| View previous topic :: View next topic |
Donmillion
In: Acton, Middlesex
|
|
 |
|
| berniegreen wrote: | | DPCrisp wrote: | | Constricted and unconstricted are two ends of a continuum |
Bollocks. They are two discontinuous states like 1 and 0. They exist or they don't. |
Thanks, Bernie. I didn't want to overstress Dan by pointing that one out. And that's what I meant by "a matter of definition": it's a vowel as long as there is 0.0000% constriction of the vocal tract. At 0.0001% constriction, you have a non-vowel, which is to say a consonant. I don't know what degree of constriction the [h] phoneme requires in order to be distinct from an unconstricted voiceless breath (which is silent), and it's probably greater than 0.0001% or I suspect it would be undetectable without electronic apparatus. But it's what makes [h] "not a vowel".
As to:
| Is it harder to accept that Z can be G? |
--I think Dan meant, "as compared with accepting that G can be a vowel". And my answer is "no," it's no harder. They're both impossible. Z is "straight-but-bent-twice"; G is "round-with-a-couple-of-straight-bits". Quite different shapes.
Sorry, that's bordering on sarcastic; but without explanation, without context and application, "Z can be G" is a meaningless claim. Without explanation of what's meant, all I can see is the surface phenomenon of two letter-shapes.
|
|
  |
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Ishmael wrote: | | Personally. I've never seen the point of trying to convince people of anything. That's why I remain opposed to public discussion. It wastes valuable time on people who have nothing productive to do with their own. |
This seems to me to be a perfectly valid position for any soul to choose but then why would such a soul wish to contribute to this forum?
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Chad
In: Ramsbottom
|
|
|
|
| berniegreen wrote: | | This seems to me to be a perfectly valid position for any soul to choose but then why would such a soul wish to contribute to this forum? |
Therein lies the problem... You simply haven't understood the purpose of this forum.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Chad
In: Ramsbottom
|
|
|
|
| berniegreen wrote: | | Constricted and unconstricted are two ends of a continuum | |
No Bernie. If somebody was to gradually apply pressure around your neck, you would eventually see the truth in Dan's statement.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Hatty
Site Admin
In: Berkshire
|
|
|
|
Re G as a vowel, I'm trying to decide why Magdalene is pronounced Maudlin. The official explanation is affectation but interestingly the "affectation" only applies to certain place-names like a street or bridge or building.
Maud is supposed to have come from French but no such name appears in French. [One of the most common place-names is Middleton, so maybe Maudlin is middling or mid-line, e.g. St Mary's Magdalene near Horsham mid-way between the Pilgrims' Way and another east-west route now the A272.]
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Donmillion
In: Acton, Middlesex
|
|
|
|
| Chad wrote: | | berniegreen wrote: | | Constricted and unconstricted are two ends of a continuum | |
No Bernie. If somebody was to gradually apply pressure around your neck, you would eventually see the truth in Dan's statement. |
I assume this is a Gedankenexperiment?
In a sense, Dan's right, and so's Bernie. The domain of "Vocal Tract Closure" ("orinasal closure") is conventionally divided into three subdomains for purposes of types of speech-sound.
- At one extreme, we have a completely unrestricted vocal tract, which results in vowels that can be maintained as long as the breath runs out.
- At the other, we have (temporary) 100% closure of the vocal tract, which results in obstruent consonants (also called "stops") such as /p/, /b/, /k/. /g/, /t/, /d/ ...
- between those extremes are the continuant consonants such as /l/, /m/, /n/, /ng/, /r/, /s/, /z/--"consonants" because the vocal tract is partly constricted, but "continuants" because you can maintain them as long as your breath holds out.
So it's binary at the two extremes: fully open (vowels) or fully stopped (obstruents); and continuous between those points (continuants).
(I think this is a clearer explanation than the one I gave earlier, which Chad was obviously unable to follow ...)
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Im afraid the completely unrestricted vocal tract will be as difficult to locate as the perfectly green pea.
