Pronunciation of "L'état, c'est moi!"
Jarel
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
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
>
> 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
...
> 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
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
<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
>
> 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
<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
>
> 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
>>
>> 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
>
> >> >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
<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
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
<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
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
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
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
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
> >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
: /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
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
<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
<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
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
<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
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
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
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
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
<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.
>>
>
>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
>
> In article <PZovRr2choL$Ew...@baesystems.com>, Richard Herring
> <junk@[127.0.0.1]> writes:
>
> >There is one, fairly trivial, reason. Much news and mail software
> >recognises a line containing only "-- " as a signature separator, and
> >divides up what it sees accordingly, for the convenience of the reader.
> >It's a minor courtesy to such readers to supply one. Omitting it is also
> >a cheap way to mark yourself as, er, egregious.
> >
> >--
> >Richard Herring
>
> Because I format my posts myself, and keep my signature quite separate from
> body text, I'm not sure I should worry.
Don't lie. You put no more space before your .sig than you put between
any two paragraphs of content.
> And I have no idea what you mean by 'divides up.' I suppose perhaps the
> basicness of my reader is what keeps me from knowing about these features...
>
> - Vae
> Sleep, Fate, Death, and I sat one sunday down at tea.
> Fate offered up his Ziggy mug before I poured,
> Sleep yawned in his PJs, seeming mildly bored,
> And Death politely asked, "Another pirouline?"
--
Peter T. Daniels gram...@att.net
Mark Barratt
> In article <PZovRr2choL$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
> 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
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
<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
<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
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
<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
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
<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
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
>
> 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
>
> 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
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
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
<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
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
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
<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
<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
<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
Phonemes are units arrived at by phonological analysis. They are
_realized_ with sounds. They are not sounds. They are an abstraction.
David Thomas
<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
>>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
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
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
Thomas) wrote:
>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...
I have no idea what your point is. I see only that you
apparently understand the terms 'accurate' and 'precise' almost
as poorly as you understand 'phoneme'.
Brian M. Scott
Thomas) wrote:
[...]
>Well, I format my posts well enough, so far as I'm concerned.
Uninformed childish arrogance is not a very good basis for an
opinion, however. Very simply: quite a bit of mail and news
software looks for the string '-- ' as a signal that what follows
can be deleted in replying. If you use a signature block -- and
you do -- it is discourteous not to set it off with that string.
Greg Lee
This is a matter linguists disagree about. I think a phoneme is
just as much a sound as a scream is. They're both things that people
hear, but neither can be observed directly by instrumental measurement.
--
Greg Lee <gr...@ling.lll.hawaii.edu>
Brian M. Scott
wrote:
>Peter T. Daniels <gram...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
[...]
>> Phonemes are units arrived at by phonological analysis. They are
>> _realized_ with sounds. They are not sounds. They are an abstraction.
>This is a matter linguists disagree about. I think a phoneme is
>just as much a sound as a scream is. They're both things that people
>hear, but neither can be observed directly by instrumental measurement.
In what sense can a scream not be observed directly by
instrumental measurement? And do you go so far as to support the
claim that the IPA symbols represent a universal set of
_phonemes_? (No quibbles on 'universal', please; that's not the
point.)
Brian
Des Small
So that makes them phenomological, rather than simply acoustic,
sounds, and we can flame each other senseless about their ontological
status all day, hurrah!
Or not - Roman Jakobson suggested linguists should leave that to the
ontologists, and quite right too.
Des
likes both kinds of philosophy - phenomenological AND hermeneutic.
--
Des Small / Scientific Programmer/ School of Mathematics /
University of Bristol / UK / Word falling / Image falling
Richard Herring
<vael...@aol.comUspamo> writes
>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.
>
>
>Insisting that their class discrepancy be accounted when stating the simply
>equivalency of the two is pure pedantry. It doesn't *mean* anything.
>
Phonemes are (strictly: are realised by) language-dependent _sets_ of
sounds, possibly intersecting. The choice of a particular realisation
by the speaker, and the identification of a sound with a particular
phoneme by the listener, depend on the immediate phonological context.
Simple (over-simplified?) example: in some forms of English /t/ might
be spoken as [t] or [d] and [d] might be heard as /t/ or /d/, depending
on the cotext.
--
Richard Herring
Richard Herring
<vael...@aol.comUspamo> writes[on quoted signatures]
>>>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.
Are you sure you understood the technical substance of their complaint?
I've _never_ seen anyone complain about people deleting signatures, and
the relevant standards encourage it.
>
>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?
Yes. When you hear the sound commonly transcribed as <*plonk*> (what
would that be in ASCII-IPA, I wonder?) you will know it has happened.
>
>>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.
No, it's called "taking the argument to its logical conclusion". And
it's your argument, not mine.
>Why even bother living, then! It's all pointless.
That's a syllogism, though you haven't explicitly stated it as such. If
it's analogous, you must be starting from the premise that reading
anything you write is pointless. Such humility!
