Re: /e/ before /r/
From: Peter T. Daniels (grammatim_at_worldnet.att.net)
Date: 06/19/04
- Next message: Bob Cunningham: "Re: Not about coffee and not about espresso"
- Previous message: Bob Cunningham: "Re: /e/ before /r/"
- In reply to: Bob Cunningham: "Re: /e/ before /r/"
- Next in thread: Bob Cunningham: "Re: /e/ before /r/"
- Reply: Bob Cunningham: "Re: /e/ before /r/"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Date: Sat, 19 Jun 2004 17:31:25 GMT
Bob Cunningham wrote:
>
> On Sat, 19 Jun 2004 11:59:26 GMT, "Peter T. Daniels"
> <grammatim@worldnet.att.net> said:
>
> > Bob Cunningham wrote:
>
> > > On Sat, 19 Jun 2004 01:47:41 +0000 (UTC), "Aaron J. Dinkin"
> > > <dinkin@babel.ling.upenn.edu> said:
>
> > > [...]
>
> > > > In your mental representation of your vocabulary, the element "hymn" is
> > > > associated with a string of phonological segments that looks something
> > > > like /hImn/, with the /n/ included - this is the underlying form. When
> > > > related words are constructed out of that element - "hymn", "hymnal",
> > > > "hymnography" - that string is the one that goes into the operation, which
> > > > typically adds another string of segments to the initial one: /&l/ or
> > > > /Agr&fi/ or something.
>
> > > You seem to be implying that "hymnography" and "hymnal" were
> > > formed in English on the English word "hymn". They are both
> > > from derivatives that were formed in Greek or Latin on
> > > "hymnos" or "hymnus".
>
> I'd very much like to see a comment on that from Aaron
> Dinkin, whom I respect, rather than the drivel I'm getting
> from P T Daniels, whom I regard with contempt.
Contempt from Bob Cunningham is a badge of honor, like contempt from
John Ashcroft or Donald Rumsfeld.
> > Are you -- like Chomsky & Halle -- thus suggesting that the entire
> > history of the English language is somehow contained within the brain of
> > every English-speaker?
>
> That silly question once again demonstrates your
> muddleheadedness. There's no way a clear thinker could
> arrive at that question based on what I've said. All I've
> addressed is what's in the minds of Brian Scott, Aaron
> Dinkin, and me. I've said nothing about what's contained
> within the brain of any other English speaker.
>
> Are you implying that it's impossible for a linguist to draw
> conclusions based on an assumption that English "hymnal" was
> formed on English "hymn" unless he takes into account what's
> contained in the brain of every English spaaker? That's
> absurd.
>
> The question under discussion at the moment is whether or
> not "hymnal" was formed in English from the English word
> "hymn". That has nothing to do with what's contained in the
> brain of every English speaker. What the typical English
> speaker knows is irrelevant to the subject under discussion.
No one but you cares whether the word entered English from Greek, from
Latin, or from anywhere else. All that's relevant is whether the
ordinary English-speaker considers it as "hymn" + "-al," and if so, why
there's no /n/ in "hymning."
> Having said all that, let me say that I realize you probably
> didn't mean for your comment to be pertinent. You were
> probably just blowing smoke again.
>
> > Speakers of English neither know nor care about Greek borrowings. They
> > know that "hymnal" and "hymning" are related to "hymn."
>
> So what? It doesn't matter what ordinary English speakers
> know or care. What matters in this discussion is what
> conclusions linguists draw from what linguists know -- or
> should know.
And who are you to tell linguists what the subject matter of their
inquiries is?
-- Peter T. Daniels grammatim@att.net
- Next message: Bob Cunningham: "Re: Not about coffee and not about espresso"
- Previous message: Bob Cunningham: "Re: /e/ before /r/"
- In reply to: Bob Cunningham: "Re: /e/ before /r/"
- Next in thread: Bob Cunningham: "Re: /e/ before /r/"
- Reply: Bob Cunningham: "Re: /e/ before /r/"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Relevant Pages
|
