Re: dhuga:ter

----- Original Message -----
From: "fournet.arnaud" <fournet.arnaud@...>
To: <cybalist@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Thursday, March 20, 2008 3:23 AM
Subject: Re: Re: [tied] Re: dhuga:ter


>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Miguel Carrasquer Vidal

<snip>

> Now, out of the fact that H3
> sometimes voices phonemes like
> in well-known pipH3 > bib-
> he infers that there were at least two H3 :
> a voiced one contrasting with a voiceless one.
> Because voice-neutral consonants like -l- and -r-
> do not cause voiceness, precisely because they
> are neutral, they ajust to other consonants,
> H3 was not voice-neutral, there was a Voiced H3
> and the voiceness of H3.1 was contrasting with
> another H3.2 itself voiceless.
> H3 is not voiced per se, it is voiced because
> it contrasts with a non voiced H3.
> This is what phonology is about.

<snip>

Before you do anything else, you simply must study and master logic.

Wrong is permissible. Illogic is not!

You write: "H3 is not voiced per se, it is voiced . . ."

FIRST RULE OF LOGIC: A thing cannot both be and not be.

"because it contrasts with non(sic!)voiced (*)H3."

NON SEQUITUR: if they are not contrasting on the basis of + or -voice, then
there are _not_ contrasting since you have given no other basis on which
they may contrast.

This is most definitely what Arnaud is about but has nothing to do with
logical phonology.

Are you actually French?


Patrick