LINGUIST List 7.219

Sat Feb 10 1996

Disc: Saussure, Emphasis, Spelling

Editor for this issue: T. Daniel Seely <dseelyemunix.emich.edu>


Directory

  1. Peter Daniels, Re: 7.213, Disc: Saussure
  2. Lou Burnard, RE: 7.207, Disc: Emphasis
  3. Alexis Manaster Ramer, Re: 7.218, Disc: Spelling

Message 1: Re: 7.213, Disc: Saussure

Date: Fri, 09 Feb 1996 22:38:15 CST
From: Peter Daniels <pdanielspress-gopher.uchicago.edu>
Subject: Re: 7.213, Disc: Saussure
I berlieve that the interpretation of Saussure that Terry Gordon imputes to
Derrida and Lacan, regarding the subsidiary place of writing in language, is
also that of Roy Harris (which gives it somewhat more credibility); he has
pursued it in several books, and his forthcoming extended theory of writing
should be very rewarding.
Mail to author|Respond to list|Read more issues|LINGUIST home page|Top of issue

Message 2: RE: 7.207, Disc: Emphasis

Date: Fri, 09 Feb 1996 15:10:49 GMT
From: Lou Burnard <louvax.ox.ac.uk>
Subject: RE: 7.207, Disc: Emphasis
>ies in this area. For example - there's a famous story about Samuel
>Johnson and his friend the actor David Garrick. Johnson wanted to
<prove that actors didn't understand emphasis, so he asked Garrick
<to read "thou shalt not kill." Garrick read it with the emphasis
>on "kill." Johnson said that proved his incompetence; of course,
>said Johnson, the emphasis should be on "not." To me it seems
>clear that Johnson was wrong, but not clear why. Best, Larry Rosenwald

He was wrong because this prohibition comes along with a series of other "Thou
shalt not..."s (commit adultery, covet thy neighbour's ass etc). So Garrick
was quite right. Johnson would have been right only if the prohibition had been
made in a context where "thou shalt kill" would have been a reasonable
expectation!


Lou
Mail to author|Respond to list|Read more issues|LINGUIST home page|Top of issue

Message 3: Re: 7.218, Disc: Spelling

Date: Sat, 10 Feb 1996 11:22:05 EST
From: Alexis Manaster Ramer <amrCS.Wayne.EDU>
Subject: Re: 7.218, Disc: Spelling
As i think someone else has already pointed out, examples of
completely phonemic orthographies designed by linguists do not
help us answer the question of whether such systems have arisen
on their own--without the help of modern linguistics--and even if so
why they are so rare (at best).
 
Alexis Manaster Ramer
Mail to author|Respond to list|Read more issues|LINGUIST home page|Top of issue