HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: connolly@memstvx1.memst.edu
Newsgroups: sci.lang
Subject: Re: Character Sets
Date: 29 Sep 92 08:37:50 -0600
Organization: Memphis State University

jon@hook.corp.mot.com (Jon Whalen), MOTOROLA writes:
 
>II. Are the following statements correct? If not, how far off the mark
>are they?
>
>1. A grapheme is logical unit of meaning used in the written
>representation
>   of a language.
 
No way.  A grapheme is a minimal unit of writing.  Example: <a> and
<b>, or even capital <A> and lower case <a>, are different graphemes
because they are distinct and non-interchangeable in the English
writing system.  (Graphemes are written between the angled brackets
<>.)  On the other hand, Roman _a_ (with curve extending up from the
right side and over the top) and "manuscript" _a_ (o-like) are
"allographs" of a single grapheme because they are interchangeable in
our writing system; the choice depends on the writer or font designer.
 
Graphemes have *NOTHING WHATSOEVER* to do with meaning.
 
>2. A glyph is a pictorial representation of a grapheme.
 
I'm not familiar with such a usage.  Mainly _glyph_ refers to symbols
(often pictorial) in some language which hasn't been deciphered yet --
in fact, there may be doubt as to whether they are writing at all.
 
>3. A font is an ordered set of glyphs.
>   (i.e. a mapping between numeric (integer) values and glyphs.)
 
It would also have to include instructions on forming the characters in
question.
 
>4. A character set is an ordered set of graphemes.
>   (i.e. a mapping between numeric (integer) values and graphemes.)
 
Right -- at least, I think so at the moment.
 
>5. A font encoding is a mapping between a character set and a font.
 
I don't know what this would mean or why you'd need it.
 
--Leo Connolly

Newsgroups: sci.lang
From: peeters@tasman.cc.utas.edu.au (bert peeters)
Subject: Re: the entire generative enterprise (was: SVO / VSO)
Organization: University of Tasmania, Australia.
Date: Tue, 29 Sep 1992 23:32:05 GMT

lee@uhunix.uhcc.Hawaii.Edu (Greg Lee) writes:

>It sure seems anglocentric to me.  Faced with the most direct evidence anyone
>could want that the special status of the subject cannot be described in terms
>of surface constituent structure, you conclude that the verb moves (just to
>make it _seem_ as though you were wrong).  And call this a "discovery"!  Next
>you'll be telling us that this verb movement is a phonological change, I
>suppose.

>However, I do take issue with attributing this kind of reasoning to "the
>entire generative enterprise".  Not all of us are so completely immune to
>to the facts.

My apologies to anyone who feels bad about my using the phrase quoted by
Greg when talking about anglocentrism in generative grammar. Among all
the "good guys" there are probably quite a number who are "even better".
---------------------------------------------------------------------
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
Newsgroups: sci.lang
From: lee@uhunix.uhcc.Hawaii.Edu (Greg Lee)
Subject: Re: deep structure features
Organization: University of Hawaii
Date: Mon, 28 Sep 1992 12:59:40 GMT

In article <1992Sep27.165832.6010@midway.uchicago.edu> goer@midway.uchicago.edu writes:
}   ...  But natural phonologists (and others, too) tend to talk about
}   phonemes at the systematic level as morphophonemes, and seem to talk
}   about them in Sapirian (and also Chomskian) terms as perceptual
}   units and not feature bundles.  Does this mean that it's never valid
}   to talk about, say, "nasals" as participating in a rule (in the NP
}   sense = lexical phonological rule)? ...

Yes, it does mean that.  (Don't take that answer as authoritative, though,
because I am not a 100% pure natural phonologist.)

