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

A forum for discussing linguistics or just languages in general.
User avatar
Parlox
greek
greek
Posts: 485
Joined: 10 Feb 2017 20:28
Location: Ehh

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

Post by Parlox »

Ser wrote:
09 Jun 2020 03:21
So basically, something along the lines of 'this man killed him' to say 'I killed him', where ""this"" is a 1st person affix marker... I don't know about natlang attestations, but I like it.
Exactly this! One could say something like...

Lhu dyrosofon swí mhwno.
Lhu (D/t)yros-of-on sw-í mhwn-o.
DEF man-ERG-1ST 3RD.MASC-ACC kill-PAST
The man (me) killed him.

On a related note, does anyone know of any natlangs with a "split-nominative" alignment. Essentially a clause where the subject is active receives the "ergative" case if transitive, and the "intransitive" case if intransitive. But if either of these clause-types is passive it takes a "nominative" case.
  • :con: Gondolan, the pride of the Gondolan empire.
  • :con: Tsodanian, a tri-cons language with heavy armenian influence.
  • :con: Yaponese, an isolated language in Japan.
  • :con: Mothaukan, crazy tonal language.

User avatar
eldin raigmore
korean
korean
Posts: 5569
Joined: 14 Aug 2010 19:38
Location: SouthEast Michigan

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

Post by eldin raigmore »

Xonen wrote:
09 Jun 2020 00:12
eldin raigmore wrote:
08 Jun 2020 21:27
The paper was concentrating on native (i.e. non-borrowed) non-compound words.
Um, which paper? At least the one you're linking to here explicitly says this (page 42):
All the words which begin with consonant clusters are loan words
That’s the right paper! I must have missed the line you quoted. [:S] [:$] [:3]

User avatar
cedh
MVP
MVP
Posts: 352
Joined: 07 Sep 2011 22:25
Location: Tübingen, Germany
Contact:

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

Post by cedh »

Parlox wrote:
09 Jun 2020 03:34
Ser wrote:
09 Jun 2020 03:21
So basically, something along the lines of 'this man killed him' to say 'I killed him', where ""this"" is a 1st person affix marker... I don't know about natlang attestations, but I like it.
Exactly this! One could say something like...

Lhu dyrosofon swí mhwno.
Lhu (D/t)yros-of-on sw-í mhwn-o.
DEF man-ERG-1ST 3RD.MASC-ACC kill-PAST
The man (me) killed him.
A language which has person marking on nouns is Nahuatl. The wikipedia article states:
[...] any noun can function as a standalone predicate. For example, calli is commonly translated "house" but could also be translated "(it) is a house".

As predicates, nouns can take the verbal subject prefixes (but not tense inflection). Thus, nitēuctli means "I am a lord" with the regular first person singular subject ni- attached to the noun tēuctli "lord". Similarly tinocihuāuh means "you are my wife", with the possessive noun nocihuāuh "my wife" [which is formed from the noun cihuāuh plus the first person possessive prefix no- "my"] attached to the subject prefix ti- "you" (singular).
What I don't know though is whether nouns with overt 1st or 2nd person marking can be used as ordinary noun phrases in a sentence (as in your example), or whether they are only used predicatively.

Salmoneus
MVP
MVP
Posts: 1920
Joined: 19 Sep 2011 19:37

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

Post by Salmoneus »

Pabappa wrote:
09 Jun 2020 02:54
Sal, you may be thinking of Elamite, not Sumerian. Elamite has person marking on animate nouns.
Oh, right, yes, Elamite. Damnit. So close!

Looking into it, it seems that nobody really knows what the hell is going on with Elamite. It has this person marking, both on heads and on modifiers (agreement) - indeed, it may primarily be there to parse phrases. But sometimes not on heads and only on modifiers. This may be syntactic, or lexical (indeclinable nouns?). And sometimes there's double agreement, for no apparent reason, and sometimes plural person marking on an inanimate. And the same markers are on some verbs, if indeed they are verbs. Is there suffixaufnahme? Who knows? Is it related to definiteness? And it's used as a derivational process - is this the same as person marking, or different? It seems like everyone has guessed a slightly different explanation for what is going on - but we don't have enough data to work it out.


Now that cedh's mentioned Nahuatl: oh, yeah, there's a bunch of NA languages in which most if not all 'nouns' look a lot like verbs, including potential person marking.



From reading a little about Elamite, here's some possible routes that come to mind for how to get "person marking" on nouns...


