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   >> Andre M. of Linguistics,          Max Planck Institute, Germany
From: "Andr M" < Andre M. of Linguistics, Max Planck Institute, Germany>
To: "ygwnkm" < ygwnkm@yahoo.co.kr>
Sent: Monday, March 23, 2009 9:38 PM
Subject: Re: Linguistics / phonetics, NEWS

Hi...
Sorry, I don't get the joke... where's the punchline?

- Andr M.
(real linguist)

//////////////

From: "ygwnkm" < ygwnkm@yahoo.co.kr>
To: < >
Cc: < comrie@eva.mpg.de>; < blevins@eva.mpg.de>; <gertrud. boden@uni-koeln.de>; < cysouw@eva.mpg.de>; < gil@eva.mpg.de>; < grawunder@eva.mpg.de>; < gueldema@eva.mpg.de>; < haspelmath@eva.mpg.de>; < khanina@eva.mpg.de>; < andrej_malchukov@eva.mpg.de>; < andrey_shluinskiy@eva.mpg.de>; < antonia1@attglobal.net>; < stoll@eva.mpg.de>; < tadmor@eva.mpg.de>; < wichmann@eva.mpg.de>; < joseph_atoyebi@eva.mpg.de>; < oranghutan@cbn.net.id>; < martina_ernszt@eva.mpg.de>; < forker@eva.mpg.de>; < thomas_goldammer@eva.mpg.de>; < corinna_handschuh@eva.mpg.de>; < jung@eva.mpg.de>; < khalilova@eva.mpg.de>; < khalilova1@mail.ru>; < bathseba@cbn.net.id>; < naumann@eva.mpg.de>; < nefedov@eva.mpg.de>; <diana. schackow@web.de>; < siegmund@eva.mpg.de>; < matthias_urban@eva.mpg.de>; < bibiko@eva.mpg.de>; < froehlich@eva.mpg.de>; < nadine_borchardt@eva.mpg.de>; < juliane_boettger@eva.mpg.de>; < stephanie_dietz@eva.mpg.de>; < tyko_dirksmeyer@eva.mpg.de>; < alexander_jahraus@eva.mpg.de>; < birgit_jaenen@eva.mpg.de>; < heyka_krause@eva.mpg.de>; < kristina_kuhn@eva.mpg.de>; < andre_mueller@eva.mpg.de>; < sebastian_sauppe@eva.mpg.de>; < eva_schmortte@eva.mpg.de>; < dryer@eva.mpg.de>; < tao_gong@eva.mpg.de>; < khalilov@eva.mpg.de>; < madjid-kh@mail.ru>; < agnieszka_latos@eva.mpg.de>; < osahito_miyaoka@eva.mpg.de>; < michaelis@eva.mpg.de>
Sent: Tuesday, March 24, 2009 12:42 AM
Subject: Andre M.r

I am ready to prove you are a fake, especially in phonology.
Have you written anything on phonology?
Then, show me it.
If not, talk anything on phonology.

//////////////

From: "Andr M." <>
To: "ygwnkm" < ygwnkm@yahoo.co.kr>
Sent: Tuesday, March 24, 2009 1:02 AM
Subject: Re: Andre M.

Dear Mr. or Mrs. Kim,
I didn't find anything concerning phonology on your webpage (but then again, I don't speak Korean), but I'm eager to read a scientific(!) paper of yours on the claims you make, just to make sure I understand you right.

I haven't so far published anything on phonetics or phonology, but maybe I will. I'm not a phoneticist or phonologist, but I'm familiar with that part of linguistics. May I question likewise your scientific background? Just out of curiousity: what did you publish, where did you make your PhD and what University did you study on (and what)?

But before I start to argue, I'd like to read on of your (preferably published) scientific papers on that. You seem to make claims concerning "false" etymologies on your site, that really seem like bad jokes (no offense!).

If you're willing to discuss your claims, I'd be happy to do so. But prepare for linguistic and statistical questions.

Yours,
- Andr

//////////////

From: "ygwnkm" < ygwnkm@yahoo.co.kr>
To: <>
Sent: Tuesday, March 24, 2009 11:38 AM
Subject: Dear Andre M.

Dear Andre M,

>>   I didn't find anything concerning phonology on your webpage (but then again, I don't speak Korean), but I'm eager to read a scientific(!) paper of yours on the claims you make, just to make sure I understand you right.

*  Now you are some serious.
Have you visited my homepage http://voicespec.com/ at all and browsed/read any articles?
Rather, I do not find any significant difference between phonetics and phonology.

>>   I haven't so far published anything on phonetics or phonology, but maybe I will. I'm not a phoneticist or phonologist, but I'm familiar with that part of linguistics.

*  I already had some talks with phonetics students.   Visit/read below (including others).
http://voicespec.com/board.cgi?id=test2&action=view&gul=28-1&page=1&go_cnt=1

>>   May I question likewise your scientific background? Just out of curiousity: what did you publish, where did you make your PhD and what University did you study on (and what)?

*  My major was electronic engineering.
I published one book.   I show you my homepage.     http://voicespec.com/
Firstly browse it, and then you will have some concept/direction for further argument/talks or whatever.

(Mr.) Young-Won Kim
ygwnkm@yahoo.co.kr , ygwnkm@hotmail.com ,

http://voicespec.com/board.cgi?id=test1
http://voicespec.com/

But before I start to argue, I'd like to read on of your (preferably published) scientific papers on that. You seem to make claims concerning "false" etymologies on your site, that really seem like bad jokes (no offense!).

If you're willing to discuss your claims, I'd be happy to do so. But prepare for linguistic and statistical questions.

//////////////

From: "Andr M" <Andre M. of Linguistics, Max Planck Institute, Germany>
To: "ygwnkm" < ygwnkm@yahoo.co.kr>
Sent: Tuesday, March 24, 2009 12:35 PM
Subject: Re: Dear Andre M

Dear Young-Won,
Thanks for your mail.

>  *  Now you are some serious.
> Have you visited my homepage http://voicespec.com/ at all and browsed/read any articles?
> Rather, I do not find any significant difference between phonetics and phonology.

I have visited your site, was quite a bit disappointed by the huge messy bunch of random characters and letters and didn't feel like going through all the pages. What your site lacks, is scientific description and real phonetics and phonology. You make claims that hold no truth, you disregard
even the simplest facts about the topic you seem to be working on.

And you even say yourself, that you don't really know the difference between phonetics and phonology. I can assure you as an academic who's professionally studying Linguistics for quite some years now that there is quite a significant difference. Maybe you should buy yourself a book on the topic. Wikipedia is also a nice reference for beginners.

Also your way of using language makes it extremely difficult to follow your writing. This might be partly due to you not being a native speaker of English (neither am I), but if you want to write something that looks even remotely scientific, let alone something that might convince *anyone* out there, you should seriously adopt a better writing technique. Have a look at some English linguistic articles, preferably on the topics of phonetics and/or phonology.

I clicked some of the more recent links, and came across something like this:

**      mammoth:      Siberian language??
http://encarta.msn.com/dictionary_/mammoth.html ,
Word History:      In its original Siberian language (possibly Ostyak) mammoth meant literally "earth, soil": the first remains of mammoths to be found were dug out of the frozen soil of Siberia, and it came to be believed that the animals burrowed in the earth. The adjectival use of mammoth for "huge" dates from the early 19th century.

*     But we now know     that "mammoth" is   not Siberian but  English.

Mammoth is indeed an English word now. But it's clear that it is a loanword from a Siberian language. Your source gives Ostyak (i.e. the Ket language)?
The Etymological dictionary for German gives the etymology for the word "Mammut" (same meaning) as derived from a Yakut word. Both languages are spoken in Siberia. No matter what language this word comes from, it's definitely not native English.

But anyways... you're always writing something about "When ABC is articulated, then XYZ is pronounced" and you somehow seem to claim that the meaning of ABC derives from the phonology/phonetics of itself?
If I gave you a word in a (natural) language you don't know and tell you what the word means in English, what would you come up with? Your "technique" of coming up with "co-articulations" seem quite arbitrary.

What would you do with a word like "ozuri" (it means 'mouth')? This word is from the small Tsez language, spoken in the Caucasus. I'm doing research on this language, by the way, also phonetic research. What can you tell me about this specific word? Is there anything? I'm eager to hear your thaughtson the word "ozuri".
And: Would you come to the same conclusions, if I hadn't tell you its meaning?

> *  I already had some talks with phonetics students.   Visit/read below
> (including others).
> http://voicespec.com/board.cgi?id=test2&action=view&gul=28-1&page=1&go_cnt=1
>
I totally understand these students' questions. If you make claims, you need to prove them. However, you avoid answering them... your methods are un-scientific and esoteric, because no one will be able to prove them. You don't explain what you mean by "vibration of the (hemi-) diaphragms" and you never published any related statistics on your page.

Further down you totally missunderstand what the IPA table is. Several people say: "YOU STATING THAT YOU REACHED CONCLUSIONS IS USELESS WITHOUT OTHERS BEING ABLE TO VERIFY." (etc.) and they are absolutely right. Your claims that "clinical experiments" are no longer necessary are absolutely ridiculous.

"My board statistics (if correct) now shows about 70,000 visits from U.S.A. since February,    who will not want A RELIGIOUS ZEALOT." ← how do you know?
You sent spam mails out to about every linguist's mail adress (most of them probably clicking your link, looking at your page and quickly realizing that it's unscientific and worthless).

Please note that I am writing "worthless" in the sense of: scientifically worthless, as in: it doesn't prove anything and has no value for science.
I'm not saying you are stupid or anything, just that what you do on your website has NOTHING to do with science, let alone linguistics.

A question to you about the 70,000+ hits from U.S.A. linguistics was there even one (only ONE) person, who believed in your ideas?

> Firstly browse it, and then you will have some concept/direction for further argument/talks or whatever.

I did so and found not even one thing that remotely convinced me. But if you like to continue talking, feel free to ask questions or try to prove your point. By the way, proving is not just making claims but actually verifiably *proving* what you claim! So far, you haven't done this (vitaly important!)
step.

Greetings from Germany,
- Andr

P.S.:
Just in case you'd like to know me better: my main subject in linguistics is Caucasian languages, phonetics, writing systems, typology and also artificial languages. I'm studying Linguistics and Chinese language & culture at the University of Leipzig in Germany. I'm also working in various
projects involving historical linguistics, glottochronology, phonetics (the phonetics of the above mentioned Tsez language to be exactly). I have published about 5 articles so far, but none about phonetics or phonology, unfortunately. One was about the (total or partial) dead of writing systems, though.

/////////////

From: "ygwnkm" < ygwnkm@yahoo.co.kr>
To: <Andre M. of Linguistics, Max Planck Institute, Germany>
Sent: Tuesday, March 24, 2009 5:18 PM
Subject: >> Andre:

Dear Andre:

You said the following:
"I'm not a phoneticist or phonologist, but I'm familiar with that part of linguistics."

It does not matter (to people/me) that you are (or are not) a phoneticist or phonologist or the like.
It is important that you have found anything valuable from study of (so-called, conventional) phonetics and/or phonology.

Have you found anything valuable from study of (so-called, conventional) phonetics and/or phonology?

---------------------

>> Andre:     I have visited your site, was quite a bit disappointed by the huge messy bunch of random characters and letters and didn't feel like going through all the pages.

* Young-Won:   Why huge messy bunch of random characters and letters?
So as to understand the fact that the vocabularies and grammar(s)/etc. of all (modern and Inca/Maya-like-disappeared-antique) languages (including their dialects) are already stored in human brain at birth  (and now in your/my brains also).

I find you often murmur "science".     Do you think that "science" is so easy to be understood with small bunch of characters and letters?
 
I said that I have found the fact that the vocabularies and grammar(s)/etc. of all (modern and Inca/Maya-like-disappeared-antique) languages (including their dialects) are already stored in human brain at birth  (and now in your/my brains also):       Does it not interest you?

----------------

>> Andre:    What your site lacks, is scientific description and real phonetics and phonology. You make claims that hold no truth, you disregard even the simplest facts about the topic you seem to be working on.

* Young-Won:   Then, why not tell me about scientific description and real phonetics and phonology?

---------------

>> Andre:    And you even say yourself, that you don't really know the difference between phonetics and phonology. I can assure you ? as an academic who's professionally studying Linguistics for quite some years now ? that there is quite a significant difference. Maybe you should buy yourself a book on the topic. Wikipedia is also a nice reference for beginners.

* Young-Won:    What are (meaningful/valuable) differences between phonetics and phonology?

---------------

>> Andre:   Also your way of using language makes it extremely difficult to follow your writing. This might be partly due to you not being a native speaker of English (neither am I), but if you want to write something that looks even remotely scientific, let alone something that might convince *anyone* out there, you should seriously adopt a better writing technique. Have a look at some English linguistic articles, preferably on the topics of phonetics and/or phonology.

* Young-Won:   I think/understand that you lack intelligence/passion/etc. for serious science/knowledge.

----------------

>> Andre:   I clicked some of the more recent links, and came across something like this:
** mammoth: Siberian language??
http://encarta.msn.com/dictionary_/mammoth.html ,
Word History: In its original Siberian language (possibly Ostyak) mammoth meant literally "earth, soil": the first remains of mammoths to be found were dug out of the frozen soil of Siberia, and it came to be believed that the animals burrowed in the earth. The adjectival use of mammoth for "huge" dates from the early 19th century.

But we now know that "mammoth" is?? not Siberian but? English.

Mammoth is indeed an English word now. But it's clear that it is a loanword from a Siberian language. Your source gives Ostyak (i.e. the Ket language)?    The Etymological dictionary for German gives the etymology for the word "Mammut" (same meaning) as derived from a Yakut word. Both languages are spoken in Siberia. No matter what language this word comes from, it's definitely not native English.

* Young-Won:   I said that I have found the fact that the vocabularies and grammar(s)/etc. of all (modern and Inca/Maya-like-disappeared-antique) languages (including their dialects) are already stored in human brain at birth  (and now in your/my brains also).    And I have found how to know that "mammoth" is not Siberian but English,     which is really valuable science/phonetics/phonology or whatever, which is impossible with small bunch of characters and letters.

----------------

>> Andre:   But anyways... you're always writing something about "When ABC is articulated, then XYZ is pronounced" and you somehow seem to claim that the meaning of ABC derives from the phonology/phonetics of itself?

* Young-Won:   I have written much which involves much practice.     You are so immature as to hope to easily/immediately understand the formula of "When ABC is articulated, then XYZ is pronounced".

----------------

>> Andre:   If I gave you a word in a (natural) language you don't know and tell you what the word means in English, what would you come up with? Your "technique" of coming up with "co-articulations" seem quite arbitrary.
What would you do with a word like "ozuri" (it means 'mouth')? This word is from the small Tsez language, spoken in the Caucasus. I'm doing research on this language, by the way, also phonetic research. What can you tell me about this specific word? Is there anything? I'm eager to hear your thaughts on the word "ozuri".
And: Would you come to the same conclusions, if I hadn't tell you its meaning?

* Young-Won:      We/I need more/many samples (than a mere/simple word/sound of "ozuri"    while I wonder/question the correctness of sound "ozuri") so as to understand any specific language system phonetically (or in any technique).
I am now study English phonetically while writing so much.
Then, is it possible to study/understand Tsez language with less effort than English?

First phonetic impression of "ozuri" gives me the feeling that "ozuri" is equal to "(the) lips" rather than "(the) mouth".      I mean the area between/near the upper/lower lips by "(the) lips",   and the (mouth-inside) cavity by "(the) mouth".

Tsez language will have another (more compatible) word for "(the) mouth".

Words of "talk/talkative" are becoming to "(the) lips".
And word of "eating" is becoming to "(the) mouth", if at all.

------------------------

>> Andre:   Further down you totally missunderstand what the IPA table is. Several people say: "YOU STATING THAT YOU REACHED CONCLUSIONS IS USELESS WITHOUT OTHERS BEING ABLE TO VERIFY." (etc.) and they are absolutely right. Your claims that "clinical experiments" are no longer necessary are absolutely ridiculous.

* Young-Won:    If you read carefully, you will understand that he agreed that the IPA table is wrong

-----------------

>> Andre:    "My board statistics (if correct) now shows about 70,000 visits from U.S.A. since February,   who will not want A RELIGIOUS ZEALOT." ← how do you know?
You sent spam mails out to about every linguist's mail adress (most of them probably clicking your link, looking at your page and quickly realizing that it's unscientific and worthless).

Please note that I am writing "worthless" in the sense of: scientifically worthless, as in: it doesn't prove anything and has no value for science.
I'm not saying you are stupid or anything, just that what you do on your website has NOTHING to do with science, let alone linguistics.

A question to you about the 70,000+ hits from U.S.A. linguistics ? was there even one (only ONE) person, who believed in your ideas?

* Young-Won:   Korean university language/phonetics professors have bought my expensive book.

---------------------

>> Andre:   I did so and found not even one thing that remotely convinced me. But if you like to continue talking, feel free to ask questions or try to prove your
point. By the way, proving is not just making claims but actually verifiably
*proving* what you claim! So far, you haven't done this (vitaly important!) step.

Greetings from Germany,
- Andre

P.S.:
Just in case you'd like to know me better: my main subject in linguistics is Caucasian languages, phonetics, writing systems, typology and also artificial languages. I'm studying Linguistics and Chinese language & culture at the University of Leipzig in Germany. I'm also working in various projects involving historical linguistics, glottochronology, phonetics (the phonetics of the above mentioned Tsez language to be exactly). I have published about 5 articles so far, but none about phonetics or phonology, unfortunately. One was about the (total or partial) dead of writing systems, though.

* Young-Won:    why no comment on my mention of the fact that the vocabularies and grammar(s)/etc. of all (modern and Inca/Maya-like-disappeared-antique) languages (including their dialects) are already stored in human brain at birth  (and now in your/my brains also)?

Young-Won Kim
ygwnkm@yahoo.co.kr , ygwnkm@hotmail.com ,

///////////

From: "Andr M" <>
To: "ygwnkm" < ygwnkm@yahoo.co.kr>
Sent: Tuesday, March 24, 2009 10:06 PM
Subject: Re: >> Andre:

* Young-Won:    You said the following:
> "I'm not a phoneticist or phonologist, but I'm familiar with that part of linguistics."
> It does not matter (to people/me) that you are (or are not) a phoneticist or phonologist or the like.
> It is important that you have found anything valuable from study of (so-called, conventional) phonetics and/or phonology.
> Have you found anything valuable from study of (so-called, conventional) phonetics and/or phonology?

>> Andre:    Oh yes, very much so indeed. I judge phonetics and phonology to be an
essential part of language. Well, sure it is.

> ---------------------
>
> * Young-Won:   Why huge messy bunch of random characters and letters?
> So as to understand the fact that the vocabularies and grammar(s)/etc. of all (modern and Inca/Maya-like-disappeared-antique) languages (including their dialects) are already stored in human brain at birth  (and now in your/my brains also).

>> Andre:    My point was, that your huge "messy bunch of random characters" was badly
presented. Disregarding what you try to prove, it's almost impossible for
any human being to understand your descriptions. You really need to work on
your way presentation. No wonder you're the only one who believes in it so
far no one ever got to understand your theory!

------------

* Young-Won:    I find you often murmur "science".     Do you think that "science" is so easy to be understood with small bunch of characters and letters?

>> Andre:    I don't know what you mean. I spoke about the messiness, not the amount. I sure have books about phonetics and phonology with over 500 pages. But it's not the amount that's convincing, but the way of representation.
And of course the provability. "Conventional" phonetics is easy to reproduce and check in laboratories or even at home. Your method is not. At least you didn't show us how this is possible, so far.

* Young-Won:   I said that I have found the fact that the vocabularies and grammar(s)/etc. of all (modern and Inca/Maya-like-disappeared-antique) languages (including their dialects) are already stored in human brain at birth  (and now in  your/my brains also):       Does it not interest you?

>> Andre:    It does interest me. However, I'm fairly sure this is not the case. Try to prove your point in a *scientific* way (with experiments, statistics, repeatable methods), and people might indeed start to believe or at least have a look at your data.
Oh, and you need to stop spamming linguists' e-mail adresses. Seriously.  Somewhere you said that you often don't get answers, and you interpret that as a "yes" to your theories. But quite the contrary is the case: 70,000+ people, half from the US, visit your page, look at your data, deem it
unscientific (rightly so) and go back to their (scientific) work as linguists, without answering you.

> ----------------
>
>  * Young-Won:   Then, why not tell me about scientific description and real phonetics and phonology?

