Linguistic Miscellany Thread

[Richard W]

Your example sentence I hate this argument exhibits the usual English word order, which has accusative alignment, and the usual English case-marking, which is marked-nominative for I and direct for this argument; in terms of agreement, the subject is non-3s, so the verb takes the direct agreement marker -∅.

But you said that 3s takes accusative marking, so therefore you should be taking the accusative object agreement marker -∅ for the 3s as well.

Perhaps a non-English example may assist. The Lower Sepik language Murik has the following person-agreement affixes in the plural:

	S	A	O
1p	e-	e-	ŋe-
2p	o-	o-	ŋo-
3p	g-	bo-/mbwa-	g-

(The singular has a similar but less consistent pattern; there’s also a direct-inverse system on top of this, but that’s irrelevant here.)

This verbal agreement system clearly has accusative alignment in first and second persons, but ergative alignment in the third person. My claim is that English has a similar system, but with direct alignment in non-3s and accusative alignment in 3s.

I think that table should have the columns ordered A, S, O. It also cries out for a football team diagram showing the order of the prefixes - the regularity of the subject/object correspondences make me suspect dishonesty in your source. The table seems to downplay the importance of alignment, whereas in more uniform systems, knowing the alignment is important. There's also an issue of how the table is organised - the English tables would look different if object pronouns were included in the verbal inflections.

Can you confirm the reading of the table for Murik, please. Would 'They hit us' have the two prefixes bo-/mbwa- and ŋe-? What determines the selection between bo- and mbwa-?

I'm also beginning to think that dismissing the copula of English is wrong. It's a significant part of the inflection of verbs. When it comes to how the English language works, the dialectic variation in the usage of -s suggests that the analysis as simply a 3s marker may not be universal in speakers of Standard English (or thereabouts) - it may very well be that having a different subject suppresses it for some people.

[Kuchigakatai]

I think that table should have the columns ordered A, S, O. It also cries out for a football team diagram showing the order of the prefixes - the regularity of the subject/object correspondences make me suspect dishonesty in your source. The table seems to downplay the importance of alignment, whereas in more uniform systems, knowing the alignment is important.

Does it matter though? bradrn is purely talking about what "alignment" the morphemes on their own right show, morphologically (I am assuming that language has polypersonal agreement in the usual definition, not zompist's definition of this term!!). In the model of alignments in his head, it is possible to put aside other behaviour and just concentrate on the morphology, or the syntax. Which I called unusual for sure, but also interesting...

This is how he arrives at saying things like, English nouns show direct alignment morphologically, but nom.-acc. alignment syntactically in terms of word order. Linguists of course would typically say that once you distinguish subject (A) and object (O) well, via syntax, it isn't worth it to speak of a "morphological direct alignment" anymore, but anyway... this discussion you guys are having is boring me. Not enough entertainment, says your master! *cracks small hand whip*

[Richard W]

Does it matter though? bradrn is purely talking about what "alignment" the morphemes on their own right show, morphologically.

It is not unknown for theory to lead the refutation of bad data. The table shows interpretation, and I've already explained that English -s is a TAM marker that is suppressed by the non-3s accusative verbal agreement of English verbs..

[KathTheDragon]

If you're going to be this stubborn about ignoring the actual claim, there's hardly any point in trying to argue for it, cos you'll just continue to ignore it. Please can you actually try to be more open to ideas that aren't already yours?

[bradrn]

I think that table should have the columns ordered A, S, O. It also cries out for a football team diagram showing the order of the prefixes - the regularity of the subject/object correspondences make me suspect dishonesty in your source. The table seems to downplay the importance of alignment, whereas in more uniform systems, knowing the alignment is important.

Does it matter though? bradrn is purely talking about what "alignment" the morphemes on their own right show, morphologically (I am assuming that language has polypersonal agreement in the usual definition, not zompist's definition of this term!!). In the model of alignments in his head, it is possible to put aside other behaviour and just concentrate on the morphology, or the syntax. Which I called unusual for sure, but also interesting...

This is how he arrives at saying things like, English nouns show direct alignment morphologically, but nom.-acc. alignment syntactically in terms of word order.

This is correct. (Though I’m honestly not too sure what’s so unusual about it; I’m sure I’ve seen others with the same approach.)

(Also, how does zompist’s definition of polypersonal alignment differ from the normal one?)

Linguists of course would typically say that once you distinguish subject (A) and object (O) well, via syntax, it isn't worth it to speak of a "morphological direct alignment" anymore, but anyway...

I wouldn’t agree with this viewpoint at all. How, then, would you describe a language like Warlpiri, which has an accusative alignment in verbal agreement, but an ergative alignment in its case-marking?

Does it matter though? bradrn is purely talking about what "alignment" the morphemes on their own right show, morphologically.

