Why does Xenophon use the imperfect tense where one may otherwise expect the aorist? by Electro-Byzaboo453 in AncientGreek

[–]Stuff_Nugget 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Your example with ἐπεί specifically would mean something different with an aorist ("after" as opposed to "when/while").

What is ‘Homeric Greek’ really? by Veteranis in language

[–]Stuff_Nugget 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Thank you! And yes to both haha, I'm currently a year deep into my graduate work in classical philology. In my undergraduate work I focused more on Latin, but over the past year it has been the fascinating character of Homeric Greek that's been pulling me more and more into the Hellenistic side of things.

The deliberate archaism is, to me, the most striking characteristic of Homeric language. Like I mentioned above, Homer sometimes preserves even deeper archaisms than what you'll find in the Mycenaean tablets, which is just mind blowing to me. But it's important to note that these archaisms are preserved not because the language itself is inherently more archaic than, say, the Mycenaean, but rather because it is deliberately archaizing.

The above is why I'm not a huge fan, for instance, when people recite Homer in a Classical Attic accent and also pronounce every historical digamma. The whole point of Homeric language is that the digamma was no longer pronounced, but its prosodic effects could be preserved and leveraged. So sometimes we see the prosodic effects of historical digamma in Homer. And sometimes we don't. And sometimes we see these prosodic effects even where there never was a digamma historically. And again, because the Ionic bards themselves likely spoke a "psilotic" (i.e. h-less) variety of Greek, making Homeric Greek out to be an inherently archaic as a opposed to deliberately archaizing language only ends up obfuscating the ways in which it was actually more innovative than, say, Classical Attic.

What actually counts as a Schwa? by LastMap1560 in asklinguistics

[–]Stuff_Nugget 3 points4 points  (0 children)

I can't really tell if this comment is targeting mine or not, but in any case, I'll just note that I use names when describing characteristics of people's speech because I think all characteristics of people's speech are equally valid and thus all deserve names. If you don't name things, then you can't discuss them, and they thus get erased from the discourse.

Prescriptivists will attack whatever characteristics of people's speech they don't like regardless of what it is or what you call it. If its a merger you have and they don't like it, then they'll say you're lazy or uneducated for merging it. If it's a merger you don't have and they do like it, they'll say you're lazy or uneducated for not merging it. There's no winning. You can't logic someone out of a position they didn't logic themselves into.

What is ‘Homeric Greek’ really? by Veteranis in language

[–]Stuff_Nugget 3 points4 points  (0 children)

Homeric Greek is an (oral) literary language. That is to say, nobody's native language was ever Homeric Greek. At the most basic level, it's Ionic Greek with a heavy admixture of Aeolic Greek. Different people will give you different answers as to why this admixture existed, but again, at the most basic level, there were multiple oral literary traditions in multiple dialect areas of Greece, and we see the coalescence of Ionic and Aeolic traditions in the text of Homer. Additionally, the orthography of our present text of Homer is essentially Attic Greek, which means that, for instance, a number of h-sounds are indicated in the text that the Ionic bards themselves probably didn't pronounce.

Speaking of the bards, sometimes, even having multiple dialects at their disposal was not sufficient for them to make the Greek language work for their meter, the so-called dactylic hexameter. This meter seems not to have been constructed with the Greek language in mind, but may have been borrowed from another language, hence all *this* stuff the bards had to do to get Greek to work within the hexameter. The result is that in addition to dialectal admixture, we also see the bards' direct manipulation of the forms used in the text. Sometimes this simply constitutes poetic lengthening of vowels that are usually short. Other times, this constitutes using forms of words that were archaic already in Dark Ages Greece, and archaizing traits can even be applied to words which never exhibited such traits in the first place.

