(L&N) Q&A Thread - Quick questions go here
- eldin raigmore
- korean
- Posts: 6354
- Joined: 14 Aug 2010 19:38
- Location: SouthEast Michigan
Re: (L&N) Q&A Thread - Quick questions go here
I’m posting these questions to this Quick Question thread because I’ve been told I start too many threads that won’t generate much content or response and that violates the No Spam rule.
.....
What’s the difference between the Austronesian/Philippine Morphosyntactic Alignment on the one hand, and Split-Ergativity on the other hand?
Imagine a split-Ergative language in which the basis of the split is purely pragmatic*;
If the Agent is the Focus, then the transitive clause is Nominative/Accusative;
But if the Patient is the Focus, then the transitive clause is Absolutive Ergative.
*(so the split is not conditioned by the animacy nor definiteness of the participants, nor by the TAM of the verb.)
Is that essentially the same as Austronesian/Philippine Alignment?
......
Is Split-Transitive Alignment the same as Austronesian/Philippine Alignment?
.....
What’s the difference between Circumstantial Voice and Applicative Voice?
.....
Must Applicative Voice always promote an oblique (I.e. non-core) argument to the Object ... slot or position ?
Is dative movement a kind of applicative?
Can the applicative ever promote a non-argument to Object?
.....
Must Circumstantial Voice always promote an oblique argument to the Subject position or slot?
Is Passive a kind of Circumstantial Voice?
Can the Circumstantial voice ever make a non-argument the Subject?
Is Causativization a kind of Circumstantial Voice?
.....
Thanks.
.....
What’s the difference between the Austronesian/Philippine Morphosyntactic Alignment on the one hand, and Split-Ergativity on the other hand?
Imagine a split-Ergative language in which the basis of the split is purely pragmatic*;
If the Agent is the Focus, then the transitive clause is Nominative/Accusative;
But if the Patient is the Focus, then the transitive clause is Absolutive Ergative.
*(so the split is not conditioned by the animacy nor definiteness of the participants, nor by the TAM of the verb.)
Is that essentially the same as Austronesian/Philippine Alignment?
......
Is Split-Transitive Alignment the same as Austronesian/Philippine Alignment?
.....
What’s the difference between Circumstantial Voice and Applicative Voice?
.....
Must Applicative Voice always promote an oblique (I.e. non-core) argument to the Object ... slot or position ?
Is dative movement a kind of applicative?
Can the applicative ever promote a non-argument to Object?
.....
Must Circumstantial Voice always promote an oblique argument to the Subject position or slot?
Is Passive a kind of Circumstantial Voice?
Can the Circumstantial voice ever make a non-argument the Subject?
Is Causativization a kind of Circumstantial Voice?
.....
Thanks.
My minicity is http://gonabebig1day.myminicity.com/xml
Re: (L&N) Q&A Thread - Quick questions go here
Philippine alignment is a split alignment. All split alignments are not Philippine alignments.eldin raigmore wrote: ↑05 Oct 2020 02:19 I’m posting these questions to this Quick Question thread because I’ve been told I start too many threads that won’t generate much content or response and that violates the No Spam rule.
.....
What’s the difference between the Austronesian/Philippine Morphosyntactic Alignment on the one hand, and Split-Ergativity on the other hand?
Imagine a split-Ergative language in which the basis of the split is purely pragmatic*;
If the Agent is the Focus, then the transitive clause is Nominative/Accusative;
But if the Patient is the Focus, then the transitive clause is Absolutive Ergative.
*(so the split is not conditioned by the animacy nor definiteness of the participants, nor by the TAM of the verb.)
Is that essentially the same as Austronesian/Philippine Alignment?
......
Is Split-Transitive Alignment the same as Austronesian/Philippine Alignment?
.....
There seems to be several conditioning motivations: The trigger argument is always definite, but other arguments can be definite too. It's usually the topic (what the clause is about) but, when answering a question, the focus (the answer part) is the trigger. If I remember right, only the trigger can be modified by a relative clause.
Yes, the circumstantial voice promotes something to the subject and the applicative promotes something to the object.eldin raigmore wrote: ↑05 Oct 2020 02:19 What’s the difference between Circumstantial Voice and Applicative Voice?
.....
Must Applicative Voice always promote an oblique (I.e. non-core) argument to the Object ... slot or position ?
Is dative movement a kind of applicative?
