Zompist Bboard Again

Interesting. Is substandard 'got' as an uninflected present similarly defective? For me, a Briton, the infinitive in this meaning.the first, a synonym of 'to have', doesn't feel natural, but the rest of the semantically present and formally perfect forms seem to exist. I think in AusEng present &qu...

Interesting. Is substandard 'got' as an uninflected present similarly defective? For me, a Briton, the infinitive in this meaning.the first, a synonym of 'to have', doesn't feel natural, but the rest of the semantically present and formally perfect forms seem to exist. I think in AusEng present &qu...

On an advert - DIY or Do It For Me

Granted I'm not confused about what they mean, but it reads horrendously

All languages have some way of expressing basical logical operations like "and" and "or". But I wouldn't be surprised if there were some languages without a separate word class of conjunctions. I remember hearing about some (Papuan?) language where conjunctions were just a subcla...

IMD "got" and "gotten" have slightly different meanings: "got" merely implies possesion, "gotten" emphasizes acquisition. E.g. "I've got the money" = I have it, it's available "I've gotten the money" = I've acquired it, recently enough tha...

Nortaneous wrote: ↑Sat May 25, 2024 3:34 am

Darren wrote: ↑Sat May 25, 2024 1:05 am

Nortaneous wrote: ↑Sat May 25, 2024 12:56 am

i have bad news for you about the united states of america

pray tell

the past participle of "get" is already "gotten" (and many nonstandard varieties replace the simple past of common strong verbs with the past participle)

both are true of auseng too

J’inclus la prononciation car je lutte encore avec l’orthographie. /ʒ‿ ɛ̃ kly la pʁonɔ̃siasjɔ̃ caʁ ʒə lyt ɑ̃kɔʁ avɛk l‿ɔʁtɔɡʁafi/ I am including the pronunciation as I still struggle with the orthography. Pour moi, l'orthographe n'est jamais une problème. C'est presque complètement régulière, même ...

Nortaneous wrote: ↑Sat May 25, 2024 12:56 am

Darren wrote: ↑Fri May 24, 2024 11:09 pm In a similar vein you can add redundant -en onto strong verbs without sounding too far of ( ... gotten,

i have bad news for you about the united states of america

pray tell

I was trying to implement a toy version of a Northern Vanuatu-style sound change (where unstressed vowels disappear, influencing the vowel in the preceding syllable to massively increase the vowel inventory of a language). [o u] / [ø y] / _ C Frnt [i y e ø o u] / [e ø ɛ œ ɔ o] / _ C [V -Open] a / [...

English strong verbs have a surprising tendency to trigger analogy, despite being highly irregular themselves (I think there's probably about forty synchronic "ablaut" patterns). I have read somewhere that verbs reached (rought?) peak regularity in the 11th century and since then more weak...

Today the ID came up in the course of a discussion I had with Alexandre François :o Examples — it would be nice to have examples for each sound changes. This shouldn’t be too hard for any halfway reliable source, although it would make for more work. Given the hyperlinked nature of the new ID , he ...

Subbing the Roche limit into the equation for orbital velocity, you get v = sqrt(GM/(r(cbrt(2M/m))) v = orbital velocity G = 6.67 × 10^(−11) M = mass of primary r = radius of satellite m = mass of satellite To maximise the orbital velocity, we need big M and m, and small everything else (could also ...

You could get a more reasonable distance if you're orbiting something really massive. Say you're orbiting a supermassive black hole of 500,000 solar masses at a distance of 0.005 au (460 thousand miles); your speed will approach the speed of light. And that is (self-evidently) outside the event hori...

But, on the other hand, the presence of -n’t seems to be key here: 3. ?? If I had not have had that cake, it would’ve gone mouldy. 4. * If I had have had that cake, it would’ve gone mouldy. Honestly 4 kinda works for me. Interesting… for me it’s completely ungrammatical, no uncertainty about it. &q...

Unmotivated /s/ → /ɬ/ is attested multiple times, although areally not that widespread; Yue Chinese, some Central Tai languages, Hlai, Tanoan apparently. In SE Asia /s/ isn't as stable as it ought to be, it keeps turning into /t/ or /ɬ/ or some bullshit along those lines. edit: MiS's push chain woul...

bradrn wrote: ↑Tue May 14, 2024 6:51 am But, on the other hand, the presence of -n’t seems to be key here:

3. ?? If I had not have had that cake, it would’ve gone mouldy.
4. * If I had have had that cake, it would’ve gone mouldy.

Honestly 4 kinda works for me.

Development has slowed down a lot, but finally got around to fixing this! In the next release, you’ll be able to write extra ŋ kʷ pʷ ɨ ' θ at the beginning of the file, which will tell Brassica to recognise those multigraphs as ‘extra’ characters throughout all subsequent category redefinitions. Ay...

I always end up having to make a category "X" which is just all the left over shit like ŋ kʷ pʷ ɨ ˈ θ and never gets used for anything. Development has slowed down a lot, but finally got around to fixing this! In the next release, you’ll be able to write extra ŋ kʷ pʷ ɨ ' θ at the beginni...

[ˈkʰʊː.ae̯.ˈɛːv.n̩ː.ˌɑ̃ː.ʁ̃ˤɯːp̚ˈpʰɑː.mʁ̩ˤː] [ˈtjɛːv.ˈɜ̃ːj.ˌae̯ˈdiː.əː.ˈwʌə̯m.ˈsʲpi.kɘ̃.ˌɪːʁˤ] Kind of on a tangent, but do you have any idea what kind of quantitative vowel length difference you have? When I try and read out your examples they always seem pretty reasonable, except the vowel length...

I'm trying to reformulate this with a verb that doesn't require auxiliary negation: 1′. "We only aren't anaesthetists" → we're everything but anaesthetists 2~3′. "We aren't only anaesthetists" → we're anaesthetists and other things too 4′. ?"It's only anaesthetists which we ...