<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	xmlns:georss="http://www.georss.org/georss" xmlns:geo="http://www.w3.org/2003/01/geo/wgs84_pos#" xmlns:media="http://search.yahoo.com/mrss/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Non-standard linguistic terminology</title>
	<atom:link href="http://tulugaq.wordpress.com/2008/02/05/non-standard-linguistic-terminology/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://tulugaq.wordpress.com/2008/02/05/non-standard-linguistic-terminology/</link>
	<description>Alaskan languages and linguistics</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Thu, 24 Sep 2009 17:06:19 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.com/</generator>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
		<item>
		<title>By: David Marjanović</title>
		<link>http://tulugaq.wordpress.com/2008/02/05/non-standard-linguistic-terminology/#comment-831</link>
		<dc:creator>David Marjanović</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 20 Feb 2008 23:02:32 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://tulugaq.wordpress.com/?p=26#comment-831</guid>
		<description>Even in Indo-European oddities happen. For example, in the 4 years I had Russian at school I was taught to call the 6th case (7th in most other Slavic languages) the &quot;prepositional&quot; because it only occurs with prepositions, never alone. The &quot;instrumental&quot; and the &quot;prepositional&quot; together fulfill the functions of the Latin &quot;ablative&quot;. Great was my surprise when I found out that almost everyone else calls this case the &quot;locative&quot;. That&#039;s silly, because &quot;locative&quot; means that it means &quot;in&quot; without needing a preposition, right? Like Latin &lt;i&gt;domi&lt;/i&gt; &quot;at home&quot;, &lt;i&gt;ruri&lt;/i&gt; &quot;in the countryside&quot;, and &lt;i&gt;Romae&lt;/i&gt; &quot;in Rome&quot;, right? The prepositional just happens to be the case that the preposition &lt;i&gt;v&lt;/i&gt;, literally &quot;in&quot;, requires.

And the &quot;instrumental&quot; is indeed an instrumental when it occurs alone -- except where it doesn&#039;t: &quot;be&quot; and &quot;become&quot; also require it most of the time, which must be the function of an equative, right? --, but it can also occur together with a large number of prepositions, such as &quot;with&quot;, meaning it has about half the functions of the Latin &quot;ablative&quot;.

And... when a Latin &quot;ablative&quot; occurs alone, in the majority of cases it doesn&#039;t mean &quot;away from&quot; but has instrumental function. In contrast, the preposition &lt;i&gt;a(b)&lt;/i&gt; &quot;away from&quot; governs the &quot;ablative&quot;. Hmpf.

Also, the &quot;middle voice&quot; or &quot;mediopassive&quot;. Why isn&#039;t it simply called &quot;reflexive&quot;? Were the terms invented by native speakers of English who weren&#039;t used to reflexive pronouns, or what?</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Even in Indo-European oddities happen. For example, in the 4 years I had Russian at school I was taught to call the 6th case (7th in most other Slavic languages) the &#8220;prepositional&#8221; because it only occurs with prepositions, never alone. The &#8220;instrumental&#8221; and the &#8220;prepositional&#8221; together fulfill the functions of the Latin &#8220;ablative&#8221;. Great was my surprise when I found out that almost everyone else calls this case the &#8220;locative&#8221;. That&#8217;s silly, because &#8220;locative&#8221; means that it means &#8220;in&#8221; without needing a preposition, right? Like Latin <i>domi</i> &#8220;at home&#8221;, <i>ruri</i> &#8220;in the countryside&#8221;, and <i>Romae</i> &#8220;in Rome&#8221;, right? The prepositional just happens to be the case that the preposition <i>v</i>, literally &#8220;in&#8221;, requires.</p>
<p>And the &#8220;instrumental&#8221; is indeed an instrumental when it occurs alone &#8212; except where it doesn&#8217;t: &#8220;be&#8221; and &#8220;become&#8221; also require it most of the time, which must be the function of an equative, right? &#8211;, but it can also occur together with a large number of prepositions, such as &#8220;with&#8221;, meaning it has about half the functions of the Latin &#8220;ablative&#8221;.</p>
<p>And&#8230; when a Latin &#8220;ablative&#8221; occurs alone, in the majority of cases it doesn&#8217;t mean &#8220;away from&#8221; but has instrumental function. In contrast, the preposition <i>a(b)</i> &#8220;away from&#8221; governs the &#8220;ablative&#8221;. Hmpf.</p>
<p>Also, the &#8220;middle voice&#8221; or &#8220;mediopassive&#8221;. Why isn&#8217;t it simply called &#8220;reflexive&#8221;? Were the terms invented by native speakers of English who weren&#8217;t used to reflexive pronouns, or what?</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Lev Michael</title>
		<link>http://tulugaq.wordpress.com/2008/02/05/non-standard-linguistic-terminology/#comment-829</link>
		<dc:creator>Lev Michael</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 15 Feb 2008 22:57:25 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://tulugaq.wordpress.com/?p=26#comment-829</guid>
		<description>I work in quite a different neck of the woods (Peruvian Amazonia), but I have encountered a similar issue with idiosyncratic &#039;legacy&#039; terminology stemming from work in the 1960s and 1970s by people who did not have a lot of descriptive linguistic experience at the time, and sort of had to make it up as they went along. 

