The digraph 'ch' and silent 't' in phonology

It is after all the best time for many to slow down a bit for rest and relaxation and merrymaking activities than hard reading and writing to be the ways to continue.

This clip is from Huron Carole, a traditional Canadian character mapping for Christmas songs and something I used to watch with my favorites, having also what is said to be the mutatis mutantis:

(Initially posted video clip is likely no longer available)

It is then needless to mention there is no logical ground for antagonism between <christ> and <christianity> on the epistemological account by which we are of religious assertions with theist. 

Apparently, it is then of only the cross logical blunders with the takes that the vowel in <Christ> should consist the diphthong but monophthongs in <Christmas> and the voiceless stop /t/ should be present in <Christ> but silent in <Christmas> in relation to its voiceless fricative /s/.       

 

Furthermore, so far there appears to be no indication on the part of the variation in question as to whether it should or should not be renounced the allegiance of silent ‘t’ to its constituent, in light of the forgoing facts and considerations within phonology, this appears to be also that the orthodox view can never compel itself from being abandoning a generative hypothesis. Yet what is only sufficient to point out in here is that there is slight danger of being misled by such hallowed hypotheses as if they were genuine like <ch> hypotheses as in a language like German.               

 

Thus, in English only the digraph <ch> is rule governed rather than constrained for rhoticity or allophony in this context as to its relation for the /k/ partner selection among those 4 choices of, namely, 

with the /ʃ / as in <champagne>,

with the /tʃ/ as in <church>,

with the /dʒ/ as in <Greenwich>, and

with the /k/ as in <Christmas>.

Having at the same time no parallel with anything with German phonology, those of certain of this procedural and substantive issues relating to what /k/ phoneme has to do with <ch> digraph for complementary distribution is a simple but another issue than as traditionally having been mistaken for German <ch> analogy as in here: 

with the /ç/ after ä, ai, äu, e, ei, eu, i, ö, ü and consonants,

with the /x/ after a, au, o, u,

with the /k/ at the beginning of a word before a, o, u and consonants, and with the <ch> that never occurs at the beginning of an original German word.

In English however, and in analytic phonology in particular, it is when sonorants exempts nasals but remains consonantal for a nominal complement, the byproducts are equal to liquids.

A further simple explanation on the principles in which /k/ phoneme encounters in complementary distribution is that-- 

wen ðə daɪɡrɑːf <ch> ɪn ə wɜːd ɪz fɒloʊd baɪ ə kɒnsənənt <r> ɒ <l>, ðə vɔɪsləs viːlər stɒp /k/ ɪz ɔːlweɪz ənd ɔːlmoʊst ðə foʊniːm fɒr <ch>.

So it is how, contrary to our commonsense, the /k/ plays the role in <ch> character as in <chloroform> for  /klɔːrəfɔːm/ and <chronicle> for /krɒnɪkəl/, and that any exemption is so to speak being very rare other than perhaps for voiceless velar fricative /x/ or voiced velar fricative /ɣ/ in some instances.

Thus when such liquids are served as a complement for <ch>, the only partner available to a selection, according to literature specific to English, is interestingly the /k/, with or without regard to law of entropy as to if it is still for clear trill or clear lateral liquid.

--------------------------------------------------------

Something else not related to this post:

A sample Notice of Motion

For the better, legal documents must be written by a legal professional(s) who have state licenses to produce a document for a client. Some disciplines, including linguistics discipline, correct syntax, legal disciplines, citations, and correct format, are being preserved at all time as the symbol of the discipline. So highly disciplined documents, both "honesty or defensive", are the hierarchy of the men and women in this discipline who could serve a person in legal need.  This is a personal document i needed to file in the Court of Queen's Bench last week but there is anything for me to hold as something to be personal.    

THE QUEEN’S BENCH

Winnipeg Centre

 

 

BETWEEN:

Fenton Group Investment Ltd. and Nevill Fernando                                

 Plaintiffs,

                                                                                                              

-and-

 

Riverbend Realty Ltd. and The City of Winnipeg                                   

Defendants.

                                                                                                                                          

 

 

 

NOTICE OF MOTION

 

 

 

 

 

Nevill Fernando 

1001-400 Stradbrook Avenue

Winnipeg MB R3L 2P8

Phone and Fax: 204 202 1188

(Name, address, and telephone number of party filing)

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

THE QUEEN’S BENCH

Winnipeg Centre

 

BETWEEN:

 

Fenton Group Investment Ltd. and Nevill Fernando

Plaintiffs,   

-and-

 

Riverbend Realty Ltd. and City of Winnipeg

Defendants.   

