Zompist Bboard Again

Travis B. wrote: ↑Fri May 17, 2024 6:24 amI normally do this.
I do this fcr a small set of verbs such as ta[/t] (the equational copula) and [i[ga (the existential copula).

Makes sense! Thanks.


JAL

bradrn wrote: ↑Thu May 16, 2024 7:03 pmBut the stele isn’t real! (…unless you mean the one found in 1934?)

Ye, di flat-ston fayn don wen 1934 (ten nayn hondwit swi ten foh) sim ray wan.
Yes, the stele found in 1934 is seemingly the real one.


JAL

Of course, I use ergative and accusative in non-standard fashions to refer to marked arguments of intransitive verbs in a fluid-S arrangement along with antipassive and passive verbs, where agentive S is direct for animates and ergative for inanimates and patientive S is accusative for animates and...

Travis B. wrote: ↑Wed May 15, 2024 10:54 amI am surprised that it needed explanation that that was the Seven Kill Stele.

Mi in noredi bwes bo "sewn kil flat-ston", sapway o non. Olso im sim kantafit.
I wasn't familiar yet with the "seven kill stele", surprised or not. Also it seems it's fake.


JAL

Yu kip way Ingles sentms.
You omitted the English sentence.


JAL

If you define it as ‘verb + object’, you’re forced to conclude that VSO languages don’t have predicates — and therefore their clauses don’t have any head at all! ‘Head’ may be an ill-defined term, but to me, that’s going a bit too far. Not at all, that's a strawman. What you'd conclude is that you ...

What? VSO is equally as head-initial as VOS, just that the object in VSO is decoupled from the verb. You are correct here. VSO and VOS are equally ‘head-initial’. I disagree, though I may well be in disagreement with current linguistic theory. In my opinion, verb + object = predicate, and a predica...

The verb is the head of the phrase, not the subject. So, VSO or VOS word order. Yes, but the object is closer to the verb than the subject, so VOS makes it more head-initial than VSO. "Eating a peach" vs. "(Eating a peach) by me" (where "by" is the ergative). It's not ...

Glass Half Baked wrote: ↑Fri May 10, 2024 11:54 pmI think it's a little boring.

Fo taym dol me fayn.
Boring can sometimes be fine.


JAL

almost rigidly head-initial ... animate nouns are placed before inanimate nouns, even if the animate noun is the syntactic object. That kinda contradict each other :D. eat\REAL-3sg Sam-NOM orange-ABS (VSO) fall_on\REAL-3sg mouse-ACC pillar-ERG (VOS) I have some difficulty with an animate-inanimate ...

I must emphasize that if there is to be any temporal references, it is between future and non-future, not past and non-past. Sure, but your counterfactual seems decidedly +past. The realis can be marked in the apodosis, for matters involving implication (there are hoofprints here, so there must be ...

The irrealis is typically future-orientated while the counterfactual is nonfuture -orientated. So the distinction in the protasis makes sense. Yet, they (at least the irrealis) don't have to refer to time at all. Or, rather, the irrealis is far less tied to temporality than the counterfactual. So i...

Well yes, but I could just as much mark it in the irrealis mood since the irrealis deals with unrealized or nonactual events. So what for you is the difference between "counterfactual" and "unrealized/nonactual"? Seems to me that semantically these are very close, if not the sam...

So that is why I don't know whether the condition clause is supposed to be marked counterfactual or if it's the consequence clause, or both. I don't know the psycholinguostics or formal logic or semantic theories or whatever is involved. "Condition clause" and "consequence clause&quo...

hwhatting wrote: ↑Fri May 03, 2024 5:17 amRe Low German

Thanks for the addition/correction!


JAL

bradrn wrote: ↑Thu May 02, 2024 10:08 amI did mention Kupwar already, but that’s in Asia. (Apparently the name for this is ‘metatypy’.)

Ah, yes, I think it is Kupwar that I was thinking about, thanks!


JAL

I am kind of proud of speaking dialect everywhere I can, to be honest. (It is your own fault for not understanding Milwaukee dialect I'm all for it :mrgreen: I feel like it is unfortunate that many people elsewhere think that they must speak a standard variety, which is why we have things like trad...

keenir wrote: ↑Wed May 01, 2024 9:35 pmI fear that, next time, you may have to ask the barista to repeat your order back to you.

Or be less stubborn and just use GenAm when ordering


JAL

but grammars tend to converge anyway, because this is less obvious to the speakers themselves. Iirc there's an African(?) city where two languages are spoken that have almost no shared vocabulary, but almost identical grammar. Can't recall which city, unfortunately, and a quick google doesn't show ...

No, because that's not how language contact works. Vocabulary is in most situations the easiest thing to change. I'm going to disagree by proxy. I've read that there's two situations in which languages might influence each other. The first is contact where speakers of language A have contact with s...