Re: 'mouth noises' bad? [was: Re: YAPT]

--- "Thomas R. Wier" <trwier@...> wrote:

<snip>
>
> It's one thing to say "I dislike this facet of
> grammar-creation
> more than some other", since that's a matter of
> aesthetics, and
> beauty is in the eye of the beholder.  It's very
> different thing
> to say "My dislike of this facet of grammar-creation
> has objective
> grounds for being so".
>
I think the study of accents and dialects is
fanscinating. I think there is an important place for
the study of mouth noises in lingusitics. For
languages spoken by a very few people in a very
restricted geographical range mouth noises are
probably much more important. But for a language like
English, spoken around the globe in many different
variations with many different accents, the only real
use for the study of mouth noises is in distinguishing
and classifying those regional and cultural accents.

In truth, my annual anti-mouth noises post is probably
due to the fact that my own personal opinion is that
intelligibility is the first criteria and minor
differences in pronunciation are utterly unimportant
as long as they do not impact intelligibility.

It doesn't matter if you say "lets play a game" or
"lits ply a gyme." I still understand you. So if
accurate communication takes place regardless of those
differences, in what way do those differences matter?


It is of no more significance to accurate
comminication than, say, using red ink rather than
blue ink to write something. If the folks in the north
use red ink and the folks in the south use blue ink
I'm sure somebody would find it interesting to study
and classify all the various shades and colors of ink
between those two extremes, but the study of ink color
is not the study of language.

My other reason for believing that specifics of mouth
noises are of little importance is the fact that the
mouth noises of any language are the part of the
language subject to the quickest changes over time.
Even if I take the time to specifiy the mouth noise
for my conlang in excruciating detail as soon as
people started speaking it (in my hypothetical world
where poeple would actually bother to speak my
conlang) over time they would deviate from my
carefully drawn mouth noise prescriptions anyway. So
why bother?

The way I see it is the vocabulary of the conlang is
the conrete foundation anchored solidly to the ground.
The grammar is the sturdy bridge build upon that
foundation, and the phonology is a coat of paint that
is going to end up being replaced every few years.

Sure, the phonology gives the structure its color and
lends a lot to its character, but it's only skin deep
at best, and very impermanent. A good engineer doesn't
care what color his bridge is painted this year
because it will be painted a different color next year
anyway. He only cares that the foundation and
superstructure are sound, because those are the things
that last the longest.

For my conlangs I don't care how a particular vowel is
pronounced this year because in real life it would be
pronounced differently next year anyway. I only care
that the real part of the conlang, the underlying
structure, is solid.

--gary