Linguistic Miscellany Thread

[jal]

What implications do spoonerisms have for cognitive theories of language?

None, I'd say. They're accidental errors in language production, at a stage cognition is no longer a part of it.


JAL

[zompist]

What implications do spoonerisms have for cognitive theories of language?

The implication that we all make mistakes? *shrugs*

I'd disagree, but only mildly. Mistakes can be revealing about underlying mechanisms. E.g. they might be evidence that the brain is aware of word boundaries. Spoonerisms are not just random interchange of two phonemes, but an interchange at word boundaries.

But that just raises the question, are spoonerisms real speech errors? The wikipedia article is almost entirely about constructed examples. And that might tell us something about comedy, but probably nothing about cognition. (And if someone has anecdotes about an actual spoonerism... is that a common speech error, or does it just get attention because there's a name for it?)

[xxx]

it may also have something to do with dyslexia...
which apparently is erased by logography...
but what about 3SDL(1Sign=1Sense=1Sound)...
_______________________________________________________________
y±¯²7D¯5±ÀjÀQQS±¯5±´5±¯±WS±¯y±¯²jy±¯²Àc5±Qj¯c±Qj¯ck±

[jal]

it may also have something to do with dyslexia...

You know the "lexia" part means it is connected to reading, right?, and so it has nothing to do with speech production...


JAL

[xxx]

not only, unfortunately...
__________________________________________________________________________
j¾j¯²jÀk¾

[Travis B.]

I have a long nasal schwa in I'm going to when I realize it as [ˈãẽ̯mə̃ː] but not when I realize it as [ˈãẽ̯mˌɡʌ̃ː].

I'd say [ãjŋ gʌ̃ʌ]. The trailoff of nasalization might be heard as a consonant, maybe.

I don't recall hearing any [o] sounds, but rather than an innovation, it might be retaining the original vowel of "going".

I myself have heard, and caught myself unintentionally saying, [ˈɡ̥ɔ̃ʏ̯̃ɾ̃ə(ː)] (this is a disyllable - [ɔ̃ʏ̯̃] here is a diphthong), which I suspect is an innovation derived from going to parallel to gonna.

[Travis B.]

French question - how is French liaison typically analyzed? Is it generally posited that the final consonants are in the underlying forms of words that have them, and are elided except before another vowel, or is it generally posited that word-final morphemes have two allomorphs, which are selected based upon with follows them?

[Estav]

French question - how is French liaison typically analyzed? Is it generally posited that the final consonants are in the underlying forms of words that have them, and are elided except before another vowel, or is it generally posited that word-final morphemes have two allomorphs, which are selected based upon with follows them?

"Sound Pattern of English"-type analyses of French with underlying word-final consonants and schwa that get deleted on the surface level have been posited. I don't know whether they're still most common in terms of technical theories. Personally, I find some aspects of these analyses about as unconvincing as the SPoE-style analyses of English night as underlying /niht/, or giraffe as underlying /giraffe/, etc.

One interpretation you didn't mention, but that I've seen discussed at least as a possible model of initial acquisition, is that at least some liaisons are a matter of vowel-initial words having multiple allomorphs (one starting with /z/, one starting with /n/, etc.) selected based on their context / what precedes them.

Obligatory liaisons are mostly grammatically conditioned, in some cases in ways that resemble Celtic "consonant mutations". Obligatory plural /z/ in particular seems to clearly show strong attachment to the following word in ways that makes the orthography-based interpretation of it as a word-final consonant not especially convincing compared to an alternative interpretation of it as a plural prefix attached to vowel-initial nouns or adjectives in particular grammatical contexts (although I guess you could argue that it is initially acquired as a word-initial consonant, but then gets reinterpreted as a word-final consonant as speakers acquire literacy and develop an adult understanding of the standard language). There are still some restrictions in the use of plural /z/ based on the preceding lexeme, most notably in the case of numerals, but for the most part we find /z/ pretty consistently and obligatorily when a plural vowel-initial noun or adjective immediately follows a determiner.

On the other hand, liaison in some other contexts, such as after singular adjectives, isn't as easily interpreted as involving mutation of the following word. Pairs like beau/bel pretty much have to be analyzed as separate allomorphs of the adjective (unless you go with an extremely abstract, historical-sound-change-based approach that treats l-vocalization and eau-coalescence as a synchronic rule of French phonology, which I haven't seen so far). I believe some analyses connect the liaison variant of adjectives with the feminine version, although they aren't always the same.

All that was just based on my memory, but here's a few links: http://www.llf.cnrs.fr/sites/llf.cnrs.f ... slides.pdf, https://user.uni-frankfurt.de/~cfery/pu ... French.pdf, https://www.iastatedigitalpress.com/psl ... 3707/view/, https://www.ling.upenn.edu/courses/ling620/Liaison.pdf

[Travis B.]