Can the applicative ever promote a non-argument to Object?
.....
Must Circumstantial Voice always promote an oblique argument to the Subject position or slot?
Is Passive a kind of Circumstantial Voice?
Can the Circumstantial voice ever make a non-argument the Subject?
Is Causativization a kind of Circumstantial Voice?
.....
Thanks.
Usually applicatives promote non-arguments, but I don't think it's its definition. Dative movement does quite the same thing as an applicative, but it's not a voice.
The passive promotes the object to the subject while circumstantial promotes something else to the subject.
Now that I think about it, causativisation is a kind of circumstantial voice.
My meta-thread: viewtopic.php?f=6&t=5760
Re: (L&N) Q&A Thread - Quick questions go here
Unfortunately, both concepts are poorly defined. "Split-Ergative", in particular, is fairly useless as a concept. And all these concepts blur into one another (eg is Direct-Inverse a form of split ergativity or not?). There are similarities between Austronesian and Split-Ergative alignments, sure, but also many differences.eldin raigmore wrote: ↑05 Oct 2020 02:19
What’s the difference between the Austronesian/Philippine Morphosyntactic Alignment on the one hand, and Split-Ergativity on the other hand?
OK, so, when we say 'nominative/accusative', we really mean any or all of three things:Imagine a split-Ergative language in which the basis of the split is purely pragmatic*;
If the Agent is the Focus, then the transitive clause is Nominative/Accusative;
But if the Patient is the Focus, then the transitive clause is Absolutive Ergative.
*(so the split is not conditioned by the animacy nor definiteness of the participants, nor by the TAM of the verb.)
Is that essentially the same as Austronesian/Philippine Alignment?
a) there is either a nominative or an accusative case. A nominative case is used for the subject of an intransitive, and the agent of a transitive; an accusative is only used for the patient of a transitive. Usually it is the accusative that is marked. (a nominal sense)
b) the verb agrees with the subject of an intransitive or the agent of a transitive. (a verbal sense)
c) the subject of an intransitive or the agent of a transitive within one clause have a special privilege when it comes to co-reference and suchlike between clauses. (an interclausal sense)
And conversely with ergative/absolutive. "Split ergative" just means that a, b and c are sometimes but not always true. But there are many different ways this can be the case.
Usually when we talk about split ergativity, we are talking about ergativity in the nominal sense (having an ergative case), because this is much more common in languages than the verbal sense, which is in turn more common than the interclausal sense. (oh, and there's also a word order sense too).
------------------------
Austronesian systems are not split-ergative in this usual, nominal sense, because they do not necessarily have an ergative case. Consider:
dog frog ate-AV
"the dog ate the frog"
dog frog ate-PV
"the frog ate the dog"
In this Austronesian-style example, there is no ergative case marking. Nor accusative case marking. So we're not dealing with nominal ergativity.
[it is of course possible to have nominal ergative marking (NE) AND austronesian alignment (AA), but one doesn't require the other]
-------------------------------
Are Austronesian systems split-ergative in a verbal sense? Well, if we add number agreement, we can see:
dog frogs ate-AV-3s
dog frogs ate-PV-3s
In this example, the verb does indeed agree with the agent in the first sentence, but the patient in the second, so this is, in the sense defined above, verbally split-ergative.
However, consider a similar language with a different pattern of agreement:
dog frogs ate-AV-3s
dog frogs ate-PV-3p
Here, both sentences have the verb agree in number and person with the agent - so this is not ergative at all. Is this still AA? It's a bit more debateable, because the "voices" are then not entirely symmetrical, but fundamentally, yes, it seems to make sense to still call this AA.
What actually happens in most AA, however, ignoring the case of pronominal arguments (which do in many languages become verb affixes in some voices) is that there is just no agreement on the verb at all - the languages that have developed full agreement tend to have lost AA marking. However, this doesn't appear logically necessary.
Given verbs with no agreement marking, and the theoretical possibility of verbs with nominative-absolutive agreement yet still having AA marking, I think we have to conclude that, no, AA is not split ergativity even in a verbal sense.
-----
Is AA split-ergativity in a word order sense? I don't know. Some languages indicate the "subject" or "focus" purely through word order, so could be called split-ergative in word order. Others use both word order and explicit marking. I don't know if any use marking alone, but I suspect so, and can't see any reason why it wouldn't be possible. So again, I don't think AA is split-ergative in principle, in terms of word order.
