Zompist Bboard Again

akam chinjir wrote: ↑Tue Oct 22, 2019 1:52 pm→ 'rubber', the stuff erasers were made of

Specifically pencil erasers. (In NAE, "eraser" is also used for blackboard dusters and a variety of other implements.)

Has anyone else noticed a dual realization of /æ/ in NCVS dialects, similar to that in more conventional GA? For instance normally my daughter realizes /æ/ as a clear monophthong [ɛ], but before a nasal she uses a very clear diphthong [eɐ], akin to how many GA-speakers use monophthongs normally for /æ/ but diphthongs before nasals. I notice other people here having the same sorts of realizations, but they generally do not have quite as clear diphthongal realizations (e.g. [ɛə]) before nasals as my daughter. I ask because NCVS dialects supposedly have a diphthong all the time for /æ/, but that here does not.

Speaking of kids' speech, it seems my daughter has lost l-vocalization or at least does not l-vocalize nearly as aggressively as people my age or older here. It seems from listening to her speak that she has GA-like [ɫ] for /l/.

(In a way it surprises me, since I wouldn't expect l-vocalization to reverse itself like that; rather, I expect that it would be due to influence from other varieties.)

dhok wrote: ↑Thu Oct 17, 2019 2:51 amRetroflexes are phonetically "dark".

Dafuq does that mean?

akam chinjir wrote: ↑Tue Oct 22, 2019 2:09 pmcaoutchouc

I did not even know that was ever a word in English, and I can't think of the French word anymore without also thinking of Mots d'Heures: Gousses, Rames, which always manages to crack me up.
(Eh! dites-le, dites-le,
De quatre et méfie de le
Et de caoutchouc me Douvres de mou).

Some analogical development in Spanish along semantic lines: "flattering" is like "begging".

Andalusian Arabic خلاق xalaag 'thief dove' > Old Spanish halagar 'to flatter' + Latin -ōneum > Spanish -ueño '(derives adjectives of characteristic)' >> halagüeño 'flatterer'
-> Influenced: pedir 'to ask for sth' + Latin -ōneum > pedigüeño 'beggar' (instead of expected *pedueño)

The -Vg- part actually comes from the stem of halagar.

Ancient Greek ἐλεημοσύνη eleēmosўnē 'pity, alms' > Latin eleēmosўna 'alms' > Spanish limosna 'alms'
-> Influenced: Frankish *lausinga (reconstructed from OEng lēasung/lēasing 'lying, deceit', ONorse lausing 'sinful life') influenced by Latin laudem 'praise' > Old French losenge 'deceit, flattery', Old Occitan lauzenja '(id.)' > Spanish lisonja 'flattery' (instead of expected *losenja)

In other words, the vowel pattern of limosna was applied onto *losenja > lisonja.

Apropos of nothing, I realized a couple of things yesterday:

a) I am relatively good at memorizing Chinese characters after writing them a few times and being exposed to the pronunciation.
b) I am not good at memorizing German separable verbs; they all run together.

Of course, Chinese is not the only language to be written with Chinese characters; Japanese still partially is, Korean used to be, and Vietnamese went so far as extending the rebus principle to create new glyphs for native morphemes. It occurred to me that there's a much easier way to memorize prefix-verb combinations in German (or indeed most Indo-European languages where a lot of higher-level vocabulary is formed this way--Latin, Greek, Sanskrit, Russian...)



(presumably you could use the same system for other languages as well, tweaked. Suppose you were trying to memorize Arabic vocabulary: you could assign each triliteral root (or biliteral, quadriliteral, as needed) to a phonetic and an ablaut pattern to a radical. Then, just memorize the meanings of your newly-formed characters.)

