casuallinguist - Tumblr blog

[casuallinguist]

“Let’s face it - English is a crazy language. There is no egg in eggplant nor ham in hamburger; neither apple nor pine in pineapple. English muffins weren’t invented in England or French fries in France. Sweetmeats are candies while sweetbreads, which aren’t sweet, are meat. We take English for granted. But if we explore its paradoxes, we find that quicksand can work slowly, boxing rings are square and a guinea pig is neither from Guinea nor is it a pig. And why is it that writers write but fingers don’t fing, grocers don’t groce and hammers don’t ham? If the plural of tooth is teeth, why isn’t the plural of booth beeth? One goose, 2 geese. So one moose, 2 meese? One index, 2 indices? Doesn’t it seem crazy that you can make amends but not one amend? If you have a bunch of odds and ends and get rid of all but one of them, what do you call it? If teachers taught, why didn’t preachers praught? If a vegetarian eats vegetables, what does a humanitarian eat? In what language do people recite at a play and play at a recital? Ship by truck and send cargo by ship? Have noses that run and feet that smell? How can a slim chance and a fat chance be the same, while a wise man and a wise guy are opposites? You have to marvel at the unique lunacy of a language in which your house can burn up as it burns down, in which you fill in a form by filling it out and in which an alarm goes off by going on. English was invented by people, not computers, and it reflects the creativity of the human race (which, of course, isn’t a race at all). That is why, when the stars are out, they are visible, but when the lights are out, they are invisible.”

— (via be-killed)

[casuallinguist]

Speculative Grammarian takes on the “so you’re a linguist, how many languages do you speak?” trope. 

[casuallinguist]

An interesting analysis on the extent to which Iggy Azalea uses accurate African American English in her rap songs, which also doubles as a decent introduction to the grammar of AAE:

But if she’s an appropriator, Azalea is at least not a sloppy one. 

The “blaccent” controversy, as the rapper Eve called it, recently attracted the attention of linguists Maeve Eberhardt and Kara Freeman, who listened to and analyzed Azalea’s entire discography. […]

As with the dialects of any other group, such as the Pennsylvania Amish or the Cajun in Louisiana, AAE possesses its own subtle patterns of grammar and phonology, distinct from the kind of English heard on the evening news but no less difficult to get right. This is not something that outsiders can replicate easily. […]

According to this new study, Azalea’s songs reflect a far deeper, more sophisticated understanding of how black rappers speak. “We find her using this nuanced representation of African American English,” says Eberhardt, an assistant professor of linguistics at the University of Vermont. “She does it very well. She uses the features in the right places and in the right contexts.”

Even if her mimicry is offensive, the research appears to confirm something Azalea has been saying all along. Call her culturally naive or overzealous, but she has been an earnest student of at least some aspects of rap. […]

The research finds that her lyrics also demonstrate styles of grammar that are common in AAE, but hard for outsiders to pick up on. Here are three examples.

— Tricky usage of “ain’t”: This word is well-known as a substitute for “are not” or “is not”: “I ain’t going there,” for instance, or “He ain’t your friend.” But the linguists find that Azalea deploys “ain’t” in a rarer way, to indicate past events that never happened. She says things like “He ain’t even graduate.”

— Remote past “BEEN”: Azalea also correctly uses a grammatical construction that linguists call “remote past BEEN,” which indicates that a situation has been continuing for a long time. This is a feature that speakers of standard English often misinterpret. In 1975, Stanford’s Rickford, then at the University of Pennsylvania, gave a survey to black and white English speakers. Among the questions was this one:

Someone asked, “Is she married?” and someone else answered, “She BIN married.” Do you get the idea that she is married now?

To most of the white people in the study, that sentence meant that the woman was once married but not anymore. To nearly all of the black people, it meant that the woman had been married for a while and continued to be married.

Azalea correctly uses this expression in her song “Lady Patra.“ The meaning here, with stress on the word been, is that Azalea has long been rich, not that she lost a fortune and regained it:

Paper planes, roger that, 10-4 Got money, been had it, still gettin’ more

There are so many interesting bits I wish I could just excerpt the whole thing, so definitely just go read it. 

