Linguistic Miscellany Thread

[Travis B.]

The vowel maps to my /ʌ/, though - it hadn't occurred to me at all to map it to /ɪ/. I can see it now that you've mentioned it, but it didn't occur to me until then.

The thing is that for me /ʌ/ is nowhere near the vowel the Afrikaans has in kind, as for me it is a true open-mid back vowel (being in roughly the same POA as RP /ɔː/). It always gets me when people speak of /ʌ/ as a "stressed schwa"...

[Travis B.]

I listened to the song a few more times (I wonder what Eddy would think about that - lolz) and the vowel seems closer to the center of the vowel space than my [ɘ] for /ɪ/, which is close-mid rather than mid, and maybe a tad forward of truly central. But it certainly does not sound like /ʌ/ to me at all.

[malloc]

I listened to the song a few more times (I wonder what Eddy would think about that - lolz) and the vowel seems closer to the center of the vowel space than my [ɘ] for /ɪ/, which is close-mid rather than mid, and maybe a tad forward of truly central. But it certainly does not sound like /ʌ/ to me at all.

What song?

[Darren]

Ningera consonants are something else

Code: Select all

 p            k
 b       d
 m       n
 ʙ   ʙʷ  l    w
ᵐʙ  ᵐʙʷ

Like what the fuck? A THIRD of the consonants are bilabial trills??

The source is this, the same one that gives Biritai as /b t d ɸ s/. Donohue's done a lot of work on Papuan languages before so I can't see a reason to doubt him.

[MacAnDàil]

I listened to the song a few more times (I wonder what Eddy would think about that - lolz) and the vowel seems closer to the center of the vowel space than my [ɘ] for /ɪ/, which is close-mid rather than mid, and maybe a tad forward of truly central. But it certainly does not sound like /ʌ/ to me at all.

What song?

The one Nortaneous linked to:

In Spanish, though, don't you natively have [β ð ɣ] intervocalically for /b d g/, meaning you don't actually have a native intervocalic contrast between [p t k] and [b d g]? (And knowing NAE doesn't help either as in NAE the perceived voicing of intervocalic stops is heavily informed by preceding vowel length.)

It is also a well-known fact that many speakers of Romance languages do not perceive Germanic /b d g/ as fully voiced. Apparently, voicing is much more prominent in Romance than in Germanic; also, Germanic voiceless stops are aspirated in some positions while Romance ones are not.

Germanic except Afrikaans, right? For example, here, "kind" sounds to me like "gunt".

[Creyeditor]

Ningera consonants are something else

Code: Select all

 p            k
 b       d
 m       n
 ʙ   ʙʷ  l    w
ᵐʙ  ᵐʙʷ

Like what the fuck? A THIRD of the consonants are bilabial trills??

The source is this, the same one that gives Biritai as /b t d ɸ s/. Donohue's done a lot of work on Papuan languages before so I can't see a reason to doubt him.

There is a theory that prenasalized labialized bilabials trills arise first, diachonically speaking. Plain(-er) bilabial trills then only come about by reduction or analogy.
And there is probably a correlation between small consonant inventories and the presence of bilabial trills as both are areal features of (certain parts of) New Guinea and Vanuatu. I once heard a talk arguing that smaller consonant inventories are more likely to have a higher percentage of rare consonants, in a non-trivial way

[Darren]

Ningera consonants are something else

Code: Select all

 p            k
 b       d
 m       n
 ʙ   ʙʷ  l    w
ᵐʙ  ᵐʙʷ

Like what the fuck? A THIRD of the consonants are bilabial trills??

The source is this, the same one that gives Biritai as /b t d ɸ s/. Donohue's done a lot of work on Papuan languages before so I can't see a reason to doubt him.

There is a theory that prenasalized labialized bilabials trills arise first, diachonically speaking. Plain(-er) bilabial trills then only come about by reduction or analogy.

Mmm. That sounds plausible. Although I don't get how Ninggera managed to develop four of them, and somehow not develop prenasalisation or contrastive rounding on any other phoneme.

And there is probably a correlation between small consonant inventories and the presence of bilabial trills as both are areal features of (certain parts of) New Guinea and Vanuatu. I once heard a talk arguing that smaller consonant inventories are more likely to have a higher percentage of rare consonants, in a non-trivial way

That sounds quite plausible. But this is an extreme example.

[Nortaneous]

Fieldnotes, so low confidence. May be worth seeing if there's anything to supplement this in Laycock's Ninggera notes on PARADISEC...

