Ix-nay on the ostratic-nay

[Patrick C. Ryan]

Dear Glen and IEists:

-----Original Message-----
From: Glen Gordon <glengordon01 at hotmail.com>
Date: Sunday, March 14, 1999 7:16 PM

>DLW:
> See coming response to Glenny. Both /m/ and /n/ tend to occur in
> words for female care-givers, with /n/ typically referring to more
> secondary ones, as in "nanny".

>So what. You haven't demonstrated a link between relationship-words and
>pronouns nor proof that your "mama" theory is attributable to pronouns.

>DLW:
> 1st pronouns do show a statistically significant tendency to use
> nasals, [...] If a mother is going to imagine that her baby, who is
> in fact only babbling, is talking to her, then "mama" and "me" are
> the words she will want to hear the baby say.

>Which can be caused by anything, including mass linguistic
>relationships. That languages can be related is ubiquitously
>demonstrated throughout linguistics. The "mama syndrome" in relation to
>pronouns is not in the least. I am terminating the discussion.

>Again, you're being Eurocentric. Imagine an Abkhaz mother whose word for
>"me" is <sara>, if the baby is practicing the /m/ sound, she will never
>hear "me" at all in her baby's babbling nor will the baby grow up saying
><mara> instead, unless the baby is wrought with dysphasia.

Glen, you are really in trouble now because both Mark Hubey and I agree with
you (`:--|)

http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Forum/2803/comment-Baby-Talk.htm

<snip>

Pat