The CBB

KaiTheHomoSapien wrote:^ I was thinking "conative" (from Latin "cōnor"), but Googling that yields almost nothing.

Wikipedia wrote:For some verbs in some languages, the difference between perfective and imperfective conveys an additional meaning difference; in such cases, the two aspects are typically translated using separate verbs in English. In Greek, for example, the imperfective sometimes adds the notion of "try to do something" (the so-called conative imperfect)

Wiktionary wrote:conative (not comparable)

Of or pertaining to a striving action.

"Conative" would apppear to work

It looks like "attemptive" is also used. Here's a Google book with an example. It says, "Tuvan exhibits a cognate formation also marking an attemptive mood by an auxiliary verb construction ..." The accompanying example is translated, "we tried to fish in this river".

I have read that languages further away from the originating centre are often more conservative (either phonologically or grammatically), such as Cantonese vs Mandarin. But the opposite is also true such as Moroccan Arabic dialects vs Saudi dialects. Are there any trends regarding distance from the 'homeland' and language change?

Davush wrote:I have read that languages further away from the originating centre are often more conservative (either phonologically or grammatically), such as Cantonese vs Mandarin. But the opposite is also true such as Moroccan Arabic dialects vs Saudi dialects. Are there any trends regarding distance from the 'homeland' and language change?

Generally smaller, less connected communities more isolated from non-natives speak more conservative forms, while larger, more connected communities with more contact with non-natives speak more progressive forms.

Two things at least can interfere with that:
- very small communities can be subject to founder effects - in a tiny population, it only takes a few charismatic individuals to change the language dramatically
- very isolated communities can evolve in totally different ways, making them seem more radical. If one dialect moves 'n' steps to the left, and the other nine dialects move 'n+3' steps to the right, it can look like the first dialect is the one that has innovated, because its innovations are all 'weird'.
- where a large group comprises many smaller groups, the standard langauge (either as a replacement for all subgroups, or as an independent formal standard) may level away a lot of the individual developments in each dialect, producing something that looks conservative. If you 'average out' a language that has moved n to the left with one that has moved n to the right, the result is something that looks about the same as the original...


That's my impression, at least. Though of course these are generalisations.

Where do the Bantu languages largely fit on the morphology scale?

Also, what non Bantu, Non Semitic languages in Africa are agglutinative or even polysynthetic?

Bantu languages often have some affixes to mark grammatical categories. Sometimes two categories are inflated, e.g. noun class and number. You can also see affix chains on verbs, were several affixes attach to one word and each expresses one grammatical category. Other categories may be expressed by a tonal change. And of course they also have periphrastic constructions. Go figure
Does this answer your question? (Btw, I think Bantu languages do not have noun incorporation.)

I would suggest looking at the eastern and western diversity hotspots. You might find a language that fits the description of an ideal agglutinating/polysynthetic language.

Bantu languages are a bit weird in some ways. They're often brought up as straight-up agglutinative languages, but those of them with tone use it grammatically on their verbs (though this isn't shown in the orthographies). The verbs are pretty synthetic, including polypersonal agreement, as well as negation, quite a few TAM categories and a nice voice system, including a morpjhological causative and applicative. I hesitate to call them polysynthetic though, since they lack noun-incorporation or anything similar to it (like the many verbalising affixes of Eskimo-Aleut or the verbal suffixes which function like incorporated nouns as in Algonquian). I'm similarly conflicted with Trans-New-Guinea, which is similarly synthetic but lacking in certain features which would make it polysynthetic in my eyes.

As for the second question, there are agglutinating languages in Nilo-Saharan I'm sure, and you might be able to find some in the non-Semitic branches of Afro-Asiatic. There's probably also a few Niger-Congo languages in the West which have a fair bit of agglutination too. With polysynthesis, on the other hand, you're out of luck. Outside of (arguably) Coptic, Africa is lacking in polysynthesis, even in the Bantu sphere.

Are there any natlangs that divide siblings purely based on whether they're older or younger than the speaker? In other words, there are words for "older sibling" and "younger sibling" but not for "brother" or "sister"? I know of languages that do both (so that the basic kinship terms translate to "older brother", "younger brother", "older sister", and "younger sister"), but are there any that divide up sibling terms based on age alone and not gender?

Indonesian "kakak" means older sibling according to Wiktionary: https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/kakak

Thai พี่ seems to be another example; the word for "younger sibling" is น้อง. Most people seem to romanize these as "pee" and "nong" respectively.

GrandPiano wrote:Are there any natlangs that divide siblings purely based on whether they're older or younger than the speaker? In other words, there are words for "older sibling" and "younger sibling" but not for "brother" or "sister"? I know of languages that do both (so that the basic kinship terms translate to "older brother", "younger brother", "older sister", and "younger sister"), but are there any that divide up sibling terms based on age alone and not gender?

