Recent Posts

Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 ... 10
11
Linguist's Lounge / Re: MORPHEME
« Last post by Daniel on October 09, 2018, 07:44:51 AM »
It depends on your theory/analysis!

-ed marks past tense in English, of course. But exactly how you analyze that depends on your textbook/instructor/theory. There are a lot of different possibilities.
12
Linguist's Lounge / MORPHEME
« Last post by jungjae97 on October 09, 2018, 01:18:15 AM »
just a simple question as i just started in this field.
when we breakdown the chain for the word 'laughed' what do we categorized the 'ed' as?
13
Language-specific analysis / Re: What language is this?
« Last post by panini on October 06, 2018, 07:10:31 AM »
No, actually I meant, ask your Finnish friend of she understands anything from the Veps video. That gives you a way of calibrating her non-recognition of the recording in question. If she says "I sort of understand it" to Veps that I would say that the Banter video is unlikely to be in a Finnic language. But if she has the same reaction to Veps, then I'd say her language-recognition skills are tightly tuned to Finnish in particular.

Where did this video come from in the first place? I would also entertain the theory that it's mock language. I've heard some hilarious mock Norwegian videos that were not actually in Norwegian, but it took speakers a minute to figure out that it wasn't actually Norwegian.
14
Language-specific analysis / Re: What language is this?
« Last post by aramis720 on October 05, 2018, 07:29:16 PM »
Are you suggesting I contact the woman in the video about Veps?
15
Language-specific analysis / Re: What language is this?
« Last post by aramis720 on October 05, 2018, 07:28:01 PM »
Great, thanks. I'll check with her.
16
Semantics and Pragmatics / Re: Plural language used for a singular actor
« Last post by Daniel on October 04, 2018, 10:26:32 AM »
More generally, this relates to groups performing collective actions:

"We called for help." (As in your situation.)
"We drove here as a family." (But not everyone drove, perhaps just the parents or one parent.)

"Drive" is an especially interesting verb in this case, because it can even be extended to singular usage for passengers. "How did you get here?" -- "I drove.", even if actually it wasn't "I" who drove but a friend, while I rode in the car. The collective action of "driving" though applies to the whole group. Note that it does not apply when riding the bus, even though there is a driver there, but not part of the relevant group. I suppose in some sense this relates to responsibility, similar to how someone in the workplace might be reprimanded for not doing a task but (probably) only if someone else (e.g., on their team) didn't already do it. "You should have done it!" -- also interesting that in English, "you" is ambiguous between singular and plural, and I think in some cases that fits this type of discourse well, although I'm not sure how that works out in other languages.

Collectivity and related semantic concepts are complicated for linguistic analysis and in some ways just beginning to be explored in linguistic theory (at least compared to other topics). Even just plurals in general are a more complex topic than singulars, when for example thinking about the sort of referents that noun phrases express: we think about entities as subjects ("Who drove?" / "John drove."), but in fact once we consider data from plurals we must consider sets of entities rather than just individuals, and everything gets much more complicated. (There's also a question of whether singulars are sets of single individuals, or if there is actually a substantive distinction between singulars as individuals and plurals as sets!) See, for example, Lasersohn (1995), Plurality, Conjunction and Events: https://www.springer.com/us/book/9780792332381

As panini points out, "let's" often has this collective sense, but it's by no means a grammatical anomaly, no more than other collective/plural/etc. usage in general.
17
Semantics and Pragmatics / Re: Plural language used for a singular actor
« Last post by panini on October 04, 2018, 08:36:22 AM »
If Bob were alone and said "Let's call for help", the weirdness would be him talking to himself and not just doing it. Or, using the hortative, rather than saying "I should call for help". To make it situationally less odd, suppose there's a dead rat in the road and the intent is to toss it in the ditch. Then you might say "One of us should toss it in the ditch", or "Let's toss it in the ditch". I would vote for the second option. The form addresses the group (which includes me); it's unrealistic to expect more than one person to participate in the rat-toss. The "Let's" form is addressed to a group, which does not mean that there is a reasonable expectation that every addressee will perform the action. The let's-form has an advantage over the option "Jill, toss the rat!" because it is less likely to generate the response "Who died and made you the boss?" It's a vague and avoidable suggestion that does not impose a burden on any addressee. It's better that "Somebody should...", which carries the scent of moral dictation (which nobody likes). Although, if you plan on tossing the rat yourself, then "Somebody should toss that rat" is a better form to use, if your goal is to claim moral superiority. (That could backfire if you don;t move quickly enough).

Anyhow, the grammar is fine.
18
Semantics and Pragmatics / Plural language used for a singular actor
« Last post by josephusflav on October 04, 2018, 07:47:55 AM »
Imagine that Bob John and Jill are walking down the street and they come across a dead body.

Bob says" let's call for help!"


Jill calls the police and nothing eventful happens.

Is there something wrong with the grammar of Bob's exclamation?

He said "us" yet only Jill actually engaged in the action of getting help.

I feel like I'm on the something weird here so I've tried to find some more sentences like this

19
Sociolinguistics / Re: Code-mixing and borrowing
« Last post by Daniel on October 03, 2018, 11:49:15 PM »
As much as I appreciate the compliment, I would strongly advise finding a published source for any official paper. Citing me here would be similar to citing one of your instructor's comments during office hours. You could do it, it might even be helpful for the paper, but there are probably better options, and your instructor might not consider it a proper citation for an assignment.

From a purely technical perspective, whatever citation style you're using would have information on how to cite a webpage (or even specifically a forum post). But that still isn't generally advisable for academic work, if you're citing it for content. If it's just for phrasing, I'd still ask your instructor first, but maybe that's acceptable.

In this case, I will just emphasize that while I'm glad I clarified it (and I understand that it's often hard to find the exact phrasing for a quote you're looking for), what I wrote here is by no means original, just my understanding from what others have said and experience in general. I'd treat it like Wikipedia: helpful to get started, and then ideas to research more thoroughly and cite from published sources. I'm confident you will find what you need, although it might take some time to find the best sources-- which is good to do anyway.
20
Sociolinguistics / Re: Code-mixing and borrowing
« Last post by studentlinguist on October 03, 2018, 07:44:18 PM »
Daniel: I would like to quote the following statement from you in an assignment  "As for code-switching vs. borrowing, the distinction is that borrowing is a conventionalization process, while code-switching is just a using-in-the-moment process." I cannot access your profile to find out your last name. Please let me know how you would like me to attribute the quote. Thanks
Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 ... 10