Linguistics thread

[vijayjohn]

Oh, why's that? How do they not make sense?

[md0]

I am trying to figure out the distribution of the inflectional suffixes (case/number), and it got out of hand pretty quickly. For example, there's a -n that shows up in Acc.sg, and Gen.pl only. So it's not number, and it's not case, at least not in a discrete way. Then there's an -á- which shows up in Plural of some nouns but not others, at even though it looks like a Thematic vowel, the distribution doesn't match. At least I can say with some certainty that -o- is associated with Gen.pl. And so far I am still doing Fem nouns, Masc nouns flip the distribution in the Nom/Gen.sg.

[vijayjohn]

How do you know each sound is a different suffix?

[md0]

It's my initial hypothesis, mainly motivated by the Sg forms, where -a_/-as/-an and -i_/-is/-in show a _/s/n pattern despite the different thematic (?) vowel. So at least to start with, I don't assume there's a different -as morpheme and a different -is morpheme with the same function. It's not working out great for me so far of course

[md0]

After half a day working on this, I am quite convinced that at least the plural is not made of two morphemes. I will now have to do the whole thing again.

[vijayjohn]

Honestly, I don't see why any of these suffixes would be more than one morpheme.

[md0]

It was my starting point. I think that if I started the other way around, it would be easier to miss it if they were further analysable.
Of the 21 paradigms I identified, 17 of them pattern together as {-∅,-s,-n}, despite their Themes {-a-, -i-, -o-, -e-, -∅-}.

[dEhiN]

Someone posted this on a Tamil learning group I'm in:

IMG-20171026-WA0000.jpg

What are the sociative and benefactive cases? Or rather, how are they used? I asked a linguist friend of mine and he said that sociative means "with someone/something" but in the sense of performing an action while in the company of or along with that someone/something. If so, would these two examples be correct to demonstrate instrumental versus sociative:

Instrumental - I played with the boy / I played with the ball
Sociative - She ran away with the boy / She ran away with the car

[vijayjohn]

No, because when you're playing with someone, you're still in their company. A better example would be "I played with the boy" (sociative) vs. "I cut the bread with a knife" (instrumental). You use the instrumental case when you're talking about using something (or someone!).

I think the "benefactive case" basically means "for (the sake of)." I would argue this isn't a case but rather just a postposition tacked on to the end of the dative case form. We have something similar in Malayalam (in Malayalam, instead of using the adverbial suffix like in Tamil, we use a suffix derived from the verb meaning 'to want' or 'to need').

[dEhiN]

No, because when you're playing with someone, you're still in their company. A better example would be "I played with the boy" (sociative) vs. "I cut the bread with a knife" (instrumental). You use the instrumental case when you're talking about using something (or someone!).

Huh, ok. That makes sense; though I'll have to get used to the distinction since this is my first time encountering it.

I think the "benefactive case" basically means "for (the sake of)." I would argue this isn't a case but rather just a postposition tacked on to the end of the dative case form. We have something similar in Malayalam (in Malayalam, instead of using the adverbial suffix like in Tamil, we use a suffix derived from the verb meaning 'to want' or 'to need').

Do you know what the -aaka postposition means? And could you give an example of when one would use the benefactive case? Also, does your use of quotes mean that this case doesn't actually exist (in the sense of recognized by linguists), or that this case isn't usually called that?

[vijayjohn]

Huh, ok. That makes sense; though I'll have to get used to the distinction since this is my first time encountering it.

Of course! I did, too. I don't know why linguists working on Dravidian languages insist on calling it "sociative." I think it's usually called "comitative."

Do you know what the -aaka postposition means?

AFAICT it's an adjectival or adverbial suffix (it turns nouns into adjectives and adjectives into adverbs).

And could you give an example of when one would use the benefactive case?

Maybe something like "I made lunch for him," i.e. I did him a favor (namely, making him lunch) for his sake.

Also, does your use of quotes mean that this case doesn't actually exist (in the sense of recognized by linguists), or that this case isn't usually called that?

I've probably seen this terminology somewhere before, but I'm not super-familiar with it. I'm uneasy about calling it the "benefactive case" when I'm skeptical about it being a case to begin with.

[dEhiN]

Huh, ok. That makes sense; though I'll have to get used to the distinction since this is my first time encountering it.

Of course! I did, too. I don't know why linguists working on Dravidian languages insist on calling it "sociative." I think it's usually called "comitative."

Yeah my linguist friend - actually it's maggy from the UL Skype group - was sharing how Hungarian apparently has instrumental, comitative and sociative.

Do you know what the -aaka postposition means?

AFAICT it's an adjectival or adverbial suffix (it turns nouns into adjectives and adjectives into adverbs).

Oh I guess similar to -in? Yeah in Anki, for -in I wrote "adjectivizer/adverbializer suffix".

Maybe something like "I made lunch for him," i.e. I did him a favor (namely, making him lunch) for his sake.

