[Xmca-l] Re: Vowels Are From Venus

[Ivan Uemlianin]

There's also Zhuyin (注音) of course, an indigenous transliteration system 
for Mandarin (used mainly in Taiwan these days).  Doesn't use the Latin 
alphabet; does have symbols for consonants and vowels. Developed around 
1912.

Ivan


On 30/10/2017 13:44, Ivan Uemlianin wrote:
> 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
============================================================