New CBB

Discuss constructed languages, cultures, worlds, related sciences and much more!
It is currently Sat 25 May 2013, 00:07

View unanswered posts | View active topics


Board index » English section » Linguistics & Natlangs

All times are UTC + 1 hour [ DST ]



Post new topic Reply to topic  Page 2 of 3
  [ 54 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3  Next
  Print view Previous topic | Next topic 
Author Message
Omzinesý
 Post subject: Re: Uralic Thread
PostPosted: Sun 13 May 2012, 15:46 
mayan
mayan
User avatar

Joined: Fri 27 Aug 2010, 08:17
Posts: 1176
Location: nowhere [naʊhɪɚ]
Shrdlu wrote:
Cheesus, so much I need to share here. Where to begin?

1.Yes: French, and any Romance language sounds similar to English, but not because of palatalization but because of the Latin loan words in English.
2. Moscow is an "Russified" Uralic word. If I remember correctly "mosk" meaning "bear", but it was a while since I redd that.
3. Finnish /d/ was [D], in the begin.


1. Maybe I just cannot understand words in a foreign language. I have to really know it to recognize anything.
2. Funny, in Finnish there isn't a word like that. But that bear thingh sound plausible.
3. That's quite normal a sound change, but how it arised is the funny thing.
Finnish had /D/ in the dialects Agricola began to write. He chose <d> or <dh> to be the letter for it. Very few people used written Finnish or spoke the standard language and most of then spoke Swedish as their first language. So, they began to pronounce <d> as [d]. But the funny thing is Sweish doesn't have the alveolar /d/ but an dental /d/. So Finnish got its only voiced stop, that isn't even a pair of the dental /t/.
Top
 Profile  
 
AK-92
 Post subject: Re: Uralic Thread
PostPosted: Sun 13 May 2012, 16:53 
hieroglyphic
hieroglyphic

Joined: Mon 04 Apr 2011, 14:58
Posts: 73
Location: kouvostoliitto
Omzinesý wrote:
3. That's quite normal a sound change, but how it arised is the funny thing.
Finnish had /D/ in the dialects Agricola began to write. He chose <d> or <dh> to be the letter for it. Very few people used written Finnish or spoke the standard language and most of then spoke Swedish as their first language. So, they began to pronounce <d> as [d]. But the funny thing is Sweish doesn't have the alveolar /d/ but an dental /d/. So Finnish got its only voiced stop, that isn't even a pair of the dental /t/.


And because of that, funny things happen to it in dialects:D

_________________
ɑɬœø

taylorS wrote:
Something about the word "child" seems to lend itself to attracting redundant pluralization.
Top
 Profile  
 
Maximillian
 Post subject: Re: Uralic Thread
PostPosted: Mon 14 May 2012, 14:08 
light
light
User avatar

Joined: Thu 12 Aug 2010, 20:33
Posts: 667
Location: Israel
Omzinesý wrote:
- The a>o change in unstressed syllables (It has a finer name?)

/a/ never changes to /o/ in unstressed syllables in Moscow dialect. Instead the two phonemes merge into schwa-like vowel; it's called "akanye".
Shrdlu wrote:
2. Moscow is an "Russified" Uralic word. If I remember correctly "mosk" meaning "bear", but it was a while since I redd that.

That is only one of the many theories concerning the origin of this name.
Shrdlu wrote:
3. Finnish /d/ was [D], in the begin.

Yes, but it was only an allophone of /t/. It became a full phoneme under Swedish influence.

_________________
UNUS•ET•UNICUS
Top
 Profile  
 
Systemzwang
 Post subject: Re: Uralic Thread
PostPosted: Mon 14 May 2012, 18:26 
roman
roman

Joined: Sun 15 Aug 2010, 15:48
Posts: 513
Maximillian wrote:
Yes, but it was only an allophone of /t/. It became a full phoneme under Swedish influence.

