Linguistic Miscellany Thread

[Travis B.]

Here is a recording of two pronunciations of final /r/, both in the word four, in my idiolect. The first one to me is an ordinary clear uvular approximant with a bit of pharyngealization. A "bunched /r/" as they call it. However, I'm not sure what the second is. Unlike the first, it is almost entirely realized back in the throat, without uvular realization or any involvement of the tongue (even in the form of pharyngealization). It seems to be a trill of some sort, but what kind of trill would be pronounced without the tongue? A voiced epiglottal trill? This is not me being a snowflake, either, because I've heard my mother pronounce final /r/ the very same way on multiple occasions, and it is very hard to mistake this particular realization of /r/.

Not quite sure, but it sounds like it could well just be plain [ʕ̞]. It doesn’t sound like any kind of trill to me (especially since a trill involves very considerable movement of the active articulator, which is hard to mistake even when epiglottal).

The reason why I said "trill" is that when most markedly realized it seems to have a very rapidly pulsating character to it. The thing is I can't pin down how or why it has that realization, and I have a hard time forcing it in isolation, hence why I realized four as the last word in a short sentence.

[Travis B.]

I don't believe that the typical English "bunched r" is accurately described as an uvular approximant, even pharyngealised, but we've been through this before.

I looked it up, and apparently the "bunched r" is "bunched" in the palatal region, where my usual /r/ is "bunched" much further back than that (e.g. it is further back than [x]). So my "bunched r" is not a "bunched r" after all.

[anteallach]

I don't believe that the typical English "bunched r" is accurately described as an uvular approximant, even pharyngealised, but we've been through this before.

I looked it up, and apparently the "bunched r" is "bunched" in the palatal region, where my usual /r/ is "bunched" much further back than that (e.g. it is further back than [x]). So my "bunched r" is not a "bunched r" after all.

My attempt at "bunched r" based on the descriptions I've read is, I think, velar, but with a different tongue shape from a standard velar approximant. If I tighten the constriction to get a fricative, I get something which sounds like a sort of rhoticised [ɣ] (if that makes any sense), noticeably different from both normal [ɣ] and uvular [ʁ].

[Kuchigakatai]

Some guy online, holding no punches against cursive (from a Discord chat, which explains the format):

It pains me when people say that cursive is stupid
Which many do

cursive is stupid
what you write is a reflection of what you think
therefore, people who write in cursive think jumbled up, mushy, run-on thoughts
good cursive exists
but it's immediately legible to anyone who can read print
and rare is the person who can produce it
calligraphy is also valid

*elegant, connected, and well composed

sloppy
lazy
run-of-the-mill
it's the 80 IQ of hands
If you want quick, learn shorthand
if you want attractive, learn a calligraphic hand
fast, legible, attractive
pick two
Cursive is associated with failing literacy and the collapse of empires
both the carolingian and italian renaissance are associated with a return of clean, concise, legible print

print handwriting nowadays however does not promote cleanness

handwriting is dead
we type now
if you type in cursive, the entire world agrees you're a hideous monster
unless you're arabic
but honestly, a not insignificant portion of the world thinks arabs are monsters
not for good reasons, and not for the cursive, but still
it's the cursive
I rest my case

I thought it was funny when I came across the phrase "cursive cuneiform" in a book
and then came across examples and... well, this is cuneiform we're talking about
so "cursive" cuneiform is simply tight, sloppy cuneiform
still with no curves

cursive cuneiform = sloppy cuneiform

that's an equality, people
solve for cursive

[zompist]

Is he bothered by Velma being lesbian, too?

The irony is that fifty years ago one of the sins of The Youth was not knowing how to write cursive.

[Rounin Ryuuji]

The young are ever a blight upon society in the eyes of some people or other (I used to have this view, but, perhaps ironically, grew up out of it).

[Kuchigakatai]

Is he bothered by Velma being lesbian, too?

What does this question come from? (I don't understand the relevance.)

The irony is that fifty years ago one of the sins of The Youth was not knowing how to write cursive.

The context of the above quotes was after a discussion of ancient Roman cursive, btw. His rant applies to cursive in general, even that ancient one. I just shared it because I found it really funny.

[Travis B.]

Is he bothered by Velma being lesbian, too?