-----
What about pivots, switch reference and so forth? I'm afraid I don't know.
--
So the general answer is: some caveats, but broadly, no, AA is not split ergative in any usual sense.
Indeed, AA should be seen as an entirely different sort of thing. Although we talk of AA as an 'alignment', that may just be a coincidence: Earth's AA languages happen to generally lack extensive core case marking or verb agreement. This isn't, however, conceptually necessary. You could have a language with E/A case marking and N/A verb agreement, and STILL have AA markings as well (this would obviously be a bit redundant, but redundancy does happen!). This is probably partly why many people prefer to see AA as having nothing inherently to do with semantic role marking, and instead regard it as being about information structure... although real AA languages do indeed use it for semantic purposes as well.
I'm not familiar with 'split transitive alignment'. [although I have used the term in the past to describe my own conlang, Rawàng Ata]
......
Is Split-Transitive Alignment the same as Austronesian/Philippine Alignment?
In the AA context, the big difference is that an applicative is a voice, whereas a circumstantial is a "voice" in the AA sense; it's not clear that it's a voice in the non-AA sense, because it's not clear if AA is best thought of as a voice system......
What’s the difference between Circumstantial Voice and Applicative Voice?
That said, there are two concrete differences.
First, circumstantials indicate that the primary argument, focus, subject, topic, trigger, whatever you call it (let's call it 'locus' to sidestep this issue) is semantically olique.
By contrast an applicative voice promotes a semantic oblique to the syntactic role of direct object. Notably, this occurs in languages where the direct object is NOT the primary argument.
To put that another way: the circumstantial makes an oblique be, in some way, equivalent to the agent of many transitive verbs (and, of course, also the equivalent of the patients of many transitive verbs...); the applicative does not, it only makes the oblique equivalent to the patient of a transitive verb.
Second, applicative voice is a true voice - it is prototypically valency-altering. It turns a univalent verb into a bivalent verb. It is true that the outcome when applied to a bivalent verb is less clearcut - in some languages, it becomes a trivalent verb, while in others it remains bivalent. However, its prototypical use is valency-increasing.
A circumstantial, however, like other 'focuses' in AA, is symmetrical: it does not increase or decrease the valency of the verb.
------------
.....
That is indeed what 'applicative voice' means, yes. Of course, some languages may have quirks and exceptions.
Must Applicative Voice always promote an oblique (I.e. non-core) argument to the Object ... slot or position ?
That's a question of definitions, I suppose. Dative shift (if that's the movement you're thinking of) does increase valency and promote an oblique to object position. However, it does not remove an existing object from that position, which applicatives generally do, and it may not fully move the applicative into the exact position of a normal direct object (as the existing direct object may hold onto it). That said, we've already pointed out that things get hazy with bivalent verbs. I think it makes sense in general to see dative shift as a sort of applicative, yes, and one way of dealing with the question of what to do when you applicativise a bivalent verb. However, it's possible that a language might have dative shift AND a different sort of applicative, so it might make sense to distinguish these in certain languages.Is dative movement a kind of applicative?
I don't understand what you mean by 'non-argument' - what is less an argument than an oblique? Surely an oblique covers anything that could conceivably be promoted? Can you give an example?Can the applicative ever promote a non-argument to Object?
----------------
"Circumstantial voice" in an AA sense marks a semantic oblique as the locus. Whether you call this "subject position" is a matter of (much disputed) definition. I can certainly imagine a conlang that is AA-like enough to have a circumstantial, yet in some way emphatically distinguishes locus from subject.
Must Circumstantial Voice always promote an oblique argument to the Subject position or slot?
No, they have nothing in common.Is Passive a kind of Circumstantial Voice?
Circumstantial marks an oblique as the locus.
Passive promotes the patient to subjecthood and decreases the valency.
Again, what did you have in mind?Can the Circumstantial voice ever make a non-argument the Subject?
No.Is Causativization a kind of Circumstantial Voice?
Circumstantial marks an oblique as the locus. Valency remains the same.
Causatives mark an oblique as the subject. Valency is increased.
I would also note that there is probably some language out there somewhere that has distinct circumstantial (eg instrumental/locative/referential) and causative (/benefactive) triggers.
