I went to a talk given by the man who developed Parseltongue for the Harry Potter films, Prof Francis Nolan. Just a few ‘facts’ about the language with some of the 'explanations’ given:
Phonology
It’s got no rounded vowels or labial consonants (because snake lips aren’t very flexible)
It’s got pharyngeal consonants (because some snakes like to constrict things)
It’s got a large number of fricatives, which also exhibit a length contrast (because…snakes)
Syntax
It’s got basic VSO order
It’s got postpositions (typologically highly unusual for a VSO language)
It’s ergative
Borrowings
The word 'muggle’ has been borrowed into English from Parseltongue 'ŋaʔalas’ - obviously!
While it is perhaps unfortunate that we do not know the meaning of some Etruscan words, it does result in several gems when an author simply italicises an untranslatable word in the gloss and translation:
Flere in crapsti
Divinity which in crap
“divinity, which [is] in crap”
Flereś crapśti
“of the divinity in the crap”
(Etruscan is an ancient language that was spoken and written primarily in northwest central Italy. It is also a language isolate meaning, with a few exceptions, it is unrelated to any known language ancient or modern. The alphabet used for Etruscan is based on the Greek alphabet, which means scholars are able to read many of the texts. Working out what they mean, however, is essentially informed guesswork. Check out Helmut Rix’s chapter on Etruscan in The Cambridge Encyclopedia of the World’s Ancient Languages, for more examples and information!).
I have just finished reading Lenneberg’s 1967 seminal book The Biological Foundations of Language. It was, and still is, an incredibly insightful attempt to bring linguistics and biology closer together into what is currently called biolinguistics. It was also way ahead of its time in terms of the conceptual framework which underpins the biological theory of language proposed in the book. By amassing and integrating evidence from anatomy, neurology, cognitive science, evolutionary theory, developmental biology, child language acquisition, semantics, phonology and syntax, Lenneberg creates a theory of language based on a few far-reaching principles.
First, language is viewed as a species-specific behaviour. Every species is different in terms of how they develop and mature. To the extent that behaviour is based on neurophysiological properties of the organism and that neurophysiology is a product of species-specific paths of development and maturation, language can be considered a species-specific behaviour resulting from the human-specific ontogenetic process. Evidence for this includes well-documented and universal milestones in language development, sometimes even in the absence of appropriate linguistic stimuli.
Second, there does not appear to be any part of the brain dedicated to language. Certainly, there are regions of the brain (and particularly of the left hemisphere) which play a more significant role in language, but in general language is well-integrated into the cerebral structure as a whole. This makes it likely that language evolved from the outset as a complex integration of many parts; it is unlikely that the subcomponents of language evolved separately and only recently became unified.
Third, language structure exhibits evidence of three basic processes: (1) categorisation, (2) differentiation, and (3) transformation. Categorisation involves generalising over stimuli, i.e. creating an abstract representation. Differentiation involves splitting categories in various ways. Transformation involves being able to identify similarities between categories, i.e. being able to identify how one category is related to another in a systematic way. Lenneberg argues that these are cognitive skills which have been integrated into the structure of language. Furthermore, because every infant effectively creates language anew, these are the processes involved in language acquisition, for example, early child utterances go through a one-word stage, followed by a two-word stage, then simple sentences etc. This potentially shows differentiation in that one-word utterances are whole child sentences. As the child differentiates the earliest syntactic category into two (say, head and modifier), we begin to observe two-word utterances etc.
Fourth, environmental triggers are necessary for the proper actualisation of one’s innate potential for language. These triggers must be available during maturation otherwise the behaviour will not develop properly, i.e. there is a critical period for (first) language acquisition. The acquisition of language is thus a matter of nature and nurture, innateness andlearning.
There are other principles which Lenneberg summarises in the final chapter, but these give a flavour of the framework in which his theory is set. Language is at its foundations a biological phenomenon, and biolinguistics can help us formulate and pursue questions to understand it in a more insightful and informed way.
“…it is quite clear that breathing undergoes peculiar changes during speech. What is astonishing about this is that man can tolerate these modifications for an apparently unlimited period of time without experiencing respiratory distress, as is well demonstrated by the interminable speeches with which many a statesman embellishes his political existence.”
“…the latter two occupations [playing a wind instrument and singing] require careful instruction and training in proper breathing, whereas speaking for hours continually seems to come all too naturally to many a three-year-old.”
