Send mail

Name Search
Send mail

Name Search
Send mail

Name Search
Send mail

Name Search
Send mail

Name Search
Send mail

Name Search
Send mail

Name Search
Send mail

Name Search
Send mail

Name Search
Send mail

Name Search
Send mail

Name Search
Send mail

Name Search
Send mail

Name Search
Send mail

Name Search
Send mail

Name Search
Send mail

Name Search
Send mail

Name Search
Send mail

Name Search
Send mail

Name Search
Send mail

Name Search
Send mail

Name Search
Send mail

Name Search
Send mail

Name Search
Send mail

Name Search
Send mail

Name Search
Send mail

Name Search
Send mail

Name Search
Send mail

Name Search
Send mail

Name Search
Send mail

Name Search
Send mail

Name Search
Send mail

Name Search
Send mail

Name Search
Send mail

Name Search
Send mail

Name Search
Send mail

Name Search
Send mail

Name Search
Send mail

Name Search
Send mail

Name Search
Send mail

Name Search
Send mail

Name Search
Send mail

Name Search
Send mail

Name Search
Send mail

Name Search
Send mail

Name Search
Send mail

Name Search
Send mail

Name Search
Send mail

Name Search
Send mail

Name Search
Send mail

Name Search
Send mail

Name Search
Send mail

Name Search
Send mail

Name Search
Send mail

Name Search
Send mail

Name Search
Send mail

Name Search
Send mail

Name Search
Send mail

Name Search
Send mail

Name Search
Send mail

Name Search
Send mail

Name Search
Send mail

Name Search
Send mail

Name Search
Send mail

Name Search
Send mail

Name Search
Send mail

Name Search
Send mail

Name Search
Send mail

Name Search
Send mail

Name Search
Send mail

Name Search
Send mail

Name Search
Send mail

Name Search
Send mail

Name Search
Send mail

Name Search
Send mail

Name Search
Send mail

Name Search
Send mail

Name Search
Send mail

Name Search
Send mail

Name Search
Send mail

Name Search
Send mail

Name Search
Send mail

Name Search
Send mail

Name Search
Send mail

Name Search
Send mail

Name Search
Send mail

Name Search
Send mail

Name Search
Send mail

Name Search
Send mail

Name Search
Send mail

Name Search
Send mail

Name Search
(Comparative) study (in structure/mode/ways of pronunciation, articulation, phonetics, or whatever; that is, in differences of speaking mouth postures and resultant speaking weight/force center points) between English/foreign languages and mother tongue, for better (more practical/effective/smooth) hearing/speaking of English/foreign languages.       Copyright.   Young-Won Kim,   yw@voicespec.com
open : home | main | Kor | book | FUN member : main II | Kor II


::: Comparative phonetics, brd2 :::


90 11 View counter   Join Member Login Admin
Name   Young-Won Kim
Subject   James Mesbur/upenn
----- Original Message -----
From: James Mesbur
To: ygwnkm
Sent: Friday, November 02, 2007 5:06 AM
Subject: Re: root of (all) grammars; phonetics

Please link directly to your statistical analysis of real speech to support your conclusions. I don't see anything in your pages about working with real speakers of English. What corpus of data are you using? Where are all your references to the work of other scholars? I would like to verify your results and re-create your experiments myself so I can trust your conclusions.

Thank you.

=====================  


----- Original Message -----
From: ygwnkm
To: James Mesbur
Sent: Friday, November 02, 2007 11:26 AM
Subject: phonetics: to support your conclusions.

It is nice to hear you again.  

>> Please link directly to your statistical analysis of real speech to support your conclusions.

*   I understand the attitude that you mind peers/etc.      I have been write/demonstrating why/how my phonetics study is so different from conventional (or so-called statistical?) analysis on (real) speech.    

Simply speaking,     conventional phonetics professors/etc. argue that speaking sounds are made through the trumpet/tube of the throat/larynx/etc. and that is all and no more contribution to the mankind/linguistics/etc.       while I say that speaking sounds are made by the vibration of the (hemi-) diaphragms according to the theory of condition/reflection and I every week display further/new related discoveries (which are very helpful?? to the mankind/linguistics) as you see.      Do you agree?    

I do not believe in IPA chart.      I can speak vowels without using of the tongue,    which most people agree with.          Your professors/etc. seem to be IPA followers though.


>> I don't see anything in your pages about working with real speakers of English.

*   My pages show many (kinds of) speaker/references,   for example; http://www.ompersonal.com.ar/omsmiles2/intelligentdog.htm ,   etc.      And from many internet dictionaries, I can hear real speakers of English.    I hear/compare the pronunciations from five internet dictionaries.    


>> What corpus of data are you using?    Where are all your references to the work of other scholars?

*  I have been writing     (not other people’s data but)     my (own) research/discovery/experience(s).       My pages show many references, for example;     http://www.omniglot.com/writing/index.htm ,    etc.  


>> I would like to verify your results and re-create your experiments myself so I can trust your conclusions.


*  It took about ten seconds or one minute (for me) to find the fact that speaking sounds are made by the vibration of the (hemi-) diaphragms.      If you want/try to verify (one of) my discovery/results at all,   it will take not-much time.
 
 My board statistics (if correct) now shows about 70,000 visits from U.S.A. since February.  

http://voicespec.com/board.cgi?id=test1
http://voicespec.com/
Young-Won Kim
ygwnkm@yahoo.co.kr , ygwnkm@hotmail.com ,
 
----- Original Message -----
From: James Mesbur
To: ygwnkm
Sent: Friday, November 02, 2007 5:06 AM
Subject: Re: root of (all) grammars; phonetics


===============

 
----- Original Message -----
From: James Mesbur
To: ygwnkm
Sent: Friday, November 02, 2007 1:00 PM
Subject: Re: phonetics: to support your conclusions.

>>> Simply speaking,     conventional phonetics professors/etc. argue that speaking sounds are made through the trumpet/tube of the throat/larynx/etc. and that is all and no more contribution to the mankind/linguistics/etc.    
THIS STATEMENT IS INCORRECT --> "conventional phonetics professors" talk about a multitude of articulators, starting with the air produced by the lungs passing over the vocal folds, causing vibration, and in turn, movement of air particles, producing sound. This sound is then shaped by other articulators, including the tongue, lips, shape of the mouth, etc. This is not an argument. This is not even theory. This is simple fact. If you don't believe this, you MUST provide actual evidence, and not simply statements that you have found some "new" form of phonetics. Where is the substance of your arguments? Where is the data? Where is your methodology? I cannot find any of those things on your pages.

