 |
|
| Science Forum Index » Languages Forum » All languages are equally fit... |
|
Page 49 of 83 Goto page Previous 1, 2, 3 ... 48, 49, 50 ... 81, 82, 83 Next |
|
| Author |
Message |
| LEE Sau Dan... |
 Posted: Sun Nov 01, 2009 9:06 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
[quote]"Peter" == Peter T Daniels <grammatim at (no spam) verizon.net> writes:
Then, why don't you read a textbook on Japanese to find out yourself
that the Hiraganas in the example Japanese sentence above do NOT
at all help you figure out the morphemes refered by character "日
" in the word "日曜日"?
[/quote]
Peter> Why the fuck should they "help you figure out the morphemes"?
Peter> That is how the word 'Monday' is written. Period.
Read your textbook again. 日曜日 is Sunday, not Monday.
You score ZERO points for that elementary homework question!
Peter> Either you know the word "Monday" or you don't.
So, tell me whether the two instances of "日" in "日曜日" is one single
morpheme or two morphemes of diverse origins.
Peter> When you read a phonetically written language, you do not
Peter> look at each letter and decide its sound and put the sounds
Peter> together and determine what words sound like that.
Peter> When you read a logographically written language, you do not
Peter> look at each character and decide its morpheme and put the
Peter> morphemes together and determine what words have that
Peter> meaning.
Peter> You know the language, and you know that a certain
Peter> combination of symbols represents a certain word or phrase.
When I read a logographic script, the mapping is directly from logograph
to idea. No need to (slowly) go through the the morpheme layer.
--
Lee Sau Dan 李守敦 ~{ at (no spam) nJX6X~}
E-mail: danlee at (no spam) informatik.uni-freiburg.de
Home page: http://www.informatik.uni-freiburg.de/~danlee |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| LEE Sau Dan... |
| Posted: Sun Nov 01, 2009 9:17 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
[quote]"Peter" == Peter T Daniels <grammatim at (no spam) verizon.net> writes:
Unlike you, I know how to look things up in books.
So please do and tell us the results. No hurry, next week is OK
too.
[/quote]
Peter> How many times do you answer your child's identical question
Peter> until you get exasperated?
When a child does not listen and tries to evade my question, I'll repeat
it to let the child know that he has no chance of hoping that he can
evade it.
Peter> LSD is not a child. LSD has something to do with computer
Peter> engineering.
Again, you've got the basic facts wrong. I'm not with computer
engineering. If you can't tell computer science apart from computer
engineering, go home and do your homework harder.
Peter> LSD ought therefore be able to understand that Japanese
Peter> writing is not ideographic.
Tell me how the use (2 instances) of "日" in the world "日曜日" does not
satisfy your definition of "ideographic".
Peter> But no matter how many times this is explained, LSD persists.
Peter> Is this not stupidity?
You call others stupid when you can't understand them?
Peter> LSD proudly proclaims that he can get the sense of a Japanese
Peter> text even though he knows no Japanese. If LSD wants to read
Peter> Japanese texts, why doesn't he learn Japanese?
And why don't you, too? You previously claimed that the Hiraganas in
the sentence "日曜日に公園へ行きました。" can somehow indicate which
instance of the Kanji "日" represents morpheme "nichi" (of Chinese
origin) and which one represents "hi"/"bi" (native Japanese word). I've
given you many chances to prove yourself correct, but you've been
failing that.
Worse yet, realizing you can't succeed, you begain SHOUTING and
swearing, making you lose more grounds. In a discussion, only the ones
who lack argument would have to resort to SHOUTING and swearing so as to
distract people. And it shows your stupidity and childishness in
hypothesising that a loud voice would make your argument strong and
rational, and that the ability to use swear words fluently would show
your prestigious social status.
Sigh...