Source?
Top
 Profile  
 
Maximillian
 Post subject: Re: Uralic Thread
PostPosted: Mon 14 May 2012, 19:32 
light
light
User avatar

Joined: Thu 12 Aug 2010, 20:33
Posts: 667
Location: Israel
Systemzwang wrote:
Source?

Finnish Sound Structure (KARI SUOMI, JUHANI TOIVANEN & RIIKKA YLITALO):
When Finnish was first written down, the mostly Swedish-speaking
clerks symbolised /ð/ variably, e.g. with the grapheme sequence <dh>. When the
(mostly religious) texts were read aloud, again usually by educated people whose
native tongue was Swedish, <dh> was pronounced as it would be pronounced in
Swedish. At the same time, /ð/ kept vanishing from the vernacular, and it was
either replaced by other consonants, or simply disappeared. Today, /ð/ has
vanished, and /d/ does not occur in most of the vernacular varieties in which the
former /ð/ is represented by a number of other consonants or by complete loss.
But /d/ does occur in modern SSF [=Standard Spoken Finnish], as a result of conscious normative attempts to
promote “good speaking”.

_________________
UNUS•ET•UNICUS
Top
 Profile  
 
Systemzwang
 Post subject: Re: Uralic Thread
PostPosted: Mon 14 May 2012, 20:04 
roman
roman

Joined: Sun 15 Aug 2010, 15:48
Posts: 513
Maximillian wrote:
Systemzwang wrote:
Source?

Finnish Sound Structure (KARI SUOMI, JUHANI TOIVANEN & RIIKKA YLITALO):
When Finnish was first written down, the mostly Swedish-speaking
clerks symbolised /ð/ variably, e.g. with the grapheme sequence <dh>. When the
(mostly religious) texts were read aloud, again usually by educated people whose
native tongue was Swedish, <dh> was pronounced as it would be pronounced in
Swedish. At the same time, /ð/ kept vanishing from the vernacular, and it was
either replaced by other consonants, or simply disappeared. Today, /ð/ has
vanished, and /d/ does not occur in most of the vernacular varieties in which the
former /ð/ is represented by a number of other consonants or by complete loss.
But /d/ does occur in modern SSF [=Standard Spoken Finnish], as a result of conscious normative attempts to
promote “good speaking”.

Sorry, does not say what you said!

It says /ð/ existed as a phoneme already at that time. With phonemes, we can pick any letter, really, so using, say, <d> for that wouldn't be wrong. [d] entered Finnish from Swedish, /ð/ didn't become a phoneme due to Swedish influence.
Top
 Profile  
 
Maximillian
 Post subject: Re: Uralic Thread
PostPosted: Tue 15 May 2012, 14:49 
light
light
User avatar

Joined: Thu 12 Aug 2010, 20:33
Posts: 667
Location: Israel
Systemzwang wrote:
Sorry, does not say what you said!

I thought you were referring to what I quoted.
I don't have any sources that say clearly that /ð/ was only an allophone, and it may be that I am wrong. I assumed it to be so, because of the weird nature and behaviour of this sound in native Finnish words.

_________________
UNUS•ET•UNICUS
Top
 Profile  
 
Systemzwang
 Post subject: Re: Uralic Thread
PostPosted: Tue 15 May 2012, 15:58 
roman
roman

Joined: Sun 15 Aug 2010, 15:48
Posts: 513
Maximillian wrote:
Systemzwang wrote:
Sorry, does not say what you said!

I thought you were referring to what I quoted.
I don't have any sources that say clearly that /ð/ was only an allophone, and it may be that I am wrong. I assumed it to be so, because of the weird nature and behaviour of this sound in native Finnish words.

What about how it behaves is "weird"?
Top
 Profile  
 
Omzinesý
 Post subject: Re: Uralic Thread
PostPosted: Tue 15 May 2012, 16:16 
mayan
mayan
User avatar

Joined: Fri 27 Aug 2010, 08:17
Posts: 1176
Location: nowhere [naʊhɪɚ]
Maximillian wrote:
Systemzwang wrote:
Sorry, does not say what you said!

