Re: Most developed conlang

MorphemeAddict@WMCONNECT.COM wrote:
> In a message dated 4/20/2007 9:35:32 PM Central Daylight Time, hmiller@IO.COM
> writes:
>
>
>> So although it's possible to use the word "speaker" for
>> someone who's speaking at the moment, or by extension, someone who has a
>> job connected with speaking, it's also a device which produces sound
>> waves from electrical impulses. When that kind of speaker makes a sound,
>> we don't say that it's "speaking". It must have got its name from being
>> used in telephones (which conventionally transmit voice messages), but
>> the connection with "speaking" has become tenuous.
>>
>
> More likely, I think, is that it was shortened from "loudspeaker".
Could be, but how did "loudspeaker" get its name then? I guess it could
have been connected with radio or some other medium. The point I was
trying to make is that speakers make all kinds of sounds that don't have
anything to do with speech. The only thing that makes sense is if they
originally were designed for some application that was connected with
speech (and the telephone seemed most likely to me).