Linguistic Miscellany Thread

[Nortaneous]

I found something pretty spectacular today. The Austronesian language Bonggo has erkua(t) as its numeral 'two'. And the path of sound change is the following: PMP *duha > *dua > POc *rua > *ruwa > *rukwa-t > *rkwat > erkuat. How's that for a convergent development? The same correspondence in Armenian is historically quite controversial (altho now generally accepted) but here it pretty much happened exactly the same modulo a suffix.

._.

[Tropylium]

I found something pretty spectacular today. The Austronesian language Bonggo has erkua(t) as its numeral 'two'. And the path of sound change is the following: PMP *duha > *dua > POc *rua > *ruwa > *rukwa-t > *rkwat > erkuat. How's that for a convergent development? The same correspondence in Armenian is historically quite controversial (altho now generally accepted) but here it pretty much happened exactly the same modulo a suffix.

Ah yes, the Million Monkeys With SCAs model of language change …

[dɮ the phoneme]

Does anyone know of any papers on alternation of adpositions between pre- and postpositions? When I say 'alternation' I mean that very broadly, either diachronically or synchronically.

[linguistcat]

Does anyone have a reference to the assumed order of sound changes from Old Japanese to current times? If not, OJ to any later stage of would be extremely helpful, as long as they have at least a general idea of when the changes occurred.

I've found a few mentions of when specific sound changes have happened (like that OJ /p/ became /w, ∅/ intervocalically likely before 1000ad), but I know there are a fair number I haven't been able to account for, let alone a list of them in one place. It would be nice if there is a resource out there so I don't have to collect them myself. But if there isn't (or it's extremely hard to find), it would be equally nice to know so I can continue collecting things in one spot myself without being on a wild goose chase.

[Moose-tache]

Does anyone have a reference to the assumed order of sound changes from Old Japanese to current times? If not, OJ to any later stage of would be extremely helpful, as long as they have at least a general idea of when the changes occurred.

I've found a few mentions of when specific sound changes have happened (like that OJ /p/ became /w, ∅/ intervocalically likely before 1000ad), but I know there are a fair number I haven't been able to account for, let alone a list of them in one place. It would be nice if there is a resource out there so I don't have to collect them myself. But if there isn't (or it's extremely hard to find), it would be equally nice to know so I can continue collecting things in one spot myself without being on a wild goose chase.

Well, a lot of this stuff is easy to find, but as you say it's scattered about. I have a few articles on this topic that I can summarize if I find the time.

[linguistcat]

Well, a lot of this stuff is easy to find, but as you say it's scattered about. I have a few articles on this topic that I can summarize if I find the time.

I'd appreciate it but no rush

[Qwynegold]

I got this lovely book by Sara Lövestam called Riddar Kasus hjärta och andra sagor om grammatik (The heart of Knight Case and other fairy tales about grammar). It's a collection of silly linguistics themed stories, trolling of grammar nazis and some grammar explanations. There was one thing she presented that got me thinking a lot. It's something called positionsschema; I don't know how to translate that, something like "position scheme", and it explains Swedish word order.

Code: Select all

I tried to recreate the table presented in the book:

{FUNDAMENTET}
┌──────────────────────────┬─────┬────────┬──────────────┬───────┬───────────┬──────────┐
│subjekt eller adverbial   │finit│subjekt¹│satsadverbial²│infinit│komplement³│adverbial⁴│
│eller nästan vad som helst│verb │        │              │verb   │           │          │
├──────────────────────────┼─────┼────────┼──────────────┼───────┼───────────┼──────────┤
│I kväll                   │ska  │vi      │nog           │se     │           │på Melodi-│
│                          │     │        │              │       │           │festivalen│
└──────────────────────────┴─────┴────────┴──────────────┴───────┴───────────┴──────────┘
¹såvida det inte stod på den första platsen
²t.ex. "inte", "kanske" och "nog"
³t.ex. objekt
⁴t.ex. tid, plats eller orsak

And this is my translation of the above:
{THE FOUNDATION}
┌─────────────────────┬──────┬────────┬─────────────────┬────────┬───────────┬──────────┐
│subject or adverbial │finite│subject¹│clause adverbial²│infinite│complement³│adverbial⁴│
│or almost anything   │verb  │        │                 │verb    │           │          │
├─────────────────────┼──────┼────────┼─────────────────┼────────┼───────────┼──────────┤
│Tonight              │shall │we      │probably         │watch   │           │on Melodi-│
│                     │      │        │                 │        │           │festivalen│
├─────────────────────┴──────┴────────┴─────────────────┴────────┴───────────┴──────────┤
│/Tonight we are probably going to watch Melodifestivalen⁵/                             │
└───────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘
¹unless it stood on the first position
²e.g. "not", "maybe" or "probably"
³e.g. object
⁴e.g. time, place or reason
⁵the Swedish national selection for the Eurovision Song Contest

