my take.

Grammar: English has 5 vowels a,e,i,o,u

Linguistics: English has >=14 vowels and other such feats of seeing through the hole in the doughnut.

useless "knowledge"
ugly "knowledge" syntagmatic duality of patterning underlying representation
lies (almost all of comparative linguistics)
linguistic wars

white linguists contributed to a genocide in Lanka.

if you invite someone who calls himself a linguist to dinner, count the spoons before he leaves.

Wed, 8 Dec 2021 05:58:29 -0800 (PST): S K <skpflex1@gmail.com>
scribeva:

>my take.
>
>Grammar: English has 5 vowels a,e,i,o,u
>
>Linguistics: English has >=14 vowels and other such feats of seeing through the hole in the doughnut.
>
>useless "knowledge"
>ugly "knowledge" syntagmatic duality of patterning underlying representation
>lies (almost all of comparative linguistics)
>linguistic wars
>
>white linguists contributed to a genocide in Lanka.
>
>if you invite someone who calls himself a linguist to dinner, count the spoons before he leaves.

Wartaal, we call this in Dutch. And that isn't related to warfare. Nor
to a tug of war. Nor to a Portugese war vessel. Count your blessings.
--
Ruud Harmsen, http://rudhar.com

Op 8-12-2021 om 16:14 schreef Ruud Harmsen:
> Wed, 8 Dec 2021 05:58:29 -0800 (PST): S K <skpflex1@gmail.com>
> scribeva:
>
>> my take.
>>
>> Grammar: English has 5 vowels a,e,i,o,u
>>
>> Linguistics: English has >=14 vowels and other such feats of seeing through the hole in the doughnut.
>>
>> useless "knowledge"
>> ugly "knowledge" syntagmatic duality of patterning underlying representation
>> lies (almost all of comparative linguistics)
>> linguistic wars
>>
>> white linguists contributed to a genocide in Lanka.
>>
>> if you invite someone who calls himself a linguist to dinner, count the spoons before he leaves.
>
> Wartaal, we call this in Dutch. And that isn't related to warfare. Nor
> to a tug of war. Nor to a Portugese war vessel. Count your blessings.
>

We used to call a collegue the (nuclear) warhead, warhoofd ;)

--
guido wugi

On Wednesday, December 8, 2021 at 8:58:31 AM UTC-5, S K wrote:
> my take.
>
> Grammar: English has 5 vowels a,e,i,o,u
>
> Linguistics: English has >=14 vowels and other such feats of seeing through the hole in the doughnut.
>
> useless "knowledge"
> ugly "knowledge" syntagmatic duality of patterning underlying representation
> lies (almost all of comparative linguistics)
> linguistic wars
>
> white linguists contributed to a genocide in Lanka.
>
> if you invite someone who calls himself a linguist to dinner, count the spoons before he leaves.

Here is my colossal discovery.

Articulatory phonetics is anatomical/medical science - is neither grammar nor linguistics.

If you take out articulatory phonetics - grammar pertains to real language spoken/written by real people.

linguistics is only descriptive and has no affect on language as actually written/spoken.

That there is no [n] in "sing" is just a curiosity that weird minds obsess over.

On Thursday, December 9, 2021 at 8:16:28 AM UTC-5, S K wrote:
> On Wednesday, December 8, 2021 at 8:58:31 AM UTC-5, S K wrote:
> > my take.
> >
> > Grammar: English has 5 vowels a,e,i,o,u
> >
> > Linguistics: English has >=14 vowels and other such feats of seeing through the hole in the doughnut.
> >
> > useless "knowledge"
> > ugly "knowledge" syntagmatic duality of patterning underlying representation
> > lies (almost all of comparative linguistics)
> > linguistic wars
> >
> > white linguists contributed to a genocide in Lanka.
> >
> > if you invite someone who calls himself a linguist to dinner, count the spoons before he leaves.
> Here is my colossal discovery.
>
> Articulatory phonetics is anatomical/medical science - is neither grammar nor linguistics.
>
> If you take out articulatory phonetics - grammar pertains to real language spoken/written by real people.
>
> linguistics is only descriptive and has no affect on language as actually written/spoken.
>
> That there is no [n] in "sing" is just a curiosity that weird minds obsess over.

Also, grammar can be acquired without being taught.

