Tidbits of Philology no. 3

Borrowing

Every language in the world has borrowed, at some point in time, words from other languages. This is by the way how a new language is formed. Apart from our original language (if such a language ever existed), all other languages are made of borrowed and adapted words, structures and sounds.

There are basically four ways a word can be borrowed:


1. Loanword with morphological accommodationfootball > futebol (Port.)


2. Loanword without accommodationfeedback > feedback (Port.)


3. Loan blendDies Saturni > Saturday (Eng.) The God "Saturn" comes from Latin + Germanic root "day"


4. Loan shift (calque and semantic extension)
Calque - football > ποδόσφαιρο (Greek) podos (foot) + sfero (sphere)


Semantic extension - mouse > souris (French) The word in French had one meaning before the borrowing, now it has two.


Haugen (1950) The Analysis of Linguistic Borrowing


The "most borrowed" word class is nouns, followed by adjectives and verbs. Each language/country has specific rules for borrowed words. In Portuguese, for instance, all borrowed verbs must end in -ar (1st conjugation). Some languages prefer loanwords with accommodation, others prefer loan shifts.


How do you say the following nouns and verbs in your languages?


NOUNS1. computer2. monitor3. screen4. mouse5. keyboard6. folder7. file8. mobile phone9. touchscreen10. e-mail


VERBS1. download2. upload3. e-mail4. print5. click6. save7. log in8. scan9. post (on Facebook)10. share

Is ability a situational possibility?

While trying to establish a logical typology of modal meanings, I came across the problem of categorizing ability under situational possibility. Many authors group ability under dynamic modality, as it does not involve (or, at least, not more than tangentially) moral obligations, desirability or interdiction.

Dryer et al. (2011), however, state that “Both permission and ability have to do with a notion of possibility” (DRYER, 2011: Chapter 74). I’ll try to defend their point of view with some modal logic below.

(1) I can drive you to work.

Sentence (1) clearly denotes both ability and possibility, and may be understood as follows:

∃x （I (x) ∧ ♢Drive (x) ∧ ♢Drive (x,you) ⟷ ♢Drive (x) )

∃x (I (x) ⋀ ¬♢Drive (x) ➞ ¬♢Drive (x,you) )

The first possibility is the ability itself; the second, the actual possibility to drive you; the result is that the ability is a pre-requisite for the possibility to drive you.

This seems clear enough, the real problem is when there’s no apparent situational possibility, as in

(2) I can speak English.

However, this sentence can be understood as follows:

∃x (I (x) ∧ ♢Speak (x) ∧ ♢Speak (x,english) ➞ ♢Speak (x,english) ↔ ♢Speak (x,english) )

∃x ( I (x) ⋀ ¬♢Speak (x) ➞ ¬♢Speak (x,english) )

∃x ( I (x) ⋀ ¬♢Speak (x,english) ➞ ¬♢Speak (x,english) )

The possibility itself can be understood to be linked to the inherent ability which may or may not be utilized by the agent. In other words, if the possibility exists that I speak German with anyone, then the possibility exists that I speak German to someone because I am able to speak German. Following this interpretation, I can state that every dynamic modality that expresses ability also expresses a situational possibility, given the time and chance.

Therefore, I can conclude that dynamic modality expressing ability may also be grouped under situational possibility, together with

1. Possibility: You can take bus number 25 to the main station.
2. Permission: You may leave now. and
3. Request: May I leave now?

Reference: 

DRYER, Matthew S. & HASPELMATH, Martin (eds.), (2011) The World Atlas of Language Structures Online. Munich: Max Planck Digital Library. Available at http://wals.info/

Acessed on July 6th, 2013

Tidbits of Philology no. 2

Welcome to Tidbits of Philology no. 2!

This time I will not spill the beans and will let you contribute with the corresponding structure in your language!

Today’s topic is the theme of my current research - Modality.

In a nutshell, Modality is a remarkable characteristic of human languages to talk about possible worlds, i.e., alternative realities that might not necessarily exist:

I wish I could buy a new car.

I wish she would call me.

I wonder how life would be if I were rich.

