Linguistic Miscellany Thread

[Richard W]

I'm no expert, but I do have a Larousse, which says the word was singular or plural till the 18th century; while Etymonline says the English word became plural in the 17th century.

while in English the plural agreement is inconsistent and varies by dialect ("maths is..." etc.).

I don't think it's random: it's "math" in the US and "maths" in the UK.

While 'math' might always take a singular verb in the US, 'maths' can be found with plural verb agreement. A phrase where the plural doesn't jar for me is "the maths are complicated", in a manner reminiscent of the agreement of 'committee'. Plural agreement hints to me of a view of maths as a set of propositions; for a coherent discipline, I expect singular verbal agreement. Plural noun agreement is a bit jarring for me, but "these maths are" finds Google hits in generally grammatical texts.

[Otto Kretschmer]

Where does Swedish-Norwegian-Danish -en definite article come from?

[Travis B.]

Where does Swedish-Norwegian-Danish -en definite article come from?

ON inn, which IIRC further back was originally a demonstrative, which is also reflected by South Jutish æ even though that comes before the noun under WGmc influence (I have heard that Jutland was originally WGmc rather than NGmc-speaking).

[Travis B.]

I'm no expert, but I do have a Larousse, which says the word was singular or plural till the 18th century; while Etymonline says the English word became plural in the 17th century.

while in English the plural agreement is inconsistent and varies by dialect ("maths is..." etc.).

I don't think it's random: it's "math" in the US and "maths" in the UK.

While 'math' might always take a singular verb in the US

"Math are..." sounds bizarre to me ─ 'math' is always singular in NAE.

[WeepingElf]

I'm no expert, but I do have a Larousse, which says the word was singular or plural till the 18th century; while Etymonline says the English word became plural in the 17th century.



I don't think it's random: it's "math" in the US and "maths" in the UK.

While 'math' might always take a singular verb in the US

"Math are..." sounds bizarre to me ─ 'math' is always singular in NAE.

To me as a non-native English speaker, math are sounds wrong, but maths is is odd, too. Maths sounds like a plural to me, but math is definitely singular.

[bradrn]

To me as a non-native English speaker, math are sounds wrong, but maths is is odd, too. Maths sounds like a plural to me, but math is definitely singular.

To me, maths is is the only acceptable form. ‘Maths’ behaves like a mass noun, and ‘math’ does not exist as a word.

[WeepingElf]

To me as a non-native English speaker, math are sounds wrong, but maths is is odd, too. Maths sounds like a plural to me, but math is definitely singular.

To me, maths is is the only acceptable form. ‘Maths’ behaves like a mass noun, and ‘math’ does not exist as a word.

Yes. Maths is not as definitely plural as math is singular. The former indeed originated as a plural but is no longer really one, while about the latter, there is nothing that suggests that it was a plural! But then I am not a native speaker, and I know very well that my idiolect is idiosyncratic in some respects.

[bradrn]

When Lithuanians sort lists in Lithuanian alphabetically, do they use the same order as dictionaries? I ask because I've seen evidence that some at least consider 'e' and 'ė' as as different as 's' and 'š' (definitely different letters when the brain is engaged), while happily disregarding ogoneks or 'i' v. 'y'.

Forgot to reply to this earlier… but I asked this question to a Lithuanian I know online, and he said that when sorting he considers all diacritics to form separate letters (including ogoneks and ⟨i⟩ vs ⟨y⟩). In fact, when he opened a dictionary, he found the dictionary order ‘really, really weird’.

(He also suggested asking this person: https://twitter.com/sankuperis)

[Travis B.]

I mentioned the Arnold Palmer incidents to my parents, and they were concerned that I'd've come off as mocking the barista's ability to understand English by pronouncing Arnold Palmer super-carefully, with an un-elided [n] and real-live-voiced [d], in order to be understood (they pronounced Arnold Palmer the same way to me as I originally did to the barista).

[Man in Space]

On Wikipedia just now, I have found a natlang (Bai) that spells /ɯ/ as e (/e/ is ei). I am quite astounded.

[Travis B.]

On Wikipedia just now, I have found a natlang (Bai) that spells /ɯ/ as e (/e/ is ei). I am quite astounded.

