Language Myths: Cha nel kuse dy hengaghyn corrym rish

Ta'n art shoh ry-lhaih lesh kied kenjal Ray Harlow, Laurie Bauer, Pheter Trudgill as Phenguin. T'eh er ny screeu er son ny lioar Language Myths, ny lioar vie er bashtal as cagh ny share son lhaih ee.

FEAYN-SKEEAL JEES

Cha nel kuse dy hengaghyn corrym rish

Liorish Ray Harlow

My veesmayd jeeaghyn er ny çhengaghyn ta goll er loayrt ‘sy teihll jiu, vermayd my ner nagh vel yn ymmyd cheddin jeant jeu. Y chooid smoo dy hengaghyn, she kied çhengey heshaght ennagh t’ayn, as t’ad cooilleeney currymyn ny sheshaght shen lane vie. Ta rheam obbragh sloo ec shiartanse jeu; myr sampleyr, derrey’n gherrid, va Ladjyn lhiettalit da ymmydyn er lheh ‘syn Agglish Chreestee Raueagh, erskyn ooilley stiurey shirveishyn as çhaghteraghyn sthie eddyr-ashoonagh yn Agglish. Ta rheam eer ny sloo eck jiu, as cha nel feer ymmyd jeant jee agh son lhaih ny va screeut aynjee dy bunneydagh.

Er y laue elley, ta obbraghyn s’lhea na coraa laaoil ec kuse dy hengaghyn. T’ad nyn jengaghyn oikoil son reagheydys lane ashoonyn, ta ymmyd jeant jeu er son ynsaghey dys ny keimyn s’yrjey, as er son dagh ooilley sorçh dy screeuaght. Fir elley, ta currym eddyr-ashoonagh oc; she Baarle ee y sampleyr share ec y traa t’ayn, foddee. She çhengey hraaght aer eddyr-ashoonagh, ghellal, as hoilshaghey oaylleeagh ee, as lingua franca turrysaght.

Dy meeaighar, er y fa dy vel lheid ny scanshyn eddyr rheamyn çhengaghyn, ta kuse dy ‘leih credjal, mannagh vel rheam lheead ec çhengey, nagh noddagh ee cooilleeney lheid y rheam. Er lesh kuse dy ‘leih, cha nel kuse dy hengaghyn corrym rish. Cha nel ad nyn jengaghyn oaylleeaght, çhaghteraght eddyr-ashoonagh as screeuaght, as er y fa dy vel ad moal, cha nod ad cooilleeney ny currymyn shoh.

Ta lheid y varel ry-akin smoo baghtal ayns sheshaghtyn raad ta myn-hengey goll er loayrt marish ard-hengey. Myr cooish hampleyragh, smooinee er Maorish, çhengey ghooie Pholaneesagh ny Seelan Noa. Rere briwnyssyn çhengoayllee, ta Baarle ny kied çhengey ec mysh 95 ‘sy cheead jeh’n phobble as ny çhengey ynrican ec mysh 90 ‘sy cheead. Ta beggan ny smoo na 12 ‘sy cheead jeh’n phobble cur enney Maorish daue hene, ass 3 millioonyn. Ny yei shen, ga dy vel ad cur trimmid er scansh ny çhengey son enney Maorish, cha nel agh mysh 30 000 loayreyder glen eck. Er coontey caghlaaghyn sheshoil ‘syn Teelan Noa rish ny queig jeih-bleeantyn s’jerree, ta rheam Vaori er ny lhiettal beggan er veggan, as ayns ymmodee buill, cha nel ee ry-chlashtyn jiu agh ayns cruinnaghtyn formoil cliaghtagh.

Rish ny feed blein s’jerree, va ventyr ny ghaa ec politickaght, ynsaghey as scaalheaney dys castey y hroa shen. Myr eiyrtys jeusyn, she çhengey oikoil ny Seelan Noa t’ayn nish. T’ee ry-chlashtyn ayns scaalheaney radio as çhellveeish, as ayns kuse dy scoillyn as eer un ollooscoill, cha nel ny cooish studeyrys ynrican, agh ny çhengey ynsee.

