Linguistic Miscellany Thread

[Travis B.]

No, I do realise how you got [ˈaːõʔ] from I don't — I was just commenting that the result ends up seeming reduced in a rather extreme way.

There's certain words here which get ridiculously reduced in many cases such as probably, for which [ˈpʰʁɑːbɰi(ː)] is the conservative pronunciation...

[bradrn]

No, I do realise how you got [ˈaːõʔ] from I don't — I was just commenting that the result ends up seeming reduced in a rather extreme way.

There's certain words here which get ridiculously reduced in many cases such as probably, for which [ˈpʰʁɑːbɰi(ː)] is the conservative pronunciation...

For me, the furthest I reduce probably is [ˈpʰɻʷɔbli].

[Travis B.]

No, I do realise how you got [ˈaːõʔ] from I don't — I was just commenting that the result ends up seeming reduced in a rather extreme way.

There's certain words here which get ridiculously reduced in many cases such as probably, for which [ˈpʰʁɑːbɰi(ː)] is the conservative pronunciation...

For me, the furthest I reduce probably is [ˈpʰɻʷɔbli].

In addition to the very conservative [ˈpʰʁɑːbəːbɰi(ː)], there's also [ˈpʰʁɑːɤ̯iː] and [pʰʁɑːi̯] here.

[bradrn]

There's certain words here which get ridiculously reduced in many cases such as probably, for which [ˈpʰʁɑːbɰi(ː)] is the conservative pronunciation...

For me, the furthest I reduce probably is [ˈpʰɻʷɔbli].

In addition to the very conservative [ˈpʰʁɑːbəːbɰi(ː)], there's also [ˈpʰʁɑːɤ̯iː] and [pʰʁɑːi̯] here.

That’s true — now that you mention it, I will occasionally say [ˈpʰɻʷɔɫi]. But I have no analogue to your [pʰʁɑːi̯].

[zompist]

I think it’s fair to say that if I were to hear someone saying something like [ˈaːõʔ], I wouldn’t guess that they were saying I don't.

OK, try listening to this:

https://www.zompist.com/whodidit.wav

(It's me saying "Who did it? I didn't do it.")

As for sandhi, you could get my India book. Or go right to the granddaddy of Sanskrit studies, Whitney 1879.

[bradrn]

I think it’s fair to say that if I were to hear someone saying something like [ˈaːõʔ], I wouldn’t guess that they were saying I don't.

OK, try listening to this:

https://www.zompist.com/whodidit.wav

(It's me saying "Who did it? I didn't do it.")

Sounds something like [ɐĭ.n̩.du.ɪt] (rough transcription, I’m not too good at transcribing from audio), and yet I can understand it just fine. So consider that sentence disproven then. (Although maybe that’s just because I have the same reduction.)

(Oh, and by the way, white on blue is surprisingly easy to read — consider using #E1EBF2 next time.)

As for sandhi, you could get my India book. Or go right to the granddaddy of Sanskrit studies, Whitney 1879.

A book from 1879 isn’t terribly easy to read, but luckily the Grammar Pile has lots of Sanskrit grammars, with Bucknell’s Sanskrit Manual having a particularly nice treatment of sandhi. But, reading through it, I’m not sure I agree with your earlier characterisation that deletion of reduced vowels is ‘exactly what sandhi does in Sanskrit’ — it looks like sandhi does a whole lot more than just that.

[zompist]

Of course it does, that's why I said "among other things". But vowel reduction, as in "I am" > "I'm", is one of the things covered by sandhi. There are plenty of Sanskrit examples.

[bradrn]

Of course it does, that's why I said "among other things". But vowel reduction, as in "I am" > "I'm", is one of the things covered by sandhi. There are plenty of Sanskrit examples.

Oh, sorry — I didn’t notice you said “among other things”! And yes, I agreed that sandhi covers vowel reduction.

