[Lingtyp] Is the connection between simplicity and intensity universal

[Jess Tauber]

I've been working on a model of phonosemantics in natural languages (in
mimetic words primarily) and came to the realization last year (after 40
years of work on  many dozens of languages) that mimetic words operated as
if they were vectors (involving terms for force, direction, and other
physical qualities/quantities). If you aren't putting all your effort into
a single goal- that is, avoiding distractions or competing motivations,
then the resulting vector won't have as much force put into it- there will
be parasitic vectors emanating from the agent- for time, for goals, etc.
Very many mimetic words in various languages have terms that encode
(phonosemantically) for being 'off axis' (that is, indirective)- for
example when there is vacillation or oscillation that avoids the
lowest-energy state (think of a pendulum, for example)- the pendulum's
lowest position is when it is at rest- otherwise the downwards vertical
extent is less than maximal. Many different actions can go wide of the
mark, whether repetitively or not..

Jess Tauber

On Fri, Jun 4, 2021 at 8:49 PM Mira Ariel <mariel at tauex.tau.ac.il> wrote:

> Hi,
>
>
>
> Yael Ziv, here cc'ed, wrote about Hebrew *pashut* 'simple/ly'. The paper
> is in Hebrew, but I'm sure you can ask her about it.
>
>
>
> I here attach a paper of mine (with Ruti Bardenstein), in press with *Studies
> in language*, about the evolution of intensifiers from truth markers, but
> we mention particularizers, which *simply* might be similar to. We talk
> about the "missing link" between truth and intensification, and you may
> well find that there's a missing link between 'simple/ly' and 'very'. For
> truth markers we argued that they originally serve to mark something as "a
> real category member of Y", and later on they more generally block a
> loosening (weakening) of the modified concept (Y). Only then do they evolve
> into intensifiers. I suspect the beginning of 'simply' > 'very' is some
> metalinguistic use of 'simply'. Maybe *simply* in *simply Y* first aims
> to preempt a potential reservation that 'Y' is too strong?
>
>
>
> Best,
>
> Mira
>
>
>
>
>
> *From:* Lingtyp [mailto:lingtyp-bounces at listserv.linguistlist.org] *On
> Behalf Of *tangzhengda
> *Sent:* Friday, June 4, 2021 5:08 PM
> *To:* lingtyp <lingtyp at listserv.linguistlist.org>
> *Subject:* [Lingtyp] Is the connection between simplicity and intensity
> universal
>
>
>
> Dear all,
>
>
>
> Words with the lexical meaning of 'with simplicity' are likely to
> grammaticalize into intensives, or 'intensifiers', e.g. English 'simply',
> Chinese *jianzhi *(简直，lit simple and straight), and may be Roman
> languages also.  It is thus interesting to have the potential to express 'In
> a plain, homely, or frugal manner', 'inadequately' and 'absolutely,
> extraordinarily' by the same word.
>
>
>
> I wonder if the connection, both synchronical and diachronical， between
> 'being simple' and 'being intense' somewhat universal？Are there more
> languages that coincidentally have such intensifier-used lexicons
> indicating 'simplicity'?
>
>
>
> Thanks a lot
>
>
>
> With best wishes
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Jeremy
>
>
>
> Institute of Linguistics, Chinese Academy of Social Sciences,
>
> No.5 Jianguomennei Dajie, Beijing, China; 100732
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Lingtyp mailing list
> Lingtyp at listserv.linguistlist.org
> http://listserv.linguistlist.org/mailman/listinfo/lingtyp
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://listserv.linguistlist.org/pipermail/lingtyp/attachments/20210604/96756f83/attachment.htm>