« first day (812 days earlier)      last day (87 days later) » 

10:04 PM
@DamkerngT. The question about whose each and whose every is really interesting!
We discussed it a little several hours ago. :-)
Have you seen the examples I found on Google Books?
@snailboat Guilty as charged! How many times did I tell you not to take me seriously, again?
I usually refer to chapter four of The Interpretation of Quantifiers: Semantics & Processing when the topic of distributive quantifiers comes up (which in this case means each and every)
@MARamezani I guess you have to keep reminding people that. ;-)
*of that
@snailboat Wow, a long PDF!
@DamkerngT. It's interesting that the asterisk has come to mark corrections in informal chat, while in linguistics the asterisk usually marks something as ungrammatical! :-)
10:08 PM
I guess it's probably like this:
BTW if this is unclear and shady somehow, I would really appreciate if someone points out my mistakes.
It's her dissertation. If you can tell your PDF viewer to go to page 111 (which should be marked page 98 at the bottom―the PDF page numbers don't match up), that'll bring you to section 4.2, Each vs. Every
> Linguistics: * == This is incorrect
Chat: * == Oops, I did a mistake. Here is what I meant!
In historical linguistics, an asterisk can also indicate an unattested or reconstructed form
@DamkerngT. This is another there's a difference ya know case, isn't it?
10:10 PM
@MARamezani I think so!
@DamkerngT. Funny sound again!
I'm on Lenovo.
So I could say that Mandarin 蜗 wō 'snail' comes from Middle Chinese kwæ, from the reconstructed Old Chinese *k.rˁoj (Baxter & Sagart 2014)
Or more compactly: wō < kwæ < *k.rˁoj
10:13 PM
Q: Please move this helpful answer to the apt question?

Law Area 51 Proposal - CommitWould a moderator please move this helpful answer (purposed for, and) to this question thread?

My explanation has failed :-)
It's a long stretch for me to think of wō < kwæ.
But I think now I get it.
@DamkerngT. Chinese used to have really long consonant clusters like English does today
What is Law talking about?
That's how Chinese was able, long ago, to have mostly monosyllabic words
It had a maximal syllable of CCCVCCC, which means "three consonants on either side of a vowel"!
Like English strengths /streŋθs/, which is also CCCVCCC
But over time Chinese became more and more simplified, some Chinese languages more than others
10:15 PM
I can't think of anything in Chinese that follows the pattern CCCVCCC!
So nothing approaching CCCVCCC is possible today!
No. You're NOT getting the star!
That means lots of consonants vanished :-)
Okay, couldn't resist.
10:16 PM
That's why Mandarin is much more bisyllabic today than Old Chinese ever was
A lot of the time two syllables are necessary to distinguish what one syllable used to distinguish!
It has a lot fewer syllables these days.
And that bisyllabification is ongoing.
You mean two phonemes or two syllables?
I think it usually is monosyllable!
There are still plenty of common monosyllabic words
The process is ongoing and nowhere near complete :-)
In fact, it's the most common words which resist the process!
Okay. Time to sleep for real. I'm dead (asleep) Later!
10:20 PM
In this respect, Thai and Chinese are very close. (I know @MARamezani will say that I bring the Thai language up again!)
Here are some of the most common bisyllabic words
@MARamezani Hibernate peacefully!
@DamkerngT. Before leaving: You bring the Thai language up again!
The long term trend is to use two syllables where once used to suffice because of the number of homophones
10:22 PM
Ah, I see. But that would depend on how Chinese defines what a "word" is.
@DamkerngT. Like a, ... bear?
I mean, for example, 中国 Zhōngguó China, each of 中 and 国 has its own meaning.
@MARamezani Like a Lenovo. :P
Yes, as morphemes
Just like in tricycle, both tri and cycle have their own meanings
@DamkerngT. The Lenovo company will plagiarize this motto.
I guess most people would think of แม่น้ำ as a single word (which it is!) for "river". But แม่ = mother, น้ำ = water, i.e. "mother of water = river" makes perfect sense for me.
In the sense that "mother of water" is the source of water we drink and use.
That's a bit stretching example. A simpler example is ลูกสาว (daughter). ลูก = son/daughter, สาว = woman/female. However, most people would still think of ลูกสาว as a single word, though obviously it's "a son/daughter who is female".
It's funny what a word exactly is!
It's true
Linguists often use more precise terms like lexical item
Over time, what was once syntax becomes morphology
Grammatical particles become morphologized into inflectional endings
Phrases and compounds are lexicalized into words
The example I used the other day, goodbye, used to be God be with you, four words! But now it's one
Oh, yes, indeed!
10:31 PM
In Japanese, the calque ka-no onna 'that woman' created to translate English her in the 1800s
Became ka-no jo, and is now kanojo, treated as a single word
(Onna and jo are two different readings for 女)
The phrase equivalent today in speech would be a-no onna 'that woman'
Eh, maybe I've heard kanojo in dorama. I think it's kinda like "master (who is female)".
Well, it was created as a loan translation for her because Japanese had no such word
And it's still used that way, but it's taken on additional meanings such as 'girlfriend'
And the frequency of kanojo as a third person pronoun with female reference is much, much lower than the frequency of she or her in English
It wasn't part of the language historically and that shows in how the language is used today
But it's an example of lexicalization.
Q: When and why did 'another' start being used as one word?

