Re: dhuga:ter

Brian is absolutely right! No fuzziness there.

I reversed the definitions of phoneme and phone. I read something in
Wikipedia that suggested to me that my previous understanding of the matter
was wrong, and I tried to correct it - disastrously.

My apologies to all.


Patrick

----- Original Message -----
From: "Patrick Ryan" <proto-language@...>
To: <cybalist@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Thursday, March 20, 2008 9:12 AM
Subject: Re: Re: Re: Re: [tied] 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
>
> ***
>