--
Richard Herring
Greg Lee
It's not a great example, because if /d/ is realized as [t], since /t/
is a phoneme, that is probably due to a morphophonemic change, and the
[t] resulting from /d/ would be heard as /t/. People perceive morphophonemic
changes. If a /t/ is rounded to [t^w] due to a following round vowel,
though, the rounding is not ordinarily perceived, because it's allophonic.
In the most ordinary way of using "sound", in such a case the sound is /t/,
because that's what's heard. By using an instrument or cunsulting
a phonetician, one may conclude that a [t^w] was pronounced, but it's rather
peculiar to reserve the term "sound" for allophones, since they are
typically not even heard.
--
Greg Lee <gr...@ling.lll.hawaii.edu>
Greg Lee
> On 7 Aug 2003 02:01:07 GMT, Greg Lee <gr...@ling.lll.hawaii.edu>
> wrote:
>>Peter T. Daniels <gram...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
> [...]
>>> Phonemes are units arrived at by phonological analysis. They are
>>> _realized_ with sounds. They are not sounds. They are an abstraction.
>>This is a matter linguists disagree about. I think a phoneme is
>>just as much a sound as a scream is. They're both things that people
>>hear, but neither can be observed directly by instrumental measurement.
> In what sense can a scream not be observed directly by
> instrumental measurement?
Is there any sense in which it can? I never heard of a screamometer.
If you set out to construct one, you'd need to proceed as people do
who try to make phoneme recognizers, either armed with a perceptual
theory, or a machine that emulates human perception.
> And do you go so far as to support the
> claim that the IPA symbols represent a universal set of
> _phonemes_? (No quibbles on 'universal', please; that's not the
> point.)
Yes, if the claim is that there are enough symbols to accurately represent
all phoneme sounds in all natural human languages. Because phonemes are
targets of articulation, and they are attempted by attempting some
appropriate subset of the finite number of articulatory gestures possible
for humans.
--
Greg Lee <gr...@ling.lll.hawaii.edu>
Peter T. Daniels
> Des
> likes both kinds of philosophy - phenomenological AND hermeneutic.
Rush to your nearest bookstore and pick up the oddity of the month, or
of the year: the Routledge History of Philosophy, paperback reprint,
vol. 9, has on the spine, in white Futura Bold on brilliant blue,
[Philosophy of Science, Logic, and ... of the] "Tewntieth Centurys"!
Richard Herring
<gr...@ling.lll.hawaii.edu> writes
>Richard Herring <junk@[127.0.0.1]> wrote:
>> In message <20030806201737...@mb-m22.aol.com>, David Thomas
>> <vael...@aol.comUspamo> writes
>>>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.
>>>
>>>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.
>>>
>> OK, then try this:
>
>> Phonemes are (strictly: are realised by) language-dependent _sets_ of
>> sounds, possibly intersecting. The choice of a particular realisation
>> by the speaker, and the identification of a sound with a particular
>> phoneme by the listener, depend on the immediate phonological context.
>
>> Simple (over-simplified?) example: in some forms of English /t/ might
>> be spoken as [t] or [d] and [d] might be heard as /t/ or /d/, depending
>> on the cotext.
>
>It's not a great example,
OK, I'm sure you can offer a better one. I'm making no claim to be an
expert in this.
> because if /d/ is realized as [t], since /t/
>is a phoneme, that is probably due to a morphophonemic change, and the
>[t] resulting from /d/ would be heard as /t/. People perceive morphophonemic
>changes. If a /t/ is rounded to [t^w] due to a following round vowel,
>though, the rounding is not ordinarily perceived, because it's allophonic.
>In the most ordinary way of using "sound", in such a case the sound is /t/,
>because that's what's heard. By using an instrument or cunsulting
>a phonetician, one may conclude that a [t^w] was pronounced, but it's rather
>peculiar to reserve the term "sound" for allophones,
I'm using the word in the sense of something that goes into the ears,
not necessarily that which is perceived.
>since they are
>typically not even heard.
>
Note that I wrote "might be heard *as*". Even so, "perceived" would have
been a better choice of verb.
--
Richard Herring
Brian M. Scott
wrote:
>Brian M. Scott <b.s...@csuohio.edu> wrote:
>> On 7 Aug 2003 02:01:07 GMT, Greg Lee <gr...@ling.lll.hawaii.edu>
>> wrote:
>>>Peter T. Daniels <gram...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>>>> Phonemes are units arrived at by phonological analysis. They are
>>>> _realized_ with sounds. They are not sounds. They are an abstraction.
>>>This is a matter linguists disagree about. I think a phoneme is
>>>just as much a sound as a scream is. They're both things that people
>>>hear, but neither can be observed directly by instrumental measurement.
>> In what sense can a scream not be observed directly by
>> instrumental measurement?
>Is there any sense in which it can? I never heard of a screamometer.
