Re: dhuga:ter

----- Original Message -----
From: "fournet.arnaud" <fournet.arnaud@...>
To: <cybalist@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Thursday, March 20, 2008 4:44 AM
Subject: Re: Re: Re: [tied] Re: dhuga:ter


>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Patrick Ryan
>
> > 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.
> ==================
>
> Hey, Calm down,
>
> In writing "H3 is not voiced per se"
> I'm talking to the orthodoxists who blithely handle
> only one H3, thinking it can be "voiced" per se.
> It can't be so, my point of view is there are at least two H3
> a voiced one and an unvoiced one,
> accounting for the fact that the voiced one does not assimilate
> and causes p to become b.
>
> In English (and FRench) there is only one /l/
> which is voice-neutral.
> the /l/ in people does not trigger peo-b-le
> If H3.1 is not contrasting with another H3.2
> you will never get pipH3.1 > pib
> you'll get pipH and nothing else.
> You need *Relevant Contrastive* voiceness
> to explain that.
>
> Arnaud
>
> ===============

***

It is not elitist nor orthodoxist to insist that a word, like 'voice', have
some irreducible meaning. Otherwise, communication cannot successfully be
accomplished.

This is fine with American academics who think that imprecision is tolerant
and democratic.

But frankly, I do expect more from Continental culture.

Look at Piotr. Whether he is right or wrong, his logic and precision are
relentless.

If there were two different sets of causation inherent in what we call *H3,
then say *H3 and *H3a, or *H4, and count them as two rather than as one - at
least for the time when its effect (*H3) bifurcated into two sets of
effects.

I do not believe /l/ is voice-neutral. In situations which are minimally
phonotactically affected, it is voiced.

It is only unvoiced when in immediate contact with a voiceless consonant so
[L] is an allophone of [l].

'Relevant Contrastive Voice' is a fuzzy concept Brian might accept but I
will not.

Voice can be physically measured. A consonant is either voiced or unvoiced.


Patrick