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

A forum for discussing linguistics or just languages in general.
User avatar
Creyeditor
mongolian
mongolian
Posts: 4509
Joined: 14 Aug 2012 19:32

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

Post by Creyeditor » 28 Apr 2019 09:18

There is a phonotactics database and thus probably a way to answer questions 1 to 3. Don't know about 4 though. The sample is not the largest one though, one should keep that in mind.
Answers based on a short query:
1. 0.1 %
1a. Georgian, Oowekyala
1b. ?

2. 0.1 %
2a. Haisla, Mixe, Oowekyala
2b. ???

3. 0.1 %
3a. Coeur d'Alene, Oowekyala, Russian, Seri, Witchia
3b. ???


5. There is pretty good work on some Berber language, justifying syllables as groups of consonants that have an effect on stress assignment (IIRC it's mostly pitch) and not necessarily a unit that can bear phonetic stress in itself (similar to schwa nucleus syllables in languages like German and Dutch).
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]

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 » 01 May 2019 05:33

Salmoneus wrote:
25 Apr 2019 01:23
A/O is a property of Polynesian languages - so called because in some languages, like Hawai'ian, there are two possessive prepositions, a and o. Conveniently enough, "a" possession seems associated with agents and "o" with objects. That is, "a" marks possessors who have high levels of control, dominance, or initiation, while "o" marks possessors who have low levels of control, who are subordinate, and who are passive. So "post a eldin" would be eldin's post - because you chose to make the post - whereas "voice o eldin", "finger o eldin" or "confusion o eldin" would be used because those things, while 'belonging' to you, are not yours by choice.

Similar things happen elsewhere in Oceanic. Blust gives an example from a New Britain language where the two forms take different classifiers, distinguishing "my story" (the story I tell) and "my story" (the story told about me). Interestingly, he also mentions a language in which the morphemes are the same, but the same distinction is made by morpheme order (the possessive affix is a suffix for one meaning and a prefix for the other).
I’ve thought of another contrast for A/O possession which helps me (YMMV) make sense of it and remember it.
“eldin o allergies” vs “eldin a hangover”.
I have no control over my allergies. They are not at all voluntary. I did nothing to cause them nor to deserve them. I frequently don’t even realize they’re about to attack. Short of antihistamines etc., my only available options are, move to a different state where they don’t happen to grow, or wait the season out.
As for my hangovers, OTOH, I bought and paid for them and worked for them. I drank above and beyond the call of duty for them. They are most certainly my own doing.

Does that seem like I’ve got it?

User avatar
Znex
roman
roman
Posts: 1156
Joined: 12 Aug 2013 14:05
Location: Australia

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

Post by Znex » 02 May 2019 11:10

In Germanic languages apart from English, do participles ever get used in clauses like particularly in the classical IE languages?

eg.
:eng: Having entered the city/upon entering the city, we proceeded to look for the king.
:lat: Civitatem ingressi, regni inquirere processimus.
:eng: : [tick] | :grc: :wls: : [:|] | :chn: :isr: : [:S] | :nor: :deu: :rom: :ind: :con: : [:x]
Conlangs: Pofp'ash, Ikwawese, Old Quelgic, Nisukil Pʰakwi, Apsiska

User avatar
cedh
MVP
MVP
Posts: 377
Joined: 07 Sep 2011 22:25
Location: Tübingen, Germany
Contact:

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

Post by cedh » 02 May 2019 16:57

Znex wrote:
02 May 2019 11:10
In Germanic languages apart from English, do participles ever get used in clauses like particularly in the classical IE languages?

eg.
:eng: Having entered the city/upon entering the city, we proceeded to look for the king.
:lat: Civitatem ingressi, regni inquirere processimus.
German can do this:
:deu: Die Stadt betretend, schauten wir uns nach dem König um.

However, while this is grammatically correct, the less marked strategy in many situations is to use a prepositional phrase with an abstract action noun instead, e.g. Nach unserer Ankunft in der Stadt ~ After our arrival in the city. (Note that these action nouns are often lexicalized equivalents, in this case even from a different verb. Also note that a plain nominalization of the verb does not work; ?Nach unserem Ankommen in der Stadt / ?Nach unserem Betreten der Stadt are both at least questionable, bordering ungrammatical.) Also, I don't think such a type of construction really works with a past participle, only with a present participle. (At least I can't find any suitable examples right now.)

