Re: Obsessed with Mouth Noises

--- 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.

Applied to phonetics, I would not be interested in how
many different ways one can pronounce "potato", but I
would be interested in studying why all those
variations still carry the meaning of "potato".  In
other words, in finding the broadest class of mouth
noises that convey the meaning "potato" in an
appropriate context.  That is key the communication
function of language.  Who cares what each and every
particular variation is.

--gary

Reply