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

A forum for discussing linguistics or just languages in general.
HoskhMatriarch
mayan
mayan
Posts: 1575
Joined: 16 May 2015 18:48

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

Post by HoskhMatriarch » 09 Oct 2015 06:00

What do you call affixes that serve pragmatic/discourse functions when they're found in natural languages, like the Wuvulu ones? I need to know so I can know what to call the ones I'm making. I can't even call them by their definitions because things like that generally don't translate, although if I have ever have ones similar to English adverbs/particles like "just" or "too" or "then" or "now" or "of course" I could write those in quotes I guess.
No darkness can harm you if you are guided by your own inner light

User avatar
Creyeditor
mongolian
mongolian
Posts: 4506
Joined: 14 Aug 2012 19:32

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

Post by Creyeditor » 09 Oct 2015 13:00

HoskhMatriarch wrote:What do you call affixes that serve pragmatic/discourse functions when they're found in natural languages, like the Wuvulu ones? I need to know so I can know what to call the ones I'm making. I can't even call them by their definitions because things like that generally don't translate, although if I have ever have ones similar to English adverbs/particles like "just" or "too" or "then" or "now" or "of course" I could write those in quotes I guess.
The English adverbs/particles you gave as translations are actually very different concerning the affix classes they are usually put in. (Maybe I am missing on something?)

'now' looks like a tense affix
'then' looks like a clausal connector, usually called sequential in the grammars I've read
'too' looks like the it could have a meaning similar to 'and', so that it would be the prototypical conjunction affix.
'of course' seems to be a pragmatic affix in the narrow sense

I would suggest, you call the whole class of affixes, that have a pragmatic function in the narrow sense, either pragmatic affixes or discourse affixes and then think really hard about the meaning of those affixes and then - of you want to be fancy - take a random word from the description you've just made, translate it into latin and that's the name of the affix (see sequential above).
Creyeditor
"Thoughts are free."
Produce, Analyze, Manipulate
1 :deu: 2 :eng: 3 :idn: 4 :fra: 4 :esp:
:con: Ook & Omlűt & Nautli languages & Sperenjas
[<3] Papuan languages, Morphophonology, Lexical Semantics [<3]

HoskhMatriarch
mayan
mayan
Posts: 1575
Joined: 16 May 2015 18:48

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

Post by HoskhMatriarch » 09 Oct 2015 19:52

Creyeditor wrote:
HoskhMatriarch wrote:What do you call affixes that serve pragmatic/discourse functions when they're found in natural languages, like the Wuvulu ones? I need to know so I can know what to call the ones I'm making. I can't even call them by their definitions because things like that generally don't translate, although if I have ever have ones similar to English adverbs/particles like "just" or "too" or "then" or "now" or "of course" I could write those in quotes I guess.
The English adverbs/particles you gave as translations are actually very different concerning the affix classes they are usually put in. (Maybe I am missing on something?)

'now' looks like a tense affix
'then' looks like a clausal connector, usually called sequential in the grammars I've read
'too' looks like the it could have a meaning similar to 'and', so that it would be the prototypical conjunction affix.
'of course' seems to be a pragmatic affix in the narrow sense

I would suggest, you call the whole class of affixes, that have a pragmatic function in the narrow sense, either pragmatic affixes or discourse affixes and then think really hard about the meaning of those affixes and then - of you want to be fancy - take a random word from the description you've just made, translate it into latin and that's the name of the affix (see sequential above).
I didn't mean "now" in the sense of "right now" but in the sense people put "now" at the ends of sentences, and by "then" I mean the same thing that people put "then" at the ends of sentences. By "too" I mean like "But it can't be like that!" "It is too like that!" Of course, of course needs no explanation. Thanks though.
No darkness can harm you if you are guided by your own inner light

User avatar
Creyeditor
mongolian
mongolian
Posts: 4506
Joined: 14 Aug 2012 19:32

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

Post by Creyeditor » 09 Oct 2015 21:11

So I was right about me missing something. I'm not a native speaker, so I sometimes just don't get the pragmatic meaning ... [;)]
Creyeditor
"Thoughts are free."
Produce, Analyze, Manipulate
1 :deu: 2 :eng: 3 :idn: 4 :fra: 4 :esp:
:con: Ook & Omlűt & Nautli languages & Sperenjas
[<3] Papuan languages, Morphophonology, Lexical Semantics [<3]

