish it's the usual realization of /r/, and
> >according to Mike Wright it's treated as a realization of /l/ in
> >Holo.
>
> I still don't see what's so inherently wrong in treating the IPA as a standard
> set of phonemes...

Read the first sentence of the paragraph above.

> One way or another, though, it's certainly a standard set of phones.
>
> >It's not hardwired: it's part of the definition.
>
> Point conceded...
>
> Yet I do not find my generalization to be a complete linguistic sin...
>
> After all, IPA is more or less a generalized and standardized method for
> writing the phonemes encountered in the languages of Earth...

And somehow you don't see the difference between this (correct)
statement and what you've maintained above?

> >>that I sound so unreasonable in my use of the word?
> >
> >I'm afraid so; misuse of technical terminology generally sounds
> >unreasonable.
>
> 'Misuse' is very subjective, no matter the field, I must say.

Does that excuse work on your teachers, either?

> >>And, for me, just that they're different symbols makes a huge difference.
> >>Knowing the IPA, for instance, hardly makes one able to use ASCII-IPA, and
> >>vice versa.
> >
> >Perfectly true, but not particularly relevant to IPA and the
> >various ASCII IPAs as systems. (After all, the same argument
> >would make 'children' and 'CHILDREN' hugely different!)
> >
> >Brian
>
> And indeed they are!

What's the difference?

Yusuf B Gursey

unread,
Aug 4, 2003, 9:45:00 AM8/4/03
to
In sci.lang Brian M. Scott <b.s...@csuohio.edu> wrote in <3f2c13a9....@enews.newsguy.com>:

: /t/; there is no English phoneme /?/. Modern literary Arabic, on


standard (classical as well as MSA) arabic.

: the other hand, has a phoneme /?/. For most Americans [r"], the

Brian M. Scott

unread,
Aug 4, 2003, 11:58:06 AM8/4/03
to
On 04 Aug 2003 09:14:32 GMT, vael...@aol.comUspamo (David
Thomas) wrote:

>In article <3f2c13a9....@enews.newsguy.com>, b.s...@csuohio.edu (Brian
>M. Scott) writes:

[...]

>>>>It is; it simply doesn't (and can't) specify

>>>I'm not sure what you mean by 'doesn't (and can't) specify...'

>>Sorry; meant to come back and finish the response, and then
>>forgot to do so. Finish the sentence 'sounds/phones with
>>complete precision'.

>Or perhaps you mean 'absolute accuracy?'

No, I mean complete precision (and yes, I do understand the
difference between precision and accuracy; that's why I mean
precision).

>>A phoneme is a minimal contrastive segment within a specific
>>language. Different languages break up the possibilities
>>differently. In some varieties of English [?] is an allophone of
>>/t/; there is no English phoneme /?/. Modern literary Arabic, on
>>the other hand, has a phoneme /?/. For most Americans [r"], the
>>alveolar flap, is an allophone of /t/ (e.g., in <matter>); in
>>Italian and Spanish it's the usual realization of /r/, and
>>according to Mike Wright it's treated as a realization of /l/ in
>>Holo.

>I still don't see what's so inherently wrong in treating the IPA as a standard
>set of phonemes...

Look again at the first sentence of the paragraph.

[...]

>>>that I sound so unreasonable in my use of the word?

>>I'm afraid so; misuse of technical terminology generally sounds
>>unreasonable.

>'Misuse' is very subjective, no matter the field, I must say.

It's not: correct use is defined by those knowledgeable in the
field. It may change over time as the field develops, so at
times the usage of a particular term may be unstable, but in
general technical usage is pretty unambiguous. (This is
especially true in my own field, mathematics. One of the hardest
things to get across to some students is that a technical
mathematical term means exactly what its definition says it
means, neither more nor less, no matter what they think it ought
to mean based on non-technical usage or prior expectations.)

[...]

Brian

Richard Herring

unread,
Aug 4, 2003, 12:22:52 PM8/4/03
to
In message <20030801223553...@mb-m16.aol.com>, David Thomas
<vael...@aol.comUspamo> writes

>In article <3F2A52...@worldnet.att.net>, "Peter T. Daniels"
><gram...@worldnet.att.net> writes:
>>How many times do you have to be told to put a graphic mark between your
>>message and your .sig?

>Oh, there's no number. I don't see any reason to do it, and so I shan't.

There is one, fairly trivial, reason. Much news and mail software
recognises a line containing only "-- " as a signature separator, and
divides up what it sees accordingly, for the convenience of the reader.
It's a minor courtesy to such readers to supply one. Omitting it is also
a cheap way to mark yourself as, er, egregious.

--
Richard Herring

David Thomas

unread,
Aug 5, 2003, 2:29:14 AM8/5/03
to
In article <3F2E48...@worldnet.att.net>, "Peter T. Daniels"
<gram...@worldnet.att.net> writes:

>David Thomas wrote:
>
>> >A phoneme is a minimal contrastive segment within a specific
>> >language. Different languages break up the possibilities
>> >differently. In some varieties of English [?] is an allophone of
>> >/t/; there is no English phoneme /?/. Modern literary Arabic, on
>> >the other hand, has a phoneme /?/. For most Americans [r"], the
>> >alveolar flap, is an allophone of /t/ (e.g., in <matter>); in
>> >Italian and Spanish it's the usual realization of /r/, and
>> >according to Mike Wright it's treated as a realization of /l/ in
>> >Holo.
>>
>> I still don't see what's so inherently wrong in treating the IPA as a
>>standard set of phonemes...
>
>Read the first sentence of the paragraph above.

...

>> After all, IPA is more or less a generalized and standardized method for
>> writing the phonemes encountered in the languages of Earth...
>
>And somehow you don't see the difference between this (correct)
>statement and what you've maintained above?

I do see the difference between the statements, however:

The IPA is a standard set of symbols--but they're mapped to *something!* What
is that something? A standard set of phones--might as well call them phonemes.
What's the difference? Not much, really, since we're including all the
languages of the world.

The IPA is a set of phonemes to me because it ignores most of what we humans
don't use as contrastive. It also doesn't provide symbols for many
theoretically possible articulations, especially those not as-yet encountered.

