[Xmca-l] Re: Vowels Are From Venus
Ivan Uemlianin
ivan@llaisdy.com
Mon Oct 30 06:44:31 PDT 2017
Missionaries have been romanising Chinese since the 16th century. The
first modern indigenous Chinese romanization system was developed in
1892 #wikipedia. In any case my point is about phonology not orthography.
Ivan
On 30/10/2017 13:30, James Ma wrote:
> In general there are no Chinese characters indicative of a vowel or a
> consonant. Speaking orthographically, Chinese is ideograph-based, whereas
> English phonograph-based. These are two different orthographical systems.
> What is distinctive about Chinese language is that each character is
> constructed as an idea or a concept and has its historical, literary and
> aesthetic origin. This is probably why learning Chinese presents a
> considerable challenge for speakers of phonograph-based languages. David
> was correct, there wasn’t a romanisation system until 1950s when Pinyin was
> created as a romanisation system for standard Chinese, Hanyu 汉语, hence
> Hanyu Pinyin 汉语拼音.
>
>
> James
>
>
> On 29 October 2017 at 22:55, David Kellogg <dkellogg60@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Halliday would describe it as a difference in aperture. "Man" is open,
>> while "men" is half-open. You can feel and even see your jaw moving when
>> you move from one to the other.
>>
>> Aperture is best thought of dynamically, as a movement from one posture to
>> another rather than as a single static posture, as when we describe vowels.
>> So once again it is better thought of as prosody than as articulation.
>>
>> Take a look at this:
>>
>> https://functionallinguistics.springeropen.com/articles/10.
>> 1186/2196-419X-1-2
>>
>> Halliday's model is not as idiosyncratic--or as language specific--as it
>> seems. A lot of linguists agree that phonemes are essentially reifications
>> of graphemes, and that syllables are a better model for understanding
>> spoken phonology. In fact, when we read Vygotsky, we see that he uses the
>> term "phoneme" in a rather strange way: he doesn't mean vowels and
>> consonants, because these actually DON'T have any meaning except in
>> comparison to other possible selections a speaker might have made but
>> didn't. In fact, the example he gives of "phonemes" in the Lectures on
>> Pedology are Russian case endings. Russian case endings are actually not
>> phonemes at all but morphemes.
>>
>> Vygotsky went to school with Jakobson and probably studied with Trubetskoy.
>> So for him a "phoneme" is really what we would call a morpho-phoneme. More
>> like a Chinese character than a vowel or a consonant!
>>
>> David Kellogg
>>
>> On Mon, Oct 30, 2017 at 6:18 AM, Ivan Uemlianin <ivan@llaisdy.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Without referring to vowels, how would one describe the phonological
>>> difference in Mandarin between 慢 and 焖?
>>>
>>> Ivan
>>>
>>> --
>>> festina lente
>>>
>>>
>>>> On 29 Oct 2017, at 20:59, David Kellogg <dkellogg60@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Chinese phonologists didn't use romanization until the 1950s (and even
>>> then
>>>> it was mostly . Even in old rhyming dictionaries, the main unit of
>>> analysis
>>>> is the morpho-syllable (i.e. the written character, but spoken). The
>>>> dictionaries are conscious of an onset and a rhyme, but not a vowel or
>> a
>>>> consonant. You can see that the "rhyme" (that is, the "tail" of the
>>>> syllable) is always either a vowel or a nasal, but not a stop. Vowels
>> and
>>>> consonants don't explain this (and they don't explain tones either), so
>>>> it's hardly surprising that Chinese phonologists were not interested in
>>>> them..
>>>>
>>>> Now, suppose we consider Chinese as the OPPOSITE of English. English
>> puts
>>>> articulation (vowels and consonants) at the centre of its phonological
>>>> description and considers prosoday (intonation and stress) to be
>>>> peripheral, but Chinese is the other way around. We can easily descibe
>>>> every syllable in Chinese as a set of half a dozen prosodic features:
>>>> initial posture, final posture, voice onset, aperture (open or closed),
>>> and
>>>> of course tone. This is a much better description, and it doesn't use
>>>> vowels or consonants.
>>>>
>>>> I think that "chengyu" doesn't really capture the literary flavor very
>>>> well, and that was what I wanted to say when I compared them to
>>>> antithetical couplets. By introducing them in pairs, James is
>> introducing
>>>> two important semantic features of Chinese which are lost on
>>>> non-Sinophones, and which are essential to understanding the specific
>>>> dialectics of Chinese: the four-syllable line, which is of great
>>> antiquity,
>>>> and the tendency to produce couplets. I always thought that "chengyu"
>> are
>>>> more prosaic, more like proverbs. But Ivan, as usual, knows better!
