(L&N) Q&A Thread - Quick questions go here

[vlad]

All its nouns are nominalized verbs 'the one who VERBs', though the verbs are often very static.

That's not true. Nahuatl probably does use more nominalized verbs than most languages, but there's still plenty of nouns that are just nouns. E.g. tlahtoani "king" is literally "one who speaks", but teuctli "lord" is not derived from anything.

How does it form patient nominalizations, place nominalizations, instrument nominalizations ...?
Do I first have to derive a verb 'to be VERBed', 'to be VERBed with', 'to be the place of VERBing' or how it goes?

No. You can form nominalizations meaning "the one who is VERBed" just as easily as nominalizations meaning "the one who VERBs".

tlacua "eat" → tlacuani "eater", tlacualli "food" ("that which is eaten"), tlacualoyan "place of eating"

[clawgrip]

I'm a little late to the penultimate dropped /l/ discussion, but I wanted to add something.

I've noticed occasionally that some Americans will drop the l from wolf, pronouncing it identically to the word woof. I wonder if this is determined regionally, or if it is also seemingly random like the other words mentioned.

I pronounce the l in this word (I am from Canada), but what about the rest of you?

[LinguistCat]

I'm a little late to the penultimate dropped /l/ discussion, but I wanted to add something.

I've noticed occasionally that some Americans will drop the l from wolf, pronouncing it identically to the word woof. I wonder if this is determined regionally, or if it is also seemingly random like the other words mentioned.

I pronounce the l in this word (I am from Canada), but what about the rest of you?

I also pronounce wolf with an L (have lived mostly on the West Coast in America, but have traveled all over), unless I'm actively pronouncing it as woof for a joke.

[clawgrip]

I encountered it recently in a YouTube video when someone mentioned The "Woof" of Wall Street.

The only other place I can specifically remember hearing it is the Angry Video Game Nerd, who consistently says woof, including "werewoof".

[Khemehekis]

I've always pronounced "wolf" with the /l/. which leaves it rhymeless (unless I want to count in German in an English-language song).

[KaiTheHomoSapien]

I encountered it recently in a YouTube video when someone mentioned The "Woof" of Wall Street.

The only other place I can specifically remember hearing it is the Angry Video Game Nerd, who consistently says woof, including "werewoof".

Hah. "The Woof of Wall Street" is the title of a Family Guy episode in which Brian the dog becomes a wealthy investor. The wordplay makes no sense if "wolf" is pronounced without the /l/!

[qwed117]

I pretty consistently vocalize coda-l, but usually this happens after the l has affected the vowel behind it, so /gol/ -> [kɔ] 'goal' but /go/ -> [kəʊ] 'go' , /wʊlf/ -> [wof] /wʊf/-> [wʊf], but I know that doesn't happen on everyone, because I have heard 'wooves' for wolves (East Coast, NJ). My guess is that it's probably more common in the East and in the South.

[Omzinesý]

All its nouns are nominalized verbs 'the one who VERBs', though the verbs are often very static.

That's not true. Nahuatl probably does use more nominalized verbs than most languages, but there's still plenty of nouns that are just nouns. E.g. tlahtoani "king" is literally "one who speaks", but teuctli "lord" is not derived from anything.

How does it form patient nominalizations, place nominalizations, instrument nominalizations ...?
Do I first have to derive a verb 'to be VERBed', 'to be VERBed with', 'to be the place of VERBing' or how it goes?

No. You can form nominalizations meaning "the one who is VERBed" just as easily as nominalizations meaning "the one who VERBs".

tlacua "eat" → tlacuani "eater", tlacualli "food" ("that which is eaten"), tlacualoyan "place of eating"

Have I understood everything very wrong?
The distinction between verbs and nouns is very weak in Nahuatl anyways?
Isn't the "article" still a kind of nominalizer?

[vlad]

All its nouns are nominalized verbs 'the one who VERBs', though the verbs are often very static.

That's not true. Nahuatl probably does use more nominalized verbs than most languages, but there's still plenty of nouns that are just nouns. E.g. tlahtoani "king" is literally "one who speaks", but teuctli "lord" is not derived from anything.

