Tue, 14 Dec 2021 14:28:15 -0800 (PST): DKleinecke
<dkleinecke@gmail.com> scribeva:

>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/

/ewr@p/ of course, a typo.

>for "Europe". Or /hewgow/ for "Hugo".

So if you put the e of 'set' together with the w of 'way', you get the
diphtong in those words? Very strange accent you must have then. I
wonder who exactly it is that doesn't understand the difference
between orthography and utterance.

If you phonemicize <few> as /few/, what in your system is <new>,
<blue>, <due> and <dew>? /nw/, /blw/ and /dw/?

In the British based phonemics I learnt in the 1970s, those words have
/ju:/. Don't know if that was supposed to be one or two phonemes.
Interpreting the whole of it as one phoneme means the difference
between American and British <new>, with or without the [j], can be
explained by allophones, combinatory variants: no [j] after dentals
/d/, /t/ and /n/ in American, [j] still there in SouthBrit. Always
missing after /r/ (rude, ruby, rubricate), varying after l and s:
interlude, lewd, lute, sue. Otherwise the [j] of /ju:/ is always
present: queue, cute, Beaulieu, puke, few, view.

On Tuesday, December 14, 2021 at 2:17:15 AM UTC-5, Ruud Harmsen wrote:
> 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.

You may have looked up the dates of his father, who was a very well
known botanist at the New York Botanical Gardens. I met Al Gleason at
the International Congress of Asian and North African Studies (formerly
the International Congress of Orientalists) in Toronto in 1990, when
he had become especially interested in writing systems and spoke
about his project for a historical dictionary of linguistic terminology.

His textbook was published in 1955, the much expanded second
edition in 1961, and it was pretty much the only option for an
introductory class in 1969-70. (In fact it was the textbook for the
first semester; for historical linguistics in the second semester,
we used Bloomfield 1933.)

I don't know whether there was a revised British edition of Gleason
to present a different phonemicization (as there was for Bloomfield
in 1935), but if there was, it's unlikely that the publisher waited until
1969 to bring it out.

On Wednesday, December 15, 2021 at 2:40:41 AM UTC-5, Ruud Harmsen wrote:
> Tue, 14 Dec 2021 14:28:15 -0800 (PST): DKleinecke
> <dklei...@gmail.com> scribeva:

> >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.

You are a Chomskyan and I claim my 5 pounds.

(A Chomsky-Hallean, actually.)

The problem for you is that their approach _does away with_ phonemes
(because of some dubious arguments by Halle in *The Sound Pattern
of Russian*, 1959).

On Wednesday, December 15, 2021 at 5:36:44 AM UTC-5, Ruud Harmsen wrote:
> Tue, 14 Dec 2021 14:28:15 -0800 (PST): DKleinecke
> <dklei...@gmail.com> scribeva:
> >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/
> /ewr@p/ of course, a typo.
> >for "Europe". Or /hewgow/ for "Hugo".
> So if you put the e of 'set' together with the w of 'way', you get the
> diphtong in those words? Very strange accent you must have then. I
> wonder who exactly it is that doesn't understand the difference
> between orthography and utterance.

Looks like you did not read Gleason _at all_.

He adheres to the Block/Trager/Smith orthodoxy that the English
phonemic system accommodates up to 36 "syllabic nuclei" --
the nine vowels i e a + @ a u o O each of which can combine
with any of the three glides w y h (in the 1st ed. he wrote the h
as a small cap but later used the lowercase, recognizing that
the centralizinjg off-glide could be equated with the consonant /h/).

David's system is a simplification of that, because it covers only
his own vocalic system (and I don't agree with all his choices).

On Wednesday, December 15, 2021 at 7:26:24 AM UTC-8, Peter T. Daniels wrote:
> On Wednesday, December 15, 2021 at 5:36:44 AM UTC-5, Ruud Harmsen wrote:
> > Tue, 14 Dec 2021 14:28:15 -0800 (PST): DKleinecke
> > <dklei...@gmail.com> scribeva:
> > >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/
> > /ewr@p/ of course, a typo.
> > >for "Europe". Or /hewgow/ for "Hugo".
> > So if you put the e of 'set' together with the w of 'way', you get the
> > diphtong in those words? Very strange accent you must have then. I
> > wonder who exactly it is that doesn't understand the difference
> > between orthography and utterance.
> Looks like you did not read Gleason _at all_.
>
> He adheres to the Block/Trager/Smith orthodoxy that the English
> phonemic system accommodates up to 36 "syllabic nuclei" --
> the nine vowels i e a + @ a u o O each of which can combine
> with any of the three glides w y h (in the 1st ed. he wrote the h
> as a small cap but later used the lowercase, recognizing that
> the centralizinjg off-glide could be equated with the consonant /h/).
>
> David's system is a simplification of that, because it covers only
> his own vocalic system (and I don't agree with all his choices).

And you should recognize that I learned whatever I know about
phonology from Pike. Pike was interested in languages without
any history. If Americanism is a crime I plead guilty.

I really do not believe in something called "The English Language".
There is only a big package of idiolects that can more or less
understand one another.

Hah - you read my /Ewr@p/ as though I meant some other phoneme
than /e/. Not so - it's just the capital latter used with a name. For
some of your other examples - /nuw/ /bluw/ and /duw/. And, of
course /kewt/.

On Wednesday, December 15, 2021 at 4:31:55 PM UTC-5, DKleinecke wrote:
> On Wednesday, December 15, 2021 at 7:26:24 AM UTC-8, Peter T. Daniels wrote:
> > On Wednesday, December 15, 2021 at 5:36:44 AM UTC-5, Ruud Harmsen wrote:
> > > Tue, 14 Dec 2021 14:28:15 -0800 (PST): DKleinecke
> > > <dklei...@gmail.com> scribeva:
> > > >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/
> > > /ewr@p/ of course, a typo.
> > > >for "Europe". Or /hewgow/ for "Hugo".
> > > So if you put the e of 'set' together with the w of 'way', you get the
> > > diphtong in those words? Very strange accent you must have then. I
> > > wonder who exactly it is that doesn't understand the difference
> > > between orthography and utterance.
> > Looks like you did not read Gleason _at all_.
> >
> > He adheres to the Block/Trager/Smith orthodoxy that the English
> > phonemic system accommodates up to 36 "syllabic nuclei" --
> > the nine vowels i e a + @ a u o O each of which can combine
> > with any of the three glides w y h (in the 1st ed. he wrote the h
> > as a small cap but later used the lowercase, recognizing that
> > the centralizinjg off-glide could be equated with the consonant /h/).
> >
> > David's system is a simplification of that, because it covers only
> > his own vocalic system (and I don't agree with all his choices).
>
> And you should recognize that I learned whatever I know about
> phonology from Pike. Pike was interested in languages without
> any history. If Americanism is a crime I plead guilty.

He was at Michigan! Did NBrkeley have anyone besides Haas
in your day? Bill Bright's other main teacher was Emeneau, but
did he do linguistics courses?

> I really do not believe in something called "The English Language".
> There is only a big package of idiolects that can more or less
> understand one another.

That's Robert A. Hall, Jr. (I don't recall anyone else being so insistent
on that point. He was sort-of doing sociolinguistics avant la lettre.)

