The CBB

clawgrip wrote:Transatlantic confusion strikes again. "Do let's" and "Don't let's" are acceptable in British English (are they normal or a bit stuffy though? British people please elaborate!). I guess it shows the speaker's enthusiasm.

British here - they remind me very much of reading Enid Blyton, so for me at least it sounds old-fashioned or quaint.

I guess Russian жена and четир are cognates of Latin quattuor and English queen.
According to russian the first vowel was palatal and according to the centum langs there was a labialized velar. I'm I right?

Omzinesý wrote:I guess Russian жена and четир are cognates of Latin quattuor and English queen.

That much, was what I learned in university.

Omzinesý wrote:According to russian the first vowel was palatal and according to the centum langs there was a labialized velar. I'm I right?

But as for that part, I don't know.

eldin raigmore wrote:

Omzinesý wrote:I guess Russian жена and четир are cognates of Latin quattuor and English queen.

That much, was what I learned in university.

Omzinesý wrote:According to russian the first vowel was palatal and according to the centum langs there was a labialized velar. I'm I right?

But as for that part, I don't know.

Seems to be correct, with PIE having *gʷḗn (жена and queen) and *kʷetwóres (четыре and quattuor). I'm assuming "palatal" here means "front", but with PIE being reconstructed the way it is (laryngeal hypothesis and all that), most non-zero-grade vowels are likely to be *e anyway, if I remember correctly.

sangi39 wrote:

eldin raigmore wrote:

Omzinesý wrote:I guess Russian жена and четир are cognates of Latin quattuor and English queen.

That much, was what I learned in university.

Omzinesý wrote:According to russian the first vowel was palatal and according to the centum langs there was a labialized velar. I'm I right?

But as for that part, I don't know.

Seems to be correct, with PIE having *gʷḗn (жена and queen) and *kʷetwóres (четыре and quattuor). I'm assuming "palatal" here means "front", but with PIE being reconstructed the way it is (laryngeal hypothesis and all that), most non-zero-grade vowels are likely to be *e anyway, if I remember correctly.

So the sibilants in Russian are created by the second palatalization due to *e?

Omzinesý wrote:

sangi39 wrote:

eldin raigmore wrote:

Omzinesý wrote:I guess Russian жена and четир are cognates of Latin quattuor and English queen.

That much, was what I learned in university.

Omzinesý wrote:According to russian the first vowel was palatal and according to the centum langs there was a labialized velar. I'm I right?

But as for that part, I don't know.

Seems to be correct, with PIE having *gʷḗn (жена and queen) and *kʷetwóres (четыре and quattuor). I'm assuming "palatal" here means "front", but with PIE being reconstructed the way it is (laryngeal hypothesis and all that), most non-zero-grade vowels are likely to be *e anyway, if I remember correctly.

So the sibilants in Russian are created by the second palatalization due to *e?

Russian ж has a number of different sources, I think, PIE *gʰ, *gʷʰ, *g and *gʷ before front vowels and *j as part of the first palatalisation, *zj (from PIE *ǵy and *ǵʰy) and later *žj, while ч mostly just comes from *k and *kʷ as part of the first palatalisation and later *čj.

From what I can recall, a lot of instances of /s/ and /z/ in Russian come from original *s and then velars during the second palatalisation or the palato-alveolars in PIE while the Russian post-aveolars come from the PIE velars and labiovelars during the first palatalisation and Proto-Balto-Slavic sibilants during iotisation.

Does anyone know whether there is any natural language that has a term for:
MFZSWBWFZSD ?
(that is, Mother's Father's Sister's Son's Wife's Brother's Wife's Father's Sister's Son's Daughter ?)
Even a shortish phrasal term?
Does any conlang?
Is there any natural culture in which such a kinship might be important?
Or any constructed culture?
Can anyone think of a culture -- natural or otherwise -- in which men usually marry their MFZSWBWFZSD or a woman so classified?

__________________________________________________________________

By the way:

Simply Googling for "marriage to FFZDDD" (a second-cousin-once-removed) I found a couple of references to real-life cultures in which that was the preferred marriage.
There are even more references to real-life cultures in which "marriage to FZDD" (a first-cousin-once-removed) is preferred; and they're easier to find (by Google, at least).