Rish immeeaght ny ventyryn shoh, va’n varel cheddin dy row mee çheet er ry-akin ec ymmyrkey kuse dy leih: cha nel y jargaght ec Maorish dy ve ny çhengey oikoil ny ny çhengey ynsee erskyn y cheim s’inshley. Ny keayrtyn, lesh fockley magh y varel shoh, t’eh ry-akin nagh vel bun resoonagh echey. S’cooin lhiam barel ayns pabyr-naight ny Seelan Noa blein ny ghaa er dy henney, as foee shickyraghey nagh row Maorish ny çhengey 'eeu, er y fa dy row feme eck er eeassaghey ass y Vaarle er son eieyn noa. Cosoylaghey rish shen, she çhengey vreeagh as so-lhoobagh ee Baarle dy baghtal, er y fa dy dod ee er n’eeassaghey focklyn jeh ymmodee çhengaghyn car ny bleeantyn son eieyn noa.

Agh ta’n eie cheddin, nagh vel kuse dy hengaghyn feeu, ry-akin ayns cooishyn elley. She oraatagh, politickagh as fallsoonagh Romanagh v’eh Cicero, ‘sy chied eash RJC. Screeu eh obbraghyn fallsoonagh ayns Ladjyn, ayns ayrn dys cur fallsoonys Greagagh cour sleih nagh row agh Ladjyn oc, agh myrgeddin, dys taishbyney dy row eh yn-yannoo. Shen er y fa dy row ourys ec ny co-emshiree echey dy dod Ladjyn cur eieyn as aghtyn smooinaghtyn ny Greagee da sleih! Er lhieu, cha row Ladjyn corrym rish. Agh shen çhengey vees ny çhengey ard-scoillarys, oaylleeaght, diploamys eddyr-ashoonagh as lettyraght rish milley bleeaney as ny smoo! Y Reejerey Isaac Newton, ard-scoillar mie er enney ny shiaghtoo eash jeig, hoilshee magh eh ny eieyn echey ayns Ladjyn.

Haghyr lheid y red reesht ‘syn Europey Heear ec jerrey ny Mean Eashyn, lesh ny çhengaghyn dooghyssagh (myr hie ad er enmys) cosney obbraghyn va fo ream Ladjyn roish shen. Ec y traa shen, va sleih ayn as er lhieu nagh dod ny çhengaghyn ardjeeagh, myr Frangish, Baarle, Iddaalish as nyn lheid, jannoo yn obbyr shoh. V’ad ro-gharroo, ro-neuappee, as laccal cooid; cha dod ad fockley smooinaght neuloaghtagh as fys lhean myr ny shenn-hengaghyn, Ladjyn as Greagish. Lhig dooin resooney magh ny ta ry-laccal ec çhengaghyn er lhieu, ny faghyn nagh vel ad corrym rish, as y fesht: “Corrym rish cre?”.

Ny keayrtyn, t’ad reih troyn troggalagh çhengey myr fa dy vel çhengey elley ennagh ny share son obbyr ennagh. 'Syn Elveeish hiar-yiass, ta çhengey ec ymmodee sleih as ish jeh sliught Ladjyn ny coloinee Romanagh. She Romansh t’ayn, as ish çhengey ny theay ayns kuse dy h-ardjyn as baljyn beg, ga dy vel Germaanish er vrishey stiagh 'syn ard neayr's eashyn er dy henney. Myr t’eh son Maorish, as dimraa mee roish, rish ny jeih-bleeantyn s’jerree, ta gleashaght ayn dy vooadaghey ream as paart Romansh.

Nish, foddee Germaanish cur focklyn ry-cheilley dy aashagh, as jannoo co-ocklyn jeu (breearyn, marenmyn as fir elley, cha nel ennymocklyn ynrican). Cha nod Romansh shen y yannoo cho aashagh; t’ee jannoo ymmyd jeh raaghyn dys cochiangley eieyn. Kuse dy Romansheyryn, t’ad er vreggyrt y lhiettrimys shoh lesh credjal nagh vel Romansh corrym rish magheryn bea feer chrampit, er y fa: “foddee Germaanish jannoo focklyn nyn lomarcan son eieyn çhaghnagh, as meenaghey baghtal oc; cha nod Romansh”.

