><< Would you say English compounds such as "plane crash",
>"fire exit", "adult content" and the like are just one
>word each? >>
>
> Yes; they're listed that way in the dictionary. Each is one "lexeme".
I'd much rather say they're two-morpheme compounds.
>Why? Because you can't automatically predict the meaning of these phrases
by
>a combination of the meanings of both words in any predictable way
(contrary
>to what you proposed). A plane crash is "the crash(ing) of a plane". So,
>logically, a fire exit, is "the exit(ing) of a fire", correct?
Your argumentation here is quite atrocious, I apologize
for saying it that way. 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?), but that the relationship
between the two morphemes is not readily identifiable
because there are several possibilities (an exit to be used
in a fire emergency or an exit "made of fire"). English
doesn't specify any more because the most usual sense would
be the first, and that's what the compound means.
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.
> Per the sound system, you might want to read up on auditory phonetics.
>Whether a sound is pronounceable or not is largely irrelevant to whether
it's
>a "good" phoneme for an IAL. What matters is whether it can be
distinguishe
>d. For example, [v/z/Z] are (I believe one could argue) more salient in
>pronunciation, but [f/s/S] are auditorilly more salient. Also, voiceless
>stops are far more salient than voiced (in fact, it's more likely to have a
>distinction other than voicing in determining the difference between stops,
>and other sounds, as well. In English, it's been argued that there are no
>voiced stops: just aspirated and unaspirated voiceless stops. The same has
>been argued for [s/z]: [z] being voiceless, but having a narrower
>constriction than [s]). And the velar place of articulation is very weak,
>making voicing very difficult, since a tight constriction is not easily
>achievable (even in languages that have a [g] which contrasts with [k], [g]
>shows up with far lower frequency than [k], or other voiced stops like [b]
>and [d]). Evidence of the weakness of [g] shows up in tons of languages
>(like /g/ > [G] in Spanish, for example), and it often disappears
completely
>in certain environments.
So, what's that phoneme system do you propose that is so
damn better than the one I propose and makes a better use
of the roman script?
> Next, with regards to your posting on your defense of your phonemes,
the
>argumentation is just atrocious. I apologize for saying it in such a way,
>but it is.
Why? To dare make such a derogative comment about me you
should have offered a more detailed explanation than that.
><<* JAPANESE (poor sound system = of course, VERY EASY to pronounce):>>
>
> I had no trouble pronouncing this sentence, having no prior training in
>Japanese. Of course, knowing the pitch-accent rules would have made it
even
>easier...
Lucky you are. Also any native Japanese speaker won't have
any trouble with it.
><<* SAMOAN (perfect example of extremely poor sound system = of course,
>
>> this one must certainly be DEAD EASY to pronounce):>>
>
> I had no trouble pronouncing these, either.
Luckier you are!! I, much less luckier than you, simply can't
pronounce that simple dialogue without twisting my tongue.
> I am studying Hawaiian,
>though.
That's explains it all.
> However, both of these examples are totally irrelevant. Why?
>Because you're proposing a language that allows only monosyllabic words,
and
>no hiatus (i.e., two vowels in a row). A word like "aofa'i" could never
>exist in Futurese. If your language adopted the exact sound system of
>Samoan, I bet it'd be just as easy to pronounce because of your rules
>regarding syllable structure. Why, then, these examples? Seems like
they're
>there to kind of distract the reader. They prove a different point, though
>by posting them, it could possibly be inferred that this completely
different
>point is synanomous with your point, which it isn't. Tricky, but that
>doesn't fly.
You're suggesting my argumentation is deliberately falacious,
which definitely is A VERY SERIOUS CHARGE. You'd better
apologize as soon as possible.
> And I'm absolutely baffled at how you came up with 11 consonants for
>Japanese. I counted 27 just now, and that was without getting picky.
Japanese 27 consonants!!?? And may I know which ones those
are??
> Yes, they would have the right. Would they do it? No.
I would complain if an IAL didn't make the l/r distinction
but kept b/v.
> And, by your
>logic, there's an easy way to clear this up: Include only one liquid
phoneme,
>but *don't* say that it's only to help the speakers of certain groups of
>languages.
It's not a matter of "saying it aloud".
> Just say it's because you don't like having two, and that's the
>way it's going to be.
Then you're proposing that I base the phoneme chart upon
my personal taste!!
> Problem solved. Besides, there's auditory evidence
>which suggests that it's easier to tell the difference between [t] and [k],
>and between [v] and [b] than any /r/ and /l/ phoneme--much easier. Even
with
>[t] and [k], Hawaiians, et al can still tell the difference between [t] and
>[k]. They existed as two separate phonemes at one time in the language: a
>push chain just left [t] as the odd man out. Just because a distinction
>doesn't exist in a language doesn't mean that the distinction can't be
made.
>English doesn't have a distinction between aspirated and unaspirated [t] at
>the beginning of a word. Does that mean English speakers can't tell the
>difference? Certainly not. The lack of aspiration is one way you can tell
>if someone's speaking with an accent.
And may I know what's your point with all that?
><<it is quite rare that a
>
>> native speaker of a language finds a sound of his/her mother
>
>> tongue difficult to pronounce>>
>
> Ever heard English speaking children pronounce "drawing" as "drawling"?
>"Red" as "wed"? Is this rare? Most times it doesn't persist (usually
>because kids are sent to a speech therapist), but occasionally it does. A
>friend of mine can't pronounce /l+labial/ combinations. So "wolf" becomes
>"woof" [wUf], and "elm" becomes "em" [Em] or "el" [EL] (could this be where
>that variant of "almonds" [&mIndz] came from?). Why do speech therapists
>exist, after all?
I was talking about NORMAL PEOPLE, not about people with
articulatory problems.