Linguistic Miscellany Thread

[Kuchigakatai]

Does anyone know of a natural language where the grammatical marking of a certain type of oblique object is suppletive based on the number, definiteness, or topicality of the subject of the clause? For example, a language that regularly uses one adposition to mark a certain type of oblique object when the subject is singular, and a different adposition to mark the same type of oblique object when the subject is plural?
[...]

No idea if anyone said this in the 10+ ppages between your post and my reply, but French has a similar situation, where for "in some country", you use à, plus article, if the country's name is masculine (usually -> au, contracted with the article, e.g. au Japon; small island countries like Cyprus don't use the article, so, à Chypre), and en, without particle also, if feminine (e.g. en France).

Also check out the post about Spanish above, though it's about anthromorphisation.

He asked specifically about number, definiteness or subject topicality. (I'd like to know what he means by topicality exactly. How does Japanese not count for this? Is it because a Japanese topic marked with wa may also turn out to be a direct object?)

Fortunately, French is also an example of this for definiteness, in the special case of languages. To say "in [language]" where the language is a general abstract concept, you use the preposition en, but for anything more specific (definite or indefinite!) than that you use avec (in relation to somebody's speaking or writing) or dans (when talking about linguistic phenomena). E.g. en français 'in French', une distinction en déclin dans le français de France 'a distinction in decline in French French', trouvé dans leur français 'found in their [dialect of] French', exprimé avec un français étrange 'expressed in a strange [kind of] French'.

This follows the general pattern of the preposition en, as it is allergic to definite noun phrases and must be replaced by something else when the noun phrase is more specific. You may very much compare it with the English replacement of "by" with generic transportation by "on" or "in" with more specific machines (or animals), which you can also find in French. E.g. celle qui est venue en bicyclette 'the woman who came by bicycle', celle qui est venue sur son bicyclette 'the woman who came on her bicycle'.

[Pabappa]

One thing I have always wondered: how does rhyming work in languages with significant inflection and agreement? Consider a language like Latin where nouns and adjectives agree in number, gender, and case. It seems like rhymes would frequently turn into repeating the same inflectional form in successive lines, like -ōrum or -āvērunt or something.

Maybe work with rhythm? e.g. the English phrase "the crew of four had gone ashore" rhymes, but it also has a perfect ABABABAB rhythm enhancing the rhyme. In fact, this phrase seems not to exist at all on the Internet, which means I remembered a random phrase for more than 20 years just because of its rhythm and its rhyme.

I think Old English poetry emphasized the beginnings of words more than the ends, but that is probably due to the fact that Old English, like most Germanic languages, had most words stressed on their first syllable.

Also, I think most people understand rhyme to begin at the last stressed syllable .... e.g. the english words "dentist" and "flutist" would not be considered a rhyme even though the last 4 phonemes are the same. So if your language has its stress towards the beginning of th word, i would avoid rhyming entirely.

Latin did veni vidi vici which rhymes of course, but i think the phrase is more remarkable for its alliteration and the way the v's are spaced evenly, thus producing an ABABAB rhythm again. "veni pidi vici" wouldnt have stuck around in our minds for 2000 years. neither would something like "veni veradi vici".

[Salmoneus]

Just to note: people don't say "ABABABAB rhythm", and your two examples have different rhythms anyway. ['abab' means alternating rhymes, while 'ABAB' means the entire lines are repeated]

Instead, your first example is called iambic tetrameter. That is, each line consists of four feet, each of which is a iamb (two beats, second one accented, first not).

Your second example is trochaic trimeter. That is, there are three feet, each of which is a trochee (two beats, first one accented second not)

[cedh]

Does anyone know of a natural language where the grammatical marking of a certain type of oblique object is suppletive based on the number, definiteness, or topicality of the subject of the clause? For example, a language that regularly uses one adposition to mark a certain type of oblique object when the subject is singular, and a different adposition to mark the same type of oblique object when the subject is plural?