>If you set out to construct one, you'd need to proceed as people do
>who try to make phoneme recognizers, either armed with a perceptual
>theory, or a machine that emulates human perception.
Are you saying that a scream is not usually recognizable as such
from a spectrogram, say?
>> And do you go so far as to support the
>> claim that the IPA symbols represent a universal set of
>> _phonemes_? (No quibbles on 'universal', please; that's not the
>> point.)
>Yes, if the claim is that there are enough symbols to accurately represent
>all phoneme sounds in all natural human languages. Because phonemes are
>targets of articulation, and they are attempted by attempting some
>appropriate subset of the finite number of articulatory gestures possible
>for humans.
I suspected as much. In view of Mr Thomas's evident confusion,
don't you think that you should have made it clearer in your
original post that the notion of phoneme that you had in mind was
not the traditional notion that the rest of us were using?
Brian
Peter T. Daniels
> >Yes, if the claim is that there are enough symbols to accurately represent
> >all phoneme sounds in all natural human languages. Because phonemes are
> >targets of articulation, and they are attempted by attempting some
> >appropriate subset of the finite number of articulatory gestures possible
> >for humans.
>
> I suspected as much. In view of Mr Thomas's evident confusion,
> don't you think that you should have made it clearer in your
> original post that the notion of phoneme that you had in mind was
> not the traditional notion that the rest of us were using?
Surely you remember that the long-absent Greg almost never uses
terminology in conventional ways?
Greg Lee
> Are you saying that a scream is not usually recognizable as such
> from a spectrogram, say?
No.
...
>>Yes, if the claim is that there are enough symbols to accurately represent
>>all phoneme sounds in all natural human languages. Because phonemes are
>>targets of articulation, and they are attempted by attempting some
>>appropriate subset of the finite number of articulatory gestures possible
>>for humans.
> I suspected as much. In view of Mr Thomas's evident confusion,
> don't you think that you should have made it clearer in your
> original post that the notion of phoneme that you had in mind was
> not the traditional notion that the rest of us were using?
I don't know what traditional notion you're referring to. I think
my notion is at least roughly congruous with those of Baudouin,
Sapir, Trubetzkoy. I don't recall anything from those authors to
the effect that phonemes are not sounds, if that's what you you
are getting at. I recall that some editions of the IPA handbook
have set forth the goal of describing all phonemes in all human
languages, so I also don't know where I have strayed from tradition
in that regard. I reviewed some of the posts in this thread,
and find that I also don't understand what "evident confusion"
you're talking about.
--
Greg Lee <gr...@ling.lll.hawaii.edu>
Jim Heckman
On 7-Aug-2003, "Peter T. Daniels" <gram...@worldnet.att.net> wrote
in message <3F32C3...@worldnet.att.net>:
Not only that, but with his anti-scientific stance that he's
uninterested in definitions, he'll rarely tell you how he *is*
using it. I'm astonished to see him actually give some
straightforward characteristics of his usage of "phonemes".
--
Jim Heckman
Brian M. Scott
wrote:
>Brian M. Scott <b.s...@csuohio.edu> wrote:
>...
>> Are you saying that a scream is not usually recognizable as such
>> from a spectrogram, say?
>No.
No, you're not saying that, or no, it's generally not
recognizable?
>>>Yes, if the claim is that there are enough symbols to accurately represent
>>>all phoneme sounds in all natural human languages. Because phonemes are
>>>targets of articulation, and they are attempted by attempting some
>>>appropriate subset of the finite number of articulatory gestures possible
>>>for humans.
>> I suspected as much. In view of Mr Thomas's evident confusion,
>> don't you think that you should have made it clearer in your
>> original post that the notion of phoneme that you had in mind was
>> not the traditional notion that the rest of us were using?
>I don't know what traditional notion you're referring to. I think
>my notion is at least roughly congruous with those of Baudouin,
>Sapir, Trubetzkoy.
They I'd have to say that either you misstated your own notion,
or you don't understand Sapir's.
>I don't recall anything from those authors to
>the effect that phonemes are not sounds, if that's what you you
>are getting at.
Look at Sapir's 1933 paper on the psychological reality of
phonemes.
[...]
>I reviewed some of the posts in this thread,
>and find that I also don't understand what "evident confusion"
>you're talking about.
That strikes me as a rather shocking admission.
Brian
David Thomas
M. Scott) writes:
>>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.
I understand the difference quite well, as you have either missed or now feign
you've missed--I simply don't agree with you that it's that important. I think
this is quite similar to our disagreement over the IPA and ASCII-IPA, where the
difference is only in the mappings--or, rather, the glyphs contained in the
mappings. Sure, the mappings are the same, but the glyphs aren't. In this
case, we've somewhat reversed positions, and it's you asserting the
technicality is of supreme importance, rather than me. Either way, arguing
over it all day isn't achieving anything.
- Vae
David Thomas
M. Scott) writes:
'Uninformed childish arrogance?'
