Talk:ółtaʼ

From Wiktionary, the free dictionary
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Etymology - prefixes[edit]

The etymology is currently given as ʼa- + yíní- + -ł- + -taʼ. So, ʼa- + yíní- reduces to ó? Can that be made explicit? Otherwise it just looks odd, because ʼayíníłtaʼ ≠ ółtaʼ... - -sche (discuss) 03:23, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • There are many strange combinations like this that are listed by Young and Morgan, the compilers of much of the English documentation on the structure of Navajo. Their explanations can be ... a bit sparse, and sometimes the combinations don't make a lot of sense phonetically -- like this one. I don't have their huge Analytical Lexicon of Navajo (I've been coveting this for some time, but lack the time to really get into it), but hopefully Stephen or Ewweisser could supply more information. ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig 16:59, 5 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It is a peculiarity of Navajo and other Athabaskan languages that prefixes (verbs can have up to eleven) frequently fuse with an adjacent prefix into a form that bears little resemblance to the originals. It’s one of the great difficulties in learning the language, since the listener must be able to analyze the prefixes to see the underlying prefixes. In addition, only the 1st-person singular shows all the prefixes, so the etymologies are actually for the prefixes shown in the 1st-person form. The citation form for Navajo verbs is traditionally the 1st-person singular (except for verbs that lack a 1st-person form), but the 3rd person has been selected as the citation form for Wiktionary. It creates some problems such as etymologies (compare the etymology form yíní- with the 1st-person ííníshtaʼ). Besides that, Navajo conjugation is based on the prefixes (including the underlying prefixes), which are usually fully expressed only in the 1st-person imperfective. —Stephen (Talk) 18:24, 5 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, they are prefixes in position 9. Classifiers, especially -l- and -ł-, often disappear in the 1st-person and sometimes in other persons, and -d- is likely to be camouflaged or hidden in all persons. The nul classifier is often not clear in various persons. Classifiers need to be specified for every pertinent entry, because very often it is unclear. In my opinion, it would be best to show the classifier in a box at the upper right of a page, or possibly floated right. —Stephen (Talk) 22:21, 5 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I have some limited insight into this weird one. Unspecified person ʼa- is odd in that the a disappears or transforms when it comes before other vowels, and a isn't usually a "weak" vowel in Navajo. It's quite common for o to pop up oddly in third- and "fourth"-person forms, but I can't seem to formulate a rule. ni- often triggers it: see dootłʼizh for a ni- apparently without yi-. y-modal with l- or d- classifier often triggers it (see yidlą́, alzhish, dilʼéés, and noodǫ́ǫ́z for y-perfective, and yootʼááł for y-progressive (the only kind of progressive, I guess). Y-progressive yields oo- even with a null or ł classifier if they're transitive (i.e., having a conjunct y- object). There are many, but take yookááł as an example. Finally, intransitive progressives have oo in the fourth-person but not the third (see yibah), which makes me think it has something to do with conjunct j- prefix. What does it all mean?
I think when I have access to more resources I'll pursue some research on the unexpected o. Is there a place (I have very little knowledge about namespaces and special pages and all that) to note basically what Stephen says above ("It is a peculiarity of Navajo and other Athabaskan languages that prefixes (verbs can have up to eleven) frequently fuse with an adjacent prefix into a form that bears little resemblance to the originals"), in the absence of any thorough yet concise academic account of exactly when unexpected o appears that can be places in the etymologies of relevant entries? Ewweisser (talk) 11:46, 6 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I’m not sure what you mean about "weak" vowel. It is common for a to interchange with i, both in pronunciation and spelling. There is a lot of consonant and vowel harmony that goes on in Navajo, so, for example, bíhooshʼaah (with prefix bí) is usually pronounced bóhooshʼaah and often written as bóhooshʼaah (where i becomes o in harmony with the following oo). —Stephen (Talk) 17:35, 7 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Re "Is there a place": I would suggest making any general notes about Navajo on WT:About Navajo. It also seems appropriate to make a note of what Stephen mentions above, that etymologies may be for the first-person form even when the lemma is the third-person form. - -sche (discuss) 18:29, 7 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Um. Just to be clear, it’s just Eiríkr Útlendi who says the 3rd-person is the lemma. I admit that it is what we now have on Wiktionary, but I would never actually claim that the 3rd-person form was the lemma in Navajo. —Stephen (Talk) 20:09, 7 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The 3rd-person obscures the classifiers almost as bad as the 1st-person. The classifiers, in particular the -d- classifier and null classifier, are frequently obscured in the 3rd person. The full complement of prefixes are preserved only in the 1st person imperfective, if there is one, and in any case the classifiers need to be expressly declared for each entry where they are used, since they are so often obscured regardless of person. Navajo conjugations depend on the prefixes (the full 1st-person imperfective set of prefixes). The best reason for