Theiling Online    Sitemap    Conlang Mailing List HQ   

Re: Obsessed with Mouth Noises

From:Ray Brown <ray.brown@...>
Date:Monday, April 12, 2004, 18:55
On Sunday, April 11, 2004, at 07:01 AM, David Peterson wrote:

> [snip]
> It's been firmly established for probably thirty years now that > "phonetics" and "phonology" don't have to apply > to sounds.  Why would anyone say this?  Simple: Sign Language.  There are > lots of papers on the phonology of > sign language.  I attended several talks, in fact, on the phonetics and > phonology of ASL just last quarter (our > department was doing a job search for a sign language research position).  > So what this means is that we know > longer have to depend on the definition of a Greek term to know the > definition of phonetics. 
Obviously not - few people who use words like 'cinema', 'photograph', 'telephone or 'microscope' are aware of their Greek origin or even care about it. Strange to say, they use them in quite comprehensible ways even tho they are deprived of this knowledge ;) In any case, the Greek 'pho:ne:' did not mean just 'voice'. It is used both for the articulate speech of humans and for the cries of animals; it also acquired the meanings: - faculty of speech - phrase, saying - report, rumor - loud talk, bragging - message - formula The last two certainly need not be spoken & could be signed or written.
> Phonetics is the > study of the implements (natural or unnatural) used to communicate. 
[snip]
> Continuing (snipping some): > <<If you do [writing, phonetics and word definition] first, you're > almost certain to have to do the whole thing again, > because it won't work.>> > > Based purely on your analogy, I'd say, "Wow, yeah!  You've made a > convincing analogy.  Therefore, what you > say must be true."  However, I know it to be false. 
Yep.
> What's one to do? > > I always start out with the phonology, phonetics, and writing system of a > language. 
Yep.
> I then use this to build the > rest of the language.  In fact, I think up phonological phenomena I find > interesting, and then set up a syntax or > morphology that can showcase the phenomena.  Doing it the other way > around would be incredibly dull. 
Amen!
> But > maybe this is the difference between the computer scientist/programmer > and the English major (me). 
Nope - I'm a computer scientist. If I'm writing a program I'd start with analysis & design then code. But I do not see the analogy that coding is like putting the phonology onto the 'inner design' of language. Certainly when I am *designing* the phonology & phonotactics there's plenty of analysis to be done before the design can be properly drawn up and them I can implement the phonotactics and build up the morphology etc.
> I don't > see the distinction as being important: I simply prefer one way over the > other. 
Quite so - and, as I've said in another email, it depends also on what the language is being designed for. If one wants to revert to the computer scientist analogy, the approach I used to take with the older 'traditional' 3rd generation languages, the approach I take if I'm going to program with Prolog and the approach I take if I'm going do object-oriented programming are quite a bit different. So with conlangs - the approach appropriate for artlangs, loglangs, auxlangs & engelangs are certainly not going to be the same. Ray =============================================== http://home.freeuk.com/ray.brown ray.brown@freeuk.com (home) raymond.brown@kingston-college.ac.uk (work) =============================================== XPICTOC ANECTH