Re: dhuga:ter

----- Original Message -----
From: "fournet.arnaud" <fournet.arnaud@...>
To: <cybalist@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Thursday, March 20, 2008 6:59 AM
Subject: Re: Re: Re: Re: [tied] Re: dhuga:ter


>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Patrick Ryan
>
>
> > ==================
> >
> > 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.
> Patrick
> ==========
> There is no irreducible truth in phonology.
> Voice makes sense for those particular phonemes
> which contrast with unvoiced phonemes.
> In the case of voice-neutral phonemes
> it just means nothing.
> Arnaud
> ============

***

But you are displaying a philosophic rather than a scientific mindset.

Phonemes are actual physical realizations, speech sounds. They can be
exactly, objectively described.

A sound cannot both be /l/ and not be /l/.

Therefore, there are no voice-neutral phonemes.

Phones, on the other, e.g. [l], can comprise many actual phonetic
realizations; in that sense, we could think of voice neutrality but short
people do not make tall people tall. Normal people male tall people tall.
There will normally always be a predominant phonological [l] that is a given
phonemic /l/ so neutrality is only apparent not real.

Now, Richard, or anyone else, if I am wrong here, let me know. I would
prefer to correct any misunderstandings I might have much more than worrying
about what Arnaud thinks.

If I have implied anything else, Arnaud, please forgive me. It was 3 AM here
when we were corresponding. Not an excuse, only an explanation.

***
>
> This is fine with American academics who think that imprecision is
> tolerant
> and democratic.
> But frankly, I do expect more from Continental culture.
>
> =============
>
> Continental !?
> Your English little gene got awakened ?
> The USA is about as big as Europe
> and from what I saw,
> there is plenty of dry ground to which
> apply the word "continental".
>
> Arnaud
> ==============

***

'continent' is one thing; 'Continent' in current English usage is the
continent, Europe.

When the British talk about taking a Continental holiday, they do not mean
Australia.

***

> 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.
> ==================
>
> H1 H2 and H3 primarily differentiate
> because H1 colors *e into *e, H2 colors into *a
> and H3 colors into *o.
> After that primary branching,
> there are still plenty of reasons why
> any set of H1 phonemes, or H2 phonemes, or H3
> are not the same, including voice and place of articulation.
>
> Arnaud
> ==============

***

Then let us state it clearly:

there are three phones called 'laryngeals': {H1], [H2], and [H3];

one or more of them comprise differing sets of phonemes: e.g. [H1] has
phonemic /?/ and /h/ (for example only), etc.

different branches of PIE had differing responses to [H1] based on whether
it was realized as phonemic [H1]-/?/ or [H1]-/h/.

***


> 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].
>
> Voice can be physically measured. A consonant is either voiced or
> unvoiced.
> Patrick
> ============
> This statement shows you don't understand phonology
> but I had already come to this conclusion before.
> Now it's even more obvious.
> You are confusing phonetic substance
> and phonological relevant features.
> English /l/ is voice-neutral and that's
> the reason why it accommodates to the rest
> of consonants which are *not* voice-neutral.
> Arnaud
> =============

***

Frankly, I think I understand it far better than you do, and am more precise
in communcating about it.

I do not believe I am confusing anything although at 3 AM in the morning
with four dogs and a cat to distract me, occasionally accidents happen.

I repeat: English and French [l] include two major phonemes: voiced /l/ and
voiceless /L/.

Now I understand. You think 'voice-neutral' phone means the phone [l]
tolerates at least two phonemes: those above.

So what?

***



> 'Relevant Contrastive Voice' is a fuzzy concept Brian might accept but I
> will not.
>
> =============
> I'm glad to learn Brian understands phonology.
> One point for him.
>
> Relevant contrastive voice is not "fuzzy" at all.
> At least not the way I use this word.
>
> Arnaud
> =============

***

You are the one who needs to learn, Arnaud.

Evidently, 'relative contrastive voice' differentiates between phones in a
given language that do or do not comprise voiced and voiceless phonemes.

Again, so what; this is language and time specific.


Patrick

***