> Hah - you read my /Ewr@p/ as though I meant some other phoneme
> than /e/. Not so - it's just the capital latter used with a name. For
> some of your other examples - /nuw/ /bluw/ and /duw/. And, of
> course /kewt/.

Wed, 15 Dec 2021 07:19:33 -0800 (PST): "Peter T. Daniels"
<grammatim@verizon.net> scribeva:

>On Wednesday, December 15, 2021 at 2:40:41 AM UTC-5, Ruud Harmsen wrote:
>> Tue, 14 Dec 2021 14:28:15 -0800 (PST): DKleinecke
>> <dklei...@gmail.com> scribeva:
>
>> >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.
>
>You are a Chomskyan and I claim my 5 pounds.
>
>(A Chomsky-Hallean, actually.)

So be it.

>The problem for you is that their approach _does away with_ phonemes
>(because of some dubious arguments by Halle in *The Sound Pattern
>of Russian*, 1959).

Maybe for the better.
--
Ruud Harmsen, http://rudhar.com

Wed, 15 Dec 2021 07:26:22 -0800 (PST): "Peter T. Daniels"
<grammatim@verizon.net> scribeva:

>On Wednesday, December 15, 2021 at 5:36:44 AM UTC-5, Ruud Harmsen wrote:
>> Tue, 14 Dec 2021 14:28:15 -0800 (PST): DKleinecke
>> <dklei...@gmail.com> scribeva:
>> >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/
>> /ewr@p/ of course, a typo.
>> >for "Europe". Or /hewgow/ for "Hugo".
>> So if you put the e of 'set' together with the w of 'way', you get the
>> diphtong in those words? Very strange accent you must have then. I
>> wonder who exactly it is that doesn't understand the difference
>> between orthography and utterance.
>
>Looks like you did not read Gleason _at all_.
>
>He adheres to the Block/Trager/Smith orthodoxy that the English
>phonemic system accommodates up to 36 "syllabic nuclei" --
>the nine vowels i e a + @ a u o O each of which can combine
>with any of the three glides w y h (in the 1st ed. he wrote the h
>as a small cap but later used the lowercase, recognizing that
>the centralizinjg off-glide could be equated with the consonant /h/).

Yes, I know. Because I did read parts of the book, and because you
mentioned that here, several times.

>David's system is a simplification of that, because it covers only
>his own vocalic system (and I don't agree with all his choices).

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

Wed, 15 Dec 2021 13:31:53 -0800 (PST): DKleinecke
<dkleinecke@gmail.com> scribeva:
>I really do not believe in something called "The English Language".
>There is only a big package of idiolects that can more or less
>understand one another.

That is true of any language, and any group of dialects.

>Hah - you read my /Ewr@p/ as though I meant some other phoneme
>than /e/. Not so - it's just the capital latter used with a name.

Phonemic symbols, IPA or otherwise, don't have case, just like Hebrew,
Arabic, Devanagari etc. etc. have not.

>For
>some of your other examples - /nuw/ /bluw/ and /duw/. And, of
>course /kewt/.

So what I explain as a contextual allophonic variation, for you is the
disappearance of a whole, full phoneme.
--
Ruud Harmsen, http://rudhar.com

Wed, 15 Dec 2021 07:14:17 -0800 (PST): "Peter T. Daniels"
<grammatim@verizon.net> scribeva:

>On Tuesday, December 14, 2021 at 2:17:15 AM UTC-5, Ruud Harmsen wrote:
>> 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.
>
>You may have looked up the dates of his father, who was a very well
>known botanist at the New York Botanical Gardens.

Right, I had that wrong:
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henry_A._Gleason_(botanist)>
This is his son the linguist:
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henry_Allan_Gleason_(linguist)>

>I met Al Gleason at
>the International Congress of Asian and North African Studies (formerly
>the International Congress of Orientalists) in Toronto in 1990, when
>he had become especially interested in writing systems and spoke
>about his project for a historical dictionary of linguistic terminology.
>
>His textbook was published in 1955, the much expanded second
>edition in 1961, and it was pretty much the only option for an
>introductory class in 1969-70. (In fact it was the textbook for the
>first semester; for historical linguistics in the second semester,
>we used Bloomfield 1933.)
>
>I don't know whether there was a revised British edition of Gleason
>to present a different phonemicization (as there was for Bloomfield
>in 1935), but if there was, it's unlikely that the publisher waited until
>1969 to bring it out.

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

On Wednesday, December 15, 2021 at 9:32:04 PM UTC-8, Ruud Harmsen wrote:
> Wed, 15 Dec 2021 13:31:53 -0800 (PST): DKleinecke
> <dklei...@gmail.com> scribeva:
> >I really do not believe in something called "The English Language".
> >There is only a big package of idiolects that can more or less
> >understand one another.
> That is true of any language, and any group of dialects.
> >Hah - you read my /Ewr@p/ as though I meant some other phoneme
> >than /e/. Not so - it's just the capital latter used with a name.
> Phonemic symbols, IPA or otherwise, don't have case, just like Hebrew,
> Arabic, Devanagari etc. etc. have not.

Who made that rule? i think of // as another font of ordinary English. I
haven't bothered to invent new symbols for left-out sounds because
using /h/ as a diacritic works and is traditional. This doesn't impact on
the vowels (in my scheme) but does introduce /th/, /dh/, /wh/ etc.

> >For
> >some of your other examples - /nuw/ /bluw/ and /duw/. And, of
> >course /kewt/.
> So what I explain as a contextual allophonic variation, for you is the
> disappearance of a whole, full phoneme.

What disappeared? You wrote /nw/, /blw/ and /dw/ and I added /u/

Thu, 16 Dec 2021 11:36:49 -0800 (PST): DKleinecke
<dkleinecke@gmail.com> scribeva:

>On Wednesday, December 15, 2021 at 9:32:04 PM UTC-8, Ruud Harmsen wrote:
>> Wed, 15 Dec 2021 13:31:53 -0800 (PST): DKleinecke
>> <dklei...@gmail.com> scribeva:
>> >I really do not believe in something called "The English Language".
>> >There is only a big package of idiolects that can more or less
>> >understand one another.
>> That is true of any language, and any group of dialects.
>> >Hah - you read my /Ewr@p/ as though I meant some other phoneme
>> >than /e/. Not so - it's just the capital latter used with a name.
>> Phonemic symbols, IPA or otherwise, don't have case, just like Hebrew,
>> Arabic, Devanagari etc. etc. have not.
>
>Who made that rule? i think of // as another font of ordinary English. I
>haven't bothered to invent new symbols for left-out sounds because
>using /h/ as a diacritic works and is traditional. This doesn't impact on
>the vowels (in my scheme) but does introduce /th/, /dh/, /wh/ etc.
>
>> >For
>> >some of your other examples - /nuw/ /bluw/ and /duw/. And, of
>> >course /kewt/.
>> So what I explain as a contextual allophonic variation, for you is the
>> disappearance of a whole, full phoneme.
>
>What disappeared? You wrote /nw/, /blw/ and /dw/ and I added /u/

Southbrit [tju:n], American [tu:n] (in IPA), so the element [j] has
disappeared. In your transcription: /tewn/ and (I would expect) /twn/,
because the /e/ goes missing. But no, you say it's /tuwn/. I wonder,
then why isn't the SouthBrit /teuwn/?

