FAQ - Revision history

Firespeaker: the right spelling

2012-02-06T05:10:41Z

the right spelling

← Older revision		Revision as of 05:10, 6 February 2012
Line 13:		Line 13:
	[[FAQ/Central Eurasian linguistics\|Central Eurasian linguistics FAQs]]		[[FAQ/Central Eurasian linguistics\|Central Eurasian linguistics FAQs]]

	[[FAQ/~~Cheboksary~~ and ~~Kazan~~ 2012\|~~Cheboksary~~ and ~~Kazan~~ 2012]]		[[FAQ/Shupashkar and Qazan 2012\|Shupashkar and Qazan 2012]]

Firespeaker at 03:46, 6 February 2012

2012-02-06T03:46:17Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 03:46, 6 February 2012
Line 12:		Line 12:

	[[FAQ/Central Eurasian linguistics\|Central Eurasian linguistics FAQs]]		[[FAQ/Central Eurasian linguistics\|Central Eurasian linguistics FAQs]]

			[[FAQ/Cheboksary and Kazan 2012\|Cheboksary and Kazan 2012]]

Firespeaker: Replaced content with 'Here I answer questions which are often asked of me. This saves me time having to rewrite answers. This is [http://jnw.name/ Jonathan North Washington]'s wiki...'

2010-11-07T21:09:03Z

Replaced content with 'Here I answer questions which are often asked of me. This saves me time having to rewrite answers. This is [http://jnw.name/ Jonathan North Washington]'s wiki...'

Show changes

Firespeaker: /* Random */

2010-11-07T20:59:12Z

Random

← Older revision		Revision as of 20:59, 7 November 2010
Line 268:		Line 268:

	Footnotes:		Footnotes:
	# Kyrgyz does, however, have a phonemic contrast when recent loans are included. In Russian loans, both /ʒ/ and /ʦ/ are attested modernly for many speakers (traditionally, these were nativised as /ʤ/ and /s/, respectively). This leaves the problem of how to transcribe these, since using ‹j› for /ʒ/ would be normal in the Turkish-style system, leaving ‹c› for /ʤ/; this doesn't leave ‹c› for /ʦ/, though unlike for Russian, a two-phoneme analysis may be best. In this case, ‹ts› might be the best way to go.		# Kyrgyz does, however, have a phonemic contrast when recent loans are included. In Russian loans, both /ʒ/ and /ʦ/ are attested modernly for many speakers (traditionally, these were nativised as /ʤ/ and /s/ or /ʧ/, respectively). This leaves the problem of how to transcribe these, since using ‹j› for /ʒ/ would be normal in the Turkish-style system, leaving ‹c› for /ʤ/; this doesn't leave ‹c› for /ʦ/, though unlike for Russian, a two-phoneme analysis may be best: /ts/. In this case, ‹ts› might be the best way to go.


			=== What about Altaic? ===

			There are two prevailing views of "Altaic".

			The first view is that Altaic represents a language family consisting of several subfamilies that are different because of divergence. Usually this includes Turkic, Mongolic, and Tungusic, and sometimes also Japanese and Korean. This is not easily supportable because of the lack of consistent sound changes in cognates, and that fact that lexical and morpho-syntactic cognates aren't pervasive.

			The second view is that Altaic represents an areal grouping of originally unrelated languages that have become more similar due to convergence. This explains the main problems with the divergence view. However, this view generally goes along with the idea that there was / has been a single period of contact among all these groups—in more or less a single geographic area—before they went their own ways. This isn't supportable because there's no evidence for this.

			Instead, there seems to be evidence for many different periods of contact between different groups: e.g., a distant period of Indo-European→Turkic contact; a period of heavy Turkic→Mongolic contact (in the form of Turkic speakers being absorbed as Mongolic speakers) about 2000-2500 years ago; at least one period of Mongolic→Tungusic contact some time later; a period of Turkic→Hungarian contact about 2000 years ago; several periods of contact between the Sogdians, the Tokharians, and Turkic groups, resulting in most Sogdian and Tokharian populations eventually shifting to Turkic; a period of Mongolic→Turkic contact within the last 1000 years, most heavily affecting South Siberian Turkic languages, where the contact continues to this day in some groups, but also heavily affecting Kypchak languages (some Turkic varieties were even completely abandoned due to shifts to Mongolic); a period of contact with Persian, particularly in the south, where it continues to affect a certain number of Turkic languages to this day; and even a number of periods of Turkic-Turkic contact.

