Nifty Random Features

A forum for discussing linguistics or just languages in general.
User avatar
eldin raigmore
korean
korean
Posts: 5698
Joined: 14 Aug 2010 19:38
Location: SouthEast Michigan

Re: Nifty Random Features

Post by eldin raigmore »

Ilargi wrote:
eldin raigmore wrote:There are some (as I recall, Australian?) languages that have "triangular kinterms";
e.g. my-father-your-father, my-father-your-husband, my-husband-your-father, etc. are all different words.
*drool*
http://www.dogpile.com/info.dogpl.t4.1/ ... r+kinterms
http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20627650.100-whats-in-a-word.html wrote:Christine Kenneally describes how linguists Nicholas Evans and Stephen Levinson have challenged Noam Chomsky's theory of a universal grammar in language (29 May, p 32). To support their argument, they point out that in some languages there are "some aspects that are not mastered until later in life", citing as an example the triangular kin terms of the Indigenous Australian language, Bininj Gun-wok, which speakers only begin to acquire in their twenties.
http://www.annualreviews.org/doi/abs/10.1146/annurev.anthro.32.061002.093137?journalCode=anthro wrote:Examples of the emergence of culturally patterned structure through use are drawn from various levels: the semantics of the lexicon, grammaticalized kin-related categories, and culture-specific organizations of sociolinguistic diversity, such as moiety lects, “mother-in-law” registers, and triangular kin terms.
http://azoulay.arts.usyd.edu.au/mpsong/JoeBlythe_files/JB_EthicalDatives.pdf wrote:Triangular kin terms, clan-lects, moietylects and ‘mother-in-law’ registers have evolved independently in languages that aren’t closely related.
http://blogs.usyd.edu.au/elac/2007/12/murriny_pathas_elided_progeny.html wrote:Murriny Patha is fun. Especially if you like "“kintax"” (Evans 2003), cause it’'s got it in spades. Murriny Patha keeps delivering weird phenomena that require unconventional nomenclature (see for instance Walsh 1996). "So “what”", I hear you asking, "“is the '‘elided progeny'’ construction?"” In Murriny Patha it constitutes a subclass of what are clearly a group of "“triangular"” referring expressions, – whereby a person-referent is referred to via “"triangulation"” -– that is indirectly, via another person or persons. The most common of these are possessed kinterms: my father, your uncle, their cousin etc. The person that the kinterm is anchored to is frequently termed the propositus. Other classes of people may also take a propositus: e.g., John’'s bank manager. Arguably all kinterms are anchored to a propositus, regardless of whether the propositus is expressed overtly or not. Thus when an adult addresses a child, “"Hey, where'’s daddy?"”, the “altercentric” kinterm Daddy has an implied 2nd person propositus. However the same adult, when talking to another adult, may use egocentric kinterms with an implied 1st person propositus i.e., "“Mum is driving me mad”."
on page 4, [url]http://www.words-in-world.de/mediapool/36/361457/data/Pragmatics_SS_2010_/Memo_session_12.pdf[/url] wrote:When it comes to the choice of vocabulary, there are the expressions of triangular kin terms (relation speaker-referent, referent-addressee and addressee-speaker) and the deferential and humiliative pairs of lexical items9
http://blogs.usyd.edu.au/elac/2008/03/cool_times_at_kioloa_1.html wrote:Different ways of tracking referents were discussed, from .... to principles of association, economy and recognition and how triangular kin terms and 'elided progeny' terms fit into them (Joe Blythe, Principles of referential design in Murriny Patha conversation).
Solarius
roman
roman
Posts: 1112
Joined: 30 Aug 2010 01:23

Re: Nifty Random Features

Post by Solarius »

Lately, I've been intrigued by Khoisan vowel secondary articulations.
Check out Ussaria!
Solarius
roman
roman
Posts: 1112
Joined: 30 Aug 2010 01:23

Re: Nifty Random Features

Post by Solarius »

From Wikipedia:
The Ongan languages are agglutinative, with an extensive prefix and suffix system.[4][5] They have a noun class system based largely on body parts, in which every noun and adjective may take a prefix according to which body part it is associated with (on the basis of shape, or functional association).[6] Another peculiarity of terms for body parts is that they are inalienably possessed, requiring a possessive adjective prefix to complete them, so one cannot say "head" alone, but only "my, or his, or your, etc. head".[6]
Check out Ussaria!
User avatar
cybrxkhan
roman
roman
Posts: 1111
Joined: 25 Dec 2010 21:21
Contact:

Re: Nifty Random Features

Post by cybrxkhan »

Apparently many types of demonstratives exist with different types of subtle variations, so Wikipedia says:
Many non-European languages make further distinctions; for example, whether the object referred to is uphill or downhill from the speaker, whether the object is visible or not (as in Malagasy), and whether the object can be pointed to as a whole or only in part. The Eskimo–Aleut languages, and the Kiranti branch of the Sino-Tibetan language family are particularly well known for their many contrasts.

The demonstratives in Seri are compound forms based on the definite articles (themselves derived from verbs) and therefore incorporate the positional information of the articles (standing, sitting, lying, coming, going) in addition to the three-way spatial distinction. This results in a quite elaborated set of demonstratives.
I now have a blog. Witness the horror.

