(L&N) Q&A Thread - Quick questions go here [2010-2019]
Re: (L&N) Q&A Thread - Quick questions go here
Very similar to "while" in English, showing concurrent actions or to show an action occurring while another one was in the process of occurring, or to show contradictory information, i.e. thinking one thing while doing another, so in a sense they are concurrent (sometimes these can be difficult to distinguish):
Actions are concurrent:
歩きつつ会話をする。
Arukitsutsu kaiwa o suru.
Have a conversation while walking.
One action happens during the course of another:
音楽を聴きつつ眠り込んだ。
Ongaku o kikitsutsu nemurikonda.
I fell asleep while listening to music.
Contrast: one action occurs despite another being concurrent to it:
よくないと分かりつつ常にやってしまう。
Yoku nai to wakaritsutsu tsune ni yatte shimau.
Even though I know it's not good, I always do it anyway.
Concurrent/sequential/contrastive mix:
人の意見を聞きつつ自分の意見を言う。
Hito no iken o kikitsutsu jibun no iken o iu.
Listen to other people's opinions, while also stating your own opinion.
With aru it shows something continuing to occur:
大きくなりつつある。
Ōkiku naritsutsu aru.
It is continuing to get bigger.
Actions are concurrent:
歩きつつ会話をする。
Arukitsutsu kaiwa o suru.
Have a conversation while walking.
One action happens during the course of another:
音楽を聴きつつ眠り込んだ。
Ongaku o kikitsutsu nemurikonda.
I fell asleep while listening to music.
Contrast: one action occurs despite another being concurrent to it:
よくないと分かりつつ常にやってしまう。
Yoku nai to wakaritsutsu tsune ni yatte shimau.
Even though I know it's not good, I always do it anyway.
Concurrent/sequential/contrastive mix:
人の意見を聞きつつ自分の意見を言う。
Hito no iken o kikitsutsu jibun no iken o iu.
Listen to other people's opinions, while also stating your own opinion.
With aru it shows something continuing to occur:
大きくなりつつある。
Ōkiku naritsutsu aru.
It is continuing to get bigger.
Re: (L&N) Q&A Thread - Quick questions go here
What are its major differences from ながら?
Re: (L&N) Q&A Thread - Quick questions go here
Basically, it's less conversational than -nagara, and the last construction with aru is not possible with -nagara.
I feel like there are situations where one or the other fits better, but I can't think of exactly what it is that makes me feel that way.
I feel like there are situations where one or the other fits better, but I can't think of exactly what it is that makes me feel that way.
Re: (L&N) Q&A Thread - Quick questions go here
If ض in Classical Arabic was /d͡ɮˤ/, which developed from Old Arabic /t͡ɬʼ/...
If ص in Classical Arabic was /sˤ/, which developed from Old Arabic /t͡sʼ/...
If I understand correctly, the sound changes were something like this:
ض: /t͡ɬʼ/ > /d͡ɮˤ/ > /dˤ/
ص: /t͡sʼ/ > /sˤ/
ظ: /t͡θʼ/ > /θˤ/ > /ðˤ/
ط: /tʼ/ > /tˤ/
...why was ص never /t͡ɬˤ/? According to Wikipedia, some southern dialects of Arabic and maybe some South Arabian languages have a voiced/voiceless pair of lateral fricatives. Did they develop ص into a lateral sound by analogy with ض, which remained lateral in them? But if that was the case, wouldn't it make more sense to assume both were lateral to begin with?
As in, couldn't there have been voiced/voiceless affricate pairs, one lateral and one central, both of which would have originally been sibilant? In this case all of the sounds would also go through the same number of changes into MSA:
ض: /d͡ʫˤ/ > /d͡zˤ/ > /dˤ/
ص: /t͡ʪˤ/ > /t͡sˤ/ > /sˤ/
ظ: /d͡zˤ/ > /d͡ðˤ/ > /ðˤ/
ط: /t͡sˤ/ > /t͡θˤ/ > /tˤ/
Am I missing something obvious and should feel like an idiot? Note that I know just about literally nothing about Hebrew or other Semitic languages, but what little I read about sound correspondences on Wikipedia doesn't seem to contradict this being a possibility AFAICT, and at least to my brain it would actually make more sense since it would just mean the two pairs merged in Hebrew and remained distinct in Arabic (but became weird due to the "expected" pairing becoming broken). Does this make any sense at all? Can someone please explain why I'm wrong?
If ص in Classical Arabic was /sˤ/, which developed from Old Arabic /t͡sʼ/...
If I understand correctly, the sound changes were something like this:
ض: /t͡ɬʼ/ > /d͡ɮˤ/ > /dˤ/
ص: /t͡sʼ/ > /sˤ/
ظ: /t͡θʼ/ > /θˤ/ > /ðˤ/
ط: /tʼ/ > /tˤ/
...why was ص never /t͡ɬˤ/? According to Wikipedia, some southern dialects of Arabic and maybe some South Arabian languages have a voiced/voiceless pair of lateral fricatives. Did they develop ص into a lateral sound by analogy with ض, which remained lateral in them? But if that was the case, wouldn't it make more sense to assume both were lateral to begin with?
