Talk:Phonology: Difference between revisions

From Citizendium
Jump to navigation Jump to search
imported>Joe Quick
imported>Aaron Jacobs
No edit summary
Line 22: Line 22:


The composition of signs in sign languages is considered to be analogous to the phonological structure of oral languages, so they certainly belong here.  As for Morse Code, I'm not so sure.  In fact, I'm not sure that phonology can be ascribed to ''any'' written form of a language. [[User:Joe Quick|--Joe Quick]]  ([[User talk:Joe Quick|Talk]]) 03:11, 25 March 2007 (CDT)
The composition of signs in sign languages is considered to be analogous to the phonological structure of oral languages, so they certainly belong here.  As for Morse Code, I'm not so sure.  In fact, I'm not sure that phonology can be ascribed to ''any'' written form of a language. [[User:Joe Quick|--Joe Quick]]  ([[User talk:Joe Quick|Talk]]) 03:11, 25 March 2007 (CDT)
: Yeah, that's basically what I'm saying.  I'm not disputing that sign languages have a system that is analogous to spoken language phonology.  But I don't think that orthography and Morse code (!!) belong in a list of subjects phonology is concerned with.  If no one posts any objections within the next day or so, I'll remove the language in question.  [[User:Aaron Jacobs|Aaron Jacobs]] 13:24, 25 March 2007 (CDT)

Revision as of 13:24, 25 March 2007


Article Checklist for "Phonology"
Workgroup category or categories Linguistics Workgroup [Categories OK]
Article status External article: from another source, with little change
Underlinked article? No
Basic cleanup done? No
Checklist last edited by John Stephenson 01:02, 12 March 2007 (CDT)

To learn how to fill out this checklist, please see CZ:The Article Checklist.





Orthography?

I have a question/comment about the intro paragraph.

Phonology is a subfield of linguistics which studies the system speakers use to represent language; this includes units of sound, letters on a page, hand movements in a sign language, and even the dots and dashes of Morse code. For example, cat can be expressed through the utterance [kæt], the letters c, a and t, or a sign made with the hands.

Do we really want to say that phonology is concerned with orthography and even Morse code? I don't think that's correct, except perhaps to the extent that certain writing systems can reveal something about the phonemic inventory of the language. But I don't think that is what's intended by the paragraph, and if it is, I think the paragraph as written is misleading.

Where did this content come from, anyway? It sounds similar to the intro of the Wikipedia article on phonology, but there's currently no language about writing systems there. Aaron Jacobs 02:08, 25 March 2007 (CDT)

Well don't I feel dumb? I could have sworn that I checked the first revision of this article and that the language about orthography was in there, but I just checked again (or for the first time) and it turns out is was actually added by John Stephenson. I'm still not sure it's correct. Does anyone have any comments? Aaron Jacobs 02:15, 25 March 2007 (CDT)

The composition of signs in sign languages is considered to be analogous to the phonological structure of oral languages, so they certainly belong here. As for Morse Code, I'm not so sure. In fact, I'm not sure that phonology can be ascribed to any written form of a language. --Joe Quick (Talk) 03:11, 25 March 2007 (CDT)

Yeah, that's basically what I'm saying. I'm not disputing that sign languages have a system that is analogous to spoken language phonology. But I don't think that orthography and Morse code (!!) belong in a list of subjects phonology is concerned with. If no one posts any objections within the next day or so, I'll remove the language in question. Aaron Jacobs 13:24, 25 March 2007 (CDT)