>> Andre:    I'm trying to. But it's hard to understand what even you are claiming. You seem to claim that the oral cavity with its tongue, palate, uvula, teeth, alveolars and also some further parts in the mouth are NOT involved in the production of speech? You say, vowels ARE (or "can be"?) produced with the
diaphragm? If that's what you think, you're obviously missleaded. There's a reason for vowels to be called "high", "front", "back", "mid", "centralized", "rounded", etc. these words describe the relative position of the tongue in the mouth. And "(un)rounded" describes the degree of lip
rounding.

But you can read all that in phonetics/phonology books or even on Wikipedia.

Scientific description, however, is different... you need to learn this. You need to change the way you're writing or at least have a peer whose English is good enough, to check yours. This way/method/proceeding of writing everything with slashes is absolutely irritating/awful/unscientific. You can't do that. You also have to explain everything further, in details, in texts. Do not just say "When ABC is articulated, XYZ is pronounced", using zillions of abbreviations, because a) no one knows what these abbreviations are unless you explain them thoroughly, and b) because it's not clear what you mean with "articulated" and "pronounced". You seem to use these terms in a totally different way from phonetics.

Also, a forum is not a good way to present scientific data, especially since no-one except you is using your forum. You need to write article-like texts.
You can do so writing these texts in word, then saving them as PDF files and uploading them on your website. Or a bit different you can write an own website about it, in case you know html. Make your data appreciable by everyone!
So far, no one can follow you, because your representation is honestly really bad.

> ---------------
>
>  * Young-Won:    What are (meaningful/valuable) differences between phonetics and phonology?

>> Andre:    Phonology is the teaching of phonemes and their interaction in human speech.
Phonemes are the smallest meaning-changing pieces of information in human speech. They're quite abstract concepts, though. For example, in German we have a digraph <ch>, which can be pronounced [x] or [] (I hope you know a bit of IPA), according to the context (different pronunciation in front of high vowels than in front of low vowels). The phoneme of this is the same,
written as /x/, and the different ways of pronouncing it are called allophones and written in square brackets: [x] and []. It's always clear from the context, how to pronounce it.
Phonetics deals with the actual pronunciation, so it analyses the special features of the consonants. A language may only have one /k/ phoneme, but it's interesting to see how speakers usually pronounce it; palatalized in front of high vowels, as a fricative between low vowels, with double-length when it occurs twice, sometimes it assimilates to other phonemes in the neighbourhood, and so on... phonetics deal with the actual pronunciation, as I and you speak.

This was written from scratch, it's better to look these things up yourself, though. If you're interested in phonetics/phonology, please read a scientific book. There're plenty of them out there, even in Korea.

> ---------------
>
>  * Young-Won:   I think/understand that you lack intelligence/passion/etc.
> for serious science/knowledge.
>
>> Andre:    Your claim is unjustified. If you want to publish scientific data, you have to keep to a special style. Otherwise, you won't have any credibility and won't get far with your doings and just waste time.
It has nothing to do with my "lack of intelligence" or passion (I'm a very passionate lover of phonetics, believe me!) and I know how science works, because I was trained in this. Don't you wonder why everyone that writes back to you tells you you can't do it this way and NOONE (literally, no one!) wrote back saying: "Oh damn, I think you're right, this data proveseverything!"?

> ----------------
>
>  * Young-Won:   I said that I have found the fact that the vocabularies and grammar(s)/etc. of all (modern and Inca/Maya-like-disappeared-antique) languages (including their dialects) are already stored in human brain at birth  (and now in your/my brains also).    And I have found how to know that "mammoth" is not Siberian but English,     which is really valuable science/phonetics/phonology or whatever, which is impossible with small bunch of characters and letters.

>> Andre:    Well, you're obviously wrong then. It can be proven that Mammoth and Mammut (German) are loanwords. Mammoths (the animals) were first found in the 17th century in Siberia. Before that, this word did not exist in the English nor German language. Try to find that word in earlier texts, in Shakespear or the Nibelungen stories. You won't find it there.

You are making claims. Claims have to be proven to become valuable in science. A theory must make predictions (what can your science tell me about the Tsez word "ozuri" [mouth]?) and it must also be verifiable by others.
You don't seem to realize that. What do I need to do to see that youre claims are true?
>
> ----------------
>
>  * Young-Won:   I have written much which involves much practice.     You are so immature as to hope to easily/immediately understand the formula of "When ABC is articulated, then XYZ is pronounced".

>> Andre:    This hasn't to do with immatureness, but with your way of phrasing it.
Clearly, your way of presenting keeps people from even trying to follow your theory.

> ----------------
>
>  * Young-Won:      We/I need more/many samples (than a mere/simple word/sound of "ozuri"    while I wonder/question the correctness of sound "ozuri") so as to understand any specific language system phonetically (or in any technique).
> I am now study English phonetically while writing so much.
> Then, is it possible to study/understand Tsez language with less effort
> than English?

>> Andre:    Okay, I understand that. If it helps, "ozuri" is pronounced quite much as it is written, imagine an English word "o-zoo-ree", then you get the pronunciation. Tsez has a complex phonology, but not so much allophones, so the pronunciation is not hard to predict from the written word (unlike in
English).

>* Young-Won:    First phonetic impression of "ozuri" gives me the feeling that "ozuri" is equal to "(the) lips" rather than "(the) mouth".      I mean the area between/near the upper/lower lips by "(the) lips",   and the (mouth-inside) cavity by "(the) mouth".

>> Andre:    But what if it meant something completely different? If I were to tell you, that I lied to you and "ozuri" meant 'bunny' or 'sun' or 'worm' or 'to snow' or maybe 'red'? By the way, the word for lip in Tsez is a different one.

----------

>* Young-Won:    Tsez language will have another (more compatible) word for "(the) mouth".
> Words of "talk/talkative" are becoming to "(the) lips".
> And word of "eating" is becoming to "(the) mouth", if at all.

>> Andre:    Since you don't know anything about Tsez (yet), you can't make such claims.
The verb 'to eat' is "-i-" (intransitive) and "-ac'-" (transitive).

> ------------------------
>
>  * Young-Won:  Let me know specifically what I avoided in answering them. Why do we need statistics in verification of what you mean by "vibration of the (hemi-) diaphragms".
> During arguments, he abruptly stopped communications.

>> Andre:    Statistics indeed. You make claims and everyone is to believe you, in your opinion. But it's not obvious, you have to prove it. Show statistics, make predictions and prove they're right, let others check your methods. Prove that the diaphragm is vibrating meaningfully. Don't just say it, refer to
other studies or prove it yourself.
Science works that way. What you did so far, is not science, but mere claiming.

>  * Young-Won:    If you read carefully, you will understand that he agreed that the IPA table is wrong

>> Andre:    The IPA table is not perfect, but in general the method it's the right one.
What exactly do you think is wrong in the IPA table?

> -----------------
>
>  * Young-Won:  Korean university language/phonetics professors have bought my expensive book.
>
>> Andre:    It's in Korean right? I would have liked to have a look inside it, but I don't speak Korean...
Well, but anyways... did you get any reviews? Did people write back to you and told you that your book is excellent or maybe needs improvements here and there? Maybe, just maybe, linguistics professors bought your book to know what you write about, then read it, deemed it useless and threw it away. I think, you said that no one ever wrote back about your book, so you believe they all agree with it??? Believe me, usually it's the exact opposite.
So, did you get any peer reviews from studied linguists? What did they say about your book?

> ---------------------
>
> * Young-Won:    why no comment on my mention of the fact that the vocabularies and grammar(s)/etc. of all (modern and Inca/Maya-like-disappeared-antique) languages (including their dialects) are already stored in human brain at birth  (and now in your/my brains also)?

>> Andre:    Because I first want to know how you want to prove that. I can say: "No, I don't believe this is true.", but then you would just say: "But I proved it.", so I jumped over this step and questioned your methods. No one has ever found any evidence that other languages are stored in the brain.
Would it be possible to predict certain words in languages? Since Tsez must obviously be in your head, too, can you tell me how to say "nose" in Tsez?

Greetings,
- Andr

P.S.:
Starting tomorrow, I will be on a phonetics conference in England, for 4
days. It's about Pharyngeals and Pharyngealization. I won't be able to
answer your mails in this time.

///////////

rom: "ygwnkm" < ygwnkm@yahoo.co.kr>
To: < >
Sent: Wednesday, March 25, 2009 2:57 AM
Subject: >> Andre:

Dear Andre:

>> Andre:    Oh yes, very much so indeed. I judge phonetics and phonology to be an essential part of language. Well, sure it is.

* Young-Won:  But Andre's phonetics and phonology are stale.

---------------------

>> Andre:    My point was, that your huge "messy bunch of random characters" was badly presented. Disregarding what you try to prove, it's almost impossible for any human being to understand your descriptions. You really need to work on your way presentation. No wonder you're the only one who believes in it so far ? no one ever got to understand your theory!

* Young-Won:    I patiently have read/reviewed all (IPA-sort) stale/valueless theories of phonetics since phonetics study is my job.     The important point is not "messy bunch" but value.       I am write/maintaining my homepage not for general public and/or immature/green students like you    but for professionals who want to know genuine phonetics and its value.    You have read/browsed my homepage for a few hours or less -- so as to understand the fact that the vocabularies and grammar(s)/etc. of all (modern and Inca/Maya-like-disappeared-antique) languages (including their dialects) are already stored in human brain at birth? (and now in your/my brains also).

---------

>> Andre:     I don't know what you mean. I spoke about the messiness, not the amount. I sure have books about phonetics and phonology with over 500 pages. But it's not the amount that's convincing, but the way of representation.
And of course the provability. "Conventional" phonetics is easy to reproduce and check in laboratories or even at home. Your method is not. At least you didn't show us how this is possible, so far.

* Young-Won:    Those over-500-page books are stale/valueless.     Do you think that you are so excellent as to understand the content of my homepage only after a-few-hour-or-less review or reading or rather/more correctly browsing?      My homepage show/demonstrates my theories like the fact that the vocabularies and grammar(s)/etc. of all (modern and Inca/Maya-like-disappeared-antique) languages (including their dialects) are already stored in human brain at birth? (and now in your/my brains also).

----------

>> Andre:     It does interest me. However, I'm fairly sure this is not the case. Try to prove your point in a *scientific* way (with experiments, statistics, repeatable methods), and people might indeed start to believe or at least have a look at your data.
Oh, and you need to stop spamming linguists' e-mail adresses. Seriously.
Somewhere you said that you often don't get answers, and you interpret that as a "yes" to your theories. But quite the contrary is the case: 70,000+ people, half from the US, visit your page, look at your data, deem it unscientific (rightly so) and go back to their (scientific) work as linguists, without answering you.

* Young-Won:    I say that "a-few-hour-or-less review or reading or rather/more correctly browsing" is not sufficient so as to know whether my writing/homepage is scientific or not.

----------------

>> Andre:     I'm trying to. But it's hard to understand what even you are claiming. You seem to claim that the oral cavity with its tongue, palate, uvula, teeth, alveolars and also some further parts in the mouth are NOT involved in the production of speech? You say, vowels ARE (or "can be"?) produced with the diaphragm? If that's what you think, you're obviously missleaded. There's a
reason for vowels to be called "high", "front", "back", "mid", "centralized", "rounded", etc. ? these words describe the relative position of the tongue in the mouth. And "(un)rounded" describes the degree of lip rounding.

* Young-Won:    I again repeat that "a-few-hour-or-less review or reading or rather/more correctly browsing" is not sufficient so as to know why conventional theories (on the oral cavity with its tongue, palate, uvula, teeth, alveolar and also some further parts in the mouth, etc.) are wrong.
I partly agree "high", "front", "back", "centralized" vowels in the mouth, but not to the relative position of the tongue.    I can speak/pronounce [a]/[o] or any vowels  regardless of the position of the tongue,    which all people agree.
If you carefully read my homepage, you can understand why the saying - -  "(un)rounded" describes the degree of lip rounding - -  is unscientific/meaningless.

---------

>> Andre:     But you can read all that in phonetics/phonology books or even on Wikipedia.

* Young-Won:     I already said I have read all conventional theories.

----------

>> Andre:     Scientific description, however, is different... you need to learn this. You need to change the way you're writing or at least have a peer whose English is good enough, to check yours. This way/method/proceeding of writing everything with slashes is absolutely irritating/awful/unscientific. You can't do that. You also have to explain everything further, in details, in texts. Do not just say "When ABC is articulated, XYZ is pronounced", using zillions of abbreviations, because a) no one knows what these abbreviations are unless you explain them thoroughly, and b) because it's not clear what you mean with "articulated" and "pronounced". You seem to use these terms in a totally different way from phonetics.

* Young-Won:    I repeat that I am write/maintaining my homepage not for general public and/or immature/green students like you    but for professionals who want to know genuine phonetics and its value.
You have read/browsed my homepage for a few hours or less -- so as to understand the formula of "When ABC is articulated, XYZ is pronounced" and the fact that the vocabularies and grammar(s)/etc. of all (modern and Inca/Maya-like-disappeared-antique) languages (including their dialects) are already stored in human brain at birth? (and now in your/my brains also).

---------------

>> Andre:     Also, a forum is not a good way to present scientific data, especially since no-one except you is using your forum. You need to write article-like texts. You can do so writing these texts in word, then saving them as PDF files and uploading them on your website. Or   a bit different   you can write an own website about it, in case you know html. Make your data appreciable by everyone!
So far, no one can follow you, because your representation is honestly really bad.

* Young-Won:     I repeat that I am write/maintaining my homepage not for general public and/or immature/green students like you    but for professionals who want to know genuine phonetics and its value.
Professionals mention not writing styles but values.

-------------

>> Andre:     Phonology is the teaching of phonemes and their interaction in human speech. Phonemes are the smallest meaning-changing pieces of information in human speech. They're quite abstract concepts, though. For example, in German we have a digraph <ch>, which can be pronounced [x] or [c] (I hope you know a bit of IPA), according to the context (different pronunciation in front of high vowels than in front of low vowels). The phoneme of this is the same,
written as /x/, and the different ways of pronouncing it are called allophones and written in square brackets: [x] and [c]. It's always clear from the context, how to pronounce it.
Phonetics deals with the actual pronunciation, so it analyses the special features of the consonants. A language may only have one /k/ phoneme, but it's interesting to see how speakers usually pronounce it; palatalized in front of high vowels, as a fricative between low vowels, with double-length when it occurs twice, sometimes it assimilates to other phonemes in the neighbourhood, and so on... phonetics deal with the actual pronunciation, asI and you speak.

This was written from scratch, it's better to look these things up yourself, though. If you're interested in phonetics/phonology, please read a scientific book. There're plenty of them out there, even in Korea.

* Young-Won:      I have read/knew all the above theories, which I think/find stale/valueless.

---------------

>> Andre:    Your claim is unjustified. If you want to publish scientific data, you have to keep to a special style. Otherwise, you won't have any credibility and won't get far with your doings and just waste time.
It has nothing to do with my "lack of intelligence" or passion (I'm a very passionate lover of phonetics, believe me!) and I know how science works, because I was trained in this. Don't you wonder why everyone that writes back to you tells you you can't do it this way and NOONE (literally, no one!) wrote back saying: "Oh damn, I think you're right, this data proves everything!"?

* Young-Won:     I think/understand that you lack intelligence/passion/etc. for serious science/knowledge,   since You have read/browsed my homepage for a few hours or less -- so as to understand the formula of "When ABC is articulated, XYZ is pronounced" and the fact that the vocabularies and grammar(s)/etc. of all (modern and Inca/Maya-like-disappeared-antique) languages (including their dialects) are already stored in human brain at birth? (and now in your/my brains also).

----------------

>> Andre:     Well, you're obviously wrong then. It can be proven that Mammoth and Mammut (German) are loanwords. Mammoths (the animals) were first found in the 17th century in Siberia. Before that, this word did not exist in the English nor German language. Try to find that word in earlier texts, in Shakespear or the Nibelungen stories. You won't find it there.

You are making claims. Claims have to be proven to become valuable in science. A theory must make predictions (what can your science tell me about the Tsez word "ozuri" [mouth]?) and it must also be verifiable by others. You don't seem to realize that. What do I need to do to see that youre
claims are true?

* Young-Won:    Shakespeare or the Nibelungen stories would not mention "mammoth" without reason/necessity.
I am busy for phonetic-study of English.   I have no time/interest for Tsez word.

----------------

>> Andre:    This hasn't to do with immatureness, but with your way of phrasing it.
Clearly, your way of presenting keeps people from even trying to follow your theory.

* Young-Won:??  I repeat that?I am write/maintaining my homepage not for general public and/or immature/green students like you    but for professionals who want to know genuine phonetics and its value.
Professionals mention not writing styles but values.

----------------

>> Andre:     Okay, I understand that. If it helps, "ozuri" is pronounced quite much as it is written, imagine an English word "o-zoo-ree", then you get the pronunciation. Tsez has a complex phonology, but not so much allophones, so the pronunciation is not hard to predict from the written word (unlike in English).

* Young-Won:     Every/all languages have the same phonetics/phonology or whatever.     Only conventional/immature phonetics people do not know why languages seem to have different/various phonetics/phonology.

---------------

>> Andre:     But what if it meant something completely different? If I were to tell you, that I lied to you and "ozuri" meant 'bunny' or 'sun' or 'worm' or 'to snow' or maybe 'red'? By the way, the word for lip in Tsez is a different one.

* Young-Won:      Every/all languages are connected phonetically.    "Lips" has different meaning from "lip".       If "ozuri" is tried to articulate with English speaking posture, not mouth/lip but "lips" is pronounced.
If you want to know what "speaking posture" is, read my homepage carefully.

---------

>> Andre:     Since you don't know anything about Tsez (yet), you can't make such claims.
The verb 'to eat' is "-i?-" (intransitive) and "-ac'-" (transitive).

* Young-Won:     I do not know Tsez, but I can connect/match word sounds phonetically among (different/various) languages if I once hear the (corect) pronunciations.     It is the strong point of my phonetics.

------------------------

>> Andre:     Statistics indeed. You make claims and everyone is to believe you, in your opinion. But it's not obvious, you have to prove it. Show statistics, make predictions and prove they're right, let others check your methods. Prove that the diaphragm is vibrating meaningfully. Don't just say it, refer to other studies or prove it yourself.
Science works that way. What you did so far, is not science, but mere claiming.

* Young-Won:      I repeat that I am write/maintaining my homepage not for general public and/or immature/green students like you    but for professionals who want to know genuine phonetics and its value.
Professionals mention not writing styles but values.
Do not mention other people.
If you are phonetics pro, you will do best in reading phonetics.
General public do not have no smallest interest in phonetics.
Even illiterates speak their mother tongue fluently.

---------

>> Andre:     The IPA table is not perfect, but in general the method it's the right one.
What exactly do you think is wrong in the IPA table?

* Young-Won:    I can speak/pronounce [a]/[o] or any vowels  regardless of the position of the tongue,    which all people agree.    But IPA speak different story, as you know.

-----------------

>> Andre:     It's in Korean right? I would have liked to have a look inside it, but I don't speak Korean...
Well, but anyways... did you get any reviews? Did people write back to you and told you that your book is excellent or maybe needs improvements here and there? Maybe, just maybe, linguistics professors bought your book to know what you write about, then read it, deemed it useless and threw it away. I think, you said that no one ever wrote back about your book, so you believe they all agree with it??? Believe me, usually it's the exact opposite.
So, did you get any peer reviews from studied linguists? What did they say about your book?

* Young-Won:      How do you feel, if you find that I am right and that you and conventional phoneticians are wrong after your reading of my book/homepage/theories?
Will the same university repeat-order my book, when my book is useless?
You are young, but how about old professors?

---------------------

>> Andre:     Because I first want to know how you want to prove that. I can say: "No, I don't believe this is true.", but then you would just say: "But I proved it.", so I jumped over this step and questioned your methods. No one has ever found any evidence that other languages are stored in the brain.
Would it be possible to predict certain words in languages? Since Tsez must obviously be in your head, too, can you tell me how to say "nose" in Tsez?

* Young-Won:    I demonstrate what you want to know in my homepage.    You invest only a few hours or less for reading of my homepage.     After you read my complete homepage, you will not put silly question like "Since Tsez must obviously be in your head, too, can you tell me how to say "nose" in Tsez?".

>> Andre:     P.S.:
Starting tomorrow, I will be on a phonetics conference in England, for 4days. It's about Pharyngeals and Pharyngealization. I won't be able to answer your mails in this time.

* Young-Won:     Thanks.    I inevitably answer immature/impolite/green students.
I think that my homepage will explain pharyngeal clearly,   if pharyngeal is vowel-like or animal-like sound.    Are the pharynx and the larynx near the vocal cords?