Now I finally understand the rules for verb movement in Swedish. The subject goes into slot 3, unless slot 1 is vacant in which case it goes to slot 1. So now I'm wondering things like:

• Could one say that the word order in Swedish is actually VSO?
• What is a "clause adverbial" and how is it different from other adverbials?
• Why is "på Melodifestivalen" an adverbial and not a complement? It begins with a preposition, but I don't see why that matters.
• I think that subordinate clauses can also go into slot 1.

[Kuchigakatai]

Could one say that the word order in Swedish is actually VSO?

The table describes the V2 order that's common across Germanic.

What is a "clause adverbial" and how is it different from other adverbials?

Satsadverbial is probably a term that's particular to Swedish linguistics... Judging by the table and the examples, it sounds like it might encompass any basic adverb that can appear in that specific slot. In French grammar, only a few basic adverbs and pronouns can interrupt a compound verb (je l'ai toujours aidé, il n'a rien vu). Maybe Swedish has something similar with its satsadverbial.

Why is "på Melodifestivalen" an adverbial and not a complement? It begins with a preposition, but I don't see why that matters.

"Complement clause" usually refers to a subordinate sentence that serves as an argument (subject or object) of a verb. A prepositional phrase doesn't normally count as a complement clause at all.

Meanwhile, the term "adverbial" normally includes adverbs (when used as adjuncts of time, place, manner, attitudes of the speaker towards the information, evidentiality, etc.), prepositional phrases (when they express similar things: "[relaxed] as always", "during X", "from X", "[nowhere] at all", "with utmost sincerity"...), and subordinate clauses (idem: "when I...", "because you...", "if he...", "although she...", "so that we...").

[Pabappa]

5 unrelated foods with the name "pepper":

1) sprinkled pepper
2) the cayenne pepper family (jalapeño, habanero, bell peppers, etc)
3) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peppercorn_tree
4) pepperoni
5) peppermint (not really a food, but an additive and quite a flavorful one)

[Nortaneous]

5 unrelated foods with the name "pepper":

1) sprinkled pepper
2) the cayenne pepper family (jalapeño, habanero, bell peppers, etc)
3) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peppercorn_tree
4) pepperoni
5) peppermint (not really a food, but an additive and quite a flavorful one)

also long pepper, which is in the same genus as black pepper but a different species - chili peppers are called 'peppers' because they look sort of like long peppers

[dɮ the phoneme]

I was thinking about how, for me, the acceptability of the definite article before a language name varies by context. "You must read Virgil in the original Latin" and "ambulance derives from the Latin ambulāre" both sound fine to me, but "you must read Virgil in the Latin" is marginal, and *"Virgil wrote in the Latin" is definitely wrong. In think in the second sentence at least, I'm parsing 'the Latin ambulāre' as [DP [DET the] [NP [Adj Latin] [N ambulāre] ] ]. Is there a prescriptive rule about this?

[Pabappa]

I dunno, thats interesting .... what about a third sentence, "i used a new word today, ambulance , derived from the Latin". i would find that acceptable. so... is Latin still an adjective there, with an omitted noun phrase, or is "Latin" promoted to a noun?

[dɮ the phoneme]

Does anyone have a reference to the assumed order of sound changes from Old Japanese to current times? If not, OJ to any later stage of would be extremely helpful, as long as they have at least a general idea of when the changes occurred.

IIRC A History of the Japanese Language by Bjarke Frellesvig has something like this.

I dunno, thats interesting .... what about a third sentence, "i used a new word today, ambulance, derived from the Latin". i would find that acceptable. so... is Latin still an adjective there, with an omitted noun phrase, or is "Latin" promoted to a noun?

I would also find this acceptable, but yeah I think I'm parsing this as a case of ellipsis, with 'the Latin' being underlyingly 'the Latin translation' or something.

[Darren]

Does anyone have a reference to the assumed order of sound changes from Old Japanese to current times? If not, OJ to any later stage of would be extremely helpful, as long as they have at least a general idea of when the changes occurred.

IIRC A History of the Japanese Language by Bjarke Frellesvig has something like this.

The contents page on the Google preview lists "Summary of the main regular phonemic changes between Old Japanese and conservative Modern Japanese" in the appendix. That sounds good.

[linguistcat]

Does anyone have a reference to the assumed order of sound changes from Old Japanese to current times? If not, OJ to any later stage of would be extremely helpful, as long as they have at least a general idea of when the changes occurred.