Something goes missing, and you insert something that was already
there, the [u].
I just doesn't make sense.

On Thursday, December 16, 2021 at 3:02:10 PM UTC-5, Ruud Harmsen wrote:
> Thu, 16 Dec 2021 11:36:49 -0800 (PST): DKleinecke
> <dklei...@gmail.com> scribeva:
>
> >On Wednesday, December 15, 2021 at 9:32:04 PM UTC-8, Ruud Harmsen wrote:
> >> Wed, 15 Dec 2021 13:31:53 -0800 (PST): DKleinecke
> >> <dklei...@gmail.com> scribeva:
> >> >I really do not believe in something called "The English Language".
> >> >There is only a big package of idiolects that can more or less
> >> >understand one another.
> >> That is true of any language, and any group of dialects.
> >> >Hah - you read my /Ewr@p/ as though I meant some other phoneme
> >> >than /e/. Not so - it's just the capital latter used with a name.
> >> Phonemic symbols, IPA or otherwise, don't have case, just like Hebrew,
> >> Arabic, Devanagari etc. etc. have not.
> >
> >Who made that rule? i think of // as another font of ordinary English. I
> >haven't bothered to invent new symbols for left-out sounds because
> >using /h/ as a diacritic works and is traditional. This doesn't impact on
> >the vowels (in my scheme) but does introduce /th/, /dh/, /wh/ etc.
> >
> >> >For
> >> >some of your other examples - /nuw/ /bluw/ and /duw/. And, of
> >> >course /kewt/.
> >> So what I explain as a contextual allophonic variation, for you is the
> >> disappearance of a whole, full phoneme.
> >
> >What disappeared? You wrote /nw/, /blw/ and /dw/ and I added /u/
> Southbrit [tju:n], American [tu:n] (in IPA), so the element [j] has
> disappeared. In your transcription: /tewn/ and (I would expect) /twn/,
> because the /e/ goes missing. But no, you say it's /tuwn/. I wonder,
> then why isn't the SouthBrit /teuwn/?
>
> Something goes missing, and you insert something that was already
> there, the [u].
>
> I just doesn't make sense.
I agree, Ruud, you just doesn't make any sense sometime.

On Thursday, December 16, 2021 at 12:02:10 PM UTC-8, Ruud Harmsen wrote:
> Thu, 16 Dec 2021 11:36:49 -0800 (PST): DKleinecke
> <dklei...@gmail.com> scribeva:
>
> >On Wednesday, December 15, 2021 at 9:32:04 PM UTC-8, Ruud Harmsen wrote:
> >> Wed, 15 Dec 2021 13:31:53 -0800 (PST): DKleinecke
> >> <dklei...@gmail.com> scribeva:
> >> >I really do not believe in something called "The English Language".
> >> >There is only a big package of idiolects that can more or less
> >> >understand one another.
> >> That is true of any language, and any group of dialects.
> >> >Hah - you read my /Ewr@p/ as though I meant some other phoneme
> >> >than /e/. Not so - it's just the capital latter used with a name.
> >> Phonemic symbols, IPA or otherwise, don't have case, just like Hebrew,
> >> Arabic, Devanagari etc. etc. have not.
> >
> >Who made that rule? i think of // as another font of ordinary English. I
> >haven't bothered to invent new symbols for left-out sounds because
> >using /h/ as a diacritic works and is traditional. This doesn't impact on
> >the vowels (in my scheme) but does introduce /th/, /dh/, /wh/ etc.
> >
> >> >For
> >> >some of your other examples - /nuw/ /bluw/ and /duw/. And, of
> >> >course /kewt/.
> >> So what I explain as a contextual allophonic variation, for you is the
> >> disappearance of a whole, full phoneme.
> >
> >What disappeared? You wrote /nw/, /blw/ and /dw/ and I added /u/
> Southbrit [tju:n], American [tu:n] (in IPA), so the element [j] has
> disappeared. In your transcription: /tewn/ and (I would expect) /twn/,
> because the /e/ goes missing. But no, you say it's /tuwn/. I wonder,
> then why isn't the SouthBrit /teuwn/?
>
> Something goes missing, and you insert something that was already
> there, the [u].
>
> I just doesn't make sense.

It's not /tewn/ in my speech (Northern California). It's /tuwn/ with
what people often call a long 'u'. In my system /w/ is not a vowel.
This not Welsh. I think that I speak /uw/ before a voiced consonant
in free variation between a diphthong and a long vowel .

What is this business about /e/ going missing?

Op 17-12-2021 om 21:25 schreef DKleinecke:
> On Thursday, December 16, 2021 at 12:02:10 PM UTC-8, Ruud Harmsen wrote:
>> Thu, 16 Dec 2021 11:36:49 -0800 (PST): DKleinecke
>> <dklei...@gmail.com> scribeva:
>>
>>> On Wednesday, December 15, 2021 at 9:32:04 PM UTC-8, Ruud Harmsen wrote:
>>>> Wed, 15 Dec 2021 13:31:53 -0800 (PST): DKleinecke
>>>> <dklei...@gmail.com> scribeva:
>>>>> I really do not believe in something called "The English Language".
>>>>> There is only a big package of idiolects that can more or less
>>>>> understand one another.
>>>> That is true of any language, and any group of dialects.
>>>>> Hah - you read my /Ewr@p/ as though I meant some other phoneme

Er...

>>>>> than /e/. Not so - it's just the capital latter used with a name.
>>>> Phonemic symbols, IPA or otherwise, don't have case, just like Hebrew,
>>>> Arabic, Devanagari etc. etc. have not.
>>>
>>> Who made that rule? i think of // as another font of ordinary English. I
>>> haven't bothered to invent new symbols for left-out sounds because
>>> using /h/ as a diacritic works and is traditional. This doesn't impact on
>>> the vowels (in my scheme) but does introduce /th/, /dh/, /wh/ etc.
>>>
>>>>> For
>>>>> some of your other examples - /nuw/ /bluw/ and /duw/. And, of
>>>>> course /kewt/.
>>>> So what I explain as a contextual allophonic variation, for you is the
>>>> disappearance of a whole, full phoneme.
>>>
>>> What disappeared? You wrote /nw/, /blw/ and /dw/ and I added /u/
>> Southbrit [tju:n], American [tu:n] (in IPA), so the element [j] has
>> disappeared. In your transcription: /tewn/ and (I would expect) /twn/,
>> because the /e/ goes missing. But no, you say it's /tuwn/. I wonder,
>> then why isn't the SouthBrit /teuwn/?
>>
>> Something goes missing, and you insert something that was already
>> there, the [u].
>>
>> I just doesn't make sense.
>
> It's not /tewn/ in my speech (Northern California). It's /tuwn/ with
> what people often call a long 'u'. In my system /w/ is not a vowel.
> This not Welsh. I think that I speak /uw/ before a voiced consonant
> in free variation between a diphthong and a long vowel .
>
> What is this business about /e/ going missing?