jaskaI assume the word came from a meshing together of 'other' with its indefinite article'. When (and why) did English speakers begin to use this version, instead of 'an other'? And why is it still separated from 'the'? Shouldn't there be a word like 'thother'?

How coincidentally!
I think I've seen someone use some words which I thought should be written as two words before around here.
... Ah, yes, someday.
10:40 PM
But these changes happen very gradually over time and we can't usually pinpoint something and say "This phrase became one word in 1975!"
Yeah, in English, we do have orthographic words
They're indicated by spaces and such.
They aren't necessarily the same as any other thing you might call a "word"
Each other, for example.
Clearly two orthographic words. (Well, pretty clearly. Some people write eachother, but it's considered non-standard.)
But it's pretty well grammaticalized
In Middle English, you could still stick a word between each and other.
That reminds me of a comment of my own...
Don't forget that we also write "your own self", not "yourownself". — Damkerng T. 10 hours ago
But today, you can't.
@snailboat Hah!
So did it become one word? By what definition of word?
When did it happen?
It's all kinda fuzzy.
Is kinda one word? It's usually written kind of.
nods -- But also pronounced as kinda.
Perhaps someday we'll have afraida. :P
10:47 PM
Yeah, I think that most of the time the reduced form of of, pronounced /ə/, is written as -a in only a few fixed phrases like kinda or sorta
Otherwise we usually write of, even if we don't pronounce the /v/
But you can find examples of -a on the internet, including afraida, if you look :-)
Oh! I was just kidding! :-)
Mmm, capsaicin
Oh, that scary movie mask!
Hey, we looked at the same thing and see what came up to our minds first!
10:52 PM
It's a famous Munch
Called The Scream
The Scream (Norwegian: Skrik) is the popular name given to each of four versions of a composition, created as both paintings and pastels, by the Expressionist artist Edvard Munch between 1893 and 1910. Der Schrei der Natur (The Scream of Nature) is the title Munch gave to these works, all of which show a figure with an agonized expression against a landscape with a tumultuous orange sky. Arthur Lubow has described The Scream as "an icon of modern art, a Mona Lisa for our time." Edvard Munch created the four versions in various media. The National Gallery, Oslo, holds one of two painted versions...
Oh, yes!
Speaking of northerners
> Christopher Eccleston has revealed he quit Doctor Who because bosses wanted him to drop his northern accent.
> “We shouldn’t make a correlation between intellect and accent. That still needs addressing.”
Today I learned: chip on shoulder
I wonder where that phrase comes from
Wikipedia has a page for it.
10:57 PM
EtymOnline says: To have a chip on one's shoulder is 1830, American English, from the custom of a boy determined to fight putting a wood chip on his shoulder and defying another to knock it off.
Is that about what Wikipedia said?
The phrase having a chip on one's shoulder refers to holding a grudge or grievance that readily provokes disputation. == History == "A chip on the shoulder" comes from the ancient right of shipwrights within the Royal Navy Dockyards to take home a daily allowance of offcuts of timber, even if good wood was cut up for this purpose. The privilege was instated as a prescriptive right from 1634. By 1756, this privilege had been abused and was costing taxpayers too much in lost timber for warship repair and construction. The decision was then made by the Navy Board to limit the quantity a shipwright...