Still congratulatons Don for trying. Keep it up.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Chad wrote: | | berniegreen wrote: | | This seems to me to be a perfectly valid position for any soul to choose but then why would such a soul wish to contribute to this forum? |
Therein lies the problem... You simply haven't understood the purpose of this forum. |
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Vowels and consonants.
Consider a stringed or wind musical instrument. There is a difference in category between an open note and any sort of stopped note. Vowels are open notes, consonants are stopped ones. Very simple. If anyone doesn't understand this then my best advice is that they take music lessons on an appropriate instrument.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Maggdalene - maudlin
Cholmondley - chumly
Worcester - wooster
Leicester - lester
eksechra
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Chad
In: Ramsbottom
|
|
|
|
| berniegreen wrote: | | So you mean then, do you, that the purpose of this forum is to express opinions but not actually to debate them or consider their validity? If that is still a misunderstanding will you please make it clear exactly what is the purpose of this forum. |
Start at the home page... then take it from there.
(But you probably still wont get it.)
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Chad
In: Ramsbottom
|
|
|
|
| Donmillion wrote: | I assume this is a Gedankenexperiment?
|
Yes, but had I been addressing you it would have been more a case of wishful thinking.
| (I think this is a clearer explanation than the one I gave earlier, which Chad was obviously unable to follow ...) |
If you were not so far up your own arse-hole, you would have realised most of us stopped bothering to follow your tiresome (and virtually unreadable) posts some time ago.
(It must be a sad and lonely existence... having only your own intestinal fauna for company.)
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Alternatively you can just watch while others make these momentous advances. Or watch to see why they so stubbornly refuse to advance. And the reason will likely apply to you too - we have all spent so much time and effort acquiring our current stock of knowledge that most of the time wild horses won't force us to jettison the old in favour of the new. Applied Epistemology is all about teaching you how to do this despite yourself. |
The above is, of course, a quote from the cover page of this beloved forum (which I had read carefully when I first arrived here). It is, as we can all see, a call to arms: a trumpet call against old encrusted-on ideas: an announcement that this is a place where you can come to have your viewpoint undergo surgery.
It is clear to me (and to others of an open and enquiring mind) that this will be a two-way traffic, i.e. you try to convince me to rethink my ideas and I do the same to you.
If this is not the intention then the alternative interpretation must be that it is code for "come and have your brains washed".
If I am wrong on both counts then please elucidate.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| The tone of discourse is `British Club Class'. Generally we are polite but rudeness is permitted so long as it's funny. |
Chad,
Above is from Rule 2 of the Library Rules. In my view your last post was a serious breach of this rule. It was rude without being funny. I think you owe Don and all the rest of us an apology.
I must also say that I for one read all of Don's missives with great enjoyment. Although I have a reasonable laymen's grasp of linguistics I have learnt much from his posts and it is a lot of fun seeing the spluttering protests of yourself and other folk who have been entirely outgunned by his irresistible mix of logic and evidence.
Good on ya, Don
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Mick Harper
Site Admin
In: London
|
|
|
|
| Alternatively you can just watch while others make these momentous advances. Or watch to see why they so stubbornly refuse to advance |
The reason why we have intellectual seven league boots is because we're more (only?) interested in the new. Don and Bernie, as far as I can see, and I join with everyone else in having given up reading their screeds, are solely concerned with drawing attention to the mistakes made in our various headlong rushes. Doubtless there are plenty of these (though I have not been impressed whenever I have stopped to check their claims) but they are not the point. A new theory will fall to pieces under its own contradictions long before any nitpicking adds up. And anyway, who cares if it it's wrong, another one will be along in five minutes.
In general though I support Bernie and Don's continued rude presence here since it allows the rest of us to use them as punchbags should we feel in the need of a workout. But do not debate them just because they're there.
Bernie and Don: feel free to come up with something original. I know that you probably never have (it's like making jokes, most people never make a single one in their whole lives) but you'll find you won't be able to help yourself if you force your brain to take a holiday from criticism for a coupla weeks. It has happened to lots of lesser folk before you in this forum.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
The Library Index 
FAQ 
Search
Register
Profile 
Log in to check your private messages 
Log in 
