Re: Obsessed with Mouth Noises

I never said that the study of speech is irrelevant, I
said it's peripheral when building a language.
But I can hardly see what your example proves. I just
picked up a sentence, totallly at random, from an
English book (I could have done from a French one, of
course):
"Among this nation of necromancers there were also one
who had in his veins the blood of the salamanders; for
he made no scruple of sitting down to smoke his
chibouc in a red-hot oven until his dinner was
thoroughly roasted upon its floor" (Edgar Poe). Now
could you tell me how you would express this using
only I, II, III or even IIII ? I bet you'll have
trouble. Without a lexicon and a grammar, both
reflecting concepts, I can't see how to do it. But I
didn't need to pronounce that sentence to communicate
it to you. The only sound I made came from my
keyboard, click click click, and I'm sure you didn't
hear it from your place.

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.
Only if you think in a metaphorical way you can call
writing, "phonetics". But with metaphors, everything
is possible, of course. I was thinking of Chinese
ideograms that the Chinese pronounce in their own
way(s), and the Japanese, a completely different way,
and yet it's the same concept. If a Chinese hears the
word pronounced by a Japanese, he will not understand
it, but if the Japanese writes it to him, then he will
(I never experienced this, but I was told it is so).

I see semantics and syntax a little alike a computer
application. When you have such a project, first you
make the Functional Analysis, then the Organic
Analysis, then the implementation (and then the tests,
if you have some professional conscience - which is
not always the case). Functional Analysis is similar
to gathering and organizing the concepts you want to
express in a language. Organic analysis is similar to
building the syntax (for ex: determining the cases,
tenses, word order and so on, you will use) and the
lexicon principles. Implementation would include
writing and phonetics, and defining the actual words.
It's a little like writing the final programs. This
comes nearly at the end. If you do it first, you're
almost certain to have to do the whole thing again,
because it won't work. And it's the same if you want
to build a car, a bridge, a house, or whatever.

--- David Peterson <ThatBlueCat@...> wrote:
> Philippe wrote:
>
> <<So it's just the same for a natlang, or for a
> conlang.
> It is possible to exchange without bothering about
> talking and pronunciation. It's the same for Chinese
> ideograms too, AFAIK. This clearly proves that
> phonology is a peripheral question, not a central
> one.>>
>
> I don't think this follows.   I could do the same
> with mouth sounds.   Let's
> say I'm completely paralyzed, lying in a bed, and
> all I can do is grunt in
> various ways.   Someone comes near, say, a cup of
> water, and I say, [II>IIIII]
> (don't know how to indicate tone, but it starts out
> as mid, and then lowers
> dramatically).   Someone walks near the TV, I say,
> [I?I?] (both with high tones),
> and they get the idea that I want to watch TV.
> Here, they can understand
> with no syntax, only sounds.   This clearly proves
> that syntax is a peripheral
> question, not a central one.   Also, the logic of
> this statement:
>
> <<By the way, it is quite possible to imagine a
> language
> that would be only a written one, and not used for
> talking>>
>
> Seems to be that if it's possible to have a purely
> written language (and it
> is), then the study of speech must be irrelevant to
> *all* languages, even
> spoken ones.   I don't understand how that follows,
> either.
>
> Also, just to throw another point of view out there
> (and this one isn't
> mine), there are some who hold the believe that
> there are only two relevant fields
> within linguistics: Phonetics and Semantics.
> Phonology, Morphology,
> Pragmatics, and even Syntax, are all irrelevant, in
> their opinion, and can be reduced
> to either Phonetics or Semantics.   Now, I tend to
> share the point of view
> that every field has its value.   And the same goes
> for conlanging.   Not only do
> I draw from every field of linguistics, but also
> every point of view within
> each field.   Also, I'd like to point out that
> purely graphical languages can
> still have phonetics.   In that case, the active
> articulators aren't the
> tongue, lips, vocal chords, etc., but the
> instruments you use to write and the hands
> that control them.   ;)
>

=====
Philippe Caquant

"High thoughts must have high language." (Aristophanes, Frogs)

__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Finance Tax Center - File online. File on time.
http://taxes.yahoo.com/filing.html

Reply