Language Overflow

1:35 AM

Aww... I kinda missed everything...

Reading the chat log...

Good evening/morning, @snailboat!

same question : english.stackexchange.com/questions/231026/… — v kumar 2 days ago

Yes,. Same question But, Not only has no one selected the proper answer, but also, I cannot yet get my answer among the answers which has been provided. — nima 2 days ago

Interesting.

Anonymous

Hello!

Damkerng T.

Hello!

Anonymous

Joel Derfner's answer looks insightful.

Damkerng T.

Oh! "From then on" is spoken about things that are no longer going on.

That hadn't occurred to me!

Anonymous

nima's question looks unnecessary to me.

Damkerng T.

1:49 AM

I doubt if any dictionaries ever discussed this nuance.

Anonymous

@DamkerngT. Or at least, it can be.

Damkerng T.

nods -- Wait

oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/…

> from now (or then etc.) on:
Now (or then etc.) and in the future: they were friends from that day on

Hmm... they group from then on and from now on together.

Anonymous

That is to say, since has a specific relationship to reference time (typically speech time), while from X on does not, so it can be used when the span does not extend to reference time

Damkerng T.

Oh, yes! It's better and makes more sense to me to think that way.

Anonymous

Don't hold me to that analysis―it's rather seat-of-my-pants :-)

Damkerng T.

1:52 AM

I think you're right.

I mean, from then on might not exclude now, but since then should include now.

If I understand Joel Derfner's answer correctly, it seems to suggest something a little different. It seems to suggest that from then on must exclude now.

Anonymous

Yes, though I think that claim is inaccurate.

Anonymous

I think the distinction comes from the semantics of since, which are specified more tightly.

Damkerng T.

nods

Anonymous

I just used semantics in the plural again. I'm not sure why sometimes it sounds better to me with singular agreement, sometimes with plural.

Anonymous

Probably just a quirk of my own idiolect I need to conquer :-)

Damkerng T.

1:57 AM

Because like meanings, each word can have several, perhaps. :D

BTW, this is from my personal note (its body is still blank :-) a couple days ago:

> The compatiblities of English tenses and time expressions

I just wrote that title, and couldn't write anything more. :P

Anonymous

Compatiblities is fun to say.

Anonymous

Sounds vaguely Greek.

Damkerng T.

> Thus: disagreeing at all with the standard dogma of B will get you branded by such people as The Enemy, and you will get generally treated with hostility and suspicion and, at worst, forcibly ejected from the B-supporter group.

Wow, just wow.

(urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=concern+troll)

Anonymous

Well, clearly it's a term that surfaces in highly charged discussions online.

Damkerng T.

Like on reddit?

Anonymous

2:03 AM

Um. Perhaps!

Anonymous

That's somewhere I don't dare go.

Damkerng T.

Sometimes I fancy scraping Reddit for language analysis. :-)

Anonymous

Occasionally people link me to Reddit.

Damkerng T.

I'm pretty sure someone must've already done that.

Anonymous

It seems like a very low quality community, overall.

Anonymous

2:04 AM

But there are some knowledgeable folks there.

Damkerng T.

Aww... I've heard that there are some language discussion threads over there too. (Is thread the right word?)

Anonymous

Sure. Probably.

Damkerng T.

2:17 AM

Note to self: Why does 'adverbial phrase' mean a phrase that acts like an adverb but 'prepositional phrase' refers to a phrase that is headed by a preposition?

Anonymous

Abandon those terms.

Anonymous

A verb phrase is headed by a verb.
A noun phrase is headed by a noun.
An adverb phrase is headed by an adverb.
An adjective phrase is headed by an adjective.
A preposition phrase is headed by a preposition.

Damkerng T.

Eh? What should I use instead then!? :-)

A-ha!

Anonymous

VP, NP, AdvP, AdjP, PP

Anonymous

And so on.

Damkerng T.

2:19 AM

Thanks!

Anonymous

I've been thinking about different ways to analyze Japanese verbs.

Anonymous

I think one way would be to say that most have two forms.

Anonymous

No . . .

Anonymous

Well, the problem is that they have one basic stem which most stuff attaches to.