IIRC A History of the Japanese Language by Bjarke Frellesvig has something like this.

The contents page on the Google preview lists "Summary of the main regular phonemic changes between Old Japanese and conservative Modern Japanese" in the appendix. That sounds good.

More reason for me to buy this or at least find a free online source, if possible. Thanks

[Kuchigakatai]

The contents page on the Google preview lists "Summary of the main regular phonemic changes between Old Japanese and conservative Modern Japanese" in the appendix. That sounds good.

More reason for me to buy this or at least find a free online source, if possible. Thanks

I have the book, and I'm afraid that summary is likely not what you want, linguistcat... It really only includes the three "main" group of changes, i.e. the ones that get the most discussion: the /i1 i2/ [ i wi] > /i/, /e1 e2/ [je e] > /e/ and /o1 o2/ [wo o] > /o/ changes; the p > w > zero and p > ɸ > h changes; and the diphthong > long monophthong changes. However, the book does include a lot of stuff in the preceding chapters, including developments from Proto-Japonic. It just doesn't present it in a neat table.

[linguistcat]

The contents page on the Google preview lists "Summary of the main regular phonemic changes between Old Japanese and conservative Modern Japanese" in the appendix. That sounds good.

More reason for me to buy this or at least find a free online source, if possible. Thanks

I have the book, and I'm afraid that summary is likely not what you want, linguistcat... It really only includes the three "main" group of changes, i.e. the ones that get the most discussion: the /i1 i2/ [ i wi] > /i/, /e1 e2/ [je e] > /e/ and /o1 o2/ [wo o] > /o/ changes; the p > w > zero and p > ɸ > h changes; and the diphthong > long monophthong changes. However, the book does include a lot of stuff in the preceding chapters, including developments from Proto-Japonic. It just doesn't present it in a neat table.

A neat table would be excellent but I'd more than happily take one or a small handful of resources that have approximate dates for the sound changes spread out that I could look through. So I'm back to, get that book when feasible and look for other reliable resources as I'm able in the meantime. I mean even wikipedia gives an overview of the types of sound changes that occurred between OJ and EMJ and etc, but it doesn't give a relative order for them or specific centuries in which they occurred, just examples of what happened.

[Pabappa]

https://books.google.co.uk/books/about/ ... OAAAAAQBAJ was good too, .... i found some of it online on google for free, and it was mostly about vowels ... but i wouldnt recommend buying it if you cant find it for free because you dont need two of the same thing and this one costs far more. Miyake's idea is that proto-Japanese had a much more complicated vowel inventory than just /a i u ə/, and uses Ryukyuan languages as evidence. He also believes, i think, that the vowel pairs were /e i o/ vs /we wi wo/, which is at odds with the mainstream theory.

By the way, whats up with yo₂? Do we believe that there really was a labialized version of /yo/? That one has been tough for me to accept.

[linguistcat]

By the way, whats up with yo₂? Do we believe that there really was a labialized version of /yo/? That one has been tough for me to accept.

I don't know but I've seen similar reconstructions for some sounds in Middle Chinese while looking up things about that. I'm assuming in the case of reconstructed phonologies, it just means a variant of /j/ that is distinct from "standard" /j/ and that patterns with labialized consonants.

[Kuchigakatai]

A neat table would be excellent but I'd more than happily take one or a small handful of resources that have approximate dates for the sound changes spread out that I could look through. So I'm back to, get that book when feasible and look for other reliable resources as I'm able in the meantime. I mean even wikipedia gives an overview of the types of sound changes that occurred between OJ and EMJ and etc, but it doesn't give a relative order for them or specific centuries in which they occurred, just examples of what happened.

Frellesvig does discuss competing opinions on the chronology of pretty much all sound changes in the preceding chapters in that book.

By the way, whats up with yo₂? Do we believe that there really was a labialized version of /yo/? That one has been tough for me to accept.

/jo1/ "[jwo]" would just be [ɥo]. Seems pretty okay to me, cf. Latin foveum > *[ˈfoβjo] > OSp. foyo [ˈhoʝo] 'hole', and with diminutive -olum > *[welo]: OSp. foyuelo /hoj-ˈuelo/ [hoˈɥelo] > modern hoyuelo [oˈɥelo] 'dimple'. Here are native recordings on Forvo, my pronunciation is like the one the guys from Spain there use. (Colombian and Dominican have intervocalic /ʝ/ fortition: mayor [maˈɟʝoɾ].)

Phonologically, Middle Chinese is also said to have had /jw/ [ɥ] as an onset cluster (as part of its many Cw clusters).