User avatar
Tuyono
cuneiform
cuneiform
Posts: 139
Joined: 06 Aug 2017 15:09

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

Post by Tuyono » 05 May 2019 11:04

eldin raigmore wrote:
22 Apr 2019 22:55
Concerning gerunds and their participants, and possessive classifiers.
...
ObConLang:
Would this be a good idea in a conlang?
Has anyone already done it?
I only saw this now, but I have something similar in Źilaa Ruńu. It was inspired by the section about Middle Welsh here:
https://web.archive.org/web/20080302131 ... active.pdf

(I don't know if my verbal nouns can be considered gerunds though - I never quite understood the definition).

Anyway, with transitive verbs, it works a lot like you described - the patient is the direct possesor of the verbal noun, and the agent is marked with the preposition em 'of, by' which is also used for instrumentals. (Both agrument take the same case, which I call Oblique, used for possessors like a normal genitive but also for all objects of prepositions, but I think it still counts).
So you get things like:

nakej timaju
VN-tell.about Timaj-OBL
Timaj's story (The story is about her)

nakej em timaju
VN-tell.about of Timaj-OBL
The story of Timaj (she told the story)

User avatar
Omzinesý
runic
runic
Posts: 2680
Joined: 27 Aug 2010 08:17
Location: nowhere [naʊhɪɚ]

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

Post by Omzinesý » 20 May 2019 12:11

In German, Simple Past (machte) and Perfect (hat gemacht) have same time reference and their difference lies in register.
Spoken language uses Simple Past forms of some verbs only. Do the Perfect forms and Simple Past forms of those verbs differ in meaning (war and ist gewesen for example)?

User avatar
Creyeditor
mongolian
mongolian
Posts: 4509
Joined: 14 Aug 2012 19:32

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

Post by Creyeditor » 20 May 2019 23:03

Some people claim that there is a difference. I'm not sure if this is true though, for me some very frequent verbs use past tense (`war' and not `ist gewesen') and other verbs use the perfect (`hat gearbeitet' not `arbeitete'). The example usually claimed to differentiate is:


Past tense ungrammatical
*Wer baute diese Kirche? Borromini baute diese Kirche.

Perfect tense grammatical
Wer hat diese Kirche gebaut? Borromini hat dies Kirche gebaut.

Translation
Who built this church? Borromini built this church.

For me `bauen' is one of the verbs that always takes the perfect tense.
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]

User avatar
Omzinesý
runic
runic
Posts: 2680
Joined: 27 Aug 2010 08:17
Location: nowhere [naʊhɪɚ]

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

Post by Omzinesý » 21 May 2019 11:30

Creyeditor wrote:
20 May 2019 23:03
Some people claim that there is a difference. I'm not sure if this is true though, for me some very frequent verbs use past tense (`war' and not `ist gewesen') and other verbs use the perfect (`hat gearbeitet' not `arbeitete'). The example usually claimed to differentiate is:


Past tense ungrammatical
*Wer baute diese Kirche? Borromini baute diese Kirche.

Perfect tense grammatical
Wer hat diese Kirche gebaut? Borromini hat dies Kirche gebaut.

Translation
Who built this church? Borromini built this church.

For me `bauen' is one of the verbs that always takes the perfect tense.
I didn't mean to ask that.

Sorry for being unclear. I asked what is the difference between Perfects and Simple Pasts of the few verbs that frequently have the simple past forms.
Is it just what is usually the difference of the perfect and the simple past, i.e. the perfect is used to tell about anterior events in a discourse predominantly in the present tense, while simple past is the tense for discourses telling about the past. I find it quite strange that the difference only appears with the few verbs. So I'm interested in the difference between "war" and "ist gewesen" rather than that between "baute" and "hat gebaut". My understanding is that "ist gewesen" however does appear as well.

User avatar
cedh
MVP
MVP
Posts: 377
Joined: 07 Sep 2011 22:25
Location: Tübingen, Germany
Contact:

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

Post by cedh » 21 May 2019 14:20

Here's an elaborate explanation (in German).

