Re[7]: [tied] Mille (thousand)

At 1:18:52 PM on Monday, March 10, 2008, fournet.arnaud
wrote:

> From: Brian M. Scott

>>> None of your examples is a morpheme
>>> nor an initial phoneme.

>> Irrelevant: your objection (which you should not have
>> snipped, as it provided essential context) was 'I don't
>> think something can come and go without thought', and I
>> was responding to what you actually wrote.

> ok, got it 5/5
> Delete, distort, then say it's wrong.

The deletion was yours, and the only distortion that I see
is the implication that I deleted or distorted something.

[...]

>> That none of my examples involves a morpheme is doubly
>> irrelevant, since it hasn't been shown that s-mobile is a
>> morpheme.

> You have *not* proved it's not (at least) one morpheme
> either.

That's hardly surprising: I wasn't trying to do so.

> Fifilska
> as you say.

Well, no, not quite: if I were to write it, I'd spell it
right. (It's <fíflska>.)

>> For a current English example with an initial phoneme you
>> can have <about> ~ <'bout>, and there are lots more with
>> initial unstressed vowels. Initial /h/ is also a bit
>> shaky.

> So what ?

So I'm giving you what you asked for: an example of an
initial phoneme that 'can come and go without thought'.

[...]

>>> It's just colloquialisms.

>> In other words, it's real language. If that was intended
>> as an objection to the examples, it's surely one of the
>> silliest statements that I've seen here -- and that's
>> saying something.

> I'm interested in real languages.
> Colloquialisms are not un-connected with
> the rest of the language structure.

To say the least.

Brian