Linguistic Miscellany Thread

[Pedant]

This seems to be the best place for this…
Has anyone heard anything about the writing system called Ndélélé? Used, appropriately enough, by the Ndebele people in Africa, and taking traditional pictorial representations and styles and turning them into a script. I have literally found only two sources for this; a single article about new African scripts, and a NativLang video. It seems like one heck of an idea (colour symbolism appears to be part of the writing), but again, not much more than a paragraph of information and none of it particularly analytical.
In a nutshell: anyone know where to go for further research?

[Pabappa]

I think Ive heard of what youre talking about, and that it didnt succeed because it just wasnt practical to require the use of color to write ordinary texts. imagine needing six pens and having to switch between one and another every time you write a new word. it would make a nice ornate script, but not a good means of daily communication.

Ndelele might just be a typo for Ndebele. Im not sure that's actually the name of the script. Though it's possible we're thinking of two different things. For example, there is a script called https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ditema_tsa_Dinoko used in the same area of Africa that may in fact be what youre thinking of, but the color is ornamental only. Quite an interesting script even so, though.

[Pedant]

I think Ive heard of what youre talking about, and that it didnt succeed because it just wasnt practical to require the use of color to write ordinary texts. imagine needing six pens and having to switch between one and another every time you write a new word. it would make a nice ornate script, but not a good means of daily communication.

Ndelele might just be a typo for Ndebele. Im not sure that's actually the name of the script. Though it's possible we're thinking of two different things. For example, there is a script called https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ditema_tsa_Dinoko used in the same area of Africa that may in fact be what youre thinking of, but the color is ornamental only. Quite an interesting script even so, though.

Bellissimo, Pabappa, this is exactly it! Thanks so much!

[bradrn]

Does anyone know of any polysynthetic languages in which the verb cross-references the indirect object? With — and this is important — a good grammar, please!

(Context: for Qwynegold’s conlang challenge I’m making a polysynthetic language, and for inspiration I want to see how natlangs do cross-referencing of indirect objects. Yet unaccountably I cannot find anything on this. If I haven’t stumbled upon yet another language which doesn’t mark person at all (there’s a surprisingly large number of them), or only marks S/A/O, or has no ditransitives in the first place, I’m reading a terrible grammar which, despite the fact that, look, there’s an example right there with three arguments!, unaccountably fails to say what the agreement affixes are exactly, or where they’re placed in the verb, or, if I’m really lucky, won’t even mention the existence of ditransitive verbs at all… I feel like I’m going insane here, please help!!)

[Vijay]

Nahuatl?

[zompist]

Is it important that it be polysynthetic? Cos if not, then Sumerian. Up to four indirect arguments can be marked on the verb.

[Ares Land]

Does anyone know of any polysynthetic languages in which the verb cross-references the indirect object? With — and this is important — a good grammar, please!

Nahuatl?

Yup. You'll have no problem finding a good grammar for Nahuatl, but my favourite is Launey's An introduction to Classical Nahuatl.

As it happens, a good-sized chunk of the relevant chapter is accessible on Google Books: https://books.google.fr/books?id=NvThNb ... ve&f=false

Though I'd avise getting a book on Nahuatl if you can. It's by far the best model for learning about polysynthetic languages: it's probably the best documented of these and it's really no harder than Spanish. (Well, it is a lot harder than Spanish, but that's only because you don't get much of a chance to practice.)

[bradrn]

Does anyone know of any polysynthetic languages in which the verb cross-references the indirect object? With — and this is important — a good grammar, please!

Nahuatl?

Yup. You'll have no problem finding a good grammar for Nahuatl, but my favourite is Launey's An introduction to Classical Nahuatl.

I have access to a copy already. I tried looking through it quickly but I couldn’t find anything about indirect object cross-reference; could you give me a page number please?

(Also, I’m not sure I consider Nahuatl either approachable or polysynthetic. Mattissen (2004) defines it as a ‘compositionally polysynthetic’ language where polysynthesis is mostly by squooshing noun and verb roots together in one word, but I think those are different enough from the more stereotypical ‘affixal polysynthetic’ languages that they shouldn’t be lumped in together. And I’d say that Yimas is much more approachable than Nahuatl in this regard, at least if you ignore the crazy verbal person marking. Yimas, as it happens, does have indirect object marking, but its person and number cross-referencing is crazy enough that I’ve been avoiding it…)

EDIT: Actually, I think I’ve found the relevant section, but if I’m reading it correctly it looks like the verb can only agree with one object at a time. Sorry, I should have specified I’m looking for a language which can agree with three arguments at once.

Is it important that it be polysynthetic? Cos if not, then Sumerian. Up to four indirect arguments can be marked on the verb.

Not terribly important, but I’ve noticed polysynthetic languages tend to do interesting things with affix ordering and suchlike which non-polysynthetic languages tend to avoid. (The notable exceptions here are the languages of southern New Guinea, which have some very interesting morphology in spite of being non-polysynthetic.) I’ll look at Sumerian though.

