Re: Your first "linguistic" memory

Ruud Harmsen wrote:
>
> >> >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?

What is "both methods"? How is asking if they're different or not not a
search for minimal pairs?

What difficulties? Is it bad that you see them? Perhaps, if they are
illusory.

> 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.

Why is having a recording of someone saying something less "difficult"
than having someone saying something?

> >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).

See the large selection of phonology textbooks currently available.

> >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.
--
Peter T. Daniels grammatim@xxxxxxx
.