The CBB

Is it likely to have one word in a set loaned and another word not loaned? For example, I loaned one word from another language meaning "bridegroom" and have another word natively derived meaning "bride." I reckon these type of words are usually not loaned individually, but counterexamples would be appreciated.

Ælfwine wrote: ↑29 Jul 2020 10:42 Is it likely to have one word in a set loaned and another word not loaned? For example, I loaned one word from another language meaning "bridegroom" and have another word natively derived meaning "bride." I reckon these type of words are usually not loaned individually, but counterexamples would be appreciated.

"Wife" and "husband" in English both go back to Old English, but "husband" is often said to come from Old Norse before that. "Father" in Finnish, iso, is inherited, while "mother", äiti, is a borrowing from Germanic, vs. native emä (which apparently now refers to the mothers of animals). I can't think of any other examples off of the top of my head (unless you want to include things like "pork" and "beef" vs. "pig" and "cow" in English as well). I'd imagine they're relatively rare, but they don't seem to be unattested.

sangi39 wrote: ↑29 Jul 2020 14:08

Ælfwine wrote: ↑29 Jul 2020 10:42 Is it likely to have one word in a set loaned and another word not loaned? For example, I loaned one word from another language meaning "bridegroom" and have another word natively derived meaning "bride." I reckon these type of words are usually not loaned individually, but counterexamples would be appreciated.

"Wife" and "husband" in English both go back to Old English, but "husband" is often said to come from Old Norse before that. "Father" in Finnish, iso, is inherited, while "mother", äiti, is a borrowing from Germanic, vs. native emä (which apparently now refers to the mothers of animals). I can't think of any other examples off of the top of my head (unless you want to include things like "pork" and "beef" vs. "pig" and "cow" in English as well). I'd imagine they're relatively rare, but they don't seem to be unattested.

Awesome, good to know that it is attested. Thanks Sangi.

Ælfwine wrote: ↑29 Jul 2020 20:04

sangi39 wrote: ↑29 Jul 2020 14:08

Ælfwine wrote: ↑29 Jul 2020 10:42 Is it likely to have one word in a set loaned and another word not loaned? For example, I loaned one word from another language meaning "bridegroom" and have another word natively derived meaning "bride." I reckon these type of words are usually not loaned individually, but counterexamples would be appreciated.

"Wife" and "husband" in English both go back to Old English, but "husband" is often said to come from Old Norse before that. "Father" in Finnish, iso, is inherited, while "mother", äiti, is a borrowing from Germanic, vs. native emä (which apparently now refers to the mothers of animals). I can't think of any other examples off of the top of my head (unless you want to include things like "pork" and "beef" vs. "pig" and "cow" in English as well). I'd imagine they're relatively rare, but they don't seem to be unattested.

Awesome, good to know that it is attested. Thanks Sangi.

The only thing is that I don't know why they were borrowed in that manner (or rather, under what circumstances that sort of borrowing happened, except for the meat vs. animal thing in English). For example, was there a period in the history of Finnish in which women were, in large enough numbers, Germanic-speaking women, or was it borrowed into Finnish for some other reason? (although, I suppose, to what extent that even matters after 2000 years is debatable)

sangi39 wrote: ↑29 Jul 2020 21:02

Ælfwine wrote: ↑29 Jul 2020 20:04

sangi39 wrote: ↑29 Jul 2020 14:08

Ælfwine wrote: ↑29 Jul 2020 10:42 Is it likely to have one word in a set loaned and another word not loaned? For example, I loaned one word from another language meaning "bridegroom" and have another word natively derived meaning "bride." I reckon these type of words are usually not loaned individually, but counterexamples would be appreciated.

"Wife" and "husband" in English both go back to Old English, but "husband" is often said to come from Old Norse before that. "Father" in Finnish, iso, is inherited, while "mother", äiti, is a borrowing from Germanic, vs. native emä (which apparently now refers to the mothers of animals). I can't think of any other examples off of the top of my head (unless you want to include things like "pork" and "beef" vs. "pig" and "cow" in English as well). I'd imagine they're relatively rare, but they don't seem to be unattested.

Awesome, good to know that it is attested. Thanks Sangi.

