The Innovative Usage Thread

Discussion of natural languages, or language in general.
User avatar
KathTheDragon
Smeric
Smeric
Posts: 2139
Joined: Thu Apr 25, 2013 4:48 am
Location: Brittania

Re: The Innovative Usage Thread

Post by KathTheDragon »

Travis B. wrote:As for recurse, that is a word you would know if you were a programmer.
That one I had to look up, and I was slightly baffled that this is something people say: I've always said "recur" or paraphrased with "recursion"

Porphyrogenitos
Lebom
Lebom
Posts: 168
Joined: Thu Dec 22, 2011 1:13 pm
Location: Ohio

Re: The Innovative Usage Thread

Post by Porphyrogenitos »

Not sure of a better place to put this, but I wanted to share: I just realized that maybe there’s an incipient sound change in English where word-final /nt/ is simplified to /t/, as demonstrated by misspellings/confusions such as “tenant” for “tenet”, “dominate” for “dominant”, “laminant” for “laminate”, and “ignorate” for “ignorant” (all of which I’ve seen before).

Sumelic
Avisaru
Avisaru
Posts: 385
Joined: Sat Mar 28, 2015 7:05 pm

Re: The Innovative Usage Thread

Post by Sumelic »

Porphyrogenitos wrote:Not sure of a better place to put this, but I wanted to share: I just realized that maybe there’s an incipient sound change in English where word-final /nt/ is simplified to /t/, as demonstrated by misspellings/confusions such as “tenant” for “tenet”, “dominate” for “dominant”, “laminant” for “laminate”, and “ignorate” for “ignorant” (all of which I’ve seen before).
I've always thought it's not a sound change, but more because -ate and -ant/-ent are both Latinate suffixes that can occur on adjectives or nouns (e.g. alternate, ultimate, surrogate) and have kind of similar meanings (one is a past-participle suffix, one is a present-participle suffix, but both kind of make sense for a word like "laminate"), they are unstressed, and in a number of the words where people get confused there is a preceding nasal, which may cause them to falsely re-analyze the nasalization of the following vowel/syllabic nasal as just a coarticulatory effect (I know English is usually described as having regressive, not progressive phonetic nasalization, but I would imagine that it's still harder for an English speaker to distinguish [nn̩t]~[nənt]~[nə̃t] from [nət] than it is to distinguish something like [sn̩t]~[sənt]~[sə̃t] from [sət]. (I know, that doesn't work for "ignorant", but it applies to the other words, and "ignorant" does that does have an /n/ further back in the word, for whatever that's worth.) I don't think I've ever noticed people saying things like "deeset" for "decent", "ayjet" for "agent", "vayket" for "vacant"..

Travis B.
Sumerul
Sumerul
Posts: 3570
Joined: Mon Jun 20, 2005 12:47 pm
Location: Milwaukee, US

Re: The Innovative Usage Thread

Post by Travis B. »

To me this seems to be a result of allophonic vowel nasalization, followed by loss of the original nasal consonant, followed by loss of vowel nasalization in unstressed syllables; the second stage seems to be very common in present-day NAE, and I notice sporadic loss of nasalization (along with loss of the nasal consonant) in unstressed syllables in both my own speech and the speech of others I hear. And yes, [ˈtisɘʔ ˈeːtʃɘʔ ˈvekɘʔ] are not odd pronunciations at all to me.
Dibotahamdn duthma jallni agaynni ra hgitn lakrhmi.
Amuhawr jalla vowa vta hlakrhi hdm duthmi xaja.
Irdro. Irdro. Irdro. Irdro. Irdro. Irdro. Irdro.

Sumelic
Avisaru
Avisaru
Posts: 385
Joined: Sat Mar 28, 2015 7:05 pm

Re: The Innovative Usage Thread

Post by Sumelic »

A separate, but perhaps somewhat related innovation: I used to mentally pronounce "consonantal" and related words with /ˈɛntəl/, I guess because there are so many more common words that end in "-ental" like environmental, incidental, accidental, fundamental than there are than end in "-antal" (I guess, aside from consonantal, there is covenantal). Does this seem familar to anyone else?

Vijay
Smeric
Smeric
Posts: 2244
Joined: Sat Feb 06, 2016 3:25 pm
Location: Austin, TX, USA

Re: The Innovative Usage Thread

Post by Vijay »

I mean, it doesn't seem particularly weird to me. *shrug*

User avatar
linguoboy
Sanno
Sanno
Posts: 3681
Joined: Tue Sep 17, 2002 9:00 am
Location: Rogers Park/Evanston

Re: The Innovative Usage Thread

Post by linguoboy »

Sumelic wrote:A separate, but perhaps somewhat related innovation: I used to mentally pronounce "consonantal" and related words with /ˈɛntəl/
There's no "used to" about it in my case. And I'm pin/pen merged so my actual vowel here is [ɪ]. Actually using [æ] here sounds so overpronounced to me I'd probably consider it a tell for L2 English acquisition.

