Moderator:Forum Administrators
Vlürch wrote:TIL that the eventive mood in Finnish, which is literally never used in practice but appears in Kalevala, was invented by a dude who also coined Finnish neologisms
Naava wrote:I guess making up new cases was where they drew the line.
M.A. Castréni surma tõttu vabanenud soome keele professori kohale kandideerisid 1853. a. nii E. Lönnrot kui ka C. A. Gottlund. Koha sai E. Lönnrot põhjavepsa keele kohta käiva väitekirjaga "Om det Nord-Tschudiska språket". Väitekirja kandvamateks osadeks on vepsa häälikulise ehituse ja verbivormistiku käsitlus. Viimase puhul äratab tähelepanu omapärane kõneviis modus eventivus (potentsiaali ja konditsionaali segavorm).
Utom de för finskan och tschudiskan gemensamma modi, hafva de tschudiska verberna ännu en särskild modus, för att uttrycka möjligheten af en handling, hvilken i brist på annan benämning här må kallas modus eventivus. Den förekommer visst icke alltför ofta, höras dock emellanåt, t.ex. sada rublat minä netsiit hebos maksneisin (jag kunde möjligtvis betala 100 rubel för den hästen). Dess ändelse (-neisin) antyder, att den uppstått genom sammansättning af indefiniti och conditionalis modus-tillägg.
Which if I understand correctly is basically saying that the most interesting of Lönnrot's constructions is the eventive, which he thought he had observed (invented? ) in Veps in forms such as maksneisin, but which should more correctly be maksnuisin. He did not use these forms in the Old Kalevala (where he instead used forms such as suuttunevi), and in the New Kalevala he changed them to the eventive mood (for example, suuttuneisi).Huvittavin kaikista Lönnrotin muodostuksista on n. k. modus eventivus, päätteellä ne + isi, jonka hän luuli keksineensä Vepsän kielessä, esim. maksneisin, mikä kuitenkin on oikeammin luettava maksnuisin s. o. maksanut olisin. Tätä muotoa on hän Uudessa Kalevalassa koetellakseen, sopisiko se kirjakielessäkin käytettäväksi, sovelluttanut kahteen kohtaan, nimittäin:UK. 23: 219-220. Tuosta sulho suuttuneisi, Mies nuori nuristuneisi.
Vanhassa Kalevalassa ei löydy vastaavia säkeitä, sen Lisissä tavattavat säkeet:
UK. 23: 427-8. Tuosta sulho suuttuneisi, Kaunosi kamaltuneisi.
VKL. 15: 459-460. Tuosta sulho suuttunevi, Mies nuori vihastunevi,selvästi edustavat molempien paikkojen yhteistä alkumuotoa.
Linguaphile wrote:But then I found this (quoted below) about it.
Still, I do think Lönnrot must have expected it to become a commonly-used form or hoped it would. It wasn't rejected until the 1890's, after Lönnrot's death.
Kirje, joka valitettavasti on seuran arkistosta kadonnut, herätti pöytäkirjan mukaan vilkkaan keskustelun.
Minä eitin niin olevan
Ja siten on eittämättä joka muoto ja sana kielessä alkunsa saanut, että joku henkilö sen on sepustanut.
»Hra F. Ahlmanein viime lukukaudella tekemän ehdotuksen, että nämät konsessiivi & konditionaalin sekamuodot otettaisiin käytäntöön, seura vaitiololla tappoi.»
Vlürch wrote:I mean, the generational thing is mostly just old people being bitter about young people using words that they don't use (or not using words that they do use) . . .
. . .she couldn't understand anything anyone was saying, like the dialect there was so different and the accents were so thick that it might as well have been a completely different language
At least the way WW2 was taught when I was in school was, well, not accurate... it was like "we were neutral and totally the good guys! what do you mean we were an Axis country? the Nazis occupied us and we fought against them just as much if not more as we fought alongside them, and when we fought alongside them it was TOTALLY separate! we had NOTHING in common with them ideologically! also Mannerheim did nothing wrong" but I guess every country has nationalism problems in history education.
Linguaphile wrote:The eventive mood issue in Finnish is turning out to be rather fascinating. See what I found:
Linguaphile wrote:Which if I understand correctly is basically saying that the most interesting of Lönnrot's constructions is the eventive, which he thought he had observed (invented? ) in Veps
Linguaphile wrote:So I'm not sure whether this is support for the idea that the form was entirely invented (i.e. Lönnrot was quite aware that it did not exist in Finnish) or support for the idea that it wasn't entirely invented (i.e. it was taken from a neighboring language that did use it, at least as Lönnrot understood it). I'm kinda glad it wasn't just invented out of thin air but made from something that was actually used elsewhere, although I'm not sure that Lönnrot was correct about its usage in Veps. Its absence from the corpus makes me wonder. Guess I'll have to do more research....
Yasna wrote:Going by the comment section, SNL screwed up Gen Z language use in this skit. I wouldn't know, it was all Greek to my millennial ears.
Saim wrote:I've seen some people argue that they're "appropriating" and mocking black culture and AAVE, which I find bizarre.
Yasna wrote:Hmm, nothing there stood out to me as an AAVE feature, but I'm also not familiar with Gen Z AAVE, whatever that might be.
Yasna wrote:vijayjohn wrote:That's ignoring pairs, which, if I understand correctly what that page is saying, are a lot more common in English than triplets etc.
