Zompist Bboard Again

Kuchigakatai wrote: ↑Mon Jul 18, 2022 3:33 am Personally I've been surprised by how much Latin uses ordinal numbers... For example, you know how "AD" stands for annō dominī 'in the year of the LORD'? The number that follows that is ordinal: AD 2022 = annō dominī bis mīllēsimō vīcēsimō secundō.

Kuchigakatai wrote: ↑Mon Jul 18, 2022 3:33 am

keenir wrote: ↑Mon Jul 18, 2022 3:04 amThat makes me wonder if the reverse(ish) exists somewhere: other than English, are there languages which replace a number with an...___? (the word escapes me; sorry)

ie, Bob put one cup of sugar in the bread mix. Tom is going to make double bagels. instead of Tom is going to make two bagels. Is this mostly pragmatics?

Yes, i know about dual-wielding, where someone has a weapon in each of their two arms...so its kiiiinda like it, particularly since there is also two-fisted drinking, with a beverage in each hand. (edit: adds "other than English" to initial question)

Does this make sense?

I think you meant to ask if there are languages that use non-cardinal numbers (e.g. multiplicative numbers, other derived numbers) in rather surprisingly "basic" ways where cardinal numbers are usually used in English?

Moose-tache wrote: ↑Mon Jul 18, 2022 1:30 am Five minutes of observation would give you the ability to perfectly distinguish Japanese or Korean surnames and given names

Linguoboy wrote: ↑Mon Jul 18, 2022 11:46 am

Moose-tache wrote: ↑Mon Jul 18, 2022 1:30 am Five minutes of observation would give you the ability to perfectly distinguish Japanese or Korean surnames and given names

Hard disagree. Which part of the South Korean actor Ha Jun's name is surname and which part is his given name? What about Gong Yoo and Ji Sung? Or the musician Jae Chong?

It definitely helps that the store of common Korean surnames is small and that Japanese given names tend to follow a few very common patterns, but learning these is anything but foolproof and takes well more than five minutes.

Moose-tache wrote: ↑Mon Jul 18, 2022 11:27 pm ~~For Good Peninsula~~
Which name is two syllables? That's the given name. That's already 95% of the way there, as the monosyllabic given names are rare. But if you do encounter one, just find the name that's not one of the dozen or so surnames. A majority of the time, that just means finding the name that's not Gim, Bak, or I. Sure, you might occasionally run into a name like "San San," but on the other hand, no. No, you won't ever do that.

~~For Bad Island~~
This one's even easier. Is one name more than three syllables? That's the surname. Is one of them less than two syllables? That's the given name. If both names are two or three syllables each, the surname is the one that sounds like a a set of Lincoln Logs falling down the stairs, and the given name is the one with vowels that go on holiday and come back two weeks later with souvenirs. Again, there may be exceptions, but there won't be, so don't worry about it.

bradrn wrote: ↑Tue Jul 19, 2022 12:29 am This helps with none of the names Linguoboy mentioned, unless of course you happen to have the 8-page-long List of Korean Surnames on hand.

counterexamples: [random noises]

Moose-tache wrote: ↑Tue Jul 19, 2022 1:38 am

bradrn wrote: ↑Tue Jul 19, 2022 12:29 am This helps with none of the names Linguoboy mentioned, unless of course you happen to have the 8-page-long List of Korean Surnames on hand.

You don't have to memorize all fifty states to know American geography, because most of them are superfluous.

counterexamples: [random noises]

This just proves that Japanese was a mistake.

It's still pretty easy to tell what is the given name, because it will appear first on Japanese biography pages.

Moose-tache wrote: ↑Mon Jul 18, 2022 11:27 pmI thought it was assumed that when I said "five minutes" I meant "a short period of time." Just out of curiosity, when people say "I'll be there in a couple of minutes," and they arrive in any amount of time smaller or larger than 120.0 seconds, are you this pedantic?

Moose-tache wrote:Sure, you might occasionally run into a name like "San San," but on the other hand, no. No, you won't ever do that.

Moose-tache wrote:This one's even easier.

Ares Land wrote: ↑Tue Jul 19, 2022 2:24 amOr don't have surnames at all: in a library, do you sort Arnaldur Indridason with the I's or the A's? (There's probably no good answer to that question!)

Kuchigakatai wrote: ↑Tue Jul 19, 2022 3:53 pm "Kant can't"

US: /kɑnt kænt/
UK: /kænt kɑːnt/

Linguoboy wrote: ↑Tue Jul 19, 2022 12:03 pm It's really in commercial bookstores where anything goes. I learned pretty early on that I needed to look for Asian authors under both surname and given name in alphabetical shelving.

Moose-tache wrote: ↑Wed Jul 20, 2022 7:39 pm

Linguoboy wrote: ↑Tue Jul 19, 2022 12:03 pm It's really in commercial bookstores where anything goes. I learned pretty early on that I needed to look for Asian authors under both surname and given name in alphabetical shelving.

