Search results for 'tag:Numbers tag:Phonics' matching tags 'Numbers' and 'Phonics'

Re: ONE chart for sounds produced by MANY humans ???

Aperisic — Sat, 02 Sep 2006 10:17:35 GMT

Is there a limit to the number of sounds a human voice can make? With that being asked can a phonic chart of characters be made to represent every sound a person can make?

No. Human vocal organs are so complex that it is not possible to list all combinations. If you hear how people sing, all variants they use in singing are the variants that can be counted as a voice. Only to think that the shape of the air path from lungs to nose and mouth is continuous and very flexible is enough to understand that no classification is possible. Human vocal organs are not an instrument; they can take a form of many different instruments.

I know some foreign people will pronounce an English word very differently or otherwise in a way that it can be mistaken for another word or not be known what was said.

You are right, I think the same. And it is in my experience very so. I would love to say that only for foreign people, at least that would be far more understandable, but that is not so. Domestics are not different either.

Is there a phonic symbol type language that can basically eliminate dialects and accents by being super specific about what sound one is expected to make?

As many voices human organ can produce, there are only around 250 world languages and each with usually limited range of sounds produced (however large that could be). What is found is that there are the typical groups of sounds based on how sounds are produced in all existing and analyzed languages. Nobody claim that there are not other possible ways and that a new tribe will not emerge with its specific way of talking. But so far scientists are capable to well-define the predominant way of how human vocal organs are used during a speech with all nuisances that come with it.

However, regarding English, though there are rules and the suggested way of pronunciation, which includes variants (I know at list three ways to pronounce associate, all correct), some people tend to speak unknown or more complex words the way they think is the most correct. It is common to hear it around that I think it is some kind of a specific freedom in English. Of course, most of the people will speak normally, but if someone says something differently it looks to me that people around will get it not as being completely wrong but as a sign of some kind of creativity, as long as even that new variant conforms some pronunciation rules, of course.

I think that this is the chief reason why English cannot survive any new writing regulation. But, on the other hand, it gives to the language the ability to develop faster which is, I think, one of the reasons why English dominates.

ONE chart for sounds produced by MANY humans ???

J4mes_bond25 — Fri, 01 Sep 2006 13:11:47 GMT

Is there a limit to the number of sounds a human voice can make? With that being asked can a phonic chart of characters be made to represent every sound a person can make?

I know some foreign people will pronounce an English word very differently or otherwise in a way that it can be mistaken for another word or not be known what was said. Is there a phonic symbol type language that can basically eliminate dialects and accents by being super specific about what sound one is expected to make?

An Error in âBlack Englishâ

dranfu — Sun, 01 May 2005 06:46:25 GMT

Hi Guys,

I'm a new member to this forum, but I'm already excited to be a part of it. Anyhow, I'll tell you alittle about myself. I'm a second year journalism major at Michigan State University with aspirations of becoming a NewYork Times writer. One day I hope to publish my own magazines, but that dream is still in the making.

Below is an essay I wrote on the subject "Ebonics." Basicaly, I would like any feedback on the article. Was it persuasive? Was it clear? Was it enjoyable? Any critical mistakes that I should have noticed? Any and all advice would be appreciated, and please do not worry about huring my feelings; after all, only honest criticism will help. The essay is also avaliable here: http://politicalessays.blogspot.com/, where the essay is accompanied by pictures and colorful borders and tables.

Hope you enjoy it!

An Error in âBlack Englishâ

"The basis of shame is not some personal mistake of ours, but the ignominy, the humiliation we feel that we must be what we are without any choice in the matter, and that this humiliation is seen by everyone" (Kundar 125). Milan Kundar, a skilled, prolific writer, highlights here an ageless truism: that a person need not be guilty of some transgression to feel ashamed of it. This applies to individuals as well as an entire people.

In America, it has been widely accepted that the "everyday speech" of African Americans, which is often referred to as âBlack Englishâ or Ebonics, is an inferior form of Standard English. Many consider it to be little more than a collection of grammatical mistakes and slang phrases. Even our own Secretary of Education once publicly warned Americans about the dangers of "elevating black English to the status of a language" (qtd. in Fillmore 13).

Unfortunately, current beliefs about âBlack Englishâ are enormously flawed; even worse, these beliefs have produced terrible consequences for African Americans, who sometimes feel angry and humiliated by the insinuations that their speech is the result of poor schooling and a low intelligence. Worst of all, these misconceptions are contributing to the continuation of social disharmony and racial polarization. The basis for these beliefs is that âBlack Englishâ is somehow an illegitimate form of English. In reality, however, âBlack Englishâ is a very legitimate dialect of the American English language, no more error-ridden or slang filled than any other dialect.

