Linguistic Miscellany Thread

[Travis B.]

Likewise, are there many words ending in -(a|i)tory in which the /o/ *cannot* be pronounced as a full vowel, even in AmE? I can think of some that end in just -tory, like refractory, but they all seem to have their /t/ coming from the root of the word rather than an affix like -at- or -it-.

moratory, dormitory, expository, promontory, repository, celebratory, exploratory, observatory, conservatory.

(Some of these may have /o/ and /ə/ in free variation.)

huh? I've never heard any of those without a full vowel in AmE (except 'refractory', which I've never heard with one, and 'promontory', which I've never heard but which I think I'd pronounce with /ə/)

I am with Nort here; the only one of those words I'd say without a full /ɔr/ is refractory (and I've also never heard promontory, but like Nort I'd guess that it has /ər/).

To me a good rule of thumb is that if the syllable before -tory is stressed, it takes /ər/ or the /ə/ is lost altogether, and if the syllable before -tory is unstressed, it takes /ɔr/.

[Nortaneous]

To me a good rule of thumb is that if the syllable before -tory is stressed, it takes /ər/ or the /ə/ is lost altogether, and if the syllable before -tory is unstressed, it takes /ɔr/.

this sounds right

rɨˈfræktərɨ prəˈmɑntərɨ trəˈdʒektərɨ ˈfæktərɨ dərˈektərɨ ˈhistərɨ
ˈodɨˌtorɨ ˈdormɨˌtorɨ ɨksˈpɑzɨˌtorɨ rɨˈpɑzɨˌtorɨ səlˈɛbrəˌtorɨ ɨksˈplorətorɨ əbˈzərvəˌtorɨ

(ɨks.pl- or ɨk.spl-? is the p aspirated?)

[zompist]

If you say them in isolation, you'll get /o/, which is what was asked for anyway.

With a few of them, a pronunciation with [tri] doesn't sound bad to me-- "Palomar Observatory", "expository writing", "the book repository"-- though [tori] is always correct.

[Yalensky]

prəˈmɑntərɨ

Stress is on the first syllable in this one. I lived for a while in a neighborhood where this word was a few local place names, so I heard and used it relatively frequently.

I'm not sure if I can accept Zompist's [tri], but the problem whenever I read this thread is that I keep repeating words to myself so many times that I lose all trust that I'm pronouncing them as I would naturally.

[bradrn]

With a few of them, a pronunciation with [tri] doesn't sound bad to me-- "Palomar Observatory", "expository writing", "the book repository"-- though [tori] is always correct.

For all of these words, I find pronunciation with /-tɹi/ to be most natural, while /-tori/ sounds unnatural to me.

[Qwynegold]

I have a question that concerns both conlanging and English, but actually just English. I'm pasting a bit of my grammar, hope you can make sense of it. Tl;dr at the bottom.

Passive-causatives
The passive-causative voice is used for indicating that someone is made to do something, but not by whom; although the causer can be reinserted into sentence by employing the genitive case. The difference between the passive and the passive-causative is the role of the first argument in the sentence: in passive sentences it is a patient, while in passive-causative sentences it is an agent (which may be followed by a patient). Both voices have in common that another argument can optionally be inserted into the sentence; this argument being the instigator of the whole action. The passive-causative often has the implication that the causee is somehow negatively affected by being forced to do something (possibly in sentences 10 and 12 below), though the sentence could also have a neutral meaning (sentence 11).

Code: Select all

10) 	Mōlluss-a 	(ubapha-t) 	k'ūdi-ng 	hūjup-tūk-k'ya.
	horse-ABS 	(owner-GEN) 	PASS.AUX-PRS 	run-PST.PTCP-CAUS
	The horse is being made to run (by its owner).
	
11) 	T'yapya 	kūgiss-ōg-a 	(pūkp'o-t) 	k'ūdi-ng 	kap-tūk-k'ya.
	these 	flower-PL-ABS 	(mother-GEN) 	PASS.AUX-PRS 	grow-PST.PTCP-CAUS
	These flowers were grown (by mom).
	
12) 	Pot'-ak' 	mat'kōkkōt'p-a 	(zhalloha-t) 	k'ūd-o 	mi-ttūk-k'ye.
	1SG-ERG 	firewood-ABS 	(father-GEN) 	PASS.AUX-PST 	chop-PST.PTCP-CAUS
	I was made to chop firewood (by my father).

If the verb is transitive, then either the causee or patient (but not both) may be dropped. The patient may be dropped without any other changes.

Code: Select all

Pot'-ak' 	(zhalloha-t) 	k'ūd-o 	mi-ttūk-k'ye.
1SG-ERG 	(father-GEN) 	PASS.AUX-PST 	chop-PST.PTCP-CAUS
I was made to chop (by my father).

