From: Patrick C. Ryan
Message: 19011
Date: 2003-02-22
----- Original Message -----
From: "Miguel Carrasquer" <mcv@...>
To: <cybalist@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Thursday, February 20, 2003 2:37 PM
Subject: Re: [tied] Laryngeal theory as an unnatural
> On Thu, 20 Feb 2003 14:23:04 -0600, "Patrick C. Ryan"
> <proto-language@...> wrote:
>
> ><PCR>
> >I am at a loss of understand why you keep repeating that English /d/ is NOT voiced. By the prevalent definition of 'voice', it certainly is voiced.
>
> Only by the prevalent definition of 'voiced' as used for English (and
> similar languages, such as Mandarin).
[PCR2]
While I respect your imaginative work in other areas, it seems to me that 'voice', if it is to have any value as a defining term at all, must be used in a consistent way when applied to any language.
I think your reference to Mandarin is probably a 'typo'. The system of stop contrasts in Mandarin is unaspirated vs. aspirated, both voiceless.
> >At the moment of closure, it is (I think) physically impossible for voicing to be present -- before or after but not during. Therefore, I question the so-called "voiced" French /d/.
>
> It requires some extra effort, but it's certainly not impossible (my
> Spanish and Dutch /d/'s are voiced). See the spectrogram on p. 51 of
> TSOTWL.
[PCR2]
Sorry, I still think it is a virtual impossibility.
> As Ladefoged and Maddieson explain in detail, voicing can be
> maintained by passive gestures such as "relaxation of the cheeks and
> other soft tissues", or active ones such as "moving the articulatory
> constriction forwards during the closure, moving the root of the
> tongue forwards, lowering the jaw, or lowering the larynx". The
> latter gesture can potentially blur the distinction between voiced and
> implosive stops.
[PCR2]
Ladefoged and Maddiessen suffer from the Larry Trask Syndrome of arrogating unto themselves the sovereign right to redefine linguistic terms that do not need redefinition.
If that is not so in this instance, would you kindly explain to me how passive relaxation of the cheeks has anything to do with the auditorily perceived buzz we call voicing?
Trask has asserted in print that English possesses no simple future tense based on his strange redefinitions of many things. When I gave him an English simple future form ("he is to go"), Trask refused to address the example.
You, Miguel, have the admirable quality of directly addressing questions when they are written in understandable form.
Pat
PATRICK C. RYAN | PROTO-LANGUAGE@... (501) 227-9947 * 9115 W. 34th St. Little Rock, AR 72204-4441 USA WEBPAGES: PROTO-LANGUAGE: http://www.geocities.com/proto-language/ and PROTO-RELIGION: http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Forum/2803/proto-religion/indexR.html "Veit ec at ec hecc, vindgá meiði a netr allar nío, geiri vndaþr . . . a þeim meiþi, er mangi veit, hvers hann af rótom renn." (Hávamál 138)