Zompist Bboard Again

quinterbeck wrote: ↑Wed Oct 02, 2019 2:39 am Is there a term for when an underspecified phoneme becomes specified in a certain environment? For example I have underspecified /c/ appearing as [tʲ] and [kʲ] in free variation, but always [tʲ] after /n/. Anyone suggest a better term than 'POA specification'?

This is very common in natlangs, but I have never seen a work using a particular term for it. Authors usually just say that a phoneme has allophones in free variation except in some particular contexts.

An example would be much of Colombian Spanish, where lenited /ʝ/ can be [ɟʝ] or [ʝ], but non-lenited /ʝ/ (in utterance-initial position and after a nasal, and for many speakers also after /l ɾ/) can only be [ɟʝ]. E.g. mayo [ˈmaɟʝo] ~ [ˈmaʝo], un yanqui [uɲ ˈɟʝanki]. In Spanish as a whole, /p t/ can be either [β ɣ] or [p k] before word-internal /t/, but elsewhere they must be [p k]. E.g. actuar [aɣˈtwaɾ] ~ [akˈtwaɾ], opción [opˈsjon].

Neither "morphophoneme" or "archiphoneme" seem that appropriate because they represent either the complementary distribution or the contextual merger of two otherwise distinct phonemes, respectively, whereas you're asking about the presence or absence of free variation.

dhok wrote: ↑Wed Oct 02, 2019 3:28 am That's kind of like the Americanist concept of a morphophoneme, but not the same--e.g. Menominee has a morphophoneme |N| that is realized as /s/ before /e e: j/ and /n/ before other vowels. But both /n/ and /s/ are independently phonemic.

Isn't this just apophony? Is there /n/ that occurs before /e eː j/?

Zju wrote: ↑Wed Oct 02, 2019 2:11 pm

dhok wrote: ↑Wed Oct 02, 2019 3:28 am That's kind of like the Americanist concept of a morphophoneme, but not the same--e.g. Menominee has a morphophoneme |N| that is realized as /s/ before /e e: j/ and /n/ before other vowels. But both /n/ and /s/ are independently phonemic.

Isn't this just apophony? Is there /n/ that occurs before /e eː j/?

There is. Menominee plain /n/ derives from proto-Algonquian *n; /s/ derives from either *s or *š. Proto-Algonquian had a phoneme *θ that became *š before *i *i: *y (back to Americanist transcription for /j/, here), and in Menominee, *θ merged with *r. Morpheme-final |N| derives from either *θ or *r (which inherited the behavior of *θ)--if a morpheme-final etymological *θ/*r is in a palatalizing environment it is realized as *š > /s/, otherwise as *r > n.

dhok wrote: ↑Wed Oct 02, 2019 6:52 pmand in Menominee, *θ merged with *r.

Okay, that's a fun one. Do you think that went θ > ð > r (> n)?

Ser wrote: ↑Wed Oct 02, 2019 8:01 pm

dhok wrote: ↑Wed Oct 02, 2019 6:52 pmand in Menominee, *θ merged with *r.

Okay, that's a fun one. Do you think that went θ > ð > r (> n)?

Hard to say. We reconstruct *θ for a segment reflected as /θ/ in Arapaho, /t/ in Cree and merging with *r (all of /ɾ/, /t/, /l/, /n/, /j/, /ð/ are attested reflexes) elsewhere. Both *r and *θ were vanishingly rare word-initially, so /ð/ is a possible intermediate. (note that the daughter with /ð/ for *r is a variety of Cree, and so has a separate reflex of *θ. Cheyenne and Blackfoot merge *θ and *r as /t/.)

It's maybe a bit tempting to just reconstruct /ð/ for *r, but /r/ is attested in several discontinous areas that tend to have archaisms while the other reflexes tend to be continuous (so it probably continues the original value), and there are no other voiced-voiceless fricative pairs--though of course /ð/ patterns as an approximant in plenty of languages.

I was just going back over the results of the last Polyglottal Telephone game, and I only just started to realize that I completely screwed up the translation. In addition to all the confusion that the Japanese-speakers later pointed out regarding subjects and objects, 'to overstep certain obstacles' in English and French became 'to remove certain obstacles' in Latin, which became 'to prevent a certain resistance' in Japanese, which I turned into just 'to put down a rebellion', and the 'rebellion' stayed all the way up to the very end, when it was changed into 'revolt'!