1. They're verbs

Verbs often have person marking. So if there's widespread use of verbs as arguments, a lot of your arguments will have person marking - but not necessarily other verbal marking (because they're not the main verb of a clause). So "I, the king" is 'actually' "I am kinging". Perhaps a few 'true' nouns lack person marking?


2. They're deictics

Imagine that the deictics 'this' and 'that' get stuck onto their nouns. Then we get "This king" (I, the king) and "that king" (you, the king). But perhaps the deictic can also have a more literal sense (if, for instance, you're actually holding a king, maybe 'this king' refers to them, not you)

3. They're inalienable possessives

If we imagine that most nouns are a bit more abstract in core meaning, there's not that much difference between "I, the king, command it" and "My kingly status commands it". The complication is that these possessives agree in person with the possessum, not the possessor - but that is attested.

4. They're copulas

Or rather, the copula is zero, but is marked for person, and can attach as a clitic to a noun. So "I, the king" really translates to "I am the king".



Just a few ideas, anyway.

User avatar
Pabappa
sinic
sinic
Posts: 391
Joined: 18 Nov 2017 02:41
Contact:

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

Post by Pabappa »

Are there languages in which the equivalent of "my today's breakfast" would be grammatical? It seems to be a common mistake among English learners, perhaps including young native speakers. The only way to properly express this in English is to take one of the modifiers out of the clause and either say "my breakfast (for) today" or, less commonly, "today's breakfast for me". Or else reword the sentence entirely and have "the breakfast I ate today".

But it seems like such a simple construction .... I'd expect there must be at least some languages that allow it. Ideally from an inflecting language that uses the genitive inflection on both the 1st person pronoun and the word "today", such that the two words fulfill identical roles in the sentence.
I'll take the theses, and you can have the thoses.

User avatar
Creyeditor
mongolian
mongolian
Posts: 3912
Joined: 14 Aug 2012 19:32

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

Post by Creyeditor »

German allows the construction but I don't know if it's completely parallel. You can either say (1) or (2) without much difference in meaning:

(1) Mein Frühstück heute
my breakfast today
`my breakfast today'

(2) Mein heut-iges Frühstück
my today-ADJ breakfast
`my breakfast today'

Indonesian allows something similar:

(3) Sarapan=ku hari ini
breakfast=1SG.POSS day this
`my breakfast today'
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
cedh
MVP
MVP
Posts: 352
Joined: 07 Sep 2011 22:25
Location: Tübingen, Germany
Contact:

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

Post by cedh »

Creyeditor wrote:
12 Jun 2020 00:10
German allows the construction but I don't know if it's completely parallel. You can either say (1) or (2) without much difference in meaning:

(1) Mein Frühstück heute
my breakfast today
`my breakfast today'

(2) Mein heut-iges Frühstück
my today-ADJ breakfast
`my breakfast today'
I don't think this is completely parallel, because the suffix -ig is a derivational adjectivalizer and not a genitive. It's more or less the equivalent of a hypothetical English "my today-y breakfast".

Google Translate gives kyō no watashi no chōshoku as the Japanese equivalent. I'm not an expert for Japanese, but AFAICT this is indeed a double genitive construction that would be glossed as "today=GEN 1SG=GEN breakfast" or similar.

User avatar
LinguistCat
sinic
sinic
Posts: 210
Joined: 06 May 2017 07:48

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

Post by LinguistCat »

cedh wrote:
12 Jun 2020 08:55
Creyeditor wrote:
12 Jun 2020 00:10
German allows the construction but I don't know if it's completely parallel. You can either say (1) or (2) without much difference in meaning:

(1) Mein Frühstück heute
my breakfast today
`my breakfast today'

(2) Mein heut-iges Frühstück
my today-ADJ breakfast
`my breakfast today'
I don't think this is completely parallel, because the suffix -ig is a derivational adjectivalizer and not a genitive. It's more or less the equivalent of a hypothetical English "my today-y breakfast".

Google Translate gives kyō no watashi no chōshoku as the Japanese equivalent. I'm not an expert for Japanese, but AFAICT this is indeed a double genitive construction that would be glossed as "today=GEN 1SG=GEN breakfast" or similar.
My understanding of Japanese tells me that kyō no watashi no chōshoku is an acceptable construction but may be a little awkward. However I am not a native speaker.