However, since I see a big difference between two different mappings of glyphs
for these sounds, then I must conclude that it is not unreasonable for you to
hold there to be a great difference between a mapping and the sounds
themselves, if that's where you're going...

>> 'Misuse' is very subjective, no matter the field, I must say.
>
>Does that excuse work on your teachers, either?

They're certainly always ready to argue (in the academic sense) a matter!

>Peter T. Daniels gram...@att.net

David Thomas

unread,
Aug 5, 2003, 2:29:12 AM8/5/03
to
In article <3f2e8071...@enews.newsguy.com>, b.s...@csuohio.edu (Brian M.
Scott) writes:

>On 04 Aug 2003 09:14:32 GMT, vael...@aol.comUspamo (David
>Thomas) wrote:
>
>>In article <3f2c13a9....@enews.newsguy.com>, b.s...@csuohio.edu
>(Brian
>>M. Scott) writes:
>
>[...]
>
>>>>>It is; it simply doesn't (and can't) specify
>
>>>>I'm not sure what you mean by 'doesn't (and can't) specify...'
>
>>>Sorry; meant to come back and finish the response, and then
>>>forgot to do so. Finish the sentence 'sounds/phones with
>>>complete precision'.
>
>>Or perhaps you mean 'absolute accuracy?'
>
>No, I mean complete precision (and yes, I do understand the
>difference between precision and accuracy; that's why I mean
>precision).

Well, since complete precision is necessary for absolute accuracy, and the two
imply each other, I guess there's nothing to really disagree with here...

>>>A phoneme is a minimal contrastive segment within a specific
>>>language. Different languages break up the possibilities
>>>differently. In some varieties of English [?] is an allophone of
>>>/t/; there is no English phoneme /?/. Modern literary Arabic, on
>>>the other hand, has a phoneme /?/. For most Americans [r"], the
>>>alveolar flap, is an allophone of /t/ (e.g., in <matter>); in
>>>Italian and Spanish it's the usual realization of /r/, and
>>>according to Mike Wright it's treated as a realization of /l/ in
>>>Holo.
>
>>I still don't see what's so inherently wrong in treating the IPA as a
>>standard set of phonemes...
>
>Look again at the first sentence of the paragraph.
>
>[...]

See my other post, please...

>>'Misuse' is very subjective, no matter the field, I must say.
>
>It's not: correct use is defined by those knowledgeable in the
>field. It may change over time as the field develops, so at
>times the usage of a particular term may be unstable, but in
>general technical usage is pretty unambiguous. (This is
>especially true in my own field, mathematics. One of the hardest
>things to get across to some students is that a technical
>mathematical term means exactly what its definition says it
>means, neither more nor less, no matter what they think it ought
>to mean based on non-technical usage or prior expectations.)
>
>[...]
>
>Brian

I must both agree and disagree.

I don't agree that technical terminology is ever either stable or definite.

From what I've seen, it tends to fluctuate slightly, be generalized with time,
and acquire strange nuances... its definitions expand and become more complex
during the term's lifetime.

As for mathematics, the self-defined field, it is, by definition, absolute and
exact. Anyone who uses a mathematical term outside of its range or domain is
simply a bad mathematician.

And, by implication, you know also that I regard mathematical terminology and
technical terminology as two completely different fields. Why? Technical
verbiage is invariably linked with, well, technology, which is consistently
changing these days. Its almost organic in its patterns and growth.
Mathematics, however, is so well set that it grows very slowly these days--that
is, as a matter of ratio with itself--and its words are some of the oldest
words we have, along with very, very few of the newest.

David Thomas

unread,
Aug 5, 2003, 2:29:10 AM8/5/03
to
In article <PZovRr2choL$Ew...@baesystems.com>, Richard Herring
<junk@[127.0.0.1]> writes:

>There is one, fairly trivial, reason. Much news and mail software
>recognises a line containing only "-- " as a signature separator, and
>divides up what it sees accordingly, for the convenience of the reader.
>It's a minor courtesy to such readers to supply one. Omitting it is also
>a cheap way to mark yourself as, er, egregious.
>
>--
>Richard Herring

Because I format my posts myself, and keep my signature quite separate from
body text, I'm not sure I should worry.

And I have no idea what you mean by 'divides up.' I suppose perhaps the
basicness of my reader is what keeps me from knowing about these features...

Jim Heckman

unread,
Aug 5, 2003, 4:05:20 AM8/5/03
to

On 4-Aug-2003, vael...@aol.comUspamo (David Thomas) wrote
in message <20030805022910...@mb-m20.aol.com>:

> In article <PZovRr2choL$Ew...@baesystems.com>, Richard Herring
> <junk@[127.0.0.1]> writes:
>
> >There is one, fairly trivial, reason. Much news and mail software
> >recognises a line containing only "-- " as a signature separator, and
> >divides up what it sees accordingly, for the convenience of the reader.
> >It's a minor courtesy to such readers to supply one. Omitting it is also
> >a cheap way to mark yourself as, er, egregious.

[...]

> Because I format my posts myself, and keep my signature quite separate
> from body text, I'm not sure I should worry.
>
> And I have no idea what you mean by 'divides up.' I suppose perhaps the
> basicness of my reader is what keeps me from knowing about these
> features...

More likely it's the basicness of your reading comprehension,
amply demonstrated in many threads, such as the ongoing one
with Peter Daniels and Brian Scott on ASCII-IPA and phonemes.
Regardless of whether you comprehend "signature separator" and
"divides up" in the context of modern newsreading software, I'd
have thought you'd get "convenience of the reader" and "minor
courtesy to such readers".

--
Jim Heckman

Brian M. Scott

unread,
Aug 5, 2003, 3:40:42 AM8/5/03
to
On 05 Aug 2003 06:29:12 GMT, vael...@aol.comUspamo (David
Thomas) wrote:

>In article <3f2e8071...@enews.newsguy.com>, b.s...@csuohio.edu (Brian M.
>Scott) writes:

>>On 04 Aug 2003 09:14:32 GMT, vael...@aol.comUspamo (David
>>Thomas) wrote:

[...]

>>No, I mean complete precision (and yes, I do understand the
>>difference between precision and accuracy; that's why I mean
>>precision).

