Languages

[The Abacus]

Is strange how we are having a discussion of slavic languajes withouth [censored]

Why would anything need to be censored?

Is that weird, though? English and other Germanic languages do it as well, to a lesser degree in some cases. Georgian has a system of verbal prefixes that pattern as adpositions in many verbs, but indicate aspect and tense distinctions in others. Some dialects of Quechua have the directional marker that used to correspond to 'away from here' now indicates the completive aspect. The part about lexical prefixes is fairly common among languages where such a thing makes sense. As for the suppletive or irregular verb forms in different tenses or other situations--that's almost universal.

Would you need to memorise which one is which to learn them or is there some sort of system to indicate that?

Yeah Russian is alright I guess but damn does the palatalization patterns not feel right. Like Polish has all this nice, symmetrical phonology with the alveolar, alveolo-palatal and retroflex series, but Russian just plain palatalizes everything in sight it seems.

What I fail to understand (from the little I know on the topic,) is when to palatalise and when not to.

[The Abacus]

[Bump]

[zombyrus]

(I think Enihcambus was making a joke about Russian censorship.)

I'm glad to see a thread like this because I like linguistics a lot. Does anyone here know a language with templatic morphology? I don't but they are pretty cool. I think Yiddish [EDIT: either Yiddish or Hebrew, or both] is one such language. I'm not sure what else

[bender]

templatic morphology

What that means?

[zombyrus]

It's a little difficult to explain but I'll see what I can do:

English words have what I think is called polysynthetic morphology (but I could be remembering wrong). We have root words, and then we add prefixes and suffixes to them. Rain (a root noun) becomes rainy (an adjective) by adding the suffix -y. In this way we can take a root and turn it into a lot of different parts of speech and stuff like that.

In templatic morphology, the root isn't a whole word, just a set of consonants. (The examples I'm going to use are completely made up; I don't know any real examples.) Say we have the root M-J-B, and words based out of this root mean something about food. "Mojab" might mean "food," but "Mujeb" could mean "to eat," "Mijub" could mean "hungry" and stuff like that. The consonants stay the same, and the arrangement of vowels tells you if it's a noun or a verb and stuff like that (so in this example, -o-a- makes a noun, -u-e- makes a verb, -i-u- makes an adjective).

Basically instead of "roots" like "food" they have "templates" like "m-j-b."

[The Abacus]

Does anyone here know a language with templatic morphology? I don't but they are pretty cool. I think Yiddish [EDIT: either Yiddish or Hebrew, or both] is one such language. I'm not sure what else

I think most of the Semitic languages have that.

English words have what I think is called polysynthetic morphology (but I could be remembering wrong). We have root words, and then we add prefixes and suffixes to them. Rain (a root noun) becomes rainy (an adjective) by adding the suffix -y. In this way we can take a root and turn it into a lot of different parts of speech and stuff like that.

Another example of polysynthetic morphology:

Polyshynthetic Morphology (edited).png (19.59 KiB) Viewed 2811 times

In templatic morphology, the root isn't a whole word, just a set of consonants. (The examples I'm going to use are completely made up; I don't know any real examples.) Say we have the root M-J-B, and words based out of this root mean something about food. "Mojab" might mean "food," but "Mujeb" could mean "to eat," "Mijub" could mean "hungry" and stuff like that. The consonants stay the same, and the arrangement of vowels tells you if it's a noun or a verb and stuff like that (so in this example, -o-a- makes a noun, -u-e- makes a verb, -i-u- makes an adjective).

Basically instead of "roots" like "food" they have "templates" like "m-j-b."

A real example would be k-t-b, a root present in Arabic, Hebrew and other languages and denotes relevance to writing.

[Vurn]

In templatic morphology, the root isn't a whole word, just a set of consonants. (The examples I'm going to use are completely made up; I don't know any real examples.)

Pretty sure that what you're talking about is actually called nonconcantenative morphology, and is basically defined as one that doesn't use affixes. And uh, an example used often is the Classical Arabic k-t-b root for books and writing, and as such, kitab means book, kutub means books, katib means writer, maaktaba means 'he caused somebody to write' (causative constructions are super hella I mean dayum) Or h-m-m I think was the root for like, baths and pigeons lol, and h-r-m for sins and doing wrong I think since haram meant sin, k-f-r for denial or disbelief (among other things) (hence kafir, heathen) As far as I know, the whole Semitic family of languages has that. Though when it comes to Arabic in particular, they also have this really cool feature I think called the energetic mood, which uses a verbal prefix [ja]- and basically means things like "that thing was definitely done, I'm sure of it". If I remember right, Arabic also sometimes uses past tense to talk about planned, scheduled events that will actually happen in the future and when the speaker is very sure that it will happen. Though, I haven't really studied it in great length, but I'd love to, given the time. Being able to read the Qur'ān in the original would be amazing.

I'm glad to see a thread like this because I like linguistics a lot.

yay

[The Abacus]

And uh, an example used often is the Classical Arabic k-t-b root for books and writing, and as such, kitab means book, kutub means books, katib means writer, maaktaba means 'he caused somebody to write' (causative constructions are super hella I mean dayum) Or h-m-m I think was the root for like, baths and pigeons lol, and h-r-m for sins and doing wrong I think since haram meant sin, k-f-r for denial or disbelief (among other things) (hence kafir, heathen) As far as I know, the whole Semitic family of languages has that.

Yes, I've heard of a few of those.

Though when it comes to Arabic in particular, they also have this really cool feature I think called the energetic mood, which uses a verbal prefix [ja]- and basically means things like "that thing was definitely done, I'm sure of it". If I remember right, Arabic also sometimes uses past tense to talk about planned, scheduled events that will actually happen in the future and when the speaker is very sure that it will happen.

Interesting...
Another aspect that I've heard of (so you probably all know it) in Semetic languages is the concept of the broken plural, in which plurals are formed not by adding an ending (e.g. example + -s = examples), but by rearranging the word. To use your example kitab = book, while kutub = books

[Vurn]

Yeah, sure, broken plurals are just a fraction of the effects of nonconcantenative morphology. That said, I think there still are a lot of irregular plurals in Arabic.

[ENIHCAMBUS]

Is there any language that doesn't has any irregular verbs and exceptions to grammar rules?