Question about the Linguistic Academic dialect of English

[Particles the Greek]

What lies behind the treatment of phonemic/phonetic sound-classes as mass nouns, rather than count nouns, in usages such as "Word-final /i/ disappears after consonant" or "clusters of resonant and obstruent"?

[din]

I guess that happens more often, for example in cooking:

"(ingredient) goes well with onion / garlic / pumpkin / orange"

... And I suppose that in the quoted analysis these have been identified as categories, so I can see why the author treated them as mass-nouns.

But personally I would have gone for the plural because it sounds really odd and unnatural.

[Particles the Greek]

Phonemes as food? Now there's one for the synaesthetes.

[Rui]

Is this a thing? I'm not sure if I recall ever seeing something like this before, and like din I find it to sound extremely odd. Do you have some examples from articles or papers you are referring to? (Edit- I realize that's a dumb question since you provided some in the OP). Thinking about it more, the second example you provide doesn't sound *too* strange, but the first example sounds flat out wrong to my ears

(PS- din, "garlic" is always a mass noun, regardless of context )

[Morrígan]

Thinking about it more, the second example you provide doesn't sound *too* strange, but the first example sounds flat out wrong to my ears

This is also my impression. Second is perfectly normal; first is strange and I don't think I've ever heard that uttered.

[hwhatting]

Thinking about it more, the second example you provide doesn't sound *too* strange, but the first example sounds flat out wrong to my ears

This is also my impression. Second is perfectly normal; first is strange and I don't think I've ever heard that uttered.

Both sound perfectly normal to me, perhaps because it's usual in German academic prose. But you can find English examples for rules using "after consonant"; here are some I found with a google search for "after consonant":

yr (after consonant and before vowel or h)
Laryngeal after consonant
preceding A, O, U, or consonant
a very short, soundless, unsyllabic vowel after consonant in final position
After consonant or glide

[Ser]

This, of course, goes along with the Academese use of mass nouns in the plural. Just look at "discourses" and especially "continuities" in these couple sentences from Farrell's Latin Language and Latin Culture:

The bifurcation of Latin culture in modern times can be described in terms of related discourses. One of these discourses works to deemphasize continuities and establish distinctions between kinds of latinity that would be embodied in the structure of the several academic disciplines concerned with Latin studies.

[Radius Solis]

Though not all, I think a lot of the examples given, and a lot of the instances in usage, are not mass nouns but telegraphic style, in which the article can sometimes be done away with.

edit: this does go with the cooking example, though. "Fill bowl with mixture and place on rack", and so forth.

[chris_notts]

The thing that drives me crazy is that linguists seem much more likely than the general population to replace default / unknown gender 'he' with default 'she'.

If you don't like to use 'he' for some reason, English already has a perfectly good alternative pronoun to use when gender is not known / irrelevant - 'they'. Usage of 'they' for singular referents of unknown or irrelevant gender is recorded going back centuries, IIRC, unlike 'she'.

I really don't understand it, and I find it jarring since I don't know anybody who actually uses 'she' in that way in speech. It seems to be a purely written phenomenon used to overcompensate for perceived sexism of 'he' as a default pronoun. But I'm not sure how switching to the other gendered pronoun as a default is any improvement, especially when there is already a more established alternative to 'he'. Why are they struggling to create another alternative to default 'he' that isn't as good as the alternative we already have?

[Basilius]

Though not all, I think a lot of the examples given, and a lot of the instances in usage, are not mass nouns but telegraphic style, in which the article can sometimes be done away with.

This.

SCIENTISTS PROVE PIE LARYNGEAL DROPS BEFORE CONSONANT

CHOMSKY FORBIDS MOVEMENT OF SUBJECT TO SPEC (SHOCKING DIAGRAMS)

[Particles the Greek]

Though not all, I think a lot of the examples given, and a lot of the instances in usage, are not mass nouns but telegraphic style, in which the article can sometimes be done away with.

This.

SCIENTISTS PROVE PIE LARYNGEAL DROPS BEFORE CONSONANT

CHOMSKY FORBIDS MOVEMENT OF SUBJECT TO SPEC (SHOCKING DIAGRAMS)

Heh. It just puzzles me that this usage seems to be limited to academic linguists, of all people.