This has some Ninggera material. What are <p̃ b̃>? (in e.g. p̃wusɛm 'night', wimb̃inis 'sand', b̃u 'water', eyomp̃w)

I could believe *mbu *mbuV > (ᵐ)bu (ᵐ)bV - or even *mb > ʙ as in Nias - but that doesn't explain contrastive prenasalization. Laycock's notes make it look like there are labiovelars and /pʷ/ or at least /pw/, so maybe contrastive labialization on peripheral consonants (as occurs in... something, right?) and something like *mb *ŋg > ʙ ɣ.

If there were wordlists, it'd be possible to compare to related languages and get some idea of how they might have arisen. But, as with many historical explainations for edge cases in synchronic phonology, the fieldwork just isn't there. (It'd be nice if we had an Aita Rotokas dictionary so Proto-North Bougainville could be reconstructed well enough to test the reconstruction against Askopan and Keriaka data to be obtained once the political situation stabilizes, or whatever the blocker is, but the one guy who did Aita Rotokas fieldwork published one paper and went off to Google. It seems likely that PNB had much more normal consonantism and collapsed in different ways in the descendants, though.)

[Darren]

Digging through Laycock's list on paradisec, he uses symbols <mb̃ mb̃w p̃ p̃w mp̃ p̬̃ p̃ʷ ᵐb̃> which (I assume) represent bilabial trills. The most common ones are <mb̃ mb̃w p̃ p̃w>, which suggests to me a (phonetic?) inventory of [ʙ̥ ᵐʙ ʙ̥ʷ ᵐʙʷ] like Donohue says is phonemic. They're pretty frequent; so whatever the deal with them, they're relatively common phonemes. Lumping them all as prenasalised vs. non-prenasalised, their distribution is:

Code: Select all

+–––––+–––––––––––––––––––––––––––+
|     |      Following vowel:     |
+–––––+–––+–––+–––+–––+–––+–––+–––+
|     | i | u | e | o | ɛ | ɔ | a |
+–––––+–––+–––+–––+–––+–––+–––+–––+
| mb̃  | 2 | 15|   | 3 | 3 | 1 | 1 |
+–––––+–––+–––+–––+–––+–––+–––+–––+
| mb̃w | 3 |   |   |   | 1 | 1 | 1 |
+–––––+–––+–––+–––+–––+–––+–––+–––+
| p̃   |   | 9 |   |   |   | 1 | 1 |
+–––––+–––+–––+–––+–––+–––+–––+–––+
| p̃w  | 2 | 8 |   | 2 | 2 |   | 6 |
+–––––+–––+–––+–––+–––+–––+–––+–––+

There's two things that stand out. First, [ᵐʙʷ] doesn't appear before [u], even though for all other raspberries this is the most common position by far. Secondly, they are all rare before /a/ except for [ʙ̥ʷ], which is quite common there.
Looking at position within the word it's even more skewed:

Code: Select all

+–––––+––––––––––––––––––––+
|     |  Position in word: |
+–––––+––––––+––––––+––––––+
|     |  #_  |  V_X |  _#  | 
+–––––+––––––+––––––+––––––+
| mb̃  |      |  26  |  1   |
+–––––+––––––+––––––+––––––+
| mb̃w |      |  7   |      |
+–––––+––––––+––––––+––––––+
| p̃   |  8   |  1   |  2   |
+–––––+––––––+––––––+––––––+
| p̃w  |  18  |  4   |      |
+–––––+––––––+––––––+––––––+

That strongly implies that prenasalisation is allophonic. However, there's some evidence to suggest that rounding might be contrastive before vowels other than /u/ (although it's weird that /ʙ/ is more common word-internally, but /ʙʷ/ is word-initially). In which case Ningera would have

/p b d k/
/m n/
/ʙ ʙʷ l j w/

I guess it could just of been *mb mbw > /ʙ ʙʷ/? And /mb/ reintroduced through loans or something?
Laycock's list suggests /s/ is phonemic too. And rounding might well be allophonic so

/p b d k/
/m n/
/s/
/ʙ l j w/

That's just boring. Pity. Basically the same as what wikipedia says Kilmeri has which makes sense.

[Creyeditor]

Just wanted to chime in again to mention that many languages of Papua have a contrast between voiced prenasalized and voiceless aspirated plosives, which are transcribed as voiced vs. voiceless by convention. I recall a footnote in some work on Dani where the author said that he considers Ndani as a language name an abomination. Relatedly, many languages of Vanuatu (which are typologically similar to certain Papuan languages) have a contrast between voiceless and voiced prenasalized trills, which seems to fit what we have here. These slides by Rangelov & Walworth suggest a diachronic explanation: https://pure.mpg.de/rest/items/item_338 ... 29/content

[Darren]

Just wanted to chime in again to mention that many languages of Papua have a contrast between voiced prenasalized and voiceless aspirated plosives, which are transcribed as voiced vs. voiceless by convention. I recall a footnote in some work on Dani where the author said that he considers Ndani as a language name an abomination.