Re: (L&N) Q&A Thread - Quick questions go here
In conlanging, I have supposed/defined that the circumstantial voice just promotes something that is not a subject or a (direct) object into the subject. (What Subject is in each language, depend on language and thus affects what Circumstantial really is.) I know such voices appear in very few maybe no natural language. Because the circumstantial is not a well-defined concept, I cannot see why it couldn't increase valency.
I don't know what Austronesian languages call Circumstantial voice. Voices in Tagalog can be called voices, IMO, but they are not quite the same as in SAE.
I don't know what Austronesian languages call Circumstantial voice. Voices in Tagalog can be called voices, IMO, but they are not quite the same as in SAE.
My meta-thread: viewtopic.php?f=6&t=5760
Re: (L&N) Q&A Thread - Quick questions go here
Well, anything can be defined as doing/being anything!Omzinesý wrote: ↑05 Oct 2020 17:48 In conlanging, I have supposed/defined that the circumstantial voice just promotes something that is not a subject or a (direct) object into the subject. (What Subject is in each language, depend on language and thus affects what Circumstantial really is.) I know such voices appear in very few maybe no natural language. Because the circumstantial is not a well-defined concept, I cannot see why it couldn't increase valency.
From the context of the question, and from the only times I've heard 'circumstantial voice' before, I assumed the question was about the "circumstantial voice" found in descriptions of some AA languages. And in that context, it's definitional that there is no change in valency.
Do you know of languages that are described as having a circumstantial voice outside of AA languages?
I do tend to call them 'voices', but only because there's no other clear word. It can be confusing because they can co-exist with things that are much more like genuine voices - many austronesian languages have both a 'patient-focus voice' and a genuine 'passive voice'.I don't know what Austronesian languages call Circumstantial voice. Voices in Tagalog can be called voices, IMO, but they are not quite the same as in SAE.
Maybe 'orientation' would be a good word? Agent-orientation, patient-orientation, etc?
Re: (L&N) Q&A Thread - Quick questions go here
I think some syntax book handled Malagasy voices more voice-like than those of Tagalog, and it has a circumstantial. But i'm not sure if they were that voice-like just to simplify things, a quick Wikipedia check implies that they were.Salmoneus wrote: ↑05 Oct 2020 20:29Well, anything can be defined as doing/being anything!Omzinesý wrote: ↑05 Oct 2020 17:48 In conlanging, I have supposed/defined that the circumstantial voice just promotes something that is not a subject or a (direct) object into the subject. (What Subject is in each language, depend on language and thus affects what Circumstantial really is.) I know such voices appear in very few maybe no natural language. Because the circumstantial is not a well-defined concept, I cannot see why it couldn't increase valency.
From the context of the question, and from the only times I've heard 'circumstantial voice' before, I assumed the question was about the "circumstantial voice" found in descriptions of some AA languages. And in that context, it's definitional that there is no change in valency.
Do you know of languages that are described as having a circumstantial voice outside of AA languages?I do tend to call them 'voices', but only because there's no other clear word. It can be confusing because they can co-exist with things that are much more like genuine voices - many austronesian languages have both a 'patient-focus voice' and a genuine 'passive voice'.I don't know what Austronesian languages call Circumstantial voice. Voices in Tagalog can be called voices, IMO, but they are not quite the same as in SAE.
Maybe 'orientation' would be a good word? Agent-orientation, patient-orientation, etc?
Many languages can combine an applicative and a passive. That basically leads to the same result. That is actually the etymology of the Philipine circumstantial, and many Austronesian languages still have it that way (though most of them still don't have a passive in the SAE sense, i'm not sure of any.)
I still don't know if all the triggers appear with intransitive verbs.
My meta-thread: viewtopic.php?f=6&t=5760
Re: (L&N) Q&A Thread - Quick questions go here
So far as I can recall, I've only seen Malagasy as having been described more or less in the same manner as other AA languages.
Citation needed, maybe?Many languages can combine an applicative and a passive. That basically leads to the same result. That is actually the etymology of the Philipine circumstantial
Ross, so far as I can see, reconstructs a PMP circumstantial affix that's simply <b>i-</b>, which doesn't look transparently like a passive-applicative. And I'm actually not aware of PMP having had an applicative anyway, though I'm largely ignorant in this area so please correct me.
Some analyses of Indonesian believe it has (two) undergoer voices and also (two or three, or four, or five, or six, or...) passive voices., and many Austronesian languages still have it that way (though most of them still don't have a passive in the SAE sense, i'm not sure of any.)