Yes, I'm looking beyond simple homophone pairs, which I imagine are abundant in most languages. I'm interested in knowing whether there are any languages outside of the Sinophere which have large quantities of morpheme homophone groups with 5, 10, even 15 homophones as we see in the languages of the Sinophere.
Vlürch wrote:That's a really good point, I'm an idiot sometimes (or always).
Saim wrote:I've seen some people argue that they're "appropriating" and mocking black culture and AAVE, which I find bizarre.
The sketch sure is awful, though.
Yasna wrote:"Äh Leute, nehmt mir das bitte nicht Übel aber das ist so eine hässliche Sprache"
vijayjohn wrote:Yasna wrote:vijayjohn wrote:That's ignoring pairs, which, if I understand correctly what that page is saying, are a lot more common in English than triplets etc.
Yes, I'm looking beyond simple homophone pairs, which I imagine are abundant in most languages. I'm interested in knowing whether there are any languages outside of the Sinophere which have large quantities of morpheme homophone groups with 5, 10, even 15 homophones as we see in the languages of the Sinophere.
I think that kind of depends on how you define homophones. I think you could plausibly argue that English has these, too.
Linguaphile wrote:Edit: while trying to make the above lists more complete, I came across this article, which does a better job and makes my attempt at listing the meanings of "run" seem pretty insignificant, so I'll just post the link here instead of trying to add to my list. Yes, they're only talking about 10 words there (run, set, go, take, stand, get, turn, put, fall, strike), but those are 10 words with hundreds of meanings each. How many more words have "only" five or ten or fifteen meanings? I don't know but I'm guessing it's quite a lot, even if you remove meanings that seem "too similar" from the list and remove the less commonly-used meanings.
Yasna wrote:This is different from what we see in Sinosphere languages, because most if not all of the definitions of your head words like "run" share the same etymological origin. The Korean morpheme homophones of "su" (手, 水, 壽, 守, 秀) for example have no shared etymological origin AFAIK.
Yasna wrote:Linguaphile wrote:Edit: while trying to make the above lists more complete, I came across this article, which does a better job and makes my attempt at listing the meanings of "run" seem pretty insignificant, so I'll just post the link here instead of trying to add to my list. Yes, they're only talking about 10 words there (run, set, go, take, stand, get, turn, put, fall, strike), but those are 10 words with hundreds of meanings each. How many more words have "only" five or ten or fifteen meanings? I don't know but I'm guessing it's quite a lot, even if you remove meanings that seem "too similar" from the list and remove the less commonly-used meanings.
This is different from what we see in Sinosphere languages, because most if not all of the definitions of your head words like "run" share the same etymological origin. The Korean morpheme homophones of "su" (手, 水, 壽, 守, 秀) for example have no shared etymological origin AFAIK.
linguoboy wrote:But is this a significant distinction to anyone but linguists? The average speaker doesn't walk around with an etymological dictionary inside their head.
Linguaphile wrote:set
etymology 1: Middle English setten, Proto-Germanic *satjaną
[...]
etymology 4: French lever
4a. to raise to levy
Yasna wrote:Linguaphile wrote:set
etymology 1: Middle English setten, Proto-Germanic *satjaną
[...]
etymology 4: French lever
4a. to raise to levy
For comparison, here is the full list of etymologically distinct (AFAIK) morphemes for Korean "su": 手, 水, 壽, 守, 秀, 受, 洙, 宿, 隋, 綬, 需, 隨, 鐩, 髓, 首, 艘, 囚, 數, 繡, plus two native Korean morphemes. Or for "jo": 俎, 調, 租, 曺, 曹, 粗, 組, 彫, 操, 竈, 條, 兆, 朝, 助, 趙, 詔, plus one native Korean morpheme. I doubt these are even the most extreme examples.
linguoboy wrote:The most extreme example I remember coming across was 기. Wiktionary lists 129 hanja with this reading and there are doubtless more if you include more obscure characters. (Which--whether you realise it or not--you've already done with your examples. 俎, for instance, is a character I don't recall seeing before. It's not one of the 1800 basic characters taught in schools when my Korean professor was a child; I can't think of a single compound which incorporates it and Korean Wiktionary doesn't list any. I'm kind of curious where you found it, in fact.)
But this all sort of begs the question of whether speakers even conceive of these as "separate morphemes". Only a couple of them function as free forms, plus a couple more as common derviational suffixes. Does the average Korean speaker recognise the -기 in 전화기 "telephone" as distinct from the one in 분광기 'spectroscope"? Both indicate a type of device, after all. And, if they do, is it only because they were taught hanja in school?
Yasna wrote:I took those examples from Google, which apparently gets its definitions from "Oxford Languages". It gives the definition of 俎 (조) as 제사 때에 고기를 얹어 놓는 그릇. It wasn't marked as obscure, but who knows.
Yasna wrote:I think it would be fair to say that in Chinese and Japanese homophonous morphemes are conceived of as separate morphemes because Chinese characters scream that fact at users of those languages
Yasna wrote:whereas in Korean the associations are attenuated due to the lack of hanja competency. But I don't think Koreans would have any trouble distinguishing the -기 in 빙하기(氷河期) from the -기 in 전화기 (電話機), for example.
linguoboy wrote:Well, except for the fact that the Japanese have a history of playing fast and loose with sound/character correspondences. You have ateji, where Sino-Japanese characters are used purely for their phonetic value, and gikun, where they're given quite arbitrary readings (which may not even be derived from Japanese at all but from foreign languages). And texting apps have given rise to a 1337-speak-like phenomenon of spelling common words with obscure kanji with the same readings.
Return to “General Language Forum”
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 8 guests