English Language & Usage: Multi-Layered Discourse Room

@tchrist: changing subject I'm feeling that there is a big difference between certain vowels. For example, I look at ellos and I think /eios/ but when I hear them say it it is more like /eiɵs/.

Cerberus

That.

tchrist

Bring, brang, brung. :)

terdon

3:03 PM

So, pung then.

Cerberus

He pings, he pang, he has pung.

tchrist

@Robusto It should not be /i/, actually. It is an obstruent.

But that’s something else.

Cerberus

He probably doesn't mean actual IPA.

tchrist

I don’t know. Phonemically there is no vowel reduction in Spanish. It has a five-vowel system.

Robusto

@Cerberus Surely we can be more obscure than that: ping, pang, poughng.

tchrist

3:05 PM

So /'eyos/ perhaps.

Cerberus

The faster you speak, the more reduction and contraction and syncopation you get—I believe this happens in almost any language?

There are several levels.

tchrist

Yes, although Spanish being syllable timed is somewhat resistant.

Cerberus

@Robusto Hah.

tchrist

Not completely.

Cerberus

@tchrist No doubt.

It's all relative.

tchrist

3:06 PM

For example, maestro should be three syllables and no diphthongs. But it often becomes two with a diphthong.

That’s normal in casual speech.

Cerberus

And the vowel may no doubt be reduced to almost nothing if you speak very fast, bordering on contraction.

Robusto

No es lo que sabes, sino a quién conoces.

tchrist

Sure.

Doesn’t work so well in Spanish. :)

Parallelism fails.

Cerberus

Quién = whom?

tchrist

A quien is whom.

Quien is who.

¿Quién sabe? ¿A quién hablas?

Cerberus

3:09 PM

So how do you say "the man whom I saw"?

tchrist

El hombre que lo vi.

Cerberus

¿Quién sabe? sounds like "whom"?

tchrist

Who knows?

Robusto

@tchrist It always fails in language, if we but knew it.

terdon

@tchrist Huh? That's the man who saw it.

Cerberus

3:10 PM

What is ¿Quién sabe? ?

Robusto

@Cerberus Who knows?

terdon

You want El hombre que lo vio don't you?

Cerberus

@Robusto Ah, so subject.

Robusto

@cerb: See what I did there?

tchrist

@terdon I have to go drink coffee. But it’s yo vi but él vio.

Cerberus

3:11 PM

@Robusto Trying to confuse me, as always.

Robusto

"Who knows?" is both an answer to the question and a non-answer.

terdon

Autologous!

Cerberus

I got that, because my first reading was a non-answer.

tchrist

Yo vi a un hombre. Un hombre me vio a mí.

That’s SVO and SOV. If you switch to OVS or OV order, things get different though.

terdon

Huh, I'd have said vi un hombre.

No a.

tchrist

3:13 PM

You have to use a for a human direct object.

terdon

Really?

So vi un perro pero vi a un hombre?

Cerberus

With all verbs?

tchrist

Yes, it’s a case-marker for sentients.

Cerberus

I slapped the man?

tchrist

Yes.

Cerberus

3:13 PM

I killed the man?

tchrist

@terdon Yes!

terdon

Holy crap! I've never heard that!

tchrist

@Cerberus Yes!

Cerberus

Most unusual.

Probably inherited from Latin.

terdon

Only for constructs like Yo le vi a Juan.

tchrist

3:14 PM

It is not done in other Romance, only in Castilian. It is mandatory, and without it, you can’t tell subject from object.

@terdon But that’s a direct object!

Cerberus

In Latin, you can't use the bare ablative with people: you have to use prepositions. It doesn't apply to other cases, though.

tchrist

Personal a in Spanish.

terdon

Yes, but I'd say ayer vi un hombre buscando en la basura

tchrist

@terdon That is standard in much of Spain.

@terdon No, you need an a.

terdon

And now that I say that, I see your point.

Yes. OK, so I do say it. I'd just not realized.

I would say vi un hombre fuerte with no a though.

I guess that's just a mistake.

tchrist

3:16 PM

I think you need an a there.

It marks the direct object as a person.

terdon

Oh well. I am a Spanish pineapple after all.

tchrist

Un piña colada.

> From the perspective of the English speaker, the personal "a" appears to be an extra word. From the perspective of the Spanish speaker, the personal "a" is required, and to not use it is a serious error.

