Linguistic Miscellany Thread

[Qwynegold]

Sorry, I meant subjunction and not subjunctive! And I meant because and not but! T_T

And yes, my L1 is Finnish and L2 is Swedish on a native-like level.

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.

Wait, is this not even a term in English? Huh, Wiktionary has it as term in logic, but not as a linguistic term with the sense that I meant.

Subjunctions are usually classified as a subcategory of conjunctions, but I've often seen it as a label in dictionaries and such, where they otherwise don't subcategory labels. I'll use conjunction in my conlang dictionary then...

[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.

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.

A causation between culture and phonetics does sound dubious, but in this case there was also an anatomical aspect to it.

[Qwynegold]

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[/quote]

Thanks! I'll check the links.

[Qwynegold]

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

Price crade.

[Ephraim]

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.

Wait, is this not even a term in English? Huh, Wiktionary has it as term in logic, but not as a linguistic term with the sense that I meant.

Subjunctions are usually classified as a subcategory of conjunctions, but I've often seen it as a label in dictionaries and such, where they otherwise don't subcategory labels. I'll use conjunction in my conlang dictionary then...

I think subjunctions are mostly not classified as a subcategory of conjunctions. Rather, when the term is used, the term conjunction is reserved for coordinating conjunctions, and they are seen as separate word classes. At least that seems to be how modern Swedish grammars do it. This can be a bit confusing though, since traditionally it was common to use konjunktion for both and distinguish samordnande konjunktioner and underordnande konjunktioner, much like in English.

https://frageladan.isof.se/faqs/26892

[Travis B.]

This thread is the first place I've seen the term "subjunction"; this simply is not a term in English. This is akin to referring to the English subjunctive as the "conjunctive" because German uses "Konjunktiv" to refer to the subjunctive in German.

[Man in Space]

This thread is the first place I've seen the term "subjunction"; this simply is not a term in English.

Merriam-Webster disagrees, FWIW.

[Travis B.]

This thread is the first place I've seen the term "subjunction"; this simply is not a term in English.

Merriam-Webster disagrees, FWIW.

I should have added that it is not a term used in this sort of linguistic or grammatical context in English.

[Ephraim]

This thread is the first place I've seen the term "subjunction"; this simply is not a term in English. This is akin to referring to the English subjunctive as the "conjunctive" because German uses "Konjunktiv" to refer to the subjunctive in German.

I don't think think it's exactly the same thing. As far as I'm aware German Konjunktiv, Swedish konjunktiv and English subjunctive are exactly equivalent, so this is just different languages using different words for the same category. The term subjunktion, as used in many modern Swedish grammars, involves a slightly different way of classifying parts-of-speech. Under this system, konjunktioner and subjunktioner are not subclasses of a larger word class, but rather major word classes on the same level as nouns, verbs, prepositions etc. So this is not just using different words, this is also subtle difference in grammatical theory.

I think the German tradition uses the term Subjunktion as well, and apparently sometimes also Subjunktor, Konjunktor, Adjunktor and just Junktor, which I would be interested to know more about.

This thread is the first place I've seen the term "subjunction"; this simply is not a term in English.

Merriam-Webster disagrees, FWIW.

I should have added that it is not a term used in this sort of linguistic or grammatical context in English.

That appears to be mostly true (it's also not in the OED in the grammatical sense, I should add), but there are a few examples of Swedes, Norwegians and Germans using the term in English language publications.

Some examples:
https://brill.com/display/book/97890474 ... 1-s015.xml
https://journals.lub.lu.se/LWPL/article ... /2088/5167
https://norwegian-courses.co.uk/norwegi ... -and-hvis/

[Travis B.]

This thread is the first place I've seen the term "subjunction"; this simply is not a term in English. This is akin to referring to the English subjunctive as the "conjunctive" because German uses "Konjunktiv" to refer to the subjunctive in German.

I don't think think it's exactly the same thing. As far as I'm aware German Konjunktiv, Swedish konjunktiv and English subjunctive are exactly equivalent, so this is just different languages using different words for the same category. The term subjunktion, as used in many modern Swedish grammars, involves a slightly different way of classifying parts-of-speech. Under this system, konjunktioner and subjunktioner are not subclasses of a larger word class, but rather major word classes on the same level as nouns, verbs, prepositions etc. So this is not just using different words, this is also subtle difference in grammatical theory.

I think the German tradition uses the term Subjunktion as well, and apparently sometimes also Subjunktor, Konjunktor, Adjunktor and just Junktor, which I would be interested to know more about.

Merriam-Webster disagrees, FWIW.

I should have added that it is not a term used in this sort of linguistic or grammatical context in English.

That appears to be mostly true (it's also not in the OED in the grammatical sense, I should add), but there are a few examples of Swedes, Norwegians and Germans using the term in English language publications.

Some examples:
https://brill.com/display/book/97890474 ... 1-s015.xml
https://journals.lub.lu.se/LWPL/article ... /2088/5167
https://norwegian-courses.co.uk/norwegi ... -and-hvis/

This is akin to how in English there are the continents of North America and South America, and them together are referred to as the Americas, but in Spanish they are considered one continent, América, and some individuals under the influence of the Spanish usage insist that the 'correct' name of the Americas is America even in English, and that the use of America to refer to the United States in English is American imperialism.

[Ephraim]

This is akin to how in English there are the continents of North America and South America, and them together are referred to as the Americas, but in Spanish they are considered one continent, América, and some individuals under the influence of the Spanish usage insist that the 'correct' name of the Americas is America even in English, and that the use of America to refer to the United States in English is American imperialism.

