The CBB

There are a few somewhat similar phenomena called “avoidance registers”, and other terms related to “avoidance”.

For instance, when someone dies, you aren’t supposed to use words resembling their names, in the presence of people who are mourning them, for a certain amount of time; for instance, not on their property or around their immediate family and/or household, for a year.

When I was young, my neighbor and best friend was named Steve. His mother was named Dot; and she and my mother were, likewise, neighbors and best friends.

Supposed she had passed, and in less than a year I had wanted to tell Steve (or my Mom) about the URL of a new website.

Would I have had to use some circumlocution for the “dot” in, for instance, “dot com”?

eldin raigmore wrote: ↑17 Jan 2019 20:25 There are a few somewhat similar phenomena called “avoidance registers”, and other terms related to “avoidance”.

For instance, when someone dies, you aren’t supposed to use words resembling their names, in the presence of people who are mourning them, for a certain amount of time; for instance, not on their property or around their immediate family and/or household, for a year.

When I was young, my neighbor and best friend was named Steve. His mother was named Dot; and she and my mother were, likewise, neighbors and best friends.

Supposed she had passed, and in less than a year I had wanted to tell Steve (or my Mom) about the URL of a new website.

Would I have had to use some circumlocution for the “dot” in, for instance, “dot com”?

I wanna say Yes...maybe "bip" or "point" in the place of "dot".

Needless to say, an in the answer to all questions about "languages in general": it depends. I'm sure in some languages it is acceptable to use otherwise taboo words in clearly non-taboo contexts. However, it is indeed very common for taboo deformation and taboo suppletion to be used instead.

thank you eldin

I would like to practise translating many natlang sentences regularly, because many people here speak that natlang. Should I spam the relevant thread in the "Other Languages Section" even if nobody replies with a correction, or the language practice thread in "Everything else", or is this better elsewhere in the "Linguistics" or "Translation" subforum?

Also, as a similar question with regards to conlangs, is it more appropriate in my own conlang thread, or the Conlang Conversation thread, or another new thread (for example, Conlang Radio Spam)?

Reyzadren wrote: ↑02 Feb 2019 23:57 I would like to practise translating many natlang sentences regularly, because many people here speak that natlang. Should I spam the relevant thread in the "Other Languages Section" even if nobody replies with a correction, or the language practice thread in "Everything else", or is this better elsewhere in the "Linguistics" or "Translation" subforum?

I hesitate to give a definite answer here because the CBB isn't intended as a language learning board, so we don't have any area primarily for language learning. I see the fewest issues with you posting in the Other Languages Section. Bear in mind, though, what Aszev has said about using that section for language practice:

Aszev wrote: ↑05 Nov 2011 16:55 Using the IOL forums because you want to learn a language or just practice it is of course great, but just keep in mind that the original purpose is that they are supposed to be exactly what the main English section is, except in a different language. Despite the lack of frequent activity, this is still the desired use.

If you really want a dedicated place to practice your language long-term, there are other websites designed for that purpose. I'm sure your fellow CBBers know many of them.

---

Reyzadren wrote: ↑02 Feb 2019 23:57Also, as a similar question with regards to conlangs, is it more appropriate in my own conlang thread, or the Conlang Conversation thread, or another new thread (for example, Conlang Radio Spam)?

This question is easier to answer. Your own conlang thread would be the best choice.

Dormouse559 wrote: ↑03 Feb 2019 02:28

Reyzadren wrote: ↑02 Feb 2019 23:57 I would like to practise translating many natlang sentences regularly, because many people here speak that natlang. Should I spam the relevant thread in the "Other Languages Section" even if nobody replies with a correction, or the language practice thread in "Everything else", or is this better elsewhere in the "Linguistics" or "Translation" subforum?

I hesitate to give a definite answer here because the CBB isn't intended as a language learning board, so we don't have any area primarily for language learning. I see the fewest issues with you posting in the Other Languages Section. Bear in mind, though, what Aszev has said about using that section for language practice:

If you want to practice a language and actively seek people's help with it, I'd say you could make your own study thread for it. The Language Practice Thread is similar in purpose, but doesn't quite have the same angle of actively asking for other people's help and input. I'd say put such a thread in EE for now. If many people want to do the same thing, I wouldn't have a problem looking into rearranging the forums to find a better place for such threads.

