Recent Posts

Pages: 1 ... 8 9 [10]
91
Language-specific analysis / Re: Why are some words in many language similar?
« Last post by Daniel on May 18, 2018, 08:56:43 AM »
1. Those are completely different sets of words, some of which look more similar than others, some of which have languages related to each other (and others don't), and some are explained by other reasons.

2. Randomly picking words that "look similar" is not a good scientific approach. If you want to show any meaningful relationship, then you need a lot of systematic data showing patterns.

As for these specific sets of words, here are the answers:
Quote
아빠(korean) - father - بابا/اب(Arabic) - faðir(icelandic)- papa
엄마(korean) - mother(English) - ام/ماما(Arabic) - mama - móðir(icelandic)
These are similar because these are the first words babies say. The "m" and "b/p" sounds are the first that babies produce, and they first say "mama" then "baba/papa". This is found in dozens or hundreds of languages around the world. These words are more like onomatopoeia than "mother" and "father", which are better for comparing language relationships.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mama_and_papa
https://www.quora.com/Why-do-papa-and-mama-sound-similar-in-different-languages-while-son-and-daughter-dont/answer/Daniel-Ross-71
Quote
아니오(Korean) - no(English) - non(French) - нет(Russian), nej(Danish)
English, French, Russian and Danish have a shared ancestor (Proto-Indo-European), and this word goes back to an older negation word in that language. Korean is a coincidence.
Quote
Shi(Chinese)/Si(Spanish), da(russian etc), yes(english)/já(icelandic)
These words do not look similar. The only similarity is that they have a consonant-vowel (CV) pattern, which is easily explained because they are frequent words, and therefore likely to develop short forms over time. There is nothing more to explain here.

I'd suggest reading an introductory textbook about historical linguistics and linguistic reconstruction. I've written something about that here:
https://www.quora.com/How-can-we-learn-the-pronunciation-and-sound-changes-of-different-languages/answer/Daniel-Ross-71
92
Morphosyntax / Re: Plural Subject + Singular Agreement (Implied Clausal Subject)
« Last post by Daniel on May 18, 2018, 08:51:16 AM »
Quote
You can prove a construction by showing that it only works with some restrictions (see Goldberg).
Well, in the general sense, I don't think there are restrictions on this use of singular agreement for plural-structured concepts. But perhaps in this particular case there are exceptions to that. I didn't mean that you shouldn't enumerate them here. I just meant that in general it's fine if we agree to disagree, because the different proposals we're making don't seem to make any different empirical predictions.
93
Phonetics and Phonology / Re: Is this words Sandhi?
« Last post by Daniel on May 18, 2018, 08:49:34 AM »
No.

"Sandhi... is a cover term for a wide variety of sound changes that occur at morpheme or word boundaries."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sandhi

Those are just contractions. More technically, they're part of a (diachronic) cliticization process where originally independent words become attached to others as dependent morphemes, like affixes, but still somewhere between morphology and syntax.

A few of those have some kinds of sound changes ("won't" for example) that you could call "sandhi" but mostly that would be missing the overall point.
94
Phonetics and Phonology / Is this words Sandhi?
« Last post by giselberga on May 18, 2018, 08:33:09 AM »
Is this words Sandhi?

Example
1.France
Je + amie = j’aime
L’amore
L’Italie

2.English
I + am = i’m
You + are = you’re
Will + not = won’t
95
Language-specific analysis / Why are some words in many language similar?
« Last post by giselberga on May 18, 2018, 08:30:47 AM »
I discover some word in many language  is similar
Why are this words in many language similar?

아빠(korean) - father - بابا/اب(Arabic) - faðir(icelandic)- papa
엄마(korean) - mother(English) - ام/ماما(Arabic) - mama - móðir(icelandic)
아니오(Korean) - no(English) - non(French) - нет(Russian), nej(Danish)
예(korean) - yes(english) - já(icelandic) - ja(Danish etc)
96
Morphosyntax / Re: Plural Subject + Singular Agreement (Implied Clausal Subject)
« Last post by nico on May 18, 2018, 07:59:14 AM »
As you prefer. You can prove a construction by showing that it only works with some restrictions (see Goldberg). To me linguistics is not about "proving" things, but about accounting for some phenomena, whereby there might be equally plausible accounts which completely differ from one another.
97
Morphosyntax / Re: Plural Subject + Singular Agreement (Implied Clausal Subject)
« Last post by Daniel on May 18, 2018, 07:44:46 AM »
Sure. But how can you "prove" a construction? Regardless, having a specific construction wouldn't mean that in the general case this isn't just a 'citation'/mentioning form.

Still, I don't think either of us has a direct counterargument to the other's analysis, or any way to (potentially) falsify either one. So we can just leave both as plausible explanations.
98
Morphosyntax / Re: Plural Subject + Singular Agreement (Implied Clausal Subject)
« Last post by nico on May 18, 2018, 06:15:10 AM »
I have several arguments which prove that we are dealing with a construction (the one with the doctors) with a number of restrictions in case you should be interested.
99
Morphosyntax / Re: Plural Subject + Singular Agreement (Implied Clausal Subject)
« Last post by Daniel on May 18, 2018, 04:47:32 AM »
This isn't a specific grammaticalized construction. It's possible in any context where citing/mentioning a complex NP is pragmatically appropriate instead of referring to individual entities. Literally any sentence/construction you can imagine would permit this, although of course rarely does English mark grammatical number so that it would be contrastive. Basically it would only ever appear with subject NPs. I don't know whether other languages behave similarly.

If you were organizing a photo shoot for some kind of advertisement and trying to decide who to put in the photo with the product, and you wanted to explain to someone about who to put in the scene, would this be appropriate in Italian?
"Il bambino e la bambina è perfetto."
If not, Italian is different from English. If so, wouldn't the same sort of mentioning-rather-than-referring apply?

Actually going back to something you said earlier, we could think of this as a sort of grammatical metonymy: we refer to the singular concept of a collection of entities in the singular because that is how they are pragmatically relevant.
100
Morphosyntax / Re: Plural Subject + Singular Agreement (Implied Clausal Subject)
« Last post by nico on May 18, 2018, 04:07:02 AM »
I think we are merging two aspects. Let us leave the ellpsis story aside, which would be of diachronic interest, as I wrote before. From a synchronic point of view, the sentence with the doctors is a grammaticalized one (in certain contexts). So, if you argue from a constructional point of view you need to relate a certain syntactic form to a meaning, otherwise you are not arguing constructionally. So I'd formulate it this way: subject 1 and subject 2 + 3sg verb + adjective/adverb. Meaning "two entities are evaluated as jointly (not) fulling a certain purpose".
"Not" obviously stands for negation.
Pages: 1 ... 8 9 [10]