Yes, Indonesian does that. Kakak - older sibling, adek - younger sibling.
There is also saudara and saudari borrowed from Sanskrit for brother and sister, but they are more used in the sense of cousin or colleague.

Salmoneus wrote:

Davush wrote:I have read that languages further away from the originating centre are often more conservative (either phonologically or grammatically), such as Cantonese vs Mandarin. But the opposite is also true such as Moroccan Arabic dialects vs Saudi dialects. Are there any trends regarding distance from the 'homeland' and language change?

Generally smaller, less connected communities more isolated from non-natives speak more conservative forms, while larger, more connected communities with more contact with non-natives speak more progressive forms.

Two things at least can interfere with that:
- very small communities can be subject to founder effects - in a tiny population, it only takes a few charismatic individuals to change the language dramatically
- very isolated communities can evolve in totally different ways, making them seem more radical. If one dialect moves 'n' steps to the left, and the other nine dialects move 'n+3' steps to the right, it can look like the first dialect is the one that has innovated, because its innovations are all 'weird'.
- where a large group comprises many smaller groups, the standard langauge (either as a replacement for all subgroups, or as an independent formal standard) may level away a lot of the individual developments in each dialect, producing something that looks conservative. If you 'average out' a language that has moved n to the left with one that has moved n to the right, the result is something that looks about the same as the original...


That's my impression, at least. Though of course these are generalisations.

Thanks, that makes sense. I have a further question which might seem basic, but is confusing me a bit.

If for example, the Anatolian branch split from PIE earlier than other branches, does this mean that the PIE which gave rise to Proto-Germanic (or maybe even 'Proto-European dialect') would have been quite different from the PIE which gave rise to Anatolian?

Davush wrote:If for example, the Anatolian branch split from PIE earlier than other branches, does this mean that the PIE which gave rise to Proto-Germanic (or maybe even 'Proto-European dialect') would have been quite different from the PIE which gave rise to Anatolian?

Yes, indeed. For example, the Anatolian languages inherited an old PIE noun class system based on an animate/inanimate distinction; but the Germanic, (apparently) Italic and Slavic languages inherited a three-gender system from a more recent stage of PIE (as far as I know, the animate gender of older PIE had distinct nominative and accusative forms that split into two genders, while the inanimate gender did not and hence remained unchanged).

Iyionaku wrote:

Davush wrote:If for example, the Anatolian branch split from PIE earlier than other branches, does this mean that the PIE which gave rise to Proto-Germanic (or maybe even 'Proto-European dialect') would have been quite different from the PIE which gave rise to Anatolian?

Yes, indeed. For example, the Anatolian languages inherited an old PIE noun class system based on an animate/inanimate distinction; but the Germanic, (apparently) Italic and Slavic languages inherited a three-gender system from a more recent stage of PIE (as far as I know, the animate gender of older PIE had distinct nominative and accusative forms that split into two genders, while the inanimate gender did not and hence remained unchanged).

That's why PIE scholars distinguish between Early PIE, the thing Anatolian and Tocharian split of from, and Late PIE, what everyone else as far as i know split from.

loglorn wrote:

Iyionaku wrote:

Davush wrote:If for example, the Anatolian branch split from PIE earlier than other branches, does this mean that the PIE which gave rise to Proto-Germanic (or maybe even 'Proto-European dialect') would have been quite different from the PIE which gave rise to Anatolian?

Yes, indeed. For example, the Anatolian languages inherited an old PIE noun class system based on an animate/inanimate distinction; but the Germanic, (apparently) Italic and Slavic languages inherited a three-gender system from a more recent stage of PIE (as far as I know, the animate gender of older PIE had distinct nominative and accusative forms that split into two genders, while the inanimate gender did not and hence remained unchanged).

That's why PIE scholars distinguish between Early PIE, the thing Anatolian and Tocharian split of from, and Late PIE, what everyone else as far as i know split from.

I see! I'm not familiar with the history/diachronics of PIE in general, so that's useful to know. I was also wondering about 'conservatism' in that Lithuanian is often said to be one of the more 'conservative' IE languages. Is this a meaningless statement? If not, are there any reasons which may have led to Lithuanian (or other branches) being more conservative? Does proximity to the urheimat have anything to do with it?

Davush wrote:

loglorn wrote:

Iyionaku wrote:

Davush wrote:If for example, the Anatolian branch split from PIE earlier than other branches, does this mean that the PIE which gave rise to Proto-Germanic (or maybe even 'Proto-European dialect') would have been quite different from the PIE which gave rise to Anatolian?

Yes, indeed. For example, the Anatolian languages inherited an old PIE noun class system based on an animate/inanimate distinction; but the Germanic, (apparently) Italic and Slavic languages inherited a three-gender system from a more recent stage of PIE (as far as I know, the animate gender of older PIE had distinct nominative and accusative forms that split into two genders, while the inanimate gender did not and hence remained unchanged).