> The personal "a" may also be used if the direct object is a domesticated animal, especially a pet, provided that the speaker attaches some sort of personal feelings towards the animal.

It’s like using he or she with creatures, perhaps.

> The personal "a" is not used after the verb tener, or the verb form hay. This is true even if the direct object is a person.

terdon

I think that would depend on whether you're using a name or not. So, vamos a buscar a Pepa but vamos a buscar la perra.

tchrist

That sounds right to me.

Bitchy, but right. :)

terdon

Heh

tchrist

3:19 PM

> If the direct object is an indefinite person, the personal "a" is not used. The result is that the person becomes "depersonalized."

> Necesito médico.
I need (any) doctor. (or)
I need medical assistance.
Necesito jardinero.
I need (any) gardener. (or)
I need someone to tend my garden.

> Because this Spanish grammatical structure has no equivalent in English, it is normal to expect that the student will forget to use it until a pattern of use has been established. Remember, to not use the personal "a" is a serious error, and the student should try to remember to use it when appropriate.

@Cerberus I had not realized that about Latin. Sounds like that could be the origin.

terdon

That's strange. While necesito jardinero seems fine, I feel that necesito médico needs an un.

tchrist

No, it means you just need some doctor.

terdon

So does necesito un médico

Cerberus

@tchrist It is possible.

tchrist

Soy médica, dijo la Susana.

terdon

3:22 PM

@tchrist Ha! That's not Spanish, the la is a Catalanismo or Portuñol or whatever.

Isn't it?

tchrist

Heh.

It happens in all Iberian languages. It is considered "casual" or "incorrect" in Castilian, but it is common.

Whereas in Portuguese it is la mar de normal, and nobody thinks you’re speaking loosely.

True story:

Our Nicaraguan translator said how in español americano they often use el/la before a person like that but that he "knew" it was wrong and figured they did not do it in Spain.

It does have a casual sound to it.

But they do do it in Spain.

¿Dónde está la María? either means "And where IS that Maria?" or else you’ve lost your stash. :)

It is best to translate a definite article in front of an Iberian name used like that into a demonstrative adjective (read: "that", usually) in English.

And this is actually a lot closer to Latin than you think.

Since Latin had no articles, just demonstratives.

ILLA MARIA

ILLA AQUILA

ILLE BRUTUS

All those are "that"'s that became "the"'s.

Who became? Which became? :)

This happened in Vulgar Latin very early on.

Probably before in became Proto-Romance, whenever that happened.

That’s what all Romance articles are from Latin demonstratives. However, not all are from ille/illa/illum; most, but not quite all. There are others.

The alternate choice was ipse.

In Sardinian, for example, and the Catalan of the Islas Baleares, and formerly in Gascon. Those all used ipse not ille to derive definite articles from.

> Sardinian uses a definite article derived from the Latin ipse: su, sa, plural sos, sas (Logudorese) and is (Campidanese). Such articles are common in Balearic Catalan, and were common in Gascon.

Also, notice the language is called Sardu.

Not Sardo.

> Su Cadelanu e su Castillianu in Sardigna[càmbia | edit source]
Su Cadelanu bessit lìngua ufitziali de Sardìnnia in su 1479, centu annus agoa chi is cadelanus fiant intraus cun is sordaus in s’ìsula. Chena duda peruna su cadelanu est sa lìngua stràngia chi prus est intrada in su sardu, oindi’ puru meda fueddus chi imperaus tenint arrexini cadelana, est a nai ferreri, pichepedreri, sabateri, mìgia, buciaca, cadira, bratzolu e aici nendi.

So su is masculine matching -u nouns.

It means el in Castilian.

@crl See, yet another of the infinite languages on your route of peregrination. :)

Cerberus

> Saxo necatur.
> A Nerone necatur.

tchrist

Interesting.

I do not know how lingua got to be limba: obviously a sound-change rule of some sort.

> Inoghe si podet ghettare un'ograda a carchi vocabolu a manera de lu ponner a cunfrontu in sas limbas romanzas.

Limba sarda

Su sardu est una de sas limbas romanzas, faeddada mescamente in su logu de orìgine, sa Sardigna, e dae sos disterrados. == Datos generales == Su sardu est atesu meda dae s'italianu e sas àteras limbas neolatinas, mescamente pro su chi pertocat sa gramàtica. Sa limba sarda si agatat in s'ala otzidentale de sa latinidade, paris cun su catalanu, su frantzesu, s'otzitanu, s'ispagnolu, su portughesu e àteras minores. Custu cheret nàrrere chi tenet comente caraterìstica su prurale in -s. In intro de sas limbas latinas, si sinnalat chi nde at pigadu s'artìculu ("su"/"sa") dae su latinu ipse, cando imbetzes…

So final /u/ on Romance nouns is not uncommon. It’s just that some developed orthographies before that happened, others afterwards.