I can illustrate one factual basis for the contention (and why, personally,
I don't accept it) with a hypothetical example derived from Yawelmani.
Yawelmani suffixes with /i/ alternate harmonically with alternants in /u/
when they are attached to a form whose last vowel is /u/.  Now pretend
that Yawelmani also has an alternation of /t/ and /w/, with /w/ occurring
after a /u/ which derives harmonically from a /i/, and we describe these
facts with the following ordered rules:
    1. high vowel becomes rounded when the first preceding vowel in the
       same word is high and round
    2. t becomes w after a high front rounded vowel
    3. front vowels become unrounded

Letting "^u" stand for the high front rounded vowel (which is not a
phoneme of pseudo-Yawelmani or real Yawelmani), we have:
    kut (stem) + ital (suffix)
 -> kut+u^tal  by rule 1 (roundness harmony)
 -> kut+u^wal  by rule 2 (imaginary rule)
 -> kut+uwal   by rule 3 (roundness bleaching of palatal vowels)

The trouble is with rule 2, which makes crucial reference to a segment
which is not a phoneme (namely the u^).  The argument is that this sort
of thing never in fact happens (with _rules_, but it's ok with
processes).  Yet, if rules were properly formulated in phonetic terms,
there would be nothing to prevent it happening -- one rule could create
a nonphonemic segment which conditions some change before being eliminated
in favor of a legitimate phoneme (to yield the phonemic form of a word).
Thus we conclude that rules are properly formulated only in terms of
phonemic segments (and morphemes).

Now, personally, I don't agree to the conclusion, because I think
morphophonemics is monostratal, and that is sufficient to prevent
the imaginary rule 2 sort of thing.  In the example, rules 1 and 3
must apply simultaneously, and so there can be no intermediate form
with u^.  (But I also think allophonics is monostratal, which has
the consequence that it should also be impossible for a _process_ to
make reference to a segment which is present neither in the phonemic
form nor in the pronunciation -- counterexamples welcome.)

--
Greg Lee <lee@uhunix.uhcc.hawaii.edu>
Newsgroups: sci.lang
From: lee@uhunix.uhcc.Hawaii.Edu (Greg Lee)
Subject: Re: Cognitive Phonology (was Cognitive Linguistics...)
Organization: University of Hawaii
Date: Thu, 1 Oct 1992 15:06:30 GMT

In article <83905@bcsaic.boeing.com> rwojcik@atc.boeing.com writes:
}...  (And chains of Processes are relevant because the "foreign"
}target may be more than a single Process removed from any native target.)
}...

No, they're not relevant to what segments appear in the child's lexical
forms -- its phonemes.  It's fine to consider a child's attempted
imitations of adult speech forms to "foreign" borrowings, but what
about the situation after the forms are borrowed?  When the child
pronounces forms based on what it has memorized, lexical forms, it's
not borrowing from itself.  The lexical forms are governed by the
unsuppressed fortitions.  If bleaching [e:] -> schwa (or carat) is
unsuppressed, no lexical /e:/, because fortitions govern perception.
It doesn't matter whether [i:] -> [e:].  Logically, one could have
a theory which permitted a counterfeeding order constraint preventing
Bleaching from applying after Lowering and which predicted perceived
forms by applying fortitions in observance with this constraint, so
that foreign [i:] would be perceived as /e:/, but foreign [e:] as
schwa.  That seems to be what you are assuming.  But I don't think
David ever made such a proposal, though possibly what he said in
his dissertation would be consistent with this.

}...
}Let's try this.  Pretend that you are an astronomer trying to explain why 
}your photographs have a bearing on your work.  Then construct a similar 
}explanation for why patterns of grammaticality judgments have a bearing on
}linguistic theory.

No, I won't try it.  Astronomers don't spend their time in theoretical
discussion of photographs; it's not astronomy.  I'm not going to waste
time in fruitless methodological debate; it's not linguistics.  This
is the trap psychologists fall into -- let's not follow them.