>Well, since complete precision is necessary for absolute accuracy, and the two
>imply each other, I guess there's nothing to really disagree with here...

They do not imply each other. Suppose that I specify a target
point in the (x,y)-plane without telling you what it is, and you
guess the point (1,1). Your guess is completely precise -- you
have specified exactly one point -- but if my target was the
origin, your guess is also rather inaccurate. You may measure
the length of a table as 58" +/- 1/2"; if the table is in fact
58" long, your measurement is accurate but not especially
precise.

[...]

>>>'Misuse' is very subjective, no matter the field, I must say.

>>It's not: correct use is defined by those knowledgeable in the
>>field. It may change over time as the field develops, so at
>>times the usage of a particular term may be unstable, but in
>>general technical usage is pretty unambiguous. (This is
>>especially true in my own field, mathematics. One of the hardest
>>things to get across to some students is that a technical
>>mathematical term means exactly what its definition says it
>>means, neither more nor less, no matter what they think it ought
>>to mean based on non-technical usage or prior expectations.)

>I must both agree and disagree.

>I don't agree that technical terminology is ever either stable or definite.

Your agreement or lack thereof does not change the facts.

[...]

>And, by implication, you know also that I regard mathematical terminology and
>technical terminology as two completely different fields. Why?

Because you're not using 'technical' as it's normally used in
this context. This is your problem, not mine, but it does make
communication difficult.

[...]

>Mathematics, however, is so well set that it grows very slowly these days--that
>is, as a matter of ratio with itself--and its words are some of the oldest
>words we have, along with very, very few of the newest.

This says more about your knowledge of mathematical terminology
and research than it does about mathematics, I'm afraid.

Brian

Brian M. Scott

unread,
Aug 5, 2003, 3:47:57 AM8/5/03
to
On 05 Aug 2003 06:29:14 GMT, vael...@aol.comUspamo (David
Thomas) wrote:

>In article <3F2E48...@worldnet.att.net>, "Peter T. Daniels"
><gram...@worldnet.att.net> writes:

>>David Thomas wrote:

>>> >A phoneme is a minimal contrastive segment within a specific
>>> >language. Different languages break up the possibilities
>>> >differently. In some varieties of English [?] is an allophone of
>>> >/t/; there is no English phoneme /?/. Modern literary Arabic, on
>>> >the other hand, has a phoneme /?/. For most Americans [r"], the
>>> >alveolar flap, is an allophone of /t/ (e.g., in <matter>); in
>>> >Italian and Spanish it's the usual realization of /r/, and
>>> >according to Mike Wright it's treated as a realization of /l/ in
>>> >Holo.

>>> I still don't see what's so inherently wrong in treating the IPA as a
>>>standard set of phonemes...

>>Read the first sentence of the paragraph above.

>...

>>> After all, IPA is more or less a generalized and standardized method for
>>> writing the phonemes encountered in the languages of Earth...

>>And somehow you don't see the difference between this (correct)
>>statement and what you've maintained above?

>I do see the difference between the statements, however:

>The IPA is a standard set of symbols--but they're mapped to *something!* What
>is that something? A standard set of phones--might as well call them phonemes.

Indeed -- if you don't mind looking ignorant and don't want to be
understood.

> What's the difference?

The difference is specified in that same first sentence.

[...]

Brian

Des Small

unread,
Aug 5, 2003, 4:20:08 AM8/5/03
to
vael...@aol.comUspamo (David Thomas) writes:

Let's not, since they're not.

> What's the difference?

The property of being phonemes. Your enthusiasm for ignoring the
definition Brian provided is apparently unquenchable.

> Not much, really, since we're including all the languages of the
> world.
>
> The IPA is a set of phonemes to me

Outside sci.lang this attitude will get you laughed to scorn. (Inside
sci.lang, of course, it's too dark to read.)

> However, since I see a big difference between two different mappings
> of glyphs for these sounds, then I must conclude that it is not
> unreasonable for you to hold there to be a great difference between
> a mapping and the sounds themselves, if that's where you're going...

The ASCII glyphs are just an encoding of the official glyphs for media
where the latter are unavailable.

Des
once wrote a Kirshenbaum->Unicode translator
--
Des Small / Scientific Programmer/ School of Mathematics /
University of Bristol / UK / Word falling / Image falling

Richard Herring

unread,
Aug 5, 2003, 5:15:22 AM8/5/03
to
In message <20030805022910...@mb-m20.aol.com>, David Thomas
<vael...@aol.comUspamo> writes

>In article <PZovRr2choL$Ew...@baesystems.com>, Richard Herring
><junk@[127.0.0.1]> writes:
>
>>There is one, fairly trivial, reason. Much news and mail software
>>recognises a line containing only "-- " as a signature separator, and
>>divides up what it sees accordingly, for the convenience of the reader.
>>It's a minor courtesy to such readers to supply one. Omitting it is also
>>a cheap way to mark yourself as, er, egregious.
>>
[quoted signature snipped]

>
>Because I format my posts myself, and keep my signature quite separate from
>body text, I'm not sure I should worry.

So you're marking yourself as egregious. Noted.

>
>And I have no idea what you mean by 'divides up.' I suppose perhaps the
>basicness of my reader

Hmmm...
>Organization: AOL http://www.aol.com
>X-Newsreader: Session Scheduler (Queue Name: usenet_offline-m20)

>is what keeps me from knowing about these features...
>

[One thing a decent news client does is to delete the quoted signature
in followups, since it's considered good practice not to quote them.]

--
Richard Herring

Peter T. Daniels

unread,
Aug 5, 2003, 7:33:52 AM8/5/03
to
David Thomas wrote:
>
> In article <PZovRr2choL$Ew...@baesystems.com>, Richard Herring
> <junk@[127.0.0.1]> writes:
>
> >There is one, fairly trivial, reason. Much news and mail software
> >recognises a line containing only "-- " as a signature separator, and
> >divides up what it sees accordingly, for the convenience of the reader.
> >It's a minor courtesy to such readers to supply one. Omitting it is also
> >a cheap way to mark yourself as, er, egregious.
> >
> >--
> >Richard Herring
>
> Because I format my posts myself, and keep my signature quite separate from
> body text, I'm not sure I should worry.

Don't lie. You put no more space before your .sig than you put between
any two paragraphs of content.

