HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: evan@hpl.hp.com (Evan Kirshenbaum)
Subject: Re: RFC: ASCII representation of IPA (technical draft)
Date: Wed, 9 Sep 1992 01:34:12 GMT
Organization: Hewlett-Packard Laboratories

In article <10675@spark.ed.ac.uk> iad@cogsci.ed.ac.uk (Ivan A Derzhanski) writes:
>Did you say "pharyngealised"?
>There is no such feature mentioned in the draft; just "pharyngeal".
>But we'll consider it the same thing as "ejective" and the rest.  (The
>common term in the literature on Caucasian languages is "abruptive".)

Sorry about that.  I meant to include it (hmm, "{pzd}" is palatalized,
"{phd}"?)  The text I'm working from (Ladefoged--I couldn't find an
actual copy of the standard or Pullum's book) uses the same diacritic
for "velarized" and "pharyngealized" and notes

    There is very little difference between velarized and
    pharyngealized sounds, and no language distinguishes between the
    two possibilities.  In Arabic there is a series of consonants that
    Arabic scholars call emphatic consonants.  Some of these sounds
    are velarized, and some are pharyngealized....If it is necessary
    to distinguish between these two secondary articulations, the
    appropriate raised vowel symbol can be used.  Velarization can be
    symbolized by adding a raised [u-] and pharyngealization by a
    raised [a].

Is there a good reason not to follow the IPA model and just use [~]
for both?

Evan Kirshenbaum
    HP Laboratories
    3500 Deer Creek Road, Building 26U
    Palo Alto, CA  94304

    kirshenbaum@hpl.hp.com
    (415)857-7572
Xref: sparky sci.lang:7060 alt.usage.english:7230 soc.culture.usa:7164
From: djohns@elm.circa.ufl.edu (David A. Johns)
Newsgroups: sci.lang,alt.usage.english,soc.culture.usa
Subject: Re: Problem with 'they' (etc) as 3p singular common gender pron.
Date: 8 Sep 92 10:31:16 GMT
Followup-To: sci.lang
Organization: University of Florida, Gainesville

In article <1992Sep3.142353.6066@cbnewse.cb.att.com> awalker@cbnewse.cb.att.com (andrew.j.walker) writes:

# In article <1992Sep2.160536.28325@nosc.mil> sampson@nosc.mil
# (Charles H. Sampson ) writes:
#
# >     Does anyone know of a language that has a "apparently
# >gramatical" way of expressing sex uncertainty?  By "apparently
# >gramatical" I mean a way that does not appear to conflict with
# >any other grammar rules of the language.
#
# In spanish the word "su" (or "sus" if object is plural) is the only
# 3rd person possive pronoun.  i.e. su = his, her, their, its. Thus
# we have a gramatical way of expressing sex uncertainty in this
# case.
#
# For subject pronouns (he she it they) they can just be left off in
# cases of sex uncertainty since the phase can be understood via the
# verb conjugation.  e.g.

Spanish has quite a few gender-neutral forms, but you would still be
in trouble if you needed a predicate adjective ("Someone was so kind
as to ...") or if you needed to use the subject pronoun for some
reason.

All the languages we've been talking about have *some* gender
neutralization -- German in predicate adjectives, Russian in
reflexives, etc.  This sort of inconsistency gives writers some
latitude in recasting sentences, but it doesn't really solve the
problem.

I believe Mr. Sampson was asking above whether any language which
normally marks gender has a full set of forms for expressing gender
uncertainty -- presumably without using the forms of one gender or the
other.

David Johns

Xref: sparky sci.lang:7082 soc.culture.europe:8235
From: amblard@imag.fr (Paul Amblard)
Newsgroups: sci.lang,soc.culture.europe
Subject: Re: Info on Celtic languages from Cambridge Encyclopedia of language
Date: 9 Sep 92 11:20:42 GMT
Followup-To: sci.lang
Organization: IMAG Institute, University of Grenoble, France

In article <1992Sep7.210236.2626@rdg.dec.com> cockburn@edieng.enet.dec.com (Craig Cockburn) writes:
>Here's the corrected version, from the Cambridge encyclopedia of language.
>
>Goidelic (Q-Celtic) >Scots Gaelic >Irish Gaelic >Manx
>(this branch entered the British Isles when a wave of Celts left the
>Bordeaux area of France in the 4th century BC. 
I have read other hypothesis. I do  not remember where. May be in Colin
Renfrew's book about Indo-europeans.

