Zompist Bboard Again

Even then I don't think it's that bad.

But then arguably, I don't think any natlang is that bad. *shrug*

All right, creator of Yidiny, a constraint requiring an even number of syllables in a surface word is creative, I’ll give you that, and actually pretty cool. But it’s totally unnaturalistic.

Man in Space wrote: ↑Sun May 02, 2021 7:15 pm All right, creator of Yidiny, a constraint requiring an even number of syllables in a surface word is creative, I’ll give you that, and actually pretty cool. But it’s totally unnaturalistic.

It doesn’t seem too unreasonable, actually. It’s basically a requirement that all feet have two syllables.

_______________

Unrelatedly, I see Jaques’s Japhug grammar is finally out, and once again I find myself impressed at the sheer strangeness of rGyalrongic languages. (It’s not often you see a >1000-page grammar with a whole section on ‘Remarkable features’.) As usual though, the most unusual bit is the phonology: for one thing, it’s slightly odd to allow syllables like /jla/ but not /lja/. (And how, exactly, does /jla/ differ from /ila/ phonetically?)

Is it me, or isn't that sort of thing kind of common in Australian languages? Rules that operate only when the surface word has a certain number of syllables

bradrn wrote: ↑Sun May 02, 2021 7:32 pm As usual though, the most unusual bit is the phonology: for one thing, it’s slightly odd to allow syllables like /jla/ but not /lja/. (And how, exactly, does /jla/ differ from /ila/ phonetically?)

I think the distinction between voiced fricatives and approximants is just not robust in the area. /ʝla/ or /ʒla/ wouldn't be odd. (cf. Hiw, which allows many syllables like /wla/ but doesn't contrast /w ɣʷ/)

This reminds me, just yesterday I learned the Georgian so-called "/v/" is indeed sometimes [v] but otherwise often just labialization on the previous consonant, [Cʷ]... See (and listen to) the examples linked to from here. Particularly mc̣ḳrivi 'row, screeve' vs. tkven 'you guys', gvrc̣vrtni 'you (sg.) train us'. This makes the last example a lot less impressive.

Kuchigakatai wrote: ↑Mon May 03, 2021 1:52 pm This reminds me, just yesterday I learned the Georgian so-called "/v/" is indeed sometimes [v] but otherwise often just labialization on the previous consonant, [Cʷ]... See (and listen to) the examples linked to from here. Particularly mc̣ḳrivi 'row, screeve' vs. tkven 'you guys', gvrc̣vrtni 'you (sg.) train us'. This makes the last example a lot less impressive.

I can't help but hear [gut͡sʼɾ̥tʰunɪ] instead of [gʷt͡sʼʷɾ̥tʰnɪ] for /ɡvrt͡sʼvrtʰni/ when it's pronounced by the first speaker.

Zju wrote: ↑Mon May 03, 2021 2:20 pm

Kuchigakatai wrote: ↑Mon May 03, 2021 1:52 pm This reminds me, just yesterday I learned the Georgian so-called "/v/" is indeed sometimes [v] but otherwise often just labialization on the previous consonant, [Cʷ]... See (and listen to) the examples linked to from here. Particularly mc̣ḳrivi 'row, screeve' vs. tkven 'you guys', gvrc̣vrtni 'you (sg.) train us'. This makes the last example a lot less impressive.

I can't help but hear [gut͡sʼɾ̥tʰunɪ] instead of [gʷt͡sʼʷɾ̥tʰnɪ] for /ɡvrt͡sʼvrtʰni/ when it's pronounced by the first speaker.

Maybe because she's pronouncing it very carefully. To me, it sounds like the [w] is separate from the [g] rather than secondary articulation.

Linguoboy wrote: ↑Fri Mar 19, 2021 4:05 pm That said, Saxon dialect is unequivocally the worst-sounding form of human vocalisation ever produced.

I consider it Trainspotting-German, since it reminds me of the film.

Poor little Saxon!

Vijay wrote: ↑Wed May 05, 2021 3:08 pm Poor little Saxon!

Indeed, it's all stereotypes. Beauty is in the ears of beholder.

Creator of English, do you think it's cute to have "kiss" and "kill" differ only in the coda? Do you think it's clever? It's neither.

if natlangs were conlangs then tolkien would ride

Raphael wrote: ↑Fri May 07, 2021 7:02 am Creator of English, do you think it's cute to have "kiss" and "kill" differ only in the coda? Do you think it's clever? It's neither.

You deaded it!

Did the creator or creators of the major European languages have to come up with a word in English meaning "precious metals used as a financial investment" that, at least in its written form, looks a lot like a French word, also adopted as a loanword in German, meaning "broth"? It has the weird effect that I can't read English texts about certain aspects of financial history or current financial shenanigans without getting hungry.

There's some chance the two words are related, if I'm remembering right.

Yeah, I think they're both related to "to boil" and derived from a Latin word with roughly that meaning.

Some fascinating sentences from an obviously ridiculous conlang French:

/ɛ a œ̃ a | œ̃ i e œ̃ ə e o a œ̃ ə œ̃ a œ̃ y ki sə sɥiv/
/ty a ɑ̃ o œ̃ u aerjɛ̃/
/ɔ̃n‿ɑ̃n‿a œ̃ ɑ̃ o ‖ ɛ̃/

(Sources: https://french.stackexchange.com/questi ... wel-sounds, https://french.stackexchange.com/questi ... by-natives)

english… has this bizzare undocumented phenomenon where one uses we when one means I but it's not royal we, but rather regular we but one feels need to use group as a means of defending oneself from criticism.

FlamyobatRudki wrote: ↑Mon Jun 06, 2022 4:50 pm english… has this bizzare undocumented phenomenon where one uses we when one means I but it's not royal we, but rather regular we but one feels need to use group as a means of defending oneself from criticism.

Without an example I can't say I've ever experienced this. However, it's fairly common the UK for people to use "us" instead of "me"; "give it us" is a very colloquial version of "give it to me".