.... but, see before, you had also /Ewr@p/ and /few/ which I can only
read, if not as some Romance, as "Yurëp" and "fyu:", ie, with a vowel-w-
and a consonant-e-.

--
guido wugi

Fri, 17 Dec 2021 12:25:05 -0800 (PST): DKleinecke
<dkleinecke@gmail.com> scribeva:
>> Something goes missing, and you insert something that was already
>> there, the [u].
>>
>> I just doesn't make sense.
>
>It's not /tewn/ in my speech (Northern California). It's /tuwn/ with
>what people often call a long 'u'. In my system /w/ is not a vowel.

Except when it is, as part of a diphthong.

Question: in your opinion, can a diphthong be a combination of two
vowels? Or two vowel points with a characteristic gradual transition
between the two, a glide? Or can it only be a combination of a vowel
and a semi-vowel like [j], [w] or [@]? Is, or are, that what is in
<few> a rising or a falling diphthong?

>This not Welsh. /

You're confusing spelling and phonemics. You said I did, but I don't.

>/ I think that I speak /uw/ before a voiced consonant
>in free variation between a diphthong and a long vowel .
>
>What is this business about /e/ going missing?

In England they say <tune> as /tewn/ (transcribed in your system), in
the Americas, the first element /e/ is not there. And that is
systematic: tuna, dune, due, dew, new, newt, nutrition.

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

Fri, 17 Dec 2021 22:26:17 +0100: wugi <wugi@scrlt.com> scribeva:

>Op 17-12-2021 om 21:25 schreef DKleinecke:
>> On Thursday, December 16, 2021 at 12:02:10 PM UTC-8, Ruud Harmsen wrote:
>>> Thu, 16 Dec 2021 11:36:49 -0800 (PST): DKleinecke
>>> <dklei...@gmail.com> scribeva:
>>>
>>>> On Wednesday, December 15, 2021 at 9:32:04 PM UTC-8, Ruud Harmsen wrote:
>>>>> Wed, 15 Dec 2021 13:31:53 -0800 (PST): DKleinecke
>>>>> <dklei...@gmail.com> scribeva:
>>>>>> I really do not believe in something called "The English Language".
>>>>>> There is only a big package of idiolects that can more or less
>>>>>> understand one another.
>>>>> That is true of any language, and any group of dialects.
>>>>>> Hah - you read my /Ewr@p/ as though I meant some other phoneme
>
>Er...
>
>>>>>> than /e/. Not so - it's just the capital latter used with a name.
>>>>> Phonemic symbols, IPA or otherwise, don't have case, just like Hebrew,
>>>>> Arabic, Devanagari etc. etc. have not.
>>>>
>>>> Who made that rule? i think of // as another font of ordinary English. I
>>>> haven't bothered to invent new symbols for left-out sounds because
>>>> using /h/ as a diacritic works and is traditional. This doesn't impact on
>>>> the vowels (in my scheme) but does introduce /th/, /dh/, /wh/ etc.
>>>>
>>>>>> For
>>>>>> some of your other examples - /nuw/ /bluw/ and /duw/. And, of
>>>>>> course /kewt/.
>>>>> So what I explain as a contextual allophonic variation, for you is the
>>>>> disappearance of a whole, full phoneme.
>>>>
>>>> What disappeared? You wrote /nw/, /blw/ and /dw/ and I added /u/
>>> Southbrit [tju:n], American [tu:n] (in IPA), so the element [j] has
>>> disappeared. In your transcription: /tewn/ and (I would expect) /twn/,
>>> because the /e/ goes missing. But no, you say it's /tuwn/. I wonder,
>>> then why isn't the SouthBrit /teuwn/?
>>>
>>> Something goes missing, and you insert something that was already
>>> there, the [u].
>>>
>>> I just doesn't make sense.
>>
>> It's not /tewn/ in my speech (Northern California). It's /tuwn/ with
>> what people often call a long 'u'. In my system /w/ is not a vowel.
>> This not Welsh. I think that I speak /uw/ before a voiced consonant
>> in free variation between a diphthong and a long vowel .
>>
>> What is this business about /e/ going missing?
>
>... but, see before, you had also /Ewr@p/ and /few/ which I can only
>read, if not as some Romance, as "Yurëp" and "fyu:", ie, with a vowel-w-
>and a consonant-e-.

Right. In other words: rising diphthong or falling.
--
Ruud Harmsen, http://rudhar.com

On Saturday, December 18, 2021 at 3:20:22 AM UTC-5, Ruud Harmsen wrote:
> Fri, 17 Dec 2021 22:26:17 +0100: wugi <wu...@scrlt.com> scribeva:
> >Op 17-12-2021 om 21:25 schreef DKleinecke:
> >> On Thursday, December 16, 2021 at 12:02:10 PM UTC-8, Ruud Harmsen wrote:
> >>> Thu, 16 Dec 2021 11:36:49 -0800 (PST): DKleinecke
> >>> <dklei...@gmail.com> scribeva:
> >>>
> >>>> On Wednesday, December 15, 2021 at 9:32:04 PM UTC-8, Ruud Harmsen wrote:
> >>>>> Wed, 15 Dec 2021 13:31:53 -0800 (PST): DKleinecke
> >>>>> <dklei...@gmail.com> scribeva:
> >>>>>> I really do not believe in something called "The English Language"..
> >>>>>> There is only a big package of idiolects that can more or less
> >>>>>> understand one another.
> >>>>> That is true of any language, and any group of dialects.
> >>>>>> Hah - you read my /Ewr@p/ as though I meant some other phoneme
> >
> >Er...
> >
> >>>>>> than /e/. Not so - it's just the capital latter used with a name.
> >>>>> Phonemic symbols, IPA or otherwise, don't have case, just like Hebrew,
> >>>>> Arabic, Devanagari etc. etc. have not.
> >>>>
> >>>> Who made that rule? i think of // as another font of ordinary English. I
> >>>> haven't bothered to invent new symbols for left-out sounds because
> >>>> using /h/ as a diacritic works and is traditional. This doesn't impact on
> >>>> the vowels (in my scheme) but does introduce /th/, /dh/, /wh/ etc.
> >>>>
> >>>>>> For
> >>>>>> some of your other examples - /nuw/ /bluw/ and /duw/. And, of
> >>>>>> course /kewt/.
> >>>>> So what I explain as a contextual allophonic variation, for you is the
> >>>>> disappearance of a whole, full phoneme.
> >>>>
> >>>> What disappeared? You wrote /nw/, /blw/ and /dw/ and I added /u/
> >>> Southbrit [tju:n], American [tu:n] (in IPA), so the element [j] has
> >>> disappeared. In your transcription: /tewn/ and (I would expect) /twn/,
> >>> because the /e/ goes missing. But no, you say it's /tuwn/. I wonder,
> >>> then why isn't the SouthBrit /teuwn/?
> >>>
> >>> Something goes missing, and you insert something that was already
> >>> there, the [u].
> >>>
> >>> I just doesn't make sense.
> >>
> >> It's not /tewn/ in my speech (Northern California). It's /tuwn/ with
> >> what people often call a long 'u'. In my system /w/ is not a vowel.
> >> This not Welsh. I think that I speak /uw/ before a voiced consonant
> >> in free variation between a diphthong and a long vowel .
> >>
> >> What is this business about /e/ going missing?
> >
> >... but, see before, you had also /Ewr@p/ and /few/ which I can only
> >read, if not as some Romance, as "Yurëp" and "fyu:", ie, with a vowel-w-
> >and a consonant-e-.
> Right. In other words: rising diphthong or falling.
> --
> Ruud Harmsen, http://rudhar.com

Where's your rope?