Lord, we are in agreement on this point. Of course, "put the book back anywhere you feel like it and walk away" seems to be the rule for customers at book stores, so I don't know if it's entirely the fault of thoughtless employees.

Linguoboy wrote: ↑Thu Jul 21, 2022 4:28 pm

Moose-tache wrote: ↑Wed Jul 20, 2022 7:39 pm

Linguoboy wrote: ↑Tue Jul 19, 2022 12:03 pm It's really in commercial bookstores where anything goes. I learned pretty early on that I needed to look for Asian authors under both surname and given name in alphabetical shelving.

Lord, we are in agreement on this point. Of course, "put the book back anywhere you feel like it and walk away" seems to be the rule for customers at book stores, so I don't know if it's entirely the fault of thoughtless employees.

I doubt it's customers who are taking a copy of Romance of the Three Kingdoms from out of the Ls and sticking it in the Gs. I think it's much more likely a harried employee who can't be arsed to open the cover and check the CIP data found within every contemporary publication from a major publisher to ensure that they've correctly identified the author's surname. In some cases, though, it may be the customers' fault insofar as employees got tired of being asked about a title that was properly filed and decided to file it where the majority of their customers were looking instead.

Related is having to look for Hispanophone authors under both their paternal and maternal surnames. (I was pleased to walk in a bookstore today and find García Márquez correctly alphabetised under G. But both the owners used to work in my library.)

Moose-tache wrote: ↑Thu Jul 21, 2022 4:43 pm Meanwhile, in the circle of Hell being prepared for linguoboy's arrival:
"Pedro Antonio de Alarcon? Guess it works like "Van Hoffman" or whatever. This goes under D."

zompist wrote: ↑Tue Jul 12, 2022 5:41 pm
This is a little speculative, but I'd venture that a major factor was the Assyrian and then Babylonian conquest of Syria and Palestine. They needed an administrative language, and Aramaic must have been useful for that.

Ares Land wrote: ↑Sat Jul 23, 2022 8:59 am I read a lot on Aramaic lately -- it seems to be my new unhealthy obsession

Ares Land wrote: ↑Sat Jul 23, 2022 8:59 am

zompist wrote: ↑Tue Jul 12, 2022 5:41 pm
This is a little speculative, but I'd venture that a major factor was the Assyrian and then Babylonian conquest of Syria and Palestine. They needed an administrative language, and Aramaic must have been useful for that.

I read a lot on Aramaic lately -- it seems to be my new unhealthy obsession

Holger Gzella confirms exactly what you say; the determining factor was the Assyrian context. Some other interesting factors: you can use the alphabet even if you're illiterate or semi-literate. Apparently construction workers used the alphabet -- marking that A goes with B, or rather aleph with beth, that sort of thing. You can't do that with cuneiform.
The big determiner is bureaucracy. The Arameans had figured out all sorts of set formulas to be readily used for treaties, or taxation; the Assyrians followed suit, but they didn't want to go to the trouble of translating everything for each conquest. The Babylonians, and after that the Persians just kept on using the same bureaucratic language.
Imperfect literacy comes up again: when you use very formulaic language, neither your subjects nor your local bureaucrats need to read very well to handle the taxes.

One conclusion is that world conquerors want everyone to use a single language, for administrative reasons, but don't really care what language it is. (The Persians took over the existing bureaucracy and they were very happy to run the empire in Aramaic, for instance. It never occured to them to use Persian for the paperwork.)

The bad news: now I want to redo major bits of my conworld's history to incorporate these ideas.

On mutual intelligibility, there's another cute story. At one point the Assyrians besieges Jerusalem; Hezekiah gets rids of them by paying tribute. Sennacherib's envoy says okay, but he wants to announce this publicly before the defenders of Jerusalem. Hezekiah asks the envoy to make the annoucement in Aramaic, which the elites in Jerusalem elite understand -- but not the defenders. (That's public relations, I suppose; Hezekiah doesn't want his people to know that they've been humiliated, and that besides their tax money is going to the Assyrians)

The envoy then announces to everyone that Hezekiah paid him off to go away... in Hebrew.

So evidently a) evidently, in the 7th century BC, Aramaic and Hebrew weren't mutually intelligible b) the Assyrians were assholes.

Ares Land wrote: ↑Sat Jul 23, 2022 8:59 am Holger Gzella confirms exactly what you say; the determining factor was the Assyrian context. Some other interesting factors: you can use the alphabet even if you're illiterate or semi-literate. Apparently construction workers used the alphabet -- marking that A goes with B, or rather aleph with beth, that sort of thing. You can't do that with cuneiform.
The big determiner is bureaucracy. The Arameans had figured out all sorts of set formulas to be readily used for treaties, or taxation; the Assyrians followed suit, but they didn't want to go to the trouble of translating everything for each conquest. The Babylonians, and after that the Persians just kept on using the same bureaucratic language.
Imperfect literacy comes up again: when you use very formulaic language, neither your subjects nor your local bureaucrats need to read very well to handle the taxes.