mouthporn.net
@official-linguistics-post on Tumblr
Avatar

official linguistics posts of tumblr

@official-linguistics-post / official-linguistics-post.tumblr.com

i have a broad definition of what constitutes "linguistics." don't send me asks about the praat logo.
Avatar

frequently asked questions

PLEASE check these items before you send an ask!

icon...

it's the old logo for the speech analysis software praat.

pronouns?

they/them!

why can't i find your ask box?

it's probably temporarily closed so i can pretend i didn't accidentally start a semi-popular blog.

where can i start learning about linguistics?

i recommend crash course linguistics as a good entry point. for more thorough coverage, essentials of linguistics is an open access textbook.

how do i major in linguistics? how do i get a graduate degree in linguistics?

go to a school that has a major or graduate program in linguistics. then do well in classes. sorry, y'all, i'm not an admissions consultant.

how many languages do you know?

english, arguably. possibly more. no i will not specify further.

thoughts on...

chat/bro being pronouns? they're not. fourth person pronouns? don't exist in english. conlangs? not my area.

can you answer my really specific question?

i try not to act authoritative about topics i'm not actually an authority on—which is most of linguistics. i can offer my educated thoughts, but please don't use me as a formal source (unless you've magically hit on the single minuscule topic i know like the back of my hand, in which case i'll swear you to secrecy and then send you my citations).

what's your subfield?

i generally cite it as being historical linguistics, but that's kind of just my umbrella: under that my primary research has touched on morphology, sociolinguistics, and epigraphy.

are you [insert real person]?

statistically, no!

are you really a linguist?

i have a BA, MA, and PhD in linguistics/linguistic anthropology.

you're a loser.

you don't know the half of it!
Avatar
Avatar
japhugmafia

Yeah I genuinely do not buy the argument into the value of mythology as a valid form of comparanda.

Again, I wrote up some stuff about it in how pop feminism is a victim of our pattern seeking brains and I think that a lot of comparative Indo-European mythological scholarship is also a victim of this predisposed nature of how we can like... attribute patterns where there are none to be had.

Like we can establish sound changes and their correspondences by a set of constraints (or rules) that govern them. What do we have that can establish formal relationships between myths? What are there to make sure that they aren't coincidences?

Sure, you can say that gold and geld are not through the reconstruction of sound changes that go back to PIE—but how can one even be sure in the regard that people want to see patterns in things with archeological material? Or the stories that people tell?

A sky deity that can be reconstructed in the mythology of IE-speaking people? Yep, must be a shared ancestor and not some kind of pattern that we independently invented like 30 different times.

Again I don't know how people can take this seriously except for works that project one's ideologies into the past.

Yeah I'm of the opinion that the most we can do with linguistic data is infer the mays and may nots of the culture but we cannot really say for sure what they were like.

From linguistic evidence we can infer that the shared ancestor of the Evenki and Even had reindeer pastoralism because they have words that trace back to Proto-Ewenic; however, we can't really say for sure for shared immaterial cultural traditions and such.

Like, of course the word for 'headhunting' can go back to Proto-Malayo-Polynesian, and can infer the existence of headhunting at least. but like… hypothesizing in which how they headhunted through comparative cultural data seems to be very odd to say the least; as shared innovations can just be parallel or just… independent formed from one another. It's also to note that culture is not driven by unconscious thought and that the drift itself is not… quantifiable by any means that I've read.

Like this is what gets me when people cite stuff like "Oh the Pleiades myth is so old that Aboriginal Australians and Greeks share this story" but like—personification of celestial bodies is so common, and the deification of the Pleiades is shared between other cultures like Japan for example (hence, Subaru)

Like, it's hard to say for sure what is what—like you can make connections for sure, but it's kinda hard to infer whether these are substratal influences, coincidence, or shared ancestors.

I've never been particularly interested in this aspect of IE studies myself, but from what I can tell of the studies in this area that try to establish a common origin with some rigor, they rely not on the general similarity of the ideas or elements of the story, but how the elements of the story fit within the culture generally, if anything stands out, and particular details and/or specific actions (e.g. not that there is an underworld guarded by animal guard(s), but instead that the animal is a dog with many eyes; not that there are three hunters pursuing an animal, but that the second hunter carries a cooking pot) – even more though, they (should) try establishing shared linguistic components, which can mean names of the same origin, archaic morphology or syntactic structures, similar (metaphorical) use of specific words (especially as they deviate from their expected use), identical stylistic features and so on (in appx. order of significance). Once you go beyond a single language family, the thing that remains are syntactic structures (depending on the characteristics of the language families involved, of course), metaphorical use of words, stylistic features and story details (the latter not really linguistically relevant, as mentioned), so there's automatically fewer things you can operate with and the conclusions must necessarily be more tentative.

