English Language & Usage: Multi-Layered Discourse Room

8:02 PM

@AlanMunn If you're still here, I would be interested in your quiz!

Ok. Here goes. What are the subjects of the following sentences:

John left.
The man left.
The man who was wearing a hat left.
There is a man in the room.
There is a man and a woman in the room.

Cerberus

@AlanMunn The first three examples are easy enough.

Alan Munn

We can also add things like:

Who did John see?
Who did John say liked Mary?

Cerberus

*There* sentences are difficult in any language. I'd say there are several options, each has its merits.
1. I believe modern linguists would call *there* the subject.
2. You could say *there is/are* are exceptions, in that subject and verb are allowed to disagree.
3. You could say *is* in the case of *there is a man and a woman* is ungrammatical, and that it should always be *are* in this case (modern linguists will hate this).
4. You could say *there is a man and a woman* consists of *two* clauses, one elliptical, as in: *there is a man and [there is] a woman*.

@AlanMunn I'd say the subject of the main clause in who did John say liked Mary? would be John: the main clause would be who did John say?, the subordinate clause [that] liked Mary.

Alan Munn

@Cerberus Ok. So you could say all of these things. But the original point was "subject is well defined in traditional grammar" :) So what's the traditional definition that works here?

@Cerberus Yes, that's of course right. Also, you guys in Europe have received lots of grammar in school, (not to mention learning at least on other language) so you're likely to be much better than American students on this. Grammar is simply not taught it the US as far as I can tell.

Cerberus

8:18 PM

@AlanMunn Oh, hehe. Fair enough. My personal opinion would be that it is the usefulness of the term/definition that should be our main concern; but, if I had to apply the definition I have consistently, I'd say I would require further research, because I find 4 and 5 equally attractive candidates.

@AlanMunn Hmm I heard similar stories. But I don't think much attention is given to it in English schools either, these days.

Alan Munn

Now the question is whether the linguist's definition is justified. (You're right that we would say that 'there' is the subject). I think it is, since it uniformly picks out a particular syntactic position in a clause. (For example, in a main clause, it's the position around which the Aux inverts in Yes/No questions.) Agreement, it turns out, isn't a great indicator.

Cerberus

@AlanMunn Not great? Wouldn't you agree that agreement works in the large majority of cases?

Alan Munn

Also, when traditionalists start assuming ellipsis analyses, isn't that a case of the pot calling the kettle black?

@Cerberus But definitions that are probabilistic aren't useful, even if the probability is high.

Cerberus

@AlanMunn Hmm how do you mean? I would rather consider it a typical problem of tradition linguistics that they use it as hardly satisfying excuse for anything, sometimes.

@AlanMunn Why not?

Isn't it all probabilistic in the end?

Consider grammatical v. ungrammatical, native speaker v. non-native speaker. Wouldn't you agree that both oppositions are spectra rather than binary distinctions?

Alan Munn

@Cerberus I just mean that linguists often posit unpronounced elements in the structure that seem to get traditionalists all annoyed. But ellipsis analyses (especially unjustified ones) are perhaps the worst example of that.

Jez

8:23 PM

@Cerberus you speak any German?

Cerberus

@Jez Of course; how much do you need?

Jez

@Cerberus ideally an entire game ;-)

Alan Munn

@Cerberus You have to take levels of representation into account. Reductionism per se isn't always the route to explanation.

Jez

But at the moment I'm trying to figure out:

> Mediengiganten

> In fünf Senderegionen können Sie tätig werden. Das Anfangskapital ist sehr knapp, der Computergegner clever. Doch worum spielen Sie? Gewinnen Sie den Sammy für die besten Nachrichten am 16.06.97.

Cerberus

@AlanMunn Oh, yes, very true. My approach is to use from both what seems to be useful. For example, assuming that the same verb can have several different predicate frames is a great improvement over traditional approaches, with would say the verb has a different "meaning". I mean, it is true that it has a different meaning if you need to explain it quickly, but using predicate frames often leads to very interesting results.

Alan Munn

8:27 PM

@Cerberus Yes, but they are not theoretical primitives. (Well, grammatical/ungrammatical may be, but not in the way you intended it (when we're being especially careful, the distinction you have in mind is called "acceptable/unacceptable).

