That specific example is also a kinship term, so it’s a particularly weak comparand.Nortaneous wrote: ↑Thu Oct 12, 2023 12:07 amAnd really, *atha ~ *at-? Does she at least recognize that a vision of the remit of comparativism broad enough for *atha ~ *at- is something that has to be argued for?
Linguistic Miscellany Thread
-
Man in Space
- Posts: 1694
- Joined: Sat Jul 21, 2018 1:05 am
Re: Linguistic Miscellany Thread
-
zompist
- Site Admin
- Posts: 2944
- Joined: Sun Jul 08, 2018 5:46 am
- Location: Right here, probably
- Contact:
Re: Linguistic Miscellany Thread
This is pretty charming. It's a tall tale recorded in Missouri French Creole half a century ago, about a hunter in the 1600s, now turned into an animated movie. I didn't know there was a Missouri French Creole.
Re: Linguistic Miscellany Thread
Is it my imagination, or is the affricate /dz/ less stable than /ts/, /tʃ/, or /dʒ/, and has a tendency to deaffricate as /z/?
Yaaludinuya siima d'at yiseka wohadetafa gaare.
Ennadinut'a gaare d'ate eetatadi siiman.
T'awraa t'awraa t'awraa t'awraa t'awraa t'awraa t'awraa.
Ennadinut'a gaare d'ate eetatadi siiman.
T'awraa t'awraa t'awraa t'awraa t'awraa t'awraa t'awraa.
-
Rad Aghast
- Posts: 14
- Joined: Mon Jun 21, 2021 3:30 pm
-
Kuchigakatai
- Posts: 1307
- Joined: Mon Jul 09, 2018 4:19 pm
Re: Linguistic Miscellany Thread
Isidore of Seville (Latin: Īsidōrus Hispalēnsis, ca. 560 - 636 CE) is the author of a very long treatise of Latin etymologies, entitled the Etymologiae or the Origines, where he basically just makes connections between words based on their sound. Lots are trivial, or trivial but in the wrong direction (deriving a common basic word from a longer one of the same root with affixes), and lots are just plain wrong. If anything, it's very interesting when Isidore manages to get a non-trivial etymology right.
It's a sick burn because it's a pretty learned reference to call someone a bad etymologist.
Re: Linguistic Miscellany Thread
*s > *ɬ is also goodRad Aghast wrote: ↑Sat Oct 14, 2023 6:53 aml devoices after consonants and in wordfinal position? That is quite natural and not uncommon.
-
Nortaneous
- Posts: 1660
- Joined: Sun Jul 15, 2018 3:29 am
Re: Linguistic Miscellany Thread
For /tɬ/ without /ɬ/, PHOIBLE has Nahuatl, Wintu, and Squamish, and IPHON has Bawm. Wintu and Squamish look dubious, but Nahuatl is a known case. Reichle 1981 agrees that Bawm doesn't have /ɬ/, but analyzes <tl thl> as the only clusters in the language, which seems silly - why not unit /tɬ tɬʰ/?
Duaj teibohnggoe kyoe' quaqtoeq lucj lhaj k'yoejdej noeyn tucj.
K'yoejdaq fohm q'ujdoe duaj teibohnggoen dlehq lucj.
Teijp'vq. Teijp'vq. Teijp'vq. Teijp'vq. Teijp'vq. Teijp'vq. Teijp'vq.
K'yoejdaq fohm q'ujdoe duaj teibohnggoen dlehq lucj.
Teijp'vq. Teijp'vq. Teijp'vq. Teijp'vq. Teijp'vq. Teijp'vq. Teijp'vq.
-
Rad Aghast
- Posts: 14
- Joined: Mon Jun 21, 2021 3:30 pm
Re: Linguistic Miscellany Thread
In that period it was common for phonologists to adhere to a structuralist theory that saw the goal of an elegant phonological analysis to be having as few discrete units as possible, and then organizing them through combinatory rules.Nortaneous wrote: ↑Sat Oct 14, 2023 7:09 pm For /tɬ/ without /ɬ/, PHOIBLE has Nahuatl, Wintu, and Squamish, and IPHON has Bawm. Wintu and Squamish look dubious, but Nahuatl is a known case. Reichle 1981 agrees that Bawm doesn't have /ɬ/, but analyzes <tl thl> as the only clusters in the language, which seems silly - why not unit /tɬ tɬʰ/?
-
Rad Aghast
- Posts: 14
- Joined: Mon Jun 21, 2021 3:30 pm
Re: Linguistic Miscellany Thread
But he is using it wrong, since he is the one being an Isidorianist himself.
-
WeepingElf
- Posts: 1511
- Joined: Sun Jul 15, 2018 12:39 pm
- Location: Braunschweig, Germany
- Contact:
Re: Linguistic Miscellany Thread
Another matter entirely:
Recently, the discovery of a new Anatolian language has been announced. Could it be that this is the Bronze Age ancestor of Lydian, which appears to be the most divergent Anatolian language? What do you think?
Recently, the discovery of a new Anatolian language has been announced. Could it be that this is the Bronze Age ancestor of Lydian, which appears to be the most divergent Anatolian language? What do you think?
... brought to you by the Weeping Elf
My conlang pages
My conlang pages
-
KathTheDragon
- Posts: 783
- Joined: Mon Jul 09, 2018 3:57 am
- Location: Disunited Kingdom
Re: Linguistic Miscellany Thread
There's no point speculating until we know more about the text.
