Recent Posts

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 10
Morphosyntax / Re: The continuous aspect
« Last post by Natalia on March 25, 2020, 04:23:01 AM »
Thank you for your explanation.
Consistency is important. If your analysis changes based on its application, then it's not a consistent analysis. There may indeed be different useful analyses for different purposes, but that's different from what you describe. Morphemes are defined in a particular way that should be consistent. The question then is to figure out how to best approach the question of identifying them, and also the potential for variation across languages. But you can't just swap out different definitions as you feel like, because that defeats the point of having an analysis.

As a general rule, it's always better to try to understand how others have analyzed similar problems than to try to reinvent the wheel when you're first beginning. There may very well be a better way to do things, but you probably won't find it if you don't understand what other people have done before. (Or you might just be repeating their mistakes.)
I also believe a morphemic parse, generally speaking, may be affected by the purpose (what do you do it for?), the audience (for whom you do it) and many other aspects (you name them). So, you choose the rules (if there are well-established ones) or create them. Speaking of the Russian above: -ть (as in плакать) is the ending in usual schools and the suffix in universities.
Morphosyntax / Re: The continuous aspect
« Last post by Daniel on March 24, 2020, 02:10:04 PM »
Most of those predicates would typically be expressed in the simple present, because the distinction between habitual and current is rarely important. But when someone does choose to express them in the progressive form, the emphasis is on their continuous, ongoing relevance. Adding the adverb "continuously" to each sentence gives a good idea of what they mean.

"No one corrects you" means that in general there there are no corrections. But "[Continuously] no one is correcting you" means that there are many missed opportunities for correction.
(Note that this repetitive reading is slightly distinct from the in-the-moment reading "Listen to me! I'm correcting you right now!" It's a habitual reading. Sometimes this is called verbal plurality, where the event is iterated.)

Another way of looking at this is that the progressive describes people in a particular state, not doing a particular (punctual) action. Here the attitude seems to be that they are stuck in a state and should change. (That isn't the only possible attitude associated with this usage of progressive, but often there is some specific pragmatic reason for using this form emphatically.)

Finally, sometimes this usage of the progressive can emphasize that the subject is doing the action intentionally: converting what is often considered a state into usage that is typical of actions, suggesting they are choosing to be like that. This is most obvious with the verb "be" itself, which generally does not have a progressive form, but in conversation sometimes has forms like "You're being mean", where the implication is that the subject is making a decision. (This is a type of aspectual coercion where the construction doesn't match the lexical item and therefore must express something else.)
Morphosyntax / The continuous aspect
« Last post by Natalia on March 24, 2020, 05:01:37 AM »
How would you explain the use of the continuous forms in the examples below? I know we can use the present continuous (among others) to talk about what is going on around a particular time that we are thinking of. Is it the case here? And I was wondering - do these continuous forms sound more polite than the simple forms in brackets?
1. Today I’m going to show you 10 fashion designer names that you might be pronouncing incorrectly. (vs “that you might pronounce”)
2. When you’re learning another language and nobody is correcting you, you might start to get little errors ingrained into your brain. (vs “nobody corrects you”)
3. A: Women like to be asked for a dance.
    B: I think I'm at the stage where I shouldn't be asking women for a dance! (vs “I shouldn’t ask”)
Outside of the box / Re: Croatian toponyms
« Last post by FlatAssembler on March 11, 2020, 11:01:15 AM »
I've done some historical revisionism, as well as linguistic revisionism. ... Do you think that's dishonest of me?
You've answered your own question.

There's little left to discuss here: you've proposed your etymologies, and they're available for anyone interested to read.
And, do you think that me suggesting that "Lissa" was the ancient name for the island of Ugljan, even though the mainstream history considers it to refer to the island of Pag, makes my hypothesis significantly less credible?
Outside of the box / Re: Croatian toponyms
« Last post by Daniel on March 11, 2020, 05:17:43 AM »
I've done some historical revisionism, as well as linguistic revisionism. ... Do you think that's dishonest of me?
You've answered your own question.

