Fidden Postat 10 september 2008 Postat 10 september 2008 Jag har hört att meningen med livet är att få 1234 inlägg.
Neosus Postat 10 september 2008 Trådstartare Postat 10 september 2008 *suuuuuuuck* 🙂 Jag har haft ögonen på dig väldigt länge, min sköna. Jag har varit tålmodig. Men snart är du min. Snart ska jag få smeka din vackra hals, tafsa på din smidiga kropp och få dig att yla av njutning. 😮 Fyfan va roligt, Micke! Jävligt bra gitarr det där! 🙁 (Skulle du trots allt bli missnöjd så kan du sälja den till mig för halva priset........)
Pazo Postat 10 september 2008 Postat 10 september 2008 Precis sett på det vå nya Gossip Girl avsnitten 🙂
Micke H Postat 10 september 2008 Postat 10 september 2008 *suuuuuuuck* 🙂 Jag har haft ögonen på dig väldigt länge, min sköna. Jag har varit tålmodig. Men snart är du min. Snart ska jag få smeka din vackra hals, tafsa på din smidiga kropp och få dig att yla av njutning. 😮 Fyfan va roligt, Micke! Jävligt bra gitarr det där! 🙁 (Skulle du trots allt bli missnöjd så kan du sälja den till mig för halva priset........) 😄 Misstänker att risken för att jag blir missnöjd är ganska så liten! 😄
Micke H Postat 10 september 2008 Postat 10 september 2008 (redigerat) 1 12 123 1234 Eller kanske: 1 212 32123 4321234 EDIT: varför ägnade jag just fem minuter åt att få den att se snygg ut? 🙂😱 Redigerat 10 september 2008 av Micke H
Pazo Postat 10 september 2008 Postat 10 september 2008 (redigerat) DONT LEAVE ME HANGING ALL LIKE A JOJO! 🙂 Redigerat 10 september 2008 av Pazo
Fidden Postat 10 september 2008 Postat 10 september 2008 112 123 1234 Eller kanske: 1 212 32123 4321234 EDIT: varför ägnade jag just fem minuter åt att få den att se snygg ut? 😱🙂 Det blev ju en... gran... grahn.. 🙂
Overkill Postat 10 september 2008 Postat 10 september 2008 counting crows 😱 vadå, är jag för mainstream? 🙂 jag har två av deras skivor 🙂
Neosus Postat 10 september 2008 Trådstartare Postat 10 september 2008 112 123 1234 Eller kanske: 1 212 32123 4321234 EDIT: varför ägnade jag just fem minuter åt att få den att se snygg ut? 😳😱 Det blev ju en... gran... grahn.. 🤪 🥰
Dingbats Postat 10 september 2008 Postat 10 september 2008 När jag känner mig tät nästa gång blir det nog en kompressor!
Micke H Postat 10 september 2008 Postat 10 september 2008 - Hey, do you know what this is? It's a fucking booger, that's what it is!
Overkill Postat 10 september 2008 Postat 10 september 2008 Den 13 oktober har Death Cab spelning i St Louis. Och Fleet Foxes är förband! Fatta fett det hade varit 😄
Dingbats Postat 10 september 2008 Postat 10 september 2008 stockholm city neonljus coola kolamänniskor och lilla du taxi dörrvakt krossat glsa bergochdalbanan och lilla jag här är det som blev kvar det som blev kvar ooooooh Lite småtöntiga texter men [ingenting] äger ändå.
