Beginner Linguistics Resources

[TheWeaver]

Hello all,
As you can probably tell, I'm new here and have a lot to learn. While I've found great conlangin' resources (how'd you think I found this forum!), I'm really lacking for a basic linguistic foundation. I'd love to take classes, but my school doesn't offer anything short of graduate linguistics courses. Any resources you guys suggest, that helped you when you guys were starting out? I'll continue to google my ass off in the mean time . Thanks!

[TheWeaver]

Well, I thought I'd post a couple places I knew already. Hopefully other people might find it useful as well.
If there is a thread like this that's not dead already, I haven't seen it- apologies ahead of time.

Seems Promising:
http://allthingslinguistic.com/post/528 ... aster-post

The crumbs of linguistics classes (free though):
http://ocw.mit.edu/courses/find-by-topic/ -> humanities -> linguistics

[EDIT] This guy has some great linguistics intro videos. https://www.youtube.com/user/LinguisticsMarburg
[EDIT] Tah-Dahhhhh. A true Beginners Subforum! http://aveneca.com/cbb/viewforum.php?f=31

[din]

If you just want to do some reading at home, I can recommend Stuart C Poole's "An introduction to Linguistics". It's not a particularly difficult book to read and it's a great introduction to the subject, or a great way of knowing where the gaps in your knowledge are. It's also not very expensive. It's on Ebay for ~5€, so it can't be much more where you are. A used copy is as good as a new one

Additionally, Wikipedia has many surprisingly decent language articles (also on more obscure phenomena), so if you want to dig a little deeper, that's a decent place to go.

[TheWeaver]

din,
sounds great- I'll pick one up.
Yeah, wikipedia is awesome. Once I understand the bare terminology, I bet I'll be able to understand it better. Can't wait till then. I spent a looooooong time there, before decided a true introduction would be much more efficient. wiki'ing one term would lead to wiki'ing two more, etc. until I had thirty tabs and more questions than when I began .

[EDIT] Say, where did all you guys begin learning? I suppose the majority here began with classes (dur), but who knows...

[Drydic]

din,
sounds great- I'll pick one up.
Yeah, wikipedia is awesome. Once I understand the bare terminology, I bet I'll be able to understand it better. Can't wait till then. I spent a looooooong time there, before decided a true introduction would be much more efficient. wiki'ing one term would lead to wiki'ing two more, etc. until I had thirty tabs and more questions than when I began .

[EDIT] Say, where did all you guys begin learning? I suppose the majority here began with classes (dur), but who knows...

The vast majority of us began by wiki'ing one term which lead to wiki'ing two more, etc. until we had thirty tabs and more questions than when we began. And we've just kept going. I am completely serious when I say this. I still have to check for terms sometimes, or how to spell dechticaetiative. NOTE: I couldn't remember how to spell it, actually failed at google/wikipedia searching to find it, and eventually had to search the board for < dech > to find it. Even long-term conlangers get stumped sometimes.

Turns out the more current, less stupid to spell term, is Secundative.

[TheWeaver]

The vast majority of us began by wiki'ing one term which lead to wiki'ing two more, etc. until we had thirty tabs and more questions than when we began. And we've just kept going. I am completely serious when I say this. I still have to check for terms sometimes, or how to spell dechticaetiative. NOTE: I couldn't remember how to spell it, actually failed at google/wikipedia searching to find it, and eventually had to search the board for < dech > to find it. Even long-term conlangers get stumped sometimes.

Turns out the more current, less stupid to spell term, is Secundative.

Well damn me then haha. That's awesome... O.o I swear that word scares me haha. But the term- a really interesting type of language.

While I'm learning general Linguistics, anybody have suggestions as to good languages to learn about that contrast well with Eurolangs? I'm guessing about any other lang would help (checking out Arabic right now), but if there are any great ones, I'm interested.

[Drydic]

Something that isn't Indo-European. Arabic works, just don't get caught in the OMG TRICONSONANTAL ROOTS ARE SO SPECIAL trap. They're not what they appear to be on the surface (though for learning that surface idea of them works quite well).

[TheWeaver]

Something that isn't Indo-European. Arabic works, just don't get caught in the OMG TRICONSONANTAL ROOTS ARE SO SPECIAL trap. They're not what they appear to be on the surface (though for learning that surface idea of them works quite well).

Awww. . Got caught in that trap like a month ago. Ah well. I'll hop out of that one and get bitten by another, hopefully more unique one.
...those tri roots are pretty coo' though.