Le mercredi 8 décembre 2021 à 14:58:31 UTC+1, S K a écrit :
> my take.
>
> Grammar: English has 5 vowels a,e,i,o,u
>
> Linguistics: English has >=14 vowels and other such feats of seeing through the hole in the doughnut.
>
> useless "knowledge"
> ugly "knowledge" syntagmatic duality of patterning underlying representation
> lies (almost all of comparative linguistics)
> linguistic wars
>
> white linguists contributed to a genocide in Lanka.
>
> if you invite someone who calls himself a linguist to dinner, count the spoons before he leaves.
You need to count them also before (s)he arrives, otherwise it's useless.

On Thursday, December 9, 2021 at 1:51:33 PM UTC-5, Arnaud Fournet wrote:
> Le mercredi 8 décembre 2021 à 14:58:31 UTC+1, S K a écrit :
> > my take.
> >
> > Grammar: English has 5 vowels a,e,i,o,u
> >
> > Linguistics: English has >=14 vowels and other such feats of seeing through the hole in the doughnut.
> >
> > useless "knowledge"
> > ugly "knowledge" syntagmatic duality of patterning underlying representation
> > lies (almost all of comparative linguistics)
> > linguistic wars
> >
> > white linguists contributed to a genocide in Lanka.
> >
> > if you invite someone who calls himself a linguist to dinner, count the spoons before he leaves.
> You need to count them also before (s)he arrives, otherwise it's useless.

good one, Arnaud :-)

On Thursday, December 9, 2021 at 11:05:10 AM UTC-8, S K wrote:
> On Thursday, December 9, 2021 at 1:51:33 PM UTC-5, Arnaud Fournet wrote:
> > Le mercredi 8 décembre 2021 à 14:58:31 UTC+1, S K a écrit :
> > > my take.
> > >
> > > Grammar: English has 5 vowels a,e,i,o,u
> > >
> > > Linguistics: English has >=14 vowels and other such feats of seeing through the hole in the doughnut.

I think I'll take advantage of this opening.

My phonemiciztion of my own speech does have indeed have 14 "vowels".
But here vowel means almost nothing. I also have vocalic 'r', 'l', 'n', 'm'
which might mean I really have 18 vowels - or may be I don't.

I have 6 vowel PHONEMES - /a/, /e/, /i/, /o/, /u/ and /@ . (/@/ being an ad
hoc writing for an unrounded central high vocable.). The other 8 "vowels"
are diphthongs of these 6 with one or the other of /y/ or /w/. That is 8
vowel diphthong PHONEMES

Further - there are many other phonemic analyses of English besides
my personal one. For example we might write /e^/, /a^/, and /o^/ for
/i/, /@/ and /u/. Now there are 6 vowel phonemes. But I might write
/ae/ and /ao/ for /e/ and /o/ and reduce that to 5 phonemes. But now
all 14 "vowels" start with /a/. If we then drop the overt /a/ there are
4 vocalic phonemes and no vowel is possible (uttered as /a/)

# e e^ o o^ ^ y ey e^y oy w o^w ow ew

Thu, 9 Dec 2021 14:18:41 -0800 (PST): DKleinecke
<dkleinecke@gmail.com> scribeva:
>I have 6 vowel PHONEMES - /a/, /e/, /i/, /o/, /u/ and /@ . (/@/ being an ad
>hoc writing for an unrounded central high vocable.). The other 8 "vowels"
>are diphthongs of these 6 with one or the other of /y/ or /w/. That is 8
>vowel diphthong PHONEMES

That is a way to describe it, and traditionally Americanist, but in my
opinion that is wrong.

--
Ruud Harmsen, http://rudhar.com

Fri, 10 Dec 2021 09:20:12 +0100: Ruud Harmsen <rh@rudhar.com>
scribeva:

>Thu, 9 Dec 2021 14:18:41 -0800 (PST): DKleinecke
><dkleinecke@gmail.com> scribeva:
>>I have 6 vowel PHONEMES - /a/, /e/, /i/, /o/, /u/ and /@ . (/@/ being an ad
>>hoc writing for an unrounded central high vocable.). The other 8 "vowels"
>>are diphthongs of these 6 with one or the other of /y/ or /w/. That is 8
>>vowel diphthong PHONEMES
>
>That is a way to describe it, and traditionally Americanist, but in my
>opinion that is wrong.