>>>>
>>>> David Kellogg
>>>>
>>>>> On Sun, Oct 29, 2017 at 7:00 PM, James Ma <jamesma320@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>>>> In Chinese grammatical terms, the first one 炉火纯青 is the
>>> "subject-predicate"
>>>>> type, for example, 刚柔相济 masculinity and femininity are complementary
>> to
>>>>> each other; the second one 出神入化 the "symmetric relation" type, for
>>> example,
>>>>> 字正腔园 (of vocal performance) clear articulation of the lyrics and
>> perfect
>>>>> execution of the tone.
>>>>>
>>>>> James
>>>>>
>>>>> On 29 October 2017 at 09:10, Rod Parker-Rees <
>>> R.Parker-Rees@plymouth.ac.uk
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Thanks David,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I am always fascinated by insights into how language is used in
>>> different
>>>>>> ways to nuance and shade meanings.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Can you explain how these couplets are 'antithetical'? The second one
>>>>>> clearly juxtaposes merging and emerging but I was intrigued by how
>> the
>>>>>> furnace burning with a pure green hue is seen as an antithesis.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> All the best,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Rod
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>>>> From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu [mailto:xmca-l-bounces@
>>>>>> mailman.ucsd.edu] On Behalf Of David Kellogg
>>>>>> Sent: 29 October 2017 00:28
>>>>>> To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity <xmca-l@mailman.ucsd.edu>
>>>>>> Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Vowels Are From Venus
>>>>>>
>>>>>> You notice that James gives us two antithetical couplets, each of
>> four
>>>>>> syllables (Chinese, like child protolanguage, doesn't differentiate
>>>>> vowels
>>>>>> and consonants).
>>>>>>
>>>>>> 炉火纯青
>>>>>> 出神入化
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Lú huǒ chún qīng (the fire of the furnace burns a pure green hue)
>> Chū
>>>>>> shén rù huà (The god emerges and merges, comes out and goes in)
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I haven't actually rendered the feeling that a Chinese person feels
>> on
>>>>>> hearing these expressions, any more than the words "consummate" or
>>>>> "superb"
>>>>>> communicate the thought.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> For one thing, my translation is too labored and literal; a a Chinese
>>>>>> person doesn't analyze so literally and the imagery is largley
>>>>>> "automatized" rather than visualized.
>>>>>> For another, the four character line has a history that goes all the
>>> way
>>>>>> back to the Book of Songs (11th C BCE) and all the way up to the
>>>>>> antithetical couplets peasants put on their doorways as Spring
>> Festival
>>>>> in
>>>>>> the the countryside
>>>>>>
>>>>>> (But James is right: the idea of antithetical couplets is a kind of
>>>>>> natural dialectic built into the Chinese language.
>>>>>> Somedays, like today, I find it that it influences the way I write in
>>>>>> English.)
>>>>>>
>>>>>> David Kellogg
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Sun, Oct 29, 2017 at 6:21 AM, James Ma <jamesma320@gmail.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>>>>> I often find it interesting to read David’s words, good and
>> catalytic
>>>>>>> to me.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I’ve been working on the Peirce-Vygotsky project and Peirce’s idea
>> of
>>>>>>> final logical interpretant which I take to be a qualitative
>>>>>>> transformation, perhaps equivalent to “a dialectical leap”. To me,
>>>>>>> this transformation is not only attributable to an accrued
>>>>>>> quantitative change but also bears itself the heritage of all the
>>>>>>> earlier qualitative changes. So, the resultant final logical
>>>>>>> interpretant encapsulates both qualitative and quantitative changes.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> By the way, on the face of it, “a dialectical leap” is a more
>>>>>>> congenial and customary concept to most Chinese people (from
>> Mainland)
>>>>>>> due to historical reasons.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> In a stage drama, I agree with David that an actor’s privileged
>> access
>>>>>>> is a real problem for him. This privileged access will have to be
>>>>>>> calibrated or attuned to a dialectical leap in such a way that the
>>>>>>> actor needs to make a choice from the plenitude of signs that are
>>>>>>> constantly on the move both consciously and subliminally. However,
>> in
>>>>>>> the case of Peking opera, a dialectical leap is far more complex
>> since
>>>>>>> there is more to it. The actor is involved in an organic combination
>>>>>>> of vocal performance, acrobatics and dance etc. Perhaps, dialectical
>>>>>>> leap is not quite a right word to reflect what is perceived as the
>>>>>>> essence of Peking opera: 炉火纯青 consummate, and 出神入化
>>>>>>> superb.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> James
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> *James Ma* *https://oxford.academia.edu/JamesMa
>>>>>>> <https://oxford.academia.edu/JamesMa> *
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On 28 October 2017 at 00:26, David Kellogg <dkellogg60@gmail.com>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>> I've always been restless with the idea that language is a
>>>>>>> self-organizing
>>>>>>>> system, or that it has a "fractal" structure in the sense of the
>>>>>>>> "self-similarity" we find in a fern leaf--the same structure at
>>>>>>>> every level. I suppose my impatience is ideological: I believe
>>>>>>>> language organization is semantically driven (and semantic
>> structure
>>>>>>>> is a realization/transformation of some of the structures found in
>>>>>> contexts).
