(L&N) Q&A Thread - Quick questions go here

A forum for discussing linguistics or just languages in general.
User avatar
jimydog000
sinic
sinic
Posts: 285
Joined: 19 Mar 2016 04:14
Location: Australian Country

Re: (L&N) Q&A Thread - Quick questions go here

Post by jimydog000 »

That diphthong in the New York Accent in strong dogs is analysed as either ɔə~oə~ʊə. But if you had to choose one, what be?
shimobaatar
korean
korean
Posts: 7585
Joined: 12 Jul 2013 23:09
Location: PA → IN

Re: (L&N) Q&A Thread - Quick questions go here

Post by shimobaatar »

jimydog000 wrote: 16 Aug 2020 22:45 That diphthong in the New York Accent in strong dogs is analysed as either ɔə~oə~ʊə. But if you had to choose one, what be?
Based on my intuition about/knowledge of my own speech, the height of the rounded element can vary rather freely, but if I had to pick just one, I might choose [oə̯] as a sort of compromise between the other two options. If it were just between the two "extremes", though, I'd chose [ʊə̯].

As a disclaimer, I'm from near Philadelphia, not New York. As far as I know, this phenomenon (diphthongization of the CLOTH-THOUGHT vowel) is something the two cities have in common, but if you're curious about New York City English in particular, someone from that part of the US might have a different answer.
User avatar
ixals
sinic
sinic
Posts: 406
Joined: 28 Jul 2015 18:43

Re: (L&N) Q&A Thread - Quick questions go here

Post by ixals »

Does anyone know the origin of the circumflex accent in Ancient Greek? So far I haven't found anything on it.
Native: :deu:
Learning: :gbr:, :chn:, :tur:, :fra:

Zhér·dûn a tonal Germanic conlang

old stuff: Цiски | Noattȯč | Tungōnis Vīdīnōs
User avatar
Creyeditor
mongolian
mongolian
Posts: 3933
Joined: 14 Aug 2012 19:32

Re: (L&N) Q&A Thread - Quick questions go here

Post by Creyeditor »

Clarification question: Do you mean the accent "mark" or the accent "sound"?
Creyeditor
"Thoughts are free."
Produce, Analyze, Manipulate
1 :deu: 2 :eng: 3 :idn: 4 :fra: 4 :esp:
:con: Ook & Omlűt & Nautli languages & Sperenjas
[<3] Papuan languages, Morphophonology, Lexical Semantics [<3]
User avatar
ixals
sinic
sinic
Posts: 406
Joined: 28 Jul 2015 18:43

Re: (L&N) Q&A Thread - Quick questions go here

Post by ixals »

Creyeditor wrote: 05 Sep 2020 19:32 Clarification question: Do you mean the accent "mark" or the accent "sound"?
The sound [:)]
Native: :deu:
Learning: :gbr:, :chn:, :tur:, :fra:

Zhér·dûn a tonal Germanic conlang

old stuff: Цiски | Noattȯč | Tungōnis Vīdīnōs
User avatar
Pabappa
sinic
sinic
Posts: 432
Joined: 18 Nov 2017 02:41
Contact:

Re: (L&N) Q&A Thread - Quick questions go here

Post by Pabappa »

i think its just an ordinary sequence of a high and low tone, as in Baltic ... according to Wikipedia it occurs only on long vowels and diphthongs, suggesting that its origin is from a high tone followed by a vowel (which would need to be low tone since there were never 2 stressed syllables in one word).
I'll take the theses, and you can have the thoses.
User avatar
Davush
greek
greek
Posts: 546
Joined: 10 Jan 2015 14:10

Re: (L&N) Q&A Thread - Quick questions go here

Post by Davush »

Hello. I have some questions regarding headedness and compounding which hopefully somebody more knowledgeable might be able to explain/expand upon.

1) Does compounding always overwhelmingly follow the overall head direction of the language? E.g. considering just Noun-Noun compounds for now, are there any head-initial (in the noun phrase, or overall) languages which predominantly use head-final compounds? Such as "book big", Vs "bigbook"?