Young-Won Kim
ygwnkm@yahoo.co.kr , ygwnkm@hotmail.com ,

//////////

----- Original Message -----
From: "Andr Mller" < >
To: "ygwnkm" < ygwnkm@yahoo.co.kr>
Sent: Wednesday, March 25, 2009 6:06 AM
Subject: Re: >> Andre:

Dear Young-Won,
I will make it short, as have not much time today. My plain leaves tomorrow noon.

>  >> Andre:    Oh yes, very much so indeed. I judge phonetics and phonology to be an essential part of language. Well, sure it is.
>
>  * Young-Won:    But Andre's phonetics and phonology are stale.
>
>> Andre:    You're quite ignorant, you know. You know almost nothing about phonetics except for what you think you taught yourself. You have no formal training in the subject and don't even know the difference between phonetics and phonology. I'm sorry, but I have no nerve to discuss what is obvious (i.e., that you are a layman).
I am trying to help you set up something at least remotely readable, but you ignore every valuable input.

> ---------------------
>
>  >> Andre:     My point was, that your huge "messy bunch of random characters" was badly presented. Disregarding what you try to prove, it's almost impossible for any human being to understand your descriptions. You really need to work on your way presentation. No wonder you're the only one who believes in it so far no one ever got to understand your theory!
>
>  * Young-Won:    I patiently have read/reviewed all (IPA-sort) stale/valueless theories of phonetics since phonetics study is my job.
>  The important point is not "messy bunch" but value.       I am write/maintaining my homepage not for general public and/or immature/green students like you    but for professionals who want to know genuine phonetics and its value.    You have read/browsed my homepage for a few hours or less -- so as to understand the fact that the vocabularies and grammar(s)/etc. of all (modern and Inca/Maya-like-disappeared-antique) languages (including their dialects) are already stored in human brain at birth  (and now in your/my brains also).

>> Andre:    Weird, how 99.99% of all linguists and phoneticists and phonologists in the world must seem green and immature to you, as they all disagree with your methods. Well, if that's what makes you happy, go on with your pseudo-scientific method and you can wait in vain for any success.
You're interested in a scientific topic (linguistics, phonetics, etc.) and you're not a scientist (at least not a linguist or phoneticist, though maybe a technical engeneer) yourself logic predicts you have to adept to the way of science and not to invent a new way of exploration. I'm still talking about your way of arguing and your presentation, which makes your work no matter what it will prove worthless.

If your homepage is for your self to experiment and test and make notes, that is okay. If you understand what you wrote down there, no problem with that. But then why do you send messages to hundreds of trained linguists and students out there and beg for participation or attention to your project?
Have you ever wondered, why no one agrees with you? This might have 2reasons:

1) It's obvious that your theory and your claims are bogus.
2) Your method (presentation, style, jargon, lack of citations, statistics, experimental evidence) is unscientific.

The main problem is, that even though 1) might not be the case, no one can really appreciate your data, because 2) is *certainly* the case. No linguist can really learn anything from your page, because you ignore the way of working/writing/proving in the way of science. Learn this first, improve your page and your claims, write *real* articles, then people will really start to argue with you.
In the current state, people (laymen AND professionals) just see a huge bunch of random characters and a claim that sounds quite crazy to those who studied Phonetics or Phonology for decades. Please understand, what I mean:
Your claims *might* be true (no matter if I believe in them), but one thing is certain: Your methods are unscientific. As easy as that. This sadly makes it worthless. But you can improve them and make them appreciable.

What experts will make of it, then, you will see after you start doing science.

> ---------
>
>  * Young-Won:     Those over-500-page books are stale/valueless.     Do you think that you are so excellent as to understand the content of my homepage only after a-few-hour-or-less review or reading or rather/more correctly browsing?      My homepage show/demonstrates my theories like the fact that the vocabularies and grammar(s)/etc. of all (modern and Inca/Maya-like-disappeared-antique) languages (including their dialects) are already stored in human brain at birth  (and now in your/my brains also).

>> Andre:    Well, here's one opinion (yours, as you are completely alone in your theory) against thousands of linguists all over the world. You don't present any evidence and just make claims. No one will believe you until you convince people. This is only possible with real science.
It has nothing to do with me being excellent or not. You invented a totally novel theory and try to present it to people who are not familiar with it.
What's the logical thing to start? Right, at the beginning. Explain what you do, and people will (hopefully) understand.
You can't expect ANYONE to understand anything in the state you present your claims currently. Your homepage demonstrates your claims and what you think might be going on, but it doesn't give any evidence, no statistics, no experimental evidence.

You must understand that this is not science but pseudo-science. But it's possible to make real science out of it. If you have questions about that, I can help you. My professional linguistic training amounts to 5 years now, which is still not "much", but at least 5 years more than yours. You have toadmit that.

> ----------
>
>  * Young-Won:    I say that "a-few-hour-or-less review or reading or rather/more correctly browsing" is not sufficient so as to know whether my writing/homepage is scientific or not.

>> Andre:    Unfortunately, more time won't help either, because you don't describe in detail what you believe you are claiming. No proves, no followers. As easy as that.

> ----------------
>
> >> Andre:     I'm trying to. But it's hard to understand what even you are claiming. You seem to claim that the oral cavity with its tongue, palate, uvula, teeth, alveolars and also some further parts in the mouth are NOT involved in the production of speech? You say, vowels ARE (or "can be"?) produced with the diaphragm? If that's what you think, you're obviously missleaded. There's a reason for vowels to be called "high", "front", "back", "mid", "centralized", "rounded", etc. these words describe the relative position of the tongue in the mouth. And "(un)rounded" describes the degree of lip rounding.
>
>  * Young-Won:    I again repeat that "a-few-hour-or-less review or reading or rather/more correctly browsing" is not sufficient so as to know why conventional theories (on the oral cavity with its tongue, palate, uvula, teeth, alveolars and also some further parts in the mouth, stc.) are wrong.
>
> I partly agree "high", "front", "back", "centralized" vowels in the mouth, but not to the relative position of the tongue.    I can speak/pronounce [a]/[o] or any vowels  regardless of the position of the tongue,    which all people agree.
>
> If you carefully read my homepage, you can understand why the saying - - "(un)rounded" describes the degree of lip rounding - -  is unscientific/meaningless.

>> Andre:    Aha! Here we have a claim that is easy to falsify or prove. This is an important step into the right direction:
You say you can produce different vowel qualities without moving your tongue? I doubt that, and I am not the only one (I read someone already told you this is impossible). However, no matter what I might think, you have to prove your claim (science!). There are simple methods for this, and the best way is to demonstrate this in a phonetics lab, where they will record you saying the vowels and likewise check what you do with your articulators (i.e. the organs you use). I am quite sure that you unconsciously do move your tongue and don't notice it.
But I agree that you don't have to believe a linguistics student in his 10th semester (10 more than you) with "only" 6 publications in the field of science (5 or 6 more than you) and a professional training (which you lack as a matter of fact, as you are self-trained only). But here you have something which should be easy for you to prove.

I'd be interested in seeing the data.

> ---------
>
> >> Andre:     But you can read all that in phonetics/phonology books or even on Wikipedia.
>
>  * Young-Won:     I already said I have read all conventional theories.


>> Andre:    And still you fail to understand the difference between phonology and phonetics? Hm. This is said...

By the way, I have thought about this some more... you never mentioned semantics and psycholinguistics, but this is obviously what you try to connect: Phonology, Semantics and Psycholinguistics. I just wonder why you speak of phonetics...

---------

> >> Andre:     Scientific description, however, is different... you need to learn this. You need to change the way you're writing or at least have a peer whose English is good enough, to check yours. This way/method/proceeding of writing everything with slashes is absolutely irritating/awful/unscientific. You can't do that. You also have to explain everything further, in details, in texts. Do not just say "When ABC is articulated, XYZ is pronounced", using zillions of abbreviations, because a) no one knows what these abbreviations are unless you explain them thoroughly, and b) because it's not clear what you mean with "articulated" and "pronounced". You seem to use these terms in a totally different way from phonetics.
>
>  * Young-Won:    I repeat that I am write/maintaining my homepage not for general public and/or immature/green students like you    but for professionals who want to know genuine phonetics and its value.
>
> You have read/browsed my homepage for a few hours or less -- so as to understand the formula of "When ABC is articulated, XYZ is pronounced" and the fact that the vocabularies and grammar(s)/etc. of all (modern and Inca/Maya-like-disappeared-antique) languages (including their dialects) are already stored in human brain at birth  (and now in your/my brains also).

>> Andre:    And how many professionals understand your claims? How many wrote back to you and said they believe you are right in your claims? Names, please.
Sadly, you're obviously not understanding what I am trying to say.

---------------

>> Andre:     Also, a forum is not a good way to present scientific data, especially since no-one except you is using your forum. You need to write article-like texts. You can do so writing these texts in word, then saving them as PDF files and uploading them on your website. Or a bit different you can write an own website about it, in case you know html. Make your data
appreciable by everyone!
So far, no one can follow you, because your representation is honestly really bad.

 * Young-Won:     I repeat that I am write/maintaining my homepage not for general public and/or immature/green students like you    but for professionals who want to know genuine phonetics and its value.
Professionals mention not writing styles but values.

>> Andre:    Let me put it simply:
If the style is crap, than no values can be drawn from it. Your style is crap (i.e. non-science), no professional can draw any values from it. No wonder no one ever answers you positively.

-------------

 >> Andre:     Phonology is the teaching of phonemes and their interaction in human speech. Phonemes are the smallest meaning-changing pieces of information in human speech. They're quite abstract concepts, though. For example, in German we have a digraph <ch>, which can be pronounced [x] or[] (I hope you know a bit of IPA), according to the context (different
pronunciation in front of high vowels than in front of low vowels). The phoneme of this is the same,
written as /x/, and the different ways of pronouncing it are called allophones and written in square brackets: [x] and []. It's always clear from the context, how to pronounce it.
Phonetics deals with the actual pronunciation, so it analyses the special features of the consonants. A language may only have one /k/ phoneme, but it's interesting to see how speakers usually pronounce it; palatalized in front of high vowels, as a fricative between low vowels, with double-length when it occurs twice, sometimes it assimilates to other phonemes in the neighbourhood, and so on... phonetics deal with the actual pronunciation, as I and you speak.

This was written from scratch, it's better to look these things up yourself, though. If you're interested in phonetics/phonology, please read a scientific book. There're plenty of them out there, even in Korea.

* Young-Won:     I have read/knew all the above theories, which I think/find stale/valueless.

>> Andre:   You against thousands of scientists again.

---------

>> Andre:   I clicked some of the more recent links, and came across something like this:
**      mammoth:      Siberian language??
http://encarta.msn.com/dictionary_/mammoth.html ,
Word History:    In its original Siberian language (possibly Ostyak) mammoth meant literally "earth, soil": the first remains of mammoths to be found were dug out of the frozen soil of Siberia, and it came to be believed that the animals burrowed in the earth. The adjectival use of mammoth for "huge" dates from the early 19th century.
But we now know???? that "mammoth" is?? not Siberian but? English.

Mammoth is indeed an English word now. But it's clear that it is a loanword from a Siberian language. Your source gives Ostyak (i.e. the Ketlanguage)?    The Etymological dictionary for German gives the etymology for the word "Mammut" (same meaning) as derived from a Yakut word. Both languages are spoken in Siberia. No matter what language this word comes from, it's definitely not native English.

* Young-Won:   I said that I have found the fact that the vocabularies and grammar(s)/etc. of all (modern and Inca/Maya-like-disappeared-antique) languages (including their dialects) are already stored in human brain at birth  (and now in your/my brains also).    And I have found how to know
that "mammoth" is not Siberian but English,     which is really valuable science/phonetics/phonology or whatever, which is impossible with small bunch of characters and letters.

>> Andre:   I proved you wrong. I wonder how you don't see it.

----------------

 >> Andre:     Well, you're obviously wrong then. It can be proven that Mammoth and Mammut (German) are loanwords. Mammoths (the animals) were first found in the 17th century in Siberia. Before that, this word did not exist in the English nor German language. Try to find that word in earlier texts, in Shakespear or the Nibelungen stories. You won't find it there.

You are making claims. Claims have to be proven to become valuable in science. A theory must make predictions (what can your science tell me about the Tsez word "ozuri" [mouth]?) and it must also be verifiable by others.
You don't seem to realize that. What do I need to do to see that youre claims are true?

 * Young-Won:    Shakespeare or the Nibelungen stories would not mention "mammoth" without reason/necessity.
I am busy for phonetic-study of English.   I have no time/interest for Tsezword.

>> Andre:   That's okay. It was worth a try. By the way, "ozuri" means 'eye', not 'mouth'. I lied to you to see if you would still claim to find connections to something oral. You did. I am not surprised. I have more questions too.
One of them is:
There are obviously languages with words that are pronounced identically but have different meanings. This is only an example, so let's imagine there is a language A where a word is pronounced [kap] and means "evil". In language B, the same word [kap] means "good".
How would your theory tread these cases?

-----------------

 >> Andre:     Okay, I understand that. If it helps, "ozuri" is pronounced quite much as it is written, imagine an English word "o-zoo-ree", then you get the pronunciation. Tsez has a complex phonology, but not so much allophones, so the pronunciation is not hard to predict from the written
word (unlike in English).

 * Young-Won:     Every/all languages have the same phonetics/phonology or whatever.     Only conventional/immature phonetics people do not know why languages seem to have different/various phonetics/phonology.

>> Andre:   Strange only that ALL phonetics people are conventional/immature, as you describe them. You're the only one who really understands what's going on?
This is funny, sorry.

---------------

 >> Andre:     But what if it meant something completely different? If I were to tell you, that I lied to you and "ozuri" meant 'bunny' or 'sun' or 'worm' or 'to snow' or maybe 'red'? By the way, the word for lip in Tsez is a different one.

* Young-Won:      Every/all languages are connected phonetically.    "Lips" has different meaning from "lip".       If "ozuri" is tried to articulate with English speaking posture, not mouth/lip but "lips" is pronounced.
If you want to know what "speaking posture" is, read my homepage carefully.

>> Andre:   I won't. I will read scientific articles, just like every professional linguist. If you refrain from writing articles in a scientific way, I won't read it and no one else will. Write science, then people will read. I am repeating myself...

---------

>> Andre:     Since you don't know anything about Tsez (yet), you can't make such claims.
The verb 'to eat' is "-i-" (intransitive) and "-ac'-" (transitive).

* Young-Won:     I do not know Tsez, but I can connect/match word sounds phonetically among (different/various) languages if I once hear the (correct) pronunciations.     It is the strong point of my phonetics.

>> Andre:   Does that mean, it would work perfectly if I sent to you an audio file of the Tsez word "ozuri" (for instance)? I can do that, I have recordings of every Tsez word spoken by a native speaker.
But I understand if you would rather keep with English at the beginning.

-------------

 >> Andre:     Statistics indeed. You make claims and everyone is to believe you, in your opinion. But it's not obvious, you have to prove it. Show statistics, make predictions and prove they're right, let others check your methods. Prove that the diaphragm is vibrating meaningfully. Don't just say
it, refer to other studies or prove it yourself. Science works that way. What you did so far, is not science, but mere claiming.

 * Young-Won:    I repeat that I am write/maintaining my homepage not for general public and/or immature/green students like you    but for professionals who want to know genuine phonetics and its value.
Professionals mention not writing styles but values.
Do not mention other people.
If you are phonetics pro, you will do best in reading phonetics.
General public do not have no smallest interest in phonetics.
Even illiterates speak their mother tongue fluently.

>> Andre:   1) I am not general public, I am a linguist.
2) Professionals won't mention anything if the style you use makes it impossible to draw ANY conclusions out of it.
3) I am reading phonetics. There is no article on your page, though. No publication. So I can't read anything there. Please send me a PDF with a scientific article you wrote.
Your last 2 claims are correct.

---------

>> Andre:     The IPA table is not perfect, but in general the method it's the right one.
What exactly do you think is wrong in the IPA table?

* Young-Won:    I can speak/pronounce [a]/[o] or any vowels  regardless of the position of the tongue,    which all people agree.    But IPA speak different story, as you know.

>> Andre:   Who are these people that agree to it? Are they linguists? I'd like to read the article, in which you proved through scientific experiments and statistical data that you CAN produce [a] and [o] (or any vowel) without the help of your tongue. Just saying something like "My neighbour Mr. Park believes me" won't convince anyone.

-----------------

 >> Andre:     It's in Korean right? I would have liked to have a look inside it, but I don't speak Korean...
Well, but anyways... did you get any reviews? Did people write back to you and told you that your book is excellent or maybe needs improvements here and there? Maybe, just maybe, linguistics professors bought your book to know what you write about, then read it, deemed it useless and threw it away. I think, you said that no one ever wrote back about your book, so you believe they all agree with it??? Believe me, usually it's the exact opposite.
So, did you get any peer reviews from studied linguists? What did they say about your book?

 * Young-Won:      How do you feel, if you find that I am right and that you and conventional phoneticians are wrong after your reading of my book/homepage/theories?
Will the same university repeat-order my book, when my book is useless?
You are young, but how about old professors?

>> Andre:   I am a scientist, so even if I suddenly do realize that conventional phonetics which has been taught the last several thousands of years are wrong, I will stick to what good theories predict. And if this happens to be your theory, I will believe it.

The problem is: I cannot read your book, because it's Korean, which I don't speak. I cannot read your homepage, because you do not write anything scientific there (I explained to you what I mean here), this includes your theories.

I am indeed young and I am also planning to do my PhD and maybe even become a professor of linguistics someday. Maybe even in Phonetics, not sure...

How many "old professors" have replied to you so far? Be honest. Who where they? And what did they think about your work?

 >> Andre:     P.S.:
Starting tomorrow, I will be on a phonetics conference in England, for 4days.
It's about Pharyngeals and Pharyngealization. I won't be able to answer your mails in this time.

* Young-Won:     Thanks.    I inevitably answer immature/impolite/green
students.

>> Andre:   It's very amusing how you speak of me as an immature/green student (I agree that I seem a bit impolite every now and then, but this is partly due to your ignorance). And you are far more impolite that me (you call all phoneticists "fakes", including me)

----------

* Young-Won:   I think that my homepage will explain pharyngeal clearly,   if pharyngeal is vowel-like or animal-like sound.    Are the pharynx and the larynx near the vocal cords?

>> Andre:   You sure know where the pharynx is. I as an immature/green student don't need to explain this to you. You are the self-claimed expert without formal training. I didn't find anything concerning pharyngeals on your homepage.
But I'm interested in this, as neither English, nor Korean nor German has these phones.

Can you please point me to the place on your homepage (with a link) where you talk about pharyngeals?

Thanks,
- Andr

///////////////


----- Original Message -----
From: "ygwnkm" < ygwnkm@yahoo.co.kr>
To: < >
Sent: Wednesday, March 25, 2009 1:07 PM
Subject: >> Andre:

Dear Andre:

>> Andre:   Weird, how 99.99% of all linguists and phoneticists and phonologists in the world must seem green and immature to you, as they all disagree with your methods.

* Young-Won:     I say that not 99.99% but you are immature, since you try to argue on the content of a homepage without adequately reading it.

-------------

* Young-Won:    I say that "a-few-hour-or-less review or reading or rather/more correctly browsing" is not sufficient so as to know whether my writing/homepage is scientific or not.

>> Andre:      Unfortunately, more time won't help either, because you don't describe in
detail what you believe you are claiming. No proves, no followers. As easy as that.

* Young-Won:    O.K.    I think our conversation is now so sufficient that the visitors/readers of my homepage will judge who is right between us.
I will put our communications contents on my homepage for their reference.

------------

>> Andre:     By the way, I have thought about this some more... you never mentioned semantics and psycholinguistics, but this is obviously what you try to connect: Phonology, Semantics and Psycholinguistics. I just wonder why you speak of phonetics...

* Young-Won:     In Korea there are good English grammar books;   but (in the world) nothing for English pronunciation and hearing, which study has urge/pushed me to phonetics (field).

-------------

* Young-Won:     Every/all languages have the same phonetics/phonology or whatever.     Only conventional/immature phonetics people do not know why languages seem to have different/various phonetics/phonology.

>> Andre:    Strange only that ALL phonetics people are conventional/immature, as you describe them. You're the only one who really understands what's going on?
This is funny, sorry.

* Young-Won:     Since it is easy to know that every/all languages have the same phonetics/phonology and that IPA chart/etc. are wrong or useless.

----------

* Young-Won:      Every/all languages are connected phonetically.    "Lips" has different meaning from "lip".       If "ozuri" is tried to articulate with English speaking posture, not mouth/lip but "lips" is pronounced.
If you want to know what "speaking posture" is, read my homepage carefully.

>> Andre:   I won't. I will read scientific articles, just like every professional linguist. If you refrain from writing articles in a scientific way, I won't read it and no one else will. Write science, then people will read. I am repeating myself...

