Re: Status of Italian rising

>
>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????
Those are the meanings I was taught to use... and indeed I used vocoid and
contoid as abstract, non-dependent terms...

Luca