It goes way back to 1634!
But the usage seems to be from 1756.
It's very interesting that they phrased the article title as chip on shoulder
While I understand that, I wouldn't expect to see someone talk about the phrase without some sort of genitive pronoun before shoulder
Chip on my/your/his/her/their/one's shoulder. Hmm, chip on its shoulder?
Maybe when speaking of a robot. Present company excepted, of course :-)
Robots usually focus on logic.
So either its or his is acceptable. :-)
11:02 PM
Yes! That's how they can do things like invent the Zeroth Law!
Oh, @JimReynolds What brings you at this early hour?!
@snailboat Hi there snail :p
Hi Jim
Oh, while I'm still here, I wanted to share a link:
It's about forgetting a language and re-learning it, or perhaps about not really forgetting a language at all
A topic we've discussed previously :-)
> "As it turns out, a language is rarely truly forgotten, merely submerged."
Doesn't that sound like something I had said!
I think I used the word suppressed.
11:20 PM
If you check the Tunstall dissertation I linked to earlier, you'll see discussion of each and every. In particular, the author discusses the emphasis on the universal or exhaustive nature of what's being quantified with every
In fact, every can even be used non-distributively, unlike each, in which case there's even more emphasis on the universal part of its meaning
Now let's think about the collocation whose every. Are we emphasizing the universal or exhaustive nature of what's being quantified?
Are we focusing on each of the things being quantified individually?
I'd argue that it's usually the former, and every is what makes sense semantically
I'd argue that it's all of the above.
(I'm trying to use it in the mathematics context, like defining a set or a list.)
Chapters four and five go into detail about distributivity, if you'd like to read more and see how the author describes the two
I'll just put that link here one more time, since Jim and Arrow weren't here earlier when I linked to it: folk.uio.no/daghaug/corpusseminar/Tunstall1998.pdf
Not that I expect anyone in particular to be interested in it! I'm just posting a link in case, so folks don't have to go through the logs :-)
Anyway, I have to go, but I'll be back later to make another attempt at discussing each and every
I'll be interested to read alternative points of view!
@snailboat Hello folks
11:30 PM
Hi! Welcome back!
@snailboat Was wondering when the each/every bit of your conversation got underway?
@DamkerngT. Hi there
@Araucaria I discussed it with Man_From_India about 8-10 hours ago. Snailboat and I discussed it again maybe half an hour ago.
I can help if you want to get the starting point of each discussion.
@DamkerngT. Cheers! Would I be able to go back and retrospectively evesdrop if I load old posts or something like that?
You would!
You can either view the chat log or keep clicking on "Load older messages" (at the top of the page).
@DamkerngT. Ah great, I might be busy for a wee bit then:) Thanks
11:34 PM
I think I'd better find the beginning of each discussion for you.
@DamkerngT. Think I'll be ok. Better start to get to know my way round ...
2 hours ago, by snailboat
Q: When should I use "finish" instead of "complete," and vice versa?

mmonemI am confused about when to use finish instead of complete and vice versa. May you help me in understanding when to use those words?

@Araucaria Okay! Have fun!
Cheers old bean

« first day (812 days earlier)      last day (87 days later) »