--
Lee Sau Dan 李守敦 ~{ at (no spam) nJX6X~}
E-mail: danlee at (no spam) informatik.uni-freiburg.de
Home page: http://www.informatik.uni-freiburg.de/~danlee |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| LEE Sau Dan... |
| Posted: Sun Nov 01, 2009 9:20 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
[quote]"Bart" == Bart Mathias <mathias at (no spam) hawaii.edu> writes:
[/quote]
Bart> I don't know what Peter based his comment on, but for sure it
Bart> is rare to use 日 alone for "sun" instead of "day" unless one
Bart> is writing about sunrise or sunset.
Is that relevant? We were talking about *morphemes*, not just free
morphemes. The same character "日" is used to write TWO different
morphemes, namely "nichi" and "hi", both meaning "sun", isn't it? Is
that ideographic?
Bart> I'd guess both 太陽 taiyoo and お日様 ohisama would be more
Bart> likely choices otherwise.
--
Lee Sau Dan 李守敦 ~{ at (no spam) nJX6X~}
E-mail: danlee at (no spam) informatik.uni-freiburg.de
Home page: http://www.informatik.uni-freiburg.de/~danlee |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| PaulJK... |
| Posted: Sun Nov 01, 2009 11:41 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
Peter T. Daniels wrote:
[quote]On Oct 31, 10:35 pm, "PaulJK" <paul.kr... at (no spam) paradise.net.nz> wrote:
Joachim Pense wrote:
PaulJK (in sci.lang):
Joachim Pense wrote:
John Atkinson (in sci.lang):
Many English speakers do indeed consider "ideogram" and "Chinese
character" as homonyms, meaning exactly the same thing. That's fine,
completely unobjectionable, _provided_ they realise that:
Rather ideogram and logogram; not necessary Chinese.
From my experience too, Joachim, John is right. Many, if not most
of the English speakers do indeed consider Chinese characters
to be ideograms.
No objections. But do they also think that Chinese characters are the only
ideogram? That would be an implication of Jon's 'consider "ideogram"
and "Chinese character" as homonyms' for me.
Okay, sorry, I see what you mean. Perhaps Peter meant it
as one way homonym. Or perhaps he meant to imply that many
English speakers do not know any other "ideograms" than
"Chinese characters". :-)
? That was John.
[/quote]
Yes, it was, sorry.
pjk
> Or do you refer to my allusion to Moliere in the adjacent message? |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| PaulJK... |
| Posted: Sun Nov 01, 2009 11:52 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
LEE Sau Dan wrote:
[quote]"Peter" == Peter T Daniels <grammatim at (no spam) verizon.net> writes:
Then, why don't you read a textbook on Japanese to find out yourself
that the Hiraganas in the example Japanese sentence above do NOT
at all help you figure out the morphemes refered by character "日
" in the word "日曜日"?
Peter> Why the fuck should they "help you figure out the morphemes"?
Peter> That is how the word 'Monday' is written. Period.
Read your textbook again. 日曜日 is Sunday, not Monday.
You score ZERO points for that elementary homework question!
Peter> Either you know the word "Monday" or you don't.
So, tell me whether the two instances of "日" in "日曜日" is one single
morpheme or two morphemes of diverse origins.
Peter> When you read a phonetically written language, you do not
Peter> look at each letter and decide its sound and put the sounds
Peter> together and determine what words sound like that.
Peter> When you read a logographically written language, you do not
Peter> look at each character and decide its morpheme and put the
Peter> morphemes together and determine what words have that
Peter> meaning.
Peter> You know the language, and you know that a certain
Peter> combination of symbols represents a certain word or phrase.
When I read a logographic script, the mapping is directly from logograph
to idea. No need to (slowly) go through the the morpheme layer.
[/quote]
And that is contradicting what Peter said how?
pjk |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Peter T. Daniels... |
| Posted: Mon Nov 02, 2009 2:28 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Nov 2, 7:09am, John Atkinson <johna... at (no spam) bigpond.com> wrote:
[quote]Peter T. Daniels wrote:
On Oct 31, 10:38 pm, "Jim Heckman" <rot13(reply-to) at (no spam) none.invalid
wrote:
On 29-Oct-2009, John Atkinson <johna... at (no spam) bigpond.com
wrote in message <qDsGm.50900$ze1.50... at (no spam) news-server.bigpond.net.au>:
Ruud Harmsen wrote:
[Russian spelling rules]
[...]