But who cares.
--
Ruud Harmsen, http://rudhar.com

On Friday, December 10, 2021 at 12:20:52 AM UTC-8, Ruud Harmsen wrote:
> Fri, 10 Dec 2021 09:20:12 +0100: Ruud Harmsen <r...@rudhar.com>
> scribeva:
> >Thu, 9 Dec 2021 14:18:41 -0800 (PST): DKleinecke
> ><dklei...@gmail.com> scribeva:
> >>I have 6 vowel PHONEMES - /a/, /e/, /i/, /o/, /u/ and /@ . (/@/ being an ad
> >>hoc writing for an unrounded central high vocable.). The other 8 "vowels"
> >>are diphthongs of these 6 with one or the other of /y/ or /w/. That is 8
> >>vowel diphthong PHONEMES
> >
> >That is a way to describe it, and traditionally Americanist, but in my
> >opinion that is wrong.
> But who cares.

I do. What's wrong with it?

On Thursday, December 9, 2021 at 5:18:43 PM UTC-5, DKleinecke wrote:
> On Thursday, December 9, 2021 at 11:05:10 AM UTC-8, S K wrote:
> > On Thursday, December 9, 2021 at 1:51:33 PM UTC-5, Arnaud Fournet wrote:
> > > Le mercredi 8 décembre 2021 à 14:58:31 UTC+1, S K a écrit :
> > > > my take.
> > > >
> > > > Grammar: English has 5 vowels a,e,i,o,u
> > > >
> > > > Linguistics: English has >=14 vowels and other such feats of seeing through the hole in the doughnut.
> I think I'll take advantage of this opening.
>
> My phonemiciztion of my own speech does have indeed have 14 "vowels".
> But here vowel means almost nothing. I also have vocalic 'r', 'l', 'n', 'm'
> which might mean I really have 18 vowels - or may be I don't.
>
> I have 6 vowel PHONEMES - /a/, /e/, /i/, /o/, /u/ and /@ . (/@/ being an ad
> hoc writing for an unrounded central high vocable.). The other 8 "vowels"
> are diphthongs of these 6 with one or the other of /y/ or /w/. That is 8
> vowel diphthong PHONEMES
>
> Further - there are many other phonemic analyses of English besides
> my personal one. For example we might write /e^/, /a^/, and /o^/ for
> /i/, /@/ and /u/. Now there are 6 vowel phonemes. But I might write
> /ae/ and /ao/ for /e/ and /o/ and reduce that to 5 phonemes. But now
> all 14 "vowels" start with /a/. If we then drop the overt /a/ there are
> 4 vocalic phonemes and no vowel is possible (uttered as /a/)
>
> # e e^ o o^ ^ y ey e^y oy w o^w ow ew

If you have put quotes on "vowel" you are not talking about language but linguistics.

"vowel" cannot be defined which is an issue for linguists, but not for regular folk who more or less know what it is.

Fri, 10 Dec 2021 11:02:20 -0800 (PST): DKleinecke
<dkleinecke@gmail.com> scribeva:

>On Friday, December 10, 2021 at 12:20:52 AM UTC-8, Ruud Harmsen wrote:
>> Fri, 10 Dec 2021 09:20:12 +0100: Ruud Harmsen <r...@rudhar.com>
>> scribeva:
>> >Thu, 9 Dec 2021 14:18:41 -0800 (PST): DKleinecke
>> ><dklei...@gmail.com> scribeva:
>> >>I have 6 vowel PHONEMES - /a/, /e/, /i/, /o/, /u/ and /@ . (/@/ being an ad
>> >>hoc writing for an unrounded central high vocable.). The other 8 "vowels"
>> >>are diphthongs of these 6 with one or the other of /y/ or /w/. That is 8
>> >>vowel diphthong PHONEMES
>> >
>> >That is a way to describe it, and traditionally Americanist, but in my
>> >opinion that is wrong.
>> But who cares.
>
>I do. What's wrong with it?