What does this question come from? (I don't understand the relevance.)

He seems to be easily annoyed by random bugbears of his.

[Rounin Ryuuji]

The anti-cursive person reminds me a bit of Moose-Tache.

[zompist]

Is he bothered by Velma being lesbian, too?

What does this question come from? (I don't understand the relevance.)

He's worried about "failing literacy and the collapse of empires" and obsessed with trivialities, so he sounds like an alt-right dude.

[Rounin Ryuuji]

Though I would expect an alt-right person to want to preserve cursive. I'm more imagining they're trolling.

[malloc]

Quite. If anything, I distinctly recall hearing right wingers complain schools removing cursive from their curricula and deriding young people for not knowing cursive. Plenty of people, mainly liberal or left, have argued that cursive is unnecessary these days because we write by hand far less and modern pens don't flow like old-fashioned fountain pens. But this is my first encounter with someone seemingly on the right denouncing cursive as degenerate and sloppy.

[Linguoboy]

Quite. If anything, I distinctly recall hearing right wingers complain schools removing cursive from their curricula and deriding young people for not knowing cursive.

I haven't noticed that strong an ideological bent to these complaints (unless perhaps you're using "right-wing" to cover a large part of the spectrum I would consider "liberal/moderate") except that they tend not to be voiced by true progressives. I know a distressing number of people who consider themselves some variety of good liberal but are raging reactionaries when it comes to things like punctuation and usage or graphic novels ("that's not reading") or reading clockfaces.

[Travis B.]

Quite. If anything, I distinctly recall hearing right wingers complain schools removing cursive from their curricula and deriding young people for not knowing cursive.

I haven't noticed that strong an ideological bent to these complaints (unless perhaps you're using "right-wing" to cover a large part of the spectrum I would consider "liberal/moderate") except that they tend not to be voiced by true progressives. I know a distressing number of people who consider themselves some variety of good liberal but are raging reactionaries when it comes to things like punctuation and usage or graphic novels ("that's not reading") or reading clockfaces.

I tend to see things the same way here - there are things not typically thought of as being "ideological" that otherwise left-of-center people may be reactionary about. Even in my own case, even though I don't view cursive as that important in the present day, I still couldn't help but be a bit dismayed when I realized that my daughter couldn't sign her own name in cursive, and when I asked her to do so (on some form) she simply connected otherwise non-cursive letters together rather than actually signing her name in cursive.

[Kuchigakatai]

He's worried about "failing literacy and the collapse of empires" and obsessed with trivialities, so he sounds like an alt-right dude.

Nah, you're reading him with way more seriousness than he was speaking. He was trying to sound funny (basically some form of light trolling) and in reality he doesn't care about any of that. It's an interesting misreading though. I guess I read him in another way entirely due to knowing him for a long time...

[Travis B.]

On this topic, I get the impression that the dialect here is more intelligible to native GA-speakers that one would assume if one simply saw a transcription of it. For instance, the NCVS seems fully intelligible to other native GA-speakers. Likewise, I think a large portion of GA-speakers find varieties within flap elision intelligible. Same thing with dorsal realizations of /r/ and vocalization of /l/. And so on.

For instance, the following:

[ˈaːõɾ̃ˌɛːv ˈɜ̃ːːĩ̯ ˈneɘːf ˈtʃɜ̃ːːʁˤɯː ə̃ːˈmɛ̝ːʁˤɘkɘ̃ːn ˈsʲpikʁ̩ˤːsʲ ə ˈɛs tə ˈɰɘsɘ̃ːn ə ˈðɘs]
I don't have any native General American speakers to ask to listen to this.

looks very different from the following:

[ˈaːɪ̯ ˈdõʊ̯̃nt ˈhæːv ˈɛ̃ːniː ˈneɪ̯ɾɪːv ˈdʒɛ̃ːnɻ̩ːɫ̩ː ə̃ːˈmɛːɻɪkə̃ːn ˈspikɻ̩ːz tə ˈæsk tə ˈɫɪsə̃ːn tə ˈðɪs]
I don't have any native General American speakers to ask to listen to this.

but I am very sure that the average native GA-speaker would not have a problem understanding it if they actually heard it.

