Tamuló ei júñak

  • Archive
  • RSS
  • Tuzjáɣ kim

languageoficeandfire:

I was about to reblog @jabalinya-deactivated20230507’s post but he deactivated before I could.

So my message to you is

I relate to what you’re saying. When I posted on Twitter my phonological content, things were chaotic and it felt like a reliable activity to provide some dopamine rush and ego boost

When things settled down, and I didn’t feel compelled to post a ridiculously condensed version of hours-long research, it was actually quite a relief

There’s this kind of internalised pressure that grows with creating really well researched and tailored content that can take the fun out if. You sort of burn yourself out after a while and lose the drive to continue

I hope you get the peace of mind you deserve

We’ll meet again…

  • 1 week ago > languageoficeandfire
  • 2
  • Comments
  • Permalink
Share

Short URL

TwitterFacebookPinterestGoogle+

aeniith:

New site!

New website! I have made a separate full website for professional conlanging that I do. Please check it out! If you’re interested in hiring my services as a conlanger for your creative media work, contact me there!

https://www.ransdellgreenconlangs.com/

    • #website
    • #creative services
    • #professional conlanging
  • 1 week ago > aeniith
  • 17
  • Comments
  • Permalink
Share

Short URL

TwitterFacebookPinterestGoogle+

jabalinya-deactivated20230507:

image

For organizational purposes, maybe. @apnazabaan

    • #indo aryan
    • #sideblog
  • 1 week ago > jabalinya-deactivated20230507
  • 10
  • Comments
  • Permalink
Share

Short URL

TwitterFacebookPinterestGoogle+

jabalinya-deactivated20230507:

mistakescontinuetobemade:

ukfrislandembassy:

vilikemorgenthal:

jabalinya-deactivated20230507:

vilikemorgenthal:

jabalinya-deactivated20230507:

jabalinya-deactivated20230507:

Linguists who resort to using philological terminology (i.e like in-language grammatical terms) instead of common terminology and not transcribing examples from the native script in papers and/or grammars are genuinely assholes.

image

Like this is fucking ridiculous. It’s not only untranslated and untranscribed but the Hebrew used here has no vowel marking.

I would’ve liked to speak in defense of the use of native philological tradition, often more fitted to the facts on the ground than a generical latinesque terminology developped for European languages, but I do not know how I would fare reading a work from other traditions than the Semitic and Classical ones. Maybe I’d be as infuriated as you facing a native Khmer grammar.

Wait, there’s no vowel marking on the Samaritan samples either?

The issue is while in theory that sounds better, it ultimately hampers accessibility. If you already know linguistics, you should be able to engage with data without being gatekept by someone who spent their whole degree studying the Bible but wants to function as a linguist, do you see what I mean? That’s what’s infuriating. There’s modern standards for a reason and a lot of newer terminology has been developed for non-European languages—I just had an argument on discord about this in regards to Arabic “dialectal tanwīn” which is actually an adnominal linker with no case declension derived from a former indefinite marker, but now only serves the purpose of linking an indefinite noun to its modifier. Calling it “tanwīn” implies misleadingly that it’s still an indefinite marker despite it not existing outside of the aforementioned grammatical context, unlike a handful of Arabic varieties with Sayhadic substrate in Southern Arabia that have true indefinite marking. The person who isn’t readily aware of Arabic grammar though will not immediately get what’s going on, you see what I’m saying? I wouldn’t make the argument against using proper modern terminology on grounds of ignoring the native philological tradition being that one is near universal as far as accessibility for linguists, the other isn’t. Specialized vocabulary can and should be mentioned, but then explained and the proper modern terminology be carried on. You can acknowledge it without it being a barrier to access imo.

And yes the Samaritan examples are also regularly unvocalized, alongside Ben-Hayyim’s descriptions of the vowels being both vague and having no mention of IPA. It requires you to be familiar with primarily Tiberian Hebrew pronunciation in its native terminology.

It’s true that I’ve seen a lot of those philological terms misused over time, mainly by applying the analysis from a standardised language to related lower status langs, as you examplified.

you should be able to engage with data without being gatekept by someone who spent their whole degree studying the Bible but wants to function as a linguist

Hahaha I understand the sentiment perfectly. I see indeed little value in reading such works except for the novelty appeal.

descriptions of the vowels being both vague and having no mention of IPA

Okay that’s also a pet peeve of mine.