The only thing is that I don't know why they were borrowed in that manner (or rather, under what circumstances that sort of borrowing happened, except for the meat vs. animal thing in English). For example, was there a period in the history of Finnish in which women were, in large enough numbers, Germanic-speaking women, or was it borrowed into Finnish for some other reason? (although, I suppose, to what extent that even matters after 2000 years is debatable)

Actually most words referring to female relatives are borrowed

Äiti 'mother' Germanic, isä ' father' Uralic
Sisar (sisko being some diminutive) 'sister' Baltic, veli 'brother' Uralic
Tytär 'daughter' from some IE lang, poika 'son' Uralic
täti 'aunt' borrowed from somewhere, setä, eno 'uncle' uralic

Anoppi and appi 'mother and father in law' are both Uralic.
I don't know what is the origin of the words referring to other in-law relatives. Finnish has many of them though they are rarely used: nato, käly, miniä, kyty, lanko, vävy.

Iso 'father' is used in Kalevala. The usual word is isä. Iso means 'big'.

Actually, there is some genetic research that y-chromosome line of most Finns comes from the east and the mitochondria line comes from the west. But I think it's never been connected to family words.

Yiddish is also a good example. (especially the Southeast dialect group, which I am most familiar with, and which I will be using) The normal word for "mother" is /mɪtr̩/, of Germanic stock, but "father" is /tatə/, from an unknown Slavic language. /futr̩/ is also a synonym, but in the SE dialect group, it is rare. See also, the word for " in-law" /mɪxitn̩/ (m) /mɪxitnɛstɛ/ (f), from (Though the F form has a Slavic gender suffix), while the word for the specifics are from Germanic (/ʃver/ "Father-in-law" /ʃvɪgr̩/ "Mother-in-law"). Meanwhile, the words for "son" and "daughter" are both Germanic, while the words for "Grandfather" and "Grandmother" are both Slavic.

In the specific case of 'asymmetrical' borrowing of kin terms and the like, I'd suggest three motivations:

a) as pointed out, male and female lines often come from different communities; mothers, in particular, can easily introduce loanwords from their mother-tongues related to mothers, aunts, grandmothers and so forth.

b) different linguistic communities can have different social structures. If a language tends to group female kin together in relatively few terms, for example, it may be relatively receptive to borrowing more technical kin vocabulary from a neighbour when the social structure changes.

c) probably the biggest thing is politeness and formality. Loanwords often have a higher register, and hence their use can signify respect or formality. As an example in English of loaning of kin terms, see (highly Anglicised pronunciations of) 'mater' and 'pater' among upper-class English prior to a few generations ago, and the more widespread borrowing of Romance 'pa'. Although in the mater/pater case it's both genders (although my impression is that 'mater' was much more common), it's not unusual for women, particularly female kin, to be referred to more respectfully, both as part of a general ethos of chivalry, and as a strategy to avoid pissing violent men off by talking the wrong way about their mothers and sisters...

I thought I would be able to find a language that doesn't mark past-tense, having past-tense as the default, but marks non-past.
But I couldn't find any, or any discussion about it. Does it happen though?

jimydog000 wrote: ↑30 Jul 2020 11:46 I thought I would be able to find a language that doesn't mark past-tense, having past-tense as the default, but marks non-past.
But I couldn't find any, or any discussion about it. Does it happen though?

I assume so, but can't cite you. Have you tried the Raritatenkabinett?

There's a phrase consisting of two or more words in the object language and a basic root in the metalanguage, and they have the same meaning. For example, I can imagine a singular word that means "rocking chair"; alternatively, in itota itiko "itota itiko" means "language". How do I gloss this?

littlesalmon wrote: ↑31 Jul 2020 18:29 There's a phrase consisting of two or more words in the object language and a basic root in the metalanguage, and they have the same meaning. For example, I can imagine a singular word that means "rocking chair"; alternatively, in itota itiko "itota itiko" means "language". How do I gloss this?

