[tied] Re: Glen, regarding...

--- "Brian M. Scott" wrote:

> At 6:44:18 PM on Thursday, October 9, 2003, m_iacomi wrote:
>
>> Brian M. Scott wrote:
>
>>> At 9:45:29 AM on Thursday, October 9, 2003, Patrick C.
>>> Ryan wrote:
>
>>>> Let us take a concrete example. If a certain segment of a
>>>> population substitutes a fricative (/f/) for an aspirated
>>>> stop (/pH/), we can make one of two basic assumptions:
>>>> that segment finds it difficult (or impossible) to
>>>> replicate /pH/; or that segment does not properly hear
>>>> /pH/, and cannot distinguish it from /f/. Both scenarios
>>>> imply physical causes.
>
>>> No, they don't.
>
>> Actually, they might have also some physical causes:
>
> Yes, but that's beside the point that I was making: while
> there may be physical causes, the scenario does not in fact
> *imply* that there are.

Of course it doesn't imply, as it can be also inferred from
my previous arguments and from the use of weakening keyword
"might". I just made a correlated remark about this particular
case to complete the picture.

Regards,
Marius Iacomi