How does it form patient nominalizations, place nominalizations, instrument nominalizations ...?
Do I first have to derive a verb 'to be VERBed', 'to be VERBed with', 'to be the place of VERBing' or how it goes?

No. You can form nominalizations meaning "the one who is VERBed" just as easily as nominalizations meaning "the one who VERBs".

tlacua "eat" → tlacuani "eater", tlacualli "food" ("that which is eaten"), tlacualoyan "place of eating"

Have I understood everything very wrong?
The distinction between verbs and nouns is very weak in Nahuatl anyways?
Isn't the "article" still a kind of nominalizer?

You need to distinguish between verbs as a class and predicates as a role. Nouns and verbs are distinct classes, but they can both function as predicates.

Since in most other languages only verbs can function as predicates, when people see a noun functioning as a predicate in Nahuatl they assume that means it must be a verb. But Nahuatl still has a distinction between nouns and verbs. (Nouns can be possessed and verbs can't, nouns can be freely compounded while verbs can only be compounded in limited ways, nouns and verbs often take different plural suffixes.)

[Omzinesý]

All its nouns are nominalized verbs 'the one who VERBs', though the verbs are often very static.

That's not true. Nahuatl probably does use more nominalized verbs than most languages, but there's still plenty of nouns that are just nouns. E.g. tlahtoani "king" is literally "one who speaks", but teuctli "lord" is not derived from anything.

How does it form patient nominalizations, place nominalizations, instrument nominalizations ...?
Do I first have to derive a verb 'to be VERBed', 'to be VERBed with', 'to be the place of VERBing' or how it goes?

No. You can form nominalizations meaning "the one who is VERBed" just as easily as nominalizations meaning "the one who VERBs".

tlacua "eat" → tlacuani "eater", tlacualli "food" ("that which is eaten"), tlacualoyan "place of eating"

Have I understood everything very wrong?
The distinction between verbs and nouns is very weak in Nahuatl anyways?
Isn't the "article" still a kind of nominalizer?

You need to distinguish between verbs as a class and predicates as a role. Nouns and verbs are distinct classes, but they can both function as predicates.

Since in most other languages only verbs can function as predicates, when people see a noun functioning as a predicate in Nahuatl they assume that means it must be a verb. But Nahuatl still has a distinction between nouns and verbs. (Nouns can be possessed and verbs can't, nouns can be freely compounded while verbs can only be compounded in limited ways, nouns and verbs often take different plural suffixes.)

Ok, I might understand.

My understanding is still that Nahuatl nouns are more "verby" than, say, those of Russian. They have some verby inflection too? And "the article" can be added to verbs to use them as nouns/nominalizations?

It's a pity that there isn't a good grammar book

[vlad]

My understanding is still that Nahuatl nouns are more "verby" than, say, those of Russian. They have some verby inflection too?

Nouns are inflected for person and number using the same prefixes as verbs. But they don't inflect for tense.

And "the article" can be added to verbs to use them as nouns/nominalizations?

In a sense, yes, but I don't that's the best way to describe it. It's more like a relative clause.

It's a pity that there isn't a good grammar book

I found Nahuatl as Written pretty good.

[VaptuantaDoi]

Are there any natlangs that make distinctions between pronouns for 'speaker + 2 listeners' vs. 'speaker + listener + non-listener'? Like with an extra clusivity distinction?

[eldin raigmore]

Are there any natlangs that make distinctions between pronouns for 'speaker + 2 listeners' vs. 'speaker + listener + non-listener'? Like with an extra clusivity distinction?

I think some* of the contributors to WALS.info have published one or more articles or books saying so!
*(Anna Siewierska, or Michael Daniel, or Michael Cysouw, possibly Matthew Baerman or Dunstan Brown)

You might want to start with https://wals.info/chapter/39 and https://wals.info/chapter/40 .

[Omzinesý]

My understanding is still that Nahuatl nouns are more "verby" than, say, those of Russian. They have some verby inflection too?

Nouns are inflected for person and number using the same prefixes as verbs. But they don't inflect for tense.

