Linguistics thread

[Koko]

Oops sorry, not same group of people; didn't know how to put what I had in mind on screen, I guess. I was referring to the right thing anyways. I wasn't equivocating, my use of terms are correct. It's others' interpretations that aren't because the words around them aren't(I suck at explaining, FYI).

You all will be glad to know that i'm done, by all means continue amongst yourselves if you want.


@razlem I didn't know what one could do with a linguistics degree. Thanks for the link I was actually thinking of taking a course when I start university, but I was having second thoughts because I didn't know what use it would be.

[linguoboy]

There's no shame in being wrong, Koko; it's the only way we learn anything new. The only shame is refusing to admit it.

Oops sorry, not same group of people; didn't know how to put what I had in mind on screen, I guess. I was referring to the right thing anyways. I wasn't equivocating, my use of terms are correct. It's others' interpretations that aren't because the words around them aren't(I suck at explaining, FYI).

You can't blame others for basing their understanding on what you actually said instead of what you had inside your head. None of us can see in there, you know.

If you're struggling to express something, ask for help and you'll get it. But if you come out, guns a-blazin', as if you know everything already, and then double down whenever anyone catches you out, you're not going to receive the benefit of much goodwill.

Even if I reread that paragraph above substituting "community" (or whatever group you think you meant) for "civilisation", it still doesn't make a lick of sense to me. And what you said initially about "dying" languages being "defective" is simply flat-out wrong, no matter how you try to spin it.

[mōdgethanc]

No, the way you were using the word was flat-out wrong. The root of the word "civilization" means "city". A civilization is a state with settled towns and institutions and laws. A group of hunter-gatherers in the Kalahari is not a civilization.

[Koko]

Guess I'm not done… I was refering to an establish state and/or city. My use of terms were in the correct use, but (as I said) the words around them were wrong: giving the wrong interpretations. I'm not blaming others.



I couldn't really find more on where a linguistics degree can get you, does anyone know of any links that gives a list of possible jobs? The links on razlem's unfortunately didn't work for me(page couldn't be loaded, even though my iPod was loaded other pages easily)

[JuxtapositionQMan]

No, the way you were using the word was flat-out wrong. The root of the word "civilization" means "city". A civilization is a state with settled towns and institutions and laws. A group of hunter-gatherers in the Kalahari is not a civilization.

Uh, what? As long as they trade/share stuff and have some sort of code to live by, I'd maybe not classify that as civilized, but definitely civilization.
Btw, ridiculous comes from the word ridicule, but stuff that's ridiculous doesn't have to be ridiculed to be as such: same thing.

[linguoboy]

No, the way you were using the word was flat-out wrong. The root of the word "civilization" means "city". A civilization is a state with settled towns and institutions and laws. A group of hunter-gatherers in the Kalahari is not a civilization.

Uh, what? As long as they trade/share stuff and have some sort of code to live by, I'd maybe not classify that as civilized, but definitely civilization.

ProTip: Words have well-defined meanings within the context of particular disciplines which may or may not match the popular usage of these terms, let alone your own idiosyncratic definitions. This is the Linguistics thread, not the Humpty Dumpty thread.

[mōdgethanc]

As long as they trade/share stuff and have some sort of code to live by, I'd maybe not classify that as civilized, but definitely civilization.

Let's look it up in the dictionary:

1. an advanced state of human society, in which a high level of culture, science, industry, and government has been reached.
2. those people or nations that have reached such a state.
3. any type of culture, society, etc., of a specific place, time, or group: Greek civilization.
4. the act or process of civilizing or being civilized: Rome's civilization of barbaric tribes was admirable.
5. cultural refinement; refinement of thought and cultural appreciation: The letters of Madame de Sévigné reveal her wit and civilization.

Does it sound to you like the Kalahari bushmen fit definitions 1), 2), 4) or 5)? That's the problem with using one definition of a word when someone else is using a different one. This fallacy even has a name: equivocation.

Btw, ridiculous comes from the word ridicule, but stuff that's ridiculous doesn't have to be ridiculed to be as such: same thing.

