(L&N) Q&A Thread - Quick questions go here [2010-2019]
- LinguoFranco
- greek
- Posts: 613
- Joined: 20 Jul 2016 17:49
- Location: U.S.
Re: (L&N) Q&A Thread - Quick questions go here
How does a future/non-future distinction develop in natlangs like Quechua, Greenlandic, and Rukai?
- Creyeditor
- MVP
- Posts: 5091
- Joined: 14 Aug 2012 19:32
Re: (L&N) Q&A Thread - Quick questions go here
Future marker can come from a variety of sources, e.g. verbs of motion (go, come), verbs of mental states or deontic modality (want, must), verbs of change of state (become) and verbs of receiving (get).
Creyeditor
"Thoughts are free."
Produce, Analyze, Manipulate
1 2 3 4 4
Ook & Omlűt & Nautli languages & Sperenjas
Papuan languages, Morphophonology, Lexical Semantics
"Thoughts are free."
Produce, Analyze, Manipulate
1 2 3 4 4
Ook & Omlűt & Nautli languages & Sperenjas
Papuan languages, Morphophonology, Lexical Semantics
Re: (L&N) Q&A Thread - Quick questions go here
Does anyone know how 夫人, which is literally something like man-person, came to be used to refer to women in Chinese and Japanese?
Re: (L&N) Q&A Thread - Quick questions go here
I looked up the etymology in Japanese, and it said that it was originally 扶人, where 扶 means help or support, but it eventually ended up getting respelled as 夫人, for whatever reason (this kind of character substitution happens from time to time in Chinese and Japanese).
It originally meant the wife of an important person, and then also just became a polite word for someone else's wife in Japanese. It doesn't refer to just a lady in Japanese though the identically-pronounced 婦人 does. Don't know about Chinese.
It originally meant the wife of an important person, and then also just became a polite word for someone else's wife in Japanese. It doesn't refer to just a lady in Japanese though the identically-pronounced 婦人 does. Don't know about Chinese.
Last edited by clawgrip on 09 May 2017 11:21, edited 1 time in total.
Re: (L&N) Q&A Thread - Quick questions go here
While I certainly wasn't sure, I guessed it might be like "我母亲" (wo muqin - my mother), with the dropped possessive; so a husband's person = wife. Then I found this:All4Ɇn wrote:Does anyone know how 夫人, which is literally something like man-person, came to be used to refer to women in Chinese and Japanese?
夫人之“夫”,字从“二人”,意为一夫(外子)一妻(内子)组成的二人家庭, 用来指“外子”。“夫人”意为“夫之人”,即外子的人,也就是内子。
The character "fu" (夫) originally depicted two people (Lao Kou: I think that's easy enough to see "two" 二 superimposed on "person" 人), meaning a husband (外子 waizi: the one outside) and a wife (内子 neizi: the one inside) forming a two-person household, usage later coming (just) to refer to "a husband". 夫人 means "a husband's (waizi's) person", that is to say, "a wife (neizi)".
After that, sources seem to be running from the same playbook: In ancient times 夫人 referred to the wife of a feudal duke or prince (it gets more complicated than that: a concubine of the emperor and other stuff); in the Ming and Qing, it was used for the wives of first and second rank officials; and in modern times, a polite way to refer to anybody's wife, particularly one's superior's. Used usually in formal settings to refer to a married woman or a lady of a certain age (akin to 'Madame'). As "lady", I've seen it in Chinese subtitles of British period dramas, where someone is addressed as "Lady Abercrombiecrispenthwaitthorpsummerdale", or "Milady" by the staff, but that's titular.
The Chinese version above and the Japanese version offered by clawgrip both smack a little folksy to me, obscured by the hoarfrosts of time, but they're also both very lovely explanations. Run with what you like. As for 内子/内人 (the one inside), I can't help but think of 奥さん (okusan), as in 奥さまは魔女 (Okusama wa majo -- the wife's a witch -- the Japanese title for Bewitched).
☯ 道可道,非常道
☯ 名可名,非常名
☯ 名可名,非常名
Re: (L&N) Q&A Thread - Quick questions go here
Interesting. Thanks! So it seems like it's origin in Japanese is more just a coincidence of a Japanese term of a similar nature being pronounced with a character with the same onyomi reading as 夫.
Re: (L&N) Q&A Thread - Quick questions go here
Is there any meaningful difference between a passive or active reciprocal, or between a passive and active reflexive verb?
e.g.
