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

[MrKrov]

The former is post-alveolar, the latter palatal.

[Ear of the Sphinx]

nungo - to walk (intransitive)

luklor - to see, to look at (transitive)

lulg - man

regl - woman

ka- 3p Agent agreement marker

no- 3p Patient agreement marker.

With a transitive verb, there is not diffence from an accusative languages:

ka-no-luklor regl lulg - "The man sees the woman" (or ka-no-luklor lulg regl, or whatever word order one prefers...) Both the agent and the patient are marked on the verb, with their respective agreement markers.

With an intransitive verb, ther is a difference between ergative and accusativ languages.

In an accusative language, you would use the agent marker:

ka-nungo regl - "The woman walks"

In an ergative language, you would use the patient marker:

no-nungo regl - "The woman walks"

That is still morphological marking - you use two different morphemes for agent and patient/subject. Syntactical ergativity uses two different arrangments.

[MrKrov]

He didn't ask about syntactic ergativity:

In wikipedia page about ergative-absolutive languages, it is said that "most Mayan languages have no morphological ergative case, but they have verbal agreement structure which is ergative." What does ergative verbal agreement structure mean?

[xinda]

The former is post-alveolar, the latter palatal.

Damn these silly anglocentric intro courses.

[Ear of the Sphinx]

In wikipedia page about ergative-absolutive languages, it is said that "most Mayan languages have no morphological ergative case, but they have verbal agreement structure which is ergative." What does ergative verbal agreement structure mean?

I think he asked in context of ergative verbal agreement structure that is not morphological ergative case.

[MrKrov]

Look what the question mark follows after. Also verb agreement isn't case. I'm done with you.

[Micamo]

I think he asked in context of ergative verbal agreement structure that is not morphological ergative case.

Syntactic ergativity is not the same as ergative agreement.

[Xing]

That is still morphological marking - you use two different morphemes for agent and patient/subject. Syntactical ergativity uses two different arrangments.

I thought s/he meant by "verbal agreement" some system of bound pronouns or marking on the verb in order to indicate subject and/or object, which is common in Mayan languages:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mayan_lang ... nd_objects

This is indeed something morphological, but no case marking.

Of course syntactical ergativity is also an option (I don't know which languages use this, or how common it is).

[Micamo]

I thought s/he meant by "verbal agreement" some system of bound pronouns or marking on the verb in order to indicate subject and/or object, which is common in Mayan languages:

That is what they meant. Though the only thing I would add to your explanation is a lang with ergative agreement need not agree with both arguments. You can agree with just the Ergative argument or just the Absolutive argument and it still works.

[CrazyEttin]

Now i'm not even sure if i'm confused or not. Ergative languages are surprisingly weird. Well, i'll just have to read more about it. :D

[cybrxkhan]

Quick question - can anyone name me a language (or some) that have labialized AND palatalized consonants as phonemes?

[MrKrov]

Ubykh. Abkhaz.

[Xing]

Quick question - can anyone name me a language (or some) that have labialized AND palatalized consonants as phonemes?

It's a kind of trademark for many Caucasian languages, like the mentioned ones Ubykh and Abkhaz. Probably PIE (Proto-Indoeuropean) had both labialised and palatalised velars.

Marshallese contrasts labialised, velarised and palatalised coronals. (It also contrasts labialised and "plain" velars, as well as palatalised and velarised labials. I think many Micronesian languages have contrastive secondary articulation, though different kinds of secondary articulation need not contrast for the same place of articulation.)

Some Salishan langues (or other Norh-West coast languages, I'm not sure) have labialised and palatalised velars, but no "plain" ones.

[xinda]

Is it possible to have "rounding" harmony?

For example, the underlying form might be: /suintɛnk/
The harmony would conform to the rounding of the first vowel in the word. This would also change coronals into retroflexes and labialize everything else, resulting in [ʂuyɳʈœŋkʷ]

[eldin raigmore]

Is it possible to have "rounding" harmony?

For example, the underlying form might be: /suintɛnk/
The harmony would conform to the rounding of the first vowel in the word. This would also change coronals into retroflexes and labialize everything else, resulting in [ʂuyɳʈœŋkʷ]

Why the heck not?

But if you're asking whether any natlangs attest it;
see this pdf (or this pdf)
and this Wikipedia article
and this pdf
and this pdf
and maybe other stuff turned up by this search.

The answer is "yes".

There are also languages where consonants must harmonize with each other, and there are languages where vowels must harmonize with consonants or vice-versa.

See this search, for example.

[Micamo]

What are some good resources on typologies of languages which allow discontinuous phrases?

While I'm asking questions, what kind of uses can so-called "double cases" have? (A single argument bearing multiple case markers)

[CrazyEttin]

While I'm asking questions, what kind of uses can so-called "double cases" have? (A single argument bearing multiple case markers)

Could finnish genitive system be considered this, since (at least formally) also the possessed noun is marked?

Juoksin taloon
I ran to the house

Juoksin minun talooni
I ran to my house

That last one could also be said "Juoksin talooni".

[eldin raigmore]

What are some good resources on typologies of languages which allow discontinuous phrases?

Don't know how good they are, but some show up on this search.
This pdf is about Portuguese, but it does mention the typology of discontinuous noun phrases.
This JSTOR article looks like it probably gives a good outline or overview of the typology you're asking about. Unfortunately I can't get the body of the article; I have no JSTOR subscription.
This power-point slideshow is probably worth checking out. (Note that, apparently, some of Tolkien's languages are referenced in it!)
This PDF may list some articles about what you're asking about.

While I'm asking questions, what kind of uses can so-called "double cases" have? (A single argument bearing multiple case markers)

This search has more good hits than bad ones.
http://www.aclweb.org/anthology/C/C00/C00-1037.pdf
http://www.grammars.org/ftp/9502.pdf
http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/do ... 5.2809.pdf
http://www.hawaii.edu/korean/archive/lit/schutze.01.pdf
http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1G1-148866657.html
http://portal.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=990857
might be among the first several good ones.

Also, look at the English-language articles turned up by this search:
http://www.google.com/search?q=Suffix+A ... lr=lang_en

[CrazyEttin]

Does any natlang have both β and β̞ as phonemes?

[Micamo]

(Sorry for the late response, but I thought I had responded to this before. Must not have went through at the time.)

If my understanding of things is correct, the thing that trips up noobs so frequently about ergative-absolutive vs what-have-you is that it is so trifling. It's hard to believe that something so small is so frequently referred to. The typical explanation is so confusing that you think there has to be more going on.

It's important because it's a "Deep Feature" of sorts. The difference between Nominative and Ergative alignment literally affects nearly every sentence produced in the language. Like SVO vs. SOV. Just because the feature doesn't take much to explain doesn't mean it's not important. (To make an analogy to programming, a useful piece of code is not necessarily a long piece of code. What matters in the scheme of things is what the code does within the system, not how big it is. Alignment is like foldr. Simple and re-implementable at the drop of a hat, but an incredibly important structural piece.)