HMS Victor Victorian <VictorVictorian@NBG.com> wrote in
news:v20c34hgugp2fmf0nninrd66athp0boq5q@4ax.com:
> On Thu, 22 May 2008 23:17:29 +0000 (UTC), Naughty Boy <naughtynaughty>
> wrote:
>
>>HMS Victor Victorian <VictorVictorian@NBG.com> wrote in
>>news:ge8b34la5n9cqp8p3vrt8b49ckrl4grsgv@4ax.com:
>>
>>> I am amazed that the most recently prolific antagonist has actually
>>> made the following statement.
>>>
>>> [Begin direct quote]
>>> "Yet your solution for the protection of children is to plaster their
>>> nude
>>> photos all over Usenet without their informed consent. You are not a
>>> boylover
>>> at all, are you." (note incorrect punctuation--ed)
>>> [End direct quote]
>>>
>>> The conclusion is that, by heavens, children are capable of giving
>>> "informed consent" or the statement would not have been couched in
>>> such verbiage.
>>>
>>> Of course, the subsequent argument might revolve not around the term
>>> "consent" but around the intent of term "informed." I have little
>>> doubt as to how our dear protagonist will draw those parameters.
>>>
>>> Concurrently, given this statement, if posting pictures of nude
>>> children without their "informed consent" is wrong ... indeed if not a
>>> crime ... then such popular picture sites such as Webshots, Picasa,
>>> Fotki, etc. are filled with perpetrators [the majority of them being
>>> doting parents and relatives] guilty of the same ... literally
>>> thousands of them.
>>>
>>> Where then should IWF begin? Quite a conundrum, to say the least.
>>
>>So you go to those websites to perv as well? Your infantile lust must
>>have no limits.
>
> Dissimilation.
> So typical.
Pseudo-intelligence, so typical.
"Dissimilation is a phenomenon whereby similar consonant sounds in a word
become less similar. It has been claimed that dissimilation results in a
form that is easier for the listener to perceive (whereas assimilation
results in a form that is easier for the speaker to pronounce), with the
implication that such results are in fact the cause of the change. These
interpretations misunderstand the nature of the arguments and the
reasoning behind them, however. While synchronic patterns of speech
production may well be motivated by the need to produce speech with as
little effort as possible whilst maximising the perceptual distinctiveness
of the results (a goal-directed process), sound change operates blindly,
like natural selection in evolution. The perceptal causes of dissimilation
appear to centre around contexts in which a single acoustic effect derives
from 2 or more sources, but listeners attribute the effect to only 1 of
those sources, factoring the acoustic effect out from other contexts. This
factoring out of coarticulatory effects has been experimentally replicated
numerous times. For example, in a word like Greek *phakhu- "thick" > Greek
pakhu- (pa??-), the aspiration in the original form from both the initial
and medial consonants will pervade both syllables at the phonetic level in
casual speech, making the vowels breathy. Listeners hear a single effect -
breathy voicing on the vowels - and attribute it to only one of the stop
consonants, assuming the breathiness on the other syllable to be a long-
distance coarticulatory effect. The idea that dissimilation springs from
articulatory awkwardness is easily discounted as repetitions of features
across word boundaries do not tend to dissimilate, as they might be
expected to do if the problem was simply a motor one of multiple
articulations of the same or similar segments. Dissimilation strikes
within words because for listeners to replicate the words in their own
speech, the words must be resolved to a single series of time-aligned
motor commands, and in parsing the acoustic signal in this way,
coarticulatory effects are undone."
--
Look at that. The one, the only, the original, the stupid Naughty Boy is
back. Who said Usenet couldn't go further downhill?
|
| Follow-ups: | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 |
|