But if the causee is dropped, it takes the place of the causer. So the optional arguement marked with genitive case is the causee and not the causer. The causer may not be reinserted into a sentence like this.

Code: Select all

Mat'kōkkōt'p-a 	(pot'ya-t) 	k'ūd-o 	mi-ttūk-k'ye.
firewood-ABS 	(1SG-GEN) 	PASS.AUX-PST 	chop-PST.PTCP-CAUS
The firewood was made to be chopped (through me).

Is that last sentence "The firewood was made to be chopped through me" grammatical? I can't think of any way to express this in English. To clarify, the "me" is not a causer but a causee, and the causer has been dropped from the sentence.

[bradrn]

Is that last sentence "The firewood was made to be chopped through me" grammatical? I can't think of any way to express this in English. To clarify, the "me" is not a causer but a causee, and the causer has been dropped from the sentence.

As a native English speaker, I would say that “The firewood was made to be chopped” is perfectly grammatical. But to re-insert the causee, I would use “by” rather than “through”: “The firewood was made to be chopped (by me)”.

[Richard W]

Is that last sentence "The firewood was made to be chopped through me" grammatical? I can't think of any way to express this in English. To clarify, the "me" is not a causer but a causee, and the causer has been dropped from the sentence.

If it is accepted that the initiator is human, then sentences that spring to mind are "Someone had the firewood chopped" and "I was made to chop the firewood". The first can't be passivised, and the second sentence is already passive. There are ways of suppressing the initiator and doer, such as "The firewood was chopped under duress" or "The firewood was chopped by order", but English seems to need one to be specific about the method of causation.

[Zju]

Do ergative languages have active and passive participles? Or rather "ergative" and "absolutive" participles?

[fusijui]

As far as "the firewood was made to be chopped by me" goes, I agree it's totally grammatical to me, but not with the semantics you're looking at (< ~"Someone caused me to chop the firewood"). Rather, it clearly means "This firewood came into existence for the sole purpose of getting chopped up by me! I am soooo into chopping this wood!!!"

[Pabappa]

Third possibility is "i made (someone) chop the firewood". i think the most common interpretation, though, would be the one you said ... "this was *made* for me to chop", so long as the word "made" was at least weakly stressed.

[zompist]

As a native English speaker, I would say that “The firewood was made to be chopped” is perfectly grammatical. But to re-insert the causee, I would use “by” rather than “through”: “The firewood was made to be chopped (by me)”.

Yeah, definitely not "through". The sentence is at best awkward, but if you need the firewood to be the subject, it's the best you can do.

[bradrn]

Do ergative languages have active and passive participles? Or rather "ergative" and "absolutive" participles?

Personally, I think that ‘participle’ is a truly horrible piece of Indo-Europeanist terminology which is of no help and which should be scrapped.

That being said: as far as I’m aware, the active and passive participles are mainly used to construct the active and passive voice. Ergative languages with the passive (of which there are a few) could easily have them. But it’s also fairly common for ergative languages to have an antipassive rather than a passive, in which case they would presumably have stative and antipassive participles.

[foxcatdog]

In say a language that contrasts progressive and continuous aspects so with say-

3-SG-M wear-PROG clothes
"He puts on clothes"

3-SG-M wear-CONT clothes
"He is wearing clothes"

What could be done about inherently telic actions (like say to ignite something). Could you use the progressive to mark failure to complete an action or is that just marking telicity.

[bradrn]

In say a language that contrasts progressive and continuous aspects so with say-

3-SG-M wear-PROG clothes
"He puts on clothes"

3-SG-M wear-CONT clothes
"He is wearing clothes"

What could be done about inherently telic actions (like say to ignite something). Could you use the progressive to mark failure to complete an action or is that just marking telicity.

Tangential question: what exactly is the difference between progressive and continuous aspect? I’ve never understood the difference.

[zompist]

Tangential question: what exactly is the difference between progressive and continuous aspect? I’ve never understood the difference.

OK, this is a can of worms. You can try the Wikipedia article but you may know less after reading it than before. They seem to use the terms arbitrarily for each language they discuss-- the English section even calls the same construction continuous in one paragraph and progressive in the next.

Mandarin is given as a language with both forms. Taking out my Li & Thompson, I see that they consider this one aspect, the durative! However, zai4 is used with active verbs, while -zhe is used with stative verbs. So "I am running (zai)" vs. "I am lying on the bed (zhe)".

But! Some verbs can be construed either way. They describe chuan1 as referring either to an activity 'put on (clothes)' or to a state 'wear (clothes)'. Another examples is na2. In the sense 'take' it's active and takes zai; in the sense 'hold' it's stative and takes zhe.

