(L&N) Q&A Thread - Quick questions go here

A forum for discussing linguistics or just languages in general.
User avatar
Illuminus
rupestrian
rupestrian
Posts: 8
Joined: Sat 25 Nov 2017, 21:04

Re: (L&N) Q&A Thread - Quick questions go here

Post by Illuminus » Sat 02 Dec 2017, 16:06

If English was OSV what would "I wish he would stop killing me" become? I wish me he would stop killing? He I wish would stop killing me? He I wish killing me would stop?
Visit my minicity!
Native: :gbr: :fra: | Interested: :chn: :non: :lotr: :navi: :lat: :chn: :deu:
User avatar
Creyeditor
mongolian
mongolian
Posts: 3948
Joined: Tue 14 Aug 2012, 18:32

Re: (L&N) Q&A Thread - Quick questions go here

Post by Creyeditor » Sat 02 Dec 2017, 16:24

Here is my idea about that:

IIRC, complement clauses are objects, so the first transformation would be
[ I ]s [wish]v [he would stop killing me]o → [he would stop killing me]o [ I ]s [wish]v
If we look inside the complement clause, we have to have another transformation:
[he]s [would stop killing]v [me]o → [me]o [he]s [would stop killing]v

If we put the two together we get: [[me]o [he]s [would stop killing]v]o [ I ]s [wish]v
= Me he would stop killing, I wish.

This is of course a very relex-y way of delaing with it.
Creyeditor
"Thoughts are free."
Produce, Analyze, Manipulate
1 :deu: 2 :eng: 3 :fra: 4 :esp: 4 :ind:
:con: Ook & Omlűt & Nautli languages & Sperenjas
[<3] Papuan languages, Morphophonology, Lexical Semantics [<3]
User avatar
Illuminus
rupestrian
rupestrian
Posts: 8
Joined: Sat 25 Nov 2017, 21:04

Re: (L&N) Q&A Thread - Quick questions go here

Post by Illuminus » Sat 02 Dec 2017, 16:28

Thanks, that was a puzzle that kept me up last night on a Google marathon. Very satisfying to get an answer. (Admittedly not from my own research.)
Visit my minicity!
Native: :gbr: :fra: | Interested: :chn: :non: :lotr: :navi: :lat: :chn: :deu:
User avatar
DesEsseintes
cleardarkness
cleardarkness
Posts: 4472
Joined: Sun 31 Mar 2013, 12:16

Re: (L&N) Q&A Thread - Quick questions go here

Post by DesEsseintes » Sat 02 Dec 2017, 17:47

Or even:

Me killing he stop would, I wish.
User avatar
Isfendil
greek
greek
Posts: 655
Joined: Fri 19 Feb 2016, 03:47

Re: (L&N) Q&A Thread - Quick questions go here

Post by Isfendil » Sat 02 Dec 2017, 19:16

DesEsseintes wrote:
Sat 02 Dec 2017, 03:47
gestaltist wrote:
Mon 27 Nov 2017, 17:34
Salmoneus wrote:
Mon 27 Nov 2017, 17:28
gestaltist wrote:
Mon 27 Nov 2017, 14:54
Alright. The idea is that this language has very strong retroflex harmony. Basically, all coronals become retroflex, and all vowels become rhotacized if there is at least one retroflex anywhere in the word. So for example /ʈatu/ = [ʈa˞ʈu˞] but the vowels rhoticized even in absence of neighboring retroflexes, e.g.: /ʈaku/ > [ʈa˞ku˞]. In a second step, the back vowels moved from rhotacized to unrounded so [o˞ u]˞ > [ɤ ɯ]. Finally, retroflexes became alveolar, so we end up with tə˞tɯ / tə˞kɯ (there was further merging of rhotacized /a/ and /e/).
Why would this happen, given that rhoticity and roundedness are phonologically similar?
A good question that I don't have an answer to. Do you think dissimilatory unrounding of the non-rhotic /o u/ would be more likely instead?
Here’s an idea, although I don’t know how it ties in with the rest of your system:

Have /e i/ back to /ɤ ɯ/ in the rhotic/retroflex environments? Much Mandarin.
Love me that sound change.
User avatar
gestaltist
roman
roman
Posts: 1463
Joined: Wed 11 Feb 2015, 11:23

