Newsgroups: sci.lang
Path: cantaloupe.srv.cs.cmu.edu!rochester!udel!news.sprintlink.net!howland.reston.ans.net!nntp.crl.com!pacbell.com!gw2.att.com!nntpa!mac-118.lz.att.com!user
From: rte@elmo.lz.att.com (Ralph T. Edwards)
Subject: Re: Power spectrum of phonemes?
Message-ID: <rte-2209951437010001@mac-118.lz.att.com>
Sender: news@nntpa.cb.att.com (Netnews Administration)
Nntp-Posting-Host: mac-118.lz.att.com
Organization: AT&T Bell Labs
References: <AC7F815C966813DB1@yarn.demon.co.uk> <43kbsv$set@male.EBay.Sun.COM> <aldersonDF7sEy.3Ly@netcom.com>
Date: Fri, 22 Sep 1995 19:37:01 GMT
Lines: 23

In article <aldersonDF7sEy.3Ly@netcom.com>, alderson@netcom.com wrote:

> *phonemes* are either (1) a mental construct or (2) an artefact of analytical
> grouping, depending on one's theoretical background and bias(es).
> 

Wait, are you saying that some people question that phonemes are real? 
Some people dispute that reduction to a finite number of meaningfully different
atomic subunits of speech is part of the way humans generate and decode speech?

Who makes such a bizarre claim? 

Incidentally use of phonemes is directly comparable to digital waveforms in
information transmission between machines.  An infinite number of analog
waveform shapes are mapped to a sequence of symbols, each of which is one
of a finite number of siginificantly different symbols.

Use of phonemes means human speech is intrinsically digital.  (Which is not
to say that all the information can be represented digitally, but most of it.
Tone profile is probably not digital, but syllable stress in words is.)

-- 
R.T.Edwards rte@elmo.att.com 908 576-3031
