Re: THEORY: [i:]=[ij]? (was Re: Pronouncing "Boreanesia")

And Rosta wrote:

> Among Lx teachers I know, I'm
> relatively unusual in inclining towards the latter strategy,
> believing that it is better to know that you don't know something
> than to think you know something (but which is in fact wrong).
Then if you were a physics teacher, you would refuse to teach the
Newtonian approximation to physics, or the ball-and-stick model of
chemistry?  These things are *wrong*, but still useful for many
purposes, and knowing them only is not really comparable with
"thinking you know something which is in fact wrong".

In particular, the phoneme may be dead, but is there any replacement
for it when teaching the rudiments?   "Language" and "word" are
similarly woolly constructions, but can we avoid them?

--
There is / one art                   || John Cowan <jcowan@...>
no more / no less                    || http://www.reutershealth.com
to do / all things                   || http://www.ccil.org/~cowan
with art- / lessness                 \\ -- Piet Hein