>Brythonic (P-Celtic) >Cumbrian (extinct) >Welsh >Cornish
>Breton (descended mainly from Cornish)
>
>Both the above branches are "insular Celtic". The languages below (all
>extinct) are "Continental Celtic"
>
...........
>Gaulish (France, north Italy, Belgium, north Germany, Netherlands)

The hypothesis has been emitted by Francois Falc'hun that one of the 4 dialects
of Breton, the "Vannetais" could mix sources from insular celtic, and some from
gaulish. The hypothesis being that gaulish was still used in Brittany when the
celts from Britain arrived. The two languages being related, the people could
easily "synthezise" a new language from the two.
ref F. Falch'un, Thesis, University of Rennes. I can lokk for exact
references.
-- 
Paul AMBLARD      L.G.I. I.M.A.G.     BP 53X	F 38041 GRENOBLE Cedex  
     Tel (33) 76514600 ext 5144                       amblard@imag.fr
Newsgroups: sci.lang,soc.culture.europe
From: cockburn@edieng.enet.dec.com (Craig Cockburn)
Subject: Re: Info on Celtic languages from Cambridge Encyclopedia of language
Organization: Digital Equipment Co. Ltd., Reading, England
Date: Tue, 8 Sep 1992 06:32:13 GMT


In article <1685B11E9D.JAREA@UKCC.UKY.EDU>, JAREA@UKCC.UKY.EDU writes...
>I have been under the impression that Scots Gaelic was "descended mainly from
>Irish Gaelic" as Breton is from Cornish, the territory it extended to having
>been populated (before the Germanic invasions) by speakers of Brythonic and
>of non-Brythonic Pictish.  Have I been accepting an error all these years?
> 
No, you're right about Scots Gaelic. It is descended from the Ulster
Branch of Irish Gaelic. Manx is also descended from Irish Gaelic. The
"Common Gaelic" was spoken in Ireland until just after the Celts
spread out to Scotland and the Isle of Man.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
  Craig Cockburn, Digital Equipment Co. Ltd, Reading, England.     Suas
  Internet: cockburn@edieng.enet.dec.com                           leis
  UUCP:..!decwrl!edieng.enet.dec.com!cockburn                      a'
                                                                   Gha\idhlig!
  Views here are my own, and are not necessarily those of Digital
Newsgroups: sci.lang
From: goer@ellis.uchicago.edu (Richard L. Goerwitz)
Subject: Re: phonology question
Reply-To: goer@midway.uchicago.edu
Organization: University of Chicago Computing Organizations
Date: Wed, 9 Sep 1992 15:16:28 GMT

In article <82259@bcsaic.boeing.com> rwojcik@atc.boeing.com writes (in response
to a postin of mine) that

>nonsense word "ibpag" is monomorphemic.  You are comparing apples and oranges.
>I think that you might find "idtag" to be more difficult than "hardtack", and
>"lobe paint" (paint for earlobes) easier than "ibpag."

Why should an (invisible) morpheme boundary affect what you've said is a matter
of low-level phonology (a "process," using the terminology proper to Natural
Phonology)?  This is a very reasonable assertion, actually.  I have often gotten
the feeling that Natural Phonology doesn't allow processes to know about higher
levels of structure.  They apply after morphophonemic rules.  As Leo has pointed
out in several postings, the pronunciation of compounds is unlike that of mono-
morphemic forms like "ibpag."  We say "hardtack" with two clearly recognizable
vowels, and not like, say, "chairman."

>You have been reading Stephen Anderson's writings on Baudouin de Courtenay.

Yes, and David Stampe's postings, too.  I like both.

>Baudouin later abandonned that terminology in favor of "physiophonetic"
>(=anthropomorphic) and "psychophonetic" (=traditional).  This dichotomy
>later came to be renamed "phonology" and "morpho(pho)nology" by Trubetzkoy,
>whence came the more traditional dichotomy referenced in structuralist
>works.  Baudouin's early distinction, and Trubetzkoy's later distinction,
>exactly correspond to the process/rule dichotomy.  Most later schools (except
>for the Moscow School of phonology), changed the dividing line between 
>phonology and morphonology such that it no longer reflected the original 
>dichotomy.

