Re: Morphology Paradigms
Posted: December 27th, 2017, 5:51 am
I split this fascinating topic into its own thread.
ibiblio.org/bgreek/forum/
https://www.ibiblio.org:443/bgreek/forum/
https://www.ibiblio.org:443/bgreek/forum/viewtopic.php?f=11&t=4288
Paul, categories like these exist in most every language I know. Buenos dias ! (Please note the concord, masculine with an -a class noun [like señorita].)paorear wrote: ↑December 26th, 2017, 5:57 pm Perhaps a different way of approaching what I think Peter was saying is - when do we agree with what grammars (and lexicons and commentaries) have always told us? What methodology do we have to validate or invalidate their assertions? (cf. John Lee's article that was shared here recently on lexicons, their dependence on earlier lexicons, and continuing to promulgate old, invalid assumptions)
If something like these odd feminine 2nd declension nouns and 2 termination adjectives 'smells funny' - what is our means of verifying what we've always been taught? To prove or disprove Peter's assertions we'd really want to be able to do exhaustive searches on feminine 2nd declension nouns with adjectives.
There's actually an explanation for dia in Spanish. It descends from the Latin 5th declension noun dies, which in most contexts was treated as masculine, except when a specific day was in mind (diē constitūtā, on the appointed day). Morphologically as Latin changed into Spanish it became an a-class noun, but retained its traditional gender nonetheless.RandallButh wrote: ↑December 27th, 2017, 9:08 am
Paul, categories like these exist in most every language I know. Buenos dias ! (Please note the concord, masculine with an -a class noun [like señorita].)
Arabic nouns are typically tri-partite in the singular (nom, gen, acc) but binary in the plural (nom, oblique) some adjective forms are binary, etc.
Not everything in a language gets leveled when new foci of regularization crystalize, and the other forms may stand out as "irregular." The best approach is to learn the language to a functionally communicative level and these things become ignored curiosities.
Imagine English: we may OVERLOOK an item, but we better not do that when we are supposed to OVERSEE something. Of course, an OVERSIGHT may get us assigned to guard duty at some OVERLOOK on the city dump.
Languages are funny.
I completely agree and hope that I didn't cause too much consternation with re-opening this thread. Randall knows me better than Barry, and is a little more aware of my background.Barry Hofstetter wrote: ↑December 27th, 2017, 11:55 amLanguages are funny, and we should be able to have fun with them now and again.
Yes, but I already have the treebanks.jtauber wrote: ↑December 27th, 2017, 12:47 amAh, so there's a syntax question here. I'd hoped I could help just by providing inflectional classes but it sounds like we need to extract the constructions from a treebank.paorear wrote: ↑December 26th, 2017, 11:05 pm In terms of producing "a list of nouns and adjectives..." - for the purposes of this original thread, a listing of all 2nd declension *feminine* nominals in verses with adjective modifiers of any gender I think would help put a nail in this particular coffin.
That would be similar to saying "Black swans are really white swans that happen to look black, so in actuality there are no black swans." If a second declension form is really masculine but takes the feminine article, then how would we distinguish masculine from feminine? If the noun is regularly found with the feminine article, then it is a second declension feminine, as rare as those happen to be. Thinking outside the box is one thing. Tearing up the box, putting it through a micro-cut shredder and then burning the remains is quite another.paorear wrote: ↑December 27th, 2017, 12:39 pm
That was my primary interest in entertaining Peter's assertions - was he seeing something we weren't, however much I might have doubted it? If in looking at the data there might be alternative explanations, how might that change things? In Peter's case, how about something like - 2nd declension feminine forms are really masculine and always seem to take a feminine article? (I'm not saying this is so.) Again, the data would be the most interesting thing to look at and review what is happening with modifier gender agreement (or lack thereof). And certainly, as Randall points out - languages commonly have this "untidy-ness". But before we settle on that, let's see the data.
But teaching what we've learned about the box is a third thing. With the data Paul is asking for, we can show what the pattern is, and someone like Peter can look for counterexamples, we can look at proposed counterexamples to see if they actually exist, etc.Barry Hofstetter wrote: ↑December 27th, 2017, 1:02 pmThat would be similar to saying "Black swans are really white swans that happen to look black, so in actuality there are no black swans." If a second declension form is really masculine but takes the feminine article, then how would we distinguish masculine from feminine? If the noun is regularly found with the feminine article, then it is a second declension feminine, as rare as those happen to be. Thinking outside the box is one thing. Tearing up the box, putting it through a micro-cut shredder and then burning the remains is quite another.paorear wrote: ↑December 27th, 2017, 12:39 pm
That was my primary interest in entertaining Peter's assertions - was he seeing something we weren't, however much I might have doubted it? If in looking at the data there might be alternative explanations, how might that change things? In Peter's case, how about something like - 2nd declension feminine forms are really masculine and always seem to take a feminine article? (I'm not saying this is so.) Again, the data would be the most interesting thing to look at and review what is happening with modifier gender agreement (or lack thereof). And certainly, as Randall points out - languages commonly have this "untidy-ness". But before we settle on that, let's see the data.
Grammars and lexicons do this quite nicely.Jonathan Robie wrote: ↑December 27th, 2017, 1:16 pm
But teaching what we've learned about the box is a third thing. With the data Paul is asking for, we can show what the pattern is, and someone like Peter can look for counterexamples, we can look at proposed counterexamples to see if they actually exist, etc.
I think we can really improve our teaching by making it easy to generate lists of examples that show how the language works. Most of the time that means explaining what existing grammars mean. Sometimes we may say things existing grammars do not, e.g. in some of the threads on word order. Teaching and research are not miles apart.
It's fair for a student to ask for examples that illustrate what we are teaching.
Often. So why would you want this in digital form?Barry Hofstetter wrote: ↑December 27th, 2017, 6:01 pmGrammars and lexicons do this quite nicely.Jonathan Robie wrote: ↑December 27th, 2017, 1:16 pm But teaching what we've learned about the box is a third thing. With the data Paul is asking for, we can show what the pattern is, and someone like Peter can look for counterexamples, we can look at proposed counterexamples to see if they actually exist, etc.
I think we can really improve our teaching by making it easy to generate lists of examples that show how the language works. Most of the time that means explaining what existing grammars mean. Sometimes we may say things existing grammars do not, e.g. in some of the threads on word order. Teaching and research are not miles apart.
It's fair for a student to ask for examples that illustrate what we are teaching.