I think I have a handle on the phonological side of diachronics, and grammar generally has enough structure to where I can usually come up with some interesting and sensical changes. But semantic change is mind-boggling. Sure, there's always gonna be some words that keep generally the same meaning over long periods of time, but there will be many that won't. Trying to decide which ones should change, and in what direction to have them go, and then if/how to fill in any semantic gaps left behind... It's rather challenging and kind of overwhelming.
So, does anyone have any tips and tricks for semantic diachronics?
Any advice for semantic diacronics?
Any advice for semantic diacronics?
Adúljôžal ônal kol ví éža únah kex yaxlr gmlĥ hôga jô ônal kru ansu frú.
Ansu frú ônal savel zaš gmlĥ a vek Adúljôžal vé jaga čaþ kex.
Ônal zeh. Ônal zeh. Ônal zeh. Ônal zeh. Ônal zeh. Ônal zeh. Ônal zeh.
-
احمکي ارش-ھجن
- Avisaru
- Posts: 516
- Joined: Mon Dec 02, 2013 12:45 pm
Re: Any advice for semantic diacronics?
I would like to know too.
ʾAšol ḵavad pulqam ʾifbižen lav ʾifšimeḻ lit maseḡrad lav lit n͛ubad. ʾUpulasim ṗal sa-panžun lav sa-ḥadṇ lav ṗal šarmaḵeš lit ʾaẏṭ waẏyadanun wižqanam.
- Article 1 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.
- Article 1 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.
-
Chengjiang
- Avisaru
- Posts: 437
- Joined: Sun Feb 26, 2006 4:41 am
- Location: Davis, CA
Re: Any advice for semantic diacronics?
I don't have any super broad advice, but there are phenomena I'm aware of in specific semantic areas:
- The "euphemism treadmill". Lexemes for a concept that is taboo in some way are likely to be repeatedly replaced by synonyms or paraphrases that in turn gradually acquire a taboo connotation. For example, toilet, a word now considered pretty blunt, used to be a euphemism.
- Figurative meanings becoming literal. A word may acquire a figurative meaning, and as time goes on the figurative meaning may take over and replace the literal one. Consider the case of English terrific changing its sense from "frightening" to "excellent".
- Related to the former, adpositions and locative expressions are very likely to pick up new senses via spatial metaphors, e.g. about shifting from "outside of" to "on all sides of" and then acquiring the sense of "concerning".
[ʈʂʰɤŋtɕjɑŋ], or whatever you can comfortably pronounce that's close to that
Formerly known as Primordial Soup
Supporter of use of [ȶ ȡ ȵ ȴ] in transcription
It is pitch black. You are likely to be eaten by a 青.
Formerly known as Primordial Soup
Supporter of use of [ȶ ȡ ȵ ȴ] in transcription
It is pitch black. You are likely to be eaten by a 青.
Re: Any advice for semantic diacronics?
More generally, meanings tend to move from concrete to abstract, and from abstract to grammatical, all through means of the metaphorical extension brought up by Chengjiang. What you're going to want to look up is grammaticalization and semantic bleaching.
Just an example, take the word `have'. In PIE, the word meant something like `take, seize, catch'–a fairly concrete concept. By PG, it had taken on a more generalized meaning of `to hold', where it was metaphorically extended to the relatively abstract notion of possession, a usage we have today. It didn't stop there, though, going down two separate metaphorical paths. On one hand, this meaning of possession (of a thing) was abstracted to the usage of possession (of an action)–that is, the perfective aspect: `I have eaten.' That's grammaticalization- `have' in this sense bears no lexical content, serving only as a aspectual marker. In some syntactic contexts, it seems to even be losing its status as a phonological word, instead cliticized to the subject: `I've seen three movies this week.' On the other hand, `have' was extended from the possessive meaning along similar lines, as a marker on the verb, only in this case in non-finite clauses and meaning something quite different: obligation. For instance, the sentence `I have to go sleep now.' Again, this usage arguably has no lexical content, instead performing a modal function. Lastly, from here, it has been extended to something like an inferential evidential marker- `John has to have arrived by now'. Note that this sentence also has the aspectual usage of `have'.
What is amazing is that these processes are universal, and the specific metaphorical pathways taken are pervasive. For instance, take `must' as in the sentence `He must eat at this moment.' Also marking obligation, though a little different from `have to'. Well, this was also extended to the sense of inferential evidentiality! As in, `John must've arrived by now'.
What we find is that, with a few exceptions, grammatical morphemes, as standalone words or even affixes, can be traced back to words that carried an abstract, but still lexical, semantics. In turn, words that denote an abstract concept can, so long as the language has been recorded long enough or reconstructed sufficiently, usually be traced to words with concrete meanings. Thus, these processes are largely unidirectional.
Let's show an example of this last point. The sentence, `Thus, these processes are largely unidirectional'. That's a pretty abstract meaning, and each of those words, are either grammatical, (`these', `are', `-es'), pragmatic/discourse/information-structury (`thus'), or abstract (`process', `largely', `unidirectional'). Let's trace 'em as best we can.
`these': Okay, we're not getting far with this one. It's been a demonstrative since PIE.
`are': from `become', from `rise, become active', from `rise, lift, move' in PIE. A good example of the full scale, from concrete (physical movement) to abstract (become active), to more abstract/borderline grammatical (become) to full-tilt grammatical (copula).
