Re: Optimum number of symbols,though mostly talking about french now
|From:||Thomas R. Wier <trwier@...>|
|Date:||Saturday, May 25, 2002, 21:31|
Quoting Nik Taylor <fortytwo@...>:
> "Thomas R. Wier" wrote:
> > Yeah -- these people sound like the anglophone feminists who insist
> > that the word "woman" should be spelled "womyn" because the Old English
> > construction "wífmann" was sexist
> Didn't _mann_ mean simply "person" in Old English?
That is, IIRC, the case. This of course makes that particular
feminist's position even less tenable.
> > despite the fact that synchronically
> > for most modern speakers "woman" is monomorphemic, and bears only
> > phonological remsemblance to "man".
> Not even that. Man is, at least for me, /m&n/ and woman is /wUm@n/.
> I'd say it's only an orthographic resemblance.
> Interestingly, _women_ is /wImIn/, and since /I/ and /@/ are very
> similar sounds in my dialect, the most salient distinction between the
> two is in the *first* syllable, where there is no orthographic change.
For me too, as I stated in my other response.
Thomas Wier "...koruphàs hetéras hetére:isi prosápto:n /
Dept. of Linguistics mú:tho:n mè: teléein atrapòn mían..."
University of Chicago "To join together diverse peaks of thought /
1010 E. 59th Street and not complete one road that has no turn"
Chicago, IL 60637 Empedocles, _On Nature_, on speculative thinkers