I think I think, therefore I think I am.
- Ambrose Bierce
User avatar
Chagen
runic
runic
Posts: 3341
Joined: 03 Sep 2011 05:14
Location: Texas

Re: Nifty Random Features

Post by Chagen »

I think I'll steal that for Pazmat, but I'll do it with prepositions attached to the demonstrative.
Nūdenku waga honji ma naku honyasi ne ika-ika ichamase!
female-appearance=despite boy-voice=PAT hold boy-youth=TOP very be.cute-3PL
Honyasi zō honyasi ma naidasu.
boy-youth=AGT boy-youth=PAT love.romantically-3S
Solarius
roman
roman
Posts: 1112
Joined: 30 Aug 2010 01:23

Re: Nifty Random Features

Post by Solarius »

Lydian has some interesting things about it. The phonology isn't too idiosyncratic, but some of the sound changes are fun.
Check out Ussaria!
User avatar
Sequor
sinic
sinic
Posts: 288
Joined: 30 Jun 2012 06:13

Re: Nifty Random Features

Post by Sequor »

I'm well aware I'm necroing* an 8-year-old thread, but I figured it'd be good to keep it going if only to keep the initial fun facts. Although I also considered opening a new one and linking to this one. (Is there an established practice?)

On topic: Arabic borrowed English "to shoot" (in the context of soccer), some time ago, as present-tense yaʃu:tˤu, past-tense ʃa:tˤa, verbal noun ʃa:tˤ. This hilariously matches both the English inflection and related noun (shoot, he shot, a shot) all while using a perfectly native inflectional pattern found in triconsonantal roots with /w/ as the second consonant (e.g. yaqu:lu 'he speaks', qa:la 'he spoke', which has the root q-w-l). (Basic verbs like these can have a wild variety of verbal nouns, so the noun ʃa:tˤ at least is not shocking.)

Relatedly, I learned that apparently it is possible to say O唔OK?ou1-m4-ou1kei1 ("is [something] okay?") in Cantonese, splitting OK into (O+O)K, via a syntactic reduplication that's common in Chinese, cf. Mandarin 安靜 ānjìng 'quiet', 安不安靜?ān-bù-ānjìng 'is [something] quiet?'. I don't know whether any native speaker says the following, but I'm now just imagining Mandarin speakers saying fāfāshenshēn地做事 to say 'to do something fashionably', where "fāshen" is the English word "fashion", an established borrowed meaning both 'fashion' and '(to be) fashionable', IPA /fa˥ʂən/ [faː˥ʂən˧].


* I'm assuming the etymon of "to necro" is "to necromance"? And even if it isn't, at any rate a back-formation and abbreviation from the noun "necromancer".
Last edited by Sequor on 19 Nov 2020 20:52, edited 1 time in total.
hīc sunt linguificēs. hēr bēoþ tungemakeras.
User avatar
elemtilas
runic
runic
Posts: 2722
Joined: 22 Nov 2014 04:48

Re: Nifty Random Features

Post by elemtilas »

Sequor wrote: 09 Nov 2020 16:29 I'm well aware I'm necroing* an 8-year-old thread, but I figured it'd be good to keep it going if only to keep the initial fun facts. Although I also considered opening a new one and linking to this one. (Is there an established practice?)

Relatedly, I learned that apparently it is possible to say O唔OK?ou1-m4-ou1kei1 ("is [something] okay?") in Cantonese, splitting OK into (O+O)K, via a syntactic reduplication that's common in Chinese, cf. Mandarin 安靜 ānjìng 'quiet', 安不安靜?ān-bù-ānjìng 'is [something] quiet?'. I don't know whether any native speaker says the following, but I'm now just imagining Mandarin speakers saying fāshenfāshen地做事 to say 'to do something fashionably', where "fāshen" is the English word "fashion", an established borrowed meaning both 'fashion' and '(to be) fashionable', IPA /fa˥ʂən/ [faː˥ʂən˧].


* I'm assuming the etymon of "to necro" is "to necromance"? And even if it isn't, at any rate a back-formation and abbreviation from the noun "necromancer".
Better than an abbreviation of "necrotising". Same root, just a little more gangrenous.

Anyway, I think reviving an old thread is better than starting up a new thread, if all you're going to do is continue along the same lines as the original.

Speaking of reduplication of English words, when they're borrowed into Philippine (at least some) languages, they similarly take on the local grammar. So you get questions like "nag dridrive ka?" (are you driving)
User avatar
Xonen
moderator
moderator
Posts: 1075
Joined: 16 May 2010 00:25

Re: Nifty Random Features

Post by Xonen »

Sequor wrote: 09 Nov 2020 16:29* I'm assuming the etymon of "to necro" is "to necromance"? And even if it isn't, at any rate a back-formation and abbreviation from the noun "necromancer".
Oh wow, internet terminology is now old enough that people are making assumptions about its etymologies. [:|] But yes, as a relic from those days of yore when such words were still sometimes written out in full, I can confirm this:
Spoiler:
Image
Although strictly speaking, as pointed out in the ancient document enclosed above, the concept of thread necromancy originally included connotations of inanity and uselessness. Thus, resurrecting a thread with an actually relevant contribution would not, strictly speaking, count. But I suppose semantic shift through the ages might have eroded such nuances.


In any case, the policy around here is indeed this:
elemtilas wrote: 11 Nov 2020 00:27Anyway, I think reviving an old thread is better than starting up a new thread, if all you're going to do is continue along the same lines as the original.
Salmoneus
MVP
MVP
Posts: 2115
Joined: 19 Sep 2011 19:37

Re: Nifty Random Features

Post by Salmoneus »

While a person who necros is indeed a necromancer, I'm also familiar with the term 'necropost' as both the action and the result, and I think of a necropost as a dead post or a post to a dead thread, rather than primarily in the sence of necromancing a dead post - from the general use of necro- as having to do with death. [indeed, instinctively I think of thread necromancy as bringing the thread back to life, as against necroposting, which just mindlessly adds to a dead thread]. So while necromancy is clearly AN etymological route by which we've derived 'to necro', I'm not sure it's 100% the ONLY route... but maybe that's just a folk-etymology instinct inserting false memories!
Post Reply