Errata in Trask's Historical Linguistics - Revision history

Firespeaker: /* Chapter 11 */

2022-11-14T18:32:19Z

Chapter 11

← Older revision		Revision as of 18:32, 14 November 2022
Line 51:		Line 51:

	== Chapter 11 ==		== Chapter 11 ==
	p. 337, "has is that" → "is that"		* p. 337, "has is that" → "is that"

Firespeaker: /* Chapter 10 */

2022-11-14T18:32:06Z

Chapter 10

← Older revision		Revision as of 18:32, 14 November 2022
Line 49:		Line 49:
	* p. 282, Figure 10.6 same deal as figure 10.4.		* p. 282, Figure 10.6 same deal as figure 10.4.
	** Also, it's not labelled "Multiple negation in Early Modern English II", even figure 10.4 is labelled with a "I".		** Also, it's not labelled "Multiple negation in Early Modern English II", even figure 10.4 is labelled with a "I".

			== Chapter 11 ==
			p. 337, "has is that" → "is that"

Firespeaker: /* Chapter 10 */

2019-03-29T03:51:36Z

Chapter 10

← Older revision		Revision as of 03:51, 29 March 2019
Line 46:		Line 46:
	== Chapter 10 ==		== Chapter 10 ==
	* p. 250, "of necessity" → "by necessity" ?		* p. 250, "of necessity" → "by necessity" ?
			* p. 281, Figure 10.4, "percentage" as a label on the y-axis along with a caption "Multiple negation in early Modern English" is misleading: it suggests that it is showing a rise in usage of multiple negation with time, when in fact it is showing the opposite.
			* p. 282, Figure 10.6 same deal as figure 10.4.
			** Also, it's not labelled "Multiple negation in Early Modern English II", even figure 10.4 is labelled with a "I".

Firespeaker: /* Chapter 8 */

2019-03-12T20:41:57Z

Chapter 8

← Older revision		Revision as of 20:41, 12 March 2019
Line 40:		Line 40:
	* p. 216, "an /h/ in the following syllable" should probably be "an /n/ in the following syllable, which was subsequently deleted / turned to /h/"		* p. 216, "an /h/ in the following syllable" should probably be "an /n/ in the following syllable, which was subsequently deleted / turned to /h/"
	* P. 222, "Na-Déné" should probably be "Na-Dene" or "Na-Dené"		* P. 222, "Na-Déné" should probably be "Na-Dene" or "Na-Dené"
			* P. 229, "the Greek word too means ‘the’" should probably be "the Greek word also means ‘the’"
	* pp. 230-231, There are two different-looking characters used for [ɣ] (assuming they are both supposed to be [ɣ]), and neither looks right.		* pp. 230-231, There are two different-looking characters used for [ɣ] (assuming they are both supposed to be [ɣ]), and neither looks right.
	* p. 233, Russian "jpuču" should be "puču"		* p. 233, Russian "jpuču" should be "puču"

Firespeaker: /* Chapter 8 */

2019-03-12T20:29:35Z

Chapter 8

← Older revision		Revision as of 20:29, 12 March 2019
Line 38:		Line 38:
	* p. 201-202, All instances of ‹λ› and ‹ù› should be ʎ.		* p. 201-202, All instances of ‹λ› and ‹ù› should be ʎ.
	* p. 205, It's not so much that Turkish didn't have [q], [x], [w] when it got the Arabic words, but that those sounds ''later'' became [k], [h], and [v] (in some dialects).		* p. 205, It's not so much that Turkish didn't have [q], [x], [w] when it got the Arabic words, but that those sounds ''later'' became [k], [h], and [v] (in some dialects).
			* p. 216, "an /h/ in the following syllable" should probably be "an /n/ in the following syllable, which was subsequently deleted / turned to /h/"
	* P. 222, "Na-Déné" should probably be "Na-Dene" or "Na-Dené"		* P. 222, "Na-Déné" should probably be "Na-Dene" or "Na-Dené"
	* pp. 230-231, There are two different-looking characters used for [ɣ] (assuming they are both supposed to be [ɣ]), and neither looks right.		* pp. 230-231, There are two different-looking characters used for [ɣ] (assuming they are both supposed to be [ɣ]), and neither looks right.

Firespeaker: Addition from Marit

2019-02-03T17:18:09Z

Addition from Marit

← Older revision		Revision as of 17:18, 3 February 2019
Line 1:		Line 1:
	These errata found in Millar's 3rd edition of Trask's Historical Linguistics were mostly identified by Jonathan Washington and his students in [http://www.swarthmore.edu/SocSci/jwashin1/ling052/ LING 052] in the fall of 2016.		These errata found in Millar's 3rd edition of Trask's Historical Linguistics were mostly identified by Jonathan Washington and his students in [http://www.swarthmore.edu/SocSci/jwashin1/ling052/ LING 052] in the fall of 2016 and the fall of 2019.