I thought you were referring to what I quoted.
I don't have any sources that say clearly that /ð/ was only an allophone, and it may be that I am wrong. I assumed it to be so, because of the weird nature and behaviour of this sound in native Finnish words.

Consonant graduation (let's call "astevaihtelu" so) has got phonemic in all Finnic languages.
First, there were two phonemic lengths is Proto-Finnish (the name is used variusly, I mean the language BEFORE the Finnic proto-language) /t/ and /tt/.
Second, those get PHONETIC allophones /t/ [t],[ð] - /tt/ [t:],[t;] (t; marking halflong geminate found in eg. Estonian)
Thrird, during the own devolopment of Finnish, in Finnish [t;] -> [t] deleting the distinction.
In nowaday Finnish they vary
mato -madot 'worm - worms'
matto - matot 'carpet - carpets'
In forms madot and matot /t/ and /d/ have a distinction.
We don't need to suppose Swedish influence to make that meaningful.


Last edited by Omzinesý on Tue 15 May 2012, 17:24, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile  
 
Omzinesý
 Post subject: Re: Uralic Thread
PostPosted: Tue 15 May 2012, 16:26 
mayan
mayan
User avatar

Joined: Fri 27 Aug 2010, 08:17
Posts: 1176
Location: nowhere [naʊhɪɚ]
I, by the way, loaned the dook "Johdatus lapin kielen historiaan" 'Introduction to the History of Lapp Language'.
Baybe I'm at least gonna understant the vowel shift.
Top
 Profile  
 
Systemzwang
 Post subject: Re: Uralic Thread
PostPosted: Tue 15 May 2012, 17:18 
roman
roman

Joined: Sun 15 Aug 2010, 15:48
Posts: 513
Omzinesý wrote:
Maximillian wrote:
Systemzwang wrote:
Sorry, does not say what you said!

I thought you were referring to what I quoted.
I don't have any sources that say clearly that /ð/ was only an allophone, and it may be that I am wrong. I assumed it to be so, because of the weird nature and behaviour of this sound in native Finnish words.

Consonant graduation (let's call "astevaihtelu" so) has got phonemic in all Finnic languages.
First, there were two phonemic lengths is Proto-Finnish (the name is used variusly, I mean the language BEFORE the Finnic proto-language) /t/ and /tt/.
Second, those get PHONEMIC allophones /t/ [t],[ð] - /tt/ [t:],[t;] (t; marking halflong geminate found in eg. Estonian)
Thrird, during the own devolopment of Finnish, in Finnish [t;] -> [t] deleting the distinction.
In nowaday Finnish they vary
mato -madot 'worm - worms'
matto - matot 'carpet - carpets'
In forms madot and matot /t/ and /d/ have a distinction.
We don't need to suppose Swedish influence to make that meaningful.

Exactly - there's nothing "weird" about that behavior. Except it would be good to avoid using clunky and misleading terminology like "phonemic allophones". Avoid "allophone" in such contexts altogether.
Top
 Profile  
 
Omzinesý
 Post subject: Re: Uralic Thread
PostPosted: Tue 15 May 2012, 17:23 
mayan
mayan
User avatar

Joined: Fri 27 Aug 2010, 08:17
Posts: 1176
Location: nowhere [naʊhɪɚ]
Ups
Top
 Profile  
 
Maximillian
 Post subject: Re: Uralic Thread
PostPosted: Tue 15 May 2012, 20:18 
light
light
User avatar

Joined: Thu 12 Aug 2010, 20:33
Posts: 667
Location: Israel
Systemzwang wrote:
What about how it behaves is "weird"?