			These many periods of contact between certain groups has resulted in a number of languages with structural, lexical, and morphological similarities. This is more or less the definition of a Sprachbund, though it's hard to define the geographical or linguistic edges of this particular one, whose core is the middle of Central Eurasia. Does it include Hungarian? Definitely. Does it include Tibetan? Probably. Did it once include the ancestors of Japanese and Korean? Probably. However, since the shape and languages involved have changed so much over time, it's hard to give it a single name (such as "Altaic") or provide a single list of languages which have been involved in it. A fitting name might be the Central Eurasian Sprachbund/Sprachbünde.

Firespeaker: /* What is my religion then? */

2010-09-02T15:42:35Z

What is my religion then?

← Older revision		Revision as of 15:42, 2 September 2010
Line 164:		Line 164:
	* I do my best to live in harmony with the environment around me: that is, I make an effort to respect the environment and everyone and everything in it (when worthy;), and try to contribute to everyone's future in the ways that seem most fitting given what I enjoy and am good at. I also do enjoy what I can of the environment (all the various forms natural beauty can take, including things like landscapes, weather, food, music, language, even cityscapes) and other people (people can be awesome).		* I do my best to live in harmony with the environment around me: that is, I make an effort to respect the environment and everyone and everything in it (when worthy;), and try to contribute to everyone's future in the ways that seem most fitting given what I enjoy and am good at. I also do enjoy what I can of the environment (all the various forms natural beauty can take, including things like landscapes, weather, food, music, language, even cityscapes) and other people (people can be awesome).

	The last of the previous points reflects a belief system that could be referred to as "pagan" in English. This bit of my belief system I refer to as Tengriistic, since it parallels certain aspects of Tengriism. I don't share the entire belief and practice system of Tengriism (mostly because I don't live as a pastoral nomad); the sentiment of the US Ásatrú Folk Assembly, where they define Ásatrú as "an expression of the native, pre-Christian spirituality of Europe", is similar to what I feel here: "an expression of the native, pre-Islamic spirituality of the Turkic peoples".		The last of the previous points reflects a belief system that could be referred to as "pagan" in English. This bit of my belief system I sometimes refer to as Tengriistic, since it parallels certain aspects of Tengriism. I don't share the entire belief and practice system of Tengriism (mostly because I don't live as a pastoral nomad); the sentiment of the US Ásatrú Folk Assembly, where they define Ásatrú as "an expression of the native, pre-Christian spirituality of Europe", is similar to what I feel here: "an expression of the native, pre-Islamic/Buddhist spirituality of the Turkic peoples".

	==== In short ====		==== In short ====

Firespeaker: /* Why did you come to Kyrgyzstan? */

2010-09-02T15:37:40Z

Why did you come to Kyrgyzstan?

← Older revision		Revision as of 15:37, 2 September 2010
Line 63:		Line 63:

	=== Why did you come to Kyrgyzstan? ===		=== Why did you come to Kyrgyzstan? ===
	(Following is an English translation of the above sections in Kyrgyz. The translation was done quickly, is pretty rough, and probably sounds almost as simple and inelegant as ~~the~~ Kyrgyz original.)		(Following is an English translation of the above sections in Kyrgyz. The translation was done quickly, is pretty rough, and probably sounds almost as simple and inelegant as my Kyrgyz original.)

	I came to Kyrgyzstan the first time in July and August 2006. At that time I was [[#Kazakhstan\|studying Kazakh]] in Kazakhstan, and two friends of mine were studying some in Kyrgyzstan. They told me to come and take a vacation in Kyrgyzstan, so I came, and for two weeks I travelled around the country and saw a lot of stuff. Speaking Kazakh with Kyrgyz speakers, I got interested in Kyrgyz—especially how Kyrgyz is spoken differently in different areas.		I came to Kyrgyzstan the first time in July and August 2006. At that time I was [[#Kazakhstan\|studying Kazakh]] in Kazakhstan, and two friends of mine were studying some in Kyrgyzstan. They told me to come and take a vacation in Kyrgyzstan, so I came, and for two weeks I travelled around the country and saw a lot of stuff. Speaking Kazakh with Kyrgyz speakers, I got interested in Kyrgyz—especially how Kyrgyz is spoken differently in different areas.

