There are 15 messages in this issue.
Topics in this digest:
1.1. Re: OT YAEPT -omp, -onk
From: Adam Walker
1.2. Re: OT YAEPT -omp, -onk
From: Herman Miller
1.3. Re: OT YAEPT -omp, -onk
From: Sai
1.4. Re: OT YAEPT -omp, -onk
From: Roger Mills
1.5. Re: OT YAEPT -omp, -onk
From: Roger Mills
2a. re Father-Bother, Cot-Caught
From: John H. Chalmers
2b. Re: re Father-Bother, Cot-Caught
From: Cosman246
3a. Re: Why are there fewer female than male conlangers?
From: Elena ``of Valhalla''
3b. Re: Why are there fewer female than male conlangers?
From: Leonardo Castro
4a. Re: Conlang the Movie
From: Sai
5a. Re: vowels: five to three?
From: Leonardo Castro
6a. Ancient languages reconstructed by computer program
From: Петр Кларк
6b. Re: Ancient languages reconstructed by computer program
From: Roger Mills
7.1. Re: OT YAEPT conch (was YAEPT -omp, -onk)
From: Roger Mills
8.1. Re: Field vs armchair linguistics (was:OT YAEPT -omp, -onk_
From: Roger Mills
Messages
________________________________________________________________________
1.1. Re: OT YAEPT -omp, -onk
Posted by: "Adam Walker" [email protected]
Date: Tue Feb 12, 2013 8:06 pm ((PST))
According to my 1953 Webster's the ch pronunciation is "formerly and
still by some." So it used to be a thing, but it's like totally not
any more.
Adam
On 2/12/13, Tim Smith <[email protected]> wrote:
> On 2/12/2013 4:52 PM, Randy Frueh wrote:
>> On Feb 12, 2013 1:22 PM, "Alex Fink" <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>
>>> On Tue, 12 Feb 2013 11:10:56 -0800, Gary Shannon <[email protected]>
>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> I looked it up in several online dictionaries and apparently everyone
>>>> else pronounces it /k/. All I can say about that is that clearly
>>>> everyone else is wrong! ;-)
>>>
>>> Yeah, that's sò not my reaction when I discover a (historical) spelling
>> pronunciation in my own usage. My reaction is more like "kill the mutant
>> with fire! restore my lect to a state of righteousness!". It should be
>> no
>> surprise that for me "conch" is /kANk/; I don't remember if I ever had
>> /tS/
>> there. (I merge cot & caught, so am not a data point for And.)
>>>
>>> Alex
>>
>> I have always said it with the ch- as in church as well... however, I
>> don't
>> think that I've ever heard the word spoken. I'm from the midwest so it
>> doesn't come up in common conversation often.
>> ~totally horrified at the thought of having mispronounced it~
>>
>
> You haven't been mispronouncing it! I've just looked in two print
> dictionaries (as opposed to online dictionaries), and they both show
> both pronunciations (although they both list the /Nk/ pronunciation
> first, indicating that it's "preferred" (but preferred by whom?)).
>
> Admittedly they're both rather old dictionaries: The Random House
> Dictionary of the English Language, College Edition, 1969, and the
> American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language, 1970. So it's
> conceivable that the /tS/ pronunciation has become less accepted over
> the past four decades or so. Are the people who say /kAntS/ (I'm one of
> them, and I'm 63) older on average than those who say /kANk/? (I have
> to say, though, that this strikes me as unlikely. I would expect a
> spelling pronunciation to get _more_ accepted over time, not less.)
>
> - Tim
>
Messages in this topic (36)
________________________________________________________________________
1.2. Re: OT YAEPT -omp, -onk
Posted by: "Herman Miller" [email protected]
Date: Tue Feb 12, 2013 8:15 pm ((PST))
On 2/12/2013 5:17 PM, And Rosta wrote:
> The likeliest form of (4b) is (4c):
> (4c) FATHER in all -omp words and some -onk words and CAUGHT in other
> -onk words.
>
> I presume -ong words pattern with -onk words.