In this case, which noun would take the benefactive case? I guess him?

[vijayjohn]

maggy from the UL Skype group

A.k.a. ''' here on UniLang. I thought he wasn't a linguist.

Oh I guess similar to -in? Yeah in Anki, for -in I wrote "adjectivizer/adverbializer suffix".

I thought that was genitive. I have no idea why this chart claims -atu is a genitive case ending. I thought that just meant 'that'. But I could see it being used to mean 'of' in some contexts, I guess.

Maybe something like "I made lunch for him," i.e. I did him a favor (namely, making him lunch) for his sake.

In this case, which noun would take the benefactive case? I guess him?

Yep!

[dEhiN]

Oh I guess similar to -in? Yeah in Anki, for -in I wrote "adjectivizer/adverbializer suffix".

I thought that was genitive. I have no idea why this chart claims -atu is a genitive case ending. I thought that just meant 'that'. But I could see it being used to mean 'of' in some contexts, I guess.

Afaik, the two genitive forms I've seen are -udaiya and -atu. By itself, as a standalone word, atu does mean 'that' - the demonstrative pronoun. But for example, both enatu and ennudaiya mean 'my', both unatu and unnudaiya mean 'your (sing. cas.)', etc. But I'm only used to adding the -udaiya (ex. paiyanudaiya to nouns. I guess you could add -atu as a suffix instead.

As for -in, maybe it's used for both? My Tamil teacher used it to make words like amma into an adjective, and when I asked her what it means, she told me that it makes nouns into an adjective (and I guess adjectives into an adverb?).

[Lur]

Of course, informally and generally in speech, all of those words are different (I say them as tälläset, tällänen, tää, nää) because nobody speaks kirjakieli except in the most ridiculously formal contexts, but you already knew that, and it isn't relevant to this.

As soon as I started with it I realized that the language I liked doesn't exist and it was so awkward. I keep going to class wondering internally "just what is she teaching us and where does it come from"

[Naava]

As soon as I started with it I realized that the language I liked doesn't exist

?

[Lur]

Ok ok I'm over exagerating for the comedy don't worry

I'm very into it so far. I also like how the verbs are, they're simple (unlike other I know in say, Catalan or Basque), but not boring. And it sounds cute in any variant of it I've heard. I however have difficulties with consonant length and with pronouncing ö.

Actually I'm liking lots of stuff and I would end up colonizing the thread talking about random Finnish features

[Aurinĭa]

maggy from the UL Skype group

A.k.a. ''' here on UniLang. I thought he wasn't a linguist.

I'm pretty sure he did study linguistics. Whether studying linguistics (in a formal learning context) makes one a linguist is a different matter.

[Naava]

Ok ok I'm over exagerating for the comedy don't worry

Yeah I wasn't sure which language you were talking about anymore.

I also like how the verbs are, they're simple

So how long have you been studying Finnish?

Actually I'm liking lots of stuff and I would end up colonizing the thread talking about random Finnish features

There happens to be a subforum for talking about random Finnish features.

[dEhiN]

maggy from the UL Skype group

A.k.a. ''' here on UniLang. I thought he wasn't a linguist.

I'm pretty sure he did study linguistics. Whether studying linguistics (in a formal learning context) makes one a linguist is a different matter.

Yeah he did study linguistics; I think his Bachelors had something to do with Germanic studies. If you're defining linguist as someone who works currently in that field, then I guess he's not since his Masters was in English pedagogy and now he's an overseas ESL Teacher. But he's still quite knowledgeable in linguistics - we've had some good linguistic-related chats on the Whatsapp group over various language features - and I've even shared some Academia.edu linguistic papers with him. So if you're defining linguist as someone who's professionally interested in and knowledgeable about that field, then I'd say he is.

ETA:

Actually I'm liking lots of stuff and I would end up colonizing the thread talking about random Finnish features

There happens to be a subforum for talking about random Finnish features.

I thought you meant a subforum specifically for talking about Finnish linguistic features! But Lur, you're more than welcome to colonize this thread talking about random Finnish features. Even though I'm not learning Finnish (yet, since I have had a wanderlust or two for it in the past), I always like learning about the linguistic features of different languages.

On a separate note, I only relatively recently learned that spoken Indian Tamil uses nasalized vowels. To be fair, I don't recall ever hearing these vowels in the few Indian Tamil movies I've watched, but then again I can count on one hand the movies I've watched and I also was never paying close attention to the pronunciation. But I'm on both a Tamil learning Facebook and Whatsapp group, and as is usually the case with Tamil learning groups, the majority of the native speakers are Indians. So when they write stuff in colloquial Tamil, they write the spoken Indian variety. And they frequently will write things like naa~, or naã, in place of naan. (In IPA that would be /n̪ãː/ instead of /n̪aːn/). I guess it makes sense that a closed syllable ending in a nasal would get reduced to a nasalized vowel. But as far as I'm aware, that's not the case with spoken varieties of Sri Lankan Tamil.