Re: Your first "linguistic" memory

Ruud Harmsen wrote:
>
> Ekkehard:
> >> Ruud's definition was neither unintelligible nor unusual. A phoneme is often
> >> defined as the smallest unit of sound that can bring about a change in
> >> meaning. This isn't fundamentally different from saying that a phoneme
> >> distinguishes words.
>
> Sat, 14 Jan 2006 12:58:18 GMT: "Peter T. Daniels"
> <grammatim@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>: in sci.lang:
> >Exactly. It added nothing to the discussion; it was otiose; it was
> >redundant;
>
> (I had to look up <otiose>, thank for letting me learn a new word).
>
> You suggested I didn't know what "phoneme" really meant. So I
> described what I think it means, to see where I went wrong. Was that
> the wrong thing to do?
> Then of course if my idea of "phoneme" is correct, my description of
> it adds nothing to the discussion, is otiose and redundant. Simply
> because I repeat, in my own (possible defective) wording what
> "phoneme" is usually supposed to mean.
>
> So what do you want? You asked for my definition, I give it, there is
> not much wrong with it, and then the fact that I have given it is the
> problem? What kind of discussion style is this?

The "problem" in your "definition" was, as I have said three times now,
the succeeding paragraph(s), which bore no interpretation at all.

> >and the difference between "a meaning" and "a morpheme" is
> >profoud in _other_ parts of linguistics.
>
> Yes? So? What does that have to do with it?

To use one instead of the other betokens profound confusion.

> >> Meaning is important. The only way to tell whether a word would still be the
> >> same if you replaced one sound with another is to ask yourself whether the
> >> word would still mean the same.
> >>
> >> The fact that words often have more than one meaning doesn't really
> >> invalidate this approach. All it shows is that the substitution of phonemes
> >> isn't a necessary condition for a change in meaning. It is a sufficient one,
> >> though.
> >
> >No. Economics/economics.
>
> ???
> What do you mean by mentioning the same word twice? Do you suggest two
> pronunciations, ekkanommiks and ekanommiks? If so, what does that tell
> us about the essence of the notion of "phoneme"?
>
> > Garage/garridge.
>
> Two or three possible pronunciations of the same word. So what? What
> does that tell us about the essence of the notion of "phoneme"?

That the phenomenon of "free variation" means that Ekkehard's statement
was incorrect.
--
Peter T. Daniels grammatim@xxxxxxx
.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Your first "linguistic" memory
    ... >>> These two statements seem contradictory to me. ... the meaning of the word does not change.> ... taken to include lexically restricted variation. ... phoneme seems difficult to reconcile with the whole concept of phonemes. ...
    (sci.lang)
  • Re: Your first "linguistic" memory
    ... any speaker with no difference in meaning. ... two different pronunciations of the same word, ... there is no free variation. ... > phoneme seems difficult to reconcile with the whole concept of phonemes. ...
    (sci.lang)
  • Re: Your first "linguistic" memory
    ... >> Ekkehard Dengler wrote: ... This isn't fundamentally different from saying that a phoneme ... >>> The fact that words often have more than one meaning doesn't really ... >>> isn't a necessary condition for a change in meaning. ...
    (sci.lang)
  • Re: Transcribing rhotics for ESL
    ... Changing a phoneme changes meaning. ... > Aspiration has no effect on comprehension. ... Look at your IPA chart (evidently your French students are more familiar ...
    (sci.lang)
  • Re: Tamil phonology
    ... pronunciations are acceptable). ... In the second word, the is not ... difference between and affect phonemic analysis? ... what one says about the phoneme system. ...
    (sci.lang)
Quantcast