HoskhMatriarch
mayan
mayan
Posts: 1575
Joined: 16 May 2015 18:48

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

Post by HoskhMatriarch » 10 Oct 2015 23:51

Does anyone know what differences between headless relative clauses are in different languages? It appears that the always occur with question words, but that's it, and I'm not even certain of that. In English, you have things like "what I bought at the store" = "the thing I bought at the store". If you have head-final relative clauses, I'm guessing it would be like "I at the store bought what". With internally-headed, you would probably have "I bought what at the store". I have no idea what correlative, paratactic, or pronoun-retention would look like without the heads. And maybe for headless relative clauses in languages with internally-headed relative clauses, you could even just have "I bought it at the store".

Edit: Also, does anyone know which language(s) incorporate interrogatives into the verb? That's literally the only thing I can't figure out how to do in Siasô at this point (although I might find more later).
Last edited by HoskhMatriarch on 11 Oct 2015 01:58, edited 2 times in total.
No darkness can harm you if you are guided by your own inner light

User avatar
eldin raigmore
korean
korean
Posts: 6387
Joined: 14 Aug 2010 19:38
Location: SouthEast Michigan

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

Post by eldin raigmore » 11 Oct 2015 01:20

For English speakers who have the "hoof/roof" merger (that is, pronounce those two words to rhyme):
Do you pronounce them both with the "short oo" sound in "book", "cook", "hook", "look", "nook", "rook", "took";
or do you pronounce them both with the "long oo" sound in "boo", "coo", "goo", "loo", "moo", "poo", "too", "woo", "you", "zoo"?
And who besides me doesn't have that merger?
For me, "hoof" has the "short oo" sound,
but "roof" has the "long oo" sound.

HoskhMatriarch
mayan
mayan
Posts: 1575
Joined: 16 May 2015 18:48

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

Post by HoskhMatriarch » 11 Oct 2015 01:22

eldin raigmore wrote:For English speakers who have the "hoof/roof" merger (that is, pronounce those two words to rhyme):
Do you pronounce them both with the "short oo" sound in "book", "cook", "hook", "look", "nook", "rook", "took";
or do you pronounce them both with the "long oo" sound in "boo", "coo", "goo", "loo", "moo", "poo", "too", "woo", "you", "zoo"?
And who besides me doesn't have that merger?
For me, "hoof" has the "short oo" sound,
but "roof" has the "long oo" sound.
I don't have that, but the people I've heard speak that do have that pronounce them as /ʊ/ so roof is /ɹʊf/.
No darkness can harm you if you are guided by your own inner light

User avatar
eldin raigmore
korean
korean
Posts: 6387
Joined: 14 Aug 2010 19:38
Location: SouthEast Michigan

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

Post by eldin raigmore » 11 Oct 2015 01:26

HoskhMatriarch wrote:I don't have that, but the people I've heard speak that do have that pronounce them as /ʊ/ so roof is /ɹʊf/.
Thanks.
I've heard both.
I was wondering whether I could locate a boundary between:
no merger
merged to "short oo"
merged to "long oo".

I'm not sure the "merge to long oo" dialects occur on the North American continent.

Salmoneus
MVP
MVP
Posts: 1685
Joined: 19 Sep 2011 19:37

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

Post by Salmoneus » 11 Oct 2015 02:12

They both have /u/. Although I think some Scottish dialects have them have /U/.

HoskhMatriarch
mayan
mayan
Posts: 1575
Joined: 16 May 2015 18:48

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

Post by HoskhMatriarch » 11 Oct 2015 06:40

OK, how do languages that have adjectives and relative clauses the same but have adjectives without nouns without marking according to WALS pull that off? Ditto for the ones with genitives and adjectives collapsed. http://wals.info/combinations/61A_60A#2/28.6/150.0
No darkness can harm you if you are guided by your own inner light

User avatar
Lao Kou
korean
korean
Posts: 5665
Joined: 25 Nov 2012 10:39
Location: 蘇州/苏州

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

Post by Lao Kou » 11 Oct 2015 07:38

eldin raigmore wrote:I was wondering whether I could locate a boundary between:
no merger
merged to "short oo"
merged to "long oo".