Re: (L&N) Q&A Thread - Quick questions go here

Post by gestaltist » Sat 02 Dec 2017, 19:32

Isfendil wrote:
Sat 02 Dec 2017, 19:16
DesEsseintes wrote:
Sat 02 Dec 2017, 03:47
gestaltist wrote:
Mon 27 Nov 2017, 17:34
Salmoneus wrote:
Mon 27 Nov 2017, 17:28
gestaltist wrote:
Mon 27 Nov 2017, 14:54
Alright. The idea is that this language has very strong retroflex harmony. Basically, all coronals become retroflex, and all vowels become rhotacized if there is at least one retroflex anywhere in the word. So for example /ʈatu/ = [ʈa˞ʈu˞] but the vowels rhoticized even in absence of neighboring retroflexes, e.g.: /ʈaku/ > [ʈa˞ku˞]. In a second step, the back vowels moved from rhotacized to unrounded so [o˞ u]˞ > [ɤ ɯ]. Finally, retroflexes became alveolar, so we end up with tə˞tɯ / tə˞kɯ (there was further merging of rhotacized /a/ and /e/).
Why would this happen, given that rhoticity and roundedness are phonologically similar?
A good question that I don't have an answer to. Do you think dissimilatory unrounding of the non-rhotic /o u/ would be more likely instead?
Here’s an idea, although I don’t know how it ties in with the rest of your system:

Have /e i/ back to /ɤ ɯ/ in the rhotic/retroflex environments? Much Mandarin.
Love me that sound change.
Agreed. I have added it to the language. Thanks Des!
User avatar
Ælfwine
greek
greek
Posts: 599
Joined: Mon 21 Sep 2015, 00:28
Location: New Jersey

Re: (L&N) Q&A Thread - Quick questions go here

Post by Ælfwine » Sun 03 Dec 2017, 03:20

nvm
Last edited by Ælfwine on Tue 05 Dec 2017, 08:28, edited 1 time in total.
The worst thing you can do to an idea is forget about it.
User avatar
GrandPiano
mayan
mayan
Posts: 2249
Joined: Sun 11 Jan 2015, 23:22
Location: Ohio, USA

Re: (L&N) Q&A Thread - Quick questions go here

Post by GrandPiano » Sun 03 Dec 2017, 18:32

Illuminus wrote:
Sat 02 Dec 2017, 16:06
If English was OSV what would "I wish he would stop killing me" become? I wish me he would stop killing? He I wish would stop killing me? He I wish killing me would stop?
My solution to this is simply to first figure out what the object of each verb is, then put each object before the corresponding subject and verb (or just the verb if there is no subject). The verbs in this sentence are "wish", "would", "stop", and "killing". Marking each object with brackets:

I wish [he would [stop [killing [me]]]].

And then putting each object before its respective subject and verb (and removing brackets as this is done):

I wish [he would [stop [killing [me]]]].
I wish [he would [stop [me killing]]].
I wish [he would [me killing stop]].
I wish [me killing stop he would].
Me killing stop he would I wish.

(The comma that Creyeditor and DesEsseintes included seems unnecessary to me. In a language that is SVO by default, it makes sense, since it separates the preceding element from the following one and helps the reader to parse the unusual word order. However, in a language that is normally OSV, putting "I wish" at the end is the default, so a comma would not be needed.)
Last edited by GrandPiano on Sun 03 Dec 2017, 18:42, edited 1 time in total.
:eng: - Native
:chn: - B2
:esp: - A2
:jpn: - A2
User avatar
Creyeditor
mongolian
mongolian
Posts: 3948
Joined: Tue 14 Aug 2012, 18:32

Re: (L&N) Q&A Thread - Quick questions go here

Post by Creyeditor » Sun 03 Dec 2017, 18:42

I think the assumptions you make about the object status are at least not uncontroversial. [stop killing me] being the object of a verb 'would' might be the least common one. I think your solution is as probable as just taking the verbal complex [would stop killing] as one complex verbal form.
Edit: Also, I included the comma just to marked embedding, maybe that's just my native German influence.
Creyeditor
"Thoughts are free."
Produce, Analyze, Manipulate
1 :deu: 2 :eng: 3 :fra: 4 :esp: 4 :ind:
:con: Ook & Omlűt & Nautli languages & Sperenjas
[<3] Papuan languages, Morphophonology, Lexical Semantics [<3]
User avatar
GrandPiano
mayan
mayan
Posts: 2249
Joined: Sun 11 Jan 2015, 23:22
Location: Ohio, USA

