Zompist Bboard Again

BTW, a very common example of flap elision that you are probably familiar with is 'li'l' (I myself have [ʟ̞ɨːɯ̯]) for little.

Travis B. wrote: ↑Thu Dec 18, 2025 10:51 am Similarly, the dialect here has significantly more frequent dorsal realizations of /r/ than most NAE varieties, even though it is common for modern NAE varieties to have pharyngealization of /r/.

Are you sure about this? My understanding is that "bunched" r, which surely counts as dorsal, is a widespread variant across the US, and it's not unknown in the rest of the English speaking world either.

If there were a dialect where dorsal realisations were the norm as opposed to a variant, I'd expect it to be more than usually resistant to the /t/ to /tʃ/ and /d/ to /dʒ/ changes, but I don't think that's the case for the Inland North. (Scottish English, with its tendency to tapped /r/, is relatively resistant, though Geoff Lindsey's survey shows it happening there too, just slightly behind the rest of the English-speaking world.)

anteallach wrote: ↑Sat Dec 20, 2025 3:57 am

Travis B. wrote: ↑Thu Dec 18, 2025 10:51 am Similarly, the dialect here has significantly more frequent dorsal realizations of /r/ than most NAE varieties, even though it is common for modern NAE varieties to have pharyngealization of /r/.

Are you sure about this? My understanding is that "bunched" r, which surely counts as dorsal, is a widespread variant across the US, and it's not unknown in the rest of the English speaking world either.

I have heard people say that the "bunched" /r/ is palatal whereas mine is typically uvular/pharygneal (and no, to those who would say, "but it doesn't sound like a French /r/!", it is an approximant not a fricative).

anteallach wrote: ↑Sat Dec 20, 2025 3:57 am If there were a dialect where dorsal realisations were the norm as opposed to a variant, I'd expect it to be more than usually resistant to the /t/ to /tʃ/ and /d/ to /dʒ/ changes, but I don't think that's the case for the Inland North. (Scottish English, with its tendency to tapped /r/, is relatively resistant, though Geoff Lindsey's survey shows it happening there too, just slightly behind the rest of the English-speaking world.)

I have a special (for me) /r/ allophone after coronals, which is postalveolar or postalveolar/uvular without pharyngealization which conditions the /t/ to /tʃ/ and /d/ to /dʒ/ (realized as [tʃ]) before /r/. Note that conservative speakers of the dialect here may lack this change per se and instead realize /tr/ as [tʂʰɻ̥] and /dr/ as [d̥ʐ̥ɻ]. As a little kid I pronounced my own name with [tʰɹ̥], and I am not sure how much this was a conservatism and how much this was a spelling pronunciation (I had just learnt to spell).

bradrn wrote: ↑Thu Dec 11, 2025 6:02 am

Qwynegold wrote: ↑Thu Dec 11, 2025 5:40 am Some of you seem to be knowledgeable about the languages of New Guinea, or at least have read a lot about them. I hope someone can answer this question. I thought that Trans-New Guinea was just a catch-all term, but the Wikipedia article says this:

Wikipedia wrote:The core of the family is considered to be established, but its boundaries and overall membership are uncertain.

Is this true? What is the core in that case?

This is pretty accurate. Palmer’s The Languages and Linguistics of the New Guinea Area (2018) says:

Groups with relatively strong evidence supporting TNG membership, include Angan, Anim, Asmat-Kamoro, Awin-Pa, Bosavi, Chimbu-Wahgi, Dagan, Dani, Duna-Bogaya, East Strickland, Enga-Kewa-Huli, Finisterre-Huon, Gogodala-Suki, Goilalan, Greater Awyu, Greater Binanderean, Kainantu-Goroka, Kayagaric, Kiwaian, Koiarian, Kolopom, Kutubu, Kwalean, Madang, Mailuan, Manubaran, Mek, Marori, Ok-Oksapmin, Paniai (Wissel) Lakes, Somahai, Turama-Kikori, West Bomberai, Wiru, and Yareban.

[…]

A number of groups and isolates have weak claims to membership in, or may have a distant relationship to TNG. These include Bayono-Awbono, Komolom, Mairasi, Pauwasi, Pawaian, Sentanic, South Bird’s Head, Tanah Merah, Teberan, Timor-Alor-Pantar and Uhunduni.