This is probably inspired by Hanyu Pinyin, in which /ə/ by itself is written ⟨e⟩ but is actually pronounced [ɤ] while ⟨ei⟩ is pronounced [ei].

[Man in Space]

On Wikipedia just now, I have found a natlang (Bai) that spells /ɯ/ as e (/e/ is ei). I am quite astounded.

This is probably inspired by Hanyu Pinyin, in which /ə/ by itself is written ⟨e⟩ but is actually pronounced [ɤ] while ⟨ei⟩ is pronounced [ei].

Huh, TIL. This would make total sense.

[WeepingElf]

Where does Swedish-Norwegian-Danish -en definite article come from?

ON inn, which IIRC further back was originally a demonstrative, which is also reflected by South Jutish æ even though that comes before the noun under WGmc influence (I have heard that Jutland was originally WGmc rather than NGmc-speaking).

Yes - the Jutes who colonized Britain together with the Angles and the Saxons came from Jutland, and probably spoke a West Germanic language.

[Zju]

From what can a nominative case suffix or marker develop? Esp. if there were no nominative markers so far and there's few cases to begin with. Maybe a demonstrative or an intensifier?

[Man in Space]

From what can a nominative case suffix or marker develop? Esp. if there were no nominative markers so far and there's few cases to begin with. Maybe a demonstrative or an intensifier?

There’s a relationship with definiteness and accusativity…maybe indefinite > nominative? The World Lexicon of Grammaticalization is strangely mum on the issue.

Didn’t adjectives in Slavic originate with demonstratives that attached to the noun? Maybe a similar process to that might do the trick.

[bradrn]

The World Lexicon of Grammaticalization is strangely mum on the issue.

Probably because nominative markers aren’t hugely common in the first place. In many nominative-accusative languages, the nominative is formally unmarked. I can’t recall ever seeing a discussion of the origin of explicit nominative markers.

[Travis B.]

Perhaps from an active-stative system? I recall that I may have seen such a suggestion for how IE got its -s and -m markers for nominative and accusative.

[Zju]

Got some inspiration: reflexive markers. They only refer to the subject. So if the word order in a reflexive clause is fixed to S REFL V (and reflexion is doubly marked), that could over time be interpreted as S=NOM V, after other case suffixes have appeared. Finally, the nominative enclitic would be grammaticalised to a suffix and spread to all subjects.
A similar origin is speculated for the Austronesian active voice - initially it'd be just a reflexive, then a detransifier, then - by contrast - an active voice after other voice have arisen. Cf. Gašper Beguš, The Origins of the Voice/Focus System in Austronesian.

Perhaps from an active-stative system?

The trouble is that the scenario is caseless predecessor with a plain old nom-acc alignment.

[zompist]

Perhaps from an active-stative system?

The trouble is that the scenario is caseless predecessor with a plain old nom-acc alignment.

You're not giving yourself much to work with. And pure nominative markers are kinda rare. You could do something like this though:

1. Evolve a case marker for accusative. (Cf. the development of personal a in Spanish.)
2. Create a sound change that is conditioned by this marker.
3. Lose the case marker. Now the cases are distinguished by whatever that sound change was.

(Well, really you have suppletive roots. But if you choose the sound change right, it can look like something is added to the nominative— e.g. if the sound change is that a final consonant is lost.)

Another option might be to have a topicalization marker, which then gets reinterpreted as a subject marker.

[Travis B.]

Perhaps from an active-stative system?

The trouble is that the scenario is caseless predecessor with a plain old nom-acc alignment.

You're not giving yourself much to work with. And pure nominative markers are kinda rare.

The fact that IE originally had nominative markers in the first place is rather odd, since they effectively were marked and typically nominative case is unmarked. (Note how most of IE has since then lost the original IE nominative markers, aside from a few outliers like Greek, insular NGmc, and Baltic.)

You could do something like this though:

1. Evolve a case marker for accusative. (Cf. the development of personal a in Spanish.)
2. Create a sound change that is conditioned by this marker.
3. Lose the case marker. Now the cases are distinguished by whatever that sound change was.

(Well, really you have suppletive roots. But if you choose the sound change right, it can look like something is added to the nominative— e.g. if the sound change is that a final consonant is lost.)

Another option might be to have a topicalization marker, which then gets reinterpreted as a subject marker.

Agreed.