From the Finnish Sound Structure:
Spoiler: show
Finnish /t̪/ and /d/ thus differ from each other in a number of respects. The
places of articulation are different — /t̪/ is laminal dentialveolar and /d/ apical
alveolar — and the place of /d/ is fronted during the occlusion. The duration of
the occlusion of /t̪/ is roughly twice that of /d/, and finally, /t̪/ is usually voiceless,
/d/ voiced. The differences in place and duration imply that the opposition is not a
genuine voice opposition, as the consonants differ considerably from each other
also in other respects. Moreover, if the opposition were a genuine voice
opposition, one would expect that all those speakers who have the phoneme /d/
also find it easy to pronounce [b] and [g], and to systematically distinguish
between /p/ and /b/, and between /k/ and /g/. But this does not seem to be the case:
speakers who have /d/ in their paradigm do not necessarily have /b/ and /g/ in
their native paradigm, and they do not necessarily master the corresponding
oppositions in foreign languages. On several criteria, then, /d/ is an odd one
among the Finnish consonants, and hard to classify for its manner of articulation.

Spoiler: show
In fully native words it has a rather narrow
distribution, occurring as it does only word-internally in the contexts V_V (e.g.
käden ‘of hand’) and /h/_V (e.g. kahden ‘of two’). Because of this and the other
restrictions, Karlsson (1983: 57) characterises /d/ a defective phoneme.

_________________
UNUS•ET•UNICUS
Top
 Profile  
 
Systemzwang
 Post subject: Re: Uralic Thread
PostPosted: Tue 15 May 2012, 23:18 
roman
roman

Joined: Sun 15 Aug 2010, 15:48
Posts: 513
Maximillian wrote:
Systemzwang wrote:
What about how it behaves is "weird"?

From the Finnish Sound Structure:
Spoiler: show
Finnish /t̪/ and /d/ thus differ from each other in a number of respects. The
places of articulation are different — /t̪/ is laminal dentialveolar and /d/ apical
alveolar — and the place of /d/ is fronted during the occlusion. The duration of
the occlusion of /t̪/ is roughly twice that of /d/, and finally, /t̪/ is usually voiceless,
/d/ voiced. The differences in place and duration imply that the opposition is not a
genuine voice opposition, as the consonants differ considerably from each other
also in other respects. Moreover, if the opposition were a genuine voice
opposition, one would expect that all those speakers who have the phoneme /d/
also find it easy to pronounce [b] and [g], and to systematically distinguish
between /p/ and /b/, and between /k/ and /g/. But this does not seem to be the case:
speakers who have /d/ in their paradigm do not necessarily have /b/ and /g/ in
their native paradigm, and they do not necessarily master the corresponding
oppositions in foreign languages. On several criteria, then, /d/ is an odd one
among the Finnish consonants, and hard to classify for its manner of articulation.

Spoiler: show
In fully native words it has a rather narrow
distribution, occurring as it does only word-internally in the contexts V_V (e.g.
käden ‘of hand’) and /h/_V (e.g. kahden ‘of two’). Because of this and the other
restrictions, Karlsson (1983: 57) characterises /d/ a defective phoneme.

...

this has nothing to do with the aspects of its behaviors you pointed to earlier. CONTEXT, do you understand it?

Defective phonemes are quite common, cross-linguistically, so defectiveness, imho, is not really weird. Different places of articulation for t and d also occur in lots of varieties of Swedish, btw. Also, presence of k/g, t/d doesn't make p present in Classical Arabic!
Top
 Profile  
 
Maximillian
 Post subject: Re: Uralic Thread
PostPosted: Wed 16 May 2012, 09:11 
light
light
User avatar

Joined: Thu 12 Aug 2010, 20:33
Posts: 667
Location: Israel
What's your point, Systemzwang?

_________________
UNUS•ET•UNICUS
Top
 Profile  
 
Systemzwang
 Post subject: Re: Uralic Thread
PostPosted: Wed 16 May 2012, 10:29 
roman
roman

Joined: Sun 15 Aug 2010, 15:48
Posts: 513
Maximillian wrote:
What's your point, Systemzwang?

