Zompist Bboard Again

Linguoboy wrote: ↑Thu Feb 16, 2023 10:14 am

Travis B. wrote: ↑Fri Feb 10, 2023 11:28 am

Zju wrote: ↑Fri Feb 10, 2023 9:17 am Old English: We've already had ai → aː
Colloquial spoken NAE: We've had one, yes. What about second ai → aː?

At least in the English I'm personally familiar with it's not that simple - it's a following /oʊ/ or /l/ which triggers /aɪ/ > [a(ː)] (you can also see this in I'll, file, mile, while, etc.). However, there are NAE varieties with more general /aɪ/ > [a(ː)].

IMD before /r/ as well, at least in its broadest form (which tends to be more Merlinese). Smoothing in all positions is a marked Deep South/AAVE feature.

/r/ after historical /aɪ/ without an intervening historical /ə/ triggers raising IMD, from historical to /aɪ/ to [əe̯]. (Strictly speaking I would consider unraised and raised /aɪ/ to be separate phonemes IMD, which I would synchronically consider to be /ae/ and /əe/, but that is another story.)

Honestly, I'm just waiting for Travis to tell us his version of English has clicks and a six-way animacy hierarchy.

Could we create a natural-sounding English equivalent for ombudsman?

Here's the etymology. In short "commission's person", from Old Norse umboð 'command' (but ombod = 'representative' in Swedish).

Umboð is itself a compound, going back to PIE *ambhi- 'around' + *bheudh- 'aware'.

Looking around the English cognates, I think a case can be made for bybeadleman or bebodeman. Or bebidman.

(This is just for fun, of course. If dictionary makers actually listened to me, I'd be pushing a respelling of ginkgo.)

zompist wrote: ↑Thu Feb 16, 2023 5:44 pm (This is just for fun, of course. If dictionary makers actually listened to me, I'd be pushing a respelling of ginkgo.)

To ginnan, perhaps?

zompist wrote: ↑Thu Feb 16, 2023 5:44 pm Could we create a natural-sounding English equivalent for ombudsman?

Here's the etymology. In short "commission's person", from Old Norse umboð 'command' (but ombod = 'representative' in Swedish).

Umboð is itself a compound, going back to PIE *ambhi- 'around' + *bheudh- 'aware'.

Looking around the English cognates, I think a case can be made for bybeadleman or bebodeman. Or bebidman.

As for this, after some investigation I wonder if ambibeadle would work. Alas, that first part is Greek etymologically…

Moose-tache wrote: ↑Thu Feb 16, 2023 5:37 pm Honestly, I'm just waiting for Travis to tell us his version of English has clicks and a six-way animacy hierarchy.

My English really is not that odd at all - seriously - it's just that a lot of other people don't have a clue as to what is going on with theirs.

I've started noticing I do have some of the features discussed (especially some /ai/-smoothing before /l/), but Moose-Tache likes to state things in such an amusingly hyperbolic fashion I begin to believe she is a hyperbola.

My left and right sides are indeed getting farther apart, with no signs of converging in the future.

Maybe it's not Travis, but I remember there's someone who enters every one of those "how do you pronounce..." threads with some nonsensical formula for a pharyngeal implosive or a sound that can only be made underwater. I just assume they're lying.

As for "ginkgo," I agree this spelling makes no sense based on the correct pronunciation. The dictionaries should adopt the spelling: eunhaeng.

Moose-tache wrote: ↑Thu Feb 16, 2023 9:27 pm Maybe it's not Travis, but I remember there's someone who enters every one of those "how do you pronounce..." threads with some nonsensical formula for a pharyngeal implosive or a sound that can only be made underwater. I just assume they're lying.

Given that I’m pretty sure my /r/ is [ʕʷ] at least sometimes, it’s either Travis or me. Probably Travis though.

As for "ginkgo," I agree this spelling makes no sense based on the correct pronunciation. The dictionaries should adopt the spelling: eunhaeng.

Why Korean? If you’re going to use another language, you might as well go to the original country and call it yinguo (or whatever the Chongqing cognate is, for that matter).

It is a very odd way of spelling ginkyō, now isn't it?

Moose-tache wrote: ↑Thu Feb 16, 2023 9:27 pm Maybe it's not Travis, but I remember there's someone who enters every one of those "how do you pronounce..." threads with some nonsensical formula for a pharyngeal implosive or a sound that can only be made underwater. I just assume they're lying.