>>>  while I say that speaking sounds are made by the vibration of the (hemi-) diaphragms according to the theory of condition/reflection and I every week display further/new related discoveries (which are very helpful?? to the mankind/linguistics) as you see.
WHOSE THEORY OF CONDITION/REFLECTION? The source of sound in language is the air moving across the vocal folds, producing vibration. The diaphragm is not relevant except as part of the support mechanism for the lungs.


>>> Do you agree?  
I DON'T KNOW WHAT THE THEORY OF CONDITION/REFLECTION IS (NO REFERENCES), BUT YOUR OTHER STATEMENTS ARE INCORRECT AND GO AGAINST PHYSICS (NOT LINGUISTICS, PHYSICS)


>>> I do not believe in IPA chart.      I can speak vowels without using of the tongue,    which most people agree with.          Your professors/etc. seem to be IPA followers though.

THE IPA CHART IS NOT A THEORY. IT'S NOT SOMETHING TO "BELIEVE IN" OR NOT. IT IS SIMPLY A CONVENIENT SHORTHAND FOR NOTATING DIFFERENCES IN PERCEIVED SOUND. "MY" PROFESSORS DO NOT "FOLLOW" THE IPA. MOST OF MY PROFESSORS ARE NOT PHONETICIANS AND THEREFORE HAVE NO NEED FOR IT. OTHERS USE IT AS A TOOL FOR NOTATING DIFFERENT SPEECH SOUNDS. THE SYMBOLS OF THE IPA ARE ABSTRACTIONS AWAY FROM FEATURES OF INDIVIDUAL SOUNDS. IT IS COMMONLY ACCEPTED THAT A [t] IN ONE LANGUAGE SOUNDS DIFFERENT FROM A [t] IN ANOTHER LANGUAGE, BUT THOSE DIFFERENCES ARE NOT CAPTURED BY THE IPA.

HOW CAN YOU SPEAK VOWELS WITHOUT USING THE TONGUE? DO YOU REMOVE THE TONGUE FROM YOUR MOUTH? IF NOT, IT WILL INFLUENCE THE SOUND. KEEPING YOUR TONGUE IN A NEUTRAL POSITION WILL INFLUENCE THE SOUND. AND OF COURSE YOU CAN CHANGE THE SOUND OF A VOWEL WITH OTHER ARTICULATORS. YOU CAN ROUND YOUR LIPS OR RETRACT THEM, WHICH CHANGES THE LENGTH OF THE TUBE. YOU CAN RETRACT YOUR PHARYNX, WHICH DOES THE SAME. THIS IS COMMONLY KNOWN. YOU CAN PRODUCE SOMETHING PERCEIVED AS [u] WITHOUT ROUNDING THE LIPS. DIFFERENT PHONETIC GESTURES CAN PRODUCE SIMILAR ACOUSTIC PERCEPTS. THIS IS COMMON KNOWLEDGE AND HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH THE DIAPHRAGM.

SO YOUR STATEMENTS ARE MISLEADING AND INACCURATE.


>>>> *   My pages show many (kinds of) speaker/references,   for example; http://www.ompersonal.com.ar/omsmiles2/intelligentdog.htm ,   etc.      And from many internet dictionaries, I can hear real speakers of English.    I hear/compare the pronunciations from five internet dictionaries.    
 FOR DOING PHONETIC RESEARCH, IT IS COMMONLY ACCEPTED THAT IT IS NECESSARY TO USE SPONTANEOUS SPEECH SAMPLES, RECORDED IN A CONTROLLED ENVIRONMENT WITH HIGH SOUND QUALITY. YOUR EXAMPLE CLIP MEETS NONE OF THE ABOVE CRITERIA. IT IS A SCRIPTED DIALOGUE READ BY ACTORS, WITH POOR SOUND QUALITY. INTERNET DICTIONARIES HAVE EVEN POORER SOUND QUALITY AND MUCH OF THE SPECTRUM OF THE ORIGINAL SOUND IS CLIPPED OFF AND DISTORTED. AGAIN, NOT VALID FOR USE IN REAL PHONETIC RESEARCH.
 
*  I have been writing     (not other people's data but)     my (own) research/discovery/experience(s).       My pages show many references, for example;     http://www.omniglot.com/writing/index.htm ,    etc.  
 >>> THIS IS A LINK TO OMNIGLOT, A WEBSITE ABOUT WRITING SYSTEMS. IT IS COMMONLY ACCEPTED THAT THE WRITTEN FORM OF LANGUAGE IS NOT A VALID SOURCE OF DATA FOR PHONETIC STUDIES. THEY ARE 2 COMPLETELY SEPARATE THINGS. PRONUNCIATIONS DEVIATE RADICALLY FROM THE WRITTEN FORM IN MANY CASES, BUT THE WRITTEN FORM REMAINS THE SAME FOR CENTURIES WHILE PRONUNCIATIONS CHANGE. PLUS, THIS IS NOT AN ACADEMIC WEBSITE. THERE ARE NO DIRECT REFERENCES TO SCHOLARS OR THEIR RESEARCH.

>>> *  It took about ten seconds or one minute (for me) to find the fact that speaking sounds are made by the vibration of the (hemi-) diaphragms.      If you want/try to verify (one of) my discovery/results at all,   it will take not-much time.
DESCRIBE YOUR METHODOLOGY SO OTHER PEOPLE CAN REPRODUCE YOUR RESULTS. YOU STATING THAT YOU REACHED CONCLUSIONS IS USELESS WITHOUT OTHERS BEING ABLE TO VERIFY.
 

 My board statistics (if correct) now shows about 70,000 visits from U.S.A. since February.  
 
http://voicespec.com/board.cgi?id=test1
http://voicespec.com/
Young-Won Kim
ygwnkm@yahoo.co.kr , ygwnkm@hotmail.com ,
 
----- Original Message -----
From: James Mesbur
To: ygwnkm
Sent: Friday, November 02, 2007 5:06 AM
Subject: Re: root of (all) grammars; phonetics
 

===============

 
----- Original Message -----
From: ygwnkm
To: James Mesbur
Sent: Friday, November 02, 2007 4:19 PM
Subject: phonetics: conclusions

>> Simply speaking,     conventional phonetics professors/etc. argue that speaking sounds are made through the trumpet/tube of the throat/larynx/etc. and that is all and no more contribution to the mankind/linguistics/etc.    
THIS STATEMENT IS INCORRECT --> "conventional phonetics professors" talk about a multitude of articulators, starting with

the air produced by the lungs passing over the vocal folds, causing vibration, and in turn, movement of air particles, producing sound.