All -ong words have the CAUGHT vowel for me.
> I had been trying to work out how many phonologically short vowels North
> American accents have. There are grounds for counting only 5 (KIT,
> DRESS, TRAP, STRUT, FOOT), or for counting 6, or (especially for (4b/c)
> dialects) for counting 7. (Not counting extras due to e.g. BAD/LAD split.)
I'd count only the 5 you've mentioned, but then CAUGHT would be the only
"long" vowel that can appear before /ŋ/ (not counting foreign
borrowings). (Historically it would have been the CLOTH vowel.)
> My tally of responses (based on info given in responses):
> Zach (1)
> Tony (2) [perplexing! -- Tony: what words have the COT vowel? Sob? Bomb?
> Blond? Sconce? Mop? Or does BOTHER not have the COT vowel?]
> Tim (4a)
> Stevo (4a)
> Roger (4a) ((4c) counting _conch_)
> Allison (4a) ((4c) counting _conch_)
> Gary (4c)
> Herman (4c)
>
> For the 4c-ers, it seems as though the incidence of FATHER in -onk --
> and -ong?? -- is sufficiently rare that they might be considered special
> exceptions (like e.g. _boing_ and _oink_ are).
There are few enough -onk words as it is, but I think probably (for me)
the majority are pronounced with CAUGHT exclusively, and the others can
be pronounced either way. So it seems fair to treat them as exceptions.
Messages in this topic (36)
________________________________________________________________________
1.3. Re: OT YAEPT -omp, -onk
Posted by: "Sai" [email protected]
Date: Wed Feb 13, 2013 2:50 am ((PST))
And:
I suck at describing phonology, so here's a recording:
http://saizai.com/and_words.m4a
Enjoy,
Sai
Messages in this topic (36)
________________________________________________________________________
1.4. Re: OT YAEPT -omp, -onk
Posted by: "Roger Mills" [email protected]
Date: Wed Feb 13, 2013 7:49 am ((PST))
--- On Tue, 2/12/13, And Rosta <[email protected]> wrote:
Big thanks to respondents. And also for the forbearance of everybody else.
RM And thanks to you for this very interesting summary...
(snips)
I realized as soon as I'd sent the message that I should have split statement
(4) into two, and responses bear this out.
>> (4) the FATHER vowel in some such words and the CAUGHT vowel in other such
>> words.
(4a) the FATHER vowel in -omp words (but not -onk words) and the CAUGHT vowel
in -onk words (but not -omp words).
(4b) FATHER in some -omp words and CAUGHT in others, and/or FATHER in some -onk
words and CAUGHT in others.
The likeliest form of (4b) is (4c):
(4c) FATHER in all -omp words and some -onk words and CAUGHT in other -onk
words.
RM not sure this is necessary-- FATHER vowel occurs only in "conch" [kaNk]
which as I suggest in another post is probably ult. a learnèd borrowing.
I presume -ong words pattern with -onk words.
RM abosolutely, at least in most American lects.
I had been trying to work out how many phonologically short vowels North
American accents have. There are grounds for counting only 5 (KIT, DRESS, TRAP,
STRUT, FOOT), or for counting 6, or (especially for (4b/c) dialects) for
counting 7. (Not counting extras due to e.g. BAD/LAD split.)
RM wouldn't British Engl. have a short vowel in "bath" [baT]? as opposed to US
[bæT]?
My tally of responses (based on info given in responses):
Zach (1)
Tony (2) [perplexing! -- Tony: what words have the COT vowel? Sob? Bomb? Blond?
Sconce? Mop? Or does BOTHER not have the COT vowel?]
RM I found his reply perplexing too, but know that some lects in New England
retain British-like distinctions not seen elsewhere in the US.
....
Roger (4a) ((4c) counting _conch_)
Allison (4a) ((4c) counting _conch_)
RM I think "conch" has to be considered an _exception_ to the 4a rule.
