Zompist Bboard Again

WeepingElf wrote: ↑Fri Jan 09, 2026 10:55 am

bradrn wrote: ↑Fri Jan 09, 2026 10:21 am

malloc wrote: ↑Fri Jan 09, 2026 10:14 am

Wait, you mean that people in ancient Rome didn't actually speak the Classical Latin we know from official texts and such?

Nope. The spoken register is generally known as Vulgar Latin.

Yes. Classical Latin is a language abstracted from old (republican era) literature, as is often the case with classical literary languages. Similarly, Sanskrit was abstracted from the language of the Vedas, at a time when the people in India already spoke Middle Indic languages such as Magadhi, Maharashtri or Shauraseni.

Indeed, I considered mentioning Sanskrit too. IIRC the spoken languages weren’t even direct descendants of Sanskrit — e.g. they retained some clusters which Sanskrit had simplified.

Vedic Sanskrit is a natlang. Classical Sanskrit is known to be artificial. In fact, Hindu pandits traditionally misunderstood parts of the Vedas by trying to read them as if they were written in Classical Sanskrit. They didn't know the grammar of Vedic Sanskrit. "Sanskrit" usually refers to Classical Sanskrit.

Standard Spoken Bengali is the dialect spoken from Kolkata to Shantipur.

rotting bones wrote: ↑Sun Jan 11, 2026 7:44 am Vedic Sanskrit is a natlang. Classical Sanskrit is known to be artificial. In fact, Hindu pandits traditionally misunderstood parts of the Vedas by trying to read them as if they were written in Classical Sanskrit. They didn't know the grammar of Vedic Sanskrit. "Sanskrit" usually refers to Classical Sanskrit.

Right. And as "Sanskrit" means something like 'cultivated', "Classical Sanskrit" is a bit of a pleonasm, like "foot pedal". Vedic is indeed a natlang with regional and temporal variation, and Sanskrit proper an artificial language abstracted from it, codified when the vernacular language was already on its way to Middle Indo-Aryan (or so I have read about it).

WeepingElf wrote: ↑Sun Jan 11, 2026 8:25 am

rotting bones wrote: ↑Sun Jan 11, 2026 7:44 am Vedic Sanskrit is a natlang. Classical Sanskrit is known to be artificial. In fact, Hindu pandits traditionally misunderstood parts of the Vedas by trying to read them as if they were written in Classical Sanskrit. They didn't know the grammar of Vedic Sanskrit. "Sanskrit" usually refers to Classical Sanskrit.

Right. And as "Sanskrit" means something like 'cultivated', "Classical Sanskrit" is a bit of a pleonasm, like "foot pedal". Vedic is indeed a natlang with regional and temporal variation, and Sanskrit proper an artificial language abstracted from it, codified when the vernacular language was already on its way to Middle Indo-Aryan (or so I have read about it).

This may be exotifying a bit. It's pretty much exactly the situation with Latin, Classical Arabic, and Classical Chinese: Sanskrit was a literary language; it undoubtedly functioned as an interlanguage too. Sanskrit has been recorded* for 3000 years, so the relationship to the spoken language was constantly changing. The Brahmanas (as early as 900 BCE) may well have been very close to contemporary speech. As for what it was like in Buddha's time, when the written and spoken languages were maybe 400 years apart... well, we're doing about the same right now in English.

* The Vedas may date back to 1500 BCE, and were not written till far later— but the oral transmission was very good. Vedic Sanskrit is, I'm told, difficult for someone who knows Classical Sanskrit.

I think people forget how vibrant a "dead" language can be. E.g. Latin was the language of literature and science till at least 1700, and it was used in speech in international institutions like the Sorbonne and the Vatican. Sanskrit would have been much the same in Kalidasa's time (~ 4th century CE). The convention at the time was to represent women speaking in Prakrit, which is probably a nod to the borders of the Sanskrit-using community.

zompist wrote: ↑Sun Jan 11, 2026 1:54 pm As for what it was like in Buddha's time, when the written and spoken languages were maybe 400 years apart... well, we're doing about the same right now in English.

English spelling may be 400 years out of date, but is the grammar and lexicon? I’d say that written English is pretty close to the spoken language, overall.

bradrn wrote: ↑Sun Jan 11, 2026 2:00 pm

zompist wrote: ↑Sun Jan 11, 2026 1:54 pm As for what it was like in Buddha's time, when the written and spoken languages were maybe 400 years apart... well, we're doing about the same right now in English.

English spelling may be 400 years out of date, but is the grammar and lexicon? I’d say that written English is pretty close to the spoken language, overall.

Is it? If you go out in Glasgow, or if I go to downtown Chicago, and we transcribe what we hear, are you confident it will be strictly the same as standard written English?