(By the way, indexing more than four arguments on the verb must make Sumerian practically unique, since I’ve heard that Abaza is the only other language which can do that, and even then only in elicitation…)

[Ares Land]

EDIT: Actually, I think I’ve found the relevant section, but if I’m reading it correctly it looks like the verb can only agree with one object at a time. Sorry, I should have specified I’m looking for a description of a language which can agree with three arguments at once.

Oh, good! - Just in case, I was thinking of lesson eighteen.

Nahuatl verbs can agree with three arguments, as long as either the direct, the indirect object or both are definite:

ni-te-tla-maca

1-ANIM-INAN-give

'I give something to someone'.

ni-c-tla-maca in no-cni-uh

1-DEF.ANIM-INAN-give DEF my-friend-POSS

'I give something to my friend.'

You can't mark two definite objects on the verb, though:

qui-maca-h in octli

DEF.ANIM-give-PL DEF pulque

'They give him pulque' (in octli isn't referenced on the verb)

Though of course that might not be quite what you're looking for!

(FWIW: in my own dabblings with polysynthesis, I decided against indirect object marking, precisely because glancing through several grammars it looked like polypersonal languages tend to do without. )

[bradrn]

EDIT: Actually, I think I’ve found the relevant section, but if I’m reading it correctly it looks like the verb can only agree with one object at a time. Sorry, I should have specified I’m looking for a description of a language which can agree with three arguments at once.

Oh, good! - Just in case, I was thinking of lesson eighteen.

Nahuatl verbs can agree with three arguments, as long as either the direct, the indirect object or both are definite…

[I’m assuming you meant indefinite here.]

This is a pretty interesting system, actually. I won’t use it for this one, but perhaps I’ll use something similar for my next conlang.

In fact, the more I think about it, the more I realise that this is a very interesting system indeed, because it sort of wreaks havoc with the animacy hierarchy. Looking through Launey, the hierarchy clearly plays some role, because the deleted object affix is lowest on the hierarchy 1>2>3DEF. But indefinite objects, which should be at the very bottom of the hierarchy, are not deleted at all. And in fact I’m not quite sure why differential object marking should depend on animacy in the first place. I’ll have to think and/or read some more about this.

[Rounin Ryuuji]

I'm going to be curious to see this language once it has some substance to it.

[bradrn]

I'm going to be curious to see this language once it has some substance to it.

The conlang challenge one? Here’s about as much as I have worked out at the moment:

sēicənāwət
/ˈseːicəˌnaːwət/
|ɨʷ-tə-e-icə-nə-awət|
3NSG.O-2SG.A-NPL.O-CAUS-MID-wash

You make those two wash


tɨthaꞵimpūni
/tɨˈɹaβiˌmpuːni/
|tɨ-tə-ꞵiⁿ-puni|
1NSG.O-2SG.A-PL.O-see

You see us


(Key: |ⁿ|=nasal mutation, |ʷ|=weak mutation, NSG=nonsingular, NPL=nonplural, MID=middle)

[Rounin Ryuuji]

My, that's intimidating.

[Otto Kretschmer]

What exactly are the origins of Middle English?

In particular how did it become so distinctly different from Old English in terms of vocabulary? Was it because of native French speakers learning English and using a lot of French words, native English speakers picking up French vocabulary from their overlords or something else altogether?

What region is the official standard based on?

[alice]

Have you read this yet?

[bradrn]

A novel instance of linguistic crackpottery: behold Santhali, the Base of World Languages! Yes, this book claims that Santhali (the Munda language), of all things, is the wellspring from whence all languages have, well, sprung. Amazingly, I managed to find a copy online, and indeed it has truly indisputable evidence that Kol (as the author calls it) is at the root of all things:

(p3) Now let us compare some African language words to judge that both the groups of languages originated from same root. These African languages are Tumbuka—Bemba and Sona of Rodesia, Africa.

Word	Kol	Tubmuka	Bemba	Sona
I	Iń	Inini	Inini	Ini
Human-being	Manwa	Mawnalumme	Umwomme	Murumme
Woman	Mangjhian	Maonakajhi	Umwakasi	Mukadjhi
Two	Bar	Wabili	Babili	Wabiri
Four	Pon	Wanai	Bane	Wana
Treatment	Kukar	Kurofiwa	Ukundapwa	Kurapiwa
Small tree	Chaili	Chikhuni	Cimuti	Cimuti
Jungle	Mundu	Muthundu	—	—
Fruit	Bafa	Visepo	—	—
Sun	Suruj	Jhuwa	Akasuba	Jhuwa

So this indicates that the Negritś language has deep relation with Kol language. …

(p4) That the speech language of the mediterranean race was from the same Kol language words, may be seen from the meaning of Hittet script inscriptions of 1500 B.C. from Mesopotamia and Babylon as deciphered below :—

… (c) Babylo̱n=To impose contribution on traders.
[Bab=To impose, to demand + ik>i=Suffix + Lo̱nbo̱n>lo̱n=A trader.]
(d) Mitanni=Who controls law completely.
[Mit́=Entire one. + an=Law. + ni=That particular. (animate)] …

(p5) … we are not supplied with any such information from the Anthropological findings, about the place of origin of human being of the world. In order to find out the place of origin of human being, let us place below two place names, and meaning according to Kol Words, which will help to determine the place of inception of man-kind and also the reason as to how they spread throughout the world since pre-historic period.