Damkerng T.

What are the two forms, the present and the past, perhaps?

Anonymous

2:27 AM

kaw- 'buy'
-----------------------------------------------------------
買わない　　kaw-anai
買われる　　kaw-areru
買います　　ka-imasu 　←　/w/ drops out before /i/
買う　　　　ka-u　　　 ←　/w/ drops out before /u/
買え　　　　ka-e　　　　←　/w/ drops out before /e/
買おう　　　ka-oo　　　←　/w/ drops out before /o/
買って　　　kat-te　　　←　/w/ geminates to /t/ before /t/
買った　　　kat-ta　　　←　/w/ geminates to /t/ before /t/
買ったら　　kat-tara　　←　/w/ geminates to /t/ before /t/
買ったり　　kat-tari 　　←　/w/ geminates to /t/ before /t/

Anonymous

Look at this range of forms (and of course there are more)

Anonymous

It can be said that the basic stem is kaw-

Anonymous

But /w/ drops out before every vowel except /a/ in Modern Japanese

Anonymous

Oops, somehow I typed a 胃 in there :-)

Anonymous

So we can treat it as kaw-imasu and kaw-u and kaw-e and kaw-oo

Anonymous

2:29 AM

Though the /w/ isn't actually there, physically speaking. It's dropped from the pronunciation.

Anonymous

But that's a really predictable pattern in Japanese.

Anonymous

Like, you can slur the vowels /ai/ to /ee/ in colloquial Eastern Japanese. And you could take an adjective like kowai 'scary' and pronounce it as koee. The /w/ drops out!

Damkerng T.

Oh!

Anonymous

Happens with /y/, too: tsuyoi 'strong' becomes tsuee

Anonymous

/y/ is limited to /ya yu yo/ and not */yi ye/

Anonymous

2:31 AM

So let's pretend for a moment that we can say kaw-anai and kaw-imasu are both using the stem kaw-.

Anonymous

And that the /w/ disappearing is just a predictable phonological phenomenon.

Anonymous

Now we have to explain kat-.

Anonymous

That's pretty easy, right? Japanese doesn't have a */wt/ consonant cluster.

Damkerng T.

Are all of them for the past?

Anonymous

So *kaw-ta becomes kat-ta. But...

Anonymous

2:33 AM

@DamkerngT. -ta is past or perfective.

Anonymous

-te, -ta, -tara, -tari, -tatte all have different meanings.

Anonymous

Historically, besides -te itself, all of the rest derive from contractions involving -te and aru.

Anonymous

And they all attached to the infinitive form of the verb:

Anonymous

買ひて kapi-te > 買って kat-te

Anonymous

kaw- used to be kap-, and you could break it down into kap-i-te

Damkerng T.

2:37 AM

But 買ひて is not in use anymore?

Anonymous

In fact, it was very regular.

Anonymous

@DamkerngT. Right.

Anonymous

No matter what consonant a consonant-stem verb ended with, you'd add -i to form the infinitive, and then attach -te

Damkerng T.

nods -- Did that just happen on its own or was there any reformation in the history of Japanese (the language)?

Anonymous

@DamkerngT. Well, you can't cause that sort of language change by edict. They just happen naturally.

Damkerng T.

2:38 AM

nods

Anonymous

You can dictate how things are written more than anything else.

Anonymous

For a long time, the way Japanese was written was based on how the language used to be pronounced.

Anonymous

Kind of like English, where we write knight but no longer pronounce the 'k' or 'gh'

Anonymous

And that was reformed by the government in the last hundred years, so Japanese is now written much more like the way it's pronounced :-)

Damkerng T.

nods -- There are a few words over here that once their original pronunciations were ruled out to be incorrect for a while. A decade later, they changed their mind and now we accept all variations.

Anonymous

2:41 AM

There are definitely prescriptive rules about pronunciation in Japanese.

Anonymous

But those can't really stop widespread language change.

Damkerng T.

nods -- The main problem they had to change their mind and accept all variations was because people resisted to use what's supposed to be the "correct" one. :D

Anonymous

With enough outcry and systematic education, you can stomp out a thing here or there, like ain't.