That analogy doesn't work because not every word in English has semantic drift to the same degree.

[JuxtapositionQMan]

No, the way you were using the word was flat-out wrong. The root of the word "civilization" means "city". A civilization is a state with settled towns and institutions and laws. A group of hunter-gatherers in the Kalahari is not a civilization.

Uh, what? As long as they trade/share stuff and have some sort of code to live by, I'd maybe not classify that as civilized, but definitely civilization.

ProTip: Words have well-defined meanings within the context of particular disciplines which may or may not match the popular usage of these terms, let alone your own idiosyncratic definitions. This is the Linguistics thread, not the Humpty Dumpty thread.

Noted.

As long as they trade/share stuff and have some sort of code to live by, I'd maybe not classify that as civilized, but definitely civilization.

Let's look it up in the dictionary:

1. an advanced state of human society, in which a high level of culture, science, industry, and government has been reached.
2. those people or nations that have reached such a state.
3. any type of culture, society, etc., of a specific place, time, or group: Greek civilization.
4. the act or process of civilizing or being civilized: Rome's civilization of barbaric tribes was admirable.
5. cultural refinement; refinement of thought and cultural appreciation: The letters of Madame de Sévigné reveal her wit and civilization.

Does it sound to you like the Kalahari bushmen fit definitions 1), 2), 4) or 5)? That's the problem with using one definition of a word when someone else is using a different one.

Good point, and well made. I only see one problem here: that dictionary is not the end-all resource for usage. It may be out of date, but even then, it can't keep up with all the changes from year to year. I do, however see the point. Although they have culture, some science (with regard to hunting), and probably some code of conduct, they do not have industry.

This fallacy even has a name: equivocation.

I'm going to post that first section of the article in the "made you laugh" thread later.

[linguoboy]

I only see one problem here: that dictionary is not the end-all resource for usage. It may be out of date, but even then, it can't keep up with all the changes from year to year.

For consecrated terms within a particular field, a general-use dictionary isn't the best resource. You're better served by checking the meaning in a specialty reference work pertaining to that field. For instance, if I wanted to be sure I'm using "aperture" correctly in a photographic context, I'd consult a reference work on photography such as Ray's Manual of photography.

[JuxtapositionQMan]

I only see one problem here: that dictionary is not the end-all resource for usage. It may be out of date, but even then, it can't keep up with all the changes from year to year.

For consecrated terms within a particular field, a general-use dictionary isn't the best resource. You're better served by checking the meaning in a specialty reference work pertaining to that field. For instance, if I wanted to be sure I'm using "aperture" correctly in a photographic context, I'd consult a reference work on photography such as Ray's Manual of photography.

Yeah. Same thing applies, though. I don't trust a book to accurately represent such things farther than I can throw it. I'd much rather check multiple recently updated internet sources.
However, none of that has to do with liguistics, so back to topic:
Is there a reason for /θ/ being relatively uncommon? I never really understood why that is and can't find much on the subject on the magicalness intarwebz. Anyone here know?

[mōdgethanc]

Is there a reason for /θ/ being relatively uncommon? I never really understood why that is and can't find much on the subject on the magicalness intarwebz. Anyone here know?

The distance between [θ, ð] and [f, v], [t, d] and [s, z] is relatively small, both acoustically and perceptually. It's very easy to mishear them as any of the other sets of phonemes listed there, all of which are far more common and easier to make. Also, if you look at languages like Castillian Spanish, Classical Arabic and Biblical Hebrew, the functional load for these sounds tends to be quite low.

[razlem]

Do languages get more complex or simple with time? I've been looking at Germanic languages in terms of morphology, and just looking at verb forms of Dan/Swe/Nor compared to other IE languages it would seem to suggest that they become simpler structurally.

[Itikar]

A thing that as an amateur intrigues me is how much language complexity is related to the context in communication.