There is a lot of conflicting work on the taxonomy of modal meanings. This is, however, a very rough summary:

1. Epistemic - requires some degree of knowledge (or guessing!) and is object-oriented:

She should be home by now.

The lights are on, she must be home.

1. Root - does not presupose any knowledge (epistémi) and is subject-oriented.

2.1. Deontic - expresses obligation and permission:

I must go now.

May I leave now?

2.2. Dynamic - expresses ability and will.

2.2.1. Ability

I can speak German.

2.2.2. Volition

I want to leave now.

----

OK, let’s focus today on “ability” and “permission”. There are many studies on Germanic languages which prove that the modal verb “may” can now be used with overlapping meanings of “ability” and “permission”:

You may go now. = You can go now.

In fact, “can” is, according to corpora-based studies, much more productive (i.e., used more often) than “may”.

This seems to be true in German as well:

Du darfst gehen. = Du kannst gehen.

----

In order to express ability, English uses “can” in the present, “could” in the past and “be able to” in the future:

I can speak German.

I could speak German when I was a child.

I will be able to speak German when I finish the German course.

Modal auxiliaries are a common feature in all Germanic languages and have very similar structures: [modal] + [verb in the infinitive], although German and Dutch use SOV in such cases, while English and Swedish keep the SVO syntax:

I can speak German.

Jag kan tala tyska.

Ik kan Duits spreken.

Ich kann deutsch sprechen.

Icelandic uses the past participle (að tala > talað) following the modal auxiliary!

Jég geta talað þýsku.

----

The Romance languages, however, don’t have special modal verbs, and use regular, fully-conjugated verbs instead (some authors call them “semi-modals”):

Eu sei falar alemão.

Another possibility is to delete the semi-modal and use the main verb only:

Eu falo alemão. (This alternative is true for English and many Germanic languages as well).

This seems to work with some verbs, but not with others:

Ela sabe nadar. (She can swim)

Ela nada. (She swims = she is a professional swimmer > not a modal meaning)

----

More languages will be added soon!

See y'all soon,
Rafael

Rafael Lanzetti's Tidbits of Philology no. 001

Hello everyone, welcome to the first “Lanzetti’s Tidbits of Philology”. In this series, I’ll present you tiny bits of previous research, class material and examples for papers/lectures I’ve prepared throughout the years I’ve been working as a University Linguistics teacher. These will be brief and direct, but you can ask me for more detailed info if you wish. I’ll always give examples in the languages I know or learn, and I’d be grateful if you could add the corresponding translation in your own language.

Today’s topic is the idiom “to know by heart” - 

The English expression itself comes from Latin “ex corde” (cf. SPQR) through French, probably adopted in England in the 12th century C.E. together with about 12,000 other lexemes.

Then we have two main philological groups: 

Group 1: Languages that continue using the Latin reference to the heart, especially the “romantic” Romance languages

Portuguese “de cor”

French “par cœur”

Subgroup 1.1: Languages that refer to other parts of the body

Dutch “uit het hoofd” (from the head)

Hebrew: “בעל פה” (from the mouth, orally)
Bulgarian: наизуст (from the mouth)

Subgroup 1.2: Languages that refer to the abstract concept of “memory”

Spanish: “de memoria”

Italian: “a memoria”

Group 2: Languages that refer to the location/motion “out”. The probable etymological explanation here is that one knows the piece of information s/he wants to give without needing any extra help from a book, s/he can “expel it”, “warble it out” from the inside of his/her head outwards to the real world. According to the Duden Dictionary, the idiom was created around the 13th century and its meaning was already widespread around the 16th century in Germany. Many of the main Germanic languages use this reference, although some of them have switched the origin-destination relation, but that is a very common philological phenomenon.

German: “auswendig” (moving outwards)

Dutch: “van buiten” (from the outside)

Swedish: “utantill” (outwards)

Icelandic: “utan að” (outwards)

Romanian: “pe dinafară” (on the outside)

Greek: “απ’έξω” (from the outside)

I’d be interested in knowing to which of the groups your language belongs!