Remember to distinguish 'intransitive' from 'univalent'! (eg some people believe that all actor-voice verbs are intransitive).I still don't know if all the triggers appear with intransitive verbs.
- GoshDiggityDangit
- greek
- Posts: 559
- Joined: 18 Dec 2018 21:27
- Location: Oakwood OH, USA
- Contact:
Re: (L&N) Q&A Thread - Quick questions go here
Why do, in some old documents, Russians call the Tlingits "колюжах" meaning thorns? I'm very confused.
“Like billowing clouds, Like the incessant gurgle of the brook,
The longing of the spirit can never be stilled.” ― St. Hildegard von Bingen
The longing of the spirit can never be stilled.” ― St. Hildegard von Bingen
Re: (L&N) Q&A Thread - Quick questions go here
I once listened to Fernando Zuniga's presentation on diathesis, which mainly concentrated on Austronesian languages. I think it was based on a book of his, but I have never found/read it. I also may just have discussed with some friend. Citation still neede :)Salmoneus wrote: ↑07 Oct 2020 16:37Citation needed, maybe?Many languages can combine an applicative and a passive. That basically leads to the same result. That is actually the etymology of the Philipine circumstantial
Ross, so far as I can see, reconstructs a PMP circumstantial affix that's simply <b>i-</b>, which doesn't look transparently like a passive-applicative. And I'm actually not aware of PMP having had an applicative anyway, though I'm largely ignorant in this area so please correct me.
We already discussed transitivity once. In many non-English grammar traditions "transitive" means that the verb has a direct object. But yes, univalent is probably a better term here. I'm basically wandering if verbs like 'to sing' appear with Actor trigger or Patient trigger.Salmoneus wrote: ↑07 Oct 2020 16:37Some analyses of Indonesian believe it has (two) undergoer voices and also (two or three, or four, or five, or six, or...) passive voices., and many Austronesian languages still have it that way (though most of them still don't have a passive in the SAE sense, i'm not sure of any.)Remember to distinguish 'intransitive' from 'univalent'! (eg some people believe that all actor-voice verbs are intransitive).I still don't know if all the triggers appear with intransitive verbs.
My meta-thread: viewtopic.php?f=6&t=5760
Re: (L&N) Q&A Thread - Quick questions go here
It's probably a variation of this name:GoshDiggityDangit wrote: ↑09 Oct 2020 12:15 Why do, in some old documents, Russians call the Tlingits "колюжах" meaning thorns? I'm very confused.
Wikipedia wrote:The Russian name Koloshi (Колоши, from a Sugpiaq-Alutiiq term kulut'ruaq for the labret worn by women) or the related German name Koulischen may be encountered referring to the people in older historical literature, such as Shelikhov's 1796 map of Russian America.
- eldin raigmore
- korean
- Posts: 6354
- Joined: 14 Aug 2010 19:38
- Location: SouthEast Michigan
Re: (L&N) Q&A Thread - Quick questions go here
I read that “habibi” is Arabic for “darling”.
To my ears it sounds like the Arabic words for
“Set me free, why don’t you, baby?
Get out of my life, why don’t you, baby?”
end with “habibi” about where the English has “baby”.
Is that the case?
If I could read Arabic I might not have to ask;
but I can’t so I do!
To my ears it sounds like the Arabic words for
“Set me free, why don’t you, baby?
Get out of my life, why don’t you, baby?”
end with “habibi” about where the English has “baby”.
Is that the case?
If I could read Arabic I might not have to ask;
but I can’t so I do!
My minicity is http://gonabebig1day.myminicity.com/xml
Re: (L&N) Q&A Thread - Quick questions go here
Yes, Arabic songs use habiibii [ħaˈbiːbi] a lot, as much as English songs use baby if not more so.
The specifically feminine version is habiibtii [ħaˈbiːbti ħaˈbibti] (spoken eastern Arabic; standard Arabic has habiibatii), but in songs, habiibii can also refer to a woman.
The specifically feminine version is habiibtii [ħaˈbiːbti ħaˈbibti] (spoken eastern Arabic; standard Arabic has habiibatii), but in songs, habiibii can also refer to a woman.
hīc sunt linguificēs. hēr bēoþ tungemakeras.