--
Greg Lee <lee@uhunix.uhcc.hawaii.edu>
Date: Friday, 25 Sep 1992 19:23:41 EST
From: <RVESTERM@vma.cc.nd.edu>
Newsgroups: sci.lang
Subject: question for budding linguists of ALL age groups.

we all know that "a sermon" is correct, while "an sermon" is not.
we all know that "an evangelical sermon" is correct, while "a evangelical
sermon" is not.

my question is this: which is correct, "a (evangelical) sermon" or
"an (evangelical) sermon" ?
Newsgroups: sci.lang
Subject: Ling Ph.D programs??
From: <JRSCC@CUNYVM.BITNET>
Date: Thursday, 1 Oct 1992 19:14:24 EDT
Organization: City University of New York/ University Computer Center

   Hello, my boyfriend has just received a listing of Cog.Sci.
Grad Programs from the Sci.Cog. newsgroup..I'm looking for an equivalent
listing of Ph.D Programs in Linguistics--preferably good ones, the
programs, that is--Is there any such list available?  If so, how
could I get my hands, fingers, eyes, on one?
Thank you much, muchly,
ever so much.
Newsgroups: sci.lang
From: lee@uhunix.uhcc.Hawaii.Edu (Greg Lee)
Subject: Re: deep structure features
Organization: University of Hawaii
Date: Mon, 28 Sep 1992 13:21:50 GMT

[this is a corrected version of a posting I hope was cancelled]

In article <1992Sep27.165832.6010@midway.uchicago.edu> goer@midway.uchicago.edu writes:
}   ...  But natural phonologists (and others, too) tend to talk about
}   phonemes at the systematic level as morphophonemes, and seem to talk
}   about them in Sapirian (and also Chomskian) terms as perceptual
}   units and not feature bundles.  Does this mean that it's never valid
}   to talk about, say, "nasals" as participating in a rule (in the NP
}   sense = lexical phonological rule)? ...

Yes, it does mean that.  (Don't take that answer as authoritative, though,
because I am not a 100% pure natural phonologist.)

I can illustrate one factual basis for the contention (and why, personally,
I don't accept it) with a hypothetical example derived from Yawelmani.
Yawelmani suffixes with /i/ alternate harmonically with alternants in /u/
when they are attached to a form whose last vowel is /u/.  Now pretend
that Yawelmani also has an alternation of /t/ and /w/, with /w/ occurring
after a /u/ which derives harmonically from a /i/, and we describe these
facts with the following ordered rules:
    1. high vowel becomes rounded when the first preceding vowel in the
       same word is high and round
    2. t becomes w after a high front rounded vowel
    3. round vowels become back

Letting "^u" stand for the high front rounded vowel (which is not a
phoneme of pseudo-Yawelmani or real Yawelmani), we have:
    kut (stem) + ital (suffix)
 -> kut+u^tal  by rule 1 (roundness harmony)
 -> kut+u^wal  by rule 2 (imaginary rule)
 -> kut+uwal   by rule 3 (palatal bleaching of round vowels)

The trouble is with rule 2, which makes crucial reference to a segment
which is not a phoneme (namely the u^).  The argument is that this sort
of thing never in fact happens (with _rules_, but it's ok with
processes).  Yet, if rules were properly formulated in phonetic terms,
there would be nothing to prevent it happening -- one rule could create
a nonphonemic segment which conditions some change before being eliminated
in favor of a legitimate phoneme (to yield the phonemic form of a word).
Thus we conclude that rules are properly formulated only in terms of
phonemic segments (and morphemes).

Now, personally, I don't agree to the conclusion, because I think
morphophonemics is monostratal, and that is sufficient to prevent
the imaginary rule 2 sort of thing.  In the example, rules 1 and 3
must apply simultaneously, and so there can be no intermediate form
with u^.  (But I also think allophonics is monostratal, which has
the consequence that it should also be impossible for a _process_ to
make reference to a segment which is present neither in the phonemic
form nor in the pronunciation -- counterexamples welcome.)