It is not unknown for theory to lead the refutation of bad data. The table shows interpretation, and I've already explained that English -s is a TAM marker that is suppressed by the non-3s accusative verbal agreement of English verbs..

I still have no clue what you’re talking about here. In an attempt to understand what you’re trying to say here, let me ask a question: according to you, what exactly is ‘accusative’ about English verbal agreement outside the third person?

If you're going to be this stubborn about ignoring the actual claim, there's hardly any point in trying to argue for it, cos you'll just continue to ignore it. Please can you actually try to be more open to ideas that aren't already yours?

No need for this, please… I assume Richard W is arguing in good faith here.

[Linguoboy]

I wonder if you could adapt the idea for taking notes, though. E.g.:

* for mā write m^a
* for mǎ, the only compound tone, write maa
* for mà write m_a or ma\
* that leaves má, which can be left unmarked or written ma/

The idea is just to go to some extra trouble so your brain remembers the form more.

That's a fair point, and even just writing things out would probably help, even if I use the usual notation as long as I keep the tones straight.

I find that just including the tone marks isn't enough. I think because for the first fifteen years or so of my life I was constantly trained to ignore diacritics that I never developed the same sort of visual memory for them that I have for other spellings. I can work around this with most languages (though I still sometimes forget if certain German words have <u> or <ü>), but however I compensate doesn't really work when it comes to Pinyin.

So the best solution I've found is to write out the tone numbers, e.g. xue4guan3liu2. It's just harder for my brain to ignore a full-sized character. It's not ideal as it's still something of an appendage to the syllable rather than being fully incorporated into it, but it helps.

[willm]

I'm trying to learn some basic Mandarin right now. I've been making better progress than in past attempts, especially with tones (I tried in middle school and then again on my own after college), but I've found I tend to remember phrases instead of single words, especially when it comes to tones. I can repeat tones on their own but they don't seem to stick to the words in my brain without the context of a phrase or sentence. I'm sure it has to do with the fact I'm not a tonal language native, but have had a lot of experience with music from a young age.

Has anyone experienced similar while learning a tonal language? Or have tips to learn vocabulary as distinct words WITH the tones? Should I continue learning phrases/sentences the way I have, as almost mini-songs?

Do you find compound words easier than single characters too? I do, and sometimes I work back from a compound (or phrase) to remember the tone(s) of a character. I studied using digital flashcards, saying each word/phrase/character while writing it and thinking about/writing the definition (and sometimes pronunciation in pinyin). Sometimes I would reverse the cards to see if I could remember words from definitions, and if I got tones wrong I would review those cards more. This worked pretty well, but studying abroad really solidified the tones... I think the best thing, after you've learned enough to make sense of it, is to listen to a lot of Mandarin (but note that music isn't useful for this because tones are often ignored).

[linguistcat]

Do you find compound words easier than single characters too? I do, and sometimes I work back from a compound (or phrase) to remember the tone(s) of a character. ...

Yeah, compounds do tend to be easier because even if it's still short, I still have a "melody" to copy. I'll probably start on some youtube listening videos as soon as I'm done with the beginner's course I'm working on. there might be some interference with learning more hanzi having already learned kanji, but at least there's a base there where concrete nouns at least tend to have the same or similar meanings.

[Richard W]

It is not unknown for theory to lead the refutation of bad data. The table shows interpretation, and I've already explained that English -s is a TAM marker that is suppressed by the non-3s accusative verbal agreement of English verbs..

I still have no clue what you’re talking about here. In an attempt to understand what you’re trying to say here, let me ask a question: according to you, what exactly is ‘accusative’ about English verbal agreement outside the third person?

The simple answer, one which you would disqualify, is:

I am sleeping	I am eating this
They are sleeping	They are eating this

If one accepts this disqualification, there is nothing accusative about English verbal agreement if one excludes the third person. Likewise, there is nothing accusative about English verbal agreement if one only considers the third person singular. It is the contrast of the two subsystems that gives us accusative verbal agreement. Now, if one considers the third person both singular and plural, then what is accusative about it is that the form of the verb depends on whether the subject is singular or plural.

I will now explain the quoted paragraph bit by bit.

It is not unknown for theory to lead the refutation of bad data.

My preferred example is 'orthogenesis', particularly as an evolutionary trend that just keeps going regardless of whether it improves 'fitness'. The fossil record was supposed to show an example in the evolution of oysters. When it was realised that this made no sense, the data was re-examined, and found not to support the claims. The observation was simply wrong.

The unmasking of the Piltdown man forgery is another example.

