Recent Posts

Pages: 1 ... 8 9 [10]
91
Language-specific analysis / Re: What Language is this word from?
« Last post by panini on July 02, 2019, 08:10:57 AM »
The possibilities are pretty huge, given the extent of Kurdistan. You'd have a better chance of getting an accurate answer if you can narrow down the options, e.g. by including a suspected town (Paveh? Silemani? Rojava? Diyarbakir? Yerevan?), or providing any information about the language (Kurdish is really a language family, so the form of words that you or your ancestors remember might say where they are from, thus what "kalpatin" might refer to).
92
Language-specific analysis / What Language is this word from?
« Last post by Henry90 on July 01, 2019, 05:44:10 PM »
Hi, I am new to the forums and I have a question about the linguistic background of a word.
My ethnic background is Kurdish and from what I have learned from my parents the original name of our ancestry was "Kalpatin".
I have searched Google to find out what this word means or where its from but I could not find any information about it.
Does anyone know what the word "Kalpatin" is and where its from?

Thank you for your time!
93
Outside of the box / Re: Eurasiatic, Nostratic and Borean
« Last post by Forbes on June 29, 2019, 03:26:40 AM »
You are faced with several problems if you want to create superfamilies or trace their history back to a single language.

No one knows when humans first started speaking, but assuming conservatively it was 50,000 years ago that is a very long time when you look at how rapidly languages can change. Irish and Bengali are related but quite different from each other. The furthest we can go back without hypothesising is 5000 years and then only for a tiny number of the world's languages - and even then there are uncertainties about how to interpret ancient texts, especially those not written with alphabetic or syllabic scripts. Families like Indo-European and Afro-Asiatic are the exception rather than the rule.

When comparing two proto-languages you need to bear in mind that you are comparing two hypotheses which puts you on rather shaky ground. If a language family has only been written recently you cannot go as far back with your construction of a proto-language as you can with one which has a millennia-long history. How valid is it to compare a hypothesis that takes you back 7000 years with one which only takes you back a century or two? You also have the problem that languages borrow from each other. If two proto-languages share a lexeme how can you know whether it is because one borrowed from the other or because they had a common ancestor? You have to be careful not to be seduced by apparent resemblances when what is important is correspondences. Semantics are unrealiable - if the word in proto-language A for "rope" corresponds with the word in proto-language B for "snake" it may or may not be significant. If you consider that within Indo-European there is no agreement about how Slavic and Baltic relate to each other you are not going to get agreement about how proto-languages relate to each other.

If you are going back far into pre-history linguistic methods alone are not enough. A multi-disciplinary approach is required with linguistics, anthropology, archaeology and genetics all playing a part with none taking precedence. Whilst interesting theories may emerge, the fact remains that languages leave few fossils and the speed with which languages change rules out going back to when humans first started speaking, whenever that was. The reconstuction of the first language is a chimera.
94
Outside of the box / Re: Eurasiatic, Nostratic and Borean
« Last post by Daniel on June 28, 2019, 05:56:33 AM »
Proto-World is the root of a much bigger tree, and, really, not much less plausible than Borean. The absolute best we can do at that time depth is... "maybe".

I'll admit it's fun to look at the trees, and to wonder. And there's also something relatively reasonable about assuming some connections (indeed, there must be some connections), but we shouldn't take any (really, any) details seriously beyond relatively well-established families.
95
Outside of the box / Eurasiatic, Nostratic and Borean
« Last post by Rock on June 28, 2019, 03:33:01 AM »
Eurasiatic superfamily includes Indo-European, Uralic–Yukaghir, Altaic, Chukotko-Kamchatkan and Eskimo–Aleut languages. Also, in Eurasiatic superfamily Korean–Japanese–Ainu, Nivkh and Etruscan are sometimes included.
Nostratic superfamily includes even wider range of language families, such as Afro-Asiatic, Kartvelian and Dravidian.
Borean superfamily is the biggest language family I've ever seen. Not only it includes Nostratic and Eurasiatic, it also includes Dene-Daic.
You can even see Borean language tree.https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/1/14/BoreanLanguageTree.png
Keep in mind, that different version of Eurasiatic, Nostratic and Borean exist. Each version of Eurasiatic, Nostratic and Borean have different reconstructions and different range of languages or language families.
What do you think about this idea? In my opinion, superfamilies are good thing, because it makes a little easier to trace all languages to single source - Proto-Human or Proto-World language.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proto-Human_language
96
Morphosyntax / Re: MORPHOLOGY QUESTIONS for exam
« Last post by Daniel on June 26, 2019, 03:41:54 AM »
We do not answer homework or exam questions here. If you have general questions, you can ask them. Also please never post exam questions online. That just makes it harder for your instructor to grade students fairly.
97
Morphosyntax / Re: Future time clauses and Present Perfect
« Last post by Daniel on June 26, 2019, 03:40:09 AM »
Usually, you can just use the simple present. That's one reason that sometimes the perfective forms can sound odd. But it's complicated, so I can't give you a general answer.

Quote
So just to be sure: Sentences like 'Before he has sat down, he should wash his hands" or "I'd like to finish it before it has got dark" are correct grammatically, but they would sound more natural with the present simple. Is that right?
Yes, structurally possible, but not something a native speaker would say. (If the emphasis really is on the completion of the event, you could try to use those, especially if you emphasize it with "just" for example, but the frequency would probably be less than 1% compared to the simple forms.)
98
Morphosyntax / Re: Future time clauses and Present Perfect
« Last post by Natalia on June 26, 2019, 01:18:33 AM »
Ok, I see. Personally, I'd use the present simple in the examples I provided, however, the students I'm teaching tend to oversue the present perfect in future time clauses, and sometimes I'm not sure wheteher I should correct them or just say that, for example, the present perfect is not necessary and the present simple is totally fine (obviously it all depends on the sentence). What do you think? As far as I can gather from your comments, the problem is not in grammar but rather in the fact whether a sentence t sounds logical/natural or not.

So just to be sure: Sentences like 'Before he has sat down, he should wash his hands" or "I'd like to finish it before it has got dark" are correct grammatically, but they would sound more natural with the present simple. Is that right?
99
Morphosyntax / MORPHOLOGY QUESTIONS for exam
« Last post by karolina99 on June 26, 2019, 12:01:28 AM »
please if you know the answer to any of these questions please help me

[EXAM QUESTIONS REMOVED BY MODERATOR]
100
Morphosyntax / Re: Future time clauses and Present Perfect
« Last post by Daniel on June 25, 2019, 03:12:23 PM »
Quote
"I'd like to finish it before it has got dark."
Nothing specifically wrong with constructing a sentence like that, just not natural, probably because it's not necessary: "before" already has a similar sense to the perfective.

Quote
"I won't let you stay out until you have been sixteen"?
Again, nothing wrong with constructing that sentence, but it's very odd. It would mean "I don't trust you to make good decisions until you have had the experience of being sixteen years old". I would interpret that as saying you can't do it until you're 17. Or maybe that after your birthday experience, you are now wiser? It just doesn't make any sense in context. It would be fine structurally to replace it with something more relevant, like "Don't say that again until you've been in my shoes" (a common idiom meaning "until you've seen things from my perspective).
Pages: 1 ... 8 9 [10]