Anonymous

Not that ain't is gone, mind you. But it certainly hasn't been accepted as part of the standard dialects.

Anonymous

In Japanese, 雰囲気 is properly read ふんいき fun'iki. But native speakers commonly pronounce it ふいんき fuinki.

Damkerng T.

2:43 AM

Because it rolls out of tongue easier, I guess.

Anonymous

Sure. That's one of the main reasons for metathesis.

Anonymous

It rolls off the tongue more easily.

Damkerng T.

Hehe! Thanks!

Anonymous

Like in English, we say thirteen these days instead of threeteen.

Anonymous

The /r/ moved!

Damkerng T.

2:45 AM

It shifted its place!

Anonymous

Happens all the time.

Anonymous

We don't even know whether ask or aks came first. They've been swapping back and forth for centuries :-)

Anonymous

These days, only ask is standard, and if I "axe" you a question, I'm using a non-standard form.

Anonymous

But it just as easily could have been the other way around!

Anonymous

In Japanese, arata na 'new' comes from the same etymon as atara-shii 'new'

Anonymous

2:46 AM

Why did the /t/ switch place with /r/ in one word and not the other? Dunno! :-)

Anonymous

Sometimes it's hard to say why changes occur.

Damkerng T.

Funny how language works. :D

Anonymous

In Japanese, the situation with -te went from extremely regular (add -te to the infinitive form of the verb) to quite complicated.

Anonymous

And since those other morphemes (-ta, -tara, -tari, -tatte) are derived from contractions with -te, they ended up with the same requirements.

Damkerng T.

It's curious that they didn't use -ti, -tu, or even -to for these purposes.

Anonymous

2:49 AM

@DamkerngT. What purposes would those be?

Damkerng T.

I mean instead of -ta, -tara, -tari, -tatte, they could've chosen to use -ti, -tu, -to.

Anonymous

The reason they all have -ta is because they all come from contractions of -te aR-, and Japanese isn't fond of vowel sequences. They were basically not allowed in Old Japanese.

Anonymous

So -te aR- contracted to -t'aR-

Damkerng T.

Ahh

Anonymous

The capital R indicates an irregular type of conjugation which is no longer around in Modern Japanese, by the way.

Anonymous

2:51 AM

Basically, back then, some verbs ended in -i instead of -u.

Anonymous

So あり was a sentence-ending form.

Anonymous

That verb is still around, but it became regular. These days, it's just ar-, so it's ある in clause-final form.

Anonymous

@DamkerngT. -tu is an Old Japanese genitive marker. -to is an Old Japanese comitative marker.

Damkerng T.

Oh, that's interesting!

Anonymous

yomo-tu-kuni 'land of Hades'

Damkerng T.

2:55 AM

How did tu turn into no? I wonder. :D

Anonymous

It did not.

Anonymous

Japanese had multiple genitives, including ga and no.

Anonymous

Tu was lost.

Anonymous

Main clause subjects were not originally marked with ga; that was a later development.

Damkerng T.

Huh? Wait. It looks like tu works like of, not 's!

Anonymous

2:56 AM

Kuni is 'country'

Damkerng T.

Oh!

I guessed yomo was "land" :P

(Because yama is mountain.)

Anonymous

You know the store, Kinokuniya?

Damkerng T.

Yes, of course!

Ahh... that's the kuni.

Anonymous

The -ya is a suffix meaning 'shop'. Kinokuni from Kii no Kuni 'Kii Province'

Anonymous

Japan used to be divided into kuni, which is literally 'countries', but in English we call those historical regions 'provinces'. I don't know why.

Anonymous

3:00 AM

I don't know why we call them 'prefectures' today, either :-)

Anonymous

The Japanese name for those is different, too.