* Young-Won:     O.K.    I think our conversation is now so sufficient that the visitors/readers of my homepage will judge who is right between us.
I will put our communications contents on my homepage for their reference.

--------------

>> Andre:   Who are these people that agree to it? Are they linguists? I'd like to read the article, in which you proved through scientific experiments and statistical data that you CAN produce [a] and [o] (or any vowel) without the help of your tongue. Just saying something like "My neighbour Mr. Park believes me" won't convince anyone.

* Young-Won:   James Mesbur ( jmesbur@babel.ling.upenn.edu) of Upenn said, "BY THE WAY, I CAN ALSO PRONOUNCE ANY OF THOSE VOWELS WITHOUT MOVING MY TONGUE" which is found if you click http://voicespec.com/board.cgi?id=test2&action=view&gul=28-1-1&page=1&go_cnt=1.

* Young-Won:    >>* 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.

James Mesbur:   PROVE IT. MAKE RECORDINGS AND DO SIMULTANEOUS IMAGING TO SHOW THIS. UNTIL YOU CAN DO THAT, YOUR CLAIMS ARE NOT VALID. BY THE WAY, I CAN ALSO PRONOUNCE ANY OF THOSE VOWELS WITHOUT MOVING MY TONGUE; HOWEVER, I MUST MOVE OTHER ARTICULATORS, SUCH AS MY JAW, MY LARYNX OR MY LIPS. NOT MOVING ANYTHING MEANS THE SOUND QUALITY DOES NOT CHANGE. LEARN SOME PHYSICS AND SOME ANATOMY. HAVE YOU STUDIED ANATOMY OR THE PHYSICS AND ANATOMY OF SPEECH?

Why not confirm it to James Mesbur ( jmesbur@babel.ling.upenn.edu) of Upenn?

--------------------

>> Andre:   How many "old professors" have replied to you so far? Be honest. Who where they? And what did they think about your work?

* Young-Won:   They are gentle/mature people, different from you who is immature:     Privacy matter.

--------------

>> Andre:   It's very amusing how you speak of me as an immature/green student (I agree that I seem a bit impolite every now and then, but this is partly due toyour ignorance). And you are far more impolite that me (you call all phoneticists "fakes", including me)

* Young-Won:     Since you try to argue on the content of a homepage without adequately reading it.

----------------

* Young-Won:    I think that my homepage will explain pharyngeal clearly,   if pharyngeal is vowel-like or animal-like sound.    Are the pharynx and the larynx near the vocal cords?

>> Andre:   You sure know where the pharynx is. I ? as an immature/green student ? don't need to explain this to you. You are the self-claimed expert without formal training. I didn't find anything concerning pharyngeals on your homepage.
But I'm interested in this, as neither English, nor Korean nor German has these phones.

Can you please point me to the place on your homepage (with a link) where you talk about pharyngeals?

* Young-Won:   Wikipedia shows (the) pharynx as the upper throat where [k/g/h] and one vowel [=] of "point [po in t=]" can be spoken, according to the situations.

We should know the overall system of an automobile so as to improve its performance, not partly, tyre or engine.

In like wise, you should read/practice nearly all my homepage so as to know whether my homepage will be helpful for understanding of pharyngeals.

Young-Won Kim
ygwnkm@yahoo.co.kr , ygwnkm@hotmail.com ,

///////////

----- Original Message -----
From: "Andr M" < >
To: "ygwnkm" < ygwnkm@yahoo.co.kr>
Sent: Tuesday, March 31, 2009 2:00 AM
Subject: Re: >> Andre:

Dear Young-Won,

> * Young-Won:     I say that not 99.99% but you are immature, since you try to argue on the content of a homepage without adequately reading it.

>> Andre:   Stop claiming that I am immature, please. I am a student, yes, in my 10th semester and I don't have any degree yet (but hopefully soon will). A Prof. Dr. of linguistics might call me "green" and perhaps even "immature", but not someone like you, who has no degree in this subject, who hasn't even studied the subject and yet claims to know more than the majority of linguists out there... someone who hasn't ever published anything in the subject of linguistics that has been accepted as valuable by the community, someone who does not know the difference between phonology and phonetics, etc. pp.
You have no right in calling me green and immature, as I am far more educated in the subjects of linguistics and phonology than you are. This is not merely a claim, but a fact assuming that you have never visited even one lecture at a university. If I'm mistaken in my last assumption, please correct me. If you are *not* a layman, please prove it.

* Young-Won:    I say that "a-few-hour-or-less review or reading or rather/more correctly browsing" is not sufficient so as to know whether my writing/homepage is scientific or not.
>
> >> Andre:      Unfortunately, more time won't help either, because you don't describe in detail what you believe you are claiming. No proves, no followers. As easy as that.
>
> * Young-Won:    O.K.    I think our conversation is now so sufficient that the visitors/readers of my homepage will judge who is right between us.
> I will put our communications contents on my homepage for their reference.
>
>> Andre:   You may do so. But I ask you to leave my full name and my e-mail adress out.
My suggestion: shorten it simply to "Andrew", or "Andre", if you like. I hope you agree and remove my name from what you put up.

----------------

> >> Andre:     By the way, I have thought about this some more... you never mentioned semantics and psycholinguistics, but this is obviously what you try to connect: Phonology, Semantics and Psycholinguistics. I just wonder why you speak of phonetics...
>
> * Young-Won:     In Korea there are good English grammar books;   but (in the world) nothing for English pronunciation and hearing, which study has urge/pushed me to phonetics (field).

>> Andre:   Not sure if I understand you right, but there are hundreds of books out there about English phonology and phonetics. I'd even dare say that English is among the best-analyzed languages what phonology and phonetics is concerned. Take for instance the following books:

http://biblio.eva.mpg.de/libero/WebOpac.cls?VERSION=2&ACTION=DISPLAY&RSN=28357&DATA=EVA&TOKEN=YfOeMm4bRw6293&Z=1
http://biblio.eva.mpg.de/libero/WebOpac.cls?VERSION=2&ACTION=DISPLAY&RSN=6543&DATA=EVA&TOKEN=YfOeMm4bRw6293&Z=1
http://biblio.eva.mpg.de/libero/WebOpac.cls?VERSION=2&ACTION=DISPLAY&RSN=14441&DATA=EVA&TOKEN=YfOeMm4bRw6293&Z=1
http://biblio.eva.mpg.de/libero/WebOpac.cls?VERSION=2&ACTION=DISPLAY&RSN=8466&DATA=EVA&TOKEN=YfOeMm4bRw6293&Z=1
http://biblio.eva.mpg.de/libero/WebOpac.cls?VERSION=2&ACTION=DISPLAY&RSN=4202&DATA=EVA&TOKEN=YfOeMm4bRw6293&Z=1

Have you read any of those? They are available in our institute's library, but I don't know about their availability in South Korea (I assume you live in SK).

---------

> * Young-Won:     Every/all languages have the same phonetics/phonology or whatever.     Only conventional/immature phonetics people do not know why languages seem to have different/various phonetics/phonology.
>
> >> Andre:    Strange only that ALL phonetics people are conventional/immature, as you describe them. You're the only one who really understands what's going on?
> This is funny, sorry.
>
> * Young-Won:     Since it is easy to know that every/all languages have
> the same phonetics/phonology and that IPA chart/etc. are wrong or useless.

>> Andre:   How can you say that? Please explain what you mean with "same phonetics/phonology". It's so obviously wrong, that I can only imagine I misunderstand you.
Take German, Chinese, Korean and English for instance I assume you know enough about those languages to know what phonemes they have, German has a phoneme /x/ (realised as [x] or [] respectively) that does not exist in English nor Korean. German and Chinese has a phoneme /y/ appearing in words like "Lge" or "l" (Chinese for 'green'), which do not occur in English nor
Korean. Korean has a vowel /ɯ/, which doesn't exist in German, English nor Chinese. English has a phoneme /ʤ/ (as in "Jack"), unlike Korean or Chinese; and in German it only occurs in loanwords.
How can you claim under these facts, that the phonetics of all languages are the same? Please explain this to me.

-----------

> >> Andre:   Who are these people that agree to it? Are they linguists? I'd like to read the article, in which you proved through scientific experiments and statistical data that you CAN produce [a] and [o] (or any vowel) without the help of your tongue. Just saying something like "My neighbour Mr. Park believes me" won't convince anyone.
>
> * Young-Won:   James Mesbur ( jmesbur@babel.ling.upenn.edu) of Upenn said,
> "BY THE WAY, I CAN ALSO PRONOUNCE ANY OF THOSE VOWELS WITHOUT MOVING MY
> TONGUE" which is found if you click
> http://voicespec.com/board.cgi?id=test2&action=view&gul=28-1-1&page=1&go_cnt=1
> * Young-Won:    >>* 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.
>
> James Mesbur:   PROVE IT. MAKE RECORDINGS AND DO SIMULTANEOUS IMAGING TO SHOW THIS. UNTIL YOU CAN DO THAT, YOUR CLAIMS ARE NOT VALID. *BY THE WAY, I CAN ALSO PRONOUNCE ANY OF THOSE VOWELS WITHOUT MOVING MY TONGUE*; HOWEVER, I MUST MOVE OTHER ARTICULATORS, SUCH AS MY JAW, MY LARYNX OR MY LIPS. NOT MOVING ANYTHING MEANS THE SOUND QUALITY DOES NOT CHANGE. LEARN SOME PHYSICS AND SOME ANATOMY. HAVE YOU STUDIED ANATOMY OR THE PHYSICS AND ANATOMY OF SPEECH?
>
> Why not confirm it to James Mesbur ( jmesbur@babel.ling.upenn.edu) of Upenn?

>> Andre:   He asked you to confirm your claims. Please do so.
It seems you have not understood his points. He clearly disagrees with you, you seem to ignore that. He doesn't believe in your claims but asks you to confirm them with experiments. He also states that you are lying when you say "all people agree on this", which I can only second.
Stop misquoting scientists, please.

---------------
>
> * Young-Won:   They are gentle/mature people, different from you who is immature: Privacy matter.

>> Andre:   Sure... your lie is obvious. I am trying to be gentle and nice to you, but your constant accusations and silly claims on my person makes it hard for me
not to become cynical. I hope you respect my question of privacy, though, and keep my full name off your website.

--------------
>
> >> Andre:   It's very amusing how you speak of me as an immature/green student (I agree that I seem a bit impolite every now and then, but this is partly due toyour ignorance). And you are far more impolite that me (you call all phoneticists "fakes", including me)
>
> * Young-Won:     Since you try to argue on the content of a homepage without adequately reading it.

>> Andre:   This is true, and I agree on that. I am arguing more on the content of your claims, for which you provide no evidence, no experiment results, no statistics. Our conversation would certainly be much more fruitful, if I understood your claims better.
However, your website is not in the state of being able to be read by any linguist. This has nothing to do with me being immature or green (which clearly describes you better), but with the fact that you do not use scientific methods, scientific terminology nor scientific ways of explaining
and proving your claims.
Please publish a readable file, where you explain in detail what your claims are. Your website might be a valuable "notebook" and reference point for your findings and also for other people's responses, but if you want professional linguists to read it, you have to write it in a scientific way that other can understand too.
This is so far not the case, unfortunately.

Maybe, when you set up a legible and clearly structured PDF file with explanations, evidence, references, data and proves, people will read it (chances will at least begin to rise above zero), and I promise I will read your work then and comment on it. But before that happens, no one will be able to judge your claims.

--------
>
> * Young-Won:   Wikipedia shows (the) pharynx as the upper throat where [k/g/h] and one vowel [=] of "point [po in t=]" can be spoken, according to the situations.
>
>> Andre:   You have completely misread Wikipedia. The phones [k] and [g] are not pronounced in the pharynx (which is indeed located more or less in the upper throat), but on the velum, which is the part in your mouth between your palatum and your uvula. The [h] in contrast is pronounced in the glottis, which is located near the pharynx but not identical with it. What vowel you mean by [=] is not clear to me, as this is neither IPA nor SAMPA. The only vowels in the word "point" are variations of /o/ and /i/ which form a diphthong.

Pharyngeal sounds are formed with by constriction of the pharynx. These sounds occur in Arabic, a few Hebrew dialects and other Semitic languages, in Salish languages, some German dialects (Saxon and Swabian for instance, but not in Standard German) and also in a lot of languages spoken in the northern Caucasus (Tsez is one of them). Korean and Chinese (and English) don't have pharyngeal consonants, and no pharyngealized vowels either.

May I ask what your next steps will be in your research? You're still collecting data, it seems... what will you do after that? Do you plan to attent a linguists' conference? Or do you want to publish another book on that matter (maybe one in English, so all the world's scientists will finally understand?)?

Greetings,
- Andr

P.S.: Please do not forget to remove my full name AND my e-mail-adress from your website... you can keep me as "Andre" or "Andrew", if you like. And you can quote me.

//////////////

----- Original Message -----
From: "ygwnkm" < ygwnkm@yahoo.co.kr>
To: < >
Sent: Tuesday, March 31, 2009 6:37 PM
Subject: Dear Andre

Dear Andre:

>> Andre:   Stop claiming that I am immature, please. I am a student, yes, in my 10th semester and I don't have any degree yet (but hopefully soon will). A Prof.
Dr. of linguistics might call me "green" and perhaps even "immature", but not someone like you, who has no degree in this subject, who hasn't even studied the subject and yet claims to know more than the majority of linguists out there... someone who hasn't ever published anything in the subject of linguistics that has been accepted as valuable by the community, someone who does not know the difference between phonology and phonetics,
etc. pp.
You have no right in calling me green and immature, as I am far more educated in the subjects of linguistics and phonology than you are. This is not merely a claim, but a fact ? assuming that you have never visited even one lecture at a university. If I'm mistaken in my last assumption, please correct me. If you are *not* a layman, please prove it.

* Young-Won:   But I say that the conventional phonetics/phonology (including some of general linguistics) is fake/wrong, as you already understand.     There is no reason for me to visit/attend any lecture/conferences (which are below me).    I am so excellent as to write/maintain the homepage of voicespec.com.

-------------

>> Andre:   You may do so. But I ask you to leave my full name and my e-mail adress out.
My suggestion: shorten it simply to "Andrew", or "Andre", if you like. I hope you agree and remove my name from what you put up.

* Young-Won:   I will shorten/post your identification as "Andre M. of Linguistics, Max Planck Institute, Germany", without e-mail.

------------

>> Andre:     Not sure if I understand you right, but there are hundreds of books out there about English phonology and phonetics. I'd even dare say that English is among the best-analyzed languages what phonology and phonetics is concerned. Take for instance the following books:

http://biblio.eva.mpg.de/libero/WebOpac.cls?VERSION=2&ACTION=DISPLAY&RSN=28357&DATA=EVA&TOKEN=YfOeMm4bRw6293&Z=1
http://biblio.eva.mpg.de/libero/WebOpac.cls?VERSION=2&ACTION=DISPLAY&RSN=6543&DATA=EVA&TOKEN=YfOeMm4bRw6293&Z=1
http://biblio.eva.mpg.de/libero/WebOpac.cls?VERSION=2&ACTION=DISPLAY&RSN=14441&DATA=EVA&TOKEN=YfOeMm4bRw6293&Z=1
http://biblio.eva.mpg.de/libero/WebOpac.cls?VERSION=2&ACTION=DISPLAY&RSN=8466&DATA=EVA&TOKEN=YfOeMm4bRw6293&Z=1
http://biblio.eva.mpg.de/libero/WebOpac.cls?VERSION=2&ACTION=DISPLAY&RSN=4202&DATA=EVA&TOKEN=YfOeMm4bRw6293&Z=1

Have you read any of those? They are available in our institute's library, but I don't know about their availability in South Korea (I assume you live in SK).

* Young-Won:     I say "I have world-firstly found how to take out words/grammars/etc. of various languages from the brain and speaking postures/etc."       The (phonetics) content of my homepage decisively contribute/help (the incompleteness of) semantics and psycholinguistics (including general linguistics) in etymology/science/etc.        I think the above books/sites are not good, so that they can not help linguists to take out words/grammars/etc. of various languages from the brain.
You will never say "I'd even dare say that English is among the best-analyzed languages" and you will know the conventional/present linguistics (of all languages including English/German/French/etc.) is so poor if you read my homepage.

-------------

* Young-Won:      Since it is easy to know that every/all languages have the same phonetics/phonology and that IPA chart/etc. are wrong or useless.

>> Andre:      How can you say that? Please explain what you mean with "same phonetics/phonology". It's so obviously wrong, that I can only imagine I misunderstand you.
Take German, Chinese, Korean and English for instance ? I assume you know enough about those languages to know what phonemes they have, German has a phoneme /x/ (realised as [x] or [c] respectively) that does not exist in English nor Korean. German and Chinese has a phoneme /y/ appearing in words like "Luge" or "lu" (Chinese for 'green'), which do not occur in English nor
Korean. Korean has a vowel /ui/, which doesn't exist in German, English nor Chinese. English has a phoneme /?/ (as in "Jack"), unlike Korean or Chinese; and in German it only occurs in loanwords.
How can you claim under these facts, that the phonetics of all languages are the same? Please explain this to me.

* Young-Won:     I simply use "pronunciation" instead of "phoneme".   [y] is a consonant, not vowel.
[ui]/"ㅟ" (of digraph) is equal to German [u].
(Not conventional/primitive but) my phonetics explains all languages.

Read below articles.

http://voicespec.com/board.cgi?id=test1&action=view&gul=218&page=1&go_cnt=0
5.   v/[bz],      f/[pz],       r/[bt],      l/[pd],      m/[bŋ],      n/[pŋ],      k/[zd],     g/[sd]

Re:    Article of   "<<iuo, oiu, uoi, ioΛ>>   sweet-potato,   θ[fs]/[vs]*,   amuck,   'crazy good'   <as>"        <<Column 6.   θ/;   [fs]/[vs]*>>
Re:    Article of   "<<oaΛ, Λoa, oa=, =oa>>   suss,   lingo/jargon/etc.   j/c/x/q/w/y,   'at fright'/aghast,    when"        <<Column 6.   j/c;  [zg]/[ts].     x/q;  [dz]/[sk].    w/y;  [vg]/[fg]*>>

**     In like wise         that [e], [], [o] and [u] are vowel digraph symbols  which represent [Λi], [ai], [oi] and [ui] respectively      and that [θ]/] are symbols  which represent [fs]/[vz] respectively,       and [j]/[c]/[x]/[q]/[w]/[y] are symbols  which represent [zg]/[ts]/[dz]/[sk]/[vg]/[bg] respectively;

I additionally find: v/[bz],      f/[pz],       r/[bt],      l/[pd],      m/[bŋ],      n/[pŋ],      k/[zd],     g/[sd]

* Corrections:    θ/; [fs]/[vs]*     &      j/c; [zg]/[ts].     x/q; [dz]/[sk].    w/y; [vg]/[fg]*

So I (temporarily) can define    that [b, p,  s, z,  t, d,  h,  ŋ]/8 only are primary/cardinal consonants;          [v, f,  r, l,  m, n,  k, g,  j, c,  x, q] represent digraphs;        [θ, ] are trigraphs for [fs]/[pzs], [vz]/[bzs] respectively;        and [w, y] are quatre-graphs for [vg]/[bz*sd], [fg]/[pz*sd] respectively.

http://voicespec.com/board.cgi?id=test1&action=view&gul=300&page=1&go_cnt=0
5.    German/French (speaking physiognomy)

Re:   Article of   "mean/excellent, opt/cope, elementary-school, Volksschule, digraph, physiognomy/2, GRECOnglish-sound"
">> Corrected:   How do English-mother-tongue people mimic GRECOnglish sounds?"        <<Column 14.     physiognomy/2>>
<<Column 15.     How do English-mother-tongue people extemporarily mimic/produce GRECOnglish/GC sounds?>>

I now feel/find:          Greek-influenced  (German and French)  linguists have coined many/most vocabularies of German and French   (like English)         and most modern pronunciations of German and French words are Greek-influenced version    like English.            That is, modern German and French speaking are not German and French own     but mimicry of Greek version/dialect of German/French.

Das Wasser der See ist klar.      Ich darf hier nicht bleiben.
Merci beaucoup.     Comment allez-vous?

Then, Spanish/Polish/Russian/etc.??

German and French-mother-tongue people seem to have simple/round articulation ball/abR,     not egg-like /abE.

*  (Not human but) animal sounding/mewing/barking/etc. articulation ball seem to be extremely/much elongated egg type    and placed on/along the throat    (rather than in the mouth)    or over the extension including the mouth and throat (up to the shoulder level).

On the other hand, human articulation ball is in the mouth,    not on the throat.

