From: Arnaud Fournet
Message: 61307
Date: 2008-11-03
----- Original Message -----
From: "Brian M. Scott" <BMScott@...>
>
>>>>> I don't much care what you can check: you're the one
>>>>> who tends to be sloppy about accurately representing
>>>>> sources, not I.
========
Sorry,
But you lied about Pope §241
and you tried to make her say
something She has not even hinted at.
A.
=========
>
>>> P. 214: 'French has three glide phonemes, /j/, /w/, and
>>> /turned-h/.'
>
>> P211.
>> The author, which I remind you is your own choice,
>> mentions explicitly that the presentation that follows is
>> what he considers the best _interpretation_ (sic)
>
> So? All phonemic analyses are interpretations of the data.
> I already pointed that out.
========
Now that your statements have been proved wrong and that the only author you
cited is full of contradictions,
you're trying to soft-pedal everything as if it were just a matter of
"interpretation".
Your theory and statements are refuted !!
You lied about Pope and you are wrong.
Not to mention your idiotic phonological statements
that I already pointed at.
A.
=======
>
>> I cannot see any reason why he accepts the vocalic
>> interpretation of the prevocalic glides as vowels for
>> pre-Modern French
>
> I see no evidence that he does. On the contrary, he takes
> OFr. /oi/ and /ie/ to have been diphthongs, not glide+vowel
> combination.
===========
Once again, you are cutting the references where you think adequate for your
erroneous conceptions.
The author p211 states that <vieille> is pre-modern /vieL/ with ie being
explicitly described as a diphthong then he proceeds to state that modern
French is /vjej/ with a consonantal glide !!
I don't understand this complete reversal of analysis.
A word like <nuit> probably has sounded the same since 1500
I can't see why it should be pre-modern /nui/ and suddenly it should be
/nUi/ with a glide.
None of this makes any sense.
A.
=============
>> and suddenly decides this vocalic interpretation should be
>> discarded for Modern French !?
>
>> On what grounds ??
>
> Continuing the quotation from p. 214:
>
> While these are clearly related historically to the three
> high vowels /i/, /u/ and /y/ respectively and may at times
> be in morphophonemic alternation with them, within
> contemporary syllable structure they behave more like
> consonants than vowels, for instance in precluding
> liaison, thus /lejOt/ rather than */lezjOt/ for <les
> yachts> 'the yachts'.
======
This can be accounted for with a description of the FOREIGN word <yacht> as
being /'iot/ with underlying /'/ which exists for sure !
Anyway, be it foreign or not,
the word hyène /'ien/ exists since the XII century and it is les 0 hyènes.
The analysis of the author is just erroneous.
I can't see any real difference between now and before,
let alone on the basis of foreign (upper-class !) words.
Another foreign word like week-end can be described phonologically as
/'uiken/.
there is no liaison either with week-end : en 0 week-end (=on week-end) with
no liaison (no -n-)
A.
=========
> Note also such pairs as /uj/
> <houille> 'coal' and /wi/ <oui> 'yes'.
===========
This is idiotic phonology lesson 3 !!
A.
=====
>> As you can't prove your previous statements
>> you prefer giving up,
>
> Since it's clear that you still don't understand why I
> mentioned that passage in the first place, I'll spell it out
> for you. I am NOT making any claims about Pope's view of
> French phonemes. It is simply evidence that the phonetic
> basis for an analysis with glides was in place by the 16th
> century.
>
> Brian
=========
You lied.
and you are caught red-handed.
And you won't hide this fact and get away with some latin gibberish
and some awkward late explanations.
A.