why we should use the 1st-person is that the only person who wants to use the 3rd-person is someone who does not know the language, while the renowned and accomplished linguists who wrote the definitive bible on the Navajo language, Robert W. Young and William Morgan, say that the 1st-person, where it exists, is the citation form. If Robert Young says it’s so, and someone who does not know the language says it is not so, then for my money it is exactly what Young and Morgan say it is. I can’t even imagine arguing such a point with Robert Young. It is simply unimaginable. If I ever argued about that with Young and Morgan, I would have to be out of my mind. I have already discussed this before and I’m not interested in discussing it again. I would only say the same thing again. If a discussion is to be held, just reread what I’ve already said. But I do want it to be clear that I had nothing at all to do with the selection of the 3rd-person as the Navajo citation form. I could tell that - -sche already thinks that I had something to do with this, and I want to be quick to disabuse anyone of the thought that I would have a hand in such a choice. After this choice was made (against my wishes), I have never added any more verbs, since I know that eventually this error will have to be corrected, and it is already going to be a huge job for whoever gets stuck with it. So, we can leave things as they are for the time being, but I just want everyone to know that I had nothing to do with it. —Stephen (Talk) 05:17, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Stephen, I've asked before for anyone's explanation of the reasoning behind Young and Morgan's decision to use first-person singular. None was forthcoming. From what I've been able to see of the language, first-person singular does obscure the classifier, making it impossible to accurately discern other forms. You state that "classifiers, in particular the -d- classifier and null classifier, are frequently obscured in the 3rd person." The -d- classifier combines readily with the initial consonant of many verb stems, regardless of person; and the null classifier is, as indicated by its very name, not there. These classifiers are not obscured by the third-person form itself, but they are made even harder to discern by the first-person form.
You state that you've discussed this before, but again, no explanation for Young and Morgan's decision was forthcoming. And above, I see an argument to authority, but absent any detail for why Young and Morgan chose as they do. If one uses the first-person singular as the lemma, one must otherwise specify the classifier, as the first-person infix -sh- obscures this. If one uses the third-person singular as the lemma, one must otherwise specify other prefixes that do not appear in the third-person singular, as with the yini- in ółtaʼ. Rather that all verbs have a classifier, whereas only some verbs have these additional prefixes, basic logic suggests that the third-person singular makes more sense to use as the lemma form.
Again, if you or anyone else has more information about why Young and Morgan chose the first-person singular, I'm all ears. Even then, as I've also mentioned previously, Young and Morgan themselves saw fit to include both first-person and third-person singular forms in many of their dictionary entries, suggesting that they too saw the first-person singular alone as insufficient. Perhaps it would make sense for us to have full entries at both forms? ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig 05:53, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I keep saying what I keep saying. The 1st-person is the citation form for Navajo; the 3rd-person is not the citation form. Period. For anyone who does not know the Navajo language to question a linguist of the stature of Young or Morgan is ... I don’t even know a word to describe it. Anyway, as I’ve also said, I am not interested in discussing it. If you have a discussion about it in the future, just reread what I’ve already said. Or don’t. Navajo is a moribund project here, and I expect that existing entries will continue to be deleted, one by one. Since you are using the 3rd person as the citation form for Navajo verbs, and since the 3rd-person forms of most Navajo verbs are usually unattested in print, I expect that the verbs will eventually go as well.
My only concern, as I keep repeating, is that some people might think that I had anything to do with this 3rd-person business. - -sche isn’t the only one to assume that I had a hand in it. Others, Navajo scholars, have approached me about it. I keep trying to distance myself from it. I tell people that it wasn’t me at all, it was you. I had no say in it and I don’t want to be branded with it. Now this is my last word on the matter, other than occasionally to insist that I am an innocent bystander whenever somebody assumes that I was ever involved in such a decision.
Whenever I talk about this, I am not trying to discuss it, I am trying to explain that it had nothing to do with me and that I would never support it. So it is not necessary for you to start a discussion about it every time I write a disclaimer such as the one above that starts "Um. Just to be clear...." I need to make a disclaimer so that people won’t blame me for this. It is not an invitation for discussion, so please ignore any comments that I may make on occasion about not being involved in this decision. And there’s an end to it as far as I am concerned. —Stephen (Talk) 09:10, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I made the transformation of yíní- into ó- a little more explicit. Julien Daux (talk) 16:13, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wiktionary.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:ółtaʼ&oldid=41855782"