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: Athel Cornish-Bowden on 29 Dec 2009 14:45 On 2009-12-29 19:28:36 +0100, Ruud Harmsen <rh(a)rudhar.eu> said: > [ ... ] > > loath loathe OK > wreath wreathe "wreathed" is OK, but how often does the uninflected form occur: almost never. > sheath sheathe Likewise. I don't think I've ever heard "wreathed" in uninflected form. > > mouth (noun) mouth (verb) OK > thou (short for 1000) thou (pronoun) The first is engineers' slang; the latter is archaic (other than in church) > teeth teethe As I mentioned earlier (in the bit you chopped), I think "teething" is very rare in uninflected form. So we're left with "loth" (as I spell it, but I realize not everyone does) and "loathe", together with "mouth" and "mouth". If anyone doubted whether the difference between f and v was phonemic one could think of endless examples to show that it was, including some very common words like "life" and "live" (adjective). So there does seem to be something special about the two th sounds. Is there any mechanism that could explain why minimal pairs are so rare? -- athel
From: Brian M. Scott on 29 Dec 2009 14:53 On Tue, 29 Dec 2009 08:51:05 -0500, jmfbahciv <jmfbahciv(a)aol> wrote in <news:hhd0o90qao(a)news5.newsguy.com> in sci.math,sci.physics,sci.lang,alt.usage.english,alt.philosophy: > Brian M. Scott wrote: >> On Mon, 28 Dec 2009 07:13:23 -0800 (PST), "Peter T. Daniels" >> <grammatim(a)verizon.net> wrote in >> <news:149065af-e4ab-4d84-aedb-57a8999264af(a)u7g2000yqm.googlegroups.com> >> in >> sci.math,sci.physics,sci.lang,alt.usage.english,alt.philosophy: [...] >>> Is "CIV" going to turn up in your little narratives one of >>> these days? >> No, though a couple of poker decks might be an acceptable >> stand-in. > The sentence, "Subtract one hundred four" is supposed to > be appended to my posts. Somehow, somewhere, it > disappeared. Yes, I remembered it from some years ago. I thought it one of the cleverer munges. Brian
From: Brian M. Scott on 29 Dec 2009 15:16 On Wed, 30 Dec 2009 00:30:40 +1100, Peter Moylan <gro.nalyomp(a)retep> wrote in <news:aKednZ1JMbMcmafWnZ2dnUVZ7vli4p2d(a)westnet.com.au> in sci.math,sci.physics,sci.lang,alt.usage.english,alt.philosophy: > On 29/12/09 13:42, 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. > You're talking modern English now. Of course: the distinction wasn't phonemic in Old English. > Those examples wouldn't have worked in the days when eth > and thorn were part of a writer's alphabet. Yes, they would: <�> and <�> were interchangeable in OE. Brian
From: Peter T. Daniels on 29 Dec 2009 15:19 On Dec 29, 2:45 pm, Athel Cornish-Bowden <acorn...(a)ibsm.cnrs-mrs.fr> wrote: > On 2009-12-29 19:28:36 +0100, Ruud Harmsen <r...(a)rudhar.eu> said: > > > [ ... ] > > > loath loathe > > OK > > > wreath wreathe > > "wreathed" is OK, but how often does the uninflected form occur: almost never. > > > sheath sheathe > > Likewise. I don't think I've ever heard "wreathed" in uninflected form. > > > > > mouth (noun) mouth (verb) > > OK > > > thou (short for 1000) thou (pronoun) > > The first is engineers' slang; the latter is archaic (other than in church) > > > teeth teethe > > As I mentioned earlier (in the bit you chopped), I think "teething" is > very rare in uninflected form. > > So we're left with "loth" (as I spell it, but I realize not everyone > does) and "loathe", together with "mouth" and "mouth". > > If anyone doubted whether the difference between f and v was phonemic > one could think of endless examples to show that it was, including some > very common words like "life" and "live" (adjective). So there does > seem to be something special about the two th sounds. Is there any > mechanism that could explain why minimal pairs are so rare? The sounds themselves are rare.
From: Brian M. Scott on 29 Dec 2009 15:19
On Tue, 29 Dec 2009 20:45:53 +0100, Athel Cornish-Bowden <acornish(a)ibsm.cnrs-mrs.fr> wrote in <news:7pv4jhFk1U1(a)mid.individual.net> in sci.math,sci.physics,sci.lang,alt.usage.english,alt.philosophy: > On 2009-12-29 19:28:36 +0100, Ruud Harmsen <rh(a)rudhar.eu> said: [...] >> sheath sheathe > Likewise. I don't think I've ever heard "wreathed" in > uninflected form. I've *used* <sheathe> (which I suspect is what you meant). So have a lot of re-enactors. >> mouth (noun) mouth (verb) > OK >> thou (short for 1000) thou (pronoun) > The first is engineers' slang; Also used of money. > the latter is archaic (other than in church) [...] Brian |