[bradrn]

It appears that I will have to repost this question a third time to get an answer:

I’ve been reading Li and Thompson’s 1976 article about subject-prominent and topic-prominent languages. In it, they distinguish four types of language:

According to our study, there are four basic types of languages: (i) languages that are subject-prominent … (ii) languages that are topic-prominent; (iii) languages that are both subject-prominent and topic-prominent; (iv) languages that are neither subject-prominent nor topic-prominent.

In the article, they discuss types (i) and (ii) quite extensively. However, they don’t seem to comment on how languages of type (iii) or (iv) work. Does anyone have any more information on this?

[Linguoboy]

It appears that I will have to repost this question a third time to get an answer:

And if you strike out, please don't take a fourth swing.

[bradrn]

It appears that I will have to repost this question a third time to get an answer:

And if you strike out, please don't take a fourth swing.

I’m afraid I don’t understand baseball talk, sorry. (We don’t have much baseball here in Australia.)

[KathTheDragon]

It means, "if you still don't get an answer, don't keep trying"

[bradrn]

It means, "if you still don't get an answer, don't keep trying"

It’s just that I asked a bunch of questions at the same time, and only a few of the questions were being answered at a time, which lead to all the other questions being buried under the ensuing discussion. Now that I’m down to only one unanswered question, hopefully there won’t be any discussion for it to be buried under, and I won’t need to ask it again!

[aporaporimos]

For me, the furthest I reduce probably is [ˈpʰɻʷɔbli].

In addition to the very conservative [ˈpʰʁɑːbəːbɰi(ː)], there's also [ˈpʰʁɑːɤ̯iː] and [pʰʁɑːi̯] here.

That’s true — now that you mention it, I will occasionally say [ˈpʰɻʷɔɫi]. But I have no analogue to your [pʰʁɑːi̯].

The [ˈpʰɻʷɔɫi] pronunciation is established enough that it has a written form prolly—I saw it just now in an online chat.

[Linguoboy]

A friend of mine insists that proy better reflects what she hears most often, but she can almost never get anyone to acknowledge that this is what they're actually saying.

[bradrn]

A friend of mine insists that proy better reflects what she hears most often, but she can almost never get anyone to acknowledge that this is what they're actually saying.

That sounds like it corresponds to Travis’s [pʰʁɑːi̯] realisation.

[Travis B.]

A friend of mine insists that proy better reflects what she hears most often, but she can almost never get anyone to acknowledge that this is what they're actually saying.

There are a lot of pronunciations which are practically standard here, yet which I have never heard anyone acknowledge (even though I have never heard anyone deny them either), such as [ˈsɛːʁˌde(ː)] and [ˈtʰwʌ̃ːĩ̯].

[bradrn]

A friend of mine insists that proy better reflects what she hears most often, but she can almost never get anyone to acknowledge that this is what they're actually saying.

There are a lot of pronunciations which are practically standard here, yet which I have never heard anyone acknowledge (even though I have never heard anyone deny them either), such as [ˈsɛːʁˌde(ː)] and [ˈtʰwʌ̃ːĩ̯].

Let me guess: Saturday and twine?

[Travis B.]

A friend of mine insists that proy better reflects what she hears most often, but she can almost never get anyone to acknowledge that this is what they're actually saying.

There are a lot of pronunciations which are practically standard here, yet which I have never heard anyone acknowledge (even though I have never heard anyone deny them either), such as [ˈsɛːʁˌde(ː)] and [ˈtʰwʌ̃ːĩ̯].

Let me guess: Saturday and twine?

More: show

They are Saturday and twenty. Twine is just [ˈtʰwã(ː)ẽ̯n].

[bradrn]

There are a lot of pronunciations which are practically standard here, yet which I have never heard anyone acknowledge (even though I have never heard anyone deny them either), such as [ˈsɛːʁˌde(ː)] and [ˈtʰwʌ̃ːĩ̯].

Let me guess: Saturday and twine?

More: show

They are Saturday and twenty. Twine is just [ˈtʰwã(ː)ẽ̯n].

Oh, of course — that makes much more sense. (I think it would have been easier to guess if I had heard it in context.)