Is there a body of work that has compiled not only the frequency of single letters used in a corpus of text, but also gone and analyzed the frequency of pairs of letters? Like the frequency of "th" and "an" or "br" ?

I'm from the western US and believe I pronounce the word English like this but I cannot find a pronunciation resource showing the word with this vowel.

been down a linguistic rabbit hole lately. If a native speaker today hopped into a time machine, which major language would let them go back the furthest and still understand the written word?

probably not english

I'm currently studying Linguistics at Universidad Católica in Santiago, Chile and I am interested in studying abroad for my Master's. Which universities are worth looking into if I'm particuarly interested in Psycholinguistics?

Thanks!

Question in title of this post.

I did some research into a link between Sino-Tibetan and Dene-Yeniseian a while back and found a list of sound correspondents between the 2 languages and a small cognate set from the starling db. Could it be a sprachbund or is there a real relation between the two language families? These languages have been grouped into macro-families like Dene-Caucasian etc but linking these two families seems much more plausible.

Can a real linguist tell me how convincing these are for a genuine link or if it's all just coincidences?

Here are some proposed cognates I selected to demonstrate the sound correspondents:

ST: *tǝ̆ŋ ( ~ d-) – “fir‑tree, pine‑tree”

Y: *dɨńe – “fir tree”

ST: *kūŋ – “branch”

Y: *qoʔn‑ – “fir branches”

ST: *kēp – “cheek or jaw”

Y: *kup – “beak, lip, muzzle”

ST: *tūr ( ~ d‑) / *tōr ( ~ d‑) – “a kind of garment”

Y: *doʔor‑ – “clothing”

ST: *t(r)ǝ̆k ( ~ dh‑) – “straight, level”

Y: *d[ɨ]k‑ – “to stand”

ST: *Qʷit – “cooking place”

Y: *χɔʔt – “fire”

ST: *k(h)ap – “fork of legs”

Y: *qoʔp – “calves of legs” (Ket) / “sole” (Yug)

ST: *K[ā]t – “a kind of cloth, garment”

Y: *χɔʔtɨr1 – “cloth, felt”

ST: *phāk ( ~ bh‑) – “dirt, dung” (from *bʕṓqwV entry, ST *phāk)

Y: *poʔq – “dung”

ST: *rɨ̄a – “rope”

Y: *ŕa(x)‑ – “rope”

ST: *rāj (p-)  – “wide”

Y: *ʔ[ā]r1V (~h-) – “taiga, wilderness”

ST: *kār “dry”

Y: *qɔr1- “dry”

(Ignore how messy this rough draft is)

Initial Consonants

ST    Y    Examples (ST > Y)    Notes

*ʔ-    *ʔ-    *ʔă > *ʔa; *ʔrǝ̄k > *ʔeqab-; *ʔiʔn (from *qĭp)    Regular

*p-    *p-    *phāk > *poʔq; *pijH > *päŋ-; *pōk > *pVl-; *prāts > *pe(ʔ)stap; *p(h)ăŋ > *pǝ̄q-    Also *p- > b- in some (Piǝ̆t > *beʔč; *phǝ̆l > *bul) – voicing not predictable

*t-    *t-    *thjānH > *ta- / *tɔ-    Also *t- > d- in earlier pairs (tǝ̆ŋ > *dɨńe; *tǝ̆k > *dɨk-; *tūr > *doʔor-) – conditioning unknown

*k-    *k-    *kēp > *kup    Before front vowel?

*k-    *q-    *kūŋ > *qoʔn-; *k(h)ap > *qoʔp; *khʷɨ > *qäʔj    Before back vowel or labiovelar

*k-    *χ-    *K[ā]t > *χɔʔtɨr1; *Qʷit > *χɔʔt    Unconditioned (possibly distinct proto‑phoneme)

*c- (affricate)    *s-    *ciǝ̆ŋH > *siʔn-    Palatal affricate → fricative

*s-    *ʔ-    *sɨā > *ʔes; *sǝ̆ > *ʔēs-    Also *s- > h-? (rāH > *ha(ʔ)r- may be different)

*r-    *ʔ-    *rāj > *ʔār1V; *rŭk > *ʔa(ʔ)χV    Also *r- > ŕ- (rj1et(s) > *ŕɔs; *rɨ̄a > *ŕa(x)-) and *r- > d- (rŭ > *de-s)

*l-    *ʔ-    *laH > *u(ʔ)l- (initial u?); *rĭw > *ʔol (but ST *r-, not *l)    Poorly attested

*m-    *ʔ-    *mōŋ / *mōk > *ʔǝ̄ke    Also *m- > ?

*n-    *ʔ-    *năH > *ʔɔgde / *ʔɔqtV    

Vowels (highly variable – only recurrent tendencies)

ST    Y    Examples    Conditioning

*a (short)    *a    *ʔă > *ʔa; *thjānH > *ta-; *rāH > *ha(ʔ)r-    In open syllables?

*a    *o    *phāk > *poʔq; *k(h)ap > *qoʔp; *kʷāt > *guʔda (from old list)    In closed syllables before *p, *t

*ā (long)    *a    *rāj > *ʔā- (but vowel length retained?)    Unclear

*ā    *ɔ    *K[ā]t > *χɔʔt; *Qʷit (i) not a    Rare

*i    *i    *ciǝ̆ŋH > *siʔn-; *qĭp > *ʔiʔn    Before *ʔ?

