Re: How close is Vietnamese to Mandarin or Cantonese?

Peter T. Daniels wrote:
>
> benlizross wrote:
> >
> > Peter T. Daniels wrote:
> > >
> > > benlizross wrote:
> > >
> > > > > Is there no such thing as an explicable, or principled, gap in _your_
> > > > > theory?
> > > >
> > > > If I had a theory of my own, there would be, sure. The absence of
> > > > initial /N/, or /hC/ clusters, would be a fact about the system.
> > > > It might be more plausible if you argued that long vowels in general (I
> > > > think this is true) don't occur before /N/. So we have sing, sang, sung,
> > > > song, but not corresponding long vowel + N. The absence of /EN/ and /UN/
> > > > words would be accidental, which is why "boong" fits OK.
> > >
> > > I stated, not argued, that hours ago.
> >
> > I believe your argument originally mentioned only the absence of /uwN/,
> > not the more general fact.
>
> And a few hours later, I realized (and posted, the next time I was on
> line) that the /uw/ case was an example of a more general phenomenon.

My recollection is that I realized it. But never mind.

>
> > > > > > ("Boong" was mentioned here a
> > > > > > > few days ago -- as an insulting term for Australian native?, which makes
> > > > > > > it an oddity, an "expressive," if you will, outside normal phonology as
> > > > > > > "Bach" is.)
> > > > > >
> > > > > > What nonsense. I suppose this goes with your bizarre dogma that "names
> > > > > > aren't words"?
> > > > >
> > > > > Another of I. J. Gelb's interests was prosopography, so maybe that's
> > > > > where I picked it up. (He was president of the American Names Society
> > > > > for quite a while.) If you don't accept the mainstream theory of the
> > > > > nature of names (or "definite descriptions," to use an archaism), do you
> > > > > have a better account of them?
> > > >
> > > > ???The only sense of "definite description" I know (from Russell) has
> > > > nothing to do with phonology.
> > >
> > > What does the nature of names have to do with phonology?
> >
> > Your doctrine that "names are not words" has, in my recollection, been
> > invoked in the context of phonological discussions, in order to exclude
> > certain examples from consideration. In the present thread, you
> > introduced "Bach" as something which, you claimed, was "outside normal
> > phonology".
>
> They are not "excluded from consideration." They are recognized as
> special cases standing somewhat outside the mainstream.

....and hence not constituting a problem for whatever point you were
arguing.

> > > > Perhaps you could give an actual citation of somewhere this "mainstream
> > > > theory" is set out?
> > > >
> > > > In the meantime, I'll say:
> > > >
> > > > - names are words (which are socially assigned to individuals);
> > > > - some names (like some non-names) are foreign words, and thus may
> > > > exhibit extra-systemic phonological features.
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > > "Bach" is a foreign name (I don't mean [+foreign] or some
> > > > > > such putative feature, I mean the name of a person from a non-English
> > > > > > speaking culture.) Such names may be de-naturalized to taste, including
> > > > > > the use of non-English phonemes like /x/, but most people use a /k/. (In
> > > > > > fact in my native dialect, where we didn't have anything much like [a],
> > > > > > we pronounced his name to rhyme with "rock".)
> > > > >
> > > > > "Rock" is /rak/. (That's why [a] is called "short o" in traditional
> > > > > grammar.)
> > > >
> > > > I think you mean "traditional [in some personal sense] American English
> > > > phonology".
> > >
> > > Hardly. Phonologists call it "low central vowel."
> >
> > Then where in "traditional grammar" is it referred to as "short o"?
>
> See the two lines immediately below:
>
> > > When you learned in school to use a dictionary in Canada a few decades
> > > ago, was that sound not represented as o-breve?
>
> Have you, or have you not, ever used a dictionary in which [a] is
> denoted by o-breve?
>
> > > > In fact [a] is called "short o" only because, for some
> > > > people, it is the vowel in a lot of words mainly spelled with <o>. What
> > > > I am telling you is that the composer's name rhymed with "rock" in my
> > > > native phonology, and that I would not consider the vowel in question to
> > > > be phonetically [a].
> > >
> > > Then what?
> >
> > It was not "outside normal phonology".
>
> No, Ross. "Then what" would you consider it to be phonetically?