I'm not sure the "merge to long oo" dialects occur on the North American continent.
I don't know if I've skewed my self-reporting by thinking about it, but "roof", for me, is always with . "The Night before Christmas", written by American Clement Clark Moore (July 15, 1779 – July 10, 1863, FWIW), rhymes "roof" and "hoof", and since "roof" comes first in the pairing, my inner reading voice rhymes them with , though I believe that's the way I've heard others read the poem aloud. But by and large for "hoof" (and it's here that I don't know if I'm skewing by overanalyzing, but I'm not aiming for "Hey, look at me being idiosyncratic.", and it seems right), I've got [ʊ] in the singular "hoof" (akin to eldin), but in the plural "hooves", which might mean I've got a "bath/bathes -- hoof/hooves" thing going on, or that perhaps there's an analogizing with "behooves". I wouldn't be surprised if [huf] slips into my own speech now and again, but both [huf] and [hʊvz] sound a little :wat: to my ear.

Overthinking it or no, I can definitively say of my idiolect that when I hear people say "roof" and "root" with [ʊ], it sounds to my ear like they're speaking from a nineteenth century rural lifestyle (à la "[rʊt] cellar") -- I always expect those people to dash off and can some piccalilli or something. I never say those that way.
道可道,非常道
名可名,非常名

Sumelic
greek
greek
Posts: 619
Joined: 18 Jun 2013 23:01

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

Post by Sumelic » 11 Oct 2015 07:57

HoskhMatriarch wrote:
eldin raigmore wrote:For English speakers who have the "hoof/roof" merger (that is, pronounce those two words to rhyme):
Do you pronounce them both with the "short oo" sound in "book", "cook", "hook", "look", "nook", "rook", "took";
or do you pronounce them both with the "long oo" sound in "boo", "coo", "goo", "loo", "moo", "poo", "too", "woo", "you", "zoo"?
And who besides me doesn't have that merger?
For me, "hoof" has the "short oo" sound,
but "roof" has the "long oo" sound.
I don't have that, but the people I've heard speak that do have that pronounce them as /ʊ/ so roof is /ɹʊf/.
I think I have both /ruf/ and /rʊf/ semi-randomly. I have a vague idea that one is supposed to be more standard, but I forget which one it is (/ruf/ probably). I'd never say /huf/. "Root" is always with /u/.

Ephraim
sinic
sinic
Posts: 386
Joined: 15 Nov 2013 13:10
Location: Sweden

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

Post by Ephraim » 11 Oct 2015 11:24

According to Wikipedia, the shift from /uː~u/ to /ʊ/ in roof, hoof and root is a sound change that's still in process. So it makes sense that some speakers can have both pronunciations or have the shift in one word but not in another. Sound changes tend to behave that way when they're still active.

The words hoof and roof have rhymed since Old English times. So it's probably more accurate to talk of a roof–hoof split for speakers who have the sound shift in one word but not the other, rather than a merger for speakers who continue to have the same vowel. "Merged to 'long oo'"-varieties simply lack the sound change in both words.

From Wikipedia:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phonologi ... F.CA.8A.2F
Shortening of /uː/ to /ʊ/
In a handful words, including some very common ones, the vowel /uː/ was shortened to /ʊ/. In a few of these words, notably blood and flood, this shortening happened early enough that the resulting /ʊ/ underwent the "foot–strut split" and are now pronounced with /ʌ/. Other words that underwent shortening later consistently have /ʊ/, such as good, book, and wool. Still other words, such as roof, hoof, and root are in the process of the shift today, with some speakers preferring /uː/ and others preferring /ʊ/ in such words. For some speakers in Northern England, words ending in -ook such as book, cook still have the long /uː/ vowel.
Last edited by Ephraim on 11 Oct 2015 11:51, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
druneragarsh
greek
greek
Posts: 598
Joined: 01 Sep 2015 15:56
Location: Finland

