hooey

[Wilson Gray]

I thought that the symbol [x] was sufficient. If the symbol is
meaningless, what clarification will "voiceless velar fricative"
provide?

-Wilson

On Jan 30, 2005, at 2:40 PM, Jonathan Lighter wrote:

> ---------------------- Information from the mail header
> -----------------------
> Sender:       American Dialect Society <ADS-L at LISTSERV.UGA.EDU>
> Poster:       Jonathan Lighter <wuxxmupp2000 at YAHOO.COM>
> Subject:      Re: hooey
> -----------------------------------------------------------------------
> --------
>
> I couldn't remember whether "velar" was correct,  so I just didn't say
> nuthin'.
>
> JL
>
> Wilson Gray <wilson.gray at RCN.COM> wrote:
> ---------------------- Information from the mail header
> -----------------------
> Sender: American Dialect Society
> Poster: Wilson Gray
> Subject: Re: hooey
> -----------------------------------------------------------------------
> --------
>
> On Jan 29, 2005, at 8:54 PM, James A. Landau wrote:
>
>> ---------------------- Information from the mail header
>> -----------------------
>> Sender: American Dialect Society
>> Poster: "James A. Landau"
>> Subject: Re: hooey
>> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>> -
>> --------
>>
>> In a message dated Fri, 28 Jan 2005 00:53:45 -0500, Wilson Gray
>> wrote:
>>
>>> I think I mentioned in an earlier post that what the Russians were
>>> using for communication was then called "using radio-relayed
>>> telephony"
>>> and is now known as "using a cell phone." So, it's not always assault
>>> rifles and such that trickle down from the military for civilian use.
>>
>> No, no, no. What you are describing is called a "radiotelephone" or
>> simply a
>> "mobile phone". A "cell phone" (originally a "cellular phone") is a
>> particular type of radiotelephone that did not exist until sometime
>> around 1980, due
>> to its need for computer power. From MWCD10 "a radiotelephone system
>> in which
>> a geographical area (as a city) is divided into small sections [called
>> "cells", hence "cellular" - JAL] each served by a transmitter of
>> limited range so
>> that any available radio channed can be used in different parts of the
>> area
>> simultaneously." MW does not mention that as you move from one cell
>> to another,
>> your connection is switched automatically to the frequency of the cell
>> you are
>> entering (hence the need for computer power).
>>
>> The military does not use cell phones in combat, simply because they
>> expect
>> to be operating in areas in which cell phone service is either
>> non-existent or
>> is out of service due to battle damage.
>>
>> A piece of military history: one of the advantages that the Soviets
>> had over
>> the Germans starting about 1943 was that they had a large supply of
>> Lend-Lease radio sets that they could use to eavesdrop on German
>> radiotelephones.
>>
>> When discussing the sound represented by the Cyrillic letter "X", why
>> don't
>> you simply call it a "guttural"?
>>
>> - James A. Landau
>
> Jeez, I understand all of that, Jimbo. Clearly, a military telephonic
> radio from fifty years ago the size of an overnight bag and weighing
> fifty pounds or more is not the same as one of today's cellular
> telephones, any more than a Model-T Ford is the same as a Ferrari. But
> the development of one did lead to the development of the other. And
> yes, I know that the argument, post hoc, ergo propter hoc, is logically
> meaningless, just as is the concept of the "doorway drug." So what if
> 70% or whatever percentage of heroin addicts started out smoking pot,
> given that 100% per cent of them started out by being born? Clearly,
> birth is a better indicator of future narcotic use than grass-use can
> ever be.
>
> As for the Russian [x], I don't simply call it a "guttural" because
> it's a velar.
>
> -Wilson Gray
>
> __________________________________________________
> Do You Yahoo!?
> Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
> http://mail.yahoo.com
>