Syntax Wars — The saga continues …
omg
cherry valley forever
sheepfilms
Xuebing Du

Product Placement

No title available
YOU ARE THE REASON
Show & Tell

roma★
hello vonnie

tannertan36
Fai_Ryy
Noah Kahan
RMH
he wasn't even looking at me and he found me
Monterey Bay Aquarium

Janaina Medeiros

oozey mess

❣ Chile in a Photography ❣
NASA
Aqua Utopia|海の底で記憶を紡ぐ
seen from Netherlands

seen from United States
seen from United States

seen from Canada
seen from Poland
seen from South Africa
seen from Malaysia

seen from Singapore
seen from Colombia
seen from United States

seen from United States

seen from United States
seen from United States

seen from United States

seen from United States
seen from Malaysia

seen from United States
seen from Chile
seen from Germany
seen from United States
@ringuist
Syntax Wars — The saga continues …
omg
Gretchen: If you look at what kids actually do when they’re exposed to fragmented or incomplete linguistic input, they actually create full-fledged languages from kind of bizarre or difficult linguistic circumstances. Lauren: A really famous example is Nicaraguan Sign Language. The fact that we’ve taken until episode 7 to talk about it is actually pretty impressive, because it’s such a great go-to anecdote for linguists, and it’s such an amazing thing that happened. In the 70s and 80s in Nicaragua there was a change in policy that meant that a lot of deaf children suddenly came together at school, instead of being isolated and using their own home sign or maybe a local village sign language. Over the course of a couple of generations, these children went from all having kind of only a rudimentary communicative system to developing what is now considered to be a fully fledged language, which is Nicaraguan Sign Language. There are around three thousand users of that sign language now, and the language has been studied since its birth since the 1970s. There have been people watching the evolution of this language and how children can use limited resources and inputs to create something really sophisticated. Gretchen: It teaches us a lot about human children’s capacity for language. It’s not just that kids aren’t speaking some “bad” version of English now, but it’s actually that if ever we have disrupted linguistic transmission, it’s going to be the kids that save us. They’re not going to bring us back to what we had before, but they’re going to make a fully fledged linguistic system that’s capable of complex ideas and complex thoughts, even if the adults mess it up! If kids were just doing exactly what adults do, then language would be brittle and fragile. But because they change it each generation, language is incredibly resilient! And this brings us back to a point from episode one, where we talked about the language of space. Lauren: And Space Pidgin! Gretchen: And how the American and the Russian astronauts and cosmonauts use each other’s languages, and end up using this hybrid English-Russian pidgin to communicate with each other. But because all the astronauts so far have been adults this is kind of an incomplete, fragmented English-Russian hybrid space pidgin. However, if and when we go to Mars, if the astronauts and the cosmonauts got together and had some space babies…. Lauren: If there were children… Gretchen: Then these Space Babies would grow up exposed to Space Pidgin and they would turn it into Space Creole. Lauren: And it would actually develop more sophisticated grammatical structures, the children would take the input that they get and turn it into a more fully fledged linguistic system. So the kids in space are going to be okay. Gretchen: The kids in space are going to be okay, the kids on earth are going to be okay, we’re all okay! Also, someone needs to write this story about space babies, I would like to read it. Lauren: I would definitely love to read about babies in space standardising English-Russian pidgin into a creole.
Excerpt from Episode 7 of Lingthusiasm: Kids these days aren’t ruining language. Listen to the full episode, read the transcript, or check out the show notes for links to further reading.
See also the original Space Pidgin quote from Episode 1, or listen to the full episode.
(via lingthusiasm)
If future generations start revering a Space Pigeon, this is where it came from
(via elodieunderglass)
welcome to harvard: linguistics 101
You only need ~200 words to talk about everyday things
This is part of my guide on how to start learning a language quickly and efficiently. You can find the whole guide here. Please fill out this quick survey to let me know whether you’d like a Memrise course based on the guide.
If you learn just 200 well-chosen words in your target language, then you can talk about most everyday things. (By “words”, I really mean lemmas, i.e. I’m counting “run” and “runs” as one word.) When trying to talk about a topic, there will probably be a few key words that you don’t know, but you can ask for or look up those words and then use them for the rest of the time that you’re talking about the topic. You can see an example of how using the 200 words works.
* Note 1: Being able to speak doesn’t mean that you’ll immediately be able to listen to and understand the language. See note #2 on the guide. However, you can have conversations if the other person slows down and speaks simply, and you can also practice writing.
Here’s the list of 200. I hope it’s a useful guideline and starting point for you. I may revise it, so please refer to the original post for the most up-to-date version. In addition to these general words, there will probably be some others that will be among the most useful for you (e.g. “class” if you’re a student). When you find yourself using them again and again, learn them too.
* Note 2: You should really think of this as a list of concepts. Your goal isn’t to translate each word to a word in your target language, but to figure out how to express that concept in your target language. In some cases, a concept may translate to multiple words (for example, I listed “you” as a concept, but in some languages there are different words for “formal you” and “informal you”). Some concepts may translate to no word at all, but rather a certain grammatical structure (for example, Russian doesn’t use the verb “have”; to say “I have a cat” in Russian, you say “at me there is a cat”).
Use a dictionary to find out how to express these concepts in your target language (for some subtleties, you may need to google or ask in a forum). You can then use Anki to memorize the words. Learn to be able to go from the concept to the word in your target language, not the other way around; you want to be able to produce the word, not just recognize it. You should also learn how to pronounce your target language. To hear native speakers pronounce words in your target language, check out Forvo.
—
This list has been translated into: Afrikaans, Dutch, Esperanto, Finnish, French, German, Hungarian, Icelandic, Norwegian.
