Page 17 of 17

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

Posted: 16 Aug 2020 22:45
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?

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

Posted: 16 Aug 2020 23:30
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.

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

Posted: 05 Sep 2020 19:30
by ixals
Does anyone know the origin of the circumflex accent in Ancient Greek? So far I haven't found anything on it.

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

Posted: 05 Sep 2020 19:32
by Creyeditor
Clarification question: Do you mean the accent "mark" or the accent "sound"?

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

Posted: 05 Sep 2020 20:44
by ixals
Creyeditor wrote:
05 Sep 2020 19:32
Clarification question: Do you mean the accent "mark" or the accent "sound"?
The sound [:)]

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

Posted: 05 Sep 2020 21:07
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).

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

Posted: 11 Sep 2020 11:14
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!

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

Posted: 11 Sep 2020 22:06
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!

Initial+Medial+Final (Algic) Morphology

Posted: 15 Sep 2020 15:22
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.

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

Posted: 15 Sep 2020 16:57
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.

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

Posted: 23 Sep 2020 22:22
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!)