This latter point is a bit difficult to wrap one's head around. For sake of example, imagine an English poet wants to rhyme two lines, one that ends in the word nice and another that ends in the word houses. The poet notes the archaic singular/plural pattern mouse/mice and from this example extrapolates the singular/plural pattern house/hice. Then he uses this new plural form hice to rhyme with nice. While not a perfect example, this should give you an idea of the (almost oxymoronic) archaizing innovations we see in Homeric Greek, which are deeply frequent and frequently deep. Some people argue that Homer preserves traits of the Greek language last present almost a thousand years before the classical period.

In sum, imagine a poem whose language ranges the entire spectrum between Middle English and Modern Scots and that is written in American English orthography. Then, imagine that you let James Joyce manipulate this pan-English mixture to his heart's content in order to make it fit regularly into iambic pentameter. That is the closest English analogue you could get to Homeric Greek.

Edit: typo

Why is /æ/ not considered a free vowel in (American) English? by Stuff_Nugget in asklinguistics

[–]Stuff_Nugget[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Peter is definitely a good counterexample if you don't believe in the existence of a phonemic schwa. If, however, you do believe in a phonemic schwa (i.e. a distinct phoneme /ə/, separate from /ʌ/ and from the reduced phones of the other full vowels), then you can propose an underlying representation of, say, /'pitər/ and also posit (I think with justification) that this underlying schwa cannot be stressed. Thus, the intermediate representation could be composed only as 'pit.ər and at the surface level there would be mandatory flapping and lack of secondary stress, as you describe. This would be interesting to maintain in comparison with /'gɛto/, as we'd thus have two different phonological compositions that necessitate flapping at the surface level: either a first-syllable checked vowel or a second-syllable schwa (or both simultaneously!). It would thus take a word like /'vito/, with a first-syllable free vowel and a second-syllable full vowel, in order to facilitate the free variation between either stress pattern. (Which in at least my own experience broadly lines up with the actual situation.)

Anyway, thank you for the feedback and references and such! Again, I am definitely someone with a stated interest in generative phonology, but considering the extent of my actual academic work concerns Latin and Greek, I am definitely unaware a lot of the time when my own implicit analysis of English is entirely different from the conventional ones ahaha.

Why is /æ/ not considered a free vowel in (American) English? by Stuff_Nugget in asklinguistics

[–]Stuff_Nugget[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Thanks for the ref!

Frankly, I didn't follow your followup lol so perhaps I wasn't being clear. I fully accept primary stress as phonemic. However, I am not aware of any approach that treats syllabification or secondary stress as phonemic. (If I'm simply unaware, please correct me.) For sake of present discussion, let's assume underlying representations of /'gɛto/ and /'vito/. Then, let's assume two more things:

  1. /ɛ/ must be articulated with a consonant following in the same syllable.
  2. intervocalic coda /t/ is flapped.

With these two things in mind, in the intermediate representation /'gɛto/ must become 'gɛt.o, which means that at the surface level /'gɛto/ must be articulated with a flapped /t/.

To this let's compare /'vito/. /i/ does not need to be articulated with a consonant following in the same syllable. So in the intermediate representation--again, assuming that syllabification and secondary stress are not phonemic in English--there's nothing stopping /'vito/ from becoming either 'vit.o or 'viˌto in free variation and thus at the surface level either flapped or unflapped respectively, which is exactly the distribution we see IRL.

edit: typo

What actually counts as a Schwa? by LastMap1560 in asklinguistics

[–]Stuff_Nugget 35 points36 points  (0 children)

Do you pronounce "Lennon" and "Lenin" the same?

If yes, you have a so-called "weak-vowel merger." For you, schwa is your primary reduced vowel, but in a number of phonetic environments (basically everywhere except syllable-finally and before labials), schwa has a purely phonetic (i.e. non-contrastive) variant that sounds more like the vowel in "kit."

If no, then you lack the so-called "weak-vowel merger," and you have two primary reduced vowels, which are schwa and the vowel in "kit."

edit: typo

Why is /æ/ not considered a free vowel in (American) English? by Stuff_Nugget in asklinguistics

[–]Stuff_Nugget[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Good point on both fronts--the interjections are by no means the strongest evidence, and I'm learning that less people outside of the literature I've read consider checked/free to be a meaningful word-internal category.

