Recent Posts

Pages: 1 ... 8 9 [10]
91
Outside of the box / Re: Croatian toponyms
« Last post by FlatAssembler on May 19, 2021, 12:36:44 PM »
I will try to publish a new paper about linguistics, this time with a different strategy. Here is the abstract in English, and you can download the whole paper, but the rest is in Croatian:
What will the language we speak now look like in the future? To a large extent, that question is impossible to answer. The vocabulary of our language will gain, but also forget (How many young people today know what a floppy disk is, yet alone what a fiacre is?), words related to technology, the development of which is impossible to predict. The vocabulary of our language will also receive words from languages that will be used in international communication, which is dependent on politics, and it is also impossible to predict long-term (If you told somebody in Roman Empire that, one day, a Germanic language will be a global language, and that most of the languages all over the world will have loan-words from it, they will look at you oddly.). Morphology and syntax follow some scientific laws (analytic languages evolve into agglutinative ones, agglutinative ones evolve into fusional languages, and fusional languages evolve into analytic ones.), but those laws are difficult to model computationally and probably full of exceptions (Armenian language, for example, is an agglutinative language that evolved from the fusional Indo-European proto-language, but there is no reason to think there was a time when it was an analytic language.). Morphology and syntax are also probably somewhat influenced by politics (It seems as though languages with many adult learners, such as English or Late Latin, tend to have simpler morphology but more complicated syntax. Similarly, some syntactic structures that recently appeared in the Croatian language are probably an influence of the English language.). Nevertheless, is it possible to predict how the phonology of a language will develop? Here, I have researched exactly that, I have tried to make a computer model of the phonological evolution of languages. Although I was not particularly successful at that, I believe my work can come helpful to others, at least not to repeat the mistakes I have made, because, as far as I know, nobody has done anything like that. I have also researched whether computer models can be used in toponomastics, and, related to that, what effect do different parts of the grammar have on the entropy of human languages. I came to the conclusion that, in the Croatian language, phonology takes away 1.62 bits per symbol of entropy of consonant pairs, that syntax takes away 0.21 bits per symbol, and that morphology takes away 1.57 bits per symbol. Only 5.99 bits per symbol of entropy of pairs of consonants is semantics.
What do you think, does that paper have a chance of getting published? Why or why not?
92
1. She was working on the book, but didn't complete the project, so she almost finished it. [Goal: write a book]
2. She intended/expected to complete the book, and almost did what would have been required to finish it, but actually she got distracted by something else and did not do that, so the almost finished it. [Goal: finish the book] Rephrase: "she almost did something yesterday", where that something is "finishing the book".
93
Language-specific analysis / Could please shed some light on the second reading
« Last post by mallu on May 13, 2021, 11:47:10 PM »
Here is an example sentence  from the paper titled ' The English Resultative Perfect and it's relationship to the Experiential perfect and simple present '        * Mary almost finished the book yesterday   - The paper tells that there are 2 readings for the sentence. The second reading she give is -' Mary didn't work on the book at all ,but there was a good chance that she would' I couldn't quite understand  the intended meaning.Could you please help me.
94
Typology and Descriptive Linguistics / Re: "Original" Word Order?
« Last post by Daniel on May 02, 2021, 05:15:08 PM »
These are interesting questions, but possibly unanswerable.