On Friday, December 17, 2021 at 1:26:21 PM UTC-8, wugi wrote:
> Op 17-12-2021 om 21:25 schreef DKleinecke:
> > On Thursday, December 16, 2021 at 12:02:10 PM UTC-8, Ruud Harmsen wrote:
> >> Thu, 16 Dec 2021 11:36:49 -0800 (PST): DKleinecke
> >> <dklei...@gmail.com> scribeva:
> >>
> >>> On Wednesday, December 15, 2021 at 9:32:04 PM UTC-8, Ruud Harmsen wrote:
> >>>> Wed, 15 Dec 2021 13:31:53 -0800 (PST): DKleinecke
> >>>> <dklei...@gmail.com> scribeva:
> >>>>> I really do not believe in something called "The English Language".
> >>>>> There is only a big package of idiolects that can more or less
> >>>>> understand one another.
> >>>> That is true of any language, and any group of dialects.
> >>>>> Hah - you read my /Ewr@p/ as though I meant some other phoneme
> Er...
> >>>>> than /e/. Not so - it's just the capital latter used with a name.
> >>>> Phonemic symbols, IPA or otherwise, don't have case, just like Hebrew,
> >>>> Arabic, Devanagari etc. etc. have not.
> >>>
> >>> Who made that rule? i think of // as another font of ordinary English.. I
> >>> haven't bothered to invent new symbols for left-out sounds because
> >>> using /h/ as a diacritic works and is traditional. This doesn't impact on
> >>> the vowels (in my scheme) but does introduce /th/, /dh/, /wh/ etc.
> >>>
> >>>>> For
> >>>>> some of your other examples - /nuw/ /bluw/ and /duw/. And, of
> >>>>> course /kewt/.
> >>>> So what I explain as a contextual allophonic variation, for you is the
> >>>> disappearance of a whole, full phoneme.
> >>>
> >>> What disappeared? You wrote /nw/, /blw/ and /dw/ and I added /u/
> >> Southbrit [tju:n], American [tu:n] (in IPA), so the element [j] has
> >> disappeared. In your transcription: /tewn/ and (I would expect) /twn/,
> >> because the /e/ goes missing. But no, you say it's /tuwn/. I wonder,
> >> then why isn't the SouthBrit /teuwn/?
> >>
> >> Something goes missing, and you insert something that was already
> >> there, the [u].
> >>
> >> I just doesn't make sense.
> >
> > It's not /tewn/ in my speech (Northern California). It's /tuwn/ with
> > what people often call a long 'u'. In my system /w/ is not a vowel.
> > This not Welsh. I think that I speak /uw/ before a voiced consonant
> > in free variation between a diphthong and a long vowel .
> >
> > What is this business about /e/ going missing?
> ... but, see before, you had also /Ewr@p/ and /few/ which I can only
> read, if not as some Romance, as "Yurëp" and "fyu:", ie, with a vowel-w-
> and a consonant-e-.
Writing /yu/ for the diphthong that I write /ew/ is just a different
(and equivalent) phonemic system. I like mine better because it
gives a more symmetric overall scheme.

I don't see any 'w' in your example or an 'e' consonant. So I ask again
> > What is this business about /e/ going missing?

I think making the 'u' in "fyu" long is not the way it is usually
pronounced.

Op 18-12-2021 om 20:24 schreef DKleinecke:
> On Friday, December 17, 2021 at 1:26:21 PM UTC-8, wugi wrote:
>> Op 17-12-2021 om 21:25 schreef DKleinecke:
>>> On Thursday, December 16, 2021 at 12:02:10 PM UTC-8, Ruud Harmsen wrote:
>>>> Thu, 16 Dec 2021 11:36:49 -0800 (PST): DKleinecke
>>>> <dklei...@gmail.com> scribeva:
>>>>
>>>>> On Wednesday, December 15, 2021 at 9:32:04 PM UTC-8, Ruud Harmsen wrote:
>>>>>> Wed, 15 Dec 2021 13:31:53 -0800 (PST): DKleinecke
>>>>>> <dklei...@gmail.com> scribeva:
>>>>>>> I really do not believe in something called "The English Language".
>>>>>>> There is only a big package of idiolects that can more or less
>>>>>>> understand one another.
>>>>>> That is true of any language, and any group of dialects.
>>>>>>> Hah - you read my /Ewr@p/ as though I meant some other phoneme
>> Er...
>>>>>>> than /e/. Not so - it's just the capital latter used with a name.
>>>>>> Phonemic symbols, IPA or otherwise, don't have case, just like Hebrew,
>>>>>> Arabic, Devanagari etc. etc. have not.
>>>>>
>>>>> Who made that rule? i think of // as another font of ordinary English. I
>>>>> haven't bothered to invent new symbols for left-out sounds because
>>>>> using /h/ as a diacritic works and is traditional. This doesn't impact on
>>>>> the vowels (in my scheme) but does introduce /th/, /dh/, /wh/ etc.
>>>>>
>>>>>>> For
>>>>>>> some of your other examples - /nuw/ /bluw/ and /duw/. And, of
>>>>>>> course /kewt/.
>>>>>> So what I explain as a contextual allophonic variation, for you is the
>>>>>> disappearance of a whole, full phoneme.
>>>>>
>>>>> What disappeared? You wrote /nw/, /blw/ and /dw/ and I added /u/
>>>> Southbrit [tju:n], American [tu:n] (in IPA), so the element [j] has
>>>> disappeared. In your transcription: /tewn/ and (I would expect) /twn/,
>>>> because the /e/ goes missing. But no, you say it's /tuwn/. I wonder,
>>>> then why isn't the SouthBrit /teuwn/?
>>>>
>>>> Something goes missing, and you insert something that was already
>>>> there, the [u].
>>>>
>>>> I just doesn't make sense.
>>>
>>> It's not /tewn/ in my speech (Northern California). It's /tuwn/ with
>>> what people often call a long 'u'. In my system /w/ is not a vowel.
>>> This not Welsh. I think that I speak /uw/ before a voiced consonant
>>> in free variation between a diphthong and a long vowel .
>>>
>>> What is this business about /e/ going missing?
>> ... but, see before, you had also /Ewr@p/ and /few/ which I can only
>> read, if not as some Romance, as "Yurëp" and "fyu:", ie, with a vowel-w-
>> and a consonant-e-.
>
> Writing /yu/ for the diphthong that I write /ew/ is just a different
> (and equivalent) phonemic system. I like mine better because it
> gives a more symmetric overall scheme.