 

NOTICE OF MOTION

                                     

 

1.                THE MOTION IS FOR:

I.        An order to set aside the Defendant The City of Winnipeg Notice of Motion to Strike Statement of Claim.

II.      An order to provide Statement of Defence against Plaintiffs Statement of Claim.

III.  An order to engage in closing the pleading and enter into mediation and resolution process in good faith.

IV.      Such or any further relief as counsels may advise and this honorable court may permit.

 

 

2.                THE GROUNDS FOR MOTION ARE:

I.     The Plaintiffs states that all the requests to this court by the Defendant in paragraph 1 of the Notice of Motion to Strike Statement of Claim is exiguity, irrelevant or inappropriate, since that concealing only lack of factual coherences and contextual validities with which Defendant having that motivation for filing the Statement of Defense against factual evidences supporting the Statement of Claim of the Plaintiffs as not meaningful in this case seems to be well vested at hand with the Defendant and therefore that Defendant’s inability for conveying an argument to this court in novel propositions against the facts pleaded relevant to be accepted by the cause of an action by way of a Statement of Defense in this is appeared to be the issue with the Defendant for filing the Notice of Motion to Strike Statement of claim for this case. 

II.      In reply to Defendant’s motion for grounds in this by paragraph 2.a., 2.e., 2.f., and 2.g. of the Notice of Motion to Strike Statement of Claim:

                                     a.   Plaintiffs states that Defendant does not have any good ground with reason by which this Motion to Strike Statement of Claim is to be brought forth meaningful, as stated above in paragraph 2.I. of this Plaintiffs’ Notice of Motion.

                                  b.   Plaintiffs states that it is only the ‘gospel of commonsense alternative’ that Defendant tries to seek:

“The other permitted attacks on pleadings have a fine 18th century        sound to them – you can claim your opponent’s pleading as:

                                                     i.    “scandalous”;

                                                    ii.    “frivolous”;

                                                   iii.    “embarrassing”; 

                                                   iv.    “vexatious”;

                                                    v.    and “abuse of process”.”

III.   In reply to Defendant’s motion for ground by paragraph 2.b. and 2.d. of the Notice of Motion to Strike the Statement of Claim, Plaintiffs states:

                        a.   The pleadings discloses a cause of an action in common ground for both Defendant parties to be in action to compensate the losses of the Plaintiffs either by paying off the proposed $1,085,000.00 plus exemplary damages to the Plaintiffs as outlined or by paying off the respective sum alternatively by suing one Defendant party the other Defendant party for their respective shares in this claim to be fair;

                                     b.   This case represents an identifiable class in common ground with which the proposed sub category is only temporary for this court to direct whatever or wherever the court may seem appropriate to;    

                                      c.   The Plaintiffs seeking certification for this action has its common ground as the preferable procedure for resolving the claim;

                                 d.  There exist representatives in both parties who can represent the class interests either by seeking advice of the court for direction or by bringing forward a better proposal to the judge;

                                    e.   And as such, the Defendant is only challenging the novel propositions of law.

IV.     In reply to the Defendant statement in paragraph 2.e.i., 2.e.ii., 2.e.iii., and 2.h. of the Defendant’s Notice of Motion to Strike Statement of Claim, Plaintiffs states that the paragraph 1 of the Plaintiffs Statement of Claim is correct and reinstate the paragraph 2.I. of this Plaintiffs’ Notice of Motion.

 

3.       THE FOLLOWING DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE that will be used at the hearing of this motion:

I.        Statement of Claim filed on September 9, 2020

II.      Defendant The City of Winnipeg Notice of Motion to Strike Statement of Claim

III.     Such further and other evidence as counsel advise and this honorable court may permit 

 

 

October 30, 2020

Nevill Fernando and Fenton Group Investment Ltd.

1001-400 Stradbrook Avenue

Winnipeg, MB  R3L 2P8

Phone and Fax: 204 202 1188

 

(Name, address, and telephone number of party filing)

 

 

 

 

To:    

Director of Legal Services

The City of Winnipeg

3^rd Floor, King Street

Winnipeg, MB  R3B 1J1   

 

         Monica Muller and Duglas Brown

         Counsels for the Defendant The City of Winnipeg

               

 

 

And to:  

MLT AIKINS LLP

Barristers and Solicitors

30^th Floor, 360 Main Street

Winnipeg  MB R3C 4G1

       

         Greg M. Fleetwood and Andrew W. Baumford

         Counsel for the Defendant Royal LePage Riverbend Realty Ltd.

