Zompist Bboard Again

bradrn wrote: ↑Mon Sep 06, 2021 8:21 am R.M.W. Dixon has analysed Dyirbal like this, given that the voiced stops seem to be far more common than their voiceless allophones. But it’s really just a matter of phonemic analysis; I think most mainstream phonologists would analyse Dyirbal with /p t c k/, for no reason other than a principle that voiceless stops are less marked than voiced stops.

That seems like quite a trivial reason, especially when native speakers do recognize the voicing difference and reject the fully unvoiced versions. At least the orthography does justice to the preference of the native speakers I guess..

Raholeun wrote: ↑Mon Sep 06, 2021 9:30 am

bradrn wrote: ↑Mon Sep 06, 2021 8:21 am R.M.W. Dixon has analysed Dyirbal like this, given that the voiced stops seem to be far more common than their voiceless allophones. But it’s really just a matter of phonemic analysis; I think most mainstream phonologists would analyse Dyirbal with /p t c k/, for no reason other than a principle that voiceless stops are less marked than voiced stops.

That seems like quite a trivial reason, especially when native speakers do recognize the voicing difference and reject the fully unvoiced versions. At least the orthography does justice to the preference of the native speakers I guess..

When did I say they reject fully unvoiced stops? As far as I’m aware, native Dyirbal speakers accept voiced and unvoiced allophones equally, and it’s basically a matter of judgement which series is to be taken as basic.

You did not say anything of the sort, I was arrogantly assuming it to be the case

Did Proto Norse keep the strong initial stres of Proto Germanic?

Otto Kretschmer wrote: ↑Wed Sep 08, 2021 10:49 am Did Proto Norse keep the strong initial stres of Proto Germanic?

AFAIK, yes.

WeepingElf wrote: ↑Wed Sep 08, 2021 12:10 pm

Otto Kretschmer wrote: ↑Wed Sep 08, 2021 10:49 am Did Proto Norse keep the strong initial stres of Proto Germanic?

AFAIK, yes.

Was it the reason behind phonological changes between Proto Norse and Old Norse?

Otto Kretschmer wrote: ↑Wed Sep 08, 2021 12:52 pm

WeepingElf wrote: ↑Wed Sep 08, 2021 12:10 pm

Otto Kretschmer wrote: ↑Wed Sep 08, 2021 10:49 am Did Proto Norse keep the strong initial stres of Proto Germanic?

AFAIK, yes.

Was it the reason behind phonological changes between Proto Norse and Old Norse?

Note that reduction and elision of unstressed syllables has been found throughout all of Germanic for practically the last 1500 years.

Travis B. wrote: ↑Wed Sep 08, 2021 1:13 pm

Otto Kretschmer wrote: ↑Wed Sep 08, 2021 12:52 pm

WeepingElf wrote: ↑Wed Sep 08, 2021 12:10 pm

AFAIK, yes.

Was it the reason behind phonological changes between Proto Norse and Old Norse?

Note that reduction and elision of unstressed syllables has been found throughout all of Germanic for practically the last 1500 years.

l
Did the daughter languages keep the strong initial stress for long after the Proto Germanic period has passed?

Otto Kretschmer wrote: ↑Wed Sep 08, 2021 2:23 pm

Travis B. wrote: ↑Wed Sep 08, 2021 1:13 pm

Otto Kretschmer wrote: ↑Wed Sep 08, 2021 12:52 pm
Was it the reason behind phonological changes between Proto Norse and Old Norse?

Note that reduction and elision of unstressed syllables has been found throughout all of Germanic for practically the last 1500 years.

l
Did the daughter languages keep the strong initial stress for long after the Proto Germanic period has passed?

Native vocabulary throughout Germanic has tended to maintain strong root-initial stress; however, loans, particularly from Romance, Latin, and Greek, much of the time have their own stress patterns. (Note however, though, that English has things such as nouns which have initial stress paired with verbs with non-initial stress.)

Travis B. wrote: ↑Wed Sep 08, 2021 2:33 pm Native vocabulary throughout Germanic has tended to maintain strong root-initial stress; however, loans, particularly from Romance, Latin, and Greek, much of the time have their own stress patterns. (Note however, though, that English has things such as nouns which have initial stress paired with verbs with non-initial stress.)

German words (except for loans) have either root-initial or word-initial stress. All word classes except verbs have word-initial stress by default, while verbs have root-initial stress by default, with the following exceptions:
- Most verbal nouns*), the agent nouns in -er, and participles that are derived from verbs with root-initial stress keep it (e.g. übersétzen "translate" -> Übersétzung "translation", übersétzt "translated").
- Nominal compounds are stressed on the second element in some parts of Germany (Standard German 'Bürgermeister, regionally Bürger'meister "mayor").
- Verbs with inseparable prefixes are stressed on the root, while verbs with separable prefixes are stressed on the prefix in the unseparated forms:
übersétzen "translate" - ich übersétze "I translate"
'übersetzen "to ferry across, to transport across a waterway; to cross a waterway" - ich sétze über "I ferry across"


*) Those that are identical to the infinitive and those in -ung.

It just occurrd to me to use humen as a plural of human

Otto Kretschmer wrote: ↑Thu Sep 09, 2021 3:18 pm It just occurrd to me to use humen as a plural of human

That's silly, because human is etymologically unconnected to man.

WeepingElf wrote: ↑Thu Sep 09, 2021 3:34 pm

Otto Kretschmer wrote: ↑Thu Sep 09, 2021 3:18 pm It just occurrd to me to use humen as a plural of human

That's silly

Agreed. It should be himen.

WeepingElf wrote:because human is etymologically unconnected to man.

You're quite right. No actual speakers of a natural language would alter morphology on the basis of this sort of confusion.

(Sag mal: Was ist denn die Mehrzahl von "Armbrust"? Sicher "Armbrusten", oder?)

Dr. Jackson Crawford pronounces words like what, why, which with hw-. Is it still common?

It's most common in older speakers, but some regional accents (typically rural ones) can preserve it.

It may also be an affectation. Very correct "schoolteacher" English, in my experience, often maintains the distinction artificially, and rather exaggeratedly.

Linguoboy wrote: ↑Thu Sep 09, 2021 4:09 pm

WeepingElf wrote: ↑Thu Sep 09, 2021 3:34 pm

Otto Kretschmer wrote: ↑Thu Sep 09, 2021 3:18 pm It just occurrd to me to use humen as a plural of human

That's silly

Agreed. It should be himen.

And then things would come to their logical conclusion with himen and hymen being reinterpreted as the same word.

Depends on whether himen is a homophone of hymen, or if it rhymes with women.

How is pitch accent indicated in IPA?

Depends. In phonological or broad transcription, most people use the high tone mark on the accented syllable, IINM. Depending on the analysis, some people also use full blown tone marks on all syllables, the primary stress mark before the accented syllable or the downstep symbol after the accented.
In narrow or phonetic transcription, full blown tonal marking on every syllable makes sense, IMHO.

Otto Kretschmer wrote: ↑Thu Sep 09, 2021 5:47 pm How is pitch accent indicated in IPA?

IIRC, for Swedish people use either acute/grave accent on the stressed syllable, or they precede the word with ¹/². For Japanese people often use the downstep symbol after the accented syllable. There are many alternative ways.