This little paragraph is a real gem.  Thanks for writing it!


-- 

   -Richard L. Goerwitz              goer%midway@uchicago.bitnet
   goer@midway.uchicago.edu          rutgers!oddjob!ellis!goer
Newsgroups: sci.lang
From: peeters@tasman.cc.utas.edu.au (bert peeters)
Subject: Re: Latin x again
Organization: University of Tasmania, Australia.
Date: Sat, 5 Sep 1992 07:57:06 GMT

bthurman@uncavx.unca.edu writes:

>Perhaps the questions did not make the point stick.  Could one not summarize
>that, where x appears within the root of the word, x may survive or there may
>be alteration, as to ss, but the vernacular abuse (originally abuse, or at
>least alternate usage) of oblique cases where the old nominative will have
>functioned eliminates the question that x could have devolved into a c/k or the
>like?

Latin /x/ survives as /s/ before a consonant, or as /js/ at the final or in
intervocalic position. /x/ does not survive as such ever. We must not mix
up natural phonetic evolution and learned 15th c borrowing. BTW, I am referring
to French only. Cf. "li reis" in Old French for "le roi" (Latin REX).
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Dr Bert Peeters                         Tel: +61 02 202344
Department of Modern Languages               002 202344
University of Tasmania at Hobart        Fax: 002 207813
GPO Box 252C                            Bert.Peeters@modlang.utas.edu.au
Hobart TAS 7001
Australia
Xref: sparky sci.lang:7048 alt.usage.english:7219
From: reinpost@wsinis02.info.win.tue.nl (Reinier Post)
Newsgroups: sci.lang,alt.usage.english
Subject: Re: Problem with 'they' (etc) as 3p singular common gender pron.
Summary: Dutch does it this way
Date: 7 Sep 92 17:23:01 GMT
Reply-To: reinpost@info.win.tue.nl
Followup-To: sci.lang
Organization: Eindhoven University of Technology, the Netherlands

In article <1992Sep7.135523.17129@odin.diku.dk> thorinn@diku.dk (Lars Henrik Mathiesen) writes:
>iad@cogsci.ed.ac.uk (Ivan A Derzhanski) writes:
>>>>According to my experience, the following universal holds:
>>>>  If a language distinguishes between a masculine and a feminine
>>>>  gender, one of these two [...] is used as gender-unspecific. [...]
>>>
>>>>  Exception: English.
>
>>[...] I was saying that no pronominal (sub)system in any natural
>>language appears to include a `he', a `she', and a `he or she' (which
>>would cover the functions of the other two) at the same time.

(See below.)

>Actually, you said that every language with a 'he' and a 'she', except
>for English, appears to use one of those to replace 'he or she'.
>Danish does not, and in informal usage manages to do quite well
>without any replacement at all.

(Colloquial) Dutch does provide a replacement: the demonstrative pronoun.

  John called. You know what he said?
  John belde.  Weet je wat hij zei?		[pers. pron. masc.]
  John belde.  Weet je wat die zei?		[dem. pron. masc./fem.]

  Mary called. You know what she said?
  Mary belde.  Weet je wat ze zei?		[pers. pron. fem., unstressed]
  Mary belde.  Weet je wat zij zei?		[pers. pron. fem., stressed]
  Mary belde.  Weet je wat die zei?		[dem. pron. masc./fem.]

  Somebody called. You know what [?] said?		['they'?]
  Iemand belde.    Weet je wat die zei?

And I don't think either 'hij' or 'zij' is acceptable here.

In written language, the form 'ze' is acceptable; 'die' is not, and it will
usually be written 'hij'.

Hypothesis: IAD's universal holds for written Dutch only.

>Lars Mathiesen (U of Copenhagen CS Dep) <thorinn@diku.dk>

Could you provide Danish translations?