Active reflexive: He sees himself.
vs.
Passive reflexive: He is seen by himself.
Active reciprocal: They see themselves.
vs.
Passive reciprocal: They are seen by themselves.
If there is a difference, is there a way that agglutinative languages handle it, given that passive, active, reflexive, and reciprocal are all voices?
e.g.
Active reflexive: He sees himself.
vs.
Passive reflexive: He is seen by himself.
Active reciprocal: They see themselves.
vs.
Passive reciprocal: They are seen by themselves.
If there is a difference, is there a way that agglutinative languages handle it, given that passive, active, reflexive, and reciprocal are all voices?
- Creyeditor
- MVP
- Posts: 5091
- Joined: 14 Aug 2012 19:32
Re: (L&N) Q&A Thread - Quick questions go here
The difference is, that the agent in ACT.R is the subject, where in the PASS.R it is a by-phrase (often realised as some oblique case in other languages). The patient is the subject in the PASS.R and the object in the ACT.R.Dezinaa wrote:Is there any meaningful difference between a passive or active reciprocal, or between a passive and active reflexive verb?
e.g.
Active reflexive: He sees himself.
vs.
Passive reflexive: He is seen by himself.
Active reciprocal: They see themselves.
vs.
Passive reciprocal: They are seen by themselves.
If there is a difference, is there a way that agglutinative languages handle it, given that passive, active, reflexive, and reciprocal are all voices?
Let's imagine an agglutinative language with nominal case and verbal voice inflection.
3SG-NOM see-RFL (3SG-RFL-ACC)
He sees himself
3SG-NOM see-PASS-RFL (3SG-RFL-OBL)
He is seen (by himself)
Does that help?
Creyeditor
"Thoughts are free."
Produce, Analyze, Manipulate
1 2 3 4 4
Ook & Omlűt & Nautli languages & Sperenjas
Papuan languages, Morphophonology, Lexical Semantics
"Thoughts are free."
Produce, Analyze, Manipulate
1 2 3 4 4
Ook & Omlűt & Nautli languages & Sperenjas
Papuan languages, Morphophonology, Lexical Semantics
Re: (L&N) Q&A Thread - Quick questions go here
So far, so good, as in a mirror.Dezinaa wrote:Is there any meaningful difference between a passive or active reciprocal, or between a passive and active reflexive verb? e.g.
Active reflexive: He sees himself.
What does this even mean? When would you express yourself this way? If one of the purposes of a Western passive is to match up topic and subject, surely this is overkill, and sounds incredibly forced grammatically. When was the last time you said, "I shall have been seen by her."?; "She will have been seen by herself."?Passive reflexive: He is seen by himself.
I would think "reciprocal" meant "they saw each other". which meansActive reciprocal: They see themselves.
They were seen by each other?vs. Passive reciprocal: "They are seen by themselves."
A verb paradigm doesn't mean you have to fill every slot. Perhaps you can, grammatically and schematically, but some may not work pragmatically or logically, so, unless you wish to attribute colloquial meanings to these (e.g. we have been seeing ourselves = we're dating), just let 'em go.If there is a difference, is there a way that agglutinative languages handle it, given that passive, active, reflexive, and reciprocal are all voices?
☯ 道可道,非常道
☯ 名可名,非常名
☯ 名可名,非常名
Re: (L&N) Q&A Thread - Quick questions go here
Yep, thanks. I think that clears it up.Creyeditor wrote:The difference is, that the agent in ACT.R is the subject, where in the PASS.R it is a by-phrase (often realised as some oblique case in other languages). The patient is the subject in the PASS.R and the object in the ACT.R.
Let's imagine an agglutinative language with nominal case and verbal voice inflection.
3SG-NOM see-RFL (3SG-RFL-ACC)
He sees himself
3SG-NOM see-PASS-RFL (3SG-RFL-OBL)
He is seen (by himself)
Does that help?
Hmm, I guess it doesn't really make much sense. I guess what I was thinking when I wrote that was that it would take the action away from the person being described, i.e, it wasn't his choice to see himself, or he was not in control. Like some kind of battle between the inner self vs. outer self. But that's getting too philosophical/story-like for a simple grammatical structure.Lao Kou wrote:What does this even mean? When would you express yourself this way? If one of the purposes of a Western passive is to match up topic and subject, surely this is overkill, and sounds incredibly forced grammatically. When was the last time you said, "I shall have been seen by her."?; "She will have been seen by herself."?Passive reflexive: He is seen by himself.
