An alphabet is a collection of symbols which represent sounds

Alphabetic characters represent phonemic components, which are not always complete phonemes. Phonetic characters represent phonemes.

can you define a phonemic component?

What sound does 'k' make, all on its own? Undefined. You must attach at the very least a schwa to it to make it pronouncable. 'K' is a phonemic component, which can be used to render phonemes into writing.

mmm, i disagree that the sound a K makes needs a vowel. but you still aven't defined "phonemic component" -- you have instead attempted to argue with a point you thought I was trying to make. now, please, define "phonemic component" instead of assuming anything about my motives in asking.

Sorry. A transcriptable glyph which has, by itself, no singular associated pronunciation. Without attaching some other phonemic component, such as a schwa or vowel, it cannot be pronounced.

For example, the component represented by the latin character 'k' as used in the English language. Standing all alone, it has no pronunciation. With a vowel, dipthong, or schwa placed either before or after it, it gains a pronunciation, and the construction becomes a phoneme.

Wyrframe++

Wyrframe++

The same happens with the "h" in Spanish. Even people call it the "mute letter".

Duuude, we're all high.

So far your definition of phonemic component does not seem to rule out the idea that the letter stands for a sound.

it cannot be pronounced == no sound

you can pronounce, maybe, a guitar string? or a car crash? there are sounds that cannot be pronounced; the ideas are not equivalent.

the stacatto nature of the K is in some sense fundamentally the same regardless of whether there is a vowel before it, after it, or not at all. most of the other letters are even easier to sound without assistance; and it's true that their sounds vary by context ('x" being an obvious example, along with the vowels, but even the innocuous-seeming "p" has variations) but they still represent sounds.

the stacatto nature of the K is in some sense fundamentally the same regardless of whether there is a vowel before it, after it, or not at all.

If you want to try and break linguistics as a coherent field of study, go right ahead. Count me out.

i'm not saying it doesn't make sense to analyze it more deeply and talk about phonemic components. i'm saying that trying to use that to "debunk" the idea that a letter represents a sound is not worthwhile and doesn't acknowledge the human ability to abstract out the commonalities of the phonemic component into a notion called a sound.

Let me phrase it this way. Move your lips in such a way that you would were you to pronounce 'ko', but let no air pass through your mouth. Notice that no sound is made?

Different vowels carry different kinds of wind, lips, glottis, and throat. Under English, consonants carry different kinds of lips, glottis, and throat, but they do not carry and associated wind.

That 'k', as it represents only motion and not sound, is a phonemic component which has no pronunciation. 'o' is a phonemic component which does have a pronunciation, and thus an associated full phoneme. By forming transition from 'k's motions through into 'o's motions and wind, you produce the sound which you desire to transcribe by 'ko'.

"they do not carry and associated wind." -- false. "sssss" is completley pronounceable with no vowel, and doe sinvolve sole wind passing the lips.

In fact, 'f', 's', and 'm' are all easy to make with no vowel, though admittedly in the case of "m" the air comes through your nose instead.

I can also make a "k" sound with no vowel.

even if the sound of the "K" can't be made without a vowel, it's still a sound. when a pizoelectric speaker makes the same sound with no tongue, we still call it a K sound, because we aren't talking about the motion.

I've got "associated wind": it's associated to the thai green curry I had at lunch.

That would be a phart-neme.

I wonder how long it is going to take Wyrframe to figure out that Vynce is not going to give in, under any circumstances?

About one hour ago.

1. I never said all consonants fail to have associated wind. Just that 'k' fails to have any.

2. Right about now, I suspect. That's okay, too; this is the internet. Arguments only go on so long as attention spans and hot-pocket supplies permit.

"Under English, consonants carry different kinds of lips, glottis, and throat, but they do not carry and associated wind." -- um. what, in that sentence, indicates that "consonants" does not refer to ll consonants in English?

Pure typo, my bad. "Most" is missing from that sentence. And the "and" before "associated wind" should be "any". I did bang that post out right before bed, and must've been more tired than I thought, to not give it a proper proof-reading before posting.