Also, I managed to turn this:

Indeed, I assert that if the findings of Kepler or Newton could not have been made commonplace, if not for the sacrifice of one life then ten or one hundred or even more people, there would have been a duty to Newton – and indeed, an obligation – for these ten or one hundred to prevent the finding from being published to all humanity.

into this!

Moreover, even if the discoveries of Kepler, Newton, etc. couldn't be published, then they wouldn't have given their only lives, there would have only been ten or a hundred people, and there would be a greater compulsion than Newton and than the duty of those 10 or hundred people to prevent the publication of those discoveries.

Huh, that's interesting now that I look at those two translations side by side. The Japanese one didn't really make sense (I already knew that while I was translating but not about this specific part, of course), so I tried to make sense of it by guessing that what came after the first if-clause must be a then-clause, that only the sacrifice of one life was mentioned, that the "ten or one hundred people" was referring to what would be left over (after the sacrifice of one life), and that the "even more" was referring to the "duty" and being contrasted to "Newton" and the "obligation" (instead of "one hundred").

Is there a term for the situation where a case is only identifiable as identical to some other case forms, but a certain incongruence makes it stand out?


Something like the well-known defective Locative Case in Latin, mostly used with names of cities plus a few common nouns, which in some declensions is like the genitive in the singular but the ablative in the plural, and in another just the same as the ablative:

First and second declension: = genitive singular in the singular, = dative/ablative plural in the plural
(Rōmae 'in Rome', Athēnīs 'in Athens', Corinthī 'in Corinth', Philippīs 'in Philippi (famous town in ancient Macedonia)')

Third declension: = ablative singular in the singular, = dative/ablative plural in the plural
(Carthāginī/Carthāgine 'in Carthage', Trallibus 'in Tralles (known today as Aydın, Turkey)')

(There is only one word with an attested 4th declension locative, domus 'house', which takes either the genitive-singular-looking domī or the dative singular form domuī.)

There's a nice term for this in gender, though I don't know if it's also used for case: overdifferentiated. An example is Kolami, where everything is just two genders, except for the numbers 2/3/4 which have three.

zompist wrote: ↑Sat Oct 05, 2019 11:25 amThere's a nice term for this in gender, though I don't know if it's also used for case: overdifferentiated. An example is Kolami, where everything is just two genders, except for the numbers 2/3/4 which have three.

I'm not focusing on overdifferentiation as in the Latin locative being limited to Roman city nouns or the English conjugation of "to be" though (I am, you are; I was, we were), but rather on inflectional forms (for case or number, or tense, etc.) that exhibit syncretism with other forms, where the sources of syncretism are different across some axis, making it stand out as distinct.

Imagine a conlang where verbs regularly distinguish four TAMs and two voices, but one of the TAMs grabs forms from other TAMs:

active present: yuda
mediopassive present: yudame
active past: yudasa
mediopassive past: yudanna
active irrealis: yudahi
mediopassive irrealis: yudon
active completive: yudasa (= active past)
mediopassive completive: yudame (= mediopassive present)

The only reason to posit a Completive aspect is because when you transform an Active Past in completive usage into its passive, you get a verb that looks like a Mediopassive Present as the result.

na-k yuda-sa hani, ba-u mu-hi hauki-r
when-2SG cook-ACT.COMPL fish.DIR, then-1PL begin-ACT.IRR eat-ACT.INF
'We're going to begin eating when you're done cooking the fish.'

na hani yuda-me, ba-u mu-hi hauki-r
when fish.DIR cook-PASS.COMPL, then-1PL begin-ACT.IRR eat-ACT.INF
'We're going to begin eating when the fish gets fully cooked.'

Syncretism?

"The active past can have the following uses..." [long list ensures, which includes completive examples] "The mediopassive present is used in the following cases..." [long list of things you can do with mediopassive present, including completive]

In English we don't have a separate TAM category called "progressive crypto-future tense" for sentences like "I am going to the store tomorrow." We just classify it as present progressive, with the asterisk that the present progressive can also describe future events.

Ser wrote: ↑Sat Oct 05, 2019 1:38 pm The only reason to posit a Completive aspect is because when you transform an Active Past in completive usage into its passive, you get a verb that looks like a Mediopassive Present as the result.

Corbett has suggested "non-autonomous values" to refer to a situation like the one you describe. So you could say something like: "The completive aspect is morphologically non-autonomous and exhibits syncretism with the past tense in the active voice, and with the present tense in the mediopassive voice."

