Talk:tɕʰɑ³¹ŋɑ⁵⁵
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
@-sche: The source you cite gives 55 for the second syllable's tone; it seems that 35 only surfaces due to tone sandhi in the two uses in running text which are provided. While we're at it, it seems odd that Benedict's Sino-Tibetan Conspectus (p. 26) gives Nung thi (which has a clearly traceable etymology, unlike this word). —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 19:54, 17 September 2016 (UTC)
- Ah, I see you added thi#Anong as well. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 19:56, 17 September 2016 (UTC)
- re tone sandhi: Oh, I see! This is a word I found via fr.Wikt: they had it lemmatized in this form (with 35), and I checked the book to confirm that this form (35) was found in it — and even marvelled at the book's extensive list of other words for water — but apparently either didn't spot the difference in small tone letter in the lemmatized vs the running-text form, or assumed the running-text form was OK to add as fr.Wikt had done. (I've only found two errors fr.Wikt's various entries for water/eau where they had a form that wasn't present in the cited work, namely kaan²de¹ which is spelled as such in the cited book but which they had as fr:kaak²de¹, and another entry where they had understandably failed to spot that a certain i in small print was actually ɨ; their entries are usually reliable, probably as much as ours.) I was and remain intrigued by the difference in form between this string and thi, and would love to find an explanation, but I concluded that because A Grammar of Anong: Language Death Under Intense Contact is clearly more detailed work, dedicated just to that language as opposed to the generalist work that mentions thi in passing, the Grammar’s form was at least reliable enough to add. - -sche (discuss) 21:14, 17 September 2016 (UTC)
- Thanks for fixing it here (and at fr.wikt). I worry that we have other cases of tone sandhi interference, but those are hard to find unless I stumble upon them. As for the two forms, I found an analogous case to this with claims that Ladakhi has borrowed the word for water as ti from Kinnauri (despite our entry for it being as chu, which is definitely citeable). This is a mess that I hardly want to approach. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 21:56, 17 September 2016 (UTC)
- I can only speculate that perhaps the differences are dialectal, and/or both forms are in general use (the Grammar shows that Anong speakers have no objection to having a lot of words that all basically mean "water"). Some languages in the area around China have famously borrowed large numbers of basic vocabulary words, and borrowing seems even more possible in situations when speakers are also fluent in other languages (and maybe not fluent in Anong/Ladakhi). - -sche (discuss) 04:12, 18 September 2016 (UTC)
- Thanks for fixing it here (and at fr.wikt). I worry that we have other cases of tone sandhi interference, but those are hard to find unless I stumble upon them. As for the two forms, I found an analogous case to this with claims that Ladakhi has borrowed the word for water as ti from Kinnauri (despite our entry for it being as chu, which is definitely citeable). This is a mess that I hardly want to approach. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 21:56, 17 September 2016 (UTC)
- re tone sandhi: Oh, I see! This is a word I found via fr.Wikt: they had it lemmatized in this form (with 35), and I checked the book to confirm that this form (35) was found in it — and even marvelled at the book's extensive list of other words for water — but apparently either didn't spot the difference in small tone letter in the lemmatized vs the running-text form, or assumed the running-text form was OK to add as fr.Wikt had done. (I've only found two errors fr.Wikt's various entries for water/eau where they had a form that wasn't present in the cited work, namely kaan²de¹ which is spelled as such in the cited book but which they had as fr:kaak²de¹, and another entry where they had understandably failed to spot that a certain i in small print was actually ɨ; their entries are usually reliable, probably as much as ours.) I was and remain intrigued by the difference in form between this string and thi, and would love to find an explanation, but I concluded that because A Grammar of Anong: Language Death Under Intense Contact is clearly more detailed work, dedicated just to that language as opposed to the generalist work that mentions thi in passing, the Grammar’s form was at least reliable enough to add. - -sche (discuss) 21:14, 17 September 2016 (UTC)