And "the article" can be added to verbs to use them as nouns/nominalizations?

In a sense, yes, but I don't that's the best way to describe it. It's more like a relative clause.

It's a pity that there isn't a good grammar book

I found Nahuatl as Written pretty good.

Thank you

[Salmoneus]

Are there any natlangs that make distinctions between pronouns for 'speaker + 2 listeners' vs. 'speaker + listener + non-listener'? Like with an extra clusivity distinction?

I think some* of the contributors to WALS.info have published one or more articles or books saying so!
*(Anna Siewierska, or Michael Daniel, or Michael Cysouw, possibly Matthew Baerman or Dunstan Brown)

You might want to start with https://wals.info/chapter/39 and https://wals.info/chapter/40 .

Those pages are about clusivity, which isn't what they're asking about. Clusivity is about whether 1+3 and 1+2 are distinguished; Vaptu is looking for a language that distinguishes 1+2+2 from 1+2+3 and 1+2.

Personally, I suspect it isn't attested (having a pronoun specifically for 1+2+2 seems incredibly specific!), but I've no evidence for that and I wouldn't be shocked to be wrong.

[VaptuantaDoi]

Are there any natlangs that make distinctions between pronouns for 'speaker + 2 listeners' vs. 'speaker + listener + non-listener'? Like with an extra clusivity distinction?

I think some* of the contributors to WALS.info have published one or more articles or books saying so!
*(Anna Siewierska, or Michael Daniel, or Michael Cysouw, possibly Matthew Baerman or Dunstan Brown)

You might want to start with https://wals.info/chapter/39 and https://wals.info/chapter/40 .

Thanks for the links. I couldn't find any reference to what I was looking for but they're interesting nonetheless.

Personally, I suspect it isn't attested (having a pronoun specifically for 1+2+2 seems incredibly specific!), but I've no evidence for that and I wouldn't be shocked to be wrong.

I'm also pretty sure it's unattested too. I can't find even a mention of the possibility anywhere.

[Sequor]

Are there any natlangs that make distinctions between pronouns for 'speaker + 2 listeners' vs. 'speaker + listener + non-listener'? Like with an extra clusivity distinction?

I think some* of the contributors to WALS.info have published one or more articles or books saying so!
*(Anna Siewierska, or Michael Daniel, or Michael Cysouw, possibly Matthew Baerman or Dunstan Brown)

You might want to start with https://wals.info/chapter/39 and https://wals.info/chapter/40 .

Those pages are about clusivity, which isn't what they're asking about. Clusivity is about whether 1+3 and 1+2 are distinguished; Vaptu is looking for a language that distinguishes 1+2+2 from 1+2+3 and 1+2.

Personally, I suspect it isn't attested (having a pronoun specifically for 1+2+2 seems incredibly specific!), but I've no evidence for that and I wouldn't be shocked to be wrong.

Amur Nivkh distinguishes:
ñi 'I'
ñəŋ 'we, exclusive'
megi 'we, inclusive singular' (I and thou, we and thou)
mer 'we, inclusive plural' (I and you guys, we and you guys)

So the 1+2 vs. 1+2+2 distinction is attested at least.

For the curious, the rest of Amur Nivkh's personal pronoun paradigm goes:

ţ‘i '2SG'
ţ‘əŋ '2PL'
if '3SG'
imŋ '3PL'
p‘i '(reflexive)'

So it's the 1PL exclusive that patterns with the other plural pronouns, with the inclusives having peculiar morphology.

Source: Nedjalkov, Vladimir; Otaina, Galina. 2013. A Syntax of the Nivkh Language. page 13.

[KaiTheHomoSapien]

Are most of the names of the Greek Islands of Pre-Greek origin? Is there a database somewhere with etymologies of the island names? I guess this field would be called "nesonymy".

[eldin raigmore]

Are most of the names of the Greek Islands of Pre-Greek origin? Is there a database somewhere with etymologies of the island names? I guess this field would be called "nesonymy".

Not “insulanomy”?

[KaiTheHomoSapien]

^That's the study of Italian island names.