Something apparently is 'uninformed' when it disagrees with you. It is
'childish' when it does not place the same importance that you do in similar
places. It is 'arrogance' that I insist my own viewpoint can--and, oh dear
goodness, just may be--as valid as your own. Whatever deities there be forbid
that I disagree with a degree and credentials! I must be an ignorant layman.
I can only hope that you don't teach.
- Vae
David Thomas
M. Scott) writes:
>On 06 Aug 2003 23:37:46 GMT, vael...@aol.comUspamo (David
>Thomas) wrote:
>
>>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...
>
>I have no idea what your point is. I see only that you
>apparently understand the terms 'accurate' and 'precise' almost
>as poorly as you understand 'phoneme'.
I see that you're more willing to discredit my understanding that to try and
grasp my point. Therefore, I see no reason to continue speaking with you on
this matter.
- Vae
David Thomas
M. Scott) writes:
'Learn' here means 'agree with us,' I fear.
And I never set out to 'redefine' technical vocubulary. I merely offered my
own interpretation of what it means. Yes, if you are wondering, it does not
surprize me that it is the mathematician who most strongly believes I'm making
a mistake.
As for the second root of two--I don't understand what a straightedge and
compass construction would imply about its rationality.
- Vae
David Thomas
<des....@bristol.ac.uk> writes:
>> > Phonemes are units arrived at by phonological analysis. They are
>> > _realized_ with sounds. They are not sounds. They are an abstraction.
>>
>> This is a matter linguists disagree about. I think a phoneme is
>> just as much a sound as a scream is. They're both things that people
>> hear, but neither can be observed directly by instrumental measurement.
>
>So that makes them phenomological, rather than simply acoustic,
>sounds, and we can flame each other senseless about their ontological
>status all day, hurrah!
>
>Or not - Roman Jakobson suggested linguists should leave that to the
>ontologists, and quite right too.
>
>Des
Well, I'm glad someone else thinks this isn't as clear cut as has been
forwarded.
- Vae
Peter T. Daniels
>
> In article <3f31ab5b....@enews.newsguy.com>, b.s...@csuohio.edu (Brian
> M. Scott) writes:
>
> >>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.
> >
> >[...]
>
> 'Learn' here means 'agree with us,' I fear.
>
> And I never set out to 'redefine' technical vocubulary. I merely offered my
> own interpretation of what it means.
Why do you suppose that doesn't mean "redefine"?
> Yes, if you are wondering, it does not
> surprize me that it is the mathematician who most strongly believes I'm making
> a mistake.
>
> As for the second root of two--I don't understand what a straightedge and
> compass construction would imply about its rationality.
In English it's called the "square root."
Greg Lee
> In article <3f31a8f5....@enews.newsguy.com>, b.s...@csuohio.edu (Brian
> M. Scott) writes:
>>>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.
> I understand the difference quite well, as you have either missed or now feign
> you've missed--I simply don't agree with you that it's that important.
You have plenty of company. That underlying or phonemic language forms are
are of the same type as surface or allophonic forms is a basic assumption of
of generative phonology in its various forms. In the classic form of
generative phonology, the same set of phonetic features are used to describe
underlying and surface forms, and the differences in detail are described
by phonological rules which change feature values, but relate representations
of the same type.
There have been contrary views, notably stratificational phonology, which
had some currency back in the '60s. Paul Postal wrote a book (in 1968 as
I recall) debunking stratificational phonology. I haven't heard anything
about stratificational phonology in years -- I think it's probably dead.
So far as I know, the idea that there is a type distinction has no
currency in phonological theory. The people who you've been trying to
have this conversation have been completely vague about just what
"traditional" notions they accept, but I guess they learned something,
not much, about phonology back in the '60s, and just got stuck there.
...
--
Greg Lee <gr...@ling.lll.hawaii.edu>
Richard Herring
<gr...@ling.lll.hawaii.edu> writes
>David Thomas <vael...@aol.comuspamo> wrote:
>> In article <3f31a8f5....@enews.newsguy.com>, b.s...@csuohio.edu (Brian
>> M. Scott) writes:
>
>>>>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.
>
>> I understand the difference quite well, as you have either missed or
>>now feign
>> you've missed--I simply don't agree with you that it's that important.
>
>You have plenty of company. That underlying or phonemic language forms are
>are of the same type as surface or allophonic forms is a basic assumption of
>of generative phonology in its various forms. In the classic form of
>generative phonology, the same set of phonetic features are used to describe
>underlying and surface forms, and the differences in detail are described
>by phonological rules which change feature values, but relate representations
>of the same type.
Very impressive, if I could only translate it. But does that mean that
you agree or disagree with the suggestion that the only difference
between [] and // is the omission of "irrelevant details with respect
to a certain reference, usually a language" ?