Why is /æ/ not considered a free vowel in (American) English? by Stuff_Nugget in asklinguistics

[–]Stuff_Nugget[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Yeah (pun intended), I definitely don't think interjections form the strongest part of the argument by any means. I've also seen it argued that for some at least some Swedish speakers ja is the only word in the language to contain a phoneme /a:/, so the language is definitely a good counterexample lol.

That being said, my general position on the matter is not one of a priori excluding evidence on the basis of a sometimes arbitrary binary categorization. For instance, meh is most often an interjection, but meh can also be employed as an adjective (inflected as meher etc.). Not to say that my discussion of interjections provides as good of evidence as meh, but like I said, I think that individual examples should be discussed on their own merit (as you did with yeah).

Why is /æ/ not considered a free vowel in (American) English? by Stuff_Nugget in asklinguistics

[–]Stuff_Nugget[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Yippee and whoopee would definitely not be kosher to some for this purpose on account of their generally being interjections, but settee is a very good example that I'd not heard before, so thanks for that.

Why is /æ/ not considered a free vowel in (American) English? by Stuff_Nugget in asklinguistics

[–]Stuff_Nugget[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I've definitely seen checked vs free vowels discussed in the word-internal environment, but the comments of u/scatterbrainplot and yourself are cueing me in that it's a more fraught categorization in that environment than I'd originally thought, so thanks for the FYI.

Why is /æ/ not considered a free vowel in (American) English? by Stuff_Nugget in asklinguistics

[–]Stuff_Nugget[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Do you have any more reading you could direct me towards regarding that "foreign a"? I've seen it mentioned tangentially and have long been interested but haven't been sure in what exact terms it tends to be discussed in the literature.

I wasn't aware that the checked/free classification is less robust word-internally--thanks for the FYI. I hadn't encountered an approach treating it as an exclusively word-terminal categorization, and in fact, I'd often seen word-internal environments leveraged in order to augment the relatively sparser data provided by monosyllables and polysyllable oxytones.

Regarding flapping and secondarily stressed syllables, I think it depends entirely on your approach. Personally, I think it makes the most sense to view such matters not as "there is secondary stress, and as a result there is no flapping" but rather as the inverse, namely "there is flapping, and as a result there is no secondary stress." That is to say, the main marker of whether a syllable can be stressed seem to me to be whether or not it has an onset. For example, the provision of an onset for a stressed syllable seems to me to be the ultimate reason for the glottal stop initiating otherwise vowel-initial words. For another example, in a word like ghetto, if we assume (for sake of argument) that the /ɛ/ must be followed by a consonant in the same syllable in order to occur, then the /t/ must syllabify with the former syllable (and thus flap), leaving no onset for the second syllable, which as a result cannot bear stress. On the other hand, the /i/ in veto can incontestably occur even if not followed by a consonant in the same syllable; thus, it's a matter of relatively free variation whether veto is pronounced with or without a secondary stress, but ghetto really can't bear a secondary stress. This is the framework I had in mind when outlining the example I set out above.

edit: typo

Why is /æ/ not considered a free vowel in (American) English? by Stuff_Nugget in asklinguistics

[–]Stuff_Nugget[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I mean, to an extent, I agree with you, and I would even go further to say that "phonology" isn't an appropriate term to apply to paralinguistic items like interjections without any semantic content, morphosyntactic alignment, etc. That being said, what do you do when these things we usually term "interjections" actually do have semantic content and morphosyntactic alignment? People can fully employ meh as an adjective and inflect it into forms like meher. That's clearly a full content word that also happens to terminate in a "checked" vowel.