Dingbats Postat 10 september 2008 Postat 10 september 2008 A bigger question that I have myself been thinking about these kinds of matters is not the mere question of underlying forms versus phonemes but rather of whether a given language variety's phonology can necessarily really be unified as a single rule-driven system in the first place. Rather, it seems that in practice much of what is traditionally thought of as being synchronic is actually diachronic in the sense that it is already frozen in the underlying forms of some sort or another, and only just happens to be still productive with respect to new words (while not necessarily being consistently applied to all existing words). One main reason for my doubting traditional phonology is because in practice, the actual distribution of realized forms may not match those one would expect from synchronically applied phonological rules, as there are discrepancies in rule application frequency that cannot be explained through things such as stress or intonation. That is, in essence, the rules seem to know what words they are being applied to - which should not be possible from a traditional phonological standpoint. Another reason is the nature of sound change in Real Life, as opposed to what one would assume from generative analyses of sound change. The matter is that in reality sound change is applied to individual words, spreading through the lexicon by analogy. At the same time, sound change very often is not consistently applied to all words, and one may very well end up with anomalous marginal phonemic distinctions when a sound change is only applied to a small number of words or is applied to all but a small number of words. This in itself indicates that "each word has its own history", but furthermore it strongly implies that phonological rules are applied on a word-by-word, morpheme-by-morpheme basis rather than actually being equally applied to all words, as would be presumed from generative or OT-type theories. However, one cannot view such as purely being diachronic and hold the view of there being a distinct category of synchronic phonological rules, as what are diachronic sound changes but (once) synchronic sound changes that are no longer productive or predictable? Another issue is that at times it does not seem to even be possible to unify all words and morphemes into a single unified system with a consistent system of underlying forms. Rather, different words seem to sometimes exist as parts of contradictory phonological systems which cannot be reconciled as a unified synchronically rule-driven system. One example that sticks out in my head of such is vowel quantity in my own dialect, which for the vast majority of words vowel quantity acts in an clearly allophonic system, but yet there are certain few words where vowel quantity is anomalous and which can only be understood from a diachronic rather than synchronic standpoint. So how does one have a consistent phonological system where the vast majority of words have allophonic vowel quantity but certain specific words break allophonic vowel quantity and thus have phonemic vowel quantity? WIthin a traditional generative or OT-type system such a contradiction seems practically impossible to reconcile without introducing synchronic rules which are aware of the special case words - which should not be possible within such systems in the first place. The only way to avoid these kind of issues seems to be to move much of what is supposedly synchronically generated into the underlying forms themselves, and replace synchronic differences in rule application at an allophonic level with allomorphy, where the individual allomorphs have their own underlying forms, and where the distribution and frequency of the particular allomorphs is lexicalized in nature. Of course, such allomorphs would not be composed of anything resembling traditional phonemes, but rather would already be very close to the actual realized surface forms. And likewise, any apparently synchronic sound changes outside those most closely linked to the phonetics of speech production would not be true synchronic phonological rules but rather diachronic sound changes which just happen to still be productive - but which need not necessarily be applied to all words they could apply to consistently. And by making the vast majority of phonological rules diachronic in nature, any sort of issues with rule application consistency can be avoided. Likewise, by replacing allophony with allomorphy, there is no need to have all individual morphemes conform to any kind of unified, consistent phonological system, and the very issue of phonological rules seemingly knowing what words they are applied to can be completely avoided by making all variation within morphemes being lexicalized in the first place. Jag orkar inte läsa igenom det där, kan inte nån göra det och sammanfatta sen vad det handlade om?
Overkill Postat 10 september 2008 Postat 10 september 2008 jag håller på med språkfilosofi nu. det suger samtidigt som det är intressant. men första lektionen på onsdagar är ingen höjdare.
Overkill Postat 10 september 2008 Postat 10 september 2008 idag jobbade vi med frågorna "finns det ord som har betydelse men saknar referens" och samma fråga fast byt plats på betydelse och referens. Sjöjungfru till exempel har betydelse men saknar referens eftersom det inte finns sjöjungfrus.
Dingbats Postat 10 september 2008 Postat 10 september 2008 Fast ord som har referens men ingen betydelse kan det väl inte finnas. Vad skulle det vara?
Overkill Postat 10 september 2008 Postat 10 september 2008 "Egennamn har referens men saknar egentlig mening [betydelse]" har jag antecknat. Fast ärligt talat minns jag inte, för det känns ju mongo på något sätt.
Overkill Postat 10 september 2008 Postat 10 september 2008 silent alarm är grymt bra egentligen. långt ifrån mitt nya hatobjekt intimacy 😄
Recommended Posts