Zompist Bboard Again

Man in Space wrote: ↑Tue Aug 13, 2024 5:06 pmWhat implications do spoonerisms have for cognitive theories of language?

keenir wrote: ↑Wed Aug 14, 2024 12:02 am

Man in Space wrote: ↑Tue Aug 13, 2024 5:06 pm What implications do spoonerisms have for cognitive theories of language?

The implication that we all make mistakes? *shrugs*

xxx wrote: ↑Wed Aug 14, 2024 5:23 amit may also have something to do with dyslexia...

zompist wrote: ↑Tue Aug 13, 2024 5:37 pm

Travis B. wrote: ↑Tue Aug 13, 2024 5:10 pm I have a long nasal schwa in I'm going to when I realize it as [ˈãẽ̯mə̃ː] but not when I realize it as [ˈãẽ̯mˌɡʌ̃ː].

I'd say [ãjŋ gʌ̃ʌ]. The trailoff of nasalization might be heard as a consonant, maybe.

I don't recall hearing any [o] sounds, but rather than an innovation, it might be retaining the original vowel of "going".

Travis B. wrote: ↑Mon Aug 26, 2024 11:46 am French question - how is French liaison typically analyzed? Is it generally posited that the final consonants are in the underlying forms of words that have them, and are elided except before another vowel, or is it generally posited that word-final morphemes have two allomorphs, which are selected based upon with follows them?

Estav wrote: ↑Mon Aug 26, 2024 2:42 pm

Travis B. wrote: ↑Mon Aug 26, 2024 11:46 am French question - how is French liaison typically analyzed? Is it generally posited that the final consonants are in the underlying forms of words that have them, and are elided except before another vowel, or is it generally posited that word-final morphemes have two allomorphs, which are selected based upon with follows them?

"Sound Pattern of English"-type analyses of French with underlying word-final consonants and schwa that get deleted on the surface level have been posited. I don't know whether they're still most common in terms of technical theories. Personally, I find some aspects of these analyses about as unconvincing as the SPoE-style analyses of English night as underlying /niht/, or giraffe as underlying /giraffe/, etc.

One interpretation you didn't mention, but that I've seen discussed at least as a possible model of initial acquisition, is that at least some liaisons are a matter of vowel-initial words having multiple allomorphs (one starting with /z/, one starting with /n/, etc.) selected based on their context / what precedes them.

Obligatory liaisons are mostly grammatically conditioned, in some cases in ways that resemble Celtic "consonant mutations". Obligatory plural /z/ in particular seems to clearly show strong attachment to the following word in ways that makes the orthography-based interpretation of it as a word-final consonant not especially convincing compared to an alternative interpretation of it as a plural prefix attached to vowel-initial nouns or adjectives in particular grammatical contexts (although I guess you could argue that it is initially acquired as a word-initial consonant, but then gets reinterpreted as a word-final consonant as speakers acquire literacy and develop an adult understanding of the standard language). There are still some restrictions in the use of plural /z/ based on the preceding lexeme, most notably in the case of numerals, but for the most part we find /z/ pretty consistently and obligatorily when a plural vowel-initial noun or adjective immediately follows a determiner.

On the other hand, liaison in some other contexts, such as after singular adjectives, isn't as easily interpreted as involving mutation of the following word. Pairs like beau/bel pretty much have to be analyzed as separate allomorphs of the adjective (unless you go with an extremely abstract, historical-sound-change-based approach that treats l-vocalization and eau-coalescence as a synchronic rule of French phonology, which I haven't seen so far). I believe some analyses connect the liaison variant of adjectives with the feminine version, although they aren't always the same.

All that was just based on my memory, but here's a few links: http://www.llf.cnrs.fr/sites/llf.cnrs.f ... slides.pdf, https://user.uni-frankfurt.de/~cfery/pu ... French.pdf, https://www.iastatedigitalpress.com/psl ... 3707/view/, https://www.ling.upenn.edu/courses/ling620/Liaison.pdf

Travis B. wrote: ↑Wed Sep 04, 2024 7:56 pm A known pattern with natlang number systems is that adjacent numbers have a tendency to phonologically influence one another in an irregular fashion because they get spoken in order so much.