Ta’n barel shoh faagail magh dy vel çhengaghyn elley, myr Frangish as Iddaalish, ‘syn un vuckagh. Agh cha nel doilleeid erbee oc lesh loayrt dy baghtal er cooishyn çhaghnagh. Chammah’s shen, by Romansh ee çhengey dooghyssagh yn ard rish eashyn, as dagh ooilley cooish ayns sheshaght eirinagh alpinagh jeant lioree, as fir jeu feer ‘çhaghnagh’. Lheid ny barelyn, t’adsyn casley rish yn ‘’eayn-skeeal’ t’ad resooney magh ayns Feayn-Skeeal 10: Cha Nel Grammeydys Ec Kuse Dy Hengaghyn. Rere’n ’eayn-skeeal shoh, er coontey scanshyn eddyr troggalyn çhengaghyn, ta lhiettrimyssyn eddyr oc bentyn rish jargaght dy ‘ockley magh kianglaghyn resoonagh eddyr focklyn as eieyn.

Ny keayrtyn elley, cha nel çhengey ennagh ‘corrym rish’ er y fa dy vel eh “graney, barbagh, dewil”. Shoh fer jeh ny h-oyryn, er lesh sleih ennagh, nagh dod ny çhengaghyn dooghyssagh goaill orroo hene obbyr Ladjyn. Myr screeu ard-scoillar ennagh, va blass “soar check as ollish yn ‘er caggee” orroo. Va Dante ny chione-fenee ny çhengaghyn dooghyssagh, as t’ad gra dy dug eh er bun Iddaalish jeianagh. Ny yei shen, lesh creearey abbyrtyn Iddaalagh lesh shirrey fer cooie son ny shaleeyn lettyragh echey, daag magh eh yn abbyrt Romanagh, er y fa: “jeh ooilley abbyrt Iddaalagh, ta’n sheean moal feie oc y fer smoo feodagh – as cha nyrrys, fakin dy vel eh rere trulleeaght as garrooid nyn gliaghtaghyn.”

Ta’n daa hampleyr shoh cowraghey magh ny ta goll er dy feer. Ta ny smoo resoonaght er y chooish shoh ayns Feayn-Skeeal 11: S’aalin Ee Iddaalish, S’garney Ee Germaanish. T’eh taghyrt dy mennick dy vel sleih cur er çhengey ny abbyrt ennagh y varel t’oc orroosyn ta dy loayrt. Myr shen, va’n abbyrt Romanagh feie as moal er lesh Dante er y fa dy nee shen y varel v’oc er ny Romanee v’ayn ec y traa. Y treeoo oyr ta sleih gra nagh vel çhengey ennagh corrym rish, t’eh ny s’trimmey; shen y coyrle: “Cha nel X corrym rish er y fa nagh nod shiu loayrt er fishag çheshveanagh aynjee”. Ta shen keeayllaghey dy vel Baarle (ny çhengey ennagh elley myr Germaanish ny Rooshish, myr sampleyr) ny share na X, er y fa dy vel cooishyn ayn nod oo loayrt orroo ayns fer jeu, agh cha nod ‘syn ‘er elley.

Er y chied reayrtys, t’eh jeeaghyn dy ve ny argane mie. Ta reddyn ayn nod oo jannoo ayns çhengey ennagh nagh nod oo jannoo ayns çhengey elley; myr shen ta shiartanse dy hengaghyn ny share na fir elley; myr shen, cha nel shiartanse dy hengaghyn corrym rish shiartanse dy h-obbraghyn, er y chooid sloo.

Agh ta’n varel shoh cur mee-enney er tro hengaghyn kyndagh rish y çhennaghys oc myr tro undinagh hengaghyn. Dy ghra myr shen, rere’n varel shoh, er y fa nagh row oyr ny feme erbee rieau dy loayrt er (myr sampleyr) fishag çheshveanagh ayns Maorish, cha nod oo jannoo eh arragh er coontey lheamys undinagh ennagh t’er Maorish. Agh lesh beggan smooinaghtyn, heemayd nagh nodmayd cummal seose yn argane shoh.