--
Richard Herring
Greg Lee
I guess I sort of agree, so long as "omission" is not taken too literally
and "irrelevant" is suitably qualified. The correspondence between
phonemic, //, and allophonic, [], can be very indirect, and specific
articulations can be present in either but absent from the other. For
instance, in [?N] (glottal stop + syllabic velar nasal) from English
/k&n/, in such a phrase as "I can go", the glottal and velar closures
have been added (to /k/ and /n/, resp.), but alveolar closure and low
front tongue position (/&/) have been lost, so passing from allophonic to
phonemic involves more than simply omitting articulatory movements or gestures.
The basic point here, with which I do agree, is that the same system of
transcription is appropriate for both [?N] and /k&n/, since they
are both pronunciations, though they differ in detail and have
differing perceptual status.
--
Greg Lee <gr...@ling.lll.hawaii.edu>
Peter T. Daniels
> The people who you've been trying to
> have this conversation have been completely vague about just what
> "traditional" notions they accept, but I guess they learned something,
> not much, about phonology back in the '60s, and just got stuck there.
Or maybe we were trained in Post-Bloomfieldian phonology and have never
seen anything worthy of replacing it come along -- including, in order,
SPE, Natural Phonology (present nearly at the creation), the various
approaches that go by the stupid name "autosegmental," and OT.
Brian M. Scott
wrote:
[...]
>The basic point here, with which I do agree, is that the same system of
>transcription is appropriate for both [?N] and /k&n/, since they
>are both pronunciations, though they differ in detail and have
>differing perceptual status.
How do you accommodate the situation in which replacing the
slants in a phonemic representation with square brackets does not
produce a possible pronunciation of the word?
(And if you're simply saying that we use the same symbols in
phonetic and phonemic transcriptions, so what? That was never a
point at issue.)
Brian
Brian M. Scott
Thomas) wrote:
>In article <3f31ad73....@enews.newsguy.com>, b.s...@csuohio.edu (Brian
>M. Scott) writes:
>>On 06 Aug 2003 23:37:49 GMT, vael...@aol.comUspamo (David
>>Thomas) wrote:
>>>Well, I format my posts well enough, so far as I'm concerned.
>>Uninformed childish arrogance is not a very good basis for an
>>opinion, however. Very simply: quite a bit of mail and news
>>software looks for the string '-- ' as a signal that what follows
>>can be deleted in replying. If you use a signature block -- and
>>you do -- it is discourteous not to set it off with that string.
>'Uninformed childish arrogance?'
Yes. What you've been displaying with distressing frequency
every since the first time someone corrected one of your
mistakes.
>Something apparently is 'uninformed' when it disagrees with you. It is
>'childish' when it does not place the same importance that you do in similar
>places. It is 'arrogance' that I insist my own viewpoint can--and, oh dear
>goodness, just may be--as valid as your own. Whatever deities there be forbid
>that I disagree with a degree and credentials! I must be an ignorant layman.
That certainly appears to be the case in respect of the sig
separator.
>I can only hope that you don't teach.
I do. Been doing so for about 30 years, in fact. And rather
well at that; at least I seem to have a pretty good reputation
amongst the students around here, despite also being known for
setting unusually hard exams.
Brian M. Scott
Thomas) wrote:
>In article <3f31ad04....@enews.newsguy.com>, b.s...@csuohio.edu (Brian
>M. Scott) writes:
>
>>On 06 Aug 2003 23:37:46 GMT, vael...@aol.comUspamo (David
>>Thomas) wrote:
>>
>>>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...
>>
>>I have no idea what your point is. I see only that you
>>apparently understand the terms 'accurate' and 'precise' almost
>>as poorly as you understand 'phoneme'.
>
>I see that you're more willing to discredit my understanding that to try and
>grasp my point.
I did try. That's why I was able to make the statement that I
did. As for the rest: you've given solid evidence of not
understanding the difference between accuracy and precision. If
you do in fact understand the difference, you should have
expressed yourself more clearly or more accurately, whichever is
appropriate.
>Therefore, I see no reason to continue speaking with you on
>this matter.
<shrug> You might have learned something.
David Thomas
<junk@[127.0.0.1]> writes:
>Very impressive, if I could only translate it. But does that mean that
>you agree or disagree with the suggestion that the only difference
>between [] and // is the omission of "irrelevant details with respect
>to a certain reference, usually a language" ?
>
>
>--
>Richard Herring
Perhaps you've forgotten, but this whole argument is over my use of the slants
generally rather than brackets when I'm being less specific about what I'm
writing!
We're arguing about the foundations of modern phonology in order to get me to
say [leta] instead of /leta/! And because one believes my writing the latter
is tantamount to claiming that whatever language I'm talking about possesses
each and every sound I use as a contrastive phoneme--and not just in particular
dialects, but throughout! Of course, it doesn't matter that I may be writing
with some realizations of phonemes that that language possesses in order to
demonstrate one particular realization--I *must* be claiming that language has
the *exact phonetic realization* as a *contrastive phoneme,* despite that I'm
using phoneme slants rather than phonetic brackets.
Who's being unreasoable here?
