BREV TIL: Charles Ernest Bazell FRA: unsure (1953-09-11)

↩

n-v- y3

i) c ar nr.

i haa for- oet ■ or-not thought of the necessity ox ”1 or. - I ao nbt tune your various invectives I éhjoy them. - ^ui i ao not; snow jour letters uo HjejU wii o , o j ene way, cnmitfe c nat; you might well nave sene him. ana other things- about ^xossemauics. he supposes tnat jiou have 0iven him up because |i.e ne vor an-.wer s xi£ let ter sV . I a0xee almost poaplately wrtn everythirn your lectexs from inis summer. I aiso find the commutation between cases very dubi. , i nav e saiu a few war as about it in one of trio uisappeax oa • nuLleti will appear .ka&isx in the course-of the ; - t year, out the,) are almost hopelessly out of date noijr.although me of the contributions have u.een enacted. - Of course 1 uiu not mean "ascertain" , but, as youxwxxsaic, say, r mobiit wne trier tne inter or station was ir oiiuab ie. —

rnan

you for ) mi various letters from May - August.

given your "waspish fetter” ionc a&o, or

seriQusi

■j >

lev , wnat you wrote on. "giossematic definitions

v.!lien, oy t ne way

O vo

i dia not lixe mar tine t * s review eitnoi. ne ro wnat in juanish wouia be caxiea "flabet " t you too, by the wayp.

lernaim my re- view of donen was coo Kind, but i have so or ten been accused of beixi tuo severe wn«n writing reviews, tnat now i try to oe gentle. Moreov tne frost worn ci a young, man, and in any case ne uas a broad®; out ro ok tnanbco;umon m Holland. And tnen i enjoyed nis clear demon«* strati-a of tne absurdity to waicn one is mad oy a consistent use ox tne experimental commutation ana atxxs.aga.Ed so-c&iiea disregard or sUb.-cance. it aid not me as it tna c tm„ .. of ,cou..se, but it was so clear, i haa a r a oner ronu corresponuence vitn him. ne wao xaxn somewhat worried at my transcription, that purpose, he said, a trot, script ion , Sti.se to the Giiij

X t

-J- o

analysis was not meant for nut oi cou.se every anai;si« may be used for ana r cnought tnat in tnat -..-ay i m u&ht wiv e o -me iaea of writing in ph netic transcription.

• X o

— lour description or morris nolle is very easy-goin^ chap, out not too deep. - cum t par t ly wox ;.iup too nard ,

ood. ne rs a inna ax: x aia not nave much op,.or- or discussing with him at Mir, because i was partly ill ana and he was busy wit tin is own studies. -

* e t, j

xnann you for your offprint about the ‘'Correspondence ixixxy Par lac „• ". - 1 enjoyed very muon your uescripor n of Hype^-wia., tinet and Uypo- Jaxobson. nut I chink, you were too hard in characterizing riauaen, ne is a nice man, ana net arrogant. - Per naps you are rime in maintaining ,nat it is necessary to combine various criteria. But r thm/, that this can only oe the final stage or the n vsis, not tne start, in the begin ling of an analysis i would oe enciined to choose what you ca_i the ’’complementary fal- lacy 1 i.e. neep tne various types ox criteria apart — e.w. physio- logical a an physical description etc. - a no ...hen afterwards / may profitably be combined. - x,> >y are combined, the description wiil always oe nearer to .or rtumcive linguistic foe ling ecause our perception is conditioned uy ail criteria at a time. - in chapter li you talk about giorpnoioxicai criteria in pnone- ais., analysis and say that the Prague school does not pretend to dispel

oe now

uo dispense with semantics a .a cue fare school does no more, chan pretend- why then dispense with specific morphologic criteria?

lour argument is quite cne same as tnat used by fixe in word 1 against ni.cc.hj, duc i do not see the io0ic of this argument. the contrary ic seems to me tnat it snould leadcS°h3eh8i'eS^iiIion result. - mm In ail phonemic schools two xMxxxxxxxlJ&xxxxJHEESSxaKx are considered as aiiferent if they are combined with a different aaataat semantic content ^commutation,), in the Prague school -and m aiossedatics explicitly, in tne isle school implicitly, -<ow ,if kjoxs lexical meaning and morphological meaning are to be treated in the w'iy, this means that a phonetic differences conveying a morpho- logical difference should oe considered as phonemically relevant just as a phonetic difference conveying a lexical difference.xjfgKxthe argumentthe conclusion drawn by you and by Pike is exactly tne opposite. PixenB^g. m Tone Languages counts different tonemes wnen tney involve lexical difference , out ii tne difference of content is morphological he speaks of "perturcations ” of tne same toneme under morphological conditions, tnat is- morphological condi tions are put on a line with phonetic conditions, they are treated not as concent but as expression. *»na tnis is what xxxax almost always is meant by using morphologic criteria. Lexical criteria are used for thu distinction of phonemes, morpho 1 gieal arista criteria are it used for identifying sounds as being membersof the same phoneme but veryin0 under different? morphological ’conditions'’, if this-point of view was usea consisoingly, ail jsnxx pnonemic differences could oe regarded as "morphologies lly or lexically cndiuioned variants.

same

x agree to a large extent with what you say about the substance

of content.

Than*.

, I0iPTC1“6uiacifl- “‘■■ioiW ioout oCiUC- tuxai semanticq" . 5 ** ffiuo n more innerp<’t * / utl eCre 8z±t± vex, ai iT c ij i r ^ls WJ3°i0 question of tiu-T r°1CJ*c cnan "Ltiuc- article ana t ’ Dut 1 tdink there vere ^ lUE&i semantics is ^ up terminoi^icKS (**e™** appeax xa a couple^,l*** "6ie « X,

your

lours

sincerely

rarstoi- *pl be ■ - ’ cJs “ •«' bS «P«ots of ograpned textbook of ea«r ^ fche wa^ 1 thil r Q?Jff8 aijQ too because rt mi hr" , <*L nt'rai phonetics printed - ? ° having mP mime- a* to ao icj^ana u xn *».Uc«, shxhPåif? 1 'laya in «o»U«n, m that case xhx ic pj111 De cheaPer fox the stadlts1«^1 1183 aSxx®cl “£ ir‘ «•“»* aoout ine"poSl-Dox3lx?/oPC • * -*~^ZSS£ l S%T' neb ana >i%iiZ0L^£°c**rc“o*aui^*

but -L

lor