Oops, yeah, I got mixed up.Lao Kou wrote:I would think "reciprocal" meant "they saw each other". which meansActive reciprocal: They see themselves.They were seen by each other?vs. Passive reciprocal: "They are seen by themselves."
That's a good point. Thanks for the input.Lao Kou wrote:A verb paradigm doesn't mean you have to fill every slot. Perhaps you can, grammatically and schematically, but some may not work pragmatically or logically, so, unless you wish to attribute colloquial meanings to these (e.g. we have been seeing ourselves = we're dating), just let 'em go.If there is a difference, is there a way that agglutinative languages handle it, given that passive, active, reflexive, and reciprocal are all voices?
Re: (L&N) Q&A Thread - Quick questions go here
The site I got that etymology from said "it is thought that" which is Japanese-speak for "this could very well be a complete fabrication"Lao Kou wrote:The Chinese version above and the Japanese version offered by clawgrip both smack a little folksy to me...
奥さん is the most common word used to refer to someone else's wife. There is also 家内 kanai, which matches that Chinese word even more.As for 内子/内人 (the one inside), I can't help but think of 奥さん (okusan), as in 奥さまは魔女 (Okusama wa majo -- the wife's a witch -- the Japanese title for Bewitched).
Well, 夫人 is of Chinese origin as Lao Kou said, and was borrowed into Japanese, where it gradually went from Emperor's wife or whatever it was to important person's wife, to just wife, and I get the feeling a similar progression happened in Chinese, except it went a step further and lost the implication of marriage. The basic meaning of 婦人 in Japanese is an adult woman, i.e. a lady, though it can also mean someone else's wife, a married woman. These words seem to be a bit mixed up because in both Chinese and Japanese they seem to have similar, almost identical meanings, and similar or identical pronunciations.All4Ɇn wrote:Interesting. Thanks! So it seems like it's origin in Japanese is more just a coincidence of a Japanese term of a similar nature being pronounced with a character with the same onyomi reading as 夫.
Also, 夫婦 fūfu means "married couple".
Re: (L&N) Q&A Thread - Quick questions go here
It seems to me that something like this would be handled differently depending on the language. If such a construction is possible in a certain language, as it is in English, that language would either not bother to use one of the two possibilities, which is what happens in English, or it would assign some special implication to one of the possibilities, like you suggest there, a lack of agency.Dezinaa wrote:Hmm, I guess it doesn't really make much sense. I guess what I was thinking when I wrote that was that it would take the action away from the person being described, i.e, it wasn't his choice to see himself, or he was not in control. Like some kind of battle between the inner self vs. outer self. But that's getting too philosophical/story-like for a simple grammatical structure.Lao Kou wrote:What does this even mean? When would you express yourself this way? If one of the purposes of a Western passive is to match up topic and subject, surely this is overkill, and sounds incredibly forced grammatically. When was the last time you said, "I shall have been seen by her."?; "She will have been seen by herself."?Passive reflexive: He is seen by himself.
For what it's worth, while Japanese verbs are agglutinative, reflexives (which I think is what you mean here, not reciprocals) are formed using a reciprocal pronoun.Dezinaa wrote:If there is a difference, is there a way that agglutinative languages handle it, given that passive, active, reflexive, and reciprocal are all voices?
彼は自分を見た。
Kare wa jibun o mita.
3.MASC TOP self ACC look.at-PST
Lit. "He looked at self."
彼は自分に見られた。
Kare wa jibun ni mirareta.
3.MASC TOP self DAT look.at-PASS-PST
Lit. "He was looked at by self."
This is a rather weird construction, but I think it's possible to find some sort of self-revelation context where it might work.
Also, reciprocals can be handled by an adverb or by verb compounding, or both:
彼らは話した。
Karera wa hanashita.
3.MASC-PL TOP speak-PST
They spoke.
彼らは互いに話し合った。
Karera wa tagai ni hanashiatta.
3.MASC-PL TOP each.other ADV speak-come.together-PST
They spoke with each other.
The verb 合う au "fit; match; come together" is frequently compounded onto other verbs to create reciprocals.
支える sasaeru - to support
支え合う sasaeau - to support each other
叩く tataku - to hit
叩き合う tatakiau - to hit each other
So pronouns, adverbs, and verb compounding are ways you can do these beyond dependent suffixes.