--
Greg Lee <lee@uhunix.uhcc.hawaii.edu>
Newsgroups: sci.lang
From: arild@milan.ims.uni-stuttgart.de (Arild Hestvik)
Subject: Re: SVO / VSO --> NP-Movement
Reply-To: arild@ims.uni-stuttgart.de
Organization: IMS, University of Stuttgart, Germany
Date: Mon, 5 Oct 1992 10:17:34 GMT

In article <1992Oct2.151844.22435@athena.mit.edu> pesetsk@athena.mit.edu (David M Pesetsky) writes:

   The alternative is to move in the direction Arild suggests -- admit
   formally optionally movement from these positions.  But then we have the
   opposite problem -- understanding why such movement is sometimes forced.

Precisely. I've always wondered whether it might be fruitful to try to link
it to differences in the expletive systems, although I haven't any good
ideas about it (yet). Suggestions welcome.
-Arild
Newsgroups: sci.lang
From: lee@uhunix.uhcc.Hawaii.Edu (Greg Lee)
Subject: Re: SVO / VSO
Organization: University of Hawaii
Date: Wed, 30 Sep 1992 12:40:29 GMT

In article <1992Sep29.032313.17834@athena.mit.edu> pesetsk@athena.mit.edu (David M Pesetsky) writes:
}...
}McCawley's quite brilliant article is unrelated to the discussion at
}hand.  Indeed, his proposal was the opposite of the proposals for VSO
}languages under discussion, since he precisely predicted no
}subject/object command asymmetry and no distinguished role for the
}external argument. ...

Not so.  McCawley moved the subject into clause initial position by
Chomsky-adjunction, giving a surface structure [Subj[V Obj]], with
V+Obj being an S, so that the subject commands the object in
surface structure, but not vice versa.  The characterization of
the "VP" as an S not dominating a subject is found also in GPSG.

--
Greg Lee <lee@uhunix.uhcc.hawaii.edu>
From: robison1@husc10.harvard.edu (Keith Robison)
Newsgroups: sci.bio
Subject: Re: genes mapped
Date: 6 Oct 92 14:23:22 GMT

James_S._Bright.wbst129@XEROX.COM writes:


>A Co-worker mentioned something yesterday about hearing a news report over the
>weekend about a gene being mapped out. Anybody have any information they'd like
>to share on this? I'd love to hear about it.

>jbright.wbst129@xerox.com

>disclaimer: These views are strictly my own, are not meant to represent
>Xerox, its associates, my parents, my school, nor my dog's.




	I suspect you are thinking about the recently completed
physical maps for chromosomes 21 and Y.  Individual genes are
mapped on a daily basis, but these represent the first times
that entire human chromosome maps were completed.
	There are many flavors of genetic maps.  You can map the
frequency with which genes are co-inherited (recombination map),
the correlation of genes with the physical appearance of the
chromosomes (cytogenetic map), or a known arrangement of fragments
of the chromosome (physical maps).  The maps for 21 and Y are
contig maps, physical maps consisting of a set of cloned
(propagatable as defined entities in a microbial host) fragments
which overlap to form a contiguous segment stretching from one
end of the chromosome to the other.  Such a map is currently
a requisite first step to determining the entire sequence of
DNA subunits along the chromosome.  Once linked to a recombination
map (by correlating markers), a contig map can be used to rapid
identify genes responsible for inherited traits/diseases.


