Editor for this issue: <>
Thanks to all of you that answered my query about deictic iconicity (I have added a list of contributors at the end of this summary). As you remember, I started with the following hypothesis, concerning demonstratives and local (deictic) adverbs: "Typically, smaller or greater distance from the speaker/hearer (the 'deictic point') is indicated by closer or more open vowels respectively." I got very much data supporting this hypothesis and some data against (you will find the list of examples for both kinds of evidence below). None of the data seems to disconfirm the following stricter version of the iconicity principle: "if the forms showing different degrees of deictic distance are closely related phonologically (minimal pairs or near minimal pairs), the vowels of the forms for smaller deictic distance are closer than (or equal to) the vowels for greater deictic distance." It goes without saying that the hypothesis does not hold for vowels which fulfill other functions, albeit in the deictic form (e.g. agreement, as in the case of Swahili classifier vowels). For the case of equal vowels, Aaron Broadwell raised the interesting point of tonal iconicity (in Zapotec). In the case of Latin, one may think of consonantal iconicity. Both matters need further discussion. If anybody has corrections to the presented material or further evidence, please let me know. Of course, I'm especially anxious to get disconfirming evidence for my stricter hypothesis. Furthermore, Stavros Macrakis and I would like to know more about the difference between _qui_ and _qua_ or _li_ and _la_ in Italian, and I am curious about other semantic components getting mixed up with deictic meaning (e.g. 'out of sight' or direction, as in Athabaskan). You can write to me, and I shall send another summary to 'The Linguist'.Mail to author|Respond to list|Read more issues|LINGUIST home page|Top of issue
Keyboards: One solution is to use Fontographer to open the font, rearrange the layout (and modify symbols!) to your heart's content, and then generate a copy for your own use. Not only does this work for all Mac systems, but to a large extent the font can be ported to Windows as well simply by generating the font in PC format. ResEdit is not so scary for straightforward tasks, and might do. The drawback is that you then have to carry your resources with you when working on other macs, and this has become unwieldy. Carrying a font is much easier. I am fairly certain that keyboard remapping routines are available on Compuserve, but I haven't looked at system 7 compatibility. Of course, Quick Keys allows keyboard remaps, but as with ResEdit, it is not so portable (you would have to make sure every machine you use has Quick Keys installed. Eric SchillerMail to author|Respond to list|Read more issues|LINGUIST home page|Top of issue