Recent Posts

Pages: 1 ... 8 9 [10]
Linguist's Lounge / Re: The ethimology of the word “Decomposed”
« Last post by panini on February 17, 2018, 09:15:50 AM »
"Deconstruct" is a modern term most generally meaning something in literary studies: ideas and the like are what is most frequently deconstructed. If a thing A is made up of parts but the parts are usually not presented separately, and if you present the assembled bare elements, you could say that you have an A, deconstructed, especially if you are inclined to use the word deconstruct.

Decomposition generally refers to rotting, and I cannot think of any context where it can be cutely used to refer to "not combining the ingredients to form the end product". The distinction doesn't have to do with liquids versus solids. It would be odd to take the ingredients of a drink and say that you're going to "compose" a Harvey Wallbanger from them (unless you're in a group of musicians).
Linguist's Lounge / The ethimology of the word “Decomposed”
« Last post by Walidsad22 on February 16, 2018, 06:32:42 PM »
Hi Everyone,

Im Walid and happy to be here, I am French and live in New York

I have this debate with friends over the deference of the word ( Decompose and Deconstruct).

As a case study I am in need of a professional linguistic opinion, the situation is about a drink served with all the components being apart for them to be composed / constructed.

My point is that deconstructed is applicable to a solid matter as in constructing something and decomposing is related to liquids and chemical mixture ( as a drink is a actual chemically mixture of deferent substance/ as in mixing oil and water ( which is none to be none homogeneous).

I do believe that Americans mix common and general knowledge as ultimate truth.

I would like to have a professional expertise from a linguist.

Thank you guys

Historical Linguistics / Re: Historical linguistics for music
« Last post by panini on February 15, 2018, 02:21:04 PM »
I think the key to the lack of resonances is the lack of a frame of reference. I didn't used to understand Uighur music, until I did (by reference to Persian and Arabic music, which in itself was the product of other reference points like Andalusian and distinguishing North and South Indian music). I won't claim that I understand Uighur music, but now I think I can at least distinguish it from Kazakh.
Historical Linguistics / Re: Historical linguistics for music
« Last post by Joustos on February 15, 2018, 02:05:35 PM »
Dear Befuddled, perhaps now I can get closer to addressing your concern: In so many (or so few) words, I have been speaking of the "anatomy" of European music-systems. So, when you hear some music which has a different anatomy, you cannot grasp it, and you even wander whether it is music at all. [We are already involved in the ambiguities of the word "Music", which I will not try to clarify.] We should realize that a music piece is not linguistic at all. The major difference between it and a poem or a speech or a sentence is that the music is not  denotative; it does not say anything about any thing. Speaking is directed to some mind and conveys some message. At the most we can say that music is directed to the "heart" (as the supposed organ of emotions and moods). The ancient Greek theorists realized that each "Mode" -- associated with certain rhythms -- has a certain feeling or "tone" [Gr. Tonos]: exuberant or lugubrious or lascivious. Some modern theorists, too, admit that melodies composed according to diverse scales imply different moods, such as exuberant in major-tone compositions and lugubrious in minor-tone compositions. Many music lovers agree that music ("classical music") expresses or provokes emotions, and I know that at least one musicologist analyzed works of Tchaikovsky to show specifically how he fashioned melodies to express various emotions. Vocal music and especially some operas are loaded with emotion-expressing melodies. So, music (either eastern or western) which does not touch the hear does not seem to be music at all. The music systems and the talents of the composers are responsible for Emotive Music and Abstract Music. I think we can agree in this, that music is any beautiful composition (or sequence) of sounds.
Sociolinguistics / Re: Urban dialect
« Last post by Daniel on February 15, 2018, 12:42:18 PM »
I believe that is what the term means. A (usually distinctive) dialect of a dense population in a city. An example would be, of course, a "New York accent". But just like other dialects, boundaries and sizes are not clear.

I think the term "urban dialect" sometimes refers to minority ethnic/racial, or just the general/non-upper class, populations specifically, but it shouldn't be limited to that meaning. Whatever is a distinctive description of how people speak in a particular urban area.

Of course the best source for this would be to look at current research (or textbooks) that use the term and give examples. It would be very easy to find dozens of examples on Google Books just by searching the term, for example.
Sociolinguistics / Urban dialect
« Last post by dalila on February 15, 2018, 12:35:21 PM »
Hi everybody, can you give me the definition of "urban dialect" . I searched the web but I couldn't find it. I think an urban dialect is a dialcet spoken in the city (obviously) as opposed to a rural dialect spoken in rural areas, but I think such definition is just too generic and inaccurate.
You can also give me an example.
Phonetics and Phonology / Re: phonetics and phonology-connected speech doubt?
« Last post by panini on February 15, 2018, 10:58:43 AM »
It's pretty much the transparent combination of "my" and "town/turn". You can get connected-speech effects in other phrases, like "might own" (vs. "my tone").
Phonetics and Phonology / Re: linking vowel to vowel - glide
« Last post by panini on February 15, 2018, 10:47:03 AM »
I don't see any way to decide that in lieu of a specific token or at least basic dialect information. You could record yourself for a few days and see how you actually pronounce the sequence.
Historical Linguistics / Re: The original first language.
« Last post by Daniel on February 14, 2018, 01:12:27 PM »
So, the theory of the monogenesis of humans and of languages must be rejected.
There's nothing inherently wrong with the idea of there being a first language, but at least many tens of thousands of years ago, to reach the current level of linguistic diversity today. Languages don't pass down genetically; they spread through cultural contact. As for the genetics, it's also more complex than that, because mutations can occur after speciation, so if you go back far enough there could have been just a single pair from which we all descend. But probably back so far it would be before humans, perhaps before mammals, or even animals. Another complication is genetic bottlenecks, where there have been proposals of "mitochondrial Eve" (and similar) suggesting we all have in common a particular shared female ancestor, although not that there was no additional mixing outside of that through the males such that generations mixed afterwards and eventually converged so we all have traces of that individual. It's complicated.

And of course the opposite possibility, that there were multiple origins of both language and species. Without a time machine, it's hard to be certain. But however it works out, you are correct that ~6000 years is far too short a time for any of the known facts to line up with monogenisis at that time.
Historical Linguistics / Re: The original first language.
« Last post by Joustos on February 14, 2018, 12:33:56 PM »
I heard that the Jewish language was the oldest in the world. Question, why are there so many languages in the world to start with? Is there a difference between the Jewish language and all languages today and how did English come from the German language? Linguistone  :)
This is a question that various people ask at various times, and that is why I take it up, too. The answer is given in the Hebrew Bible, almost in the same breath as the affirmation that all humans descend from .a first man (Adam). Both positions can be refuted empirically: By doing etymological investigations, it can be shown that Hittite, Canaanite, and the modern European languages cannot be traced back to Biblical Hebrew. (Rather, Hebrew had diverse sources.) As for humans, you need to know that racial traits (physiognomy, colour, etc,) are inherited, and that opposite traits could not have  belonged to the first human couple. So, the theory of the monogenesis of humans and of languages must be rejected.
Pages: 1 ... 8 9 [10]