Recent Posts

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 10
Linguist's Lounge / Re: What types of words are time referents
« Last post by Daniel on November 20, 2017, 09:10:12 AM »
Lots of content words relate to time. But that's not the same thing as grammatical tense.

(To be clear "ex-president" is also not really grammatical tense, so that's not real nominal tense in English. But that's just a rough approximation analogy to some languages such as Guarani in South America that really do have nominal tense grammatically.)
Linguist's Lounge / Re: What types of words are time referents
« Last post by Audiendus on November 20, 2017, 08:16:18 AM »
Some English adjectives indicate tense or aspect, such as 'past', 'present', 'future', 'former' and 'current'.

Then there are temporal prefixes such as 'pre', 'post' and 'proto'.
Linguist's Lounge / Re: What types of words are time referents
« Last post by Daniel on November 20, 2017, 04:06:42 AM »
In English, generally time (tense, or aspect) is only marked on verbs.

When other words seem to have similar suffixes, that is because they are used as derivational suffixes to derive an adjective or noun from a verb. (-ing derives both adjectives and nouns from verbs; and -ed/-en, the past participle, derives adjective forms from verbs. Note that sometimes they still function like verbs as in complex tenses like "was eating".)

There are, however, some languages that do have real tense marking on nouns. You can read about it here:

The closest parallel in English would be expressions like "ex-wife" or "ex-president" (past), vs. "future-present" or "president-elect" (future). We rarely use expressions like that (although "ex-" is not so uncommon).

As for adjectives, there are many languages that do not fully distinguish between adjectives and verbs. So if you find a language with a "past tense adjective" it is probably just a past tense verb with an English translation as an adjective. Imagine if "green" is a verb meaning "to be green", something like "The leaf greens" (=is green). I don't know of languages that have something like "adjectival tense" when adjectives are not like verbs. Maybe some languages could also use the nominal tense marking on adjectives, like "The ex-green leaf"? I'm not sure about that.
Phonetics and Phonology / Re: A question about p and b
« Last post by Daniel on November 20, 2017, 04:02:07 AM »
In Linguistics, we use the terms "voiceless" and "voiced".

"Strong and weak energetic flow of air" is not a meaningful expression, unless you define it. I think we should prefer standard terms unless there is a reason to make a new one.

Note that technically the distinction in English is closer to "aspirated" (P) vs. "unaspirated" (B), although we often use the terminology interchangeably when there is just a two-way contrast.
(The phonetic difference is that in Spanish there is a real voicing distinction, without any aspiration; and in English there is a real aspiration difference, without any actual voicing during the consonant. Some languages have 3-or-more-way splits, so that distinction would be important. But for English it is common, if confusing, to just say "voiced" vs. "voiceless".)

More technically you can look up Voice Onset Time:
(That allows for a three-way distinction: voiceless aspirated, voiceless unaspirated, voiced unaspirated.)
Morphosyntax / Re: What is "plus" as a part of speech?
« Last post by Daniel on November 20, 2017, 03:58:37 AM »
Labels like "conjunction" or "preposition" do not have inherent meaning without a specific definition (either arbitrary or defined within a theory). So it depends on how you analyze them.

But in general, I would say that "plus" is more like a preposition than a conjunction because the agreement is singular:
Two plus two equals four.
Two and two equal four.

Another argument that could be made is that it is a sort of metalinguistic structure that doesn't exactly play by the rules of normal syntax. It's not necessarily a natural part of language but something that comes out of mapping mathematics onto spoken English so it might not really follow general English rules. But it seems to work out at least superficially like a regular preposition, right?
Phonetics and Phonology / A question about p and b
« Last post by nguyen dung on November 20, 2017, 01:37:33 AM »
What is a practical sign to distinguish p and b in English:voiceless and voiced or strong and weak energetic flow of air or both things?
Linguist's Lounge / What types of words are time referents
« Last post by josephusflav on November 20, 2017, 12:26:38 AM »
I know verbs,nouns, adjectives can bare temporal markings.
"God exists" verb
"God is a existing being" adjective
"Swimming is fun" noun

Are there other types of words indicate time?

Morphosyntax / What is "plus" as a part of speech?
« Last post by LinguistSkeptic on November 19, 2017, 09:32:19 PM »
So, what is "plus" (as in "two plus two equals four") as a part of speech? Is it a conjunction or a preposition? Or maybe something else?
Linguist's Lounge / Re: So I've created a very functional language with only 32 words,
« Last post by Daniel on November 18, 2017, 07:02:40 PM »
Indeed, as Panini pointed out, you have designed a way to (potentially) analyze everything, but not to easily refer to specific things. Your system is perhaps better for clearly showing your reasoning about certain ideas and to avoid relying on assumptions, but it is entirely inefficient when it comes to simply referring to a category like "tree" or "dog" or "aardvark". Natural languages typically put more emphasis on actually referring to things, and less to being analytical, and it is essentially unimaginable this would actually work for people in real life. The obvious result is that after a minimal amount of usage it would start to develop idioms and then longer words to refer to specific concepts. And it would no longer work as proposed, because that's not how human languages work.

Something you might enjoy reading about is Ithkuil, which is a constructed language proposed for some of the same reasons that might be motivating you:

I think the concept is interesting. However, personally I would actually prefer for all of those grammatical devices to be optional so that we can choose whether to express ourselves clearly or in general terms. That would be a very powerful language, allowing us to express ourselves as we want to, rather than making us be explicit about every detail. Of course your proposal goes farther than that, breaking down all concepts into your few basic words, but Ithkuil is clearly more functional because it does have as many words as needed, but modifies them grammatically to express nuance and so forth.
Linguist's Lounge / Re: So I've created a very functional language with only 32 words,
« Last post by panini on November 18, 2017, 10:26:19 AM »
Mind you, the names of many of these different creatures come from other languages, meaning that loanwords ("dik'd(o)iwk") would usually suffice to describe them.
So the claim is not that you have a maximum of 32 words – you can have any number of words in the language – and the claim really comes down to saying that it is possible to express any idea with just those 32 words, but for convenience you can draw on other words (borrowed from other languages). This raises the question whether "A hartebeest looked at the dikdik" could also be classified as an utterance of your language, one that uses a lot of loan words. You have a long expression that translates as "the four-legged animal named "Gerenuk", but why not simply call it "ge're'nuk'"?

Perhaps the answers would be clearer if we knew how to say a few much simpler words: "cat", "dog", "hand", "foot". Not just "what is the final word?", but "how to you reduce the output to the 32 basic words? I can't make any sense of the notation
'00001 - r (English)/e ("egg")/z ("foxes", "pose")/-y ("boil", "mile", "eye", "kind", et cetera)'. Are you trying to also devise a spelling system free of standard phonetic conventions? That is, what is the actual IPA content of your particle 00001?
Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 10