[…]

A number of other groups and isolates have at some point or another been assigned to TNG but without sufficient supporting evidence, i. e. without any convincing reflexes of pTNG pronouns or lexical items. These include Dem, Eleman, Kaki Ae, Kamula, Kaure-Narau, Mor, Porome and Purari.

Thank you! I'm making a quiz about language families, and I'm unsure what to do with myriad languages of New Guinea. Maybe I should exclude the really tiny families, because no one's gonna get those anyway. But it looks like I can include TNG at least.

I'm having myself a festive early morning December Holiday Eve (read: prepping vedgies, inebriated but not in such a way that would dangerously impair my motor skills) and it was in the process of explaining to a friend the sort of unpleasant rush of CO₂ that enters my nose when I drink directly from a twoliter when I realized I was pronouncing "drink out of it" as something distressingly like [ˈdʐɨŋk˥˥‿kaʌ̯ɘ̯ʔ˥˧˥]. Those vowel qualities are probably not perfect but I'm sure you can get the gist of it. I'm having a great time making inane observations to myself such as these

Is bunched r just a pharyngealized /ɰ/? Or is there more to it than that?

Starbeam wrote: ↑Fri Dec 26, 2025 9:33 am Is bunched r just a pharyngealized /ɰ/? Or is there more to it than that?

I've read that a proper 'bunched /r/' is palatal, but then I don't get how it'd be any different from [j] unless they forgot to mention something else like pharyngealization.

What I have varies significantly, in that it is an approximant with varying degrees of uvular and pharyngeal articulation, after coronals also has laminal postalveolar articulation (and no pharyngealization), and initially also has labialization. What I transcribe it as is mostly for convenience's sake, because in coda position its uvular articulation may actually be quite weak while its pharyngealization can be significant.

Note that I know it is not [ɰ] because [ɰ] to me is a primary allophone of /l/, and I never merge /r/ and /l/.

Qwynegold wrote: ↑Tue Dec 23, 2025 2:43 am Thank you! I'm making a quiz about language families, and I'm unsure what to do with myriad languages of New Guinea. Maybe I should exclude the really tiny families, because no one's gonna get those anyway. But it looks like I can include TNG at least.

Of course, when making a quiz, you should avoid questions where the answers are controversial, as such questions will lead to debates whether they are answered correctly or not.

WeepingElf wrote: ↑Fri Dec 26, 2025 10:05 am

Qwynegold wrote: ↑Tue Dec 23, 2025 2:43 am Thank you! I'm making a quiz about language families, and I'm unsure what to do with myriad languages of New Guinea. Maybe I should exclude the really tiny families, because no one's gonna get those anyway. But it looks like I can include TNG at least.

Of course, when making a quiz, you should avoid questions where the answers are controversial, as such questions will lead to debates whether they are answered correctly or not.

Yeah, that's why I was thinking that I should keep those small families, that are sometimes included in TNG, separate. Because there isn't that much evidence that should be a part of TNG.

I just noticed an Escher sentence (or at least something very much like one) in a note I myself just wrote:

bradrn wrote: I’m not so sure why that bug caused that specific symptom, though. My best guess is that light is slower in water than in air, so the bug shifted some photons into later timebins than they should have been; as such it was more noticeable for early returns.

Interestingly, I can’t work out a satisfying way to rephrase this in a ‘correct’ fashion. (Probably because I’m too tired…) That said, I think an extra ‘where’ might do the trick.

bradrn wrote: ↑Wed Jan 07, 2026 6:08 pm I just noticed an Escher sentence (or at least something very much like one) in a note I myself just wrote:

bradrn wrote: I’m not so sure why that bug caused that specific symptom, though. My best guess is that light is slower in water than in air, so the bug shifted some photons into later timebins than they should have been; as such it was more noticeable for early returns.

Is "timebins" a term of art? I assume it means "time intervals" but I'll keep it in case it's a recognized term.

I think this would be perfectly grammatical and comprehensible:

"...so the bug shifted some photons into later timebins; as such it was more noticeable for early returns."

Alternatively, I think the basic problem is that photons aren't timebins. What they could be is in timebins. So maybe:

"...so the bug shifted some photons into later timebins than they should have been in; as such it was more noticeable for early returns."

Maybe even more precisely "...into timebins that were later than they should have been in", but I think the above is acceptable for an informal note.