[Sol717]

On this topic, I get the impression that the dialect here is more intelligible to native GA-speakers that one would assume if one simply saw a transcription of it. For instance, the NCVS seems fully intelligible to other native GA-speakers. Likewise, I think a large portion of GA-speakers find varieties within flap elision intelligible. Same thing with dorsal realizations of /r/ and vocalization of /l/. And so on.

For instance, the following:

[ˈaːõɾ̃ˌɛːv ˈɜ̃ːːĩ̯ ˈneɘːf ˈtʃɜ̃ːːʁˤɯː ə̃ːˈmɛ̝ːʁˤɘkɘ̃ːn ˈsʲpikʁ̩ˤːsʲ ə ˈɛs tə ˈɰɘsɘ̃ːn ə ˈðɘs]
I don't have any native General American speakers to ask to listen to this.

looks very different from the following:

[ˈaːɪ̯ ˈdõʊ̯̃nt ˈhæːv ˈɛ̃ːniː ˈneɪ̯ɾɪːv ˈdʒɛ̃ːnɻ̩ːɫ̩ː ə̃ːˈmɛːɻɪkə̃ːn ˈspikɻ̩ːz tə ˈæsk tə ˈɫɪsə̃ːn tə ˈðɪs]
I don't have any native General American speakers to ask to listen to this.

but I am very sure that the average native GA-speaker would not have a problem understanding it if they actually heard it.

Sorry to revive the thread disruption (maybe this topic should be moved to a more appropriate thread), but I believe part of the reason it "looks different" is you're comparing natural running speech in your dialect to stilted, carefully articulated GA. It's my understanding that in normal speech, GA speakers will have [ˈaː(ɪ̯)‿ɾ̃õʊ̯̃ ˌæːv] etc. Here's another example of the difference between monitored and casual speech in a context I know better:

[ˈɑe̯ ˈdɔ̜̃ʊ̯̃ˑnʔ ˈhɛˑv̥ ˈɪ̃ˑniː ˈnæe̯təv̥ ˈd̥͡ʒɪ̃ˑnɻu̞ əˈmeˑɻə̆kə̃ˑn ˈspɪi̯kəz̥ tʰə ˈaːsk̚ ˌtʰɐ ˈl̴ɘsə̃ˑn tʰə ˈdɘs]

[ə ˈdʌ̃ʊ̯̃ʔ ˈhɛˑv̥ ˈɪ̃jĩː ˈnae̯ɾəf ˈd̥͡ʒɪ̃ˑɻu̞ ˈmeˑʵə̆k̚ə̃‿ˈspɪi̯kəz̥ ˈtʰᵊ aːs tʰə ˈl̴ɘsə̃‿tʰə ˈdəs]

These clearly are quite different, even though they represent the exact same linguistic variety, especially as there's several additional differences which a slapdash transcription such as this doesn't accomodate.

[Travis B.]

On this topic, I get the impression that the dialect here is more intelligible to native GA-speakers that one would assume if one simply saw a transcription of it. For instance, the NCVS seems fully intelligible to other native GA-speakers. Likewise, I think a large portion of GA-speakers find varieties within flap elision intelligible. Same thing with dorsal realizations of /r/ and vocalization of /l/. And so on.

For instance, the following:

[ˈaːõɾ̃ˌɛːv ˈɜ̃ːːĩ̯ ˈneɘːf ˈtʃɜ̃ːːʁˤɯː ə̃ːˈmɛ̝ːʁˤɘkɘ̃ːn ˈsʲpikʁ̩ˤːsʲ ə ˈɛs tə ˈɰɘsɘ̃ːn ə ˈðɘs]
I don't have any native General American speakers to ask to listen to this.

looks very different from the following:

[ˈaːɪ̯ ˈdõʊ̯̃nt ˈhæːv ˈɛ̃ːniː ˈneɪ̯ɾɪːv ˈdʒɛ̃ːnɻ̩ːɫ̩ː ə̃ːˈmɛːɻɪkə̃ːn ˈspikɻ̩ːz tə ˈæsk tə ˈɫɪsə̃ːn tə ˈðɪs]
I don't have any native General American speakers to ask to listen to this.

but I am very sure that the average native GA-speaker would not have a problem understanding it if they actually heard it.