Re: (L&N) Q&A Thread - Quick questions go here

Post by GrandPiano » Sun 03 Dec 2017, 18:51

Creyeditor wrote:
Sun 03 Dec 2017, 18:42
I think the assumptions you make about the object status are at least not uncontroversial. [stop killing me] being the object of a verb 'would' might be the least common one. I think your solution is as probable as just taking the verbal complex [would stop killing] as one complex verbal form.
While I agree that whether or not "stop killing me" is truly an object of "would" is debatable, syntactically English seems to regard it as such. The main verb clause follows an auxiliary verb, just as the object of a verb always follows the verb. I can't think of any case where auxiliary verbs and main verbs are treated differently from verbs and objects syntactically in English, though if there is such a case, I'd be happy to hear it. This leads me to believe that it would be the same if English were OSV - that is, auxiliary verbs and their subjects would follow main verb phrases, just as main verbs and their subjects would follow their objects.
Edit: That being said, I am not familiar with any OSV natlangs, so my assumptions are purely theoretical.
:eng: - Native
:chn: - B2
:esp: - A2
:jpn: - A2
User avatar
Creyeditor
mongolian
mongolian
Posts: 3948
Joined: Tue 14 Aug 2012, 18:32

Re: (L&N) Q&A Thread - Quick questions go here

Post by Creyeditor » Sun 03 Dec 2017, 19:49

Well, you have auxillary inversion, but no object inversion in questions, does that count?

I would do it. > Would I do it?
I like beans. > *I beans like?
Beans, I like. > *I beans like?
Creyeditor
"Thoughts are free."
Produce, Analyze, Manipulate
1 :deu: 2 :eng: 3 :fra: 4 :esp: 4 :ind:
:con: Ook & Omlűt & Nautli languages & Sperenjas
[<3] Papuan languages, Morphophonology, Lexical Semantics [<3]
User avatar
Xonen
moderator
moderator
Posts: 1392
Joined: Sat 15 May 2010, 23:25

Re: (L&N) Q&A Thread - Quick questions go here

Post by Xonen » Sun 03 Dec 2017, 23:35

Creyeditor wrote:
Sun 03 Dec 2017, 19:49
Well, you have auxillary inversion, but no object inversion in questions, does that count?
I'm quite sure it does. There are also other tests for objecthood that the main verbs of auxiliaries seem to fail, such as passivization:

I would be killed by him.
*Killing me is would by him.

Replacing the object with a pronoun:

I like them.
*He would it.

And probably some others, but I don't have time to really Google this right now. Of course, none of these tests are foolproof, but when something fails several of them, then there is cause to suspect that said something is not an object. Especially if there is no particularly strong reason to assume it to be an object in the first place.
User avatar
GrandPiano
mayan
mayan
Posts: 2249
Joined: Sun 11 Jan 2015, 23:22
Location: Ohio, USA

Re: (L&N) Q&A Thread - Quick questions go here

Post by GrandPiano » Mon 04 Dec 2017, 02:00

Creyeditor wrote:
Sun 03 Dec 2017, 19:49
Well, you have auxillary inversion, but no object inversion in questions, does that count?

I would do it. > Would I do it?
I like beans. > *I beans like?
Beans, I like. > *I beans like?
I did think about this. One thing to consider is that the inversion is only between the subject and the auxiliary (and if there is no auxiliary then the dummy auxiliary "do" must be used); the object is not involved. Your second example is different from the first one; for it to match up, the sentence it becomes would have to be "Like beans I?" (this doesn't work because, as mentioned earlier, an auxiliary verb is needed, so it's actually: I like beans. > I do like beans. > Do I like beans?). There is actually one case where this inversion can be done with a non-auxiliary verb, and that's with the copula be:

It is a bean. > Is it a bean?

Furthermore, some dialects allow non-auxiliary have to be inverted:

I have a bean. > Have I a bean?

But in any case, I'm not sure subject-auxiliary inversion really proves anything, since it doesn't affect the object.

