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

[Creyeditor]

Arabic dialects generally have right-oriented weight-sensitive stress, IIRC. Some systems are pretty complex. Do you have any specific dialect in mind?

[Omzinesý]

Arabic dialects generally have right-oriented weight-sensitive stress, IIRC. Some systems are pretty complex. Do you have any specific dialect in mind?

Yes, Fusha is quite much stressed like Latin, I think, though probably speakers of dialects stress Fusha like their dialecs.

Let's ask how Egyptian Arabic is stressed. It's maybe a better question.

Edit: I actually found the rules. They sound unintuitive to me.
- Stress last syllable if it's strong.
- Go leftwards until a long vowel or the first syllable comes and stress it, that's also intuitive.
- But, go leftwards until a consonant cluster comes, and stress the syllable right to it. That sounds stange, but so it seems to go.
mintáqa, mudarrísa

[Creyeditor]

It looks as if preceding closed syllable makes the following syllable kind of semi-heavy.

[Omzinesý]

Unstressed middle syllables are often syncoped in Arabic. After aconsonant cluster it is not possible because a three-consonant cluster is not allowed (Egyptian phonotactics is not very fond to clusters). So, Egyptian Arabic seems to solve the problem by stressing it.

It could be interesting to see how other dualects, say Levantine, do that. I think that stressing rule is unique to Egyptian.

[Creyeditor]

Unstressed middle syllables are often syncoped in Arabic. After aconsonant cluster it is not possible because a three-consonant cluster is not allowed (Egyptian phonotactics is not very fond to clusters). So, Egyptian Arabic seems to solve the problem by stressing it.

This is very helpful. Makes much more sense now.

[Knox Adjacent]

Are there not such things as extra-high vowels that aren't just syllabic fricatives? I vaguely recall something something Bantu, but I'm finding nothing that describes them.

[Omzinesý]

Are there not such things as extra-high vowels that aren't just syllabic fricatives? I vaguely recall something something Bantu, but I'm finding nothing that describes them.

A good question!
My understanding of the issue is maybe worse than yours, so don't consider me an authority.
Yes, such vowels are reconstructed in Proto-Bantu. I think they usually realize as normal closed vowels (Eldin recommended speaking about closed vowels instead of high ones.) in modern Bantu languages but the preceding plosives are aspirated/lenited. But I have no idea of their phonetic realization in PB.
Japanese /i/ and /u/ seem to behave a bit similarly (affrication, devoicing).

Googling "extra high vowel bantu" seems to gein many results. If you find more, please, inform me too.

[Arayaz]

How did the English pattern of "xxx yyy" being a noun and "xxxyyy" being an adjective come about? (like "main line" vs. "mainline")

[HolyHandGrenade!]

How did the English pattern of "xxx yyy" being a noun and "xxxyyy" being an adjective come about? (like "main line" vs. "mainline")

Probably from more emphasis being put on the head of the noun phrase

[Dormouse559]

How did the English pattern of "xxx yyy" being a noun and "xxxyyy" being an adjective come about? (like "main line" vs. "mainline")

I’d say what you’re seeing is a more general distinction between a basic phrase in situ and a unit formed out of that phrase. A term like “main line” can be read as just a noun phrase, like “large house” or “tall grass”, so there’s not necessarily a stromg reason to write “main line” any differently. However, “main line” also behaves as a unit with its own idiomatic meanings, and in English, we can take that unit and use it in other grammatical roles, an adjective like you mentioned, but also a verb. Writing it closed (no space) or with a hyphen is a way of signaling that it’s an idiomatic unit. This happens with compounds if other parts of speech, such as “shout out” (verb) and “shout-out” (noun). For some compounds, writing them closed or hyphenated can avoid ambiguity (“small business owner” vs. “small-business owner”).

All that said, I don’t think this is consistent pattern. Compound formatting is one of the messiest parts of written English, with a lot of disagreement on usage. Some terms theoretically don’t need any special treatment but get it anyway. For example, “login” as a verb is a straightforward phrasal construct, but a lot of people write it as one word even then.