It doesn't befit the history of the language nor other variants.
--
Ruud Harmsen, http://rudhar.com

On Saturday, December 11, 2021 at 12:41:31 AM UTC-8, Ruud Harmsen wrote:
> Fri, 10 Dec 2021 11:02:20 -0800 (PST): DKleinecke
> <dklei...@gmail.com> scribeva:
>
> >On Friday, December 10, 2021 at 12:20:52 AM UTC-8, Ruud Harmsen wrote:
> >> Fri, 10 Dec 2021 09:20:12 +0100: Ruud Harmsen <r...@rudhar.com>
> >> scribeva:
> >> >Thu, 9 Dec 2021 14:18:41 -0800 (PST): DKleinecke
> >> ><dklei...@gmail.com> scribeva:
> >> >>I have 6 vowel PHONEMES - /a/, /e/, /i/, /o/, /u/ and /@ . (/@/ being an ad
> >> >>hoc writing for an unrounded central high vocable.). The other 8 "vowels"
> >> >>are diphthongs of these 6 with one or the other of /y/ or /w/. That is 8
> >> >>vowel diphthong PHONEMES
> >> >
> >> >That is a way to describe it, and traditionally Americanist, but in my
> >> >opinion that is wrong.
> >> But who cares.
> >
> >I do. What's wrong with it?
> It doesn't befit the history of the language nor other variants.

That is the functional equivalent of no answer.

I'll ask again what is wrong with my phonemicization of my own speech?

On Sunday, December 12, 2021 at 12:01:32 AM UTC-5, DKleinecke wrote:
> On Saturday, December 11, 2021 at 12:41:31 AM UTC-8, Ruud Harmsen wrote:
> > Fri, 10 Dec 2021 11:02:20 -0800 (PST): DKleinecke
> > <dklei...@gmail.com> scribeva:
> >
> > >On Friday, December 10, 2021 at 12:20:52 AM UTC-8, Ruud Harmsen wrote:
> > >> Fri, 10 Dec 2021 09:20:12 +0100: Ruud Harmsen <r...@rudhar.com>
> > >> scribeva:
> > >> >Thu, 9 Dec 2021 14:18:41 -0800 (PST): DKleinecke
> > >> ><dklei...@gmail.com> scribeva:
> > >> >>I have 6 vowel PHONEMES - /a/, /e/, /i/, /o/, /u/ and /@ . (/@/ being an ad
> > >> >>hoc writing for an unrounded central high vocable.). The other 8 "vowels"
> > >> >>are diphthongs of these 6 with one or the other of /y/ or /w/. That is 8
> > >> >>vowel diphthong PHONEMES
> > >> >
> > >> >That is a way to describe it, and traditionally Americanist, but in my
> > >> >opinion that is wrong.
> > >> But who cares.
> > >
> > >I do. What's wrong with it?
> > It doesn't befit the history of the language nor other variants.
> That is the functional equivalent of no answer.
>
> I'll ask again what is wrong with my phonemicization of my own speech?

Do regular folk know English has what linguists call "schwa" - probably the most frequent vowel phoneme.

On 2021-12-12 10:04, S K wrote:
> On Sunday, December 12, 2021 at 12:01:32 AM UTC-5, DKleinecke wrote:
>> On Saturday, December 11, 2021 at 12:41:31 AM UTC-8, Ruud Harmsen wrote:
>>> Fri, 10 Dec 2021 11:02:20 -0800 (PST): DKleinecke
>>> <dklei...@gmail.com> scribeva:
>>>
>>>> On Friday, December 10, 2021 at 12:20:52 AM UTC-8, Ruud Harmsen wrote:
>>>>> Fri, 10 Dec 2021 09:20:12 +0100: Ruud Harmsen <r...@rudhar.com>
>>>>> scribeva:
>>>>>> Thu, 9 Dec 2021 14:18:41 -0800 (PST): DKleinecke
>>>>>> <dklei...@gmail.com> scribeva:
>>>>>>> I have 6 vowel PHONEMES - /a/, /e/, /i/, /o/, /u/ and /@ . (/@/ being an ad
>>>>>>> hoc writing for an unrounded central high vocable.). The other 8 "vowels"
>>>>>>> are diphthongs of these 6 with one or the other of /y/ or /w/. That is 8
>>>>>>> vowel diphthong PHONEMES
>>>>>>
>>>>>> That is a way to describe it, and traditionally Americanist, but in my
>>>>>> opinion that is wrong.
>>>>> But who cares.
>>>>
>>>> I do. What's wrong with it?
>>> It doesn't befit the history of the language nor other variants.
>> That is the functional equivalent of no answer.
>>
>> I'll ask again what is wrong with my phonemicization of my own speech?
>
> Do regular folk know English has what linguists call "schwa" - probably the most frequent vowel phoneme.