Catalan and Portuguese were written down before <o> changed to /u/ in unstressed positions. Others were not.

The newly written ones write it with <u>. The older ones retain the ancient spelling so become more complicated to learn.

Cerberus

3:42 PM

It's a funny language.

tchrist

Whoa, there are polynomial languages!

@Cerberus Sardu? Yeah. :)

Cerberus

This is somewhat related, but interesting background information:

> Q: ... La sua professoressa di latino e greco al quinto ginnasio "avrebbe"
chiesto se è vero che gli antichi romani non utilizzavano il
nominativo quando uno schiavo era il soggetto della frase, ma solo
l'ablativo nella sua accezione strumentale. Ciò in conseguenza del
fatto che lo schiavo era "res".

R: In sostanza, la questione è che il neutro (o meglio, l'originario
inanimato) non poteva "compiere" nessuna azione, appunto perché inanimato.
Dai nostri trisnonni indeuropei una frase come saxum pastorem necat non

I'd have to pick up a dictionary and write down the translation of that one paragraph to fully understand it, but the rest I can follow.

tchrist

The matter of thematic -o, by which we would expect the same result in -o and not in -om, as had not only Latin but also Greek and Sanskit, is unclear.

Cerberus

Yes, but what matter?

tchrist

Maybe accusative -um?

Cerberus

3:47 PM

Yes, something about that.

But what did they expect, and what is it that they found, and how is it inconsistent?

> Forse si tratta del complemento di mezzo: quando il mezzo è una persona
(la persona attraverso la quale, tramite la quale si fa qualcosa), di
solito si pone all'accusativo preceduto da _per_; se però la persona è
vista come uno strumento passivo perché di basso rango (schiavo, soldato
ecc.), si mette all'ablativo come se fosse un qualunque essere inanimato.
Non so se è questo ciò a cui alludeva la professoressa, ma ci ho provato.

Mezzo = means, instrument here.

tchrist

Yes.

Cerberus

I'm not sure I have ever seen milite necatur, though.

tchrist

"Maybe we're talking about the mechanism's complement."

Cerberus

Yes, that paragraph (by a different person) is clear.

tchrist

You used ablative with low-ranking people?

Tsk. :)

Cerberus

3:50 PM

Well, I'm not sure I have ever seen it, at least not in prose.

But it is easy to overlook.

Mitch

@Cerberus Oh right. "What happened to the Sardinians when they showed up late to work?"

tchrist

"But this was true of our Indoeuropean great-great-grandparents, not for our Latin great-grandparents..."

Mitch

They got canned! Get it? Cuz they come in tins all packed together? GEt it?

tchrist

Huh?

They just have a different tense of tardiness than their bosses.

Mitch

Sardinians are hilarious!

tchrist

3:53 PM

non uccidendolo, si spera = no matándolo, se espera

@Mitch Too oily.

Try again más tarde.

Mitch

ad astera per aspirin

tchrist

Better living through chemistry.

I now realize that when I read Italian or Portuguese, I must when necessary be translating them into Spanish in my head, not into English.

That’s kinda weird considering I'm a native speaker of English.

Cerberus

@Mitch They were tardu?

tchrist

I think because plural, they were tardus, which means that they’ve been cavorting with Dr Who.

Time Lords.

Cerberus

@tchrist Verum est. But it is probably related to the use prepositions with ablative people.

tchrist

4:00 PM

Because PIE had an animate/inanimate distinction?

Cerberus

Yes, that is one hypothesis.

And the neuter gender is the heir of the inanimate class.

tchrist

si mette all'ablativo come se fosse un qualunque essere inanimato = se mete al ablativo como si fuese un ser inanimado cualquiera

I don’t actually translate that into Spanish reading, but it’s both 100% cognate and exactly parallel in construction.

@Cerb That's the confusing Italian se/si switcheroo. :)

Mitch

You know how many formal latinate words are latin prepositions followed by some root, and that the full word means so much more than the pieces themselves? e.g. 'commit' = 'send with', 'supersede' = 'sit above'. I just think of them like English informal phrasal verbs 'to call off' = 'terminate', 'to put down' = 'insult', and then the Latin isn't so fancy any more.

tchrist

Ausgehen.

