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

A forum for discussing linguistics or just languages in general.
shimobaatar
korean
korean
Posts: 11653
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 03:12

Keenir wrote:
23 May 2019 03:08
(just like how we have Italian-Americans, which includes both Americans whose grandparents came from Italy, and Americans who themselves came from Italy)
This is the core of the "problem", for me. If I understand correctly, Shemtov is looking for a term that refers to a US resident who came from a place themselves, but which excludes US residents whose ancestors came from that place, and I can't personally think of any terms like that.

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 03:46

shimobaatar wrote:
23 May 2019 03:12
Keenir wrote:
23 May 2019 03:08
(just like how we have Italian-Americans, which includes both Americans whose grandparents came from Italy, and Americans who themselves came from Italy)
This is the core of the "problem", for me. If I understand correctly, Shemtov is looking for a term that refers to a US resident who came from a place themselves, but which excludes US residents whose ancestors came from that place, and I can't personally think of any terms like that.
I don't think there is one...other than "emigrant" itself....maybe "Nigerian-born" with or without "African-American" following it.
At work on Apaan: viewtopic.php?f=6&t=4799

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 03:48

shimobaatar wrote:
23 May 2019 03:12
Keenir wrote:
23 May 2019 03:08
(just like how we have Italian-Americans, which includes both Americans whose grandparents came from Italy, and Americans who themselves came from Italy)
This is the core of the "problem", for me. If I understand correctly, Shemtov is looking for a term that refers to a US resident who came from a place themselves, but which excludes US residents whose ancestors came from that place, and I can't personally think of any terms like that.
I think the crux here is "residency" vs "citizenship".

Either plain "American" or "Ethnos-American" exclude resident aliens (US residents whose ancestors came from elsewhere (and who themselves come from elsewhere(and who are not citizens))). A resident alien would obviously be "Sudanese" or "Kenyan" or whatever, but without the hyphenation.

The other issue is "African American" itself, which seems to have a peculiarly American definition relating to the era of slavery. These are the Americans whose ancestors came from Africa in servitude and after the war became American citizens. Later African immigrants seem to avoid the term "African American" (often due to their own prejudices or other reasons). These seem to prefer "Nigerian-American" or "Jamaican-American", etc.

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 03:59

Shemtov wrote:
23 May 2019 01:13
elemtilas wrote:
23 May 2019 01:10
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?
Hmm.

Excellent question. "American African" is apparently a term already in use, but not meaning what you want it to mean.

There is also apparently some debate (in Ireland) as to the distinction between "Irish American" and "American Irish".

I'd say "American X" is probably of little use for what you're looking for.

User avatar
Vlürch
sinic
sinic
Posts: 296
Joined: 09 Mar 2016 21:19
Location: Finland
Contact:

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

Post by Vlürch » 24 May 2019 16:27

A question about Japanese, since this has been bothering me ever since I posted a suggestion for sound changes in LinguistCat's "Cat Japanese" conlang thread using an example of this (possibly incorrect?) construction.

In constructions like X的なY, when is the after the necessary, and when is it not?

I know it's an embarrassingly beginner question and probably the technically correct answer is "it's always necessary", but I'd seen (and I think heard in films and songs) examples of the being dropped often enough that I always just figured it's (almost) universally optional even if it's much more common not to drop it... but for a lot of X的Y constructions, there are no Japanese results at all on Google.

The exact phrase I posted in that thread (after making sure on Google that it has results in Japanese as well) was 性的世界; I figured that since there are results in Japanese, my previous assumption that the can be dropped was correct. However, it's been nagging me ever since that there are only a couple of Japanese results for that and most similar constructions, compared to a majority of Chinese results.

I could've sworn that some X的Y terms exist in Japanese where the is as commonly not there as it is there, but I'm starting to question myself since I can't think of any and can't even seem to find any by googling...? So now I'm wondering, if there even are terms where the is commonly "dropped", are they actually multi-word borrowings from Chinese and as such never had a in the first place? And the results for the same terms with are actually just "sums of their parts", not even related to the terms without it?

Anyway, in any case, what's stopping me from just dropping the anyway? I mean, there almost certainly won't be room for confusion. And if it is technically incorrect to ever drop it, why do some people still do it sometimes?

PS: There are so many な's in this post that I can't resist... NANANANANANANANA BATMAAAAN

User avatar
Shemtov
runic
runic
Posts: 3083
Joined: 29 Apr 2013 04:06

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

Post by Shemtov » 26 May 2019 21:20

Does the :ara: DNY or DNW, which ultimately led to /dunja/ "World" have any :isr: or Aramaic cognates?
Many children make up, or begin to make up, imaginary languages. I have been at it since I could write.
-JRR Tolkien

User avatar
KaiTheHomoSapien
greek
greek
Posts: 670
Joined: 15 Feb 2016 06:10
Location: Northern California

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

Post by KaiTheHomoSapien » 30 May 2019 21:15

So what's this about a fourth laryngeal (h₄) reconstructed for PIE?

