Difference between revisions of "Errata in Trask's Historical Linguistics"
From FireSpeakerWiki
Jump to navigationJump to searchFirespeaker (talk | contribs) (→Chapter 6) |
Firespeaker (talk | contribs) (→Chapter 11) |
||
| (16 intermediate revisions by the same user not shown) | |||
| 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. 35, "mëdvedev" isn't the Russian word for bear, медведь [mʲɪdˈʋʲɛdʲ] is. | + | * 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" | ||
== Chapter 4 == | == Chapter 4 == | ||
| Line 14: | Line 16: | ||
== 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 22: | ||
** 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 ◌̌ | ||
| Line 28: | Line 30: | ||
* p. 161, ''langue d'oil'' should be ''langue d'oïl'' | * p. 161, ''langue d'oil'' should be ''langue d'oïl'' | ||
* p. 164, it's "Delmarva", not "Delmarvia" | * p. 164, it's "Delmarva", not "Delmarvia" | ||
| + | * p. 167, "Moldavian" should be "Moldovan" | ||
| + | * p. 168 & 175, "central Asia(n)" should be "Central Asia(n)" | ||
| + | * p. 189, the key to the map should have "jument" as solid white, not the diagonal hatching; the rest of Spain should have diagonal hatching. | ||
| + | |||
| + | == Chapter 8 == | ||
| + | * p. 198, In table 8.5, 'ʃtʃ-' for Portuguese should be just 'ʃ-'. | ||
| + | * 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. 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. 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. | ||
| + | * p. 233, Russian "jpuču" should be "puču" | ||
| + | |||
| + | == Chapter 10 == | ||
| + | * 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". | ||
| + | |||
| + | == Chapter 11 == | ||
| + | * p. 337, "has is that" → "is that" | ||
Latest revision as of 14:32, 14 November 2022
These errata found in Millar's 3rd edition of Trask's Historical Linguistics were mostly identified by Jonathan Washington and his students in LING 052 in the fall of 2016 and the fall of 2019.
Contents
Chapter 1
Chapter 2
- p. 16, "...who speak different languages. This is true today..."
- p. 18, "originally meaning ‘army-ford’"
- 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, "aktub ‘he’s writing’"; this is in fact the first person form; the third person form would be yaktub.
- 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
- p. 72, The paragraph ending in "before nasals" is missing a "." at the end.
- p. 84, The plural of Yiddish tog "day" is teg, not *toge
- p. 95, In the third-to-last paragraph, it should say "...both the lowering of /o/ and umlaut..." instead of "...both the lowering of /ø/ and umlaut"
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. 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:
- ' and ʔ are both used for glottal stop
- c is used for emphatic [sˁ]
- v is used for [w]
- 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, I think ◌̆ diacritics should probably be ◌̌
- p. 139, example 6.26 should probably have "þrijoz" instead of "prijoz"
Chapter 7
- p. 161, langue d'oil should be langue d'oïl
- p. 164, it's "Delmarva", not "Delmarvia"
- p. 167, "Moldavian" should be "Moldovan"
- p. 168 & 175, "central Asia(n)" should be "Central Asia(n)"
- p. 189, the key to the map should have "jument" as solid white, not the diagonal hatching; the rest of Spain should have diagonal hatching.
Chapter 8
- p. 198, In table 8.5, 'ʃtʃ-' for Portuguese should be just 'ʃ-'.
- 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. 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. 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.
- p. 233, Russian "jpuču" should be "puču"
Chapter 10
- 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".
Chapter 11
- p. 337, "has is that" → "is that"