Vijay wrote: ↑Sat Oct 05, 2019 2:15 pmSyncretism?

Yes, although it'd be some subtype of syncretism.

Moose-tache wrote: ↑Sun Oct 06, 2019 12:53 am "The active past can have the following uses..." [long list ensures, which includes completive examples] "The mediopassive present is used in the following cases..." [long list of things you can do with mediopassive present, including completive]

In English we don't have a separate TAM category called "progressive crypto-future tense" for sentences like "I am going to the store tomorrow." We just classify it as present progressive, with the asterisk that the present progressive can also describe future events.

That is in fact what is usually done, and there is good merit to it because real-world languages are generally a lot more complicated than the conlang I made up (long lists of the things that each word-form can do sounds about right), but I'm still curious whether anyone has proposed a term before.

cedh wrote: ↑Sun Oct 06, 2019 5:21 amCorbett has suggested "non-autonomous values" to refer to a situation like the one you describe. So you could say something like: "The completive aspect is morphologically non-autonomous and exhibits syncretism with the past tense in the active voice, and with the present tense in the mediopassive voice."

That's great, thanks a lot.

Oh, duh, you even said syncretism. Sorry.

Another English question: The quote "politics ain't bean bag" - doe it mean "politics isn't easy", or "politics isn't important", or something else entirely?

Raphael wrote: ↑Tue Oct 08, 2019 3:45 pm Another English question: The quote "politics ain't bean bag" - doe it mean "politics isn't easy", or "politics isn't important", or something else entirely?

That is a question that I, as a native English speaker, have no clue as to the answer of.

I had to look it up and found this. It means it isn't easy.

Vijay wrote: ↑Tue Oct 08, 2019 4:10 pm I had to look it up and found this. It means it isn't easy.

Thank you!

It's difficult for me to qualify Old Spanish grammar as anything but "mostly boring", but I like the little interesting bits.

Here are some preterites that grabbed stems/endings from other verbs:

tīnxī > tinxe [ˈtinʃe] (form of tingere > teñir 'to dye [sth]')
cīnxī > çinxe [ˈtsinʃe] (form of cingere > ceñir 'to gird on [clothes, a sword]'
> influenced: tetigī > tanxe [ˈtanʃe] (of tangere > tañer 'play [a musical instrument]')
(Modern outcomes: all regularized to teñí, ceñí, tañí.)

addūxī > aduxe [aˈduʃe] (form of addūcere > aduçir 'to take [sth] [somewhere]')
> influenced: fūgī > fuxe (of fugiō > fuyo 'to escape')
(Modern outcomes: -duxe verbs retain the irregularity (aduje, conduje, traduje), but fuxe regularized to huí [u.ˈi].)

stetī > estide [esˈtide] (form of stāre > estar 'to be [somewhere]')
influenced: intrāvī > entride (of intrāre > entrar 'to enter')
influenced: ambitāvī > andide (of ambitāre > andar 'to walk')
influenced: mandāvī > mandide (of mandāre > mandar 'to give someone an order')
possibly influenced: vīdī > vide (perhaps supported a retention of /d/, besides expected vi, of vidēre > ver 'to see')
(Modern outcomes: estar/andar became influenced by ove (see below) although regularized andé is heard in some dialects, entrar/mandar only use the regular entré/mandé, ver only has vi in the standard but vide still exists in dialects.)

habuī > ove (form of habēre > aver 'to have [sth]')
influenced: tenuī > tove (of tenēre > tener 'to hold [sth]')
influenced: attribuī > atrove (of attribuere > atrever 'to dare [do sth]')
influenced: crēdidī > crove (of crēdere > creer 'to believe')
influenced: stetī > estove (of stāre > estar 'to be [somewhere]')
influenced: ambitāvī > andove (of ambitāre > andar 'to walk')
(Modern outcomes: ove/tove/estove/andove retain the irregularity as hube/tuve/estuve/anduve, atrove/crove regularized to atreví/creí.)

Nāscor 'I am born' didn't have an inflectional perfect in Latin (it used an analytic construction instead: nātus sum, Late Latin also nātus fuī), but it gained one by grabbing its present stem and using the stress pattern of irregular verbs, giving Old Spanish nasque [ˈnaske] 'I was born'.
influenced: vīxī > visque [ˈβiske] (instead of expected but unattested *vixe [ˈβiʃe], of vīvere > vivir 'to live')
(Modern outcomes: both regularized to nací and viví.)

Never knew Dooley was sexist and ableist.