Quintus Fernando (August 18, 1961--October 15, 2020)

Great Tamil is gone and he is also my brother.

It is my privilege on this 30th day of remembrance of his passing that I share this short message with those know him around the world for his simplicity and commendare entrust that not everyone shares in the absence of obloquy as he was, and it is my privilege that i indulge myself of wit with those know him close remembering him for his friendship to be such one of a kind no easy to be replaced with others.

What a great Tamil, questioning myself, to remember him in a particular way, it is indeed his way of speaking Tamil, not related to the north or west of Sri Lanka but in particular way him mastered to be speaking the spoken formal Tamil without any area dialect influences, and of course in his resonant voice, with the natural ability to recognize non linguistics characters instantly on the goes while speaking, and particularly on the consonant harmony in Tamil for alveolar and palatal fricatives.

What a great Tamil, questioning myself, to remember him in a particular way, indeed it is for him leaving about 1 million dollars to his brothers and sisters something not natural to Tamil Canadians, and for spending almost all, also being as a Tamil, about 1 million dollars for travelling which was given to him by the late Manitoba judge Joseph O’Sullivan.  Yes, he was well aware that for about 300,000 Tamils living in Canada, a saving of even $10,000 is to be neither an easy realty nor is natural for Canadian Tamils. Yet his simplicity and his simple lifestyle was only that natural pride in him.   

In the 70s, he was a comedian he told me, for having the habit of a particular way of bringing others into comedy by taking himself also high risk. He told me a few examples and he remembered his awkwardness as being partially attributed to the social gauche of that time,  also in Canada in the 90s in Aboriginal communities by making them happier than ever with some gifts that they valued for more than anything else but this being as his mistake and yet having enjoyed for being with them, he said. The 70s was his best time yet, he said, for being not watched by father or mother or by anyone and for having able to cut school and be hiding somewhere, and whenever he got into school, having also senior school fellows with anger and getting the nickname rubber head therefore, he said. I remember him to be separated from the rest for one year as my parents got into struggles and therefore my mother took the rest of us and left him with relatives to finish the national GCE exam and him bringing then all the 10 subjects F when he returned home after the exam. 

In the 80s, he built back himself from setback while unemployment for youth was more than 98% in town and eventually became model for youth in the 80s, at time when Canada introduced youth exchange program in Sri Lanka and he was to be the one selected from Kilinochchi for the year 1980. And in Canada, he became the model for young-immigrant business owner, immigrants running businesses within 1 year of their arrival category, for running a convenience store at 260 Goulet Street Winnipeg. When I asked how that happened, he replied "all you needed to do was paying $50 for a lawyer to do the paper works so you could focus running the business."

In the last 20 years, he spent his time in overseas and seemed to be liking everywhere and particularly in Peru.

Personally, what a great brother, wondering myself further, it is indeed about his struggles for not being able to separate me completely from him with the internal pressures that he had had to live with for 30 years since Justice O'Sullivan passing his will and yet bro for being anything but having kept his will to me regardless of any pressure. Not always an issue though to remember a person in a particular way in such, though of course I thank my bro both for his thought when i was myself wealthy enough and now for his help while am very poor, but his friendship, leaves only with the difficulty to see him.  

 Miss you very different ways. May your soul rest in peace!

 

Government and Binding

According to Wikipedia “Government and Binding (GB) is a theory of syntax and a phrase structure grammar in the tradition of transformational grammar developed principally by Noam Chomsky in the 1980s.” 

Accordingly, Government is defined as: 

A governs B if and only if 

A is a governor and 

A m-commands B and  

no barrier intervenes between A and B.

And Binding is defined as:

An element α binds an element β if and only if α c-commands β, and α and β corefer.

Like for example:

Yet if you would doubt whether this theory could solve all of your GB hypotheses in syntax, I would say Yes although if not to an advance syntax with an answer it is to be. Here is further problem you see, a Wikipedia post and answers I read today, but then you might take it in doubt as if why you should bother with the GBT theory anyway if the sentence is in first place not correct for you to be taking it to your test with your GBT theory. I have no answer to that as well other than saying GBT is enough answer to this:    

   

Post:

The article Maus used to say:

He displays racist attitudes, as when Françoise picks up an African American hitchhiker, who he fears will rob them.

This was later changed to:

He displays racist attitudes, as when Françoise picks up an African American hitchhiker, whom he fears will rob them.