Keith Robison
Harvard University
Department of Cellular & Developmental Biology
Department of Genetics / HHMI

robison@ribo.harvard.edu 
Newsgroups: sci.bio
From: kyrsten@eos.arc.nasa.gov (Kyrsten Swazey)
Subject: Synthetic Viruses
Organization: NASA Ames Research Center
Distribution: usa
Date: Mon, 28 Sep 1992 21:44:59 GMT

Perhaps an educated individual can clear up a concept that has recently
been proposed to me.  A fello undergrad., who is a bio major, suggested
that AIDS is actually a synthetic virus, *not* something naturally
evolved.  At first, I thought the idea was ridiculous, but he said that
most viruses, such as the cold virus, were incredibly strong in the
sense that one could expose them to vacuum (or other nasty things) and
they would still do their thing when placed within a living cell.  Pls
excuse the frighteningly non-scientific terminology (my strengths lay
elsewhere), but i don't know hos else to relay this.  
So, what i am wondering is: does this have any basis in reality or is
this paranoid tripe?  and, if someone created such a relatively inferior
virus, then is there any possibility that there could be some equally
inferior immune defense?  yes, i *know* this is something which as yet
has no answers and possibly there is no "cure", but i would at least
like to know what it is, where it came from (besides the homophobic
nonesense), etc...
Thanks for *any* response!! :->
-Kyrsten
From: robison1@husc10.harvard.edu (Keith Robison)
Newsgroups: sci.bio
Subject: Re: breast genetic question
Date: 2 Oct 92 16:18:12 GMT
Article-I.D.: husc10.robison1.718042692

maverick@topgun.b29.ingr.com (Mike Sorrelle) writes:

>Hi all,
>I'm not a regular reader of this newsgroup, so if the following question
>has been asked before, or is covered in a FAQ list, I apologize.  If it
>is covered in a FAQ, could someone email it to me?

>Anyway, a couple of us were wondering about the contributing factors
>involved in the development (size-wise) of women's breasts.  For example,
>assuming there is at least some genetic factor involved, does this gene 
>come from the mother, father, grandmother(s), or grandfather(s)?
>Just from my own experience, I've seen small-chested mothers have
>daughters that are rather well-endowed, and vice-versa, so the mother's
>contribution to this is apparently not the (only) determining factor.

>Can anyone shed some light on this matter?
>Email or post.
>-- 
>                 _   |  Mike Sorrelle, Intergraph Corp., Huntsville, AL 


	I doubt anyone has done a careful study of the specific question,
but some basic genetics will suggest the answer.

	In most cases, the genetic contributions of each parent have
equal content and equal weight.  Any complex characteristic, such
as body (or body part) size, intelligence, athletic performance, etc,
is likely to be controlled by multiple genetic forms (alleles) at
multple locations (loci), with a non-simple addition of the effects
of each allele and each locus.  So, in short, the answer to your question
is that without careful study it is not possible to determine which
parent is most responsible for a child's physical characteristics.
So, in short, the answer as to who is responsible is "all of the above".


Keith Robison
Harvard University
Department of Cellular & Developmental Biology
Department of Genetics / HHMI

robison@ribo.harvard.edu
From: rrussell@arghouse.UUCP (rrussell)
Newsgroups: sci.bio
Subject: Brain chemicals
Date: 26 Sep 92 05:06:44 GMT
Organization: The Listening Post


     Since it was mentioned earlier, what about the affect of lecithin on 
neurotransmitters, if any. It is being recommended for an Alzheimer's 
victim, but I have read somewhere that it is dangerous if taken in high 
doses; either accumulating in the body or causing production of a certain 
enzyme,...  Most sources say there is no danger, even in large quantities.   
thanks :-)
           \ |\/| /
           /\|  |/\
          /  |  |  \ay


------------------
The Listening Post, San Diego, CA, USA  +1 619 563 1084
Opinions expressed are those of rrussell@arghouse.uucp.
From: mrh@centerline.com (Mike Huben)
Newsgroups: sci.bio
Subject: Re: mosquitoes like goldenrods
Date: 6 Oct 1992 14:45:17 GMT
Organization: CenterLine Software, Inc.
NNTP-Posting-Host: 140.239.2.36

In article <1992Oct6.032439.20883@vatmom.COM> frank@vatmom.COM (Frank M. Haynes) writes:
>
>I am not versed in biology at all.
>
>I was in my backyard today and saw a goldenrod in bloom.
>Looking closer, I saw a mosquitoe apparently gorging itself
>on nectar.  I didn't think they were attracted to flowers.
>
>Does anyone know if this is typical behavior?  I suppose I
>should be thankful it wasn't gorging itself on me.