Messages in this topic (36)
________________________________________________________________________
1.5. Re: OT YAEPT -omp, -onk
Posted by: "Roger Mills" [email protected]
Date: Wed Feb 13, 2013 8:26 am ((PST))
--- On Tue, 2/12/13, And Rosta <[email protected]> wrote:
(re Tony Harris's reply....)
This has me trawling my bookshelves in search of info on Vermontese (but
without finding anything describing what you report).
RM I'll insert my basic Midwest US (but mind, when my parents for unknown
reasons sent me to a posh New England prep school, I was teased about my
accent, and changed a few things...)
So for you, _father, lava, calm, bother, [[ my "father" vowel is [A], some
people in the East have a bit of rounding. "lava" can vary between [æ ~ A]
depending on how careful I am ]], daughter, author, dawn_ have the same vowel,
[[ [O] here ]] and you have it in -omp and -onk words too, and this vowel is
different from the vowel in _sob, bomb, mop, cot_? [[ this is [A] for me]]
Fascinating. Which one is in _long, song, log, dog [[ all [O] ]], sock, watch,
squash, lodge, fond [[ all [A] ]] , moth, [[ [O] ]] folly, follow, fodder,
ponder, Don, [[ [A] ]] coffee, lost, often, boss [[ [O] ]] wasp, hosp(ital),
bosky, mosque_[[ all [A[ ]]
What a confounding mess!
=========================================
I hope I haven't added to the confusion. It just gets worser and worser :-)))
Messages in this topic (36)
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
2a. re Father-Bother, Cot-Caught
Posted by: "John H. Chalmers" [email protected]
Date: Tue Feb 12, 2013 9:54 pm ((PST))
I grew up in Lincoln, Nebraska, but have lived most of my life in either
Houston, Texas or San Diego, California, though I've also lived in the
Boston area (HS in Concord), NJ, Seattle, and the SF bay area. As near
as I can tell, I use the Father vowel in all -onk and omp words. The
Caught-vowel is fairly rare--caught, taut, awe, awful, taught, thought,
bought, ought are the only ones that come to mind and I'm not sure
about the ought words--I may vary them.
--john
Messages in this topic (2)
________________________________________________________________________
2b. Re: re Father-Bother, Cot-Caught
Posted by: "Cosman246" [email protected]
Date: Tue Feb 12, 2013 9:57 pm ((PST))
I'm a Seattlite. I merge cot-caught but not father-bother.
-Yash Tulsyan (yasht, cosman246)
http://cosman246.com
"Once men turned their thinking over to machines in the hope that this
would set them free. But that only permitted other men with machines to
enslave them." --Dune
"If voting changed anything, they'd make it illegal" -Emma Goldman
On Tue, Feb 12, 2013 at 9:54 PM, John H. Chalmers <[email protected]>wrote:
> I grew up in Lincoln, Nebraska, but have lived most of my life in either
> Houston, Texas or San Diego, California, though I've also lived in the
> Boston area (HS in Concord), NJ, Seattle, and the SF bay area. As near as I
> can tell, I use the Father vowel in all -onk and omp words. The
> Caught-vowel is fairly rare--caught, taut, awe, awful, taught, thought,
> bought, ought are the only ones that come to mind and I'm not sure about
> the ought words--I may vary them.
>
> --john
>
Messages in this topic (2)
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
3a. Re: Why are there fewer female than male conlangers?
Posted by: "Elena ``of Valhalla''" [email protected]
Date: Wed Feb 13, 2013 1:23 am ((PST))
On 2013-02-12 at 23:34:06 -0200, Leonardo Castro wrote:
> 2013/2/12 Sam Stutter <[email protected]>:
> > Compared to the literature component of my degree (2 guys in a lecture of
> > 50 people), linguistics was quite gender balanced (15 guys in a lecture of
> > 50).
>
> The closer a field of study is to an "exact science", the fewer
> females will be there. This is what should be explained.
except for mathematics [1]_ , where in my experience the gender balance
is quite natural (~50%), but you can see a strong difference
in the further career choices: most females will either remain
in an university environment or will become teachers, males
are the ones who go out doing math in the "real world".
