Re: The reform of linguistics

Forbes — Tue, 16 May 2006 14:44:13 GMT

Imagine a language in which:

âThe man hit the table with a stickâ is

âCopoloteko tipadela tisadure asutariki bu.â

In this sentence

co = a classifier indicating that we are talking about something animate

polo = man

te = a nominative case marker

ko = the speaker wishes to emphasise the word âmanâ

ti = a classifier indicating that we are talking about something inanimate

pade = table

la = accusative marker

ti = as above

sadu = stick

re = an instrumental case marker

a = a prefix indicating that the event took place in the recent past

suta = hit

ri = a suffix indicating that the subject of the sentence is animate

ki = a suffix indicating that the object of the sentence is inanimate

bu = a particle showing respect to the person addressed

If we substitute a completely different set of phonemes throughout, so that for example âcopolotekoâ becomes âdasazaviwuâ, the morphology and syntax have not been changed. We can go a step further and make all the syllables closed so that we have âdansaszarvitwunâ, or again go further still and introduce some consonant clusters to produce âdranspaszarvlistwunâ. In each case the phonology of the language is different, but the morphology and syntax are identical.

Now of course changes in the phonology of a language go hand in hand with changes in its morphology: a classic case is where case endings for nouns are weakened and eventually dropped. But what you seem to be saying, and please correct me if I am wrong, is that you can predict the morphology and syntax of a language from its phonology. In particular, you seem to be suggesting that if a language has a small inventory of phonemes and a simple phonology (that is all syllables must be of the form V or CV or CVC where the final C is restricted to, say, /m/ /n/ and /Å/) the language must be analytic, isolating, monosyllabic and have significant tonality.

If we take Spanish, it is a language with a comparatively simple phonology. It has only five vowels and the total number of phonemes is about the same as in Mandarin Chinese. The range of consonant clusters is restricted to initial C1C2 where C2 has to be /l/ or /r/. Syllables may only end in a vowel or /Ã°/, /l/, /n/, /r/, /s/ and /Î¸/ and even then the /Ã°/, /r/, and /s/ are weak and even disappear in some speakers/varieties with /Î¸/ becoming /s/. Whilst Spanish is less synthetic than Latin, from which it derives, it is not isolating, certainly not monosyllabic and does not have significant tonality, at least not at the lexical level, though the difference between statements and questions is often marked only by intonation. Thus we have Spanish and Chinese with broadly similar phonologies (except of course that the phoneme inventories are different) but which are otherwise completely different from each other. It may also be noted that whilst French has a far greater number of phonemes and a more complex phonology than Spanish, Spanish and French have a similar morphology and syntax (at least compared to other non-Romance languages).

Unless I have completely misunderstood what you are saying, what seems to be the sum of your argument is that simple phonology equals simple language equals simple mind, which is a contention I cannot possibly accept.

Re: Singular & plural words

JoeTotale — Mon, 19 Dec 2005 23:44:16 GMT

It's been said before, but here's the fully-detailed (too-much-detailed) explanation of octopus. Don't worry if you get confused; this is more for the English-speakers who are confused about the whole matter:

"Octopus" comes from the Greek roots "okto" (eight) and "pous" (foot). It's a Latinized spelling, which is why the "ou" got changed to a "u" (see also "Constantinople" for "Konstantinoupolis"). The "-us" ending leads many people to believe that it's a second-declension Latin noun, but it's not. It's Greek third-declension, the root of which is "pod-":

The singular nominative was originally "pods", but the language evolved so that "ts", "ds", and "ths" all became "s". To compensate for the lost consonant, the preceding short vowel was lengthened (so "pods" > "poos", or "pous"). The rest of the declension -- "podos", "podi", and "poda" in the singular -- was unchanged, because there was no S to take away the D. The plural goes "podes", "podon", "pousi" (from "podsi"), and "podas". Therefore, going by Greek standards, the plural of "oktopous" would be "oktopodes" (or "octopus" > "octopodes").

The reason you don't see more "pus"/"pous" spellings is that, during the Renaissance, words tended to be derived from the undeclined roots themselves and not from the declined nominatives. A camera therefore rests on a tripod, not a tripodes.

Incidentally, "cactus" is another word that people assume to be Latin and make "cacti" the plural. The original word is "kaktos", the plural of which is "kaktoi".

So you can be pedantic and insist on "octopodes" and "cactoi"; you can be foolish and insist on "octopi" and "cacti"; or you can take a much preferable middle ground and just say "octopuses" and "cactuses" and leave all the silly etymological stuff for the people who care way too much about it.

Interestingly enough, the only areas where people do apparently care about Greek plurals is in dental-stem neuter nouns of the third declension. Take the root "dogmat-", for example. To form the singular, you add nothing to the stem (dogmat), and since Greek words can end only in N, S, or a vowel, the T disappears (dogma). To form the plural, you add an A to the stem (dogmata). (Stigma/stigmata is another example) There are few of these words but oddly enough, it comes off as uneducated not to know them. (if you're really interested, the "dogmat-" stem holds through the rest of the declension: dogmatos, dogmati, etc.)

Search results for 'tag:Nominative tag:Consonants' matching tags 'Nominative' and 'Consonants'

Re: The reform of linguistics

Re: Singular & plural words