Also the velars <k>/<g>/<x>, where phonemic palatalization is
marginal at best, leaving phonetic palatalization largely
determined by the frontness/backness of the following vowel. In
spelling, these consonants almost always take <i>/<a>/<u>, not
*<y>/<ja>/<ju>. This is particularly noticeable in noun and
adjective declensions with <i> instead of expected *<y>.
And that's why Morris Halle declared that "phoneme" was a useless
concept. (SPR, 1959)
The reason it's a useless concept is because palatisation happens not to
be phonemic in Russian velars? I don't follow the logic in that
argument. Could you fill in the details?
[/quote]
He thought it was silly that you notate (say) /t/ and /t'/ but [x] and
[x'] (if that's an actual example). (I think his prime example
involved voicing rather than palatalization -- I don't think I ever
managed to read SPR and probably got it from others' discussion, a
many years ago.) |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Ruud Harmsen... |
| Posted: Mon Nov 02, 2009 3:01 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
Sun, 1 Nov 2009 12:27:12 -0800 (PST): "Peter T. Daniels"
<grammatim at (no spam) verizon.net>: in sci.lang:
[quote]So please do and tell us the results. No hurry, next week is OK too.
How many times do you answer your child's identical question until you
get exasperated?
[/quote]
1) Often enough, but LSD is not a child.
2) More often with my old mother now.
3) I haven't seen you answer the question once, but seen you avoid it
many times.
[quote]LSD is not a child. LSD has something to do with computer engineering.
LSD ought therefore be able to understand that Japanese writing is not
ideographic.
[/quote]
My impression so far is that even if many Japanese Kanji and many
Chinese Hanzi are logographic and not ideographic, at least the sun
character in the Japanese sentence LSD gave is indeed ideographic.
When that became clearer and clearer, you eventually started
screaming, simply because you are unwilling to admit even a small
mistake.
[quote]But no matter how many times this is explained, LSD persists.
[/quote]
Again, you didn't answer the question how hiragana disambiguates the
"sun" kanji in the given Japanese example.
[quote]Is this not stupidity?
[/quote]
Not his stupidity, but your stubbourness and arrogance.
[quote]LSD proudly proclaims that he can get the sense of a Japanese text
even though he knows no Japanese. If LSD wants to read Japanese texts,
why doesn't he learn Japanese?
[/quote]
Evading the question. Please answer it, or admit you were wrong. It's
that simple. Making a mistake is not a bad thing, and doesn't degrade
you whole personality. On the contrary.
--
Ruud Harmsen, http://rudhar.com |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Ruud Harmsen... |
| Posted: Mon Nov 02, 2009 3:05 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
Mon, 02 Nov 2009 10:17:06 +0800: LEE Sau Dan
<danlee at (no spam) informatik.uni-freiburg.de>: in sci.lang:
[quote]Peter> But no matter how many times this is explained, LSD persists.
Peter> Is this not stupidity?
You call others stupid when you can't understand them?
[/quote]
He can, because he is quite intelligent, just like you. It's just that
he doesn't want to understand, because then he would need to admit he
was wrong.
--
Ruud Harmsen, http://rudhar.com |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Ruud Harmsen... |
| Posted: Mon Nov 02, 2009 3:09 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
Mon, 02 Nov 2009 10:06:54 +0800: LEE Sau Dan
<danlee at (no spam) informatik.uni-freiburg.de>: in sci.lang:
[quote]"Peter" == Peter T Daniels <grammatim at (no spam) verizon.net> writes:
Then, why don't you read a textbook on Japanese to find out yourself
that the Hiraganas in the example Japanese sentence above do NOT
at all help you figure out the morphemes refered by character "?
