One of the highlights of the recent Iron ChIF: Non-Human Language Device Battle was, to me, the discussion of different languages and linguistic features. I find linguistics to be a very interesting field of study, so I hope to spark more conversation about it, whether it’s breakthroughs in the translation of Sumerian dog jokes or suggestions for constructing languages.
I’ll start: It turns out that many languages have separate conjunctions for joining noun phrases, as opposed to joining clauses[1].
Source: The Language Construction Kit, by Mark Rosenfelder, pg. 81 ↩︎
In English, if you ask a question in the negative and someone replies with just “yes” or “no”, it can be quite confusing. Many languages, however, avoid this by having three or even four particles. French, for instance, has “oui”, the affirmative “yes”, “si”, which is used to contradict a negative statement or question, and “non”, which either denies an affirmative or agrees with a negative. Early Modern English had “yea” and “nay” to agree with or deny a positively phrased question, and “yes” and “no” to contradict or agree with a negatively phrased question[1].
To clarify, anyone is free to post on this thread. I know there are several people here with far more knowledge of linguistics than I have.
Speaking of conjunctions, Latin has three very common ones: et (“and”), vel (“inclusive or”), and aut (“exclusive or”). That is, aut is used for mutually exclusive options, while vel is used for options that can be combined: “both” is a valid answer to a vel question, but not to an aut question. That’s why aut is used in the Latin version of “all or nothing”, aut Caesar aut nihil (“either emperor or nothing”).
It also has enclitic versions of “and” and “inclusive or”, which glom onto a previous word or phrase like 's does in English: -que and -ve respectively. Hence senatus populus-que Romanus: “the senate and the Roman populace”.
Back in high school, someone I remember #defined these to mean &, |, ^, &&, and || (respectively) in order to Latinize their C code.
Colonel Mustard: Wadsworth, am I right in thinking there’s nobody else in this house?
Wadsworth: Um… no.
Colonel Mustard: Then there is someone else in this house?
Wadsworth: Sorry, I said “no” meaning “yes.”
Colonel Mustard: “No” meaning “yes?” Look, I want a straight answer, is there someone else, or isn’t there, yes, or no?
Wadsworth: No.
Colonel Mustard: No there is, or no there isn’t?
Wadsworth: Yes.
Mrs. White: [shatters glass] PLEASE!
Colonel Mustard: [both insistent] Well, there is still some confusion as to whether or not there is anybody else in this house!
Wadsworth: I told you, there isn’t.
Colonel Mustard: There isn’t any confusion, or there isn’t anybody else?
Wadsworth: Either! Or both.
Colonel Mustard: Just give me a clear answer!
Wadsworth: Certainly!
[clears throat]
Wadsworth: What was the question?
Colonel Mustard: [shouting] Is there anybody else in this house?
All: [shouting] No!
In French, the pattern for “neither … nor” is “ni X ni Y”, but “or” is only “X ou Y”. Was this inconsistency created by the merging of Latin with Gaulish? How many Romance languages kept the distinction between inclusive and exclusive or?
Good question! It looks like vel died out in French and aut (> ou) took over, but I’m not sure what influenced this, if it was a general tendency or specific to French. I’m also not sure why they switched from aut X aut Y to X ou Y.
I’ll have to look into whether any Romance languages kept the vel/aut distinction…
On a related note… was xor invented for the exclusive or in boolean logic or is it a archaic natural language thing?
Also, now that I think about it, there are lots of cases in colloquial English where a or b means one or the other, but not both, contrary to how or is used in boolean logic where it means A, b, or both… And sorry if that sentence is confusing, I’m giving myself a headache thinking about boolean logic versus common English usage and I’ve taken classes on boolean logic that were quite enjoyable.
Xor (alternately eor, but that one’s mostly fallen out of fashion) is a purely modern thing; the OED says it started in the 60s. Natural English usually doesn’t need to make the distinction, because in day-to-day life, most questions don’t need to be answered solely with a “yes” or a “no”. If you ask “did the mail or the packages arrive yet”, I can say “both”, rather than worrying about whether your “or” was inclusive or exclusive.
I remember a transatlantic flight where the flight attendant was asking passengers: “Peanuts OR chocolate?”, really stressing that “OR” to make clear that the airline would like you to take only one item, not both. (She started doing this after a guy grabbed both.)
So intonation, stress and context can kinda work around there being no exclusive/inclusive or distinction, I guess? (At least sometimes.)