Interesting idea!

lol That use of radicals is so cute. Let me guess:

- You use 宀 mián, the roof of 家 jiā 'house', for German an- by thinking of the roof as a contraction of the character 安 'safe', pronounced ān in Mandarin.
- You use 口 kǒu 'mouth' for German ge- because of PIE *ǵebʰ- (or *ǵeP-) 'mouth'.
- You use 土 tǔ 'earth, soil' for German zu- by applying the High German consonant shift on the Mandarin word.
- You use 一 yī 'one' for German ein- based on the meaning of German ein 'one'.
- You use 氵, the radical contraction of 水 shuǐ 'water', for German ab- based on Tocharian B āp 'water'.
- You use 见 jiàn 'see' for German be- because... actually I have no idea why.
- You use 父 fù 'father' for German ver- by thinking of it as some contraction of German Vater 'father'.
- You use卜 bǔ 'divination' for German auf- because... it looks like 上 shàng 'up' turned 90 degrees clockwise? And German auf both means 'up' and is cognate with English "up".

Ser wrote: ↑Sat Oct 26, 2019 10:27 am lol That use of radicals is so cute. Let me guess:

- You use 宀 mián, the roof of 家 jiā 'house', for German an- by thinking of the roof as a contraction of the character 安 'safe', pronounced ān in Mandarin.
- You use 口 kǒu 'mouth' for German ge- because of PIE *ǵebʰ- (or *ǵeP-) 'mouth'.
- You use 土 tǔ 'earth, soil' for German zu- by applying the High German consonant shift on the Mandarin word.
- You use 一 yī 'one' for German ein- based on the meaning of German ein 'one'.
- You use 氵, the radical contraction of 水 shuǐ 'water', for German ab- based on Tocharian B āp 'water'.
- You use 见 jiàn 'see' for German be- because... actually I have no idea why.
- You use 父 fù 'father' for German ver- by thinking of it as some contraction of German Vater 'father'.
- You use卜 bǔ 'divination' for German auf- because... it looks like 上 shàng 'up' turned 90 degrees clockwise? And German auf both means 'up' and is cognate with English "up".

be- is from the bèi 贝 "shell" radical, not jiàn. "Divination" is actually in connection to xià 下, not shàng 上...but maybe it should be thought of in connection to shàng. bei- is of course 白.

Otherwise, mostly correct, except for the use of kǒu, which is merely quick to write and somewhat similar in sound to ge-. Similarly 父 is just the shortest radical I could find whose main character starts with an f-. It's not always a question of "apply particular sound shift to word" as "find radical or phonetic that sounds or means somewhat like a German prefix or root."土 sounds like zu and is only three strokes.

Interesting!

dhok wrote: ↑Sat Oct 26, 2019 8:54 am b) I am not good at memorizing German separable verbs; they all run together.

A side note: the prefixes ge-, be- and ver- are not separable.

cedh wrote: ↑Sun Oct 27, 2019 3:11 am Interesting!

dhok wrote: ↑Sat Oct 26, 2019 8:54 am b) I am not good at memorizing German separable verbs; they all run together.

A side note: the prefixes ge-, be- and ver- are not separable.

Correct, of course. I should have said "prefixed verbs" generally.

Going through some older posts and finding this:

anxi wrote: ↑Fri Feb 08, 2019 9:38 am

malloc wrote: ↑Wed Feb 06, 2019 7:23 pm One thing I have always wondered: how does rhyming work in languages with significant inflection and agreement? Consider a language like Latin where nouns and adjectives agree in number, gender, and case. It seems like rhymes would frequently turn into repeating the same inflectional form in successive lines, like -ōrum or -āvērunt or something.

This kind of rhyming is called „rymy częstochowskie” in Polish and is considered bad style.

To expand a bit on this, just because you can build poems based only on rhyming inflectional forms, you don't have to. Let me show you based on some Russian poems (mostly selected because I know them well enough that I remembered them when I read this):

Poem No 1.:
Я шла пустыней выжженной и знойной.
За мною тень моя ленивая ползла.
Был воздух впереди сухой и безпокойный,
И я не ведала, куда, зачем я шла.

И тень свою в тоске спросила я тогда:
— Скажи, сестра, куда идём с тобою? —
И тень ответила с насмешкою глухою:
— Я за тобой, а ты, быть может, никуда

Transliteration, endings on rhyme-carrying words marked red, stress on the ryming word marked red:
1 Ya shla pustiney vyzhzhennoy i znóynoy.
2 Za mnoyu ten' moya lenivaya polzlá.
3 Byl vozdukh vperedi sukhoy i bespokóynyy,
4 I ya ne vedala, kuda, zachem ya shlá

5 I ten' moyu v toske sprosila ya togdá:
6 - Skazhi, sestra, kuda idyom s tobóyu? -
7 I ten' otvetila s nasmeshkoyu glukhóyu:
8 - Ya za toboy, a ty, byt' mozhet, nikudá.