That's why PIE scholars distinguish between Early PIE, the thing Anatolian and Tocharian split of from, and Late PIE, what everyone else as far as i know split from.

I see! I'm not familiar with the history/diachronics of PIE in general, so that's useful to know. I was also wondering about 'conservatism' in that Lithuanian is often said to be one of the more 'conservative' IE languages. Is this a meaningless statement? If not, are there any reasons which may have led to Lithuanian (or other branches) being more conservative? Does proximity to the urheimat have anything to do with it?

I would consider that a meaningless statement. It may be a conservative satəm language in that it broke off fairly early and perhaps became isolated enough that change was slowed, but it's still divergent, all the PIE langs are. The only langs that are "like" PIE, resemble PIE, or what have you, are ancient languages that are available to us in stages that have not strongly diverged.

Lithuanian is conservative compared to other currently spoken IE languages; it may be the most conservative living IE language. That at least means that the statement isn't "meaningless". Lithuanian has been very helpful in PIE reconstruction.

Fortson, for example, in his book on PIE, often cites the following languages in reconstructions: Hittite, Sanskrit, Avestan, Greek, Latin, Gothic, Old Church Slavonic, and Lithuanian. These were chosen for a reason. All of them provide the best evidence for reconstructing PIE.

According to Wikipedia, Lithuanian has the most conservative phonology and nominal morphology of any living IE language. It says that its verbal system is less conservative, with Modern Greek perhaps beating it there.

KaiTheHomoSapien wrote:Lithuanian is conservative compared to other currently spoken IE languages; it may be the most conservative living IE language. That at least means that the statement isn't "meaningless". Lithuanian has been very helpful in PIE reconstruction.

Fortson, for example, in his book on PIE, often cites the following languages in reconstructions: Hittite, Sanskrit, Avestan, Greek, Latin, Gothic, Old Church Slavonic, and Lithuanian. These were chosen for a reason. All of them provide the best evidence for reconstructing PIE.

There is no 'Old Baltic' language with scripts so a modern language must be used to give evidence of the Baltic branch. If there were no Latin left, I think Sardinian would appear in those reconstructions. Of course, Lithuanian is more conservative than Latvian.

According to Wikipedia, Lithuanian has the most conservative phonology and nominal morphology of any living IE language. It says that its verbal system is less conservative, with Modern Greek perhaps beating it there.

Yes languages rarely are conservative alltogether, but some part of them often are.

I think languages can be cancelled 'conservative' but the limitations of the term - as thoae of all terms - must be understood.

Omzinesý wrote:There is no 'Old Baltic' language with scripts so a modern language must be used to give evidence of the Baltic branch. If there were no Latin left, I think Sardinian would appear in those reconstructions. Of course, Lithuanian is more conservative than Latvian.

I think they'd just reconstruct Latin, then use that.

Omzinesý wrote: There is no 'Old Baltic' language with scripts so a modern language must be used to give evidence of the Baltic branch. If there were no Latin left, I think Sardinian would appear in those reconstructions. Of course, Lithuanian is more conservative than Latvian.

Well notice Armenian and Albanian aren't included, nor is anything from Celtic, since they're too divergent to be of much use. Lithuanian would be of more help to PIE than Sardinian would. So I don't think it's just about it being a "Baltic representative" (especially since Fortson considers "Balto-Slavic" valid). There's something unique about Lithuanian that provides useful evidence for PIE. I've noticed a lot of Lithuanian nouns (like vil̃kas, medus, výras, sunus, etc.) are close to Sanskrit and the PIE reconstructions of these roots.

I know "conservative" is a limited description of a language, but I do think Lithuanian enjoys a unique place in IE studies, especially among currently spoken IE languages.

http://www.lituanus.org/1969/69_3_02.htm

KaiTheHomoSapien wrote:

Omzinesý wrote: There is no 'Old Baltic' language with scripts so a modern language must be used to give evidence of the Baltic branch. If there were no Latin left, I think Sardinian would appear in those reconstructions. Of course, Lithuanian is more conservative than Latvian.

Well notice Armenian and Albanian aren't included, nor is anything from Celtic, since they're too divergent to be of much use. Lithuanian would be of more help to PIE than Sardinian would. So I don't think it's just about it being a "Baltic representative". There's something unique about Lithuanian that provides useful evidence for PIE. I've noticed a lot of Lithuanian nouns (like vil̃kas, medus, výras, etc.) are close to Sanskrit and the PIE reconstructions of these roots.

Well, Latin is significantly divergent to start with. It's virtually useless to look for PIE reconstructions since it's so badly mutated, eliminating distinctions, that other languages retain. It's what languages retain that makes them important, not how divergent they are