I was listening to You Can't Kill Rock and Roll by Ozzy Osbourne, and I had previously misheard the line "Cause rock 'n roll is my religion and my law" as "Cause rock 'n roll is my religion and my love", and apparently I am not the only person to do this. Thing is, Ozzy pronounced law in the song as something varying between either a weakly rounded [ɫɔː] and a slightly rounded [ɫʌː], which is interesting because IIRC THOUGHT in AusE is supposedly [oː], implying that this "should" be [ɫoː] -- but the fact that it is sung could have affected it. Anyways, I did not initially identify the word as "law" because my native THOUGHT is [ɒ] and hence my brain heard the word as "love" with STRUT and a very weak /v/.

[Travis B.]

French question - how is French liaison typically analyzed? Is it generally posited that the final consonants are in the underlying forms of words that have them, and are elided except before another vowel, or is it generally posited that word-final morphemes have two allomorphs, which are selected based upon with follows them?

"Sound Pattern of English"-type analyses of French with underlying word-final consonants and schwa that get deleted on the surface level have been posited. I don't know whether they're still most common in terms of technical theories. Personally, I find some aspects of these analyses about as unconvincing as the SPoE-style analyses of English night as underlying /niht/, or giraffe as underlying /giraffe/, etc.

One interpretation you didn't mention, but that I've seen discussed at least as a possible model of initial acquisition, is that at least some liaisons are a matter of vowel-initial words having multiple allomorphs (one starting with /z/, one starting with /n/, etc.) selected based on their context / what precedes them.

Obligatory liaisons are mostly grammatically conditioned, in some cases in ways that resemble Celtic "consonant mutations". Obligatory plural /z/ in particular seems to clearly show strong attachment to the following word in ways that makes the orthography-based interpretation of it as a word-final consonant not especially convincing compared to an alternative interpretation of it as a plural prefix attached to vowel-initial nouns or adjectives in particular grammatical contexts (although I guess you could argue that it is initially acquired as a word-initial consonant, but then gets reinterpreted as a word-final consonant as speakers acquire literacy and develop an adult understanding of the standard language). There are still some restrictions in the use of plural /z/ based on the preceding lexeme, most notably in the case of numerals, but for the most part we find /z/ pretty consistently and obligatorily when a plural vowel-initial noun or adjective immediately follows a determiner.

On the other hand, liaison in some other contexts, such as after singular adjectives, isn't as easily interpreted as involving mutation of the following word. Pairs like beau/bel pretty much have to be analyzed as separate allomorphs of the adjective (unless you go with an extremely abstract, historical-sound-change-based approach that treats l-vocalization and eau-coalescence as a synchronic rule of French phonology, which I haven't seen so far). I believe some analyses connect the liaison variant of adjectives with the feminine version, although they aren't always the same.

All that was just based on my memory, but here's a few links: http://www.llf.cnrs.fr/sites/llf.cnrs.f ... slides.pdf, https://user.uni-frankfurt.de/~cfery/pu ... French.pdf, https://www.iastatedigitalpress.com/psl ... 3707/view/, https://www.ling.upenn.edu/courses/ling620/Liaison.pdf

The problem with the vowel-initial allomorphy approach as I'd see it is that then it would require both vowel-initial allomorphy and final allomorphy to exist in the same system, which seems less parsimonious than having just final allomorphy, which is by no means incompatible with primarily grammatically-conditioned liaisons. I agree with you that a "Sound Pattern of French" approach is not viable in practice.

[Man in Space]

It just occurred to me that Janko is in a unique position to study subconscious (primarily phonological) aesthetic trends in conlang number systems. One wonders if any frequent patterns come up—at the least, in a priori languages.

Whether it’s actually reflective of anything is anyone’s guess, but perhaps something interesting would shake out. Though one thing I can see being a confounding factor is the phonologies themselves—lots of conlangs have /t/; (likely) few, an epiglottal trill.

[Travis B.]

A known pattern with natlang number systems is that adjacent numbers have a tendency to phonologically influence one another in an irregular fashion because they get spoken in order so much.

[Zju]

A known pattern with natlang number systems is that adjacent numbers have a tendency to phonologically influence one another in an irregular fashion because they get spoken in order so much.

It still slightly pains me that in the first conlang reconstruction relay in which I participated, I made what I thought were clear mutual influences between adjacent numerals. The other team, of course, immediately noticed them... and started to ponder, over multiple posts, how on earth could they be so phonetically irregular, did they perhaps exhibit a singular example of a reflex of *tʷ, etc etc.

[Travis B.]

A known pattern with natlang number systems is that adjacent numbers have a tendency to phonologically influence one another in an irregular fashion because they get spoken in order so much.

It still slightly pains me that in the first conlang reconstruction relay in which I participated, I made what I thought were clear mutual influences between adjacent numerals. The other team, of course, immediately noticed them... and started to ponder, over multiple posts, how on earth could they be so phonetically irregular, did they perhaps exhibit a singular example of a reflex of *tʷ, etc etc.

To put effort into making such a detail, to have it completely overlooked and analyzed in a fashion that missed the point...

[keenir]

It just occurred to me that Janko is in a unique position to study subconscious (primarily phonological) aesthetic trends in conlang number systems. One wonders if any frequent patterns come up—at the least, in a priori languages.

Whether it’s actually reflective of anything is anyone’s guess, but perhaps something interesting would shake out. Though one thing I can see being a confounding factor is the phonologies themselves—lots of conlangs have /t/; (likely) few, an epiglottal trill.