So that answers a question I posted on this thread long ago that was not answered here until now.

That sounds like an extremely specific relationship!

I suppose in English that'd arguably be your first cousin once removed's sister-in-law's first cousin once removed (if you consider a brother-in-law's wife to be your sister-in-law), which could further be simplified in English as "my cousin's sister-in-law's cousin". That's not totally precise (in particular, it doesn't specify the genders of the participants), but would certainly be good enough in American culture!

In my American culture, that's a cousin, period. Everyone's a cousin after a certain point, and that's good enough.

Thanks, alynnidalar and Dormouse559.
@Dormouse, yeah, mine too.
@alynnidalar, not necessarily that specific, depending on what you meant by "specific".
I'm thinking of "classificatory kinship systems",
those in which a man's brother's kin by any kinterm, are his own kin by that same kinterm,
and a woman's sister's kin by any kinterm, are her own kin by that same kinterm;
and reciprocally, anyone's male relative's brother, is kin to them by the same kinterm that relative is kin to them,
and anyone's female relative's sister, is kin to them by the same kinterm that relative is kin to them.
In particular: I'm going to follow this up by a post in some other ACH thread -- not this "quick question" thread, since it's not just going to be one question, and might not be quick.
I'm going to ask about fourth- and fifth- -degree relatives (probably among others); including, for instance, parent's sibling's spouse's sibling's children. I don't think the English term "cousin" actually covers these, at least not universally or not well; I don't think your parent's sibling's spouse's sibling counts as your "aunt" or "uncle" in English, at least not in all 'lects or not with uncontroversial grammaticality (if "grammaticality" is the right term).

That "parent's parent's sibling's child's spouse's sibling's spouse's parent's sibling's child's child" example --
-- an 11th-degree relationship which is twice affine, if I'm counting right and even correctly understand the meaning of "affine" --
-- is a very extreme example of things I'd like to know; I'm not confident I'll ever find out.

But thanks to everyone who answers!

eldin raigmore wrote:Does anyone know whether there is any natural language that has a term for:
MFZSWBWFZSD ?
(that is, Mother's Father's Sister's Son's Wife's Brother's Wife's Father's Sister's Son's Daughter ?)
Even a shortish phrasal term?
Does any conlang?
Is there any natural culture in which such a kinship might be important?
Or any constructed culture?
Can anyone think of a culture -- natural or otherwise -- in which men usually marry their MFZSWBWFZSD or a woman so classified?

No Daine that I'm aware of would even recognise such a relationship. At best, such a girl might be considered to be your "cousin". And cousin is a terribly nebulous word in Daine languages, as it includes counsinly relations on both mother's and father's side as well as close friends and fast acquaintances. While your father and your mother's father are certainly related to you; your father's relatives and grandfather's relatives are not. Daine reckon their kinship through the mother, so your relations would include your mother's sister's & their children; your maternal grandmother's and their children and so forth.

As far as marriagability goes, the above would certainly be an eligible mate for a boy. In direct lineage, they reckon back seven generations. Any girl older than that is considered distantly related enough to no longer count as a direct ancestor. What would be odder than a girl mating with her own G-G-G-G-G-G-G-Grandson is that she'd even consider a relationship with someone so very young!

The joys of long & vigorous lifespans!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0VKAASpt26M

There's already a "kinship" thread in "Translations".
See viewtopic.php?f=9&t=5427&p=250467#p250467

elemtilas wrote:.... While your father and your mother's father are certainly related to you; your father's relatives and grandfather's relatives are not. Daine reckon their kinship through the mother, so your relations would include your mother's sister's & their children; your maternal grandmother's and their children and so forth. ....

Doesn't this mean a Daine could be related to another Daine who isn't related back?
Or am I misunderstanding?
Or is what you said open to two legitimate interpretations, one of which you meant, and the other being the one that I've thought of?

For instance, suppose EGO's mother's mother is related to ALTER's mother's father or to ALTER's father's mother;
Could EGO count ALTER as a relative while ALTER doesn't count EGO as a relative, or vice-versa?

