So is there some age at which it starts to become exponentially more difficult to take on a new accent?
Well I’m really not comfortable saying exponential; the precise age at which babies begin dropping phonemes varies from person to person, and there isn’t any evidence that hyperfocusing on the phonemes of their own language results in difficulty learning new sounds. I think when you get down to it, it depends on the individual. Kids in general are going to be better at learning languages than adults when they’re immersed in it, but by the time they’re four or five, and have learned how to make most of their language’s sounds via trial and error, it’s going to be a more conscious, academic process, and as such it’ll probably harder.
It’s tough to tell, though. Even as adults, you meet some people who have a lot of trouble picking up new sounds, while others will do it really naturally.
Well, if you put it that way, any two words put together is a “collocation.” What you refer to above is more a question of idiomatic usage. Why do we say “I’m downtown right now.” but “I’m in the Haight right now.”? If you say *“I’m in the downtown right now,” it doesn’t really mean anything that different.
I consider “collocation” to be specific combinations rooted in semantics, such as “drive a car,” as opposed to *“ride a car.” You “run a printing press,” but you don’t *“drive a printing press.”
But I suppose in a way you could call this idiomatic usage, though I think there’s a difference.
Probably two reasons: 1)They had British teachers in their home countries–assuming they’re not from the States; and 2), you answered it yourself: hyper-correction. Remember when your mother always told you to say “Jimmy and I,” not “me and Jimmy, or you’ll get the back of my hand”?
I think either proposal is possible. What made me think of collocation is that there’s been research on collocational restrictions that surround English PP-D clauses, and since it’s already been established that they exist in very similiar contexts, I guess I feel like I’m copping out by just saying “It’s semantics”. Language is regular and systematic, and there should never be a case where you answer a question with “Just because” when you can do better.
I don’t think “unreal past conditional” is a construction in English; I think it will be easier to start with what the subjunctive is, and proceed to cases.
First, English has two subjunctives, past and present. Your second example is a textbook case of the present, or second, subjunctive. The past, or first, subjunctive (the term which I prefer, since it really isn’t restricted to the past), is usually exemplified by sentences like “if I were you, I would ____” The key here is that the first subjunctive is used when the conditional statement is contrary to fact. Compare it with a simple past indicative sentence: “if I was you, when did we get separated?” See?
To use your example (but moving it to the third person, which I find is more clear), “if he has seen him, he will have talked to him about the problem.” That is a conditional sentence, in the present perfect tense. Casting the sentence into the subjunctive mood involves re-conjugating the auxiliary verbs: “if he had seen him, he would have talked …”
The first and second subjunctives come to English via German, and so do not correspond exactly to the subjunctive mood in, say, Romance languages.
I agree with our linguist that these /t/ sounds are glottal stops in Southern Californian speech; as a native San Diegan, I swallow a lot of T.
Thanks for the clarification about subjunctives! I’ve never heard someone from los angeles talking, so I’m not familiar with this behavior, but if it is a glottal stop the notation is easy: the t is written as an english lowercase t, as in /t/ (we use slashes and brackets to indicate phonetic writing), and a question mark that has a horizontal bar on the bottom instead of a dot, to indicate a glottal stop. (If you say “uh oh,” that pause between “uh” and “oh” where the air completely ceases is a glottal stop.)
Hmm. Somehow I don’t see this as a question of morphology, but simple grammatical terms.
(I take it you don’t have a TV :)) Well, of course they’re using a glottal stop In the word “bottle,” (!), which I personally represent with /¿/. (Just about anywhere in the U.S. it will be a glottal stop, not just Los Angeles.) But inter-medial /t/ after a stressed syllable (for example with with “little” or “water”) will not be pronounced with a glottal stop (unless you speak Cockney). People refer to it as a “tap,” or a “flap,” but I’ve seen various ways of representing it in the IPA—no consistency. And even good American dictionaries for speakers of other languages don’t bother to alter it from the /t/.
And “Santa Monica” or “Santa Clause” I’ve heard all over the US, but certainly not with a glottal stop (nor for a tap, for that matter). It’s almost like a “null.” It’s some kind of phonology with vowels/nasals, but I’d be happy just for a consistent IPA representation.