Many misunderstandings, half-truths, and stereotypes spring up when attempting to define âBlack English,â due to the number of words and catchphrases used to describe it. However, to understand what âBlack Englishâ really is, we first need to decide what it is not.

Contrary to popular belief, âBlack Englishâ is not Ebonics. Many people think of Ebonics as the specific language used by some African Americans. At âDa Ebonics Page,â a popular Ebonics joke site, a translator will translate Standard English sentences into âEbonocizedâ English at the click of a button. Type, âEbonics is misunderstood,â and the translator will return, âEbonics iz misunderstood Ya' dig?â( Da Ebonics Page). The result is not surprising, but neither is it Ebonics.

Formed by combining the words âebonyâ and âphonics,â the term âEbonicsâ was coined in 1973 by Dr. William Roberts, an African American social psychologist, during a conference sponsored by the National Institutes of health. It was during this conference that Dr. Williams defined Ebonics as, âthe linguistic and paralinguistic features which on a concentric continuum represent the communicative competence of the West African, Caribbean, and United States slave descendent of African originâ (Baugh par. 4). In other words, Ebonics is a scientific study of the linguistic aptitude of African slave descendents. It is not the proper term for the way that some African Americans speak.

Another misconception about âBlack Englishâ is that it is simply slang. The Oxford English dictionary defines slang as (1) Language of a highly colloquial type, considered as below the level of standard educated speech, and consisting either of new words or of current words employed in some special sense (âslangâ). Slang is not particular to one group or culture, but is used by many different groups and cultures. Words like âhomey,â âpeeps,â and âCuz,â words often considered to be âblack" words, are certainly all slang phrases; however, words like âbunk,â âcanoogle,â and âmilfâ are also slang words, but these are words used most often by white suburban teenagers. Now, just because some people in a larger group of people use slang words does not mean that the entire "language" is a slang language. In America, however, some people feel perfectly justified calling "Black English" slang, even though the actual slang associated is used mainly by younger people in the community. But Perhaps this is why in 1996, Jessie Jackson responded to a school boardâs decision to use âBlack Englishâ in the classroom by saying, âYou don't have to go to school to learn to talk garbageâ (Fillmore par. 25). Could it be that he assumed that the school board meant to teach children using slang?

Now, if âBlack Englishâ is not slang, and if âBlack Englishâ is not Ebonics, then what is âBlack Englishâ? Well, most importantly, âBlack Englishâ is a dialect of the American English language, similar in style and structure to the Southern American dialect. To demonstrate this point, letâs turn to a fictional conversation between Sally and Rashonnda. Sally grew up in the suburbs of Michigan and speaks in a standard Michigan dialect, while Rashawn grew up in Detroit and speaks with a thick âBlack Englishâ dialect.

Sally: Can I see that Magazine?

Rashawn: Which one, girl, the one I just bought?

Sally: Yeah, are you done with it?

Rashawn: Yeah, it ainât nothin' good in it anyway.

In this conversation, there are two word constructions, âainâtâ and ânothing,â that some people might consider âblack English,â but these words are not unique to âblack English.â On the contrary, they are used widely in the south and in many rural areas throughout the U.S. Letâs return to the fictional conversation, but this time letâs replace Rashonnda with Mary Joe, a woman from the Deep South who speaks with a heavy southern accent. Both women are white.

Sally: Can I see that magazine?

Mary Joe: Which one, Honey, the one I just got today?

Sally: Uh huh, are you done with it?

Mary Joe: Yeah, it ainât nothinâ good in it anyway.

In this second transcript, the same two incorrect forms of âIs notâ and âNothingâ are used. All that has changed is the race and regional background of the second speaker.

It is highly unlikely that most people would consider Mary Joeâs language inferior; more than likely, they would probably consider it the result of the region that she grew up in. Likewise, the likelihood that someone would scorn Mary Joe by accusing her of speaking Ebonics is rare. Why then is it so widely accepted that the dialect spoken by many African Americans, a dialect so similar to the southern dialect, is inferior? Why has the language of African Americans become the target of so much ridicule and scorn? Perhaps it is because, as Linguist John Baugh claimed, âthe distinction between âlanguagesâ and âdialectsâ is usually made more on social and political grounds than on purely linguistic onesâ (Baugh 9). In other words, âBlack Englishâ is considered inferior by some because it is associated with black people, who themselves have been wrongly considered inferior. And while it is true that since the civil rights revolution, Americans have made strides toward eradicating that perceived inferiority, the old, historical stereotypes of the uneducated, dim-witted African American still exist and pervade some Americans' thinking.