Yeah, that is super annoying, but other pet peeve is the opposite thing, where you are given examples in a paper and the first line, where you’d expect to be given the actual data, already has everything segmented out to line up with the glosses on the line below. Like it always just feels like they’re hiding something, e.g. a form that they’ve segmented out but isn’t actually found in speech due to sandhi etc. It want to see what it was that you had to deal with, then you can put your segmentation of the data below it.

Absolutely fucking this. You can keep the native script in just fucking also transliterate.

Another linguist should be able to follow your fucking data without being a specialist in that language.

It’s the “point” of Generative Grammar because by learning the building blocks of language you can use them to compare and understand deeper meanings in related or even unrelated grammars. This shit really grinds my gears.

This is exactly my issue. Imagine if I ran my entire blog with the like 10 different transliteration methods used across Afroasiatic and then half the time didn’t transliterate the data that does have a written form.

I’m going to be over here writing about why ዝንቱ in Ge‘ez is archaic because of the presence of the <ን> distal marker and the <ቱ> case marker. Irrespective of if you can read it, it shouldn’t matter, right? Why engage with Ge‘ez anything if you haven’t spent hours learning the Fidäl script and how to speak the underlying language because you can’t really read it properly without knowing Ge‘ez.

Mmh real question, what about the Greek alphabet? I’ve rarely if ever seen it transliterated, there must be a widespread assumption about linguistically oriented people already knowing it.

    • #transliteration
    • #accessible data
    • #greek alphabet
  • 2 weeks ago > jabalinya-deactivated20230507
  • 33
  • Comments
  • Permalink
Share

Short URL

TwitterFacebookPinterestGoogle+

jabalinya-deactivated20230507:

image
image
image

Afroasiatic Scribito — 21 Miyazya, 2015 EC

‎Mḏꜣyt, a possible historical variety of the Beja language of Sudan, Eritrea, and Egypt

Let’s do something slightly different.

This was so cool to write about because back in 2021 Julien Cooper—an Egyptologist with a linguistics background that works with non-Egyptian words in Egyptian language texts—wrote a paper about Cushitic onomastic material in the personal names on the sarcophagus of Mentuhotep II’s wife ‘Aashayet’. It so happens that the rightmost attendant of hers, *Mkħnt, has a name that could mean ‘the lovely one’ in modern Beja, having the Cushitic verbal stem /kVhan-/ ‘love’ which appears in modern Beja as كِهَن [kehan]. While the reconstruction of the vowels is very tentative, and we can’t confirm for sure if Makehant was a speaker of an early variety of Beja it is widely accepted that the Beja of the modern day are the same population as the ‘Medjay’ of the Egyptian historical accounts—therefor likely being a population who spoke an early variety of their modern language.

I always gave credit to our friend *Qzknt, a Medjay chief found in a 12th dynasty burial in Abydos, as the first known Cushitic-speaker of history. But no, it might just be this woman. The lovely woman. Our beloved friend, Makehant, who was an attendant at the start of the 11th dynasty over 4,000 years ago.

    • #cushitic
    • #Beja
    • #egyptology
  • 2 weeks ago > jabalinya-deactivated20230507
  • 30
  • Comments
  • Permalink
Share

Short URL

TwitterFacebookPinterestGoogle+

ukfrislandembassy:

vilikemorgenthal:

jabalinya-deactivated20230507:

vilikemorgenthal:

jabalinya-deactivated20230507:

jabalinya-deactivated20230507:

Linguists who resort to using philological terminology (i.e like in-language grammatical terms) instead of common terminology and not transcribing examples from the native script in papers and/or grammars are genuinely assholes.

image

Like this is fucking ridiculous. It’s not only untranslated and untranscribed but the Hebrew used here has no vowel marking.

I would’ve liked to speak in defense of the use of native philological tradition, often more fitted to the facts on the ground than a generical latinesque terminology developped for European languages, but I do not know how I would fare reading a work from other traditions than the Semitic and Classical ones. Maybe I’d be as infuriated as you facing a native Khmer grammar.

Wait, there’s no vowel marking on the Samaritan samples either?