.. [1] and I believe physics, but I have less experience there.
To me it looks more like a matter of socially acceptable career choice
than one related to the exactness of science.
--
Elena ``of Valhalla''
Messages in this topic (24)
________________________________________________________________________
3b. Re: Why are there fewer female than male conlangers?
Posted by: "Leonardo Castro" [email protected]
Date: Wed Feb 13, 2013 5:39 am ((PST))
2013/2/13 Elena ``of Valhalla'' <[email protected]>:
> On 2013-02-12 at 23:34:06 -0200, Leonardo Castro wrote:
>> 2013/2/12 Sam Stutter <[email protected]>:
>> > Compared to the literature component of my degree (2 guys in a lecture of
>> > 50 people), linguistics was quite gender balanced (15 guys in a lecture of
>> > 50).
>>
>> The closer a field of study is to an "exact science", the fewer
>> females will be there. This is what should be explained.
>
> except for mathematics [1]_ , where in my experience the gender balance
> is quite natural (~50%),
Yes, and it's almost the same proportion in Chemistry as well, in my
experience, while Physics, Engineering, Philosophy and Computer
Science show a percentage of males over 90%.
> but you can see a strong difference
> in the further career choices: most females will either remain
> in an university environment or will become teachers, males
> are the ones who go out doing math in the "real world".
I have reall noted that female Physicists are more inclined to
educational and pedagogic issues, while men prefer research that
doesn't involve understanding people.
>
> .. [1] and I believe physics, but I have less experience there.
It doesn't match my experience.
>
> To me it looks more like a matter of socially acceptable career choice
> than one related to the exactness of science.
It's the only good explanation I see, apart from claims of biological
tendencies (which made Lawrence Summers resign as Harvard's
president). I don't buy the explanation that there is a higher
hostility against females in the scientific environment, unless we
consider being in the spotlight of a lot of nerds as "hostility".
Besides, I can't see why similar phenomenon didn't happen in Medicine,
Law and Architecture, where females are currently the majority of the
students in the universities I know.
I think that the "prejudice" against females in Engineering and
Physics might happen outside the univeristy, not inside it. Actually,
when I was a student of a "Data Strucuture" class, once an Engineering
female student told us that her father was against her choice because
he didn't want her "among a lot of men".
>
> --
> Elena ``of Valhalla''
Messages in this topic (24)
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
4a. Re: Conlang the Movie
Posted by: "Sai" [email protected]
Date: Wed Feb 13, 2013 2:40 am ((PST))
/bcc Marta (the producer) re full version availability
You can find the trailer @ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_pLKShAI1m0
- Sai
On Mon, Feb 11, 2013 at 9:19 PM, Matthew A. Gurevitch <[email protected]> wrote:
> Dear Conlang-L,
>
> I know I am a few years late to ask about it, but would anyone happen to
> know where I could try and get a copy of Conlang the Movie? The website is
> not up, and I cannot find any way of contacting the creators. Thank you for
> your help.
>
> All my best,
> Matthew Gurevitch
>
>
>
>
Messages in this topic (8)
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
5a. Re: vowels: five to three?
Posted by: "Leonardo Castro" [email protected]
Date: Wed Feb 13, 2013 4:58 am ((PST))
2013/2/13 Douglas Koller <[email protected]>:
>> Date: Tue, 12 Feb 2013 23:41:00 -0200
>> From: [email protected]
>> Subject: Re: vowels: five to three?
>> To: [email protected]
>
>> 2013/2/12 Douglas Koller [email protected]:
>
>> >> Au, saule miu!
>> >
>> >> Ma n�atu saule
>> >> cchi� bellu, ai ne�
>> >> �au saule miu
>> >> sta nfraunte a ti!�
>> >> au saule
>> >> �au saule miu
>> >> sta nfraunte a ti,
>> >> sta nfraunte a ti!
>
>> > Sung to the tune of "Tsa na u niva"?
>
>> I didn't get it. It's just the refrain of "O sole mio!" with some
>> adaptations.
