Re: BBC does it again

On Wed, 11 Jun 2008 12:54:34 -0400, Harlan Messinger
<hmessinger.removethis@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in
<news:6baea9F39n29oU1@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> in sci.lang:

Brian M. Scott wrote:

On Wed, 11 Jun 2008 12:05:23 -0400, Harlan Messinger
<hmessinger.removethis@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in
<news:6babe2F3a67grU1@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> in sci.lang:

[...]

Since the whole point is that one phoneme can be
realized in a given language as all kinds of sounds
with different phonetic representations,

No. In principle it would be possible to have a 1-1 match
between phonemes and phones (albeit probably not in a human
language).

How does noting that in theory (and, moreover) not in fact
can there be a pure one-to-one match contradict my
(correct) observation that phonemes frequently *don't*
correspond to a single sound?

I was responding to what you wrote -- 'the whole point ...
all kinds of sounds' -- which I do not see as equivalent to
the simple observation that phonemes can and often do
correspond to more than one phone.

there isn't any constraint calling for the phonemic
representation to look like any one of the phonetic
ones, or like any of them at all,

There is: it's a usability constraint.

In my opinion it goes the other way. Unless told
otherwise, I infer from seeing word samples phonemically
transcribed with /a/ and /A:/ that /a:/ and/or /A/ also
exist--that there's more than a two-state variation.

I find that truly bizarre. Why on earth would you expect
such a thing (apart from having read Peter for lo! these
many years)?

especially if attempting to copy a phonetic
representation hides a detail of the phonemic model that
it would be useful to convey.

I'm not talking about hiding anything; I'm talking about
showing a little *more*.

While at the same time obscuring something that's
important at the level of the abstract phonology.

<shrug> I don't find that it does so.

Brian
.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: BBC does it again
    ... One reason might be so that everyone's notation for a given language variety is the same, independent of what model they espouse. ... I understand that some people think length is the distinctive feature in those pairs of Dutch vowels, others claim it's lax vs tense, or amount of openness and/or frontness. ... Most linguists involved with writing Dutch phonemically aren't super-interested in which model is "correct", but they would find it convenient if there was one accepted notation for the phonemes of Dutch. ... distinguished by shape as well as by length as in Ruud's representation of Dutch sounds, so I accept that this is done, and that perhaps the point is that it's a model used *consistently* for Dutch--and it certainly is one more demonstration of the unfounded nature of Peter's contention that this is an unused practice and one that won't be understood. ...
    (sci.lang)
  • Re: BBC does it again
    ... One reason might be so that everyone's notation for a given language variety is the same, independent of what model they espouse. ... I understand that some people think length is the distinctive feature in those pairs of Dutch vowels, others claim it's lax vs tense, or amount of openness and/or frontness. ... Most linguists involved with writing Dutch phonemically aren't super-interested in which model is "correct", but they would find it convenient if there was one accepted notation for the phonemes of Dutch. ... distinguished by shape as well as by length as in Ruud's representation of Dutch sounds, so I accept that this is done, and that perhaps the point is that it's a model used *consistently* for Dutch--and it certainly is one more demonstration of the unfounded nature of Peter's contention that this is an unused practice and one that won't be understood. ...
    (sci.lang)
  • Re: BBC does it again
    ... phonemic representation one chooses to use ought to ... express the same thing as the phonemic model the same ... How does noting that in theory not in fact can there be a pure one-to-one match contradict my observation that phonemes frequently *don't* correspond to a single sound? ... While at the same time obscuring something that's important at the level of the abstract phonology. ...
    (sci.lang)
  • Re: All languages are equally fit
    ... individual phonemes are not regularly ... in Chinese writing. ... representation of any typical Chinese text? ... I was more concerned with intent rather than nit-picking word choice. ...
    (sci.lang)
  • Re: -eme and related suffixes
    ... If there's no phonetic segmentation, there can be no phones, and if there are no phones, you can't talk about phonemes and their allophones either. ... After all, *phonemes* have nothing to do with the relation of sound to visual signs. ... words refers to 'sound' but also because it is bound to result in a bias: whatever you find in the spoken language, you immediately transfer to the signed ones. ...
    (sci.lang)
Quantcast