The issue is while in theory that sounds better, it ultimately hampers accessibility. If you already know linguistics, you should be able to engage with data without being gatekept by someone who spent their whole degree studying the Bible but wants to function as a linguist, do you see what I mean? That’s what’s infuriating. There’s modern standards for a reason and a lot of newer terminology has been developed for non-European languages—I just had an argument on discord about this in regards to Arabic “dialectal tanwīn” which is actually an adnominal linker with no case declension derived from a former indefinite marker, but now only serves the purpose of linking an indefinite noun to its modifier. Calling it “tanwīn” implies misleadingly that it’s still an indefinite marker despite it not existing outside of the aforementioned grammatical context, unlike a handful of Arabic varieties with Sayhadic substrate in Southern Arabia that have true indefinite marking. The person who isn’t readily aware of Arabic grammar though will not immediately get what’s going on, you see what I’m saying? I wouldn’t make the argument against using proper modern terminology on grounds of ignoring the native philological tradition being that one is near universal as far as accessibility for linguists, the other isn’t. Specialized vocabulary can and should be mentioned, but then explained and the proper modern terminology be carried on. You can acknowledge it without it being a barrier to access imo.

And yes the Samaritan examples are also regularly unvocalized, alongside Ben-Hayyim’s descriptions of the vowels being both vague and having no mention of IPA. It requires you to be familiar with primarily Tiberian Hebrew pronunciation in its native terminology.

It’s true that I’ve seen a lot of those philological terms misused over time, mainly by applying the analysis from a standardised language to related lower status langs, as you examplified.

you should be able to engage with data without being gatekept by someone who spent their whole degree studying the Bible but wants to function as a linguist

Hahaha I understand the sentiment perfectly. I see indeed little value in reading such works except for the novelty appeal.

descriptions of the vowels being both vague and having no mention of IPA

Okay that’s also a pet peeve of mine.

Yeah, that is super annoying, but other pet peeve is the opposite thing, where you are given examples in a paper and the first line, where you’d expect to be given the actual data, already has everything segmented out to line up with the glosses on the line below. Like it always just feels like they’re hiding something, e.g. a form that they’ve segmented out but isn’t actually found in speech due to sandhi etc. It want to see what it was that you had to deal with, then you can put your segmentation of the data below it.

More accessible raw data plz

(via jabalinya-deactivated20230507)

    • #grammar writing
    • #grammatical tradition
  • 2 weeks ago > jabalinya-deactivated20230507
  • 33
  • Comments
  • Permalink
Share

Short URL

TwitterFacebookPinterestGoogle+

jabalinya-deactivated20230507:

vilikemorgenthal:

jabalinya-deactivated20230507:

jabalinya-deactivated20230507:

Linguists who resort to using philological terminology (i.e like in-language grammatical terms) instead of common terminology and not transcribing examples from the native script in papers and/or grammars are genuinely assholes.

image

Like this is fucking ridiculous. It’s not only untranslated and untranscribed but the Hebrew used here has no vowel marking.

I would’ve liked to speak in defense of the use of native philological tradition, often more fitted to the facts on the ground than a generical latinesque terminology developped for European languages, but I do not know how I would fare reading a work from other traditions than the Semitic and Classical ones. Maybe I’d be as infuriated as you facing a native Khmer grammar.

Wait, there’s no vowel marking on the Samaritan samples either?

The issue is while in theory that sounds better, it ultimately hampers accessibility. If you already know linguistics, you should be able to engage with data without being gatekept by someone who spent their whole degree studying the Bible but wants to function as a linguist, do you see what I mean? That’s what’s infuriating. There’s modern standards for a reason and a lot of newer terminology has been developed for non-European languages—I just had an argument on discord about this in regards to Arabic “dialectal tanwīn” which is actually an adnominal linker with no case declension derived from a former indefinite marker, but now only serves the purpose of linking an indefinite noun to its modifier. Calling it “tanwīn” implies misleadingly that it’s still an indefinite marker despite it not existing outside of the aforementioned grammatical context, unlike a handful of Arabic varieties with Sayhadic substrate in Southern Arabia that have true indefinite marking. The person who isn’t readily aware of Arabic grammar though will not immediately get what’s going on, you see what I’m saying? I wouldn’t make the argument against using proper modern terminology on grounds of ignoring the native philological tradition being that one is near universal as far as accessibility for linguists, the other isn’t. Specialized vocabulary can and should be mentioned, but then explained and the proper modern terminology be carried on. You can acknowledge it without it being a barrier to access imo.