(a) German=The original human being.
[Jaṛ=Original, unvernished. + Manwa>Man=Human-being.]
(b) Perasya=Yes, to set agoing. [Parsao=To set agoing. + ho̱>yo̱=Yes, also.]
(c) The actual meaning of the word Kol is, Kol=To send.

It shows that this tribal race was named as Kol because they were sent to different countries of the world systemetically through Persia, who set them agoing since pre-historic days and the inception of human being was somewhere in Germany, where the language of all people was one only This movement of people, since pre-historic period was perhaps done due to increase of population. …

(p7) In support of such our findings let some place names as deciphered with the help of Kol words be placed below—

(a) England=Motherland [Enga=Mother + lodam>land=A plain land on the base of hill.]
(b) France=An attempt to increase food. [Far>Fra=To increase + o̱n=Food. + cesṭa>ce=To attempt, apply oneself to. (Faro̱ncesṭa>France.)]
(c) Itali=To try to be satisfied. [Etec>Ito̱=To try. + ali=To be satisfied.] …

(p8) It has been stated before that the linguists found similarity of words amongst different languages of the world and they came to the conclusion that these languages have been rooted from some common tribal language. But they failed to identify that particular tribal language and they had to set some imaginary form of tribal language as root words of various languages. On this matter let us place below a few Kol words which may be considered as root words, showing the common source words of the developed languages.

… (c) Kol—Bo̱ńga, Hittet—Bongo, Kesait—Bugas, Slav—Bogu, Skt—Bho̱go̱, Eng—Bo̱nga+do̱=Particle>Bo̱ngado̱>Gad,>God, Lat—Deus …

(p24) With the advancement of civilization, the modification of language was felt necessary. This Kol language was modified in different countries, and in different manners. Each improved language modified Phonetics and created hybrid words and also the system of use, and regulated the language with grammar, according to their own Genius. The phonetics of the Kol language cannot be expressed properly with the help of alphabets only ; as the language has its own peculiarities of expression.

(All typos carefully preserved from the original.)

Indeed, truly astounding evidence that Santhali is the base of all world languages! On the scale of linguistic crackpottery as set out by our very own WeepingElf, I’d rate this at ~1.5 nl (Nylands), on the basis that not only does he use the same methodology as Nyland, he chooses a completely ridiculous language to apply it to. (Basque is at least a respectable target for insane proposals. A well-known language from a well-established family… not so much.)

[dɮ the phoneme]

Guy on another website claims he can understand a significant portion of Korean due to speaking Japanese, which I find... somewhat hard to believe, but maybe not impossible? He also insists the two languages are related as evidenced by "primal Japanese verbs untouched by standardization", which I'm not going to touch. I think he works in something diplomacy related, so I can imagine in his specific field there might be enough Sinitic + Western loans to parse certain things out. Anyway, can anyone who's a more fluent speaker of Japanese than I confirm or deny the plausibility of this?

[Linguoboy]

Guy on another website claims he can understand a significant portion of Korean due to speaking Japanese, which I find... somewhat hard to believe, but maybe not impossible?

Seems like nonsense to me. Yeah, there’s a lot of overlap in Sinitic vocabulary but the pronunciation is significantly different. There’s no real overlap in native vocabulary at all (except for chance resemblances like が and 가). My knowledge of Korean is of essentially no use in trying to parse spoken Japanese and the Japanese-speakers I know can’t understand spoken Korean at all unless they’ve actually studied it.

[Rounin Ryuuji]

If you know the sound changes, you can probably usually predict the pronunciation of a Sino-Japanese word from a Sino-Korean one, but Japanese had quite a few phonological processes that made for a greater number of homophonous forms, and there isn't anything, to my knowledge, to tell you which Japanese ei and ō are borrowed from forms that ended in the velar nasal of Middle Chinese, or which -n were originally -m (the same thing seems to have happened to Mandarin, such that Sino-Korean "three" is still sam, but it's usually san in Japanese — sabu in the given name Saburō, however — compare with Mandarin sān) without looking up the etymology or having knowledge of some Sinitic language.

[linguistcat]

I mean, there are still people who try to group them as part of a family, but pretty much anyone who is serious about East Asian linguistics thinks those folks are crackpots. There might have been some borrowing in Old Japanese (especially of Sinitic words) from Korean, and more recently, some words from Japanese were pushed into Korean due to Japanese occupation during WW2. But as far as I know, they aren't related or if they are, not closely. Like we'd have to go deeper in time than we could reasonably expect to reconstruct. There have been words borrowed between the two languages but no genetic link.