As in, couldn't there have been voiced/voiceless affricate pairs, one lateral and one central, both of which would have originally been sibilant? In this case all of the sounds would also go through the same number of changes into MSA:
ض: /d͡ʫˤ/ > /d͡zˤ/ > /dˤ/
ص: /t͡ʪˤ/ > /t͡sˤ/ > /sˤ/
ظ: /d͡zˤ/ > /d͡ðˤ/ > /ðˤ/
ط: /t͡sˤ/ > /t͡θˤ/ > /tˤ/
Am I missing something obvious and should feel like an idiot? Note that I know just about literally nothing about Hebrew or other Semitic languages, but what little I read about sound correspondences on Wikipedia doesn't seem to contradict this being a possibility AFAICT, and at least to my brain it would actually make more sense since it would just mean the two pairs merged in Hebrew and remained distinct in Arabic (but became weird due to the "expected" pairing becoming broken). Does this make any sense at all? Can someone please explain why I'm wrong?
Re: (L&N) Q&A Thread - Quick questions go here
Modern South Arabian languages still contrast /ɬ ɬˤ/ which as far as I know derives from the original /ɬ ɬˤ/ constrast i.e. /ɬ/ corresponds to /s/ in Hebrew and /ʃ/ in Arabic. I think it's fairly well established that the emphatic series was as you listed first in Proto-Semitic. I don't think the whole thing needs to be symmetrical in terms of voicing - the emphatic series seems to have unpredictable effects on voicing in general, e.g. /tˤ/ is often realised as voiced in Yemeni dialects giving /sˤ dˤ ðˤ/. /sˤ/ is generally quite dental as well, more than plain /s/ which gives more evidence for /tsˤ/ as well I suppose.
Re: (L&N) Q&A Thread - Quick questions go here
Hmm... oh well. That probably wouldn't stop me from wanting to pronounce ص and ض as [t͡ɬˤ] and [d͡ɮˤ] if I ever actually learned Arabic, although it would probably be considered a speech impediment. I should make a conlang with tons of Arabic vocabulary, where those letters are pronounced as lateral affricates...Davush wrote: ↑22 Dec 2017 21:37Modern South Arabian languages still contrast /ɬ ɬˤ/ which as far as I know derives from the original /ɬ ɬˤ/ constrast i.e. /ɬ/ corresponds to /s/ in Hebrew and /ʃ/ in Arabic. I think it's fairly well established that the emphatic series was as you listed first in Proto-Semitic. I don't think the whole thing needs to be symmetrical in terms of voicing - the emphatic series seems to have unpredictable effects on voicing in general, e.g. /tˤ/ is often realised as voiced in Yemeni dialects giving /sˤ dˤ ðˤ/. /sˤ/ is generally quite dental as well, more than plain /s/ which gives more evidence for /tsˤ/ as well I suppose.
Re: (L&N) Q&A Thread - Quick questions go here
There was a wikipedia article with a list of tables of Proto Indo Iranian words with their avestan and sanskrit counterparts, but for the life of me I cannot find it again! Does anyone know what it might be?
Re: (L&N) Q&A Thread - Quick questions go here
Did you also check wiktionary? I don't see it there either, but I'd think a list of words would be more likely on wiktionary Than Wikipedia. If not, there's also wikisource and wikibopks,but those tend to be for things that have been previously published elsewhere.
Makapappi nauppakiba.
The wolf-sheep ate itself. (Play)
The wolf-sheep ate itself. (Play)
Re: (L&N) Q&A Thread - Quick questions go here
turns out it was on the wiktionary page for PII its just they changed the formatting of the tables and added a new column which threw me off.
- eldin raigmore
- korean
- Posts: 6354
- Joined: 14 Aug 2010 19:38
- Location: SouthEast Michigan
Re: (L&N) Q&A Thread - Quick questions go here
Which natlangs use subject-verb inversion in dubitative, and/or hypothetical, and/or protatic conditional, and/or subjunctive, clauses?
(I know that: Several use subject-verb inversion in interrogatives. That isn't what I'm asking about, though.)
(I know that: Several use subject-verb inversion in interrogatives. That isn't what I'm asking about, though.)
My minicity is http://gonabebig1day.myminicity.com/xml
Re: (L&N) Q&A Thread - Quick questions go here
English....other than that, I don't know.
Re: (L&N) Q&A Thread - Quick questions go here
I think somebody once linked here a paper on a language where inversion is the only means for marking subordination.eldin raigmore wrote: ↑26 Dec 2017 23:20 Which natlangs use subject-verb inversion in dubitative, and/or hypothetical, and/or protatic conditional, and/or subjunctive, clauses?
(I know that: Several use subject-verb inversion in interrogatives. That isn't what I'm asking about, though.)
