Linguistic Miscellany Thread

[Xwtek]

But the question was about languages in which you can't relativise obliques. If you can relativise obliques in Basque and Mandarin, then WALS is wrong about Basque, but it doesn't really help Akangka. (The Mandarin example looks strange to me, though.)

Well, WALS being false is also answer, too.

[Kuchigakatai]

(The Mandarin example looks strange to me, though.)

I asked a native speaker and I was told it's good.

After reading Indonesian grammar, it turns out to be type 2 passive, where the passive subject is put here and active object is put before verb. The reason this is passive voice because when relativized, it's the moved object that is relativized.

Wait- so the semantic agent of a passive verb can be expressed as a verbal affix in Indonesian!? I had never seen something like that, as usually the agent gets demoted to something that is quite clearly not like a core argument, but what would you know...

[akam chinjir]

(The Mandarin example looks strange to me, though.)

I asked a native speaker and I was told it's good.

I thought I'd checked with a native speaker myself, but managed to misread. Sorry, Znex!

[Salmoneus]

Wait- so the semantic agent of a passive verb can be expressed as a verbal affix in Indonesian!? I had never seen something like that, as usually the agent gets demoted to something that is quite clearly not like a core argument, but what would you know...

In languages with Austronesian alignment, it's arguably best not to get bogged down in terms like 'passive', since the 'voices' don't really work like those in other languages. Two particularly notable features are that the basic 'passive' is symmetrical and doesn't reduce valency (that is, both 'passive' and 'active' have two core arguments), and that the 'passive' is in some respects the default 'voice'. In Indonesian, iirc there's both a symmetrical passive AND a de-ranking passive, and a range of semantically passive constructions, and these are also influenced by hierarchy effects, and there's pronoun cliticisation in some situations, and there are derivational verbal affixes with voice implications, and... and...

[M Mira]

Now that you mention it, I realized that in Cantonese, the "passive" doesn't and can't reduce valency, while the structure that put receivers of an action in the subject position and eliminates the agent from the sentence is "topicalization and omitting subject".

[Xwtek]

Wait- so the semantic agent of a passive verb can be expressed as a verbal affix in Indonesian!? I had never seen something like that, as usually the agent gets demoted to something that is quite clearly not like a core argument, but what would you know...

In languages with Austronesian alignment, it's arguably best not to get bogged down in terms like 'passive', since the 'voices' don't really work like those in other languages. Two particularly notable features are that the basic 'passive' is symmetrical and doesn't reduce valency (that is, both 'passive' and 'active' have two core arguments), and that the 'passive' is in some respects the default 'voice'. In Indonesian, iirc there's both a symmetrical passive AND a de-ranking passive, and a range of semantically passive constructions, and these are also influenced by hierarchy effects, and there's pronoun cliticisation in some situations, and there are derivational verbal affixes with voice implications, and... and...

As a native speaker, I got surprised by your explanation. Indonesian is weirder than I expected.

[Vijay]

Wait- so the semantic agent of a passive verb can be expressed as a verbal affix in Indonesian!? I had never seen something like that, as usually the agent gets demoted to something that is quite clearly not like a core argument, but what would you know...

In languages with Austronesian alignment, it's arguably best not to get bogged down in terms like 'passive', since the 'voices' don't really work like those in other languages. Two particularly notable features are that the basic 'passive' is symmetrical and doesn't reduce valency (that is, both 'passive' and 'active' have two core arguments), and that the 'passive' is in some respects the default 'voice'. In Indonesian, iirc there's both a symmetrical passive AND a de-ranking passive, and a range of semantically passive constructions, and these are also influenced by hierarchy effects, and there's pronoun cliticisation in some situations, and there are derivational verbal affixes with voice implications, and... and...

As a native speaker, I got surprised by your explanation. Indonesian is weirder than I expected.

It seems, though, that you can easily get by in Indonesian without being aware of any of this at all, in ways that you can't with, say, Tagalog or Malagasy. I think that's the craziest part of all about Indonesian to me.

To me, Indonesian is actually pretty weird for an Austronesian language because its grammar feels so much more like the non-Austronesian languages of Europe and Asia.

[Xwtek]

Wait- so the semantic agent of a passive verb can be expressed as a verbal affix in Indonesian!? I had never seen something like that, as usually the agent gets demoted to something that is quite clearly not like a core argument, but what would you know...

In languages with Austronesian alignment, it's arguably best not to get bogged down in terms like 'passive', since the 'voices' don't really work like those in other languages. Two particularly notable features are that the basic 'passive' is symmetrical and doesn't reduce valency (that is, both 'passive' and 'active' have two core arguments), and that the 'passive' is in some respects the default 'voice'. In Indonesian, iirc there's both a symmetrical passive AND a de-ranking passive, and a range of semantically passive constructions, and these are also influenced by hierarchy effects, and there's pronoun cliticisation in some situations, and there are derivational verbal affixes with voice implications, and... and...

Hierarchy effects? I wonder how it is done. In Indonesian, the type II passive can't be used for all nouns, only pronoun and proper nouns. However, it's not hierarchial effects because:

Saya mengupas pisang.
Pisang itu saya kupas.
?Pisang itu dikupas saya
But:
Mobil itu menabrak saya
*Saya mobil itu tabrak.
*Saya mobil tabrak.
Saya ditabrak mobil itu.

[Zaarin]

There's a town near where my grandparents live in New York called Canisteo. The locals pronounce it [ˈkʰænəˌstɪu̯~ˈkʰænəˌstiu̯]. I've never heard that diphthong in any other English word or name; I have trouble reproducing it. I always find that interesting when I'm in the area.