-- 
Reinier Post						reinpost@win.tue.nl
Newsgroups: sci.lang
From: rcj@engin.umich.edu (R o d Johnson)
Subject: Re: RFC: ASCII representation of IPA (technical draft)
Date: Thu, 10 Sep 92 23:51:48 EDT
Organization: Lost Tribes of Gazebo

In article <1992Sep10.214226.29782@leland.Stanford.EDU> alderson@elaine46.Stanford.EDU (Rich Alderson) writes:
>In article <10675@spark.ed.ac.uk>, iad@cogsci (Ivan A Derzhanski) writes:
>>Did you say "pharyngealised"?
>>There is no such feature mentioned in the draft; just "pharyngeal".
>>But we'll consider it the same thing as "ejective" and the rest.  (The
>>common term in the literature on Caucasian languages is "abruptive".)

>I did say "pharyngealized," and we'll only consider it the same as "ejective"
>in some other universe of discourse.  Not even close to the same thing.

Definitely not.  "Pharyngeal" refers to a place of articulation.
"Pharyngealized", like "labialized" refers to a *secondary*
articulation.  Arabic emphatics are ordinary segments with a
pharyngeal (or velar, or maybe advanced tongue root?) articulation
overlaid.  Ejectives are glottalic egressive segments.  Glottalic,
glottalized and glottal are likewise non-equivalent.

-- 
       Rod Johnson  *  rcj@caen.engin.umich.edu  *  (313) 764-3103
    
                "What I do doesn't happen in a warehouse"
                                          --Jim Dickinson
Newsgroups: sci.lang
From: JAREA@UKCC.UKY.EDU
Subject: Re: Latin x again
Organization: University of Kentucky
Date: Sat, 5 Sep 1992 01:34:45 GMT

In article <1992Sep4.121722.1@uncavx.unca.edu>
bthurman@uncavx.unca.edu writes:
 
>
>Do not quite a few words that have an x in the Latin root evolve into French
>without the conscious borrowing as in Mexique?  Example: rixe < rixa.
 
I am a bit confused by this, and fail to understand the way in which there
is a crucial difference between the borrowing of  'Mexique' and of 'rixe'
(both of which involve slight adaptations to French patterns).  A borrowed
word is a borrowed word, whether it be from Spanish or from Latin.
 
Perhaps it would be well for people who post to check the appropriate
dictionaries before citing examples -- in this case a French etymological
dictionary would be handy.
From: iad@cogsci.ed.ac.uk (Ivan A Derzhanski)
Newsgroups: sci.lang
Subject: Re: compounding
Date: 7 Sep 92 10:40:33 GMT
Organization: Centre for Cognitive Science, Edinburgh, UK

In article <1992Sep6.171825.26582@discus.technion.ac.il> davidba@carmel.technion.ac.il (David Ben_Ami) writes:
<In article <PmBkqB1w164w@jwt.UUCP> bbs-hrick@jwt.UUCP writes:
<>
<>I'm wondering
<>if an NA language would have head->modifier compounds (e.g.
<>"mansnow" instead of "snowman"), and if this actually occurs or
<>would be a violation of some "universal."
<
<Yes, Hebrew have exactly this phenomenon: "Ish-Sheleg" = "Ish"=man+
<"Sheleg"=snow and thus the "mansnow" construct.

Strictly speaking, this is not a compound (a single lexical unit), but
a possessive construction (`man of snow').  (The modifier would bear
genitive marking if Hebrew hadn't lost its case inflexion.)  Hebrew is
NG NA, as are the other Afro-Asiatic languages, but there are many GN
NA languages (see J H Greenberg, _Some universals of grammar with
particular reference to the order of meaningful elements_, for a list;
I mentioned three of them in my previous article).

<I think that this does not break any universal , on the contrary it is
<quite logical that when word-order reverses the order in the compound
<reverses too.

Yes, it is quite logical, but this doesn't make it necessary.
(Aren't natural languages charming.)  German and Basque both have
modifier-head compounds; German is NG AN and Basque is GN NA.

