Re: phonology of Plan B

MorphemeAddict@WMCONNECT.COM wrote:
> In a message dated 7/13/2007 2:18:56 PM Central Daylight Time,
> joerg_rhiemeier@WEB.DE writes:
>
>
>
>>Yes.  I have heard that, too.  When discussing signed languages,
>>this does not cause confusion, because signed languages usually
>>do not have a phonetic manifestation, and it is understood that
>>the word "phoneme" refers to gestural elements that play the same
>>role as phonemes in spoken languages.
>>
> Exactly so.  The word "chireme" (from 'hand') was used at first, but they
> realized that "phoneme" would work as well, so "phoneme" has replaced "chireme".
Thanks - nice to have that confirmed. Yes, in the context of sign
languages, this use of the word 'phoneme' is readily understood to be
analogous to the use of the term for spoken (or once spoken, e.g. Latin
or Ancient Greek) languages.

In the case of Plan B the term is clearly ambiguous.
-----------------------------------

Jörg Rhiemeier wrote:
> Hallo!
>
> On Fri, 13 Jul 2007 08:19:54 +0100, R A Brown wrote:
[snip]
>>Neither you, nor I nor And at all in disagreement about the 16
>>bit-quartets (tho arguably one might hold that the bit itself, 0~1, is
>>the _minimal_ underlying unit).
>
>
> That's a valid analysis as well, especially given the way the length
> of a morpheme is calculated from the number of consecutive "1" bits
> at the head of it.  Does Plan B have just two phonemes, then?  No,
> because bits don't live in the human phonetic space :)
Indeed, the bits *are the fundamental units of Plan B*. As you rightly
observe, it is whether leadings bits are 0 or 1 that determine the
length of morphemes.

The bits do ultimately determine the human phonetic space. In Jeff
Prothero's ad_hoc scheme, each group of four bits determines the
pronunciation by:
- the patterning of the four bits;
- the position of the four bits within the total bit stream.

But, as Jeff made clear, his ad_hoc scheme is not essential to the
language, and the bits could be mapped to human writing using a
different 'alphabet'* and using a different pronunciation scheme.

*It is also clear to me that by 'alphabet,' Jeff was not using the term
in the strict sense which distinguishes alphabet from abjad, abugida &
syllabary. He just means the set of 16 graphemes which will be used to
map the 16 bit quartets. This, of course, is usually done by {0 1 2 3 4
5 6 7 8 9 A B C D E F}      :)

[snip]

[snip]
>>The clearly ad_hoc system, in which he chose 16 letters normally used to
>>denote consonants, given in Jeff's paper of May, 1990 depends upon:
>>- the traditional ordering of letters in the Roman alphabet;
>>- the normal consonant pronunciation of those letters in English, with
>>the exception of |c| which is given the sound [S] (as in Ro, Lojban, and
>>many Conlangs of American origin), |h| the sound [T] (a sound ' may have
>>in Lojban] and |l| the sound [D] (presumably because keeping its
>>tradition sound would otherwise have given rise the combination [lr].
>>- allotting vowel values, not by any scheme, other than that the second
>>group of eight should be the same as the first, but prefixed with [r\].
>>The vowels are allotted simply from the American English pronunciations
>>monosyllabic words beginning with the particular letter in question.
>
> Yes; the whole scheme is completely arbitrary.  Each of the three
> schemes you proposed is more elegant, systematic and consistent.
Thank you  :)

In my schemes the individual bits within the quartets have a direct
relation to the pronunciation.  This is not so with Jeff's ad_hoc scheme.

I feel it is a pity that while the bits play such an important part in
other aspects of the language, they were completely ignored when Jeff
suggested his scheme for pronouncing the language. He might just as well
have used the traditional hex digit symbols and allotted arbitrary
consonant & vocalic values to them.

Maybe this topic has been given more than sufficient airing. The thread,
in its way, has been interesting and helped clarify some of my thoughts
(it even lead me to revise my web page that deals with the orthography
of Plan B).

But both Jörg and I, at least, have concluded that discussing the
"phonology of Plan B" is as meaningless (or meaningful) as discussing
the bit pattern representation of English. Maybe we should leave it at that.

--
Ray
==================================
ray@carolandray.plus.com
http://www.carolandray.plus.com
==================================
Nid rhy hen neb i ddysgu.
There's none too old to learn.
[WELSH PROVERB]