Sorry to revive the thread disruption (maybe this topic should be moved to a more appropriate thread), but I believe part of the reason it "looks different" is you're comparing natural running speech in your dialect to stilted, carefully articulated GA. It's my understanding that in normal speech, GA speakers will have [ˈaː(ɪ̯)‿ɾ̃õʊ̯̃ ˌæːv] etc. Here's another example of the difference between monitored and casual speech in a context I know better:

[ˈɑe̯ ˈdɔ̜̃ʊ̯̃ˑnʔ ˈhɛˑv̥ ˈɪ̃ˑniː ˈnæe̯təv̥ ˈd̥͡ʒɪ̃ˑnɻu̞ əˈmeˑɻə̆kə̃ˑn ˈspɪi̯kəz̥ tʰə ˈaːsk̚ ˌtʰɐ ˈl̴ɘsə̃ˑn tʰə ˈdɘs]

[ə ˈdʌ̃ʊ̯̃ʔ ˈhɛˑv̥ ˈɪ̃jĩː ˈnae̯ɾəf ˈd̥͡ʒɪ̃ˑɻu̞ ˈmeˑʵə̆k̚ə̃‿ˈspɪi̯kəz̥ ˈtʰᵊ aːs tʰə ˈl̴ɘsə̃‿tʰə ˈdəs]

These clearly are quite different, even though they represent the exact same linguistic variety, especially as there's several additional differences which a slapdash transcription such as this doesn't accomodate.

For the sake of comparison, here is my more careful native speech for the same:

[ˈaːe̯ ɾɵ̃ʔ ˈhɛːv ˈɜ̃ːɾ̃iː ˈneɾɘːf ˈtʃɜ̃ːɾ̃ʁ̩ˤːʁˤɯː ə̃ːˈmɛ̝ːʁˤɘkɘ̃ːn sʲpikʁ̩ˤːsʲ tə ˈɛsk tə ˈʟ̞ɘsɘ̃ːn tə ˈðɘs]

This looks intermediate between my dialectal running speech and the stilted, carefully articulated GA above.

[keenir]

sorry for taking so long; the book only just got returned to the shelves.

btw, this strategy is what is meant by a closed system, yes?

got back from the library; I found some information in the history books...

[...] called idu, literally "clerical writings" was used by government clerks for daily record keeping.
-page 42 of A Brief History of Korea by Mark Peterson with Phillip Margulies.

Seol Chong grew up a great scholar, standarizing the idu script, a system using sinographs to write the Korean language.
-page 51

...its the same book as in the quote:

"When Koreans first started using Chinese characters - the only script known to them - they looked for ways to modify the script to write uniquely Korean sounds. The various scripts were consolidated and standardized by Sol Chong in the early eighth century.

"To understand the issue, a simple sentence may serve as a sample: "I am going home" is wo hui jia in Chinese and nanun chibe kamnida in Korean. Some of the words in Korean can use the equivilent Chinese character: I = wo = na ; go = hui = ka ; home = jia = chib. The other parts of the sentence are structural elements: -nun is a subject marker; -e a dative marking; and -mnida, a declarative, polite, formal sentence ender. Each of these elements, however, would use a Chinese graph for its pronounciation, ignoring the inherent meaning of the graph.

"Since all Chinese graphs have meanings, using a character for its pronounciation only is problemative. How would the reader know which graphs were used for their meaning and which were used for their pronounciation alone? The answer Sol Chong devised was to designate a limited number of graphs for the most common grammatical affixes used in Korean. For example, for the graph used phonetically as a subject marker in the sentence above, nun, Sol Chong suggested that Korean writers always use the Chinese graph for "shadow" and none other. Similarly, for each of the common grammatical particles, they should consistently use only one graph for each sound. The graphs assigned for this purpose were usually seldom-used graphs."

[abahot]

Take the English phrase "the tree in front of the house".
"In front of" is by all means a prepositional phrase missing a noun at the end. But is it possible to analyze it as being a single preposition "in-front-of" at some deeper level, and a nested prepositional phrase at a surface level?
Representing a prepositional phrase as (preposition) [noun]:

Surface: the tree (in) [front (of) [the house] ]
Underlying: the tree (in front of) [the house]