Anonymous

Kii Province

Kii Province (紀伊国, Kii no Kuni), or Kishū (紀州), was a province of Japan in the part of Honshū that is today Wakayama Prefecture, as well as the southern part of Mie Prefecture. Kii bordered Ise, Izumi, Kawachi, Shima, and Yamato Provinces. The Kii Peninsula takes its name from this province. During the Edo Period, the Kii branch of the Tokugawa clan had its castle at Wakayama. Its former ichinomiya shrine was Hinokuma Shrine. The Japanese bookshop chain Kinokuniya derives its name from the province. == Historical districts == Wakayama Prefecture Ama District (海部郡) - merged with Nagusa District...

Damkerng T.

It still is 'province' over here.

Anonymous

In Japanese, the prefectures are called 都道府県.

Anonymous

都道府県 = 都＋道＋府＋県

Anonymous

3:01 AM

と＋どう＋ふ＋けん

Anonymous

Four types of regions, each with its own name.

Damkerng T.

Wow, that's quite mouthful.

Anonymous

The collective name for them is simply the four types of regions shoved together into one compound word. :-)

Anonymous

But they're different.

Anonymous

北海道 Hokkai-dō, for example, is a 道 dō. In fact, the only one.

Anonymous

3:02 AM

You can see that in its name :-)

Damkerng T.

A-ha!

Anonymous

This distinction is entirely ignored in English.

Damkerng T.

Um.. that's weird.

Organization of the government of Thailand

Thailand is a unitary state in Southeast Asia. The administrative services of the executive branch of the government are regulated by the National Government Organisation Act, BE 2534 (1991) (พระราชบัญญัติระเบียบบริหารราชการแผ่นดิน พ.ศ. 2534). Under this Act, the services are divided into three levels: central, provincial and local. == Central government == The central government (ราชการส่วนกลาง) consists of ministries, bureaus, and departments (กระทรวงทบวงกรม krasuang tha-buang krom). Each of the ministries (กระทรวง krasuang) and bureaus (ทบวง tha-buang) is led by a minister (รัฐมนตรี r...

Anonymous

But Tōkyō, Kyōto, Ōsaka, and Hokkaidō are different from the 43 regular prefectures.

Anonymous

Typing all those macrons was really hard. :-)

Damkerng T.

3:05 AM

There is more information in the English version than in the Thai version!

Anonymous

Hah!

Anonymous

English Wikipedia is often the most informative Wikipedia.

Anonymous

Even if some of the information tends to be wrong.

Anonymous

Occasionally you can find more information about things in Japan on English Wikipedia, too! Although it tends to be the other way around.

Damkerng T.

I was trying to locate the English words used for various "(historical) subdivisions".

Anonymous

3:07 AM

Names for stuff like that are always confusing for me.

Anonymous

Canada used to be a Dominion.

Anonymous

These days, it's just a Canada.

Damkerng T.

Oh, you mean there was the word Dominion in the name of Canada?

Anonymous

Yep.

Anonymous

The Dominion of Canada.

Damkerng T.

3:08 AM

Hah! That's completely new to me!

Anonymous

A Dominion of the British Empire. But no longer.

Anonymous

(By the way, I'm being goofy by capitalizing Dominion over and over.)

Anonymous

So I was thinking about how to handle the -te thingy, 'cause you need a separate rule for each subclass of consonant-stem verb.

Anonymous

Like, for example, 泳ぐ oyog- 'swim'.

Anonymous

It regularly forms oyog-anai, oyog-imasu, oyog-u, oyog-eru, oyog-oo, and so on.

Damkerng T.

3:13 AM

oyog-utte, perhaps?

Anonymous

But when you attach any of those -te thingies, both the stem and -te itself change:

Anonymous

oyoi-de, oyoi-da, oyoi-dara, oyoi-dari, oyoi-datte

Damkerng T.

Hah!

Anonymous

The /g/ vanishes, and /t/ turns into /d/!

Anonymous

And we need that rule for every single /g/-stem verb.

Anonymous

3:15 AM

kag-u 'sniff' becomes kai-da 'sniffed', and so on.

Anonymous

Happens more or less the same way with /k/-stem verbs, except the /t/ doesn't get voiced:

Anonymous

kak-u 'write' becomes kai-ta 'wrote'

Anonymous

Now, you might say I should put another dash in there:

Anonymous

kag-i-ta > ka-i-da

Anonymous

kak-i-ta > ka-i-ta

Anonymous

3:17 AM

The velar /k/ or /g/ vanishes, and in the latter case the /t/ is voiced to /d/ to represent the voicedness of the missing /g/

Damkerng T.

