Re: Obsessed with Mouth Noises

Quoting Gary Shannon <fiziwig@...>:

> --- David Peterson <ThatBlueCat@...> wrote:
> > Philippe wrote:
> >
> > <<If you use "purely graphical languages", that you
> > don't use "phonetics", but writing, or drawing.
> > "Phone" (phi, omega, nu, eta) means "voice" in
> > Greek.>>
> >
> > 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
>
> <snip>
>
> Harking back to my original post, I see an analogy
> coming on here.  Suppose there were endless
> discussions about whether, when making a particular
> hand sign, one crooked one's finger at a 12-degree
> angle ar at a 14-degree angle.
>
> Or applying the argument to writing system, suppose
> the discussions went on and on over whether the
> ascender on the lower case 'd' should be 0.5 of the
> circle's height or shoudl it be 0.75 of the circle's
> height.
>
> To my way of thinking the most interesting features to
> study are those features which are invariant over all
> such perterbations.  In other words, I don't care how
> many ways there are to write 'd', but I do care about
> why all of those ways are still 'd' in spite of their
> differences.
I don't see how you can explore the area of acceptability for an 'd' without
looking at the actual points within it. Going back to the original side of the
analogical bridge, you seem to be calling for an obsessively accurate
investigation of mouth noises.

                                                                  Andreas