Linguistic Miscellany Thread

[ophois]

I noticed a sound change in the Kartvelian section of the ID. Proto-Kartvelian is presumed to have had three sibilant series (I'll use the voiceless fricative as representative of each one): *s s₁ š (apparently phonetically /s ʂ ʃ/). Georgian merged the retroflex series with the alveolar one and left the post-alveolars alone. But both Svan and Zan (Mingrelian + Laz) instead underwent the shift *s₁ š > ʃ ʃk/ʃg (!). Not did they randomly epenthesise a velar out of nowhere, it happened independently in both, since Zan is more closely related to Georgian while Svan is the outlier. From an amateur perspective, the sound change seems more likely to have been *ʃ ʃk > s ʃ in Georgian and retention in the others. I'm not a linguist, so they probably have good reasons, but maybe Kartvelianists are following Georgian too closely?

[WeepingElf]

I noticed a sound change in the Kartvelian section of the ID. Proto-Kartvelian is presumed to have had three sibilant series (I'll use the voiceless fricative as representative of each one): *s s₁ š (apparently phonetically /s ʂ ʃ/). Georgian merged the retroflex series with the alveolar one and left the post-alveolars alone. But both Svan and Zan (Mingrelian + Laz) instead underwent the shift *s₁ š > ʃ ʃk/ʃg (!). Not did they randomly epenthesise a velar out of nowhere, it happened independently in both, since Zan is more closely related to Georgian while Svan is the outlier. From an amateur perspective, the sound change seems more likely to have been *ʃ ʃk > s ʃ in Georgian and retention in the others. I'm not a linguist, so they probably have good reasons, but maybe Kartvelianists are following Georgian too closely?

Indeed, what you say makes perfect sense to me. It seems not unlikely that Georgian innovated here while the other three languages preserve the original system, and it may be the case that many Kartvelianists follow Georgian too closely, just like how early Indo-Europeanists followed Sanskrit too closely. Of course, Georgian is the only Kartvelian language of which we have fairly old written documents (about 500 AD if I remember correctly), which are indeed valuable for Proto-Kartvelian reconstruction, but that doesn't mean it didn't innovate here. AFAIK, the matter is indeed somewhat controversial among Kartvelianists, and some actually agree with you. But like you, I am merely an amateur and not a Kartvelianist.

[Qwynegold]

Oh, I forgot to reply to bradrn and zompist about the part of speech of the word but. Thanks for the input! I'm thinking that maybe I can get away with labeling it as a subjunctive in my conlang dictionary.

[Qwynegold]

I watched a history TV-show, where they had an interesting linguistic claim that I have not heard before. They said that bilabials are much more than labiodentals in hunter-gatherer societies than in agricultural societies.

They said that people are usually born with a slight overbite, but if you eat hard and chewy food throughout your childhood, the lower jaw developes in such a way that the front teeth end up meeting edge to edge. This helps with biting of tough pieces of food. They also said that with that kind of jaw, producing labiodentals requires a little bit more effort, which is why the language would favor bilabials.

If someone wants the source I could look for the episode and post a link. It's in Swedish, though I think that part might have had English audio. But it's probably not viewable outside Sweden.

[WeepingElf]

I watched a history TV-show, where they had an interesting linguistic claim that I have not heard before. They said that bilabials are much more than labiodentals in hunter-gatherer societies than in agricultural societies.

They said that people are usually born with a slight overbite, but if you eat hard and chewy food throughout your childhood, the lower jaw developes in such a way that the front teeth end up meeting edge to edge. This helps with biting of tough pieces of food. They also said that with that kind of jaw, producing labiodentals requires a little bit more effort, which is why the language would favor bilabials.

If someone wants the source I could look for the episode and post a link. It's in Swedish, though I think that part might have had English audio. But it's probably not viewable outside Sweden.

I have heard of that idea, though I don't remember where, and I don't know what to think of it. Most such claims of correlations between phoneme inventory features and geographical or cultural environments are doubtful, if not entirely spurious.

[bradrn]

Oh, I forgot to reply to bradrn and zompist about the part of speech of the word but. Thanks for the input! I'm thinking that maybe I can get away with labeling it as a subjunctive in my conlang dictionary.

I don’t think I’ve ever seen ‘subjunctive’ used as a name for a part of speech. I’ve always seen it used to refer to a kind of verbal inflection found primarily in subordinate clauses.

[WeepingElf]

Oh, I forgot to reply to bradrn and zompist about the part of speech of the word but. Thanks for the input! I'm thinking that maybe I can get away with labeling it as a subjunctive in my conlang dictionary.

I don’t think I’ve ever seen ‘subjunctive’ used as a name for a part of speech. I’ve always seen it used to refer to a kind of verbal inflection found primarily in subordinate clauses.

Nor do I. 'Subjunctive' is a mood, not a part of speech. I'd say that but is a conjunction.