User avatar
Creyeditor
mongolian
mongolian
Posts: 3912
Joined: 14 Aug 2012 19:32

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

Post by Creyeditor »

cedh wrote:
12 Jun 2020 08:55
Creyeditor wrote:
12 Jun 2020 00:10
German allows the construction but I don't know if it's completely parallel. You can either say (1) or (2) without much difference in meaning:

(1) Mein Frühstück heute
my breakfast today
`my breakfast today'

(2) Mein heut-iges Frühstück
my today-ADJ breakfast
`my breakfast today'
I don't think this is completely parallel, because the suffix -ig is a derivational adjectivalizer and not a genitive. It's more or less the equivalent of a hypothetical English "my today-y breakfast".

Google Translate gives kyō no watashi no chōshoku as the Japanese equivalent. I'm not an expert for Japanese, but AFAICT this is indeed a double genitive construction that would be glossed as "today=GEN 1SG=GEN breakfast" or similar.
Right, so the Indonesian one would be more similar, since the same construction [NOUN NOUN] is also used for possessor [POSSESSOR POSSESSED] without any additional marking, as in (4).

(4) Sepatu ayah
shoe father
`Father's shoe(s)'

Still, regarding bracketing it looks more like `today's my breakfast'.
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
jimydog000
cuneiform
cuneiform
Posts: 130
Joined: 19 Mar 2016 04:14
Location: Australian Country

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

Post by jimydog000 »

The word condone is reversing it's meaning or is it just me?

User avatar
KaiTheHomoSapien
greek
greek
Posts: 535
Joined: 15 Feb 2016 06:10
Location: Northern California

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

Post by KaiTheHomoSapien »

jimydog000 wrote:
14 Jun 2020 17:23
The word condone is reversing it's meaning or is it just me?
Are people confusing it with "condemn"?

User avatar
eldin raigmore
korean
korean
Posts: 5569
Joined: 14 Aug 2010 19:38
Location: SouthEast Michigan

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

Post by eldin raigmore »

KaiTheHomoSapien wrote:
14 Jun 2020 18:48
jimydog000 wrote:
14 Jun 2020 17:23
The word condone is reversing it's meaning or is it just me?
Are people confusing it with "condemn"?
Or “condign”?

User avatar
qwed117
mongolian
mongolian
Posts: 3767
Joined: 20 Nov 2014 02:27

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

Post by qwed117 »

KaiTheHomoSapien wrote:
14 Jun 2020 18:48
jimydog000 wrote:
14 Jun 2020 17:23
The word condone is reversing it's meaning or is it just me?
Are people confusing it with "condemn"?
People say “I do not condone...” way too much imo, because it’s so much more wishy-washy than “I condemn”.

Also wait until you hear about “sanction”...
Spoiler:
My minicity is Zyphrazia and Novland
What is made of man will crumble away.

User avatar
KaiTheHomoSapien
greek
greek
Posts: 535
Joined: 15 Feb 2016 06:10
Location: Northern California

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

Post by KaiTheHomoSapien »

qwed117 wrote:
17 Jun 2020 02:32
Also wait until you hear about “sanction”...
Ah, yes, "sanction", my favorite contranym. Means both to approve something and to penalize.

Like "clip", which means both to attach and to cut off.

User avatar
qwed117
mongolian
mongolian
Posts: 3767
Joined: 20 Nov 2014 02:27

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

Post by qwed117 »

KaiTheHomoSapien wrote:
17 Jun 2020 02:34
qwed117 wrote:
17 Jun 2020 02:32
Also wait until you hear about “sanction”...
Ah, yes, "sanction", my favorite contronym. Means both to approve something and to penalize.

Like "clip", which means both to attach and to cut off.
and cleave, to glue together and to chop off
Spoiler:
My minicity is Zyphrazia and Novland
What is made of man will crumble away.

Salmoneus
MVP
MVP
Posts: 1920
Joined: 19 Sep 2011 19:37

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

Post by Salmoneus »

qwed117 wrote:
17 Jun 2020 02:32
KaiTheHomoSapien wrote:
14 Jun 2020 18:48
jimydog000 wrote:
14 Jun 2020 17:23
The word condone is reversing it's meaning or is it just me?
Are people confusing it with "condemn"?
People say “I do not condone...” way too much imo, because it’s so much more wishy-washy than “I condemn”.
Contrariwise, if more people were able to understand that it's possible to not condone a thing without needing to condemn it, or to not condemn it without needing to condone it, the world would be a far better place...[/quote]

"Cleave" is a slightly different phenomenon to 'clip' and 'sanction', in that the latter are single words with two meanings, while 'cleave' is two different words that are homophonous in some, but not all, forms. This is seen in the past tense: "cleaved" (stuck to) vs "clove" (split; archaic "cleft" or "clave"); and similarly in the participle (cleaved vs cloven/cleft).