> And I have no idea what you mean by 'divides up.' I suppose perhaps the
> basicness of my reader is what keeps me from knowing about these features...
>
> - Vae
> Sleep, Fate, Death, and I sat one sunday down at tea.
> Fate offered up his Ziggy mug before I poured,
> Sleep yawned in his PJs, seeming mildly bored,
> And Death politely asked, "Another pirouline?"

--
Peter T. Daniels gram...@att.net

Mark Barratt

unread,
Aug 5, 2003, 7:47:42 AM8/5/03
to
vael...@aol.comUspamo (David Thomas) wrote in message news:<20030805022910...@mb-m20.aol.com>...

> In article <PZovRr2choL$Ew...@baesystems.com>, Richard Herring
> <junk@[127.0.0.1]> writes:
>
> >There is one, fairly trivial, reason. Much news and mail software
> >recognises a line containing only "-- " as a signature separator, and
> >divides up what it sees accordingly, for the convenience of the reader.
> >It's a minor courtesy to such readers to supply one. Omitting it is also
> >a cheap way to mark yourself as, er, egregious.

> Because I format my posts myself, and keep my signature quite separate from


> body text, I'm not sure I should worry.
>
> And I have no idea what you mean by 'divides up.' I suppose perhaps the
> basicness of my reader is what keeps me from knowing about these features...

The signature separator (a line containing only two hyphens and an
invisible(!) space) is defined in an RFC somewhere (I can't find it at
the moment) and is thus a standard part of a properly formatted NNTP
("Usenet") posting, where there is a signature. Some NNTP client
software will use this separator to automatically remove the signature
when quoting in a reply. This saves the user the trouble of snipping
it themselves, but leaves them needing to copy-and-paste if they
actually want to comment on the sig. Amusingly, Microsoft's Outlook
Excuse program actually strips the invisible space on sending, which
breaks these programs anyway - and since most people use Outlook
Excuse because it comes bundled with Windows ("free", if that use of
the word doesn't make you wince as it does me), the use of the
separator might be seen as no more than a token gesture of defiance to
Microsoft. If the trailing space gets through, it at least
demonstrates that you don't use Outlook Excuse. Many people seem to be
keen on it's being there, though.

Regards,
Mark Barratt
wv8....@virgin.net
http://freespace.virgin.net/wv8.mark

Des Small

unread,
Aug 5, 2003, 8:03:20 AM8/5/03
to
wv8....@virgin.net (Mark Barratt) writes:

> vael...@aol.comUspamo (David Thomas) wrote in message news:<20030805022910...@mb-m20.aol.com>...
> > In article <PZovRr2choL$Ew...@baesystems.com>, Richard Herring
> > <junk@[127.0.0.1]> writes:
> >
> > >There is one, fairly trivial, reason. Much news and mail software
> > >recognises a line containing only "-- " as a signature separator, and
> > >divides up what it sees accordingly, for the convenience of the reader.
> > >It's a minor courtesy to such readers to supply one. Omitting it is also
> > >a cheap way to mark yourself as, er, egregious.
>
> > Because I format my posts myself, and keep my signature quite
> > separate from body text, I'm not sure I should worry.
> >
> > And I have no idea what you mean by 'divides up.' I suppose
> > perhaps the basicness of my reader is what keeps me from knowing
> > about these features...
>
> The signature separator (a line containing only two hyphens and an
> invisible(!) space) is defined in an RFC somewhere (I can't find it at
> the moment)

RFC 2646 <http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc2646.txt> says:

"""
4.3. Usenet Signature Convention

There is a convention in Usenet news of using "-- " as the separator
line between the body and the signature of a message. [...]
"""

[...]

Des
can think of conventions better worth rebelling against.

David Thomas

unread,
Aug 6, 2003, 2:21:55 AM8/6/03
to
In article <8f30741a.0308...@posting.google.com>,
wv8....@virgin.net (Mark Barratt) writes:

So I'm being flamed because I don't perform a gesture of utterly superficial
defiance anyhow?

What the hell?!

One will notice that all surviving from my signature is my own screenname.
Anyone unhappy with this can fuck off.

- Vae

David Thomas

unread,
Aug 6, 2003, 2:21:58 AM8/6/03
to
In article <viup9k6...@corp.supernews.com>, "Jim Heckman"
<wnzrfe...@lnubb.pbz.invalid> writes:

>More likely it's the basicness of your reading comprehension,
>amply demonstrated in many threads, such as the ongoing one
>with Peter Daniels and Brian Scott on ASCII-IPA and phonemes.
>Regardless of whether you comprehend "signature separator" and
>"divides up" in the context of modern newsreading software, I'd
>have thought you'd get "convenience of the reader" and "minor
>courtesy to such readers".
>
>--
>Jim Heckman

Or perhaps my time is not spent catering to others.

If my posts are a bother merely because of the signature, I'm sure their fancy
newsreaders also possess a killfile, and I'm quite sure its use is understood
perfectly.

Go heckle someone who'll listen.

- Vae

David Thomas

unread,
Aug 6, 2003, 2:21:55 AM8/6/03
to
In article <3F2F96...@worldnet.att.net>, "Peter T. Daniels"
<gram...@worldnet.att.net> writes:

>David Thomas wrote:
>>
>> In article <PZovRr2choL$Ew...@baesystems.com>, Richard Herring
>> <junk@[127.0.0.1]> writes:
>>
>> >There is one, fairly trivial, reason. Much news and mail software
>> >recognises a line containing only "-- " as a signature separator, and
>> >divides up what it sees accordingly, for the convenience of the reader.
>> >It's a minor courtesy to such readers to supply one. Omitting it is also
>> >a cheap way to mark yourself as, er, egregious.
>> >
>> >--
>> >Richard Herring
>>
>> Because I format my posts myself, and keep my signature quite separate from
>> body text, I'm not sure I should worry.
>
>Don't lie. You put no more space before your .sig than you put between
>any two paragraphs of content.

That's still quite separate. Are you pissed because you must always
accidentally read it? Or is deleting it from replies that inconvenient? What
is it that makes this matter so much?