- eldin raigmore
- korean
- Posts: 6354
- Joined: 14 Aug 2010 19:38
- Location: SouthEast Michigan
Re: (L&N) Q&A Thread - Quick questions go here
Thank you!Sequor wrote: ↑25 Oct 2020 17:45 Yes, Arabic songs use habiibii [ħaˈbiːbi] a lot, as much as English songs use baby if not more so.
The specifically feminine version is habiibtii [ħaˈbiːbti ħaˈbibti] (spoken eastern Arabic; standard Arabic has habiibatii), but in songs, habiibii can also refer to a woman.
Now that that’s out of my head, maybe I can sleep at night!
(Probably not. My brain will probably fix on some other non-essential question. It does that sort of thing when I’m not supervising it!)
My minicity is http://gonabebig1day.myminicity.com/xml
Re: (L&N) Q&A Thread - Quick questions go here
You might for example consider the matter of the curious history of pomade.eldin raigmore wrote: ↑25 Oct 2020 21:01Thank you!Sequor wrote: ↑25 Oct 2020 17:45 Yes, Arabic songs use habiibii [ħaˈbiːbi] a lot, as much as English songs use baby if not more so.
The specifically feminine version is habiibtii [ħaˈbiːbti ħaˈbibti] (spoken eastern Arabic; standard Arabic has habiibatii), but in songs, habiibii can also refer to a woman.
Now that that’s out of my head, maybe I can sleep at night!
(Probably not. My brain will probably fix on some other non-essential question. It does that sort of thing when I’m not supervising it!)
- eldin raigmore
- korean
- Posts: 6354
- Joined: 14 Aug 2010 19:38
- Location: SouthEast Michigan
Re: (L&N) Q&A Thread - Quick questions go here
Why isn’t pomade to apples what lemonade is to lemons?You might for example consider the matter of the curious history of pomade.
When I was 15ish some gas stations in Quebec sold pomade from the same vending machine they sold soft drinks from.
FYI it tasted terrible!
So what is the etymology of pomade?
The first several Google-hits, including Wiktionary, suggest it really does come from Romance languages’ word for “apple”.
My minicity is http://gonabebig1day.myminicity.com/xml
Re: (L&N) Q&A Thread - Quick questions go here
See?eldin raigmore wrote: ↑26 Oct 2020 02:59Why isn’t pomade to apples what lemonade is to lemons?You might for example consider the matter of the curious history of pomade.
When I was 15ish some gas stations in Quebec sold pomade from the same vending machine they sold soft drinks from.
FYI it tasted terrible!
So what is the etymology of pomade?
The first several Google-hits, including Wiktionary, suggest it really does come from Romance languages’ word for “apple”.
What's interesting about pomade, is that it apparently got its start as exactly that, the manzanilicious counterpart to lemonade, a kind of cider made from apples. Well mainly apples. It eventually came to mean a fruity, perfumed ointment, and then a petroleum based hair treatment. What's even more interesting about pomade, is that it's currently undergoing a revitalisation of the original meaning. If you look up "pomade drink" or "pomade cocktail", you'll notice that we're back to a drinkably fruity concoction. Only this time, it's not apples at all, but pomegranates that are the fruit component. Well, mainly pomegranate flavoured vodka, but also actual pomegranate juice.
Not sure why Quebeckers would want to drink hair pomade, or sell it in vending machines; but they do a wonderful dish with their other kind of pommes, namely poutine.
- eldin raigmore
- korean
- Posts: 6354
- Joined: 14 Aug 2010 19:38
- Location: SouthEast Michigan
Re: (L&N) Q&A Thread - Quick questions go here
Isn’t juice from apple-grenades “grenadine”? (Especially if it’s fermented?)
Why call it “pommade” if it’s made from grenade-apples and we already call it “grenadine”?
....
What do you call juice from pine-apples?
Tepache?
jus d'ananas fermenté?
Ananasine?
....
....
Can you make a reverse pina colada by mixing fermented pineapple juice, fermented coconut milk, and brown sugar or jagary syrup?
Why call it “pommade” if it’s made from grenade-apples and we already call it “grenadine”?
....
What do you call juice from pine-apples?
Tepache?
jus d'ananas fermenté?
Ananasine?
....
Spoiler:
Can you make a reverse pina colada by mixing fermented pineapple juice, fermented coconut milk, and brown sugar or jagary syrup?