On the other hand, "sanction" is also different from "cleave" and "clip" in another way: it's still autantonymous in the noun form.

User avatar
qwed117
mongolian
mongolian
Posts: 3767
Joined: 20 Nov 2014 02:27

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

Post by qwed117 »

Salmoneus wrote:
17 Jun 2020 21:22
[quote=qwed117 post_id=301602 time=<a href="tel:1592353949">1592353949</a> user_id=3056]
[quote=KaiTheHomoSapien post_id=301527 time=<a href="tel:1592153304">1592153304</a> user_id=3391]
[quote=jimydog000 post_id=301526 time=<a href="tel:1592148195">1592148195</a> user_id=3412]
The word condone is reversing it's meaning or is it just me?
Are people confusing it with "condemn"?
[/quote]

People say “I do not condone...” way too much imo, because it’s so much more wishy-washy than “I condemn”.[/quote]

Contrariwise, if more people were able to understand that it's possible to not condone a thing without needing to condemn it, or to not condemn it without needing to condone it, the world would be a far better place...[/quote]

"Cleave" is a slightly different phenomenon to 'clip' and 'sanction', in that the latter are single words with two meanings, while 'cleave' is two different words that are homophonous in some, but not all, forms. This is seen in the past tense: "cleaved" (stuck to) vs "clove" (split; archaic "cleft" or "clave"); and similarly in the participle (cleaved vs cloven/cleft).


On the other hand, "sanction" is also different from "cleave" and "clip" in another way: it's still autantonymous in the noun form.
[/quote]
well, clip has nominal forms derived from the autantonymous definitions. A “clip” can be a portion of an object (“a video clip”) as well as something used to hold disparate objects together (“a paperclip”)
Spoiler:
My minicity is Zyphrazia and Novland
What is made of man will crumble away.

User avatar
Parlox
greek
greek
Posts: 485
Joined: 10 Feb 2017 20:28
Location: Ehh

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

Post by Parlox »

Is a uvular later trill attested in any natlangs? I have it contrasting with a "typical" uvular trill and a palatalized version in one of my conlangs, thus yielding /ʀ ʀʲ ʀˡ/.
  • :con: Gondolan, the pride of the Gondolan empire.
  • :con: Tsodanian, a tri-cons language with heavy armenian influence.
  • :con: Yaponese, an isolated language in Japan.
  • :con: Mothaukan, crazy tonal language.

User avatar
Creyeditor
mongolian
mongolian
Posts: 3912
Joined: 14 Aug 2012 19:32

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

Post by Creyeditor »

Parlox wrote:
22 Jun 2020 19:41
Is a uvular later trill attested in any natlangs? I have it contrasting with a "typical" uvular trill and a palatalized version in one of my conlangs, thus yielding /ʀ ʀʲ ʀˡ/.
What exactly do you mean by that? A uvular trill with an alveolar lateral release? A uvular trill with a velar lateral release? As for a uvular lateral release, people have argued that uvular laterals are impossible. Anyway, I don't think any of these is attested in any natlang I know of. The closest I can think of is Mee /g͡ʟ/ which has an intervocalic allophone [ɣ͡ʟ].
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
Ser
sinic
sinic
Posts: 249
Joined: 30 Jun 2012 06:13
Location: Vancouver, British Columbia / Colombie Britannique, Canada

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

Post by Ser »

Pabappa wrote:
11 Jun 2020 23:47
Are there languages in which the equivalent of "my today's breakfast" would be grammatical? It seems to be a common mistake among English learners, perhaps including young native speakers. The only way to properly express this in English is to take one of the modifiers out of the clause and either say "my breakfast (for) today" or, less commonly, "today's breakfast for me". Or else reword the sentence entirely and have "the breakfast I ate today".

But it seems like such a simple construction .... I'd expect there must be at least some languages that allow it. Ideally from an inflecting language that uses the genitive inflection on both the 1st person pronoun and the word "today", such that the two words fulfill identical roles in the sentence.
Very acceptable in Spanish. Mi desayuno de hoy.
hīc sunt linguificēs. hēr bēoþ tungemakeras.

Post Reply