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

Re: CHAT: Does etymology awareness affect your speech?

Expand Messages
  • Christophe Grandsire-Koevoets
    ... Same in Moten, where the verbs _ja|zi|n_ and _joplej_ both mean anything from to give , to receive , to take , to bring , to get , to put , to
    Message 1 of 46 , Mar 21, 2013
      On 21 March 2013 03:24, Herman Miller <hmiller@...> wrote:

      > On 3/20/2013 2:12 PM, George Corley wrote:
      >
      >
      >> This is really not an unusual shift. Chinese has the same word for both,
      >> and many English dialects have "learn" taking on the meaning of "teach" as
      >> well as "learn". There just seems to be something about these kinds of
      >> terms that lets this sort of consolidation occur. Maybe it's just that
      >> it's so clear from context who is the "giver" and "reciever" that you
      >> really only need one term.
      >>
      >
      > That's the case in Jarda, where the "giver" and "receiver" are
      > respectively in the ergative and dative cases, so the same verb is used for
      > both meanings without confusion.


      Same in Moten, where the verbs _ja|zi|n_ and _joplej_ both mean anything
      from "to give", "to receive", "to take", "to bring", "to get", "to put",
      "to transfer", etc. depending on the participants in the clause (whether
      mentioned explicitly or implied by context). There are still two verbs, but
      the difference between them has to do with the general "direction" of the
      transfer rather than the role of the participants. _Ja|zi|n_ implies a
      transfer towards the speaker, i.e. from the listener to the speaker, or
      from a third party to the listener or the speaker, or from a third party to
      another third party, but the speaker feels that this transfer is somehow
      advantageous to them. _Joplej_ is the opposite, indicating a transfer away
      from the speaker, i.e. from speaker to listener or third party, from
      listener to third party, and from third party to third party if that
      transfer is neutral or disadvantageous to the speaker.

      Moten speakers seem to have a lot of fun with those verbs :P .


      > Similarly "teach" vs. "learn", "buy" vs. "sell".
      >
      > siv "teach, learn"
      > źum "give, receive"
      > ņêm "borrow, lend"
      > zul "buy, sell"
      >

      In Moten, _ivajagi_ means both "to learn, to study" and "to teach" (in both
      cases, the object is the subject taught or studied). The distinction
      between those two senses surfaces mostly in actor nouns derived from this
      verb: a student is _vajagzif_, literally "learner", while a teacher is
      _vajagnon_, literally "teaching artist/craftsman" (in Moten, teaching is
      considered a _bel_, i.e. an art or craft).
      --
      Christophe Grandsire-Koevoets.

      http://christophoronomicon.blogspot.com/
      http://www.christophoronomicon.nl/
    • George Corley
      ... Alright. I will say that borrow for loan is not something that I immediately recognize, and even have the same intuition as you (that the interlocutor
      Message 46 of 46 , Mar 23, 2013
        On Sat, Mar 23, 2013 at 9:10 AM, Matthew George <matt.msg@...> wrote:

        > On Fri, Mar 22, 2013 at 11:35 PM, George Corley <gacorley@...>
        > wrote:
        >
        > > What exactly are you talking about?
        >
        >
        > The introduction of 'borrow' as a synonym for 'loan'. It's a very
        > different case from the use of 'learn' as you describe.
        >
        > I have no prescriptivist impulses regarding 'learn' - it's the borrow-loan
        > shift that I'm rejecting.
        >

        Alright. I will say that "borrow" for "loan" is not something that I
        immediately recognize, and even have the same intuition as you (that the
        interlocutor is being asked to borrow something on behalf of the speaker).
        Still, it exists and should be accounted for, regardless of whether either
        of us accept it intuitively, and we can easily do by comparing it to a
        pattern that exists cross-linguistically.
      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.