[Yng]

have I misunderstood or are you saying that it is puzzling that only academic linguists are prepared to abbreviate sentences with words like 'obstruent' in them

[Salmoneus]

have I misunderstood or are you saying that it is puzzling that only academic linguists are prepared to abbreviate sentences with words like 'obstruent' in them

Well, that is true. I've never heard a non-linguist drop the article before 'obstruant'.

Chris: not just linguists, academics in general. Philosophy, in particular - I think they lynch you if you write a philosophy article with the word 'he' in it, unless you're talking about rape or murder or something.

[gmalivuk]

I really don't understand it, and I find it jarring since I don't know anybody who actually uses 'she' in that way in speech. It seems to be a purely written phenomenon used to overcompensate for perceived sexism of 'he' as a default pronoun. But I'm not sure how switching to the other gendered pronoun as a default is any improvement, especially when there is already a more established alternative to 'he'. Why are they struggling to create another alternative to default 'he' that isn't as good as the alternative we already have?

Are you sure they're switching to "she" more than half the time? Couldn't you just be noticing "she" more than "he" because it's jarring and unfamiliar to you? Personally, I tend to flip back and forth when talking about specific people of unimportant gender (since "they" *hasn't* been long used in this way, and I still find it ungrammatical to do so personally), and I imagine that anything close to an even split would stand out to some people as excessive use of "she" because they wouldn't notice or think about most instances of generic "he".

[finlay]

Perhaps academic English is a different beast, but no, "singular they" has been around at least since Shakespeare and generic he also strikes me as unnatural.

There was a jarring example the other day where the example with she was talking about makeup and the example with he was talking about cars, and it just reminded me how seriously and implicitly some people take weird gender dichotomies.

[gmalivuk]

Perhaps academic English is a different beast, but no, "singular they" has been around at least since Shakespeare and generic he also strikes me as unnatural.

To refer to indefinite referents, for sure, but I'm talking about definite referents.

"Everyone should have their own book," is perfectly grammatical for me, and is the kind of thing that has been around for centuries.

"The scientist moving at 0.9c should have their own book," on the other hand, is a bit ungrammatical for me, and as far as I know isn't the kind of thing that has been around for centuries.

[Radius Solis]

Even though I normally advocate to just leave our damned pronoun system alone, I have to admit that gender-neutral "he" has come to feel unnatural to me too. Like "she", it fails to actually feel gender-neutral when I read it; my natural assumption is to assume a male is being referred to, and then if that doesn't read right I will notice I've erred.

[gmalivuk]

What lies behind the treatment of phonemic/phonetic sound-classes as mass nouns, rather than count nouns, in usages such as "Word-final /i/ disappears after consonant" or "clusters of resonant and obstruent"?

I can't make myself parse these as mass nouns, but picturing them as game animals with unmarked plurals. "My brother went hunting for pheasant while I was hoping to bag a few obstruent myself."

[Drydic]

Perhaps academic English is a different beast, but no, "singular they" has been around at least since Shakespeare and generic he also strikes me as unnatural.

To refer to indefinite referents, for sure, but I'm talking about definite referents.

"Everyone should have their own book," is perfectly grammatical for me, and is the kind of thing that has been around for centuries.

"The scientist moving at 0.9c should have their own book," on the other hand, is a bit ungrammatical for me, and as far as I know isn't the kind of thing that has been around for centuries.

Yes, it has.

[Salmoneus]

Perhaps academic English is a different beast, but no, "singular they" has been around at least since Shakespeare and generic he also strikes me as unnatural.

To refer to indefinite referents, for sure, but I'm talking about definite referents.

"Everyone should have their own book," is perfectly grammatical for me, and is the kind of thing that has been around for centuries.

"The scientist moving at 0.9c should have their own book," on the other hand, is a bit ungrammatical for me, and as far as I know isn't the kind of thing that has been around for centuries.

So lyke wyse shall my hevenly father do vnto you except ye forgeve with youre hertes eache one to his brother their treaspases.

Thus was it agreed among us that every president should assemble their companies.

126 Holes, of that bignesse that one may thrust in their neafe.

[gmalivuk]

Which of those examples has a definite, specific referent?