Cerberus

@Jez Hmm I need a bit more context, and what do you not understand exactly?

Jez

the "Doch worum spielen Sie?"

it seems meaningless

Alan Munn

@Cerberus Right, that's a good example. (In fact, that's really the same as my 'before/while/during' example.)

Cerberus

@Jez I would interpret that as "so for what [prize? goal?] do you play?". The prize is then explained to be this "Sammy", I think?

@AlanMunn Hmm not sure what you mean here exactly.

Jez

@Cerberus right I see

Cerberus

8:30 PM

@AlanMunn But what do you think of the term "deep case"?

To me, that seems to be messing up the distinction between syntax and semantics.

A case is syntactic, but a semantic role (which is what I believe "deep case" is supposed to mean) is, well, semantic.

@Jez I'd need more context to be sure.

Jez

@Cerberus that's pretty much it. it describes a mission at the beginning

Cerberus

@Jez Hm ah OK.

Alan Munn

In (generative) linguistics, we make a distinction between "acceptable/unacceptable" vs. "grammatical/ungrammatical". The former is a native speaker's judgement about whether they can say a sentence (or like it, or judge it on a scale of 1-7 etc). This is the only form of data we have. But the reasons for the judgement may be a confluence of factors: syntax, semantics, processing, culture etc.

Once we have a theory however, we can use it to decide if according to the theory a sentence is grammatical or not. This is not a gradable issue. In the best case scenario, sentence we think should be grammatical should be judged acceptable and the converse, all things being equal. But they're not, always.

@Cerberus It's a crappy term. I don't think anyone really uses it. We tend to use 'thematic role' or 'semantic role'.

Cerberus

@AlanMunn Oh, thank goodness.

@AlanMunn Ah OK, I understand. Let's take acceptability, then. You would theoretically have to have a three-dimensional map to accurately depict that. X and Y axes are geographical, as in where people live; Z is something like class or something. Then the entire population should give a mark 1–7 to a certain phrase. 1 is red, 3 is yellow, 7 is green. Then make the 3D map.

There would be all sorts of weird patches and patterns in such a map, all meaningful and interesting and significant, probably.

Alan Munn

@Cerberus Yes, that's definitely possible. Acceptability is absolutely gradable. Whether all the patches would be meaningful I don't know, but that's definitely the idea.

But the task of the linguist is minimally to try to isolate the linguistic components from the non-linguistic ones, and possibly e.g. the syntactic ones from the semantic ones etc. This way we get a better understanding of the individual systems and how they interact.

Cerberus

8:41 PM

So wouldn't any rule ideally have to predict all the patches? In some cases, the entire map would be red; but in many cases, it won't be. Now add people who have learned language x at various ages. And add speakers of various languages or dialects that are very close to the target language and/or should possible be considered part of it. The problem "what are the boundaries between languages?" is highly relevant for acceptability.

Alan Munn

The classic arguments for this approach are the famous garden path sentences like "The horse raced past the barn fell" which are perfectly grammatical, but which speakers uniformly judge to be highly unacceptable. (And for reasons we understand.)

Cerberus

@AlanMunn Okay, so why shouldn't those reasons be part of the model?

Alan Munn

@Cerberus For the same reason that our theory of gravity shouldn't also be our theory of wind resistance. So a ping pong ball and a lead ball will fall to the ground at different rates, but that doesn't mean that acceleration due to gravity isn't constant.

Cerberus

And would you consider *the table who's in the catalogue ungrammatical, or just unacceptable?

@AlanMunn Hmm I don't know. For some reason I am not terribly happy with that analogy.

Alan Munn

@Cerberus It's certainly unacceptable. Whether it's ungrammatical would depend on to an extent on usage. For example, you could imagine a dialect in which the animacy requirement on 'who' doesn't hold. It would be grammatical in that dialect, not in others.

@Cerberus Sociolinguistic variation is the wind resistance of linguistics. :)

Cerberus

8:46 PM

@AlanMunn Okay, but let's take your idiolect. You would consider it ungrammatical? Are you mainly using the criterion of animacy?