* The above statement describes the structure/principle of trumpet,    while radio speaker (diaphragm) does not produce the air but simply vibrate the air.


>> This sound is then shaped by other articulators, including the tongue, lips, shape of the mouth, etc. This is not an argument. This is not even theory. This is simple fact. If you don't believe this, you MUST provide actual evidence, and not simply statements that you have found some "new" form of phonetics. Where is the substance of your arguments? Where is the data? Where is your methodology? I cannot find any of those things on your pages.


*  The article of (No. 95) “Diaphragm” seems to explain how I came to think/find/test that the hemi-diaphragms are the source of voice.         If you have mechanical/engineering/technical sense,     you can (soon/easily) understand that the structures of the tongue, lips, shape of the mouth, etc. can not make/produce any human language-like sound.


>>  while I say that speaking sounds are made by the vibration of the (hemi-) diaphragms according to the theory of condition/reflection and I every week display further/new related discoveries (which are very helpful?? to the mankind/linguistics) as you see.
WHOSE THEORY OF CONDITION/REFLECTION? The source of sound in language is the air moving across the vocal folds, producing vibration. The diaphragm is not relevant except as part of the support mechanism for the lungs.
>> Do you agree?  
I DON'T KNOW WHAT THE THEORY OF CONDITION/REFLECTION IS (NO REFERENCES), BUT YOUR OTHER STATEMENTS ARE INCORRECT AND GO AGAINST PHYSICS (NOT LINGUISTICS, PHYSICS)


*  The article of (No. 95) “Diaphragm” and (other) neighboring articles will show what CONDITION/REFLECTION is like in producing voice.


>> I do not believe in IPA chart.      I can speak vowels without using of the tongue,    which most people agree with.          Your professors/etc. seem to be IPA followers though.

THE IPA CHART IS NOT A THEORY. IT'S NOT SOMETHING TO "BELIEVE IN" OR NOT. IT IS SIMPLY A CONVENIENT SHORTHAND FOR NOTATING DIFFERENCES IN PERCEIVED SOUND. "MY" PROFESSORS DO NOT "FOLLOW" THE IPA. MOST OF MY PROFESSORS ARE NOT PHONETICIANS AND THEREFORE HAVE NO NEED FOR IT. OTHERS USE IT AS A TOOL FOR NOTATING DIFFERENT SPEECH SOUNDS. THE SYMBOLS OF THE IPA ARE ABSTRACTIONS AWAY FROM FEATURES OF INDIVIDUAL SOUNDS. IT IS COMMONLY ACCEPTED THAT A [t] IN ONE LANGUAGE SOUNDS DIFFERENT FROM A [t] IN ANOTHER LANGUAGE, BUT THOSE DIFFERENCES ARE NOT CAPTURED BY THE IPA.


* The reason,     that/why A [t] IN ONE LANGUAGE SOUNDS DIFFERENT FROM A [t] IN ANOTHER LANGUAGE,     is because the speaking postures of cp/bp are different between/among languages.    When you strike the (red) billiard ball from the south, it rolls northward.      And when you strike the same (red) billiard ball from the east, it rolls westward,      because the striking positions are different.     The positions of combination cp/bp are (always) different between/among languages.    


>> HOW CAN YOU SPEAK VOWELS WITHOUT USING THE TONGUE? DO YOU REMOVE THE TONGUE FROM YOUR MOUTH? IF NOT, IT WILL INFLUENCE THE SOUND. KEEPING YOUR TONGUE IN A NEUTRAL POSITION WILL INFLUENCE THE SOUND. AND OF COURSE YOU CAN CHANGE THE SOUND OF A VOWEL WITH OTHER ARTICULATORS. YOU CAN ROUND YOUR LIPS OR RETRACT THEM, WHICH CHANGES THE LENGTH OF THE TUBE. YOU CAN RETRACT YOUR PHARYNX, WHICH DOES THE SAME. THIS IS COMMONLY KNOWN. YOU CAN PRODUCE SOMETHING PERCEIVED AS [u] WITHOUT ROUNDING THE LIPS. DIFFERENT PHONETIC GESTURES CAN PRODUCE SIMILAR ACOUSTIC PERCEPTS. THIS IS COMMON KNOWLEDGE AND HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH THE DIAPHRAGM.

SO YOUR STATEMENTS ARE MISLEADING AND INACCURATE.


* I mean any position/movement of the tongue do not influence the vowel characteristics significantly,    which is agreed by the article of “LinguistList”.   I remember I read.


>>*  My pages show many (kinds of) speaker/references,   for example; http://www.ompersonal.com.ar/omsmiles2/intelligentdog.htm ,   etc.      And from many internet dictionaries, I can hear real speakers of English.    I hear/compare the pronunciations from five internet dictionaries.    
 FOR DOING PHONETIC RESEARCH, IT IS COMMONLY ACCEPTED THAT IT IS NECESSARY TO USE SPONTANEOUS SPEECH SAMPLES, RECORDED IN A CONTROLLED ENVIRONMENT WITH HIGH SOUND QUALITY. YOUR EXAMPLE CLIP MEETS NONE OF THE ABOVE CRITERIA. IT IS A SCRIPTED DIALOGUE READ BY ACTORS, WITH POOR SOUND QUALITY. INTERNET DICTIONARIES HAVE EVEN POORER SOUND QUALITY AND MUCH OF THE SPECTRUM OF THE ORIGINAL SOUND IS CLIPPED OFF AND DISTORTED. AGAIN, NOT VALID FOR USE IN REAL PHONETIC RESEARCH.
* SPONTANEOUS SPEECH SAMPLES can be artificial,    which is not good in producing genuine intonation/emotion/etc.    I find INTERNET DICTIONARIES produce quite good/agreeable/desired or professional sounds.   And I hear not one but five INTERNET DICTIONARIES.      I am a professional of electronics (major).     Do not utter/mention on SPECTRUM, etc. to/before me.  


