Questions you want answered.

merphle wrote:

Obviously it's pronounced גולם‎

Quoted for אֶמֶת

Maybe it’s the right time to note that no one has ever managed to successfully produce a *technical* definition of syllables. Ever. Its use in defining meter is inconsistent with its use in common language, for example. And the “normal” meters of one language, based on syllabic meters, don’t necessarily exist in others. The classic example is that Shakespeare can’t be metrically translated into French because French simply does not use iambic pentameter as a normal rhythm speech. But of course it’s a normal rhythm for English speech.

This has been a great conversation to update my long-ago linguistic roots, and it also explains why I argued with my phonology teacher.

maverickz wrote:

It's fairly accurate to call Gollum a golem.

Gollum was an artificial construct? That's a new one on me.

strangederby wrote:
maverickz wrote:

It's fairly accurate to call Gollum a golem.

Gollum was an artificial construct? That's a new one on me.

yeah he was mostly CGI

strangederby wrote:
maverickz wrote:

It's fairly accurate to call Gollum a golem.

Gollum was an artificial construct? That's a new one on me.

They’re both monsters? Sort of. Not really.

I love the origin of golems.

Wikipedia wrote:

The oldest stories of golems date to early Judaism. In the Talmud (Tractate Sanhedrin 38b), Adam was initially created as a golem (גולם) when his dust was "kneaded into a shapeless husk." Like Adam, all golems are created from mud by those close to divinity, but no anthropogenic golem is fully human.

The most famous golem narrative involves Judah Loew ben Bezalel, the late 16th century rabbi of Prague, also known as the Maharal, who reportedly "created a golem out of clay from the banks of the Vltava River and brought it to life through rituals and Hebrew incantations to defend the Prague ghetto from anti-Semitic attacks" and pogroms.

Robear wrote:

Maybe it’s the right time to note that no one has ever managed to successfully produce a *technical* definition of syllables. Ever. Its use in defining meter is inconsistent with its use in common language, for example. And the “normal” meters of one language, based on syllabic meters, don’t necessarily exist in others. The classic example is that Shakespeare can’t be metrically translated into French because French simply does not use iambic pentameter as a normal rhythm speech. But of course it’s a normal rhythm for English speech.

This has been a great conversation to update my long-ago linguistic roots, and it also explains why I argued with my phonology teacher. :-)

I learned a lot about syllables when I learned Korean in the Army. In Hangul each syllable is represented by a character constructed of vowel and consonant elements. For native Korean and Sino-Korean this can be very compact and efficient, owing to the fact that Hangul is only 500 years old, formally created in the Chosun dynasty to fit the existing language.

When a western word is spelled out in Hangul, if done faithfully, every sound is accounted for, such as schwas and breaking down diphthongs. This can create a long word for what English speakers would consider short.

For example, the name Smith, considered one syllable in English, is spelled out in three syllables in Hangul: 스미스, pronounced "seumiseu". Of course, this example illustrates a language difference. While Korean has 19 consonants, the "th" sound is not one of them.

Gollum was a normal inhabitant of middle earth until he was twisted into a monster by the ring. There's some lore that suggests he may have been a hobbit.

strangederby wrote:
maverickz wrote:

It's fairly accurate to call Gollum a golem.

Gollum was an artificial construct? That's a new one on me.

Wikipedia wrote:

In Modern Hebrew, golem is used to mean "dumb" or "helpless". Similarly, it is often used today as a metaphor for a mindless lunk or entity who serves a man under controlled conditions but is hostile to him under others.[2] "Golem" passed into Yiddish as goylem to mean someone who is lethargic or beneath a stupor.[5]

maverickz wrote:
strangederby wrote:
maverickz wrote:

It's fairly accurate to call Gollum a golem.

Gollum was an artificial construct? That's a new one on me.

Wikipedia wrote:

In Modern Hebrew, golem is used to mean "dumb" or "helpless". Similarly, it is often used today as a metaphor for a mindless lunk or entity who serves a man under controlled conditions but is hostile to him under others.[2] "Golem" passed into Yiddish as goylem to mean someone who is lethargic or beneath a stupor.[5]

So like calling someone a troglodyte?