User avatar
Zaarin
Smeric
Smeric
Posts: 1136
Joined: Sun Aug 15, 2010 5:00 pm

Re: The Innovative Usage Thread

Post by Zaarin »

I also pronounce consonantal with /ɛ/ (which is [ɛ] for me).

On a related note, as I child I pronounced magnet with an intrusive /n/: [mægnɛnt].
"But if of ships I now should sing, what ship would come to me,
What ship would bear me ever back across so wide a Sea?”

Travis B.
Sumerul
Sumerul
Posts: 3570
Joined: Mon Jun 20, 2005 12:47 pm
Location: Milwaukee, US

Re: The Innovative Usage Thread

Post by Travis B. »

I pronounce consonantal with /ɪ/ (which is [ɘ] for me) and I'm not even pin-pen merged.
Dibotahamdn duthma jallni agaynni ra hgitn lakrhmi.
Amuhawr jalla vowa vta hlakrhi hdm duthmi xaja.
Irdro. Irdro. Irdro. Irdro. Irdro. Irdro. Irdro.

User avatar
linguoboy
Sanno
Sanno
Posts: 3681
Joined: Tue Sep 17, 2002 9:00 am
Location: Rogers Park/Evanston

Re: The Innovative Usage Thread

Post by linguoboy »

Just saw George Herbert Walker Bush described in a headline as "Bush 41". (He was the 41st President of the United States.) I found this usage confusing, as "Bush, 41" is a longstanding newspaper convention for "Bush, who is 41 years old" and I wonder if it would be intelligible at all if not for the very recent popularity of referring to the current POTUS as "45".

User avatar
Pole, the
Smeric
Smeric
Posts: 1606
Joined: Sat Feb 11, 2012 9:50 am

Re: The Innovative Usage Thread

Post by Pole, the »

linguoboy wrote:Just saw George Herbert Walker Bush described in a headline as "Bush 41". (He was the 41st President of the United States.) I found this usage confusing, as "Bush, 41" is a longstanding newspaper convention for "Bush, who is 41 years old" and I wonder if it would be intelligible at all if not for the very recent popularity of referring to the current POTUS as "45".
They should've written it Bush XLI. :P
The conlanger formerly known as “the conlanger formerly known as Pole, the”.

If we don't study the mistakes of the future we're doomed to repeat them for the first time.

rotting bones
Avisaru
Avisaru
Posts: 409
Joined: Thu Sep 07, 2006 12:25 pm

Re: The Innovative Usage Thread

Post by rotting bones »

I just went to a food place with an Indian professor, and he asked the server whether they are "getting off" for Thanksgiving. Is it just my perverted mind, or do "getting time off" and "getting off" mean completely different things?
If you hold a cat by the tail you learn things you cannot learn any other way. - Mark Twain

In reality, our greatest blessings come to us by way of madness, which indeed is a divine gift. - Socrates

User avatar
Pole, the
Smeric
Smeric
Posts: 1606
Joined: Sat Feb 11, 2012 9:50 am

Re: The Innovative Usage Thread

Post by Pole, the »

Or maybe it is just a specific way of celebrating it? :P
The conlanger formerly known as “the conlanger formerly known as Pole, the”.

If we don't study the mistakes of the future we're doomed to repeat them for the first time.

Vijay
Smeric
Smeric
Posts: 2244
Joined: Sat Feb 06, 2016 3:25 pm
Location: Austin, TX, USA

Re: The Innovative Usage Thread

Post by Vijay »

That should be what you do after celebrating it the traditional way with food, not while you're celebrating it!

Unless maybe you're doing both at the same time...and...you're not around family? Doing that around family is just creepy.

Travis B.
Sumerul
Sumerul
Posts: 3570
Joined: Mon Jun 20, 2005 12:47 pm
Location: Milwaukee, US

Re: The Innovative Usage Thread

Post by Travis B. »

This usage of getting off seems perfectly normal to me, and not at all perverted.
Dibotahamdn duthma jallni agaynni ra hgitn lakrhmi.
Amuhawr jalla vowa vta hlakrhi hdm duthmi xaja.
Irdro. Irdro. Irdro. Irdro. Irdro. Irdro. Irdro.

User avatar
Zaarin
Smeric
Smeric
Posts: 1136
Joined: Sun Aug 15, 2010 5:00 pm

Re: The Innovative Usage Thread

Post by Zaarin »

Travis B. wrote:This usage of getting off seems perfectly normal to me, and not at all perverted.
Same. Wouldn't have even crossed my mind.
"But if of ships I now should sing, what ship would come to me,
What ship would bear me ever back across so wide a Sea?”

rotting bones
Avisaru
Avisaru
Posts: 409
Joined: Thu Sep 07, 2006 12:25 pm

Re: The Innovative Usage Thread

Post by rotting bones »

Yeah see, I honestly wasn't sure if it was perverted or not. Since Vijay is a native English speaker, now I'm even more confused.