Firespeaker: /* "Everyone knows English / English is the most expressive language — what can you learn from studying other languages that you can't learn by knowing English?" */

2010-09-02T15:36:22Z

"Everyone knows English / English is the most expressive language — what can you learn from studying other languages that you can't learn by knowing English?"

← Older revision		Revision as of 15:36, 2 September 2010
Line 24:		Line 24:


	=== "~~Everyone knows English /~~ English is the most expressive language — what can you learn from studying other languages that you can't learn by knowing English?" ===		=== "English is the most expressive language — what can you learn from studying other languages that you can't learn by knowing English?" ===

	Many people, including those who've studied other languages and those who haven't, feel that their native language is the most expressive language. Some argue that English has more words than any other language, and that because of that it's more expressive. I'll explain why both of these points are not true, and then explain a little bit about the use of studying other languages.		Many people, including those who've studied other languages and those who haven't, feel that their native language is the most expressive language. Some argue that English has more words than any other language, and that because of that it's more expressive. I'll explain why both of these points are not true, and then explain a little bit about the use of studying other languages.
Line 32:		Line 32:
	Also, just because a language "has a large number of words" (e.g., in the dictionary) doesn't mean that it has the most number of words of any language. It also doesn't mean that all of those words are used by the speakers of that language or that all the words would even be understood by the majority of the speakers of the language. Furthermore, the expressiveness of a language can't be measured by the number of words in use anyway; there are quite a number of grammatical constructions and types of word combinations that languages employ to add more specific meaning. For example, in English you can ‘read’ something or you can ‘read through’ something or you can ‘read over’ something, etc. These word combinations add detail to the meaning that could otherwise be obtained by "adding" words to the language, but instead is done with already existing "words". Likewise, in Kyrgyz you can ‘оку-’ something, you can ‘окуп чык-’ something, you can ‘окуп ал-’ something, etc. In this case, already existing ~verbs are used similarly to the way already existing ~prepositions are used in English to add more detail to the meaning of what's being said.		Also, just because a language "has a large number of words" (e.g., in the dictionary) doesn't mean that it has the most number of words of any language. It also doesn't mean that all of those words are used by the speakers of that language or that all the words would even be understood by the majority of the speakers of the language. Furthermore, the expressiveness of a language can't be measured by the number of words in use anyway; there are quite a number of grammatical constructions and types of word combinations that languages employ to add more specific meaning. For example, in English you can ‘read’ something or you can ‘read through’ something or you can ‘read over’ something, etc. These word combinations add detail to the meaning that could otherwise be obtained by "adding" words to the language, but instead is done with already existing "words". Likewise, in Kyrgyz you can ‘оку-’ something, you can ‘окуп чык-’ something, you can ‘окуп ал-’ something, etc. In this case, already existing ~verbs are used similarly to the way already existing ~prepositions are used in English to add more detail to the meaning of what's being said.

