"long" and "short" vowels

[David Bowie]

From:    Tom Zurinskas <truespel at HOTMAIL.COM>

> I would think that the word, "speech," encompasses all languages.
> And I would think the word "speech" is exclusive of non language
> sounds, such that it doesn't need the word "human" in front of it.

It also comes, I think, from the fact that there are a number of people
who were trying to teach non-human animals to speak (with "speak" here
including signing).[1] It's unclear whether these animals ever actually
learned to speak, but if they did it's important to draw a distinction
between the human language they learned (or at least were attempted to
be taught[2] by the researchers) and the non-human language they may
have had coming into the experience, since any such non-human languages
could presumably have different rules and restrictions.

Also, there are a number of computer languages that certainly have
syntax (and arguably, in some cases, a sort of phonology-like system),
but they're quite different than any human language.

I think that in general the human vs. non-human distinction is more
important for morphology and syntax than phonetics and phonology, but
it's a not-worthless bit of carefulness.

[1] Are any of these projects still going on, or has all the funding
finally dried up for them?

[2] I can't think up an elegant passive construction for this. Weird.

--
David Bowie                               University of Central Florida
     Jeanne's Two Laws of Chocolate: If there is no chocolate in the
     house, there is too little; some must be purchased. If there is
     chocolate in the house, there is too much; it must be consumed.

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