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/It's_Now_or_Never_(song)
>
> Kou
Ah! Naturally! How couldn't I get that?
Messages in this topic (22)
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
6a. Ancient languages reconstructed by computer program
Posted by: "Петр Кларк" [email protected]
Date: Wed Feb 13, 2013 6:36 am ((PST))
The BBC has an article (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-
environment-21427896) about computer reconstructions of proto-languages
(specifically Austronesian), with an 85% match with what linguists had
reconstructed "by hand". The full report is published in the Proceedings of
the National Academy of Science
(http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2013/02/05/1204678110) -- anyone have
access to it?
I'm a little curious if they did any sort of checking for accuracy; for
instance, inputing modern Romance langauges and seeing if the program spat out
Latin.
:Peter
Messages in this topic (2)
________________________________________________________________________
6b. Re: Ancient languages reconstructed by computer program
Posted by: "Roger Mills" [email protected]
Date: Wed Feb 13, 2013 8:54 am ((PST))
--- On Wed, 2/13/13, Петр Кларк <[email protected]> wrote:
The BBC has an article (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-
environment-21427896) about computer reconstructions of proto-languages
(specifically Austronesian), with an 85% match with what linguists had
reconstructed "by hand". The full report is published in the Proceedings of
the National Academy of Science
(http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2013/02/05/1204678110) -- anyone have
access to it?
=========================================
I'd sure like to, but can't get past the abstract......
However, two people on my AN-List commented, just sort-of semi-favorably.
One said-- QUOTE an interesting and technically sophisticated piece of work.
However,
note that their algorithm requires a tree as input and that their
inferences are still a long way from those of professionally trained
linguists. The
algorithm does better than just picking a reflex in an extant language,
but not by as much as one might hope. END QUOTE
One cited additional articles based on this (I haven't checked them out)--
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-21427896
http://www.nature.com/news/computer-program-roots-out-ancestors-of-modern-tongues-1.12407
http://phys.org/news/2013-02-computerized-rosetta-stone-reconstructs-ancient.html
http://news.yahoo.com/software-revives-dead-tongues-141348127.html=======================================
I'm a little curious if they did any sort of checking for accuracy; for
instance, inputing modern Romance langauges and seeing if the program spat out
Latin.
============================
Don't know; interesting idea.
Messages in this topic (2)
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
7.1. Re: OT YAEPT conch (was YAEPT -omp, -onk)
Posted by: "Roger Mills" [email protected]
Date: Wed Feb 13, 2013 6:56 am ((PST))
--- On Tue, 2/12/13, Randy Frueh <[email protected]> wrote:
I have always said it with the ch- as in church as well... however, I don't
think that I've ever heard the word spoken. I'm from the midwest so it
doesn't come up in common conversation often.
~totally horrified at the thought of having mispronounced it
==============================================
I too grew up in the midwest. Probably the only place we might have encountered
the word would have been in National Geographic articles about various native
tropical cultures-- especially marine-oriented or bare-breasted ;-) --, where
the conch shell can be used as a sort of horn. (They can be quite big, and
actually rather pretty.) I probably read it as [kOntS]. But in the 1980s I
began to holiday in Key West, where (Bahamian) conch fritters were very
popular, and the "Conch Train" trundled tourists around the town. It was
pronounced [kaNk]. That could well be a Key West peculiarity, adopted from the
many Caribbean islanders who lived there.
Maybe there are two acceptable pronunciations???? Otherwise, I don't think I've
ever heard the word spoken in an academic or other "learnèd" context. It's
probably a learnèd borrowing from the Latin name _concha_ for which Spanish has
a spelling pronunciation "concha" ['kontSa], which one would expect would be
the source of the Caribbean word. That seems contradictory.... (In both Span.
and Latin it's a rather generic term for various shellfish or their shells;
Lat. also "trumpet," and "purple" too, because it could refer to the murex,
acc'g to my little dictionary.) And of course, Latin "concha" is probably ult.
< Greek, in view of the non-Latin "ch" (which surely was pronounced [k] in
Latin).