- Vae
David Thomas
<gram...@worldnet.att.net> writes:
>> And I never set out to 'redefine' technical vocubulary. I merely offered
>my
>> own interpretation of what it means.
>
>Why do you suppose that doesn't mean "redefine"?
Because it doesn't.
>> Yes, if you are wondering, it does not
>> surprize me that it is the mathematician who most strongly believes I'm
>making
>> a mistake.
>>
>> As for the second root of two--I don't understand what a straightedge and
>> compass construction would imply about its rationality.
>
>In English it's called the "square root."
>--
>Peter T. Daniels gram...@att.net
I don't know quite how to respond to this kind of stupidity.
Where in English? In what regions?
Or maybe I should say--well, ho-ho, perhaps in *your* dialect!
You jerk. 'Second root of two' is just as valid, and anyone with any
mathematical brain at all will understand perfectly what it means. Anyone who
doesn't might as well stay well out of this conversation.
Any which way, constructions such as 'square root,' 'cubic root,' and so on are
irregular methods of stating what is better put in more conformity with other
verbal notations. How often would you say 'the quintic root of 2' for 'the
fifth root of 2?' Likewise for 'quinquagesimic root' or 'centesimic root!'
The insistence on adhering to Latinate ordinals while speaking in English is
silly.
Likewise with 'square,' which only makes sense when one is speaking of
geometrical interpretations.
- Vae
David Thomas
writes:
>> I understand the difference quite well, as you have either missed or now
>feign
>> you've missed--I simply don't agree with you that it's that important.
>
>You have plenty of company. That underlying or phonemic language forms are
>are of the same type as surface or allophonic forms is a basic assumption of
>of generative phonology in its various forms. In the classic form of
>generative phonology, the same set of phonetic features are used to describe
>underlying and surface forms, and the differences in detail are described
>by phonological rules which change feature values, but relate representations
>of the same type.
>
>There have been contrary views, notably stratificational phonology, which
>had some currency back in the '60s. Paul Postal wrote a book (in 1968 as
>I recall) debunking stratificational phonology. I haven't heard anything
>about stratificational phonology in years -- I think it's probably dead.
>So far as I know, the idea that there is a type distinction has no
>currency in phonological theory. The people who you've been trying to
>have this conversation have been completely vague about just what
>"traditional" notions they accept, but I guess they learned something,
>not much, about phonology back in the '60s, and just got stuck there.
>
>...
>--
>Greg Lee <gr...@ling.lll.hawaii.edu>
I had a mind this argument was more about politics than science...
- Vae
Greg Lee
> wrote:
> [...]
>>The basic point here, with which I do agree, is that the same system of
>>transcription is appropriate for both [?N] and /k&n/, since they
>>are both pronunciations, though they differ in detail and have
>>differing perceptual status.
> How do you accommodate the situation in which replacing the
> slants in a phonemic representation with square brackets does not
> produce a possible pronunciation of the word?
Why do I have to do any accommodating?
> (And if you're simply saying that we use the same symbols in
> phonetic and phonemic transcriptions, so what? That was never a
> point at issue.)
> Brian
--
Greg Lee <gr...@ling.lll.hawaii.edu>
Greg Lee
> In article <oMV2E8u0D7M$Ew...@baesystems.com>, Richard Herring
> <junk@[127.0.0.1]> writes:
>>Very impressive, if I could only translate it. But does that mean that
>>you agree or disagree with the suggestion that the only difference
>>between [] and // is the omission of "irrelevant details with respect
>>to a certain reference, usually a language" ?
>>
>>
>>--
>>Richard Herring
> Perhaps you've forgotten, but this whole argument is over my use of the slants
> generally rather than brackets when I'm being less specific about what I'm
> writing!
That's a misuse of notation.
> We're arguing about the foundations of modern phonology in order to get me to
> say [leta] instead of /leta/! And because one believes my writing the latter
> is tantamount to claiming that whatever language I'm talking about possesses
> each and every sound I use as a contrastive phoneme--and not just in particular
> dialects, but throughout!
Not throughout. Dialects needn't have the same phonemes.
> Of course, it doesn't matter that I may be writing
> with some realizations of phonemes that that language possesses in order to
> demonstrate one particular realization--I *must* be claiming that language has
> the *exact phonetic realization* as a *contrastive phoneme,* despite that I'm
> using phoneme slants rather than phonetic brackets.
I can't quite follow this.
> Who's being unreasoable here?
If you're arguing that you are, I won't disagree.
--
Greg Lee <gr...@ling.lll.hawaii.edu>
David Thomas
writes:
>> Perhaps you've forgotten, but this whole argument is over my use of the
>slants
>> generally rather than brackets when I'm being less specific about what I'm
>> writing!
>
>That's a misuse of notation.
Even so, my misuse hardly justifies the nonsense that is contained in the
reaction to it.
>Not throughout. Dialects needn't have the same phonemes.
That's what I mean. My writing anything between phoneme slants is hardly a
declaration that the language possesses that phoneme.
