Recent Posts

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 10
1
Psycholinguistics / Re: Priming
« Last post by Daniel on Today at 01:07:54 AM »
You have accurately described the situation. The "target" depends on how you define the word "target". The meaning is obvious, from what you've said. But it could be the primed target, or the actual target. If this is for a class, look at your textbook or ask your instructor. If not, I'd suggest just being clear.

(Note also that cows do drink milk, at least young cows-- that's why (cow) milk exists, not for humans!)
2
Psycholinguistics / Priming
« Last post by sampathronjay on July 15, 2019, 09:13:45 PM »
Hi,
Can you help me with this please?
We say the word "silk" 5 times and then ask the question, "what do the cows drink?". Then the answer any ordinary person would give is "milk". I want to know what the prime word and the target word here in this instance.

Prime word is "silk". That can be understood. What is the target word? I think it is "water", right? But because the respondent was primed with the word silk, he gave the answer milk.

Am i right?
3
Outside of the box / Re: Eurasiatic, Nostratic and Borean
« Last post by Forbes on July 12, 2019, 12:44:27 PM »
Suppose there was a time when all humans spoke the same language. As the speakers dispersed varieties would have emerged and, assuming a lack of contact, in time have become mutually unintelligible. Suppose ten distinct families arose. If we send a comparative linguist back to that time he can have a good guess at what the first language was like. We fast forward a few millennia and suppose that half of the language families have died out. If we send the linguist back to that time not only will he be lacking half the information he needs, but the remaining five languages will have moved further apart from each other and from the original language. Much less for the linguist to go on.

As we stand, we do not know how many language families have been lost. Apart from that not only do words change but they are also subject to semantic shift. We know from exisiting languages that words that sound similar may have dfferent etymologies. Most signficant of all, we cannot be certain that language arose only at one time in one place. Our ancestors may have reached a point where they had not developed fully-fledged language but it was inevitable they would and then separated into different groups.

The analogy is not perfect, but what we have today is like having a handful of jigsaw pieces and not knowing how many pieces the jigsaw has and then speculating on what the picture is like.
4
Outside of the box / Re: Eurasiatic, Nostratic and Borean
« Last post by Rock on July 11, 2019, 02:14:18 AM »
Quote
When you propose a proto-language what you are saying is: We definitely have a+b+c+d....+n which may give us x. When you compare two proto-languages and suggest a proto-proto-language what you are saying is: We may have x and y which may give us z. We have to be less confident about z than we are about x and y. Comparing proto-proto-proto-languages takes us further into the realms of uncertainty. There will be a limit to how far you can go back and the point you reach will be nowhere near when humans first started to speak. You also have to remember that your starting point was attested languages; your reconstruction cannot be convincing because an unknown number of unattested languages have not been taken into account.
Yes, this is true. Most superfamily reconstructions are inaccurate. The main thing of inaccuracy is such things as unknown vowel (V) and unknown consonant (C).  For example, if word of sky in Proto-A is reconstructed as *CVCV, it can be any of /tata/, /hoho/, /nini/, etc.
Also, look at the Proto-Borean reconstruction compiled by Sergei Starostin. The most part that covers this reonstruction is also unknown vowels and unknown consonants.
Quote
The reconstruction of the first language is a chimera because we simply do not have and never will have sufficient information.
BUT THERE IS some some sort of information of first language also known as Proto-Human or Proto-World, not matter how sufficient.
At first, how is the Proto-Human or Proto-World reconstructed? Quote from Wikipedia:
Quote
Ruhlen tentatively traces a number of words back to the ancestral language, based on the occurrence of similar sound-and-meaning forms in languages across the globe. Bengtson and Ruhlen (1994) identify 27 "global etymologies". The following table, adapted from Ruhlen (1994b), lists a selection of these forms:
Based on these correspondences, Ruhlen (1994b:105) lists these roots for the ancestor language:
Keep in mind that Ruhlen reconstructed only 11 words of Proto-Human or Proto-World. That's all I know about Proto-Human or Proto-World.
5
Feedback, Help and Forum Policy / Re: Why is this forum Eurocentric?
« Last post by ninuno on July 10, 2019, 01:29:18 PM »
I personally divide it into, european languages, far east languages , middle eastern and south asian languages, and african, indigenous american, oceanic and paleosiberian languages .   
6
Outside of the box / Re: Eurasiatic, Nostratic and Borean
« Last post by Forbes on July 10, 2019, 02:08:53 AM »
"If the reconstuction of the first language is a chimera, then most proto-languages would be chimera, probably because lack of writing. Even Proto-Indo-European. But there are really some people interested in proto-languages, or even first language. Or even proto-Human (Proto-World.) For these people, it's not even important whether proto-language is chimera or not, I think. For me, the most important part is that the proto-language is even reconstructed."