Conch fritters aren't bad; but we once had IIRC spaghetti with a conch sauce,
and it was like encountering bits of rubber eraser in the sauce :-((((
Messages in this topic (36)
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
8.1. Re: Field vs armchair linguistics (was:OT YAEPT -omp, -onk_
Posted by: "Roger Mills" [email protected]
Date: Wed Feb 13, 2013 7:59 am ((PST))
--- On Tue, 2/12/13, And Rosta <[email protected]> wrote:
Sai, On 12/02/2013 02:27:
> I'm not a field linguist so I have no idea what the perceptual
> distribution is,
I'm not a field linguist either. I'm a sworn adherent of armchair linguistics.
I do do a bit of field linguistics, but only what can be done from the comfort
of my own armchair (or classroom). [Discussion topic for a new thread: Among
professional linguisticians, armchair linguists are many and field linguists
are few; among conlangers interested in careers or advanced academic studyin
linguistics, would-be field linguists are many and would-be armchair linguists
are few. How come?]
Sai, On 12/02/2013 02:27:
> I'm not a field linguist so I have no idea what the perceptual
> distribution is,
I'm
not a field linguist either. I'm a sworn adherent of armchair
linguistics. I do do a bit of field linguistics, but only what can be
done from the comfort of my own armchair (or classroom).
RM-- HaHa. I
began as a field linguist but in my ultimate lack of an academic
appointment have perforce become an armchair linguist......
[Discussion
topic for a new thread: Among professional linguisticians, armchair
linguists are many and field linguists are few; among conlangers
interested in careers or advanced academic study in linguistics,
would-be field linguists are many and would-be armchair linguists are
few. How come?]
============================================================
OK--I'll start it here: Not sure that's
entirely accurate. Most academic training in linguistics (as well as
Anthropology) will include field work (if only in a "Field Methods"
course, where some us catch the bug-- that course shifted my whole
academic/intellectual orientation from Romance to Malay-Polynesian!).
OTOH most conlangers AFAICT are armchair linguists-- although one could
say that inventing a language has certain elements of field linguistics
Field
work is truly fascinating-- you're not only encountering a whole new
language but often a new culture as well (same in a lot of conlanging).
It can be rather uncomfortable-- primitive surroundings, weird foods,
difficulties relating to the people, or the converse, going a bit
"native" ;-) -- and sometimes frustrating when you find variation even
with a single small group. Or working with a moribund language, whose
speakers are few and elderly, maybe lacking some teeth and having memory
problems....
Even the SILers, with their religious motivation, would probably confess to
some occasional discomfort in their field work.
You
need a firm grounding in phonetics (even for English! as we discover in these
YAEPT threads), and some kind of
theoretical underpinning to make sense of the phonology and grammar you're
discovering. Such field work has formed the basis of many a doctoral
dissertation!! (Unless you're Chomsky & Co., who apparently saw no
reason to work on anything other than English (so I'm told...))
My
own field work was done in comfortable surroundings, but if I'd had
time, could well have involved some serious trekking into the wilds....
At one point early on I thought (with my background in Spanish) that it
might be interesting to work on S.American native languages, but an
audited Anthro. course under N.Y.Chagnon (of Yanomamo fame) disabused me
of that idea.
Since becoming an armchair/non-affiliated
linguist, I've discovered another problem: something I'd spent several years
writing,
and considered worth publishing, was rejected on the basis that it was
based only on book research, not on actual field work. Bah humbug. I
could have pointed out that one of the early stars in the MP field,
Renward Brandstetter, never did field work AFAIK, yet managed to do
important work from published sources....(Like Einstein, he clerked in
some Swiss govt. office.)
So let's see what sort of discussion this starts. I may have unfairly
categorized some conlangers.....
Messages in this topic (36)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Yahoo! Groups Links
<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/conlang/
<*> Your email settings:
Digest Email | Traditional
<*> To change settings online go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/conlang/join
(Yahoo! ID required)
<*> To change settings via email:
[email protected]
[email protected]
<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
[email protected]
<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
------------------------------------------------------------------------