Yes, it’s kind of akin to that, except with less political implications!

But in some contexts, classification matters. Classifying parts-of-speech is a part of linguistics, and not necessarily strictly tied to the language of the linguistic text. Different English language authors can, and do, use slightly different classification systems. And as mentioned, Swedish language grammars may also use the system where “underordnande konjunktioner” (subordinating conjunctions) and “samordnande konjunktioner” (coordinating conjunctions) are grouped under a single word class “konjunktioner”. This is more traditional and I think it’s what I was taught in school.

Much of this is probably true for classifying continents as well, and it’s not necessarily the case that speakers of a single language agree here either. I think older Swedish speakers might say that “Amerika” is one “världsdel” and “kontinent” (this distinction is not really found in English) but younger speaker may say that “Nordamerika” and “Sydamerika” are separate (not sure about this though). This is not really a political question here, I think there may just have been a shift at some point in how it was taught in schools.

[Qwynegold]

I think subjunctions are mostly not classified as a subcategory of conjunctions. Rather, when the term is used, the term conjunction is reserved for coordinating conjunctions, and they are seen as separate word classes. At least that seems to be how modern Swedish grammars do it. This can be a bit confusing though, since traditionally it was common to use konjunktion for both and distinguish samordnande konjunktioner and underordnande konjunktioner, much like in English.

https://frageladan.isof.se/faqs/26892

Ohh, that must be where the confusion comes from. Thanks!

[Qwynegold]

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

Ah, that map was shown briefly in the TV show I watched. Now that I got a better look at it, it seems like there is a correlation in South America, but not so much elsewhere. But it's hard to tell with that small picture.

[linguistcat]

Anyone studying or having studied Classical Chinese: Tell me your preferred reconstruction of Middle Chinese, and why? I've been using Pulleyblank's which is fine, but it's based strongly one on'yomi from Japanese and isn't as interesting for the conlang I'm working on.

[Travis B.]

Anyone studying or having studied Classical Chinese: Tell me your preferred reconstruction of Middle Chinese, and why? I've been using Pulleyblank's which is fine, but it's based strongly one on'yomi from Japanese and isn't as interesting for the conlang I'm working on.

My problem with Middle Chinese reconstructions is that A) almost all syllables seem to include palatal glides while B) the same characters that correspond to syllables that allegedly have palatal glides are used to transcribe foreign names that do not have palatal glides.

[bradrn]

Anyone studying or having studied Classical Chinese: Tell me your preferred reconstruction of Middle Chinese, and why? I've been using Pulleyblank's which is fine, but it's based strongly one on'yomi from Japanese and isn't as interesting for the conlang I'm working on.

My problem with Middle Chinese reconstructions is that A) almost all syllables seem to include palatal glides while B) the same characters that correspond to syllables that allegedly have palatal glides are used to transcribe foreign names that do not have palatal glides.

I could have sworn we discussed this before… and indeed: viewtopic.php?p=108334#p108334

[linguistcat]

Anyone studying or having studied Classical Chinese: Tell me your preferred reconstruction of Middle Chinese, and why? I've been using Pulleyblank's which is fine, but it's based strongly one on'yomi from Japanese and isn't as interesting for the conlang I'm working on.

My problem with Middle Chinese reconstructions is that A) almost all syllables seem to include palatal glides while B) the same characters that correspond to syllables that allegedly have palatal glides are used to transcribe foreign names that do not have palatal glides.

I could have sworn we discussed this before… and indeed: viewtopic.php?p=108334#p108334

Not quite the same as what I asked but I'll count this as a vote for Baxter-Sagart, for being less ridiculous than others.

[Travis B.]

My problem with Middle Chinese reconstructions is that A) almost all syllables seem to include palatal glides while B) the same characters that correspond to syllables that allegedly have palatal glides are used to transcribe foreign names that do not have palatal glides.

I could have sworn we discussed this before… and indeed: viewtopic.php?p=108334#p108334

Not quite the same as what I asked but I'll count this as a vote for Baxter-Sagart, for being less ridiculous than others.

The problem with Baxter-Sagart is that, to my knowledge, there are no signs of the pharyngealization it posits in the rest of Tibeto-Burman, so, if TB is a sister of Sinitic, pharyngealization must have been completely lost early on in TB, or even worse, if Sinitic is a daughter of TB, pharyngealization must have been completely lost in all other sister branches of TB.

There are other hypotheses for explaining the distinction between Type A and Type B syllables, such as a vowel length distinction or a prosody distinction.

[bradrn]

I could have sworn we discussed this before… and indeed: viewtopic.php?p=108334#p108334

Not quite the same as what I asked but I'll count this as a vote for Baxter-Sagart, for being less ridiculous than others.

The problem with Baxter-Sagart is that, to my knowledge, there are no signs of the pharyngealization it posits in the rest of Tibeto-Burman

Nort has discussed before how some Tibeto-Burman languages do indeed have a pharyngealisation (or uvularisation or velarisation) distinction in vowels, so it’s not implausible.

[Travis B.]

Not quite the same as what I asked but I'll count this as a vote for Baxter-Sagart, for being less ridiculous than others.

The problem with Baxter-Sagart is that, to my knowledge, there are no signs of the pharyngealization it posits in the rest of Tibeto-Burman

Nort has discussed before how some Tibeto-Burman languages do indeed have a pharyngealisation (or uvularisation or velarisation) distinction in vowels, so it’s not implausible.

If this points at an inherited +/-ARGH distinction in PST, it sounds more likely that it would have originally been on the vowels in pre-Sinitic (as otherwise why would +/-ARGH be on the vowels rather than the consonants in the rest of TB?).