księżycowy wrote:My God.....this guy likes to ramble on and be super technical. Geez. Just give the the basics and build from there.
vijayjohn wrote: I honestly am pretty indifferent either way because I'm very familiar with all the linguistic terminology being used.
That's probably because he's writing for an audience with a fairly strong background in linguistics. This is just how literature in linguistics is written because linguists already know what "split ergativity" and "phonemes" and all that jazz is.
księżycowy wrote:I can't speak for any one else in the group, but I ain't no linguist.
Eril wrote:I prefer an actual textbook with lessons instead of a grammar book. Sure, also Foxvog provides some exercises, but the text seems less didactic, at least from first impression without reading much.
Eril wrote:Only thing I didn't like about Zólyomi's textbook so far is that he claims to use IPA, but doesn't, at least not consistently.
The IPA sign for the glottal stop in table 2.1 is wrong (should be ʔ), and also the one for the velar nasal (should be ŋ) - the ɳ he uses instead would be a retroflex nasal (you may know it from e.g. Sanskrit), which got me a bit confused - in the text later he uses ŋ, so it was probably a typo in the table.
vijayjohn wrote:So...it looks to me like sticking with Zólyomi may be the best approach at this point to satisfy everyone. Is that okay with everyone for now? (I assume it's okay with you, księżycowy, since AFAIU you're saying you just want to watch from the sidelines at this point ).
Zólyomi comes across as actual textbook - exercises and, while not exactly vocab lists, at least vocab recommendations.dEhiN wrote:Eril wrote:I prefer an actual textbook with lessons instead of a grammar book. Sure, also Foxvog provides some exercises, but the text seems less didactic, at least from first impression without reading much.
For you, do either of Zólyomi or Foxvog come across as an actual textbook with lessons? I agree that Foxvog seems less didactic.
Possible. Yes, ' is common, but he explicitly wrote that he'd use IPA and then didn't.vijayjohn wrote:Maybe he changed these things in a later edition? But I think ' is pretty common among linguists as a symbol that's interchangeable with [ʔ].
dEhiN wrote:mine would be for Foxvog as well since he uses cuneiform
dEhiN wrote:My understanding is that Zólyomi's text is a collation of his lecture notes made into an online textbook, or pdf. As such, I noticed several syntactic errors in the first lesson, though I didn't take note of any of them. I considered doing so and contact Zólyomi on Academia.edu, but couldn't be bothered with the effort that would take.
How did you get that impression?
Vijay, I assume your vote is indifferent?
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest