Newsgroups: sci.lang
Path: cantaloupe.srv.cs.cmu.edu!das-news2.harvard.edu!news2.near.net!howland.reston.ans.net!agate!library.ucla.edu!csulb.edu!csus.edu!netcom.com!karenk
From: karenk@netcom.com (Karen Kay)
Subject: Re: How did Korean lose the tones?
Message-ID: <karenkD2suo5.7H6@netcom.com>
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.2 PL1]
References: <1995Jan6.215248.9102@galileo.physics.arizona.edu> <aldersonD294Ls.48y@netcom.com> <ludemannD29LH8.A62@netcom.com> <karenkD2KpGG.1E5@netcom.com> <3fjj1c$7nr@agate.berkeley.edu>
Date: Sun, 22 Jan 1995 09:07:17 GMT
Lines: 21

Patrick Chew (patchew@uclink2.berkeley.edu) wrote:
: > Karen Kay <karenk@netcom.com> wrote:

: >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.

: An example of two Chinese dialects differing in tonal realization 
: as compared to large phonological differences can be found in two Yue 
: (Cantonese) dialects: Std. Cantonese vs. the "Cantonese" spoken in the 
: Xiangshan (Heungsaan) area.  The most distinguishing feature between the 
: two are the tones.  I would add though that by and large, tonal 
: discrepancies are far less common than phonological differences.

Right. 

But even the two dialects you mentioned don't differ ONLY by tone.

Karen
  karenk@netcom.com
