Linguisticsy introduction to the Japanese language

I started teaching one of my linguistics major friends how to speak japanese on AIM tonight, so I figure I would post the conversation here.

(01:54:58 AM) evilestmark: learn japanese Lesson 1. A. I. i. Saying your Name!
(01:55:19 AM) evilestmark:
Kurisu des
chris to-be
(01:55:32 AM) Chris: ahhh’
(01:55:46 AM) Chris: watishi-wa kurisu des
(01:55:53 AM) Chris: step 1
(01:56:00 AM) evilestmark: grade: A+
(01:56:32 AM) evilestmark: next: Asking someone else what their name is
O-namae-wa nan-des-ka
(01:56:54 AM) evilestmark: honorable-name-topic what-to.be-question maerk
(01:57:08 AM) Chris: with rising intonation at end?
(01:57:13 AM) evilestmark: hai
(01:57:21 AM) Chris: kawaii!
(01:57:32 AM) evilestmark: inappropriate usage of kawaii
(01:57:42 AM) Chris: i can use kawaii whenever the hell i want
(01:57:46 AM) evilestmark: lol
(01:57:57 AM) Chris: ^__^
(01:58:17 AM) evilestmark: next step: copular sentence
(01:58:29 AM) evilestmark:
hon des
book to.be
(01:58:36 AM) evilestmark: It’s a book
(01:58:46 AM) Chris: neko des
(01:58:49 AM) Chris: it’s a cat
(01:58:55 AM) evilestmark: idea on how you can ask, “Is it a book?“
(02:00:22 AM) Chris: o-hon-wa nan des ka?
(02:00:59 AM) evilestmark: that would literally mean “What is your exalted book?”
(02:01:06 AM) evilestmark: just “hon deska?”
(02:01:11 AM) Chris: i mean, that’s what i meant
(02:01:26 AM) evilestmark:
(02:01:45 AM) evilestmark: also, theoretically “des” is really “desu”
(02:01:54 AM) evilestmark: but the final syllable get’s shortened to nothing most of the time
(02:02:39 AM) evilestmark: here’s a short word list of concrete objects in japanese
(02:04:42 AM) evilestmark:
hon – book,
isu – desk,
kyokasho – textbook
impitsu – pencil
pen – pen
neko – cat
inu – dog
sakana – fish
(02:06:34 AM) evilestmark: oh other good words
(02:07:02 AM) evilestmark:
denwa – phone
keitai – cellphone
teburu – table
kuruma – car
densha – train
(02:08:17 AM) evilestmark: second major grammatical lesson after copular sentences
(02:08:23 AM) evilestmark: existential remarks
(02:08:53 AM) evilestmark: whereas with the previous sentences it’s taken that you’re talking about an object you and your listener are both aware of and just specifying what it is
(02:09:00 AM) evilestmark: the following are actually statements of existance
(02:09:16 AM) evilestmark: for example
(02:09:49 AM) evilestmark:
hon-ga arimas(u)
book-sub exists
“There’s a book/There are books”
(02:10:11 AM) evilestmark:
impitsu-ga arimasu
pencil-sub exists
(02:10:16 AM) Chris: so there are no determiners in japanese?
(02:10:32 AM) evilestmark: kind of like korean, they’re not necessary most of the time
(02:10:36 AM) Chris: okay
(02:10:58 AM) Chris: but only necessary when saying “those” or “these” ?
(02:11:30 AM) evilestmark: so there’s a way of using demonstratives or deictic determiners in japanese as pre-nominals
(02:11:33 AM) evilestmark: it works like this
(02:12:03 AM) evilestmark:
kono-hon This book (by me)
sono-hon That book (by you)
ano-hon That book over there (not by either of us)
(02:12:17 AM) evilestmark: that works for any noun
(02:12:27 AM) evilestmark: you can describe any physical noun with those determiners as a noun-phrase
(02:12:38 AM) evilestmark: it will then act grammatically just like the noun itself
(02:13:11 AM) evilestmark: talking about abstracts is a bit trickier… because relative place isn’t implicit
(02:13:54 AM) evilestmark: so usually with abstracts it comes down to like… how close you feel to the noun you’re describing, whether you want to place it with yourself or the person you’re talking to
(02:14:16 AM) evilestmark: so
(02:14:24 AM) evilestmark: how would I say: “Are there any books?”
(02:16:37 AM) Chris: hmm
(02:16:39 AM) Chris: okay
(02:16:40 AM) Chris: so
(02:17:52 AM) Chris: hon-ga arimasu?
(02:18:05 AM) evilestmark: you can say that
(02:18:12 AM) evilestmark: but it’s better to say hon-ga arimasuka?
(02:18:25 AM) evilestmark: the ka can attach to any verb that ends in -masu
(02:18:31 AM) evilestmark: or -desu
(02:18:41 AM) Chris: hmm
(02:18:50 AM) Chris: and that means question mark?
(02:18:54 AM) evilestmark: yeppers
(02:19:07 AM) evilestmark: it’s not necessary in informal conversation, but those use different verbs
(02:19:37 AM) evilestmark: and typically you use a different post-positional verb marker to indicate that it’s a question
(02:19:46 AM) evilestmark: but i don’t like it.. because it sounds really demanding
(02:19:51 AM) Chris: hmm
(02:19:52 AM) evilestmark: ka is less demanding
(02:20:06 AM) Chris: what’s the more demanding one?
(02:20:26 AM) evilestmark: so… if i were going to ask you politely do you drink alcohol
(02:20:39 AM) evilestmark: i would say, “osake-wo nomimasuka?”
(02:21:00 AM) evilestmark: that’s “honorable-sake-object drink-?”
(02:21:06 AM) evilestmark: if i were asking my friend i would say
(02:21:17 AM) evilestmark: osake-wo nomuno?
(02:21:24 AM) evilestmark: and when i type wo it sounds like “o”