That this claim that Finnish /ð/~/d/ is a remarkable enough phoneme to only be explainable by Swedish influence is quite disingenuous, and that no such explanation whatsoever is necessary. (BTW, the fact that some dialects of Swedish have d/t at different poas works the opposite way in those dialects, so that doesn't help much either in arguing that ð could only have become a phoneme under Swedish influence. My point is: you're using a worthless methodology to prop up the case for a specific effect Swedish, in your claim, has had on Finnish. Why be so persistent in claiming something like that?
Top
 Profile  
 
Omzinesý
 Post subject: Re: Uralic Thread
PostPosted: Wed 16 May 2012, 13:26 
mayan
mayan
User avatar

Joined: Fri 27 Aug 2010, 08:17
Posts: 1176
Location: nowhere [naʊhɪɚ]
Systemzwang wrote:
Maximillian wrote:
What's your point, Systemzwang?

That this claim that Finnish /ð/~/d/ is a remarkable enough phoneme to only be explainable by Swedish influence is quite disingenuous, and that no such explanation whatsoever is necessary. (BTW, the fact that some dialects of Swedish have d/t at different poas works the opposite way in those dialects, so that doesn't help much either in arguing that ð could only have become a phoneme under Swedish influence. My point is: you're using a worthless methodology to prop up the case for a specific effect Swedish, in your claim, has had on Finnish. Why be so persistent in claiming something like that?

Of course, the new phoneme has spread to new environments in loan words, for example the word initial position "dollar", "dinosaurus" "diktaattori"
Nevertheless, I don't know what is the phonemic quality of the word initila /d/. Is it as odd.
Top
 Profile  
 
Xonen
 Post subject: Re: Uralic Thread
PostPosted: Thu 17 May 2012, 01:12 
moderator
moderator
User avatar

Joined: Sun 16 May 2010, 00:25
Posts: 531
Omzinesý wrote:
Sami has odd sC klusters, for example the name of Skolt Sami is really Skolt.

Not in Skolt it isn't... Their name for the language is simply sää’mǩiõll. Almost all Sami words with word-initial consonant clusters are either transparent loans or descriptive or onomatopoetic words. Exactly the same situation appears to exist in many other Uralic languages (including Finnish); Mordvin, and especially Moksha, is quite exceptional in that it has actually had (at least semi-)regular sound changes leading to word-initial clusters even in native words, e.g. *ükte > fkä 'one'.

_________________
Image
Top
 Profile  
 
Maximillian
 Post subject: Re: Uralic Thread
PostPosted: Thu 17 May 2012, 14:30 
light
light
User avatar

Joined: Thu 12 Aug 2010, 20:33
Posts: 667
Location: Israel
Systemzwang wrote:
That this claim that Finnish /ð/~/d/ is a remarkable enough phoneme to only be explainable by Swedish influence...

I never claimed it; don't put words in my mouth! What I said (or, actually quoted) was (1) that /d/ appeared in Finnish due to Swedish influence, and (2) that it is quite an odd phoneme in Finnish phonology. I never made any connection between the two phenomena. By the way, at least the first one is supported by researchers.
Systemzwang wrote:
(BTW, the fact that some dialects of Swedish have d/t at different poas works the opposite way in those dialects, so that doesn't help much either in arguing that ð could only have become a phoneme under Swedish influence.

Once again, I never said it was only because of foreign influence; this is, however, a widespread opinion. Do you want to write a letter to the authors of the book I was quoting from?
Systemzwang wrote:
My point is: you're using a worthless methodology to prop up the case for a specific effect Swedish, in your claim, has had on Finnish.

I don't use any methodology; I'm not a researcher. I read an article, was convinced by it, and shared my thoughts here. Any problems?
Systemzwang wrote:
Why be so persistent in claiming something like that?

If you don't care for my opinions, don't respond to my messages.

_________________
UNUS•ET•UNICUS
Top
 Profile  
 
taylorS
 Post subject: Re: Uralic Thread
PostPosted: Thu 17 May 2012, 18:47 
greek
greek

Joined: Thu 12 Aug 2010, 05:06
Posts: 311
Does anyone know of any good online information on Proto-Uralic besides Wikipedia?

_________________
Mekoshan
Alpic
Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  Page 2 of 3
  [ 54 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3  Next

Board index » English section » Linguistics & Natlangs

All times are UTC + 1 hour [ DST ]

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Shemtov and 0 guests

You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group