Zompist Bboard Again

It’s surprisingly hard to find an answer for this, but the maximal structure would appear to be something like (s)(C)(r)V(r)(C)(s). For more detail see, for instance, Latin syllable structure in typological perspective (Lehman n.d.). I think (s)(C)(l,r)V(l,r,N)(C)(s) is better, with the caveat that...

Yes... and then we'd call it "matter." The sign is arbitrary. Sorry, I meant "mutually annihilated with all the matter". Yes, if there was an equal amount of antimatter as matter, it would all have been annihilated, and the universe would consist of photons alone. (Which, if I m...

That’s not what the problem is. Essentially: we predict that the Big Bang should have produced an equal amount of matter and antimatter, in the past. The question is: given that initial state, why do we see more matter than antimatter today? If there was more antimatter, wouldn't it of blown up all...

That’s not what the problem is. Essentially: we predict that the Big Bang should have produced an equal amount of matter and antimatter, in the past. The question is: given that initial state, why do we see more matter than antimatter today? If there was more antimatter, wouldn't it of blown up all...

Nortaneous wrote: ↑Fri Apr 19, 2024 9:02 pm ʙo͝o‼

Aaaahhh!

Shouldn't there be a difference in meaning for at least some verbs? I'd say so – "It's not mandatory to go" vs. "It's mandatory to not go". I reckon there's still a difference between "I do not want to go" / "I want to not go" too; the second is more emphatic...

I have decided to formulate a series of questions whose answers I think will give me insight into what I shall do: 1) Would sonorants/resonants be more frequent than obstruents? 2) Would coronals be more frequent than velars? 3) Would coronals be more frequent than labials? 4) Would labials be more...

[wɒnʔ]
[ˈwɒɾ̃ɜ]
[wɒʃ]
[ˈwʊːɾɜ]
[wɒsp̚ʔ]
[wɒʔtʃ]
[wɒt]
[wɒnd]
[ˈwɒndɜ]
[ˈwɒɫ̪ɜʔ]

Nothing too surprising there I'm afraid

Does anyone know anything about the variant /æt/ of that ? I have it and I have heard my daughter use it. And it clearly is not a variant of it to me; it feels like an allomorph of that rather than an independent word. I never have this except in the standard attaboy/attagirl. Oh, is that what ‘att...

foxcatdog wrote: ↑Mon Apr 15, 2024 5:29 pm

Darren wrote: ↑Mon Apr 15, 2024 6:55 am

foxcatdog wrote: ↑Mon Apr 15, 2024 2:12 am I had a dream so long i started to wonder if i was dead partway through it last night.

Were you dead?

I mean i'm alive now

Oh good

foxcatdog wrote: ↑Mon Apr 15, 2024 2:12 am I had a dream so long i started to wonder if i was dead partway through it last night.

Were you dead?

Another Lakes Plain language, Obokuitai: /b t d (dʒ) k (kʷ)/ /s h/ /(i̝g̚ u̝b̚) i u ɛ o a/ H, L, HL (L being by far the most frequent) Syllable structure is (C)(C)V(V)(C); onsets are limited to /Cd/ (/bd td dd kd sd hd/ → [bɾ tɾ dɾ kɾ sɾ hɾ~ɸɾ]) and codas are limited to [i̝g̚ u̝b̚] which have been a...

bradrn wrote: ↑Sat Apr 13, 2024 3:41 am

Darren wrote: ↑Sat Apr 13, 2024 3:30 am

bradrn wrote: ↑Sat Apr 13, 2024 3:29 am

Depends on which theory of formal syntax you believe in. Yours doesn’t seem to fit into any one particular theory: it’s just a pre-theoretical representation of the general sentence structure.

Does it make sense?

With the caveats I mentioned, yes, it does.

Good enough!

bradrn wrote: ↑Sat Apr 13, 2024 3:29 am

Darren wrote: ↑Sat Apr 13, 2024 12:35 am Is that how it works?

Depends on which theory of formal syntax you believe in. Yours doesn’t seem to fit into any one particular theory: it’s just a pre-theoretical representation of the general sentence structure.

Does it make sense?

I have found out how to produce syntax trees. Note that this does not mean I know how to make them, I just know how to make it look like I can: https://i.ibb.co/XF2qngq/Syntax-tree-5.png Is that how it works? Hopefully that should demonstrate the difference between sentences S1.7b and S1.7a. If not ...

Revised version of Iau optimised for dot-matrix printers ˩˧ ˧˥ ˨˧ ˩˥ ˥˧ ˨˩ ˧ ˨ □□□ .□□ □□□ □□□ .□□ .□□ □□□ .□□ □□□ □□□ .□□ □□□ .□□ □□□ .□□ .□□ □□□ □□□ □□□ .□□ □□□ .□□ .□□ .□□ æ a ɔ ɪ ʊ i u i̝ □□□ □.□ □□□ □□□ □.□ □.□ □□□ □.□ □□□ □□□ □.□ □□□ □.□ □□□ □.□ □.□ □□□ □□□ □□□ □.□ □□□ □.□ □.□ □.□ Ø ɸ t k b d ...

Travis B. wrote: ↑Thu Apr 11, 2024 11:37 amSeriously, what part of [ˌɑ̃ːʁ̃ˤɯːp̚ˈpʰɑːmʁ̩ˤ(ː)] is hard to understand?

Aarghoop Paamrrgh?

Ffvąsæz Initials /p b t d k g/ <p b t d k g> /f v s z ʃ ʒ/ <ff f s z c j> /m n ɲ/ <m n ny> /l j ɥ ʁ w/ <l y h v w> /sC/ <sC> /Cl Cʁ/ <Cl Cv> /sCl sCʁ/ <sCl sCv> Finals /i y u/ <i x u> /e ø o/ <e q o> /ɛ œ ɔ/ <æ r ō> /a ɑ/ <a ā> /i̯ɛ i̯œ y̯i u̯a/ <ë ö ï ü> /ɛ̃ œ̃ ɔ̃ ɑ̃/ <ę ǫ ų ą> /i̯ɛ̃ y̯ɛ̃ u̯ɑ̃/ <ę...

Your dialect seems to be in a state of flux where it's rapidly starting to drift away from the standard, and phonemicise distinctions like consonant and vowel length and a loss of the obstruent voicing contrast. I'd be interested in hearing a recording of your speech if you're happy to share it. It...

Consequently there are words that just do not fit in the conventional phonemic analysis. This rarely seems to bother linguists – for instance the analysis of Wichita phonology is entirely content to note that /m/ occurs in two native roots but isn't accepted as phonemic, with no further explanation...