To illustrate what I mean, let's imagine a hypothetical version of English where the following grammaticality judgements apply:

I give the book to you. (subject is singular, therefore recipient is marked with to)
*I give the book for you. (ungrammatical or at least very unusual)

*We give the book to you. (ungrammatical or at least very unusual because subject is plural)
We give the book for you. (subject is plural, therefore recipient is marked with for)

Is a pattern like this attested? It doesn't need to be about recipients though; any other common oblique role also counts (causer, instrument, source, goal, location...) And if yes, do you have any information about how it evolved?

No idea if anyone said this in the 10+ ppages between your post and my reply, but French has a similar situation, where for "in some country", you use à, plus article, if the country's name is masculine (usually -> au, contracted with the article, e.g. au Japon; small island countries like Cyprus don't use the article, so, à Chypre), and en, without particle also, if feminine (e.g. en France).

Also check out the post about Spanish above, though it's about anthromorphisation.

He asked specifically about number, definiteness or subject topicality. (I'd like to know what he means by topicality exactly. How does Japanese not count for this? Is it because a Japanese topic marked with wa may also turn out to be a direct object?)

I asked specifically about the marking of an oblique object being dependent on a property of the subject of the sentence (i.e. on a property of a syntactically unrelated NP), so the French example is not a relevant answer here. Which property of the subject it is doesn't really matter; the three properties I mentioned were those that were easily available in the conlang I was working with. (In that specific context, there was a grammatical distinction between subjects that were topics and subjects that were not topics. I suppose that's roughly similar to Japanese, but I don't know enough about Japanese grammar to be sure.)

((Also, the conlanging dilemma that prompted my question has been solved in the meantime. I'd still be interested in answers though, because if there is a true natlang precedent for this idea, it would probably be a true rarity.))

[Seirios]

No idea if anyone said this in the 10+ ppages between your post and my reply, but French has a similar situation, where for "in some country", you use à, plus article, if the country's name is masculine (usually -> au, contracted with the article, e.g. au Japon; small island countries like Cyprus don't use the article, so, à Chypre), and en, without particle also, if feminine (e.g. en France).

Also check out the post about Spanish above, though it's about anthromorphisation.

He asked specifically about number, definiteness or subject topicality. (I'd like to know what he means by topicality exactly. How does Japanese not count for this? Is it because a Japanese topic marked with wa may also turn out to be a direct object?)

I asked specifically about the marking of an oblique object being dependent on a property of the subject of the sentence (i.e. on a property of a syntactically unrelated NP), so the French example is not a relevant answer here. Which property of the subject it is doesn't really matter; the three properties I mentioned were those that were easily available in the conlang I was working with. (In that specific context, there was a grammatical distinction between subjects that were topics and subjects that were not topics. I suppose that's roughly similar to Japanese, but I don't know enough about Japanese grammar to be sure.)

((Also, the conlanging dilemma that prompted my question has been solved in the meantime. I'd still be interested in answers though, because if there is a true natlang precedent for this idea, it would probably be a true rarity.))

Sorry for my bad eyes. A similar situation exists in Hungarian I think, except it's not marking oblique objects but possessees, but it does technically fit your defnition of "an NP's some functional marking is different depending on a syntactically unrelated NP". Maybe with some stretch depending if you think possessors and possesses are syntactically related.

Disclaimer: I do not speak Hungarian, but have Hungarian speaking friends.

In Hungarian, possession is marked on the possessee (e.g. "house" in "Jane's house"), and the marker reflects both the number of the possessee and the person and number of the possessor. The thing is, however, that 3rd pl possessor suffix is only used (if I'm correct) when the possessor is expressed with a pronoun. Even plural nouns require the 3rd sg possessor suffix as long as they're not 3rd pl pronouns.

So e.g.: (example from Hungarian: An Essential Grammar (Carol Rounds, 2001), sec. 8.5.2, p. 151)

Ismer-em az (ő) any-juk-at.
know-[1s.ind.pres.def] the PRON mother-[pos.3p.sg]-[acc]
"I know their mother."