>>>>>>> So
>>>>>>>> I don't think that vowels and consonants organize themselves into
>>>>>>> syllables
>>>>>>>> without human intentions, nor do I think that syllables will form
>>>>>>>> words unless somebody makes them do it. As for grammar, it seems to
>>>>>>>> me that to expect that even the very limited grammar found in this
>>>>>>>> paragraph you are reading should somehow be "thrown up" by the
>> words
>>>>>>>> I am using and their elective affinities is a little like expecting
>>>>>>>> medieval cathedrals to be thrown up by the mutual attraction of the
>>>>>> stones that compose them.
>>>>>>>> Yes, I know. Consonants are what happen in the absence of vowels
>> (at
>>>>>>>> the ends of vowel phrases). Vowels are what happen at the ends of
>>>>>> consonants.
>>>>>>>> As soon as you have breath, vocal cord vibration, and a beginning
>>>>>>>> and an end to it, you have the primitive structure (Optional
>>>>>>>> Consonant)
>>>>>>> Mandatory
>>>>>>>> Vowel (Optioinal Consonant), and from this we can derive all the
>>>>>>>> possible syllable structures of any language. You can do the same
>>>>>>>> trick at any
>>>>>>> level
>>>>>>>> of language: If you have a morpheme like "work" or "play" you can
>>>>>>>> add a bound morpheme to either end ("re~" and/or "~ed"),and if you
>>>>>>>> have a
>>>>>>> clause
>>>>>>>> like "Work!" you can add a bound clause to either end ("If you are
>>>>>>>> so willing~" and/or "so as to enrich yourselves!") and the
>> existence
>>>>>>>> of xmca itself shows how this principle works on units above the
>>>>>>>> clause--Mike's last post is not really intelligible without my
>>>>>>>> preceding one, and mine
>>>>>>> is
>>>>>>>> not really intelligible without James's, etc.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> But I'm not talking about the various forms of language, potential
>>>>>>>> and real; these are of course the affordances of the stuff of which
>>>>>>>> language
>>>>>>> is
>>>>>>>> made, just as the limits of what you can do on a canvas has
>>>>>>>> something to
>>>>>>> do
>>>>>>>> with the consistency of the paint. I'm talking about what people
>>>>>>>> actually do and not just what they may or might do. So for example
>>>>>>>> when we look at "To be or not to be" or at the speeches we find in
>>>>>>>> "Shajiabang" or even,
>>>>>>> as
>>>>>>>> Mike suggests, at the language of everyday life, we find that
>> vowels
>>>>>>>> tend to carry the feeling of what we say (that's why they are
>>>>>>>> elongated in tonics and why they are directed in tonality).
>>>>>>>> Consonants, on the
>>>>>>> other
>>>>>>>> hand, work better for the nuances of thinking. That's why we sing
>>>>>>>> the vowels, but spell with consonants; why Ophelia says "Oh what a
>>>>>>>> noble mind is here o'erthrone!" but Hamlet says "Nymph, in thy
>>>>>>>> orisons be all my
>>>>>>> sins
>>>>>>>> remembered!". And so once again we find that feeling and thinking
>>>>>>>> are
>>>>>>> both
>>>>>>>> linked and distinct, to say the which is surely to say no more and
>>>>>>>> no
>>>>>>> less
>>>>>>>> than to say that they are joined/separated by a dialectical leap.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> David Kellogg
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>> ________________________________
>>>>>> [http://www.plymouth.ac.uk/images/email_footer.gif]<http:
>>>>>> //www.plymouth.ac.uk/worldclass>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> This email and any files with it are confidential and intended solely
>>> for
>>>>>> the use of the recipient to whom it is addressed. If you are not the
>>>>>> intended recipient then copying, distribution or other use of the
>>>>>> information contained is strictly prohibited and you should not rely
>> on
>>>>> it.
>>>>>> If you have received this email in error please let the sender know
>>>>>> immediately and delete it from your system(s). Internet emails are
>> not
>>>>>> necessarily secure. While we take every care, Plymouth University
>>> accepts
>>>>>> no responsibility for viruses and it is your responsibility to scan
>>>>> emails
>>>>>> and their attachments. Plymouth University does not accept
>>> responsibility
>>>>>> for any changes made after it was sent. Nothing in this email or its
>>>>>> attachments constitutes an order for goods or services unless
>>> accompanied
>>>>>> by an official order form.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
--
============================================================
Ivan A. Uemlianin PhD
Llaisdy
Ymchwil a Datblygu Technoleg Lleferydd
Speech Technology Research and Development
ivan@llaisdy.com
@llaisdy
llaisdy.wordpress.com
github.com/llaisdy
www.linkedin.com/in/ivanuemlianin
festina lente
============================================================
More information about the xmca-l
mailing list