Newsgroups: sci.lang
Path: cantaloupe.srv.cs.cmu.edu!das-news2.harvard.edu!news2.near.net!news.mathworks.com!udel!gatech!howland.reston.ans.net!ix.netcom.com!netcom.com!karenk
From: karenk@netcom.com (Karen Kay)
Subject: Re: How did Korean lose the tones?
Message-ID: <karenkD2KpGG.1E5@netcom.com>
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.2 PL1]
References: <1995Jan6.215248.9102@galileo.physics.arizona.edu> <1995Jan11.015052.7766@midway.uchicago.edu> <3evn6k$fv8@panix3.panix.com> <aldersonD294Ls.48y@netcom.com> <ludemannD29LH8.A62@netcom.com>
Date: Tue, 17 Jan 1995 23:33:52 GMT
Lines: 16

Peter Ludemann (ludemann@netcom.com) wrote:
: Given this, Japanese is not a tonal language.  The fact that the two
: major dialects have opposite tonal patterns but are mutually
: understandable is further evidence.

Eastern and Western Japanese dialect pitch accent patterns are not
*opposite*, as you indicated. They are opposite in the case of 'hashi',
but not in general. They are *dfifferent*, however.

And they are not always mutually understandable. Btw, I don't know of any
two Chinese dialects that differ only by tone and not by phonology or
syntax. With these other variables, I don't see how you can use 'mutual
intelligibility' as a standard.

Karen
  karenk@netcom.com
