Today I learned ...

A forum for discussing linguistics or just languages in general.
Nachtuil
greek
greek
Posts: 471
Joined: 20 Jul 2016 23:16

Re: Today I learned ...

Post by Nachtuil » 26 Nov 2018 21:11

I learned that nasals are also considered stops. Maybe I knew once but quickly just started referring to oral stops as stops and nasal stops as nasals. [:$] [O.O]

yangfiretiger121
sinic
sinic
Posts: 205
Joined: 17 Jun 2018 02:04

Re: Today I learned ...

Post by yangfiretiger121 » 29 Nov 2018 16:42

Nachtuil wrote:
26 Nov 2018 21:11
I learned that nasals are also considered stops. Maybe I knew once but quickly just started referring to oral stops as stops and nasal stops as nasals. [:$] [O.O]
And, this is why "stop" is rarely, if ever, used anymore. To expound, nasals/"nasal stops," such as [n], are considered sonorants because of their non-turbulent airflow, while plosives/"oral stops"/"stops," such as [p], are considered obstruents because they completely obstruct airflow and, thereby, have turbulent airflow.
Alien conlangs (Font may be needed for Vai symbols)

shimobaatar
korean
korean
Posts: 11667
Joined: 12 Jul 2013 22:09
Location: PA → IN

Re: Today I learned ...

Post by shimobaatar » 29 Nov 2018 17:31

yangfiretiger121 wrote:
29 Nov 2018 16:42
And, this is why "stop" is rarely, if ever, used anymore.
Oh, where is this the case? Where I study, I almost never hear "plosive". Oral and nasal stops are typically just referred to as "stops" and "nasals", respectively. Of course, the full terms are used when clarification is necessary.

User avatar
eldin raigmore
korean
korean
Posts: 6418
Joined: 14 Aug 2010 18:38
Location: SouthEast Michigan

Re: Today I learned ...

Post by eldin raigmore » 30 Nov 2018 02:07

I call them “stops” in codas and “plosives” in onsets.
But on the ZBB they made fun of me. 😉

yangfiretiger121
sinic
sinic
Posts: 205
Joined: 17 Jun 2018 02:04

Re: Today I learned ...

Post by yangfiretiger121 » 30 Nov 2018 16:16

shimobaatar wrote:
29 Nov 2018 17:31
yangfiretiger121 wrote:
29 Nov 2018 16:42
And, this is why "stop" is rarely, if ever, used anymore.
Oh, where is this the case? Where I study, I almost never hear "plosive". Oral and nasal stops are typically just referred to as "stops" and "nasals", respectively. Of course, the full terms are used when clarification is necessary.
I watched a few YouTube videos by a dialect coach, who used "plosive" when describing [q], and presumed that usage was the standard now.
Last edited by yangfiretiger121 on 30 Nov 2018 20:08, edited 1 time in total.
Alien conlangs (Font may be needed for Vai symbols)

User avatar
Pabappa
sinic
sinic
Posts: 236
Joined: 18 Nov 2017 02:41
Contact:

Re: Today I learned ...

Post by Pabappa » 30 Nov 2018 19:27

[<3] context matters. If you say "voiceless stop" we can assume you mean plosives unless this is for a nonhuman language. Likewise "voiced stops" will generally exclude nasals, because few languages distinguish voice on nasals, though again context matters. (Note that voiceless nasals are not stops ... the difference between voiced and voiceless nasals is not quite the same as between and voiced and voiceless stops).
Sorry guys, this one has the worst sting.

User avatar
GrandPiano
runic
runic
Posts: 2690
Joined: 11 Jan 2015 23:22
Location: Ohio, USA

Re: Today I learned ...

Post by GrandPiano » 01 Dec 2018 07:41

Pabappa wrote:
30 Nov 2018 19:27
(Note that voiceless nasals are not stops ... the difference between voiced and voiceless nasals is not quite the same as between and voiced and voiceless stops).
Can you elaborate on this? My understanding was that nasal stops are considered stops because they block the airflow in the oral cavity (even though they still allow air to pass through the nasal cavity), and that is the case for both voiced and voiceless nasals. How are voiceless nasals different from voiced nasals, other than the lack of voicing?
:eng: - Native
:chn: - B2
:esp: - A2
:jpn: - A2

User avatar
Pabappa
sinic
sinic
Posts: 236
Joined: 18 Nov 2017 02:41
Contact:

Re: Today I learned ...

Post by Pabappa » 02 Dec 2018 06:44

Sorry meant to answer this earlier. Wikipedia agrees that they re stops , but the description seems the same as that of a nareal fricative. A voiceless n resembles /nh/, not /nt/, so I would group it with fricatives at least acoustically.
Sorry guys, this one has the worst sting.

User avatar
GrandPiano
runic
runic
Posts: 2690
Joined: 11 Jan 2015 23:22
Location: Ohio, USA

Re: Today I learned ...

Post by GrandPiano » 03 Dec 2018 04:59

Pabappa wrote:
02 Dec 2018 06:44
Sorry meant to answer this earlier. Wikipedia agrees that they re stops , but the description seems the same as that of a nareal fricative. A voiceless n resembles /nh/, not /nt/, so I would group it with fricatives at least acoustically.
[n̥] has the same place of articulation as [t] (and [d] and [n]). Other than that, I'm not sure how you would expect it to resemble [nt]. Just like voiced [n], it doesn't fully stop the airflow because it only blocks airflow in the oral cavity and not in the nasal cavity.
:eng: - Native
:chn: - B2
:esp: - A2
:jpn: - A2

User avatar
Pabappa
sinic
sinic
Posts: 236
Joined: 18 Nov 2017 02:41
Contact:

Re: Today I learned ...