Ismer-em a fiúk any-ját.
know-[1s.ind.pres.def] the boys mother-[[pos.3s.sg].[acc]]
"I know the boys' mother."

On mobile, apologies for any fudged formatting.

[Salmoneus]

So, English!

Specifically, word-final alveolar stop glottalisation in American English.

Wikipedia says that, as you'd expect, there's flapping word-finally before a following vowel, and there's glottal reinforcement when before a pause. But before a consonant, it mentions both reinforcement and replacement.

Is one of these wrong? Or is it different in different dialects (or age groups)? Or does it depend on the following consonant?

Eg, "the cat balked at walking outside on a wet morning in the wet grass without some sort of cat coat" - how do different American pronounce those 't's?

(and I assume nothing happens to /d/ other than flapping?)

[Pabappa]

To me those are all unreleased /t/'s, with no glottalization and no voicing. I think anything else would sound odd. Stops are unreleased before other stops, whether the cluster occurs over a word boundary or not. Its possible that its glottalicized somehow, but I dont know if its possible to do that and yet still have an unreleased stop. Released stops of any kind would sound like a foreign accent, such as Italian.

also none of your examples used fricatives and the only example before a sonorant is "at walking". that said, Im pretty sure I'd still have an unreleased stop in "cat walking". and in "cat flew". the only possible counter example would be a /ts/ over a word boundary, but thats just because the release of the /t/ is the beginning of the /s/.

[Vijay]

To me those are all unreleased /t/'s, with no glottalization and no voicing.

Even in "sort of"?

[Pabappa]

To me those are all unreleased /t/'s, with no glottalization and no voicing.

Even in "sort of"?

no, I think he just meant the ones before consonants.

[renihilater]

The phoneme /j/ is quite common. But two things have occurred to me about this phoneme.

1. Many of the languages set on Almea lack the phoneme. Which I think is super interesting.
2. I was curious how many natural languages lack the phoneme.

It's been really hard finding any articles at all showing a lack of this particularly common sound. While I am at it, how common is it to lack /w/ or an equivalent sound such as /v/, /ʋ/, or /ɰ/?

[akam chinjir]

The phoneme /j/ is quite common. But two things have occurred to me about this phoneme.

1. Many of the languages set on Almea lack the phoneme. Which I think is super interesting.
2. I was curious how many natural languages lack the phoneme.

It's been really hard finding any articles at all showing a lack of this particularly common sound. While I am at it, how common is it to lack /w/ or an equivalent sound such as /v/, /ʋ/, or /ɰ/?

UPSID shows about 85% of languages in its database with /j/. You can poke around here, if you want. (I think I remember an old thread where people were talking about unreliabilities in UPSID, but I don't remember details.)

One possibly confounding factor is that [j] is often but I think inconsistently analysed as an allophone of /i/.

[Salmoneus]

To me those are all unreleased /t/'s, with no glottalization and no voicing.

Even in "sort of"?

no, I think he just meant the ones before consonants.

I meant all of them. [including 'balked at']

There is one before a fricative - "without some" - and another one before a sonorant ("wet morning").

I'd be surprised if you didn't have some glottal reinforcement in your unreleased stops, but that's OK - it's really reinforcement vs replacement that I'm interested in, and you seem clear that you don't have replacement. Which dialect would you say you spoke?

[Vijay]

How did the pronunciation of this go from *n̥ʰɯːs in Old Chinese to something like /tʰʌi^H/ in Middle Chinese?

[mèþru]

The first rule of the history of Chinese phonology is that we do not talk about the history of Chinese phonology.

[mèþru]

a quick google search gave me like 1500 different possible meanings for green heart
This makes me curious as to the evolution of usage of the green heart and possible social cleavages underlying the different meanings.

[Boşkoventi]

Eg, "the cat balked at walking outside on a wet morning in the wet grass without some sort of cat coat" - how do different American pronounce those 't's?

