Re: Phonemes
- From: "David Wright Sr." <dwrightsr@xxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Sat, 18 Jun 2005 01:44:14 +0000 (UTC)
"Peter T. Daniels" <grammatim@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in
news:42B3767E.225C@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx:
> David Wright Sr. wrote:
>
>> > (BTW those bottom-notes are very annoying.)
>
>> Oh, you could be referring to my habit of footnoting for which, sometimes,
>> I forget to put the note. If that is the case, then I can only say that I
>> prefer to footnote things which are not, IMO, specifically germane to the
>> immediate discussion.
>
> My very first word processor, PerfectWriter, which came with the Kaypro
> 4'84, had an option of putting the footnotes immediately after the
> paragraph in which they were noted. I couldn't imagine why anyone would
> want to do that, but email wasn't available yet.
I would think that that would be a simple matter of preference of style. I
prefer to put mine near the bottom.
>> >> written in 1948 called 'Gulf'. In it, the author using the work of
>> >> Ogden and Richards in Basic English, and Alfred Korzybski in General
>> >> Semantics, and implicitly, some linguist[2], postulated a language
>> >> called 'speedtalk'. In
>> >
>> > It doesn't really sound like Bloomfield's sort of thing, but Jespersen
>> > was into conlangs. Sweet wrote dismissively of them in the 11th
>> > Britannica.
>>
>> I wasn't connecting Bloomfield to any notion of artificial languages.
>
> "some linguist, probably Bloomfield, postulated a language called
> 'speedtalk.'"
>
Look at the whole sentence, RAH using the work of 'three people',
postulated... The intent was to show various portions of the input which RAH
used, "Basic English" from O&R, a better and more logical language based on K
and some linguistic theory, most probably, IMO, from Bloomfield.
>> >> simple terms, speedtalk was based on the notion of one phoneme per word
>> >> for
>> >
>> > Then it is by definition not a possible human language -- there's no
>> > duality of patterning!
>>
>> Can you explain what you mean by 'duality of patterning'. I don't recall
>> ever hearing that one. Why would the lack of it make it a non-possible
>> human language?
>
> We just did this three days ago!
>
> Hockett's most basic Design Feature of language. Little meaningless
> units are combined into bigger meaningful units.
Thanks for the clarification. I didn't make any connection with any previous
discussion. However, I don't see how such a definition would apply in this
case. There would be no need for 'small meaningless' units. I can't see how
the lack of such would preclude it from being a 'human language'. For the
other reasons I have mentioned, I don't think it possible, but that's another
question.
David
--
The Heinlein Society is full of people who really believe, and really
understand what he is trying to accomplish philosophically. They are a
serious-minded group of individuals who are out to change the world for
the better. - Virginia Heinlein
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: Phonemes
- From: Peter T. Daniels
- Re: Phonemes
- References:
- Phonemes
- From: David Wright Sr.
- Re: Phonemes
- From: Peter T. Daniels
- Re: Phonemes
- From: David Wright Sr.
- Re: Phonemes
- From: Peter T. Daniels
- Re: Phonemes
- From: David Wright Sr.
- Re: Phonemes
- From: Peter T. Daniels
- Phonemes
- Prev by Date: Re: Luxenberg's critique
- Next by Date: Re: Malagasy phonetics
- Previous by thread: Re: Phonemes
- Next by thread: Re: Phonemes
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
Loading