[Hallow XIII]

Definitely, but done incorrectly they're everywhere and if you do them right it's just a clone of Semitic. Really they're just one manifestation of the glorious phenomenon that is apophony; there is much more there than just triconsonantal roots.

Let me also give you the advice that morphology is only the tip of the iceberg. It is the most obvious difference between languages to the layman (after phonology), and so many new conlangers jump to create new and daring morphology, but that exercise is as futile as it ignores the greater part of how language works. A far more important topic is (morpho)syntax, and for purposes of believability, things like semantics, pragmatics and semiotics are also worth looking at (though I suspect that with Yng's Cuhbi thread floating around this may be a bit more in people's minds that it would be at other times). Now most people don't ever raise up this kind of mammoth project, especially not if they're doing things a priori, but it's worth keeping in mind if you ever do plan on creating a conlang for the ages (for comparison you may see Mec's Novegradian, our posterchild a posteriori lang).

[TheWeaver]

Let me also give you the advice that morphology is only the tip of the iceberg. It is the most obvious difference between languages to the layman (after phonology), and so many new conlangers jump to create new and daring morphology, but that exercise is as futile as it ignores the greater part of how language works. A far more important topic is (morpho)syntax, and for purposes of believability, things like semantics, pragmatics and semiotics are also worth looking at (though I suspect that with Yng's Cuhbi thread floating around this may be a bit more in people's minds that it would be at other times). Now most people don't ever raise up this kind of mammoth project, especially not if they're doing things a priori, but it's worth keeping in mind if you ever do plan on creating a conlang for the ages (for comparison you may see Mec's Novegradian, our posterchild a posteriori lang).

Should one begin designing a conlang with its (morpho)syntax then? I've been engrossed in phonology lately, thinking it was (generally) the starting point for conlangs. Right now, it seems phonology is the 'building block' of everything else.
Yeah, that Cuhbi thread. Darn. More people should show off their conlang with a thread like that (hint hint).

[Hallow XIII]

The order in which you fill in things is mostly irrelevant - most people start with a phonology, but you could just as easily do the reverse of what I think is the usual process: start with the syntax, figure out the morphology, and only after the grammar is completed fill it in with sounds and words (i.e. morphophonology). Long story short, what matters is whether it's there, not how or in what order you did it.

[Whimemsz]

Thomas Payne's Describing Morphosyntax is excellent for learning some of the different morphosyntactic strategies and categories that can be found in various languages. I'm less well-equipped to suggest books on contemporary theories--most recent introductory textbooks will probably have some helpful info.

If you haven't read both books yet, I'd also suggest the Language Construction Kit (parts one and two / online version of part one), which teaches a lot of linguistics in the process of giving how-to-conlang lessons. At least, it should give you a better handle of the basics.

Often just reading interesting ZBB threads, especially in L&L and the L&L Museum can give you additional insight. [Such as, oh, I don't know, ~~this one~~. Just picking at random.]

Follow LanguageLog.

If you need a very quick definition of some linguistic term, SIL has a useful page for that.

Other than that, as soon as you have mastered enough of the basics to do so, my advice is to read as many papers, grammars, and other books as you can.

[Gulliver]

Thomas Payne's Describing Morphosyntax is excellent for learning some of the different morphosyntactic strategies and categories that can be found in various languages. I'm less well-equipped to suggest books on contemporary theories--most recent introductory textbooks will probably have some helpful info.

That book is not beginner friendly at all and somewhat limited in scope and use. I would say that was intermediate-to-advanced and very, very boring. It's a good, well-written work, but would suggest it's not appropriate for a beginner. I honestly don't know why people on this board fart rainbows in celebration of that book; it's, like, fine but it's not this magical insta-linguist tome of great power and influence.

Here is an introduction to linguistics by a lecturer at the University of Indiana. Read the bits that you think look interesting, then skim read the other bits.

Go to your library and look for books by David Crystal. He knows what he's on about and is an easy read.

Zompist's LCK is a good quick-and-dirty overview of linguistics, and I highly recommend it.

LanguageLog, as Whimemsz said, is very good. Also look at David Crystal's blog and http://www.languagehat.com, both of which are general linguistics blogs. Not everything will interest you, but have a look now and again and something might make you want to research it further.

It's worth getting familiar with the IPA, at least of English. Wikipedia has good "IPA for [Language]" pages. X-Sampa is an IPA encoding that is mostly used online for convenience and is rarely seen in the wild, but a passing familiarity with it wouldn't go amiss.