Assuming each of the object-language words has individual meaning, I would gloss that. So if I were glossing "rocking chair" in Spanish, I'd write:

rocking chair
rock-ing chair
mecer-PTCP.PRS silla
mecedora

If the words don't have individual meaning, the closest thing I can find in the Leipzig Glossing Rules is Rule 8, on bipartite elements, where they say to either repeat the gloss, or gloss the first element in the metalanguage and the second element as a "special label", perhaps its grammatical category. These are their examples using the bipartite Lakhota stem na-xʔu̧ 'hear':

(24) Lakhota

na-wíčha-wa-xʔu̧
hear-3PL.UND-1SG.ACT-hear
'I hear them' (UND = undergoer, ACT = actor)

(25) Lakhota

na-wíčha-wa-xʔu̧
hear-3PL.UND-1SG.ACT- STEM
'I hear them'

EDIT: switching my "rocking chair" example to Spanish since it has a one-word translation

In that situation, you typically provide a separate gloss of each word, effectively showing the literal expression in the object language.

For example, "Latin" (the language) in Latin as a noun phrase must sometimes be expressed as two words:
linguae latīnae oblīvīscor
tongue.SG.GEN Latin.FEM.SG.GEN forget.PRES.INDIC.1SG
'I'm forgetting Latin'

Or, more simply, you could write:
tongue.GEN Latin.FEM.SG.GEN forget.1SG

If it involves synonyms (e.g. "cease and desist, will and testament"), then you simply repeat the metalanguage gloss as appropriate:
id dissertō et tractō
it.ACC explain.1SG and explain.1SG

I meant that the words don't have individual meaning. And I've seen this in the Leipzig glossing rules, but I don't know if it quite works. Maybe if combined with the space-and-hyphen for morphologically bound, but phonetically separate morphemes, like that:

itot-a -itik-o
language-NM-language-ADJM

Though now I realized that in the thing that I wanted to gloss in the first place the words do have individual meaning:

itot-a itik-o
concept-NM language-ADJM

Anyway, thank you.

jimydog000 wrote: ↑30 Jul 2020 11:46 I thought I would be able to find a language that doesn't mark past-tense, having past-tense as the default, but marks non-past.
But I couldn't find any, or any discussion about it. Does it happen though?

I think this is common actually, especially the past-tense as default part. This often happens in languages that do not have inflectional tense marking. I read a paper on Balinese and the unmarked forms where translated as past tense, whereas TAM particles could change this to present progressive or perfect translations. I am pretty sure there are more such languages, but I am only judging from translations so far. I guess someone must have done research on it. Lisa Matthewson's research group might be a good place to start.

---

littlesalmon wrote: ↑31 Jul 2020 19:51 I meant that the words don't have individual meaning. And I've seen this in the Leipzig glossing rules, but I don't know if it quite works. Maybe if combined with the space-and-hyphen for morphologically bound, but phonetically separate morphemes, like that:

itot-a -itik-o
language-NM-language-ADJM

Though now I realized that in the thing that I wanted to gloss in the first place the words do have individual meaning:

itot-a itik-o
concept-NM language-ADJM

Anyway, thank you.

Edit: Literal translation works, actually, and I realized it yourself just as you (Ser) were writing this, but, anyway, thank you.

Do you mean when two words in the target language can only be translated as one word in the metalanguage? This is actually a gap in the Leipzig Glossing Rules. My professor suggested the hash mark on the target language line to join the two words, like some people do in phonology.

Creyeditor wrote: ↑31 Jul 2020 23:00

jimydog000 wrote: ↑30 Jul 2020 11:46 I thought I would be able to find a language that doesn't mark past-tense, having past-tense as the default, but marks non-past.
But I couldn't find any, or any discussion about it. Does it happen though?

I think this is common actually, especially the past-tense as default part. This often happens in languages that do not have inflectional tense marking. I read a paper on Balinese and the unmarked forms where translated as past tense, whereas TAM particles could change this to present progressive or perfect translations. I am pretty sure there are more such languages, but I am only judging from translations so far. I guess someone must have done research on it. Lisa Matthewson's research group might be a good place to start.

I'd note that there's a difference here between a language with compulsory tense, but with the past zero-marked, and a language with optional tense marking, in which the unmarked forms are often translated into English as past-tense. Both probably happen, but I'd guess that the latter happens much more often than the former...

Creyeditor wrote: ↑31 Jul 2020 23:00 Do you mean when two words in the target language can only be translated as one word in the metalanguage? This is actually a gap in the Leipzig Glossing Rules. My professor suggested the hash mark on the target language line to join the two words, like some people do in phonology.

