Jonas Eckerman writes:

Incorrect; it is possible to objectively measured the intensity of a
sound.

But then you're not measuring how loud it is.

On what basis do you make that claim, Jonas?

Incorrect, given that one could install a monitoring device including
a microphone, for example.

That would not tell you how loud it is.

On what basis do you make that claim, Jonas?

The term "loud" is used to describe how a sound is perceived.

Not necessarily, Jonas.

Incorrect, given that "loud" could be assigned to a particular
intensity level reached during a recording in the absence of
human ears.

Well... You can allways assign whatever you want. I can assign "gnrffse" to
the length of 42.37 meters if I like. Then I can say that a rope is
gnrffse, and I'll be completely correct (as long as it's 42.37m long).

Classic inappropriate analogy, given that we're not dealing with
made-up words here, Jonas.

And in this case, the parent *perceives* the sound as too liud.

Which has absolutely nothing to do with Fletcher-Munson curves,
as was previously suggested.

That's completely irrelevant to what I wrote.

It's completely relevant to the argument used by some here, Jonas.

And I've never ever mentioned Fletcher-Munson curves.

Irrelevant, given that I never said you did, Jonas. Nevertheless,
they have been mentioned in connection with "loudness", which is a
term that I didn't use in my answer to the original questioner.

The child probably doesn't.

Irrelevant to the issue. The child probably also doesn't understand
what a Fletcher-Munson curve is.

What are you talking about?

I'm talking about the issue, Jonas. Where have you been?

First you tell other people that those curves are irrelevant,

That's because they are in the context of my answer to the original
questioner, Joasn.

and now you tell me that what I say is irrelevant because
the child doesn't understand those curves?

Exactly, given that you're the one talking about "loudness",
Jonas.

If the curves are irrelevant to the question at hand, how
can it then be relevant wether the child understands them
or not?

Because you raised the issue of "loudness", Jonas.

You've just illustrated that "loud" describes how a sound is
perceived.

Incorrect; rather, I've illustrated how "loud" can be used without
reference to Fletcher-Munson curves.

You still illustrated that "loud" describes how a sound is perceived.

On the contrary, I've illustrated example where no perception is
involved, Jonas.

In this case "loud" is just as a description of how someone perceives
a colour.

Which has absolutely nothing to do with Fletcher-Munson curves,
as was previously suggested.

What is it with you and those curves?

The same as it is with you and "loudness", Jonas.

Wich is because the listeners perceives the speech as not loud
enough.

Which has absolutely nothing to do with Fletcher-Munson curves,
as was previously suggested.

Have someone tried to bite you with them?

You have tried to "bite" me with "loudness", Jonas, as evidenced by
the next line of quoted text:

It is quite plausible that the word "loudness" is derived from the
word "loud".

Irrelevant, given that derivation of the word has never been the issue
here, Jonas.

The meaning of the word "loud" has been an issue.

Then why not restrict your discussion to the meaning of that word,
and leave "loudness" out of it, Jonas?

Some of us say that the word "loud" is description of perceived sound,
which you do not agree with.

With good reason, given the examples I provided, which included one
involving loud colors, which have absolutely nothing to do with sound,
Jonas.

This makes the connection between "loud" and
"loudness" relevant (though not decisive) to the issue at hand.

And exactly how are Fletcher-Munson curves relevant to the issue at
hand, Jonas?

While you did not use the word "loudness", you did use the word "loud".

I'm well aware of which word I used, Jonas. Too bad that others didn't
pay attention to that usage.

*If* "loudness" is basically a noun form of the adjective "loud" (or vice
versa), then using "loud" would mean that you describe the "loudness" of
something.

Not necessarily, Jonas, given that someone could be using the term
"loudness" in a technical sense, referring to Fletcher-Munson curves
by implication.