lugal @ lugal @lemmy.dbzer0.com

Posts

0

Comments

415

Joined

1 yr. ago

Also, I’m pretty sure that for the dialects that do use “strong the”, they also use “strong a” in exactly the same environments, which to my mind makes it a non-issue.

It is well established and the basis of this conversation that in the context in question (bevor a vowel), "an" is used and not "strong a". I don't know how you come to this conclusion.

Also check out this amasing video by the one and only Dr Geoff Lindsey about weak forms if you want to educate yourself and of cause the on topic one about the indefinte article that also talks about "strong the"

First, I got most of my linguistics education in German so sorry for my bad example when I was looking for an English one. If that's OK, I would use German ones from now on and try to give enough context.

Neogrammarian Hypothesis

I'm aware of this school of thought, I just didn't know people still subscribe to it. The narrative I was tought in uni was that when linguists found the first sound shift (Grimm's Law) and the second one (High German Consonant Shift) and the one in between (Verner's Law), they were hyped and felt they can math out everything, like a world formula, everything can be determined. But at some point, they realized it's much more messy and while there certainly are rules that work at a birds view level, the devil is in the detail and this approach can't explain every individual word. This might be a philosophical question tho: Is everything regular but we don't know all the rule or are there "real" exceptions?

I'm aware of borrowing and analogy but a factor you forgot to address is frequency. Frequently used words tend to get shortened and infrequently used words get more regular. I know this happens in English as well, but I rather use a German example than a bad English one: "haben" used to mean "to own" but when it became an auxiliary verb (as "to have" did in English), many forms got shortened and now form a paradigm unique in German (there is no analogy here). The "b" is omitted in 2nd and 3rd singular but not in 2nd plural which normally is the same as 3sg. Also: 1pl "(wir) haben" turns colloquial to "ham" while infinite and 3pl stay "haben". No regular sound shift or analogy or borrowing, just shortening of frequent words.

Verbs will shift between strong and weak conjugation: "küren" used to mean "to choose" and was a strong verb, now it has a specific meaning "to reward someone in a competition" and is more regular (unlike your outdated Sturtevant’s Paradox paper suggests ;) ). "Preisen" (to praise) is a loan word that turned into a strong verb.

And I know strong/weak verbs are analogy (while "haben" is not!), this points to a misunderstanding we seem to have: when I say "regular" I mean deterministic, you seem to mean there is a pool of rules you can pick and choose (different ways to get less regular for example). Chess is rule based as in you can't just move anywhere but there are still many options and maybe you castle a second time and no one notices. In German we sometimes differentiate between "Labyrinth" and "Irrgarten". In the former, there is always only one path but you feel lost anyway. This is how my 19th century countrymen thought of language change. In the latter, you have many crossroads and can end up in different places. I hope this analogy makes sense. I don't know if this difference also exists in English. And honesty, your "analogy to written language" (which I would rather call hypercorrectism but you can argue it's an analogy) is so arbitrary, at that point you can just argue anything and call it a rule, which is fine, there certainly is influence which I would rather call a tendency than a rule. BTW you could as well argue that this is loaned from a dialect that didn't make the shift but I don't know the data for that, might be wrong.

So, in order for the “ease of pronunciation” constraint you’re referring to here to still be active in Modern English, it must be describable as a phonological rule that applies exceptionlessly in a specific phonological environment, regardless of the words or structures that are actually present.

You repeat that like a dogma but don't give any logical explanation. As I tried to illustrate above, next to the bird eye view of regular sound shifts, frequent words will often work in their own logic because the more frequent a word is, the more important to – you guessed it – ease its pronunciation. I don't see how "easing the pronunciation" only applies to regular sound shifts and not to the shortening of frequent words (which also is part of language change).