>> And I have no idea what you mean by 'divides up.' I suppose perhaps the
>> basicness of my reader is what keeps me from knowing about these
>features...
>>
>> - Vae
>> Sleep, Fate, Death, and I sat one sunday down at tea.
>> Fate offered up his Ziggy mug before I poured,
>> Sleep yawned in his PJs, seeming mildly bored,
>> And Death politely asked, "Another pirouline?"

Did you not delete that on purpose, or are you demonstrating that you're
perfectly egregious also, as I've been informed that one who does not remove
these is considered out of 'good practice?'

>--
>Peter T. Daniels gram...@att.net

- Vae

David Thomas

unread,
Aug 6, 2003, 2:21:57 AM8/6/03
to
In article <3f2f5f82...@enews.newsguy.com>, b.s...@csuohio.edu (Brian M.
Scott) writes:

>>The IPA is a standard set of symbols--but they're mapped to *something!*
>What
>>is that something? A standard set of phones--might as well call them
>phonemes.
>
>Indeed -- if you don't mind looking ignorant and don't want to be
>understood.
>
>> What's the difference?
>
>The difference is specified in that same first sentence.
>
>[...]
>
>Brian

You know, there is not a great gap between considering the IPA the absolute
phonetic mapping of all sounds and considering it simply a chart of phonemes.

I'm sorry you just can't live with people who have different ideas about these
things. However, the definition of the words does not outrule my use of them.

There's nothing new to establish here. Perhaps we could move on to something
more useful to discuss?

- Vae

David Thomas

unread,
Aug 6, 2003, 2:21:56 AM8/6/03
to
In article <IqVeNoFqW3L$Ew...@baesystems.com>, Richard Herring
<junk@[127.0.0.1]> writes:

>In message <20030805022910...@mb-m20.aol.com>, David Thomas
><vael...@aol.comUspamo> writes
>>In article <PZovRr2choL$Ew...@baesystems.com>, Richard Herring
>><junk@[127.0.0.1]> writes:
>>
>>>There is one, fairly trivial, reason. Much news and mail software
>>>recognises a line containing only "-- " as a signature separator, and
>>>divides up what it sees accordingly, for the convenience of the reader.
>>>It's a minor courtesy to such readers to supply one. Omitting it is also
>>>a cheap way to mark yourself as, er, egregious.
>>>
>[quoted signature snipped]
>>
>>Because I format my posts myself, and keep my signature quite separate from
>>body text, I'm not sure I should worry.
>
>So you're marking yourself as egregious. Noted.

::sigh::

Sure. I'm an asshole of the utmost degree.

If my signature alone is enough to annoy a person that much, then I hope that
person is quite annoyed. It is well deserved.

>>And I have no idea what you mean by 'divides up.' I suppose perhaps the
>>basicness of my reader
>
>Hmmm...
>>Organization: AOL http://www.aol.com
>>X-Newsreader: Session Scheduler (Queue Name: usenet_offline-m20)

Yes, AOL, I know.

It can't be helped.

>>is what keeps me from knowing about these features...
>>
>
>[One thing a decent news client does is to delete the quoted signature
>in followups, since it's considered good practice not to quote them.]

Well, I usually delete my own, though I do miss it now and again. I typically
leave enough of anyone else's to identify that person, though, for clarity:
this usually helps sort through the discussions.

>--
>Richard Herring

If usenet police would like to flame me for whatever else, I suppose I could
get completely OT and start talking about how offensive I find the ideas of
orthodoxy and tradition.

- Vae

David Thomas

unread,
Aug 6, 2003, 2:21:58 AM8/6/03
to
In article <3f2f5cfb...@enews.newsguy.com>, b.s...@csuohio.edu (Brian M.
Scott) writes:

>On 05 Aug 2003 06:29:12 GMT, vael...@aol.comUspamo (David
>Thomas) wrote:
>
>>In article <3f2e8071...@enews.newsguy.com>, b.s...@csuohio.edu (Brian
>M.
>>Scott) writes:
>
>>>On 04 Aug 2003 09:14:32 GMT, vael...@aol.comUspamo (David
>>>Thomas) wrote:
>
>[...]
>
>>>No, I mean complete precision (and yes, I do understand the
>>>difference between precision and accuracy; that's why I mean
>>>precision).
>
>>Well, since complete precision is necessary for absolute accuracy, and the
>>two
>>imply each other, I guess there's nothing to really disagree with here...
>
>They do not imply each other. Suppose that I specify a target
>point in the (x,y)-plane without telling you what it is, and you
>guess the point (1,1). Your guess is completely precise -- you
>have specified exactly one point -- but if my target was the
>origin, your guess is also rather inaccurate. You may measure
>the length of a table as 58" +/- 1/2"; if the table is in fact
>58" long, your measurement is accurate but not especially
>precise.
>
>[...]

::sigh::

You really should get a hobby. Searching for reasons to disagree with me is
highly unbecoming of you.

If you're dealing with a measuring device--though, given that you are a
mathematician, I'm not sure how much I should suspect you would have
to--complete precision and absolute accuracy are one and the same. In our
speaking on the IPA, we're talking about a measurement, essentially. I don't
know what guessing would have to do with any of this, but maybe that's why I'm
not (yet) a mathematician...

But this has gotten so far off the track that it's pretty pointless to discuss.

>>>>'Misuse' is very subjective, no matter the field, I must say.
>
>>>It's not: correct use is defined by those knowledgeable in the
>>>field. It may change over time as the field develops, so at
>>>times the usage of a particular term may be unstable, but in
>>>general technical usage is pretty unambiguous. (This is
>>>especially true in my own field, mathematics. One of the hardest
>>>things to get across to some students is that a technical
>>>mathematical term means exactly what its definition says it
>>>means, neither more nor less, no matter what they think it ought
>>>to mean based on non-technical usage or prior expectations.)
>
>>I must both agree and disagree.
>
>>I don't agree that technical terminology is ever either stable or definite.
>
>Your agreement or lack thereof does not change the facts.
>
>[...]

And, of course, I'm assuming that you know 'the facts,' and I do not. I
suppose you'll be trying to 'convert' me next.

>>And, by implication, you know also that I regard mathematical terminology
>>and technical terminology as two completely different fields. Why?
>
>Because you're not using 'technical' as it's normally used in
>this context. This is your problem, not mine, but it does make
>communication difficult.
>
>[...]