(With the "Santa"s it could be idiomatic or regional, because I don’t think people would do the same thing when referring to the Saints themselves. As far as I know, no Pope has had much to say about that guy they say lives in the North Pole–as though anyone in his right mind except an Inuit would live in the North Pole.)
Well, you’re begging the question here, but if you want to say that English should use a different terminology than all other European languages, be my guest. Any sentence that has an “if” clause is a conditional.
Ex: The judge ruled that the defendent be jailed for life.
The key here is that the first subjunctive is used when the conditional statement is contrary to fact. Compare it with a simple past indicative sentence: “if I was you, when did we get separated?” See?
To use your example (but moving it to the third person, which I find is more clear), “if he has seen him, he will have talked to him about the problem.” That is a conditional sentence, in the present perfect tense. Casting the sentence into the subjunctive mood involves re-conjugating the auxiliary verbs: “if he had seen him, he would have talked …”
The first and second subjunctives come to English via German, and so do not correspond exactly to the subjunctive mood in, say, Romance languages.
I agree with our linguist that these /t/ sounds are glottal stops in Southern Californian speech; as a native San Diegan, I swallow a lot of T.
[/QUOTE]
Begging what question? And English uses the same terminology as other European languages in its family (Dutch, German, …). The Romance languages don’t even use the subjunctive the same way as each other, so why on Earth should a Germanic language use the same terminology as any of them? FWIW, the French subjunctive most closely resembles the English second subjunctive in its usage, while the Spanish subjunctive more closely resembles the first; all Romance languages, however, use the subjunctive in ways that overlap both English subjunctives.
It’s ridiculously simple-minded to assert that “any sentence that has an “if” clause is a conditional”; all such sentences are conditional in nature, as they contain conditions, but a sentence with verbs in the subjunctive mood is all one should need to perceive the inescapable fact that the first subjunctive in English exists and has an entirely distinct inflection.
Finally, this is a grammar question, and it’s a substantial hijack from the intended purpose of the thread. I suggest you take a look at the Wikipedia entry for “subjunctive,” which is excellent; it provides a depth and breadth of discussion that is out of place here.
(Sorry, this is the complete post of the previously incoherent one.)
Well, you’re begging the question here, but if you want to say that English should use a different terminology than all other European languages, be my guest. Any sentence that has an “if” clause is a conditional.
Ex 1: The judge ruled that the defendent be jailed for life.
That’s subjunctive: no "and,"s "if"s, or "but"s.
Ex 2: The judge ruled that if the defendent had been assaulted first, his act would have bee a question of self-defense. But the judge concluded that, in fact, he had not be assaulted first. So the judge jailed him for life.
That’s conditional.
That’s my point; somehow this notion has gotten into the terminology of English grammar. Other languages don’t hold such notions (or use such terminology).
No see. First, the sentence is practically meaningless; I guess it means: “In your perspective, when did we get separated.” Second, it’s not really simple past indicative, if the sentence begins with a conditional clause. It’s an erroneous use of contrary-to-fact conditional (should be If I were you, (or "if I had been you)…[when would you think us to have been separated.] Or some to that effect. I know people say things like this all the time; but this
Well, you’re begging the question here, but if you want to say that English should use a different terminology than all other European languages, be my guest. Any sentence that has an “if” clause is a conditional.
Ex 1: The judge ruled that the defendent be jailed for life.
That’s subjunctive: no "and,"s "if"s, or "but"s.
Ex 2: The judge ruled that if the defendent had been assaulted first, his act would have bee a question of self-defense. But the judge concluded that, in fact, he had not be assaulted first. So the judge jailed him for life.
That’s conditional.
That’s my point; somehow this notion has gotten into the terminology of English grammar. Other languages don’t hold such notions (or use such terminology).
No see. First, the sentence is practically meaningless; I guess it means: “In your perspective, when did we get separated.” Second, it’s not really simple past indicative, if the sentence begins with a conditional clause. It’s an erroneous use of contrary-to-fact conditional (should be If I were you, (or "if I had been you)…[when would you think us to have been separated.] Or some to that effect. I know people say things like this all the time; but this conversation has turned into a question of terminology. Not usage.
But I don’t see why we’re talking about terminology when we should be talking about function.
Minor nitpick: Present perfect is not a tense: it’s an aspect. But that question is neither here nor there. The real issue is that you posit that because something didn’t happen, we should call it “subjunctive.”