The only example the Wikipedia article on laryngeal theory gives is h₄órǵʰis (which Wiktionary offers an alternative reconstruction of *h₃erǵʰis)

What is wrong with the reconstruction using h₃? The Wikipedia article implies that h₄ is reconstructed on the basis of a lack of laryngeal in the Hittite reflex (arki-) but the presence of one in Albanian (herdhe). Are there are any other examples where Albanian shows a reflex of a laryngeal that is absent in Hittite? And if h₄ is not accurate, where does the /h/ in Albanian herdhe come from?

shimobaatar
korean
korean
Posts: 11653
Joined: 12 Jul 2013 23:09
Location: PA → IN

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

Post by shimobaatar » 31 May 2019 00:04

KaiTheHomoSapien wrote:
30 May 2019 21:15
The Wikipedia article implies that h₄ is reconstructed on the basis of a lack of laryngeal in the Hittite reflex (arki-) but the presence of one in Albanian (herdhe).
A professor of mine last September or October briefly explained h₄ in class, so I went online afterwards to see what else I could find, and as far as I understand, this is the gist of it. I'm afraid I can't answer the rest of your questions, but hopefully someone can. I'd be quite interested to know myself.

User avatar
sangi39
moderator
moderator
Posts: 3297
Joined: 12 Aug 2010 01:53
Location: North Yorkshire, UK

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

Post by sangi39 » 31 May 2019 02:33

I'm trying to remember what Mallory and Adams said about it in their book (unfortunately I haven't copied all of my files over yet, so don't have access to it at the moment), but they basically said that either a) it's a distinct phoneme, or b) that it's one of the other laryngeals (*h₃?), but doesn't appear in the daughter languages as we would expect for some reason that we don't know yet, so it's more of a "convention of reconstruction" than an actual representation of a phoneme (that is, <h₄> is used by some to suggest something like "some laryngeal, presumably *h₃, but note that it does some weird stuff). IIRC, they also note a fifth laryngeal is used in some reconstructions (with a subscript 5), that similarly has some weird reflexes, and also an "unknown" laryngeal (with a subscript x), which is some laryngeal of largely unknown value.

I think most scholars have made similar suggestions, i.e. that there were likely only three laryngeals, but they use more symbols that that to suggest an unknown reason for unexpected reflexes.
You can tell the same lie a thousand times,
But it never gets any more true,
So close your eyes once more and once more believe
That they all still believe in you.
Just one time.

User avatar
Pabappa
sinic
sinic
Posts: 265
Joined: 18 Nov 2017 02:41
Contact:

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

Post by Pabappa » 31 May 2019 03:43

It'd be worth finding out what normally leads to word initial /h/ in albanian and seeing if its a believable etymology. Albanian has such a late attestation that this word may simply be unrelated to the "orchis" family.
Sorry guys, this one has the worst sting.

User avatar
WeepingElf
cuneiform
cuneiform
Posts: 193
Joined: 23 Feb 2016 18:42
Location: Braunschweig, Germany
Contact:

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

Post by WeepingElf » 31 May 2019 16:31

IMHO the evidence in favour of *h4 is so flimsy that positing such an entity makes more problems than sense.
... brought to you by the Weeping Elf

User avatar
Lambuzhao
korean
korean
Posts: 7782
Joined: 13 May 2012 02:57

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

Post by Lambuzhao » 01 Jun 2019 09:50

Shemtov wrote:
26 May 2019 21:20
Does the :ara: DNY or DNW, which ultimately led to /dunja/ "World" have any :isr: or Aramaic cognates?
After a quick 'n' dirty Wiktionary search + Online Hebrew & Chaldee Lexical search

Genesius Online
http://www.tyndalearchive.com/TABS/Gesenius/
(It mentions on the next page that same root D-N-W as an "unused root" in Hebrew. Mebbe Akkadian?)

The name for the modern Palestinian town of Idhna comes from the Hebrew Dannah דַּנָּה "the low place" (Josh. 15:49).
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Idhna



hope this helps some

clawgrip
MVP
MVP
Posts: 2386
Joined: 24 Jun 2012 07:33
Location: Tokyo

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

Post by clawgrip » 05 Jun 2019 15:36

Vlürch wrote:
24 May 2019 16:27
A question about Japanese, since this has been bothering me ever since I posted a suggestion for sound changes in LinguistCat's "Cat Japanese" conlang thread using an example of this (possibly incorrect?) construction.