The main points, summarized in English:
  • The simple past has its main use as a narrative past tense, especially in the written language. Reading/hearing a text that uses this form feels kind of like watching a film, where events are reported without regard to any current relevance.
  • The perfect has its main use in describing a completed (and thus past tense) event with specific focus on the current relevance of its results.
  • The perfect appears much more frequently in oral communication, especially in dialogue: Questions are often asked especially because the answer is currently relevant, and a question that uses the perfect will usually also be answered in the perfect (sometimes even if semantically the simple past would also make sense).
  • Many regional varieties, especially in the southern half of the German-speaking area, tend not to use the simple past at all (at least in oral communication). Using the perfect in situations where the written standard would use the simple past can therefore also be a strategy for indicating the speaker's southern cultural background.
As a native speaker I feel there is still a bit missing in that summary, but I can't quite pin down what it is. In any case I think the difference does appear with most verbs in the standard language and in the northern half of Germany, but only with a few verbs in the south, so it's at least in part a regional thing. The article also doesn't say anything specifically about the war vs. ist gewesen contrast in the copula. It's still quite good starting point I think.

User avatar
Omzinesý
runic
runic
Posts: 2680
Joined: 27 Aug 2010 08:17
Location: nowhere [naʊhɪɚ]

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

Post by Omzinesý » 21 May 2019 19:20

cedh wrote:
21 May 2019 14:20
Here's an elaborate explanation (in German).

The main points, summarized in English:
  • The simple past has its main use as a narrative past tense, especially in the written language. Reading/hearing a text that uses this form feels kind of like watching a film, where events are reported without regard to any current relevance.
  • The perfect has its main use in describing a completed (and thus past tense) event with specific focus on the current relevance of its results.
  • The perfect appears much more frequently in oral communication, especially in dialogue: Questions are often asked especially because the answer is currently relevant, and a question that uses the perfect will usually also be answered in the perfect (sometimes even if semantically the simple past would also make sense).
  • Many regional varieties, especially in the southern half of the German-speaking area, tend not to use the simple past at all (at least in oral communication). Using the perfect in situations where the written standard would use the simple past can therefore also be a strategy for indicating the speaker's southern cultural background.
As a native speaker I feel there is still a bit missing in that summary, but I can't quite pin down what it is. In any case I think the difference does appear with most verbs in the standard language and in the northern half of Germany, but only with a few verbs in the south, so it's at least in part a regional thing. The article also doesn't say anything specifically about the war vs. ist gewesen contrast in the copula. It's still quite good starting point I think.
So, it seems my understanding that the difference between the two tenses only appears with the few verbs, was wrong, and there is no such clear two categories of verbs when it comes to uses of tenses.
Tanks!

User avatar
Creyeditor
mongolian
mongolian
Posts: 4509
Joined: 14 Aug 2012 19:32

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

Post by Creyeditor » 22 May 2019 00:38

Omzinesý wrote:
21 May 2019 11:30
Creyeditor wrote:
20 May 2019 23:03
Some people claim that there is a difference. I'm not sure if this is true though, for me some very frequent verbs use past tense (`war' and not `ist gewesen') and other verbs use the perfect (`hat gearbeitet' not `arbeitete'). The example usually claimed to differentiate is:


Past tense ungrammatical
*Wer baute diese Kirche? Borromini baute diese Kirche.

Perfect tense grammatical
Wer hat diese Kirche gebaut? Borromini hat dies Kirche gebaut.

Translation
Who built this church? Borromini built this church.

For me `bauen' is one of the verbs that always takes the perfect tense.
I didn't mean to ask that.

