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

A forum for discussing linguistics or just languages in general.
User avatar
Omzinesý
runic
runic
Posts: 2666
Joined: 27 Aug 2010 08:17
Location: nowhere [naʊhɪɚ]

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

Post by Omzinesý » 14 Oct 2018 17:16

shimobaatar wrote:
13 Oct 2018 23:05
GrandPiano wrote:
13 Oct 2018 22:27
shimobaatar wrote:
13 Oct 2018 21:31
Omzinesý wrote:
13 Oct 2018 21:05
English and Swedish often have v while German has b.
Have, ha (va), haben; live, leva, leben etc. What sound change explains them?
Might this be what you're looking for?
How do we know that it shifted from [β] to [b]? How do we know Old High German didn't retain a [b] that lenited to [β] in the other West Germanic languages?
Well, I didn't write the article, of course, but in historical linguistics, it's generally assumed that a single change in one direction (in this case, [β] > [b] in OHG) is more likely than a number of identical changes in another direction (in this case, [b] > [β] in Old English, Old Saxon, Old Dutch, etc.).

Of course, it's hard to really know anything for certain when we're looking at the past, but as spanick said, this conclusion fits better with things like Verner's Law, and we can make an educated guess. That's what makes sense to me, at least.
I did actually think /b/ was the original. It's written in reconstructions.
Could one assume that a different form of Grammatisches Wechsel was levelled for all forms in different languages?

Online Etymological Dictionary of "live" (bolding mine):
"Middle English, from Old English lifian (Anglian), libban (West Saxon) "to be, be alive, have life; continue in life; to experience," also "to supply oneself with food, procure a means of subsistence; pass life in a specified fashion," from Proto-Germanic *libejanan (source also of Old Norse lifa "to be left; to live; to live on," of fire, "to burn;" Old Frisian libba, German leben, Gothic liban "to live"), from PIE root *leip- "to stick, adhere," forming words meaning "to remain, continue.""

And "have":
"Old English habban "to own, possess; be subject to, experience," from Proto-Germanic *habejanan (source also of Old Norse hafa, Old Saxon hebbjan, Old Frisian habba, German haben, Gothic haban "to have"), from PIE root *kap- "to grasp.""

shimobaatar
korean
korean
Posts: 11602
Joined: 12 Jul 2013 23:09
Location: PA → IN

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

Post by shimobaatar » 14 Oct 2018 17:42

Omzinesý wrote:
14 Oct 2018 17:16
I did actually think /b/ was the original. It's written in reconstructions.
In the reconstruction of Proto-Germanic, the letters *b, *d, and *g don't always represent the reconstructed sounds *[b], *[d], and *[g].

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proto-Ger ... Consonants
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proto-Ger ... Allophones

User avatar
Omzinesý
runic
runic
Posts: 2666
Joined: 27 Aug 2010 08:17
Location: nowhere [naʊhɪɚ]

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

Post by Omzinesý » 14 Oct 2018 18:31

But they are not reconstructed *hafa- and *lifa with fricatives that directly yeald /v/ in English at least.

shimobaatar
korean
korean
Posts: 11602
Joined: 12 Jul 2013 23:09
Location: PA → IN

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

Post by shimobaatar » 14 Oct 2018 18:41

Omzinesý wrote:
14 Oct 2018 18:31
But they are not reconstructed *hafa- and *lifa with fricatives that directly yeald /v/ in English at least.
Wait, what? You've lost me.

User avatar
spanick
roman
roman
Posts: 1030
Joined: 11 May 2017 01:47
Location: California

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

Post by spanick » 14 Oct 2018 19:54

Omzinesý wrote:
14 Oct 2018 17:16
shimobaatar wrote:
13 Oct 2018 23:05
GrandPiano wrote:
13 Oct 2018 22:27
shimobaatar wrote:
13 Oct 2018 21:31
Omzinesý wrote:
13 Oct 2018 21:05
English and Swedish often have v while German has b.
Have, ha (va), haben; live, leva, leben etc. What sound change explains them?
Might this be what you're looking for?
How do we know that it shifted from [β] to [b]? How do we know Old High German didn't retain a [b] that lenited to [β] in the other West Germanic languages?
Well, I didn't write the article, of course, but in historical linguistics, it's generally assumed that a single change in one direction (in this case, [β] > [b] in OHG) is more likely than a number of identical changes in another direction (in this case, [b] > [β] in Old English, Old Saxon, Old Dutch, etc.).