That would depend on which regular people you ask.

Do regular people know where the Islets of Langerhans are? Does it matter?

André

--
To email remove 'invalid' & replace 'gm' with well known Google mail
service.

Sat, 11 Dec 2021 21:01:31 -0800 (PST): DKleinecke
<dkleinecke@gmail.com> scribeva:

>On Saturday, December 11, 2021 at 12:41:31 AM UTC-8, Ruud Harmsen wrote:
>> Fri, 10 Dec 2021 11:02:20 -0800 (PST): DKleinecke
>> <dklei...@gmail.com> scribeva:
>>
>> >On Friday, December 10, 2021 at 12:20:52 AM UTC-8, Ruud Harmsen wrote:
>> >> Fri, 10 Dec 2021 09:20:12 +0100: Ruud Harmsen <r...@rudhar.com>
>> >> scribeva:
>> >> >Thu, 9 Dec 2021 14:18:41 -0800 (PST): DKleinecke
>> >> ><dklei...@gmail.com> scribeva:
>> >> >>I have 6 vowel PHONEMES - /a/, /e/, /i/, /o/, /u/ and /@ . (/@/ being an ad
>> >> >>hoc writing for an unrounded central high vocable.). The other 8 "vowels"
>> >> >>are diphthongs of these 6 with one or the other of /y/ or /w/. That is 8
>> >> >>vowel diphthong PHONEMES
>> >> >
>> >> >That is a way to describe it, and traditionally Americanist, but in my
>> >> >opinion that is wrong.
>> >> But who cares.
>> >
>> >I do. What's wrong with it?
>> It doesn't befit the history of the language nor other variants.
>
>That is the functional equivalent of no answer.
>
>I'll ask again what is wrong with my phonemicization of my own speech?

No answer, no time, no zin. Have to finish things. Maybe in 2027.
Planned article about that book that someone here recommended and that
I bought and that contains some debatable nonsense.
--
Ruud Harmsen, http://rudhar.com

On Sunday, December 12, 2021 at 11:35:58 PM UTC-8, Ruud Harmsen wrote:
> Sat, 11 Dec 2021 21:01:31 -0800 (PST): DKleinecke
> <dklei...@gmail.com> scribeva:
>
> >On Saturday, December 11, 2021 at 12:41:31 AM UTC-8, Ruud Harmsen wrote:
> >> Fri, 10 Dec 2021 11:02:20 -0800 (PST): DKleinecke
> >> <dklei...@gmail.com> scribeva:
> >>
> >> >On Friday, December 10, 2021 at 12:20:52 AM UTC-8, Ruud Harmsen wrote:
> >> >> Fri, 10 Dec 2021 09:20:12 +0100: Ruud Harmsen <r...@rudhar.com>
> >> >> scribeva:
> >> >> >Thu, 9 Dec 2021 14:18:41 -0800 (PST): DKleinecke
> >> >> ><dklei...@gmail.com> scribeva:
> >> >> >>I have 6 vowel PHONEMES - /a/, /e/, /i/, /o/, /u/ and /@ . (/@/ being an ad
> >> >> >>hoc writing for an unrounded central high vocable.). The other 8 "vowels"
> >> >> >>are diphthongs of these 6 with one or the other of /y/ or /w/. That is 8
> >> >> >>vowel diphthong PHONEMES
> >> >> >
> >> >> >That is a way to describe it, and traditionally Americanist, but in my
> >> >> >opinion that is wrong.
> >> >> But who cares.
> >> >
> >> >I do. What's wrong with it?
> >> It doesn't befit the history of the language nor other variants.
> >
> >That is the functional equivalent of no answer.
> >
> >I'll ask again what is wrong with my phonemicization of my own speech?
> No answer, no time, no zin. Have to finish things. Maybe in 2027.
> Planned article about that book that someone here recommended and that
> I bought and that contains some debatable nonsense.

Maybe you could tell me what that book is?

I really would like to know what is wrong.

>> No answer, no time, no zin. Have to finish things. Maybe in 2027.
>> Planned article about that book that someone here recommended and that
>> I bought and that contains some debatable nonsense.

