Re: Futurese

En réponse à Javier BF <uaxuctum@...>:

>
> Your argumentation here is quite atrocious, I apologize
> for saying it that way.
Not at all. It's even pretty unbreakable.

 If you take the meaning of "crash"
> (and not of "crashing"; maybe you didn't notice the compound
> was "plane crash", not "plane crashing") and that of "plane"
> you can deduce the meaning of "plane crash" without any
> difficulty. For the case of "fire exit", first, again the
> compound is not "fire exiting" but "fire exit", so please
> don't be "atrocious" and take the meaning of "exit" and not
> that of "exiting", which are more than just a little different.
> The problem with "fire exit" is not that it should mean
> "the exiting of a fire" (Good Lord!! How could you be so
> atrociously falacious here?)
Well, as I'm about to explain, we French are atrocious like that, and we even
have good reasons for it :)) .

>
> For such cases when the two morphemes can be related in
> different ways, the solution is simply to introduce
> another morpheme to clarify it. So, to make clear what a
> "fire exit" is, you could say "fire emergency exit" instead.
>
Then why "fire exit" at the first place? Sorry to say that, but for many
people, the equation "fire exit"="emergency exit" is far from obvious. In
French, we would translate "fire exit" as "sortie de feu". But we would never
understand that as synonymous to "issue de secours": "emergency exit"! A French
person who doesn't know this expression would think it has to do with letting
the fire out of a place, certainly not that it has to do with letting *people*
out. And indeed, the expression "sortie de feu" refers to a not well-known
device, special doors in very closed places without windows, opening when a
fire comes to bring fresh air. It revives the fire a bit, but also cools it
down, making it easier to handle.

So please don't say that it was atrocious argumentation. It's rather the
contrary: the expression "fire exit" to mean "emergency exit" is a twist of the
English language which may sound obvious to you, but is absolutely not, and
many people would never have the idea to make that twist.

>
> Japanese 27 consonants!!?? And may I know which ones those
> are??
>
Well, on top of my head, Japanese has:

[k]/[g]
[t]/[d]
[p]/[b]/[h]/[P]
[s]
[S]
[ts]/[dz]
[tS]/[dZ]
[w]/[j]
[n]/[m]/[N] (though the last one is not phonemic but an allophone of /n/ before
[k] or [g])
[4]
and [B] or [v] for some people in loanwords.

I assume of course that you know the X-SAMPA ASCIIification of IPA.

Okay, I don't arrive at 27, but I'm far above your 11.

>
> I was talking about NORMAL PEOPLE, not about people with
> articulatory problems.
>
Well, isn't that an insult towards people with articulatory problems? Aren't
they worthy of anything? (especially when you know that children with
articulatory problems represent a non-negligible percentage of the children's
population)

Strange, though I usually stay out of them, I seem to go with delight in
flamewars currently :)) . Maybe the fact that I'm sick is part of the
reason :)) .

Christophe.

http://rainbow.conlang.free.fr

Take your life as a movie: do not let anybody else play the leading role.