In constructions like X的なY, when is the after the necessary, and when is it not?

I know it's an embarrassingly beginner question and probably the technically correct answer is "it's always necessary", but I'd seen (and I think heard in films and songs) examples of the being dropped often enough that I always just figured it's (almost) universally optional even if it's much more common not to drop it... but for a lot of X的Y constructions, there are no Japanese results at all on Google.


I could've sworn that some X的Y terms exist in Japanese where the is as commonly not there as it is there, but I'm starting to question myself since I can't think of any and can't even seem to find any by googling...? So now I'm wondering, if there even are terms where the is commonly "dropped", are they actually multi-word borrowings from Chinese and as such never had a in the first place? And the results for the same terms with are actually just "sums of their parts", not even related to the terms without it?
Generally you need な (or に or だ etc.) for these words. One glaring exception I can think of is 比較的 hikakuteki "relatively; comparatively", which never takes に.

There are some set expressions which also don't use it, like 可及的速やかに kakyūteki sumiyaka ni "as quickly as possible", though you'll notice that this word still functions as a single adverb, as it still has に at the end.

It seems like 性的 also manages to get used without the attributive copula as well, e.g. 性的暴行 seiteki bōkō "sexual atrocities", 性的虐待 seiteki gyakutai "sexual abuse", 性的マイノリティ seiteki mainoriti "sexual minority" etc. Maybe this is another one like 比較的, though it seems like it is less versatile, and ends up sort of in set phrase territory, as phrases that use 性的 tend to represent single concepts, rather than something standing on its own that is subsequently modified by an adjective.
The exact phrase I posted in that thread (after making sure on Google that it has results in Japanese as well) was 性的世界; I figured that since there are results in Japanese, my previous assumption that the can be dropped was correct. However, it's been nagging me ever since that there are only a couple of Japanese results for that and most similar constructions, compared to a majority of Chinese results.
It's also possible (and this is just a guess on my part) that some Japanese terms such as the ones above with 性的 are using inherited Chinese grammatical patterns for more formal terminology.
Anyway, in any case, what's stopping me from just dropping the anyway? I mean, there almost certainly won't be room for confusion. And if it is technically incorrect to ever drop it, why do some people still do it sometimes?
What is stopping you from dropping it is grammar. 的 is a derivational morpheme that can create adjective/adverbs, but just because an adjective/adverb was derived with this morpheme does not mean it is no longer subject to the grammatical rules that govern how adjectives and adverbs relate to other arguments in the sentence. This is sort of akin to arguing that because the suffix -ify in English marks a verb, I would be justified in no longer using 3rd person singular -s on verbs ending with this suffix, because their part of speech is obvious. 的 will mark it as an adjective/adverb, but then it is subsequently identified as an adverb, attributive adjective, or predicative adjective by the following particle. People don't tend to drop に or な except possibly sometimes when it appears last in an utterance, especially if spoken alone.

Aside from unusual outliers like 比較的 and 性的, adjectival verbs (na-adjectives) take na/ni/da/de/etc. according to fixed rules, regardless of their etymology or derivation:

Chinese origin, no derivational suffix: 急な/に kyū na/ni "sudden(ly)"
Chinese origin, Chinese derivational suffix: 計画的な/に keikakuteki na/ni "systematic(ally"
Japanese origin, no derivational suffix: 主な/に omo na/ni "main(ly)"
Japanese origin, Japanese derivational suffix: 爽やかな/に sawayaka na/ni "refreshing(ly)"
English origin, no derivational suffix: ハードな/に hādo na/ni "hard, with effort"
English origin, English devirational suffix: フレンドリーな furendorī na/ni "friendly, in a friendly way"

I hope that clears it up.

User avatar
Vlürch
sinic
sinic
Posts: 296
Joined: 09 Mar 2016 21:19
Location: Finland
Contact:

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

Post by Vlürch » 08 Jun 2019 14:39

clawgrip wrote:
05 Jun 2019 15:36
I hope that clears it up.
It definitely does, all of that makes perfect sense. Thank you so much for the detailed explanation! [:D]

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 » 10 Jun 2019 03:17

Did anyone else’s grandma refer to “clobbered milk” in place of “clabbered milk”?
Did anyone else’s grandma refer to “clouted cream” in place of “clotted cream”?
——
Has anyone here ever heard of clobbering or clouting anything other than an opponent at fisticuffs?
——
Could these dialectal variations have anything to do with such expressions as “addling s/o’s brains”?
(An addled egg is one in which the yolk has been broken.)