I can confirm that my parents (as do I) have a geminate in raccoon, as in [ˌʁˤʷɛʔk̚ˈkʰũ(ː)n].

zompist wrote: ↑Wed Jan 07, 2026 6:42 pm

bradrn wrote: ↑Wed Jan 07, 2026 6:08 pm I just noticed an Escher sentence (or at least something very much like one) in a note I myself just wrote:

bradrn wrote: I’m not so sure why that bug caused that specific symptom, though. My best guess is that light is slower in water than in air, so the bug shifted some photons into later timebins than they should have been; as such it was more noticeable for early returns.

Is "timebins" a term of art? I assume it means "time intervals" but I'll keep it in case it's a recognized term.

Yes, correct. It’s slightly informal, but I wasn’t intending anyone to see these notes other than myself (and perhaps my supervisor)

Alternatively, I think the basic problem is that photons aren't timebins. What they could be is in timebins.

Correct again, and I agree with your suggestions.

I'd known of the Archæologica Brittanica as “the place where some Cornish was written down,” but I just actually read the Wikipedia page for it, and it turns out it manages to introduce common phonetic alphabet for the work, write a comparative wordlist of European languages¹, including some non-obvious cognates and understanding of sound change as a regular process², write a grammar of Cornish, include a grammar of Breton and several more auch exciting things. So I thought I'd read it, and I only got to the the first non-preface page, where he describes his “general alphabet,” and it turns out he also recognises voicing as a thing³. I'd be excited happy at such a work being written 200 years later, but in 1707 it feels anachronistic. I know what I'll be reading for a while now.

¹ Biased towards the British ones
² Including recognising Grimm's law in the velars around a century before Grimm
³ He describes all the voicing pairs as soft “in the same manner,” although it's slightly unclear whether he understands the softening of ‘s’ to ‘z’⁴ and ‘sh’ to ‘zh’ is the same softening as ‘χ’ to ‘ᵹh’ and ‘k’ to ‘g’/‘ᵹ’⁵
⁴ [s z ʃ ʒ]
⁵ [x/χ ɣ k ɡ]. He uses the insular g for [ɡ] before a front vowel for the sake of his English-speaking readers

Edit: link correction

The correct link is Archæologia Brittanica.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Archæologia_Britannica wrote: Lhuyd then describes the orthography of the Juvencus Manuscript.^[87] Apparently, after being allowed in to the library at Cambridge to view the manuscript in 1702, Lhuyd took a penknife to Juvencus folios 25 and 26 and stole them, leaving knife marks on adjacent folios. The folios were eventually restored to the manuscript after being found among Lhuyd's personal possessions after his death.^[88]

Love a bit of scholarly vandalism.

But how tragic that the manuscripts for the other volumes he had planned were lost to fire.

Is it me, or is traditionally handwritten Arabic script often far more legible than modern Arabic computer fonts used at the same font sizes as Latin script and like?

Nope, not just you. I practically have to get a magnifying glass to see the markings

Not so much a linguistics question as a use-of-language question: How much do people still follow the old Western convention where, when you use one Western language, and you mention a ruling monarch who speaks or spoke or rules over or ruled over a country that speaks or spoke a different Western language, you translate the monarch's main given name into the language you're using? So that, for instance, the Spanish king whom the Spaniards themselves called "Felipe II" is called "Philip II" in English?

In German, news media, in my experience, always call the current British king "Charles III", never "Karl III", but German history books still usually talk about how "Ludwig XIV" said he was the state and a while later "Ludwig XVI" lost his head. AFAICS the convention is still generally followed with Popes, though, so that the previous Pope was called "Pope Francis", "Papst Franziskus", etc.

Raphael wrote: ↑Sun Jan 25, 2026 6:33 am Not so much a linguistics question as a use-of-language question: How much do people still follow the old Western convention where, when you use one Western language, and you mention a ruling monarch who speaks or spoke or rules over or ruled over a country that speaks or spoke a different Western language, you translate the monarch's main given name into the language you're using? So that, for instance, the Spanish king whom the Spaniards themselves called "Felipe II" is called "Philip II" in English?

In German, news media, in my experience, always call the current British king "Charles III", never "Karl III", but German history books still usually talk about how "Ludwig XIV" said he was the state and a while later "Ludwig XVI" lost his head. AFAICS the convention is still generally followed with Popes, though, so that the previous Pope was called "Pope Francis", "Papst Franziskus", etc.

This is still generally done with historical rulers ─ e.g. your example of king "Philip II" of Spain ─ but (edit: not) so much with current ones outside of popes ─ e.g. the current king of Spain is "Felipe VI".