----------

* Young-Won:     Every/all languages are connected phonetically.     "Lips" has different meaning from "lip".       If "ozuri" is tried to articulate with English speaking posture, not mouth/lip but "lips" is pronounced.
If you want to know what "speaking posture" is, read my homepage carefully.

>> Andre:      I won't. I will read scientific articles, just like every professional linguist. If you refrain from writing articles in a scientific way, I won't read it and no one else will. Write science, then people will read. I am repeating myself...

* Young-Won:     O.K.     I think our conversation is now so sufficient that the visitors/readers of my homepage will judge who is right between us.
I will put our communications contents on my homepage for their reference.

--------------

>> Andre:     He asked you to confirm your claims. Please do so.
It seems you have not understood his points. He clearly disagrees with you, you seem to ignore that. He doesn't believe in your claims but asks you to confirm them with experiments. He also states that you are lying when you say "all people agree on this", which I can only second.
Stop misquoting scientists, please.

* Young-Won:      Key word/point is "tongue".    I and James Mesbur agree that ANY VOWELS CAN be pronounced WITHOUT MOVING the TONGUE;     but not you.

--------------------

* Young-Won:     They are gentle/mature people, different from you who is immature:???? Privacy matter.

>> Andre:    Sure... your lie is obvious. I am trying to be gentle and nice to you, but your constant accusations and silly claims on my person makes it hard for me not to become cynical.
I hope you respect my question of privacy, though, and keep my full name off your website.

* Young-Won:       You represent Max Planck Institute.

--------------

>> Andre:      This is true, and I agree on that. I am arguing more on the content of your claims, for which you provide no evidence, no experiment results, no statistics. Our conversation would certainly be much more fruitful, if I understood your claims better.
However, your website is not in the state of being able to be read by any linguist. This has nothing to do with me being immature or green (which clearly describes you better), but with the fact that you do not use scientific methods, scientific terminology nor scientific ways of explaining
and proving your claims.
Please publish a readable file, where you explain in detail what your claims are. Your website might be a valuable "notebook" and reference point for your findings and also for other people's responses, but if you want professional linguists to read it, you have to write it in a scientific way that other can understand too.
This is so far not the case, unfortunately.

Maybe, when you set up a legible and clearly structured PDF file with explanations, evidence, references, data and proves, people will read it (chances will at least begin to rise above zero), and I promise I will read your work then and comment on it. But before that happens, no one will be able to judge your claims.

* Young-Won:     My homepage shows evidences, experiment results, statistics(?), which only you ignore and fail to read.
The point is that my homepage shows how to take out words/grammars/etc. of various languages from the brain, etc.
Why do I care whether you read my homepage or not?

----------------

>> Andre:   You have completely misread Wikipedia. The phones [k] and [g] are not pronounced in the pharynx (which is indeed located more or less in the upper throat), but on the velum, which is the part in your mouth between your palatum and your uvula. The [h] in contrast is pronounced in the glottis, which is located near the pharynx but not identical with it. What vowel you mean by [=] is not clear to me, as this is neither IPA nor SAMPA. The only vowels in the word "point" are variations of /o/ and /i/ which form a diphthong.

Pharyngeal sounds are formed with by constriction of the pharynx. These sounds occur in Arabic, a few Hebrew dialects and other Semitic languages, in Salish languages, some German dialects (Saxon and Swabian for instance, but not in Standard German) and also in a lot of languages spoken in the northern Caucasus (Tsez is one of them). Korean and Chinese (and English)
don't have pharyngeal consonants, and no pharyngealized vowels either.

May I ask what your next steps will be in your research? You're still collecting data, it seems... what will you do after that? Do you plan to attent a linguists' conference? Or do you want to publish another book on that matter (maybe one in English, so all the world's scientists will finally understand?)?

Greetings,
- Andre

P.S.: Please do not forget to remove my full name AND my e-mail-adress from your website... you can keep me as "Andre" or "Andrew", if you like. And you can quote me.

* Young-Won:   Now I am not collecting data.     All contents of my homepage are world-first discoveries.

I world-firstly explain how English-mother-tongue people come to speak "It's nice of you to worry about me." instead of "It's kind for you to worry about me.".

http://voicespec.com/board.cgi?id=test1&action=view&gul=307&page=1&go_cnt=0
10.    kind of you to do,     (it is kind for you to do);       nice of/for you to do
  http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/nice ,    
7: polite , kind         <that's nice of you to say>
  http://www.thefreedictionary.com/nice ,    
2. kind:       it's really nice of you to worry about me.

*       When articulating    "kind for"      (as one word;     that is, continuously,  without pause)       with/from English /S speaking posture,       "kind-of" is metaphthong/MPh pronounced.               "It's really kind for you to worry about me."              "o'clock"

When articulating    "nice for"      (as one word;     that is, continuously,  without pause)       with/from English /S speaking posture,       "nice-of" is metaphthong/MPh pronounced.               "It's really nice for you to worry about me."

**      But articulation (itself) of   "polite for"   is impossible        (as one word;     that is, continuously,  without pause)       with/from English /S speaking posture.               "It's polite for you to say so."

*     When articulating    "kind"       with/from GRECOnglish/GC /P/Ch/abR speaking posture,       "nice" is metaphthong/MPh pronounced.

Do not cut my achievements.
I am now studying (English) vowel tetragraph(s) which will take more than one year.
In future, I must study vowel pentagraph, hexagraph,  and then consonant counterparts.

Young-Won Kim
ygwnkm@yahoo.co.kr , ygwnkm@hotmail.com ,

/////////////

From: "Andr M" <Andre M. of Linguistics, Max Planck Institute, Germany>
To: "ygwnkm" < ygwnkm@yahoo.co.kr>
Sent: Tuesday, March 31, 2009 7:48 PM
Subject: Re: Dear Andre

Dear Young-Won:

>  * Young-Won:    But I say that the conventional phonetics/phonology (including some of general linguistics) is fake/wrong, as you already understand.     There is no reason for me to visit/attend any lecture/conferences (which are below me).    I am so excellent as to write/maintain the homepage of voicespec.com.

>> Andre:   Well, I respect your decision and opinion, although I do not second it. To me it would seem quite arrogant to assume that ALL other phoneticists and phonologists are wrong but you are the ONLY person who understood things right. After all, the theories of phonology and phonetics are all working very well, they make good predictions and you can easily test them with ultrasound machines, articulographs, MRTs, fMRIs, in spectrogramms, and so on... I haven't seen any of those tests performed in your study.
And as you like to tell me: You can't understand the subject unless you read and hear all of it you've never visited a lecture on Phonetics/Phonology?
No wonder you don't understand these subjects.

--------

>  * Young-Won:    I will shorten/post your identification as "Andre M. of
> Linguistics, Max Planck Institute, Germany", without e-mail.

>> Andre:   That's okay, I agree.

--------------

>  * Young-Won:    I say "I have world-firstly found how to take out words/grammars/etc. of various languages from the brain and speaking postures/etc."       The (phonetics) content of my homepage decisively contribute/help (the incompleteness of) semantics and psycholinguistics (including general linguistics) in etymology/science/etc.        I think the above books/sites are not good, so that they can not help linguists to take out words/grammars/etc. of various languages from the brain.
>
> You will never say "I'd even dare say that English is among the best-analyzed languages" and you will know the conventional/present linguistics (of all languages including English/German/French/etc.) is so poor if you read my homepage.

>> Andre:   Yes, you said so indeed. The reason why the above mentioned books cannot help "taking words out of someone's brains" is threefold: 1) They do not intend to do this as phonology and phonetics do not care about this; 2) The words of ALL languages are not stored in the brain, there is no evidence for something like a "universal lexicon of all languages" in the brain; 3) Vocabulary is largely arbitrary, seen from a synchronic perspective, an exception are onomatopoeia and interjections. There is no logical reason (other than etymology) that a hedgehog is called "Igel" in German, while the English "eagle" (same pronunciation) denotes a large bird of prey. Can you derive words from languages unknown to you, yet? If I asked you to tell me with your method, what "eagle" and "hedgehog" mean in Tsez, could you tell me?

----------------

> * Young-Won:    I simply use "pronunciation" instead of "phoneme".   [y] is a consonant, not vowel.
> [ui]/"ㅟ" (of digraph) is equal to German [].
> (Not conventional/primitive but) my phonetics explains all languages.

>> Andre:   I use IPA, and there [y] is a vowel (you mix it up with the semivowel [j]), the German "" (German has two -phonemes, this is the long one in words like "Bhne", "Lge", etc.). I think I've found out now, that your [=] equals Korean "으", right? That sound is [ɯ] in IPA and doesn't occur in English, Chinese or German. Turkish has that sound, though.
Above, you have replaced what I had written in the sentence "Korean has a vowel /ui/, which doesn't exist in..." I wrote [ɯ] there, so this is the one I am speaking about.

* Young-Won:     Read below articles.

http://voicespec.com/board.cgi?id=test1&action=view&gul=218&page=1&go_cnt=0
5.   v/[bz],      f/[pz],       r/[bt],      l/[pd],      m/[bŋ],      n/[pŋ],      k/[zd],     g/[sd]

Re:    Article of   "<<iuo, oiu, uoi, ioΛ>>   sweet-potato,   θ[fs]/[vs]*,   amuck,   'crazy good'   <as>"        <<Column 6.   θ/;   [fs]/[vs]*>>
Re:    Article of   "<<oaΛ, Λoa, oa=, =oa>>   suss,   lingo/jargon/etc.   j/c/x/q/w/y,   'at fright'/aghast,    when"        <<Column 6.   j/c;  [zg]/[ts].     x/q;  [dz]/[sk].    w/y;  [vg]/[fg]*>>

**     In like wise         that [e], [], [o] and [u] are vowel digraph symbols  which represent [Λi], [ai], [oi] and [ui] respectively      and that [θ]/] are symbols  which represent [fs]/[vz] respectively,       and [j]/[c]/[x]/[q]/[w]/[y] are symbols  which represent [zg]/[ts]/[dz]/[sk]/[vg]/[bg] respectively;

I additionally find: v/[bz],      f/[pz],       r/[bt],      l/[pd],      m/[bŋ],      n/[pŋ],      k/[zd],     g/[sd]

* Corrections:    θ/; [fs]/[vs]*     &      j/c; [zg]/[ts].     x/q; [dz]/[sk].    w/y; [vg]/[fg]*

So I (temporarily) can define    that [b, p,  s, z,  t, d,  h,  ŋ]/8 only are primary/cardinal consonants;          [v, f,  r, l,  m, n,  k, g,  j, c,  x, q] represent digraphs;        [θ, ] are trigraphs for [fs]/[pzs], [vz]/[bzs] respectively;        and [w, y] are quatre-graphs for [vg]/[bz*sd], [fg]/[pz*sd] respectively.

http://voicespec.com/board.cgi?id=test1&action=view&gul=300&page=1&go_cnt=0
5.    German/French (speaking physiognomy)

Re:   Article of   "mean/excellent, opt/cope, elementary-school, Volksschule, digraph, physiognomy/2, GRECOnglish-sound"
">> Corrected:   How do English-mother-tongue people mimic GRECOnglish sounds?"        <<Column 14.     physiognomy/2>>
<<Column 15.     How do English-mother-tongue people extemporarily mimic/produce GRECOnglish/GC sounds?>>

I now feel/find:          Greek-influenced  (German and French)  linguists have coined many/most vocabularies of German and French   (like English)         and most modern pronunciations of German and French words are Greek-influenced version    like English.            That is, modern German and French speaking are not German and French own     but mimicry of Greek version/dialect of German/French.

Das Wasser der See ist klar.      Ich darf hier nicht bleiben.
Merci beaucoup.     Comment allez-vous?

Then, Spanish/Polish/Russian/etc.??

German and French-mother-tongue people seem to have simple/round articulation ball/abR,     not egg-like /abE.

*  (Not human but) animal sounding/mewing/barking/etc. articulation ball seem to be extremely/much elongated egg type    and placed on/along the throat    (rather than in the mouth)    or over the extension including the mouth and throat (up to the shoulder level).

On the other hand, human articulation ball is in the mouth,    not on the throat.

>> Andre:   Sorry, this is rediculous. German, English and French (most Indo-European languages) can be traced back etymologically to a very high degree. We have clear and convincing (for scientists at least, but maybe not for you) evidence and eytmologies for most of the words of these languages. Greek plays a very minor role there. We do have Greek loanwords of course (telephone, phonology, proto-, grammar etc.), but their influence on the Middle European languages is small.

It seems you have not understood his points. He clearly disagrees with you,
you seem to ignore that. He doesn't believe in your claims but asks you to confirm them with experiments. He also states that you are lying when you say "all people agree on this", which I can only second.
Stop misquoting scientists, please.

* Young-Won:    Key word/point is "tongue".    I and James Mesbur agree that
ANY VOWELS CAN be pronounced WITHOUT MOVING the TONGUE;     but not you.

>> Andre:   Okay, then tell me please, how do you produce all vowels without moving your
tongue?

And even if this were possible, what would it matter? You might start a carreer as a ventriloquist, but human speech doesn't work that way. All languages have oral vowels, this is a universal in linguistics. This means that in every language vowels are produced by moving the tongue (though not
only it).

James Mesbur has pointed this out to you, but seemingly you didn't read more than one sentence.

--------------

* Young-Won:     Since you try to argue on the content of a homepage without adequately reading it.

 >> Andre:    This is true, and I agree on that. I am arguing more on the content of your claims, for which you provide no evidence, no experiment results, no statistics. Our conversation would certainly be much more fruitful, if I understood your claims better.

However, your website is not in the state of being able to be read by any linguist. This has nothing to do with me being immature or green (which clearly describes you better), but with the fact that you do not use scientific methods, scientific terminology nor scientific ways of explaining and proving your claims.

Please publish a readable file, where you explain in detail what your claims are. Your website might be a valuable "notebook" and reference point for your findings and also for other people's responses, but if you want professional linguists to read it, you have to write it in a scientific way that other can understand too.

This is so far not the case, unfortunately.

Maybe, when you set up a legible and clearly structured PDF file with explanations, evidence, references, data and proves, people will read it (chances will at least begin to rise above zero), and I promise I will read your work then and comment on it. But before that happens, no one will be able to judge your claims.

* Young-Won:     Mt homepage shows evidences, experiment results, statistics(?), which only you ignore and fail to read.
The point is that my homepage shows how to take out words/grammars/etc. of various languages from the brain, etc.
Why do I care whether you read my homepage or not?

>> Andre:   Why do you care talking to me at all? All you get is negative response to your website. Ever spent a single thought on why this might be the case?
Your homepage shows no evidence or experimental results. A simple "I tried it myself and it works" is not evidence, it's a claim. Evidence comes from experiements. Go have your vocal tract ultrasounded or x-rayed while you produce vowels and what-not without your tongue. Prove in validated
experiments that you can predict words in foreign languages from anyone's brain. There is not a single statistic on your site.

You are lying to me again. And when you put our conversation up on your site, everyone reading your site will notice. There are no experimental data, no statistics, no scientific methods, just you claiming things in your unscientific way of writing.

-------------

* Young-Won:   Do not cut my achievements.
I am now studying (English) vowel tetragraph(s) which will take more than one year.
In future, I must study vowel pentagraph, hexagraph,  and then consonant
counterparts.

>> Andre:   Thanks for the info.
Well, good luck then with your studies. I'm slowly getting tired of our conversation and your ignorance of scientific methods of presenting data and info. But as you don't care about real scientists' opinions, you obviously won't shed a tear if I stop trying to convince you of what the rest of the world knows... I'll tell you when I'm sick of this. So far, I still hope you can become rational someday...

- Andr

////////////

From: "ygwnkm" < ygwnkm@yahoo.co.kr>
To: < >
Sent: Wednesday, April 01, 2009 2:26 AM
Subject: Dear Andre

Dear Andre:

>> Andre:   Well, I respect your decision and opinion, although I do not second it. To me it would seem quite arrogant to assume that ALL other phoneticists and phonologists are wrong but you are the ONLY person who understood things right. After all, the theories of phonology and phonetics are all working very well, they make good predictions and you can easily test them with ultrasound machines, articulographs, MRTs, fMRIs, in spectrogramms, and so on... I haven't seen any of those tests performed in your study.
And as you like to tell me: You can't understand the subject unless you read and hear all of it. you've never visited a lecture on Phonetics/Phonology.
No wonder you don't understand these subjects.

* Young-Won:     Since my discoveries of phonetics/linguistics are so different from conventional phonetics/linguistics, I have opened my homepage and have sent e-mails so as to advertize my discoveries.
My major was electronic engineering and I know the limits of electronic equipments as well as their value/usefulness.

In linguistics, electronic equipments are doing (not main but) supplementary roles.
It is important whether your body can feel/understand linguistics.
Be careful and discern/avoid fake electronic evidences.

My phonetics utters tension/vibration/resonance in the articulatory organs of the sinuses, hemi-diaphragms, chest, neck, head, etc.
Any modern electronic equipments can not record tension/vibration/resonance in the articulatory organs of the sinuses, hemi-diaphragms, chest, neck, head, etc.
But the human body can feel/make tension/vibration/resonance in the articulatory organs of the sinuses, hemi-diaphragms, chest, neck, head, etc. so as to speak/hear/understand (language) sounds.

------------

* Young-Won:   I say "I have world-firstly found how to take out words/grammars/etc. of various languages from the brain and speaking postures/etc."         The (phonetics) content of my homepage decisively contribute/help (the incompleteness of) semantics and psycholinguistics (including general linguistics) in etymology/science/etc.         I think the above books/sites are not good, so that they can not help linguists to take out words/grammars/etc. of various languages from the brain.
You will never say "I'd even dare say that English is among the best-analyzed languages" and you will know the conventional/present linguistics (of all languages including English/German/French/etc.) is so poor if you read my homepage.

>> Andre:   Yes, you said so indeed. The reason why the above mentioned books cannot help "taking words out of someone's brains" is threefold: 1) They do not intend to do this as phonology and phonetics do not care about this; 2) The words of ALL languages are not stored in the brain, there is no evidence for something like a "universal lexicon of all languages" in the brain; 3)
Vocabulary is largely arbitrary, seen from a synchronic perspective, an exception are onomatopoeia and interjections. There is no logical reason (other than etymology) that a hedgehog is called "Igel" in German, while the English "eagle" (same pronunciation) denotes a large bird of prey.
Can you derive words from languages unknown to you, yet? If I asked you to tell me with your method, what "eagle" and "hedgehog" mean in Tsez, could you tell me?

* Young-Won:   If you see my vowel chart, you will find there various vowel sounds of primary/cardinal <<a, Λ, o, u, =, i>>,  digraph <<e[Λi], [ai], o[oi], u[ui], etc.>>,  trigraphs,  tetragraphs,  pentagraphs,  hexagraphs.    And how many/various consonant sounds.
Lay people can say "Igel" is equal/similar to the pronunciation of "eagle".
But professional phoneticians should not say so.
"Igel" is not/never equal to the pronunciation of "eagle".     Why?    Firstly, speaking postures are different between English and Germany.
I do not know Tsez speaking posture.    My phonetics study is not for silly diversion/pastime; so, I do not have interest/time for finding of Tsez speaking posture.

-------------

>> Andre:   I use IPA, and there [y] is a vowel (you mix it up with the semivowel [j]), the German "u" (German has two u-phonemes, this is the long one in words like "Buhne", "Luge", etc.). I think I've found out now, that your [=] equals Korean "으", right? That sound is [?] in IPA and doesn't occur in English, Chinese or German. Turkish has that sound, though.
Above, you have replaced what I had written in the sentence "Korean has a vowel /ui/, which doesn't exist in..." ? I wrote [?] there, so this is the one I am speaking about.

* Young-Won:   When sound is stressed, it is long.     When unstressed, short.     So, "Buhne" and "Luge" are can be short or long, if there are not special/inevitable reasons.
Yes, [=] equals "ㅡ" of Korean "으[ŋ=]/그[g=]", which is the most important vowel of all vowels, and all languages speak it.   "small" 스몰 [s=  mol]
I do not use/believe IPA.
I at last (now) come to use (not IPA but) English/German/Korean/etc. alphabets.

----------------

>> Andre:   Sorry, this is rediculous. German, English and French (most Indo-European languages) can be traced back etymologically to a very high degree. We have clear and convincing (for scientists at least, but maybe not for you) evidence and eytmologies for most of the words of these languages. Greek plays a very minor role there. We do have Greek loanwords of course
(telephone, phonology, proto-, grammar etc.), but their influence on the Middle European languages is small.

* Young-Won:   Your above saying is that of conventional linguists.   Greek speaking posture pronounces [c] of "car" as [k], [c] of "city" as [s], etc.     But original/ancient English pronounces [c] of "car" and [c] of "city" as [c] of "cello".     And (not English but) Greek or Greek-influenced linguists coined English words of car/city/cello/etc.     And German/French words/grammar also, I feel/find.

