Re: This week on Dancing with the Stars Re: The Business Memoir - the ``whom'' question

http://www.umanitoba.ca/faculties/arts/linguistics/russell/138/sec5/ipavsna.htm

28 Oct 2006 16:17:56 -0700: "Peter T. Daniels"
<grammatim@xxxxxxxxxxx>: in sci.lang:
Why should I have looked at that page, /

Did you or did you not look at it?

/ when you offered it to me as if
it contained the IPA diagram as if you were offering it to someone who
has never seen it before? Why would I imagine there was anything
_other_ than the IPA chart there?

I said it was all explained there. If you'd finally look, you'd see
it, and also see how you've been exposing yourself to everyone as an
utter fool for days. You cannot admit even a simple uninportant
mistake, and instead you continue to attack other people without
justification.

I have certainly never seen a diagram like the one he uses anywhere
else. It's _not_ the tic-tac-toe diagram evoked for me by that term.

The question is: do you or do not admit that in IPA (1932,1996,2005),
[a] is low front, and [&] is in between [a] and [E], and that
therefore it differs from the American system they taught you, which
is also explained in
http://www.umanitoba.ca/faculties/arts/linguistics/russell/138/sec5/ipavsna.htm
and by the picture which they call tic-tac-toe there?

I have certainly never seen a diagram like the one he uses anywhere
else. It's _not_ the tic-tac-toe diagram evoked for me by that term.

If you did not learn the system shown here as tic-tac-toe, and you
obviously didn't learn IPA, what on earth _did you learn? And where
were [a] and [&] in that system and how did it differ from
tic-tac-toe?

(PTD in an earlier post:)
Do you understand what is meant by "the tic-tac-toe chart" (though I've
never seen it referred to that way before)?

How can the term tic-tac-toe evoke anything for you, if you have never
seen references to such a diagram as tic-tac-toe?

Again, what DID you learn, if it's not this tic-tac-toe and not IPA?
But whatever it is you learnt, it has [&] as low front and [a] as low
central, because you repeated that over and over. And those placements
are clearly different from IPA 1996 and 2005, as shown over and over
during the last three days.

When will you finally simply admit that?

(PTD in this later post:)
You did not refer to the small picture. Since I had no need to view an
on-line IPA, I had no need to visit your link.

There is no online IPA chart at
http://rudhar.com/foneport/en/foneport.htm#VowelDiagram
(in some browsers the # in the URL doesn't work properly, then you
need to go to the bottom of the page yourself).

There are links to several online IPA charts at:
http://rudhar.com/foneport/en/lingglos.htm

When are you finally going to look at one, and admit that you were
wrong all along, about the placement of [a] and [&] in IPA?
Is it really so hard to admit a small and totally unimportant
misunderstanding?

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

Relevant Pages
Quantcast