Regarding the first topic in general, SOV is the most common order around the world, followed by SVO, then others. The idea that SOV was "original" and others evolved from it doesn't make much sense because SOV is still so common. There have been at least tens of thousands of years for languages to shift, so why aren't all languages SVO or something else by now? This is somewhat similar to why ideas of languages "becoming more complex" or "simplifying" over time don't really work, because the history of languages is too long for it to just operate in one direction. It is interesting that SOV>SVO seems like a typical change (although my intuition may be biased by well-known cases, especially in Europe). But it might be more helpful to look at examples of other changes. My guess is that the change might not be SVO>SVO directly, but through some intermediate steps: consider Arabic for example, with an ancestor that was probably SOV (if Akkadian is representative) then either VSO or topic-prominent with apparent SVO order. This is probably related to the fact that some languages have optional subjects (the verb, often agreeing with the subject, can appear alone). So SOV>OV/VO>Topic-VO>SVO. You could also look at how other word orders appear (the less common VOS, OSV, OVS types) and see if that can give a clue about how word orders change beyond SOV>SVO. More generally, there are a number of other statistical correlations between word order and other typological properties. SOV languages tend to be heavily suffixing, have postpositions or case markers (instead of prepositions), and so forth. There are also some other features less often discussed but still statistically correlated: one topic I've included in my research is the relationship between clause-chaining with converbs (i.e. adverbial dependent verbs, roughly like English "-ing" as in "waking up, eating breakfast, driving to work, he started the day") is extremely common in SOV languages but rare elsewhere, so the grammatical organization of discourse may be different as well. Finally, depending on your syntactic theory of choice, but regardless of which one, there are actually multiple ways to analyze surface "SVO" (etc.) order, so that could be another relevant direction to consider, because two languages that are both SVO on the surface may have very different properties, as well as whether there is any flexibility to that ordering.

Regarding the second part, there are a lot of ideas out there about functional explanations for word order. Most importantly, remember that all languages function just fine, and all word orders are attested (although the OVS and OSV orders are extremely rare and maybe not robustly attested or the only possible order in any language). So SOV and SVO (and others) cannot be "explained" through abstract functional (or other) motivation. There's no need for one to switch to the other, either can work, and does work in various languages around the world. One interesting approach to this is to try to explain not why those are basic orders, but why there are then typological correlations with the orders. Why postpositions and SOV but prepositions and SVO? That has been called "head-ordering" in general (where verb-final languages also have postpositions at the end of the noun phrase, for example), and it tends to be mostly consistent in a language. One proposed explanation for this is called dependency length minimization (see work by Hawkins and more recently many others), whereby in SVO languages most of the important syntactic relations are clarified at the beginning of a sentence, while in SOV languages they're mostly clarified at the end, but either way they're clustered together rather than randomly dispersed throughout a sentence. This is thought to give some consistency and efficiency to the parser, so either order works well, but a mix in the middle would mean more potential ambiguity in a sentence and less communicative efficiency/effectiveness. But as you say, these ideas don't clearly translate into telling us about an "original" order.

Regarding signed languages, there actually is some research about this, and interestingly SOV seems to be very common in signed languages (but very often word order is quite flexible: for example, it is somewhat controversial whether "SOV" is an accurate description of ASL, although that's a common description), probably even more common than in oral languages (and yes, they tend to be relatively "young" languages). I think some studies of homesign (that is, makeshift sign systems (but not full languages) used in a household to enable basic communication where there is no other established signed language) may have also suggested SOV is common (but I'm forgetting where I read that or if I'm accurately representing it, so you should confirm my comment here).

In the end, looking back past about 10,000 years is generally unreliable in historical and comparative linguistics. That figure is thought of as something of a "wall" (we can't cross) by some researchers. And while I'm optimistic that we may be able to sometimes think about things a bit earlier than that, it would make sense that passing 20,000 would be very unlikely, and then extremely unlike we could ever understand something about "original" languages. In fact, I think every explanation that attempts to explain that goes against the Uniformitarianism hypothesis [ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uniformitarianism#Social_sciences and search online for various other discussions about Linguistics specifically]. That is, some researchers claim to have understood something about the "original" language(s) by finding some property or distribution that has changed since that time, but many linguists would disagree with that premise.
95
Typology and Descriptive Linguistics / "Original" Word Order?
« Last post by pauldbnut on May 02, 2021, 05:04:36 AM »
Basic word order (e.g. SOV/SVO) in the world's languages has long fascinated scholars and laymen, and generated numerous scholarly articles.
As a layman, I'm attracted to Gell-Mann/Ruhlen's 2011 [1] thesis of an "ancestral" SOV with a tendency to evolve into SVO, and disappointed their conclusions offer no suggestion why that was or why this happens.
Maurits et al 2019? [2] make some interesting information-theoretic arguments from English- and Japanese-language experiments that Uniform Information Density (UID) could have a bearing on this question.
My intuition, for what it's worth, is that the latter may be on the right track in regard to evolution but why does that fail to explain an original SOV (if true)?
As we are forced back to the origin of language itself, clues might be found in non-verbal communication.
My limited experience with a serious language barrier, and recourse to inexpert signing, suggests that a "natural" order starts with a concrete topic (e.g. subject) and proceeds to the more abstract action. In case an object is also important, being concrete, that comes second.
The signing order is gesture/picture/symbol, gesture/picture/symbol, then mime.
Just asking  ;D