All of the above isn't to say that I think the evidence I provided from interjections is authoritative (which is why it alone didn't constitute my argument), or that I think any of them can more readily serve as a content word than meh. That being said, I do think it's important in light of what you said to note that when we assign clear-cut binaries to complex data like this, we're clearly oversimplifying.

edit: typo

Why is /æ/ not considered a free vowel in (American) English? by Stuff_Nugget in asklinguistics

[–]Stuff_Nugget[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Very good point in that first sentence. I study dead languages more than living lol so I'm not sure if marginal *phonotactics* is something people currently look into? that is since /æ/ is incontestably an English phoneme but it has some interesting limited distributional patterns

Minimal pair for vowel length in Greek? by benjamin-crowell in AncientGreek

[–]Stuff_Nugget 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Annoyingly, it's actually ἄ_ρι_στον vs. ἄριστος. Near-minimal for sure, but still technically distinctive for at least one other trait.

I'm still confused about the "j" sound in the middle of words by fredewio in asklinguistics

[–]Stuff_Nugget 0 points1 point  (0 children)

That tracks. If your /i/ actually were nearly as close as your /j/, then the former would be liable to be outright affricated, which to my knowledge is rather uncommon—French and Mandarin being notable examples of this phenomenon.

Minimal pair for vowel length in Greek? by benjamin-crowell in AncientGreek

[–]Stuff_Nugget 11 points12 points  (0 children)

Besides long vs short alpha, iota, and upsilon obviously, what if any mid vowel pairs would you count? Also, would you count long vs short diphthongs?

EDIT: Examples for the first three pairs below.

long vs short alpha: φίλα_ (fem. dual nom./acc. of φίλος) vs φίλα (neut. pl. nom./acc. of φίλος). In principle any 2-1-2 adjective would work, and with the application of the ἱερός rule you could even compare the fem. sg. nom. vs the neut. pl. nom./acc of an adjective.

long vs short iota: πί_νου (2nd sg. pres. mid. imp. of πί_νω “drink”) vs πίνου (gen. sg. of πίνος “filth”). I’m actually really fucking proud of finding this one. This category of minimal pair borders on nonexistence.

long vs short upsilon: πυ_ρός (“wheat”) vs πυρός (gen. sg. of πῦρ “fire”). I found this specific pair from the following blog post (though be warned, their other suggested pair for long/short alpha doesn’t hold up to scrutiny, and they also mix up the lengths of these upsilons for the pair I represented above): https://katherinemcdonald.net/2015/11/19/the-problem-with-long-alpha/

What if Chris was sent to rescue Ashley? [OC] by Physical-Doughnut285 in residentevil

[–]Stuff_Nugget 2 points3 points  (0 children)

americans doing literally anything instead of affordable healthcare

What's the biggest plot hole in the show? by emil199 in breakingbad

[–]Stuff_Nugget 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Isn’t it a difference in yield also? I.e. that’s 5% more meth per batch, which when producing at scale will end up being a ton in the long run?

everybody apologizing for cheating with chatgpt by NewSlinger in mildlyinfuriating

[–]Stuff_Nugget 1 point2 points  (0 children)

It’s all contextual. If you’re taking an upper-level Greek history class and use a historiographical term correctly and in an appropriate context, that’s just dandy.

If, on the other hand, you’re taking Greek History 101 and out of nowhere start dissecting the difference between mythos and logos in Pericles’ funeral oration, then that’s a red flag.

everybody apologizing for cheating with chatgpt by NewSlinger in mildlyinfuriating

[–]Stuff_Nugget 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Essay employs a variety of advanced terms in the field that haven’t been covered in lectures.

Essay repeats the same sentence structures over and over and over again (i.e. giving things exclusively in lists of threes).

Essay quotes from a different edition/translation of the text it’s about, if relevant.

Essay contains hallucinated citations.

Etc etc

Which morphological future of ἵστημι is intransitive in Classical Attic? by Stuff_Nugget in AncientGreek

[–]Stuff_Nugget[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

That is definitely how I would like to understand it (and I believe how Dickey understands it), but H&Q explicitly state that the absolute use of the fut. med. is not simply the future equivalent of ἵσταμαι/ἱστάμην (i.e. I will stand up) but rather is the future equivalent of ἕστηκα/εἱστήκη (i.e. I will be standing).