(I think I would at least say "getting off work", just to avoid the double entendre.)
If you hold a cat by the tail you learn things you cannot learn any other way. - Mark Twain

In reality, our greatest blessings come to us by way of madness, which indeed is a divine gift. - Socrates

User avatar
linguoboy
Sanno
Sanno
Posts: 3681
Joined: Tue Sep 17, 2002 9:00 am
Location: Rogers Park/Evanston

Re: The Innovative Usage Thread

Post by linguoboy »

Travis B. wrote:This usage of getting off seems perfectly normal to me, and not at all perverted.
I think I'd be more likely to say "getting Thanksgiving off". "Getting off on Thanksgiving" is certainly open to misinterpretation, "getting off for Thanksgiving" less do.

User avatar
احمکي ارش-ھجن
Avisaru
Avisaru
Posts: 516
Joined: Mon Dec 02, 2013 12:45 pm

Re: The Innovative Usage Thread

Post by احمکي ارش-ھجن »

I always pronounce "uvular" as [ˈʌlvjulɚ] even though there is only one <l> and it's after the [v].
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.

User avatar
linguoboy
Sanno
Sanno
Posts: 3681
Joined: Tue Sep 17, 2002 9:00 am
Location: Rogers Park/Evanston

Re: The Innovative Usage Thread

Post by linguoboy »

I was surprised to find "make it up to" defined in Wiktionary as "to pay back; to return someone a previous good deed". Do people use it that way? The only meaning I'm familiar with is "to make amends", e.g. "Sorry I forgot your birthday. Let me make it up to you by taking you out to that barbecue place you love." If I were returning a good deed, I'd say, "pay back" or "return the favour".

Axiem
Avisaru
Avisaru
Posts: 260
Joined: Tue Oct 22, 2013 8:15 pm

Re: The Innovative Usage Thread

Post by Axiem »

"Shit, I don't have any cash on me! Do you mind covering for my lunch today?, I'll totally make it up to you next time!"

Yeah, I've heard this usage before, and even probably used it before.

Vijay
Smeric
Smeric
Posts: 2244
Joined: Sat Feb 06, 2016 3:25 pm
Location: Austin, TX, USA

Re: The Innovative Usage Thread

Post by Vijay »

Honestly, I don't think I really see a big difference between those two in meaning. Paying somebody back is effectively making amends for not having already done the same for someone else as they did for you.

User avatar
linguoboy
Sanno
Sanno
Posts: 3681
Joined: Tue Sep 17, 2002 9:00 am
Location: Rogers Park/Evanston

Re: The Innovative Usage Thread

Post by linguoboy »

Vijay wrote:Honestly, I don't think I really see a big difference between those two in meaning. Paying somebody back is effectively making amends for not having already done the same for someone else as they did for you.
"Pay back" can cover both situations, but using "make it up to" for a spontaneous good act just sounds wrong. Even in Axiem's example, I understand "make it up to you" as "I'll make amends for importuning you". It means you recognise that asking for money is a little rude.

Consider: "Thanks for taking me out for my birthday. I'll make it up to you by taking you out for yours." This implies to me that this is something the listener would rather not have done and requires recompense for. It sounds self-deprecating and suggests a do ut des view of friendship. "Pay you back" has a similar implication, but at least it doesn't make it sound like the speaker is excusing themself for being a burden. Only "You'll have to let me return the favour when the time comes" sounds unquestionably positive to me.

Vijay
Smeric
Smeric
Posts: 2244
Joined: Sat Feb 06, 2016 3:25 pm
Location: Austin, TX, USA

Re: The Innovative Usage Thread

Post by Vijay »

I don't think any of those sounds unquestionably positive to me. :P To me, they all mean the same thing (except in contexts where they can't both be grammatically used, of course) and all sound self-deprecating.

User avatar
Pole, the
Smeric
Smeric
Posts: 1606
Joined: Sat Feb 11, 2012 9:50 am

Re: The Innovative Usage Thread

Post by Pole, the »

linguoboy wrote:I was surprised to find "make it up to" defined in Wiktionary as "to pay back; to return someone a previous good deed". Do people use it that way? The only meaning I'm familiar with is "to make amends", e.g. "Sorry I forgot your birthday. Let me make it up to you by taking you out to that barbecue place you love." If I were returning a good deed, I'd say, "pay back" or "return the favour".
Aaaaah, so that's what “make amends” means!
The conlanger formerly known as “the conlanger formerly known as Pole, the”.

If we don't study the mistakes of the future we're doomed to repeat them for the first time.

Post Reply