Latin, the Enlightenment, and science
in [Math]
|
Prev: Latin, the Enlightenment, and science
Next: question on Artwork and what is legal in altering a signed painting #24 South Dakota cat laws
From: Peter T. Daniels on 29 Dec 2009 09:52 On Dec 29, 8:53 am, Peter Moylan <gro.nalyomp(a)retep> wrote: > On 30/12/09 00:41, James Hogg wrote: > > > > > Peter Moylan wrote: > >> On 29/12/09 13:42, Brian M. Scott wrote: > >>> On Mon, 28 Dec 2009 18:05:09 -0800 (PST), DKleinecke > >>> <dkleine...(a)gmail.com> wrote in > >>> <news:e1f26d37-f0bf-4a6d-9aa3-9f3ee47a6f08(a)o28g2000yqh.googlegroups.com> > >>> in > >>> sci.math,sci.physics,sci.lang,alt.usage.english,alt.philosophy: > > >>>> On Dec 27, 10:53 pm, "benli...(a)ihug.co.nz" <benli...(a)ihug.co.nz> > >>>> wrote: > >>> [...] > > >>>>> ... I am more than ever at a loss to understand how any > >>>>> linguist can maintain with a straight face that dh/th > >>>>> are in "complementary distribution". > >>>> It offends them that there are no minial pairs. > >>> Tthere are, and they know it: <thigh> ~ <thy>, and for many > >>> people <either> ~ <ether>. They dispose of these on other > >>> grounds. > > >> You're talking modern English now. Those examples wouldn't have worked > >> in the days when eth and thorn were part of a writer's alphabet. > > > The problem is that eth and thorn could be used interchangeably in Old > > English. > > Hmm. Yes, I see your point. If one had been used for the voiced sound > and the other for unvoiced we might have had a clue about how people > used to pronounce things. As it is, we're a bit in the dark. No we're not; intervocalically fricatives were voiced, elsewhere they were voiceless. Only when French loanwords with intervocalic voiceless segments came along did the distinction become phonemic. For how we know such things, see e.g. the relevant chapters in the first two volumes of the Cambridge History of the English Language.
From: Peter T. Daniels on 29 Dec 2009 09:55 On Dec 28, 11:43 pm, "PaulJK" <paul.kr...(a)paradise.net.nz> wrote: > Brian M. Scott wrote: > > On Mon, 28 Dec 2009 20:40:47 +1300, PaulJK > > <paul.kr...(a)paradise.net.nz> wrote in > > <news:hh9nbf$ejq$1(a)news.eternal-september.org> in > > sci.math,sci.physics,sci.lang,alt.usage.english,alt.philosophy: > >> Peter T. Daniels wrote: > >>> On Dec 27, 3:49 pm, "Brian M. Scott" <b.sc...(a)csuohio.edu> wrote: > > > [...] > > >>>> True, though some linguists would argue that the [ ]~[ ] > >>>> distinction still isn't phonemic, since the distribution is > >>>> predictable (albeit the conditioning isn't phonological). > > > [...] > > >>> Whatever you recently did to "fix" your encoding has > >>> resulted in blank spaces where you typed funny letters. > > >> No, it's posted with Content-Type: text/plain; > >> charset="iso-8859-1" I don't think the problem was caused > >> by his last mod farther down the list of formats. > > > It's almost certainly a problem with Google Groups. If > > Peter would break down and get a decent news client, he'd > > not have the problem. > > These days he could choose from a number of free good > news clients. But, he can't possibly join the falange of > "Usenet reader snobs". :-) Actually it seems like those of you who are always messing with your encodings and your headers are the ones having the problems!
