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

A forum for discussing linguistics or just languages in general.
User avatar
Ceresz
mayan
mayan
Posts: 2237
Joined: 16 Oct 2010 02:14
Location: North
Contact:

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

Post by Ceresz »

nmn wrote:
Ceresz wrote:Are you perhaps referring to this thread?
No, that one was more of a tutorial or something. I searched it among the sticked ones, but alas none of them was it. IIRC it also had the terms of glossing explained.
There's a sticky on glossing rules in Translations, but that's about it.
User avatar
silvercat
cuneiform
cuneiform
Posts: 93
Joined: 16 Feb 2012 19:36
Location: Southern California
Contact:

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

Post by silvercat »

Xonen wrote:But I don't really know... I've read a bit on bilingualism - enough to know that it's an extremely complicated thing - but not enough to feel qualified to give solid answers here. In any case, I'm not sure if this qualifies as a "quick question"; for a full answer, you might need to read a book or two on the subject. [:)]
Oh no. I already have about 50 books to read to research that novel... Why do I have to write about things I don't know?! [:'(]
my pronouns: they/them or e/em/eirs/emself
Main conlang: Ŋyjichɯn. Other conlangs: Tsɑkø (naming language), Ie, Tynthna, Maanxmuʃt, Ylialis
All my conlangs
Conlanging blog posts
User avatar
Xing
MVP
MVP
Posts: 4153
Joined: 22 Aug 2010 18:46

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

Post by Xing »

Ceresz wrote:
nmn wrote:
Ceresz wrote:Are you perhaps referring to this thread?
No, that one was more of a tutorial or something. I searched it among the sticked ones, but alas none of them was it. IIRC it also had the terms of glossing explained.
There's a sticky on glossing rules in Translations, but that's about it.
Or could it be this thread?
nmn
sinic
sinic
Posts: 410
Joined: 11 Apr 2012 14:58

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

Post by nmn »

The first one is the one I had in mind, but alas it doesn't show how to mark morpheme boundaries.
The secound one is also good, but has the same problem.
Doesn't anyone know this? :wat:
User avatar
Ceresz
mayan
mayan
Posts: 2237
Joined: 16 Oct 2010 02:14
Location: North
Contact:

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

Post by Ceresz »

Again, I don't really think there is a standard for marking morpheme boundaries in sound changes. Just use whatever works for you and define your usage so people can follow your notation. I might add that while short-hand notation for phonological processes/sound changes a nice, nothing really beats a clear cut explanation. Truth be told I've never actually seen a morpheme boundary defined in a rule before. Maybe someone else can give you a better suggestion, or you could go on a massive google-hunt until you find your answer.
Edit: Might I ask what type of rule you're trying to notate? If we know what you're trying to achieve, that might help us come up with a solution for you.
nmn
sinic
sinic
Posts: 410
Joined: 11 Apr 2012 14:58

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

Post by nmn »

There are two rules actually, but they're analogous. One of them:
If the last vowel of the prefix is front and the first one of the root is also front, the latter disappears.
[i,e] > Ø /[i,e]C*???C*_
This has become more of a morphological rule - it works only at morpheme boundaries, not on every pair of neighbouring front vowels.
So a root *tikana when added to the prefix *te- becomes *tetkana
User avatar
Ceresz
mayan
mayan
Posts: 2237
Joined: 16 Oct 2010 02:14
Location: North
Contact:

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

Post by Ceresz »

I suppose you could write that as:
  • i,e > Ø / {(C)i,e-}_
I think morphemes are usually written in curly brackets, so that could work, althogugh curly brackets do fill another function in rule notation, so just to be sure you might want to get a second, third or even fourth opinion.

Another option would be:
  • i,e > Ø / (C)i,e+_
Here + marks the morpheme boundary, but you could use pretty much anything. Of course this rule might apply to any type of preceding morpheme rather than a specific prefix. You could also write [+front] instead of "i,e" if you have no other front vowels. Either way I think it would be best if your rule is accompied by a description/explanation.

