Recent Posts

Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 ... 10
11
Could anyone suggest a good Introductory book on Angelika Kratzer's work on modals. Thanks in advance
12
Morphosyntax / Re: Prepositional Complementisers and ACC
« Last post by binumal on January 11, 2018, 07:59:47 AM »
Prepositions are ACC case assigners. The subject of a non-finite clause with prepositional complementiser for gets ACC case from the preposition:

"I would like for [TP him to join me]"-

Why does the PRO subject of a gerund not receive ACC case when the non-finite clause is introduced by a preposition?

"Thank youi for [TP PROi joining me]"
The PRO clause is not a TP,Its a CP- the preposition for cannot case mark the PRO across a CP. Hence PRO cannot be case marked by for here.And note that for in the second sentence is not a prepositional complementizer(as far as I know) ,Its a head of the PP that is adjuncted to the VP 'thank you"
13
Phonetics and Phonology / The way the GVS does not affect much of my speech...
« Last post by OnAQuest on January 11, 2018, 01:41:51 AM »
Or at least not in the way standard american or british is,when I speak english I more or less use the vowels like they are used in french and italian or better in Standard Danish,most if not everyone understands me perfectly when I speak a language they understand ,when I speak French ,Dutch,Danish and Italian I use the same exact vowels as I do in English and native speakers from all understand me perfectly ...some even say how clear I speak and from this i find that against to what many linguists say the only vowel sound that really moved in english are ''i'' and ''ou'' along with with ''u''also I find my tongue moves not at all,it is all about where I am aiming the sound in my head and vowels are not ordered in a quadrilateral but rather one after the other in a line ,I also sing and I am saying this cause I clearly have a way of doing it that not many do ,where I aim the vowels sounds rather than shape them with my tongue which makes singing a breeze rather than a constant fight with the muscles in my mouth ,I always remember singing and speaking like this and when I recently tried any other(just cause I thought what the heck) way I would have my neck throbbing after singing , my singing sounded like a dying walrus with a spoon stuck in it's throat,  but i wanna know if anyone out there feels they have a similar way or maybe a different way than what linguists seem to say ...


How many linguists say Standard American English Vowels are:


bight [aɪ]
beet [iː]
bit [ɪ]
bate [eɪ]
bet [ɛ]
bat [æ]
bot [ɑ]
bout [aʊ]
bought [ɔ]
but [ʌ]
burt [ɜ˞]
boat [oʊ]
boot
beaut [ɪ̯u]
bute [ɪ̯u]
sew [oʊ]
boy [ɔɪ]
choir [ʊ̯ɑ] 
you [ɪ̯u]
yacht [ɪɑ]


How general American speakers seem to say the vowels(compared to the way I say them):

bight [aɪ̯]/[æɪ̯]
beet [ɨː]/[eː]
bit [ɪ]
bate [eɪ̯]
bet [e̞]/[ɛ]
bat [æ]/[ɛə]/[eə]/[ɘə]
bot [ä]
bout [äʊ̯]/[aʊ̯]/[æʊ̯]
bought [ɒ]
but [ə]/[ɜ]/[ʌ]
burt [ɚ]/[ɜ˞]
boat [oʊ̯]
boot /[ʊu̯]
beaut [ɪ̯ʉu̯]
bute [ɪ̯ʉu̯]
sew [oʊ̯]/[əʊ̯]
boy[oɪ]/[ɔɪ]
choir [ʊ̯ɑ]/[ʊä] 
you [ɪ̯ʉu̯]
yacht [ɪ̯a]/[ɪɑ]/[ɪɒ]

How I say the vowels:

bight
beet [ɨ]
bit [ɪ]
bate [ɘ]
bet [ɪ̈]/[e]
bat [ɛ]/[a]
bot [ä]/[a]/[ɶ]
bout [ɐ](kinda rounded)
bought [ɑ]/[ɔ]
but [ʏ]/[ə]
burt [ɚ]
boat [ɔ]
boot

beaut
bute [y]
sew [ø]
boy[ɵɪ]/[oɪ̈]/[əɪ]
choir [ʊ̯̈ɛ]/[ʊ̯̈ɘ]
you [ʏ̯y]
yacht [ɪ̯a]
 
14
Phonetics and Phonology / Re: superscript x in ipa
« Last post by Daniel on January 10, 2018, 07:52:42 PM »
That's not IPA, at least not a standard form. So you should look at the source to figure out what they are trying to convey.