That's actually a really good idea. I'll probably use this if I'll ever actually run into this problem; anyway, thank you.

My settings Catfolk language has an assimulating <l>, as described below. Is it described correctly? If not, how should I be describing it?

[l̪, l, ʟ] are in complementary distribution with [l̪], occurring adjacent to [f, v], [l] adjacent to [t, ɗ, s, z] or at the beginning or end of a word, and [ʟ] adjacent to [k, g, w].

yangfiretiger121 wrote: ↑02 Aug 2020 14:42 My settings Catfolk language has an assimulating <l>, as described below. Is it described correctly? If not, how should I be describing it?

[l̪, l, ʟ] are in complementary distribution with [l̪], occurring adjacent to [f, v], [l] adjacent to [t, ɗ, s, z] or at the beginning or end of a word, and [ʟ] adjacent to [k, g, w].

Can any of the three (or even two out of the three) appear intervocalically? Are there any other consonants that all three (or again, even two out of the three) can occur next to?

If not, then yes, it sounds like [l̪ l ʟ] are all in complementary distribution with one another, meaning they could be seen as allophones of a single phoneme /l/.

However, for clarity's sake, I would recommend moving the position of the first comma in your description to immediately after the word "distribution":

[l̪, l, ʟ] are in complementary distribution, with [l̪] occurring adjacent to [f, v], [l] adjacent to [t, ɗ, s, z] or at the beginning or end of a word, and [ʟ] adjacent to [k, g, w].

shimobaatar wrote: ↑02 Aug 2020 16:10

yangfiretiger121 wrote: ↑02 Aug 2020 14:42 My settings Catfolk language has an assimulating <l>, as described below. Is it described correctly? If not, how should I be describing it?

[l̪, l, ʟ] are in complementary distribution with [l̪], occurring adjacent to [f, v], [l] adjacent to [t, ɗ, s, z] or at the beginning or end of a word, and [ʟ] adjacent to [k, g, w].

Can any of the three (or even two out of the three) appear intervocalically? Are there any other consonants that all three (or again, even two out of the three) can occur next to?

If not, then yes, it sounds like [l̪ l ʟ] are all in complementary distribution with one another, meaning they could be seen as allophones of a single phoneme /l/.

However, for clarity's sake, I would recommend moving the position of the first comma in your description to immediately after the word "distribution":

[l̪, l, ʟ] are in complementary distribution, with [l̪] occurring adjacent to [f, v], [l] adjacent to [t, ɗ, s, z] or at the beginning or end of a word, and [ʟ] adjacent to [k, g, w].

For context, "[l]" is used in this response where necessary because it's the most common phone. Actually, I hadn't thought about [l]'s intervocalic phone for some reason, but it'd be either [l̪] or [l]. [l] only occurs adjacent to [m, ŋ] in compounds, where it's unchanged because of phonotactics.

yangfiretiger121 wrote: ↑02 Aug 2020 17:33 Actually, I hadn't thought about [l]'s intervocalic phone for some reason, but it'd be either [l̪] or [l].

So either [l̪] or [l] can occur intervocalically, but can the occurrence of one as opposed to the other potentially change the meaning of a word or morpheme? For example, using V to stand for any vowel, could [Vl̪V] and [VlV] be different words/morphemes in this language?

If so, then [l̪] and [l] are in contrastive distribution intervocalically, and I'd describe them as the intervocalic realizations/allophones of two separate phonemes /l̪/ and /l/, even if the distinction between these two phonemes seems to be neutralized in most other environments.

If, however, [Vl̪V] and [VlV] are just two possible pronunciations of the same word/morpheme, then it sounds like [l̪] and [l] are in free variation intervocalically. In that case, I'd still describe them as allophones of a single phoneme /l/.

yangfiretiger121 wrote: ↑02 Aug 2020 17:33 [l] only occurs adjacent to [m, ŋ] in compounds, where it's unchanged because of phonotactics.

I'm not sure I understand what you mean that it's unchanged because of phonotactics. However, if only [l] can occur adjacent to [m] or [ŋ], then it still sounds like [l̪ l ʟ] are all allophones of a single phoneme.