Zompist Bboard Again

Travis B. wrote: ↑Sat Nov 23, 2024 12:42 pm

zompist wrote: ↑Sat Nov 23, 2024 6:13 am

Travis B. wrote: ↑Fri Nov 22, 2024 4:36 pm "Rock" implies raw material that is unpolished, unworn, uncut. Individual stones are worn down, typically by water, whereas a "rock" does imply a rough piece of material. When you say something is made out of "stone", you imply that it is cut, and something like a "stone" countertop is normally polished. When you say that something is made out of "rock" you strongly imply that it is raw material from the earth.

I agree that rocks go with rough, natural, and big. But stones can be natural (uncut)-- e.g. stones worn smooth by water.

I think you actually repeated what I said about stones.

I was reacting to "When you say something is made out of "stone", you imply that it is cut", which I think is misleading.

FWIW, just because language is confusing, there are things called rock walls, or rock retaining walls.

zompist wrote: ↑Sat Nov 23, 2024 1:22 pm

Travis B. wrote: ↑Sat Nov 23, 2024 12:42 pm

zompist wrote: ↑Sat Nov 23, 2024 6:13 am

I agree that rocks go with rough, natural, and big. But stones can be natural (uncut)-- e.g. stones worn smooth by water.

I think you actually repeated what I said about stones.

I was reacting to "When you say something is made out of "stone", you imply that it is cut", which I think is misleading.

That is a function of how the same noun may have different meanings when used as a count noun versus a mass noun.

zompist wrote: ↑Sat Nov 23, 2024 1:22 pm FWIW, just because language is confusing, there are things called rock walls, or rock retaining walls.

That is true, but I would expect the pieces that make up a "stone wall" to be more finely cut or worn down than those that make up a "rock wall".

That said, "rock climbing walls" need not contain any rock material at all.

Is there a name for the prevailing wind of a monsoon system when the wind is blowing from the continent? I can't think of one of the top of my head and a cursory googling was unhelpful. I ask for conlanging reasons (LZ ノヨフ nujuh needs a translation). I'm pretty sure it would carry at least some dust, although it might not have that much by the time it gets to the coast (climate is hard).

Apparently the Santa Anas are also called the "devil winds". (I can't say I've ever heard them called that, but then I've spent relatively little time in SoCal.)

Linguoboy wrote: ↑Tue Nov 26, 2024 1:04 pm Apparently the Santa Anas are also called the "devil winds". (I can't say I've ever heard them called that, but then I've spent relatively little time in SoCal.)

Thank you

Linguoboy wrote: ↑Tue Nov 26, 2024 1:04 pm Apparently the Santa Anas are also called the "devil winds". (I can't say I've ever heard them called that, but then I've spent relatively little time in SoCal.)

i've spent my whole life in southern california (admittedly, not in LA) and the only time i've ever heard them called the "devil winds" was in that episode of crazy ex-girlfriend

Lērisama wrote: ↑Sun Nov 24, 2024 9:54 am Is there a name for the prevailing wind of a monsoon system when the wind is blowing from the continent? I can't think of one of the top of my head and a cursory googling was unhelpful. I ask for conlanging reasons (LZ ノヨフ nujuh needs a translation). I'm pretty sure it would carry at least some dust, although it might not have that much by the time it gets to the coast (climate is hard).

There are lots of local named winds that go toward the coast carrying dust, caused by low pressure systems. But if you want a term that people will recognize as a generalizable English word, your best bet is probably sirocco.

Glass Half Baked wrote: ↑Wed Nov 27, 2024 6:47 pm But if you want a term that people will recognize as a generalizable English word, your best bet is probably sirocco.

That was my backup word, if I couldn't find anything better, so I'll take that as confirmation there isn't, thank you.

Does anyone else's English varieties have the distinction between what I call "primary" and "secondary" diphthongs, where the former come from historical vowel phonemes (e.g. /aɪ eɪ aʊ oʊ ɔɪ/) while the latter come from intervocalic elisions and l-vocalization, with a key element being that the former are either short or long, just like typical monophthongs not originating from intervocalic elisions before /ər əl/, while the latter are either long or overlong (with the vowel length distinctions within each pair themselves being allophonic in origin)?

Perhaps not quite what you’re asking for but /əɪ/ is phonemic for me (hire and higher are a minimal pair).

Man in Space wrote: ↑Sun Dec 01, 2024 11:48 pm Perhaps not quite what you’re asking for but /əɪ/ is phonemic for me (hire and higher are a minimal pair).

