Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: OT YAEPT -omp, -onk

Expand Messages
  • Roger Mills
    ... (re Tony Harris s reply....) This has me trawling my bookshelves in search of info on Vermontese (but without finding anything describing what you report).
    Message 1 of 47 , Feb 13, 2013
    • 0 Attachment
      --- On Tue, 2/12/13, And Rosta <and.rosta@...> wrote:
      (re Tony Harris's reply....)
      This has me trawling my bookshelves in search of info on Vermontese (but without finding anything describing what you report).

      RM I'll insert my basic Midwest US (but mind, when my parents for unknown reasons sent me to a posh New England prep school, I was teased about my accent, and changed a few things...)

      So for you, _father, lava, calm, bother, [[ my "father" vowel is [A], some people in the East have a bit of rounding. "lava" can vary between [æ ~ A] depending on how careful I am ]],  daughter, author, dawn_ have the same vowel, [[ [O] here ]] and you have it in -omp and -onk words too, and this vowel is different from the vowel in _sob, bomb, mop, cot_? [[ this is [A] for me]] Fascinating. Which one is in _long, song, log, dog [[ all [O] ]], sock, watch, squash, lodge, fond [[ all [A] ]] , moth, [[ [O] ]]  folly, follow, fodder, ponder, Don, [[ [A] ]] coffee, lost, often, boss [[ [O] ]]  wasp, hosp(ital), bosky, mosque_[[ all [A[ ]]
       
      What a confounding mess!
      =========================================

      I hope I haven't added to the confusion. It just gets worser and worser :-)))
    • BPJ
      I might have become a field linguist had it not been for my medical condition. Ultimately I ended up outside academia pursuing lx in my free time. I ve
      Message 47 of 47 , Feb 15, 2013
      • 0 Attachment
        I might have become a field linguist had it not been for my medical
        condition. Ultimately I ended up outside academia pursuing lx in my free
        time. I've somewhat compensated by developing a keen ear for everyday
        phonetics -- boy is there a difference between how ppl speak and how they
        think they speak! -- and by being engaged in dialect
        preservation/documentation/education on the home turf which may be a worthy
        form of moribund language work; just to make ppl take pride in their
        heritage rather than seeing it as a bastardized form of the standard
        language. I just wish there were more kids using dialect grammar and not
        just phone* ics. Being a conlanger has in fact better equipped me to bring
        across a better understanding of the relation between dialect and standard.
        Describing the standard as a conlang may not be 100% accurate but paves the
        way for looking at things from another angle.

        /bpj

        Den onsdagen den 13:e februari 2013 skrev Dirk Elzinga:

        > I agree with what Roger said about field work; there's nothing like it. Of
        > course, I don't travel to primitive and exotic locales to do field work
        > (unless you consider small towns in the Great Basin and Southeastern Utah
        > to be either, or both). But the feeling of cultural dislocation is very
        > strong on Indian reservations. That coupled with a traditional mistrust
        > (and even active dislike) of white people makes for some tense moments when
        > being introduced into a community. [1]
        >
        > It is true that, of the conlangers that I've met, most have been interested
        > in field work. I wonder, though, if it isn't really Field Work they're
        > interested in so much as finding out new and unusual things about language.
        > Since the bulk of the theoretical work in linguistics that I've seen is
        > confined to well known and well documented languages, it may be that
        > conlangers, in their search for the weird and exotic, are naturally drawn
        > to reference grammars and other products of field work.
        >
        > Dirk
        >
        > [1] I attended a meeting of the cultural preservation committee for a tribe
        > in which one of the senior members took my presence as an opportunity to
        > berate me, as a representative of White People Everywhere, for the losses
        > and depredations suffered by his people. Most of the other committee
        > members were embarrassed--most, but not all. I ended up not getting a whole
        > lot done there, but I did score some pity points and made a couple of good
        > friends in the community.
        >
        >
        >
        > On Wed, Feb 13, 2013 at 8:59 AM, Roger Mills <romiltz@...> wrote:
        >
        > > --- On Tue, 2/12/13, And Rosta <and.rosta@...> wrote:
        > > Sai, On 12/02/2013 02:27:
        > > > I'm not a field linguist so I have no idea what the perceptual
        > > > distribution is,
        > >
        > > I'm not a field linguist either. I'm a sworn adherent of armchair
        > > linguistics. I do do a bit of field linguistics, but only what can be
        > done
        > > from the comfort of my own armchair (or classroom). [Discussion topic
        > for a
        > > new thread: Among professional linguisticians, armchair linguists are
        > many
        > > and field linguists are few; among conlangers interested in careers or
        > > advanced academic studyin linguistics, would-be field linguists are many
        > > and would-be armchair linguists are few. How come?]
        > >
        > > Sai, On 12/02/2013 02:27:
        > > > I'm not a field linguist so I have no idea what the perceptual
        > > > distribution is,
        > >
        > > I'm
        > > not a field linguist either. I'm a sworn adherent of armchair
        > > linguistics. I do do a bit of field linguistics, but only what can be
        > > done from the comfort of my own armchair (or classroom).
        > > RM-- HaHa. I
        > > began as a field linguist but in my ultimate lack of an academic
        > > appointment have perforce become an armchair linguist......
        > >
        > >
        > > [Discussion
        > > topic for a new thread: Among professional linguisticians, armchair
        > > linguists are many and field linguists are few; among conlangers
        > > interested in careers or advanced academic study in linguistics,
        > > would-be field linguists are many and would-be armchair linguists are
        > > few. How come?]
        > > ============================================================
        > >
        > > OK--I'll start it here: Not sure that's
        > > entirely accurate. Most academic training in linguistics (as well as
        > > Anthropology) will include field work (if only in a "Field Methods"
        > > course, where some us catch the bug-- that course shifted my whole
        > > academic/intellectual orientation from Romance to Malay-Polynesian!).
        > > OTOH most conlangers AFAICT are armchair linguists-- although one could
        > > say that inventing a language has certain elements of field linguistics
        > >
        > > Field
        > > work is truly fascinating-- you're not only encountering a whole new
        > > language but often a new culture as well (same in a lot of conlanging).
        > > It can be rather uncomfortable-- primitive surroundings, weird foods,
        > > difficulties relating to the people, or the converse, going a bit
        > > "native" ;-) -- and sometimes frustrating when you find variation even
        > > with a single small group. Or working with a moribund language, whose
        > > speakers are few and elderly, maybe lacking some teeth and having memory
        > > problems....
        > >
        > > Even the SILers, with their religious motivation, would probably confess
        > > to some occasional discomfort in their field work.
        > >
        > > You
        > > need a firm grounding in phonetics (even for English! as we discover in
        > > these YAEPT threads), and some kind of
        > > theoretical underpinning to make sense of the phonology and grammar
        > you're
        > > discovering. Such field work has formed the basis of many a doctoral
        > > dissertation!! (Unless you're Chomsky & Co., who apparently saw no
        > > reason to work on anything other than English (so I'm told...))
        > >
        > > My
        > > own field work was done in comfortable surroundings, but if I'd had
        > > time, could well have involved some serious trekking into the wilds....
        > > At one point early on I thought (with my background in Spanish) that it
        > > might be interesting to work on S.American native languages, but an
        > > audited Anthro. course under N.Y.Chagnon (of Yanomamo fame) disabused me
        > > of that idea.
        > >
        > > Since becoming an armchair/non-affiliated
        > > linguist, I've discovered another problem: something I'd spent several
        > > years writing,
        > > and considered worth publishing, was rejected on the basis that it was
        > > based only on book research, not on actual field work. Bah humbug. I
        > > could have pointed out that one of the early stars in the MP field,
        > > Renward Brandstetter, never did field work AFAIK, yet managed to do
        > > important work from published sources....(Like Einstein, he clerked in
        > > some Swiss govt. office.)
        > >
        > > So let's see what sort of di
      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.