The table shows interpretation,

I hope this is self-obvious. The table of prefixes has ultimately (I hope) been extracted from speech samples (but conceivably written samples), but I'm pretty sure some interpretation has been required.

and I've already explained that English -s is a TAM marker

Look at the Danish inflectional table for the verb køre. The present tense marker is -r. There are varieties of English where -s is also a marker of tense/aspect/mood (TAM); presence and absence may mark a difference of TAM in some varieties.

that is suppressed by the non-3s accusative verbal agreement of English verbs.

Subtractive morphemes aren't nice, but they do exist at at least some level.

[bradrn]

It is not unknown for theory to lead the refutation of bad data. The table shows interpretation, and I've already explained that English -s is a TAM marker that is suppressed by the non-3s accusative verbal agreement of English verbs..

I still have no clue what you’re talking about here. In an attempt to understand what you’re trying to say here, let me ask a question: according to you, what exactly is ‘accusative’ about English verbal agreement outside the third person?

The simple answer, one which you would disqualify, is:

I am sleeping	I am eating this
They are sleeping	They are eating this

OK, if one analyses copulae together with all other verbs, then agreement is indeed accusative across the board. Though as I said, the copula is the only verb in English which inflects like this, so it’s easier to treat it separately.

If one accepts this disqualification, there is nothing accusative about English verbal agreement if one excludes the third person.

We are in agreement here.

Likewise, there is nothing accusative about English verbal agreement if one only considers the third person singular.

But I’m not quite sure how you come to this conclusion… English verbs agree with a 3s argument in S and A, but not in O, giving an accusative system.

It is not unknown for theory to lead the refutation of bad data.

My preferred example is 'orthogenesis', particularly as an evolutionary trend that just keeps going regardless of whether it improves 'fitness'. The fossil record was supposed to show an example in the evolution of oysters. When it was realised that this made no sense, the data was re-examined, and found not to support the claims. The observation was simply wrong.

The unmasking of the Piltdown man forgery is another example.

I can agree with this as well.

The table shows interpretation,

I hope this is self-obvious. The table of prefixes has ultimately (I hope) been extracted from speech samples (but conceivably written samples), but I'm pretty sure some interpretation has been required.

Well, by that criterion, all linguistic data shows interpretation. I’m not sure how this is a useful criticism.

and I've already explained that English -s is a TAM marker

Look at the Danish inflectional table for the verb køre. The present tense marker is -r. There are varieties of English where -s is also a marker of tense/aspect/mood (TAM); presence and absence may mark a difference of TAM in some varieties.

But how is this relevant? Sure, you can analyse -s as a present tense marker; that doesn’t suddenly mean that it doesn’t also mark verbal agreement as well.

that is suppressed by the non-3s accusative verbal agreement of English verbs.

Subtractive morphemes aren't nice, but they do exist at at least some level.

Hold on, hold on… are you seriously analysing the English past tense as a subtractive morpheme? I don’t see how this is better in any way than the alternative, which is that English 3s S/A arguments trigger the -s TAM/agreement marker, while all other arguments trigger the direct agreement marker -∅.

[Richard W]

Likewise, there is nothing accusative about English verbal agreement if one only considers the third person singular.

But I’m not quite sure how you come to this conclusion… English verbs agree with a 3s argument in S and A, but not in O, giving an accusative system.

If you only consider 3s arguments, the simple present indicative ends in -s.

Well, by that criterion, all linguistic data shows interpretation. I’m not sure how this is a useful criticism.

It's why I wanted some indication of how the prefixes were combined. The initial /ŋ/ of the 1p and 2p object tagging might just be something else.

Look at the Danish inflectional table for the verb køre. The present tense marker is -r. There are varieties of English where -s is also a marker of tense/aspect/mood (TAM); presence and absence may mark a difference of TAM in some varieties.

But how is this relevant? Sure, you can analyse -s as a present tense marker; that doesn’t suddenly mean that it doesn’t also mark verbal agreement as well.

Subtractive morphemes aren't nice, but they do exist at at least some level.

Hold on, hold on… are you seriously analysing the English past tense as a subtractive morpheme? I don’t see how this is better in any way than the alternative, which is that English 3s S/A arguments trigger the -s TAM/agreement marker, while all other arguments trigger the direct agreement marker -∅.

He writes words has ///write/// ///-s/// ///-∅///.
I write words has ///write/// ///-s/// ///SUPPRESS-s///

And this analysis satisfies the 'universal' that it is the 3s which is the person etc. expressed by zero! It makes oddities like "So says you" and "I wants it" less bizarre.

The past tense doesn't have much bearing on this, though there are elements of deletion in past tense forms like sent and shot.

[Zju]

Look at the Danish inflectional table for the verb køre. The present tense marker is -r. There are varieties of English where -s is also a marker of tense/aspect/mood (TAM); presence and absence may mark a difference of TAM in some varieties.

What are these varieties? Not sure if I understand it correctly here, but is the present simple tense marker in them -s, mirroring the Danish -r?