Learn what a morpheme is and then what morphology is. Learn a bit about meaning, and what a word actually is (or isn't). Learn a bit about how people make sounds, and how people tell sounds apart or lump them together. If you're feeling really bored, learn a bit about syntax trees and read dumbed down versions of Chomsky (he waffles a bit, so it's honestly easier to just read the summary).

[TheWeaver]

The order in which you fill in things is mostly irrelevant - most people start with a phonology, but you could just as easily do the reverse of what I think is the usual process: start with the syntax, figure out the morphology, and only after the grammar is completed fill it in with sounds and words (i.e. morphophonology). Long story short, what matters is whether it's there, not how or in what order you did it.

Think I'll stick with phoneme inventory first then. It's supposed to be the 'simplest' (makes sense), so I suppose once I can even write it down right, I'll be able to move on.

Thomas Payne's Describing Morphosyntax is excellent for learning some of the different morphosyntactic strategies and categories that can be found in various languages. I'm less well-equipped to suggest books on contemporary theories--most recent introductory textbooks will probably have some helpful info.

If you haven't read both books yet, I'd also suggest the Language Construction Kit (parts one and two / online version of part one), which teaches a lot of linguistics in the process of giving how-to-conlang lessons. At least, it should give you a better handle of the basics.

Often just reading interesting ZBB threads, especially in L&L and the L&L Museum can give you additional insight. [Such as, oh, I don't know, ~~this one~~. Just picking at random.]

Follow LanguageLog.

If you need a very quick definition of some linguistic term, SIL has a useful page for that.

Other than that, as soon as you have mastered enough of the basics to do so, my advice is to read as many papers, grammars, and other books as you can.

Thomas Payne's Describing Morphosyntax is excellent for learning some of the different morphosyntactic strategies and categories that can be found in various languages. I'm less well-equipped to suggest books on contemporary theories--most recent introductory textbooks will probably have some helpful info.

That book is not beginner friendly at all and somewhat limited in scope and use. I would say that was intermediate-to-advanced and very, very boring. It's a good, well-written work, but would suggest it's not appropriate for a beginner. I honestly don't know why people on this board fart rainbows in celebration of that book; it's, like, fine but it's not this magical insta-linguist tome of great power and influence.

Here is an introduction to linguistics by a lecturer at the University of Indiana. Read the bits that you think look interesting, then skim read the other bits.

Go to your library and look for books by David Crystal. He knows what he's on about and is an easy read.

Zompist's LCK is a good quick-and-dirty overview of linguistics, and I highly recommend it.

LanguageLog, as Whimemsz said, is very good. Also look at David Crystal's blog and http://www.languagehat.com, both of which are general linguistics blogs. Not everything will interest you, but have a look now and again and something might make you want to research it further.

It's worth getting familiar with the IPA, at least of English. Wikipedia has good "IPA for [Language]" pages. X-Sampa is an IPA encoding that is mostly used online for convenience and is rarely seen in the wild, but a passing familiarity with it wouldn't go amiss.

Learn what a morpheme is and then what morphology is. Learn a bit about meaning, and what a word actually is (or isn't). Learn a bit about how people make sounds, and how people tell sounds apart or lump them together. If you're feeling really bored, learn a bit about syntax trees and read dumbed down versions of Chomsky (he waffles a bit, so it's honestly easier to just read the summary).

Great stuff! Thank you all. I've bought both LCK's, found a nice stack of interesting books, and all these online resources are great. 'Voiced Bilabial Fricative' no longer translates to 'WTF am I Reading' anymore, thankfully.

[Xephyr]

Describing Morphosyntax is an excellent book to get into technical, for-realzies linguistics, as opposed to pop-sci language books by Nicholas Ostler, John McWhorter, Guy Deutscher, or (sometimes) David Crystal. It's not for a fresh-off-the-boat newbie, no, but it's not exactly advanced either.

[Drydic]

The order in which you fill in things is mostly irrelevant - most people start with a phonology, but you could just as easily do the reverse of what I think is the usual process: start with the syntax, figure out the morphology, and only after the grammar is completed fill it in with sounds and words (i.e. morphophonology). Long story short, what matters is whether it's there, not how or in what order you did it.

Think I'll stick with phoneme inventory first then. It's supposed to be the 'simplest' (makes sense), so I suppose once I can even write it down right, I'll be able to move on.

That's fine, just remember you don't hafta make your inventory exactly perfect how you want it before you move on. Many beginning conlangers obsess over getting their phonology just right before they do ANYTHING else, and while having some clue is of course necessary, details can get added (or deleted!) and contradictions/inconsistencies ironed out later. Also phonologies are not really helpful without example words to show how the pretty squiggly symbols glom together either.