-
WeepingElf
- Posts: 1511
- Joined: Sun Jul 15, 2018 12:39 pm
- Location: Braunschweig, Germany
- Contact:
Re: Linguistic Miscellany Thread
Indeed not.KathTheDragon wrote: ↑Mon Oct 16, 2023 9:39 pm There's no point speculating until we know more about the text.
... brought to you by the Weeping Elf
My conlang pages
My conlang pages
Re: Linguistic Miscellany Thread
Unlikely imho, as Kalasmaic was discovered quite a bit away from Lydia. My take would be that there's quite a number of Anatolic languages of which we have no evidence yet, and this is just one of many in that area.WeepingElf wrote: ↑Mon Oct 16, 2023 1:55 pmRecently, the discovery of a new Anatolian language has been announced. Could it be that this is the Bronze Age ancestor of Lydian, which appears to be the most divergent Anatolian language? What do you think?
JAL
-
WeepingElf
- Posts: 1511
- Joined: Sun Jul 15, 2018 12:39 pm
- Location: Braunschweig, Germany
- Contact:
Re: Linguistic Miscellany Thread
The Wikipedia page says "Luwic?", but that may just be due to the general Luviomania - it is fashionable among scholars studying languages of Bronze Age Anatolia and the Aegean to consider everything in the area "Luwic" as long as that is even marginally possible. Even Etruscan, which is quite clearly not even IE, has been claimed to be a Luwic language! I wonder how long it will take for the "proof" that Greek also is a Luwic language 
... brought to you by the Weeping Elf
My conlang pages
My conlang pages
Re: Linguistic Miscellany Thread
Tbf the article it references makes no such direct claims: "According to Rieken, while the new language is close to the area where Palaic was spoken, the text seems to share more features with Luwian." I've corrected the Wikipedia article saying "likely Luwic" to "possibly Luwic".WeepingElf wrote: ↑Tue Oct 17, 2023 10:09 amThe Wikipedia page says "Luwic?", but that may just be due to the general Luviomania
JAL
Re: Linguistic Miscellany Thread
Do we have any examples of languages in which conjugation for person has been lost in all but one or a few very common verbs? I'm imagining a situation where the copula, for example, still distinguishes person such that the subject pronoun can be dropped, but all or nearly all other verbs require the pronoun or are at least ambiguous.
Re: Linguistic Miscellany Thread
Sort of. From what I've been reading, Basque has lost finite forms in general for most verbs, but conjugation for person is still accomplished with auxiliaries.
But I just realized that English is actually the closest thing I'm aware of to what I have in mind. Our copula is the only verb that distinguishes first, second, and third person (only in the present and only in the singular, of course, and it's not pro-drop) and every other verb only marks 3S.
-
Nortaneous
- Posts: 1660
- Joined: Sun Jul 15, 2018 3:29 am
Re: Linguistic Miscellany Thread
Not quite the same thing, but in Wutung, there are:äreo wrote: ↑Tue Oct 17, 2023 12:57 pm Do we have any examples of languages in which conjugation for person has been lost in all but one or a few very common verbs? I'm imagining a situation where the copula, for example, still distinguishes person such that the subject pronoun can be dropped, but all or nearly all other verbs require the pronoun or are at least ambiguous.
1. Invariant (non-conjugated) simple verbs
2. Subject-inflecting simple verbs, all of which begin with /p l dʒ ʔ h/ except o "have"
3. Double-inflecting simple verbs, which, like the subject-agreeing verbs, take initial mutation for subject agreement, but supplete for object agreement
4. Compound verbs, which are composed of multiple root elements at least one of which takes person-number-gender agreement (though some simple verbs don't occur in compound verbs and some compound verb elements don't occur as simple verbs).
For example, transcribing Marmion's orthography into IPA: (nasalization isn't contrastive following a nasal consonant)
More: show
Duaj teibohnggoe kyoe' quaqtoeq lucj lhaj k'yoejdej noeyn tucj.
K'yoejdaq fohm q'ujdoe duaj teibohnggoen dlehq lucj.
Teijp'vq. Teijp'vq. Teijp'vq. Teijp'vq. Teijp'vq. Teijp'vq. Teijp'vq.
K'yoejdaq fohm q'ujdoe duaj teibohnggoen dlehq lucj.
Teijp'vq. Teijp'vq. Teijp'vq. Teijp'vq. Teijp'vq. Teijp'vq. Teijp'vq.
Re: Linguistic Miscellany Thread
Wow. The suppletion for objects is especially wild.Nortaneous wrote: ↑Tue Oct 17, 2023 9:01 pmNot quite the same thing, but in Wutung, there are:äreo wrote: ↑Tue Oct 17, 2023 12:57 pm Do we have any examples of languages in which conjugation for person has been lost in all but one or a few very common verbs? I'm imagining a situation where the copula, for example, still distinguishes person such that the subject pronoun can be dropped, but all or nearly all other verbs require the pronoun or are at least ambiguous.
1. Invariant (non-conjugated) simple verbs
2. Subject-inflecting simple verbs, all of which begin with /p l dʒ ʔ h/ except o "have"
3. Double-inflecting simple verbs, which, like the subject-agreeing verbs, take initial mutation for subject agreement, but supplete for object agreement
4. Compound verbs, which are composed of multiple root elements at least one of which takes person-number-gender agreement (though some simple verbs don't occur in compound verbs and some compound verb elements don't occur as simple verbs).
For example, transcribing Marmion's orthography into IPA: (nasalization isn't contrastive following a nasal consonant)
More: show
La Wik says Wutung has about 900 speakers. I wonder if a 10x or 100x greater population would lose/simplify some of these patterns.