--------------

* Young-Won:   Key word/point is "tongue".      I and James Mesbur agree that ANY VOWELS CAN be pronounced WITHOUT MOVING the TONGUE;     but not you.

>> Andre:   Okay, then tell me please, how do you produce all vowels without moving your tongue?

And even if this were possible, what would it matter? You might start a carreer as a ventriloquist, but human speech doesn't work that way. All languages have oral vowels, this is a universal in linguistics. This means that in every language vowels are produced by moving the tongue (though not only it).

James Mesbur has pointed this out to you, but seemingly you didn't read more than one sentence.

* Young-Won:   It is not easy to explain the relationship of condition/reflex (or articulation/pronunciation) to the man who does not read my homepage which contain/show what you want to know.

--------------------

* Young-Won:   My homepage shows evidences, experiment results, statistics(?), which only you ignore and fail to read.
The point is that my homepage shows how to take out words/grammars/etc. of various languages from the brain, etc.
Why do I care whether you read my homepage or not?

>> Andre:   Why do you care talking to me at all?

* Young-Won:   Since I firstly sent an e-mail to you, it is etiquette that I should reply your e-mails, I think.

---------

>> Andre:   All you get is negative response to your website. Ever spent a single thought on why this might be the case?
Your homepage shows no evidence or experimental results. A simple "I tried it myself and it works" is not evidence, it's a claim. Evidence comes from experiements. Go have your vocal tract ultrasounded or x-rayed while you produce vowels and what-not without your tongue. Prove in validated experiments that you can predict words in foreign languages from anyone's
brain. There is not a single statistic on your site.

You are lying to me again. And when you put our conversation up on your site, everyone reading your site will notice. There are no experimental data, no statistics, no scientific methods, just you claiming things in your unscientific way of writing.

* Young-Won:   If you see/say/feel/etc., which actions are scientific method/experiment/observation/data/etc.

----------------

* Young-Won:   I am now studying (English) vowel tetragraph(s) which will take more than one year.
In future, I must study vowel pentagraph, hexagraph,? and then consonant counterparts.

>> Andre:   Thanks for the info.
Well, good luck then with your studies. I'm slowly getting tired of our conversation and your ignorance of scientific methods of presenting data and info. But as you don't care about real scientists' opinions, you obviously won't shed a tear if I stop trying to convince you of what the rest of the world knows... I'll tell you when I'm sick of this. So far, I still hope you can become rational someday...

* Young-Won:   Your science seems uncouth/rustic/unscientific.

Young-Won Kim
ygwnkm@yahoo.co.kr , ygwnkm@hotmail.com ,

///////////////

----- Original Message -----
From: "Andr M" <Andre M. of Linguistics, Max Planck Institute, Germany>
To: "ygwnkm" < ygwnkm@yahoo.co.kr>
Sent: Wednesday, April 01, 2009 7:33 AM
Subject: Re: Dear Andre

Dear Young-Won...

>  * Young-Won:     Since my discoveries of phonetics/linguistics are so different from conventional phonetics/linguistics, I have opened my homepage and have sent e-mails so as to advertize my discoveries.
> My major was electronic engineering and I know the limits of electronic equipments as well as their value/usefulness.

>> Andre:   I'm sure you know way more about electronic engineering than I do. As you seem to have a degree (or at least an proper education) in the field of electronics, I'd value your opinions on electronics higher than my own, I guess... I have the vague feeling you do not do likewise with people who unlike you have a degree in linguistics or phonetics. I don't have mine yet (I will, in 1 or 2 years, though), but that wouldn't change anything for you... you don't even believe year-long an well-known linguists...

----------------

* Young-Won:    In linguistics, electronic equipments are doing (not main but) supplementary roles.
> It is important whether your body can feel/understand linguistics.
> Be careful and discern/avoid fake electronic evidences.

>> Andre:   I agree with you (surprise!).

---------------

* Young-Won:   My phonetics utters tension/vibration/resonance in the articulatory organs of the sinuses, hemi-diaphragms, chest, neck, head, etc.
>
> Any modern electronic equipments can not record tension/vibration/resonance in the articulatory organs of the sinuses, hemi-diaphragms, chest, neck, head, etc.
>
> But the human body can feel/make tension/vibration/resonance in the articulatory organs of the sinuses, hemi-diaphragms, chest, neck, head, etc. so as to speak/hear/understand (language) sounds.

>> Andre:   You speak a good point here... I do not know if tensions, vibrations or resonances in these organs can be measured with instruments, but it would be premature to assume that this is not possible. With fMRI, EEG and similar methods, one can measure minute variances of energy in the brain.
The problem here is, that a mere feeling is not enough and cannot validate nor falsify claims in a scientific way. When I say "mmmmm", I can feel my head and neck vibrating. When I look closely to the screen I can even see the vibration as the letters become a tiny little bit blurry this can
certainly be measured. And phoneticists have long known already how this vibration is caused. When I say "aaaaaa", the vibration is a bit different, but still there. When I touch my neck, I can feel it and so can electronic apperatures.

In our institute's phonetics lab, we have a little device, whose name I do not recall, but it can measure exactly these vibrations. A colleague of mine (the phoneticist I went to that conference in Newcastle with, less than a week ago) used this device on me when recording me pronouncing words in my native dialect (Upper Saxon). It's mainly used to measure the voicedness of vowels and consonants.
When speaking with "creaky voice", this would change the result. Both [m] and [a] also exist as voiceless sounds in some languages in the world, but neither in Korean nor in English, so that cannot quite be what you mean.

----------------
>
>  * Young-Won:   If you see my vowel chart, you will find there various vowel sounds of primary/cardinal <<a, Λ, o, u, =, i>>,  digraph <<e[Λi], [ai], [oi], [ui], etc.>>,  trigraphs,  tetragraphs,  pentagraphs,  hexagraphs.    And how many/various consonant sounds.
> Lay people can say "Igel" is equal/similar to the pronunciation of "eagle".
> But professional phoneticians should not say so.
> "Igel" is not/never equal to the pronunciation of "eagle".     Why?    Firstly, speaking postures are different between English and Germany.
>
> I do not know Tsez speaking posture.    My phonetics study is not for silly diversion/pastime; so, I do not have interest/time for finding of Tsez speaking posture.

>> Andre:   You are right here, but I'm not sure if you know why. "Igel" and "eagle" are pronounced in very similar ways and are phonologically equal, but not phonetically. In a narrow transcription, "Igel" is [ˈʔiːɡl̩], while "eagle" is [ˈʔɪi̯ɡɫ̩]. Tiny differences indeed.

It might be indeed difficult to find words of two languages, which are also phonetically equal. Especially between Korean and English... any other example language combinations you would probably deem irrelevant or outside of your studies.

---------------

>  * Young-Won:   When sound is stressed, it is long.     When unstressed, short.     So, "Bhne" and "Lge" are can be short or long, if there are not special/inevitable reasons.
>
> Yes, [=] equals "ㅡ" of Korean "으[ŋ=]/그[g=]", which is the most important vowel of all vowels, and all languages speak it.   "small" 스몰 [s=  mol]
> I do not use/believe IPA.
> I at last (now) come to use (not IPA but) English/German/Korean/etc. alphabets.

>> Andre:   Phonetically you are right, in faster/colloquial speech, "Bhne" can indeed be pronounced [ˈbynə] with a short [y]. But length is phonemical in German. In words with [a], length is important, as short and long /a/ do not differ in quality, only in quantity. There are minimal pairs in German, like [kʰan] ("kann", '(I) can') vs. [kʰaːn] ("Kahn", 'small ship, boat'). These words
don't sound alike. Never. Not when both are stressed. Not when both are unstressed.

You might have made a mistake when you wrote "most important vowel of all vowels", maybe you mean "languages"? But let me please tell you, that your "[=]", which is "ㅡ" in Korean and [ɯ] in IPA, does *not* occur in all languages. Of course it doesn't! Korean has this vowel, and Turkish has it
too. Japanese has a very similar vowel, and to my knowledge also Vietnamese and a bunch of other languages of this planet.
German, English, Chinese, French, Tsez, Spanish, Arabic, Abkhaz, Dutch, Greek (and so on and so forth) don't have this vowel. Maybe you are mixing it up with the mid centralized vowel "schwa", [ə] in IPA? Many languages have a schwa, but not every languages... Korean, Japanese, Tsez, Spanish,
Arabic... they do not have a schwa vowel.
There is no vowel that is shared by all 6000+ languages in the world. Not even [a] is found everywhere (cf. English, which has [] and [ɑ], but not [a]). Furthermore, "small" and your Korean spelling "스몰" do not sound alike, they're merely similar. In English there is no vowel between the /s/ and the /m/, the quality of the vowel in this word ([ɔː] in English, [o] in Korean) and its length is different in the two languages, and last but not least: the English word-final /l/ is velarized ([ɫ] or [lˠ] in IPA), while the Korean /l/ is not.

IPA is nothing you can "believe" or "not believe" in, it is a tool, used by phoneticists and phonologists to show the pronunciation of words. There are critiques of IPA and many people tried to improve it (Luciano Canepari for instance did some remarkable work), but it stays a tool, no more no less. As you proved with writing "small" in Korean and in your phonetic(?) alphabet, you don't understand enough of pronunciation yet, as it's evident that you transcribed it wrong.

Or did I miss that you didn't want to represent the word "small" phonetically/phonemically but merely wanted to write it with Korean letters to show how a Korean whose English is not the best would pronounce it, in the same manner as I would 'transcribe' the word in German as "smorl"?

-----------------

>  * Young-Won:   Your above saying is that of conventional linguists.   Greek speaking posture pronounces [c] of "car" as [k], [c] of "city" as [s], etc.
> But original/ancient English pronounces [c] of "car" and [c] of "city" as [c] of "cello".     And (not English but) Greek or Greek-influenced linguists coined English words of car/city/cello/etc.     And German/French words/grammar also, I feel/find.

>> Andre:   You keep saying "conventional linguists". Have you noticed, that you are the only person in the world who believes in your way of analyzing speech? It thus suffices to say "linguists" for the others and "I" or "me" for yourself, as you are so far the only non-conventional linguist alive.
Why do you compare "Car" and "city"? "Car" is related to German "Karre(n)", which has always been pronounced with [k] in the Germanic part of English history. "City" is a loanword from Latin, derived from "civitas", which was pronounced with [k] in early Latin times (we have texts from that time which describe how "c" was pronounced back then), later the "c" was pronounced [s], [ts] or [tʃ] (depending on the region) before front vowels. This is why the word isn't pronounced like "kitty" nowadays. "Car" has never beenpronounced like "char", have a look at the etymology:

http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?search=car&searchmode=none

This tells you that *krsos is the Proto-Indo-European root for it, while "city" derived from PIE *kei-, so the onset consonant was the same: [k], as I already showed with old Latin. Do you have any historical evidence, that any of these words was ever pronounced like "char" or "chity"?

You seem to deduce from the spelling, which is a mistake. Greek didn't have an influence there, but Latin had. You are mixing up Greek and Latin... shame on you.

----------------

>  * Young-Won:   It is not easy to explain the relationship of condition/reflex (or articulation/pronunciation) to the man who does not read my homepage which contain/show what you want to know.

>> Andre:   You will achieve nothing with only your homepage and nothing more. Publish a
paper!
By the way, I can say myself: "It is not easy to explain the basics of phonetics and phonology to the man who refuses to educate himself withproper science."

> --------------------
>
> * Young-Won:   Since I firstly sent an e-mail to you, it is etiquette that
> I should reply your e-mails, I think.

>> Andre:   Nice. My etiquette tells me not to ignore people either. Just out of curiousity... have any other people from the MPI EVA here in Leipzig responded to your e-mail? If yes, I'd be surprised and interested in what they said. But I guess most of them regarded it as mere spam. I found this
on the net, by the way:
http://abhyastamita.livejournal.com/69539.html
:)

> ---------
>
>  * Young-Won:   If you see/say/feel/etc., which actions are scientific method/experiment/observation/data/etc.
>
>> Andre:...yes? Then what? Sorry, your sentence was incomplete. I have explained to you how we scientists do science (papers, experiments, evidence, statistical proves, etc.), but you are ignoring this and claim you have enoug of this already on your homepage. I've read through most of the 'prose' explanations now and found no evidence. It doesn't suffice to claim you can notice and prove your claims yourself. They have to be testable by other people.
This is so far not possible.

> ----------------

>  * Young-Won:   Your science seems uncouth/rustic/unscientific.

>> Andre:   Nope, this is what *I* am telling you. It's silly to simply turn my words around and use them against me. I am a scientist, though still in my education. You are an engineer. Maybe it's different in engineering, no idea, but when making claims in the field of science, you have to adept to scientific methods. I'd even offer my help here...

- Andr

//////////////

From: "ygwnkm" < ygwnkm@yahoo.co.kr>
To: <Andre M. of Linguistics, Max Planck Institute, Germany>
Sent: Wednesday, April 01, 2009 2:16 PM
Subject: Dear Andre:

Dear Andre:

>> Andre:   I'm sure you know way more about electronic engineering than I do. As you seem to have a degree (or at least an proper education) in the field of electronics, I'd value your opinions on electronics higher than my own, I guess... I have the vague feeling you do not do likewise with people who ? unlike you ? have a degree in linguistics or phonetics. I don't have mine yet (I will, in 1 or 2 years, though), but that wouldn't change anything for you... you don't even believe year-long an well-known linguists...

* Young-Won:   If you browse my homepage carefully, you will find that I had talks with linguistics professors and doctors.   I am better than you in linguistics/phonetics in the fact that I not only read so-called conventional phonetics/linguistics but also know how to take out words/grammars/etc. of various languages from the brain; new/real/genuine phonetics.

-------------

* Young-Won:   In linguistics, electronic equipments are doing (not main but) supplementary roles.
It is important whether your body can feel/understand linguistics.
Be careful and discern/avoid fake electronic evidences.

>> Andre:   I agree with you (surprise!).

* Young-Won:   But you seem to neglect (articulation/pronunciation) practice and (accordingly) fall into the trap of fake electronic evidences.

------------

* Young-Won:   My phonetics utters tension/vibration/resonance in the articulatory organs of the sinuses, hemi-diaphragms, chest, neck, head, etc.
Any modern electronic equipments can not record tension/vibration/resonance in the articulatory organs of the sinuses, hemi-diaphragms, chest, neck, head, etc.
But the human body can feel/make tension/vibration/resonance in the articulatory organs of the sinuses, hemi-diaphragms, chest, neck, head, etc. so as to speak/hear/understand (language) sounds.

>> Andre:   You speak a good point here... I do not know if tensions, vibrations or resonances in these organs can be measured with instruments, but it would be premature to assume that this is not possible. With fMRI, EEG and similar methods, one can measure minute variances of energy in the brain. The problem here is, that a mere feeling is not enough and cannot validate nor falsify claims in a scientific way. When I say "mmmmm", I can feel my head and neck vibrating. When I look closely to the screen I can even see the vibration as the letters become a tiny little bit blurry ? this can certainly be measured. And phoneticists have long known already how this vibration is caused. When I say "aaaaaa", the vibration is a bit different, but still there. When I touch my neck, I can feel it and so can electronic apperatures.

In our institute's phonetics lab, we have a little device, whose name I do not recall, but it can measure exactly these vibrations. A colleague of mine (the phoneticist I went to that conference in Newcastle with, less than a week ago) used this device on me when recording me pronouncing words in my native dialect (Upper Saxon). It's mainly used to measure the voicedness of
vowels and consonants.
When speaking with "creaky voice", this would change the result. Both [m] and [a] also exist as voiceless sounds in some languages in the world, but neither in Korean nor in English, so that cannot quite be what you mean.

* Young-Won:   When you feel/find/face the possibility of knowing how to take out words/grammars/etc. of various languages from your brain etc., you will find/realize how silly/meaningless/worthless/petty the above matters of measurements and voiced/voiceless/creaky sounds are.

------------

* Young-Won:   If you see my vowel chart, you will find there various vowel sounds of primary/cardinal <<a, Λ, o, u, =, i>>,? digraph <<e[Λi], [ai], o[oi], u[ui], etc.>>,  trigraphs,  tetragraphs,  pentagraphs,  hexagraphs.    And how many/various consonant sounds.
Lay people can say "Igel" is equal/similar to the pronunciation of "eagle".
But professional phoneticians should not say so.
"Igel" is not/never equal to the pronunciation of "eagle".     Why?    Firstly, speaking postures are different between English and Germany.
I do not know Tsez speaking posture.??? My phonetics study is not for silly diversion/pastime; so, I do not have interest/time for finding of Tsez speaking posture.

>> Andre:   You are right here, but I'm not sure if you know why. "Igel" and "eagle" are pronounced in very similar ways and are phonologically equal, but not phonetically. In a narrow transcription, "Igel" is [??iː?l?], while "eagle" is [???i????]. Tiny differences indeed.

It might be indeed difficult to find words of two languages, which are also phonetically equal. Especially between Korean and English... any other example language combinations you would probably deem irrelevant or outside of your studies.

* Young-Won:   Strictly speaking, there are no homonyms in the world.   If there are different meanings in a word "such as bank (embankment) and bank (place where money is kept)",  pronunciations are slightly different (especially in vowel pronunciations) between bank (embankment) and bank (place where money is kept) which my homepage shows.

-------------

>> Andre:   Phonetically you are right, in faster/colloquial speech, "Buhne" can indeed be pronounced [?byn?] with a short [y]. But length is phonemical in German.
In words with [a], length is important, as short and long /a/ do not differ in quality, only in quantity. There are minimal pairs in German, like [k?an] ("kann", '(I) can') vs. [k?aːn] ("Kahn", 'small ship, boat'). These words don't sound alike. Never. Not when both are stressed. Not when both are
unstressed.

You might have made a mistake when you wrote "most important vowel of all vowels", maybe you mean "languages"? But let me please tell you, that your "[=]", which is "ㅡ" in Korean and [?] in IPA, does *not* occur in all languages. Of course it doesn't! Korean has this vowel, and Turkish has it
too. Japanese has a very similar vowel, and to my knowledge also Vietnamese and a bunch of other languages of this planet. German, English, Chinese, French, Tsez, Spanish, Arabic, Abkhaz, Dutch,
Greek (and so on and so forth) don't have this vowel. Maybe you are mixing it up with the mid centralized vowel "schwa", [?] in IPA? Many languages have a schwa, but not every languages... Korean, Japanese, Tsez, Spanish, Arabic... they do not have a schwa vowel.
There is no vowel that is shared by all 6000+ languages in the world. Not even [a] is found everywhere (cf. English, which has [] and [?], but not [a]). Furthermore, "small" and your Korean spelling "스몰" do not sound alike, they're merely similar. In English there is no vowel between the /s/ and the /m/, the quality of the vowel in this word ([?ː] in English, [o] in Korean) and its length is different in the two languages, and last but not least: the English word-final /l/ is velarized ([?] or [l?] in IPA), while the Korean /l/ is not.

IPA is nothing you can "believe" or "not believe" in, it is a tool, used by phoneticists and phonologists to show the pronunciation of words. There are critiques of IPA and many people tried to improve it (Luciano Canepari for instance did some remarkable work), but it stays a tool, no more no less. As you proved with writing "small" in Korean and in your phonetic(?) alphabet, you don't understand enough of pronunciation yet, as it's evident that you transcribed it wrong.

Or did I miss that you didn't want to represent the word "small" phonetically/phonemically but merely wanted to write it with Korean letters to show how a Korean whose English is not the best would pronounce it, in the same manner as I would 'transcribe' the word in German as "smorl"?

* Young-Won:   My homepage replies the above..

----------------

>> Andre:   You keep saying "conventional linguists". Have you noticed, that you are the only person in the world who believes in your way of analyzing speech? It thus suffices to say "linguists" for the others and "I" or "me" for yourself, as you are so far the only non-conventional linguist alive.
Why do you compare "Car" and "city"? "Car" is related to German "Karre(n)", which has always been pronounced with [k] in the Germanic part of English history. "City" is a loanword from Latin, derived from "civitas", which was pronounced with [k] in early Latin times (we have texts from that time which describe how "c" was pronounced back then), later the "c" was pronounced [s], [ts] or [t?] (depending on the region) before front vowels. This is why the word isn't pronounced like "kitty" nowadays. "Car" has never been pronounced like "char", have a look at the etymology:

http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?search=car&searchmode=none

This tells you that *krsos is the Proto-Indo-European root for it, while "city" derived from PIE *kei-, so the onset consonant was the same: [k], as I already showed with old Latin. Do you have any historical evidence, that any of these words was ever pronounced like "char" or "chity"?

