Re: The AmE 'o' sound
From: Peter T. Daniels (grammatim_at_worldnet.att.net)
Date: 11/10/04
- Next message: Richard Herring: "Re: Speaking without a foreign accent"
- Previous message: Bob Cunningham: "Re: The AmE 'o' sound"
- In reply to: Bob Cunningham: "Re: The AmE 'o' sound"
- Next in thread: Ruud Harmsen: "Re: The AmE 'o' sound"
- Reply: Ruud Harmsen: "Re: The AmE 'o' sound"
- Reply: Bob Cunningham: "Re: The AmE 'o' sound"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Date: Wed, 10 Nov 2004 14:18:32 GMT
Bob Cunningham wrote:
> > I got tired of explaining it to him. If he didn't get it the first dozen
> > times, I doubt he'll get it the thirteenth.
>
> I don't think Daniels *ever* explained *anything* to me, but
> if he did, it got lost in the flood of rude, arrogant
> remarks he likes to produce.
>
> Mostly what he likes to do, in response to a straightforward
> question with a straightforward answer, is tell people to go
> read a book. Anyway, I don't need explanations. My
Newsgroup postings are small. Books are copious. Mr. Cunningham
misunderstands a great deal more than can be set straight even in
numerous newsgroup postings.
> knowledge of phonetics is more than adequate for what I want
> to do with it. If I ever want to learn more, I'm sure I can
> find a more reliable and congenial source of information
> than the insufferably arrogant Peter T Daniels.
Knowledge of phonetics is the basis for understanding phonemics. It is
not equivalent to knowledge of phonemics.
> By the way, note that by using the vague "explaining it" he
> carefully avoids saying what "it" is. He doesn't want to
> say what he thinks I got wrong, because he's afraid it might
> turn out I'm right. By being vague, he can say he meant any
> of several topics that were discussed in the posting in
> question. Slippery Pete slithers again.
The meaning of "phoneme" and the usage of square and slant brackets.
> > I don't know why he thinks anyone cares, but if anyone do,
> > they can find the message for themself. It was many years ago.
>
> I mentioned it only as a good example of Daniels's
> foolishness. If anyone is interested in reading the
> posting, it's at http://tinyurl.com/4xn6p , or Message ID
> <OlNYOZ0HVt5iipkTt4BYl0fX2MWV@4ax.com>. Anyone reading that
> posting should see that I stated firm opinions but asked no
> questions beyond the two in the paragraph I've quoted below.
Not surprisingly, that's his own posting, and not my response to it in
which I presumably answered the many implicit questions and tried to set
straight the many misunderstandings of what he had read.
> About "/oh/ has moved", I later learned that, impossible as
> it seems to believe, linguists actually conceive of phonemes
> drifting from place to place in the vowel quadrilateral
> while retaining the symbols that stood for them in their
> original locations. How can that not lead to chaos?
> (Rhetorical question.)
This shows that he still doesn't have the slightest clue about the
meaning of "phoneme."
> ObAUE: About "many years ago": There have been discussions
> in AUE about the meanings of "several", "many", and "a few".
> Daniels may like to think of AD 2000 as "many years ago".
> Given "several", "many" or "a few", I choose to think of it
> as a few years ago. Several years ago would be like 1970.
> Many years ago would be like 1860.
All such terms are relative. In this context, 2000 (if that's when it
was) is many years ago.
-- Peter T. Daniels grammatim@att.net
- Next message: Richard Herring: "Re: Speaking without a foreign accent"
- Previous message: Bob Cunningham: "Re: The AmE 'o' sound"
- In reply to: Bob Cunningham: "Re: The AmE 'o' sound"
- Next in thread: Ruud Harmsen: "Re: The AmE 'o' sound"
- Reply: Ruud Harmsen: "Re: The AmE 'o' sound"
- Reply: Bob Cunningham: "Re: The AmE 'o' sound"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Relevant Pages
|
