Post by Sir C. M. Siervicül on Oct 18, 2007 16:48:07 GMT -6
My quoted comments and King John's answers are from the Word docs posted in the main GV&SP thread. References to page and paragraph numbers in my quoted comments refer to the original GV&SP doc, also linked from the main GV&SP thread.
REGARDING SECONDARY STRESS
My original comments:
King John's answers:
Would it be less complete than the mapping from writing to pronunciation provided by any other Romance language authority in the world? I suspect not.
My original comments:
King John's answers:
My point is that the rules can't accurately tell you how to go from the actual language to the writing system and back without taking account of prosody, unless you're only talking about the ability to read dictionary entries or words in a list aloud, in which case the rules are of extremely limited utility for their complexity. If, as you say, you're only suggesting rules on how to write Talossan, the section on secondary stress is unnecessary, because (as I mentioned in the paragraph below from my original comments) secondary stress is not marked. If secondary stress is not reflected in writing, how is it necessary to deal with secondary stress in the "rules . . . on how to WRITE Talossan"?
As far as I know, la Real Academia Española does not address secondary stress in Spanish, and I don't think anyone has criticised the clarity of their rules on how to write Spanish on that basis. As I alluded to in my own comment, actual linguists are not in agreement on what the rules for secondary stress in Spanish are, or whether secondary stress is a useful concept in Spanish. Same debate in Italian. For some quotes showing what a grey area secondary stress is in even the most well-understood Romance languages, see the appendix at the end of this document. Also, here's what the RAE's Diccionario Panhispánico de Dudas has to say about stress. Notice the fact that acento prosódico and palabras tónicas y átonas are discussed together:
buscon.rae.es/dpdI/SrvltGUIBusDPD?lema=acento
My opinion is that it is not necessary to consider secondary stress in this document, and if it's not necessary, we should not overreach based on what little evidence is available to us. What linguist, writing about a relatively unknown Romance language, with access to no proficient speakers and a literary corpus consisting of only a scant handful of poems and songs, would dare to discuss that language's secondary stress rules in anything but the most conjectural and tentative terms? How can we presume, then, to go so much further as to authoritatively declare what the secondary stress rules of Talossan are? At this point, this is an area calling for academic study, not prescription. We're getting into pretty advanced stuff here, and I don't think there's any need to rush into establishing a rule before we really understand what we're doing. Right now, if any of us really understands it, you're the only one.
My original comments:
(Appendix omitted from Witt version)
REGARDING SECONDARY STRESS
My original comments:
I recommend dropping the section on secondary stress. This is the section of the document that will look most confusing to new learners, ("2B, B3, 1B – I have to do algebra to know how to pronounce Talossan words?"), and I don't think it adds that much value for three main reasons.
King John's answers:
Well, the value it DOES add is to provide a complete mapping from writing to pronunciation, which will be incomplete if we leave this section out. I grant that it's kind of complex. Maybe we should put something in there telling the student that this is a section he can probably skip over without memorising, since the words affected by it are kind of rare.
Would it be less complete than the mapping from writing to pronunciation provided by any other Romance language authority in the world? I suspect not.
My original comments:
First, being aware of these secondary stress rules will likely cause learners to pause and overanalyse long words instead of just saying them. Getting the hang of primary stress will be pretty simple, while getting the hang of secondary stress will require determining primary stress, then determining whether the syllable with primary stress is where you start counting from, then counting syllables (sometimes repeating that whole process multiple times, as in the example of " AU þor i SA ZIUN").
Second, secondary stress has never been addressed in Talossan before, and I'm afraid we may be getting over our heads in trying to authoritatively state what the rules are. To really deal adequately with multiple levels of lexical stress, we would also have to establish the rules for prosody in Talossan. Even in well-known languages like Spanish and English the rules for secondary stress (and even whether secondary stress is a meaningful concept at all) are somewhat controversial among linguistics. Moreover, the literature I've seen suggests that even native speakers' perceptions of where secondary stress falls in ordinary speech (as opposed to pronouncing words in isolation) are not terribly reliable.
Second, secondary stress has never been addressed in Talossan before, and I'm afraid we may be getting over our heads in trying to authoritatively state what the rules are. To really deal adequately with multiple levels of lexical stress, we would also have to establish the rules for prosody in Talossan. Even in well-known languages like Spanish and English the rules for secondary stress (and even whether secondary stress is a meaningful concept at all) are somewhat controversial among linguistics. Moreover, the literature I've seen suggests that even native speakers' perceptions of where secondary stress falls in ordinary speech (as opposed to pronouncing words in isolation) are not terribly reliable.
King John's answers:
These aren't rules for prosody or stress in the language, but rules on how to go from the actual language to the writing system and back. I don't suggest any rules on how Talossan works, just on how to WRITE Talossan.
My point is that the rules can't accurately tell you how to go from the actual language to the writing system and back without taking account of prosody, unless you're only talking about the ability to read dictionary entries or words in a list aloud, in which case the rules are of extremely limited utility for their complexity. If, as you say, you're only suggesting rules on how to write Talossan, the section on secondary stress is unnecessary, because (as I mentioned in the paragraph below from my original comments) secondary stress is not marked. If secondary stress is not reflected in writing, how is it necessary to deal with secondary stress in the "rules . . . on how to WRITE Talossan"?
As far as I know, la Real Academia Española does not address secondary stress in Spanish, and I don't think anyone has criticised the clarity of their rules on how to write Spanish on that basis. As I alluded to in my own comment, actual linguists are not in agreement on what the rules for secondary stress in Spanish are, or whether secondary stress is a useful concept in Spanish. Same debate in Italian. For some quotes showing what a grey area secondary stress is in even the most well-understood Romance languages, see the appendix at the end of this document. Also, here's what the RAE's Diccionario Panhispánico de Dudas has to say about stress. Notice the fact that acento prosódico and palabras tónicas y átonas are discussed together:
buscon.rae.es/dpdI/SrvltGUIBusDPD?lema=acento
My opinion is that it is not necessary to consider secondary stress in this document, and if it's not necessary, we should not overreach based on what little evidence is available to us. What linguist, writing about a relatively unknown Romance language, with access to no proficient speakers and a literary corpus consisting of only a scant handful of poems and songs, would dare to discuss that language's secondary stress rules in anything but the most conjectural and tentative terms? How can we presume, then, to go so much further as to authoritatively declare what the secondary stress rules of Talossan are? At this point, this is an area calling for academic study, not prescription. We're getting into pretty advanced stuff here, and I don't think there's any need to rush into establishing a rule before we really understand what we're doing. Right now, if any of us really understands it, you're the only one.
My original comments:
Third, I believe this Arestadâ should focus as much as possible on orthography (although we've departed from that principle a little bit already). Secondary stress (unlike primary stress) does not affect how words are written, so I think it unnecessary to authoritatively address that issue in this Arestadâ. I do think, however, that this would be a great topic for, say, a short paper in La Revischtâ: El Xhurnál dal CÚG.
(Appendix omitted from Witt version)
