7.780, Disc: Lg & dreams, Unabomber, -y

Wed May 29 14:49:27 UTC 1996

---------------------------------------------------------------------------
LINGUIST List:  Vol-7-780. Wed May 29 1996. ISSN: 1068-4875. Lines:  146

Subject: 7.780, Disc: Lg & dreams, Unabomber, -y

Moderators: Anthony Rodrigues Aristar: Texas A&M U. <aristar at tam2000.tamu.edu>
            Helen Dry: Eastern Michigan U. <hdry at emunix.emich.edu> (On Leave)
            T. Daniel Seely: Eastern Michigan U. <dseely at emunix.emich.edu>

Associate Editor:  Ljuba Veselinova <lveselin at emunix.emich.edu>
Assistant Editors: Ron Reck <rreck at emunix.emich.edu>
                   Ann Dizdar <dizdar at tam2000.tamu.edu>
                   Annemarie Valdez <avaldez at emunix.emich.edu>

Software development: John H. Remmers <remmers at emunix.emich.edu>

Editor for this issue: dseely at emunix.emich.edu (T. Daniel Seely)

---------------------------------Directory-----------------------------------
1)
Date:  Mon, 27 May 1996 11:27:41 PDT
From:  dalford at s1.csuhayward.edu (Dan Moonhawk Alford)
Subject:  Lg & Dreams

2)
Date:  Tue, 28 May 1996 12:01:26 PDT
From:  vcspc005 at dewey.csun.edu (alan harris)
Subject:  UNABOMBER

3)
Date:  Tue, 28 May 1996 21:24:06 EDT
From:  rowe at email.unc.edu (Charles Rowe)
Subject:  re: disc. -y: further comments

---------------------------------Messages------------------------------------
1)
Date:  Mon, 27 May 1996 11:27:41 PDT
From:  dalford at s1.csuhayward.edu (Dan Moonhawk Alford)
Subject:  Lg & Dreams

The discussion on language and dreams has taken an interesting
direction for this list, since we are now actively discussing issues of
human consciousness. As far as I can tell, these discussions lie
outside all theoretical linguistics since the ideal speaker-hearer is
always in one particular state of consciousness: the one that
supports the Puritan work ethic -- getting things done, revealing
rather than concealing information, etc.

It's fairly amazing that this entire discussion about language and
dreaming has gone on without the slightest nod to the fact that
dreaming is an entirely different state of consciousness than waking
reality -- and linguistics is currently only large enough to contain one
state of consciousness!

Am I understanding correctly? That some people want to force
language in dreams to conform to the same properties and
distinctions as language in waking state? The anecdote about
dreaming in faux-Bulgarian alone might show us that different
principles of consciousness are at work -- was that 'human language'
in the normal sense? How was it understood so clearly, then, in the
dream state, if it was not 'real'? Perhaps 'language' works differently
in different states of consciousness.

I'd like to repeat (for some) a story I collected from Sakej Henderson,
now Director of the Native Law Centre of Canada, which pertains
directly to this topic, and which I have called the Cheyenne Tower of
Babel Teaching: "Long ago, people and spirits and animals and
plants all communicated in the same way. Then something
happened. After that, we had to talk to each other in human speech.
But we retained The Old Language for dreams, and for
communicating with spirits and animals and plants."

So is 'human language' all there is to 'language', or is there a
shadow complementary 'language' that links human beings into the
rest of life? Quantum physics demands something like 'the Old
Language' in order for the entire universe to work (see the Einstein-
Podolsky-Rosen experiment & Bell's Theory). As the 1992-96 Fetzer
Dialogues between Indigenous and Western scientists have
confirmed, what some call 'prayer' or 'rapport' and others call
'telepathy' is the basis of quantum communication, which is of a
different state of consciousness than waking reality tends to be.
Linguistics must develop a multiple-states-of-consciousness theory
of language if understanding what 'language' is in its entirety is still
a priority. Or we can continue wandering around aimlessly,
disconnected from life on this planet, moving nodes and feeling
isolated.

							*moonhawk*
------------------------------------------------------------------------
2)
Date:  Tue, 28 May 1996 12:01:26 PDT
From:  vcspc005 at dewey.csun.edu (alan harris)
Subject:  UNABOMBER

David Kathman's response (of the some forty that I received) was the most
thorough with one addendum. The original FBI file was UN (university) A
(airlines) BOM (bomber or bomb). It probably should have come out
UNABOM-ER, but prescriptivist sentiments won out and it became in popular
parlance and in the press: UNABOMBER
.  At any rate, thanks to all for the enlightening discourse.  I forwarded
the notes to the Semios Net as well for *their* edification. cheers, ach
       ===============================================================
       Alan C. Harris, Ph. D.          TELNOS: main off:  818-885-2853
       Professor, Communication/Linguistics  direct off:  818-885-2874
       Speech Communication Department
       California State University, Northridge     home:  818-366-3165
       SPCH CSUN                                    FAX:  818-885-2663
       Northridge, CA 91330-8257 Internet email: AHARRIS at HUEY.CSUN.EDU
                 WWW homepage: http://www.csun.edu/~vcspc005

------------------------------------------------------------------------
3)
Date:  Tue, 28 May 1996 21:24:06 EDT
From:  rowe at email.unc.edu (Charles Rowe)
Subject:  re: disc. -y: further comments

re: Benji Wald's remarks:

To clear up some possible confusion: my observation on Honky Tonk and its
origin related to the Honky Tonk rock *genre*, and not to the derivation
of the term itself. The observation I am making is that the (AAVE) Blues
*diction* is transferred to the diction used in the singing of Honky Tonk
(a genre in its own right), and that both owe their diction to the
(Early) African American lect. (I do not claim this as my own
observation, by the way; I have invoked it in this discussion as a
possible explanation of the Mick Jagger rendition of this -y.) Since
Jagger's speech does not reflect either the laxness nor the lengthening
to the degree to which he engages it in his (musical) diction, I am left
to believe that his [I]/[E] is a matter of his adherence to a particular
musical style (ie, Honky Tonk).  It is furthermore not surprising that
Jagger's rendition of this allophone is "extra-long", since musical
diction tends to be particularly marked with superposed and highly
salient features (eg, as in opera diction).

To Giangola's question about the status of WSP in an analysis such as
this:

His caveat is well-taken; the jury is still out, as far as I know, on
whether this feature can be considered a true "diagnostic" for
creolization, or simply a very strong indicator.

Charlie Rowe
rowe at email.unc.edu
------------------------------------------------------------------------
LINGUIST List: Vol-7-780.