I’m short of time right now, but those were my thoughts as someone who thinks a lot about punctuation.

[Arayaz]

How did the English pattern of "xxx yyy" being a noun and "xxxyyy" being an adjective come about? (like "main line" vs. "mainline")

I’d say what you’re seeing is a more general distinction between a basic phrase in situ and a unit formed out of that phrase. A term like “main line” can be read as just a noun phrase, like “large house” or “tall grass”, so there’s not necessarily a stromg reason to write “main line” any differently. However, “main line” also behaves as a unit with its own idiomatic meanings, and in English, we can take that unit and use it in other grammatical roles, an adjective like you mentioned, but also a verb. Writing it closed (no space) or with a hyphen is a way of signaling that it’s an idiomatic unit. This happens with compounds if other parts of speech, such as “shout out” (verb) and “shout-out” (noun). For some compounds, writing them closed or hyphenated can avoid ambiguity (“small business owner” vs. “small-business owner”).

All that said, I don’t think this is consistent pattern. Compound formatting is one of the messiest parts of written English, with a lot of disagreement on usage. Some terms theoretically don’t need any special treatment but get it anyway. For example, “login” as a verb is a straightforward phrasal construct, but a lot of people write it as one word even then.

I’m short of time right now, but those were my thoughts as someone who thinks a lot about punctuation.

Thanks. This is pretty much what I guessed, but I wondered if something deeper was at play.

[LinguoFranco]

Is there a tendency/preference between tone and analytic morphology?

[Creyeditor]

No. Why would you think so?

[Arayaz]

I mean, I can kind of see it. The collapse of polysyllabic into monosyllabic words typical of the development of an analytic language is also a common source of tonogenesis.

[HolyHandGrenade!]

Is there a tendency/preference between tone and analytic morphology?

I’ve heard that analytic languages tend to simplify phonotactically, causing them to developing tone as a result of lost codas and to help avoid homophones. Don’t know how strong this claim is though.

[Creyeditor]

But the same collaps can lead to tone in agglutinating languages, right?

How many language families have tone and are analytic/isolating? Sinitic, Austrasiatic, Kra-Dai, Hmong-Mien
How many languages families have tone and are not isolating/analytic? Chadic, Omotic, Khoe, Kx'a, Tuu, Nilo-Saharan, Athabaskan, some Mayan languages, Oto-Manguean, Tibeto-Burman, Niger-Congo, Trans-New Guinea.

But since being analytic/isolating is a gradient property, one could probably argue in either direction.

And why are analytic/isolating languages typically monosyllabic? Loss of affixes and roots being monosyllabic as a tendency?

[Omzinesý]

How do Wackernagel clitics behave if the first word is dropped?

[WeepingElf]

How do Wackernagel clitics behave if the first word is dropped?

I don't know, but I'd guess they move to the next word. AFAIK, Wackernagel clitics don't care what word they attach to, as long as it is the first in the sentence.

[Creyeditor]

I think there are two possible outcomes for clitics in general. Either they stay in their linear position and switch their direction of attachment. Take German contracted 's 'it'. It usually attaches to the left.

Ich weiß nicht ob's wieder passiert.
I know not if=it again happens
'I don't know if it will happen again'

In some varieties, it can also occur in initial position. In this case, it will attach to the right.

S'regnet schon wieder.
it=rains already again.
'It's raining again.'

Other clitics will just shift their position and keep their direction of attachment. If we think of German aber as a clitic that optionally comes after the first prosodic phrase, it can explain the folllwing sentence.

Fisch essen mag ich, Fleisch essen aber kann ich nicht.
fish eat like I, meat eat but can I not
'Eating fish is something I like but eating meat is something I cannot do'

If we do VP ellipsis now, aber will be able to switch its position.

Fisch essen mag ich, kann ich aber nicht.
fish eat like I can I but not
'Eating fish is something I like but cannot do.'