People like us are immersed in the standard; much or most of our daily life involves writing rather than speaking. That can make us fairly oblivious to how and when the spoken language differs. (You can note this in phonology if you closely read Travis's phonetic renderings, but it can apply in other aspects of grammar too.)

And on the other hand, sometimes the grammar and lexicon just haven't changed much. E.g., a couple random lines from 435 years ago:

Spenser wrote:Let birds be silent on the naked spray,
And shady woods resound with dreadful yells:
Let streaming floods their hasty courses stay,
And parching drought dry up the crystal wells...

Maybe more verbose than a modern poet, but so far as I can see, entirely grammatical today. Of course it's not hard to find other passages with more striking differences. (I've modernized the spelling, BTW, but that didn't take much work— the biggest change is the loss of the long s.)

Maybe 400 years is a stretch, but this passage is almost 300 years old. The style may be old-fashioned but not the grammar.

Johnson wrote:But though it should happen that an author is capable of excelling, yet his merit may pass without notice, huddled in the variety of things, and thrown into the general miscellany of life. He that endeavours after fame by writing, solicits the regard of a multitude fluctuating in pleasures, or immersed in business, without time for intellectual amusements; he appeals to judges prepossessed by passions, or corrupted by prejudices, which preclude their approbation of any new performance.

bradrn wrote: ↑Sun Jan 11, 2026 2:00 pm

zompist wrote: ↑Sun Jan 11, 2026 1:54 pm As for what it was like in Buddha's time, when the written and spoken languages were maybe 400 years apart... well, we're doing about the same right now in English.

English spelling may be 400 years out of date, but is the grammar and lexicon? I’d say that written English is pretty close to the spoken language, overall.

Everyday spoken English to me is a good bit different from formal written English even when one ignores phonology; forms that are ubiquitous in everyday spoken English like hafta, wanna, gonna, gotta, sposta, shoulda, woulda, coulda, shouldna, wouldna, couldna, kinda, sorta and so on are conspicuously absent as such from formal written English.

However, this is one directional ─ in most cases, written English spoken directly is still very much good spoken English, with a few exceptions (e.g. one as a pronoun by itself (i.e. not part of a compound like someone) is commonly regarded as too formal to be used in spoken English without sounding like a smartass, and word choices like child which are common in formal writing but are commonly substituted, e.g. with kid, in most speech unless very specific, e.g. legalistic, meanings are desired).

Classical Sanskrit was never a spoken language. It was only used for composing texts.

---

What are the morphological differences between written English and a majority of spoken dialects?

rotting bones wrote: ↑Sun Jan 11, 2026 8:19 pm What are the morphological differences between written English and a majority of spoken dialects?

The biggest morphological difference between written English and a majority of spoken dialects is that very many English dialects have innovated new modal and quasimodal forms by combining to and have (in addition to not) with stems along with reduction and in some cases other stem changes to create new forms (and this is not mere phonology, as shown by how gonna and going to are not interchangeable in all places in spoken English).

Travis B. wrote: ↑Sun Jan 11, 2026 9:15 pm The biggest morphological difference between written English and a majority of spoken dialects is that very many English dialects have innovated new modal and quasimodal forms by combining to and have (in addition to not) with stems along with reduction and in some cases other stem changes to create new forms (and this is not mere phonology, as shown by how gonna and going to are not interchangeable in all places in spoken English).

Thanks. Do you know of grammatical writeups that explain things like which sentences change meaning if you replace "gonna" with "going to"?

---

How current are forms like "gonna" in British English?

rotting bones wrote: ↑Sun Jan 11, 2026 9:25 pmThanks. Do you know of grammatical writeups that explain things like which sentences change meaning if you replace "gonna" with "going to"?

It’s not so much the meaning changes as it is you can only use gonna in certain lexicosyntactic positions.

I’m going to scream!
I’m gonna scream!
The hobbits are going to Isengard.
^XThe hobbits are gonna Isengard.

Man in Space wrote: ↑Sun Jan 11, 2026 9:56 pm

rotting bones wrote: ↑Sun Jan 11, 2026 9:25 pmThanks. Do you know of grammatical writeups that explain things like which sentences change meaning if you replace "gonna" with "going to"?

It’s not so much the meaning changes as it is you can only use gonna in certain lexicosyntactic positions.

I’m going to scream!
I’m gonna scream!
The hobbits are going to Isengard.
^XThe hobbits are gonna Isengard.

Thanks. I didn't know contractions only being allowed in certain locations is considered a morphological feature.

rotting bones wrote: ↑Sun Jan 11, 2026 10:00 pm

Man in Space wrote: ↑Sun Jan 11, 2026 9:56 pm

rotting bones wrote: ↑Sun Jan 11, 2026 9:25 pmThanks. Do you know of grammatical writeups that explain things like which sentences change meaning if you replace "gonna" with "going to"?

