.. it's serious matter

 

And don't give me this quality over quanity bs. Limited quality in vowels easy.

slatibartfast wrote: 'm rthr fnd f cnsnnts.  You know what's wrong?  The words vowel and consonant have both have vowels and consonants.  I hereby rename them oe and cnsnnt.  Of course you won't be allowed to pluralize the former.  Maybe vowels are actually better because apparently you can buy one of them.

You may have discovered a significant linguistic paradox

It's also interesting how vowels are considered as something of value - or at least, something more valuable than consonants. I suppose the idea is that vowels are more likely to reveal the word. It makes sense because vowels have longer duration than consonants, they are the center (functional part) of syllabic structures and they rank higher on the http://www.sil.org/linguistics/GlossaryOfLinguisticTerms/WhatIsTheSonorityScale.htm - sonority scale.  They have more 'sound'.

That's also why they get my support in this 'contest.

aginor wrote: consonants espessialy if you studdie phonetics (fanatics), much easyer to point out and not so defuse, vowels coan go were the pepper grows, hate them alophones, phonemes, crapp, im gonna retake my Phonetics in  English class in spring and im not looking forward to it

You should. But if you think a preference for consonants is necessary in order to study phonetics, it's probably not something for you. There is no difference in complexity in the descriptive frames and methods for descriptions of vowels and consonants. Vowels' inherent status is not diffuse. 

Man with Hat wrote: Consonants by far. So many to choose from.   And don't give me this quality over quanity bs. Limited quality in vowels easy.

Your choice is limited anyway - you don't 'choose' the letters prior to the word. The phonetic content of the word has usually, and generally, no influence in the 'decision-making' process.. ..'Quality' and 'quantity' - in phonetics - are not engaged in competition.

Though some people seem to talk with their bowels... 

The T wrote: As proved by the stupid text-message language, you can comunicate only using consonants. I don't believe you can with just vowels.  Though some people seem to talk with their bowels... '

You can communicate without using either, as is the case with morse codes, sign language and various other forms of non-verbal communication. It's not a valid conclusion that consonants bear a higher degree of communicative ability than vowels. 

Vowels and consonants are sounds - and I direct attention to their physiological and functional attributes. Written language doesn't concern phoneticians. 

Lozlan wrote: Of course you can pluralize it!  Just add an i (ex: octopi).  A collection of oei.  I like the sound of that.  Similar to the bellow of a Howler Monkey, actually.   As for my personal choice...consonants.  They are the workhorses of language, sculpting themselves around their more-fortunate, emotive cousins.  I often appreciate the setting more than the gemstone, and vernacular is no exception.

Very poetic description.

But I must admit that terms like "the workhorses of language" "fortunate" "emotive cousins" "setting" and "gemstone" really doesn't work as describing terms to someone trained in phonetics and linguistics. What do you mean? 

By "workhorses of language" I suppose you refer to the consonants' 'role' in syllabic structures in which they are 'build' around the vowel which is the central syllabic component of such structures.

But from there to reach a conception of consonants as "setting" and vowles as "gemstone" is actually not plausible in any way. 

But I quite like the description anyway, I had had the same 'literary' approach and  tendency when I began studying linguistics, but my teachers kept telling not to write in this style and to be more boring and dry. 

Thankfully, we can't all be phoneticians. They are really cut-off from the outside world. http://www.sil.org/linguistics/GlossaryOfLinguisticTerms/WhatIsAPhone.htm - What is a phone?

This is not about phoneticians. This is about the real world (my reply at least). If you have checked, people are gradually writing simpler and simpler especially in quick communication settings like in text messages, and in most cases only consonants are used. We're not talking about morse code or sign language, we're talking about words, and you can build semi-coherent ones using consonants, but it gets difficult with vowels. 

I guess we're talking about different things. Of course if written language is not your concern, what I said doesn't apply.  

I see. 

But you wrote "As proved by the stupid text-message language, you can comunicate only using consonants."

In text messages you are are not free to use as many characters as you want. So from an 'economic' point of view it makes a lot of sense to shorten the words. That words in most cases are abbreviated by just writing the consonants is probably because they orthographically are more helpful as means to identify the word. Pls is easier to identify than eae in writing. 

I don't understand how it is 'stupid' or something that is a bad thing.  

thellama73 wrote: Introducing: The Paravion Method: Argue with someone about something they've said then, later, say the same thing back to them as if it were your own idea.

TheLlama understanding my words and even defending them?  But it's true. That's exactly what I said. "Thnks" looks like thanks, but "a" doesn't... 

I actually do the same of you and most of you in general... (though I have my doubts about Mom... )

For all the debating, I think I've get to know many people much better, and add some tolerance to my quite non-endless set of skills....