I believe the first version was correct and this change was wrong, as the hitchhiker is the subject of the sentence "[he] will rob them", not the object. But then I'm not a native English speaker. Which version is correct? JIP | Talk 13:28, 27 August 2019 (UTC)

Answer 1:

The test is to reword the relevant clause with a non-relative pronoun. If "he fears he will rob them" them is good, then who is correct, while if "he fears him will rob them" them were good, then whom would be correct... AnonMoos (talk) 13:39, 27 August 2019 (UTC)

Answer 2:

In other words, "who" is correct here. A simpler test is to take out the "he fears" part and see how it reads then, since it is actually a kind of parenthesis. Thus, "who [he fears] will rob them" is correct, and "whom [he fears] will rob them" is incorrect. --Viennese Waltz 14:44, 27 August 2019 (UTC)

Answer 3:

Per the above, "who" is a subject pronoun and always plays the role that other similar pronouns would play (I, he, she, etc.). Whom is an object pronoun and plays the role that other object pronouns would play (me, him, her, etc.). As noted by both people above, remove the "he fears" clause to see its role. In this case, it is acting as the subject of "will rob them" so "who" is correct. --Jayron32 16:04, 27 August 2019 (UTC)

Answer 4:

AnonMoos did not say to remove the "he fears" clause. It was only me who said that. --Viennese Waltz 18:51, 27 August 2019 (UTC)

Answer 5:

Would you like a medallion or a certificate for your efforts? --Jayron32 00:48, 28 August 2019 (UTC)

Answer 6:

Neither, particularly. I was simply correcting your error. --Viennese Waltz 07:43, 28 August 2019 (UTC)

To an advance Government and Binding Theory (GBT) related to English syntax, you might want to check:

http://www.langling.ca/2019/06/english-case-assignment-in-fused.html

One at a time but on/in its subject?

"An honor must be earned," commonsense says, but in the world of academe, it is not always pretended to be about the quality of the print products. The commonsense also says that the higher the technicality of a subject goes, the lesser  the quantity of its readers becomes. Yet language and linguistics subject is  still the passion for many; no need to mention that it is just for linguists. 

Whenever I have my read times, I try to do some literature reviews, primarily on English language and linguistics but in a small scale. I do enjoy writing posts for a language blog as this eventually gives me some good keepup exercise as well.     

So is to my reviews, without anything of my own, so to speak,  the last few weeks of worlds of mainstream media on the langling has been very  smooth; nothing serious, noting wrong, nothing much to debate.  But those who read blogs, journals, etc might have perhaps noticed that the ‘verbal illusion’ is something difficult to be understood and that agreed with. There is number of good reasons why the authors were/are mere on the idiomatic and pragmatic aspects of the issue and not on the semantical or grammatical aspect of it. Something like in these, for example:

No head injury is too trivial to be ignored

No sinner is too wicked to be condemned

Here the confusions are just like some of our verbal conventions like I am home or I am at home that give the similar reading. I prefer the adverbial with the preposition like at home rather than home. The Google NgramViewer, however, supports  the  home version rather than at home version as an emerging new trend among English speakers around the world. And of course which sounds better these days.       

But on the grammatical aspect of the verbal patterns, there seems no verbal illusion since it is strait forward and cannot be read as  ‘No sinner is too wicked' or 'No sinner is to be condemned’.   Since to be condemned here in this sentence is just the complement of the participle adjective wicked (via functional potential for transformation),  I like to argue that our grammatical verbal pattern does not allow any other  way of reading this sentence. However I agree that this, as authors indicated, may be a bit problem for L1ers and L2ers since our verbal patterns are sometimes catenatives. 

Some of the other things from last few weeks of language blogs and journals that i like to pinpoint are our common errors or likes that we face against our intuitions day-to-day,  something like by which circumstances we have the choice of using the preposition in or on for the same meaning  is in particular. And the other thing with this context that I like to add is our choices or styles of adjectives. For example,  why we like to refer something like 'I like to speak in English' rather than 'I like to speak on English' or vice versa appears to be the matter of our own referent to the preposition in question. The same analogy seems to be concealed with our adjective choices as well,  like for example, why we like to refer something as 'linguistics subject' rather than 'linguistic subject' but 'linguistic explanation' rather than 'linguistics explanation' or  something 'in political explanation'  versus 'explanation in politics'. Certainly we can argue that each of these forms as having its own non-identical referent not an exact synonym to its counterpart.      

This post posted a few years ago, and together with some comments, is in this link:

http://www.langling.ca/2014/05/just-one-at-time-but-onin-subject.html