American has been called the land of equality, but until simple stereotypes like the ones about âBlack Englishâ are eradicated, our cultural progress toward racial harmony will be stalled. To avoid this, we need to stop calling the way that black people speak âBlack Englishâ and âEbonicsâ and instead call it what is: English. Perhaps then we can move one step further.

Works Cited

Baugh, John. âEbony and Phonics.â Public Broadcast Company. 2005. 14 Feb. 2005

Da Ebonics Page. Ed. Joel Thoms. 2005. 18 Apr. 2005

Fasold, Ralph. âEbonic Need Not Be English.â Center for Applied Linguistics. Dec. 1999: 23 pars. 14 Feb. 2005. http://www.cal.org/resources/digest/ebonic.htm>

Fillmore, Charles. âA Linguist Looks At the Ebonics Debate.â Center for Applied Linguistics. Jan. 1997: 36 pars. 13 Feb. 2005

âSlang.â The Oxford English Dictionary. 2004.

Re: Marketing

ritijain — Fri, 15 Apr 2005 08:19:56 GMT

Am sending you a covering letter please make a changes in that.

Regards
Riti

Phoneytunes.com pioneered the development of state-of-art mobile applications offering cutting edge mobile applications and services. Our in-house mobile technology specialists develop applications and all related services to content and management to offer customers end-to-end solutions.

Our geographical boundary is not limiting to India only but also in Bangladesh, Shrilanka & Pakistan. We have a wide base of customers partnering with our growth and taking us to new heights all the time and helping us stay ahead of the competition.
We are functioning with different operators in all over India and our partnership is with various Music Companies.
The detail is given below:
List of Operators:
AIRTEL
HUTCH
BSNL
SPICE
ORANGE
RELIANCE
TATA
IDEA
AIRCELL (Chennai)

List of Music Companies:

1) AVM audio
2) Aditya
3) Virgin
4) BaBa music
5) Saregama
6) Sagarika
7) Times Music
8) Big B
9) Music India
10) Archies
11) Sohan
12) Western
13) HMV
14) Megna sound
15) Crescendo
16) Tips
17) Zee Records
18) Universal
19) Sony Music
20) Venus
21) EMI
22) Mass Audios
23) INRECO
24) Cee TV Audio
25) Supreme Music
26) Anak Audio
27) Roja Audios
28) Hit Musics
29) New Music
30) Classic Audio
31) Five Star Audio
32) Star Music
33) Johny Sagarika Audio
34) T-Series
Commercials

License Fee Indian Territories:
For Sampling
With respect to the Sampling service of the Ringtones or True Tones by way of SMS/EMS or IVR of a Licensed Work by the End-Users, where there is a specific payable by such End-User for the Sampling service, the Licensee shall pay to the Licensor 25% of the price charged to the End-User towards such Sampling service.

License Fee â For Uploading
With respect to the Upload Service, the Licensee shall pay to the Licensor 25% of the price charged to the End-User towards such Upload Service

License Fee â For Download
With respect to each individual Download of a Licensed Work, as Ring tones, by the End-Users, the Licensee shall pay to the Licensor, the license fees as calculated as follows:

Monophonic Ring Tones
Rs.1.75 per Ring Tone or 25% of price charged to the End-User for such Downloads whichever is higher

Polyphonic Ring Tones
Rs.2.50 per Ring Tone or 25% of price charged to the End-User for such Downloads whichever is higher.

Other Licensed Works
25% of the End-User Price
The Licensee shall render to the Licensor a true and detailed accounting of all Downloaded Ringtones and True Tones as hereunder:
c. The Title of the Licensed Work;
d. The Number of Downloads;
e. The Territory of Download;
f. The Price of the Download charged to the End-User;
Within forty-five (45) days after the last day of each calendar month during the Term of this Agreement. Each such accounting shall be accompanied by payment to the Licensor of all Royalties due for a particular month.

We trust the above application proposal with all its features being offered would be complete and to your satisfaction. Looking forward to you confirming the same so that we can proceed on the same at the earliest.

Regards,

Riti Jain

Search results for 'tag:Numbers tag:Phonics' matching tags 'Numbers' and 'Phonics'

Re: ONE chart for sounds produced by MANY humans ???

ONE chart for sounds produced by MANY humans ???

An Error in âBlack Englishâ

Re: Marketing

An Error in âBlack Englishâ