>
> There's little (beyond the linguistic preference for categorical perception)
> that stops a good phonetician from observing/describing a fair amount of
> phonetic variation (even with the IPA as *one* of the tools), so I was
> surprised to see Bob discounting traditional phonetic observation.
Just for the record, I was surprised to see Duncan reading me this
way. I said we were "reaching the limits of the scientific usefulness
of traditional IPA classification (and the limits of what traditional
trained-ear methods can achieve)". In saying that I certainly meant to
acknowledge the scientific usefulness of traditional methods - up to
their limits.
Bob
|