[Travis B.]

Oh, I forgot to reply to bradrn and zompist about the part of speech of the word but. Thanks for the input! I'm thinking that maybe I can get away with labeling it as a subjunctive in my conlang dictionary.

Are you sure you don't mean 'subordinating conjunction'?

[Lērisama]

Quite possibly it was just a mistake for conjunction, given (various cognates of) ‘conjunctive’ are often used for the various moods of European languages usually called subjunctive in English¹.

¹ Although I don't know about Swedish².
² I think, sorry if not Qwynegold

[Travis B.]

The typical view, though, is that but is a coordinating conjunction, not a subordinating conjunction, I should note.

[Raphael]

A "but" by any other name...

[Travis B.]

¹ Although I don't know about Swedish².
² I think, sorry if not Qwynegold

Qwynegold is originally from Finland but now lives in Sweden, but I don't know if their native language is Finnish or Swedish.

[zompist]

Oh, I forgot to reply to bradrn and zompist about the part of speech of the word but. Thanks for the input! I'm thinking that maybe I can get away with labeling it as a subjunctive in my conlang dictionary.

I don’t think I’ve ever seen ‘subjunctive’ used as a name for a part of speech. I’ve always seen it used to refer to a kind of verbal inflection found primarily in subordinate clauses.

Nor do I. 'Subjunctive' is a mood, not a part of speech. I'd say that but is a conjunction.

Yep!

[Ephraim]

I watched a history TV-show, where they had an interesting linguistic claim that I have not heard before. They said that bilabials are much more than labiodentals in hunter-gatherer societies than in agricultural societies.

They said that people are usually born with a slight overbite, but if you eat hard and chewy food throughout your childhood, the lower jaw developes in such a way that the front teeth end up meeting edge to edge. This helps with biting of tough pieces of food. They also said that with that kind of jaw, producing labiodentals requires a little bit more effort, which is why the language would favor bilabials.

If someone wants the source I could look for the episode and post a link. It's in Swedish, though I think that part might have had English audio. But it's probably not viewable outside Sweden.

I have heard of that idea, though I don't remember where, and I don't know what to think of it. Most such claims of correlations between phoneme inventory features and geographical or cultural environments are doubtful, if not entirely spurious.

This idea was in the news a few years ago, I think due to this article.
https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.aav3218

The idea is older though, and was apparently originally proposed by Charles F. Hockett in 1985.
https://www.jstor.org/stable/678561

See also here for some newer sources.
https://arts-pulleyblank-2024.sites.olt ... tFinal.pdf

Quite possibly it was just a mistake for conjunction, given (various cognates of) ‘conjunctive’ are often used for the various moods of European languages usually called subjunctive in English¹.

¹ Although I don't know about Swedish².
² I think, sorry if not Qwynegold

This is true for Swedish, these moods are pretty much always called konjunktiv, not subjunktiv (apparently the later term had some use is the 19th century, though).

Oh, I forgot to reply to bradrn and zompist about the part of speech of the word but. Thanks for the input! I'm thinking that maybe I can get away with labeling it as a subjunctive in my conlang dictionary.

I don’t think I’ve ever seen ‘subjunctive’ used as a name for a part of speech. I’ve always seen it used to refer to a kind of verbal inflection found primarily in subordinate clauses.

Nor do I. 'Subjunctive' is a mood, not a part of speech. I'd say that but is a conjunction.

In Swedish, it is fairly common to refer to subordinating conjuctions as subjunktioner, i.e. subjunctions. Is that not a thing in English? I did Google the term and there are certainly some English language examples, but they seem to mainly be from German, Swedish or Norwegian language learning materials.

That being said, as ‪Travis B.‬ noted, but is probably not a subjunction.

[lëtzeshark]

Linguistic thing for the Hispanophones here: in working on a "translations page" for a few of my in-progress conworld passports, I've seen three phrases for "expiration date" which appear on real-life documents: fecha de caducidad (seen on a Spanish passport), fecha de vencimiento (Chilean and Costa Rican), and fecha de expiración (Ecuador and El Salvador). Is there a functional difference between any of these terms?

[Nortaneous]

In Swedish, it is fairly common to refer to subordinating conjuctions as subjunktioner, i.e. subjunctions. Is that not a thing in English?

I've never heard of this.

[Man in Space]

How does Zipf’s law hold up with polysynthetic languages?

[Travis B.]

How does Zipf’s law hold up with polysynthetic languages?

Good question. Normally with such languages I'd presume one'd apply it to morphemes rather than words per se.

[Risla]

Caught a spoonerism in the wild at 15:50 in this video. The speaker doesn't even seem to notice.

[Man in Space]

How does Zipf’s law hold up with polysynthetic languages?

Good question. Normally with such languages I'd presume one'd apply it to morphemes rather than words per se.

According to page six of this paper, it seems to hold for Turkish.