[casuallinguist]

The difference between epistemic & deontic, necessity & possibility, in an overlapping diagram

This is a handy reference diagram I made way back in grad school for remembering the difference between epistemic necessity, deontic possibility, and other basic types of modality, and I’ve finally put it online. 

Here’s how it works: 

In linguistics, modals (aka modal verbs, modal auxiliaries) refer to words like can, could, shall, should, will, would, may, might, must which indicate likelihood, permission, obligation, and ability. The concept of modality includes both modal auxiliaries as well as longer constructions, like ought, have to, be obliged to, be able to, be capable of, it’s possible that, it’s necessary for __ to, it’s obligatory to, it’s permissible that, possibly, necessarily, maybe, perhaps, and so on.   

In the diagram, the blue areas are epistemic modality (according to evidence, reasoning, or beliefs), the red areas are deontic modality (according to a set of rules or desires), the dark areas are necessity (in all possible worlds), the light areas are possibility (in at least one possible world). Every area has both a colour (blue/red) and a shade (light/dark) because modality is made up of a modal base (according to what, on the basis of what) and a modal force (how strong is the result). 

Here are some examples for each of the regions.  

Dark blue is epistemic necessity

“It must be raining outside (I can hear the rain).” In all worlds consistent with my beliefs, it is raining outside. 

“When you add vinegar to baking soda, it should fizz.” In all worlds consistent with my reasoning about chemical properties, vinegar added to baking soda fizzes. 

In 

Light blue is epistemic possibility

“It may be raining outside (I heard that it was going to rain today)” In at least one world consistent with my beliefs, it is raining outside. 

“The doctor has said, they can go to the bathroom.” In at least one world consistent with the doctor’s assessment of their physical capabilities, they go to the bathroom. 

Dark red is deontic necessity

“It must rain this week (in order for the crops not to spoil)” In all worlds consistent with my desires, it rains this week. 

“You should drive under the speed limit.” In all worlds consistent with the rules for proper driving, you drive under the speed limit. 

Light red is deontic possibility

“It may rain this week (as far as I’m concerned, I’m not planning any activities that would be spoiled by the rain so I don’t care).” In at least one world consistent with my desires, it rains this week. 

“The teacher has said, they can go to the bathroom.” In at least one world consistent with the teacher’s rules for the classroom, they go to the bathroom.  

Notice that English is generally good at making distinctions between necessity and possibility but bad at making distinctions between epistemic and deontic, which must be cleared up via context. Some languages do make straightforward lexical distinctions between various flavours of modality like epistemic and deontic. 

Also note that more advanced theories of modality distinguish between more types of modality than epistemic and deontic (such as circumstantial, dynamic, logical, metaphysical, ability, teleological, bouletic, etc) but this is a basic introduction to making these distinctions at all, so I’m not going to get into them here. If you want to expand the diagram yourself, however, you could assign these other types of modality other colours, as long as you give them each two shades. (And in case anyone reading this already knows a lot about modality, I’d also like to point out that the Wikipedia article on linguistic modality is in dire need of improvement.)

[casuallinguist]

why the fuck does english have a word for

but not for “the day after tomorrow”

???

[casuallinguist]

what your foreign language study says about you

spanish: you are trying to fulfill a requirement

french: you run a hipster blog and are far too defensive of the french language

latin: you value academia very highly but you value dick jokes more

ancient greek: like latin except you also hate yourself

old english: you care way too much about lord of the rings

russian: you are russian

italian: you are a naïve, romantic writer and you want to be a wine connoisseur (when you turn 21)

german: you are an intellectual overachiever who carries a heavy burden of existential angst

finnish: you just really like grammar for some reason

japanese: either you live entirely for challenges or you're weaboo trash there isn't much of an in-between

norwegian: you are ylvis trash

[casuallinguist]

Wikipedia for Language Nerds

List of Shibboleths

List of English Words with Dual French and Anglo-Saxon Variations

List of Tautological Place Names

List of English Terms of Venery by Animal

List of Linguistic Siamese Twins

List of English Homographs

List of Country Name Etymologies

List of English Heteronyms (with IPA!)