Post by Pabappa » 03 Dec 2018 05:16

If you denasalize [n], as one might do with a cold, you get [d]. But if you denasalize a voiceless [ n̥] , I'm not sure what you'd get, if anything. Maybe some [x]-like sound? That's the asymmetry and probably a big reason why voiceless nasals aren't very common.
Sorry guys, this one has the worst sting.

User avatar
Lambuzhao
korean
korean
Posts: 7814
Joined: 13 May 2012 01:57

Re: Today I learned ...

Post by Lambuzhao » 03 Dec 2018 10:59

eldin raigmore wrote:
30 Nov 2018 02:07
I call them “stops” in codas and “plosives” in onsets.
But on the ZBB they made fun of me. 😉
They will do that there.
[:S]

User avatar
Xonen
moderator
moderator
Posts: 1477
Joined: 15 May 2010 23:25

Re: Today I learned ...

Post by Xonen » 03 Dec 2018 17:10

Pabappa wrote:
03 Dec 2018 05:16
If you denasalize [n], as one might do with a cold, you get [d]. But if you denasalize a voiceless [ n̥] , I'm not sure what you'd get, if anything. Maybe some [x]-like sound? That's the asymmetry and probably a big reason why voiceless nasals aren't very common.
Hmm, I've never read anything about voiceless nasals being substantially different from voiced ones (well, apart from the voicing itself), and at least for me, trying to say [an̥a] while holding my nose results in something that sounds quite a lot like [ata], much in the same way as doing the same for [ana] results in something like [ada]. Then again, IANAP, nor does my native language have voiceless nasals, so I guess I could be pronouncing them wrong or otherwise missing something. Still, I'd like to see a source for this.

And voiceless continuants are rare in general; an explanation I've seen is that they're acoustically not very distinct. Which sort of makes sense: without much frication, voiceless continuants (and vowels) don't really have that much to go on in terms of audibility. So they tend to either get lost, become fortified into more distinctive fricatives, or merge with their voiced counterparts.

User avatar
LinguoFranco
sinic
sinic
Posts: 448
Joined: 20 Jul 2016 16:49
Location: U.S.

Re: Today I learned ...

Post by LinguoFranco » 28 Jan 2019 14:49

The Sundanese language makes it’s nouns plural by using the the infix /ar/, though in some situations (such as if the noun begins with a vowel), it becomes a prefix instead. It can also become -/al/ if the noun starts with /l/. The affix can also be reduplicated to /arar/ to express “very” or “many.”

EDIT: Here’s an example. /budak/ means “child” in Sundanese, but /barudak/ is “children” and /bararudak/ is “many children.”

User avatar
eldin raigmore
korean
korean
Posts: 6418
Joined: 14 Aug 2010 18:38
Location: SouthEast Michigan

Re: Today I learned ...

Post by eldin raigmore » 27 Feb 2019 22:42

TIL that this thread is still ongoing!
I’m so glad!
Let’s all keep learning, guys(gender-neutral meaning intended)!

User avatar
Zekoslav
cuneiform
cuneiform
Posts: 171
Joined: 07 Oct 2017 15:54

Re: Today I learned ...

Post by Zekoslav » 28 Feb 2019 15:50

After reading a good old essay by Émile Benveniste, I learned that Indo-Iranian split ergativity in the past tense has the same origin as the ubiquitous Western European "have-perfect"!

Basically, both branches developed a perfect tense by using a participle in whatever possessive construction the language had.

East: "To me (is) a book", "To me (is) a book written"

West: "I have a book", "I've written a book"

This is not actually the same as a passive construction (at least in Iranian, about which Benveniste is speaking), since there the agent is expressed by the instrumental case, while in the possessive and perfect constructions it's expressed by the genitive/dative case!

Since Indo-Iranian has zero copula at least optionally, the participle was reinterpreted as a finite verb and the genitive/dative case as ergative. However, during the transition from Middle to New Persian, ergative replaced nominative for pronouns and the construction was once again reinterpreted as accusative, gaining usual personal endings in the process! [D;]

(And Latin had both constructions, but the one with "have" won in the end.)
Languages:
:hrv: [:D], :bih: :srb: [;)], :eng: [:D], :fra: [:|], :lat: [:(], :deu: [:'(]

A linguistics enthusiast who would like to make a conlang, but can't decide what to call what.

- Tewanian languages
- Guide to Slavic accentuation

User avatar
gestaltist
mayan
mayan
Posts: 1814
Joined: 11 Feb 2015 11:23

Re: Today I learned ...

Post by gestaltist » 01 Mar 2019 10:53

This was very interesting Zekoslav. The clearest explanation of the GEN>ERG shift I've seen so far.

User avatar
Omzinesý
runic
runic
Posts: 2634
Joined: 27 Aug 2010 07:17
Location: nowhere [naʊhɪɚ]

Re: Today I learned ...

Post by Omzinesý » 20 Mar 2019 08:53

Turkish tense-aspect system is basically alike that of English: progressive vs. non-progressive

The plain non-progressive is interpreted as perfective in the past and future, when a past or future marker follows, and the habitual othervice, when zero tense marker follows. Habitual past is expressed perifrastically.
The same three tense markers can also follow the progressive aspect marker.

User avatar
eldin raigmore
korean
korean
Posts: 6418
Joined: 14 Aug 2010 18:38
Location: SouthEast Michigan

Re: Today I learned ...

Post by eldin raigmore » 15 Jul 2019 18:49

I’ve learned a lot since the 20th of March. For instance I learned that diabetics are at higher risk for abcesses than average non-diabetics. It was neither a cheap nor a painless lesson.

Anyone else learned anything recently?

Post Reply