If that's a bad example, maybe you (or someone) could think of a better one.

[hr][/hr]
[hr][/hr]

@everyone:
How many of us, and who among us, have concultures or conlangs in which "relatedness" is not a reciprocal relation?

[hr][/hr]
[hr][/hr]

Also:
Do any of us know of any natlangs or natcultures or conlangs or concultures in which there are reciprocal terms for kinship relations that have only non-reciprocal terms in our own native languages or in languages we're "web-fluent-ish" in (e.g. everyone on CBB seems to be fluent in English or some other Germanic language, I think (I could be wrong).)
For instance, "parent" and "child".

eldin raigmore wrote:Also:
Do any of us know of any natlangs or natcultures or conlangs or concultures in which there are reciprocal terms for kinship relations that have only non-reciprocal terms in our own native languages or in languages we're "web-fluent-ish" in (e.g. everyone on CBB seems to be fluent in English or some other Germanic language, I think (I could be wrong).)
For instance, "parent" and "child".

I know an example where it is the other way round. English has symetric sibling/(brother/sister), but Indonesian has asymetric kakak (older brother) and adek (younger brother).

Creyeditor wrote:I know an example where it is the other way round. English has symetric sibling/(brother/sister), but Indonesian has asymetric kakak (older brother) and adek (younger brother).

Thank you!

Can anyone tell me:
I have read that, in societies divided into patriclans (everyone belongs to the one their father belonged to);
people feel closest kin to their own patriclan (of course),
and then to their mother's patriclan,
but they also feel kin to their grandmothers' patriclans.

I hypothesize they feel closer to their father's mother's patriclan than to their mother's mother's patriclan (if those are different from each other and from their own and their mother's patriclans).

Is that true? Or at least probable?

And what about their father's father's mother's patriclan?

Assuming that their patriclan, their mother's patriclan, their grandmothers' patriclans, and their father's father's mother's patriclan, are five different patriclans;
do they feel more kin to their mother's mother's patriclan, or to their father's father's mother's patriclan?

We can flip all this around and talk about matriclans (everyone belongs to the one their mother belongs to).
What's a likelier order (by "feeling closeness of kinship") of matriclans:

1. own matriclan
2. father's matriclan
3. mother's father's matriclan
4. father's father's matriclan
5. mother's mother's father's matriclan

or

1. own matriclan
2. father's matriclan
3. mother's father's matriclan
4. mother's mother's father's matriclan
5. father's father's matriclan

?
And in fact will they feel noticeably closer to their mother's father's matriclan than to their father's father's matriclan?

Besides the Silingæ, are there any other Germanic tribes from 200 AD onward that inhabited the Greater Poland region?

Ælfwine wrote:Besides the Silingæ, are there any other Germanic tribes from 200 AD onward that inhabited the Greater Poland region?

The first one I could find were the Lugii, but both they and the Silingi seem to be classed as a subset of the Vandals who were spread variously about the region, IIRC.

Jackk wrote: ↑

17 Jan 2017 17:12

clawgrip wrote:Transatlantic confusion strikes again. "Do let's" and "Don't let's" are acceptable in British English (are they normal or a bit stuffy though? British people please elaborate!). I guess it shows the speaker's enthusiasm.

British here - they remind me very much of reading Enid Blyton, so for me at least it sounds old-fashioned or quaint.

To my American ear, "do let's" and "don't lets" sound very much proper-British to me (the pinky-extending, tea-drinking stereotype).

And I'm the 40,000th person to view this thread!

Is it possible for a society to reject writing for a long time after they became more established, e.g. after they had their own kingdom?

k1234567890y wrote: ↑

10 Apr 2018 19:06

Is it possible for a society to reject writing for a long time after they became more established, e.g. after they had their own kingdom?

It's happened at least once, with Linear B. Used primarily, as far as we can tell, for the recording of what effectively amounts to admin data (where certain goods came from, where they went, and why), it fell out of use pretty much as soon as the Mycenaean states of Crete and mainland Greece collapsed around 1200BC, with the Greek language in those areas not written down again for another 400 years.