>>*  I have been writing     (not other people's data but)     my (own) research/discovery/experience(s).       My pages show many references, for example;     http://www.omniglot.com/writing/index.htm ,    etc.  
THIS IS A LINK TO OMNIGLOT, A WEBSITE ABOUT WRITING SYSTEMS. IT IS COMMONLY ACCEPTED THAT THE WRITTEN FORM OF LANGUAGE IS NOT A VALID SOURCE OF DATA FOR PHONETIC STUDIES. THEY ARE 2 COMPLETELY SEPARATE THINGS. PRONUNCIATIONS DEVIATE RADICALLY FROM THE WRITTEN FORM IN MANY CASES, BUT THE WRITTEN FORM REMAINS THE SAME FOR CENTURIES WHILE PRONUNCIATIONS CHANGE. PLUS, THIS IS NOT AN ACADEMIC WEBSITE. THERE ARE NO DIRECT REFERENCES TO SCHOLARS OR THEIR RESEARCH.
*  THE WRITTEN FORM of language reflect/mirror the pronunciations of the languages of the speaking postures of cp/bp.      Read the articles of “106 So many languages, so many speaking postures (I). etc.”


>>*  It took about ten seconds or one minute (for me) to find the fact that speaking sounds are made by the vibration of the (hemi-) diaphragms.      If you want/try to verify (one of) my discovery/results at all,   it will take not-much time.
DESCRIBE YOUR METHODOLOGY SO OTHER PEOPLE CAN REPRODUCE YOUR RESULTS. YOU STATING THAT YOU REACHED CONCLUSIONS IS USELESS WITHOUT OTHERS BEING ABLE TO VERIFY.


The article of (No. 95) “Diaphragm” and (other) neighboring articles will show what CONDITION/REFLECTION is like in producing voice.


http://voicespec.com/board.cgi?id=test1
http://voicespec.com/
Young-Won Kim
ygwnkm@yahoo.co.kr , ygwnkm@hotmail.com ,


----- Original Message -----
From: James Mesbur
To: ygwnkm
Sent: Friday, November 02, 2007 1:00 PM
Subject: Re: phonetics: to support your conclusions.


===============

 
----- Original Message -----
From: James Mesbur
To: ygwnkm
Sent: Friday, November 02, 2007 9:26 PM
Subject: Re: phonetics: conclusions


* The above statement describes the structure/principle of trumpet,    while radio speaker (diaphragm) does not produce the air but simply vibrate the air.

NO, IT DOESN'T. THERE IS NO DIRECT SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE FOR THIS, AND NONE IN YOUR ARTICLE 95 EITHER. YOU HAVE DONE NO CLINICAL EXPERIMENTS, YOU HAVE ONLY STATED THINGS YOU BELIEVE TO BE TRUE WITH NO EVIDENCE.
 

*  The article of (No. 95) "Diaphragm" seems to explain how I came to think/find/test that the hemi-diaphragms are the source of voice.         If you have mechanical/engineering/technical sense,     you can (soon/easily) understand that the structures of the tongue, lips, shape of the mouth, etc. can not make/produce any human language-like sound.
YOUR MAIN SOURCES OF EVIDENCE APPEAR TO BE THINGS YOU "FEEL", RATHER THAN ACTUALLY DOING THINGS LIKE USING IMAGING TO SEE WHAT'S GOING ON, OR, AS THEY DID IN THE 19TH CENTURY, CUTTING OPEN CADAVERS AND REPRODUCING WHAT HAPPENS WHILE THEY CAN WATCH.

YOUR OTHER EVIDENCE IS: "I saw the program of "Touch the Sound" yesterday on TV and heard that percussionist Evelyn Glennie says "People (or singers?) speak (or sing?) with the diaphragm, not the mouth."      Could you kindly let me know whether she said "People speak with the diaphragm, not the mouth." or "Singers sing with the diaphragm, not the mouth" or what else?    And if possible, on how she comes to know the fact (scientifically or by <what> musical experience, etc.)       As you see the below forum of academici.com,   I am writing on pronunciation/etc. and also found the fact that the diaphragm actually produces the voice rather than the mouth and will introduce the saying of Evelyn Glennie, as correctly as possible, in my next (scientific) article. "
THIS IS RIDICULOUS!!! IT IS COMMON KNOWLEDGE THAT SINGERS USE THE MENTAL IMAGERY OF PUSHING THE DIAPHRAGM TO CREATE EXTRA "SUPPORT" FOR THEIR BREATHING. 1ST OF ALL, IT'S NOT ACTUALLY WHAT IS HAPPENING INSIDE, IT'S JUST A MENTAL IMAGE. 2ND OF ALL, IT HAS NOTHING WHATSOEVER TO DO WITH THE ARTICULATION OF VOWELS OR CONSONANTS. YOU CANNOT CITE A SINGER AS EVIDENCE; SHE HAS PERFORMED NO EXPERIMENTS, HAS NO SUBJECTS, HAS NO TRAINING OR EDUCATION IN ANY KIND OF SCIENCE. I'M SORRY, BUT THAT IS COMPLETELY RIDICULOUS.
 

*  The article of (No. 95) "Diaphragm" and (other) neighboring articles will show what CONDITION/REFLECTION is like in producing voice.
I'M SORRY, BUT IT DOES NOT. IT SOUNDS LIKE YOU HAD SOME IDEAS AND BELIEVE CERTAIN THINGS BASED ON HOW YOU "FEEL" THINGS TO BE HAPPENING, BUT THERE IS NOT ONE SINGLE DIRECT PIECE OF EVIDENCE THAT THOSE THINGS ARE ACTUALLY HAPPENING. NO MEASUREMENTS OF ANYTHING, NO ANALYSES OF ANYTHING. JUST YOUR OWN FEELING. THIS IS NOT SCIENCE.


* The reason,     that/why A [t] IN ONE LANGUAGE SOUNDS DIFFERENT FROM A [t] IN ANOTHER LANGUAGE,     is because the speaking postures of cp/bp are different between/among languages.    When you strike the (red) billiard ball from the south, it rolls northward.      And when you strike the same (red) billiard ball from the east, it rolls westward,      because the striking positions are different.     The positions of combination cp/bp are (always) different between/among languages.    

YOU IGNORED MY MAIN POINT ABOUT THE IPA. YOU ARE ARGUING SOMETHING COMPLETELY DIFFERENT. I AGREE THAT SPEAKING POSTURES (COMMONLY REFERRED TO AS "PHONETIC SETTING") ARE DIFFERENT FOR SPEAKERS OF DIFFERENT LANGUAGES; ACTUALLY THEY CAN BE DIFFERENT FOR SPEAKERS OF THE SAME LANGUAGE, TOO, EVEN THE SAME DIALECT. CONSIDER ENGLISH VOCALIZATION OF [l] FOR EXAMPLE. THE IPA, I REPEAT, IS A TOOL OF NOTATION WHICH ABSTRACTS AWAY FROM FINE PHONETIC DETAIL. IT IS NOT A THEORY TO BE "FOLLOWED".