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 » 10 Jun 2019 03:58

eldin raigmore wrote:
10 Jun 2019 03:17
Did anyone else’s grandma refer to “clobbered milk” in place of “clabbered milk”?
Did anyone else’s grandma refer to “clouted cream” in place of “clotted cream”?
——
Has anyone here ever heard of clobbering or clouting anything other than an opponent at fisticuffs?
——
Could these dialectal variations have anything to do with such expressions as “addling s/o’s brains”?
(An addled egg is one in which the yolk has been broken.)
I've heard of clabbered milk and clotted cream, though not in the family (mother's sister was a dairy farmer). Clabber apparently derives from Scottish Gaelic that passed through Appalachia on its way down South. It's use as a leavener really makes me interested in finding out what effect it would have on the consistency and flavour of baked goods using clabbered milk vs baking soda.

Clobbering and clouting --- never heard those in a culinary sense.

I'd venture that the "dialect" variations are more due to the two pairs being near homophones. Neither clabber nor clotted cream are beaten or whipped in any way during production as near as I can figure.

As for addled eggs and brains, there's also the expressions "scramble someone's brains" and the like. And, of course, scrambled eggs.

User avatar
LinguistCat
sinic
sinic
Posts: 200
Joined: 06 May 2017 07:48

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

Post by LinguistCat » 10 Jun 2019 15:17

Aside from stress, would there be any reasons a sound change would occur in most environments but not in roots of conjugated words, or at least not early on in the roots? Like maybe the final syllable of a multisyllabic root but not earlier in the same or at all in single syllable roots, but it occurs pretty much anywhere else.

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 » 10 Jun 2019 16:17

LinguistCat wrote:
10 Jun 2019 15:17
Aside from stress, would there be any reasons a sound change would occur in most environments but not in roots of conjugated words, or at least not early on in the roots? Like maybe the final syllable of a multisyllabic root but not earlier in the same or at all in single syllable roots, but it occurs pretty much anywhere else.
I’m a newb about sound-changes; but I think I remember reading that sound-changes “don’t care” about history or grammar, only about sounds?

If so, then, if what you’re asking about ever happens, it must happen for a reason; I can’t imagine what, though.

Most apparent anomalies in sound-change I’ve read about, seem (IIRC) to have been explained by saying, first some sound-change happens, then some other language-change happens, then another sound-change happens; and the anomaly is only apparent, and it appears because at first you think both sound changes happened simultaneously — indeed, you think they were one and the same sound-change — and you think the other language-change (contact, word-borrowing, word-order-change, or whatever) was already in place before it/them.

If that helps, I’m glad, and I’m also surprised!

User avatar
sangi39
moderator
moderator
Posts: 3297
Joined: 12 Aug 2010 01:53
Location: North Yorkshire, UK

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

Post by sangi39 » 10 Jun 2019 17:47

LinguistCat wrote:
10 Jun 2019 15:17
Aside from stress, would there be any reasons a sound change would occur in most environments but not in roots of conjugated words, or at least not early on in the roots? Like maybe the final syllable of a multisyllabic root but not earlier in the same or at all in single syllable roots, but it occurs pretty much anywhere else.
Analogy is one of the only things I can think of off the top of my head, e.g. a sound change does occur, but it creates two forms of the same word, depending on how it's conjugated, then speakers just settle on one form over the other, effectively "undoing" the sound change.
You can tell the same lie a thousand times,
But it never gets any more true,
So close your eyes once more and once more believe
That they all still believe in you.
Just one time.

User avatar
Zekoslav
sinic
sinic
Posts: 255
Joined: 07 Oct 2017 16:54

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

Post by Zekoslav » 10 Jun 2019 19:29

sangi39 wrote:
10 Jun 2019 17:47
LinguistCat wrote:
10 Jun 2019 15:17
Aside from stress, would there be any reasons a sound change would occur in most environments but not in roots of conjugated words, or at least not early on in the roots? Like maybe the final syllable of a multisyllabic root but not earlier in the same or at all in single syllable roots, but it occurs pretty much anywhere else.
Analogy is one of the only things I can think of off the top of my head, e.g. a sound change does occur, but it creates two forms of the same word, depending on how it's conjugated, then speakers just settle on one form over the other, effectively "undoing" the sound change.
Yes, an example of this is palatalisation in Romance and Slavic, which happens regularly in root-initial consonants, but not in root-final consonants, where it would be triggered by affixes.

For example, one would think in the first conjugation's present subjunctive (suffix -ē- in Latin) there would be palatalisation like before any other e, but it's absent from all languages but Romanian (where it's a rule) and Old French (where it's an exception). If we only had Spanish and Italian data we could suspect (as some do nonetheless) that it never happened in the 1st conjugation at all, but did in the 2nd and 3rd. Similarly many Slavic languages have eliminated the results of the Second palatalisation (regular in Old Church Slavonic) so thoroughly that it looks like it never happened root-finally.
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

Post Reply