If you only consider 3s arguments, the simple present indicative ends in -s.

How does it make sense to consider only 3s arguments, instead of the whole paradigm? One should analyse the latter for the complete picture.

[Nortaneous]

And this analysis satisfies the 'universal' that it is the 3s which is the person etc. expressed by zero! It makes oddities like "So says you" and "I wants it" less bizarre.

"says you" is patterned on "says who", isn't it? and 1sg + -s could be explained as being patterned on pop-cultural caveman-speak or something

[willm]

Do you find compound words easier than single characters too? I do, and sometimes I work back from a compound (or phrase) to remember the tone(s) of a character. ...

Yeah, compounds do tend to be easier because even if it's still short, I still have a "melody" to copy. I'll probably start on some youtube listening videos as soon as I'm done with the beginner's course I'm working on. there might be some interference with learning more hanzi having already learned kanji, but at least there's a base there where concrete nouns at least tend to have the same or similar meanings.

That makes sense. I would expect knowing kanji to help more than it hurts; my impression is that the vast majority of the seeming differences are due to Japanese using more literary or archaic meanings and hanzi. For example, colloquial Mandarin uses 哭 instead of 泣, but 哭泣 is a reasonably common (if more formal) word with the same meaning. 参る, say, seems unrelated to 参's core meanings in Chinese ("join" or "inspect"), but 参谒 means the same thing. From talking to friends of mine studying Japanese, I think if anything a lot of the weirder-seeming kanji usages in Japanese make more sense if you know the secondary meanings of the characters in Chinese.

[Richard W]

Look at the Danish inflectional table for the verb køre. The present tense marker is -r. There are varieties of English where -s is also a marker of tense/aspect/mood (TAM); presence and absence may mark a difference of TAM in some varieties.

What are these varieties? Not sure if I understand it correctly here, but is the present simple tense marker in them -s, mirroring the Danish -r?

Laura Rupp and David Britain have published an encyclopaedic book on the subject, Linguistic Perspectives on a Variable English Morpheme, currently available online. They give locations as 'SW England' and Newfoundland, in particular, Burin. I've read elsewhere of the aspectual use extending into South Wales.

Such a form of English may be the inspiration for Popeye the caveman - "I lights a fire with my pipe".

Dialect surveys done a century ago record regions of the south-west of England where -s seems simply to have been a non-contrastive present tense marker - but something may have been lost in the reporting.

If you only consider 3s arguments, the simple present indicative ends in -s.

How does it make sense to consider only 3s arguments, instead of the whole paradigm? One should analyse the latter for the complete picture.

Hear, hear!

There's a formerly widespread grammatical rule, the Northern Subject Rule, by which the simple present of 'lexical' verbs ended in -s unless it has an immediately adjacent personal pronoun subject that would suppress the ending in Standard English. Thus, the ending was there in the present tense unless it was suppressed by an adjacent, explicit process. That doesn't seem like direct marking in the first person. (The second person is complicated by the 'thou' form, which is also associate with -s in northern varieties.)

[Zju]

If you only consider 3s arguments, the simple present indicative ends in -s.

How does it make sense to consider only 3s arguments, instead of the whole paradigm? One should analyse the latter for the complete picture.

Hear, hear!

There's a formerly widespread grammatical rule, the Northern Subject Rule, by which the simple present of 'lexical' verbs ended in -s unless it has an immediately adjacent personal pronoun subject that would suppress the ending in Standard English. Thus, the ending was there in the present tense unless it was suppressed by an adjacent, explicit process. That doesn't seem like direct marking in the first person.

That doesn't seem like what is spoken in contemporary English, either.

I thought the whole discussion was about Modern English?

[Richard W]

I thought the whole discussion was about Modern English?

The Northern Subject Rule is alive and ailing in Modern English.

[Zju]

Is it, outside of those dialect areas? I haven't heard anybody talk like that, even as a slip up. Was the discussion about South Wales English all along?

[Richard W]

Is it, outside of those dialect areas? I haven't heard anybody talk like that, even as a slip up. Was the discussion about South Wales English all along?

I didn't say which areas had the NSR. Now -s not suppressed by adjacent pronouns is quite common, and "So I says to him" gets 300,000 raw google hits. You've presumably encountered, "You pays your money and you takes your choice". I'm not sure I'd notice the NSR in action - I'd probably dismiss it as a typo.

[Torco]

Quick question. is there a way in linguistics to speak about how commonly a word is known? something like the centrality of a word to its lexicon? for example dog is a word everyone knows, but sparkplug is something a speaker of English could get by without knowing what it is (beyond just a car part), and I don't expect most people to know the words spiralizer, or basinet. I sure as hell didn't before i googled weird cooking implements and helmets respectively.