Mon, 13 Dec 2021 15:55:06 -0800 (PST): DKleinecke
<dkleinecke@gmail.com> scribeva:
>Maybe you could tell me what that book is?
>
>I really would like to know what is wrong.

H.A. Gleason, An introduction to Descriptive Linguistics.
Phrases to find previous discussion, 2008:
==
The book arrived from London today! It’s a 1978 reprint of the May
1969 British edition. 503 pages. Looks quite interesting.
==

Page 31, section 3.1: he analyses the word "house" as four phonemes,
and gets himself into all sorts of trouble explaining how it's
pronounced in various parts of the world, writing variants between /
/. My analysis is: <house> has three phonemes, /h/ /au/ and /s/, and
all those variants he wrongly transcribes between / /, are in fact
allophonic, to transcribe between [ ].
--
Ruud Harmsen, http://rudhar.com

Tue, 14 Dec 2021 08:10:45 +0100: Ruud Harmsen <rh@rudhar.com>
scribeva:
>H.A. Gleason, An introduction to Descriptive Linguistics.

>Page 31, section 3.1: he analyses the word "house" as four phonemes,
>and gets himself into all sorts of trouble explaining how it's
>pronounced in various parts of the world, writing variants between /
>/. My analysis is: <house> has three phonemes, /h/ /au/ and /s/, and
>all those variants he wrongly transcribes between / /, are in fact
>allophonic, to transcribe between [ ].

Gleason analyses the <ch> in <church> as one phoneme, not two. OK with
me, but then why would the <ou> in <house> be two?

The idea "length is not phonemic in English" also stems from this
wrong analysis.

(This is a very brief summary of my raw notes.)
--
Ruud Harmsen, http://rudhar.com

Tue, 14 Dec 2021 08:10:45 +0100: Ruud Harmsen <rh@rudhar.com>
scribeva:
>Page 31, section 3.1: he analyses the word "house" as four phonemes,
>and gets himself into all sorts of trouble explaining how it's
>pronounced in various parts of the world, writing variants between /
>/. My analysis is: <house> has three phonemes, /h/ /au/ and /s/, and
>all those variants he wrongly transcribes between / /, are in fact
>allophonic, to transcribe between [ ].

Remember, the discussion started with Peter T. Daniels acusing me of
still not understanding (already in 2008) the difference between //
and []. Well, I do understand that, but Gleason (1882-1975) didn't.
Gotcha.

--
Ruud Harmsen, http://rudhar.com

Tue, 14 Dec 2021 08:10:45 +0100: Ruud Harmsen <rh@rudhar.com>
scribeva:

>>> No answer, no time, no zin. Have to finish things. Maybe in 2027.
>>> Planned article about that book that someone here recommended and that
>>> I bought and that contains some debatable nonsense.
>
>Mon, 13 Dec 2021 15:55:06 -0800 (PST): DKleinecke
><dkleinecke@gmail.com> scribeva:
>>Maybe you could tell me what that book is?
>>
>>I really would like to know what is wrong.
>
>H.A. Gleason, An introduction to Descriptive Linguistics.
>Phrases to find previous discussion, 2008:
>==
>The book arrived from London today! It’s a 1978 reprint of the May
>1969 British edition. 503 pages. Looks quite interesting.
>==
>
>Page 31, section 3.1:

3.11, not 3.1, there was an error in my notes.
And that about <house> is only a few lines.
--
Ruud Harmsen, http://rudhar.com

Tue, 14 Dec 2021 08:17:12 +0100: Ruud Harmsen <rh@rudhar.com>
scribeva:

>Tue, 14 Dec 2021 08:10:45 +0100: Ruud Harmsen <rh@rudhar.com>
>scribeva:
>>Page 31, section 3.1: he analyses the word "house" as four phonemes,
>>and gets himself into all sorts of trouble explaining how it's
>>pronounced in various parts of the world, writing variants between /
>>/. My analysis is: <house> has three phonemes, /h/ /au/ and /s/, and
>>all those variants he wrongly transcribes between / /, are in fact
>>allophonic, to transcribe between [ ].
>
>Remember, the discussion started with Peter T. Daniels acusing me of
>still not understanding (already in 2008) the difference between //
>and []. Well, I do understand that, but Gleason (1882-1975) didn't.
>Gotcha.

