Re: How close is Vietnamese to Mandarin or Cantonese?

Peter T. Daniels wrote:
>
> John Atkinson wrote:
> >
> > "Brian M. Scott" <b.scott@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote...
> >
> > > benlizross <benlizro@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > >
> > > [...]
> > >
> > > > In the meantime, I'll say:
> > >
> > > > - names are words (which are socially assigned to individuals);
> > >
> > > I don't know what account Peter has in mind, but I don't
> > > consider names to be words in the ordinary sense of the
> > > word. Cecily Clark, 'Onomastics', in vol. 2 of the
> > > Cambridge History of the English Language:
> > >
> > > Names, whether of places or of people, have by
> > > definition a distinctive standing vis-à-vis the
> > > language at large. Although ultimately derived
> > > from elements of common vocabulary (not
> > > necessarily that of the language they currently
> > > grace), they have become emptied of their
> > > original etymological denotation; and this is true
> > > even for those whose form still coincides with
> > > that of the related lexical items: no-one expects
> > > to find cattle wading across the river at Oxford
> > > and, should a Mr Butcher actually be in the
> > > meat trade, the coincidence almost excites mirth.
> > >
> > > On the one hand, this semantic detachment promotes
> > > cross-cultural survival: some Present-Day 'English'
> > > place names are traceable to Celtic forms at least
> > > two millennia old, a few even suspected of going
> > > back to pre-Celtic times; some 'English' baptismal
> > > names have Hebrew origins. On the other, it lays
> > > names open to phonological attrition, for no more
> > > of any form need survive than is required for acting,
> > > in context, as an unambiguous signal or pointer.
> > >
> > > She goes on to point out that names are a poor guide to the
> > > incidence and chronology of sound changes and may even
> > > participate in purely onomastic sound changes.
> >
> > 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.
>
> Then Ross is misreading.
>
> I was simply pointing out that "boong" (when it was offered as an
> example of /uwN/, as is now denied) would be an example of a [+foreign]
> lexical item with an otherwise unacceptable phonological phenomenon,
> just as "Bach" is a [+foreign] name with the normally unavailable [x]
> (/x/?).
>
> The same for the supposed "mung" as well.
>
> > Of course, as Ross says, names (just like non-name words) can be
> > [+foreign] phonologically. And this is particularly likely to be the
> > case (though it often isn't), if they're names of foreigners, or of
> > foreign places, or foreign phenomena.
>
> (Here's what Ross wrote in response to me. It was he who introduced the
> red herring of names vs. words, on top of the "boong" red herring:)
>
> > > ("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"? "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".)
> > "Boong" may be offensive, but it is no more "outside normal phonology"
> > than "dago" or "***".
>
> (It's "'outside normal phonology'" because it's [+foreign]. Just like
> the alleged "mung.")
> --
> Peter T. Daniels grammatim@xxxxxxx

And your evidence that "boong" is [+foreign] is....that it's outside
normal phonology??

Bach-with-a-[x] is spoken by people who know some German and are
introducing German elements into their English pronunciation. "Boong" is
spoken by iggerant Aussies who would have no idea of its origin.

Ross Clark

Ross Clark
.

Quantcast