>On the hoof, Henry:
>
>"it would be better to set aside terms like "conventional prosody" and
>simply say "rhythm"."
>
>
>Would it? Only if our criteria for describing prosodic effects are
>completely ahistorical (and how on earth could they be). We cannot merely
>-except- the historicity of language-uses from the group of its relevant
>properties; we can only -revert- from that group to a narrower one, in the
>interests presumably of establishing a narrower view of language. In
>-whose- interests?
Keston, all I meant was that prosody can be considered a discipline in its
infancy (again, see Princeton Encyc entry on this), and thus the phrase
"conventional prosody" is a sort of oxymoron.
Henry
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
|