/əɪ/ to me is what I call a "primary" diphthong because it is derived from a unitary historical vowel phoneme, /aɪ/. (And yes, I have the very same minimal pair as you, but I tend to be hesitant to rely on the mere existence of minimal pairs to prove that something is a phoneme, because if that is the yardstick one uses my own dialect is far more insane than it really is. In this case, though, I do consider /aɪ/ and /əɪ/ (IMD [ăĕ̯]~[ae̯] and [ə̆ĕ̯]~[əe̯]) to be a phonemic contrast because of the existence of words such as f[ae̯]ber and t[əe̯]ger.)

I just came across this passage in a book¹ “Homo sapiens wasn't, in fact, smarter than other species of human.”

The past tense feels wrong to me; I'd go for “Homo sapiens isn't, in fact, smarter than other species of human were.” Does anyone else have an opinion on this?


¹ Pathogenesis: How Germs Made History by Johnathan Kennedy (2023) if you're interested

Lērisama wrote: ↑Wed Dec 04, 2024 10:28 am I just came across this passage in a book¹ “Homo sapiens wasn't, in fact, smarter than other species of human.”

The past tense feels wrong to me; I'd go for “Homo sapiens isn't, in fact, smarter than other species of human were.” Does anyone else have an opinion on this?


¹ Pathogenesis: How Germs Made History by Johnathan Kennedy (2023) if you're interested

Might depend on context. Is the author talking about a time in the distant past when early Homo sapiens was competing with other, closely related hominid species?

Lērisama wrote: ↑Wed Dec 04, 2024 10:28 am I just came across this passage in a book¹ “Homo sapiens wasn't, in fact, smarter than other species of human.”

The past tense feels wrong to me; I'd go for “Homo sapiens isn't, in fact, smarter than other species of human were.” Does anyone else have an opinion on this?


¹ Pathogenesis: How Germs Made History by Johnathan Kennedy (2023) if you're interested

The former sounds fine to me if one is comparing Homo sapiens to other hominid species that lived beside it at that time, whereas the latter indicates one is comparing Homo sapiens now with other hominid species then.

Raphael wrote: ↑Wed Dec 04, 2024 10:40 am Might depend on context. Is the author talking about a time in the distant past when early Homo sapiens was competing with other, closely related hominid species?

Yes, this was the context

Travis B. wrote: ↑Wed Dec 04, 2024 10:47 am The former sounds fine to me if one is comparing Homo sapiens to other hominid species that lived beside it at that time, whereas the latter indicates one is comparing Homo sapiens now with other hominid species then.

Again, that was the comparison intended. I'm going to assume my instincts here are abnormal. I think I have a problem with a simple past being used to describe something that is still ongoing, no matter when the topic time is, but I don't think that is normal. To me, the book implied that humans had changed their intelligence somehow after the specified period

Hmmmm.

Let's say I would talk about some past time in my life - perhaps my time at school. Perhaps I might say something like "I wasn't smarter than the other kids at school".

Now, IMO, that's a different statement than if I would say, in the present tense, "I'm not smarter than the other people I went to school with".

And if two things someone might say or write have different meanings, they should use the one that's closer to what they're trying to express.

Those examples are fine for me, what isn't natural for me is the specific instance where one of the pair is referencing something that continues on to the present unchanged (intelligence of Homo sapiens), while the other doesn't (intelligence of non-Homo sapiens humans, since they are now extinct). It feels off using the same tensed verb for them for some reason. It's not actively wrong for me, it just feels a bit jarring.

Why do the Hare Krishnas, in English, transcribe their famous mantra as "Hare Krishna"? I mean, if you look at German pronunciation rules, spelling the first word of the mantra as "Hare" would make perfect sense, but if I'd transliterate it in English, I'd probably spell it as something like "Hah-reh". (Assuming that the "original" spelling is, of course, something in an Indian writing system.)

Raphael wrote: ↑Wed Dec 04, 2024 3:01 pm Why do the Hare Krishnas, in English, transcribe their famous mantra as "Hare Krishna"? I mean, if you look at German pronunciation rules, spelling the first word of the mantra as "Hare" would make perfect sense, but if I'd transliterate it in English, I'd probably spell it as something like "Hah-reh". (Assuming that the "original" spelling is, of course, something in an Indian writing system.)

There is a standard transliteration for Indian writing systems.

WeepingElf wrote: ↑Wed Dec 04, 2024 3:09 pm

Raphael wrote: ↑Wed Dec 04, 2024 3:01 pm Why do the Hare Krishnas, in English, transcribe their famous mantra as "Hare Krishna"? I mean, if you look at German pronunciation rules, spelling the first word of the mantra as "Hare" would make perfect sense, but if I'd transliterate it in English, I'd probably spell it as something like "Hah-reh". (Assuming that the "original" spelling is, of course, something in an Indian writing system.)

There is a standard transliteration for Indian writing systems.

Ah, thank you!