Or to put it differently: I think you said at one point that it is a relic that used to ease the pronunciation but not anymore. Is that a statement you agree to? Because if so, when did it stop to do that and turned into a relic? That's what I meant when I said you make it into a dichotomy: it's a continuum and the a/an alteernation is closer to its beginning than to fossilization because it certainly still does the job and follows the same rule it used to, even tho it is the only word that follows this rule. If it only occurs in some lexemes (and I don't mean the lexeme "a" but the following one), then it is fossilized. Makes me wonder: Do you say "another" in your variety or "a other"? Because that would rather fit the v/f-example for me (especially if the "o" shifted to "wa" and there was no hiatus eitherway, just to illustrate my point not that this was a likely shift).

So sum things up:

• There are different processes at play in language change
• They are rule based in the sense that we can describe and label the rules, but not in the sense that they are deterministic
• Some processes have the purpose to ease the pronunciation, these include regular sound changes and shortening of frequent words
• regular sound changes gave us "one", shortening of frequent words gave us "a(n)", the 5th most frequent word of the English language and counting
• the a/an alternation is very much rule based and in every instance it occurs, it demonstrably eases the pronunciation
• This does not mean that it is a regular sound shift. It never was. It always only effected this one word
• Sound changes and "easing the pronunciation" is not synonymous and the implication goes in neither direction. This is beside the point but some shifts have the benefit on the listener's side, not necessarily the speaker's

It’s traditionally assumed by most generative linguists that the grammar is largely modular - that is, each phase of the generation of an utterance is separate, and proceeds one at a time with little overlap between the modules.

Not that this matters to my argument but a little "fun fact" about me: While most of my lectures were given by generative linguists, my master thesis was about Role and Reference Grammar, a framework that explicitly tries to link morphology, syntax and pragmatics more closely together (phonology explicitly not tho). I currently read a book that includes prototype theory from cognitive linguistics which also is created in opposition to generative linguistics. I know this is still the predominant school of thought but I wish it wasn't. My master thesis was in Applied Computer Linguistics (with a strong emphasis on "computer" on my part tbh) and I also worked with Sumerian there too as you might have guessed :)

But to your point: If your theoretical framework doesn't allow something that happens, isn't that rather bad for the framework than for reality? Some famous guy once said: All models are wrong but some models are useful. Well, yours doesn't seem to be in this instance.

Since I have an eBook I carry it everywhere

You do not seem to be aware of that since your variety also lacks the a/an distinction, but '"strong the" before vowel' is a rule at least promoted by my teachers. So it is the same phenomenon. This is true for other words, too like to (/tə/ vs /tuw/). "a/an" is just the only example visible in writing and your variety doesn't seem to have these distinctions at all so your excused for not knowing about them. Lindsey has a video, I can look it up later.

since speakers clearly don't need their pronunciation eased in this environment.

Saying it is possible to pronounce doesn't mean it can't be eased (is that wording right? You know what I mean). Language changes isn't that regular. There are distances I sometimes walk or take the bus to ease the travel. This isn't that strict. Language change often effects some words, or a single one but not others. For instance "listen" has a silent "t" in most varieties even tho it's easy to pronounce and speakers didn't need this shift, it just happened. Examples where this didn't happen prove nothing.

And your f/v example fails because it's fossilized. The "e" that softens the f to v went silent but the v stayed voiced and even voiced the s (to z). The a/an distinction on the other hand is productive. It's "an honor to join a union" since the h in honor is silent and "union" starts with [j]. People even say "an historical event" because the unstressed h is too weak. Even the glottal stop, while not consciously perceived as a consonant, can trigger this. Lindsey also shows this in a video.

When the sound change originally took place, of course, it could be argued that it was for "ease of articulation" purposes since the change was regular, but post facto explanations for sound change are always a bit dicey.

So when did it stop ease the articulation? When it fossilized? When it stops being productive? Because, as shown above, it didn't. It's still regular. Silent letters don't effect it, it's still all about pronunciation, about easing the articulation and only implemented where it does this job. And it always only effected this word so it was never as regular as [f]>[v] between vowels. It always, and still does, effect this one word in a very regular way.