But I think there's one other thing that should be pointed out: the default position with regards to whether certain myths are related is "we don't know." Both shared origin and independent innovation are non-trivial claims, and there's always the possibility of borrowing. Of these the shared origin one definitely requires a higher threshold of confidence, but if it cannot be demonstrated, that doesn't automatically make the myths independent innovations – that has to be substantiated as well, plus there's always the possibility of borrowing as mentioned.

And in particular in a situation where there is evidence that speakers of X, Y and Z were once part of a single community of speakers, then if they share a story that has similar elements, both the independent innovation and borrowing options seem to be even more non-trivial, i.e. require even more substantiating for one or the other option – an independent innovation of X vs. something demonstrably shared by Y and Z for example requires a break in tradition with subsequent unrelated introduction of the same idea; and it seems to me that something that is trivially introduced is similarly trivially maintained.

Attempts at a reconstruction will always be an imperfect approximation of a reality we have no access to and things can happen in such a way that by their very nature we will never be able to tell how exactly they happened. This is why when e.g. you cannot demonstrate that two myths share a common origin that means just that – it cannot be demonstrated. In reality they might well share an origin, yet all the relevant details and linguistic elements have been replaced, stripped away etc. to the point where all we can say is we don't know. To take independent innovation as the automatic default option would be wrong too, then. We might of course say that given all the available information it is equally or even more likely to be an independent innovation or a borrowing and that would be methodologically sound and even true! But note crucially "given all the available information," "likely," "or."

official linguistics post

Avatar

why do people say something is "everything but" and then what it is?

for example: dinosaurs are everything but extinct.

that sentence means they are not extinct because they are everything else aside from extinct right?

Avatar

i... have never encountered this usage

Avatar

Ever wanted to know how to pronounce the name of our favorite Ur copper merchant, Ea-nāṣir? If you haven't looked it up, I can almost guarantee that you are saying it wrong, but fret not. I will share the secret with you (or at least the buest guess modern experts have).

The reconstruction of how to pronounce his name currently looks like this in the IPA:

[e.a.naː.t͡sʼiʁ]

If that looks daunting, keep reading.

official linguistics post

Avatar
Avatar
prokopetz

I love self-referential statements where you just say the name of the thing you wish to express and it counts as having expressed the thing so named. Apologies. Greetings. Fair warning. We should be able to do that with more things, I think.

official speech acts post

Avatar

I DIDN'T SCHEDULE ENOUGH FRICATIVE FRIDAYS AND I MISSED LAST WEEK WHILE TRAVELING I AM SO SORRY

please have a. uhhh. morphology monday in recompense

Avatar

hey, i was wondering if you (or your followers) have any good alternatives to thesaurus dot com? i used to have such a huuuge vocabulary as a kid and i miss using big words lol but that site always gives me piss-poor general vague synonyms. i know this isn't truly linguistics stuff but thought you may be able to point me in the right direction at least!

Avatar

i've been using the thesaurus section of merriam-webster!

Avatar
Anonymous asked:

is there a reason for the letter c? what does it do and why was it made

<C> is an extremely old sign!!

the orthographic origin is phoenician, possibly representing a camel or staff sling, and the same sign developed into semitic <𐤂>, greek <Γ>, latin <G>, and latin <Ȝ>. there was a lot of orthographic borrowing going on around the mediterranean.

it has typically represented a velar plosive – definitely /k/ and also /g/ before the letter <G> was differentiated – and only later came to be associated with other sounds like /tʃ/, /ts/, or /s/ as sound changes occurred in the various languages that were written with that alphabet.

Avatar

oh, i forgot a really crucial point –

C is for cookie

Avatar

Okay, so:

Latin has this word, sic. Or, if we want to be more diacritically accurate, sīc. That shows that the i is long, so it’s pronounced like “seek” and not like “sick.”

You might recognize this word from Latin sayings like “sic semper tyrannis” or “sic transit gloria mundi.” You might recognize it as what you put in parentheses when you want to be pass-agg about someone’s mistakes when you’re quoting them: “Then he texted me, ‘I want to touch you’re (sic) butt.’”