-- 
 `If ye hiv ears oan yer heid - then use them tae lissen.' (The Glasgow Gospel)
Ivan A Derzhanski   (iad@cogsci.ed.ac.uk;  iad@chaos.cs.brandeis.edu)
* Centre for Cognitive Science,  2 Buccleuch Place,  Edinburgh EH8 9LW,  UK
* Cowan House, Pollock Halls, 18 Holyrood Park Road, Edinburgh EH16 5BD, UK
From: holger@cogsci.ed.ac.uk (Holger Hank)
Newsgroups: sci.lang
Subject: deep and surface anaphora
Keywords: anaphora, ellipsis, sag
Date: 14 Sep 92 19:32:42 GMT
Organization: Centre for Cognitive Science, Edinburgh, UK

(I posted this request months ago, please email me with new suggestions)

English distinguishes between two types of anaphors (pronouns,
ellipsis, etc): ``deep'' and ``surface''.
While deep anaphors can be controlled pragmatically, surface anaphora
depends on an linguistic antecedent for its interpretation.

Examples:
(You see someone juggling with five balls and say:)

(1) I can do IT !
   
          is ok while

(2) *I can do SO.


          is out.

(1) is "deep" and (2) is "surface". Other examples are VP-ellipsis,
Sluicing (Surface) (e.g.: "I wonder why?") and Def. Pronominalisation (deep).

e.g. :

(3) the children asked to be squirted with the hose, so

a  - they were  (VP ellipsis, surface)
b  - we did it  (sentenial it, deep)
c  - * we did.  (VP ellipsis, surface)

Note, that (3)c is dubious, because surface-anaphora (but not deep !) 
requires that
anaphora and antecedent have the same syntactic form. 


After this introduction, here is my question:

How does (if at all) this contrast show up in other languages?
Intuitions, examples as well pointers to papers are very much appreciated.

thanks        
                                  Holger
Newsgroups: sci.lang
From: JAREA@UKCC.UKY.EDU
Subject: Re: RFC: ASCII representation of IPA (technical draft)
Organization: University of Kentucky
Date: Mon, 7 Sep 1992 01:11:20 GMT

In article <10642@spark.ed.ac.uk>
iad@cogsci.ed.ac.uk (Ivan A Derzhanski) writes:
 
>
>Herein is my first reaction to E Kirshenbaum's ASCII IPA proposal.
>
>My biggest complaint is that I see no mention of affricates.  My
>Slavic ear and tongue insist on the articulatory and acoustic
>distinction between an affricate and a stop followed by a fricative.
>I know that the distinction is not relevant for English, but English
>is not the only language discussed here.
>
>Ivan A Derzhanski   (iad@cogsci.ed.ac.uk;  iad@chaos.cs.brandeis.edu)
 
It has been suggested in an infamous footnoot by Bloomfield, no less, that
there is a distinction between the affricate in question and the sequence
in pairs like 'catch it' versus
but others have attributed the phonological difference to such things as
'juncture'  (any of you old enough to remember Trager and Smith's four
junctures?), syllable boundary etc.  Oh, sorry, I seem to have omitted
the second member of the contrasting pair, and my mail program won't let
me back up to correct my typographical lapse.  Pity!
From: aeb@cwi.nl (Andries Brouwer)
Newsgroups: sci.lang
Subject: Re: Problem with 'they' (etc) as 3p singular common gender pron.
Date: 15 Sep 92 05:31:32 GMT

iad@cogsci.ed.ac.uk (Ivan A Derzhanski) writes:

>Just suggesting that you try other cases, possessive forms, etc. as well.
>It is not quite clear to me to what extent Danish _vedkommende_ is a real
>pronoun in the register to which it belongs, rather than a pseudo-pronoun
>of some sort (such as the counterparts of `Your Majesty' or `your [most
>obedient] servant' in a number of languages).
	I would translate _vedkommende_ with `concerned' or `in question'.
	The usage seems to me very similar to that of `the person in question'.

>As for Dutch _die_ (how is the possessive form of that?), it is about the
>kind of thing that I should have expected to generate exceptions to my
>universal: a genderless demonstrative used as a personal pronoun.

Dutch _die_ is genderless, but not very much so.
Its genitive _diens_ can only be used for the masculine and neuter.
The enclitic form of the pronoun `he', namely _i_ (also sometimes
written _ie_, but usually replaced bij _hij_ in written language)
is often indistinguishable from _tie_, mainly because it usually
follows a verb in the 3rd person singular, and the verb has ending -t:
	spoken:	heeftie al gegeten?
	written: heeft hij al gegeten? [has he eaten already]
Sometimes _tie_ is also used when the verb does not end in -t:
	istie ziek? [is he ill?]
	waar istie heengegaan? [where did he go?]
(but one also hears _issie_ instead of _istie_).
Finally, in order to avoid hiatus, one uses _die_ instead of _ie_:
	zou die nog komen? [would he still come?]
(but one also hears _zou ie_ instead of _zou die_).