Cha loayr ad er co-earrooderyn ayns Shenn Vaarle; ta Baarle Yeianagh yn un hengey as Shenn Vaarle, agh ny s’anmey; myr shen, lhisagh shin credjal nagh nodmayd loayrt er co-earrooderyn ayns Baarle Yeianagh. Shen ommidjys, gyn ourys. S’baghtal eh ny haghyr; rish ny bleeantyn, ta Baarle er ngiennaghtyn y chooid ta feme ain urree dys loayrt er co-earrooderyn, as ymmodee cooishyn elley nagh row fys orroo ain ayns ny shenn laghyn. Dys resooney magh cooish ennagh ayns çhengey er lheh, ta feme ain er focklyn dys çheet er mynphoyntyn y chooish; dy ghra myr shen, tasht-fockle cooie.

Gyn ourys, shegin dooin dy vel y çhengey lhiggey dooin ny fockley y chochiangley ayns jeean-loayrtyssyn, feyshtyn, as myr shen. Agh ta ny h-aghtyn shoh ec dagh çhengey. Ta cabdilyn elley loayrt er y chooish shoh, Feayn-Skeeal 10: Cha Nel Grammeydys Ec Kuse Dy Hengaghyn, as Feayn-Skeeal 4: She Çhengey Resoonagh Ee Frangish. Dy giare, ta scansh eddyr çhengaghyn bentyn rish obbraghey troggal ny çhengey, agh foddee ad ooilley fockley y ream cheddin dy cheealyn troggalagh.

Cha nel y tasht-fockle cheddin ec dagh çhengey. S’feer eh dy vel kuse dy hengaghyn er naase tashtyn-fockle bentyn rish cooishyn nagh vel sleih loayrt orroo ayns kuse dy hengaghyn elley. As she “aase” eh y fockle breeoil shoh. Foddee oo loayrt er fishag çheshveanagh ayns Baarle, er y fa dy vel y tasht-fockle eck er naase rish aase smooinaghtyn oaylleeagh; cha row eh ayn er son dy bragh myr tro undinagh ny Baarle. Ren Baarle mooadaghey y tasht-fockle eck, ayns ymmodee aghtyn rish ny h-eashyn, dys cooilleeney ny femeyn noa v’eck. Foddee dagh çhengey mooadaghey y tasht-fockle eck ‘syn aght cheddin, dys goaill stiagh cooishyn erbee as feme ec ny loayreyderyn oc dy loayrt orroo. Lesh jeeaghyn er ny focklyn t’ad jannoo ymmyd jeu ‘sy Vaarle dys loayrt er cooishyn çhaghnagh, as ymmodee fir neuhaghnagh neesht, heemayd dy vel y chooid smoo jeu ass çhengaghyn elley, as er nyn govestey stiagh ‘sy Vaarle. T’ad cur “eeassaghey” er shen, ga nagh vel eie erbee dy jed ny focklyn er cur erash! Ta dagh çhengey jannoo shen er shlee, agh s’cosoylagh dy vel tasht-fockle “eeassit” Vaarle y fer smoo ‘sy teihll, mastey ard-hengaghyn er y chooid sloo.

Ny yei shen, cha nel eeassaghey yn aght ynrican dy nod çhengey mooadaghey y tasht-fockle eck. Dy mennick, ta’n tasht-fockle goll er aase “veih’n çheusthie”, dy ghra myr shen, liorish y chooid t’eck hannah. Ny keayrtyn, agh cha nel dagh keayrt er chor erbee, ta çhengey as ny loayreyderyn eck jannoo shen er y fa dy vel ad credjal dy jinnagh eeassaghey aggair jee. Oyr elley son aase tasht-fockle lesh cooid ny çhengey hene, shen dy by vie lesh screeudeyr ennagh dy nod y lhaihderaght chiarit toiggal ny ta screeut echey dy aashagh, as veagh ram eeassaghey nyn gumrail, foddee.