It means, “thus,” which sounds pretty hoity-toity in this modren era, so maybe think of it as meaning “in this way,” or “just like that.” As in, “just like that, to all tyrants, forever,” an allegedly cool thing to say after shooting a President and leaping off a balcony and shattering your leg. “Everyone should do it this way.”

Anyway, Classical Latin somewhat lacked an affirmative particle, though you might see the word ita, a synonym of sic, used in that way. By Medieval Times, however, sic was holding down this role. Which is to say, it came to mean yes.

Ego: Num edisti totam pitam?
Tu, pudendus: Sic.
Me: Did you eat all the pizza?
You, shameful: That’s the way it is./Yes.

This was pretty well established by the time Latin evolved into its various bastard children, the Romance languages, and you can see this by the words for yes in these languages.

In Spanish, Italian, Asturian, Catalan, Corsican, Galician, Friulian, and others, you say si for yes. In Portugese, you say sim. In French, you say si to mean yes when you’re contradicting a negative assertion (”You don’t like donkey sausage like all of us, the inhabitants of France, eat all the time?” “Yes, I do!”). In Romanian, you say da, but that’s because they’re on some Slavic shit. P.S. there are possibly more Romance languages than you’re aware of.

But:

There was still influence in some areas by the conquered Gaulish tribes on the language of their conquerors. We don’t really have anything of Gaulish language left, but we can reverse engineer some things from their descendants. You see, the Celts that we think of now as the people of the British Isles were Gaulish, originally (in the sense that anyone’s originally from anywhere, I guess) from central and western Europe. So we can look at, for example, Old Irish, where they said tó to mean yes, or Welsh, where they say do to mean yes or indeed, and we can see that they derive from the Proto-Indo-European (the big mother language at whose teat very many languages both modern and ancient did suckle) word *tod, meaning “this” or “that.” (The asterisk indicates that this is a reconstructed word and we don’t know exactly what it would have been but we have a pretty damn good idea.)

So if you were fucking Ambiorix or whoever and Quintus Titurius Sabinus was like, “Yo, did you eat all the pizza?” you would do that Drake smile and point thing under your big beefy Gaulish mustache and say, “This.” Then you would have him surrounded and killed.

Apparently Latin(ish) speakers in the area thought this was a very dope way of expressing themselves. “Why should I say ‘in that way’ like those idiots in Italy and Spain when I could say ‘this’ like all these cool mustache boys in Gaul?” So they started copying the expression, but in their own language. (That’s called a calque, by the way. When you borrow an expression from another language but translate it into your own. If you care about that kind of shit.)

The Latin word for “this” is “hoc,” so a bunch of people started saying “hoc” to mean yes. In the southern parts of what was once Gaul, “hoc” makes the relatively minor adjustment to òc, while in the more northerly areas they think, “Hmm, just saying ‘this’ isn’t cool enough. What if we said ‘this that’ to mean ‘yes.’” (This is not exactly what happened but it is basically what happened, please just fucking roll with it, this shit is long enough already.)

So they combined hoc with ille, which means “that” (but also comes to just mean “he”: compare Spanish el, Italian il, French le, and so on) to make o-il, which becomes oïl. This difference between the north and south (i.e. saying oc or oil) comes to be so emblematic of the differences between the two languages/dialects that the languages from the north are called langues d’oil and the ones from the south are called langues d’oc. In fact, the latter language is now officially called “Occitan,” which is a made-up word (to a slightly greater degree than that to which all words are made-up words) that basically means “Oc-ish.” They speak Occitan in southern France and Catalonia and Monaco and some other places.

The oil languages include a pretty beefy number of languages and dialects with some pretty amazing names like Walloon, and also one with a much more basic name: French. Perhaps you’ve heard of it, n'est-ce pas?

Yeah, eventually Francophones drop the -l from oil and start saying it as oui. If you’ve ever wondered why French yes is different from other Romance yeses, well, now you know.

I guess what I’m getting at is that when you reblog a post you like and tag it with “this,” or affirm a thing a friend said by nodding and saying “Yeah, that”: you’re not new

official linguistics post

You are using an unsupported browser and things might not work as intended. Please make sure you're using the latest version of Chrome, Firefox, Safari, or Edge.
mouthporn.net