Word-by-word Translation:
I walked (a) desert burnt-out and torrid. (Instr. fem. sg.)
After me my shadow lazy crawled (Past fem. sg.)
Was (the) air ahead dry and disturbed, (Instr. fem. sg.)
And I not knew where-to, for-what I walked (Past fem. sg.)
And shadow mine in boredom*1) asked I then:
Say, sister, where-to (we) go with you (Instr. Sg.)?
And (the) shadow answered with derision hollow (Instr. fem. sg.):
I after you, and you, be may, nowhere.

As you can see, the rhyme is carried by endings in lines 2 and 4, and in 6 and 7; in 1 and 4 it's on the syllable before the ending, and in 5 and 8 it's on the last syllable of adverbs that are formed with the same final element, but which doesn't function as an inflectional ending synchrnically.

Жираф ("The Giraffe") by Gumilev uses only a few rhymes carried by inflectional endings, although all rhymes are male:

Сегодня, я вижу, особенно грустен твой взгляд, Segodnya, ya vizhu, osobenno grusten tvoy vzglyád, (endingless nom. sg.)
И руки особенно тонки, колени обняв. I ruki osobenno tonki, koleni obnyáv. (gerund)
Послушай: далеко, далеко, на озере Чад Poslushay: daleko, daleko, na ozere Chad (endingless nom. sg.)
Изысканный бродит жираф. Izyskannyy brodit zhiráf. (endingless nom. sg.)

Ему грациозная стройность и нега дана, Yemu gracioznaya stroynost' i nega daná, (nom. sg. fem.)
И шкуру его украшает волшебный узор, I shkuru yego ukrashayet volshebnyy uzór (endingless nom. sg.)
С которым равняться осмелится только луна, S kotorym ravnyat'sya osmelitsya tol#ko luná, (nom. sg.)
Дробясь и качаясь на влаге широких озер. Drobyas' i kachayas' na vlage shirokikh ozyór. (endingless gen. pl.)

Вдали он подобен цветным парусам корабля, Vdali on podoben cvetnym parusam korablyá, (gen.sg.)
И бег его плавен, как радостный птичий полет. I beg yego plaven, kak radostnyy ptichiy polyót. (endingless nom. sg.)
Я знаю, что много чудесного видит земля, Ya znayu, chto mnogo chudesnogo vidit zemlyá, (nom. sg.)
Когда на закате он прячется в мраморный грот. Kogda na zakate on pryachetsya v mramornyy grót. (endingless nom. sg.)

Я знаю веселые сказки таинственных стран Ya znayu vesyolye skazki tainstvennykh stran (endingless gen. pl.)
Про черную деву, про страсть молодого вождя, Pro chornuyu devu, pro strast' molodogo vozhdyá, (gen. sg.)
Но ты слишком долго вдыхала тяжелый туман, No ty slishkom dolgo vdykhala tyazholyy tumán, (endingless nom. sg.)
Ты верить не хочешь во что-нибудь, кроме дождя. Ty verit' ne khochesh' vo chto-nibud' krome dozhdyá. (gen. sg.)

И как я тебе расскажу про тропический сад, I kak ya tebe rasskazhu pro tropicheskiy sád, (endingless nom. sg.)
Про стройные пальмы, про запах немыслимых трав… Pro stroynye pal'my, pro zapakh nemyslimykh tráv… (endingless gen. pl.)
— Ты плачешь? Послушай… далеко, на озере Чад - Ty plachesh'? Poslushay… daleko, na ozere Chád (endingless nom. sg.)
Изысканный бродит жираф. Izyskannyy brodit zhiráf. (endingless nom. sg.)

Today, I see, especially sad (is) your look,
And (your) hands especially thin, (your) knees embracing.
Listen: far, far, on lake Chad,
(An) exquisite wanders Giraffe.