	~~Plus, there are many reasons~~ to study ~~other languages. Take the example~~ of ~~an American businessman going overseas—say~~ to ~~Russia—to establish a business deal with a Russian company. If the American businessman knows just English and hires a translator~~, ~~they will miss a lot of what~~'s ~~actually going on~~ in ~~their dealings, and will also be treated with distance at best, and as a complete outsider at worst~~. ~~Even if the Russian company's representatives~~ know ~~English, they will operate under the assumption that this American knows nothing~~ about the ~~various social, political, and cultural contexts that this business transaction is taking place in~~ (~~that is, the Russian contexts~~)~~. Now imagine the same example, except where the American knows a good deal of Russian~~ and ~~something about the modern Russian cultural context. He will be treated much more as~~ an ~~insider by the Russian company, and he'll have a much better~~ idea of what~~'s going on in this business deal. He'll have quite an advantage in being able to bargain and knowing~~ the ~~limits of how far he can take such negotiations. All~~ of ~~this~~ (and ~~I mean every little piece of what his Russian is doing for him~~) ~~will make him much more likely to negotiate a more equitable deal for himself/his company. Bargaining has culturally specific limits that can be learned~~ in ~~the process of language learning. Everything else is like this too~~, ~~many things to the extreme~~. ~~Hence~~, ~~knowing the language of your interlocutors is highly advantageous in any interaction (as opposed to relying solely on their knowledge of your language or worse~~, ~~a translator)~~, ~~at the very least for the good impression it creates~~.		Linguists attempt to study all aspects of language to better understand its psychological reality, which in turn lets us know how it's possible for humans to learn and use language in the capacities that we do. A lot of what we know about language so far has been learned through the comparison of different linguistic systems (~languages) to one another: what each one can do and how it does it gives us an idea about what the human capacity for language is capable of (and not) in general, which gives insights into its limits and how it works. This has larger implications for neuroscience, evolutionary anthropology, artificial intelligence, and many other fields.

	~~Linguists attempt~~ to study ~~all aspects~~ of ~~language~~ to ~~better understand its psychological reality~~, ~~which in turn lets us know how it~~'s ~~possible for humans to learn~~ and ~~use language in the capacities that we do~~. ~~A lot of what we~~ know about ~~language so far has been learned through~~ the ~~comparison of different linguistic systems~~ (~~~languages~~) ~~to one another: what each one can do~~ and ~~how it does it gives us~~ an idea ~~about~~ what the ~~human capacity for language is capable~~ of (and ~~not~~) in ~~general~~, ~~which gives insights into its limits and how it works~~. ~~This has larger implications for neuroscience~~, ~~evolutionary anthropology~~, ~~artificial intelligence~~, ~~and many other fields~~.		=== "Everyone knows English — what can you get from studying other languages that you can't get by knowing English?" ===

			There are many reasons to study other languages. Take the example of an American businessman going overseas—say to Russia—to establish a business deal with a Russian company. If the American businessman knows just English and hires a translator, they will miss a lot of what's actually going on in their dealings, and will also be treated with distance at best, and as a complete outsider at worst. Even if the Russian company's representatives know English, they will operate under the assumption that this American knows nothing about the various social, political, and cultural contexts that this business transaction is taking place in (that is, the Russian contexts).

			Now imagine the same example, except where the American knows a good deal of Russian and something about the modern Russian cultural context. He will be treated much more as an insider by the Russian company, and he'll have a much better idea of what's going on in this business deal. He'll have quite an advantage in being able to bargain and knowing the limits of how far he can take such negotiations. All of this (and I mean every little piece of what his Russian is doing for him) will make him much more likely to negotiate a more equitable deal for himself/his company.

			Bargaining has culturally specific limits that can be learned in the process of language learning. Everything else is like this too, many things to the extreme. Hence, knowing the language of your interlocutors is highly advantageous in any interaction (as opposed to relying solely on their knowledge of your language, or worse, a translator), at the very least for the good impression it creates.

	== Kyrgyzstan ==		== Kyrgyzstan ==

Firespeaker: /* "Everyone knows English / English is the most expressive language — what can you learn from studying other languages that you can't learn by knowing English?" */

2010-09-02T14:47:46Z

"Everyone knows English / English is the most expressive language — what can you learn from studying other languages that you can't learn by knowing English?"

← Older revision		Revision as of 14:47, 2 September 2010
Line 28:		Line 28:
	Many people, including those who've studied other languages and those who haven't, feel that their native language is the most expressive language. Some argue that English has more words than any other language, and that because of that it's more expressive. I'll explain why both of these points are not true, and then explain a little bit about the use of studying other languages.		Many people, including those who've studied other languages and those who haven't, feel that their native language is the most expressive language. Some argue that English has more words than any other language, and that because of that it's more expressive. I'll explain why both of these points are not true, and then explain a little bit about the use of studying other languages.