`-es': Again, not much traction. It's been a plural marker since the precambrian.
`thus': Same root as `these', `this', and `that', ultimately. Something like `this way' in Old English. A cool change from grammatical to discourse function, a change I didn't really talk about. Think about things like `like', `I mean' and `well'.
`process': from Old French meaning `journey', pretty concrete already. Ultimately from Latin morpheme `prō', from PIE meaning `go forth, cross' and `cēdō', from PIE `drive/go away'.
`largely': This one's clear. Here, it's performing a fairly grammatical, metalinguisticy function, but came from a word meaning `big', though `largus' initially meant something more like `abundant' in Latin. `ly' is really cool, though. It came from `like, having the body or form of', from a word meaning `body, corpse'!
`unidirectional': `uni-' unsurprisingly came from a meaning of `one, unique' in PIE. The origin of `-al' is unclear beyond Latin, in which it performed a similar function. Same with `-tion'. `direct' came from Latin `straighten', from `dis-' (`apart, in two') and `regō' (`make straight, rule'). `dis-' is ultimately from the same root as `two', and meant something like it in PIE. `regō' meant something like `straight' in PIE, a well as `right, just'– that is, it was being metaphorically extended in another direction already.
To recap, let's `translate' that sentence into its parts, illustrating how concrete many of these morphemes were:
`Thus, these processes are largely unidirectional'.
`That, that forth-driving-away-s rise/move abundant-corpse one-two-straight-tion-al'
Just an example, take the word `have'. In PIE, the word meant something like `take, seize, catch'–a fairly concrete concept. By PG, it had taken on a more generalized meaning of `to hold', where it was metaphorically extended to the relatively abstract notion of possession, a usage we have today. It didn't stop there, though, going down two separate metaphorical paths. On one hand, this meaning of possession (of a thing) was abstracted to the usage of possession (of an action)–that is, the perfective aspect: `I have eaten.' That's grammaticalization- `have' in this sense bears no lexical content, serving only as a aspectual marker. In some syntactic contexts, it seems to even be losing its status as a phonological word, instead cliticized to the subject: `I've seen three movies this week.' On the other hand, `have' was extended from the possessive meaning along similar lines, as a marker on the verb, only in this case in non-finite clauses and meaning something quite different: obligation. For instance, the sentence `I have to go sleep now.' Again, this usage arguably has no lexical content, instead performing a modal function. Lastly, from here, it has been extended to something like an inferential evidential marker- `John has to have arrived by now'. Note that this sentence also has the aspectual usage of `have'.
What is amazing is that these processes are universal, and the specific metaphorical pathways taken are pervasive. For instance, take `must' as in the sentence `He must eat at this moment.' Also marking obligation, though a little different from `have to'. Well, this was also extended to the sense of inferential evidentiality! As in, `John must've arrived by now'.
What we find is that, with a few exceptions, grammatical morphemes, as standalone words or even affixes, can be traced back to words that carried an abstract, but still lexical, semantics. In turn, words that denote an abstract concept can, so long as the language has been recorded long enough or reconstructed sufficiently, usually be traced to words with concrete meanings. Thus, these processes are largely unidirectional.
Let's show an example of this last point. The sentence, `Thus, these processes are largely unidirectional'. That's a pretty abstract meaning, and each of those words, are either grammatical, (`these', `are', `-es'), pragmatic/discourse/information-structury (`thus'), or abstract (`process', `largely', `unidirectional'). Let's trace 'em as best we can.
`these': Okay, we're not getting far with this one. It's been a demonstrative since PIE.
`are': from `become', from `rise, become active', from `rise, lift, move' in PIE. A good example of the full scale, from concrete (physical movement) to abstract (become active), to more abstract/borderline grammatical (become) to full-tilt grammatical (copula).
`-es': Again, not much traction. It's been a plural marker since the precambrian.
`thus': Same root as `these', `this', and `that', ultimately. Something like `this way' in Old English. A cool change from grammatical to discourse function, a change I didn't really talk about. Think about things like `like', `I mean' and `well'.
`process': from Old French meaning `journey', pretty concrete already. Ultimately from Latin morpheme `prō', from PIE meaning `go forth, cross' and `cēdō', from PIE `drive/go away'.
`largely': This one's clear. Here, it's performing a fairly grammatical, metalinguisticy function, but came from a word meaning `big', though `largus' initially meant something more like `abundant' in Latin. `ly' is really cool, though. It came from `like, having the body or form of', from a word meaning `body, corpse'!
`unidirectional': `uni-' unsurprisingly came from a meaning of `one, unique' in PIE. The origin of `-al' is unclear beyond Latin, in which it performed a similar function. Same with `-tion'. `direct' came from Latin `straighten', from `dis-' (`apart, in two') and `regō' (`make straight, rule'). `dis-' is ultimately from the same root as `two', and meant something like it in PIE. `regō' meant something like `straight' in PIE, a well as `right, just'– that is, it was being metaphorically extended in another direction already.
To recap, let's `translate' that sentence into its parts, illustrating how concrete many of these morphemes were:
`Thus, these processes are largely unidirectional'.
`That, that forth-driving-away-s rise/move abundant-corpse one-two-straight-tion-al'