Do they have to teach these as rules for native children?

Or does it just happen intuitively?

Anonymous

Oh, of course not. Native speakers learn procedurally.

Damkerng T.

Oh, like by rote and drills?

Anonymous

No, they don't need to be taught, they just imitate their parents.

Damkerng T.

Ahh... I misunderstood the procedurally part.

Anonymous

3:19 AM

They know 書く becomes 書いた. The confusing part is when they get older and are confronted with historical material.

Anonymous

kyorin-u.ac.jp/univ/user/foreign/nikodebu/lectures(PDF)/2-4.pdf

Anonymous

Here's a set of slides designed to show (one analysis of) the processes to native speakers.

Damkerng T.

I love the cogs (sort of?) in slide 2!

Anonymous

kyorin-u.ac.jp/univ/user/foreign/nikodebu/pdf/koozooree.pdf

Damkerng T.

As a whole, it looks like a cryptex in The Da Vinci Code.

Hah! That's very complicated!

Anonymous

3:23 AM

More cogs for you to enjoy :-)

Damkerng T.

LOLROTF -- (just saw the last page!)

Anonymous

See, linguists use romanization for morphology in Japanese, too.

Anonymous

English speakers often seem to think that romanization is something "made up for learners" that has no application.

Anonymous

Well, it's true that most people would be better off getting used to Japanese writing as soon as possible!

Anonymous

I think of romanization as something that's more useful for advanced students :-)

Damkerng T.

3:26 AM

Oh, the example on the last page makes me think of this phrase: tabemono hakobimasu

Anonymous

I think that would very often be tabemono=o hakobimasu

Anonymous

食べ物を運びます

Anonymous

The difference in pronunciation being the vowel /o/ being held twice as long

Damkerng T.

I can remember only vaguely. But on second thought, I think /o/ was long indeed.

Anonymous

@DamkerngT. Imaizumi has made his book available online: kyorin-u.ac.jp/univ/user/foreign/nikodebu/2000prtpdf/…

Anonymous

3:36 AM

The charts have explanations! :-)

Anonymous

They're 3D visualizations of Japanese morphosyntactic structure.

Damkerng T.

Oh!

Anonymous

But it's all in Japanese.

Damkerng T.

Who is the target audience?

Anonymous

Well, linguists? :-)

Damkerng T.

3:37 AM

Oh, hehe!

Bookmarked for later, then. :D

Anonymous

Anyone who wants to learn about Japanese morphosyntax, I suppose.

Damkerng T.

Hello, @Man_From_India!

Man_From_India

Good morning @DamkerngT.

Anonymous

Hello!

Damkerng T.

I think we've arrived at two good conclusion about from then on.

10 hours ago, by Catija

Well, there is one big difference... "Since then" doesn't include "then". "from then on" does.

2 hours ago, by Damkerng T.

I mean, from then on might not exclude now, but since then should include now.

Man_From_India

3:42 AM

Ahhh that's what one of the answers in ELU said.

Damkerng T.

Hmm... mathematically, from then on is [-1,0) or [-1,0], whereas since then is (-1,0].

Anonymous

Half-closed intervals are the best intervals.

Man_From_India

G2g... My cab arrived! See u soon :-)

Damkerng T.

See you!

Anonymous

@Man_From_India See you!

Damkerng T.

3:50 AM

Certainly you can... it just depends on how you're using it. If you say, "All of my relatives came to my wedding." That would, by definition, include your parents and siblings. — Catija 45 mins ago

@Catija That's a good enough answer for me!

