(L&N) Q&A Thread - Quick questions go here [2010-2019]

[Pabappa]

The English word splurged can be analyzed as CCCCCCC if you call the vowel a syllabic consonant and analyze the g as /dž/.

Quoting the whole post below because I bumped:

1. What fraction of the world’s languages have several syllable-onset consonant-clusters containing 5 or more consonants?
1a. What are a few such languages?
1b. What are a few such long onset-clusters?

2. what fraction of the world’s languages have several syllable-coda consonant clusters containing 5 or more consonants?
2a. What are a few such languages?
2b. What are a few such long coda-clusters?

3. What fraction of the world’s languages have both several syllable-onset consonant clusters with at least 4 consonants, and also have several syllable-coda consonant clusters with at least 4 consonants?
3a. What are a few such languages?
3b. What are a few syllables in each of those languages, illustrating several different combinations of a 4(-or-more)-consonant onset-cluster, and a 4(-or-more)-consonant coda-cluster, on the same syllable? I’d prefer two or more distinct long onsets as well as two or more distinct long codas —— if both exist, of course.

4a does any language have any consonantal syllables with consonantal nuclei for which said nucleus is a cluster of 2 (or more) consonants?
4b does any language have any consonantal syllables whose nucleus is consonant, for which the onset is a cluster of 2 or more consonants?
4c does any language have any consonantal syllables whose nucleus is a consonant, for which the coda is a cluster of 2 or more consonants?
4d does any language have any consonantal syllables whose nucleus is a consonant, and whose onset is a(t least one) consonant, and whose coda is a(t least one) consonant?

Spoiler:

5. Some grammarians or linguists or phonologists, describe some northwestern Native North American languages, as having syllables that have no nuclei at all, but do have both an onset and a coda; in some cases either the onset or the coda is a cluster. Others say these phoneme-groups aren’t syllables. How the hell do they get away with such blatant violations of Occam’s razor and of the definition of “syllable” as “that which is taken together”? They must have some reasoning by which the data, in their opinions, justify such departures from the norm; but I’ve never seen anything but “I’m a full professor so whatever I say must be true”, and its junior offspring, “I’m trying to earn a PhD and my professor thinks this so I better not contradict him/her in this dissertation”.

Thanks, to anyone who contributes anything!

[Creyeditor]

There is a phonotactics database and thus probably a way to answer questions 1 to 3. Don't know about 4 though. The sample is not the largest one though, one should keep that in mind.
Answers based on a short query:
1. 0.1 %
1a. Georgian, Oowekyala
1b. ?

2. 0.1 %
2a. Haisla, Mixe, Oowekyala
2b. ???

3. 0.1 %
3a. Coeur d'Alene, Oowekyala, Russian, Seri, Witchia
3b. ???


5. There is pretty good work on some Berber language, justifying syllables as groups of consonants that have an effect on stress assignment (IIRC it's mostly pitch) and not necessarily a unit that can bear phonetic stress in itself (similar to schwa nucleus syllables in languages like German and Dutch).

[eldin raigmore]

A/O is a property of Polynesian languages - so called because in some languages, like Hawai'ian, there are two possessive prepositions, a and o. Conveniently enough, "a" possession seems associated with agents and "o" with objects. That is, "a" marks possessors who have high levels of control, dominance, or initiation, while "o" marks possessors who have low levels of control, who are subordinate, and who are passive. So "post a eldin" would be eldin's post - because you chose to make the post - whereas "voice o eldin", "finger o eldin" or "confusion o eldin" would be used because those things, while 'belonging' to you, are not yours by choice.

Similar things happen elsewhere in Oceanic. Blust gives an example from a New Britain language where the two forms take different classifiers, distinguishing "my story" (the story I tell) and "my story" (the story told about me). Interestingly, he also mentions a language in which the morphemes are the same, but the same distinction is made by morpheme order (the possessive affix is a suffix for one meaning and a prefix for the other).