If you’d like to translate this list into another language, please do! :) Just include a link back to this post, and let me know when you’re done so that I can link to your list here.
—
Verbs
To start, I suggest memorizing the infinitive form of these verbs and their present and past tense “I” conjugations.
be
there is
have
do
create (aka “make”)
cause (aka “make”)
go
say
speak
know
Keep reading
I have some interesting notes on this list from a linguistic-y standpoint! Basically just cool stuff!
Verbs
In Japanese, some of the verbs listed here, such as “want,” are conjugated with another verb or act more like adjectives.
There is at least one language, I believe, where to give and to receive is generally the same verb.
I’m not sure be is a verb, actually; I believe it mostly attaches to verbs, and so it’d be harder to translate into some languages
Conjunctions
The ‘that’ examples given here fill two entirely different linguistic roles, even in English! “I think that” precedes an entire phrase that (usually) would be valid as a sentence on its own, and then you have a complete sentence, for instance: “I think that dogs chase cats.” On the other hand, “The woman that” would have a verb and maybe an object after it, like “The woman that won” or “The woman that won the race,” but not a fully valid sentence. In addition, you have to add a new verb and object (in English) to make a sentence from it, like “The woman that won bowed to her parents.” In some (maybe even most?) languages, these would be entirely different words.
Adjectives and adverbs
While the concepts do exist and can be expressed in some way, in Japanese there is (supposedly) no more than___ less than____, although something meaning “number one” can be used to mean most or best.
Some of the items in the adjectives list are called determiners in English, and aren’t necessary in all languages (unlike in English!) [if you’re interested, you can have multiple adjectives, like big green car, but not multiple determiners, like the a car or the some car]
Nouns
just as a warning, if you’re learning a language try to determine if it has counters. In English we have a few items we need a counter for, like grains of sand or x weight/volume of sand (not just 1 sand, 4 sands). Some languages have a lot, and some have a generic counter you can use so you don’t need to learn all of them right away!
Some languages, like Korean, have many, many more terms for even close family like uncles and grandparents than we do--and some have less. I think I’d recommend looking for a family tree in your language instead of trying to translate any one specific term. In general, also, many languages have different terms depending on the relation to your father or mother they have, and whether someone is younger or older than you, so that’s the main things to look for.
While they aren’t here, especially if you want to look for critique, “sentence” is another useful noun! (Is this sentence good? What is wrong with this sentence?)
And lastly a comment based on my own language-learning: while you want to learn these 200ish concepts, the Leipzig-Jakarta list has 100 mostly common or basic terms including some of these, and having this list handy in case they come up might be better than looking through a dictionary potentially multiple times to remember “dog” or “red.”
So you know what I don’t get? Why people repeat words. (x)
Grammar time: it’s called “contrastive reduplication,” and it’s a form of intensification that is relatively common. Finnish does a very similar thing, and others use near-reduplication (rhyme-based) to intensify, like Hungarian (pici ‘tiny’, ici-pici ‘very tiny’).
Even the typologically-distant group of Bantu languages utilize reduplication in a strikingly similar fashion with nouns: Kinande oku-gulu ‘leg’, oku-gulu-gulu ‘a REAL leg’ (Downing 2001, includes more with verbal reduplication as well).
I suppose the difficult aspect of English reduplication is not through this particular type, but the fact that it utilizes many other types of reduplication: baby talk (choo-choo, no-no), rhyming (teeny-weeny, super-duper), and the ever-famous “shm” reduplication: fancy-schmancy (a way of denying the claim that something is fancy).
screams my professor was trying to find an example of reduplication so the next class he came back and said “I FOUND REDUPLICATION IN ENGLISH” and then he said “Milk milk” and everyone was just “what?” and he said “you know when you go to a coffee shop and they ask if you want soy milk and you say ‘no i want milk milk’” and everyone just had this collective sigh of understanding.
Another name for this particular construction is contrastive focus reduplication, and there’s a famous linguistics paper about it which is commonly known as the Salad Salad Paper. You know, because if you want to make it clear that you’re not talking about pasta salad or potato salad, you might call it “salad salad”. The repetition indicates that you’re intending the most prototypical meaning of the word, like green salad or cow’s milk, even though other things can be considered types of salad or milk.
Can I make love to this post?… Is that a thing that’s possible?
Rabbits: oh gods. Fae, What do you call a unique and cool phoneme from another language?
Fae: hmm?
Rabbits: phonemenol.
Fae: agh
This just in: /p/ "doesn't care" about dorsal features/where the tongue is
I can't even rn (From Beyond, Between : Translation, Ghosts, and Metaphors by Michael Emmerich)
" "You're making me cry so dreadfully" has a faintly remote lavendar flavour " Oh, language books. Lavendar isn't for tasting!
How not to translate: "Having had well-bucket taken away by convulvuli -- gift-water"
Read Noam Choamsky on the shitter!!
Fellow linguist
Excerpt from "Authority and American Usage"
"But the really salient and ingenious features of A Dictionary of Modern American Usage involve issues of rhetoric and ideology and style and it is impossible to describe why these issues are important and why Garner's management of them borders on genius without talking about the historical context in which ADMAU appears, and this context turns out to be a veritable hurricane of controversies involving everything from technical linguistics and public education to political ideology, and these controversies take a certain amount of time to unpack before their relation to what makes Garner's dictionary so eminently worth [it] can even be established; and in fact there's no way to even begin the whole harrowing polymeric discussion without first taking a moment
to establish and define the highly colloquial term SNOOT"
[W]e can prove that invariant be is not random, because it minds its grammatical manners.
Spoken Soul
New blog!
I like language stuff, including linguistics and writing. So here's the blog for it. Please feel free to leave me anything interesting, reply to posts, make corrections, and start conversations :3
And, disclaimer: I'm no expert, but I am a human. I'm going to make mistakes a bunch, please be forgiving c: