Linguistic Miscellany Thread

[bradrn]

I’ve been reading through two grammars recently, of Chalcatongo Mixtec and Northeast Ambae (Lolovoli dialect). One thing that has struck me particularly about these two languages is that they both have topic fronting, and in both languages the fronted topic is extra-clausal (e.g. it can co-occur with pronominal clitics). Is this a universal amongst languages with topic fronting, or do there exist languages with topics which are internal to the clause?

[akam chinjir]

I’ve been reading through two grammars recently, of Chalcatongo Mixtec and Northeast Ambae (Lolovoli dialect). One thing that has struck me particularly about these two languages is that they both have topic fronting, and in both languages the fronted topic is extra-clausal (e.g. it can co-occur with pronominal clitics). Is this a universal amongst languages with topic fronting, or do there exist languages with topics which are internal to the clause?

I think if it's extra-clausal and there's a pronoun in the main clause, you wouldn't normally describe it as fronted.

Clause-internal fronted topics occur in, for example, English: "Beans I like (but carrots I don't)." (Contrast: "As for beans, I like them," where you need the pronoun.) I'm not sure how common this is, but it's certainly not especially uncommon, particularly (as you might expect) in languages that get described as topic-prominent.

[bradrn]

I’ve been reading through two grammars recently, of Chalcatongo Mixtec and Northeast Ambae (Lolovoli dialect). One thing that has struck me particularly about these two languages is that they both have topic fronting, and in both languages the fronted topic is extra-clausal (e.g. it can co-occur with pronominal clitics). Is this a universal amongst languages with topic fronting, or do there exist languages with topics which are internal to the clause?

I think if it's extra-clausal and there's a pronoun in the main clause, you wouldn't normally describe it as fronted.

Clause-internal fronted topics occur in, for example, English: "Beans I like (but carrots I don't)." (Contrast: "As for beans, I like them," where you need the pronoun.) I'm not sure how common this is, but it's certainly not especially uncommon, particularly (as you might expect) in languages that get described as topic-prominent.

Well, I’m not too familiar with this terminology… I always thought fronting refers to a situation where a constituent is moved to the front of a clause. So then what would you call situations like this:

English:
As for beans, I like them.

East Ambae:

No-ku

CL:GEN-1sgP

bue,

knife

na=ni

1sgS=IRR

tei

chop

na

ACC

bue

bamboo

gene=a.

INST=3sgO

My knife, I’ll chop down the bamboo with it.

Netu-ku,

offspring-1sgP

giriu

dog

u

TEL

gesi

bite

na

ACC

lima-na.

arm-3sgP

My daughter, a dog bit her arm.

…oh, actually, never mind: I was finding another example from Chalcatongo Mixtec, and the author writes that this is usually called ‘left-dislocation’. So: am I correct in saying that topicalisation can be done with either fronting, in which case it is within the clause, or left-dislocation, in which case it is outside the clause?

[akam chinjir]

That sounds right to me, though some people would say "movement" instead of "fronting."

Incidentally, checking my instincts on this I came upon a relevant Language Log post that you might find interesting. (There's useful stuff in the comments, too.)

[bradrn]

That sounds right to me, though some people would say "movement" instead of "fronting."

Incidentally, checking my instincts on this I came upon a relevant Language Log post that you might find interesting. (There's useful stuff in the comments, too.)

Thanks! That Language Log post was definitely interesting, so thanks for linking to that as well.

[bradrn]

Another quick question: are there any languages with both pervasive zero anaphora (e.g. as covered by chris_notts here) as well as subject pronominal clitics? I’m guessing not (if you have one highly reduced form of reference, you don’t need another), but I thought I’d better check before adding one or the other (or both) to my conlang.

[akam chinjir]

Another quick question: are there any languages with both pervasive zero anaphora (e.g. as covered by chris_notts here) as well as subject pronominal clitics? I’m guessing not (if you have one highly reduced form of reference, you don’t need another), but I thought I’d better check before adding one or the other (or both) to my conlang.

This seems like it should be possible, and I've certainly seen it claimed for some languages. (For an example, see Guerssel, Berber clitic doubling and syntactic extraction; I have no idea how controversial this analysis of Berber might be.) What you need (and what you can see on the second page of the linked paper) is subjec clitics that occur even in the presence of an overt NP subject; then when there's no overt subject, you concluse that there's a null pronominal of some sort. The trickiest part I guess is arguing that you really have pronominal clitics rather than agreement.

[Zju]

Is there any attested case of a swear word having an opaque etymology, so that it has lost all of its initial shock factor?

[Richard W]

Is there any attested case of a swear word having an opaque etymology, so that it has lost all of its initial shock factor?

Gosh, that's tricky. Is 'gosh' still a swear word? (I knew the word 'gosh' long before I became aware of its etymology.)

[Richard W]

I’ve been reading through two grammars recently, of Chalcatongo Mixtec and Northeast Ambae (Lolovoli dialect). One thing that has struck me particularly about these two languages is that they both have topic fronting, and in both languages the fronted topic is extra-clausal (e.g. it can co-occur with pronominal clitics). Is this a universal amongst languages with topic fronting, or do there exist languages with topics which are internal to the clause?

I take it you means pronominal clitics referring to another noun in the sentence. For example, I don't think you would count the grammatical English sentence "His job he hates" as having an extra-clausal topic. I'm now having trouble deciding whether "His job Mike hates" is a grammatical English sentence when 'his' refers to Mike.

Do pronominal clitics in those two languages contribute much to the meaning? For example, in "James put his hand in his pocket", the possessive contributes very little to the meaning, and in many languages (e.g. French) one wouldn't have a corresponding possessive pronoun.

[akam chinjir]

I'm now having trouble deciding whether "His job Mike hates" is a grammatical English sentence when 'his' refers to Mike.

It's fine for me, I'm pretty sure.

[Raphael]

I'm now having trouble deciding whether "His job Mike hates" is a grammatical English sentence when 'his' refers to Mike.

It's fine for me, I'm pretty sure.

It sounds a bit Yoda-ish to me, but English isn't my first language.

[akam chinjir]

It sounds a bit Yoda-ish to me, but English isn't my first language.

Does it help if you make "his job" a contrastive topic? ("His job Mike hates, but his conlanging he loves.")

[Zju]

I'm now having trouble deciding whether "His job Mike hates" is a grammatical English sentence when 'his' refers to Mike.

It's fine for me, I'm pretty sure.

It sounds a bit Yoda-ish to me, but English isn't my first language.

ditto - it's kinda semi-grammatical to me

Does it help if you make "his job" a contrastive topic? ("His job Mike hates, but his conlanging he loves.")

that doesn't change much for me personally - I already interpreted it in such a way

[Kuchigakatai]

Is there any attested case of a swear word having an opaque etymology, so that it has lost all of its initial shock factor?

How strong is "blimey" in the UK / Australia? It comes from "God blind me". Also, I'm under the impression that 'zounds (God's wounds) survived into the 19th century as zounds [zaʊndz] with much of the original shock factor lost.

There are of course many examples of swearwords undergoing amelioration, but they probably don't count, like Latin futuere 'to fuck sb' > Spanish joder 'to annoy sb' (in most dialects; in Spain it can still be used in the sexual meaning), French foutre 'to do sth; to put sth in; put [clothes] on' (note: as a noun, le foutre does have the sexual meaning 'semen', with a vulgar/obscene connotation).

[Richard W]

How strong is "blimey" in the UK / Australia? It comes from "God blind me".

Pretty weak, I'd say. I'd say it was just a colloqual interjection nowadays.

[bradrn]

Another quick question: are there any languages with both pervasive zero anaphora (e.g. as covered by chris_notts here) as well as subject pronominal clitics? I’m guessing not (if you have one highly reduced form of reference, you don’t need another), but I thought I’d better check before adding one or the other (or both) to my conlang.

This seems like it should be possible, and I've certainly seen it claimed for some languages. (For an example, see Guerssel, Berber clitic doubling and syntactic extraction; I have no idea how controversial this analysis of Berber might be.) What you need (and what you can see on the second page of the linked paper) is subjec clitics that occur even in the presence of an overt NP subject; then when there's no overt subject, you concluse that there's a null pronominal of some sort. The trickiest part I guess is arguing that you really have pronominal clitics rather than agreement.

No, that wasn’t what I was talking about. Basically, if you have a language with pronominal clitics (for subjects, say), you can do either ‘I see you’ or ‘1s=see you’. If you have a language with pervasive zero anaphora, you can do either ‘I see you’ or ‘∅ see you’. I was asking whether I could combine those two strategies; that is, whether there are any languages which can do any of ‘I see you’ (with a full NP), ‘1s=see you’ (with a clitic), ‘∅ see you’ (with no clitic and zero anaphora).

I’ve been reading through two grammars recently, of Chalcatongo Mixtec and Northeast Ambae (Lolovoli dialect). One thing that has struck me particularly about these two languages is that they both have topic fronting, and in both languages the fronted topic is extra-clausal (e.g. it can co-occur with pronominal clitics). Is this a universal amongst languages with topic fronting, or do there exist languages with topics which are internal to the clause?

I take it you means pronominal clitics referring to another noun in the sentence.

No, I don’t. e.g. an example from Chalcatongo Mixtec:

ni-žee=rí

CP-eat=1

I ate

rùʔù

I

ni-žee

CP-eat

I’m the one who ate

rùʔù

I

ni-žee=rí

CP-eat=1

I ate

Note that the first two examples show that an argument may either be a pronoun or a pronominal clitic, but not both. In the third example, the pronoun has been topicalised, and has become extra-clausal; thus it is fine for it to co-occur with the clitic.

For example, I don't think you would count the grammatical English sentence "His job he hates" as having an extra-clausal topic. I'm now having trouble deciding whether "His job Mike hates" is a grammatical English sentence when 'his' refers to Mike.

It’s borderline grammatical, almost ungrammatical, to me. It would only work for me with very strong contrastive focus on his job, and not as a standalone sentence: Mike likes his house, but his˧ job˥˨, Mike˩ hates˩˧

Do pronominal clitics in those two languages contribute much to the meaning? For example, in "James put his hand in his pocket", the possessive contributes very little to the meaning, and in many languages (e.g. French) one wouldn't have a corresponding possessive pronoun.

In Chalcatongo Mixtec, a full pronominal can only occur in a focalised position; otherwise, you have to use the clitic to get a pronominal argument. I suppose this is a way of contributing to the meaning of the sentence, although I see it as primarily being an artefact of the focalisation process more than anything else. As for Lolovoli Northeast Ambae, I’m not sure; the grammar merely says that ‘It is not possible for both an object NP and an object enclitic to occur’.

Is there any attested case of a swear word having an opaque etymology, so that it has lost all of its initial shock factor?

How strong is "blimey" in the UK / Australia? It comes from "God blind me".

Australian here. I’d say it’s totally gone: if you were to use it, people would probably say things like ‘Do people really still say that these days?’. Or they might just start laughing. You might possibly use it for comedic effect, but not much else — it’s gone the ways of Australianisms like ‘fair dinkum’. (Though for that one I can’t quite rule out that there’s still people in other areas of Australia who still use it.)

[dewrad]

How strong is "blimey" in the UK / Australia? It comes from "God blind me".

Australian here. I’d say it’s totally gone: if you were to use it, people would probably say things like ‘Do people really still say that these days?’. Or they might just start laughing. You might possibly use it for comedic effect, but not much else — it’s gone the ways of Australianisms like ‘fair dinkum’. (Though for that one I can’t quite rule out that there’s still people in other areas of Australia who still use it.)

Out of interest, what expression is normally used in Australia to express mild surprise?

Here in the southern UK, I wouldn't say it's rare, and has almost no "strength" at all.

(Tangential, but my favourite minced oath is shart.)

[bradrn]

How strong is "blimey" in the UK / Australia? It comes from "God blind me".

Australian here. I’d say it’s totally gone: if you were to use it, people would probably say things like ‘Do people really still say that these days?’. Or they might just start laughing. You might possibly use it for comedic effect, but not much else — it’s gone the ways of Australianisms like ‘fair dinkum’. (Though for that one I can’t quite rule out that there’s still people in other areas of Australia who still use it.)

Out of interest, what expression is normally used in Australia to express mild surprise?

Honestly, I’m not quite sure. Possibly depending on the context I might say something like ‘Really?’, but I have no idea whether that’s just me or if it’s more broadly used in Australia.

(Small clarification: when I say I’m Australian, I mean that I live in Australia, but I wasn’t born here — I moved here from Canada when I was very young. And both my parents are South African. So I’m probably not the best representative of an Australian English speaker — if that is even the correct way to describe my dialect, as most people tell me I sound South African.)

[akam chinjir]

No, that wasn’t what I was talking about. Basically, if you have a language with pronominal clitics (for subjects, say), you can do either ‘I see you’ or ‘1s=see you’. If you have a language with pervasive zero anaphora, you can do either ‘I see you’ or ‘∅ see you’. I was asking whether I could combine those two strategies; that is, whether there are any languages which can do any of ‘I see you’ (with a full NP), ‘1s=see you’ (with a clitic), ‘∅ see you’ (with no clitic and zero anaphora).

Hmm, I think usually when you allow pro-drop, overt pronouns mostly only show up for contrast or focus or something, which you'd think would require an independent form. But it's also not hard to imagine having a three-way distinction here, like maybe a clitic pronoun (only) for a topic switch. Don't know any examples though.

(Okay, one example: apparently my English allows all three options with first person singular, at least.)