Alan Munn

@Cerberus Yes, I would say it's ungrammatical, since my grammar (by hypothesis) has such an animacy/human? restriction on on non-genitive wh-pronouns.

Cerberus

@AlanMunn Haha, yes. It happens to be one of my favourite areas of interest. I am interested in some universal or intra-linguistically universal rule to predict socially unacceptable words/phrases/etc.

@AlanMunn Okay, and how do you define animacy?

@AlanMunn By the way, isn't personhood or something a better term?

Alan Munn

@Cerberus I have no idea. :) It seems to be a fairly deep cognitive category that is grammaticalised in lots of languages. In the English case the restriction isn't really animacy, but something closer to 'human'. For me, the dog who I saw is bad, so it can't be animacy.

@Cerberus Yes, for this fact, you're right.

And in fact when we get down to babies things get murky: Is the baby who I saw good? It doesn't sound great to me either.

Cerberus

@AlanMunn My hypothesis, and forgive me for my boldness, is that you have no syntactic definition of personhood, and there couldn't be any: it is a purely semantic thing.

Alan Munn

This of course fits in with the fact that in English we can use 'it' to refer to babies.

Cerberus

8:52 PM

Well, maybe not purely, but for an essential part.

Jez

@Cerberus pastebin.com/WH2Rt9rw

Alan Munn

@Cerberus I would partially agree. The tricky part is that once the feature becomes grammaticalised, it may have parts that don't match the semantics any more. (A prime example would be grammatical gender.)

David Wallace

@AlanMunn just not in front of their mothers.

Jez

could you review that from "Mediengiganten" onward?

Alan Munn

@DavidWallace Perhaps so. :)

Cerberus

8:55 PM

@Jez Sounds good. As an alternative, you could scratch the entire "so, what's the prize?" sentence, because it is equally meaningless (and slightly awkward, I'd say) in German.

Jez

yep but Mediengiganten is after that

erm

no, sorry, i mean there is stuff also after Mediengiganten

Cerberus

@AlanMunn Right. Hence my hypothesis that semantics and syntax cannot be fully separated in language. Because persoonhood is only one of the most visible tips of the iceberg: I think we use a host of subtle, nameless semantic intuitions in syntax as basic building blocks. Of course much of the main body of interesting knowledge produced by the study of syntax is not really semantic itself; but I think there is symbiosis.

@Jez Not sure what the German means by "Massen-Region".

Jez

@Cerberus no, nobody is

:-)

Cerberus

It could be that the people as mass consumers, or that they are like "the masses", so with superficial tastes.

@Jez Hehe.

But it probably doesn't matter.

Alan Munn

@Cerberus You're probably right, but there are definitely a lot of phenomena that fall on one side or the other. And as I said earlier, methodologically it's more productive to assume a separation, that not to. Anyway, I really need to go now. It's been fun talking to you.

Cerberus

9:02 PM

@Jez Not sure about teilweise.

Jez

@Cerberus looks like the region has "some small interest" in television

Cerberus

@AlanMunn Yeah I agree that a separation is often methodologically productive, as long as it is remembered that this is a bit of an artificial simplification, i.e. as long as researchers are capable of seeing the big picture where necessary.

It's been very interesting, see you later!

@Jez I would rather say they have partially little interest, i.e. part of the people have little interest.

For a bland translation, I would pick they have "relatively little" interest.

Oh, well, these details probably don't matter.

Jez

hmm ok

Cerberus

If you want an expert, ask Reg.

Mitch

@Cerberus WJW to the whole sushi thing. Golf clap for your answer. I bow in admiration. I just thought someone should openly say something of appreciation. Especially for 'spareribs'

Cerberus

9:12 PM

@Mitch Hehe, thanks!!

What does WJW mean?

The whole undertaking was David's idea, by the way, except that I made up the question.

Not sure @Reg was terribly amused, though...

pets poor elephant

David Wallace

@Cerberus Right, Cerby, always blame someone else.

Anyone know what happened to Uncle Gregory's question though? Presumably it was deleted, rather than closed, but I don't know what made this one different from the others.

Cerberus

@DavidWallace Reg closed it, Nohat deleted it.

David Wallace

Maybe our Canadian accomplice started feeling guilty and deleted it himself.

Cerberus

He didn't get the joke apparently.