::shrug::

>>Mathematics, however, is so well set that it grows very slowly these
>>days--that
>>is, as a matter of ratio with itself--and its words are some of the oldest
>>words we have, along with very, very few of the newest.
>
>This says more about your knowledge of mathematical terminology
>and research than it does about mathematics, I'm afraid.
>
>Brian

And your smug rebuttals contain less and less useful information. I'm
certainly glad I'm not expected to learn anything from them.

- Vae

Richard Herring

unread,
Aug 6, 2003, 5:08:00 AM8/6/03
to
In message <20030806022157...@mb-m27.aol.com>, David Thomas
<vael...@aol.comUspamo> writes

>In article <3f2f5f82...@enews.newsguy.com>, b.s...@csuohio.edu (Brian M.
>Scott) writes:
>
>>>The IPA is a standard set of symbols--but they're mapped to *something!*
>>What
>>>is that something? A standard set of phones--might as well call them
>>phonemes.
>>
>>Indeed -- if you don't mind looking ignorant and don't want to be
>>understood.
>>
>>> What's the difference?
>>
>>The difference is specified in that same first sentence.
>>
>>[...]
>>
>>Brian
>
>You know, there is not a great gap between considering the IPA the absolute
>phonetic mapping of all sounds and considering it simply a chart of phonemes.

It doesn't worry you that phonemes are not sounds?

>I'm sorry you just can't live

Not "live" so much as "communicate".

>with people who have different ideas about these
>things. However, the definition of the words does not outrule my use of them.
>
>There's nothing new to establish here. Perhaps we could move on to something
>more useful to discuss?

--
Richard Herring

Richard Herring

unread,
Aug 6, 2003, 5:16:33 AM8/6/03
to
In message <20030806022156...@mb-m27.aol.com>, David Thomas

That's what the attributions at the top and the nested >> are for.


>
>If usenet police would like to flame me for whatever else, I suppose I could
>get completely OT and start talking about how offensive I find the ideas of
>orthodoxy and tradition.
>

Go ahead and rant. The outcome is predictable.

What people who gratuitously flout its conventions sometimes forget is
that Usenet is a buyer's market. There is only so much time, so only the
truly obsessed read everything that gets posted. If you want people to
read what _you_ post, it helps to package the material so that it
doesn't offend the eye. If the form is annoying, many people won't
bother to penetrate to the content.

And if you don't care, why bother to post at all?


--
Richard Herring

Peter T. Daniels

unread,
Aug 6, 2003, 9:27:45 AM8/6/03
to
David Thomas wrote:
>
> In article <3F2F96...@worldnet.att.net>, "Peter T. Daniels"
> <gram...@worldnet.att.net> writes:
>
> >David Thomas wrote:
> >>
> >> In article <PZovRr2choL$Ew...@baesystems.com>, Richard Herring
> >> <junk@[127.0.0.1]> writes:
> >>
> >> >There is one, fairly trivial, reason. Much news and mail software
> >> >recognises a line containing only "-- " as a signature separator, and
> >> >divides up what it sees accordingly, for the convenience of the reader.
> >> >It's a minor courtesy to such readers to supply one. Omitting it is also
> >> >a cheap way to mark yourself as, er, egregious.
> >> >
> >> >--
> >> >Richard Herring
> >>
> >> Because I format my posts myself, and keep my signature quite separate from
> >> body text, I'm not sure I should worry.
> >
> >Don't lie. You put no more space before your .sig than you put between
> >any two paragraphs of content.
>
> That's still quite separate. Are you pissed because you must always
> accidentally read it? Or is deleting it from replies that inconvenient? What
> is it that makes this matter so much?

What a strange use of "quite."

The computer boys have explained, in considerable detail, why it
matters. To me it matters because without the barrier to notify my eye
to stop, I automatically keep reading into the irrelevant nonsense.

> >> And I have no idea what you mean by 'divides up.' I suppose perhaps the
> >> basicness of my reader is what keeps me from knowing about these
> >features...
> >>
> >> - Vae
> >> Sleep, Fate, Death, and I sat one sunday down at tea.
> >> Fate offered up his Ziggy mug before I poured,
> >> Sleep yawned in his PJs, seeming mildly bored,
> >> And Death politely asked, "Another pirouline?"
>
> Did you not delete that on purpose, or are you demonstrating that you're
> perfectly egregious also, as I've been informed that one who does not remove
> these is considered out of 'good practice?'

I did it so that everyone could see there is no more space there than
between any two paragraphs of content, despite your claim that it's
"quite" separate.

Peter T. Daniels

unread,
Aug 6, 2003, 9:30:53 AM8/6/03
to
David Thomas wrote:
>
> In article <3f2f5f82...@enews.newsguy.com>, b.s...@csuohio.edu (Brian M.
> Scott) writes:
>
> >>The IPA is a standard set of symbols--but they're mapped to *something!*
> >What
> >>is that something? A standard set of phones--might as well call them
> >phonemes.
> >
> >Indeed -- if you don't mind looking ignorant and don't want to be
> >understood.
> >
> >> What's the difference?
> >
> >The difference is specified in that same first sentence.
> >
> >[...]
> >
> >Brian
>
> You know, there is not a great gap between considering the IPA the absolute
> phonetic mapping of all sounds and considering it simply a chart of phonemes.

One could only say that if one didn't understand the concept of
"phoneme."

> I'm sorry you just can't live with people who have different ideas about these
> things. However, the definition of the words does not outrule my use of them.

In this case, "different" is "wrong." Perhaps this attitude is why
you're flitting from college to college. How did you manage to get a
high school diploma?

> There's nothing new to establish here. Perhaps we could move on to something
> more useful to discuss?

It won't be possible, since you have failed to grasp the basic concept
of descriptive linguistics.

Brian M. Scott

unread,
Aug 6, 2003, 4:54:13 PM8/6/03
to
On 06 Aug 2003 06:21:57 GMT, vael...@aol.comUspamo (David
Thomas) wrote:

[...]

>I'm sorry you just can't live with people who have different ideas about these
>things.

I'm alive, and you exist; apparently I can. But it's remarkable
how quickly you've managed to go from potentially interesting
newcomer to probable waste of time.