Xonen wrote:
Sun 03 Dec 2017, 23:35
There are also other tests for objecthood that the main verbs of auxiliaries seem to fail, such as passivization:

I would be killed by him.
*Killing me is would by him.
Part of the reason the second sentence doesn't work is because the passive voice requires the passivized verb to be in the past participle, but auxiliary verbs like would are defective and lack past participles.

In fact, the "object" in question here is not just "killing me" but "be killing me", and that could actually be evidence for it not being syntactically equivalent to a nominal object, since while "killing me" doesn't really sound terribly incorrect as the subject of the second sentence, "be killing me" does.

Xonen wrote:
Sun 03 Dec 2017, 23:35
Replacing the object with a pronoun:

I like them.
*He would it.
That's actually a good point. The only counterargument I might pose is that an auxiliary verb (at least in the context of English syntax) could be defined as a verb that takes a verb phrase as its object, and therefore by definition its object cannot be a noun or pronoun.


Here's my question: "Stop killing me" in "he would stop killing me" is clearly an argument of "would". So, if it isn't an object, what is it? (Or, if it actually isn't an argument of "would", what would you call its relationship?)
:eng: - Native
:chn: - B2
:esp: - A2
:jpn: - A2
User avatar
Znex
roman
roman
Posts: 1130
Joined: Mon 12 Aug 2013, 13:05
Location: Australia

Re: (L&N) Q&A Thread - Quick questions go here

Post by Znex » Mon 04 Dec 2017, 03:07

Illuminus wrote:
Sat 02 Dec 2017, 16:06
If English was OSV what would "I wish he would stop killing me" become? I wish me he would stop killing? He I wish would stop killing me? He I wish killing me would stop?
Well first things first, the way to proceed about this is much more obvious when "that" is used:
I wish that he would stop killing me

So there are two distinct clauses. German goes further and tends to put a comma between clauses:
I wish, (that) he would stop killing me

Then you can treat each clause separately. Depending on how you want verbs to be placed can change the look (eg. often SOV/OSV implies a main verb-final position).
Me he would stop killing (that) I wish vs. Me he stop killing would (that) I wish vs. Me he killing stop would (that) I wish
:eng: : [tick] | :grc: :wls: : [:|] | :chn: :isr: : [:S] | :nor: :deu: :rom: :ind: :con: : [:x]
Conlangs: Pofp'ash, Ikwawese, Old Quelgic, Nisukil Pʰakwi, Apsiska
User avatar
Creyeditor
mongolian
mongolian
Posts: 3948
Joined: Tue 14 Aug 2012, 18:32

Re: (L&N) Q&A Thread - Quick questions go here

Post by Creyeditor » Mon 04 Dec 2017, 23:30

GrandPiano wrote:
Mon 04 Dec 2017, 02:00
Here's my question: "Stop killing me" in "he would stop killing me" is clearly an argument of "would". So, if it isn't an object, what is it? (Or, if it actually isn't an argument of "would", what would you call its relationship?)
I'm glad you ask. This is what people (at least) in Generative linguistics call a head-complement relationship. The object is the complement of the verb, the verb phrase is the complement of the auxiliary and so on. But keep in mind that the subject is usually not considered the complement of anything.
Creyeditor
"Thoughts are free."
Produce, Analyze, Manipulate
1 :deu: 2 :eng: 3 :fra: 4 :esp: 4 :ind:
:con: Ook & Omlűt & Nautli languages & Sperenjas
[<3] Papuan languages, Morphophonology, Lexical Semantics [<3]
User avatar
Xonen
moderator
moderator
Posts: 1392
Joined: Sat 15 May 2010, 23:25

Re: (L&N) Q&A Thread - Quick questions go here

Post by Xonen » Tue 05 Dec 2017, 02:08

GrandPiano wrote:
Mon 04 Dec 2017, 02:00
Creyeditor wrote:
Sun 03 Dec 2017, 19:49
Well, you have auxillary inversion, but no object inversion in questions, does that count?

I would do it. > Would I do it?
I like beans. > *I beans like?
Beans, I like. > *I beans like?
I did think about this. One thing to consider is that the inversion is only between the subject and the auxiliary (and if there is no auxiliary then the dummy auxiliary "do" must be used); the object is not involved. Your second example is different from the first one; for it to match up, the sentence it becomes would have to be "Like beans I?" (this doesn't work because, as mentioned earlier, an auxiliary verb is needed, so it's actually: I like beans. > I do like beans. > Do I like beans?).
The inversion turns the order into AUX-S-V-O, so strictly speaking, I'm guessing that should actually become "like I beans?" In any case, this does show that auxiliaries are syntactically different from other verbs - but granted, it's not a great test for objects.

