suzmccarth wrote:

>
> --- In qalam@yahoogroups.com, "Peter T. Daniels" <grammatim@...>
> wrote:
> > John Cowan wrote:
> > >
> > > Peter T. Daniels scripsit:
> > >
> > > > "For /S/ : /Z/, minimal pairs are even rarer, and only the
> following are
> > > > known in my speech: dilution : delusion, glacier : glazier,
> and Aleutian
> > > > : allusion.
> > >
> > > All three analyzable as /zj/.
> >
> > Absolutely not. This is H. A. Gleason, this is ultra-orthodox
> > descriptive linguistics. Such "analysis" wouldn't even be invented
> until
>
> I am not sure if this is apropos but Gleason analysed Punjabi as a
> tone language. He felt that he had surprised everyone with that. I
> don't think he thought of himself as "ultra-orthodox". He loved all
> American dialects and accents and was a great and humourous
> storyteller.

Gleason and Gill; they were indeed the first to describe Punjabi tones
adequately; he doesn't think of himself as "ultra-orthodox," because it
was he who first codified post-Bloomfieldian techniques in his 1955
textbook (2d ed., 1961).

Why do you speak in the past? He hasn't died without telling me, has he?
--
Peter T. Daniels grammatim@...