Of course, it's hard to really know anything for certain when we're looking at the past, but as spanick said, this conclusion fits better with things like Verner's Law, and we can make an educated guess. That's what makes sense to me, at least.
I did actually think /b/ was the original. It's written in reconstructions.
Could one assume that a different form of Grammatisches Wechsel was levelled for all forms in different languages?

Online Etymological Dictionary of "live" (bolding mine):
"Middle English, from Old English lifian (Anglian), libban (West Saxon) "to be, be alive, have life; continue in life; to experience," also "to supply oneself with food, procure a means of subsistence; pass life in a specified fashion," from Proto-Germanic *libejanan (source also of Old Norse lifa "to be left; to live; to live on," of fire, "to burn;" Old Frisian libba, German leben, Gothic liban "to live"), from PIE root *leip- "to stick, adhere," forming words meaning "to remain, continue.""

And "have":
"Old English habban "to own, possess; be subject to, experience," from Proto-Germanic *habejanan (source also of Old Norse hafa, Old Saxon hebbjan, Old Frisian habba, German haben, Gothic haban "to have"), from PIE root *kap- "to grasp.""
The problem with both these examples is that they demonstrate Verner's Law. Grimm'saw would have the *p in both *leip- and *kap- become *f (voiceless bilabial fricative) in PG which then gets voiced according to Verner's Law. From there, given the instability of bilabial fricatives, the changes can be various. But it still makes the most sense for it to have originally been a fricative in this environment, otherwise our PIE reconstructions are off or Verner's and Grimm's Law are both missibn something.

Salmoneus
MVP
MVP
Posts: 1643
Joined: 19 Sep 2011 19:37

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

Post by Salmoneus » 15 Oct 2018 01:45

Omzinesý wrote:
14 Oct 2018 18:31
But they are not reconstructed *hafa- and *lifa with fricatives that directly yeald /v/ in English at least.
But they are reconstructed with *b. And if *b was a fricative, then it was a fricative that directly yields /v/ in English. Eg. in "have" and "live", which both come from words with *b in them.

The fact that people spell it *b for simplicity, and have done for probably over a century, doesn't mean that it actually was rather than .

Salmoneus
MVP
MVP
Posts: 1643
Joined: 19 Sep 2011 19:37

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

Post by Salmoneus » 15 Oct 2018 02:06

spanick wrote:
14 Oct 2018 19:54
The problem with both these examples is that they demonstrate Verner's Law. Grimm'saw would have the *p in both *leip- and *kap- become *f (voiceless bilabial fricative) in PG which then gets voiced according to Verner's Law. From there, given the instability of bilabial fricatives, the changes can be various. But it still makes the most sense for it to have originally been a fricative in this environment, otherwise our PIE reconstructions are off or Verner's and Grimm's Law are both missibn something.
This also doesn't work as an argument, for two key reasons:

a) it's not known that Verner's Law operated before Grimm's Law. It can work just as well before - which is indeed apparently more likely. In that case, there never has to be a fricative, and the two sources of /b/ never have to merge. [that is, Grimm then Verner requires that voiced /f/ and aspirated /b/ merge together, whereas Verner then Grimm just assumes that voiceless aspirated /p/ becomes voiced aspirated [or that plain /p/ becomes plain /b/, in glottalic theory].].

b) even accepting Grimm>Verner, which again seems chronologically unlikely, we're still hypothesising that a stop and a fricative merge into a phoneme that sometimes ends up a stop and sometimes ends up a fricative. Saying that the fricative merges with a fricative allophone of the stop, and by analogy strengthens where the stop has a stop allophone, is no more awkward than saying that the stop becomes a fricative everywhere, merges with the fricative, and then returns back to being a stop in most places. [neither is ideal, another reason to prefer Verner>Grimm]

User avatar
Omzinesý
runic
runic
Posts: 2666
Joined: 27 Aug 2010 08:17
Location: nowhere [naʊhɪɚ]

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

Post by Omzinesý » 15 Oct 2018 14:49

But PG *b (what ever its realization at the time was) usually produces /b/ in English and Swedish, am I right? (Danish does regularly have a fricative I think.)