My point is that Gollum is under the control of the One Ring and Sauron.

Robear wrote:

Maybe it’s the right time to note that no one has ever managed to successfully produce a *technical* definition of syllables. Ever.

Not meaning to be obtuse, but what's the difference between a definition that's successfully technical and one that isn't?

JLS wrote:

For example, the name Smith, considered one syllable in English, is spelled out in three syllables in Hangul: 스미스, pronounced "seumiseu".

Is Korean considered to have syllables, or similar? Pronunciation like that is similar to Japanese, which has no concept of syllables as we know them, but has a related concept called "morae". Basically morae are separate for each vowel sound, so e.g. "ice" in Japanese is three morae, "a-i-su".

See I've always thought the main defining feature of a golem was that it was man made. There are millions of hypnotised/controlled characters in fiction but I wouldn't refer to them as golems.

fenomas wrote:
JLS wrote:

For example, the name Smith, considered one syllable in English, is spelled out in three syllables in Hangul: 스미스, pronounced "seumiseu".

Is Korean considered to have syllables, or similar? Pronunciation like that is similar to Japanese, which has no concept of syllables as we know them, but has a related concept called "morae". Basically morae are separate for each vowel sound, so e.g. "ice" in Japanese is three morae, "a-i-su".

Yes. Each character block represents one syllable. In practice it appears similar to morae. e.g. "ice" in Korean is "아이스", "ah-i-seu". Pronunciation can be different, especially modern South Korean slang, where syllables become mashed together or omitted.

Fenomas, for a phonologist, a correct description of syllables in English would account for every variation with a minimal set of rules. That is, it would be predictive for all words in English.

As you can see above, that’s extraordinarily difficult even for small words. What it means is that we don’t have a solid *technical* description of syllables. We just have some use-case-specific definitions for things like poetry, dialects and such.

Robear wrote:

a correct description of syllables in English would account for every variation with a minimal set of rules. That is, it would be predictive for all words in English.

Define 'English'.

RawkGWJ wrote:

The most famous golem narrative involves Judah Loew ben Bezalel, the late 16th century rabbi of Prague, also known as the Maharal, who reportedly "created a golem out of clay from the banks of the Vltava River and brought it to life through rituals and Hebrew incantations to defend the Prague ghetto from anti-Semitic attacks" and pogroms.

I would argue that the most famous golem narrative is Wonder Woman.

Yeah, Leaping, I get it. I admit to being deeply skeptical of phonology lol. English, though, can be defined grammatically pretty well. Content varies but that's the nature of language.

If you think you can't define English usefully, explain why it's actually another language entirely. Our brains have a very hard line between languages we know, and those we don't, even if we personally don't have the tools or background to lay out the lines between them.

BadKen wrote:
RawkGWJ wrote:

The most famous golem narrative involves Judah Loew ben Bezalel, the late 16th century rabbi of Prague, also known as the Maharal, who reportedly "created a golem out of clay from the banks of the Vltava River and brought it to life through rituals and Hebrew incantations to defend the Prague ghetto from anti-Semitic attacks" and pogroms.

I would argue that the most famous golem narrative is Wonder Woman.

According to some Greek origin myths, the original humans were crafted from clay by Prometheus.

Greek origin myths, while probably more famous than Judah Loew ben Bezalel, are still not as famous as Wonder Woman.

Quintin_Stone wrote:
BadKen wrote:
RawkGWJ wrote:

The most famous golem narrative involves Judah Loew ben Bezalel, the late 16th century rabbi of Prague, also known as the Maharal, who reportedly "created a golem out of clay from the banks of the Vltava River and brought it to life through rituals and Hebrew incantations to defend the Prague ghetto from anti-Semitic attacks" and pogroms.

I would argue that the most famous golem narrative is Wonder Woman.

According to some Greek origin myths, the original humans were crafted from clay by Prometheus.

