Re: Math/Phonological formulae

David J. Peterson, On 07/02/2007 18:08:
> But the problem I ran into (and the reason that I left phonology
> for good) is that, theory aside, if you sit down to describe the
> phonology of a language, what do you do?  I've come up with
> a way that I do it in my conlangs that's satisfactory to me, but
> within linguistics?  Do you combine templates with SPE rules?
> Feature geometry?  If not, do you decide on one theory, come
> hell or high water, and try to force everything into it?  It seems
> to me that the answer is the latter, and that that's probably not
> a good way to go about it.  Nevertheless, you have to be able
> to say something in some way, and if it's not within a single
> framework...you're kind of stuck.  That's the way I always felt,
> anyway.
To describe Language X properly, you need to invent (create, develop) a theory of
X. You tailor the theory to the facts of the language.

(This admonition does not apply if you are seeking to be employed or published in
academic linguistics; in that case, first choose the theory most congenial to
the employer (university) or publisher (journal) and hunt out some data in some
language that nicely suits the chosen theory.)


--And.