Of course /x/ is a voiceless velar fricative, so it might be indicating some of those properties. Velarization is usually expressed with a superscript of the voiced counterpart, as in: /tˠ/. But that usually only applies to consonants. I'm not quite sure what it would be for vowels (an extra-back pronunciation?).

Another possibility is that it is simply a "small" consonant, maybe not emphatic, maybe not released clearly, etc. Some non-standard transcriptions might do something like that, along the lines of indicating intonation information within a transcription.

Or is it possible you have the transcription slightly wrong? Could it be /e̽/? That's a mid-centralized vowel. Also an "x" but above the vowel, not as a separate superscript letter.

Older descriptions might have unusual conventions (not following IPA) or indicate non-systematic information (like a "small" consonant). If it's a new and otherwise-standard-IPA description, I'm not sure what else it would be adding. As I said, check the introduction or phonology section to see what they are trying to describe, if this is a grammar.

You could also look up the phoneme inventory and other phonological properties of the language on Wikipedia (or in another grammar) to see what it might be if you still can't figure it out.
15
Phonetics and Phonology / superscript x in ipa
« Last post by 「(゚ペ) on January 10, 2018, 12:41:38 PM »
I recently encountered the suomen word '/terʋeˣ/'. I want to know what that superscript x at the end of the word means.
16
Morphosyntax / Re: Prepositional Complementisers and ACC
« Last post by Daniel on January 09, 2018, 07:47:32 PM »
Good question. I suppose someone maintaining that analysis would imagine some additional distinct structure in those two complement types.

Personally at least for English I like thinking of accusative as default ("elsewhere") and nominative as assigned in specific circumstances. But that's not the standard generative analysis.
17
Morphosyntax / Prepositional Complementisers and ACC
« Last post by Morphosyntax on January 09, 2018, 02:07:37 PM »
Prepositions are ACC case assigners. The subject of a non-finite clause with prepositional complementiser for gets ACC case from the preposition:

"I would like for [TP him to join me]"

Why does the PRO subject of a gerund not receive ACC case when the non-finite clause is introduced by a preposition?

"Thank youi for [TP PROi joining me]"
18
There is some chance that a job will become available somewhere in about 10-15 years (a plausible future target for you). Let's say that there are exactly 2 jobs in that open up within that time frame, and there are 200 applicants. Then the question is, what do you need to do, so that you end up as one of the lucky 2? One approach is the "multiple birds, one stone" approach, where you specialize in Indo-European and Semitic and Athabaskan (and computational linguistics), the reason being that the department happens to have courses in these areas than need covering. Better to hire one person who can do everything, right? There is, however, the problem that people are willing to claim an ability to do things that they can't actually do, and developing an impressive publication portfolio in all of those fields is extremely hard, and risky (in case the demand is for IE, semantics, sign language and Mansi dialectology).

The other approach is the "undisputed brilliance" approach, implying tight focus (and frankly, "Indo-European is way too broad – instead, you need to have general fluency in IE and extreme competence in Iranian linguistics or Greek epigraphy). The idea is that you might become so superb in your area that no other candidate can touch you. The problem with this approach is that it assumes that departments want to hire the absolutely best person for the position, and I think that's unrealistic, at least at the relevant level. This is the way to get a named chair full professor position in a traditional European university, which could happen in some number of decades.

If you follow a broader study path, you have more future options to rearrange your research interests. For example, you may discover that you're more interested in comparative linguistics than historical linguistics. Language description and field work very naturally connect to comparative linguistics in a way that historical linguistics doesn't (essentially, you can't do historical linguistics in a family until there is some factual knowledge of the language that is sufficient to allow you to compare and reconstruct, and then you can do the finely-focused detail work that typifies historical linguistics). If you have spend all of your time developing talents at reading medieval manuscripts, you'd be unqualified to move in that new direction. Ultimately you have to narrow your focus, but right now an even split between general linguistics and specific languages would, IMO, be a wiser choice (assuming that you've already gained the requisite general knowledge of history, logic, ethics, physics etc.).

19
English / Re: Kindly look at these sentences
« Last post by Daniel on January 08, 2018, 08:32:02 AM »
Churchill is the only person who remembers Churchill (himself) giving that particular speech.
20
English / Kindly look at these sentences
« Last post by binumal on January 08, 2018, 07:46:04 AM »
   Here are two sentence taken from Hornstein's book.                                                    a. a.  Only Churchill remembers himself giving the BST speech
b.  Only Churchill remembers that he gave the BST speech.    -                                       How would you paraphrase the  sentence?  Who remembers what?     Can this sentence be paraphrased as " Churchil only remembers himself giving the BST speech"?
Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 ... 10