* I mean any position/movement of the tongue do not influence the vowel characteristics significantly,    which is agreed by the article of "LinguistList".   I remember I read.

2 POINTS: 1) YOU ARE WRONG THAT THE TONGUE DOES NOT INFLUENCE VOWEL CHARACTERISTICS. THIS IS ONE OF THE MOST WIDELY STUDIED ISSUES IN PHONETIC. THE 1ST AND 2ND FORMANTS DEPEND ON TONGUE POSITION, AND THEY ARE THE MOST SALIENT PERCEPTS OF VOWEL QUALITY. OF COURSE ONE CAN USE OTHER ARTICULATORS TO MITIGATE THE EFFECT OF THE TONGUE ON THE FORMANTS, BUT THAT IS IRRELEVANT TO YOUR POINT, AND HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH THE DIAPHRAGM.
 
* SPONTANEOUS SPEECH SAMPLES can be artificial,    which is not good in producing genuine intonation/emotion/etc.    I find INTERNET DICTIONARIES produce quite good/agreeable/desired or professional sounds.   And I hear not one but five INTERNET DICTIONARIES.      I am a professional of electronics (major).     Do not utter/mention on SPECTRUM, etc. to/before me.  

IF YOU ARE AN ELECTRICAL ENGINEER, YOU SHOULD KNOW THAT HIGHLY-COMPRESSED SOUND FILES FOUND IN INTERNET DICTIONARIES ARE AMONG THE POOREST SOUND QUALITY FILES. I WILL MENTION SPECTRUM, SINCE I AM AN EXPERT IN PHONETICS, SPEECH RECOGNITION, SPEECH SYNTHESIS AND DIGITAL SIGNAL PROCESSING. IT SOUNDS LIKE YOU ARE AN UNDERGRADUATE STUDENT. I RECOMMEND YOU OBTAIN AN EDUCATION IN THE FIELDS I MENTIONED SO YOU CAN DEVELOP A TRUE AND MORE COMPLETE UNDERSTANDING OF THE SCIENCE INVOLVED HERE.

*  THE WRITTEN FORM of language reflect/mirror the pronunciations of the languages of the speaking postures of cp/bp.      Read the articles of "106 So many languages, so many speaking postures (I). etc."
I READ THAT TOO. YOU ARE INCORRECT AGAIN. WRITTEN LANGUAGE IS ANOTHER FORM OF ABSTRACTION FROM THE SPOKEN LANGUAGE, SIMILAR TO THE IPA, BUT MUCH LESS "IDEAL" IN TERMS OF THE REPRESENTATIONS OF WHAT'S ACTUALLY BEING SPOKEN. SOME WRITING SYSTEMS ARE "TRUER" TO THE SOUNDS ACTUALLY BEING SPOKEN (Italian, Spanish, Korean), WHILE OTHERS ARE SIMPLY MERE APPROXIMATIONS (Chinese, English). PLEASE LEARN YOUR FACTS BEFORE JUMPING TO FAULTY CONCLUSIONS.
The article of (No. 95) "Diaphragm" and (other) neighboring articles will show what CONDITION/REFLECTION is like in producing voice.
YOUR ARTICLES DO NOT PROVIDE ANY DETAIL WHATSOEVER. THEY SIMPLY ARE YOUR OWN PERSONAL OBSERVATIONS AND BELIEFS. THIS IS NOT SCIENCE. YOU SOUND LIKE A RELIGIOUS ZEALOT.

 
http://voicespec.com/board.cgi?id=test1
http://voicespec.com/
Young-Won Kim
ygwnkm@yahoo.co.kr , ygwnkm@hotmail.com ,
 
 
 
----- Original Message -----
From: James Mesbur
To: ygwnkm
Sent: Friday, November 02, 2007 1:00 PM
Subject: Re: phonetics: to support your conclusions.
 

===============


 
----- Original Message -----
From: ygwnkm
To: James Mesbur
Sent: Friday, November 02, 2007 11:49 PM
Subject: phonetics/SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE

>> * The above statement describes the structure/principle of trumpet,    while radio speaker (diaphragm) does not produce the air but simply vibrate the air.

NO, IT DOESN'T. THERE IS NO DIRECT SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE FOR THIS, AND NONE IN YOUR ARTICLE 95 EITHER. YOU HAVE DONE NO CLINICAL EXPERIMENTS, YOU HAVE ONLY STATED THINGS YOU BELIEVE TO BE TRUE WITH NO EVIDENCE.
 
* What scientific evidence is needed      for the saying that “The above statement describes the structure/principle of trumpet,    while radio speaker (diaphragm) does not produce the air but simply vibrate the air”??    
When people can feel/see/hear/etc.,    clinical experiments are no longer necessary.


>> *  The article of (No. 95) "Diaphragm" seems to explain how I came to think/find/test that the hemi-diaphragms are the source of voice.         If you have mechanical/engineering/technical sense,     you can (soon/easily) understand that the structures of the tongue, lips, shape of the mouth, etc. can not make/produce any human language-like sound.
YOUR MAIN SOURCES OF EVIDENCE APPEAR TO BE THINGS YOU "FEEL", RATHER THAN ACTUALLY DOING THINGS LIKE USING IMAGING TO SEE WHAT'S GOING ON, OR, AS THEY DID IN THE 19TH CENTURY, CUTTING OPEN CADAVERS AND REPRODUCING WHAT HAPPENS WHILE THEY CAN WATCH.


* If you do/can not feel/see/hear/etc. what (other) feel/see/hear/etc., it is your problem.    


>> YOUR OTHER EVIDENCE IS: "I saw the program of "Touch the Sound" yesterday on TV and heard that percussionist Evelyn Glennie says "People (or singers?) speak (or sing?) with the diaphragm, not the mouth."      Could you kindly let me know whether she said "People speak with the diaphragm, not the mouth." or "Singers sing with the diaphragm, not the mouth" or what else?    And if possible, on how she comes to know the fact (scientifically or by <what> musical experience, etc.)       As you see the below forum of academici.com,   I am writing on pronunciation/etc. and also found the fact that the diaphragm actually produces the voice rather than the mouth and will introduce the saying of Evelyn Glennie, as correctly as possible, in my next (scientific) article. "
THIS IS RIDICULOUS!!! IT IS COMMON KNOWLEDGE THAT SINGERS USE THE MENTAL IMAGERY OF PUSHING THE DIAPHRAGM TO CREATE EXTRA "SUPPORT" FOR THEIR BREATHING. 1ST OF ALL, IT'S NOT ACTUALLY WHAT IS HAPPENING INSIDE, IT'S JUST A MENTAL IMAGE. 2ND OF ALL, IT HAS NOTHING WHATSOEVER TO DO WITH THE ARTICULATION OF VOWELS OR CONSONANTS. YOU CANNOT CITE A SINGER AS EVIDENCE; SHE HAS PERFORMED NO EXPERIMENTS, HAS NO SUBJECTS, HAS NO TRAINING OR EDUCATION IN ANY KIND OF SCIENCE. I'M SORRY, BUT THAT IS COMPLETELY RIDICULOUS.