So my original wondering was how there are words like: live, love, have, wife, etc. that have /v/.

They could be exceptions, if there aren't too many of them
From Wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Germanic_ ... _III_Verbs
"
An example is the stative verb reconstructed as Proto-Germanic *habjaną "to have", past indicative third-person singular habdē:

Old English hebban < *habjan, past 3sg. hæfde — derived entirely through regular sound changes.
Old High German habēn, past 3sg. habēta — derived through analogical spread of suffix -ē-.
Gothic haban, past 3sg. habáida — derived through various analogical changes.
Old Norse hafa, past 3sg. hafði — partly regular, partly analogical."

I think I have no expertise to question PG reconstructions.

User avatar
spanick
roman
roman
Posts: 1030
Joined: 11 May 2017 01:47
Location: California

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

Post by spanick » 15 Oct 2018 15:07

Omzinesý wrote:
15 Oct 2018 14:49
But PG *b (what ever its realization at the time was) usually produces /b/ in English and Swedish, am I right? (Danish does regularly have a fricative I think.)

So my original wondering was how there are words like: live, love, have, wife, etc. that have /v/.

They could be exceptions, if there aren't too many of them
From Wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Germanic_ ... _III_Verbs
"
An example is the stative verb reconstructed as Proto-Germanic *habjaną "to have", past indicative third-person singular habdē:

Old English hebban < *habjan, past 3sg. hæfde — derived entirely through regular sound changes.
Old High German habēn, past 3sg. habēta — derived through analogical spread of suffix -ē-.
Gothic haban, past 3sg. habáida — derived through various analogical changes.
Old Norse hafa, past 3sg. hafði — partly regular, partly analogical."

I think I have no expertise to question PG reconstructions.
Well kinda, it generally produces /b/ word initially and before and after consonants. It generally produces /v/ intervocallically.

There's also the Grammatischer Wechsel which basically says that the moving accent of PIE exempted some forms of verbs from Verner's Law, which is how you get hebben/hæfde and what have you.

It's also worth noting they Gothic <b> is also understood to alternate between /b~β/ but I dont know how exact that conclusion was arrived at.

Salmoneus
MVP
MVP
Posts: 1643
Joined: 19 Sep 2011 19:37

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

Post by Salmoneus » 15 Oct 2018 15:29

Omzinesý wrote:
15 Oct 2018 14:49
But PG *b (what ever its realization at the time was) usually produces /b/ in English and Swedish, am I right? (Danish does regularly have a fricative I think.)
/v/ intervocalically.
spanick wrote:
15 Oct 2018 15:07
There's also the Grammatischer Wechsel which basically says that the moving accent of PIE exempted some forms of verbs from Verner's Law, which is how you get hebben/hæfde and what have you.
I don't think it is, is it? The stop/fricative alternation in habjana is because of the *j in certain forms, which geminates the *b, so it doesn't lenite (or so that it strengthens, if you prefer). Which is because of... I'm assumine PIE ablaut? I don't know for sure, but I don't think it's to do with the Grammatischer Wechsel per se.