You could define these as two aspects, but I emphasize that Li & Thompson do not; they consider it one aspect with two types of verbs. In the case of the dual-sense verbs, the senses are predictable: an action (take, put on) vs. a state resulting from that action (hold, wear).

Now, -zhe can also be used to mark an action which was ongoing when another took place. Here I think we run into a perennial problem with aspect: we name a form for its most common use, and keep the name when the use is different. Then everyone gets confused on what the aspects mean, and tries to clear things up by renaming everything. I'd just call this use of -zhe imperfective.

[bradrn]

Tangential question: what exactly is the difference between progressive and continuous aspect? I’ve never understood the difference.

OK, this is a can of worms. You can try the Wikipedia article but you may know less after reading it than before. They seem to use the terms arbitrarily for each language they discuss-- the English section even calls the same construction continuous in one paragraph and progressive in the next.

Well, yes, this being why I asked . That Wikipedia article has been confusing me for a long time.

Mandarin is given as a language with both forms. Taking out my Li & Thompson, I see that they consider this one aspect, the durative! However, zai4 is used with active verbs, while -zhe is used with stative verbs. So "I am running (zai)" vs. "I am lying on the bed (zhe)".

But! Some verbs can be construed either way. They describe chuan1 as referring either to an activity 'put on (clothes)' or to a state 'wear (clothes)'. Another examples is na2. In the sense 'take' it's active and takes zai; in the sense 'hold' it's stative and takes zhe.

You could define these as two aspects, but I emphasize that Li & Thompson do not; they consider it one aspect with two types of verbs. In the case of the dual-sense verbs, the senses are predictable: an action (take, put on) vs. a state resulting from that action (hold, wear).

Now, -zhe can also be used to mark an action which was ongoing when another took place. Here I think we run into a perennial problem with aspect: we name a form for its most common use, and keep the name when the use is different. Then everyone gets confused on what the aspects mean, and tries to clear things up by renaming everything. I'd just call this use of -zhe imperfective.

Unfortunately, this doesn’t help me much, since as you say Mandarin can more easily be analysed as having one aspect. (Unless I’m supposed to conclude from this that there really isn’t much of a distinction between the progressive and continuous?)

[zompist]

Unfortunately, this doesn’t help me much, since as you say Mandarin can more easily be analysed as having one aspect. (Unless I’m supposed to conclude from this that there really isn’t much of a distinction between the progressive and continuous?)

I think you'd might as well, until someone comes up with a better example of a language that has both!

I'm guessing thethief3 is relying on the same article, and I think "put on clothes" is not really a good example of the progressive! Although abstractly it could be called an inceptive ("begin to wear"), it seems to be borrowed from Mandarin and, as noted, there -zhe is better analyzed as "being in a state which is the result of an action".

[bradrn]

Unfortunately, this doesn’t help me much, since as you say Mandarin can more easily be analysed as having one aspect. (Unless I’m supposed to conclude from this that there really isn’t much of a distinction between the progressive and continuous?)

I think you'd might as well, until someone comes up with a better example of a language that has both!

I was hoping this wouldn’t be the case, but I’m not surprised at all that it is. Why can’t linguists just get their terminology straight‽

I'm guessing thethief3 is relying on the same article, and I think "put on clothes" is not really a good example of the progressive! Although abstractly it could be called an inceptive ("begin to wear"), it seems to be borrowed from Mandarin and, as noted, there -zhe is better analyzed as "being in a state which is the result of an action".

I would call both of those inceptive as well. (Although the term seems to be subtly wrong for the Mandarin example — maybe ‘resultative’ would be a better term?)

[zompist]

I would call both of those inceptive as well. (Although the term seems to be subtly wrong for the Mandarin example — maybe ‘resultative’ would be a better term?)

Maybe, but "resultative" is used for something else in Mandarin.

In naming aspects, I'd suggest a Saussurian approach. That is, don't get too attached to the universal terms; think about what contrasts exist in your language.

With the "put on clothes" example, I don't think there's a universal answer to "what aspect is this". E.g.:

-- Mandarin chuanzhe is "in the state resulting from having put on (chuan) clothes", which L&T calls durative
-- English "I am wearing a hat" is progressive
-- However, the condition "I wasn't wearing a hat, now I am, and still am" can be expressed as "I've put on a hat"-- which is perfect
-- French "Je portais un chapeau" is imperfective

Now, grammarians can absolutely be inconsistent in their terminology, but these are all defensible, because of the patterns of other verbs. E.g. L&T's analysis of chuan makes more sense because it also fits na 'take' and other examples.

(also, sorry for the lack of tones and characters, I'm on the computer without e-z Unicode)