Re: Your first "linguistic" memory

>> >Or maybe you _still_ don't know what "phoneme" means?
>>
>> Sigh. I know what "phoneme" means since I first accepted the idea,
>> back in 1973 or so. Why do you keep insisting I might not?
>
>Because you consistently write things like the above that suggest you
>don't.

OK, so phonemes can be identified by minimal pairs, or by asking
native speakers if words are different or not.
With both methods, I see practical difficulties. Is that bad?

Thu, 12 Jan 2006 18:58:47 GMT: "Peter T. Daniels"
<grammatim@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>: in sci.lang:
>Labov likes to play tiny extracts -- a single word -- and ask people
>what the word is. He does it to illustrate the Northern Cities Shift,
>since the word is unidentifiable in isolation but perfectly clear in a
>context as short as a few-word phrase.
>
>That technique could clearly be used in this case.

OK, good point, that helps in solving of the difficulties I saw.

>There is no such thing as "modern phonemic theory"; "phonemes" are not
>discussed in modern phonological theory.

And what replaces them? What is "modern phonological theory"? This
really puzzles me. Pardon my ignorance (which no doubt causes this).

>I, however, as I have made abundantly clear over the years, do not do
>modern phonological theory.

Wasn't clear to me. I find a lot of what you write very cryptic. You
make the impression of having superior knowledge, but not the patience
to explain it to less gifted and learned mere mortals. You place a
remark here and there, and that's it. It pictures others as stupid
(which they probably are, including me), but it is not a fruitful
discussion technique.

--
Ruud Harmsen - http://rudhar.com

.

Loading