Shen ny ren Cicero. Son dy screeu ayns Ladjyn er eieyn fallsoonys Greagagh, begin da tasht-fockle Ladjynagh y aase, as shen corrym rish ny h-eieyn by vie lesh soilshaghey magh. Son y chooid smoo, ren eh shen liorish goaill fockle Ladjyn as cur keeal er lheh er dy jioinagh. Sampleyr feer scanshoil, shen yn ymmyd jeant echey jeh’n ‘ockle Ladjyn ratio son ‘resoon’, as haink yn ymmyd shoh da Baarle myr reason. Ny keayrtyn elley, chroo eh focklyn noa jeh bun Ladjynagh; myr sampleyr, chroo eh qualitas (haink shen y ve quallid ‘sy Ghaelg, quality ‘sy Vaarle) dy jioinagh dys çheet er eie Greagagh.

Ta myn-hengaghyn, myr sampleyr Maorish as Romansh, jannoo y red cheddin jiu ren Cicero son Ladjyn. T’ad jannoo tasht-fockle ass cooid t’ec ny çhengaghyn hannah, do nodmayd jannoo ymmyd jeu dy loayrt er cooishyn nagh row shin loayrt orroo ayndaue monney roie, myr co-earrooderyn, leigh, oaylleeaght as reddyn elley. Cha cosoylagh eh dy jig y daa hengey shoh y ve nyn jengaghyn oaylleeaght ny diploamys eddyr-ashoonagh, agh dy beagh shennaghys elley ayn, veagh ad, foddee, as eisht veagh shin resooney magh, foddee, my ta Baarle “corrym rish” ny dyn.

Language Myths

Baarle: "This illuminating and highly readable collection of essays explores some of the myths, for example: standards of children's speech and writing have declined; women talk too much; the 'purity' of the English language is under threat; some languages are more attractive to the ear or are harder to learn than others; the media has a detrimental effect on language. These widely held views are questioned and shown to be based on inadequate or false information, or simply, not to be true. Other essays explore spelling problems, attitudes towards accents, controversies over changes in language, and the belief that some languages have no grammar."

Fys lioar-oaylleeagh:

• Enmys: Language Myths
• Soilsheyder: Penguin, 1998
• Reagheyderyn: Laurie Bauer & Peter Trudgill
• ISBN-13: 978-0140260236
• Kiangley: Er ynnyd-eggey Phenguin (kiart ec y traa screeuee)

Screeudeyryn

Ray Harlow

She Ray Harlow eh screeudeyr yn art shoh. She çhengoayllee eh, as anaase echey er ymmodee çhengaghyn. T'eh cur geill er lheh da Maorish as Polaneesish, as t'eh cur cooney da obbyr freayll çhengaghyn 'sy Teelan Noa, chammah's da sheshaghtyn Europagh ta jannoo eab myn-hengaghyn ardjynagh y 'reayll.

Laurie Bauer

Ta Laurie Bauer ny cho-reagheyder ny lioar. She çhengoayllee eh, as anaase mooar echey er jalloo-oaylleeaght (kiaddey focklyn, er lheh) as sorçhyn dy Vaarle harrish y teihll (Baarle y Teelan Noa, er lheh).

Peter Trudgill

Ta Peter Trudgill ny cho-reagheyder ny lioar. She çhengoayllee eh, as anaase mooar echey er sheshengoaylleeaght as abbyrtyn. T'eh er nyannoo ram obbyr er abbyrt Norfolk as t'eh ny eaghtyrane onnoragh ny sheshaght Friends of Norfolk Dialect.

Penguin Books

She soilsheyder lioaryn eh Penguin Books.