Xonen wrote:
Sun 03 Dec 2017, 23:35
There are also other tests for objecthood that the main verbs of auxiliaries seem to fail, such as passivization:

I would be killed by him.
*Killing me is would by him.
Part of the reason the second sentence doesn't work is because the passive voice requires the passivized verb to be in the past participle, but auxiliary verbs like would are defective and lack past participles.

In fact, the "object" in question here is not just "killing me" but "be killing me", and that could actually be evidence for it not being syntactically equivalent to a nominal object, since while "killing me" doesn't really sound terribly incorrect as the subject of the second sentence, "be killing me" does.
Actually, I think I should just have used kill (not killing) in order for the structure to be perfectly analogical to nominal objects. In any case, it's not.

Here's my question: "Stop killing me" in "he would stop killing me" is clearly an argument of "would". So, if it isn't an object, what is it? (Or, if it actually isn't an argument of "would", what would you call its relationship?)
Well, I dug up my old English textbooks from '06, and apparently, "the bride's mother threw a large pickled gherkin at the tormented lover".

Nothing that useful on this particular subject, though. "Complement" is about as specific as these seem to get - which isn't that helpful, since objects are also a type of complement. But at least it's a fairly safe term to use.
User avatar
Ælfwine
greek
greek
Posts: 599
Joined: Mon 21 Sep 2015, 00:28
Location: New Jersey

Re: (L&N) Q&A Thread - Quick questions go here

Post by Ælfwine » Tue 05 Dec 2017, 08:30

nvm
Last edited by Ælfwine on Tue 05 Dec 2017, 17:55, edited 1 time in total.
The worst thing you can do to an idea is forget about it.
User avatar
Creyeditor
mongolian
mongolian
Posts: 3948
Joined: Tue 14 Aug 2012, 18:32

Re: (L&N) Q&A Thread - Quick questions go here

Post by Creyeditor » Tue 05 Dec 2017, 15:02

I don't know how Chinese converbs started out, were they verbs or prepositions. Does anyone know?
Maybe the new Conlangery episode will reveals the answer.
Creyeditor
"Thoughts are free."
Produce, Analyze, Manipulate
1 :deu: 2 :eng: 3 :fra: 4 :esp: 4 :ind:
:con: Ook & Omlűt & Nautli languages & Sperenjas
[<3] Papuan languages, Morphophonology, Lexical Semantics [<3]
Iyionaku
roman
roman
Posts: 1471
Joined: Sun 25 May 2014, 13:17

Re: (L&N) Q&A Thread - Quick questions go here

Post by Iyionaku » Wed 06 Dec 2017, 11:37

Creyeditor wrote:
Tue 05 Dec 2017, 15:02
I don't know how Chinese converbs started out, were they verbs or prepositions. Does anyone know?
Maybe the new Conlangery episode will reveals the answer.
I'm quite sure they were verbs originally, but I can't find a verification source. I definitely have read about it.
Follow-up question: How are the conlangery episodes? Are they worth it? They're at 1 hour each so they're propably really deep, aren't they?
Heaven and Earth, but I feel the color of the cake when you keep the Victoria.
I had a mantra on the moss and I had to go to bed.


Oh, and there is a [ɕ] in my name!
User avatar
gestaltist
roman
roman
Posts: 1463
Joined: Wed 11 Feb 2015, 11:23

Re: (L&N) Q&A Thread - Quick questions go here

Post by gestaltist » Wed 06 Dec 2017, 13:51

Iyionaku wrote:
Wed 06 Dec 2017, 11:37
Creyeditor wrote:
Tue 05 Dec 2017, 15:02
I don't know how Chinese converbs started out, were they verbs or prepositions. Does anyone know?
Maybe the new Conlangery episode will reveals the answer.
I'm quite sure they were verbs originally, but I can't find a verification source. I definitely have read about it.
Follow-up question: How are the conlangery episodes? Are they worth it? They're at 1 hour each so they're propably really deep, aren't they?
Yes, they are worth it, especially during the period when William Annis was participating. He was always super well prepared with a lot of interesting research. I learned a lot from that show.
Post Reply