But as said, I don't have time for more on this. Other priorities.
Plans for today:
- TLS and nginx/Ubuntu, try to get it working (I know how to do it in
Apache/FreeBSD already)
- Email with postfix (replacing sendmail), including greylisting and
spamassassin if necessary.
- IMAP via ssh tunneling, like I already do with POP3: a replacement
for mutt? Or alpine? Or an addition to it?

--
Ruud Harmsen, http://rudhar.com

On Monday, December 13, 2021 at 11:26:32 PM UTC-8, Ruud Harmsen wrote:
> Tue, 14 Dec 2021 08:17:12 +0100: Ruud Harmsen <r...@rudhar.com>
> scribeva:
>
> >Tue, 14 Dec 2021 08:10:45 +0100: Ruud Harmsen <r...@rudhar.com>
> >scribeva:
> >>Page 31, section 3.1: he analyses the word "house" as four phonemes,
> >>and gets himself into all sorts of trouble explaining how it's
> >>pronounced in various parts of the world, writing variants between /
> >>/. My analysis is: <house> has three phonemes, /h/ /au/ and /s/, and
> >>all those variants he wrongly transcribes between / /, are in fact
> >>allophonic, to transcribe between [ ].
> >
> >Remember, the discussion started with Peter T. Daniels acusing me of
> >still not understanding (already in 2008) the difference between //
> >and []. Well, I do understand that, but Gleason (1882-1975) didn't.
> >Gotcha.
> But as said, I don't have time for more on this. Other priorities.
> Plans for today:
> - TLS and nginx/Ubuntu, try to get it working (I know how to do it in
> Apache/FreeBSD already)
> - Email with postfix (replacing sendmail), including greylisting and
> spamassassin if necessary.
> - IMAP via ssh tunneling, like I already do with POP3: a replacement
> for mutt? Or alpine? Or an addition to it?

Did you get the message, which goes back to the 1930's, that multiple
different phonemic systems are possible for the same utterance data?

My "house" is either /haws/ or /hawz/. I consider that four phonemes.
My "food" is /fuwd/ and I consider that also four phonemes even though,
as nearly as I can tell, I usually actually utter a long /u/.

I think PTD was right and you don't understand //. Part of what I see as
your confusion is that you have only partially understood the difference
between orthography and utterance. For example there are orthographic
"u" that I phonemicize as /ew/ leading me to write /few/ for "few" and
/Ewr@p/ for "Europe". Or /hewgow/ for "Hugo".

As to "hause" I wonder what your system is. Are the other 8 diphthongs
all also phonemes in your system? Are the last phonemes of ./b@tn/,
/botm/, /b@tr/ and /botl/ vowels?

Tue, 14 Dec 2021 14:28:15 -0800 (PST): DKleinecke
<dkleinecke@gmail.com> scribeva:
>Did you get the message, which goes back to the 1930's, that multiple
>different phonemic systems are possible for the same utterance data?

I don't know about any message, but of course that is obvious.

>My "house" is either /haws/ or /hawz/. I consider that four phonemes.
>My "food" is /fuwd/ and I consider that also four phonemes even though,
>as nearly as I can tell, I usually actually utter a long /u/.

Not a wise phonemisation, and I don't agree. Which is possible and
legitimate, seeing the previous point.

>I think PTD was right and you don't understand //. Part of what I see as
>your confusion is that you have only partially understood the difference
>between orthography and utterance.

Really now.

>For example there are orthographic
>"u" that I phonemicize as /ew/ leading me to write /few/ for "few" and
>/Ewr@p/ for "Europe". Or /hewgow/ for "Hugo".

Did you really, seriously, ever, or even several times, consider the
thought that I would not have understood that difference? Then there
is little hope that any serious, useful discussion is possible.

>As to "hause" I wonder what your system is.

One thing I look at is history. The word occurs in all Germanic
languages, started out with a long vowel, and got diphthongised in
various ways in lots of languages and dialects. That points to a most
sensible analysis as one phoneme, not two, because it was never
assembled from other phonemes, that also occur by themselves in other
contexts. Two phonemes just doesn't make sense if you look at history
and etymology.

>Are the other 8 diphthongs
>all also phonemes in your system? Are the last phonemes of ./b@tn/,
>/botm/, /b@tr/ and /botl/ vowels?

No, syllablic consonants. What does that have to do with the previous?
--
Ruud Harmsen, http://rudhar.com