@DavidWallace Haha no way.

He'd never.

1

Q: Is the last word in "The past is ____." 'past' or 'passed'?

Which of the following is correct? "The past is past." "The past is passed." Both seem plausible to me.

idioms

What do you think of this question? Be sure to see the original version.

I know Timothy (he is an eloquent young man), and not for a second did I believe he was serious.

But Reg didn't seem to agree.

David Wallace

Cool. When you're asking a question with two options, it's always best if you get one answer favouring option A, one favouring option B, and one that's completely different.

I think it's actually a serious question though.

waiwai933

9:23 PM

Now here's a dilemma... should I merge the sushi accounts into the real accounts, or should I just delete them?

David Wallace

@waiwai933 I think it will be at least 364 days before anyone wants to use them again.

waiwai933

@DavidWallace Oh, I know we're not keeping them around. The question is where they go. Into the permanent record (unfortunately, no one here is in elementary school, so that's not actually scary), or into the void

Cerberus

@waiwai933 Just leave them be as closed questions once the day is over?

waiwai933

@Cerberus No, the accounts. Questions are going into the dumpster.

Cerberus

What! Why?

Matt Эллен

9:25 PM

you have to ask?

Cerberus

My question from the previous year is still alive.

Matt Эллен

good point

Cerberus

It is fun to read it back.

David Wallace

@Cerberus I believe he means writers.SE. At least "dumpster" is what Reg calls it.

Cerberus

Why not just leave it closed?

Matt Эллен

9:25 PM

lol

Cerberus

@DavidWallace Haha.

RegDwight Ѭſ道

I never called anyone a dumpster.

I called them the toilet bowl.

No misquoting in this chat.

Cerberus

I apologise in David's name.

Matt Эллен

> no quoting in chat. — RegDwight

RegDwight Ѭſ道

@Cerberus your question from the previous year is still around because it was a duplicate of another question, and a useful one at that.

The sushi quesitons are just mindless and useless.

Cerberus

9:28 PM

@Timothy Mueller-Harder: Please tell them about your joke question. I really liked it, by the way.

@RegDwightѬſ道 Useful!?

Come on.

It was the most useless piece of crap ever around.

Fun, but useless.

Matt Эллен

everything you say is golden, Cerb

waiwai933

I think he might have meant a duplicate of a useful question, not a useful duplicate of a question.

Cerberus

Oh.

RegDwight Ѭſ道

@Cerberus Well if the original is useless, then why do you cling to your bad copy?

Cerberus

Because it is fun!

And, no, I meant my question, of course.

RegDwight Ѭſ道

9:30 PM

Well, what waiwai said.

Cerberus

@MattЭллен Thanks!! Even my sushi question?

Matt Эллен

@Cerberus that made me laugh despite my raging hangover :D

RegDwight Ѭſ道

The original was useful. Your copy is kind of useful by extention. This is how we treat all dupes. We close them but leave them up because they point to the same original using different combinations of keywords.

Cerberus

@RegDwightѬſ道 Whatever applies to usefulness inversely implies to deletefulness, so then my question should have been deleted if it wasn't useful—which it wasn't.

@MattЭллен Haha good! Had a nice party yesterday?

Matt Эллен

@Cerberus yeah! it was lots of fun. I tried to look burlesque, but ended up looking very camp.

RegDwight Ѭſ道

9:32 PM

@Cerberus Nobody is arguing about the usefulness or deletefulness of your dupe from the last year. Except you. I have a feeling you are talking to yourself there.

Matt Эллен

@Cerberus took me a while to realise it was April 1st, though!

Cerberus

@MattЭллен Heh, perhaps both are the same thing in the end...

Matt Эллен

perhaps

Cerberus

@RegDwightѬſ道 Well, I am too tired to argue.

RegDwight Ѭſ道

Then stop.

Cerberus

9:33 PM

I would prefer if my sushi question were kept closed but undeleted.

RegDwight Ѭſ道

All waiwai was saying was that the sushi rubbish must go.

Cerberus

Because it is fun to read it back.

waiwai933

@Cerberus You have over 10k rep. You can read it anyways.

RegDwight Ѭſ道

He didn't even bring up your question from the last year. You did.