From Eric H. Lenneberg’s 1967 book Biological Foundations of Language.
Another verb I came across from a book on Middle Low German grammar. The modern German equivalent of krimpen is given as zusammenziehen which literally means ‘to pull together’ in the sense of 'to concentrate something’ or 'to make smaller, to shrink’ but also in the sense of 'to constrict, to tighten’ etc. I also found that in Dutch, krimp means 'a bend in the river’.
But the reason it stuck out in my mind is actually due to Tolkien. The last line inscribed on the One Ring is (in the Black Speech) agh burzum-ishi krimpatul 'and in the darkness bind them’. Here we have the root krimp- meaning 'to bind’ and I can only assume that this is not an accident given Tolkien’s vast knowledge of Germanic philology and how little he wrote about the Black Speech. Now to look up durb-, gimb- and thrak-!
A great German word I came across today from a grammar book “…verschleifungen und verschnörkelungen des letzten geschreibenen buchstaben…”, which in context means something like “…marks and squiggles of the previous letter…”. You sort of slip and slide over the 'schl’ and 'schn’ before bobbing along quite happily again once you get to the t’s, b’s and n’s.
For those who think German is harsh and guttural, harsh and guttural languages don’t slip, slide and bob!
Unintentionally humorous moment in this Yiddish translation of King Lear: for “unburden’d, crawl towards death,” the translator has “באַפֿרײַט פֿון לאַסט/מיר װעלן שלעפּ זיך דעם טאָיט אַנקעגן”. For “crawl”, the translator chose “drag myself”, which is fine, except that the word in Yiddish is one you’ll already know: “schlep”.* “I will schlep myself toward death,” said King Lear.
*granted, the word probably doesn’t have the same connotation in Yiddish–it just means “to drag” and is appropriate, but to a modern reader? That’s incredible.
“Okay, fine, I’ll accept the eventualities of old age and death—but I’m gonna complain about it the whole time.”
Do not go gentle into that good night.
Bitch your little heart out about the dying of the light.
how did they learn to translate languages into other languages how did they know which words meant what HOW DID TH
English Person: *Points at an apple* Apple
French Person: Non c’est une fucking pomme
*800 years of war*
Fun fact: There are a lot of rivers in the UK named “avon” because the Romans arrived and asked the Celts what the rivers were called. The Celts answered “avon.”
“Avon” is just the Celtic word for river.
Sahara Desert, Chai Tea, to name a few thing named after mistranslations.
You know, I’ve always wondered that myself. I have theories though that fits for various cases. First off, division from a source.
Norweigian and Danish are excellent examples because first off, the two languages come from the North Germanic branch as they have many words similar to each other to the point where products just put one text with slashes for differing words (it’s like if I did eggplant/aubergine on a product.) as N/D is by it. You would then see how easy it would be to teach each other, although, many examples are languages coming from others but it still answers the question.
Let’s talk about what came from Vulgar Latin. Obviously, many Romance languages. And you can’t suddenly just make a new language through that division. No, I believe that in slow motion, these guys obviously had the same situation like what I just said above as you start to realize that it’s as if these were many Vulgar Latin dialects at some that eventually spread apart. In the middle of this madness, You can obviously conclude that they could more or less still understand each other, they just had to really listen or read very carefully. And with all these relations, they would’ve been able to understand each other even if they are very different and weren’t from each other. Patterns would guide them.
But let’s talk about something even more interesting, what about the languages that come from very different backgrounds? Where the heck do they start? After looking some things up, most people said sort of like what I said, basically, a bunch of verbal association with objects. Another idea I found was the idea of making a bilingual baby.
My formal guess for how is that when people didn’t know, I assume some guys decided to actually attempt to learn it, first by what was mentioned before, verbal association with objects, like pointing to some words an saying what they are. More importantly however, they must realize the patterns and why does it seem eerily convenient that when this guy says this, it means this and etc. I actually use this technique for learning actual languages (for specific nuances in words), and interpreting/figuring out conlangs or made up languages.
Otherwise, I hope that answered the question to some degree as well as made people think in some way.
The name Cinta Larga is a generic name created by regional people and adopted by the Fundação Nacional do Índio (Funai), because the group wears a wide strap of tree bark around the waist. According to the information available, it is not possible to find among the Cinta Larga something like a self-denomination, a general term for the group as a whole - other than the nickname “Cinta Larga”, adopted by them in their coexistence with Brazilian society. It is not possible to sustain hasty translations, as we sometimes see, of generic expressions like “we” or “our people”, which in the Cinta Larga language are pézérey. The Cinta Larga are emphatic when they say: “We do not call ourselves, others are the ones that give us name”. In other words, it seems to take another to name this “We”, the one who, outwardly, delimits and designates its opposite.