Symmetric?? Incorporating /few/ and /Hewgow/ and then /tuwn/ an /tawn/
in the same system?
With a vowelish w in the former ("In my system /w/ is not a vowel.
This not Welsh."), a glider in the latter?
Or perhaps you mean we shouldn't read /ew/ and /uw/ as pairs of
placeholders for sounds, but as one diphthong sound? But then, where is
the symmetry between "spelling" diphthongs /xw/ and /yw/ where one is
y+vowel /ew/ ~ /ju(:)/, and the other vowel+w /aw/?
> I don't see any 'w' in your example or an 'e' consonant. So I ask again
>>> What is this business about /e/ going missing?
>
> I think making the 'u' in "fyu" long is not the way it is usually
> pronounced.

Anyway how would you distinguish between new, few, you... with a short
and then with a long u?
/few/ and /feww/? /few/ and /fjuw/ or /fyuw/? ...

--
guido wugi

On Saturday, December 18, 2021 at 4:30:32 PM UTC-5, wugi wrote:
> Op 18-12-2021 om 20:24 schreef DKleinecke:
> > On Friday, December 17, 2021 at 1:26:21 PM UTC-8, wugi wrote:
> >> Op 17-12-2021 om 21:25 schreef DKleinecke:
> >>> On Thursday, December 16, 2021 at 12:02:10 PM UTC-8, Ruud Harmsen wrote:
> >>>> Thu, 16 Dec 2021 11:36:49 -0800 (PST): DKleinecke
> >>>> <dklei...@gmail.com> scribeva:
> >>>>
> >>>>> On Wednesday, December 15, 2021 at 9:32:04 PM UTC-8, Ruud Harmsen wrote:
> >>>>>> Wed, 15 Dec 2021 13:31:53 -0800 (PST): DKleinecke
> >>>>>> <dklei...@gmail.com> scribeva:
> >>>>>>> I really do not believe in something called "The English Language".
> >>>>>>> There is only a big package of idiolects that can more or less
> >>>>>>> understand one another.
> >>>>>> That is true of any language, and any group of dialects.
> >>>>>>> Hah - you read my /Ewr@p/ as though I meant some other phoneme
> >> Er...
> >>>>>>> than /e/. Not so - it's just the capital latter used with a name.
> >>>>>> Phonemic symbols, IPA or otherwise, don't have case, just like Hebrew,
> >>>>>> Arabic, Devanagari etc. etc. have not.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Who made that rule? i think of // as another font of ordinary English. I
> >>>>> haven't bothered to invent new symbols for left-out sounds because
> >>>>> using /h/ as a diacritic works and is traditional. This doesn't impact on
> >>>>> the vowels (in my scheme) but does introduce /th/, /dh/, /wh/ etc.
> >>>>>
> >>>>>>> For
> >>>>>>> some of your other examples - /nuw/ /bluw/ and /duw/. And, of
> >>>>>>> course /kewt/.
> >>>>>> So what I explain as a contextual allophonic variation, for you is the
> >>>>>> disappearance of a whole, full phoneme.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> What disappeared? You wrote /nw/, /blw/ and /dw/ and I added /u/
> >>>> Southbrit [tju:n], American [tu:n] (in IPA), so the element [j] has
> >>>> disappeared. In your transcription: /tewn/ and (I would expect) /twn/,
> >>>> because the /e/ goes missing. But no, you say it's /tuwn/. I wonder,
> >>>> then why isn't the SouthBrit /teuwn/?
> >>>>
> >>>> Something goes missing, and you insert something that was already
> >>>> there, the [u].
> >>>>
> >>>> I just doesn't make sense.
> >>>
> >>> It's not /tewn/ in my speech (Northern California). It's /tuwn/ with
> >>> what people often call a long 'u'. In my system /w/ is not a vowel.
> >>> This not Welsh. I think that I speak /uw/ before a voiced consonant
> >>> in free variation between a diphthong and a long vowel .
> >>>
> >>> What is this business about /e/ going missing?
> >> ... but, see before, you had also /Ewr@p/ and /few/ which I can only
> >> read, if not as some Romance, as "Yurëp" and "fyu:", ie, with a vowel-w-
> >> and a consonant-e-.
> >
> > Writing /yu/ for the diphthong that I write /ew/ is just a different
> > (and equivalent) phonemic system. I like mine better because it
> > gives a more symmetric overall scheme.
>
> Symmetric?? Incorporating /few/ and /Hewgow/ and then /tuwn/ an /tawn/
> in the same system?

As Ruud keeps complaining, AmE doesn't have [j] in "tune."

> With a vowelish w in the former ("In my system /w/ is not a vowel.
> This not Welsh."), a glider in the latter?
> Or perhaps you mean we shouldn't read /ew/ and /uw/ as pairs of
> placeholders for sounds, but as one diphthong sound? But then, where is
> the symmetry between "spelling" diphthongs /xw/ and /yw/ where one is
> y+vowel /ew/ ~ /ju(:)/, and the other vowel+w /aw/?
> > I don't see any 'w' in your example or an 'e' consonant. So I ask again
> >>> What is this business about /e/ going missing?
> >
> > I think making the 'u' in "fyu" long is not the way it is usually
> > pronounced.
> Anyway how would you distinguish between new, few, you... with a short
> and then with a long u?
> /few/ and /feww/? /few/ and /fjuw/ or /fyuw/? ...

Why would they have "with a short and then with a long u"?

short/long is the British phoneticians' way of describing what AmE
calls diphthongs.