[Whimemsz]

What about the interjection of disgust "ew"? I know for me the nucleus is tends to be drawn out expressively, but plain [iu̯] is certainly a possible realization, especially in certain contexts. (Granted, that's an extra-linguistic word, which tend to have phones not present in a language's normal phonemic inventory, but...)

[Linguoboy]

There's a town near where my grandparents live in New York called Canisteo. The locals pronounce it [ˈkʰænəˌstɪu̯~ˈkʰænəˌstiu̯]. I've never heard that diphthong in any other English word or name

It's common in Welsh English. I'm not sure if it applies to Welsh names as pronounced by other speakers of UK English.

[Zaarin]

What about the interjection of disgust "ew"? I know for me the nucleus is tends to be drawn out expressively, but plain [iu̯] is certainly a possible realization, especially in certain contexts. (Granted, that's an extra-linguistic word, which tend to have phones not present in a language's normal phonemic inventory, but...)

It took me way longer to figure out what that sound even is for me than it should. It's not the same sound: something like [ɪʉ̯] or [uɥ] maybe? (Note that, unlike many GenAm speakers, my normal /u/ is not particularly front.) ETA: [uɥ] seems to be closer to my normal pronunciation, while [ɪːʉ̯] is a more emphatic ewwwww. Ew isn't a very normal interjection for me; I'd more tend to use ugh, which can be pronounced [ɐʔ~ɐ̃ʔ] or [ɐɣ~ɐ̃ɣ].

There's a town near where my grandparents live in New York called Canisteo. The locals pronounce it [ˈkʰænəˌstɪu̯~ˈkʰænəˌstiu̯]. I've never heard that diphthong in any other English word or name

It's common in Welsh English. I'm not sure if it applies to Welsh names as pronounced by other speakers of UK English.

Makes more sense in the context of Welsh. I'm pretty certain the original Seneca has [i.o] or [jo].

[Linguoboy]

There's a town near where my grandparents live in New York called Canisteo. The locals pronounce it [ˈkʰænəˌstɪu̯~ˈkʰænəˌstiu̯]. I've never heard that diphthong in any other English word or name

It's common in Welsh English. I'm not sure if it applies to Welsh names as pronounced by other speakers of UK English.

Makes more sense in the context of Welsh. I'm pretty certain the original Seneca has [i.o] or [jo].

Honestly, one of the first things I wondered was whether the town had a significant component of ethnically Welsh settlers. I know most of the Welsh settlers to Pennsylvania where in the "Welsh Tract" on the other side of the state from Allegheny County but you never know where else there might be pockets.

[Nortaneous]

I'd more tend to use ugh, which can be pronounced [ɐʔ~ɐ̃ʔ] or [ɐɣ~ɐ̃ɣ].

The ugh interjection I'm familiar with is [ɯ] - cf. Fraser's grammar of Lisu, where he describes /ɯ/ as a retching noise and spells it rgh

[zompist]

I'm beginning to think that everyone has their own pronunciation of "ugh".

I would have thought it was [ʊx], and some dictionaries agree, but MW seriously thinks it's [əg] and others have [ʌg]. I don't think I'd recognize Zaarin's [ɐʔ] as "ugh"... maybe "uh" or "eh".

As for /iu/... /ju/ is very common and I think easily turns into [iw]. Definitely in "ew!" and "pew-pew!", but also in a drawn-out "cute" or "beautiful".

[Whimemsz]

I'm beginning to think that everyone has their own pronunciation of "ugh".

I'm fairly sure I pronounce it significantly differently at different times (or, I guess put another way, I have many different expressions of disgust/contempt/impatience/disappointment that could be written "ugh"), which I'm assuming is pretty common.

As for /iu/... /ju/ is very common and I think easily turns into [iw]. Definitely in "ew!" and "pew-pew!", but also in a drawn-out "cute" or "beautiful".

For me "pew-pew!", "cute," etc. can only have /ju/ [jʉ], even when significantly elongated. "ew" is the only word I can think of (besides perhaps not-fully-nativized foreign names or whatever) where I genuinely have /iw/.

(Incidentally, all this is reminding me of a discussion my dad and I had a few weeks ago. He was asking for my help in how to pronounce the name of a certain Catalonian winery, Codorníu, since he'd found the IPA for it and knows I know the IPA. Anyway, I kept trying to walk him through how to pronounce the diphthong as [iw] and he was just ... incapable of it. He just kept saying [jʉ], and absolutely could not hear the difference between the two or really understand my continued attempts to explain how they were different. It was interesting.)

[Qwynegold]

Maybe I should put this in the gardenpath thread, but is this grammatical?

Develop topological and event continuity for levels

I would've said "Develop topological continuity and event continuity for levels", because "topological continuity" is an adjective modifying a noun while "event continuity" is a noun+noun compound, so to me it feels wrong to just use a conjunction like above.

[Linguoboy]

Maybe I should put this in the gardenpath thread, but is this grammatical?

Develop topological and event continuity for levels

I would've said "Develop topological continuity and event continuity for levels", because "topological continuity" is an adjective modifying a noun while "event continuity" is a noun+noun compound, so to me it feels wrong to just use a conjunction like above.

I have no problem with the sentence as written. Viz. "domestic and craft beers", "fair-trade and ethically-sourced products", etc.

[Qwynegold]

Ah, I see. It must be something about this specific sentence then that throws me off.

[cenysor]

Linguistic quackery on the Language Log!