It’s not so much the meaning changes as it is you can only use gonna in certain lexicosyntactic positions.

I’m going to scream!
I’m gonna scream!
The hobbits are going to Isengard.
^XThe hobbits are gonna Isengard.

Thanks. I didn't know contractions only being allowed in certain locations is considered a morphological feature.

For sake of completion, I'll describe some more:
"I have to go to the dentist." => "have to" has /f/, and never /v/.
"I have two dogs." => "have two" has /v/, and never /f/.

And:
X "I've to go to the dentist." => Illegal.
? "I've two dogs." => Never said by most people. Sounds very old fashioned, and maybe British?
O "I haven't decided yet." => Good.
? "I've not decided yet." => Again, never said by most people. Sounds very old fashioned, and maybe British?

Thanks. Isn't the placement of words covered by syntax rather than morphology? Or is this something like morphosyntax?

rotting bones wrote: ↑Sun Jan 11, 2026 11:18 pm Thanks. Isn't the placement of words covered by syntax rather than morphology? Or is this something like morphosyntax?

Look more carefully at the sample sentences. What is different?

I’m going to scream!
I’m gonna scream!
The hobbits are going to Isengard.
*The hobbits are gonna Isengard.

Is it phonology, "going to" turning via sandhi into "gonna"? No, because this doesn't happen in the second pair.

Is it the order of words? No, because they're identical in each pair... unless "gonna" is a word in itself separate from the two words "going to".

zompist wrote: ↑Mon Jan 12, 2026 12:21 am

rotting bones wrote: ↑Sun Jan 11, 2026 11:18 pm Thanks. Isn't the placement of words covered by syntax rather than morphology? Or is this something like morphosyntax?

Look more carefully at the sample sentences. What is different?

I’m going to scream!
I’m gonna scream!
The hobbits are going to Isengard.
*The hobbits are gonna Isengard.

Is it phonology, "going to" turning via sandhi into "gonna"? No, because this doesn't happen in the second pair.

Is it the order of words? No, because they're identical in each pair... unless "gonna" is a word in itself separate from the two words "going to".

My understanding is: "Gonna" is a contraction of "going to". The meaning is never changed by using one or the other. The difference is that the contractions are allowed in some sentence structures and not in others.

If some sentence types have "... <verb (contraction allowed)> ...", while others have "... <verb (contraction not allowed)> ...", this would be a matter of syntax, right?

rotting bones wrote: ↑Mon Jan 12, 2026 12:36 am My understanding is: "Gonna" is a contraction of "going to". The meaning is never changed by using one or the other. The difference is that the contractions are allowed in some sentence structures and not in others.

It's true that contractions can vary by position, see below.

But you're assuming your conclusion here. Why are you assuming "gonna" is two words? Sure, it originated as "going to", but do you think "goodbye" is still a contraction for "God be with ye"? The writing system is probably over-conservative here. As Travis says, speakers seem to have reanalyzed Aux+(P+V) as (Aux+P) V.

(Here's an example of differential contraction. "You can, can't you?" can no longer be stated "You can, cannot you?" On the other hand, when you stress a modal, "not" must receive the stress if it's present, and "n't" must not: "I should not drink more coffee" / "I shouldn't drink more coffee.")

See "you can, cannot you" actually means something like "can you do that?" or "can you can?" or "can you X" It's just using a construction entirely foreign to english except in this one example. Some languages have verb + verb-NEG be the interoggative but not english.

jcb wrote: ↑Sun Jan 11, 2026 11:10 pm

rotting bones wrote: ↑Sun Jan 11, 2026 10:00 pm

Man in Space wrote: ↑Sun Jan 11, 2026 9:56 pm It’s not so much the meaning changes as it is you can only use gonna in certain lexicosyntactic positions.

I’m going to scream!
I’m gonna scream!
The hobbits are going to Isengard.
^XThe hobbits are gonna Isengard.

Thanks. I didn't know contractions only being allowed in certain locations is considered a morphological feature.

For sake of completion, I'll describe some more:
"I have to go to the dentist." => "have to" has /f/, and never /v/.
"I have two dogs." => "have two" has /v/, and never /f/.

And:
X "I've to go to the dentist." => Illegal.
? "I've two dogs." => Never said by most people. Sounds very old fashioned, and maybe British?
O "I haven't decided yet." => Good.
? "I've not decided yet." => Again, never said by most people. Sounds very old fashioned, and maybe British?