Sorry for being unclear. I asked what is the difference between Perfects and Simple Pasts of the few verbs that frequently have the simple past forms.
Is it just what is usually the difference of the perfect and the simple past, i.e. the perfect is used to tell about anterior events in a discourse predominantly in the present tense, while simple past is the tense for discourses telling about the past. I find it quite strange that the difference only appears with the few verbs. So I'm interested in the difference between "war" and "ist gewesen" rather than that between "baute" and "hat gebaut". My understanding is that "ist gewesen" however does appear as well.
I don't use `ist gewesen' usually. I only use `war'.
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]

User avatar
Shemtov
runic
runic
Posts: 3095
Joined: 29 Apr 2013 04:06

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

Post by Shemtov » 22 May 2019 23:50

Is there a term for someone living in America of African birth? Or do you have to specify the country or use a phrase like African Born American?
Many children make up, or begin to make up, imaginary languages. I have been at it since I could write.
-JRR Tolkien

shimobaatar
korean
korean
Posts: 11690
Joined: 12 Jul 2013 23:09
Location: PA → IN

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

Post by shimobaatar » 23 May 2019 00:41

Shemtov wrote:
22 May 2019 23:50
Is there a term for someone living in America of African birth? Or do you have to specify the country or use a phrase like African Born American?
I would think that, if you know their country of origin, being specific couldn't hurt.

User avatar
Shemtov
runic
runic
Posts: 3095
Joined: 29 Apr 2013 04:06

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

Post by Shemtov » 23 May 2019 00:49

shimobaatar wrote:
23 May 2019 00:41
Shemtov wrote:
22 May 2019 23:50
Is there a term for someone living in America of African birth? Or do you have to specify the country or use a phrase like African Born American?
I would think that, if you know their country of origin, being specific couldn't hurt.
My real question is, is there a catch-all term? Like what if someone wanted to say "Most African Immigrants to America are Nigerian-American"? Is there a shorter way of saying that? Could "Foreign Born African Americans" work?
Many children make up, or begin to make up, imaginary languages. I have been at it since I could write.
-JRR Tolkien

shimobaatar
korean
korean
Posts: 11690
Joined: 12 Jul 2013 23:09
Location: PA → IN

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

Post by shimobaatar » 23 May 2019 00:56

Shemtov wrote:
23 May 2019 00:49
shimobaatar wrote:
23 May 2019 00:41
Shemtov wrote:
22 May 2019 23:50
Is there a term for someone living in America of African birth? Or do you have to specify the country or use a phrase like African Born American?
I would think that, if you know their country of origin, being specific couldn't hurt.
My real question is, is there a catch-all term? Like what if someone wanted to say "Most African Immigrants to America are Nigerian-American"? Is there a shorter way of saying that? Could "Foreign Born African Americans" work?
If there's a common, catch-all term referring specifically to a resident of the US who was born in Africa, or really any continent, I'm afraid I haven't heard one.

User avatar
Shemtov
runic
runic
Posts: 3095
Joined: 29 Apr 2013 04:06

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

Post by Shemtov » 23 May 2019 01:04

shimobaatar wrote:
23 May 2019 00:56
Shemtov wrote:
23 May 2019 00:49
shimobaatar wrote:
23 May 2019 00:41
Shemtov wrote:
22 May 2019 23:50
Is there a term for someone living in America of African birth? Or do you have to specify the country or use a phrase like African Born American?
I would think that, if you know their country of origin, being specific couldn't hurt.
My real question is, is there a catch-all term? Like what if someone wanted to say "Most African Immigrants to America are Nigerian-American"? Is there a shorter way of saying that? Could "Foreign Born African Americans" work?
If there's a common, catch-all term referring specifically to a resident of the US who was born in Africa, or really any continent, I'm afraid I haven't heard one.
African American would work, except it's used for Americans desended from Africans, and implies dark skin tone. I would have gone with "Americans of African Descent" to allow a catch-all term for those born in Africa, but what's done is done.
Many children make up, or begin to make up, imaginary languages. I have been at it since I could write.
-JRR Tolkien