In fact, the subjunctive, as it’s called in all other languages, is not about something that didn’t happen(or hasn’t happened), but something that should happen.
The subjunctive is shrinking in English, and it’s limited to a small number of verbs that usually (though not always) use it. I don’t have that list with me at the moment, but I can find it.
Suggest is one of them.
I suggest he get an HIV exam immediately.
It’s subjunctive because the verb get is not conjugated.
I suggest we be a little more light-hearted about the matter.
That’s subjunctive.
Yeah, yeah, yeah. I know the forms, but it’s not a mood; it’s a tense. It’s conditional, not subjunctive.
Well, don’t you see, that’s exactly the problem. We think that because other European languages use subjunctive so much that we ought to as all. Instead, we choose things like should or ought to or must:
He should get an HIV exam immediately.
He ought to get an HIV exam immediately.
We must be a little more light-hearted about the matter.
I agree with our linguist that these /t/ sounds are glottal stops in Southern Californian speech; as a native San Diegan, I swallow a lot of T.
[/QUOTE]
So, are you originally from the West-end? How do you say “little.” [lI/¿/l]
has turned into a question of terminology. Not usage.
But I don’t see why we’re talking about terminology when we should be talking about function.
Minor nitpick: Present perfect is not a tense: it’s an aspect. But that question is neither here nor there. The real issue is that you posit that because something didn’t happen, we should call it “subjunctive.”
In fact, the subjunctive, as it’s called in all other languages, is not about something that didn’t happen(or hasn’t happened), but something that should happen.
The subjunctive is shrinking in English, and it’s limited to a small number of verbs that usually (though not always) use it. I don’t have that list with me at the moment, but I can find it.
Suggest is one of them.
I suggest he get an HIV exam immediately.
It’s subjunctive because the verb get is not conjugated.
I suggest we be a little more light-hearted about the matter.
That’s subjunctive.
Yeah, yeah, yeah. I know the forms, but it’s not a mood; it’s a tense. It’s conditional, not subjunctive.
Well, don’t you see, that’s exactly the problem. We think that because other European languages use subjunctive so much that we ought to as all. Instead, we choose things like should or ought to or must:
He should get an HIV exam immediately.
He ought to get an HIV exam immediately.
We must be a little more light-hearted about the matter.
So, are you originally from the West-end? How do you say “little.” [lI/¿/l]
Omi, I loved your explanation of how clicks fit in amongst other phones. Thanks!
Now, please tell us – what does “movement” mean in the above context? It sounds like you’re roughly saying that some languages tend to have “prefixes” (leftward adjunction to the head??), while others have “suffixes” (rightward adjunction to the head??) Or am I way off on this?
That’s an extremely reasonable thing to conclude, considering that you don’t have context for what I was rambling on about there. ^^
Basically, when we look at sentence structure we draw various types of syntactic trees which are meant to show how various parts of the sentence are hooking together. (One of the things we learned from this is that a sentence probably doesn’t exist, as a concept, but hey. ^^)
So what I was talking about was the various “slots” that things like noun phrases, verb phrases, and the like could occupy. When I was talking about leftward versus rightward adjunction to the head, what I meant was which side of the subject adjuncts, which’re words like “yesterday” or “laboriously” that add to the meaning without changing it in any significant way, are allowed to occur on.
This guy Richard Kayne has done a lot of work on transformational grammar, and he had this crazy theory called Antisymmetry which offered some ideas about how sentence structure works, including the idea that specifier-head-complement is the universal hierarchy in languages. Among other things, this restricts adjuncts from occuring to the right of heads, but since they DO occur to the right if you want to assume that Kaynian antisymmetry exists, you need to account for the adjunct starting to the left of the head, and moving to the right.
My point in bringing up all of this is that since Persian and Turkish start with the adjunct on different sides of the head one of them will have to go through a movement operation to prevent rightward adjunction from occuring, and even though most aspects of human grammar are processed quite quickly, there’s a miniscule chance that this delay that exists in one language, but not the other, could be interpreted by an unwitting researcher as a delay based on one of the writing systems being more efficient than the other.
So that whole rant was about possible ways to control for this in the data. Was that relatively clear? I’m afraid I’m not very good at explaining syntax. 