On Saturday, December 18, 2021 at 6:10:19 PM UTC-5, Peter T. Daniels wrote:
> On Saturday, December 18, 2021 at 4:30:32 PM UTC-5, wugi wrote:
> > Op 18-12-2021 om 20:24 schreef DKleinecke:
> > > On Friday, December 17, 2021 at 1:26:21 PM UTC-8, wugi wrote:
> > >> Op 17-12-2021 om 21:25 schreef DKleinecke:
> > >>> On Thursday, December 16, 2021 at 12:02:10 PM UTC-8, Ruud Harmsen wrote:
> > >>>> Thu, 16 Dec 2021 11:36:49 -0800 (PST): DKleinecke
> > >>>> <dklei...@gmail.com> scribeva:
> > >>>>
> > >>>>> On Wednesday, December 15, 2021 at 9:32:04 PM UTC-8, Ruud Harmsen wrote:
> > >>>>>> Wed, 15 Dec 2021 13:31:53 -0800 (PST): DKleinecke
> > >>>>>> <dklei...@gmail.com> scribeva:
> > >>>>>>> I really do not believe in something called "The English Language".
> > >>>>>>> There is only a big package of idiolects that can more or less
> > >>>>>>> understand one another.
> > >>>>>> That is true of any language, and any group of dialects.
> > >>>>>>> Hah - you read my /Ewr@p/ as though I meant some other phoneme
> > >> Er...
> > >>>>>>> than /e/. Not so - it's just the capital latter used with a name.
> > >>>>>> Phonemic symbols, IPA or otherwise, don't have case, just like Hebrew,
> > >>>>>> Arabic, Devanagari etc. etc. have not.
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> Who made that rule? i think of // as another font of ordinary English. I
> > >>>>> haven't bothered to invent new symbols for left-out sounds because
> > >>>>> using /h/ as a diacritic works and is traditional. This doesn't impact on
> > >>>>> the vowels (in my scheme) but does introduce /th/, /dh/, /wh/ etc..
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>>>> For
> > >>>>>>> some of your other examples - /nuw/ /bluw/ and /duw/. And, of
> > >>>>>>> course /kewt/.
> > >>>>>> So what I explain as a contextual allophonic variation, for you is the
> > >>>>>> disappearance of a whole, full phoneme.
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> What disappeared? You wrote /nw/, /blw/ and /dw/ and I added /u/
> > >>>> Southbrit [tju:n], American [tu:n] (in IPA), so the element [j] has
> > >>>> disappeared. In your transcription: /tewn/ and (I would expect) /twn/,
> > >>>> because the /e/ goes missing. But no, you say it's /tuwn/. I wonder,
> > >>>> then why isn't the SouthBrit /teuwn/?
> > >>>>
> > >>>> Something goes missing, and you insert something that was already
> > >>>> there, the [u].
> > >>>>
> > >>>> I just doesn't make sense.
> > >>>
> > >>> It's not /tewn/ in my speech (Northern California). It's /tuwn/ with
> > >>> what people often call a long 'u'. In my system /w/ is not a vowel.
> > >>> This not Welsh. I think that I speak /uw/ before a voiced consonant
> > >>> in free variation between a diphthong and a long vowel .
> > >>>
> > >>> What is this business about /e/ going missing?
> > >> ... but, see before, you had also /Ewr@p/ and /few/ which I can only
> > >> read, if not as some Romance, as "Yurëp" and "fyu:", ie, with a vowel-w-
> > >> and a consonant-e-.
> > >
> > > Writing /yu/ for the diphthong that I write /ew/ is just a different
> > > (and equivalent) phonemic system. I like mine better because it
> > > gives a more symmetric overall scheme.
> >
> > Symmetric?? Incorporating /few/ and /Hewgow/ and then /tuwn/ an /tawn/
> > in the same system?
> As Ruud keeps complaining, AmE doesn't have [j] in "tune."
> > With a vowelish w in the former ("In my system /w/ is not a vowel.
> > This not Welsh."), a glider in the latter?
> > Or perhaps you mean we shouldn't read /ew/ and /uw/ as pairs of
> > placeholders for sounds, but as one diphthong sound? But then, where is
> > the symmetry between "spelling" diphthongs /xw/ and /yw/ where one is
> > y+vowel /ew/ ~ /ju(:)/, and the other vowel+w /aw/?
> > > I don't see any 'w' in your example or an 'e' consonant. So I ask again
> > >>> What is this business about /e/ going missing?
> > >
> > > I think making the 'u' in "fyu" long is not the way it is usually
> > > pronounced.
> > Anyway how would you distinguish between new, few, you... with a short
> > and then with a long u?
> > /few/ and /feww/? /few/ and /fjuw/ or /fyuw/? ...
> Why would they have "with a short and then with a long u"?
>
> short/long is the British phoneticians' way of describing what AmE
> calls diphthongs.

it is a lost cause to get linguists to stop lying about English vowel length.

Actually the linguist lie that English doesn't distinguish words by vowel length is significant
people who never went to school, or never studied linguistics and never heard of diphthongs get along just fine with long and short vowels.

studying linguistics exposes one to en endless proliferation of lies about one's own language.

Sat, 18 Dec 2021 15:10:18 -0800 (PST): "Peter T. Daniels"
<grammatim@verizon.net> scribeva:

>On Saturday, December 18, 2021 at 4:30:32 PM UTC-5, wugi wrote:
>> Op 18-12-2021 om 20:24 schreef DKleinecke:
>> > On Friday, December 17, 2021 at 1:26:21 PM UTC-8, wugi wrote:
>> >> Op 17-12-2021 om 21:25 schreef DKleinecke:
>> >>> On Thursday, December 16, 2021 at 12:02:10 PM UTC-8, Ruud Harmsen wrote:
>> >>>> Thu, 16 Dec 2021 11:36:49 -0800 (PST): DKleinecke
>> >>>> <dklei...@gmail.com> scribeva:
>> >>>>
>> >>>>> On Wednesday, December 15, 2021 at 9:32:04 PM UTC-8, Ruud Harmsen wrote:
>> >>>>>> Wed, 15 Dec 2021 13:31:53 -0800 (PST): DKleinecke
>> >>>>>> <dklei...@gmail.com> scribeva:
>> >>>>>>> I really do not believe in something called "The English Language".
>> >>>>>>> There is only a big package of idiolects that can more or less
>> >>>>>>> understand one another.
>> >>>>>> That is true of any language, and any group of dialects.
>> >>>>>>> Hah - you read my /Ewr@p/ as though I meant some other phoneme
>> >> Er...
>> >>>>>>> than /e/. Not so - it's just the capital latter used with a name.
>> >>>>>> Phonemic symbols, IPA or otherwise, don't have case, just like Hebrew,
>> >>>>>> Arabic, Devanagari etc. etc. have not.
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>> Who made that rule? i think of // as another font of ordinary English. I
>> >>>>> haven't bothered to invent new symbols for left-out sounds because
>> >>>>> using /h/ as a diacritic works and is traditional. This doesn't impact on
>> >>>>> the vowels (in my scheme) but does introduce /th/, /dh/, /wh/ etc.
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>>>> For
>> >>>>>>> some of your other examples - /nuw/ /bluw/ and /duw/. And, of
>> >>>>>>> course /kewt/.
>> >>>>>> So what I explain as a contextual allophonic variation, for you is the
>> >>>>>> disappearance of a whole, full phoneme.
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>> What disappeared? You wrote /nw/, /blw/ and /dw/ and I added /u/
>> >>>> Southbrit [tju:n], American [tu:n] (in IPA), so the element [j] has
>> >>>> disappeared. In your transcription: /tewn/ and (I would expect) /twn/,
>> >>>> because the /e/ goes missing. But no, you say it's /tuwn/. I wonder,
>> >>>> then why isn't the SouthBrit /teuwn/?
>> >>>>
>> >>>> Something goes missing, and you insert something that was already
>> >>>> there, the [u].
>> >>>>
>> >>>> I just doesn't make sense.
>> >>>
>> >>> It's not /tewn/ in my speech (Northern California). It's /tuwn/ with
>> >>> what people often call a long 'u'. In my system /w/ is not a vowel.
>> >>> This not Welsh. I think that I speak /uw/ before a voiced consonant
>> >>> in free variation between a diphthong and a long vowel .
>> >>>
>> >>> What is this business about /e/ going missing?
>> >> ... but, see before, you had also /Ewr@p/ and /few/ which I can only
>> >> read, if not as some Romance, as "Yurëp" and "fyu:", ie, with a vowel-w-
>> >> and a consonant-e-.
>> >
>> > Writing /yu/ for the diphthong that I write /ew/ is just a different
>> > (and equivalent) phonemic system. I like mine better because it
>> > gives a more symmetric overall scheme.
>>
>> Symmetric?? Incorporating /few/ and /Hewgow/ and then /tuwn/ an /tawn/
>> in the same system?
>
>As Ruud keeps complaining, AmE doesn't have [j] in "tune."

Complaining? I'm just an observer. Of facts.