In Judaistic mythology, golems are inherently NOT human and are formed from mud or dust. The Wonder Woman thing was a spiritual possession. Some real voodoo ‘ish if you ask me!

Robear wrote:

Fenomas, for a phonologist, a correct description of syllables in English would account for every variation with a minimal set of rules. That is, it would be predictive for all words in English.

Isn't that just arbitrarily making up a standard that can never be met? Words and language aren't atoms, they're social norms - i.e., human behavior. Obviously no description will ever be predictive over 100% of human behavior.

I mean if a correct definition has to predict all known cases, then surely nothing anywhere in the humanities has a correct definition.

Aside: in Japanese, the "5-7-5" pattern for a haiku applies to morae, not syllables. So if you wanted to write a haiku about, say, ice cream, by Japanese standards just saying "ice cream" would use up 40% of the poem (7 of 17 morae).

BadKen wrote:

Greek origin myths, while probably more famous than Judah Loew ben Bezalel, are still not as famous as Wonder Woman. :D

I mean, Wonder Woman was given life by Zeus, so....

fenomas wrote:

Robear wrote:

Fenomas, for a phonologist, a correct description of syllables in English would account for every variation with a minimal set of rules. That is, it would be predictive for all words in English.

Isn't that just arbitrarily making up a standard that can never be met? Words and language aren't atoms, they're social norms - i.e., human behavior. Obviously no description will ever be predictive over 100% of human behavior.

I mean if a correct definition has to predict all known cases, then surely nothing anywhere in the humanities has a correct definition.

Wow, lots to unpack here. First I want to correct and say that phonology aims to produce a predictive set of rules for syllabification in *all* languages, not just English. I was trying to limit it to a reasonable bite but you went well beyond English.

Phonetics is the scientific study of human sounds. Phonology is the scientific study of sounds within a language or languages. These and related fields are not humanities.

Pragmatics, in the philosophy of science (which is kind of the gutter bumpers in the bowling alley of science), notes that the theory which best accounts for the evidence should, for the moment, be counted the most correct. Even though all sciences would like to have 100% predictive theories, we are not there yet. So most modern understandings of science treat 100% as aspirational, with the understanding that wherever we are today in a particular field will eventually be refined and improved over time. So the goal of understanding syllables to the point of being 100% predictive is not unrealistic, it's just a long way off. We take what we understand today and use it as best we can because that's what we have. We don't reject it as useless because it's not 100% explanatory yet.

Note that this "100% predictive" goal for theories *is* a basic underpinning of modern science. That is arbitrarily made up, of course, as is science, but as a tool, it works better than any other method of inquiry we have, so dismissing it because it was "made up" or doesn't apply to human behavior is misguided, because it's not *intended* to apply outside the context of scientific study. That is, the humanities are not sciences and are not investigated as such, so the standard does not apply to them.

Linguistics is "...the scientific study of language and its structure, including the study of morphology, syntax, phonetics, and semantics." Words and language are not "social norms" in the sense you seem to be using them. They are constructed of a set of possible human-made sounds and gestures (but let's leave those out as we talking about sounds), and can be studied *as* a science. Phonology and phonetics are sub-fields of linguistics.

Human behavior *is* communication. Communication, as a behavior, can be learned (language, for example, or the process of buying bread or greeting a neighbor) or it can be impulsive (expressive shouts of surprise, striking someone in anger, or other impulsive actions). There are scientific studies of human behavior, which are all over the map in terms of rigor and predictive value. But the scientific study of *language* as a *learned* (and learnable, thus, well-defined) human behavior is very well defined and successful compared to, say, psychology. So again, dismissing the study of language as an ultimately unknowable field of the humanities (as I read it) misses the mark. Linguistics is a legitimate science which seeks to understand how language is produced and used in human societies.

Syllables are an *organisation* of sounds. Language sounds are atomic to words in languages and of course limited to what sounds humans can produce. That is, the sounds of a language are not based on social behavior, but on physics. The sounds are not the language; they instantiate it, but language has other components - syntax and semantics at least - which structure and allow interpretation of the sounds. Languages arise in societies, and thus are social behavior, but they are built on biological capabilities and limitations. It's those that can be understood and predicted, *as* capabilities and limits. Studying the sounds of a language is not nearly as complex as studying social behaviors like, I dunno, hierarchies of dominance in business. Far fewer moving parts, for one thing. (However, it is surprisingly complex due to the emergent properties of language.)