英语发音课：添加「ｒ」

Wikipedia会显示下用的声音标记

把个元音（ａ、ｅ、ｉ、ｏ 或者 ｕ）添加会变化发音。十之八九是有系统地变化。

美国 、澳大利亚 、苏格兰和爱尔兰的英语都通常发音最后的「ｒ」。英格兰的英语通常不发音，只有比较长的元音。比如：

• 美国：torn 发音［tɔːn］
• 英格兰：torn 发音［tɔrn］

通常，一个短元音会变城长的「ｕｈ」声，相「 和」的中声一样差不多（国际音标［ɜː］）。ｉ，ｅ，ｕ都按这个系统变化。

• bid 变成 bird
• will 变成 whirl
＝ɪ 变成 ɜː

• let 变成 alert
• pet 变成 pert
• ten 变成 tern
＝ɛ 变成 ɜː

• luck 变成 lurk
• pull 变成 purl
• hut 变成 hurt
ʌ 还是 ʊ 变成 ɜː

ａ会变城长的「ａｈ」声：

• pat 变成 part
• van 变成 varnish
• tan 变成 tarn
• pack 变成 park
＝a 变成 ɑː

ｏ 比较复杂，有时短地ｏ被发音相 ｕ 一样。尽管短的声音，一添加ｒ，就变成「ｏｒ」声：

• pot 变成 port
• spot 变成 sport
＝ɒ 变成 ɔː
• ton 变成 torn
• honey 变成 hornet
＝ʊ 变成 ɔː

Reading "What is morphology?", part 2

This is the second part of my discussion of What is Morphology?, and follows on from the previous post. In that post, I looked at some of the problems with their teaching style: I suggested that they present claims from authority rather than providing convincing evidence, and particularly that their use of examples is unhelpful and often fails (on closer examination) to demonstrate their points.

The second problem I mentioned was their approach to problems. Like the first post, this is a non-expert analysis and I'm willing to be corrected on any claims I make. Broadly speaking, I got the impression that Aronoff and Fudeman had got hold of a morphological hammer and every linguistic problem looked like a nail to them.

I'll stick with an example from chapter 4, which I mentioned in the first post.

(4) She’s a high voltage electricity grid systems supervisor

There is evidence that high voltage electricity grid systems supervisor is a single noun.

This is not an immediately intuitive statement, so I'm glad to see a bit of analysis follows.

First, its distribution matches that of any other noun, so we can insert it into phrases like [a good N] or [N for hire].

Second, high voltage electricity grid systems supervisor behaves as a single unit for the purposes of wh-movement. Question-answer pairs that break it up are at the very least awkward. In chapter 2 we related this characteristic of words to the notion of lexical integrity.

(5) a. Q: Which electricity grid systems supervisor did you see?

A: ?The high voltage one.

b. Q: Which systems supervisor did you see?

A: *The high voltage electricity grid one.

c. Q: Which supervisor did you see?

A: *The high voltage electricity grid systems one.

Contrast these with syntactic strings of modifier plus noun which are easily broken up, as shown in (6):

(6) Q: Which supervisor did you see?

A: The tall one.

Continuing with the notion of lexical integrity, we can ask whether it is possible to describe part of the string high voltage electricity grid systems supervisor with a modifier. When we try, the result is very awkward (7):

(7) ?A very high voltage electricity grid systems supervisor.

The most natural interpretation of (7) is the figurative one whereby very high voltage is used as an adjectival phrase modifying a smaller compound [electricity grid] giving the intermediate form very high voltage electricity grid, which in turn modifies [systems supervisor], giving the entire form in (7).

Finally we can point to the structure of high voltage electricity grid systems supervisor as evidence that it is a single noun formed by compounding. Words in English are generally head-final... a dogsled is a kind of sled, not a kind of dog... and affixed word like pollution take on the lexical category of the suffix (in this case, noun) rather than that of the stem (pollute, a verb). As speakers of English we know this, and without ever having heard high voltage electricity grid systems supervisor before, we know that it designates a type of supervisor. Phrases, in contrast to words, are less likely to be head-final. The head of [NP John’s walking into work without a tie] is walking, not tie.

Having established that high voltage electricity grid systems supervisor is a single word of the category N...

Hey, hang on a minute! Exactly when do you imagine you established that?

Just to be clear, I don’t necessarily disagree with them. There’s no particular reason to think that high voltage electricity grid systems supervisor isn’t a single noun when houseboat or penknife or bookworm all seem to be (spacing conventions aside).

However, their analysis suffers from similar problems to those I noted last time. They make a few claims about things that demonstrate noun status, without ever explaining why they think those are good tests for nounhood. At some point in the book they might eventually explain what they think it means for something to be a single noun, and whether their definition is necessarily distinguishable from a noun phrase, but I didn’t get that far.

Anyway, let’s examine their first claim.