And yes the Samaritan examples are also regularly unvocalized, alongside Ben-Hayyim’s descriptions of the vowels being both vague and having no mention of IPA. It requires you to be familiar with primarily Tiberian Hebrew pronunciation in its native terminology.

It’s true that I’ve seen a lot of those philological terms misused over time, mainly by applying the analysis from a standardised language to related lower status langs, as you examplified.

you should be able to engage with data without being gatekept by someone who spent their whole degree studying the Bible but wants to function as a linguist

Hahaha I understand the sentiment perfectly. I see indeed little value in reading such works except for the novelty appeal.

descriptions of the vowels being both vague and having no mention of IPA

Okay that’s also a pet peeve of mine.

    • #philology
    • #grammatical tradition
    • #translitteration
  • 2 weeks ago > jabalinya-deactivated20230507
  • 33
  • Comments
  • Permalink
Share

Short URL

TwitterFacebookPinterestGoogle+

jabalinya-deactivated20230507:

jabalinya-deactivated20230507:

Linguists who resort to using philological terminology (i.e like in-language grammatical terms) instead of common terminology and not transcribing examples from the native script in papers and/or grammars are genuinely assholes.

image

Like this is fucking ridiculous. It’s not only untranslated and untranscribed but the Hebrew used here has no vowel marking.

I would’ve liked to speak in defense of the use of native philological tradition, often more fitted to the facts on the ground than a generical latinesque terminology developped for European languages, but I do not know how I would fare reading a work from other traditions than the Semitic and Classical ones. Maybe I’d be as infuriated as you facing a native Khmer grammar.

Wait, there’s no vowel marking on the Samaritan samples either?

    • #grammar writing
    • #grammatical tradition
    • #transliteration
  • 2 weeks ago > jabalinya-deactivated20230507
  • 33
  • Comments
  • Permalink
Share

Short URL

TwitterFacebookPinterestGoogle+

jabalinya-deactivated20230507:

jabalinya-deactivated20230507:

jabalinya-deactivated20230507:

image
image

Hm.

image
image

Hm.2

Now I’m sure you’re all wondering “Jabalinya, you’re the Afroasiatic person, is this true?” yes but it is also sexist. All research indicates that tiddies are not this symmetrical in the wild. This might explain why the Fidäl letter Śawt is a natural representation, with one bigger than the other. A far better, more realistic censor bar is produced this way.

image

It’s predecessor, the Sabaic Śawt, was much more even like the Arabic form which clearly expected plastic surgery level symmetry. Clearly whoever made the Fidäl was forward thinking.

    • #arabic script
    • #fidäl script
  • 3 weeks ago > jabalinya-deactivated20230507
  • 102
  • Comments
  • Permalink
Share

Short URL

TwitterFacebookPinterestGoogle+

jabalinya-deactivated20230507:

jabalinya-deactivated20230507:

jabalinya-deactivated20230507:

The more I think about it the more I think it’s weird that Black Panther is called anti-Black when in reality that’s not the issue with the movie—wrongly portraying Africa is only anti-Black so as long as your entire worldview is American and you treat africa with absolutely zero nuance, and act like using peoples and cultures in Africa as an aesthetic towards exotification is in itself an insult to a Western conceptualization of race and not actual peoples who very well likely do live outside those notions.

Black Panther is fundamentally, in the words of Patrick Gathara, a “regressive neo-colonial take” on Africa that is fundamentally made for an American audience. The film lauds itself in ideas and notions that are inherently American, if not acceptable to Balck Americans, but can be horridly offensive to Africans who are in any way aware of how the colonialist tropes of the movies are ever present. But when we attempt to act like the movie is somewhere inherently anti-Black on the notion of exotifying and appropriating in many cases minority cultures well known in Western media due to their distinctiveness we really miss out the reality that no, this can’t be, because American or dare I say more broadly Western notions of race are neither universal nor ever present. Perceiving say, Mursi people—who are heavily used as a recognizable exotic aesthetic for the lip plates and so forth—as Black is one thing but these are a people who live in a rural part of a country where race is not necessarily even a concept anyone thinks of, let alone pastoralists living in a part of the country where there’s little to no internet access. The external and internal perspectives outright differ but when it comes to criticism of the Black Panther we only really hear the external, American if not Western take on the matter but the internal notions the Mursi or the Surma have of themselves are a non-factor. And quite frankly as noted in a paper I quoted before (LaTosky 2014) they absolutely have notions of what is a misuse of their culture but only if they’re made aware of it, and their specific offense is towards the misuse. But of course people are not just an aesthetic and cultures are a way of life, not just a way of being perceived. If culture was solely a desire for a distinct aesthetic then surely these conversations would have far less nuance but in this specific case the fact that multiple cultures from across the continent are being used as aesthetic pieces by a costume designer who won awards for it is in itself a problem that has substantially less to do with race, because she herself is Black American, but instead has everything to do with the fact that perspectives of Africa that seem “validating” can also in themselves be inherently neo-colonial.