" in the word "???"?
Peter> Why the fuck should they "help you figure out the morphemes"?
[/quote]
Because your (Peters) statement was that Japanse and Chinese
characters are logographic because they refer to morphemes, and not to
ideas which would make them ideographic. Here we have an example where
the same kanji character refers to two different Japanese morphemes,
who share an idea.
--
Ruud Harmsen, http://rudhar.com |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Ruud Harmsen... |
| Posted: Mon Nov 02, 2009 3:13 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
Sun, 1 Nov 2009 21:20:49 -0800 (PST): "Peter T. Daniels"
<grammatim at (no spam) verizon.net>: in sci.lang:
[quote]When I read a logographic script, the mapping is directly from logograph
to idea. No need to (slowly) go through the the morpheme layer.
And that is contradicting what Peter said how?
Because it's simply wrong.
Being an adult, he is not aware of the processes his mind goes through
in reading.
[/quote]
The question was: is kanji logographic or ideographic. The actual
processes in the mind when reading might be independent of that.
When I see the English "read" in a sentence, I usually know
automatically when to pronounce it "rede" and when "red". How that
works I wouldn't know, it could be investigated. But it works, that
much is clear. It's also clear that it sometimes fails too.
--
Ruud Harmsen, http://rudhar.com |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Ruud Harmsen... |
| Posted: Mon Nov 02, 2009 3:15 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
Sun, 1 Nov 2009 21:19:44 -0800 (PST): "Peter T. Daniels"
<grammatim at (no spam) verizon.net>: in sci.lang:
[quote]On Nov 1, 9:20pm, LEE Sau Dan <dan... at (no spam) informatik.uni-freiburg.de
wrote:
"Bart" == Bart Mathias <math... at (no spam) hawaii.edu> writes:
Bart> I don't know what Peter based his comment on, but for sure it
Bart> is rare to use ? alone for "sun" instead of "day" unless one
Bart> is writing about sunrise or sunset.
Is that relevant? We were talking about *morphemes*, not just free
morphemes. The same character "?" is used to write TWO different
morphemes, namely "nichi" and "hi", both meaning "sun", isn't it? Is
that ideographic?
The same shape "bow" is used in English for at least two different
morphemes. Does that mean "bow" is an ideogram?
[/quote]
If the two morphemes have related meanings, probably yes.
--
Ruud Harmsen, http://rudhar.com |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| John Atkinson... |
| Posted: Mon Nov 02, 2009 7:09 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
Peter T. Daniels wrote:
[quote]On Oct 31, 10:38 pm, "Jim Heckman" <rot13(reply-to) at (no spam) none.invalid
wrote:
On 29-Oct-2009, John Atkinson <johna... at (no spam) bigpond.com
wrote in message <qDsGm.50900$ze1.50... at (no spam) news-server.bigpond.net.au>:
Ruud Harmsen wrote:
[Russian spelling rules]
[...]
Also the velars <k>/<g>/<x>, where phonemic palatalization is
marginal at best, leaving phonetic palatalization largely
determined by the frontness/backness of the following vowel. In
spelling, these consonants almost always take <i>/<a>/<u>, not
*<y>/<ja>/<ju>. This is particularly noticeable in noun and
adjective declensions with <i> instead of expected *<y>.
And that's why Morris Halle declared that "phoneme" was a useless
concept. (SPR, 1959)
The reason it's a useless concept is because palatisation happens not to[/quote]
be phonemic in Russian velars? I don't follow the logic in that
argument. Could you fill in the details?
J. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| John Atkinson... |
| Posted: Mon Nov 02, 2009 7:46 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
Joachim Pense wrote:
[quote]Peter T. Daniels (in sci.lang):
Helmut Wollmersdorfer <hel... at (no spam) wollmersdorfer.at> wrote:
Current Duden has 'stopp' as German word, and 'stop' marked English.