There's little left to discuss here: you've proposed your etymologies, and they're available for anyone interested to read.
Outside of the box / Re: Croatian toponyms
« Last post by FlatAssembler on March 11, 2020, 04:18:49 AM »
Also, in the newest version of my alternative interpretation of the Croatian toponyms, I've done some historical revisionism, as well as linguistic revisionism. For instance, I've argued that the name Lissa in antiquity referred to Ugljan, rather than to Pag (as the mainstream Croatian history claims).
Lissa < This toponym was attested in ancient times by Pliny the Elder in Naturalis Historia in 3rd book in the 63rd chapter as "Contra Iader est Lissa.", Iader being the ancient name for Zadar. The mainstream history generally considers that toponym to be a corruption of the ancient name for Pag, Cissa. However, I think that, if Pliny wanted to refer to Pag, he could a lot more appropriately write "contra Aenonam" or, even better, "contra Vegium" (Vegium being the ancient name for Karlobag), rather than "contra Iader". So, I think this toponym, in antiquity, referred to Ugljan. And I think that, in the late stages of Illyrian, that was the generic word for island, whichever root it comes from. Namely, the modern Italian name for Vis is Lissa, and the modern Italian name for Hvar is Lesina. The modern island name Lošinj, unattested in antiquity, could come from that same root.
Do you think that's dishonest of me?
Outside of the box / Re: Croatian toponyms
« Last post by FlatAssembler on March 11, 2020, 04:11:35 AM »
And what do you think about the updated version of Etymology Game? Does it produce convincing results? Why or why not?
Semantics and Pragmatics / Re: Manner (of motion)
« Last post by Daniel on February 25, 2020, 09:51:58 AM »
(My research is about the expression of Associated Motion (and Directionals), including in morphology and multi-verb constructions. Sometimes they're considered 'satellites' in a Talmy-style typology but they're a distinct phenomenon from what he has focused on. So I don't really have a personal opinion about the Talmy-style typology, except to say that there are broader issues related to motion events to consider as well, but that's also Talmy's current (and original!) perspective.)

OK, I'll see if I can help you view the video (check your private message inbox).

(You say that "there are many other approaches that have proposed ways to analyze event types other than motion". Could you suggest me some bibliographical references?)
Hm, this isn't specifically my area, but there is a lot of research about different event types. You can find some just by searching for the event type (assuming you can figure out what it's been called before).
Someone whose work comes to mind is for example:
And more generally, you might want to look at broad typologies of different verb types in English (and other languages, it's just that English has been studied most), and then following research about specific types. A good starting point for that is for example:
 Levin, B. (1993). English Verb Classes and Alternations: A Preliminary Investigation. University of Chicago Press: Chicago.

First set of questions: what kind of events are they? To draw, to persuade (or "to reform", "a/the party", "a/the smile" ecc..) how could we decompose them in Talmian terms? Do I need to decompose them looking for their semantic values? Is it possible to analyse them in different terms?
Your research sounds interesting. Regarding the specific questions you ask, it seems to me that there's a specific scale indicated by the quantification, such that although "manner" might refer to a variety of things, in this case you're mostly interested in something like "extent" (just using that term descriptively), which could apply to various event types. It would make more sense to me, then, to establish some sort of shared value (e.g. "extent") across event types, rather than trying to look generally at (variable) "manner" across those event types which might happen to include "extent".

Second set of questions: which feature of the event do the expressions such as N [da niente] and 'qualcosina' modify?
1) They don't quantify anymore (semantic bleaching); 2) they correlate also with Aspectuality, i.e. with the duration of the event (short of fast); 3) they imply that the event is undemanding/non-committing, with a relaxed attitude: how can this meaning be justified in terms of Manner?
Actually, I do think they're still quantifying something. They're minimizing the "extent" of the action. (You'll need to work out exactly how to analyze that, but there's some value of something that is being limited by these expressions.)

By the way, English "a little bit" can work in a very similar way, as in "I'll draw a little bit". I imagine this might not be an uncommon development cross-linguistically, so you might find some useful research published about (or in) another language, to add to your analysis.
Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 10