No subject

[Wilson Gray]

Once again, I'm in complete agreement with you, Charlie. And you can
take that any way you like.

Sorry, Charlie, but you opened yourself up to that one and I couldn't
resist the temptation to jone with you.

To quote Tony Joe White, some of y'all ain't been down South too much,
I thought I'd tell y'all a little bit about this, so y'all know what
I'm talkin' about.

Okay, here's the way that the game is played.

First, you present an argument. Then you say that you're not a phonologist.

In my reply, I state that I completely agree. Then, I add, seemingly
apropos of nothing, that you can take my statement in any way that you
like. And I know what you're thinking: "Did he compliment me or did he
insult me?

That is, by telling you that you that my response is open to
interpretation, I raise a disturbance in your mind. is Wilson's point
that he accepts my argument? Or is his point that he totally agrees
with my admission that I lack expertise as a phonologist?

Being a player of the game yourself, you recognize that there's really
no choice. I've just insulted you by agreeing wholeheartedly with your
own acknowledgement that you don't know anything about phonology.
Hence, I've joned with you. And your only comeback is a weak, "Aw,
man, fuck you," because you're hoist on your own petard. *I* didn't
say that you didn't know shit about phonology. *You* did. I've merely
agreed with you. And, if you give any indication that you haven't
immediately recognized that you've been played, a bystander is sure to
shout, "I don't play 'em, but I sho' know 'em when I hear 'em!"

-Wilson

On 7/15/06, Charles Doyle <cdoyle at uga.edu> wrote:
> ---------------------- Information from the mail header -----------------------
> Sender:       American Dialect Society <ADS-L at LISTSERV.UGA.EDU>
> Poster:       Charles Doyle <cdoyle at UGA.EDU>
> -------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Yeah, Wilson, that was just a bad transcription on my part (or a careless listening to my "inner ear").  I generally do not have a [t] at the end of "doesn't" either.  Not even a [d].  Not even before a vowel-initial word.
>
> However, I would put a glottal stop (or something) in the middle of "Dutton"--betweeen two vowels--wereas the middle of "doesn't" would be [d at dn].
>
> Hey, one of the many things I am NOT is a phonologist!
>
> --Charlie
> _________________________________________
>
> ---- Original message ----
> >Date: Fri, 14 Jul 2006 16:43:34 -0400
> >From: Wilson Gray <hwgray at GMAIL.COM>
> >Subject: Re: The Dozens
> >To: ADS-L at LISTSERV.UGA.EDU
> >
> >Charlie, as you know, I ususally am in complete agreement with you.  However, I have a probemn with /d at nt/ as BE. We say "dudn" rhymes with "cudn" and is pretty much non-distinct from the standard U.S. pronunciation of "Dutton." Of course, I agree with your primary point re the etymology of "the dozens."
> >
> >-Wilson
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------
> The American Dialect Society - http://www.americandialect.org
>


--
Find out just what any people will quietly submit to and you have
found out the exact measure of injustice and wrong which will be
imposed upon them.

Frederick Douglass

------------------------------------------------------------
The American Dialect Society - http://www.americandialect.org