Cerberus

@waiwai933 And David and Gigi can't see it if it gets deleted.

waiwai933

9:34 PM

@Cerberus Download it. Save it off-site. You can keep the content, just not on the site.

Cerberus

But whatever.

@waiwai933 It's only fun here.

RegDwight Ѭſ道

The site is not supposed to be some blown up version of twitter.

Cerberus

But, again, whatever.

David Wallace

Don't worry, Cerby, I'll get to 10000 one day.

waiwai933

It's not that I have a vengeance against sushi here; it's that after tomorrow, no one is going to realize when it was posted.

Cerberus

9:35 PM

@DavidWallace I will help you there. If you just post a few interesting questions, such as about Japanese food...

Matt Эллен

and when the world is taken over by cats, after they evolve, the question can be reopened as on topic

David Wallace

How about some that relate to Antipodean terms for women of loose morals?

RegDwight Ѭſ道

Oh and one more thing, @Cerberus. Your last year's question was posted from your main account. This year, people created a whole bunch of fake accounts. That is so not the same thing.

Cerberus

@waiwai933 Oh, yes, absolutely: what with Otavio's brilliant answer, a warning is in order. I will edit "This is an April's Fool joke" into the question.

@DavidWallace Same thing.

David Wallace

Otavio was just fantastic!

RegDwight Ѭſ道

9:37 PM

If you gonna post jokes, post them under your main account. Stand behind them. Otherwise it's kind of cowardly, and pointless work for the mods.

David Wallace

He deserves to keep the upvotes.

Cerberus

@RegDwightѬſ道 True, but do I get to be treated with special privileges, then? In any case, it was more fun this way.

@RegDwightѬſ道 It should have been immediately obvious that it was a joke.

@DavidWallace Haha, well, I wouldn't go so far...

RegDwight Ѭſ道

@Cerberus and it probably is, to the clique of 20-odd people that hang out here. But the site is not for that clique.

David Wallace

There has been some speculation (not by me) that Reg was unaware that Marjory's question was intended as a joke.

Matt Эллен

@DavidWallace I believe he will, under the new system

waiwai933

9:38 PM

@Cerberus Unfortunately, when my modding starts by looking at the flag queue, and there are flags about suspected sockpuppeting, it is evidently not immediately obvious.

Cerberus

@RegDwightѬſ道 The joke is meant for those people.

RegDwight Ѭſ道

We have tens of thousands of visitors each day that are confused with the site as it is. No need to articifially confuse them even further.

Cerberus

@DavidWallace Oh, dear. How awkward.

@waiwai933 Flags about sockpuppeting on April 1? Not obvious?

@RegDwightѬſ道 Again, I will put in a clear warning at the top of the question.

waiwai933

@Cerberus Obvious to me. Not obvious to regular site users. And it's not fun to have to check that each new account is actually not engaging in any malicious behavior.

Cerberus

Oh come on, it's April 1.

Matt Эллен

9:40 PM

people don't look at the posted date, Cerb

Cerberus

Well, then they're fooled!

RegDwight Ѭſ道

@Cerberus In 20 minutes it no longer is and that argument no longer applies.

We can gladly postpone this discussion until then.

Cerberus

@RegDwightѬſ道 And then I will add the banner.

So no innocent souls are harmed with lies.

Or perhaps we should wait until the Americans reach April 2?

Seriously: do you think our joke was a problem?

David Wallace

It seems unfair to deprive the Americans of April 1.

Cerberus

They've had most of it.

RegDwight Ѭſ道

9:43 PM

They have other joke holidays, too.

Cerberus

But this is the One.

Matt Эллен

April Fools ends at midday, anyway

David Wallace

@RegDwightѬſ道 You mean like the fourth of July?

RegDwight Ѭſ道

What I think we really should do, is have it better orchestrated and prepared. Make a concerted effort, plan in advance, then on April 1 post exactly one prank question, nice and polished.

David Wallace

Aha, Reg is coming to the dark side!

RegDwight Ѭſ道

9:45 PM

What we get instead is everyone jumping on the bandwagon and posting worse and worse versions of the same "Oh look, I'm funny, too!"

David Wallace

Umm, technically, Reg, only four people posted sushi questions.

