tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-377103124456226005.post5754864130559957882..comments2024-03-17T09:14:13.950+00:00Comments on John Wells’s phonetic blog: Pirahã phoneticsJohn Wellshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13684304410735867148noreply@blogger.comBlogger9125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-377103124456226005.post-31802654102317488292017-04-27T17:15:15.947+01:002017-04-27T17:15:15.947+01:00And what does that make you?And what does that make you?rationalisthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12514225350404262440noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-377103124456226005.post-75212229176070768642009-12-14T03:27:07.432+00:002009-12-14T03:27:07.432+00:00"Don't sleep there are snakes" is ma..."Don't sleep there are snakes" is magnificent and it brought my attention really closer to the idea of melting internatinal boundaries using language - yet, the processes that we have to overcome before reachiing that level is still quite huge.Carrothttp://www.gospelmusicchannel.com/christian_musicnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-377103124456226005.post-10329160069943521162009-05-28T15:36:09.159+01:002009-05-28T15:36:09.159+01:00D'oh. Of course I want "pore"!
I knew - this is w...D'oh. Of course I want "pore"!<br /><br />I <I>knew</I> - this is what I get for correcting my pronunciation of "pour". I used to not understand how people could make exactly this mistake that I now made. Pardon me while headdesk.Jens Knudsen (Sili)https://www.blogger.com/profile/14078875730565068352noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-377103124456226005.post-55765982367367951182009-05-26T23:49:35.256+01:002009-05-26T23:49:35.256+01:00@Sili: and actually the word you want is spelt "po...@Sili: and actually the word you want is spelt "pore", not "pour". You *pore* over something you are studying, but you *pour* tea or coffee.John Wellshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13684304410735867148noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-377103124456226005.post-25300957453141389502009-05-26T20:54:01.960+01:002009-05-26T20:54:01.960+01:00Sili: Considering that the world is full of people...Sili: Considering that the world is full of people who have the CURE=FORCE merger, I don't think that's much of a fault. Admittedly, most of them make CURE sound like FORCE, not vice versa.John Cowanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11452247999156925669noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-377103124456226005.post-13580888167858169262009-05-26T20:26:51.504+01:002009-05-26T20:26:51.504+01:00Ah - good point.
I may be too forgiving, but may ...Ah - good point.<br /><br />I may be too forgiving, but may impression is that Everett has fallen in love with the Pirahã people - not with his hypothesis.<br /><br />But, yes, it would be nice if he would release some corpus for others to pour over.<br /><br />(Aside: I used to - and still do when I'm not thinking - pronounce "pour" homophonous with "poor" with /uː/, not /ɔː/ - same with "your" =/= "yore". Spelling pronunciations are hard to get rid of.)Jens Knudsen (Sili)https://www.blogger.com/profile/14078875730565068352noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-377103124456226005.post-36863456251869244422009-05-26T18:30:48.223+01:002009-05-26T18:30:48.223+01:00To defend Chomsky, something I am loath to do, the...To defend Chomsky, something I am loath to do, the reason many, many people have issues with Dan Everett is not because he doesn't make convincing arguments, but because he is very secretive with his data. He won't allow anyone access to anything except the few example sentences he publishes. With radical claims like his, I think it's very important to be open and show people that your claims are indeed well-founded, and Everett seems hesitant to do this.Ryanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13845139257399756782noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-377103124456226005.post-79417456723538559192009-05-26T16:26:12.503+01:002009-05-26T16:26:12.503+01:00" but Chomsky’s reaction was reportedly to denounc..." but Chomsky’s reaction was reportedly to denounce him as a charlatan."<br /><br />On behalf of the mulitude of people, who're too polite to say it: Takes one to know one.Jens Knudsen (Sili)https://www.blogger.com/profile/14078875730565068352noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-377103124456226005.post-47376491682677465702009-05-25T23:28:50.405+01:002009-05-25T23:28:50.405+01:00How true. Unfortunately there's a limited number ...How true. Unfortunately there's a limited number of times you can make the same correction on successive proofs. You make a detailed sketch of the relevant symbol in question, you quote its unicode reference, you supply a link to an entire Wikipedia page about it, and they will still get it wrong. Sometimes, in fairness, a certain glyph will simply not exist in the font they've unwisely chosen. But mainly, I sometimes cynically think, it's because "they" can't really bring themselves to believe it actually matters very much... In this case there are presumably two mistakes in one -- they were going to use the question mark, <I>qua</I> nearest to the real symbol, but ended up with the oblique that shares the same key.Harry Campbellhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01675794936870568336noreply@blogger.com