Yeah, I'm very much used to that. The Lakes Plain languages actually have implosives as their voiced stop series. Papuan languages are a bit weird with their plosives in general (looking at you, Ontena Gadsup).

Relatedly, many languages of Vanuatu (which are typologically similar to certain Papuan languages) have a contrast between voiceless and voiced prenasalized trills, which seems to fit what we have here. These slides by Rangelov & Walworth suggest a diachronic explanation: https://pure.mpg.de/rest/items/item_338 ... 29/content

Maybe Ningera is/was in the process of gaining a voicing contrast in trills? Hence why there's lots of variation but it seems to mostly be predictable? Subjectively, it looks very ʙ-heavy, although that might just be selection bias.

[bradrn]

I recall a footnote in some work on Dani where the author said that he considers Ndani as a language name an abomination.

Seriously? Where was this? I can’t find it in Bromley’s A Grammar of Lower Grand Valley Dani, at least.

[chris_notts]

I've been trying to get a better handle on verb classification and light verb semantics in Australian languages and Algonquian, so I did a bit of data collection and wrote a blog post about it:

https://chrisintheweeds.com/2023/06/14/ ... -boogaloo/

[bradrn]

I've been trying to get a better handle on verb classification and light verb semantics in Australian languages and Algonquian, so I did a bit of data collection and wrote a blog post about it:

https://chrisintheweeds.com/2023/06/14/ ... -boogaloo/

Ooh, very interesting! I never thought of verbal classifiers as being the same phenomenon as light verbs… though then again, given the differences you note, maybe there’s reason to consider them different. Kalam feels like the real outlier there, because it uses SVCs so extensively.

(Also, while I’m at it, let me recommend the open-access Kalam dictionary: https://openresearch-repository.anu.edu ... 885/209981. It’s incredibly comprehensive, and almost every page has at least one interesting thing somewhere!)

[chris_notts]

Ooh, very interesting! I never thought of verbal classifiers as being the same phenomenon as light verbs… though then again, given the differences you note, maybe there’s reason to consider them different. Kalam feels like the real outlier there, because it uses SVCs so extensively.

I agree that they're not exactly the same. Basque is much further down the road and mostly just uses two inflecting verbs, be and have, although it has a few others that occur alone or maybe occasionally with a non-inflecting verb. Australian languages are normally strictly bipartite with limited scope to expand the system, whereas Algonquian languages seem to have much more productive options to derive more shades of meaning. Kalam, as you say, uses SVCs as well as generic noun + verb structures, although the noun - verb constructions seem similar to CVCs to me, especially since coverbs/initials often seem to have adjectival / resultant state type meanings. Is there much difference between "they did a fight" and "they did fighting"?

But my gut feeling is, SVCs aside, that there's something in common here, and that Algonquian bipartite verbs are light verb constructions of some kind. All these small but not completely bleached verb systems, where a small to mid-sized core is augmented by additional elements, are boiling down what the basic kinds of events you need to be able to talk about are. The main difference is framing: Australian languages are more verb framed (path focused), and Algonquian is more satellite framed (lexicalising manner and putting path in the initials), with more manner focus extended to a certain extent to other semantic verb classes too.

(Also, while I’m at it, let me recommend the open-access Kalam dictionary: https://openresearch-repository.anu.edu ... 885/209981. It’s incredibly comprehensive, and almost every page has at least one interesting thing somewhere!)

Thanks! That's really useful and seems more comprehensive than many sources. One thing I found frustrating about the exercise is how limited the exploration of verb semantics in small verb systems often is. For example, the grammar of Gurindji I have is 746 pages long and spends surprisingly few pages on the semantic range of its 34 verbs or their collocations with coverbs. There is an overview and some English glosses, but it is completely insufficient to fully understand when each verb might be used.

[bradrn]

Is there much difference between "they did a fight" and "they did fighting"?

At least in Kalam, I don’t think so — the two constructions blend into each other a lot.

But my gut feeling is, SVCs aside, that there's something in common here, and that Algonquian bipartite verbs are light verb constructions of some kind. All these small but not completely bleached verb systems, where a small to mid-sized core is augmented by additional elements, are boiling down what the basic kinds of events you need to be able to talk about are. The main difference is framing: Australian languages are more verb framed (path focused), and Algonquian is more satellite framed (lexicalising manner and putting path in the initials), with more manner focus extended to a certain extent to other semantic verb classes too.

Sure, I don’t disagree with this. Just wondering about the differences within that broader category.

(Also, while I’m at it, let me recommend the open-access Kalam dictionary: https://openresearch-repository.anu.edu ... 885/209981. It’s incredibly comprehensive, and almost every page has at least one interesting thing somewhere!)

