Language irregularities. - Details on a "Need to know" basis?

[Deshpande, Madhav]

VYAKARAN: South Asian Languages and Linguistics Net
Editors:  Tej K. Bhatia, Syracuse University, New York
          John Peterson, University of Osnabrueck, Germany
Details:  Send email to listserv at listserv.syr.edu and say: INFO VYAKARAN
Subscribe:Send email to listserv at listserv.syr.edu and say:
          SUBSCRIBE VYAKARAN FIRST_NAME LAST_NAME
          (Substitute your real name for first_name last_name)
Archives: http://listserv.syr.edu

Hello Friends,

This discussion is very interesting and reminds me of my early years in the US when I told a salesperson "this sweater does not go in my head," and she then asked:  "Why would you put the sweater in your head and not over your head."  Then I realized what I was doing, translating my Marathi literally into English.  The locative sense is expressed in Marathi either with a form like pāy "leg/foot" > pāyāt, or pāyāvar.  Here, the first form is historically derived by adding -antar, while the second form is derived historically with the addition of -upari in Sanskrit, where the distinction between antar "in/inside" and upari "on/on top of" is clear.  However, I suppose as the first form, e.g. pāyāt, became more like affixation, than a post-position, it probably developed a more general locative sense as it is seen in the locative case forms in Sanskrit.  However, the historical memory of a form like pāyāt containing something like antar is there (consider the explicit expression: pāyācyā āt "inside the foot") and hence creates a surface-problem of how can we use the "in"-form in the sense of "on".  In Sanskrit, the locative form like gṛhe can be used in both the meanings which are only contextually distinguished:  rāmaḥ gṛhe sīdati versus kākaḥ gṛhe sīdati.  I suppose, a Marathi form like pāyāt has gone in this direction half-way, but not all the way, because for an explicit meaning of "on", one would clearly say: pāyāvar "on the foot" (consider: pāyāvar pāy paḍlā "(His) foot fell on (my) foot.").

Madhav

Madhav M. Deshpande
Professor of Sanskrit and Linguistics
Department of Asian Languages and Cultures
202 South Thayer Street, Suite 6111
The University of Michigan
Ann Arbor, Michigan 48104-1608, USA
________________________________________
From: South Asian Linguists [VYAKARAN at LISTSERV.SYR.EDU] On Behalf Of Nicholas Ostler [nicholas at OSTLER.NET]
Sent: Monday, May 23, 2011 7:59 AM
To: VYAKARAN at LISTSERV.SYR.EDU
Subject: Re: Language irregularities. - Details on a "Need to know" basis?

VYAKARAN: South Asian Languages and Linguistics Net
Editors:  Tej K. Bhatia, Syracuse University, New York
          John Peterson, University of Osnabrueck, Germany
Details:  Send email to listserv at listserv.syr.edu and say: INFO VYAKARAN
Subscribe:Send email to listserv at listserv.syr.edu and say:
          SUBSCRIBE VYAKARAN FIRST_NAME LAST_NAME
          (Substitute your real name for first_name last_name)
Archives: http://listserv.syr.edu

This is a fascinating discussion, Dileep, but any chance you could let
the rest of us know what this verb is that you translate as "insert" and
assert to have loopy semantics? Any script will do. We are supposed to
be "South Asian Linguists", so I think we should be told. That way we
might actually gain something beyond the feeling "Wow! Isn't language
strange!"

Nicholas Ostler


On 23/05/2011 12:51, Dileep Damle wrote:
> VYAKARAN: South Asian Languages and Linguistics Net
> Editors:  Tej K. Bhatia, Syracuse University, New York
>          John Peterson, University of Osnabrueck, Germany
> Details:  Send email to listserv at listserv.syr.edu and say: INFO VYAKARAN
> Subscribe:Send email to listserv at listserv.syr.edu and say:
>          SUBSCRIBE VYAKARAN FIRST_NAME LAST_NAME
>          (Substitute your real name for first_name last_name)
> Archives: http://listserv.syr.edu
>
> Indeed!  In Marathi, you "insert in" rings (in fingers), necklaces (in
> necks), bangles (in hands/arms), shirts and coats (in bodies),...  But
> you 'Put pictures on walls'.  So it is a question of meaning rather
> than mistranslation or etymology).
>
> Prepositions are often based on convention rather than logic in most
> human languages and getting those right is frequently a difficult task
> for foreign language learners.  Surely, the biggest challenge of human
> languages is the irregularities they contain and how it is that we
> humans cope with them. While these provide an important and
> interesting research area which could shed light on how our minds
> work, does it necessarily mean that the irregularities and
> irrationalities are to be treasured?
>
> Madhukar Gogate wrote "People may or may not mind irregularities".
> But in the English speaking world, we expect children to learn these
> irregularities and test them on it and chastise then for failures in
> spelling, all so unnecessary.  Did those children who were caned in
> the past not mid these irregularities?  Certainly, some  people have
> the attitude that - I can cope with them and that gives me an
> advantage over those who can't, so irregularities are a good thing.
>
> Dileep Damle
>
> -----Original Message----- From: Paul Kiparsky
> Sent: Monday, May 23, 2011 7:05 AM
> To: VYAKARAN at LISTSERV.SYR.EDU
> Subject: Re: Language irregularities.
>
> VYAKARAN: South Asian Languages and Linguistics Net
> Editors:  Tej K. Bhatia, Syracuse University, New York
>          John Peterson, University of Osnabrueck, Germany
> Details:  Send email to listserv at listserv.syr.edu and say: INFO VYAKARAN
> Subscribe:Send email to listserv at listserv.syr.edu and say:
>          SUBSCRIBE VYAKARAN FIRST_NAME LAST_NAME
>          (Substitute your real name for first_name last_name)
> Archives: http://listserv.syr.edu
>
> Languages can indeed have odd and "illogical" features, but they can
> also be illusions due to mistranslation into another language (often
> based on etymology rather than actual meaning).  So I'm curious about
> the Marathi expression you translate as "insert in".  Could it really
> mean something like "attach to" or "put on"?  In that case, it should
> also be possible in Marathi to describe hanging a picture ("inserting
> it in the wall"), putting on a ring ("inserting it in your finger"),
> and so on.
>
> Paul Kiparsky
>
>
>
> On May 23, 2011, at 6:36 AM, Madhukar N. Gogate wrote:
>
>> Probably every language has got
>> some illogical features. In Marathi, we say, equivalent to
>> (insert shoe in foot) while really (foot is inserted in shoe).
>> Language is for people, and not just for scholars. People
>> do not mind some odd features ! -- Madhukar N. Gogate
>> ==========================================


--
Nicholas Ostler

nicholas at ostler.net
+44 (0)1225-852865, (0)7720-889319

Chairman: Foundation for Endangered Languages
www.ogmios.org

Author: Empires of the Word (2005),
Ad Infinitum (2007), The Last Lingua Franca (2010)
www.nicholasostler.com