*I confirmed her saying at the second viewing of the program.    She will/can be more excellent than you.


>>*  The article of (No. 95) "Diaphragm" and (other) neighboring articles will show what CONDITION/REFLECTION is like in producing voice.
I'M SORRY, BUT IT DOES NOT. IT SOUNDS LIKE YOU HAD SOME IDEAS AND BELIEVE CERTAIN THINGS BASED ON HOW YOU "FEEL" THINGS TO BE HAPPENING, BUT THERE IS NOT ONE SINGLE DIRECT PIECE OF EVIDENCE THAT THOSE THINGS ARE ACTUALLY HAPPENING. NO MEASUREMENTS OF ANYTHING, NO ANALYSES OF ANYTHING. JUST YOUR OWN FEELING. THIS IS NOT SCIENCE.


* If you do/can not feel/see/hear/etc. what (other) feel/see/hear/etc., it is your problem.    


>>* The reason,     that/why A [t] IN ONE LANGUAGE SOUNDS DIFFERENT FROM A [t] IN ANOTHER LANGUAGE,     is because the speaking postures of cp/bp are different between/among languages.    When you strike the (red) billiard ball from the south, it rolls northward.      And when you strike the same (red) billiard ball from the east, it rolls westward,      because the striking positions are different.     The positions of combination cp/bp are (always) different between/among languages.    

YOU IGNORED MY MAIN POINT ABOUT THE IPA. YOU ARE ARGUING SOMETHING COMPLETELY DIFFERENT. I AGREE THAT SPEAKING POSTURES (COMMONLY REFERRED TO AS "PHONETIC SETTING") ARE DIFFERENT FOR SPEAKERS OF DIFFERENT LANGUAGES; ACTUALLY THEY CAN BE DIFFERENT FOR SPEAKERS OF THE SAME LANGUAGE, TOO, EVEN THE SAME DIALECT. CONSIDER ENGLISH VOCALIZATION OF [l] FOR EXAMPLE. THE IPA, I REPEAT, IS A TOOL OF NOTATION WHICH ABSTRACTS AWAY FROM FINE PHONETIC DETAIL. IT IS NOT A THEORY TO BE "FOLLOWED".

* My speaking postures of cp/bp are completely different from your PHONETIC SETTING.      Read and practice my writings.
 

>>* I mean any position/movement of the tongue do not influence the vowel characteristics significantly,    which is agreed by the article of "LinguistList".   I remember I read.

2 POINTS: 1) YOU ARE WRONG THAT THE TONGUE DOES NOT INFLUENCE VOWEL CHARACTERISTICS. THIS IS ONE OF THE MOST WIDELY STUDIED ISSUES IN PHONETIC. THE 1ST AND 2ND FORMANTS DEPEND ON TONGUE POSITION, AND THEY ARE THE MOST SALIENT PERCEPTS OF VOWEL QUALITY. OF COURSE ONE CAN USE OTHER ARTICULATORS TO MITIGATE THE EFFECT OF THE TONGUE ON THE FORMANTS, BUT THAT IS IRRELEVANT TO YOUR POINT, AND HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH THE DIAPHRAGM.


* I can speak/pronounce any vowel of [a, e, i, o, u, etc.] while fixing my tongue in one place/position, without movement, in the mouth on in the chest.    


>>* SPONTANEOUS SPEECH SAMPLES can be artificial,    which is not good in producing genuine intonation/emotion/etc.    I find INTERNET DICTIONARIES produce quite good/agreeable/desired or professional sounds.   And I hear not one but five INTERNET DICTIONARIES.      I am a professional of electronics (major).     Do not utter/mention on SPECTRUM, etc. to/before me.  

IF YOU ARE AN ELECTRICAL ENGINEER, YOU SHOULD KNOW THAT HIGHLY-COMPRESSED SOUND FILES FOUND IN INTERNET DICTIONARIES ARE AMONG THE POOREST SOUND QUALITY FILES. I WILL MENTION SPECTRUM, SINCE I AM AN EXPERT IN PHONETICS, SPEECH RECOGNITION, SPEECH SYNTHESIS AND DIGITAL SIGNAL PROCESSING. IT SOUNDS LIKE YOU ARE AN UNDERGRADUATE STUDENT. I RECOMMEND YOU OBTAIN AN EDUCATION IN THE FIELDS I MENTIONED SO YOU CAN DEVELOP A TRUE AND MORE COMPLETE UNDERSTANDING OF THE SCIENCE INVOLVED HERE.


* I am interested in phonetics, about which I have written much, as you see.    And my board statistics (if correct) now shows about 70,000 visits from U.S.A. since February.  


>>*  THE WRITTEN FORM of language reflect/mirror the pronunciations of the languages of the speaking postures of cp/bp.      Read the articles of "106 So many languages, so many speaking postures (I). etc."
I READ THAT TOO. YOU ARE INCORRECT AGAIN. WRITTEN LANGUAGE IS ANOTHER FORM OF ABSTRACTION FROM THE SPOKEN LANGUAGE, SIMILAR TO THE IPA, BUT MUCH LESS "IDEAL" IN TERMS OF THE REPRESENTATIONS OF WHAT'S ACTUALLY BEING SPOKEN. SOME WRITING SYSTEMS ARE "TRUER" TO THE SOUNDS ACTUALLY BEING SPOKEN (Italian, Spanish, Korean), WHILE OTHERS ARE SIMPLY MERE APPROXIMATIONS (Chinese, English). PLEASE LEARN YOUR FACTS BEFORE JUMPING TO FAULTY CONCLUSIONS.
The article of (No. 95) "Diaphragm" and (other) neighboring articles will show what CONDITION/REFLECTION is like in producing voice.
YOUR ARTICLES DO NOT PROVIDE ANY DETAIL WHATSOEVER. THEY SIMPLY ARE YOUR OWN PERSONAL OBSERVATIONS AND BELIEFS. THIS IS NOT SCIENCE. YOU SOUND LIKE A RELIGIOUS ZEALOT.