Re: (L&N) Q&A Thread - Quick questions go here
What kinds of noun class systems do appear outside feminine-masculine-neuter, animate-inanimate, and Bantu systems?
My meta-thread: viewtopic.php?f=6&t=5760
- Creyeditor
- MVP
- Posts: 5091
- Joined: 14 Aug 2012 19:32
Re: (L&N) Q&A Thread - Quick questions go here
I think Australian languages often have special gender systems.
Also a question relating to your question: Do you mean noun class systems with regards to over marking on the noun and agreement/concord? Or do classifer systems also count?
Also a question relating to your question: Do you mean noun class systems with regards to over marking on the noun and agreement/concord? Or do classifer systems also count?
Creyeditor
"Thoughts are free."
Produce, Analyze, Manipulate
1 2 3 4 4
Ook & Omlűt & Nautli languages & Sperenjas
Papuan languages, Morphophonology, Lexical Semantics
"Thoughts are free."
Produce, Analyze, Manipulate
1 2 3 4 4
Ook & Omlűt & Nautli languages & Sperenjas
Papuan languages, Morphophonology, Lexical Semantics
Re: (L&N) Q&A Thread - Quick questions go here
There are lots of ways noun-class systems are diverse. I'm not sure the three divisions you mention really slice the existing languages into natural categories. They are not really mutually exclusive either, unless you mean to restrict "animate-inanimate" to two-gender systems, because FMN and Bantu systems both involve animacy.Omzinesý wrote:What kinds of noun class systems do appear outside feminine-masculine-neuter, animate-inanimate, and Bantu systems?
In any case, I don't know of any language with something that is uncontroversially called a gender/noun class system that doesn't include either animacy or natural gender as a semantic basis for any of the classes.
Another semantic axis that fairly often exists in gender systems in addition to one or more of the semantic criteria mentioned above is augmentive and diminutive. This exists to some extent in European languages, with e.g. German and Dutch diminutives being neuter gender as a rule. I believe a number of Bantu languages also have noun classes associated with diminutive or augmentive meanings. Maasai has a masculine/augmentive gender and a feminine/diminutive/pejorative gender. (The Maasai gender system is also interesting for some other reasons. Gender assignment is apparently a lot less lexically fixed than in a typical European language, and it has a marginal locative gender. Feminine gender seems to be less marked in general than masculine gender, judging from the predominant use of feminine as the gender assignment of borrowed words and as the form used in un-specified sentences such as "what is this?"; feminine gender is also invariably used for a small number of words, including some types of abstract nominalizations and the word enkai "God"). But I don't know of any language that only or primarily encodes an augmentive-diminutive distinction in the gender system.
I'm guessing by "masculine-feminine-neuter" you mean something like the inherited Indo-European gender system with male animates as the semantic core of masculine, female animates as the semantic core of feminine, and inanimates as the semantic core of neuter, although specific inanimate nouns are divided based on various criteria into masculine, feminine and neuter. But you can see that many modern Indo-European languages have developed variations on this, such as the two-gender MF systems of French, Spanish, Italian (with some complications like nouns that change gender in the plural) or the common-neuter gender systems of some Germanic languages such as Swedish. Or e.g. in German, all plurals basically take the same type of agreement. I don't know too much about it, but I know there are also subdivisions based on animacy of inherited masculine words in some Slavic languages and I believe subdivisions based on countability in some Iberian Romance languages.
"Animate-inanimate"/"rational/non-rational" is one type (maybe the only type?) of non-sex-based two-gender system that can exist (although there are different ways to draw the dividing line, e.g. include all animals, some animals, or no animals?). But when you get into more than two genders, "animate-inanimate" isn't really distinct from the other two options you mention. For example, Tamil has a broad rational-irrational distinction, with the singular rationals subdivided into masculine and feminine. In Indo-European, the MFN distinction clearly is related to animacy, and in Bantu, noun classes 1 and 2 are associated with animates.
"Bantu systems" (or more broadly, Niger-Congo systems) are not exactly a monolithic entity. From what I understand, some Niger-Congo languages have class prefixes, some have suffixes, some have both, some like Wolof generally have neither (although Wolof apparently has a general trend for the first consonant of a word to match the consonant associated with its noun-class).