Duden of 1941 has 'stopp' marked [nd.] = niederdeutsch
The second p was appended as a result of the 1996 spelling reform.
I don't suppose there's a verb "stoppen," outside the routines of Mel
Brooks and Carl Reiner?
"Stoppen" is a common colloquial word in German and has been so for
decades. "Wie kann man die Wirtschaftskrise stoppen?"
Yes, I'm surprised Peter hasn't come across it in his reading, since I[/quote]
have, and I have much less German than he does. Of course German also
has stopfen, cognate with English "to stop", which retains its original
West Germanic meaning, viz "to stuff" (retained in English in the phrase
"to stop up"). English "stuff" < Old French estoffer is apparently not
cognate.
In Norwegian, stoppe apparently means both "to stuff" and "to stop" -- I
remember being mildly amused in Norway by the signs saying "BUSS STOPP"
[...]
John. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Peter T. Daniels... |
| Posted: Mon Nov 02, 2009 7:48 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Nov 2, 10:37am, Nathan Sanders <nsand... at (no spam) williams.edu> wrote:
[quote]In article <FZzHm.51624$ze1.40... at (no spam) news-server.bigpond.net.au>,
John Atkinson <johna... at (no spam) bigpond.com> wrote:
Peter T. Daniels wrote:
On Oct 31, 10:38 pm, "Jim Heckman" <rot13(reply-to) at (no spam) none.invalid
wrote:
On 29-Oct-2009, John Atkinson <johna... at (no spam) bigpond.com
wrote in message <qDsGm.50900$ze1.50... at (no spam) news-server.bigpond.net.au>:
Ruud Harmsen wrote:
[Russian spelling rules]
[...]
Also the velars <k>/<g>/<x>, where phonemic palatalization is
marginal at best, leaving phonetic palatalization largely
determined by the frontness/backness of the following vowel. In
spelling, these consonants almost always take <i>/<a>/<u>, not
*<y>/<ja>/<ju>. This is particularly noticeable in noun and
adjective declensions with <i> instead of expected *<y>.
And that's why Morris Halle declared that "phoneme" was a useless
concept. (SPR, 1959)
The reason it's a useless concept is because palatisation happens not to
be phonemic in Russian velars? I don't follow the logic in that
argument. Could you fill in the details?
Peter's right, the original argument had to do with voicing, not
palatalization. I don't know the data off-hand, but the argument is
roughly as follows:
Obstruents undergo voicing assimilation in Russian. Sometimes, this
neutralizes the distinction between two phonemes (e.g., the distinct
phonemes /s/ and /z/ both come out as [z] in voicing environments),
and other times, it's non-neutralizing allophony (e.g., /x/ comes out
as [G] in voicing environments; since there is no /G/ phoneme in
Russian, there is no neutralization).
The problem is that classical phonemic theory, because of particular
theoretical assumptions, required that neutralizing rules and
non-neutralizing rules had to occur at completely different levels.
But it seems reasonably clear that this is a single unified
assimilation process that happens "once". This is, essentially, an
Occam's Razor issue.
Halle's argument wasn't against the fundamental notion of a minimal
unit of contrastive sound; rather, it was against a specific version
of that idea that was prominent at the time and that was built upon
theory-specific assumptions that lead to undesirable consequences,
such as splitting a single unified process into two separate levels of
the system.
[/quote]
Definitely babies and bathwater. SPE is in essence a giant reductio ad
absurdum of Halle's idea. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| John Atkinson... |
| Posted: Mon Nov 02, 2009 8:31 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
LEE Sau Dan wrote:
[quote]"John" == John Atkinson <johnacko at (no spam) bigpond.com> writes:
John> "Bai" itself (/pE4/) is an old loan into Bai from Chinese (=
John> "white").
How old is it? Why is the final /-k/ lost?
Probably Han times. Bai syllables have no final consonants except for /N/.[/quote]
J.
> |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
|
All times are GMT - 5 Hours
The time now is Fri Dec 11, 2009 5:16 pm
|
|