More on names

As I think I have mentioned before, I’m very intrigued by names. There’s just something about them. What’s in a name? A rose by any other name would smell as sweet. Billy Shakes had a lot to say about a lot of things. So did Gene Roddenberry, which brings me to my current point.

There is a character in Roddenberry’s Star Trek the Next Generation named Data (Brent Spiner). Data is an android (robot appearing like a human). He’s sort of comparable to Spock from Star Trek (the original series), but arguably more dynamic as he is on a quest to become more human.

At anyrate, in one episode (I’m not sure which, if anyone knows please comment), Dr. Pulaski (Diana Muldaur)  refers to Data as [dæta] as opposed to [deita] as he is normally called. Data, in response, corrects Pulaski who then frustratedly says “what’s the difference?” To which Data replies, “One is my name, the other is not.”

So… both pronunciations of the word ‘data’ are accepted, and the character Data certainly is named after the word, roughly meaning ‘information’. But why then is it correct to pronounce Data’s name one way and incorrect the other?

Indeed many people are very defensive about their pronunciation of normal words, but even those that aren’t are usually quick to correct people’s mispronunciation of their own name. It seems to me that names mean much more to us than other words, and we would expect that to be the case. You probably have more memories associated with ‘Alex’ than you do with ‘memorize’. And when we hear someone mispronounce something we have a lot of thoughts, memories, and feelings about it seems much more wrong then if it were any other word being pronounced differently than the way we pronounce it.

Moreover, though there may be numerous acceptable pronunciations of a common word, each proper name deserves it’s own individual pronunciation. Although there are generalizations someone named Maera in one place might pronounce her name [Maira] and another Maera might pronounce her name [Mæra], but certainly both are correct in the case of the individual.

Hmm… just musing.

Gender Identification Phonetics Experiment

For my Phonetics and Phonology class’s mid-term grade I was assigned with a project to design an experiment using PRAAT software to test subjects with a multiple forced choice test. I decided to see what could be done with pitch, and explore an area of interest to me: gender identification. The attached file is a write-up of my results.

Because this project was somewhat informal and the number of subjects was fairly small (10 total) it’s hard to say if the results accurately describe a larger population. I also did not do any hard background research but instead only received background information from class and reference from professors here at William and Mary.

http://linguiquium.files.wordpress.com/2007/03/phonetics-experiment.doc

General Catch-up

I’ve completed my introductory linguistics courses: Study of Language, and History of the English Language.  I have some sort of basis for talking about things now I guess.

I Think that I’ve decided what I’m interested in doing long term research on:  The linguistics (particularly from a cognitive perspective) involved with real-time internet text chat through means like Internet Relay Chat (IRC), Other Chatrooms, AOL Instant Messager (AIM), Other Instant messaging utilities.  Perhaps with a comparison to spoken language and traditional written language, as well as the primary other forms of internet text communication: e-mail, message boards, etc.

The History of English (Summary)

So I’ve had a request for a summary of the history of english.  I’m doing this without referencing my notes, so it may require future editing.  I’m trying to be as brief as possible but it’s kind of long.

Etymology Assignment

For History of English we had to do an Etymology Assignment. It was kind of interesting so I thought I would post what I wrote. It’s kind of really long so I’m going to put it behind a break.

Paper Topic

So I have to write a proposal for my term paper in History of English.

I’m thinking about writing about Ablauts/Strong verbs.  These are verbs whose inflection are within the verb itself like: Swim/Swam/Swum, Sing/Sang/Sang, Speak/Spoke/Spoke, etc.  More than just describing them I’d like to discuss the transition between the use of Ablauts to the common verb inflection in English today: Kick/Kicked/Kicked, Smoke/Smoked/Smoked.  Hopefully it will turn out well and not be suicidally hard to research.