(and I assume nothing happens to /d/ other than flapping?)

I'm pretty sure I have [ʔ] -- possibly with some sort of reinforcement or other glottalization as well -- before a pause or a consonant: [ðə kʰæʔ bɑk̚t æʔ wɑkɪŋ aʊ̯ʔsaːɪ̯ɾ ɑn ə wɛʔ mɔɚnɪŋ ɪn ðə wɛʔ ɡɹæs wɪðaʊ̯ʔ səm sɔɚɾ əv kʰæʔ kʰoʊ̯ʔ ]

/ts/ is tricky. I think it's mostly [ʔs], though in more careful speech I might have [ts].

I think /d/ may also get glottal reinforcement or something similar in the same environments. It also (like other voiced plosives) triggers lengthening of a preceding vowel, as in "outside".

[Salmoneus]

And you speak which dialect?

[and just for the sake of completeness, since I coincidentally included both 'walk' and 'balk' - do you deround 'talk' as well?]

[Boşkoventi]

And you speak which dialect?

[and just for the sake of completeness, since I coincidentally included both 'walk' and 'balk' - do you deround 'talk' as well?]

I guess I'd have to call it GA. No significant regionalisms that I'm aware of. I have both FATHER-BOTHER and COT-CAUGHT mergers so, yes, it's [tʰɑk]. I'm pretty sure /al/ always has [ɑ] in such cases, with or without the /l/.

I've also noticed that word-initial /t/ may be flapped as well, e.g. "by tomorrow" [baɪ̯ ɾəˈmɑɚoʊ̯]. Not really sure what's going on there.

[Salmoneus]

And you speak which dialect?

[and just for the sake of completeness, since I coincidentally included both 'walk' and 'balk' - do you deround 'talk' as well?]

I guess I'd have to call it GA. No significant regionalisms that I'm aware of. I have both FATHER-BOTHER and COT-CAUGHT mergers

*looks quizzically*

You say 'no significant regionalisms' and then admit to the most famous American regionalism! So... you're most likely from the West?

I've also noticed that word-initial /t/ may be flapped as well, e.g. "by tomorrow" [baɪ̯ ɾəˈmɑɚoʊ̯]. Not really sure what's going on there.

Unstressed intervocalic /t/ is often flapped across word boundaries in American English.

[Salmoneus]

Well, I found a few articles on the subject.

Spoilered in case anyone wants to give their own pronunciation of that sentence without being prejudiced...

More: show

Seyfarth and Garellek, looking at a corpus of speech by people from Ohio, found:
- before sonorants, around 80% of /t/ became /?/. [so, "wet morning" probably has a glottal stop in Ohio]
- a bit under 40% (eyeballing their chart) of /t/ became /?/ before a voiceless obstruant
- it was only around 25% before a voiced obstruant
- it was about 50% phrase-finally (but still varying slightly depending on the next segment, if there was one).

Eddington and Taylor, looking at voice-shadowing and reading among a range of people, specifically at word-final /t/ before a vowel, found:
- yes, obviously, it's usually a flap
- but the glottal stop is becoming more common
- it's a bit more common in the West
- it's much more common among young women. Young women (20-30) had it 20% of the time, compared to an average of 10%, and only 5% for men between 40 and 50 (their oldest participants)
- it's much more common when the next syllable is stressed
- it's vastly more common before front vowels than back vowels - 18% before front, only 2% before back. But they caution that they didn't test enough phrases, so this may be partly lexical (eg maybe it just doesn't happen in phrases with 'off').
- weirdly, when they took the young women (20% replacement in shadowing (i.e. repeating spoken sentences)) and got them to read aloud, replacement shot up to 55%. This is weird because normally reading text aloud encourages more conservative pronunciations - people have more time to think and feel more pressure to pronounce the words 'correctly'. In this case, it seems as though the young women actually thought they were meant to have a glottal stop instead of a flap. The authors put this down to the cultural (and partly phonological) association of flapping with /d/, so that /?/ is a hypercorrection.