Re: (L&N) Q&A Thread - Quick questions go here
Basically, I'm just wondering what kinds of semantic nuclei of noun classses appear in languages.Sumelic wrote:There are lots of ways noun-class systems are diverse. I'm not sure the three divisions you mention really slice the existing languages into natural categories. They are not really mutually exclusive either, unless you mean to restrict "animate-inanimate" to two-gender systems, because FMN and Bantu systems both involve animacy.Omzinesý wrote:What kinds of noun class systems do appear outside feminine-masculine-neuter, animate-inanimate, and Bantu systems?
Like you said, in gender languages it's sexes, in animate-inanimate languages animates and inanimates. Buntu languages have nuclei like trees and many of the categories seem to have grammatical meanings.
Classifier systems seem to differentiate shape and size.
My meta-thread: viewtopic.php?f=6&t=5760
- Frislander
- mayan
- Posts: 2088
- Joined: 14 May 2016 18:47
- Location: The North
Re: (L&N) Q&A Thread - Quick questions go here
Agreed: MFN and animate-inanimate are only two ways to slice up the animacy hierarchy. Other options include human/non-human, masculine/non-masculine and feminine/non-feminine (all of these are attested). Beyond that it's really up to you. For instance it's fairly common in Australia to have a "vegetable" class including things like plants, body parts, songs and all kinds of other things (in Bininj Gun-Wok and Jingulu for examples this gender is a fourth gender added to an MFN system). Enindhilyagwa appears to have an interesting lustrous/non-lustrous distinction. I've no idea what kinds of nonsense goes on in New Guinea.Omzinesý wrote:Basically, I'm just wondering what kinds of semantic nuclei of noun classses appear in languages.Sumelic wrote:There are lots of ways noun-class systems are diverse. I'm not sure the three divisions you mention really slice the existing languages into natural categories. They are not really mutually exclusive either, unless you mean to restrict "animate-inanimate" to two-gender systems, because FMN and Bantu systems both involve animacy.Omzinesý wrote:What kinds of noun class systems do appear outside feminine-masculine-neuter, animate-inanimate, and Bantu systems?
Like you said, in gender languages it's sexes, in animate-inanimate languages animates and inanimates. Buntu languages have nuclei like trees and many of the categories seem to have grammatical meanings.
Classifier systems seem to differentiate shape and size.
Simply put there's quite a lot of stuff you could base your noun-classes on, since natural languages have quite a bit of diversity in their systems.
Re: (L&N) Q&A Thread - Quick questions go here
I'll just link to Wikipedia, because... Yuchi is, well...Omzinesý wrote:What kinds of noun class systems do appear outside feminine-masculine-neuter, animate-inanimate, and Bantu systems?
Re: (L&N) Q&A Thread - Quick questions go here
Vlürch wrote:I'll just link to Wikipedia, because... Yuchi is, well...Omzinesý wrote:What kinds of noun class systems do appear outside feminine-masculine-neuter, animate-inanimate, and Bantu systems?
Wikipedia wrote:The animate (Yuchi) [noun class] suffixes express a very complex system of kinship and gendered speech [...]
-no any male or female Yuchi (used by men and women)
-sen’o any younger (for men, related) female (used by men and women)
-s’en’o younger male relative (used by women only)
-eno older female relative (used by men and women)
-ono younger unrelated male or any other unrelated person (used by women only)
-ino older male relative (used by women only)
-weno’ all other animate beings
Inanimate nouns are divided into three groups: objects that are vertical, objects that are horizontal and objects that are round or otherwise do not conform to either of the other two groups. Each of these groups is represented by a suffix.
-fa vertical
-’e horizontal
-dji round
Mary S. Linn (A grammar of Euchee (2000), PhD diss., University of Kansas, pp. 362-379) considers Yuchi to have only six noun classes:Wikipedia also wrote:Much of the information in this section is drawn from Wagner (1938); some of Wagner’s conclusions [...] have been disputed.
Animate:
- Yuchi men
- Yuchi women
- Non-Yuchi humans & animals
Inanimate:
- Standing
- Lying
- Sitting
According to Linn, the additional animate distinctions are not noun classes, but honorific elements that are used according to the speech register (formal vs. informal). But even so, it's still an unusual and interesting noun class system.
Blog: audmanh.wordpress.com
Conlangs: Ronc Tyu | Buruya Nzaysa | Doayâu | Tmaśareʔ
Conlangs: Ronc Tyu | Buruya Nzaysa | Doayâu | Tmaśareʔ