You seem to deduce from the spelling, which is a mistake. Greek didn't have an influence there, but Latin had. You are mixing up Greek and Latin...
shame on you.

* Young-Won:   My homepage replies the above..

--------------

>> Andre:   You will achieve nothing with only your homepage and nothing more. Publish a paper!
By the way, I can say myself: "It is not easy to explain the basics of phonetics and phonology to the man who refuses to educate himself with proper science."

* Young-Won:   Homepage is electronic paper/publication.   I said I already read/practice/mastered all the conventional phonetics/phonology, which are mostly useless/meaningless/fake, I have found.

--------------------

* Young-Won:   Since I firstly sent an e-mail to you, it is etiquette that I should reply your e-mails, I think.

>> Andre:   Nice. My etiquette tells me not to ignore people either. Just out of curiousity... have any other people from the MPI EVA here in Leipzig responded to your e-mail? If yes, I'd be surprised and interested in what they said. But I guess most of them regarded it as mere spam. I found this
on the net, by the way:
http://abhyastamita.livejournal.com/69539.html
:)

* Young-Won:   I reply/posted the above page.    If the MPI EVA people regarded my e-mail as mere spam, it is their mistake/misfortune.

---------

>> Andre:    ..yes? Then what? Sorry, your sentence was incomplete. I have explained to you how we scientists do science (papers, experiments, evidence, statistical proves, etc.), but you are ignoring this and claim you have enoug of this already on your homepage. I've read through most of the 'prose' explanations now and found no evidence. It doesn't suffice to claim you can notice and
prove your claims yourself. They have to be testable by other people.
This is so far not possible.

* Young-Won:   If I can practice/test anything in my homepage, why not others?

"If you see/say/feel/etc., which actions are scientific method/experiment/observation/data/etc."
"If you see/say/feel/etc., the actions (of seeing/saying/feeling/etc.) are scientific method/experiment/observation/data/etc."

----------------

* Young-Won:   Your science seems uncouth/rustic/unscientific.

>> Andre:   Nope, this is what *I* am telling you. It's silly to simply turn my words around and use them against me. I am a scientist, though still in my education. You are an engineer. Maybe it's different in engineering, no idea, but when making claims in the field of science, you have to adept to scientific methods. I'd even offer my help here...

* Young-Won:   You are interested in the title of scientist and/or phonetician/etc. while I am interested in ability (to take out words/grammars/etc. of various languages from the brain and speaking postures/etc.)

Young-Won Kim
ygwnkm@yahoo.co.kr , ygwnkm@hotmail.com ,

//////////////

From: "Andr M" <Andre M. of Linguistics, Max Planck Institute, Germany>
To: "ygwnkm" < ygwnkm@yahoo.co.kr>
Sent: Wednesday, April 01, 2009 7:42 PM
Subject: Re: Dear Andre:

> * Young-Won:     If you browse my homepage carefully, you will find that I had talks with linguistics professors and doctors.   I am better than you in linguistics/phonetics in the fact that I not only read so-called conventional phonetics/linguistics but also know how to take out words/grammars/etc. of various languages from the brain; new/real/genuine phonetics.

>> Andre:   You had, I read this. But none of them took you serious. None of them read your homepage. I hope you at least noticed that. And by the way, I *AM* informing myself about "non-conventional" linguistic theories as well, not only yours; after all I *AM* reading your page and am conversing with you.
You are the one who knows almost nothing about "conventional" (= scientific) linguistic theories. You proved it often enough.

> -------------
>
> * Young-Won:     In linguistics, electronic equipments are doing (not main but) supplementary roles.
> It is important whether your body can feel/understand linguistics.
> Be careful and discern/avoid fake electronic evidences.
>
>  >> Andre:   I agree with you (surprise!).
>
> * Young-Won:     But you seem to neglect (articulation/pronunciation) practice and (accordingly) fall into the trap of fake electronic evidences.

>> Andre:   Yes, I and ALL other experimental phoneticists. You're beginning to get funny. :)
Young-Won against the rest of the world... :D

> ------------

>  * Young-Won:     When you feel/find/face the possibility of knowing how to take out words/grammars/etc. of various languages from your brain etc., you will find/realize how silly/meaningless/worthless/petty the above matters of measurements and voiced/voiceless/creaky sounds are.
>
>> Andre:   Please publish a paper and tell me how to do so. If it works, I'll sure as hell believe you. Don't refer to your homepage, as it's not good to read for other people. Especially not those who're professional linguists ("mouth posture"??? common...).

> ------------

>  * Young-Won:     Strictly speaking, there are no homonyms in the world.
> If there are different meanings in a word "such as bank (embankment) and bank (place where money is kept)",  pronunciations are slightly different (especially in vowel pronunciations) between bank (embankment) and bank (place where money is kept) which my homepage shows.

>> Andre:   Interesting hypothesis that you say here. "Bank" and "bank" in English are not pronounced the same? I guess the German "Bank" (bench) and "Bank" (money institute) is pronounced differently for you as well. Let me ask you a serious question (please DO answer it truthfully!): On how many native speakers of English have you tested this claim? Did you make recordings of them saying one word and the other? Did you analyze it (acoustically and/or
articulatorily) Did you calculate if your result is statistically significant?
Where are the results? I'd like to see them... 'cause I know for sure that those words are pronounced identically per language (not across, of course).

Show me your results. And of what kind are the vowel differences between "bank" and "bank"? Is one vowel further back or maybe a bit higher than theother? Tell us!

> -------------

>  * Young-Won:     My homepage replies the above..

>> Andre:   Publish a paper. Then I'll see. Your homepage is a bunch of scribbles only
you can read.

> --------------

>  * Young-Won:     Homepage is electronic paper/publication.   I said I already read/practice/mastered all the conventional phonetics/phonology, which are mostly useless/meaningless/fake, I have found.

>> Andre:   Please note that a homepage doesn't count as "publication" nor as paper. I have a blog where I can write about anything, I've been having my blog for 7 years (on the day!) exactly and have posted about 2000 (or more?) entries... do you believe anyone would count this as "2000 publications"?
You are using Wikipedia for your studies, this is amusing... let me assure you that you don't "master all of conventional phonetics". ;)

> ---------

>  * Young-Won:     If I can practice/test anything in my homepage, why not others?
> "If you see/say/feel/etc., which actions are scientific method/experiment/observation/data/etc."
> "If you see/say/feel/etc., the actions (of seeing/saying/feeling/etc.) are scientific method/experiment/observation/data/etc."

>> Andre:   Nope. Please educate yourself properly on scientific methods. Mere "feelings" aren't enough in today's science. You have to prove your point.
Feelings as valid evidence sufficed some hundreds of years ago, but not today anymore.

> ----------------

> * Young-Won:     You are interested in the title of scientist and/or phonetician/etc. while I am interested in ability (to take out words/grammars/etc. of various languages from the brain and speaking postures/etc.)

>> Andre:   Well, I'm not only interested in the title... I plan to do research. On Tsez, Phonetics and Phonology, maybe also in writing systems, morphology, historical linguistics and/or glottochronology, as these are my main interests.

My studies will go on starting next week (we have holidays now), but I don't think I will have time for these conversations anymore... just as a "warning" (I guess you don't care anyway, since all you need is yourself; you don't seem to need any followers and you can't bear critique either).

- Andr

//////////////

From: "ygwnkm" < ygwnkm@yahoo.co.kr>
To: <Andre M. of Linguistics, Max Planck Institute, Germany>
Sent: Wednesday, April 01, 2009 11:17 PM
Subject: Dear Andre

Dear Andre:

* Young-Won:   If you browse my homepage carefully, you will find that I had talks with linguistics professors and doctors.   I am better than you in linguistics/phonetics in the fact that I not only read so-called conventional phonetics/linguistics but also know how to take out words/grammars/etc. of various languages from the brain; new/real/genuine phonetics.

>> Andre:   You had, I read this. But none of them took you serious. None of them read your homepage. I hope you at least noticed that. And by the way, I *AM* informing myself about "non-conventional" linguistic theories as well, not only yours; after all I *AM* reading your page and am conversing with you.
You are the one who knows almost nothing about "conventional" (= scientific) linguistic theories. You proved it often enough.

* Young-Won:   My homepage shows many references to web pages of professors.
The point is that you do not know how to speak vowels, which fact decisively demonstrates your ignorance of phonetics/phonology.

-------------

* Young-Won:   But you seem to neglect (articulation/pronunciation) practice and (accordingly) fall into the trap of fake electronic evidences.

>> Andre:   Yes, I and ALL other experimental phoneticists. You're beginning to getfunny. :)
Young-Won against the rest of the world... :D

* Young-Won:   You talk/argue not fact/science/reason but vote/majority/number.

------------

* Young-Won:   When you feel/find/face the possibility of knowing how to take out words/grammars/etc. of various languages from your brain etc., you will find/realize how silly/meaningless/worthless/petty the above matters of measurements and voiced/voiceless/creaky sounds are.

>> Andre:   Please publish a paper and tell me how to do so. If it works, I'll sure as hell believe you. Don't refer to your homepage, as it's not good to read for other people. Especially not those who're professional linguists ("mouth posture"    common...).

* Young-Won:   No body/book has taught me how to take out words/grammars/etc. of various languages from your brain etc.     Likewise, you (by yourself) may find how to take out words/grammars/etc. of various languages from your brain etc. if you do not want to read my homepage.

------------

>> Andre:   Interesting hypothesis that you say here. "Bank" and "bank" in English are not pronounced the same? I guess the German "Bank" (bench) and "Bank" (money institute) is pronounced differently for you as well. Let me ask you a serious question (please DO answer it truthfully!): On how many native speakers of English have you tested this claim? Did you make recordings of them saying one word and the other? Did you analyze it (acoustically and/or
articulatorily)? Did you calculate if your result is statistically significant?
Where are the results? I'd like to see them... 'cause I know for sure that those words are pronounced identically per language (not across, of course).

Show me your results. And of what kind are the vowel differences between "bank" and "bank"? Is one vowel further back or maybe a bit higher than the other? Tell us!

* Young-Won:   You do not recognize/know how pros are made and what pros can do.    You can not become a pro without practice.     My homepage shows how much I practice (articulation/pronunciation).
Nearly all native speakers of English/German/Korean/etc. (including you who neglect practice) are amateurs who can not catch nuance of sound.

--------------

>> Andre:   You will achieve nothing with only your homepage and nothing more. Publish a paper!
By the way, I can say myself: "It is not easy to explain the basics of phonetics and phonology to the man who refuses to educate himself with proper science."

* Young-Won:   Homepage is electronic paper/publication.   I said I already read/practice/mastered all the conventional phonetics/phonology, which are mostly useless/meaningless/fake, I have found.

>> Andre:   Please note that a homepage doesn't count as "publication" nor as paper. I have a blog where I can write about anything, I've been having my blog for 7 years (on the day!) exactly and have posted about 2000 (or more?) entries...
do you believe anyone would count this as "2000 publications"? You are using Wikipedia for your studies, this is amusing... let me assure you that you don't "master all of conventional phonetics". ;)

* Young-Won:   My homepage shows many references to web pages of professors as well as Wikipedia.
The point is whether your "2000 publications" have any value/information/worth which interests people.

--------------------

* Young-Won:   If I can practice/test anything in my homepage, why not others?

"If you see/say/feel/etc., which actions are scientific method/experiment/observation/data/etc."
"If you see/say/feel/etc., the actions (of seeing/saying/feeling/etc.) are scientific method/experiment/observation/data/etc."

>> Andre:   Nope. Please educate yourself properly on scientific methods. Mere "feelings" aren't enough in today's science. You have to prove your point.
Feelings as valid evidence sufficed some hundreds of years ago, but not today anymore.

* Young-Won:   Without hearing/seeing/tasting/smelling/feeling/etc. can we do science?

----------------

>> Andre:   Well, I'm not only interested in the title... I plan to do research. On Tsez, Phonetics and Phonology, maybe also in writing systems, morphology, historical linguistics and/or glottochronology, as these are my main interests.

My studies will go on starting next week (we have holidays now), but I don't think I will have time for these conversations anymore... just as a "warning" (I guess you don't care anyway, since all you need is yourself; you don't seem to need any followers and you can't bear critique either).

* Young-Won:   You do not research but play without serious practice.    Mere waste.

Young-Won Kim
ygwnkm@yahoo.co.kr , ygwnkm@hotmail.com ,

//////////////

From: "Andr M" <Andre M. of Linguistics, Max Planck Institute, Germany>
To: "ygwnkm" < ygwnkm@yahoo.co.kr>
Sent: Friday, April 03, 2009 7:51 PM
Subject: Re: Dear Andre


Dear Young-Won,

> * Young-Won:     My homepage shows many references to web pages of professors.
>
> The point is that you do not know how to speak vowels, which fact decisively demonstrates your ignorance of phonetics/phonology.

>> Andre:   Funny how I survived more than 24 years without pronouncing any vowel, huh?
Don't be silly, please...

> ------------

>  * Young-Won:     When you feel/find/face the possibility of knowing how to take out words/grammars/etc. of various languages from your brain etc., you will find/realize how silly/meaningless/worthless/petty the above matters of measurements and voiced/voiceless/creaky sounds are.

> >> Andre:   Please publish a paper and tell me how to do so. If it works, I'll sure as hell believe you. Don't refer to your homepage, as it's not good to read for other people. Especially not those who're professional linguists ("mouth posture"    common...).

> * Young-Won:     No body/book has taught me how to take out words/grammars/etc. of various languages from your brain etc.     Likewise, you (by yourself) may find how to take out words/grammars/etc. of various languages from your brain etc. if you do not want to read my homepage.

>> Andre:   I read the relevant parts. There is nothing there that helps me to "take out words from my brains" (whatever that means), sorry. Again my hint: write an article. No single person will ever read your messy homepage, but if you write a neat article (PDF document, which you can easily make accessible on your homepage), people might start getting interested in your work.
Believe me.

> ------------

> * Young-Won:     You do not recognize/know how pros are made and what pros can do.    You can not become a pro without practice.     My homepage shows how much I practice (articulation/pronunciation).
> Nearly all native speakers of English/German/Korean/etc. (including you who neglect practice) are amateurs who can not catch nuance of sound.

>> Andre:   Why do you think I wouldn't practice? You are missleaded, but I won't go into detail, since you'd have to believe me. But the only person you believe, is yourself. What a pity.

Back on-topic ("bank" vs. "bank"): They are obviously pronounced the same way, let me explain you why:
If these were two differently pronounced words, people would notice this. They would hear of which "bank" someone is speaking. Same goes for German: if the two words had different pronunciations, a German speaker could hear this difference and with nearly 100% certainty could make out what I mean when I say "auf der Bank" (on the bench/bank) this is not possible, you may of course try this out with native speakers, the result of your guessings (or any native speaker's guessings) will be about 50% (i.e., chance).
Tell me, how could two words be pronounced differently, yet be perceived as exactly the same by 100% of the native speakers of this language? What do you think what happens when children learn the language? Do you believe, that they would automatically acquire this subtle in-audible difference in pronunciation and pass it on to the next generation and so forth? Nope, that cannot be the case differences that are not measurable, cannot be acquired by children.

And try it out: Let 100 German people say each meaning of "Bank" (bench) vs. "Bank" (money institute) about 50-times in random order, record it, measure anything that could possibly make a difference in pronunciation (voicedness, voice-onset-time, tounge position), make palatograms and ultrasound tests, you can even perform whatever tests you have in mind to measure diaphragm
tension or vibration...
The result I can assure you will be non-significant.

If you do not believe, test it yourself, publish your results and your exact methods, and you'll see what the experts say. You can be sure they'd be quite astonished by a positive result.

You are the first and only person in the entire world, who has found out that "Bank" and "Bank" (or "bank" and "bank" in English, if you like) are pronounced differently. Congratulations! (forgive my sarcasm)

Another thing: Do you know some Chinese (I've heard Koreans learn it at school, is this true?)? In Mandarin Chinese, there are sometimes dozens of characters that are pronounced exactly the same. Same pronunciation, same tone even. My favorite example is this one:

lion = 狮子 (shīzi)
louse = 虱子 (shīzi)

The pronunciations and the tone are exactly the same in Mandarin Chinese (Putonghua), though they might differ in other varieties such as Cantonese, Hakka, Minnan, Wu, etc. I tried this with native speakers, they do get the joke and they do not hear the difference between these words (try the same with German if you know any native speakers!).
Do you want to claim that these words are pronounced with some subtle in-audible difference, that neither native speakers nor machines can measure but that you and only you can hear?

But I'm really interested in this: What makes these two words ("bank" vs. "bank"; "Bank" vs. "Bank" and "shizi" vs. "shizi") different. What is the exact difference in terms of articulation or perception that you think you are hearing or feeling? Do not just refer to your homepage, but tell me in
detail.

> --------------

> * Young-Won:     My homepage shows many references to web pages of professors as well as Wikipedia.
> The point is whether your "2000 publications" have any value/information/worth which interests people.

>> Andre:   Well, references to webpages... I sure can refer to webpages and Wikipedia as well. Let me not go into detail why links to Wikipedia are not used in science (everyone can edit Wikipedia, you did this yourself a while ago). I have 5 or 6 publications, not more. And for all but 2 I'm just a
co-author. And people are indeed interested in them and read and comment on them. But I agree that one cannot measure anything on the number of publications one has made.

You have one publication so far, but students in their first year of linguistics know more about linguistics and phonology than you do. There you see that quantity doesn't count.

> --------------------

> >> Andre:   Nope. Please educate yourself properly on scientific methods. Mere "feelings" aren't enough in today's science. You have to prove your point.
> Feelings as valid evidence sufficed some hundreds of years ago, but not today anymore.

> * Young-Won:     Without hearing/seeing/tasting/smelling/feeling/etc. can we do science?

>> Andre:   No, because we have to see/hear the results. But there are things we cannot perceive with our body... tiny subatomic particles for instance, or huge astronomical phenomena hundreds of lightyears away... or even magnetic fields or infrared light. We cannot perceive these and need machines to help us. Devices that enhance your sight, make everything visible and audible.
These devices are part of science. Some of them proved to deliver false results and were replaced with better devices or abolished altogether.
All the collective results delivered by ultrasound machines, articulographs, palatographs and all those things which deliver results that all fit together well... we have yet to wait that someone shows up and finds out that all these machines only delivered useless fake results.

You might think you are this person, but the next step is to convince people to believe in you. At least one person. This cannot be done with your homepage. If you want to revolutionize science, you have to use scientific methods. Mere feeling isn't enough, and the fact that everyone disagrees
with you, doesn't help you either.

> ----------------

> >> Andre:   Well, I'm not only interested in the title... I plan to do esearch. On Tsez, Phonetics and Phonology, maybe also in writing systems, morphology, historical linguistics and/or glottochronology, as these are my main interests.

> My studies will go on starting next week (we have holidays now), but I don't think I will have time for these conversations anymore... just as a "warning" (I guess you don't care anyway, since all you need is yourself; you don't seem to need any followers and you can't bear critique either).

> * Young-Won:     You do not research but play without serious practice. Mere waste.

>> Andre:   We'll see in a few years, when I have my PhD and you still haven't published anything useful (except for that Korean book on English pronunciation about which I cannot say anything). We will see...

By the way! I wonder why I thought of this only now... Since you like online sources and deal with pronunciation, you might actually be interested in the following link:

http://www.forvo.com

On this site, they collect all words of the world pronounced by native speakers. It's very easy to record oneself there, you just need a microphone (I'm sure you have one). You might be interested in listening to pronounced words in over 200 languages there, and you can record yourself pronouncing
Korean words there ( http://www.forvo.com/languages/ko/). Another idea is to listen to their pronunciation of "bank" ( http://www.forvo.com/word/bank/) you have the German, English and Flemish pronunciations there and judge for yourself what meaning of the word 'bank' these people were pronouncing.
I'd be interested in your judgements.

And I have another simple question:
Since you claim that your perception of the spoken word and your mastering of English articulation and pronunciation is so much better than mine and because you've been studying English phonology for years... do you imply that your English pronunciation is perfect? I mean, do you claim you speak
better than a native, now that you found a way to take the words out of your brain and understand the way words are pronounced (unlike the rest of mankind)?
I really wonder about this: Does this make your pronunciation of English (and maybe German as well?) perfect and native-like?
Please answer these questions truthfully. I will not use your answer to criticize you (my English isn't perfect either).

Greetings,
- Andr

///////////////

----- Original Message -----
From: "ygwnkm" < ygwnkm@yahoo.co.kr>
To: Andre M. of Linguistics, Max Planck Institute, Germany
Sent: Monday, April 06, 2009 4:33 PM
Subject: Dear Andre:

Dear Andre:

* Young-Won:   My homepage shows many references to web pages of professors.
The point is that you do not know how to speak vowels, which fact decisively demonstrates your ignorance of phonetics/phonology.