I’ve thought of another contrast for A/O possession which helps me (YMMV) make sense of it and remember it.
“eldin o allergies” vs “eldin a hangover”.
I have no control over my allergies. They are not at all voluntary. I did nothing to cause them nor to deserve them. I frequently don’t even realize they’re about to attack. Short of antihistamines etc., my only available options are, move to a different state where they don’t happen to grow, or wait the season out.
As for my hangovers, OTOH, I bought and paid for them and worked for them. I drank above and beyond the call of duty for them. They are most certainly my own doing.

Does that seem like I’ve got it?

[Znex]

In Germanic languages apart from English, do participles ever get used in clauses like particularly in the classical IE languages?

eg.
Having entered the city/upon entering the city, we proceeded to look for the king.
Civitatem ingressi, regni inquirere processimus.

[cedh]

In Germanic languages apart from English, do participles ever get used in clauses like particularly in the classical IE languages?

eg.
Having entered the city/upon entering the city, we proceeded to look for the king.
Civitatem ingressi, regni inquirere processimus.

German can do this:
Die Stadt betretend, schauten wir uns nach dem König um.

However, while this is grammatically correct, the less marked strategy in many situations is to use a prepositional phrase with an abstract action noun instead, e.g. Nach unserer Ankunft in der Stadt ~ After our arrival in the city. (Note that these action nouns are often lexicalized equivalents, in this case even from a different verb. Also note that a plain nominalization of the verb does not work; ?Nach unserem Ankommen in der Stadt / ?Nach unserem Betreten der Stadt are both at least questionable, bordering ungrammatical.) Also, I don't think such a type of construction really works with a past participle, only with a present participle. (At least I can't find any suitable examples right now.)

[Tuyono]

Concerning gerunds and their participants, and possessive classifiers.
...
ObConLang:
Would this be a good idea in a conlang?
Has anyone already done it?

I only saw this now, but I have something similar in Źilaa Ruńu. It was inspired by the section about Middle Welsh here:
https://web.archive.org/web/20080302131 ... active.pdf

(I don't know if my verbal nouns can be considered gerunds though - I never quite understood the definition).

Anyway, with transitive verbs, it works a lot like you described - the patient is the direct possesor of the verbal noun, and the agent is marked with the preposition em 'of, by' which is also used for instrumentals. (Both agrument take the same case, which I call Oblique, used for possessors like a normal genitive but also for all objects of prepositions, but I think it still counts).
So you get things like:

nakej timaju
VN-tell.about Timaj-OBL
Timaj's story (The story is about her)

nakej em timaju
VN-tell.about of Timaj-OBL
The story of Timaj (she told the story)

[Omzinesý]

In German, Simple Past (machte) and Perfect (hat gemacht) have same time reference and their difference lies in register.
Spoken language uses Simple Past forms of some verbs only. Do the Perfect forms and Simple Past forms of those verbs differ in meaning (war and ist gewesen for example)?

[Creyeditor]

Some people claim that there is a difference. I'm not sure if this is true though, for me some very frequent verbs use past tense (`war' and not `ist gewesen') and other verbs use the perfect (`hat gearbeitet' not `arbeitete'). The example usually claimed to differentiate is:


Past tense ungrammatical
*Wer baute diese Kirche? Borromini baute diese Kirche.

Perfect tense grammatical
Wer hat diese Kirche gebaut? Borromini hat dies Kirche gebaut.

Translation
Who built this church? Borromini built this church.

For me `bauen' is one of the verbs that always takes the perfect tense.

[Omzinesý]

Some people claim that there is a difference. I'm not sure if this is true though, for me some very frequent verbs use past tense (`war' and not `ist gewesen') and other verbs use the perfect (`hat gearbeitet' not `arbeitete'). The example usually claimed to differentiate is:


Past tense ungrammatical
*Wer baute diese Kirche? Borromini baute diese Kirche.

Perfect tense grammatical
Wer hat diese Kirche gebaut? Borromini hat dies Kirche gebaut.

Translation
Who built this church? Borromini built this church.

For me `bauen' is one of the verbs that always takes the perfect tense.