	First of all, it's a common illusion that your native language is more expressive than other languages. As it turns out, most languages can express most any idea, though some do it more efficiently (as they have an already established way to express it, such as a specific word or phrase), whereas others are less efficient (i.e., lack a specific word or established way of expressing it). For example, English (to my knowledge—so at least my English) doesn't have a convenient way of expressing the Kyrgyz verb ‘сыдыр-’ meaning something like "to wipe something off [of a long item] by holding the item at the top with one hand and pulling away down the item's length with the other hand, pinching between thumb and forefinger(s)". Likewise, Kyrgyz doesn't have a convenient way of expressing the general idea expressed by English ‘soda’/‘pop’/etc, but can talk about them as a group by saying ‘газдалган ширин ичимдиктер’ — "sweet carbonated beverages".		First of all, it's a common illusion that your native language is more expressive than other languages. As it turns out, most languages can express most any idea, though some do it more efficiently for certain ideas (as they have an already established way to express it, such as a specific word or phrase), whereas others are less efficient for certain ideas (i.e., lack a specific word or established way of expressing it). For example, English (to my knowledge—so at least my English) doesn't have a convenient way of expressing the Kyrgyz verb ‘сыдыр-’ meaning something like "to wipe something off [of a long item] by holding the item at the top with one hand and pulling away down the item's length with the other hand, pinching between thumb and forefinger(s)". Likewise, Kyrgyz doesn't have a convenient way of expressing the general idea expressed by English ‘soda’/‘pop’/etc, but can talk about them as a group by saying ‘газдалган ширин ичимдиктер’ — "sweet carbonated beverages".

	Also, just because a language "has a large number of words" (e.g., in the dictionary) doesn't mean that it has the most number of words of any language. It also doesn't mean that all of those words are used by the speakers of that language or that all the words would even be understood by the majority of the speakers of the language. Furthermore, the expressiveness of a language can't be measured by the number of words in use anyway; there are quite a number of grammatical constructions and types of word combinations that languages employ to add more specific meaning. For example, in English you can ‘read’ something or you can ‘read through’ something or you can ‘read over’ something, etc. These word combinations add detail to the meaning that could otherwise be obtained by "adding" words to the language, but instead is done with already existing "words". Likewise, in Kyrgyz you can ‘оку-’ something, you can ‘окуп чык-’ something, you can ‘окуп ал-’ something, etc. In this case, already existing ~verbs are used similarly to the way already existing ~prepositions are used in English to add more detail to the meaning of what's being said.		Also, just because a language "has a large number of words" (e.g., in the dictionary) doesn't mean that it has the most number of words of any language. It also doesn't mean that all of those words are used by the speakers of that language or that all the words would even be understood by the majority of the speakers of the language. Furthermore, the expressiveness of a language can't be measured by the number of words in use anyway; there are quite a number of grammatical constructions and types of word combinations that languages employ to add more specific meaning. For example, in English you can ‘read’ something or you can ‘read through’ something or you can ‘read over’ something, etc. These word combinations add detail to the meaning that could otherwise be obtained by "adding" words to the language, but instead is done with already existing "words". Likewise, in Kyrgyz you can ‘оку-’ something, you can ‘окуп чык-’ something, you can ‘окуп ал-’ something, etc. In this case, already existing ~verbs are used similarly to the way already existing ~prepositions are used in English to add more detail to the meaning of what's being said.

	Linguists attempt to study all aspects of language to better understand its psychological reality, which in turn lets us know how it's possible for humans to learn and use language in the capacities that we do. A lot of what we know about language so far has been learned through the comparison of different linguistic systems (~languages) to one another: what each one can do and how it does it gives us an idea about what the human capacity for language is capable of (and not) in general, which gives insights into its limits and how it works.		Plus, there are many reasons to study other languages. Take the example of an American businessman going overseas—say to Russia—to establish a business deal with a Russian company. If the American businessman knows just English and hires a translator, they will miss a lot of what's actually going on in their dealings, and will also be treated with distance at best, and as a complete outsider at worst. Even if the Russian company's representatives know English, they will operate under the assumption that this American knows nothing about the various social, political, and cultural contexts that this business transaction is taking place in (that is, the Russian contexts). Now imagine the same example, except where the American knows a good deal of Russian and something about the modern Russian cultural context. He will be treated much more as an insider by the Russian company, and he'll have a much better idea of what's going on in this business deal. He'll have quite an advantage in being able to bargain and knowing the limits of how far he can take such negotiations. All of this (and I mean every little piece of what his Russian is doing for him) will make him much more likely to negotiate a more equitable deal for himself/his company. Bargaining has culturally specific limits that can be learned in the process of language learning. Everything else is like this too, many things to the extreme. Hence, knowing the language of your interlocutors is highly advantageous in any interaction (as opposed to relying solely on their knowledge of your language or worse, a translator), at the very least for the good impression it creates.