Distribution tests for nounhood

First, its distribution matches that of any other noun, so we can insert it into phrases like [a good N] or [N for hire].

Really? Okay, let’s try it along with some similar sentences and see how they pan out.

• high voltage electricity grid systems supervisor for hire
• short-wave radio repair company manager for hire
• low-quality pulp fiction magazine publishing company for hire
• local hedgehog preservation society president for hire

Well yes, you can insert them into those structures. The resulting sentences have something in common: they all sound strange. They sound faux-portentous and self-parodying, like taglines from upcoming films. It's perhaps related to the fact that the common versions (gun for hire and so on) are short and punchy, and generally far removed in tone from these examples too. However, there are contexts where some variations of these could work; an engineering magazine with adverts for high-voltage electricity grid systems maintenance equipment for hire wouldn’t raise many eyebrows.

Let’s try the other test.

• a good low-quality pulp fiction magazine publishing company
• a good national hedgehog preservation society president
• a good mass-market lacquered hardwood violin polish

To me, these imply that good is being carefully limited by the string of adjectives; damning with faint praise, in fact (consider “a good first-year undergraduate answer”). These sentences, appearing in a business article or CV, would not be read as endorsements. Only the third seems arguable as actual praise, because deciding what violin polish to use may involve complex weighing-up decisions: only a lacquered hardwood polish is suitable for my lacquered hardwood violin, but is it worth getting the specialist stuff, or is there a decent mass-market brand available?

If we really want to convey the literal meaning of those sorts of sentences, without creating other implications, what we do is tend towards the minimum necessary information when we really want to give the literal meaning of the words. Further information can be divulged later.

• a good company
• a good president
• systems supervisor for hire

I’ll come back to this issue next time. That's plenty of post for now.

Reading "What is morphology?"

One of the things I studied while at University was linguistics, and I'm still interested in the subject. I also find it useful in learning languages. However, as I was on combined honours, there are areas that are still largely unexplored territory for me, which I've been trying to catch up on. Recently, I picked up a promising morphology textbook designed for beginners: “What is Morphology?”. It explicitly states:

This little book is meant to introduce fundamental aspects of morphology to students with only a minimal background in linguistics. It presupposes only the very basic knowledge of phonetics, phonology, syntax and semantics that an introductory course in linguistics provides...

Exactly what I was looking for.

Unfortunately, as I've read through it, I've considently found myself getting frustrated or bemused, to the point where I can't really be bothered to finish it. Now to be fair, my situation is unusual, in that I'm not a current student. The textbook basically assumes that it'll be the main book for a course, and includes sections for in-class discussion, exercises for homework, and so on, none of which I can really use in the intended way. However, if your textbook relies on the teaching staff to cover its weaknesses, I feel that it has room for improvement. I don't necessarily disagree with the overall points they are trying to make, but the specifics sometimes seem distinctly weak or questionable.

After a fair amount of thought, I've decided there are two broad problems with the book and its writing. The first one is their teaching style, and the second one is their approach to problems, though they're often interrelated.

Illustrating vs. Demonstrating

Linguistics makes considerable use of examples to demonstrate rules or principles in operation, and morphology is no exception. However, Aronoff and Fudeman's approach to examples is one that (coming from a scientific background) I find deeply flawed. Their view of examples seems to be that they illustrate a point being made. Most of the time, though, these examples crop up in when someone is trying to argue a point of view, or make a claim about rules or properties. In those situations, I expect examples to demonstrate. Broadly speaking, this means that the example should:

• Show the property or rule under discussion (when does it apply, and what does it do?).

• Show the limits of that rule (where does it not apply?).

• If making a causal claim, show causation, not just correlation.

Obviously a general textbook covering a broad range of topics doesn't want to devote lots of space to precisely delineating every rule and its details, but I think it's reasonable to expect some evidence, not just accepting authority. After all, anyone who's read “Eskimo words for snow?” knows what a mistake that is.