I didn't mean to ask that.

Sorry for being unclear. I asked what is the difference between Perfects and Simple Pasts of the few verbs that frequently have the simple past forms.
Is it just what is usually the difference of the perfect and the simple past, i.e. the perfect is used to tell about anterior events in a discourse predominantly in the present tense, while simple past is the tense for discourses telling about the past. I find it quite strange that the difference only appears with the few verbs. So I'm interested in the difference between "war" and "ist gewesen" rather than that between "baute" and "hat gebaut". My understanding is that "ist gewesen" however does appear as well.

[cedh]

Here's an elaborate explanation (in German).

The main points, summarized in English:

• The simple past has its main use as a narrative past tense, especially in the written language. Reading/hearing a text that uses this form feels kind of like watching a film, where events are reported without regard to any current relevance.
• The perfect has its main use in describing a completed (and thus past tense) event with specific focus on the current relevance of its results.
• The perfect appears much more frequently in oral communication, especially in dialogue: Questions are often asked especially because the answer is currently relevant, and a question that uses the perfect will usually also be answered in the perfect (sometimes even if semantically the simple past would also make sense).
• Many regional varieties, especially in the southern half of the German-speaking area, tend not to use the simple past at all (at least in oral communication). Using the perfect in situations where the written standard would use the simple past can therefore also be a strategy for indicating the speaker's southern cultural background.

As a native speaker I feel there is still a bit missing in that summary, but I can't quite pin down what it is. In any case I think the difference does appear with most verbs in the standard language and in the northern half of Germany, but only with a few verbs in the south, so it's at least in part a regional thing. The article also doesn't say anything specifically about the war vs. ist gewesen contrast in the copula. It's still quite good starting point I think.

[Omzinesý]

Here's an elaborate explanation (in German).

The main points, summarized in English:

• The simple past has its main use as a narrative past tense, especially in the written language. Reading/hearing a text that uses this form feels kind of like watching a film, where events are reported without regard to any current relevance.
• The perfect has its main use in describing a completed (and thus past tense) event with specific focus on the current relevance of its results.
• The perfect appears much more frequently in oral communication, especially in dialogue: Questions are often asked especially because the answer is currently relevant, and a question that uses the perfect will usually also be answered in the perfect (sometimes even if semantically the simple past would also make sense).
• Many regional varieties, especially in the southern half of the German-speaking area, tend not to use the simple past at all (at least in oral communication). Using the perfect in situations where the written standard would use the simple past can therefore also be a strategy for indicating the speaker's southern cultural background.

As a native speaker I feel there is still a bit missing in that summary, but I can't quite pin down what it is. In any case I think the difference does appear with most verbs in the standard language and in the northern half of Germany, but only with a few verbs in the south, so it's at least in part a regional thing. The article also doesn't say anything specifically about the war vs. ist gewesen contrast in the copula. It's still quite good starting point I think.

So, it seems my understanding that the difference between the two tenses only appears with the few verbs, was wrong, and there is no such clear two categories of verbs when it comes to uses of tenses.
Tanks!

[Creyeditor]

Some people claim that there is a difference. I'm not sure if this is true though, for me some very frequent verbs use past tense (`war' and not `ist gewesen') and other verbs use the perfect (`hat gearbeitet' not `arbeitete'). The example usually claimed to differentiate is:


Past tense ungrammatical
*Wer baute diese Kirche? Borromini baute diese Kirche.

Perfect tense grammatical
Wer hat diese Kirche gebaut? Borromini hat dies Kirche gebaut.

Translation
Who built this church? Borromini built this church.

For me `bauen' is one of the verbs that always takes the perfect tense.

I didn't mean to ask that.

Sorry for being unclear. I asked what is the difference between Perfects and Simple Pasts of the few verbs that frequently have the simple past forms.
Is it just what is usually the difference of the perfect and the simple past, i.e. the perfect is used to tell about anterior events in a discourse predominantly in the present tense, while simple past is the tense for discourses telling about the past. I find it quite strange that the difference only appears with the few verbs. So I'm interested in the difference between "war" and "ist gewesen" rather than that between "baute" and "hat gebaut". My understanding is that "ist gewesen" however does appear as well.