User avatar
elemtilas
runic
runic
Posts: 3512
Joined: 22 Nov 2014 04:48

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

Post by elemtilas » 23 May 2019 01:10

Shemtov wrote:
23 May 2019 01:04
Spoiler:
shimobaatar wrote:
23 May 2019 00:56
Shemtov wrote:
23 May 2019 00:49
shimobaatar wrote:
23 May 2019 00:41
Shemtov wrote:
22 May 2019 23:50
Is there a term for someone living in America of African birth? Or do you have to specify the country or use a phrase like African Born American?
I would think that, if you know their country of origin, being specific couldn't hurt.
My real question is, is there a catch-all term? Like what if someone wanted to say "Most African Immigrants to America are Nigerian-American"? Is there a shorter way of saying that? Could "Foreign Born African Americans" work?
If there's a common, catch-all term referring specifically to a resident of the US who was born in Africa, or really any continent, I'm afraid I haven't heard one.
African American would work, except it's used for Americans desended from Africans, and implies dark skin tone. I would have gone with "Americans of African Descent" to allow a catch-all term for those born in Africa, but what's done is done.
The only catch-all term I can think of is "African", on account of the person is not an American and their actual nationality is not specified.

If such a person gained US citizenship, I would consider them "American", but not "African-American" (on account of modern race politics).

User avatar
Shemtov
runic
runic
Posts: 3095
Joined: 29 Apr 2013 04:06

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

Post by Shemtov » 23 May 2019 01:13

elemtilas wrote:
23 May 2019 01:10
Shemtov wrote:
23 May 2019 01:04
Spoiler:
shimobaatar wrote:
23 May 2019 00:56
Shemtov wrote:
23 May 2019 00:49
shimobaatar wrote:
23 May 2019 00:41
Shemtov wrote:
22 May 2019 23:50
Is there a term for someone living in America of African birth? Or do you have to specify the country or use a phrase like African Born American?
I would think that, if you know their country of origin, being specific couldn't hurt.
My real question is, is there a catch-all term? Like what if someone wanted to say "Most African Immigrants to America are Nigerian-American"? Is there a shorter way of saying that? Could "Foreign Born African Americans" work?
If there's a common, catch-all term referring specifically to a resident of the US who was born in Africa, or really any continent, I'm afraid I haven't heard one.
African American would work, except it's used for Americans desended from Africans, and implies dark skin tone. I would have gone with "Americans of African Descent" to allow a catch-all term for those born in Africa, but what's done is done.
The only catch-all term I can think of is "African", on account of the person is not an American and their actual nationality is not specified.

If such a person gained US citizenship, I would consider them "American", but not "African-American" (on account of modern race politics).
Could a reversal of African American work, like American Africans?
Many children make up, or begin to make up, imaginary languages. I have been at it since I could write.
-JRR Tolkien

shimobaatar
korean
korean
Posts: 11690
Joined: 12 Jul 2013 23:09
Location: PA → IN

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

Post by shimobaatar » 23 May 2019 01:17

Something like "African immigrants to America" probably sounds the most natural to me out of everything you've proposed.

Keenir
mayan
mayan
Posts: 2383
Joined: 22 May 2012 03:05

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

Post by Keenir » 23 May 2019 03:08

elemtilas wrote:
23 May 2019 01:10
Shemtov wrote:
23 May 2019 01:04
Spoiler:
shimobaatar wrote:
23 May 2019 00:56
Shemtov wrote:
23 May 2019 00:49
shimobaatar wrote:
23 May 2019 00:41
Shemtov wrote:
22 May 2019 23:50
Is there a term for someone living in America of African birth? Or do you have to specify the country or use a phrase like African Born American?
I would think that, if you know their country of origin, being specific couldn't hurt.
My real question is, is there a catch-all term? Like what if someone wanted to say "Most African Immigrants to America are Nigerian-American"? Is there a shorter way of saying that? Could "Foreign Born African Americans" work?
If there's a common, catch-all term referring specifically to a resident of the US who was born in Africa, or really any continent, I'm afraid I haven't heard one.
African American would work, except it's used for Americans desended from Africans, and implies dark skin tone. I would have gone with "Americans of African Descent" to allow a catch-all term for those born in Africa, but what's done is done.
The only catch-all term I can think of is "African", on account of the person is not an American and their actual nationality is not specified.

If such a person gained US citizenship, I would consider them "American", but not "African-American" (on account of modern race politics).
if the person has US citizenship, its "American" and "African-American", and "Nigerian-Americans" (just like how we have Italian-Americans, which includes both Americans whose grandparents came from Italy, and Americans who themselves came from Italy)
At work on Apaan: viewtopic.php?f=6&t=4799

Post Reply