>> Andre:   Funny how I survived more than 24 years without pronouncing any vowel, huh?
Don't be silly, please...

* Young-Won:   We already agreed that illiterates (who do not have studied phonetics/phonology as well as writing) can speak (vowel/consonants of) their mother tongue fluently.
I mean that you must be able to scientifically/phonetically know/explain how vowels (and consonants) are produced/spoken if you have study/known something of phonetics/phonology since it is basic.

-------------

* Young-Won:   No body/book has taught me how to take out words/grammars/etc. of various languages from your brain etc.     Likewise, you (by yourself) may find how to take out words/grammars/etc. of various languages from your brain etc. if you do not want to read my homepage.

>> Andre:   I read the relevant parts. There is nothing there that helps me to "take out words from my brains" (whatever that means), sorry. Again my hint: write an article. No single person will ever read your messy homepage, but if you write a neat article (PDF document, which you can easily make accessible on your homepage), people might start getting interested in your work.
Believe me.

* Young-Won:   Worry yourself, not other people.    I said you (by yourself) may find how to take out words/grammars/etc. of various languages from your brain etc. if you do not want to read my homepage.

------------

>> Andre:   Why do you think I wouldn't practice? You are missleaded, but I won't go into detail, since you'd have to believe me. But the only person you believe, is yourself. What a pity.

Back on-topic ("bank" vs. "bank"): They are obviously pronounced the same way, let me explain you why:
If these were two differently pronounced words, people would notice this.

They would hear of which "bank" someone is speaking. Same goes for German: if the two words had different pronunciations, a German speaker could hear this difference and with nearly 100% certainty could make out what I mean when I say "auf der Bank" (on the bench/bank) ? this is not possible, you may of course try this out with native speakers, the result of your guessings (or any native speaker's guessings) will be about 50% (i.e., chance).
Tell me, how could two words be pronounced differently, yet be perceived as exactly the same by 100% of the native speakers of this language? What do you think what happens when children learn the language? Do you believe, that they would automatically acquire this subtle in-audible difference in pronunciation and pass it on to the next generation and so forth? Nope, that cannot be the case ? differences that are not measurable, cannot be acquired by children.

And try it out: Let 100 German people say each meaning of "Bank" (bench) vs. "Bank" (money institute) about 50-times in random order, record it, measure anything that could possibly make a difference in pronunciation (voicedness, voice-onset-time, tounge position), make palatograms and ultrasound tests, you can even perform whatever tests you have in mind to measure diaphragm
tension or vibration...
The result ? I can assure you ? will be non-significant.

If you do not believe, test it yourself, publish your results and your exact methods, and you'll see what the experts say. You can be sure they'd be quite astonished by a positive result.

You are the first and only person in the entire world, who has found out that "Bank" and "Bank" (or "bank" and "bank" in English, if you like) are pronounced differently. Congratulations! (forgive my sarcasm)

Another thing: Do you know some Chinese (I've heard Koreans learn it at school, is this true?)? In Mandarin Chinese, there are sometimes dozens of characters that are pronounced exactly the same. Same pronunciation, same tone even. My favorite example is this one:

lion = ?子 (sh?zi)
louse = ?子 (sh?zi)

The pronunciations and the tone are exactly the same in Mandarin Chinese (Putonghua), though they might differ in other varieties such as Cantonese,
Hakka, Minnan, Wu, etc. I tried this with native speakers, they do get the joke and they do not hear the difference between these words (try the same with German if you know any native speakers!).
Do you want to claim that these words are pronounced with some subtle in-audible difference, that neither native speakers nor machines can measure but that you ? and only you ? can hear?

But I'm really interested in this: What makes these two words ("bank" vs. "bank"; "Bank" vs. "Bank" and "shizi" vs. "shizi") different. What is the exact difference in terms of articulation or perception that you think you are hearing or feeling? Do not just refer to your homepage, but tell me in
detail.

* Young-Won:   Lay people (unconsciously) and scientists (consciously) notice natural symptoms/phenomena.      The difference is that lay people do not care/study and can not explain the natural symptoms/phenomena while scientists care/study and can explain them.

Koreans learn some Chinese letters but not Chinese sound/pronunciation/speaking, since old or ancient Korean linguists (and/or quasi-linguists) misunderstood/misbelieved that there is some connection between Korean and Chinese words and have argued that Koreans must study some Chinese letter/words, but not speaking.

When we talk phonetics/phonology, we are dealing with (not children/laymen but) scientific pros.       Scientific pros care/study phonetic nuance, but amateurs do not care/study.

The below example/study shows how I come to the conclusion that strictly speaking, there are no homonyms in the world.

http://voicespec.com/board.cgi?id=test1&action=view&gul=194&page=1&go_cnt=2
E)?? If articulating [Λoi]?? from /P/mES/verb,       - - - are pronounced.
If articulating [Λoi]   from /T/mES,        - - - are pronounced.
If articulating [Λoi]   from /C1/mES,       pack[p(=ue)h  h=h]/+-/적립하다[zΛg  lib  ha  da],  bundle[b(uΛ)h  h=h  h=n  d=h  h=l]/+bp/끼다[gi  da],  load[l(uΛ)h  h=h  d=h]/+cp/재우다[z  w=  da],         and   batch[b(u)h  h=h  c=h]/Ch/+-/붙다[but  da],  store[s(u=)h  h=h  t=h  ŋ=h  hΛh]/Ch/+bp/보관하다[bo  g(oa)n  ha  da],  stow[s(=u)h  h=h  ŋ=h  t=h  hΛh]/Ch/+cp/장전하다[zaŋ  zΛn  ha  da] are pronounced.

**       If articulating [Λai]   from /S/aES (ANTERIOR Ethmoidal sinuses),          pack[ph  h=h]"/+-/넣다[nΛh  da],  store[s(=u)h  h=h  t=h  ŋ=h  hΛh]"/+bp/매립(埋立)하다[m  rib  ha  da],  "batch[b(=)h  h=h  c=h]/+cp/꿰다[g(ue)  da],          and   bundle[bΛh  h=h  h=n  d=h  h=l]/+-/Ch/매다[m  da],  stow[s(u=)h  h=h  ŋ=h  t=h  hΛh]/Ch/+bp/채워넣다[c  wΛ  nΛh  da],  load[loh  h=h  d=h]/Ch/+cp/놓다[n(=o)h  da] are pronounced.

**       If articulating [=Λi]   from /S/aES (ANTERIOR Ethmoidal sinuses),          pack[p(=e)h  h=h]"/+-/쌓다[sah  da],  bundle[b(=Λ)h  h=h  h=n  d=h  h=l]"/+bp/묶다[mug  da],  "batch[bh  h=h  c=h]/+cp/끼우다[gi  ŋu  da],          and   load[l(=Λ)h  h=h  d=h]/+-/Ch/포개다[po  g  da],  store[s=h  h=h  t=h  ŋ=h  hΛh]/Ch/+bp/저장하다[zΛ  zaŋ  ha  da],  package/Ch/+cp are pronounced.

*     That is, if articulating [p(=e)h  h=h] with/from Korean primary /P posture,   "쌓다[sah  da]"  (which means "To bring together (persons or things) closely")  is metaphthong/MPh pronounced.           And if articulating [ph  h=h] with/from Korean secondary /S posture,   "넣다[nΛh  da]"  (which means "To put into a receptacle for transporting or storing")  is metaphthong/MPh pronounced.                   While English pronunciation difference between [p(=e)h  h=h] and [ph  h=h] is slight (in vowel only),     Korean pronunciation difference between "쌓다[sah  da]" and "넣다[nΛh  da]" is big/apparent (in consonant and vowel both),

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/pack ,   v.tr.
2. a. To put into a receptacle for transporting or storing:       pack [p(=e)h  h=h] one's belongings.
b. To fill up with items:       pack [ph  h=h] one's trunk.
3. To process and put into containers in order to preserve, transport, or sell:      packed [p(=ue)h  h=h] the fruit in jars.
4. a. To bring together (persons or things) closely; crowd together:     managed to pack [p(ue)h  h=h] 300 students into the lecture hall.
6. To wrap tightly for protection or to prevent leakage:     pack [p(=)h  h=h] a valve stem.
7. To press together; compact firmly:       packed [p(u=e)h  h=h] the clay and straw into bricks.
8. Informal To carry, deliver, or have available for action:      a thug who packed [p(=u)h  h=h] a pistol;      a fighter who packs [p(=u)h  h=h] a hard punch.
9. To send unceremoniously:       The parents packed [p(u=)h  h=h] both children off to bed.
10. To constitute (a voting panel) by appointment, selection, or arrangement in such a way that it is favorable to one's purposes or point of view; rig:      "In 1937 Roosevelt threatened to pack [[p(=)h  h=h]] the court" New Republic.
v.intr.
2. To be susceptible of compact storage:        Dishes pack [p(u=)h  h=h] more easily than glasses.

http://encarta.msn.com/dictionary_/pack.html ,
4. transitive verb fill something with large quantity: to fill something, especially a limited space, tightly ( often passive )
The case was packed [p(=)h  h=h] with books and letters.
6. transitive verb fit something into limited time: to fit many different activities or events into a limited period of time
packed [ph  h=h] a lot of sightseeing into one weekend
15. transitive verb possess something as forceful capability: to be capable of delivering something that has a powerful or devastating effect ( informal )
new computer packs [p(u=)h  h=h] a punch

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/pack , transitive verb
1 a: to make into a compact bundle     b: to fill completely       <fans packed [p(u=)h  h=h] the stadium>       c: to fill with packing     <pack [p(=e)h  h=h] a joint in a pipe>    d: to load with a pack    <pack [p(=)h  h=h] a mule>       e: to put in a protective container   <goods packed [p(=u)h  h=h] for shipment>
3 a: to cause or command to go without ceremony      <packed [p(=)h  h=h] him off to school>     b: to bring to an end : give up ?used with up or in      <might pack [p(=e)h  h=h] up the assignment> ?used especially in the phrase pack [p(=e)h  h=h] it in

6 a: to transport on foot or on the back of an animal       <pack [p(=u)h  h=h] a canoe overland>      b: to wear or carry as equipment       <pack [p(=)h  h=h] a gun>       c: to be supplied or equipped with :  possess        <a storm packing [p(eu=)h  h=h] hurricane winds>      d: to make or be capable of making (an impact)      <a book that packs [p(e=u)h  h=h] a man-sized punch  C. J. Rolo>
intransitive verb
1 a: to go away without ceremony : depart     <simply packed [p(=)h  h=h] up and left>      b: quit, stop ?used with up or in      <why don't you pack [p(u=)h  h=h] in, before you kill yourself ? Millard Lampell>
2 a: to stow goods and equipment for transportation       b: to be suitable for packing     <a knit dress packs [p(=u)h  h=h] well>
4: to become built up or compacted in a layer or mass       <the ore packed [p(u)h  h=h] into a stony mass>
1: to influence the composition of so as to bring about a desired result      <pack [p(u)h  h=h] a jury>

http://www.answers.com/bundle , v.tr.
2. To dispatch or dispense of quickly and with little fuss; hustle:       bundled [b(=Λ)h  h=h  h=n  d=h  h=l] the child off to school.
3. To dress (a person) warmly:       bundled [b(uΛ)h  h=h  h=n  d=h  h=l] them up in winter clothes.
v.intr.
1. To hurry; hasten:      The children came bundling [b(Λ=)h  h=h  h=n  d=h  h=l] in from outside.

http://encarta.msn.com/dictionary_/bundle.html ,
3. transitive verb shove somebody or something: to push somebody or something roughly and hurriedly ( informal )
bundled [b(=Λ)h??h=h??h=n??d=h??h=l] the suspect into the police car


http://www.answers.com/load , v.tr.
1. a. To put (something) into or onto a structure or conveyance:      loading [l(=uo)h  h=h  d=h] grain onto a train.
b. To put something into or onto (a structure or conveyance):     loaded [l(uΛ)h  h=h  d=h] the tanker with crude oil.
2. To provide or fill nearly to overflowing; heap:     loaded [l(=o)h  h=h  d=h] the table with food.
3. To weigh down; burden:     was loaded [l(u=o)h  h=h  d=h] with worries.
4. To insert (a necessary material) into a device:      loaded [l(=uΛ)h  h=h  d=h] film into the camera;      loaded [l(=uΛ)h  h=h  d=h] rounds into the rifle.
5. To insert a necessary material into:      loaded [loh  h=h  d=h] the camera with film.
7. To charge with additional meanings, implications, or emotional import:     loaded [l(=uo)h  h=h  d=h] the question to trick the witness.
v.intr.
1. To receive a load:     Container ships can load [l(ou)h  h=h  d=h] rapidly.

http://encarta.msn.com/dictionary_/load.html ,
1. transitive and intransitive verb put something on vehicle: to put cargo or passengers on a vehicle, ship, or aircraft or to have cargo or passengers put on
The aircraft is now loading [l(=o)h  h=h  d=h].
7. transitive and intransitive verb put rounds in gun: to put ammunition into a firearm
loaded [(=uo)h  h=h  d=h] the rifle
8. transitive verb baseball put runners on all bases: to cause runners to occupy first, second, and third bases ( often passive )
hit a home run with the bases loaded [l(uo)h  h=h  d=h]
9. transitive verb gambling weight one side of die: to weight one side of each die in a pair or one side of a roulette wheel to prevent it from operating randomly
He must have loaded [l(=o)h  h=h  d=h] the dice.

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/load[2] ,
transitive verb
1 a: to put a load in or on   <load [l(=o)h  h=h  d=h] a truck>       b: to place in or on a means of conveyance    <load [l(o=u)h  h=h  d=h] freight>
2 a: to encumber or oppress with something heavy, laborious, or disheartening : burden     <a company loaded [l(=Λ)h  h=h  d=h] down with debts>      b: to place as a burden or obligation       <load [l(uΛ)h  h=h  d=h] more work on him>
5 a: to put a load or charge in (a device or piece of equipment)    <load [l(ou)h  h=h  d=h] a gun>       b: to place or insert especially as a load in a device or piece of equipment    <load [l(=o)h  h=h  d=h] film in a camera>
7 a: to add a load to (an insurance premium)      b: to add a sum to after profits and expenses are accounted for      <loaded [l(=uo)h  h=h  d=h] prices>
intransitive verb
3: to go or go in as a load      <tourists loading [l(o=u)h  h=h  d=h] onto a bus>
4: to become loaded into a computer's memory     <the program loads [l(uo)h  h=h  d=h] quickly>

http://encarta.msn.com/dictionary_/store.html ,
3. intransitive verb survive storage: to survive or stay fresh while being kept in storage
Apples will store [s(=u)h  h=h  t=h  ŋ=h  hΛh] well in a cool humid building.

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/store ,
1: lay away , accumulate    <store [s=h  h=h  t=h  ŋ=h  hΛh] vegetables for winter use>     <an organism that absorbs and stores [s=h  h=h  t=h  ŋ=h  hΛh] DDT>
2: furnish , supply ; especially : to stock against a future time     <store [s(u=)h  h=h  t=h  ŋ=h  hΛh] a ship with provisions>
4: to provide storage room for : hold      <elevators for storing [s(=u)h  h=h  t=h  ŋ=h  hΛh] surplus wheat>

http://www.answers.com/stow ,
1. a. To place or arrange, especially in a neat, compact way:      stowed [s(=u)h  h=h  ŋ=h  t=h  hΛh] his gear in the footlocker.
2. To store for future use:       stowed [s(u=)h  h=h  ŋ=h  t=h  hΛh] carrots and potatoes in the root cellar.

http://encarta.msn.com/dictionary_/stow.html ,
2. fill something with tightly packed things: to fill something with other things, especially things packed tightly
to stow [s(=u)h  h=h  ŋ=h  t=h  hΛh] a boat's hold with cargo

5. stop something: to stop doing something ( slang )
Stow [s(u=)h  h=h  ŋ=h  t=h  hΛh] this silly chatter.

--------------

* Young-Won:   My homepage shows many references to web pages of professors as well as Wikipedia.
The point is whether your "2000 publications" have any value/information/worth which interests people.

>> Andre:   Well, references to webpages... I sure can refer to webpages and Wikipedia as well. Let me not go into detail why links to Wikipedia are not used in science (everyone can edit Wikipedia, you did this yourself a while ago).
I have 5 or 6 publications, not more. And for all but 2 I'm just a co-author. And people are indeed interested in them and read and comment on them. But I agree that one cannot measure anything on the number of publications one has made.

You have one publication so far, but students in their first year of linguistics know more about linguistics and phonology than you do. There you see that quantity doesn't count.

* Young-Won:   Most first-year linguistics students learn (or are brain-washed by) fake phonetics/phonology, while I know how to take out words/grammars of various languages from my own brain and know nuances among homonyms.

--------------------

>> Andre:   Nope. Please educate yourself properly on scientific methods. Mere "feelings" aren't enough in today's science. You have to prove your point.
Feelings as valid evidence sufficed some hundreds of years ago, but not today anymore.

* Young-Won:   Without hearing/seeing/tasting/smelling/feeling/etc. can we do science?

>> Andre:   No, because we have to see/hear the results. But there are things we cannot perceive with our body... tiny subatomic particles for instance, or huge astronomical phenomena hundreds of lightyears away... or even magnetic fields or infrared light. We cannot perceive these and need machines to help us. Devices that enhance your sight, make everything visible and audible.
These devices are part of science. Some of them proved to deliver false results and were replaced with better devices or abolished altogether. All the collective results delivered by ultrasound machines, articulographs, palatographs and all those things which deliver results that all fit together well... we have yet to wait that someone shows up and finds out that all these machines only delivered useless fake results.

You might think you are this person, but the next step is to convince people to believe in you. At least one person. This cannot be done with your homepage. If you want to revolutionize science, you have to use scientific methods. Mere feeling isn't enough, and the fact that everyone disagrees
with you, doesn't help you either.

* Young-Won:   There are things which only pros can feel/catch but lay people and any equipment/devices can not perceive/catch.       E.G.:   nuances among homonyms.    
Any modern device/equipments can not take out words/grammars from the brain.

----------------

* Young-Won:   You do not research but play without serious practice.    Mere waste.

>> Andre:   We'll see in a few years, when I have my PhD and you still haven't published anything useful (except for that Korean book on English pronunciation about which I cannot say anything). We will see...

* Young-Won:   Edison , Bill Gates, or practical people will want more than the title of PhD.

------------------

>> Andre:   By the way! I wonder why I thought of this only now...
Since you like online sources and deal with pronunciation, you might actually be interested in the following link:

http://www.forvo.com

On this site, they collect all words of the world pronounced by native speakers. It's very easy to record oneself there, you just need a microphone (I'm sure you have one). You might be interested in listening to pronounced words in over 200 languages there, and you can record yourself pronouncing Korean words there ( http://www.forvo.com/languages/ko/). Another idea is to
listen to their pronunciation of "bank" ( http://www.forvo.com/word/bank/)   you have the German, English and Flemish pronunciations there ? and judge for yourself what meaning of the word 'bank' these people were pronouncing.
I'd be interested in your judgements.

And I have another simple question:
Since you claim that your perception of the spoken word and your mastering of English articulation and pronunciation is so much better than mine and because you've been studying English phonology for years... do you imply that your English pronunciation is perfect? I mean, do you claim you speak
better than a native, now that you found a way to take the words out of your brain and understand the way words are pronounced (unlike the rest of mankind)?
I really wonder about this: Does this make your pronunciation of English (and maybe German as well?) perfect and native-like?
Please answer these questions truthfully. I will not use your answer to criticize you (my English isn't perfect either).

* Young-Won:   Lay people fluently speak their mother tongues without knowledge/study of phonetics/phonology/etc. while I study/explain their words/grammars/etc. etymologically/phonetically/etc.

"bank" ( http://www.forvo.com/word/bank/) is the pronunciation of "bank (place where money is kept)", not "bank (embankment)".

Young-Won Kim
ygwnkm@yahoo.co.kr , ygwnkm@hotmail.com ,

Send this message to email View Printable version
DATE: 2009.04.07 - 11:11

123.109.224.34 - Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 6.0; Windows NT 5.1; SV1; .NET CLR 2.0.50727; .NET CLR 3.0.4506.2152; .NET CLR 3.5.30729; InfoPath.1)


 Prev message umd/unc/utah/sjsu,              Germany (eva.mpg/jena/koeln/konstanz/potsdam/saarland/stuttgart)
 Next message northwestern/siu/Princeton/pitt/sc/Rutgers/rochester/uiowa/georgetown/ucdavis/uiuc/ucsd/colorado
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 gomtrique'  &  Penses;          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
49Now reading>> 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
24Simple viewJames 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, Universitt 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