User avatar
spanick
roman
roman
Posts: 1030
Joined: 11 May 2017 01:47
Location: California

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

Post by spanick » 15 Oct 2018 16:57

Salmoneus wrote:
15 Oct 2018 15:29
Omzinesý wrote:
15 Oct 2018 14:49
But PG *b (what ever its realization at the time was) usually produces /b/ in English and Swedish, am I right? (Danish does regularly have a fricative I think.)
/v/ intervocalically.
spanick wrote:
15 Oct 2018 15:07
There's also the Grammatischer Wechsel which basically says that the moving accent of PIE exempted some forms of verbs from Verner's Law, which is how you get hebben/hæfde and what have you.
I don't think it is, is it? The stop/fricative alternation in habjana is because of the *j in certain forms, which geminates the *b, so it doesn't lenite (or so that it strengthens, if you prefer). Which is because of... I'm assumine PIE ablaut? I don't know for sure, but I don't think it's to do with the Grammatischer Wechsel per se.
You're probably right. I might be off on my example for words with *b. A better example is OE cweþan but cwǣdon or German schneiden but geschnitten. I'm sure there's some examples with <b~v> somewhere.

shimobaatar
korean
korean
Posts: 11602
Joined: 12 Jul 2013 23:09
Location: PA → IN

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

Post by shimobaatar » 15 Oct 2018 17:09

spanick wrote:
15 Oct 2018 15:07
It's also worth noting they Gothic <b> is also understood to alternate between /b~β/ but I dont know how exact that conclusion was arrived at.
Isn't it because <b> alternates with <f> in some cases, and that's been interpreted as the [β] allophone of /b/ devoicing? I don't have time at the moment to look for examples, but I'm pretty sure I remember something like this happening with at least one of /b d g/ in Gothic, if not all three.

User avatar
spanick
roman
roman
Posts: 1030
Joined: 11 May 2017 01:47
Location: California

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

Post by spanick » 15 Oct 2018 18:13

shimobaatar wrote:
15 Oct 2018 17:09
spanick wrote:
15 Oct 2018 15:07
It's also worth noting they Gothic <b> is also understood to alternate between /b~β/ but I dont know how exact that conclusion was arrived at.
Isn't it because <b> alternates with <f> in some cases, and that's been interpreted as the [β] allophone of /b/ devoicing? I don't have time at the moment to look for examples, but I'm pretty sure I remember something like this happening with at least one of /b d g/ in Gothic, if not all three.
That's right. Gothic <hlaifs> "bread NS" but <hlaibis> "bread GS" and <hlaibos> "bread NPl"

EDIT: Also, Latin November was borrowed into Gothic as <naubaimbair>, which is pretty good evidence this was a voiced fricative.

User avatar
Omzinesý
runic
runic
Posts: 2666
Joined: 27 Aug 2010 08:17
Location: nowhere [naʊhɪɚ]

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

Post by Omzinesý » 15 Oct 2018 18:38

Salmoneus wrote:
15 Oct 2018 15:29
Omzinesý wrote:
15 Oct 2018 14:49
But PG *b (what ever its realization at the time was) usually produces /b/ in English and Swedish, am I right? (Danish does regularly have a fricative I think.)
/v/ intervocalically.
OK, then there is no problem, thanks!
In the beginning I though it must be something that simple, them it got complicated and was simple again :)

User avatar
LinguistCat
cuneiform
cuneiform
Posts: 194
Joined: 06 May 2017 07:48

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

Post by LinguistCat » 20 Oct 2018 03:48

Is there a way to find words that were known to exist in Classical/Old Japanese through texts, but don't have descendants in the modern language? Or other older languages?

User avatar
GrandPiano
runic
runic
Posts: 2638
Joined: 11 Jan 2015 23:22
Location: Ohio, USA

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

Post by GrandPiano » 20 Oct 2018 06:28

LinguistCat wrote:
20 Oct 2018 03:48
Is there a way to find words that were known to exist in Classical/Old Japanese through texts, but don't have descendants in the modern language? Or other older languages?
Are you asking if there’s a place where you can look up the meanings of such words, or if there’s a list of such words?
:eng: - Native
:chn: - B2
:esp: - A2
:jpn: - A2

User avatar
LinguistCat
cuneiform
cuneiform
Posts: 194
Joined: 06 May 2017 07:48

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

Post by LinguistCat » 20 Oct 2018 09:00

GrandPiano wrote:
20 Oct 2018 06:28
LinguistCat wrote:
20 Oct 2018 03:48
Is there a way to find words that were known to exist in Classical/Old Japanese through texts, but don't have descendants in the modern language? Or other older languages?
Are you asking if there’s a place where you can look up the meanings of such words, or if there’s a list of such words?
I was hoping there is a list (even a partial one) somewhere, since for the most part, if i know the word is attested I can probably find out the meaning. But I do need to know the word exists, which I can't do by looking at the modern language and going backward. I'd even take words that have changed meanings drastically over time, but with work I can track those down myself.