* My writings show why English is SIMPLY MERE APPROXIMATION.       My board statistics (if correct) now shows about 70,000 visits from U.S.A. since February,    who will not want A RELIGIOUS ZEALOT.  


http://voicespec.com/board.cgi?id=test1
http://voicespec.com/
Young-Won Kim
ygwnkm@yahoo.co.kr , ygwnkm@hotmail.com ,

----- Original Message -----
From: James Mesbur
To: ygwnkm
Sent: Friday, November 02, 2007 9:26 PM
Subject: Re: phonetics: conclusions

Send this message to email View Printable version
DATE: 2007.11.07 - 10:55

61.102.131.184 - Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 6.0; Windows NT 5.1; SV1)


 Prev message grammars:     upenn,    ucla,
 Next message the structure/principle of trumpet
WriteDeleteEditReplyView Search list

90Simple view***   NOTICE (공지) :   member registration (sign in) for LOGIN,        (LOGIN을 위한 회원 가입) Y... 2013.01.04
89Simple view          common/same  (phonetic) structure  in  Korean,  Chinese,  Japanese  &  English  alphabets/characters Y... 2012.08.20
88Simple viewSenkaku せんか Islands, 釣魚台群島,       Hokkaido/Ainu, Sakhalin/Сахалин,       Liancourt Rocks 독도,  Tsushima Y... 2012.03.06
87Simple view釣魚台群島/尖閣諸島, 琉球諸島, 南西諸島, 薩南諸島, 吐噶喇列島, 沖縄諸島, 慶良間諸島, 先島諸島, 宮古列島, 八重山諸島 Y... 2013.05.06
86Simple view東海/日本海/한국해,   Scarborough Shoal,   Parece Vela, 冲鸟礁/Okinotorishima,   **Luzon Sea, South China Sea Y... 2012.05.11
85Simple view>>             Response to We the People Petition on the Sea of Japan Naming Issue Y... 2012.06.30
84Simple viewSocotra Rock 이어도,      Falklands,       Paracel Islands,       Spratly Islands,     Yonaguni 與那國,     Hans Island Y... 2012.04.20
83Simple viewJapan/China/Vietnam/Thai/Cambodia/Laos/Burma/Malaysia/Indonesia/Brunei/Singapore/Philippines/Taiwan/Okinawa Y... 2012.07.12
82Simple view>>                                        Korea,  한국 [han gug], 韓國 or 瀚國 ?? Y... 2012.07.17
81Simple viewPhonetics between    Keats' Endymion/Lamia &    Homer's Odyssey,      Hyperion/Sonnets/Calidore/Isabella Y... 2011.06.27
80Simple view>> 'Notebooks of Leonardo Da Vinci',   'Thoughts on Art and Life by Leonardo da Vinci',    Apollonius' Conics Y... 2011.07.20
79Simple view>> 'John Aubrey;  Brief Lives,  Miscellanies,  Natural History of Wiltshire',          Alberti's 'De pictura' Y... 2011.07.15
78Simple view>> Pascal's  'Lettres provinciales',  'De Esprit géométrique'  &  Pensées;          Vitruvius' "De Architectura" Y... 2011.07.19
77Simple view "Lex Talio  :  Phonetic translation"           &          "Phonetic study  on  German/French   words/sentences" Y... 2011.06.12
76Simple view>>       'Phonetic study  on  English  nouns'        < Lingering of articles >        'definite/indefinite article' Y... 2011.12.29
75Simple view>>      English  verb/adjective/adverb'     (derived nouns)               < have / be as v.aux. > Y... 2011.12.29
74Simple view                                 "English    spelling/vocabulary"                   (Korean connection) Y... 2011.05.19
73Simple view>>         Who/how made English/German/French spellings??            'Indo-European'       Aryan Y... 2012.07.03
72Simple viewPyrrho/Galen/Avicenna/Averroes/Maimonides, 'Albertus Magnus', 'Thomas Aquinas', 'Duns Scotus', Copernicus Y... 2011.05.17
71Simple viewArchimedes/Aspasia/Euclid/Hipparchus/Hippocrates/Leonidas/Pericles/Ptolemy/Solon/Themistocles/Epicurus Y... 2011.05.14
70Simple viewAeschylus/Aesop/Euripides/Hesiod,   Homer/Lucian/Menander/Pindar,  Polybius/Sappho/Sophocles, Alcibiades Y... 2011.05.11
69Simple viewThales/Anaximander/Anaximenes/Pythagoras,  Anaxagoras/Empedocles,  Antisthenes/Diogenes/Crates/Zeno Y... 2011.05.07
68Simple viewSocrates/Thucydides/Plutarch/Herodotus/Xenophon/Aristophanes/Plato/Aristotle/Parmenides/Democritus, etc. Y... 2011.05.04
67Simple view'The Star-Spangled Banner'   &   'God Save the Queen'   &    'Land of Hope and Glory';        national anthems Y... 2011.02.10
66Simple view              Shakespeare       &       Plutarch Y... 2010.10.28
65Simple view>>                  Sir Thomas More         &        Marcus Salvius Otho Y... 2010.11.13
64Simple viewPhonetics/linguistics              &             Bible Y... 2010.07.08
63Simple view>>    'phonetic study on Jesus Christ  &  Moshe'          'Twelve Apostles'           'Hellenistic civilization??' Y... 2011.04.10
62Simple view>> 'Moses & Jesus Christ'           teacher/Christianity/Christ/Jesus,    '(white) Christmas (tree/carol)' Y... 2010.12.18
61Simple view>>                 Confucius/Mencius,      Moshe, "Jesus Christ"      &     Laozi/Micius Y... 2011.03.28
60Simple view>> '論語/논어 [non  ŋΛ]  &  Old Testament'      Pentateuch     'Why Torah, Prophets, Writings, 四書五經' Y... 2011.04.05
59Simple view>> translation :           논어(論語)/공자(孔子/Confucius),               etymological analysis Y... 2011.04.08
58Simple viewNoam Chomsky    vs    Philip Lieberman,  fred m. seed professor, Brown.edu Y... 2009.05.26
57Simple view>> grafting Y... 2009.09.04
56Simple view>> The pied piper of Cambridge,                 by PHILIP LIEBERMAN Y... 2010.04.30