At some point we have to acknowledge that while we can have opinions on the matter online many times our opinions are uninformed as to the reality of the situation because we understand anti-colonialist struggle as having an inherent tie to the racial concepts primarily Americans interpreted the world through. But this isn’t always the case, people do and always have existed outside of these categories because it doesn’t exist in their worldview and unless we acknowledge that and the nuances that come with it our criticisms are at best going to be more performative than informative. We don’t live the mid-20th century anymore, things change and dynamics change.

And for the reading comprehension challenged:

The issue I’m stating is that Americans shouldn’t determine what is offensive about the film, because they will find ways to make it about themselves and assume other people think like them. This is not the case by any means, and the issues in the film are inherent to it because it’s entire worldview and structure are American assumptions of an entire continent and how cultures work. But unless we understand that the people offended by these movies don’t need to have American approved grievances, we will continue to give shallow takes on the matter that ignore the issues it actually has.

What really gets me here is that criticizing these movies from an inherently American social justice framework doesn’t exactly work because it will negate the root of the issue which is that the movie is not a movie about Africa and was never intended to be such. It is rather an explicitly rather American political theater that divorces itself from being accountable to depict any part of Africa correctly because it can claim the excuse of not being directed by a white director, having a mostly non-white cast, and having costumes created by a woman who is herself not white. This movie is a byproduct of the thinking that the rest of the world many ways operates on the principles of how Americans in general see the world and that the past and present are ideological play tools, not lived in realities. That cultures and languages are aesthetics, not tangible parts of personhood. That’s a serious issue unto itself because let’s be honest, if your aim is to “humanize” the way Africa is looked at why do Wakandans need to be everything Americans in specific find worth mentioning but everything most of Africa is not. The Wakandans as a whole seem to leave no place in their society for average individuals and there’s this inherent focus on damn near deifying monarchs as if they’re the heart of the society. Monarchy is apparently inherently good when the monarchs are not white and when the monarchs have a biological claim to their position. Wakandan society is based on perceptions of stereotypes of how social organization in Africa works and portrays the Wakandan hierarchy as a benevolent necessity, which is substantially removed from how any monarchy has ever operated anywhere in Africa. We criticize ‘The Woman King’ for many of the same tropes, but because it’s historical fiction it’s easy to point out. When we look at Wakanda it’s more of an ideological tool than anything else, so it’s harder to form concrete counterpoints against if you don’t have them just handed to you. It requires analysis, not just pointing at hard facts of history. Just overall so as long as we critique the movie within a framework that essentially exists within the same realm as what’s problematic about it, we will miss the uncomforting reality that Wakanda in essence attempts to make itself African while rejecting what Africa as an entire continent is, and has been. It is in no way meant to represent anyone or anything in Africa, it’s meant to represent what Americans with ties to Africa through ancestry think Africa should be.

There were obvious (for me) Monroe-doctrine vibes from the “dilemma” of being a rich country “staying in its lane” vs being a rich country using that wealth to intervene in the world, either by military action (Special Forces guy Killmonger), or “pacifically” (activist Nakia).

For me it was just a movie with the USA cosplaying as an African country.

(I’m French).

    • #wakanda
    • #black panther
  • 3 weeks ago > jabalinya-deactivated20230507
  • 28
  • Comments
  • Permalink
Share

Short URL

TwitterFacebookPinterestGoogle+
Page 1 of 83
← Newer • Older →

Tamuló ei júñak

Portrait/Logo

About

Linguistics, conlanging, qui sait quoi d'autre.

Pages

  • Conlang masterpage

Following

  • RSS
  • Random
  • Archive
  • Tuzjáɣ kim
  • Mobile
Effector Theme — Tumblr themes by Pixel Union