Yes, I misread your question as meaning "So what?" or "What follows from
that?".
It's a back vowel, in IPA either script-a or turned-script-a.

> > > > > > "Boong" may be offensive, but it is no more "outside normal phonology"
> > > > > > than "dago" or "***".
> > > > >
> > > > > Except it now turns out that it isn't an example of /uwN/ at all.
> > > >
> > > > Nobody ever said it was. You misread my /uN/ as equivalent to your
> > > > /uwN/.
> > >
> > > You offered it as an example to contradict my assertion that /uwN/ does
> > > not occur in English, so what was I to think?
> >
> > I can understand why you might have so misconstrued it, and perhaps I
> > should have been more explicit. (John Atkinson also misunderstood me.) I
>
> Perhaps the example should have ben <[bUN]> rather than <boong>.
>
> > was not proposing an example of /uwN/ but one of /N/ following its near
> > neighbour /U/.
>
> Irrelevant and misleading, then.

Well, I found it useful.

>
> > > > And incidentally, you have not explained why Cantonese [U] would be
> > > > expected to be borrowed as English /uw/.
> > >
> > > Not [U], but [fUN55]. It came into English as /fuwn/. Nothing to do with
> > > expectations, just a datum.
> >
> > A datum which you are attempting to explain in terms of the phonological
> > structure of English.
> > Given that [f], [U] and [N] all exist in English, what is your
> > explanation for the fact that English /fUN/ was not the result?
>
> Does /UN/ exist in English?

Yes, as just illustrated from Australian.

>Does any nonlow rounded vowel occur before
> /N/? (We have long/song /ON/ and gong /aN/, but no /owN/ /uN/ /uwN/.
>
> > > > > > > If, of course, Australian English has a plethora of words borrowed from
> > > > > > > Australian languages that end in -oong, then a new (Firthian) subsystem
> > > > > > > has arisen,
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Why on earth would you want to postulate a new "subsystem", Firthian or
> > > > > > otherwise? They've simply acquired a new word which includes a phoneme
> > > > > > sequence that wasn't previously instantiated.
> > > > >
> > > > > In nearly 2000 years of the English language, a certain sequence was
> > > > > never "instantiated," and you think that's a coincidence?
> > > >
> > > > You think the phonology of English has been the same for 2000 years??
> > >
> > > You think /N/ occurred after long vowels at some point in the history of
> > > English?
> >
> > I don't know. The example we were discussing was Australian /bUN/, which
> > you wanted to claim was "outside normal phonology"; or maybe if there
> > were a lot of words in /-UN/ you would quarantine them off into some
> > kind of "subsystem". I don't see why.
>
> Maybe Australian English has innovated a subsystem for high round vowels
> before /N/. I wouldn't know.

What I want to know is why this would have to be a "subsystem"?

> > As for the long vowels before /N/ business, what do you think is the
> > basis for their absence? Is there some fundamental phonetic reason? (I
>
> I have no thoughts on the history or synchrony of English. Doubtless
> it's mentioned in some treatment or other of the language.
>
> > can't think of one.) Is it the result of some historic shortening of
> > vowels before /N/ or its precursor /ng/? Or does it go right back to
> > PIE? Whatever the answer, although it's a more general gap than just the
> > absence of /uwN/, I'm still not convinced it corresponds to anything
> > very deep in the system. There doesn't seem to be a problem pronouncing
> > such sequences, the way there is with say initial /N-/. In fact OED
> > gives /mu:N/ as an alternative British pronunciation for the South Asian
> > legume (mung beans). Yah, sure, it's a foreign word and all, but that's
> > one way such things get into the language.
>
> Why do you have a problem pronouncing [N] at the beginning of a
> syllable?

?? You mean me personally? I don't.

> Anyone who's seen the Three Stooges has no trouble with the notion; it
> just happens not to occur in English. If you can explain that, then the
> explanation for the absence of long vowels and nonlow round vowels
> before [N] might follow.

No, I don't think so. /N/ results from /ng/ > /Ng/ > /N/, the last stage
of which occurs in final position. Not to mention that syllable initial
/ng/ probably didn't exist to begin with. No help with the constraints
on preceding vowels.

Ross Clark

>
> "[mu:N]"? I'll believe it when I hear it.
> --
> Peter T. Daniels grammatim@xxxxxxx
.

Loading