Mitch

Exit = get out

tchrist

4:10 PM

There are outgoing officials, and then there are outgoing officials.

Mitch

fancy -> not fancy

Cerberus

@tchrist Yeah it's all very annoying.

tchrist

@Cerberus It didn’t happen west of the Boot.

Cerberus

@Mitch Exactly, it is the same system, except that English usually puts the adverb-prefix-preposition late.

In Dutch and German, it is pulled to the front more often and attached. But not nearly always.

tchrist

I wonder whether Italians find French, Castilian, Catalan, and Portuguese confusing because they do NOT do that.

Cerberus

4:12 PM

In Latin, it's poetic to separate verbs.

In Greek, it's the same, but it is more prevalent in older Greek (Homer).

@tchrist No doubt. But at least they know Latin.

tchrist

Whereas separating verbs in modern Romance is strictly forbidden.

Cerberus

Well, I wouldn't say that.

tchrist

Compartir is never partir con.

Cerberus

I guess they don't separate adverbs that are normally prefixed.

But they do still use adverbs in similar ways, right?

tchrist

Like what?

Mitch

4:14 PM

@tchrist I've heard "t'veux aller avec?"

Cerberus

@tchrist How do you say "he came up" in Spanish?

tchrist

@Mitch Heh. Germans in Québec! :)

Mitch

which is decidedly strange sounding. but that was a native

Cerberus

@Mitch I have seen that too, and I don't think it is uncommon.

Mitch

@tchrist I know! I thought it sounded like midwestern.

tchrist

4:15 PM

@Cerberus Came up what?

Mitch

Roses, obviously

Cerberus

I don't know, from some place down below, he came up.

tchrist

Levarse?

Mitch

another one...avenir, things to come.

tchrist

That’s porvenir.

Cerberus

4:16 PM

I'm trying to make you come up with examples to support my thesis, but it's hard to do so.

tchrist

There is an avenirse.

@Cerberus I think for some of those it might need a reflexive.

Venirse is to become, to change into.

Cerberus

Can you make a sentence where some word meaning "up" comes after the verb?

Or why don't I do so in French.

I venait avant.

I think that's possible.

tchrist

Viene después is he's coming afterwards. Está por adelante means he’s up ahead.

Mitch

@Cerberus What's your thesis again? I thought it was translating medieval christian texts and somethety-something hermeneutics bla blah koine buddhism or something.

Cerberus

Il parcourrit la place. Il courrit par la place. Is that possible?

tchrist

4:19 PM

I don’t think those mean the same thing, but I’m not sure.

Cerberus

@Mitch Haha, no, not that thesis, but I applaud you for remembering it!

tchrist

There is a correrse, but that can be um to run over, to spill.

Mitch

You can have more than one thesis

tchrist

Or the vulgar sense.

Cerberus

@tchrist All I'm saying is that French can use the same semi-morphemes before a verb and after a verb, just like English. But it is admittedly far more limited.

@Mitch My thesis in this conversation.

Mitch

4:21 PM

For example, "There is an actual infinity". Or "There is no actual infinity at all". or "Infinity... meh"

tchrist

Conducir is never ducir con, because there is no *ducir. :)

Cerberus

@Mitch The last.

@tchrist I said it was limited. In most cases, it's not possible of course.

Mitch

@Cerberus the exception proves the rule...I think the construction (phrasal verb or rather stand alone preposition) in romance is very rare.

@Cerberus For being noncommittal, that is pretty radical.

tchrist

What’s a phrasal verb? One with a mandatory preposition?

Cerberus

The original, hypothesised Proto-Indo-European adverbs can be used in three ways in attested languages:
1. As an adverb.
2. As a preposition.
3. As a prefix, usually to a verb.
I suspect that all three ways are possible in almost every Indo-European language, but they have varying limitations.

Mitch

4:23 PM

Only goofy philosophers doubt 'actual' infinity.

@tchrist Yeah, I don't like that term either, but it's a verb with a prepositional word with it that doesn't head a noun phrase

tchrist

I suppose that inscribir algo might be able to be escribir en algo. But you have to reach hard.

Cerberus

@Mitch At least much rarer than in English, to be sure.

tchrist

Because those verbs were already fused in Latin.

Cerberus

Uhuh.