Editor for this issue: <>
Content-Length: 1326 Greetings and apologies! I haven't yet gotten off the stuff on foreign language in ads to those who wanted it, but I haven't forgotten. However, I'm shameless enough to ask for just a little more information, even though I'm not holding up my end of the bargain. Am I right that the IBM ad with the diver on the boat is in Greek? And does anyone know what the language of the ad on the water taxi is? That's the one where the driver at the end gets a call on his cellular phone about soy beans and says, "Sell." Many thanks, Mary Ellen Ryder renryderMail to author|Respond to list|Read more issues|LINGUIST home page|Top of issueidbsu.idbsu.edu
Content-Length: 1850 Reading James Kirchner's summary of interesting observations on [+foreign] pronunciations encouraged me to present a small but irritating puzzle to the list. I live in Boise, Idaho, which most Americans pronounce with a [z], [boyzi] as if it rhymed with "noisy". That in itself seems interesting since it doesn't match English orthographical patterns, nor does it match French, from which the word comes, of course (related to the word bois, `forest, woods'). However, most of the locals pronounce the word with an [s], [boysi]. This is what I find really mystifying, since neither English nor French would have this pronunciation of the letter s between vowels, silent or not. I've wondered if this came about because 1) it's foreign and therefore must not match English, so use anything else that comes to mind or 2) it's foreign, so every letter is pronounced the way it "should" be, so s is [s] (though that doesn't explain the pronunciation of the final e). I'm not a phonologist or an ortho- graphist (?), so I'm open to more expert opinions. Mary Ellen Ryder renryderMail to author|Respond to list|Read more issues|LINGUIST home page|Top of issueidbsu.idbsu.edu
Content-Length: 1303 Currently, I am working on a critique of theoretical reductionism in linguistics theory, especially chomsky's formulations. One area which strikes me as problematic is the now defunct concept of "deep structure". However, I am not familiar with those arguments that have already been made against its ontological status. This would seem a logically prior step to such an analysis. I would greatly appreciate any help in directing me to refrences concerning the refutation of "deep structure". Thank you, William Earl Griffin griffi21Mail to author|Respond to list|Read more issues|LINGUIST home page|Top of issuepotsdam.edu