If you're alluding to my rhotic, there's nothing particularly strange about a pharngealized uvular approximant. It may not be typical for English, but it is what I have, and from listening to people here it isn't very unusual for here. I've only relatively recently taught myself to produce pure non-lateral alveolar and postalveolar approximants without at least some dorsal coarticulation, and they still don't always come out right (I find it hard to not make them at least a bit lateral).

Rounin Ryuuji wrote: ↑Thu Feb 16, 2023 11:36 pm It is a very odd way of spelling ginkyō, now isn't it?

In case you (or others) don’t know the crazy history of this word: the Chinese name is 銀杏, pronounced as gîn-hēng in Min Nan; this was phonetically borrowed into Japanese as 銀杏 ginnan. (Not necessarily from Min Nan, but that lect is closer to the Tang pronunciation than Mandarin is.) When Kaempfer became the first Westerner to investigate this plant, he misread the second character to give ginkyō, which in his transcription would be ginkjo. However, he wrote it down with a typo — whence comes ‘ginkgo’. So the word is a misspelling of a misreading of a 1000-year-old borrowing.

(And, to make matters worse, it would appear that the current Japanese word is ichō, borrowed from an entirely different Mandarin word 500 years ago, but spelt exactly the same way!)

bradrn wrote: ↑Fri Feb 17, 2023 12:12 am (And, to make matters worse, it would appear that the current Japanese word is ichō, borrowed from an entirely different Mandarin word 500 years ago, but spelt exactly the same way!)

According to my dictionary, ginnan is the nut, ichō is the tree.

zompist wrote: ↑Fri Feb 17, 2023 12:33 am

bradrn wrote: ↑Fri Feb 17, 2023 12:12 am (And, to make matters worse, it would appear that the current Japanese word is ichō, borrowed from an entirely different Mandarin word 500 years ago, but spelt exactly the same way!)

According to my dictionary, ginnan is the nut, ichō is the tree.

Ah, I did seem to recall that there was a semantic difference… thanks!

Travis B. wrote: ↑Thu Feb 16, 2023 11:43 pm

Moose-tache wrote: ↑Thu Feb 16, 2023 9:27 pmimplosive

approximant

I think I've isolated the problem: you can't read.

bradrn wrote: ↑Fri Feb 17, 2023 12:37 am

zompist wrote: ↑Fri Feb 17, 2023 12:33 am

bradrn wrote: ↑Fri Feb 17, 2023 12:12 am (And, to make matters worse, it would appear that the current Japanese word is ichō, borrowed from an entirely different Mandarin word 500 years ago, but spelt exactly the same way!)

According to my dictionary, ginnan is the nut, ichō is the tree.

Ah, I did seem to recall that there was a semantic difference… thanks!

I was making the same mistake as the botanist and reading the kanji as ginkyō rather than either of the other forms.

Zju wrote: ↑Fri Feb 10, 2023 9:17 am Old English: We've already had ai → aː
Colloquial spoken NAE: We've had one, yes. What about second ai → aː?

and a second au > æə

Nortaneous wrote: ↑Fri Feb 17, 2023 8:36 am

Zju wrote: ↑Fri Feb 10, 2023 9:17 am Old English: We've already had ai → aː
Colloquial spoken NAE: We've had one, yes. What about second ai → aː?

and a second au > æə

Wait, when was the first?

bradrn wrote: ↑Fri Feb 17, 2023 8:38 am

Nortaneous wrote: ↑Fri Feb 17, 2023 8:36 am

Zju wrote: ↑Fri Feb 10, 2023 9:17 am Old English: We've already had ai → aː
Colloquial spoken NAE: We've had one, yes. What about second ai → aː?

and a second au > æə

Wait, when was the first?

OE had au > æɑ.

Moose-tache wrote: ↑Fri Feb 17, 2023 4:25 am

Travis B. wrote: ↑Thu Feb 16, 2023 11:43 pm

Moose-tache wrote: ↑Thu Feb 16, 2023 9:27 pmimplosive

approximant

I think I've isolated the problem: you can't read.

Nah, I just assumed you were making a general, hyperbolic remark, which should have been a safe assumption.