Zompist Bboard Again

TomHChappell wrote: ↑Sat Feb 03, 2024 1:44 pm

bradrn wrote: ↑Fri Feb 02, 2024 8:18 pm I was trying to write up something, but in the process I discovered this paper which looks quite comprehensive: https://doi.org/10.1080/07268602.2022.2157675. It looks like it should answer most of your questions. (I can send you a PDF if you can’t access it.)

I think this resource should be linked to from a “Resources” thread!

elgis wrote: ↑Sat Jul 08, 2023 1:40 am I would like to share a project of mine: palasimi. It's a website with graphs of colexified concepts, similar to those in CLICS and A Conlanger's Thesaurus. It doesn't quite have as much linguistic information as CLICS, but every concept in palasimi is annotated with a short description, which I hope can be of use.

sasasha wrote: ↑Fri Feb 16, 2024 7:33 am

elgis wrote: ↑Sat Jul 08, 2023 1:40 am I would like to share a project of mine: palasimi. It's a website with graphs of colexified concepts, similar to those in CLICS and A Conlanger's Thesaurus. It doesn't quite have as much linguistic information as CLICS, but every concept in palasimi is annotated with a short description, which I hope can be of use.

This is awesome, I love it.

bradrn wrote: ↑Fri Apr 26, 2024 6:22 am I was linked to this impressively accessible grammar of West Greenlandic: https://oqa.dk/assets/aitwg2ED.pdf. It’s a little eccentric in its presentation, but then again West Greenlandic is a little eccentric too, so it works well.

Travis B. wrote: ↑Fri Apr 26, 2024 11:20 am

bradrn wrote: ↑Fri Apr 26, 2024 6:22 am I was linked to this impressively accessible grammar of West Greenlandic: https://oqa.dk/assets/aitwg2ED.pdf. It’s a little eccentric in its presentation, but then again West Greenlandic is a little eccentric too, so it works well.

From just reading the first few pages this seems much more "fun" than the average grammar.

bradrn wrote: ↑Fri Apr 26, 2024 12:05 pm

Travis B. wrote: ↑Fri Apr 26, 2024 11:20 am

bradrn wrote: ↑Fri Apr 26, 2024 6:22 am I was linked to this impressively accessible grammar of West Greenlandic: https://oqa.dk/assets/aitwg2ED.pdf. It’s a little eccentric in its presentation, but then again West Greenlandic is a little eccentric too, so it works well.

From just reading the first few pages this seems much more "fun" than the average grammar.

Yes, indeed. The author takes every opportunity to sneer at what he calls ‘Grammaric’ writing which uses too much terminology; I don’t think that’s right, but it is certainly true that the average paper is very dryly written.

(From what I can tell, his background seems to be CS rather than linguistics, which may or may not be a factor.)

bradrn wrote: ↑Wed May 22, 2024 6:51 am This is quite an interesting resource: 𝓔𝓿𝓸Sem, a database of diachronic semantic change. Could be enormously useful for my conlanging!

bradrn wrote: ↑Wed May 22, 2024 6:51 am This is quite an interesting resource: 𝓔𝓿𝓸Sem, a database of diachronic semantic change. Could be enormously useful for my conlanging!

Zju wrote: ↑Tue May 28, 2024 3:16 pm Discussion of polysynthetic tendencies in French - is anyone aware of some other paper on the same subject, which does something more than a passing mention that je and the like are clitics?

Zju wrote: ↑Tue May 28, 2024 3:58 pm Alright, disregard that question.

Is anyone aware of some paper that discusses the potential grammaticalisation of French verbal clitics to morphemes?

bradrn wrote: ↑Tue May 28, 2024 4:01 pm

Zju wrote: ↑Tue May 28, 2024 3:58 pm Alright, disregard that question.

Is anyone aware of some paper that discusses the potential grammaticalisation of French verbal clitics to morphemes?

Um, French verbal clitics are already morphemes, and always have been…!

Zju wrote: ↑Tue May 28, 2024 4:06 pm

bradrn wrote: ↑Tue May 28, 2024 4:01 pm

Zju wrote: ↑Tue May 28, 2024 3:58 pm Alright, disregard that question.

Is anyone aware of some paper that discusses the potential grammaticalisation of French verbal clitics to morphemes?

Um, French verbal clitics are already morphemes, and always have been…!

Really? I thought they were still clitics. So what are some papers that discuss this aspect of French morphology?

bradrn wrote: ↑Tue May 28, 2024 4:09 pm

Zju wrote: ↑Tue May 28, 2024 4:06 pm

bradrn wrote: ↑Tue May 28, 2024 4:01 pm Um, French verbal clitics are already morphemes, and always have been…!

Really? I thought they were still clitics. So what are some papers that discuss this aspect of French morphology?

Clitics are morphemes… I’m wondering if you perhaps mean ‘affixes’?

In response to which I submit that ‘clitic’ and ‘affix’ aren’t actually meaningful concepts at all, in a cross-linguistic sense, because ‘word’ isn’t a meaningful concept either. (One of these days I mean to write a more in-depth post on that topic.)

Travis B. wrote: ↑Tue May 28, 2024 4:16 pm

bradrn wrote: ↑Tue May 28, 2024 4:09 pm

Zju wrote: ↑Tue May 28, 2024 4:06 pm

Really? I thought they were still clitics. So what are some papers that discuss this aspect of French morphology?

Clitics are morphemes… I’m wondering if you perhaps mean ‘affixes’?

In response to which I submit that ‘clitic’ and ‘affix’ aren’t actually meaningful concepts at all, in a cross-linguistic sense, because ‘word’ isn’t a meaningful concept either. (One of these days I mean to write a more in-depth post on that topic.)

From that POV there is no distinction between morphology and syntax then, and one should regard, say, Mandarin and Kalaallisut as having no practical difference from one another.