The point is that proto-languages are constructed with reference to attested forms. They have to be regarded as provisional for all sorts of reasons. Suppose language A develops into two distinct varieties A1 and A2 spoken today and there is no record of A. Conceptually we have two different things. One is the language A which was something which existed and is unknown. The other is Proto-A which is a hypothetical reconstruction. Whilst linguists may be confident that  the reconstruction is satisfactory (and they will probably concede that some parts are less satisfactory than others) they will not insist that they have revealed to the world what language A was really like. Proto-A is not a chimera because it is a sustainable hypothesis.

When you propose a proto-language what you are saying is: We definitely have a+b+c+d....+n which may give us x. When you compare two proto-languages and suggest a proto-proto-language what you are saying is: We may have x and y which may give us z. We have to be less confident about z than we are about x and y. Comparing proto-proto-proto-languages takes us further into the realms of uncertainty. There will be a limit to how far you can go back and the point you reach will be nowhere near when humans first started to speak. You also have to remember that your starting point was attested languages; your reconstruction cannot be convincing because an unknown number of unattested languages have not been taken into account.

The reconstruction of the first language is a chimera because we simply do not have and never will have sufficient information.
7
Linguist's Lounge / Re: Where google fails, ask a linquist
« Last post by ninuno on July 08, 2019, 06:50:07 PM »
say you read china's ann coulter https://foreignpolicy.com/2010/10/26/chinas-ann-coulter/ or any article on http://www.indiatoday.com   it is english, but the "feel" of the grammar or the semantics that it emenates is slightly different from real english, e.g. from http://anncoulter.com 

what do you make out of it ?
8
Phonetics and Phonology / Re: Phonological task
« Last post by panini on July 06, 2019, 08:20:52 AM »
IMO the answer is no, nobody can, because there isn't enough data to decide between the various analyses. Also, you haven't come up with all of the possible analyses. I think you would be best off if you start by saying what you take the underlying forms of all of the involved morphemes to be. Also, did they give you a set of 4 rules to choose between, or are these your rules? Shame on them if the former.
9
Outside of the box / Re: Eurasiatic, Nostratic and Borean
« Last post by Rock on July 05, 2019, 12:06:47 PM »
I'm replying too late, but:
Quote
You are faced with several problems if you want to create superfamilies or trace their history back to a single language.
At first, I'm not a linguist,just interested in languages and phonology so I wouldn't create superfamilies. Atleast, very good understanding of grammar would be needed.
Yes, there are some problems for making superfamilies and first language reconstruction. But, I think, common problems for superfamilies or first language is what makes superfamily or first language reconstruction interesting.
Quote
No one knows when humans first started speaking, but assuming conservatively it was 50,000 years ago
Reconstructed Proto-Human or Proto-World (not fully recostructed) hypothesized to have been spoken between 100,000 and 200,000 years ago. Atleast this is what Wikipedia are saying.
Quote
that is a very long time when you look at how rapidly languages can change.
The Norman Conquest is what makes the English language rapidly changing.
Quote
and even then there are uncertainties about how to interpret ancient texts, especially those not written with alphabetic or syllabic scripts.
This is proto-writing. Examples of proto-writing are VinĨa symbols and Jiahu symbols.
Quote
If two proto-languages share a lexeme how can you know whether it is because one borrowed from the other or because they had a common ancestor?
Yes, this is true. If two proto-languages have something common, we cannot know if this something common are borrowed or not. Indo-Uralic hypothesis is great example of this. In my opinion, Proto-Indo-European and Proto-Uralic are probably descsended from Proto-Indo-Uralic, because this is where is the point of superfamilies.
Quote
if the word in proto-language A for "rope" corresponds with the word in proto-language B for "snake" it may or may not be significant.
It may be significant, because similar appearance is what causes rope and snake to be easily confused. With this confusion, snake can be easily interpreted as moving rope. If the words of rope and snake are similar, it can cause even more confusion.
Quote
If you consider that within Indo-European there is no agreement about how Slavic and Baltic relate to each other you are not going to get agreement about how proto-languages relate to each other.
In my opinion, most linguists think that Baltic and Slavic related to each other and descended from Proto-Balto-Slavic language.
Quote
The reconstuction of the first language is a chimera.
If the reconstuction of the first language is a chimera, then most proto-languages would be chimera, probably because lack of writing. Even Proto-Indo-European. But there are really some people interested in proto-languages, or even first language. Or even proto-Human (Proto-World.) For these people, it's not even important whether proto-language is chimera or not, I think. For me, the most important part is that the proto-language is even reconstructed.
10
Phonetics and Phonology / Phonological task
« Last post by Falcon1111 on July 05, 2019, 09:56:57 AM »
Hi guys,

can anybody answer this one? For me no answer seems to be correct...

https://abload.de/img/unbenannt2kkwt.png

Best
Falcon
Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 10