55Simple view>>         Fw: cognitive biologists Angela Stoeger and Tecumseh Fitch Y... 2012.11.27
54Simple view>>                  Newborns Know Their Native Tongue, Study Finds Y... 2013.01.04
53Simple viewunimelb/mq.edu.au,    let.ru.nl/taalunie.org/leidenuniv.nl/mpl.nl,    jussieu.fr/lpl-aix.fr Y... 2009.04.27
52Simple viewalberta/mun/brock/qam/montr-/ubc/mcmaster/concor-/carleton/queens/vic/mcgill/manito-/sfu/calgary Y... 2009.04.15
51Simple viewSweden (gu/umu/kth/lu/su/uu)           Uk (soas/york/ucl/cam/ed/essex/city/sussex) Y... 2009.04.07
50Simple viewumd/unc/utah/sjsu,              Germany (eva.mpg/jena/koeln/konstanz/potsdam/saarland/stuttgart)  Y... 2009.03.31
49Simple view>> Andre M. of Linguistics,          Max Planck Institute, Germany Y... 2009.04.07
48Simple viewnorthwestern/siu/Princeton/pitt/sc/Rutgers/rochester/uiowa/georgetown/ucdavis/uiuc/ucsd/colorado Y... 2009.03.12
47Simple viewyale/Haskins/uchicago/stanford/nyu/umich/hawaii/harvard/uoregon/Brown/ucsb/umass/buffalo/stonyb- Y... 2009.03.04
46Simple viewarizona/UCLA/upenn/USC/washington/osu/udel/ucsc/mit/indiana/utexas/cornell/rice/ku/msu/berkeley Y... 2009.02.24
45Simple viewQ & A      between cognitive linguistics/etc. and phonetics. Y... 2008.11.19
44Simple viewStonehenge Y... 2008.05.31
43Simple view>> Dr. Mike Parker Pearson Y... 2008.06.03
42Simple view>> Stonehenge/2 Y... 2009.07.03
41Simple viewmcmaster.ca, brocku.ca, mun.ca, ualberta.ca, ucw.cz, ut.ee, philol.msu.ru, phonetics.pu.ru, ngslt.org Y... 2008.05.20
40Simple view>> yorku.ca,    mun.ca,    mff.cuni.cz,    ffzg.hr,    zrc-sazu.si,    ff.uni-lj.si,    guest.arnes.si Y... 2008.06.24
39Simple viewcsulb/csun/gmu/ucdavis/ucr/ucsd/colorado/umd/unc/utah/virginia/uwm/sjsu/lldsa/wwu/sil/swarthmore Y... 2008.05.13
38Simple viewnorthwestern/siu/sc/Rutgers/rochester/Princeton/pitt/unm/uiowa/iastate/uiuc/uic/georgetown/byu, Y... 2008.05.06
37Simple view>> All vocabularies and grammar(s) of all languages are (already) inside babies' heads at birth. Y... 2008.05.06
36Simple viewStanford, nyu, umich, Hawaii, Harvard, uoregon, bu, Brown, ucsb, umass, nmsu, buffalo, stonybrook Y... 2008.04.29
35Simple viewRice,    ku,    msu,    gsu,    Berkeley,    yale,    haskins.   yale,    purdue,    uchicago Y... 2008.04.22
34Simple viewemich,  u.washington,  email.arizona,  usc,  udel,  ucsc,  mit,  indiana,  utexas,  cornell Y... 2008.04.15
33Simple viewCanada     &     ohio-state.edu Y... 2007.12.19
32Simple viewAustralia.  Austria,  Belgium,  France,  Israel,  Netherlands,  New Zealand,  Singapore, Y... 2007.12.12
31Simple viewTo publish something in a peer-reviewed journal of conference. Y... 2007.12.19
30Simple view>> univ-tlse2.fr Y... 2008.06.11
29Simple view>>  IPA,    enl.auth.gr,    flinders.edu.au,    uab.es,      uab.cat,     mpi.nl, Y... 2008.06.17
28Simple viewroot of (all) grammar(s); phonetics.        UK    &     Ie. Y... 2007.12.05
27Simple viewroot of (all) grammars; phonetics.      SWEDEN,       Bielefeld/ GERMANY Y... 2007.11.28
26Simple viewroot of (all) grammars; phonetics.         GERMANY Y... 2007.11.21
25Simple viewgrammars:     upenn,    ucla, Y... 2007.11.07
24Now readingJames Mesbur/upenn Y... 2007.11.07
23Simple viewthe structure/principle of trumpet Y... 2007.11.07
22Simple viewDiaphragm/phonetics Y... 2007.11.07
21Simple viewyale,  purdue,  uchicago,  stanford,  nyu,  umich,  hawaii,  harvard,  uoregon Y... 2007.09.19
20Simple viewLinguistList,    Wikipedia Y... 2007.11.08
19Simple viewNorway; @hf.ntnu, @nor.uib, @iln.uio, @hum.uit, Y... 2007.08.07
18Simple viewFinland; @helsinki, @joensuu, @campus.jyu, @oulu, @uta, @utu, @uwasa, @abo, Y... 2007.08.07
17Simple view@rice.edu, @ku.edu, @byu.edu, @msu.edu, @gsu.edu, @berkeley.edu, Y... 2007.07.19
16Simple view@udel, @ucsc, @mit, @indiana, @mail.utexas, @cornell, Y... 2007.07.02
15Simple view18th International Congress of Linguists Y... 2007.06.18
14Simple view@u.washington ; @u.arizona; @ling.ohio-state  Y... 2007.06.18
13Simple viewCanadian phonetics Y... 2007.06.06
12Simple viewBritish phonetics Y... 2007.05.15
11Simple viewPhonetics, Sweden, uu.se, umu.se, su.se, kth.se, gu.se Y... 2007.05.15
10Simple viewUSC phonetics Y... 2007.04.13
9Simple viewPhonetics of Lund University, Sweden Y... 2007.03.23
8Simple viewUni-Stuttgart.de/phonetik Y... 2007.03.23
7Simple viewPhonetik in Deutschland Y... 2007.05.25
6Simple viewProfessor Wolfgang Hess, Universität Bonn. Y... 2007.08.15
5Simple viewUCLA Phonetics Y... 2007.03.12
4Simple viewChallenge to upenn phonetics/phonology Y... 2007.02.24
3Simple viewWhat kind of response are you expecting? New person/UPenn Y... 2007.02.24
2Simple viewthat of a reasonable academic, UPenn Y... 2007.02.24
1Simple viewUltimate knowledge. UPenn Y... 2007.03.02
This is the first page. This is the last page.
Prev 1 Next
Write Reload
Add/Remove Name on search listAdd/Remove Subject on search listAdd/Remove Content on search list Return to main page


open : home | main | Kor | book | FUN member : main II | Kor II