I'm probably missing the point here, but wouldn't that be the subconscious trend, at least in part?

[bradrn]

I’ve been wondering about the plausibility of some word shapes in my current conlang — especially its verbs, which are often long and phonologically heavy. Even basic verbs like lisŋumŋun ‘see’ and asanmarnir ‘sit’ can reach three or four closed syllables.

Does this kind of thing have any natlang precedent? I had a look at words for ‘see’ as an example, and three-syllable words are few and far between, let alone ones with three closed syllables. As another reference point, my thread on speaking verbs lists a few three- and four-syllable words, but mostly ones which are uncommon in their respective languages. So I’m beginning to doubt whether this aspect of my conlang is plausible.

[zompist]

I’ve been wondering about the plausibility of some word shapes in my current conlang — especially its verbs, which are often long and phonologically heavy. Even basic verbs like lisŋumŋun ‘see’ and asanmarnir ‘sit’ can reach three or four closed syllables.

Does this kind of thing have any natlang precedent?

Yes and no? Those strike me as pretty heavy words for simple concepts, though maybe you can get away with it for 'sit'-- cf. Arabic qa'ada, Russian saditsya, Spanish sentarse, all three syllables. (The latter two are extended by being reflexives, however.)

If there is some internal structure it would be more plausible; after all English has idioms like "take a look at" and "have a seat".

[bradrn]

I’ve been wondering about the plausibility of some word shapes in my current conlang — especially its verbs, which are often long and phonologically heavy. Even basic verbs like lisŋumŋun ‘see’ and asanmarnir ‘sit’ can reach three or four closed syllables.

Does this kind of thing have any natlang precedent?

Yes and no? Those strike me as pretty heavy words for simple concepts, though maybe you can get away with it for 'sit'-- cf. Arabic qa'ada, Russian saditsya, Spanish sentarse, all three syllables. (The latter two are extended by being reflexives, however.)

Yeah, ‘sit’ is justifiable, I think. ‘see’ is the one I’m more worried about.

If there is some internal structure it would be more plausible; after all English has idioms like "take a look at" and "have a seat".

Indeed, these both have internal structure, as do all lexical verbs:

• lisŋumŋun is root √lis-mŋun ‘related to visual perception’ plus aspectual marker -ŋu- ‘stative’
• asanmarnir is root √asan-rnir ‘related to sitting’ plus aspectual marker -ma- ‘punctual’

(This is all in the post I linked.)

It does mean that, say, lisŋumŋun is somewhat more specific in meaning than the English gloss ‘see’. But, unlike those English idioms, there’s no shorter lexeme which could be used as an equivalent. Is this plausible? I really don’t know, which is why I’m asking.

[zompist]

Indeed, these both have internal structure, as do all lexical verbs:

• lisŋumŋun is root √lis-mŋun ‘related to visual perception’ plus aspectual marker -ŋu- ‘stative’
• asanmarnir is root √asan-rnir ‘related to sitting’ plus aspectual marker -ma- ‘punctual’

(This is all in the post I linked.)

I looked at your verbs post, and it looks like you want very heavy but non-fusional verbs in general. That's fine-- reminds me of Sumerian and Algonquian. A little like Quechua, but in practice Quechua doesn't always make use of everything in its extensive verbal morphology.

But with these verbs it does feel like you're just making the roots longer for no clear reason. Four-syllable roots are a lot. If you really like them I'd suggest having some internal etymology (not necessarily available to the speakers).

[bradrn]

Indeed, these both have internal structure, as do all lexical verbs:

• lisŋumŋun is root √lis-mŋun ‘related to visual perception’ plus aspectual marker -ŋu- ‘stative’
• asanmarnir is root √asan-rnir ‘related to sitting’ plus aspectual marker -ma- ‘punctual’

(This is all in the post I linked.)

I looked at your verbs post, and it looks like you want very heavy but non-fusional verbs in general. […] If you really like them I'd suggest having some internal etymology (not necessarily available to the speakers).

Not exactly… what I really wanted is for the verbs to have regular internal structure. (My inspiration was Hebrew binyanim, although this is aspectual rather than transitivity-based.) The heaviness is an unfortunate side-effect of that.

As for internal etymologies, those are the source of the whole problem. The protolanguage is well-worked-out, and has a strong tendency towards light verb constructions and serial verb constructions; the modern system then results from univerbations of those. I spent a long time playing around with the sound changes, trying to get the results as light as possible. Sadly, this was the best I could do.

(If the current situation really is implausible, I guess I could add in some irregular developments: say, *ɬiːsə-məŋul → *ɬisə-ŋul, which gets us to the much more manageable √ls-ŋun as the modern root, with lsoŋŋun as the resulting lexeme. It’s not unjustifiable.)

That's fine-- reminds me of Sumerian and Algonquian. A little like Quechua, but in practice Quechua doesn't always make use of everything in its extensive verbal morphology.

I don’t really see the resemblance to Sumerian. Algonquian (to my understanding) has a lot of verbs of great specificity, but the most basic verbs are underived and very short. I don’t know much about Quechua.