My meta-thread: viewtopic.php?f=6&t=5760
- eldin raigmore
- korean
- Posts: 6354
- Joined: 14 Aug 2010 19:38
- Location: SouthEast Michigan
Re: (L&N) Q&A Thread - Quick questions go here
I thought so too! Had I been surer of myself, I had posted some examples! Were you to think of any other examples, I hope you might post some! Thanks!
I'd love to see it! Do you have any idea what it was, or how I could find? Thanks!Omzinesý wrote: ↑27 Dec 2017 10:42I think somebody once linked here a paper on a language where inversion is the only means for marking subordination.eldin raigmore wrote: ↑26 Dec 2017 23:20 Which natlangs use subject-verb inversion in dubitative, and/or hypothetical, and/or protatic conditional, and/or subjunctive, clauses?
(I know that: Several use subject-verb inversion in interrogatives. That isn't what I'm asking about, though.)
Last edited by eldin raigmore on 28 Dec 2017 01:59, edited 1 time in total.
My minicity is http://gonabebig1day.myminicity.com/xml
Re: (L&N) Q&A Thread - Quick questions go here
Now that you mention it, I have a conlang where the main clause is SOV and subordinate clauses are VSO (Ďomün if you are interested).
Last edited by clawgrip on 28 Dec 2017 06:05, edited 1 time in total.
Re: (L&N) Q&A Thread - Quick questions go here
Not what you're asking about, but Classical Chinese has (optional) subject-VP inversion in exclamations. That is, its normal word order is SVO, but it can be VOS in exclamations. The first example Pulleyblank gives in his grammar outline is from Mencius:
善哉問也
good EXCL ask TOP
(Literally, "is good!, [your] asking".)
'What a good question!'
善哉問也
good EXCL ask TOP
(Literally, "is good!, [your] asking".)
'What a good question!'
hīc sunt linguificēs. hēr bēoþ tungemakeras.
Re: (L&N) Q&A Thread - Quick questions go here
On another note,
so, if there were a word in *imprive
Ult. from *imprivo, imprivare, imprivavi, imprivatus
Would it mean 'to not deprive: bestow, grant', even ' to o'ergive' ?
and imprived mean something like 'utterly decked/geared/pimped/tricked out' ?
I googled and came up with nachass.
I almost cannot believe someone in (Silver at least) Latinity didn't go this route.
Or even an intensive negative 'really deprived'.
Wow.
Whatta missed opportunity, cives romani.
PS:
This isn't too late for Lexember, innit?
so, if there were a word in *imprive
Ult. from *imprivo, imprivare, imprivavi, imprivatus
Would it mean 'to not deprive: bestow, grant', even ' to o'ergive' ?
and imprived mean something like 'utterly decked/geared/pimped/tricked out' ?
I googled and came up with nachass.
I almost cannot believe someone in (Silver at least) Latinity didn't go this route.
Or even an intensive negative 'really deprived'.
Wow.
Whatta missed opportunity, cives romani.
PS:
This isn't too late for Lexember, innit?
- KaiTheHomoSapien
- greek
- Posts: 641
- Joined: 15 Feb 2016 06:10
- Location: Northern California
Re: (L&N) Q&A Thread - Quick questions go here
^That sounds better than me trying to coin the word "ety" from aetās, meaning "lifetime, generation". Not in this ety, I guess.
- eldin raigmore
- korean
- Posts: 6354
- Joined: 14 Aug 2010 19:38
- Location: SouthEast Michigan
Re: (L&N) Q&A Thread - Quick questions go here
Thanks, clawgrip! That is indeed interesting!
Interesting anyway, Serafin!Serafín wrote: ↑28 Dec 2017 06:01 Not what you're asking about, but Classical Chinese has (optional) subject-VP inversion in exclamations. That is, its normal word order is SVO, but it can be VOS in exclamations. The first example Pulleyblank gives in his grammar outline is from Mencius:
善哉問也
good EXCL ask TOP
(Literally, "is good!, [your] asking".)
'What a good question!'
Good word, Lambuzhao! And, as I (mis?)understand it, no, it's not too late for Lexember.
My minicity is http://gonabebig1day.myminicity.com/xml
Re: (L&N) Q&A Thread - Quick questions go here
Do you have resources to recommend on sound changes between Sanskrit and Hindi.
I'm especially interested in simplification of consonant clusters.
I'm especially interested in simplification of consonant clusters.
My meta-thread: viewtopic.php?f=6&t=5760
Re: (L&N) Q&A Thread - Quick questions go here
The Wikipedia article on Pali has a detailed account of consonant cluster simplification. There is also this article https://www.academia.edu/379001/Syllabl ... do-Iranian on Indo-Iranian syllable structure in general. I know it's not exactly what you asked for, but I haven't found any other resource on the topic.
Languages:
[:D], [;)], [:D], [:|], [:(], [:'(]
A linguistics enthusiast who occasionally frequents the CBB.
- Guide to Slavic accentuation
[:D], [;)], [:D], [:|], [:(], [:'(]
A linguistics enthusiast who occasionally frequents the CBB.
- Guide to Slavic accentuation