Re: The Origins of Zürich...
- From: "Peter T. Daniels" <grammatim@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: 4 Jan 2007 15:47:17 -0800
Heidi Graw wrote:
For example: In the beginning was the Word and the Work was Moo.
Moo was the first word my son spoke.
No, it was not. (a) It's not a word -- as you acknowledge below when
you say it has no meaning.
(b) Unless you were with your son and awake 24/7, you don't know that
that was his first utterance. In fact, it is highly unlikely that it
was, unless your son is _very_ abnormal, because babies babble for
several months before producing something as short as a CV syllable;
and because it is vastly more likely that the first
intentionally-produced vowel is /a/, not /u/. That's why /mama/ and
/papa/ tend to be the words for "daddy" and "mommy" in so many
languages.
That is the scientific evidence. I
witnessed the way he formed his mouth and sounded out the word. I heard it
and I recorded it in March of 1988. What he meant by it I have no idea. I
cannot attach a meaning to the word "Moo." This I catagorize as "scientific
etymology." ...it is a word without character and without meaning.
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: The Origins of Zürich...
- From: Heidi Graw
- Re: The Origins of Zürich...
- References:
- The Origins of Zürich...
- From: Heidi Graw
- Re: The Origins of Zürich...
- From: Brian M. Scott
- Re: The Origins of Zürich...
- From: Heidi Graw
- Re: The Origins of Zürich...
- From: Heidi Graw
- Re: The Origins of Zürich...
- From: Brian M. Scott
- Re: The Origins of Zürich...
- From: Heidi Graw
- Re: The Origins of Zürich...
- From: phoglund
- Re: The Origins of Zürich...
- From: Brian M. Scott
- Re: The Origins of Zürich...
- From: phoglund
- Re: The Origins of Zürich...
- From: Heidi Graw
- The Origins of Zürich...
- Prev by Date: Re: ahhh, dichotomies
- Next by Date: Re: are we mature for a mnemonic human communication code
- Previous by thread: Re: The Origins of Zürich...
- Next by thread: Re: The Origins of Zürich...
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|