I have no advice to offer, but I’d like to share in your frustration. I know a lot of Spanish speakers or pronounce LL and Y in Spanish basically the same as I pronounce J in English – No me llames comes out as No me jahmes. In fact, my Spanish accent has that same sound for Y and LL. However, when they’re speaking English, they have the hardest time not pronouncing the English letter J similarly to the English Y, where Judy comes out like Yoodee and Janet like Yahnet.
It’s puzzling to me that they have a hard time moving the sound from one language to another.
Hmm… by English “J”, I assume you mean the sound in words like “judge” and “cudgel”? If so, the easiest thing might be to do it in two steps:
-
Talk about voicing. Have them alternate between saying ‘k’ and ‘g’ while feeling their throat.
-
Ask them to try and say a “ch” sound while making their throat vibrate like in “g”.
Omi, I have a linguistics question, though I guess it pertains to a branch of linguistics other than the ones you said were special interests.
What about invented languages, and the principles that make languages work well? What would make a language better? It seems implausible to me that there are no better and worse languages and they are all just different and they are all beautiful in their own way - languages have definite functions, and if they evolved along different pathways there’s no reason to think none of them would be better than any others, or that none would be better in some particular ways.
So, what do you look for in a language’s evolved design, and how would you try to improve upon it by thoughtful design instead? For that matter, what are the things we could do to help our own particular existing language?
What features of a language’s design are good to have, in today’s theory?
I don’t believe there’s an answer for the specific question you ask, other than categorization. The proper names of lakes, creeks, and ponds seem to all lack the need for ‘the’; Lake Roosevelt, Lake Eerie, Deer Creek, etc. The proper names of oceans, seas, and rivers require ‘the’: the Atlantic Ocean, the Caspian Sea, the Mediterranean Sea, the Mississippi River. (Rivers might fit into both categories, actually.) The rule is relatively consistent, but I’m not sure there’s any real reason why other than it simply being a quirk of the language.
BA in Linguistics earned in 2 years, been 3 years since, haven’t kept up with my studies, so I can’t be very detailed. 
I didn’t say that it isn’t practical to judge a “best” language because they’re “all different and all beautiful”; I said it’s hard to judge because I don’t find it likely that someone could come up with a universally agreed upon set of criteria to judge with. Every language arose in different circumstances, and was deeply effected by the cultural context in which it developed. By that standard, the best language is simply the one used by the culture you’ve grown up in.
(a minor quibble, by the way: languages don’t evolve for the same reason that they don’t have best and worst languages: we can’t show any demonstrable improvement or deterioration, and so all we can say is that languages change, rather than evolve.)
So based on this, I don’t think you’re going to find anybody who can tell you what the desirable features of a language are, because they just don’t exist.
“Better” is a subjective term. Different people like different things and the same goes for the way different languages work: some people like languages with tonemes, others like languages with extensive inflection, etc.
Invented languages (so-called auxiliary languages), such as Esperanto*, are attempts to make a language with a simpler grammar than natural languges.
For some of us, it’s not implausible at all. Languages differ because language changes over time. Some changes may be predictable but others are expected only as changes–the particular manifestation of it is the surprise.
More to the point, language has a definite function. To say “languages have definite functions” implies (IMHO) that different languages may have different functions.
The thing is we know language came from somewhere. We just don’t know where or even exactly when. It seems that no known language or proto-language (proto-languages are also languages; the language from which Indo-European descended is Proto-Indo-European, etc.) is more evolved than another.
Another thing which I personally find very fascinating about language is that any particular language, English for example, goes through cycles. It may start with extensive inflection, lose the inflection, and then gain it back. The most interesting (again, to me) cycle is the Cycle of Negation. I can speak about it for hours on end.
Linguists tend, in my experience, to be descriptivists. That means they look to describe what they observe. There are prescriptivists too who describe what they think is the “right way” to speak a language. My personal opinion is that no language really needs any help. All languages fulfill the function of language.
Now, writing systems are related to language, but they’re not a Linguistics issue. Any writing system could use help because, by the nature of writing itself, something’s lost in the translation from mouth (or hand) to paper.
All languages have the feature of language.
*I’m actually into Esperanto.
Omi No Kami
Thank you for this. The class I’m taking is just something being run by a local Lebanese lady who is a native Arabic speaker but AFAIK, isn’t a professional teacher. The idea of specialized vocabulary hadn’t occurred to me but I’ll give that a try.
Thanks again
Testy