Re: How close is Vietnamese to Mandarin or Cantonese?

On Sat, 21 May 2005 10:58:17 GMT, John Atkinson
<johnacko@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in
<news:dvEje.10353$E7.287@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> in
sci.lang:

[...]

> All fair enough, but Peter (at least as Ross reads him) is
> saying that "names aren't words" in the sense that they
> needn't obey the same phonological "rules" as ordinary
> words. This quote certainly doesn't say this -- in fact,
> its reference to "phonological attrition" suggests that
> names are, phonologically, just like ordinary words.

The bit that I merely summarized, however, suggests
otherwise. The actual suggestion is that the processes are
the same, but that the special semantic status of names
gives them freer play.

Brian
.