2) Is there any explanation as to why SOV, or head-final, languages appear to have a much smaller number of verbs? There was a study which demonstrated this correlation, also noting that Noun+Light Verb constructions were often used to make new verbs in the sample (e.g. Japanese "telephone-do" for "to call/phone").

3) Is there any explanation as to why languages overall generally seem to prefer suffixation over prefixation? I know there are some counterexamples, but if I remember correctly, no language is entirely prefixation, while the opposite is true (or nearly) true. If a language is strongly head-initial, does suffixation come into this? E.g. might a strongly head-initial language develop methods of derivation via suffixation (which means head-finalness in those cases)?

4) This is more conlang related but also useful to see if there natlang precedents or possible explanations. Let's say the language is overall quite strongly head-initial, would having aspect markers follow the verb be considered an example head-finalness? What might motivate this. I could a guess a few motivations...e.g.:

I finish-eat bread: "I've eaten the bread" where "eat bread" essentially becomes the object of finish.

I eat-finish bread: This seems like it could be more sequential, e.g. "I ate the bread (until I) finished it."

I realise there is probably no single answer/consensus regarding these topics, but it would be interesting to hear a bit more.
Thank you!
Salmoneus
MVP
MVP
Posts: 2022
Joined: 19 Sep 2011 19:37

Re: (L&N) Q&A Thread - Quick questions go here

Post by Salmoneus »

Well, "why" questions really get more into the theological/linguistic side of things, and I can't really answer. Depends on your denomination, I suppose.

I think one way to think of it, though, would be to imagine that a) the left-hand margin of words is particularly important in recognising them, and b) there is an approximate hierarchy in which nouns are more important than verbs, which are more important than adverbs, prepositions, etc.


a) would explain prefixation being relatively rare: prefixes obscure word onsets (conversely - because the word onset is clear, reanalysis particles as prefixes is less attractive). Word terminations aren't as important, so suffixes are more likely attached. Likewise, the widespread deletion of initial segments is a relatively rare soundchange, whereas the widespread deletion of final segments is extremely common.

Combine a) with b), and it would exlain the different outcomes of noun-verb and verb-noun sequences. Since nouns are more important than verbs, and onsets are particularly salient, a verb-noun sequence has the most salient point in the middle of the sequence; this makes it more difficult to interpret as a single unit. Conversely, in a noun-verb sequence, the most salient point remains at the beginning of the sequence, as though it were a word. It's easier to interpret it as a single unit, either by complete compounding, or by treating the noun-verb sequence as a multi-word lexical entity. If you treat it as a lexical entity, it's able to supplant, or obviate the need to invent, more specific words. [if you mentally have the entry "water remove" as a legitimate coherent concept in your language, you don't feel as much need to borrow the word 'dehydrate']. This would tend over time to result in more phrasal verbs with light verbs and nouns.

But I'm not a linguist, so I may be talking nonsense!
User avatar
eldin raigmore
korean
korean
Posts: 5567
Joined: 14 Aug 2010 19:38
Location: SouthEast Michigan

Initial+Medial+Final (Algic) Morphology

Post by eldin raigmore »

Can anyone recommend a good general online source about the kind of Initial+Medial+Final method of deriving word-stems that is used by Algic or Algonquian languages (at least for some parts-of-speech)?

Can anyone recommend a conlang that uses something similar?

I think it should be as popular, among conlangers, as the Afro-Asiatic tri-consonantal-root-system.
Anyone agree?

But I’m a beginner and can’t get much information.
User avatar
jimydog000
sinic
sinic
Posts: 285
Joined: 19 Mar 2016 04:14
Location: Australian Country

Re: (L&N) Q&A Thread - Quick questions go here

Post by jimydog000 »

shimobaatar wrote: 16 Aug 2020 23:30
jimydog000 wrote: 16 Aug 2020 22:45 That diphthong in the New York Accent in strong dogs is analysed as either ɔə~oə~ʊə. But if you had to choose one, what be?
Based on my intuition about/knowledge of my own speech, the height of the rounded element can vary rather freely, but if I had to pick just one, I might choose [oə̯] as a sort of compromise between the other two options. If it were just between the two "extremes", though, I'd chose [ʊə̯].