To it (a) graceful harmony and delicateness (are) given,
And skin its decorates (a) magical pattern,
With which to compare dares only (the) moon,
Splitting (itself) and swaying on (the) wetness of wide lakes.

From far it (is) similar to (the) colourful sails of a ship,
And walk its (is) smooth, like joyful avian flight.
I know, that much miraculous sees the earth,
When at sunset it hides in (a) marble grotto.

I know joyous tales of mysterious lands
About (a) black girl, about (the) passion of (a) young chieftain,
But you too long inhaled heavy fog,
You believe not want in anything, except rain.

And as I you tell about (a) tropical garden,
About slender palms, about (the) smell of unthinkable herbs…
- You cry? Listen... far, on lake Chad,
(An) exquisite wanders giraffe.

Only three rhyme pairs out of ten are carried by inflectional endings.
So you see, richness in inflectional endings doesn't mean that you have to repeat only endings to get your rhymes.

*1) toska is complicated. It has elements of boredom, longing, tiredness of life, etc., etc. Let's not get into that here.

Ser wrote: ↑Wed Sep 18, 2019 1:28 am

holbuzvala wrote: ↑Tue Sep 17, 2019 3:11 amCan anyone explain or point me in the direction of why in PIE descendants (I'm thinking Russian and Hindi for sure, and no doubt others) why the animate direct objects are usually/always in the genetive case? (Or rather why the accusative case of animates looks the same as the genetive)

The post I wrote above this morning only corrects what you wrote regarding Hindi (it uses a dative postposition) and the genitive of direct objects (since it's not common throughout IE). You do ask an interesting question about Slavic languages though, since the animacy-based pattern you mention appears in a bunch of those languages:

Slovenian: singular masculine nouns
Bosnian-Croatian-Serbian: singular masculine nouns
Czech: singular masculine nouns
Slovak: singular and plural masculine nouns
Polish: rational and animal masculine singular nouns, rational masculine plural nouns
Russian: 1st declension plurals (any gender), 2nd declension neuter(!) plurals, 2nd declension masculines (both singular and plural), 3rd declension feminine singulars

Amusingly, the pattern is apparently not present in Old Church Slavonic.

I hope hwhatting sees your question and provides us with a real answer (it seems Mecislau didn't join the new board after the move), but my first guess would be that the nominative of direct objects in inanimate masculine nouns (and other listed noun categories in Russian) was created through analogy with the pattern in neuter nouns. Neuter nouns already present identical nominative and accusative cases in Proto-Indo-European, and this pattern was inherited in pretty much all the ancient daughter languages, continuing to be respected in most of the modern daughter languages that maintain both the neuter gender and some degree of case inflection. Neuter nouns in IE have always been either totally or almost totally composed of inanimates, and perhaps due to various morphological similarities the animacy-based pattern was eventually created among masculine nouns in Slavic (and a few other categories in Russian).

Shortly, what happened is the follwing:
In PIE and Balto-Slavic, the main male (and some female) noun classes distinguished NOM from ACC in the singular by having *-s in the NOM and *-m in the ACC:
PIE
o-stems NOM -*os, ACC *-om; i-stems *-is, *-im; *-u-stems *-us, *-um
At an early stage of Proto-Slavic, the system looked like this:
o-stems NOM -*us, ACC *-um; i-stems *-is, *-im; *-u-stems *-us, *-um
As you can see, PIE *-os, *-om had become *-us, *-um. There is a debate which of the two processes ((1) *-os > *-us, (2) *-om > *-um) was due to a sound law and which development was analogic (e.g. *-os became *-us due to ACC *-um because the vowel was the same in both cases for NOM and ACC in the i- and u-stems), as well as on whether the process was limited to Slavic (the traditional assumption) or happened in Balto-Slavic (e.g., Kortlandt assumes NOM *-os, ACC *-um for Balto-Slavic).
What happened next was that Proto-Slavic lost all word-final consonants, and */u/, */i/ became the reduced vowels ъ, ь. So the NOM and ACC became identical in the main male stem classes and in the female i-stems; this is the Situation we have in Old Church Slavonic (OCS):
o-stems and u-stems: NOM ACC -ъ, i-stems (m and f): NOM + Acc -ь
NB, NOM and ACC PL. stayed distinct, with e.g. for the hard o-stems NOM PL. -i, ACC PL -y. In the mostly female a-stems, NOM and ACC were kept separate because *-a:m turned into a nasal vowel (written -ǫ in Slavistics), so we have e.g. OCS NOM SG. FEM -a, ACC -ǫ, Russian NOM SG. FEM -a, ACC -u.
The identity of NOM and ACC SG. in the stems where it happened must have been felt by the speakers of the Slavic langauges as unsatisfactory, especially for animate objects, because they started using the GEN. SG. to mark the ACC for those. The development can be traced in the individual languages (and has spread to the plural and partially to inanimate nouns, as shown above by Ser), but why the Genitive was chosen hasn't been explained satisfactorily. One factor was probably that the Genitive was used for the Accusative in negated sentences in Balto-Slavic (still the case in e.g. Polish and Lithuanian, but not the case any more in Russian). But that cannot be the whole story, because in negated sentences, the Genitive was / is used for all genders and numbers, independemt of animacy.
EDIT: Corrected the i-stems