>However, the definition of the words does not outrule my use of them.

You are Humpty Dumpty, and I claim my five pounds. (Either that,
or a solipsist of the first water.)

[...]

Brian M. Scott

unread,
Aug 6, 2003, 5:05:27 PM8/6/03
to
On 06 Aug 2003 06:21:58 GMT, vael...@aol.comUspamo (David
Thomas) wrote:

>In article <3f2f5cfb...@enews.newsguy.com>, b.s...@csuohio.edu (Brian M.
>Scott) writes:

>>On 05 Aug 2003 06:29:12 GMT, vael...@aol.comUspamo (David
>>Thomas) wrote:

>>>In article <3f2e8071...@enews.newsguy.com>, b.s...@csuohio.edu (Brian
>>>M. Scott) writes:

>>>>On 04 Aug 2003 09:14:32 GMT, vael...@aol.comUspamo (David
>>>>Thomas) wrote:

>>>>No, I mean complete precision (and yes, I do understand the
>>>>difference between precision and accuracy; that's why I mean
>>>>precision).

>>>Well, since complete precision is necessary for absolute accuracy, and the
>>>two
>>>imply each other, I guess there's nothing to really disagree with here...

>>They do not imply each other. Suppose that I specify a target
>>point in the (x,y)-plane without telling you what it is, and you
>>guess the point (1,1). Your guess is completely precise -- you
>>have specified exactly one point -- but if my target was the
>>origin, your guess is also rather inaccurate. You may measure
>>the length of a table as 58" +/- 1/2"; if the table is in fact
>>58" long, your measurement is accurate but not especially
>>precise.

>::sigh::

>You really should get a hobby. Searching for reasons to disagree with me is
>highly unbecoming of you.

Unfortunately, I don't have to search.

>If you're dealing with a measuring device--though, given that you are a
>mathematician, I'm not sure how much I should suspect you would have
>to--complete precision and absolute accuracy are one and the same.

Unless you're dealing with a discrete variable, your measuring
device is incapable of either complete precision or absolute
accuracy. They are the same only in the sense that neither is
possible; in principle they are entirely different.

[...]

>>>I don't agree that technical terminology is ever either stable or definite.

>>Your agreement or lack thereof does not change the facts.

>And, of course, I'm assuming that you know 'the facts,' and I do not.

This appears to be the case, yes.

[...]

>>>Mathematics, however, is so well set that it grows very slowly these
>>>days--that
>>>is, as a matter of ratio with itself--and its words are some of the oldest
>>>words we have, along with very, very few of the newest.

>>This says more about your knowledge of mathematical terminology
>>and research than it does about mathematics, I'm afraid.

>And your smug rebuttals contain less and less useful information. I'm


>certainly glad I'm not expected to learn anything from them.

You've made it quite clear that you aren't much interested in
learning. If you change your mind, accepting that linguists
determine how their own technical terminology is properly used
would be a good start.

David Thomas

unread,
Aug 6, 2003, 7:37:50 PM8/6/03
to
In article <4xUibkGwVMM$Ew...@baesystems.com>, Richard Herring
<junk@[127.0.0.1]> writes:

>>You know, there is not a great gap between considering the IPA the absolute
>>phonetic mapping of all sounds and considering it simply a chart of
>phonemes.
>
>It doesn't worry you that phonemes are not sounds?

Phonemes aren't sounds?

Would you care to explicate a bit here?

- Vae

David Thomas

unread,
Aug 6, 2003, 7:37:46 PM8/6/03
to
In article <3f316b01....@enews.newsguy.com>, b.s...@csuohio.edu (Brian
M. Scott) writes:

>>If you're dealing with a measuring device--though, given that you are a
>>mathematician, I'm not sure how much I should suspect you would have
>>to--complete precision and absolute accuracy are one and the same.
>
>Unless you're dealing with a discrete variable, your measuring
>device is incapable of either complete precision or absolute
>accuracy. They are the same only in the sense that neither is
>possible; in principle they are entirely different.
>
>[...]

Glad that you're beginning to understand my point...

- Vae

David Thomas

unread,
Aug 6, 2003, 7:37:47 PM8/6/03
to
In article <3f316a32....@enews.newsguy.com>, b.s...@csuohio.edu (Brian
M. Scott) writes:

>On 06 Aug 2003 06:21:57 GMT, vael...@aol.comUspamo (David
>Thomas) wrote:
>
>[...]
>
>>I'm sorry you just can't live with people who have different ideas
>>about these things.
>
>I'm alive, and you exist; apparently I can. But it's remarkable
>how quickly you've managed to go from potentially interesting
>newcomer to probable waste of time.

Gee... notice how that happened? I didn't agree with the resident deities.

>>However, the definition of the words does not outrule my use of them.
>
>You are Humpty Dumpty, and I claim my five pounds. (Either that,
>or a solipsist of the first water.)
>
>[...]

Now, how about that French language again?

- Vae

David Thomas

unread,
Aug 6, 2003, 7:37:48 PM8/6/03
to
In article <3F3102...@worldnet.att.net>, "Peter T. Daniels"
<gram...@worldnet.att.net> writes:

>> That's still quite separate. Are you pissed because you must always
>> accidentally read it? Or is deleting it from replies that inconvenient?
>> What is it that makes this matter so much?
>
>What a strange use of "quite."
>
>The computer boys have explained, in considerable detail, why it
>matters. To me it matters because without the barrier to notify my eye
>to stop, I automatically keep reading into the irrelevant nonsense.

Well, then I must apologize for your lack of eye control.

Is there some other personal deficiency you possess that you'd like me to
compensate for?

>> Did you not delete that on purpose, or are you demonstrating that you're
>> perfectly egregious also, as I've been informed that one who does not
>>remove these is considered out of 'good practice?'
>
>I did it so that everyone could see there is no more space there than
>between any two paragraphs of content, despite your claim that it's
>"quite" separate.
>--
>Peter T. Daniels gram...@att.net

It's quite enough.