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

Post by druneragarsh » 11 Oct 2015 11:36

eldin raigmore wrote:For English speakers who have the "hoof/roof" merger (that is, pronounce those two words to rhyme):
Do you pronounce them both with the "short oo" sound in "book", "cook", "hook", "look", "nook", "rook", "took";
or do you pronounce them both with the "long oo" sound in "boo", "coo", "goo", "loo", "moo", "poo", "too", "woo", "you", "zoo"?
And who besides me doesn't have that merger?
For me, "hoof" has the "short oo" sound,
but "roof" has the "long oo" sound.
/hu:f/, /ɹu:f/
(The so-called "long oo" sound.)
drúne, rá gárš
drun-VOC I.ERG read

List of conlangs with links!
Refer to me with any sex-neutral (or feminine) 3s pronoun, either from English (no singular they please, zie etc are okay) or from one of your conlangs!
CWS

User avatar
Thrice Xandvii
mongolian
mongolian
Posts: 3722
Joined: 25 Nov 2012 10:13
Location: Carnassus

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

Post by Thrice Xandvii » 11 Oct 2015 12:27

/hʊf/ & /rʊf/,/ruf/. I usually say /ruf/, but I think in lazy speech I say /rʊf/ on occasion.
Edit: I meant [ɹ] above but was too lazy to find the character when I typed out my response. I'm a native English speaker and grew up on the Lake Michigan coast of Wisconsin.
Last edited by Thrice Xandvii on 11 Oct 2015 16:08, edited 2 times in total.
Image

User avatar
eldin raigmore
korean
korean
Posts: 6387
Joined: 14 Aug 2010 19:38
Location: SouthEast Michigan

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

Post by eldin raigmore » 11 Oct 2015 15:03

Thanks, everyone!
Thanks for the link, Ephraim.

Whether English was an L1 or an L2 for you, where did you learn your English?
(I learned mine in East Texas.)

And which of you are native speakers of English?

The two questions above especially for druneragarsh and anyone else who has /u/ or /u:/ for the vowel in both words <roof> and <hoof>.

Do those of you who've reported /rʊf/ and /ruf/ mean by /r/ the alveolar trill [r ] or the retroflex approximant [ɻ] or some other rhotic?
Edit: Sorry, I meant [ɻ] instead of [ɹ]. [ɹ] is the alveolar approximant (though, still, also a rhotic).
Last edited by eldin raigmore on 11 Oct 2015 23:31, edited 2 times in total.

User avatar
druneragarsh
greek
greek
Posts: 598
Joined: 01 Sep 2015 15:56
Location: Finland

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

Post by druneragarsh » 11 Oct 2015 16:45

eldin raigmore wrote:Thanks, everyone!
Thanks for the link, Ephraim.

Whether English was an L1 or an L2 for you, where did you learn your English?
(I learned mine in East Texas.)

And which of you are native speakers of English?

The two questions above especially for druneragarsh and anyone else who has /u/ or /u:/ for the vowel in both words <roof> and <hoof>.

Do those of you who've reported /rʊf/ and /ruf/ mean by /r/ the alveolar trill [r ] or the retroflex approximant [ɹ] or some other rhotic?
I'm a native speaker of English and Finnish, though since I've lived in Finland for all of my life, my accent is a mixture of what I've heard on the TV (generic US?) and my dad's Canadian-ish. The compulsory school English lessons don't seem to have affected me at all. (Mostly British accent, using vocabulary I already knew.)
My rhotic is /ɹ̠ˁ/ (retracted pharyngealized palato-alevolar approximant) (my tongue is compressed but not retroflex)
I guess the most accurate way of reporting would be to say that I have a L1.1 (Finnish) and a L1.2 (English), with (chronological order) L2 French and so on.
drúne, rá gárš
drun-VOC I.ERG read

List of conlangs with links!
Refer to me with any sex-neutral (or feminine) 3s pronoun, either from English (no singular they please, zie etc are okay) or from one of your conlangs!
CWS

User avatar
qwed117
mongolian
mongolian
Posts: 4455
Joined: 20 Nov 2014 02:27

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

Post by qwed117 » 11 Oct 2015 20:02

Spoiler:
I had this idea for deciphering the Indus Script, before you guys complain, I already know that it won't work, is useless endless pandering and depends strongly on my biases.