Cerberus

@RegDwightѬſ道 We sort of made a concerted effort, and it was great fun.

RegDwight Ѭſ道

@DavidWallace that's OVER 9000 too many.

@Cerberus it's always great fun for the pranksters themselves. You don't count.

Cerberus

@RegDwightѬſ道 Mitch liked it too.

waiwai933

@DavidWallace Technically, five.

One question was deleted.

Cerberus

9:47 PM

And the "Australia and NZ don't share borders" comment, which was incredible funny, got more than 5 upvotes.

David Wallace

Four people.

RegDwight Ѭſ道

@Cerberus not sure how that one was funny.

That was probably the obviousest joke of the day.

David Wallace

Three if you only consider the undeleted questions.

Cerberus

@RegDwightѬſ道 Not the joke, but the comment. The fact that anyone seriously corrected the question was great.

RegDwight Ѭſ道

Ah. Okay.

Well you managed to make fun of five anonymous people on the Internet. Have a medal.

David Wallace

9:49 PM

It has been observed that the same automatic avatar got generated for "Edmund" and for "Biron".

Cerberus

Thanks!!

RegDwight Ѭſ道

It's chocolate, too.

Cerberus

I suspect that a few of those people were Biron and Rosemary...

David Wallace

Who's Rosemary?

Cerberus

Oops, Marjory.

Look, if you want to delete those questions, it's fine. I think it's fun to keep them (closed), but I won't hold it against you if you delete them. It really doesn't matter.

Matt Эллен

9:52 PM

@Cerberus they're the same word, in Dutch, so it's easy to make the mistake

Cerberus

@MattЭллен Uhh...

David Wallace

Do you mean Marjoram?

Cerberus

If this is a joke, I'm not fooled!

Matt Эллен

Ananas == Ananas

Cerberus

Marjolein ≠ Rozemarijn.

David Wallace

9:53 PM

My former neighbour's sister is called Marjolein. It would never have occurred to me to call her Marjory.

Cerberus

Most Dutchmen would have to think about it too. I think think the herb marjolein is often used (oregano is much more common).

That is, it appears that marjolein/marjory is a common term for "wild" and "real" marjolein. Wild marjolein is what the Italians call oregano, and real marjolein is called marjolein.

And real marjolein is marjoram.

And Marjory is probably an older name for it.

David Wallace

I feel a question about referring to women by the names of foodstuffs coming on.

Cerberus

Hahaha.

Do you feel it, or your dear friend Edmund?

David Wallace

I thought about making Edmund into an ageing hippie with a son called David.

Cerberus

Hahaha.

@Reg:

10 mins ago, by Cerberus

Look, if you want to delete those questions, it's fine. I think it's fun to keep them (closed), but I won't hold it against you if you delete them. It really doesn't matter.

RegDwight Ѭſ道

10:02 PM

I saw that.

Cerberus

Ah OK.

KitFox

I am totally getting my schwerve on tonight.

Just sharing.

Bye!

RegDwight Ѭſ道

CU

Cerberus

@KitFox On Sunday? Great! Have fun.

JSBᾶngs

10:28 PM

@KitFox this is the first time i've ever heard the word "schwerve". but i think i catch your drift

RegDwight Ѭſ道

Well I'm out. Don't want to get on your schwerves.

Night all.

Mahnax

10:52 PM

@DavidWallace I would never do such a thing!

Cerberus

11:06 PM

I trusted that you wouldn't.

Mahnax

Ah, good.

I can't believe that one of the joke Qs is still alive.

Cerberus

Marjory is a strong woman.

Mahnax

Hahaha, was that one you?

Or was that Gigi?

Cerberus

I.

Mahnax

Very nice.

Cerberus

11:16 PM

Thanks.

Greg was nice too.

Mahnax

Hm?

0

Q: "Grab me from my arm" vs "Grab my arm"

What is the difference between saying the following two: She grabbed my arm and walked me to the car. She grabbed me from my arm and walked me to the car.

grammar

Vitaly

@Cerberus are you familiar with Liberman's Analytic Dictionary?

Cerberus

@Vitaly Hmm that may right a very vague bell somewhere, but no.

Should I be?