‘Maybe British’ intrigued me. Here you go:
✓ I'm going to scream. – fine
✓ I'm gonna¹ scream. – also fine, probably more more natural unless you're reading something out, impersonating a British Pathé narrator or speaking to the Queen or something like that
✓ The Hobbits are going to Isengard. – fine
X The Hobbits are gonna Isengard. – wrong, but also phonologically impossible, because ‘going’ should be stressed there, but I can't stress /ɡənə/
? I've to go to the dentist. – sounds old fashioned, and not what anyone would say now, but not wrong
? I've two dogs. – ditto
✓ I haven't decided yet. – Fine
✓ I've not decided yet. – Fine alone, but a little more natural if you stress the ‘not’

I also have the voicing assimilation in in ‘have to’ /haftə(w)/², and it's ungrammatical to swap the voicing between this an a main verb ‘have’. I also have /əv/ as a past tence clitic/suffix³ thing for modals, derived from ‘have’ again, but I don't think of that as the same lexeme – if it's stressed⁴ it's unreduced to /ɔv/, like ‘of,’ which is shibboleth in writing, and probably the best example of a spoken/written divide, as my other contractions still seem to be phonologically conditioned, and so not lexicalised yet.⁶

Edit: Zomp's right; you can only front a contraction, not the verb + negative together. ‘Can't you?’ is fine, ‘Can you not?’ is fine if rise in pitch is on the ’not’ rather than the ‘can’, but ‘Cannot you?’ is completely ungrammatical.

Edit edit: it's weirder. [kʰan˧ jɵw˧ nɔ̆ʔ˦˥] is asking why someone is unable to do something despite the speaker assuming otherwise, while [kʰan˧ jɵw˧ nɔ̆ʔ˩˨] is asking someone to stop doing something that should be obvious from context. The latter is ungrammatical as a contraction, but the former could be [kʰʌə̆nʔ˦˥ jɵw˦] just fine.

¹ I would never write this as ⟨gonna⟩, because the British outcome is an always unstressed /ɡənə/ and I associate ⟨gonna⟩ with a stressed /ɡɔna/ which (modulo vowel differences) comes across as very American. If I was emphasising the immediacy, I would have to switch back to /gəwɪŋ tə(w)/ or /ɡɜːŋ̍ tə(w)/²
² The /w/s appear before a vowel instead of an intrusive /r/, despite it not being the expected diphthong /ɵw/ before a consonant, like the /j/ in ‘the’. This is actually arguably a difference between preverbal ‘to’ and the normal preposition, although this is a lot more idiolectially variant
³ I'd be surprised if I'm alone in this. Make your arguments now!
⁴ E.g. occasionally in the phrase /wɵd ɔv ʃɵd ɔv kɵd ɔv/ ⟨would of, should of, could of⟩⁵
⁵ It feels wrong to write this with ⟨have⟩
⁶ In the same token, it's completely natural to contract written English when read aloud, and although when reading I might pronounce /əv/ as /av/, it will still be /h/-less

Disclaimer: I don't have any formal training in linguistics. All of what I'm about to say could be uninformed.

zompist wrote: ↑Mon Jan 12, 2026 12:59 am

rotting bones wrote: ↑Mon Jan 12, 2026 12:36 am My understanding is: "Gonna" is a contraction of "going to". The meaning is never changed by using one or the other. The difference is that the contractions are allowed in some sentence structures and not in others.

It's true that contractions can vary by position, see below.

But you're assuming your conclusion here. Why are you assuming "gonna" is two words? Sure, it originated as "going to", but do you think "goodbye" is still a contraction for "God be with ye"? The writing system is probably over-conservative here. As Travis says, speakers seem to have reanalyzed Aux+(P+V) as (Aux+P) V.

Von + dative looks like a morphological change to me because both von and the dative are used in other contexts to mean other things. If "gonna" were used to mean anything other than "going to", "going to" were contracted into anything other than "gonna", there were also sentences that accepted "gonna" but not "going to", etc., then I would have an easier time separating the two.

If any of these changes happen to develop, I would say a morphological change has happened. Let me know if the field of linguistics uses different principles.

As long as the two are joined at the hip, it looks to me like the difference is in the structure of the verb phrase allowed in different sentence types. Yucatec Maya also has pervasive contractions. What I discussed is the kind of framework I assumed when studying that language (by myself).

Then again, since English relies very heavily on syntax, maybe developments in syntax would be the most significant for English?

zompist wrote: ↑Mon Jan 12, 2026 12:59 am (Here's an example of differential contraction. "You can, can't you?" can no longer be stated "You can, cannot you?" On the other hand, when you stress a modal, "not" must receive the stress if it's present, and "n't" must not: "I should not drink more coffee" / "I shouldn't drink more coffee.")

The uncontracted sentence isn't, "You can, cannot you?" It's, "You can, can you not?"

This might be a morphological change. Then again, "You can, can you not?" is archaic even in written English.

Edit: Sorry, I didn't see Lērisama's edit.