When I first started writing papers, I stuck to the &#039;traditional&#039; terminology I had encountered, but got a lot of negative reaction to it. I think that unlike certain North American language families, most Amazonian families don&#039;t have large academic constituencies, and so there is not as much support for non-standard terminology. So I have since been incrementally updating the terminology, which has also had the side benefit of having to think more seriously about certain aspects of the corresponding linguistic description. Personally I don&#039;t see much of down-side, as I have found that even the creators of the legacy terminology see the pros of standardization.

I wanted to comment, btw, on the use of defining LaTeX variables for morpheme gloss codes. I have been doing it for about a year now, and have found it to be very useful -- especially when half way through the grammar one decides that a given morpheme should really be called something else!</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I work in quite a different neck of the woods (Peruvian Amazonia), but I have encountered a similar issue with idiosyncratic &#8216;legacy&#8217; terminology stemming from work in the 1960s and 1970s by people who did not have a lot of descriptive linguistic experience at the time, and sort of had to make it up as they went along. </p>
<p>When I first started writing papers, I stuck to the &#8216;traditional&#8217; terminology I had encountered, but got a lot of negative reaction to it. I think that unlike certain North American language families, most Amazonian families don&#8217;t have large academic constituencies, and so there is not as much support for non-standard terminology. So I have since been incrementally updating the terminology, which has also had the side benefit of having to think more seriously about certain aspects of the corresponding linguistic description. Personally I don&#8217;t see much of down-side, as I have found that even the creators of the legacy terminology see the pros of standardization.</p>
<p>I wanted to comment, btw, on the use of defining LaTeX variables for morpheme gloss codes. I have been doing it for about a year now, and have found it to be very useful &#8212; especially when half way through the grammar one decides that a given morpheme should really be called something else!</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: tulugaq</title>
		<link>http://tulugaq.wordpress.com/2008/02/05/non-standard-linguistic-terminology/#comment-825</link>
		<dc:creator>tulugaq</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 08 Feb 2008 20:08:15 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://tulugaq.wordpress.com/?p=26#comment-825</guid>
		<description>That&#039;s probably worse.

I rarely see &quot;semi-transitive&quot; in Eskimo-Aleut work, but it pops up sometimes. Half-transitive is fairly common in E-A work, though. Usually the authors don&#039;t explain what they mean by it, but it tends to be used to describe either antipassives (another source of contention) where intransitive verbs have indefinite objects or intransitive verbs that are semantically transitive. They&#039;re applying it as a syntactic term, however.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>That&#8217;s probably worse.</p>
<p>I rarely see &#8220;semi-transitive&#8221; in Eskimo-Aleut work, but it pops up sometimes. Half-transitive is fairly common in E-A work, though. Usually the authors don&#8217;t explain what they mean by it, but it tends to be used to describe either antipassives (another source of contention) where intransitive verbs have indefinite objects or intransitive verbs that are semantically transitive. They&#8217;re applying it as a syntactic term, however.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Claire</title>
		<link>http://tulugaq.wordpress.com/2008/02/05/non-standard-linguistic-terminology/#comment-824</link>
		<dc:creator>Claire</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 08 Feb 2008 18:36:50 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://tulugaq.wordpress.com/?p=26#comment-824</guid>
		<description>Semi-transitive is a standard term, it just doesn&#039;t have a standard meaning.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Semi-transitive is a standard term, it just doesn&#8217;t have a standard meaning.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: James Crippen</title>
		<link>http://tulugaq.wordpress.com/2008/02/05/non-standard-linguistic-terminology/#comment-823</link>
		<dc:creator>James Crippen</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 07 Feb 2008 18:34:15 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://tulugaq.wordpress.com/?p=26#comment-823</guid>
		<description>Okay, I’ll bite. What does “half-transitive” mean? I can’t see how it would work.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Okay, I’ll bite. What does “half-transitive” mean? I can’t see how it would work.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