Gigili

@Mahnax I don't understand your second sentence

Vitaly

@Cerberus that's the question I am asking myself

Mahnax

11:20 PM

@Gigili It sounds like she ripped off his arm, and then took him to the car, without one of his arms attached to his body.

Gigili

But I think it means she grabbed him from arm like what some mothers do to their children when they ran out of patience, and walked him to the car angrily and forcefully, no?

Mahnax

@Gigili No, from is the wrong word to use for that.

Use by.

Gigili

Ah okay.

Mahnax

I just realized that my musical preferences are very odd.

user19161

@Mahnax Boo!

Mahnax

11:26 PM

@WillHunting Hi! How are you doing?

user19161

@Mahnax Wow, it is snowing there and thunderstorm here.

Mahnax

@WillHunting It's not snowing anymore, just windy.

Cerberus

@Vitaly Oh, I do know it. Fumblefingers linked to it in an answer about understand. I read the article about understand and it is very good, highly recommended. The only thing is that it is only an introduction, not a real dictionary: it has only a few words (maybe a hundred?). But if the word you're interested in is in the book, you're golden.

Oh I meant that may ring a very vague bell, btw.

Robusto

@Cerberus: The -ae ending in Latin rhymes with try instead of tray, right?

Mahnax

@Robusto Are you serious?

Cerberus

11:30 PM

@Robusto Correct.

Mahnax

Wow, I've been saying it incorrectly my entire life.

user19161

I've not been saying it at all.

Cerberus

Probably until late Antiquity or later—it gradually changed into /e/ or /ei/, not sure when exactly.

@Mahnax It's OK: when we use a Latin word in a modern language, we usually use Church/Italian/French pronunciation.

Mahnax

@Cerberus I see.

user19161

I have trouble distinguishing between /I/, /i:/ and /i/. I know the first is short and the second long, but the third is supposed to be a hybrid of the two.

Cerberus

11:33 PM

So generally both /ei/ and /ai/ are OK, depending on the word and the context.

@WillHunting /ɪ/ is as in in.

Then /i/ is as in leech.

And /iː/ is just /i/ but longer.

Gotta run, dinner.

Bye!

Enjoy.

@WillHunting By the way, you can search each IPA symbol as such in Wiki and play the sound file there.

user19161

@Cerberus I know. I just find the third one confusing. Long and short, but middle?

Cerberus

11:37 PM

The difference between /i/ and /ɪ/ is not length, but quality.

user19161

@Cerberus The same confusion arises for the three u sounds.

Cerberus

@WillHunting Hmm yes, I have trouble with those too.

I mean, I believe I pronounce them correctly in all languages, but still.

@Vit: Do you want it, or can you find it yourself?

I can send you an e-mail otherwise.

Vitaly

@Cerberus Uh. I believe you can find it with the help of my email. But thanks anyway.

Cerberus

Ah, you already found it too.

Then why ask me about getting it?

I thought it was rare.

Vitaly

@Cerberus Did I?

Cerberus

11:46 PM

Oh, well, I thought you were considering buying it or something.

But I guess you wanted my opinion on the text so that you wouldn't have to read it yourself, hehe.

Vitaly

No, I asked you whether you were familiar with the book, and when you asked me whether you should have been familiar with it, I told you that I wasn't sure whether I should have been familiar with it in the first place.

Cerberus

Right.

Vitaly

@Cerberus Yeah.

Cerberus

Well, so, it's good.

But it has only 55 words.

Apparently words that are considered of uncertain etymology.

But then I presume there are many words that are thought to have clear etymologies, while in fact there are holes and detailed to be filled in.

Or even (slightly) incorrect etymologies to be corrected.

So it would be cool if Anatoly decided to add more and more words.

Vitaly

It would be cool if English had an actual etymological dictionary like the existing Russian and German ones, yeah.

Which is the point Anatoly Liberman is apparently trying to make.

Cerberus

11:51 PM

Well, the OED is pretty good.

Which German one do you mean, by the way?

Vitaly

Oh well, Pokorny's work is not a strictly German one. Neither is Vasmer's work in Slavic etymologies, but I am inclined to classify the latter as Russian.

Transcript for

English Language & Usage: Multi-Layer…