Names and Metaphor

My cultural anthropology professor mentioned something that I think is very interesting. He suggested that what separates humanity from the rest of life on earth is our perception and cognition of everything in a symbolic world. He illustrated this by telling the story of Hellen Keller, saying that once she realized that objects, people, characteristics, and actions all had names it was like a ray of light from above, an epiphany of everything at once.

I think this is brings up a very interesting line of questioning. It seems to me as though my professor is correct in saying that we think symbolically. I don’t picture every idea in my mind when considering it, but instead I think of the name that I associate that idea with. This follows with cognitive psychology’s ideas of associative networks. So that brings us to the value of names themselves and metaphors.

Names seem entirely arbitrary. It doesn’t matter what the name is once we’ve associated it with an Idea. There are some issues though. What happens when multiple things have the same name, or when there doesn’t seem to be an adequate name to describe something with, and an arbitrary one won’t drive the point home? As my History of English Language professor mentioned today, cultures don’t have names for things that they don’t need names for, but they can generate names for anything. A 2nd century Roman wouldn’t understand the words: spaceship, spacesuit, google, or googol, but we could describe these things to him using his own language so that he could associate these names with ideas. He also mentioned using loan words, after all, why make up a new word when someone else already has one?

At anyrate, my main point here concerns metaphor. Metaphor seems to me to be incredibly powerful. Without attributing a name to something and instead using an entire experience we can describe an idea often more powerfully than had we just used a name. The name is just a node index for our minds to search to pick out a single idea, or a category of ideas. But a metaphor is not limited to one idea or one category of ideas. In conversation with my friend Zan he quoted a line from Shakespeare’s King Henry IV, part 2:
“We have heard the chimes at midnight, Master Shallow.”

When Falstaff says this he means not only that they have literally heard the chimes at midnight, but also that they have experienced a large and encompassing amount of things and feelings. If Shakespeare had instead written,

“We have experienced a great many things, Master Shallow.”

it would be more clearly stating the underlying idea, but neglecting a feeling associated with that idea. By using metaphor we can associate emotion, experience, and additional imagery to an idea or set of ideas.

Perhaps metaphor is language’s most powerfully communicative aspect, or perhaps not. But I would say that our literature and tendancy to base what most consider great works around metaphor is a testament to its brilliance.

More things I want to talk about or Research

Conotation based on phonetics without actually looking at vocabulary… for instance across languages the same sounds have similar meanings?

Describing things using simile, metaphor, and regular adjectives and how it differs drastically depending upon the subject (He was as ugly as homemade soap, the Stars are sort of like The Postal Service meets Johann Sebastian Bach who has been drinking with the Rolling Stones, That fire hydrant is red, My life is a roller coaster). You get the point.

Why we need English 2.0

11-17-2008: I wrote this, in ignorance of a lot of truth about language.  As Seth pointed out, most of my complaints were aimed at written English standards, as determined by some abstract association of English scholars, dictionary authors, and organizations like the MLA.  All other rants were naively uninformed.

English has been changing since it’s creation, just like any language. The difference between American English and most other languages is the incredible amount of hybridization that is constantly occuring. As referred to as a cultural melting pot, the States are also a great linguistic melting pot.

So which version becomes 2.0? Ebonics? 1337 Speak? TexMex? Engrish? or what? Well this is part of the problem and the reason that there hasn’t been a huge movement to renovate our language. The concept isn’t really all that new, nations have been implimenting new standards for languages and alphabets since mass communication has been possible, and somewhat before. Korea for example created an original phonetic alphabet in the 20th century and it only took a little over half a century for it to become the primarily used written alphabet.

My ideas for 2.0

-Remember when you learned the alphabet in school? How they tried to explain long vowels and short vowels and they used little symbols to designate which made which sounds. Why don’t we see these after learning about them, they would make reading english much more user-friendly and much more easily standardized so as to prevent the changing pronunciations of “oo” versus “u” versus “o.” Why does the sound have to depend on the word it’s in? Doesn’t this seem a little stupid?

-Along the same lines as above, get rid of types of phonetics that are rare or outdated. Most people mispronounce “climb” as “clime” anyway, so why not change the spelling? The dictionary could be re-written, they make new editions frequently anyway.

-Get rid of stupid grammar rules. I have to hand it to the guys in charge on this one, they’re working on it. It is now somewhat acceptable to verbify words and split infinitives, but there are still a large amount of pointless grammatical rules that are being maintained for reasons no better than tradition.

-I could list a hundred and one specific instances of things that are stupid, but I’m getting tired of ranting, I think you probably get the point.

I do however recognize the challenge that reworking the entire language (and quite a hefty language we have) poses to everyone, speakers and writers alike. What would we have to do to actually change it? Make people interested in simplifying it, on a large scale. That’s really all it takes.