My minicity is http://gonabebig1day.myminicity.com/xml
- eldin raigmore
- korean
- Posts: 6354
- Joined: 14 Aug 2010 19:38
- Location: SouthEast Michigan
Re: (L&N) Q&A Thread - Quick questions go here
Why don’t any of the high-schoolers in “teenage bounty-hunters” have Georgia accents?
It’s set in Atlanta, right?
Only the older people and bit-part and extras seem to have accents from any part of the Confederacy.
Am I wrong?
It’s set in Atlanta, right?
Only the older people and bit-part and extras seem to have accents from any part of the Confederacy.
Am I wrong?
My minicity is http://gonabebig1day.myminicity.com/xml
- eldin raigmore
- korean
- Posts: 6354
- Joined: 14 Aug 2010 19:38
- Location: SouthEast Michigan
Re: (L&N) Q&A Thread - Quick questions go here
In languages (such as some Semitic languages) that have both construct state and genitive case,
in possessive phrases, both the possessed noun and the possessor are marked to show the relationship.
In other words it’s a doubly-marked relationship.
The possessum is in construct state —— head-marking (in some Semitic languages, the other states are definite and indefinite, or in some languages the other state is the absolute state)
The possessor is in genitive case —— dependent-marking.
First question:
Do any languages that double-mark both the head (possessum) and the dependent (possessor) ever make the head agree with any feature of the dependent? Do any make the dependent agree with any feature of the head? Do any do both?
Second question:
In some of these languages as i inderstand it, the possessum has to be in construct state but can be in any case, and the possessor has to be in genitive case but can be in any state.
So if there’s a possessed possessor, does that mean (as I’m guessing it does) it has to be both in genitive case and construct state?
Like suppose in one of these languages someone wants to say
“The People’s King’s wife’s father” or “the father of the wife of the King of the People”.
“People” and “King” and “wife” would all be genitive case, right?
“King” and “wife” and “father” would all be construct state, right?
“People” here is definite, and “father” could be nominative or ergative or accusative or absolutive or comitative or whatever.
in possessive phrases, both the possessed noun and the possessor are marked to show the relationship.
In other words it’s a doubly-marked relationship.
The possessum is in construct state —— head-marking (in some Semitic languages, the other states are definite and indefinite, or in some languages the other state is the absolute state)
The possessor is in genitive case —— dependent-marking.
First question:
Do any languages that double-mark both the head (possessum) and the dependent (possessor) ever make the head agree with any feature of the dependent? Do any make the dependent agree with any feature of the head? Do any do both?
Second question:
In some of these languages as i inderstand it, the possessum has to be in construct state but can be in any case, and the possessor has to be in genitive case but can be in any state.
So if there’s a possessed possessor, does that mean (as I’m guessing it does) it has to be both in genitive case and construct state?
Like suppose in one of these languages someone wants to say
“The People’s King’s wife’s father” or “the father of the wife of the King of the People”.
“People” and “King” and “wife” would all be genitive case, right?
“King” and “wife” and “father” would all be construct state, right?
“People” here is definite, and “father” could be nominative or ergative or accusative or absolutive or comitative or whatever.
My minicity is http://gonabebig1day.myminicity.com/xml
Re: (L&N) Q&A Thread - Quick questions go here
Where you put the subject in the second interpretation (that the fist is eaten) if it is not dropped?Sequor wrote: ↑08 May 2020 19:50No. "Man eat fish" can only mean "the man/men eat fish" (or "are eating", "were eating"... could also be either multiple fish or one fish).
What you were told is a badly mangled form of a classic example in Chinese linguistics of the topic-comment construction, and how it creates ambiguities in interpretation, namely:
魚還沒吃啊。
yú hái méi chī a
fish still not.PAST eat SFP
'The fish haven't eaten yet.'
'The fish haven't been eaten yet.'
In the first interpretation, 魚 yú is syntactically either a topic or subject, and either way it is also the subject of 吃 chī 'to eat', so the fish haven't eaten any of their food. Meanwhile, in the second interpretation, 魚 yú is a topic, and also the object of 吃 chī, so it says that the unstated subject of the verb (Mandarin is a pro-drop language) has not eaten the fish yet.
(SFP here is "sentence final particle". 啊 can add many kinds of meanings depending on context, softening the statement, or expressing agreement with a similar previous statement, or adding a good mood to the statement, or a surprised tone, or depending on how it is said maybe a lazy tone... You see why I simply gloss it as "SFP"?)
My meta-thread: viewtopic.php?f=6&t=5760