It's true that language learning is not the primary focus of this forum, but I think it's so strongly connected to conlanging that it's a good idea to encourage it. Especially since we do have members speaking other languages who would love to help out, and who are familiar with the kind of linguistic terminology that we like to use :)

Nevermind Answered my own question.

Would a non-configurational syntax require extensive agreemnt?

How did High German get <fünf> /fʏnf/ from Proto-Germanic *fimf? As far as I can tell, umlaut did not operate in this word, nor can I see anything internal that would cause /ɪ/ to round.

Ælfwine wrote: ↑20 Feb 2019 02:28 How did High German get <fünf> /fʏnf/ from Proto-Germanic *fimf? As far as I can tell, umlaut did not operate in this word, nor can I see anything internal that would cause /ɪ/ to round.

I'm not an expert on Germanic but if I had to make a guess the /f/ and /m/ is probably why, since they're both labial. Especially since m>n and could have in a sense offloaded the labial/rounding aspect onto the vowel.

LinguistCat wrote: ↑20 Feb 2019 02:40

Ælfwine wrote: ↑20 Feb 2019 02:28 How did High German get <fünf> /fʏnf/ from Proto-Germanic *fimf? As far as I can tell, umlaut did not operate in this word, nor can I see anything internal that would cause /ɪ/ to round.

I'm not an expert on Germanic but if I had to make a guess the /f/ and /m/ is probably why, since they're both labial. Especially since m>n and could have in a sense offloaded the labial/rounding aspect onto the vowel.

Sometimes there's rounding around labials, especially in some dialects. This is probably just a case that made it into the standard.

Nortaneous wrote: ↑20 Feb 2019 08:45Sometimes there's rounding around labials, especially in some dialects. This is probably just a case that made it into the standard.

Another instance of it is schwören. The version with -ö- is borrowed from dialect whereas the expected form would be schweren.

Which of the following pairs of English words are etymologically and semantically related; and how?
1. Ablative and afferent.
2. Collate and confer.
3. Delative and defer.
4. Elate and efferent.
5. Illative and infer.
6. Oblate and offer.
7. Prelate and prefer.
8. Relate and refer.
9. Sublate and suffer.
10. Translate and transfer.

They're all etymologically related in the sense that they derive from the present and participle stems respectively of the Latin verb fero "to carry". As for semantics, it seems that some are more similar than others, but I'd leave that to a native speaker to judge.

Nortaneous wrote: ↑20 Feb 2019 08:45

LinguistCat wrote: ↑20 Feb 2019 02:40

Ælfwine wrote: ↑20 Feb 2019 02:28 How did High German get <fünf> /fʏnf/ from Proto-Germanic *fimf? As far as I can tell, umlaut did not operate in this word, nor can I see anything internal that would cause /ɪ/ to round.

I'm not an expert on Germanic but if I had to make a guess the /f/ and /m/ is probably why, since they're both labial. Especially since m>n and could have in a sense offloaded the labial/rounding aspect onto the vowel.

Sometimes there's rounding around labials, especially in some dialects. This is probably just a case that made it into the standard.

I agree. In some dialects this process is still productive and also active for post-alveolars (which are phonetically rounded), e.g. there is [fʏʃʷ]~ [fɪʃʷ] 'fish'.

Is there a place where I can find a table of verb endings from PIE for my conlang?

CarsonDaConlanger wrote: ↑25 Feb 2019 18:40 Is there a place where I can find a table of verb endings from PIE for my conlang?

You could start with wikipedia, which is pretty extensive. Although of course there are disputes (the different daughters don't line up exactly, and there are disagreements over what's 'original', particularly in terms of what was already in place in Indo-Hittite and what's actually just 'late PIE').

CarsonDaConlanger wrote: ↑25 Feb 2019 18:40 Is there a place where I can find a table of verb endings from PIE for my conlang?

This article compiles a good sample of the various reconstructed endings:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proto-Indo-European_verbs

It uses four different sources, including Sihler and Ringe, and compares them.

Apostle:epistle :: messenger:message :: missionary:mission :: angel:???