What is the difference between anticausative and passive?

Xwtek wrote: ↑Sat Nov 02, 2019 2:48 am What is the difference between anticausative and passive?

I think generally with a passive you've still got an implication that there's an agent of some sort, whereas you lose that with an anticausative; like the difference between "the house was burned down" and "the house burned down." (So you'd expect an anticausative but not a passive to be the inverse of a causative.)

Can anyone point to any papers, or have here any arguments, that argue for or against Ancient Egyptian having implosive stops for its "voiced"/emphatic stops? I've been trawling through the net and only really found arguments for voiced, tenuis, and ejective stops without a fourth option.

Oh, and unrelated question, is it just as probable for vowels to lengthen before glottal stops, glottalised stops (ejective, implosive, pharyngealised, or anything else classically considered emphatic), or geminate stops, as before single stops?
eg. In the set
*ata > aːta
*aʔta > aːta
*at’a > aːta
*aɗa > aːda
*atta > aːta
Which is more likely to happen? If any other than the first is likely to happen.

Znex wrote: ↑Mon Nov 04, 2019 5:08 am Oh, and unrelated question, is it just as probable for vowels to lengthen before glottal stops, glottalised stops (ejective, implosive, pharyngealised, or anything else classically considered emphatic), or geminate stops, as before single stops?
eg. In the set
*ata > aːta
*aʔta > aːta
*at’a > aːta
*aɗa > aːda
*atta > aːta
Which is more likely to happen? If any other than the first is likely to happen.

It seems that there are basically two different types of vowel lengthening out there, possibly correlating with the type of prosodic rhythm used in the language:

- If the rhythm is based on syllables, there may be a tendency to make all (or all stressed) syllables the same length, which can result in open-syllable lengthening. In such a language, I would expect *ata *at’a *aɗa to undergo lengthening, but not the other sample words.

- On the contrary, if the rhythm is based on morae, there may be a tendency to keep heavy syllables heavy and light syllables light in order to retain the same number of morae. In such a language, compensatory lengthening together with deletion of coda consonants might be more likely, i.e. the vowels in *aʔta *atta becoming long, but not those in the other words.

What does Diensttier mean in German?
Apparently it's used for worker ants in specialized literature.
Etymologically it should mean something like 'service animal' and indeed I get service dogs when googling the word?
Oh, and by the way, what would be the most common way of referring to a worker ant or a worker bee?

Ars Lande wrote: ↑Fri Nov 08, 2019 9:32 am What does Diensttier mean in German?
Apparently it's used for worker ants in specialized literature.

I'm a 37 year old native German speaker, and I think this is the first time I see this word.

Etymologically it should mean something like 'service animal' and indeed I get service dogs when googling the word?
Oh, and by the way, what would be the most common way of referring to a worker ant or a worker bee?

Arbeiterin.

Oh. No wonder I couldn't find it anywhere.

Maybe I didn't parse the word quite right: the actual words used are Aussendiensttier and Innendiensttier and refer to worker ants that, respectively, specialize in tasks outside and inside the nest.
(The top entomologists and animal behaviorists are German and the field uses quite a few German words)