From: Peter T. Daniels on 29 Dec 2009 10:33 On Dec 29, 1:02 am, Marvin the Martian <mar...(a)ontomars.org> wrote: > On Mon, 28 Dec 2009 20:39:04 -0800, Peter T. Daniels wrote: > >> > What ape has "acquired language"? > > >> Washo, for one.- > > > No one was ever allowed to interact with Washoe except her own trainers, > > who, like the attendants of the Oracle of Delphi, carried her messages > > back to the observers. Signers who got to see rare unedited clips of her > > gestural activity reported that it was nothing like signing. > > So, you're saying it is all fraud to get funding? No, I'm saying (as many have) that it is a "Clever Hans Phenomenon." The semiotician Thomas A. Sebeok organized a conference at the New York Academy of Sciences on that topic. At least one of the primate-"language" research teams withdrew when they found that Sebeok had invited James "The Amazing" Randi to do a presentation on illusionists. (Randi put on a great show, which had nothing to do with the question at hand, since the researchers were, and are, most sincere.) > Given the AGW fraud, that wouldn't surprise me one bit. I don't know what that is. > I don't know that, though.
From: Athel Cornish-Bowden on 29 Dec 2009 13:06 On 2009-12-29 04:31:23 +0100, Harlan Messinger <hmessinger.removethis(a)comcast.net> said: > Brian M. Scott wrote: >> On Mon, 28 Dec 2009 18:05:09 -0800 (PST), DKleinecke >> <dkleinecke(a)gmail.com> wrote in >> <news:e1f26d37-f0bf-4a6d-9aa3-9f3ee47a6f08(a)o28g2000yqh.googlegroups.com> >> in >> sci.math,sci.physics,sci.lang,alt.usage.english,alt.philosophy: >> >>> On Dec 27, 10:53 pm, "benli...(a)ihug.co.nz" <benli...(a)ihug.co.nz> >>> wrote: >> >> [...] >> >>>> ... I am more than ever at a loss to understand how any >>>> linguist can maintain with a straight face that dh/th >>>> are in "complementary distribution". >> >>> It offends them that there are no minial pairs. >> >> Tthere are, and they know it: <thigh> ~ <thy>, and for many >> people <either> ~ <ether>. They dispose of these on other >> grounds. > > Sooth-soothe, teeth-teethe. Thayer-there (in Texas)? Is it not odd, however, that although both sounds are common in the language, not even a single one of these minimal pairs is beyond argument: "thy" and "sooth" are rare to the point of non-existence in modern English (other than in religious use, in the case of "thy"); "either" and "ether" are not a minimal pair for many (most?) native speakers; although "teething" is certainly a common word in everyday use I'm not sure that "teethe" is. You can say, for example, "children start to teethe at about one-year old" (or whatever age it is: my youngest child is 26, so It was a while ago), but you'd be much more likely to hear "children start teething at about one-year old". I don't for a moment doubt that the distinction is phonemic, but it would be nice to have just one minimal pair of everyday words that wasn't open to any sort of objection. -- athel
From: Ruud Harmsen on 29 Dec 2009 13:28
Tue, 29 Dec 2009 19:06:14 +0100: Athel Cornish-Bowden <acornish(a)ibsm.cnrs-mrs.fr>: in sci.lang: >On 2009-12-29 04:31:23 +0100, Harlan Messinger ><hmessinger.removethis(a)comcast.net> said: > >> Brian M. Scott wrote: >>> On Mon, 28 Dec 2009 18:05:09 -0800 (PST), DKleinecke >>> <dkleinecke(a)gmail.com> wrote in >>> <news:e1f26d37-f0bf-4a6d-9aa3-9f3ee47a6f08(a)o28g2000yqh.googlegroups.com> >>> in >>> sci.math,sci.physics,sci.lang,alt.usage.english,alt.philosophy: >>> >>>> On Dec 27, 10:53 pm, "benli...(a)ihug.co.nz" <benli...(a)ihug.co.nz> >>>> wrote: >>> >>> [...] >>> >>>>> ... I am more than ever at a loss to understand how any >>>>> linguist can maintain with a straight face that dh/th >>>>> are in "complementary distribution". >>> >>>> It offends them that there are no minial pairs. >>> >>> Tthere are, and they know it: <thigh> ~ <thy>, and for many >>> people <either> ~ <ether>. They dispose of these on other >>> grounds. >> >> Sooth-soothe, teeth-teethe. Thayer-there (in Texas)? loath loathe wreath wreathe sheath sheathe mouth (noun) mouth (verb) thou (short for 1000) thou (pronoun) teeth teethe -- Ruud Harmsen, http://rudhar.com |