Recent Posts

Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 ... 10
Linguist's Lounge / Re: (The) Three trifles in/of/about Russian
« Last post by waive15 on September 15, 2020, 05:47:51 AM »

Russian, in a sense that a word may "work like" a preposition, ... , a word-forming element, is almost the same as English. One can take any (broadly said/speaking) Russian preposition and use it as a word-forming element(= prefix (as a prefix)). English is a way ahead in that matter but Russian is not far behind. The same is with the German (and other languages).

For example:

за (preposition)(in Russian)

за- (word-forming element = prefix)(Russian)


One is inclined to notice that "real" prepositions which work as places in 3d(2d, 1d, 1d(Time)) also work as directions in that spaces (with verbs of motion/action (and maybe not)). And they are referred to as prepositions and adverbs in different occasions and languages.

But there are some/many "imaginary" axes/aspects(not visual, ... (not through senses)). Verb (as a Name of a "Situation"(actually the "Situation"-Event depends on the Observer)) has many axes/aspects/dimensions/... . Verb("Situation") is more complicated than the ordinary Thing (there is much more to describe). 
Here come(-s) Preposition(as a word/Name) (place in 3d ("through senses")) (/) and Direction (as a word/Name in 3d ("through senses")). It (they) become(-s) Handy as a (word/)verb-forming element both in "real" and "non real"/imaginary axes/aspects/... .

And this is just a simple(a simplification)/a practical approach. There is "Language"-Encoding but there isn't Language(only Consciousness at work).


Thank you and have a nice day.


I have made a mistake. I used "suffix" instead of (I meant) prefix. I am sorry.

The questions are:

 1. Why Russians use суффикс(suffix) instead of на-/став/-ка(suffix) when they use при-/став/-ка(prefix)?


наставка (suffix) = настав/ить + -ка

приставка (prefix)


 2.  Why to use -фф- when -ф- is enough? (why be holier than the Pope?)
English speakers pronounce suffix with one f.


Once again I apologize. 
without changing their form (they look the same). This is simplification.

That has to be moot.

It is all too easy to equate complexity with morphological complexity. However, the word "on" having so many different meanings in English has to be a complexity. Native English speakers do not regard it as a complexity, just normal. It must though be a nightmare for those learning English as a second language - it would certainly seem so if all the information on the Wiki page were presented to them at once.

English is an analytic language with isolating tendencies and words can have multiple meanings and functions. Sometimes it is difficult to say immediately what the function of a word is.

"pro?!/con?!": "Words" like on, off, ... "work like" prepositions, adverbs, ...


without changing their form (they look the same). This is simplification.


bite off

1. (transitive, idiomatic, sometimes followed by on) To accept or commit oneself to a ...

2. (transitive, idiomatic) To acquire, especially in an abrupt or forceful manner.







--- --- ---

idiom, idio-, idiomatic


Phrasal Verbs (those of them which have on, off, ... as an adverb (and not only)) are English knockoffs (an illegal/cheap imitation of a well-known product).
"Adverb" in that case means (is a) word-forming element (giving new/different meaning to the two(three,...)-word verb/phrasal verb).

Thank you and have a nice day.

It seems simpler to restrict the term 'grammatical gender' to its established meaning, i.e. (a), and to use some other term for (b).

Agreed, though I would expand (a) to include verbs, articles and pronouns, though not necessarily all of them in every language which has grammatical gender.

There is another term for (b): "pronominal gender system". See here: where it says:

"English lacks grammatical gender, but can be considered to have a pronominal gender system with semantic gender represented in the pronouns. This system of gender is quite minimal compared to languages with grammatical gender."
Grammatical agreement is no more than saying that the form of a word depends on other words related to it. A language may require agreement for any one or more grammatical category such as number, case, person or gender or indeed none. If English is studied you will not find anything indicating the possibility of grammatical gender except in third person personal pronouns. Since that is the only instance you can reasonably ask: "Does this justify me asserting that English has grammatical gender?" The answer is "no" because there is another explanation. Which pronoun you use is determined entirely by the nature of the thing referred to. In "My wife is out - she will be back soon" using "she" depends on knowing that "wife" refers to a female and not on it belonging to any noun class other than nouns which refer to things female or some class such as "beginning with the letter w".
I agree. If it were accepted that English has grammatical gender, then there would be two different kinds of grammatical gender: (a) the agreement of adjectives with nouns, and (b) the use of gendered pronouns. This would be confusing, because a language (real or hypothetical) could be of any of the following types:

1. It has (b) but not (a) — as in English.
2. It has both (a) and (b), and the gender of the pronoun depends on the gender of the noun used or implied.
3. It has both (a) and (b), and the gender of the pronoun depends on the nature of the thing referred to.
4. It has (a) but not (b) — i.e. there are grammatically gendered nouns, but all pronouns are of common gender (e.g. there is no 'he'/'she' distinction).

It seems simpler to restrict the term 'grammatical gender' to its established meaning, i.e. (a), and to use some other term for (b).
> There is no mistake/error. There is politics.
You have left me no choice but to check it. This book (probably the most reputable one if you are interested) reads on the page 188 that nouns declension numeration is relative and the first and the second declensions are rearranged in school program.

> "There is no swifter route to the corruption of thought than through the
> corruption of language."
> George Orwell
> For the last 100 years (give or take) some language reforms have taken place
> in Russian. Not always for the best.
Yeah, probably that Orwell was a little bit Russian too. Russians indeed like to change something in schoolbooks to make parents (or schools) to buy new ones. For example, it is possible in math to reorder the theorems so that the resulting whole sets will be equivalent but the look and idea of derivations will be completely different. That is how, for example, the new geometry (> 1000 years old knowledge) school textbooks appear in Soviet union/Russia.
Outside of the box / Re: Croatian toponyms
« Last post by FlatAssembler on September 09, 2020, 04:13:03 AM »
One of the arguments I guess I will get against my alternative interpretation of the names of places in Croatia is something like this:
If "Issa" really means "spring" in Illyrian, how come nobody in antiquity suggested that? There were attempts to etymologize the name "Issa" in antiquity. Strabo suggested it's related to the name "Antissa" on the island of Lesbos, and an anonymous scribe inscribed on the forum that it got its name from the name of Ionios the Illyrian. Of course those etymologies are more than likely wrong, but if nobody in antiquity suggested that "Issa" means "spring", isn't that kind of arrogant of you to suggest something like that?
So, what do you think is the best response to that? The response I'd give is that maybe Strabo and that anonymous scribe didn't know Illyrian, and that, had Saint Jerome (who claimed to speak Illyrian) tried to etymologize those names, he would most likely given us reasonable answers. What do you think?
Outside of the box / Re: Croatian toponyms
« Last post by FlatAssembler on September 09, 2020, 03:54:34 AM »
One of the papers I published about my alternative interpretation of the Croatian toponyms is now available on the Internet, here on page 70.
> But if one goes to the Russian version of that page (in the beginning "... See
> Russian version of this page. " on the 8th line of the text)
> https:
> папа is in the 2nd declension.
I do believe there is an error in numbering somewhere. Or some sources may use an alternative numeration. But I vote for the error.

> Some people even talk about the 4th declension - that of the Plurals.
Technically speaking the scientific classification counts 50 or something like this paradigms of declension. But there are only 3 + non-declensional words in public schools (and 6 grammatical cases while the next 9 ones will be revealed to the students of linguistic universities only). The rest “strange” words are declared as exceptions.

> Languages are taught in a such a pompous manner. Russian (and not only) needs
> some rectifying.
Languages shall be taught terribly in every country and linguists shall act as if it is normal to look good. The general theory behind real languages is either extremely complicated or has not even been discovered yet. So they have to simplify things and this cannot but lead to different problems.
> /папа (ends in -a), the word is MASCULINE but -a is a nominative case ending
> for FEMININE. So папа gets all feminine grammatical case endings./
Technically speaking the grammatical case endings are controlled by declension and not by grammatical gender. Father and mother are the nouns of the first declension so they change the same way. There are not many such masculine common words indeed but they do exist. Plus nouns that are Proper Names. Plus common gender nouns.
But you might probably double-check the info above -- I can easily be wrong in details (I just hope it is acceptable for the lounge section).
Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 ... 10