Zju wrote: ↑Thu Sep 05, 2024 1:49 pm

Travis B. wrote: ↑Wed Sep 04, 2024 7:56 pm A known pattern with natlang number systems is that adjacent numbers have a tendency to phonologically influence one another in an irregular fashion because they get spoken in order so much.

It still slightly pains me that in the first conlang reconstruction relay in which I participated, I made what I thought were clear mutual influences between adjacent numerals. The other team, of course, immediately noticed them... and started to ponder, over multiple posts, how on earth could they be so phonetically irregular, did they perhaps exhibit a singular example of a reflex of *tʷ, etc etc.

Man in Space wrote: ↑Wed Sep 04, 2024 7:37 pmIt just occurred to me that Janko is in a unique position to study subconscious (primarily phonological) aesthetic trends in conlang number systems. One wonders if any frequent patterns come up—at the least, in a priori languages.

Whether it’s actually reflective of anything is anyone’s guess, but perhaps something interesting would shake out. Though one thing I can see being a confounding factor is the phonologies themselves—lots of conlangs have /t/; (likely) few, an epiglottal trill.

bradrn wrote: ↑Wed Sep 11, 2024 2:08 am I’ve been wondering about the plausibility of some word shapes in my current conlang — especially its verbs, which are often long and phonologically heavy. Even basic verbs like lisŋumŋun ‘see’ and asanmarnir ‘sit’ can reach three or four closed syllables.

Does this kind of thing have any natlang precedent?

zompist wrote: ↑Wed Sep 11, 2024 3:36 am

bradrn wrote: ↑Wed Sep 11, 2024 2:08 am I’ve been wondering about the plausibility of some word shapes in my current conlang — especially its verbs, which are often long and phonologically heavy. Even basic verbs like lisŋumŋun ‘see’ and asanmarnir ‘sit’ can reach three or four closed syllables.

Does this kind of thing have any natlang precedent?

Yes and no? Those strike me as pretty heavy words for simple concepts, though maybe you can get away with it for 'sit'-- cf. Arabic qa'ada, Russian saditsya, Spanish sentarse, all three syllables. (The latter two are extended by being reflexives, however.)

If there is some internal structure it would be more plausible; after all English has idioms like "take a look at" and "have a seat".

• lisŋumŋun is root √lis-mŋun ‘related to visual perception’ plus aspectual marker -ŋu- ‘stative’
• asanmarnir is root √asan-rnir ‘related to sitting’ plus aspectual marker -ma- ‘punctual’

bradrn wrote: ↑Wed Sep 11, 2024 3:42 am Indeed, these both have internal structure, as do all lexical verbs:

• lisŋumŋun is root √lis-mŋun ‘related to visual perception’ plus aspectual marker -ŋu- ‘stative’
• asanmarnir is root √asan-rnir ‘related to sitting’ plus aspectual marker -ma- ‘punctual’

(This is all in the post I linked.)

zompist wrote: ↑Wed Sep 11, 2024 4:24 am

bradrn wrote: ↑Wed Sep 11, 2024 3:42 am Indeed, these both have internal structure, as do all lexical verbs:

• lisŋumŋun is root √lis-mŋun ‘related to visual perception’ plus aspectual marker -ŋu- ‘stative’
• asanmarnir is root √asan-rnir ‘related to sitting’ plus aspectual marker -ma- ‘punctual’

(This is all in the post I linked.)

I looked at your verbs post, and it looks like you want very heavy but non-fusional verbs in general. […] If you really like them I'd suggest having some internal etymology (not necessarily available to the speakers).

That's fine-- reminds me of Sumerian and Algonquian. A little like Quechua, but in practice Quechua doesn't always make use of everything in its extensive verbal morphology.