OK, cool. Typos I can certainly empathize with.

But I still don't see how "wind" is necessary for sound, or what makes you think "k" hasn't got any.

How about some consonants that do have associated wind. Plosives, like B and P. Fricatives, like F and V. These have a particular wind that does not change, no matter what vowels or other sources of wind you attach to them.

Actually, now that I review Wikipedia, I see 'k' (the IPA symbol, not the English consonant) is considered a plosive. Where I live, the local tongue must be pronouncing it wrong. So, I'll use a different example, to remain unambiguous.

IPA 'j', most often indicated in English by the letter 'y' before a vowel, has no pronunciation without the benefit of an attached vowel; it is only a motion of lips and tongue, with no voicing inherent.

IPA == International Phonetic Alphabet

... for those unfamiliar (like me)

India Pale Ale.

and then suggest another

OK, but a y also represents the sound it makes at the end of w ord like "by" or "lady" -- those are different sounds, which is why i say that, for an alphabetic language, ebglish is very unphonetic. but that doesn't change that this is what an alphabet is.

even in "you" the "y" makes a mouth shape which represents a sound. it sounds different if you don't have it.

You have missed the most important part of the definition of phonemic component; "glyph which has, by itself, no singular associated pronunciation". By "single" I mean exactly one. Not zero, not umpty-dozen. "By" and "Lady" have entirely different pronunciations for the same character, and so context (read; attached phonemic components) is required to determine which.

Only when a glyph has exactly one associated pronunciation is it both a phonemic component and a representation of a phoneme. And phonemes are a subset of all sounds.

I would agree with the claim if "represent" was replaced with "are used to describe".

DeWe: About one hour ago.

nope

OK... but where did that definition come into play? The claim doesn't say "phonemic component" it says "symbols which represent sounds" and does not specify a particular count. the description quotes a different definition that says "roughly represents a phoneme" -- which so far you havn't argued against.

As for your "I'd agree if..." -- what is the difference, to you, between "represent" and "used to describe"? Not that I'm saying they're the same thing, I just want you to define your terms so that I understand your point before trying to determine (much less describe) whether and how I disagree with it.

"Represent" is a tight and active association. If "a" represented one vowel-sound and "ä" another and "á" another, represent might be a closer match, but it would still be inexact. Overall, "symbols representing sounds" is the semantic inferred from the sentence, implying a one-to-one relationship.

"Used to describe" is an indirect and passive association. The semantic inferred is the exact phrasing, giving no implication that any one symbol could be used to represent a given sound, or vice-versa.

i don't see an implication of one-to-one in the claim, but OK. I also don't think the symbols "describe" sounds, becaus ehte symbols have no meaning aside from the sounds.

but so it seems like your objections mostly stem either from the perceived implication of one-to-oneness, or the idea that a "sound" must be a phoneme, neither of which I agree with, but either of which seem like reasonable potential interpretations of the claim. so having said that neither was intended, I am content to leave it at your discretion. we all have to decide what the claim means to us before voting.

Dewe never suggested another:

kjg?

Kinetic Juniper Goggles

rty?

This is epic. I'm still waaay high.

real time yellowness

pot?

procrastinate over tomorrow.

sat?

sit and twirl.

nat?

Not Air Transportable , News At Ten, or Nice And Tight

end?

enter new discussion.

ter?

time equals rice.

suv?

stupid ugly vehicle.

nnn?

now now now.

pdq?

pulsating dairy quasar

vus?

viciously uttered snipe.

tre?

tumultuously ruined elephant

gyq?

gregarious young quisling.

jfk?

junior friend killing

sar?

sassy arse (w)rangler?

oops...

tnt?

This Nonsense Tires.

vtf?

Seriously, if you guys want to play an irritating and unfunny game with no well-defined end, please do it in a claim I didn't author. I like you, DeWe, I really do, but shit like this tries my patience.

sincerely,
Vynce (The Fucker)

Yeah, that's probably why that whole exchange is already ignore collapsed for me.

Bless you, Vynce: 66% correct.