Nematocerous flies (the "primitive" flies with more than 3 antennal segments,
and including horseflies, mosquitoes, and a variety of others) don't have
biting males.  Males do frequently nectar in a number of species.

A good book (that you can probably order) is "A Natural History of Flies"
by Harold Oldroyd.

Mike Huben
Newsgroups: sci.bio,sci.med
From: maverick@topgun.b29.ingr.com (Mike Sorrelle)
Subject: breast genetic question
Followup-To: sci.bio
Reply-To: maverick@topgun.b29.ingr.com
Organization: Intergraph Corp., Dullsville (as in Huntsville), AL
Date: Fri, 2 Oct 1992 14:55:29 GMT

Hi all,
I'm not a regular reader of this newsgroup, so if the following question
has been asked before, or is covered in a FAQ list, I apologize.  If it
is covered in a FAQ, could someone email it to me?

Anyway, a couple of us were wondering about the contributing factors
involved in the development (size-wise) of women's breasts.  For example,
assuming there is at least some genetic factor involved, does this gene 
come from the mother, father, grandmother(s), or grandfather(s)?
Just from my own experience, I've seen small-chested mothers have
daughters that are rather well-endowed, and vice-versa, so the mother's
contribution to this is apparently not the (only) determining factor.

Can anyone shed some light on this matter?
Email or post.
-- 
                 _   |  Mike Sorrelle, Intergraph Corp., Huntsville, AL 
  /| /| |     / / \  |  Opinions expressed here are a daemon's, not mine.
 / |/ | | /| /   \   |  Internet:  maverick@topgun.b29.ingr.com
/     | |/ |/  \_/   |  UUCP:      ...uunet!ingr!b29!topgun!maverick
Newsgroups: sci.bio,sci.chem,sci.med
From: dl10697@ehsn3.cen.uiuc.edu (Duc Trieu Le)
Subject: Re: Carcinogens
Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana
Date: Mon, 28 Sep 1992 22:54:15 GMT

dexter@aries.scs.uiuc.edu (Annette Dexter) writes:

>In article <dl10697.717637409@ehsn3.cen.uiuc.edu> dl10697@ehsn3.cen.uiuc.edu (Duc Trieu Le) writes:

>>I have just read in a book that lists Progesterone, Testosterone,
>>Estrogens, and Androgens as being carcinogenis substances. I was
>>under the assumption that our bodies have certain amount of these
>>sex hormones. I was wondering why these hormones are carcinogenic
>>and what effects do they have on our bodies if excess amounts are
>>detected. thanks in advance.

>	While I haven't heard of these hormones being carcinogenic
>in the absence of other factors, I have heard of such things as
>breast cancers which require a supply of estrogen to (for want of
>a better word) thrive.

>	As far as is known, oncogenesis involves cells permanently
>turning on various activation pathways which are normally under
>fairly tight control.  As steroid hormones are part of one possible
>activation pathway, they can potentially be involved in development
>of cancer, but it requires that something else have gone wrong
>in the control of the activation pathway, first.  Of course, having
>excess hormones can cause all sorts of other problems ;-)

>	Annette


Someone mentioned steroids, a mixture of sex hormones,
have been linked to cancer. I guess excessive amounts of
hormones can interfere with vital body functions.
One of which may be cell division. But, what about people
who happen to have hormones of the opposite sex. For example,
some females have been found to have larger amounts of androgens
and likewise males have been found to have large amounts of
estrogens. Do these individuals display any signs of accelerated
cancer?

duc

Xref: sparky sci.bio:3391 sci.skeptic:17025 soc.men:16972 soc.women:17081 alt.discrimination:4498