[1] https://www.academia.edu/17176749/The_origin_and_evolution_of_word_order?email_work_card=view-paper
[2] https://papers.nips.cc/paper/2010/file/0c74b7f78409a4022a2c4c5a5ca3ee19-Paper.pdf
96
Linguist's Lounge / Re: jihon
« Last post by waive15 on April 20, 2021, 10:27:39 PM »

Solipsism

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solipsism


===


The Star Diaries,
 
Memoirs of a Space Traveler: Further Reminiscences of Ijon Tichy [ˈijɔn ˈtixɨ] ~ [jon 'tihi],

...

Stanisław Lem

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Star_Diaries


---


https://www.bookscool.com/en/Memoirs-of-a-Space-Traveler-Further-Reminiscences-of-Ijon-Tichy-309421/3


Further Reminiscences of Ijon Tichy

  I

  You want me to tell you another story? Yes, I see that Tarantoga has already taken out his note pad… Professor, wait. I really haven’t anything to tell. What? No, truthfully. And besides, can’t I remain silent for once at our evening get-together? Why? My friends, I’ve never mentioned it, but the Universe is inhabited principally by beings like us. I don’t mean humanoids, I mean beings as like us as two peas in a pod. Half the inhabited planets resemble Earth; some are a little larger, some a little smaller, some have a cooler or a warmer climate, but what kind of differences are those? And their inhabitants …

/bottom 3rd of the page/
97
Linguistics Links / Turkish-English-... (hierarchy, symmetry, "mouth closed")
« Last post by waive15 on April 19, 2021, 04:14:07 AM »
"mouth closed"

no sounds/no IPA

---

symmetry

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Symmetry

---

hierarchy

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hierarchy


===


Turkish, G. L. Lewis

https://disk.yandex.com/d/6MD4s718eSoeWw

---

Turkish, Asuman Çelen Pollard and David Pollard

https://disk.yandex.com/i/RoH_FT9HVAKhIg

---

...

=== === ===


/features of the "Languages" and how they are encoded (same way - different way (opposite, other))/


English "Language"(Encoding) - Turkish "Language"(Encoding)

- ...                                                - ...

- ...                                                - ...

...


=== === ===


One Way Or Another

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=36mCEZzzQ3o

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KXewIR7Y7cc


===

Wittgenstein in a Nutshell (6:53 min.)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XcF-XoF2HFc

---

PHILOSOPHY - Ludwig Wittgenstein (6:57 min.)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pQ33gAyhg2c
98
Linguist's Lounge / Re: jihon
« Last post by waive15 on April 19, 2021, 02:43:15 AM »
99
Linguist's Lounge / jihon
« Last post by ArthurbopRU on April 18, 2021, 08:22:51 PM »
http://rengetsucircle.com/tag/zhuangzi-butterfly/





[Moderation note: account banned for spam, live link removed, but conversation preserved.]
100
Historical Linguistics / The Etruscan Language
« Last post by FlatAssembler on April 12, 2021, 12:16:34 AM »
In case somebody is interested, I have started a discussion about the Etruscan language on Reddit: https://www.reddit.com/r/ancientrome/comments/mor62e/how_would_you_say_the_etruscan_language_died_two/
I cannot post it here as, apparently, this forum does not handle Unicode well.
Pages: 1 ... 8 9 [10]