Anonymous

So if we start with the idea that verbs just have one stem each,

Anonymous

Then we still have to account for the /t/-morphemes' attachment causing various changes

Anonymous

Including the irregular verbs kow- and tow-

Anonymous

For aru, which is defective (*ar-anai cannot be formed)

Anonymous

For kureru, which has an irregular imperative

Anonymous

4:00 AM

For nasaru, kudasaru, ossharu, irassharu, which lack imperatives and have irregular polite forms (/r/ disappears before -imasu)

Anonymous

For suru and kuru

Anonymous

For the disappearing /w/ in /w/-stem verbs

Anonymous

Ignoring suru and kuru, we end up with at most four forms: the regular stem, the pre-/t/-stem, a special stem before -imasu, and the /w/-less stem

Damkerng T.

Eh, what about the /g/ or /k/-less form?

Anonymous

kaw- has the surface stems kaw-, ka-, kat-, while kow- has the surface stems kow-, koo-, and kudasaru has the surface stems kudasar-, kudasa-, kudasat-

Anonymous

4:05 AM

All of that can be accounted for without actually listing any of those as separate stem forms :-)

Anonymous

@DamkerngT. That would be the pre-/t/ stem.

Anonymous

But there's a problem there.

Anonymous

If there is such a thing as a pre-/t/ stem, then you have 嗅ぐ kag- and 書く kak- with the stems kai- and kai-.

Anonymous

But one gets -de and one gets -te.

Anonymous

So that explanation doesn't appear to work very well.

Damkerng T.

4:06 AM

Based on the voiced vs. voiceless quality, I think.

Anonymous

Right.

Anonymous

If you think of it as kak-i-te → ka-i-te and kag-i-te → ka-i-de

Anonymous

In Japanese, this form that appears before -te is called the 音便形 onbin-kei 'euphonic form'

Anonymous

Where 音便 onbin is the Japanese term used to describe sound changes

Anonymous

More traditionally, it's called the 連用形 renyō-kei 'ad-verbal form', because it's a sound changed version of the original 連用形

Anonymous

4:09 AM

In the traditional grammar, 嗅ぐ kagu has the 連用形「嗅ぎ」 kagi

Anonymous

And it has another 連用形「嗅い」, due to sound change

Anonymous

Unfortunately, the traditional system puts multiple forms in a given category.

Anonymous

If you look up する, you find that it has the 未然形「せ」「さ」「し」, three different "irrealis forms" se- sa- shi-

Damkerng T.

Oh, so they have at least three different types of irrealis?

Anonymous

Which do you use? Well, the negative -n(u) attaches to se-; the negative -(a)nai attaches to shi-; the passive -(r)are- attaches to sa-.

Anonymous

4:12 AM

@DamkerngT. It's thought by many linguists that the "irrealis form" is an artifact of analyzing Japanese on kana boundaries.

Anonymous

A number of forms that have nothing to do with irrealis mood attach to this stem. Traditionally, it would look like:

Anonymous

iku 'go' has the mizen-kei ika, to which -nai attaches.

Anonymous

「行く」の否定形　→　未然形「行か」＋否定の助動詞「ない」

Anonymous

But you can just say:

Anonymous

-(a)nai attaches to ik-

Anonymous

4:14 AM

ik-anai

Anonymous

And then you don't need a separate -a stem.

Anonymous

There are two main reasons to suspect it's an artifact of the kana-based analysis.

Anonymous

First, the set of forms that attach to the -a stem don't have a whole lot in common semantically.

Anonymous

There doesn't seem to be any particular meaning that the -a form adds, even though it does have a name.

Anonymous

It was used for irrealis conditionals (it's not anymore in Modern Japanese); it's used for negation; it's used for passives; it's used for causatives

Anonymous

4:15 AM

Second, the -a stem never appeared as an independent form.

Anonymous

Although there are certainly linguists today who still accept this system.

Anonymous

When we go back to the "pre-/t/ stem" idea, we get the same sort of confusion.

Anonymous

We have two different stems and no principled way to distinguish them.

Anonymous

"Well, just remember that -de follows the stem if it used to end in /g/!"

Anonymous

That idea needs some work... :-)

Damkerng T.

4:20 AM

I think it must be at least partly because of psychoacoustics of some sort. The part that some sounds seem to work better for native speakers of a given language.

Anonymous

Hmm?

Anonymous

Well, /kaite/ and /kaide/ both seem to sound fine to Japanese speakers. :-)

Damkerng T.

nods -- I think "kagitte" or "kagidde" or its variants wouldn't sound as good for native speakers.