>> Of course, it doesn't matter that I may be writing with some realizations
>>of phonemes that that language possesses in order to demonstrate one
>>particular realization--I *must* be claiming that language has the *exact
>>phonetic realization* as a *contrastive phoneme,* despite that I'm
>> using phoneme slants rather than phonetic brackets.
>
>I can't quite follow this.
It's not important.
>> Who's being unreasoable here?
>
>If you're arguing that you are, I won't disagree.
>--
>Greg Lee <gr...@ling.lll.hawaii.edu>
But with an 'n.'
- Vae
Brian M. Scott
Thomas) wrote:
>In article <3F3387...@worldnet.att.net>, "Peter T. Daniels"
><gram...@worldnet.att.net> writes:
>>> And I never set out to 'redefine' technical vocubulary. I merely offered
>>> my own interpretation of what it means.
>>Why do you suppose that doesn't mean "redefine"?
>Because it doesn't.
You're wrong. Explaining why you you think that it doesn't mean
'redefine' might help us to figure out just why and how you're
wrong, however.
[...]
Brian M. Scott
wrote:
>Brian M. Scott <b.s...@csuohio.edu> wrote:
>> On 8 Aug 2003 15:25:07 GMT, Greg Lee <gr...@ling.lll.hawaii.edu>
>> wrote:
>> [...]
>>>The basic point here, with which I do agree, is that the same system of
>>>transcription is appropriate for both [?N] and /k&n/, since they
>>>are both pronunciations, though they differ in detail and have
>>>differing perceptual status.
>> How do you accommodate the situation in which replacing the
>> slants in a phonemic representation with square brackets does not
>> produce a possible pronunciation of the word?
>Why do I have to do any accommodating?
Because in that case what's in the slants is not in fact a
pronunciation.
[...]
Brian
David Thomas
M. Scott) writes:
>You're wrong. Explaining why you you think that it doesn't mean
>'redefine' might help us to figure out just why and how you're
>wrong, however.
>
>[...]
How charming.
- Vae
Brian M. Scott
Thomas) wrote:
>In article <3f34565d....@enews.newsguy.com>, b.s...@csuohio.edu (Brian
>M. Scott) writes:
>>You're wrong. Explaining why you you think that it doesn't mean
>>'redefine' might help us to figure out just why and how you're
>>wrong, however.
Restoring context: 'it' here is 'offer[ing] my own interpretation
of what [an item of technical vocabulary] means'.
>How charming.
Part of growing up is learning to take advantage of genuine
offers of help. It increasingly appears that you really haven't
much interest in being understood. (By the way, it's considered
good manners to mark your snips and bad manners not to do so.)
Brian M. Scott
Thomas) wrote:
>In article <3F3387...@worldnet.att.net>, "Peter T. Daniels"
><gram...@worldnet.att.net> writes:
[...]
>>> As for the second root of two [...]
>>In English it's called the "square root."
>I don't know quite how to respond to this kind of stupidity.
>Where in English? In what regions?
Throughout the U.S., at least.
>Or maybe I should say--well, ho-ho, perhaps in *your* dialect!
>You jerk. 'Second root of two' is just as valid, and anyone with any
>mathematical brain at all will understand perfectly what it means. Anyone who
>doesn't might as well stay well out of this conversation.
None of which changes the fact that 'square root' is the normal,
idiomatic expression.
>Any which way, constructions such as 'square root,' 'cubic root,'
The idiom is 'cube root'. 'Cubic' normally modifies such terms
as 'polynomial', 'equation', 'spline', etc.
>and so on are
>irregular methods of stating what is better put in more conformity with other
>verbal notations. How often would you say 'the quintic root of 2' for 'the
>fifth root of 2?'
One would not say 'the quintic root of 2' unless one were
ignorant of the usual terminology. For the same reason one would
not say 'the cubic root of 2', though in that case at least the
normal expression is at least somewhat similar.
[...]
Greg Lee
> On 9 Aug 2003 00:56:09 GMT, Greg Lee <gr...@ling.lll.hawaii.edu>
> wrote:
>>Brian M. Scott <b.s...@csuohio.edu> wrote:
>>> On 8 Aug 2003 15:25:07 GMT, Greg Lee <gr...@ling.lll.hawaii.edu>
>>> wrote:
>>> [...]
>>>>The basic point here, with which I do agree, is that the same system of
>>>>transcription is appropriate for both [?N] and /k&n/, since they
>>>>are both pronunciations, though they differ in detail and have
>>>>differing perceptual status.
>>> How do you accommodate the situation in which replacing the
>>> slants in a phonemic representation with square brackets does not
>>> produce a possible pronunciation of the word?
>>Why do I have to do any accommodating?
> Because in that case what's in the slants is not in fact a
> pronunciation.
One point here is that there is no such case. The phonemic form
is the pronunciation which is perceived by a hearer and attempted
by a speaker. It's the basis for rhyme, for secret languages, and
for Spoonerisms and similar errors. It has a much better claim
to being "the pronunciation of the word" than do allophonic variants.