Oh, and I made the onset optional because I don't know if it is or isn't optional in your language.
Edit: I found another source (a PDF) that states that + should be used to mark a morpheme boundry, so if that's eough for you just go with that. Btw, what do the asterisks stand for in your notation?
User avatar
Ànradh
roman
roman
Posts: 1376
Joined: 28 Jul 2011 03:57
Location: Cumbernauld, Scotland

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

Post by Ànradh »

What would a good name be for a noun that is a recipient or a destination, but is distinct from other objects?
Sin ar Pàrras agus nì sinne mar a thogras sinn. Choisinn sinn e agus ’s urrainn dhuinn ga loisgeadh.
User avatar
Iron
sinic
sinic
Posts: 206
Joined: 09 Oct 2012 03:31
Location: Canaan
Contact:

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

Post by Iron »

Question: How did Icelandic develop the weird syllabic sonorants, and the plosives before them in some words?

Example: ['hauːkʰadl̥] <hákarl>, [jœːkʏtl̥] <jökull>, etc.
User avatar
eldin raigmore
korean
korean
Posts: 6352
Joined: 14 Aug 2010 19:38
Location: SouthEast Michigan

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

Post by eldin raigmore »

Ànradh wrote:What would a good name be for a noun that is a recipient or a destination, but is distinct from other objects?
Recipients are often called dative; destinations and goals are often called allative.
In some languages the main difference between recipients on the one hand and destinations or goals on the other hand is that recipients are usually animate and destinations and goals are usually non-human.
If your 'lang has a case that can be used for recipients and also for destinations or goals, call it allative or call it dative.
(Or, you know, just make up your own term.)

If your language has ditransitive clauses then the recipient, if it's treated differently from either the agent or the patient of a monotransitive clause, might get called "indirect object". Otherwise, an object that's treated differently from the object of a monotransitive clause would likely be called "secondary object". Maybe your language has some tritransitive clauses; if so, maybe they have two different secondary objects, as well as a primary object and a subject.

Does any of that help at all?
I'm afraid your question was open to interpretation. I tried to answer all the likelier possible meanings.
User avatar
Ànradh
roman
roman
Posts: 1376
Joined: 28 Jul 2011 03:57
Location: Cumbernauld, Scotland

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

Post by Ànradh »

eldin raigmore wrote:Does any of that help at all?
Very much so, allative is perfect. (Already having a dative, I was stumped.)
Thanks again, eldin.
Sin ar Pàrras agus nì sinne mar a thogras sinn. Choisinn sinn e agus ’s urrainn dhuinn ga loisgeadh.
User avatar
Shemtov
runic
runic
Posts: 3283
Joined: 29 Apr 2013 04:06

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

Post by Shemtov »

Are there any fusional polysynthetic natlangs?
Many children make up, or begin to make up, imaginary languages. I have been at it since I could write.
-JRR Tolkien
Ambrisio
greek
greek
Posts: 475
Joined: 31 Jan 2013 07:48

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

Post by Ambrisio »

Nuuchahnulth?
User avatar
Click
runic
runic
Posts: 2785
Joined: 21 Jan 2012 12:17

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

Post by Click »

Iron wrote:Question: How did Icelandic develop the weird syllabic sonorants, and the plosives before them in some words?

Example: ['hauːkʰadl̥] <hákarl>, [jœːkʏtl̥] <jökull>, etc.
A ring below marks voicelesness, not syllabicness. [;)]
User avatar
Ceresz
mayan
mayan
Posts: 2237
Joined: 16 Oct 2010 02:14
Location: North
Contact:

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

Post by Ceresz »

Click wrote:
Iron wrote:Question: How did Icelandic develop the weird syllabic sonorants, and the plosives before them in some words?

Example: ['hauːkʰadl̥] <hákarl>, [jœːkʏtl̥] <jökull>, etc.
A ring below marks voicelesness, not syllabicness. [;)]
Also, take a look at the Wikipedia article on pre-stopped consonants. It should answer the rest of your question. Oh, and I posted a large pdf on North Germanic languages in the resources thread a while back, in case you want to know more about the development of these languages.
User avatar
Iron
sinic
sinic
Posts: 206
Joined: 09 Oct 2012 03:31
Location: Canaan
Contact:

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

Post by Iron »

Click wrote:
Iron wrote:Question: How did Icelandic develop the weird syllabic sonorants, and the plosives before them in some words?