On the other hand, the demonstrative _die_ would also be pronounced _tie_
after a verb ending in -t. Thus, in many contexts it is difficult or
impossible to distinguish between the masculine personal pronoun _ie_
and the demonstrative _die_. Consequently _die_ feels much more masculine
than feminine.

>Other sentences to play with:

I play in Dutch:
>  I don't know who left this hat here, but I'm sure he'll come back for it.
	Ik weet niet wie z'n hoed hier heeft laten liggen,
	maar 'k weet zeker dattie'm weer komt halen.
>  If someone comes, tell him he should wait a little.
	Als er iemand komt, zeg dan dattie even moet wachten.
>  Who was there and what did he want?
	Wie was daar and wat wou die?
[slightly more formally:]
>  If you catch someone cheating, tell me his name.
	Mocht je iemand op valsspelen betrappen, zeg me wie.
From: rwojcik@atc.boeing.com (Richard Wojcik,snake)
Newsgroups: sci.lang
Subject: Re: Cognitive Phonology (was: Cognitive linguistics...)
Date: 10 Sep 92 16:19:31 GMT
Reply-To: rwojcik@atc.boeing.com
Organization: Research & Technology

In article 17095@athena.mit.edu, pesetsk@athena.mit.edu (David M Pesetsky) writes:
>The point of principles-and-parameters conceptions of acquisition is
>that the child *always* has a grammar.  From the beginning.

This aspect is identical with Natural Phonology, except that NP takes the 
"phonological" grammar to exist for the purpose of coordinating articulation.
It isn't a reliable source for grammatical intuition until it gets working
properly.  Generative theory, unless it has evolved beyond any similarity 
with its past, takes the grammar to be an intuition-generating device.  How
that relates to the noises the child makes when it attempts to speak isn't
entirely clear.

-----
Disclaimer:  Opinions expressed above are not those of my employer.

    Rick Wojcik   (rwojcik@atc.boeing.com)   Seattle, WA
Newsgroups: sci.lang
From: goer@ellis.uchicago.edu (Richard L. Goerwitz)
Subject: Re: historical phonetics (was: ASCII representation of IPA)
Reply-To: goer@midway.uchicago.edu
Organization: University of Chicago Computing Organizations
Date: Tue, 15 Sep 1992 19:05:57 GMT

Stanley Friesen writes:
>
>Is a change from a glottalized to an aspirated consonant a reasonable
>sequence?

Just a note:  One thing to watch out for is that languages with a third
stop series (e.g. voiced/unvoiced/glottalized, voiced/unvoiced/pharyn-
gealized, voiced/unvoiced/[heavily] aspirated) often borrow from other
languages with a third stop series, and make equivalences that might
make it seem that both languages manifest the third series in a similar
way.  For example, we have Greek, which has a theta.  Now the theta was
clearly borrowed from Semitic.  In Semitic, the theta would have been
either glottalized or pharyngealized (depending on the region).  In
Greek, however, it was aspirated.  The letter was borrowed to represent
their aspirated t because it was recognized that the grapheme reflected
a third series in Semitic, even though that series was phonetically un-
related to the one in Greek.

Interestingly, as Greek begins to lose aspiration, and to pronounce the
theta as a fricative, its transcription of Semitic words changes.  In
later times, Greek theta is used for the Semitic voiceless stop series,
and the tau is use for the third series.  Changes both in Semitic and
Greek are probably responsible.

My point is only that when two language-groups are in continuous (or per-
haps intermittent) contact for a long time, one might expect a number of
equivalences to develop that might seem very confusing to someone who is
trying to understand the underlying phonetic relationships.

Sorry to wander off to the side.  Just thought it was interesting.

-- 

   -Richard L. Goerwitz              goer%midway@uchicago.bitnet
   goer@midway.uchicago.edu          rutgers!oddjob!ellis!goer
Newsgroups: sci.lang