English questions

[Darren]

I have heard it suggested that the Pirahã suddenly starting to use /tʙ̥/ around Everett was literally just a joke. Like they were bored and wanted to fuck with him so they started sticking raspberries in random words.

Isn’t it also seen in Wariʼ, at least?

Yeah. And Oro Win.

EDIT: looking it up, apparently it occurs allophonically in Ubykh, too. (Although Wikipedia gives no source, which makes it suspicious.)

Well, [tʷ ~ tp] is attested in NWCaucasian and it's a short step to /tʙ/.

Bilabially trilled coronal affricates (advibrates?) are found fairly frequently in Sino-Tibetan too; some language (can't remember which, Nort would know) has synchronic /ⁿdə/ → [ⁿdʙv̩]. Wikipedia says Namuyi has a full set of bilabially trilled affricates /pʙ bʙ tʙ dʙ/ but it's unsourced (well it's sourced, but this source literally just says "namuyi has forty consonants"), but there's undoubtedly some language in that area which it's phonemic in. It doesn't seem like /tʙ/ is particularly un-robust.

[Nortaneous]

Bilabially trilled coronal affricates (advibrates?) are found fairly frequently in Sino-Tibetan too; some language (can't remember which, Nort would know) has synchronic /ⁿdə/ → [ⁿdʙv̩]. Wikipedia says Namuyi has a full set of bilabially trilled affricates /pʙ bʙ tʙ dʙ/ but it's unsourced (well it's sourced, but this source literally just says "namuyi has forty consonants"), but there's undoubtedly some language in that area which it's phonemic in. It doesn't seem like /tʙ/ is particularly un-robust.

Frequently relative to base rates, certainly. Sangtam has a set of labial-coronals /t͡ʙ̥ t͡ʙ̥ʰ n͡m/. There's a vowel traditionally transcribed <v̩> (sometimes <ꭒ> by analogy to <ɿ>) that can condition bilabial trilling after preceding coronals. (cf. NWC /tʷ kʷ/ [t͡p kʷ])

I'm not familiar with /ⁿdə/ → [ⁿdʙv̩], but it looks plausible. Somewhere in Angami-Ao maybe? Eatough's analysis of Liangshan Yi has /ⁿdu/ → [ⁿdʙv̩ʷ], but his /u/ is never realized as [‌u] - he claims Liangshan Yi doesn't have phonetic high vowels.

[Darren]

Bilabially trilled coronal affricates (advibrates?) are found fairly frequently in Sino-Tibetan too; some language (can't remember which, Nort would know) has synchronic /ⁿdə/ → [ⁿdʙv̩]. Wikipedia says Namuyi has a full set of bilabially trilled affricates /pʙ bʙ tʙ dʙ/ but it's unsourced (well it's sourced, but this source literally just says "namuyi has forty consonants"), but there's undoubtedly some language in that area which it's phonemic in. It doesn't seem like /tʙ/ is particularly un-robust.

Frequently relative to base rates, certainly. Sangtam has a set of labial-coronals /t͡ʙ̥ t͡ʙ̥ʰ n͡m/. There's a vowel traditionally transcribed <v̩> (sometimes <ꭒ> by analogy to <ɿ>) that can condition bilabial trilling after preceding coronals. (cf. NWC /tʷ kʷ/ [t͡p kʷ])

I'm not familiar with /ⁿdə/ → [ⁿdʙv̩], but it looks plausible. Somewhere in Angami-Ao maybe? Eatough's analysis of Liangshan Yi has /ⁿdu/ → [ⁿdʙv̩ʷ], but his /u/ is never realized as [‌u] - he claims Liangshan Yi doesn't have phonetic high vowels.

It must be Liangshan Yi I was thinking of, thanks. 'Tis the same language which produces /m̥m͡l˧sz˧/ and /ʃʲʒʲ/ and such.

[Travis B.]

I had assumed the presence of [t] in second, as in /ˈsɛkənd/ [ˈsɜkɘ̃ːnt], was simple English final devoicing, but today I noticed that my daughter has [ˈsɜkɘ̃ʔ] for it, at least at times, which presumably reflects underlying /ˈsɛkənt/. Any thoughts on this? I cannot recall any other words in English with such a change of final /d/ to /t/, and not just [d] to [t], in the speech of native speakers in this fashion.

[bradrn]

Here’s a really interesting English sentence I was presented with recently:

1. If I hadn’t’ve had that cake, it would’ve gone mouldy.

This flagrantly disobeys the English prohibition on modal stacking… but yet, it still seems acceptable to me (at least colloquially). Others seem to agree that it’s acceptable.

It even works, to some extent, if you expand out the contraction:

2. ? If I hadn’t have had that cake, it would’ve gone mouldy.

But, on the other hand, the presence of -n’t seems to be key here:

3. ?? If I had not have had that cake, it would’ve gone mouldy.
4. * If I had have had that cake, it would’ve gone mouldy.

Another oddity here is that the second ‘have’ is indeed have, and not had. Normally, we would expect the first have to place the second one in past participle form, as follows:

5. ?? If I hadn’t had had that cake, it would’ve gone mouldy.

But I’m pretty sure this isn’t acceptable to me.

My best guess as to what’s happening is that ‘if I hadn’t’ is becoming something of a set phrase, independent of the rest of the clause:

6. [If I hadn’t] [have had that cake], it would’ve gone mouldy.

But that doesn’t explain why other verbs still need the participle:

7. If I hadn’t gone to Paris, I would still be in Sydney.
8. * If I hadn’t go to Paris, I would still be in Sydney.

Also, it doesn’t work with all modals, only ‘have’:

2′. ? If I hadn’t have_PTCP had that cake, it would’ve gone mouldy.
9. If I hadn’t been_PTCP staying with Joan over the holidays, I would have missed the party.
10. * If I hadn’t be_INF staying with Joan over the holidays, I would have missed the party.

Any suggestions as to what’s happening here?

[Estav]

Here’s a really interesting English sentence I was presented with recently:

1. If I hadn’t’ve had that cake, it would’ve gone mouldy.

I don't know exactly how acceptable I would judge it, but I can imagine hearing it.

As far as syntax goes, I remember reading that some linguists have proposed that the stigmatized use of "of" spellings in contexts like "You shouldn't of had that cake" represents an actual reinterpretation of the word, where it no longer functions synchronically as a reduced pronunciation of have (I don't recall the details of this account). Maybe you are actually dealing with "If I hadn't of had that cake."

[bradrn]

As far as syntax goes, I remember reading that some linguists have proposed that the stigmatized use of "of" spellings in contexts like "You shouldn't of had that cake" represents an actual reinterpretation of the word, where it no longer functions synchronically as a reduced pronunciation of have (I don't recall the details of this account). Maybe you are actually dealing with "If I hadn't of had that cake."

This seems quite plausible to me. But then, I wonder what determines the range of the expanded of? Where can it appear, and where can’t it appear?