A couple of weeks ago, we had a call for participants from a researcher conducting a study out of Bellevue College, and we just got word that the survey deadline has been extended, so we’re passing that along! As a refresh: the study is about sociolinguistics in online fandom, and really digs into how individuals personally define various fannish terms. There’s a particular focus on shipping and antis, and a portion of the survey is optional and uses trigger warnings for potentially upsetting content around antis and anti discourse.
The number of survey questions vary depending on your answers. People have finished in around 20-30mins, and some have really dug into the optional, long-form questions and have taken an hour! We figure around 30-45mins is a good estimate for length.
The survey was set to close on Jun 25th, but has been extended to September 16th. Go go go!
Interested in online sociolinguistics in fandom? Then have we got the survey for you! We were contacted by a research at Bellevue College, who asked about boosting their study, so we’re passing this along. The study is about sociolinguistics in online fandom, and really digs into how individuals personally define various fannish terms. There’s a particular focus on shipping and antis, and a portion of the survey is optional and uses trigger warnings for potentially upsetting content around antis and anti discourse.
The number of survey questions vary depending on your answers. People have finished in around 20-30mins, and some have really dug into the optional, long-form questions and have taken an hour! We figure around 30-45mins is a good estimate for length.
The survey closes on June 25th, so go take it before the month is out We’re really interested to see the results of this one… fan sociolinguistics are always so interesting, especially with a topic like this one!
when did tumblr collectively decide not to use punctuation like when did this happen why is this a thing
it just looks so smooth I mean look at this sentence flow like a jungle river
ACTUALLY
This is really exciting, linguistically speaking.
Because it’s not true that Tumblr never uses punctuation. But it is true that lack of punctuation has become, itself, a form of punctuation. On Tumblr the lack of punctuation in multisentence-long posts creates the function of rhetorical speech, or speech that is not intended to have an answer, usually in the form of a question. Consider the following two potential posts. Each individual line should be taken as a post:
ugh is there any particular reason people at work have to take these massive handfuls of sauce packets they know they’re not going to use like god put that back we have to pay for that stuff
Ugh. Is there any particular reason people at work have to take these massive handfuls of sauce packets they know they’re not going to use? Like god, put that back. We have to pay for that stuff.
In your head, those two potential posts sound totally different. In the first one I’m ranting about work, and this requires no answer. The second may actually engage you to give an answer about hoarding sauce packets. And if you answer the first post, you will likely do so in the same style.
Here’s what makes this exciting: the English language has no actual punctuation for rhetorical speech–that is, there are no special marks that specifically indicate “this speech is in the abstract, and requires no answer.” Not only that, it never has. The first written record of English (actually proto-English, predating even Old English) dates to the 400s CE, so we’re talking about 1600 years of having absolutely no marker whatsoever for rhetorical speech.
A group of teens and young adults on a blogging website literally reshaped a deficit a millennium and a half old in our language to fit their language needs. More! This group has agreed on a more or less universal standard for these new rules, which fits the definition of “language.” Which is to say Tumblr English is its own actual, real, separate dialect of the English language, and because it is spoken by people worldwide who have introduced concepts from their own languages into it, it may qualify as a written form of pidgin.
Tumblr English should literally be treated as its own language, because it does not follow the rules of any form of formal written English, and yet it does have its own consistent internal rules. If you don’t think that’s cool as fuck then I don’t even know what to tell you.
The Dutch word “wiskunde” (study of knowledge in literal, mathematics in colloquial), also refers to the word “wiskunst”, introduced by the flemish mathematician Simon Stevin, and literally translates to “the art of knowing”, and I think it is beautiful.
07.01.2020 || I’ve started a new way of working this year, which involves saying “I’m going to do this many hours of work today,” and then setting off the stopwatch on my phone so that over the course of the day I hit that number of hours. It also means that I can easily pause it when I’m procrastinating, which also allows me to see what percentage of my time I’m wasting (currently I’ve spent 77% of the time I’ve set aside for work actually working today lol), as well as seeing how long it actually takes me to do a task I’ve put down on my to do list!