Example: ['hauːkʰadl̥] <hákarl>, [jœːkʏtl̥] <jökull>, etc.
A ring below marks voicelesness, not syllabicness. [;)]
Yea, my bad. I can't pronounce them voiceless, so I just pronounce as them as syllabic consonants, hoping no one would notice. I guess this confusion seeped into my writing as well.
Ceresz wrote:
Click wrote:
Iron wrote:Question: How did Icelandic develop the weird syllabic sonorants, and the plosives before them in some words?

Example: ['hauːkʰadl̥] <hákarl>, [jœːkʏtl̥] <jökull>, etc.
A ring below marks voicelesness, not syllabicness. [;)]
Also, take a look at the Wikipedia article on pre-stopped consonants. It should answer the rest of your question. Oh, and I posted a large pdf on North Germanic languages in the resources thread a while back, in case you want to know more about the development of these languages.
Wikipedia doesn't actually answer how it came to be. I'll give your resources a look though, thanks.
User avatar
Micamo
MVP
MVP
Posts: 5671
Joined: 05 Sep 2010 19:48
Contact:

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

Post by Micamo »

Shemtov wrote:Are there any fusional polysynthetic natlangs?
Tlingit?
My pronouns are <xe> [ziː] / <xym> [zɪm] / <xys> [zɪz]

My shitty twitter
User avatar
Click
runic
runic
Posts: 2785
Joined: 21 Jan 2012 12:17

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

Post by Click »

Shemtov wrote:Are there any fusional polysynthetic natlangs?
Navajo?
User avatar
eldin raigmore
korean
korean
Posts: 6352
Joined: 14 Aug 2010 19:38
Location: SouthEast Michigan

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

Post by eldin raigmore »

Shemtov wrote:Are there any fusional polysynthetic natlangs?
I'm afraid I don't remember which ones, but, yes, some Native American polysynthetic languages have a fused prefix on the verb that tells the gender, number, and person of both the Agent and the Patient; and does so fusionally, that is, there is not any obvious phonological parallelism between the prefix for, say,
  1. masculine singular 3rd-person agent and 1st-person singular patient
  2. masculine singular 3rd-person agent and 2nd-person singular patient
  3. masculine singular 3rd-person agent and 2nd-person plural patient
  4. masculine plural 3rd-person agent and 1st-person singular patient
  5. masculine plural 3rd-person agent and 2nd-person singular patient
  6. masculine plural 3rd-person agent and 2nd-person plural patient
  7. feminine singular 3rd-person agent and 1st-person singular patient
  8. feminine singular 3rd-person agent and 2nd-person singular patient
  9. feminine singular 3rd-person agent and 2nd-person plural patient
  10. feminine plural 3rd-person agent and 1st-person singular patient
  11. feminine plural 3rd-person agent and 2nd-person singular patient
  12. feminine plural 3rd-person agent and 2nd-person plural patient
I believe, if I am not mistaken, that Nishnaabemwin has an affix that tells the following about a verb:
  • Whether it has one or fewer participants (e.g. just a subject), or instead has two or more participants (e.g. both an agent and a patient).
  • Whether or not any of its participants is non-3rd-person, that is, is a "local person" (1st or 2nd) or speech-act-participant (speaker or addressee).
  • Whether or not any of its participants 3rd-person, that is, is not a "local person" or speech-act-participant.
  • Whether or not any of its participants is animate.
  • Whether or not any of its participants is inanimate.
Though perhaps I misunderstood. Conjugations of verbs in Nishnaabemwin are organized under those categories in a grammar I read. A direct-vs-inverse voice-system could distinguish which was the agent and which the patient unless both participants were animate local persons (that is, 1st and 2nd) or else both were 3rd-persons of the same animacy class (both animate or both inanimate); in the latter circumstance Nishnaabemwin's "obviation" system could distinguish, though I gather it does so only when both participants are animate 3rd-person, and ambiguity is usually acceptable and not resolved in case both are inanimate.

I could be wrong.
User avatar
Omzinesý
mongolian
mongolian
Posts: 4079
Joined: 27 Aug 2010 08:17
Location: nowhere [naʊhɪɚ]

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

Post by Omzinesý »

What language has the most comlex (measured with the number of forms), productive Tense-Aspect-Mood system?
My meta-thread: viewtopic.php?f=6&t=5760
Locked