			Linguists attempt to study all aspects of language to better understand its psychological reality, which in turn lets us know how it's possible for humans to learn and use language in the capacities that we do. A lot of what we know about language so far has been learned through the comparison of different linguistic systems (~languages) to one another: what each one can do and how it does it gives us an idea about what the human capacity for language is capable of (and not) in general, which gives insights into its limits and how it works. This has larger implications for neuroscience, evolutionary anthropology, artificial intelligence, and many other fields.

	== Kyrgyzstan ==		== Kyrgyzstan ==

Firespeaker: /* "What camp of phonology do you subscribe to?" */

2010-09-02T14:33:58Z

"What camp of phonology do you subscribe to?"

← Older revision		Revision as of 14:33, 2 September 2010
Line 14:		Line 14:

	=== "What camp of phonology do you subscribe to?" ===		=== "What camp of phonology do you subscribe to?" ===
	I like phonetically grounded constraint-based models, such as Optimality Theory and its relatives. At this point it's what I'm most familiar with, though I'm willing to work with other frameworks and take issue with the way many things are done in OT, including certain aspects of the basic premise itself. I prefer, of course, theory-agnostic and phonetically-driven approaches to phonology, but this obviously doesn't always satisfy the issues. I have it in mind that there must be at least two layers to phonology, and think a lot of problems are best solved with an as-of-yet undeveloped model of phonology stemming from this idea.		I like phonetically grounded constraint-based models, such as Optimality Theory and its relatives. At this point it's what I'm most familiar with, though I'm willing to work with other frameworks and I take issue with the way many things are done in OT, including certain aspects of the basic premise itself. I prefer, of course, theory-agnostic and phonetically-driven approaches to phonology, but this obviously doesn't always satisfy the issues. I have it in mind that there must be at least two layers to phonology, and think a lot of problems are best solved with an as-of-yet undeveloped model of phonology stemming from this idea. At some level, I'm something like a structural functionalist or a functional structuralist (that is, there's a place and time for both functionalist and structuralist approaches).

	=== "What camp of syntax do you subscribe to?" ===		=== "What camp of syntax do you subscribe to?" ===

Firespeaker: /* "What languages do you speak?" */

2010-09-02T14:31:19Z

"What languages do you speak?"

← Older revision		Revision as of 14:31, 2 September 2010
Line 5:		Line 5:
	See [http://jnw.name/ my home page] for a description of what I do.		See [http://jnw.name/ my home page] for a description of what I do.
	=== "What languages do you speak?" ===		=== "What languages do you speak?" ===
	Well, linguistics isn't about what languages I speak (see below), but I do know a few. I'm a native speaker of English. I also speak ~~French, Spanish,~~ Russian, and Kyrgyz fairly well ~~(though~~ I can ~~usually only deal with one of those~~ at a ~~time~~, ~~and Russian especially interferes with~~ Spanish ~~for me; and even switching between Russian and Kyrgyz can be tricky)~~, and I ~~can converse~~ at ~~a basic level in Kazakh~~ and ~~Yiddish~~. I also know a bunch of other languages with basic reading and writing ability, but can't speak them very well. See [http://jnw.name/resume my resumé].		Well, linguistics isn't about what languages I speak (see below), but I do know a few. I'm a native speaker of English. I also speak Russian, and Kyrgyz, and Kazakh fairly well, and I can converse at a basic level in Yiddish, French, Spanish, and Mongolian (I used to be much better at French and Spanish). I also know a bunch of other languages with basic reading and writing ability, but can't speak them very well. See [http://jnw.name/resume my resumé].

	=== "What is linguistics?" ===		=== "What is linguistics?" ===