New answers tagged semantics
1
This is not a question about Praat, it is a question about phonetics, which you could answer using Praat (or some other analytic device). The primary question is 'Is there a dependable phonetic correlate of being a consonant versus being a vowel?': the answer is 'Mostly, not entirely'. The way you figure out what those correlates are is to inspect a range of ...
-3
I disagree with "StoneyB on hiatus". Everything has a reason. It so happens that the reason is no longer relevant, but the rule is preserved according to tradition. However, still, the reason originally was.
In the past, there were grammatical cases in English, but now they have almost completely disappeared. In languages that have cases, they ...
0
The more common verb for the grasp in the Turkic languages is anla- ( structurally close to Proto-Slavic orzum-ěti ), but there is another common verb: düşün-.
It seems already to be some kind of metaphor, but in the Oguz branch there are more metaphorical variants of this, see: başa düş-/başı çık- 'to understand'.
Also, more rarely in the sense of the grasp ...
2
With regards to Chinese: Yes, but it is far from the most common.
The lexical item most relevant to this is 把握, Mandarin Pinyin: bǎwò, Cantonese Jyutping: baa2 (ng)aak1.
Both syllables had the verbal meaning of "grasp" in Classical Chinese; and the first one was fairly common, e.g. from Mencius:
孟子曰：「拱把之桐梓，人苟欲生之，皆知所以養之者。
Mencius said, 'Anybody who ...
4
There is an entire field of study called Linguistic typology which classifies languages according to various criteria. One or more of the divisions described there may be viewed as analogous to the paradigmatic classification of programming languages.
1
Maybe the Alignment of case marking with several systems neutral, nominative-accusative, ergative-absolutive, active-inactive, and tripartite can be compared to the different paradigms in programming languages. All languages can still express the same things (comparable to being Turing-complete in programming languages) but their viewpoints are quite ...
2
You could refer to this as compositional analysis: approaching the meaning as transparently composed of the sub-units — the sum of its parts.
The fallacious aspect is that due to semantic drift, borrowing, loss of productivity, and so on, many words are not the sum of their parts, and certainly not of the original meanings of their parts.
But as long as the ...
1
The two word string 'grammatical function' is sometimes used in ad hoc ways by different scholars, where grammatical is an adjective and function is a broad descriptive word, and the two-word string does not refer to any type of formal category. However, the fact that the Original Poster is asking this question—and that they frame it in the way they do—...
2
Traditionally, a grammatical function is "how it works in a grammar", so ability to triggering agreement, be nominative, bind a reflexive and so on are grammatical functions. Grammatical relations are concepts like "Subject", "Object", "Indirect Object" etc, which are related, in that being a subject implies having ...
Top 50 recent answers are included