	== Chapter 1 ==		== Chapter 1 ==
Line 6:		Line 6:
	* p. 16, "...who speak different languages<u>. </u>This is true today..."		* p. 16, "...who speak different languages<u>. </u>This is true today..."
	* p. 18, "originally <b>meaning</b> ‘army-ford’"		* p. 18, "originally <b>meaning</b> ‘army-ford’"
	* p. 20, Turkish forms of ''yaz''- should have ''ı'' (dotless i) throughout instead of ''i'' (dotted i).		* p. 20, Turkish forms of ''yaz''- should have ''ı'' (dotless i) throughout instead of ''i'' (dotted i). Or they could just use IPA.
			* p. 20, "<em>aktub</em> ‘he’s writing’"; this is in fact the first person form; the third person form would be <em>yaktub</em>.
	* p. 35, "mëdvedev" isn't the Russian word for bear, медведь [mʲɪdˈʋʲɛdʲ] is. And the meaning isn't ''literally'' "honey-eater", but ''etymologically'' that. To modern Russian-speakers' ears, it sounds more like "honey see-er"		* p. 35, "mëdvedev" isn't the Russian word for bear, медведь [mʲɪdˈʋʲɛdʲ] is. And the meaning isn't ''literally'' "honey-eater", but ''etymologically'' that. To modern Russian-speakers' ears, it sounds more like "honey see-er"

Firespeaker: /* Chapter 2 */

2019-02-02T22:09:29Z

Chapter 2

← Older revision		Revision as of 22:09, 2 February 2019
Line 6:		Line 6:
	* p. 16, "...who speak different languages<u>. </u>This is true today..."		* p. 16, "...who speak different languages<u>. </u>This is true today..."
	* p. 18, "originally <b>meaning</b> ‘army-ford’"		* p. 18, "originally <b>meaning</b> ‘army-ford’"
			* p. 20, Turkish forms of ''yaz''- should have ''ı'' (dotless i) throughout instead of ''i'' (dotted i).
	* p. 35, "mëdvedev" isn't the Russian word for bear, медведь [mʲɪdˈʋʲɛdʲ] is. And the meaning isn't ''literally'' "honey-eater", but ''etymologically'' that. To modern Russian-speakers' ears, it sounds more like "honey see-er"		* p. 35, "mëdvedev" isn't the Russian word for bear, медведь [mʲɪdˈʋʲɛdʲ] is. And the meaning isn't ''literally'' "honey-eater", but ''etymologically'' that. To modern Russian-speakers' ears, it sounds more like "honey see-er"

Firespeaker: /* Chapter 2 */

2019-01-25T19:49:01Z

Chapter 2

← Older revision		Revision as of 19:49, 25 January 2019
Line 6:		Line 6:
	* p. 16, "...who speak different languages<u>. </u>This is true today..."		* p. 16, "...who speak different languages<u>. </u>This is true today..."
	* p. 18, "originally <b>meaning</b> ‘army-ford’"		* p. 18, "originally <b>meaning</b> ‘army-ford’"
	* p. 35, "mëdvedev" isn't the Russian word for bear, медведь [mʲɪdˈʋʲɛdʲ] is.		* p. 35, "mëdvedev" isn't the Russian word for bear, медведь [mʲɪdˈʋʲɛdʲ] is. And the meaning isn't ''literally'' "honey-eater", but ''etymologically'' that. To modern Russian-speakers' ears, it sounds more like "honey see-er"

	== Chapter 4 ==		== Chapter 4 ==

Firespeaker: /* Chapter 6 */

2018-10-23T18:23:41Z

Chapter 6

← Older revision		Revision as of 18:23, 23 October 2018
Line 14:		Line 14:

	== Chapter 6 ==		== Chapter 6 ==
	* p. 126, the statement that Turkish doesn't have a copula construction is over-simplified; it would be more accurate to say that Turkish does not have overt copula marking in the present aorist with third person copula constructions in informal registers. Various ways of marking the copula arise in quite a range of other contexts, and there's even a defective copula verb.		* p. 126, the statement that Turkish doesn't have a copula construction is over-simplified; it would be more accurate to say that Turkish does not have overt copula marking in the present/aorist with third person copula constructions in informal registers. Various ways of marking the copula arise in quite a range of other contexts, and there's even a defective copula verb.
	* p. 129, example 6.13 should probably be "John-č kʷaθʔideː ido-pč", not "John kʷaθʔideː-č ido-pč".		* p. 129, example 6.13 should probably be "John-č kʷaθʔideː ido-pč", not "John kʷaθʔideː-č ido-pč".
	* p. 131, the transcription of the Biblical Hebrew examples has a few issues:		* p. 131, the transcription of the Biblical Hebrew examples has a few issues:
Line 20:		Line 20:
	** c is used for emphatic [sˁ]		** c is used for emphatic [sˁ]
	** v is used for [w]		** v is used for [w]
	** these last couple issues suggest the intent was to transcribe Modern Hebrew, not Biblical Hebrew...		** these last couple issues suggest the intent was to transcribe Modern Hebrew, not Biblical Hebrew (...), but IPA wasn't used.
	* p. 133, example 6.22 appears to be missing the word "dă"		* p. 133, example 6.22 appears to be missing the word "dă"
	* p. 133, I think ◌̆ diacritics should probably be ◌̌		* p. 133, I think ◌̆ diacritics should probably be ◌̌

Firespeaker: /* Chapter 8 */

2016-11-05T15:22:31Z

Chapter 8

← Older revision		Revision as of 15:22, 5 November 2016
Line 39:		Line 39:
	* pp. 230-231, There are two different-looking characters used for [ɣ] (assuming they are both supposed to be [ɣ]), and neither looks right.		* pp. 230-231, There are two different-looking characters used for [ɣ] (assuming they are both supposed to be [ɣ]), and neither looks right.
	* p. 233, Russian "jpuču" should be "puču"		* p. 233, Russian "jpuču" should be "puču"

			== Chapter 10 ==
			* p. 250, "of necessity" → "by necessity" ?