List of English Words with Disputed Usage

List of Proposed Etymologies of OK

List of Languages by Writing System

[casuallinguist]

[casuallinguist]

In Japanese, they don’t say “moon,” they say “tsuki,” which literally translates to “moon,” and I think that’s how language works.

[casuallinguist]

Pronounce “caught” and “cot”…..will you?

[casuallinguist]

Cantonese Final Particles

so in cantonese, we have sentence ending particles that can change the meaning of a sentence and express different emotions. depending on which particle you add, you might end up sounding rude, confused, passive-agressive, dismissive or disappointed :’)

Example 1: let’s start off with the simple sentence: “唔係” [ng6 hai6 or m6 hai6] which is a very neutral way of saying “no” or “it isn’t”. let’s start adding ending particles: 

唔係呀 [aa3] - “not really”, “not quite”, “nope”

唔係啦 [laa3] - “not [anymore]”, “nawh/nononono” (having second thoughts about something and backing out)

唔係喎 [wo3] - nope, not really… (new information that the listener might not agree with)

唔係啩 [gwaa3] - no… [it can’t be] (implies disbelief)

唔係啫 [ze1]- “it isn’t, but…”, “even if it isn’t”

唔係嘅 [ge3] - “nawhhh it can’t be” (emphasis/asserting), “nawhhh” (when you’re being humble)

唔係呀嘛 [aa1 maa3] - “no…you gotta be kidding me”, “omg no…for real?”

唔係咩 [me1] - “it isn’t?” (confirming something)

唔係㗎 [gaa3] - “no…”, “not necessarily”

唔係囉 [lo1] - “it’s not, im telling you”

Example 2: why don’t we try adding particle to longer sentences :D Let’s go with this one: 佢返左屋企 [keoi5 faan1 zo2 uk1 kei2] (He went home). Note that there are instances where you can have more than one particle!

佢返左屋企呀 [aa3] - (informing the listener) “he went home!”

佢返左屋企啦 [laa3] - (informing the listener) “he [already] went home!”

佢返左屋企喎 [wo3] - “oh…he [already] went home [though]” 

佢返左屋企啩 [gwaa3] - “he went home, i guess”, “he went home, i think” [certain level of uncertainty]

佢返左屋企咩 [me1] - “oh, he went home?”

佢返左屋企啫 [ze1] - “even though he went home…”, “he went home, but…”

佢返左屋企啦咩 [laa3 me1] - “oh, he went home already?”

佢返左屋企㗎啦 [gaa3 laa3]- (emphasis) “he went home already!”

佢(米)返左屋企囉 [(mai6) lo1] - (informing the listener) “he went home already [im telling you]”

佢返左屋企啦嘛 [laa3 maa3] - “he went home already!” (so ofc he can’t be here rn)

Let me know if you have any questions!

[casuallinguist]

Bad linguistics journalism bingo

Do you feel like crying every time you read, see or hear anything concerning linguistics & languages in popular media? Does the n-th installment of the Eskimo Vocabulary Hoax™ make you cringe? Are you tired of writing letters to editors correcting them about ling & lang facts? Then this is the game for you. 

If you have suggestions for further sheets, please contact us.

[casuallinguist]

how to talk about languages without scaring someone off with your enthusiasm????

[casuallinguist]

Particles

when I was studying Greek I would get frustrated and annoyed because often, at the beginning of a sentence or clause – or just scattered haphazardly throughout – there would be three or four “particles” with no specific meaning. the literal translation might be “so thus and”, but of course you couldn’t put that down. they were just placeholder words, colloquial linguistic padding.

now, of course, I realize that I start sentences with “okay but like”.

you can sing the praises of the Greeks all you want, but the fact is, Plato wrote with all the elegance and grace of an off-the-cuff tumblr post.

[casuallinguist]

Two linguists became friends at a conference about Khoisan languages

they just clicked

[casuallinguist]

me: *takes a deep breath*

me: i lo-

anyone who has spent five seconds around me ever: yes, you love linguistics, we know, you love linguistics so much, it’s the light of your life, you love it so much, you just love linguistics, we KNOW , you love linguistics you fucking love linguistics ok we know, we get it, YOU LOVE LINGUISTICS. WE GET IT.