As a disclaimer, I'm from near Philadelphia, not New York. As far as I know, this phenomenon (diphthongization of the CLOTH-THOUGHT vowel) is something the two cities have in common, but if you're curious about New York City English in particular, someone from that part of the US might have a different answer.
I was thinking [oə̯] as well. I'm just enamored on the way Larry King speaks, its almost a protruded [oə̯].
...My spell checker wants me to say enamoured but I rarely if ever seen it like that.
User avatar
Davush
greek
greek
Posts: 546
Joined: 10 Jan 2015 14:10

Re: (L&N) Q&A Thread - Quick questions go here

Post by Davush »

Salmoneus wrote: 11 Sep 2020 22:06 Well, "why" questions really get more into the theological/linguistic side of things, and I can't really answer. Depends on your denomination, I suppose.
...
Thank you, Salmoneus. That was very useful! While such questions do verge into the 'theological' side of things, I think they are nonetheless interesting to think/speculate about...(also not a linguist, though!)
User avatar
KaiTheHomoSapien
greek
greek
Posts: 515
Joined: 15 Feb 2016 06:10
Location: Northern California

Re: (L&N) Q&A Thread - Quick questions go here

Post by KaiTheHomoSapien »

So what's the difference between "iku" and "yuku" in Japanese (i.e. the verb "to go"). I was looking at song lyrics and saw in the lyrics the word is written いこう (ikou) but the singer clearly says "yukou". Are they just completely interchangeable?
User avatar
sangi39
moderator
moderator
Posts: 2702
Joined: 12 Aug 2010 01:53
Location: North Yorkshire, UK

Re: (L&N) Q&A Thread - Quick questions go here

Post by sangi39 »

KaiTheHomoSapien wrote: 01 Oct 2020 05:13 So what's the difference between "iku" and "yuku" in Japanese (i.e. the verb "to go"). I was looking at song lyrics and saw in the lyrics the word is written いこう (ikou) but the singer clearly says "yukou". Are they just completely interchangeable?
Wiktionary at least seems to suggest they're interchangeable:

https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/%E8%A1%8 ... F#Japanese
You can tell the same lie a thousand times,
But it never gets any more true,
So close your eyes once more and once more believe
That they all still believe in you.
Just one time.
User avatar
DesEsseintes
mongolian
mongolian
Posts: 4187
Joined: 31 Mar 2013 13:16

Re: (L&N) Q&A Thread - Quick questions go here

Post by DesEsseintes »

KaiTheHomoSapien wrote: 01 Oct 2020 05:13 So what's the difference between "iku" and "yuku" in Japanese (i.e. the verb "to go"). I was looking at song lyrics and saw in the lyrics the word is written いこう (ikou) but the singer clearly says "yukou". Are they just completely interchangeable?
They are largely interchangeable in the plain forms yuku, yukō but I don’t think the yu-forms are often used with the polite forms, which I’ve only ever heard as ikimasu, etc.

The forms in ik- are just simplifications of the form in yu-. The opposite development can be seen in the verb 言う iu which tends to become yuu, with analogy extending that even to the past tense yutta for earlier itta.

In names the element 之 -yuki (of the same origin) is never simplified to *-iki.
User avatar
KaiTheHomoSapien
greek
greek
Posts: 515
Joined: 15 Feb 2016 06:10
Location: Northern California

Re: (L&N) Q&A Thread - Quick questions go here

Post by KaiTheHomoSapien »

Thanks. I had always found it confusing. I also found this on Quora:

"In poem and song lyrics sometimes the writer uses "yuku". For example the song from Ikimonogakari 歩いていこう (read: aruite yukou). What's more bizzare is that the lyrics is written in the hiragana form いこう but they read it as ゆこう (yukou), so basically they both mean the same thing :)."
Post Reply