Unfortunately, Anofoff and Fudeman don't fulfil those basic requirements. Their examples are often lacking in detail, and they often resort to 'tests' without explaining why they think those tests are valid. For example, in Chapter 4 (p.106), they say:

There is evidence that high voltage electricity grid systems supervisor is a single noun... second, high voltage electricity grid systems supervisor behaves as a single unit for the purposes of wh-movement. Question-answer pairs that break it up are at the very least awkward. In chapter 2 we related this characteristic of words to the notion of lexical integrity.

This is the first mention of wh-movement. Nowhere do they explain what it is; the reader must either know in advance, research it separately, or work it out from the following paragraphs. More importantly, nowhere do they give any reason to believe that wh-movement is a valid test for noun status. This sort of thing is important, and particularly so when you are making a claim that's counterintuitive (that “high voltage electricity grid systems supervisor is a single noun”, or as they say on the next page, “a single word”). People, even linguists, have ideas about what a noun is, and while I'd cheerfully accept it as a noun phrase, I want a bit of convincing here.

Their examples are similarly flawed. Here is an example from Chapter 2, where they discuss empirical tests for wordhood.

Words and phrases are often displaced to the beginning of a sentence or qualified, but not morphemes.

(7) a. That girl, I saw her sneaking around yesterday.

Which girl did you see sneaking around?

b. Possible, it’s im-.

Which school- did you see bus? (i.e. which school’s school bus did you see?).

Ignoring standard practice, they haven’t marked any of these as ungrammatical (I also feel that the bus example should have been 7c, as it's unrelated to the first phrase). I am forced to draw my own inference on what I think they want to claim, which is that the examples in 7b are ungrammatical. I do in fact agree with this.

However, when trying to prove a contrast between things, the usual way of doing things is to have parallel examples where one is grammatical and the other isn’t; you could consider this a kind of minimal pair, though it's not quite the same thing. Aronoff and Fudeman have not used parallel examples, or at least if they have, they haven't explained why we should consider them to be parallel.

In this example, we are looking for a situation where something ungrammatical for morphemes (like 7b) is grammatical for words. Let’s try it, with the non-morphemic versions slightly blue and smelly bus.

(7) c. *Blue, it’s slightly.

d. *Which smelly did you see bus?

Oops! Those aren’t valid for words either. Your example fails at the first hurdle of demonstrating your point.

The example in 7a is made less useful because they leap straight to an example of displacing part of a phrase, without including the unmodified version. It would be more useful like this:

(7) a. That girl, I saw her sneaking around yesterday.

Which girl did you see sneaking around?

aa. I saw that girl sneaking around yesterday.

Which girl did you see sneaking around?

ab. I saw that tall girl sneaking around yesterday.

?Which tall girl did you see sneaking around?

ac. I saw that tall platinum blonde girl sneaking around yesterday.

?Which tall platinum blonde girl did you see sneaking around?

ad. I saw that undertaker sneaking around yesterday.

*Which under- did you see -taker sneaking around?

ae. I saw that tall blonde girl sneaking around yesterday.

*Which tall did you see blonde girl sneaking around?

af. That tall girl, I saw her sneaking around yesterday.

Which tall girl did you see sneaking around?

ag. That tall platinum blonde girl, I saw her sneaking around yesterday.

?Which tall platinum blonde girl did you see sneaking around?

ah. That undertaker, I saw her sneaking around yesterday.

Which undertaker did you see sneaking around?

This example starts with the unmodified version, and moves from there. It incorporates examples with modifying adjectives (ab and ac), demonstrates that neither modifiers nor parts of the original noun can be moved separately (ad and ae), includes Aronoff and Fudeman's inverted example (a) and other versions of it (af-ah).

Although 7ad is clearly ungrammatical, a quick check in 7ae (cross-referenced with 7b and 7d) shows that the same problem would apply to any displacement which doesn’t move the whole object, be it a single word or a phrase. Whether the object consists of a set of connected morphemes, or a set of connected words, is apparently irrelevant.

Let’s see that statement again:

Words and phrases are often displaced to the beginning of a sentence or qualified, but not morphemes.

Their example does not demonstrate anything about qualifying. It does not demonstrate that words can be displaced in situations where morphemes cannot. It does not demonstrate that morphemes cannot be displaced in situations where words or phrases can. It is entirely pointless.

I'll look at the other problem in a second post.