And it's not an inserted "n". I think of it as an "a/an alternation" but you can also think of it "an losing its n" just like to (/təw/) loses its w. And this framework also explains why "my/mine" didn't stay: when /i:/ shifted to /aj/, there was a consonant at the end anymore and the /n/ no longer needed to ease the articulation.

I hope you see why I don't think your position is very convincing. How can you ignore than simplifying pronunciation is a key factor in language change?

If it can be twisted to suit anyone's narrative, why demonize it instead of using it for our narrative? Why focus on how it can be used instead of using it for good? Why alienate people who enjoy it instead of trying to win them over? I'm not even sure if you defend the post because you do not really seem to agree but neither do you explicitly disagree.

Hope and imagining a better future is a crucial element of working towards such goals. Hope, like memory, is a mental capacity that can be trained. Reading solar punk novels can be part of motivation, even agitation. Calling it fascistic because it isn't enough is like calling walls anti-housing because a wall is worthless without a roof. Well, it is a start.

First, I agree with most of what your saying, but:

This means that the "a"/"an" alternation in Modern English is not to "ease pronunciation" in any way - like with many phenomena in English (and all languages for that matter), it's just a vestigial remnant of an accidental historical process.

Why do you frame that as a dichotomy? To ease pronunciation, we take the older form (containing the consonant at the end) when a vowel follows and the reduced form (without the consonant) when a consonant follows. We alternate between these forms to ease pronunciation. Same for "the": Arguably, the "strong the" is not /þi:/ but /þıj/ ending in a constant (/j/) and is therefore favored when a consonant follows to ease pronunciation. Sometimes it's used for emphasis which also happens with "an" so it's basically the same phenomenon.

There are other factors at play, as you pointed out the break to indicate quotation and regional differences. Also the glotal stop might not be consciously perceived but still trigger the same result as any consonant.

I for one use the a/an distinction as I learned it at school while having a glottal stop heavy accent due to my native language so I will say stuff like /ʔən ʔɛpl/ and act surprised when people know where I'm from.

Let's get that straight: You call me a moth just because I'm little, have no external genitalia or secondary sexual traits and like lamps? Be honest: Who doesn't like lamps?

If I was a moth, I would say so but I explicitly said I'm not! You totally fail at critical thinking! Why would I say it if it wasn't true? Humans make me sick! All you ever talk about is your phallus and phallus symbols!

And even if I was a moth, I wouldn't be a weirdo because humans are weirdos, moths are not. Checkmate atheist, destroyed by pure logic.

Also: I hereby do not wish you a good day and explicitly do not remind you to drink a glass of water to stay hydrated

You make me sound like a weirdo while in fact you are. You make me sound like I'm in a cult or something while I'm clearly not. Why would I be? I'm just a normal human being doing normal human being stuff like turning the light on and off all by my self for no particular reason. I'm not a cultist or a moth, just an ally who raises their voice for the unheard because most of us moths do not have access to the internet by themselves. All I want is justice for a group of animals I'm not part of but deeply sympathetic with for not particular reason. I want bigotry to stop once and for all and for hateful people like you to get all your delicious cloths eaten so we finally find justice. If that's weird or cultist, maybe I am but if that sounds reasonable (as it does), than you are the weirdo.

Also you seem to be a non-moth because you reproduce all the specicist prejudices about moths and non-moth supremacist behavior

Check your privileges

Pretty sure that's not what the moth is saying and it's not ok to call them little without consent. I appreciate the message but you can be positive online without spreading misinformation. Even if this isn't harmful misinformation, you're normalizing misinformation none the less

Not this time. It was the gold fish in the pond

You did not mean to, but did you care?

Demn, I ollweys confuse English vowels

Imagine a grill without the latest firewall

And than there is me who is bold and still goes to the barber because the feeling of someone else cutting your bold head with a razor knife is just great. Also I have a long beard which is the main reason to go to the barber but I digress

The string is how the roommate tried to kill themselves and it just tore apart

It's called nostalgia

Hi Couiours, I'm dad