- Vae

David Thomas

unread,
Aug 6, 2003, 7:37:49 PM8/6/03
to
In article <uh0nfcHxdMM$Ew...@baesystems.com>, Richard Herring
<junk@[127.0.0.1]> writes:

>>Well, I usually delete my own, though I do miss it now and again. I
>typically
>>leave enough of anyone else's to identify that person, though, for clarity:
>>this usually helps sort through the discussions.
>
>That's what the attributions at the top and the nested >> are for.

Well, you know, perhaps some obnoxious person bothered me about deleting it
before and I stopped doing so.

You know, I don't have time to collect suggestions on formatting. It's getting
a bit annoying when I change my signature format in response to someone here
whining and it causes someone elsewhere to whine about that! If you don't like
it, don't read it. I don't think I need to tell anyone that.

>>If usenet police would like to flame me for whatever else, I suppose I could
>>get completely OT and start talking about how offensive I find the ideas of
>>orthodoxy and tradition.
>>
>Go ahead and rant. The outcome is predictable.

Is it, now?

>What people who gratuitously flout its conventions sometimes forget is
>that Usenet is a buyer's market. There is only so much time, so only the
>truly obsessed read everything that gets posted. If you want people to
>read what _you_ post, it helps to package the material so that it
>doesn't offend the eye. If the form is annoying, many people won't
>bother to penetrate to the content.

Well, I format my posts well enough, so far as I'm concerned. If it offends
people out of reading that much, then it's certainly no worry of mine.

>And if you don't care, why bother to post at all?

That is incredibly silly. Why even bother living, then! It's all pointless.

>--
>Richard Herring

- Vae

David Thomas

unread,
Aug 6, 2003, 7:37:47 PM8/6/03
to
In article <3F3103...@worldnet.att.net>, "Peter T. Daniels"
<gram...@worldnet.att.net> writes:

>> You know, there is not a great gap between considering the IPA the absolute
>> phonetic mapping of all sounds and considering it simply a chart of
phonemes.
>
>One could only say that if one didn't understand the concept of
>"phoneme."

So you insist. It's beyond meaning, now.

>> I'm sorry you just can't live with people who have different
>>ideas about these things. However, the definition of the words
>>does not outrule my use of them.
>
>In this case, "different" is "wrong." Perhaps this attitude is why
>you're flitting from college to college. How did you manage to get a
>high school diploma?

'Flitting?'

>> There's nothing new to establish here. Perhaps we could move on to
>>something more useful to discuss?
>
>It won't be possible, since you have failed to grasp the basic concept
>of descriptive linguistics.
>--
>Peter T. Daniels gram...@att.net

Sure. Whatever.

At this rate, you'll chase anyone interested from the field.

- Vae

Peter T. Daniels

unread,
Aug 6, 2003, 7:46:10 PM8/6/03
to

Phonemes are units arrived at by phonological analysis. They are
_realized_ with sounds. They are not sounds. They are an abstraction.

David Thomas

unread,
Aug 6, 2003, 8:17:37 PM8/6/03
to
In article <3F3193...@worldnet.att.net>, "Peter T. Daniels"
<gram...@worldnet.att.net> writes:

>> >It doesn't worry you that phonemes are not sounds?
>>
>> Phonemes aren't sounds?
>>
>> Would you care to explicate a bit here?
>
>Phonemes are units arrived at by phonological analysis. They are
>_realized_ with sounds. They are not sounds. They are an abstraction.
>--
>Peter T. Daniels gram...@att.net

Now that's hideously too technical.

Insisting that their class discrepancy be accounted when stating the simply
equivalency of the two is pure pedantry. It doesn't *mean* anything.

- Vae

Torsten Poulin

unread,
Aug 6, 2003, 9:27:28 PM8/6/03
to
David Thomas wrote:

>>Phonemes are units arrived at by phonological analysis. They are
>>_realized_ with sounds. They are not sounds. They are an abstraction.

> Now that's hideously too technical.

No. It's both trivial and fundamental and definitely not up for
discussion.

> Insisting that their class discrepancy be accounted when
> stating the simply equivalency of the two is pure pedantry. It
> doesn't *mean* anything.

?

--
Torsten

Brian M. Scott

unread,
Aug 6, 2003, 9:28:25 PM8/6/03
to
On 07 Aug 2003 00:17:37 GMT, vael...@aol.comUspamo (David
Thomas) wrote:

>In article <3F3193...@worldnet.att.net>, "Peter T. Daniels"
><gram...@worldnet.att.net> writes:

[...]

>>Phonemes are units arrived at by phonological analysis. They are
>>_realized_ with sounds. They are not sounds. They are an abstraction.

>Now that's hideously too technical.

It's basic to the traditional study of phonology.

>Insisting that their class discrepancy be accounted when stating the simply
>equivalency of the two is pure pedantry.

Since the aren't equivalent, and the difference is significant,
it is not pure pedantry. You clearly still don't understand what
a phoneme actually is.

>It doesn't *mean* anything.

It won't, until you exert the minimal effort necessary to
understand the difference.

Brian M. Scott

unread,
Aug 6, 2003, 9:35:41 PM8/6/03
to
On 06 Aug 2003 23:37:47 GMT, vael...@aol.comUspamo (David
Thomas) wrote:

>In article <3f316a32....@enews.newsguy.com>, b.s...@csuohio.edu (Brian
>M. Scott) writes:

>>On 06 Aug 2003 06:21:57 GMT, vael...@aol.comUspamo (David
>>Thomas) wrote:

>>[...]

>>>I'm sorry you just can't live with people who have different ideas
>>>about these things.

>>I'm alive, and you exist; apparently I can. But it's remarkable
>>how quickly you've managed to go from potentially interesting
>>newcomer to probable waste of time.

>Gee... notice how that happened? I didn't agree with the resident deities.

It happened because you demonstrated an unwillingness (or
inability) to learn an important and basic distinction of the
field and because you fail to understand that an ignorant layman
is not in a position to redefine technical terminology. That you
disagree with me, or Peter, or Richard, is not important; there
are lots of linguistic topics on which you could legitimately
disagree with one or more of us. Disagreeing on the meaning of
basic linguistic terminology is not one of them, however; you
might as well go into sci.math and announce that since it has a
straightedge and compass construction and is therefore easy to
understand, sqrt(2) is a rational number.

[...]

Brian M. Scott

unread,
Aug 6, 2003, 9:37:01 PM8/6/03