User avatar
CarsonDaConlanger
sinic
sinic
Posts: 250
Joined: 02 Nov 2017 20:55

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

Post by CarsonDaConlanger » 21 Oct 2018 00:53

IDK if this goes here but is there a difference between a diphthong /aṷ/ and a vowel + semivowel in the coda /aw/?

User avatar
Xonen
moderator
moderator
Posts: 1495
Joined: 16 May 2010 00:25

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

Post by Xonen » 21 Oct 2018 01:10

CarsonDaConlanger wrote:
21 Oct 2018 00:53
IDK if this goes here but is there a difference between a diphthong /aṷ/ and a vowel + semivowel in the coda /aw/?
I seem to recall discussing this a couple of times on the board in the past; possibly the first one would be this post from five years ago:

Xonen wrote:
15 Aug 2013 13:06
nzk13 wrote:Hi. This is something I've been wondering about for quite a while. What exactly is a 'non-syllabic vowel'? Is non-syllabic /i/ identical to /j/? Does it just refer to the corresponding semivowel? If so, what do you do with non-syllabic /e/ or /o/? I don't particularly understand this Wikipedia article on semivowels, but it seems to imply that, even going so far as to say:
The pharyngeal approximant [ʕ̞] is also equivalent to the semivowel articulation of the open back unrounded vowel [ɑ̯].
So, what's happening here?
Thing is, different linguists have different ideas on what, exactly, counts as a semivowel. It can indeed be a bit confusing - but better get used to that, since it happens in linguistics a lot. :roll: [:P] But yes, as Eldin points out, a non-syllabic vowel is simply a vowel that's not a part of the syllable nucleus (I'd say it's quite standard terminology, since it even occurs in the official definition of one of the IPA diacritics).

For some authors, the term semivowel is simply a synonym of that; others restrict it to mean sounds that sort of straddle the border between vowels and consonants. Most typically, this means [w] and [j], which function basically like any other consonant in plenty of languages (as opposed to, say, [e̯], which is extremely rare and probably pretty much always has some kind of special status in the phonological system). These, in turn, may be phonetically identical to the corresponding close vowels [u] and [i] - but may also be pronounced even closer, so that the airflow becomes somewhat turbulent (IOW, the sound becomes a true consonant). This depends on the language, as well as, quite probably, the linguist describing the situation and which particular toothless old lady he happens to be using as his informant.

User avatar
Lambuzhao
korean
korean
Posts: 7781
Joined: 13 May 2012 02:57

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

Post by Lambuzhao » 21 Oct 2018 01:10

LinguistCat wrote:
20 Oct 2018 09:00
GrandPiano wrote:
20 Oct 2018 06:28
LinguistCat wrote:
20 Oct 2018 03:48
Is there a way to find words that were known to exist in Classical/Old Japanese through texts, but don't have descendants in the modern language? Or other older languages?
Are you asking if there’s a place where you can look up the meanings of such words, or if there’s a list of such words?
I was hoping there is a list (even a partial one) somewhere, since for the most part, if i know the word is attested I can probably find out the meaning. But I do need to know the word exists, which I can't do by looking at the modern language and going backward. I'd even take words that have changed meanings drastically over time, but with work I can track those down myself.
Search 'hapax legomenon' + 'Old Japanese'.

Among other things, I found this doing so, which, if it isn't what you want, may point you to more of what you're agschully looking for:

https://books.google.com/books?id=Eoqv_ ... se&f=false

hapax legomenon is great, super useful little phrase.
:wat:

Post Reply