Re: Status of Italian rising

At 10:25 PM -0500 12/9/02, Jeff Jones wrote:
>On Mon, 9 Dec 2002 12:30:37 -0700, Dirk Elzinga <Dirk_Elzinga@...>
>wrote:
>
>>At 5:22 AM -0500 12/9/02, Jeff Jones wrote:
>>>
>>>I don't understand why linguists do some things either! Aren't
>>>approximants vocoids? (well, I know *lateral* approximants have been
>>>considered to be non-vocoids (I assume that's what's meant by "contoid"),
>>>but this has never made sense to me from the purely phonetic viewpoint,
>>>either acoustically or in terms of articulation.) It seems to me that
>>>phonetics and phonology don't have to correspond, and that phonology is
>>>language dependent. Your analysis looks OK to me, though, and I didn't
>>>see anything wrong with your translation.
>>
>> The labels "vocoid" and "contoid" are assigned to segments based on their
>> function in syllable structure,
>
>BLOODY HELL!!!!!!!!!!!! I am really incensed!
>All my references say that "vocoid" is a purely *phonetic* term, with
>"vowel" used as the language-dependant term, e.g. "... utilize the term
>_vocoid_ to represent the sounds in their phonetic character without regard
>to their distribution in sequences or their usage as consonants or vowels."
>How can we discuss anything if the GHODDAMM LINGUISTAS keep redefining all
>the terms randomly?? Who do they think they are, fucking IBM????
There's no need to be crude. As it happens I was wrong, and your original
understanding is the intended one. Pike gives this definition for vocoid: "A
sound during which the air escapes from the mouth over the center of the tongue
without friction in the mouth, i.e., a central resonant oral (friction
elsewhere than in the mouth does not prevent a sound from being a vocoid;
syllabic function or phonemic interpretation of a segment doesn not affect its
interpretation as a vocoid or nonvocoid)." Ladefoged gives a similar
definition: "A sound with no obstruction in the center of the mouth. Vowels and
semivowels are vocoids." That's what I get for relying on my memory.

> > but I find them to be misleading;
>
>to say the least!
Well, with the original definitions back in place, there shouldn't be any more confusion.

> > you can have "vocoids" which are not very vowel-like, for instance.
> > I prefer the terms "peak" and "margin"; the peak of a syllable is the
>> point of highest sonority, and the margins surround the peak and are of
>> lower sonority. Thus [l] is the peak of the second syllable of 'little'.
>
>Now that makes sense to me. Is it just because you're American?
Is what because I'm American? That the terms "peak" and "margin" make sense to
you, or that the second /l/ in 'little' is syllabic?

Dirk
--
Dirk Elzinga                                               Dirk_Elzinga@byu.edu

"It is important not to let one's aesthetics interfere with the appreciation of
fact." - Stephen Anderson