>> With a vowelish w in the former ("In my system /w/ is not a vowel.
>> This not Welsh."), a glider in the latter?
>> Or perhaps you mean we shouldn't read /ew/ and /uw/ as pairs of
>> placeholders for sounds, but as one diphthong sound? But then, where is
>> the symmetry between "spelling" diphthongs /xw/ and /yw/ where one is
>> y+vowel /ew/ ~ /ju(:)/, and the other vowel+w /aw/?
>> > I don't see any 'w' in your example or an 'e' consonant. So I ask again
>> >>> What is this business about /e/ going missing?
>> >
>> > I think making the 'u' in "fyu" long is not the way it is usually
>> > pronounced.
>> Anyway how would you distinguish between new, few, you... with a short
>> and then with a long u?
>> /few/ and /feww/? /few/ and /fjuw/ or /fyuw/? ...
>
>Why would they have "with a short and then with a long u"?
>
>short/long is the British phoneticians' way of describing what AmE

.... wrongly ...

>calls diphthongs.

And then assembling the real diphthongs as two unrelated phonemes.
--
Ruud Harmsen, http://rudhar.com

On Sunday, December 19, 2021 at 1:05:05 AM UTC-5, Ruud Harmsen wrote:
> Sat, 18 Dec 2021 15:10:18 -0800 (PST): "Peter T. Daniels"
> <gram...@verizon.net> scribeva:
> >On Saturday, December 18, 2021 at 4:30:32 PM UTC-5, wugi wrote:
> >> Op 18-12-2021 om 20:24 schreef DKleinecke:
> >> > On Friday, December 17, 2021 at 1:26:21 PM UTC-8, wugi wrote:
> >> >> Op 17-12-2021 om 21:25 schreef DKleinecke:
> >> >>> On Thursday, December 16, 2021 at 12:02:10 PM UTC-8, Ruud Harmsen wrote:
> >> >>>> Thu, 16 Dec 2021 11:36:49 -0800 (PST): DKleinecke
> >> >>>> <dklei...@gmail.com> scribeva:
> >> >>>>> On Wednesday, December 15, 2021 at 9:32:04 PM UTC-8, Ruud Harmsen wrote:
> >> >>>>>> Wed, 15 Dec 2021 13:31:53 -0800 (PST): DKleinecke
> >> >>>>>> <dklei...@gmail.com> scribeva:

> >> >>>>>>> I really do not believe in something called "The English Language".
> >> >>>>>>> There is only a big package of idiolects that can more or less
> >> >>>>>>> understand one another.
> >> >>>>>> That is true of any language, and any group of dialects.
> >> >>>>>>> Hah - you read my /Ewr@p/ as though I meant some other phoneme
> >> >> Er...
> >> >>>>>>> than /e/. Not so - it's just the capital latter used with a name.
> >> >>>>>> Phonemic symbols, IPA or otherwise, don't have case, just like Hebrew,
> >> >>>>>> Arabic, Devanagari etc. etc. have not.
> >> >>>>> Who made that rule? i think of // as another font of ordinary English. I
> >> >>>>> haven't bothered to invent new symbols for left-out sounds because
> >> >>>>> using /h/ as a diacritic works and is traditional. This doesn't impact on
> >> >>>>> the vowels (in my scheme) but does introduce /th/, /dh/, /wh/ etc.
> >> >>>>>>> For
> >> >>>>>>> some of your other examples - /nuw/ /bluw/ and /duw/. And, of
> >> >>>>>>> course /kewt/.
> >> >>>>>> So what I explain as a contextual allophonic variation, for you is the
> >> >>>>>> disappearance of a whole, full phoneme.
> >> >>>>> What disappeared? You wrote /nw/, /blw/ and /dw/ and I added /u/
> >> >>>> Southbrit [tju:n], American [tu:n] (in IPA), so the element [j] has
> >> >>>> disappeared. In your transcription: /tewn/ and (I would expect) /twn/,
> >> >>>> because the /e/ goes missing. But no, you say it's /tuwn/. I wonder,
> >> >>>> then why isn't the SouthBrit /teuwn/?
> >> >>>> Something goes missing, and you insert something that was already
> >> >>>> there, the [u].
> >> >>>> I just doesn't make sense.
> >> >>> It's not /tewn/ in my speech (Northern California). It's /tuwn/ with
> >> >>> what people often call a long 'u'. In my system /w/ is not a vowel..
> >> >>> This not Welsh. I think that I speak /uw/ before a voiced consonant
> >> >>> in free variation between a diphthong and a long vowel .
> >> >>> What is this business about /e/ going missing?
> >> >> ... but, see before, you had also /Ewr@p/ and /few/ which I can only
> >> >> read, if not as some Romance, as "Yurëp" and "fyu:", ie, with a vowel-w-
> >> >> and a consonant-e-.
> >> > Writing /yu/ for the diphthong that I write /ew/ is just a different
> >> > (and equivalent) phonemic system. I like mine better because it
> >> > gives a more symmetric overall scheme.
> >> Symmetric?? Incorporating /few/ and /Hewgow/ and then /tuwn/ an /tawn/
> >> in the same system?
> >As Ruud keeps complaining, AmE doesn't have [j] in "tune."
> Complaining? I'm just an observer. Of facts.
> >> With a vowelish w in the former ("In my system /w/ is not a vowel.
> >> This not Welsh."), a glider in the latter?
> >> Or perhaps you mean we shouldn't read /ew/ and /uw/ as pairs of
> >> placeholders for sounds, but as one diphthong sound? But then, where is
> >> the symmetry between "spelling" diphthongs /xw/ and /yw/ where one is
> >> y+vowel /ew/ ~ /ju(:)/, and the other vowel+w /aw/?
> >> > I don't see any 'w' in your example or an 'e' consonant. So I ask again
> >> >>> What is this business about /e/ going missing?
> >> > I think making the 'u' in "fyu" long is not the way it is usually
> >> > pronounced.
> >> Anyway how would you distinguish between new, few, you... with a short
> >> and then with a long u?
> >> /few/ and /feww/? /few/ and /fjuw/ or /fyuw/? ...
> >Why would they have "with a short and then with a long u"?
> >short/long is the British phoneticians' way of describing what AmE
>
> ... wrongly ...
>
> >calls diphthongs.
>
> And then assembling the real diphthongs as two unrelated phonemes.

How can you STILL not understand that there is never just one
possible phonemic analysis for any set of language data?

Phonemes are ABSTRACTIONS.

Minimal pairs are real, How to account for them is analysis.

Sun, 19 Dec 2021 05:58:54 -0800 (PST): "Peter T. Daniels"
<grammatim@verizon.net> scribeva:
>> >Why would they have "with a short and then with a long u"?
>> >short/long is the British phoneticians' way of describing what AmE
>>
>> ... wrongly ...
>>
>> >calls diphthongs.
>>
>> And then assembling the real diphthongs as two unrelated phonemes.
>
>How can you STILL not understand that there is never just one
>possible phonemic analysis for any set of language data?

When I suggested that, years ago, you said it showed that I didn't
understand phonemes.

>Phonemes are ABSTRACTIONS.
>
>Minimal pairs are real, How to account for them is analysis.

Yeah, right. Except when I do it and it doesn't suit you.
--
Ruud Harmsen, http://rudhar.com