I don't use `ist gewesen' usually. I only use `war'.

[Shemtov]

Is there a term for someone living in America of African birth? Or do you have to specify the country or use a phrase like African Born American?

[zyma]

Is there a term for someone living in America of African birth? Or do you have to specify the country or use a phrase like African Born American?

I would think that, if you know their country of origin, being specific couldn't hurt.

[Shemtov]

Is there a term for someone living in America of African birth? Or do you have to specify the country or use a phrase like African Born American?

I would think that, if you know their country of origin, being specific couldn't hurt.

My real question is, is there a catch-all term? Like what if someone wanted to say "Most African Immigrants to America are Nigerian-American"? Is there a shorter way of saying that? Could "Foreign Born African Americans" work?

[zyma]

Is there a term for someone living in America of African birth? Or do you have to specify the country or use a phrase like African Born American?

I would think that, if you know their country of origin, being specific couldn't hurt.

My real question is, is there a catch-all term? Like what if someone wanted to say "Most African Immigrants to America are Nigerian-American"? Is there a shorter way of saying that? Could "Foreign Born African Americans" work?

If there's a common, catch-all term referring specifically to a resident of the US who was born in Africa, or really any continent, I'm afraid I haven't heard one.

[Shemtov]

Is there a term for someone living in America of African birth? Or do you have to specify the country or use a phrase like African Born American?

I would think that, if you know their country of origin, being specific couldn't hurt.

My real question is, is there a catch-all term? Like what if someone wanted to say "Most African Immigrants to America are Nigerian-American"? Is there a shorter way of saying that? Could "Foreign Born African Americans" work?

If there's a common, catch-all term referring specifically to a resident of the US who was born in Africa, or really any continent, I'm afraid I haven't heard one.

African American would work, except it's used for Americans desended from Africans, and implies dark skin tone. I would have gone with "Americans of African Descent" to allow a catch-all term for those born in Africa, but what's done is done.

[elemtilas]

Spoiler:

Is there a term for someone living in America of African birth? Or do you have to specify the country or use a phrase like African Born American?

I would think that, if you know their country of origin, being specific couldn't hurt.

My real question is, is there a catch-all term? Like what if someone wanted to say "Most African Immigrants to America are Nigerian-American"? Is there a shorter way of saying that? Could "Foreign Born African Americans" work?

If there's a common, catch-all term referring specifically to a resident of the US who was born in Africa, or really any continent, I'm afraid I haven't heard one.

African American would work, except it's used for Americans desended from Africans, and implies dark skin tone. I would have gone with "Americans of African Descent" to allow a catch-all term for those born in Africa, but what's done is done.

The only catch-all term I can think of is "African", on account of the person is not an American and their actual nationality is not specified.

If such a person gained US citizenship, I would consider them "American", but not "African-American" (on account of modern race politics).

[Shemtov]

Spoiler:

Is there a term for someone living in America of African birth? Or do you have to specify the country or use a phrase like African Born American?

I would think that, if you know their country of origin, being specific couldn't hurt.

My real question is, is there a catch-all term? Like what if someone wanted to say "Most African Immigrants to America are Nigerian-American"? Is there a shorter way of saying that? Could "Foreign Born African Americans" work?

If there's a common, catch-all term referring specifically to a resident of the US who was born in Africa, or really any continent, I'm afraid I haven't heard one.

African American would work, except it's used for Americans desended from Africans, and implies dark skin tone. I would have gone with "Americans of African Descent" to allow a catch-all term for those born in Africa, but what's done is done.

The only catch-all term I can think of is "African", on account of the person is not an American and their actual nationality is not specified.

If such a person gained US citizenship, I would consider them "American", but not "African-American" (on account of modern race politics).

Could a reversal of African American work, like American Africans?

[zyma]

Something like "African immigrants to America" probably sounds the most natural to me out of everything you've proposed.