But even supposing that in what you say you are reserving the
term "pronunciation" for allophonic forms, and thus reasoning
circularly, what you've said is still not cogent. From the fact
that the phonemic form of a word may not be a possible allophonic,
overtly articulated form for that word, it obviously doesn't
follow that it's not a possible allophonic form at all (for
some expression in some language).
Now, how do you accommodate the situation in which replacing
the slants with square brackets does produce a possible overtly
articulated form? In generative phonology, this is the case
if no phonological rule happens to be applicable. But in your
view, if I follow it at all, it ought to be impossible in
principle.
--
Greg Lee <gr...@ling.lll.hawaii.edu>
David Thomas
M. Scott) writes:
>>You jerk. 'Second root of two' is just as valid, and anyone with any
>>mathematical brain at all will understand perfectly what it means. Anyone
>who
>>doesn't might as well stay well out of this conversation.
>
>None of which changes the fact that 'square root' is the normal,
>idiomatic expression.
>
>>Any which way, constructions such as 'square root,' 'cubic root,'
>
>The idiom is 'cube root'. 'Cubic' normally modifies such terms
>as 'polynomial', 'equation', 'spline', etc.
>
>>and so on are
>>irregular methods of stating what is better put in more conformity with
>other
>>verbal notations. How often would you say 'the quintic root of 2' for 'the
>>fifth root of 2?'
>
>One would not say 'the quintic root of 2' unless one were
>ignorant of the usual terminology. For the same reason one would
>not say 'the cubic root of 2', though in that case at least the
>normal expression is at least somewhat similar.
>
>[...]
Pretending to be a jerk is not helping, here.
I would expect more of a mathematician.
- Vae
David Thomas
M. Scott) writes:
>Part of growing up is learning to take advantage of genuine
>offers of help. It increasingly appears that you really haven't
>much interest in being understood. (By the way, it's considered
>good manners to mark your snips and bad manners not to do so.)
I have much more interest in being understood than you have in understanding
me, apparently.
Your condescension is worthless.
- Vae
Brian M. Scott
wrote:
>Brian M. Scott <b.s...@csuohio.edu> wrote:
>> On 9 Aug 2003 00:56:09 GMT, Greg Lee <gr...@ling.lll.hawaii.edu>
>> wrote:
>>>Brian M. Scott <b.s...@csuohio.edu> wrote:
>>>> On 8 Aug 2003 15:25:07 GMT, Greg Lee <gr...@ling.lll.hawaii.edu>
>>>> wrote:
>>>> [...]
>>>>>The basic point here, with which I do agree, is that the same system of
>>>>>transcription is appropriate for both [?N] and /k&n/, since they
>>>>>are both pronunciations, though they differ in detail and have
>>>>>differing perceptual status.
>>>> How do you accommodate the situation in which replacing the
>>>> slants in a phonemic representation with square brackets does not
>>>> produce a possible pronunciation of the word?
>>>Why do I have to do any accommodating?
>> Because in that case what's in the slants is not in fact a
>> pronunciation.
>One point here is that there is no such case. The phonemic form
>is the pronunciation which is perceived by a hearer and attempted
>by a speaker. It's the basis for rhyme, for secret languages, and
>for Spoonerisms and similar errors. It has a much better claim
>to being "the pronunciation of the word" than do allophonic variants.
Here we go again. In common parlance pronunciation = overtly
articulated form. Admittedly my linguistic studies have been
concentrated in historical linguistics, but I've seen nothing to
indicate that it is usual among linguists in general to use
'pronunciation' in any other way. If you are introducing a
technical term whose use is largely restricted to specialists,
you might consider (a) warning the rest of us, and (b) defining
it *before* leading us up the garden path.
>But even supposing that in what you say you are reserving the
>term "pronunciation" for allophonic forms, and thus reasoning
>circularly, what you've said is still not cogent.
I am not reasoning circularly, because I am not in fact
attempting to make an argument at all. I'm trying to figure out
why your assertion isn't self-contradictory, or at least why you
believe that it isn't.
>From the fact
>that the phonemic form of a word may not be a possible allophonic,
>overtly articulated form for that word, it obviously doesn't
>follow that it's not a possible allophonic form at all (for
>some expression in some language).
I did not suggest anything of the kind, and I fail to see how
anyone could get such a suggestion from what I did write.
>Now, how do you accommodate the situation in which replacing
>the slants with square brackets does produce a possible overtly
>articulated form? In generative phonology, this is the case
>if no phonological rule happens to be applicable. But in your
>view, if I follow it at all, it ought to be impossible in
>principle.
You don't follow it at all.
There is nothing whatsoever in anything that I've written that
could reasonably be understood as a claim that, e.g., [lIp]
cannot be an overtly articulated form of <lip> if the underlying
phonemic representation is /lIp/. I can't even think of anything
that I've written that could UNreasonably be so interpreted.
Brian