I mean that a language that heavily relies on the context could be simpler than one that does not.
As for example saying "there" and pointing in a direction with your hand would be a relatively simpler sentence, than saying "go/look there" without moving your hands at all.
Same also for other aspects of the language: in phonology with mergers. Where there is the merger distinction between two words (say wine-whine ) would rely upon the context.
On the other hand a language which is eccessively redundant in information could be more complex.

I'd really be curious to read some research about this, because so far I have found only articles on language complexity which focused just on isolated elements, such as morphology or phonetics, while the role of context was often ignored.

P.S.
Now I tried to search for something on Google but I found only some pages about anthropology and managers.

[razlem]

I'd really be curious to read some research about this, because so far I have found only articles on language complexity which focused just on isolated elements, such as morphology or phonetics, while the role of context was often ignored.

I would say that the role of context becomes more involved and complex with language certainly, given the usually metaphoric assignment of terms to new technological advancements (computer mouse vs. animal mouse) and idioms.

I was referring to the actual structure and the complexity of inflection. All Western IE languages seem to have lost cases altogether or drastically reduced them.

Perhaps I'm not looking at it the right way. Would it be so crazy to say that languages have a tendency to isolate? But then you have Mandarin, which has a (recent?) tendency of using inseparable two-character terms.

[linguoboy]

I've been looking at Germanic languages in terms of morphology, and just looking at verb forms of Dan/Swe/Nor compared to other IE languages it would seem to suggest that they become simpler structurally.

I would counsel against trying to generalise too broadly from an extremely limited sample. Germanic languages may presently have upwards of a half a billion speakers, but they still represent only one branch of one family out of the hundred or so which we've been able to reconstruct based on the surviving evidence. You're studying a native North American language; what evidence is there for increased isolation in Muskogean or Algonkian?

Perhaps I'm not looking at it the right way. Would it be so crazy to say that languages have a tendency to isolate? But then you have Mandarin, which has a (recent?) tendency of using inseparable two-character terms.

Not only that, it has many examples of fusional morphemes, e.g. 不用 búyòng > 甭 béng, 自家人 zìjiānrén > 咱 zán. It's far less isolating and notably less analytic than Classical Chinese, but even that stage of the language retained fusional morphemes from the Ancient Chinese stage.

[razlem]

You're studying a native North American language; what evidence is there for increased isolation in Muskogean or Algonkian?

There's no record of these languages before 1600/1700, so it's not possible to set up a diachronic comparison. What seem to be isolating tendencies since their documentation has likely been influenced by English (e.g. Choctaw 'pisalitok' I saw him/her/it has been separated by bilingual/native English speakers into 3 separate words: 'pisa li tok').

[linguoboy]

You're studying a native North American language; what evidence is there for increased isolation in Muskogean or Algonkian?

There's no record of these languages before 1600/1700, so it's not possible to set up a diachronic comparison.

There's no direct evidence of their earlier morphology, but there's no direct evidence for PIE either. As I understand, Proto-Algonkian is pretty well reconstructed at this point. Is it more or less synthetic than its descendents?

[razlem]

There's no direct evidence of their earlier morphology, but there's no direct evidence for PIE either. As I understand, Proto-Algonkian is pretty well reconstructed at this point. Is it more or less synthetic than its descendents?

I'm not sure, I don't have access to PA resources. But that's a little different though. We have written evidence of Old English that we can compare to modern texts and see the downsizing of inflection (same with Latin and the romance languages and Sanskrit with Hindi)

[linguoboy]

There's no direct evidence of their earlier morphology, but there's no direct evidence for PIE either. As I understand, Proto-Algonkian is pretty well reconstructed at this point. Is it more or less synthetic than its descendents?

I'm not sure, I don't have access to PA resources. But that's a little different though. We have written evidence of Old English that we can compare to modern texts and see the downsizing of inflection (same with Latin and the romance languages and Sanskrit with Hindi)

All the more reason to exercise great caution when attempting generalisations about diachronic trends.

[mōdgethanc]

We've had this debate a million times and I always answer that loss of morphological complexity is made up for elsewhere, like in syntax. Languages can't just always become simpler or we'd be speaking in grunts by now.