Thanks! That's really useful and seems more comprehensive than many sources. One thing I found frustrating about the exercise is how limited the exploration of verb semantics in small verb systems often is. For example, the grammar of Gurindji I have is 746 pages long and spends surprisingly few pages on the semantic range of its 34 verbs or their collocations with coverbs. There is an overview and some English glosses, but it is completely insufficient to fully understand when each verb might be used.

Kalam actually has quite a large amount of literature — mostly by Pawley, but luckily he’s an excellent analyst. It mostly focusses on the SVCs, but you can find stuff about coverb constructions too. The literature includes:

Pawley 1993, A language which defies description by ordinary means (chapter in The Role of Theory in Language Description)
Pawley 2006, On the Argument Structure of Complex Predicates in Kalam, a Language of the Trans New Guinea Family (open-access)
Pawley 2008, Compact versus narrative serial verb constructions in Kalam (chapter in Serial verb constructions in Austronesian and Papuan languages, open-access)
Lane 2007, Kalam serial verb constructions (open-access)

(There should be two or three others around, but I can’t quite remember them. The references shouldn’t be too hard to find in any case.)

[chris_notts]

Kalam actually has quite a large amount of literature — mostly by Pawley, but luckily he’s an excellent analyst. It mostly focusses on the SVCs, but you can find stuff about coverb constructions too. The literature includes:

Pawley 1993, A language which defies description by ordinary means (chapter in The Role of Theory in Language Description)
Pawley 2006, On the Argument Structure of Complex Predicates in Kalam, a Language of the Trans New Guinea Family (open-access)
Pawley 2008, Compact versus narrative serial verb constructions in Kalam (chapter in Serial verb constructions in Austronesian and Papuan languages, open-access)
Lane 2007, Kalam serial verb constructions (open-access)

(There should be two or three others around, but I can’t quite remember them. The references shouldn’t be too hard to find in any case.)

This might be useful, because I have a feeling that complex finals might look a little bit like what Pawley would call Compact SVCs, only compounded or converted to bound morphemes... i.e. mostly lexicalised or conventionalised pairs of verb(ish) roots with no intervening morphemes.

[bradrn]

Kalam actually has quite a large amount of literature — mostly by Pawley, but luckily he’s an excellent analyst. It mostly focusses on the SVCs, but you can find stuff about coverb constructions too. The literature includes:

Pawley 1993, A language which defies description by ordinary means (chapter in The Role of Theory in Language Description)
Pawley 2006, On the Argument Structure of Complex Predicates in Kalam, a Language of the Trans New Guinea Family (open-access)
Pawley 2008, Compact versus narrative serial verb constructions in Kalam (chapter in Serial verb constructions in Austronesian and Papuan languages, open-access)
Lane 2007, Kalam serial verb constructions (open-access)

(There should be two or three others around, but I can’t quite remember them. The references shouldn’t be too hard to find in any case.)

This might be useful, because I have a feeling that complex finals might look a little bit like what Pawley would call Compact SVCs, only compounded or converted to bound morphemes... i.e. mostly lexicalised or conventionalised pairs of verb(ish) roots with no intervening morphemes.

‘Compact SVCs’ are just the normal kind of SVCs found in many languages. The only reason Pawley needs a special term for them is to distinguish them from ‘Narrative SVCs’, which are much rarer and (insofar as I’ve seen) seem restricted to New Guinea.

[Kuchigakatai]

a funny thing happened to "otaku" in korean
it was loaned as 오타쿠 o-ta-ku
but then it was changed to make it sound like a hanja word: 오덕후 o-deok-hu (ive seen 俉德厚 and 五德珝 or 五德厚 but there is no official hanja spelling of this word (obv))
which was shortened to 오덕 o-deok or 덕후 deok-hu
오덕 o-deok was later modified to 씹덕 ssip-deok (씹 ssip is a vulgar intensifying prefix, but it also has the added wordplay of upgrading 오 o (五) to 십 sip (十)) to form a pejorative

Otaku was mangled as o-deok(-hu) in Korean, and then the o- was reinterpreted as the number 5. And then why be a 5-nerd when you can be a 10-nerd, where 10 is a near-homophone of a vulgar genital word, hence the "upgrade" from 5 to 10...

[Linguoboy]

Otaku was mangled as o-deok(-hu) in Korean, and then the o- was reinterpreted as the number 5. And then why be a 5-nerd when you can be a 10-nerd, where 10 is a near-homophone of a vulgar genital word, hence the "upgrade" from 5 to 10...

Quoth wiktionary: "probably coined because a new vulgar term was needed when 덕후 (deokhu) lost its derogatory sense and simply came to mean "fan"".

The element -덕 also goes on to have a life of its own as a suffix meaning "fan of", e.g. 밀덕 /miltek/ "military nerd", 뮤덕 /myutek/ "fan of musicals", etc.