A proposed etymology of the name [Pegasus] is Luwianpihassas ‘lightning’, and Pihassassi, a local Luwian-Hittite name in southern Cilicia of a weather deity associated with thunder and lightning. The proponents of this etymology adduce the role of Pegasus, reported as early as Hesiod, as the bringer of thunderbolts to Zeus. That interpretation was first suggested in 1952 and remains widely accepted,[3] but Robin Lane Fox (2009) has criticized it as implausible.[4]
Another interesting etymology I discovered recently is that of the French aujourd’hui. It turns out it literally means “on the day of today”, as hui is an archaic French word meaning “today”. Hui in turn derives from the Latin word hodiē, which also meant “today”[1]. There’s apparently also a French phrase au jour d’aujourd’hui meaning “at present”[2], which has led to the joke phrase au jour du jour d’aujourd’hui, which simply means “today”[3].
It’s mixing mythologies(though let’s be honest, what modern work of fantasy doesn’t mix mythologies?), but does anyone else now have a mental image of Thor riding into battle on a pegasus?
Though, now I wonder what the etymology of phoenix is… On a related note, it was recently pointed out to me that the Japanese term Houou, also romanized Ho-oh and commonly translated phoenix(though like with translating the Chinese term Long as dragon, its a conflation of two different mythological creatures) could literally be translated as Fire King, Ho being one of several words in Japanese for fire, and -oh being treated like an honorific roughly equivalent to the English title of King. Not sure of the veracity, but it makes sense with what I know of the Japanese language(my credentials being limited to being a long time fan of Japanese pop culture and taking 3 years(my final grades for the three years were C, F, C based on a 100-point scale with 7-point ranges for A-D) to barely complete the 2-year foreign language requirement I had in Highschool, which I graduated from in 2005).
The details of “phoenix” are somewhat unclear, but it almost certainly goes back to Ancient Egyptian bnw “Bennu bird”. In Ancient Greek we see the word φοῖνιξ phoînix used to mean all three of “purple dye”, “Phoenician people”, and “fiery resurrecting bird from Egypt”, but which of those came first? Did they name the dye after the mythical bird, then name the Phoenicians after the valuable commodity only they could supply? Or were the words originally distinct, and later scribes copying out the works of Herodotus “corrected” an obscure Egyptian borrowing to the more common word for the dye? It’s hard to be sure!
When I was in middle school one of my language teachers explained that the style guide our school system used listed “whom” as optional so she wasn’t going to bother teaching it to us as most of us would never use it anyway. So I really only know it from media.
On the flip-side I remember several elementary school teachers insisting that not only was “on accident” definitely incorrect but was also an extremely childish mistake. My research says it’s actually perfectly acceptable but after so many years of having it drilled into me that it isn’t it still grates on me when I hear it.
Unrelated: I will die on the hill that a valid definition of “podium” is “lectern”
I understand that, but it always clunks in my head especially when it’s obvious “And you’re sending this package to who?”
Right, things happen by accident. Research says that people are morphing “on accident” as the opposite of “on purpose”. The only way “on” is correct is in a completely different context: Victims’ names were listed on accident reports…
On reflex I would have agreed, but the confusion is probably that a “lectern” can actually sit on a “podium” - a speaker can both stand on a podium and put their notes on a lectern atop a podium:
A podium is a platform upon which a speaker stands to elevate themselves above the level of the audience, enhancing visibility. Often found in auditoriums and stages, it serves as a raised area for conductors, orators, or performers. In contrast, a lectern is a reading desk with a slanted top that is designed to hold speaking notes or books. It is commonly used by presenters to rest their materials on while addressing an audience, often positioned atop a podium or on the floor at speaking engagements.
At the Olympics, medal winners stand on top of multilevel podiums with 1st place being the highest. There are no lecterns involved in this configuration.
However, if I search “podium” to buy one, I get images of lecterns that are called podiums, so language-morph strikes again.
“On accident” grates on me too. Another one is saying “step foot” instead of “set foot”. “Step foot” is just wrong and it sounds wrong to me too. Here’s an article explaining why.
I’d argue Lecturns are a type of podium, but not all podiums are lecturns. Kind of like how cars are a type of motor vehicle, but not all motor vehicles are cars.
Probably my biggest language related pet peeve is how often my fingers type were when I ment to type where or vice versa, especially since I don’t have this problem with any other w and wh words that I can think of. Can’t say I’m all that bothered by most other people’s idiosyncracies in their use of language, and in particular, I’m not sure I’ve heard on accident in the wild rather than in discusssions like these… also step foot makes perfect sense to me.