There are ~400 symbols of the Indus script. There are nearly 40 Toda consonants and 10 Toda vowels. If we assume that Toda is the most similar to P-Dravid (I know it's not), then a syllabary would have around 400 syllables. (Side Tangent) The Toda have a great worship of a person called the "milkman" who is essentially the spiritual leader of the community. What else has an extreme relation to milk producing animals (namely buffalo)? The Pashupati seal. Use the Pashupati seal to decipher the words above the Pashupati seal. Boom, Indus deciphered.
Obstacles: Lack of knowledge on Toda, length problems, diachronic sound and semantic changes, 400 syllables to individually decipher, production of gibbertext, unbelievable amount of assumptions made within this text. Dholavira signpost is useless, now attention is paid to unreliable stamps (which, before now, I had thought were a 16th century thing). Minimal Toda ethnography
Positives: Low to moderate effort required to prove/disprove. Results might be accepted by community. Results aren't completely unbelievable. Could be cross-checked against Elam or other isolatea easily.
Can some one give me more reasons as to why this won't work
Spoiler:
My minicity is Zyphrazia and Novland
What is made of man will crumble away.

User avatar
Avo
roman
roman
Posts: 1001
Joined: 20 Aug 2010 03:04
Location: Berlin, Germany

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

Post by Avo » 11 Oct 2015 20:08

qwed117 wrote:
Spoiler:
I had this idea for deciphering the Indus Script, before you guys complain, I already know that it won't work, is useless endless pandering and depends strongly on my biases.

There are ~400 symbols of the Indus script. There are nearly 40 Toda consonants and 10 Toda vowels. If we assume that Toda is the most similar to P-Dravid (I know it's not), then a syllabary would have around 400 syllables. (Side Tangent) The Toda have a great worship of a person called the "milkman" who is essentially the spiritual leader of the community. What else has an extreme relation to milk producing animals (namely buffalo)? The Pashupati seal. Use the Pashupati seal to decipher the words above the Pashupati seal. Boom, Indus deciphered.
Obstacles: Lack of knowledge on Toda, length problems, diachronic sound and semantic changes, 400 syllables to individually decipher, production of gibbertext, unbelievable amount of assumptions made within this text. Dholavira signpost is useless, now attention is paid to unreliable stamps (which, before now, I had thought were a 16th century thing). Minimal Toda ethnography
Positives: Low to moderate effort required to prove/disprove. Results might be accepted by community. Results aren't completely unbelievable. Could be cross-checked against Elam or other isolatea easily.
Can some one give me more reasons as to why this won't work
Because it's just one among many hypotheses that the language of the Indus Valley Civilization was Dravidian and, out of all the Dravidian languages, you pick one that is spoken on the opposite end of the Indian subcontinent and on top of that one whose phoneme inventory is highly innovative and thus as far away from Proto-Dravidian as you could possibly get?

shimobaatar
korean
korean
Posts: 11688
Joined: 12 Jul 2013 23:09
Location: PA → IN

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

Post by shimobaatar » 11 Oct 2015 20:25

Lao Kou wrote:I don't know if I've skewed my self-reporting by thinking about it, but "roof", for me, is always with . "The Night before Christmas", written by American Clement Clark Moore (July 15, 1779 – July 10, 1863, FWIW), rhymes "roof" and "hoof", and since "roof" comes first in the pairing, my inner reading voice rhymes them with , though I believe that's the way I've heard others read the poem aloud. But by and large for "hoof" (and it's here that I don't know if I'm skewing by overanalyzing, but I'm not aiming for "Hey, look at me being idiosyncratic.", and it seems right), I've got [ʊ] in the singular "hoof" (akin to eldin), but in the plural "hooves", which might mean I've got a "bath/bathes -- hoof/hooves" thing going on, or that perhaps there's an analogizing with "behooves". I wouldn't be surprised if [huf] slips into my own speech now and again, but both [huf] and [hʊvz] sound a little :wat: to my ear.

Overthinking it or no, I can definitively say of my idiolect that when I hear people say "roof" and "root" with [ʊ], it sounds to my ear like they're speaking from a nineteenth century rural lifestyle (à la "[rʊt] cellar") -- I always expect those people to dash off and can some piccalilli or something. I never say those that way.


Hmm, interesting. Before reading this post, I would have said that I pronounce them /ɹuf ɹuvz/ and /hʊf huvz/, but now I'm realizing that /huf/ and /hʊvz/ wouldn't really sound off to me.

Post Reply