Anonymous

Oh, /kagi tte/ is a possible sequence in Japanese, but /kagi dde/ is really not

Anonymous

鍵って 'kagi' tte "key-QUOT"

Anonymous

4:25 AM

The actual sound change from /kagite/ to /kaide/ is very unusual cross-linguistically.

Anonymous

Ito & Mester call the loss of the velar /k/ or /g/ 'velar vocalization', and the voicing of /t/ to reflect /k/ or /g/ 'voicing spread'

Anonymous

But although the /i/ is there historically, they ignore it (as many modern linguists do), suggesting that the velar /k/ or /g/ vocalizes to /i/ rather than simply disappearing before an /i/ that was already present.

Anonymous

They would say /kag + te/ → /kag + de/ (voicing spread) → /kai + de/ (velar vocalization)

Anonymous

It's popular to say that -te attaches to the stem of the word directly, as in:
/kaw + te/ → /kat-te/
/kak + te/ → /kai-te/
/kag + te/ → /kai-de/
/kar + te/ → /kat-te/
/kas + te/ → /kasi-te/

Anonymous

It's particularly weird in the case of /s/-stem verbs, because that's the one case where the modern form looks like the historical one, but now we're saying that must be some sort of /i/-insertion

Damkerng T.

4:31 AM

@snailboat Actually, it reminds me of Thai ะ ("-a").

Anonymous

@DamkerngT. Oh yeah?

Anonymous

The main reason it's unusual is that it's an example of assimilation at a distance.

Damkerng T.

Yes. For example, "Really." would be จริง "jing" in Thai.

To turn it into a question, "Really?", most people would, in their real-life, say จริงง่ะ "jing-nga".

Though nobody would write it, ever, in their proses.

In prose, they would write something like จริงหรือ "jing-reuu" or จริงรึ "jing-reu".

Or another example, when we want to express our disagreement, we could simply say, ไม่ใช่ ("No.", reads "mai-chai").

But in real-life, more often than not, there will be a sort of ะ sound attached to ไม่ใช่. So it would become a sort of ไม่ใช่อ่ะ.

I think nobody really pays attention to the meaning of อ่ะ. Why is it there? What is it for? and so on. :-)

Perhaps this phenomenon is cross-language.

Anonymous

I have a lot to think about now :-)

Damkerng T.

By the way, the real pronunciation of ไม่ใช่อ่ะ is interesting.

According to its written form, ไม่ใช่อ่ะ is supposed to read "mai-chai-?a" (with the glottal stop).

So, some people would insert a glottal stop there. However, I believe that most people wouldn't do that!

So, it becomes a curious phoneme. :-)

It's not that there's nothing there. There's surely something there, but it's not a full glottal stop.

I think IPA may have this sound, but definitely, there is no Thai letter for that.

Probably a [ɦ].

Anonymous

4:49 AM

Hmm!

Anonymous

I don't really know how to make [ɦ].

Damkerng T.

Try to say, "Aaaaaa" for a long time.

Now imagine doing that without a glottal stop at the beginning. :-)

I think it's half [ʔ] half [a].

Anonymous

@DamkerngT. I'm saying [ʔaːːːːːːːʔ] and [aːːːːːːːʔ]

Damkerng T.

@snailboat I see. Perhaps you can try to produce [1/2(ʔ)aːːːːːːːʔ]. :D

Anonymous

Hmm, well...

Anonymous

4:55 AM

Phonation

The term phonation has slightly different meanings depending on the subfield of phonetics. Among some phoneticians, phonation is the process by which the vocal folds produce certain sounds through quasi-periodic vibration. This is the definition used among those who study laryngeal anatomy and physiology and speech production in general. Phoneticians in other subfields, such as linguistic phonetics, call this process voicing, and use the term phonation to refer to any oscillatory state of any part of the larynx that modifies the airstream, of which voicing is just one example. Voiceless and supra...

Damkerng T.

State of the glottis!

Anonymous

It looks like [ɦ] is actually in the other direction from [ʔ]

Transcript for