So phonologists look for a theory of the production of sounds used in human languages that would allow prediction of all possible syllables (organised sounds) within any language. And this is a realistic if extremely difficult goal, because nothing in it is outside the realm of scientific study. Syllables are part of this inquiry.

Part of science is defining areas of study in such a way that 100% understandings are possible. If they are not, then you're no longer doing science, so that's what Philosophy of Science tries to sort out, using logic and examining the history of science from outside the framework, as it were. The humanities were not defined as sciences and so should not be judged in the same way, or even have the same aspirational goals. They are different, and that's fine. But the expectations we have for explanatory value in the sciences do not apply to the humanities.

TLDR - Phonology is a science, not part of the humanities, and it thus can legitimately have the same goals as any other science in terms of expectation of predictive value from a well-structured theory of syllable construction.

PREACH

...And I don't even *like* phonology lol. It drove me to distraction in college when I had to study it. We did end up with one kid who enjoyed taking speech traces and deciphering them, but the rest of us quickly shuffled over to the syntax and semantics side of the curriculum...

Robear, nearly everything you wrote there seems to have been in response to the word "humanities", but that was me misspeaking (I meant to say "soft sciences"), and wasn't at all connected to my point. I wasn't trying to dismiss linguistics as nonscientific or unknowable.

My point was, words and syllables aren't observable things we can measure. We can listen to people making noises, and naturally we can make scientific theories about what noises they will or won't make. But if you then say "okay that noise just now was one 'syllable'", that's a definition, not an observation. And if someone else says no, that noise was actually two syllables, that's not a disagreement that scientific predictive power can help with.

So my question was, what does it mean to say that nobody has ever fully defined what a syllable is? It sounds like you're saying that people use the term various ways and no one definition is consistent with all usages. But if that's the standard, isn't what you're saying about "syllable" also true of "word", "vowel", "tense", (and practically any other term that describes human behavior)?

Hard to tell online, sorry.

Yes, we can study words, vowels, tenses and all the other elements of language using the scientific method. And the scientific method is a tool to let us understand things as well as we can. Usually, that's understood as a goal of finding systems of rules that describe all possible outcomes (not explicitly, but generatively).

So when the claim is made that we don't actually have a full definition of syllables, it means that there is no single set of rules that describes all possible syllables in all use cases. This is not controversial. I find it interesting because this kind of study has been going on for more than a century and still the question is not resolved (which also leads to my skepticism of the field, but that's pure bias).

Words and syllables are objectively measurable, of course, just as they can be distinguished from each other by the brain. Not sure where you get the idea that they are not. For example, syllables and words can be captured and recorded as waveforms and spectrograms, and there *are* well understand elements of them that *are* agreed upon.

I'm not sure it's productive to debate the name of an observational claim versus the observation itself. That tends to reduce to "everything is arbitrary".

Are you maybe defining words as sound + syntax + semantics? We are talking about phonology - sounds - not the whole stack. While there is a lot of ambiguity to be resolved in the full stack, sounds are much simpler - and that's why it's intriguing that the syllable is not yet completely understood.

Does that make more sense?

Rereading this, I will try to put it another way. A scientific theory of the syllable should allow us to generate and distinguish all syllables used by all languages from a single set of rules. We don't have one yet, but we're working towards it.

And yet, we can usefully *define* syllables as a set of sounds "[C]onsist[ing} of an onset (beginning), a rhyme (everything after the beginning) which can be sub-divided into a nucleus (vowel or vowel-like centre) and a coda (right-edge)". I used the term "description" to encompass both definition and theory, earlier, so sorry if that was confusing.

Ahhh I follow you. Given the context I thought you were talking about defining what is and isn't a syllable, whether a sound is two syllables or three, etc.