Language /
The usage and future of the special Polish letters: ą, ć, ę, ł, ń, ó, ś, ż, ź (Polish language) [203]
I'm not sure you understand what "arbitrary" means.
I surely do, but I wouldn't bet a rotten banana that you know the terms has a few meanings. Now I'm sure you'll check them.
Even if you have numerical data, in order to classify it you still need some arbitrary criteria. Electromagnetic spectrum of a particular atom is always the same (in the same temperature), the /g/ sound is never the same, even if pronounced by the same person. Stating that Venus is Venus is not arbitrary though, as it's one unique object that remains fairly unchanged.
Same difference when it comes to voiced consonants. Vocal cords vibrate. In voiceless they don't. The intensity and frequency of the vibration may and will vary even for the same person. An atom's characteristics will not be identical either, even if the temperature is constant and the electromagnetic spectrum is identical.
Is there even 100% (or 99%) reliable voice recognition software?
>98% is the best and I'd say that, considering the huge range of issues faced by software developers when it comes to voice recognition, it's a great feat. Commercial software is at around 96%. Not even human voice transcription accuracy rate is at 100%. Various studies show a range of 95% to 99.8%. That is a little higher than understanding e person during a phone conversation.
I'm not rejecting "long established facts", I'm questioning one statement for which I haven't seen empirical proof.
You're not interested in seeing empirical proof. Otherwise you would have found plenty of info on the subject. I won't be doing your homework.
Yes, I did. You said that you can't see Venus because of interference which is an incorrect statement.
It is a perfectly correct statement.
Example:
One of the reasons Palomar Mountain was selected as the site for the 200-inch telescope was its dark skies that would allow observation of the faintest galaxies without theinterference of city lights. Since 1934, rapid urbanization of southern California has resulted in a significant increase in the amount of sky glow. If such light pollution continues to increase, it will seriously reduce the effectiveness of the Palomar Observatory for many types of research.astro.caltech.edu/palomar/lp.html
I used both terms in the post you try to prove wrong.
If it's good for astronomers from California Institute of Technology it should be good for you and me.
You know that I was right and you don't want to admit it. Recognizing/discerning individual sounds in a language is a matter of experience, hearing them is not.
Why should I admit something contrary to science and to experience shown on this very forum. This dialog started with a person with very limited experience, Lyzko, who pronounced a Polish word perfectly well (in regards to /g/), and as predicted by the rules of Polish phonology. The person who listened to him heard a /g/ too. My take is, and this is just a guess, that sometimes native speakers of any language will fall in the trap of hypercorrectness and offer correction when one is not needed.
The fact that inhabitants of big cities do not see stars is not a matter of experience!
Neither is the fact that vocal cords vibrate when voiced sounds are pronounced.
It proves that math courses aren't standard in linguistics.
It also proves they are offered to those who research path will require such knowledge. If you think that a much larger load of math courses would beneficial to linguists then, by all means, suggest it to the those who can effect the changes. But I guess they might ask you why.