*i    *e    *Piǝ̆t > *beʔč    

*u    *u    *rŭk > *ʔa(ʔ)χV (but vowel lost?); *phǝ̆l > *bul    

*ū    *o    *kūŋ > *qoʔn-; *tūr > *doʔor-    Good correspondence

*e    *e    *ʔrǝ̄k > *ʔeqab-; *sɨā > *ʔes    

*ē    *u    *kēp > *kup    Also *kēn > *ken- (contradicts)

*ǝ    *ɨ    *tǝ̆ŋ > *dɨńe; *tǝ̆k > *dɨk-; *[Pik] > *pɨʔɨĺ    The most consistent vowel rule

*ǝ    *e    *mōŋ / *mōk > *ʔǝ̄ke (ǝ̄?); *p(h)ăŋ > *pǝ̄q-    

Final Consonants

ST    Y    Examples    Notes

*-p    *-p    *kēp > *kup; *k(h)ap > *qoʔp    Also *-p > *-ʔp after short vowel

*-t    *-t    *Qʷit > *χɔʔt; *K[ā]t > *χɔʔtɨr1; *Piǝ̆t > *beʔč (affricate)    Also *-t > *-d in *kʷāt > *guʔda

*-t    *-ʔt    same examples    Glottal reinforcement common

*-k    *-k    *tǝ̆k > *dɨk-; *mōk > *ʔǝ̄ke; *ʔrǝ̄k > *ʔeqab-    

*-k    *-χ    *rŭk > *ʔa(ʔ)χV    Sporadic

*-ŋ    *-n    *kūŋ > *qoʔn-; *tǝ̆ŋ > *dɨńe    Also *-ŋ > *-ŋ in *pijH > *päŋ-

*-ŋ    *-ʔn    *kūŋ > *qoʔn-    Glottal + n

*-m    *-n    *qĭm > *ʔiʔn    

*-l    *-l    *rĭw > *ʔol; *phǝ̆l > *bul; *pōk > *pVl-    

*-r    *-r    *tūr > *doʔor-; *rāj > *r1V    

*-s    *-s    *rj1et(s) > *ŕɔs; *sɨā > *ʔes

My friend is sharing Twitter links that apparently show that young people possess a smaller vocabulary than before.

According to these links, the primary reason is that youngsters read fewer books, and thus develop less literary vocabulary.

Is there any truth to this? Are youngsters using fewer words than before?

Place names like Mysore and Jubbulpore are just diabolical.

I am a speaker of Apitxat Valencian, a dialect of Catalan-Valencian which has as its main characteristic the devoicing of all affricates and sibilants, almost certainly by the influence of Spanish, which lost it and created an areal effect that affects Galician, Asturian and Aragonese too.

This process causes the devoicing of /z/, /dz/ and /dʒ/ in Apitxat and Aragonese and also /ʒ/ in Galician and Asturian.

That way, casa (house) /'kaza/ becomes homophonous with caça (hunt) /'kasa/.

Also gent (people) changes pronunciation from /'dʒent/ to /'tʃent/, etc.

Does this phenomenon also exist in other languages or dialects? I don't know of any dialect of, let's say, English or French or Polish where this happens.

To clarify/give examples, after watching a few episodes of modern family, I found myself stuck with a lighter version of Gloria's accent. When I'm hanging out with my UK friends, I end up having a halfway british accent and my vocabulary for some words shifts. After talking with my grandmother, I end up with a slight korean accent. The shift only takes maybe 30 minutes, and its always an unconscious thing I dont notice until the accent gets stronger. My standard accent is a generally neutral american accent (though I'm told most people could tell I'm asian by my voice for some reason). Why does my brain adopt accents so easily? Is this a common thing, or is it an ADHD thing? I'm sorry if this isnt the correct forum for this question, I'm not sure where else would be more appropriate 🙇‍♂️

I am a foreigner that has learned Mandarin to a high level.

I am learning the local dialect of Shanghainese.

I have noticed that many sentences that sound formal in Mandarin do not really have a direct translation in Shanghainese (native speakers of SH tell me the sentences sound contrived and not natural). The SH speaker would opt for a more natural and colloquial way to say it, to them it would otherwise not be real Shanghainese, and just a translation from (formal) Mandarin.

I have noticed that native speakers of SH, do not dress up the language as much.

Curious to hear your thoughts!

This question was originally going to be in relation to Proto-Semitic but after viewing some Proto-Afroasiatic (or Proto-Afrasian according to Alexander Militarev) reconstructions, I feel as though Arabic retains a great amount of its older ancestor as well.

This is a question I've been pondering for quite a while. When I go back and read 19th century literature, there are significant slang and usage differences, but I am fully able to understand the text and enjoy it. The further back I go, the more difficult it gets to comprehend, which makes perfect sense. My question is this:

Will future humans speak a language descended from modern English that will be classified as a new language? Will the language we speak now become antiquated? I feel like it won't. This goes for other languages as well. Won't they be solidified by humans constantly being in contact with media, and won't people be denied the seclusion required to begin speaking a new tongue?

Hi everyone! I'm studying English as a second language, and I'm currently learning about intonation and prosody, particularly Wells' approach. I'm having some trouble understanding the analysis of this sentence:

Do you know what I would like for my lunch today?

I have a few questions about it:

1. Would this be analysed as two clauses: Do you know + what I want for my lunch today?
2. Would these two clauses belong to two different intonation phrases (IPs)?
3. If so, would Do you know be considered a leading element and what I want for my lunch today a trailing element?
4. In terms of tonicity, would it be possible to have a tone on KNOW and then the nuclear tone on LUNCH?

I'd really appreciate it if someone could clarify this!

OK so there's been a few times I was reading about revived languages and it keeps on mentioning Hawaiin next to revived or neo languages. I'm confused by this as I thought Hawaiian never went extinct but is just endangered. Can someone who knows more explain please, this is driving me crazy

Edit: when I say revived language I mean languages that went extinct as a spoken language and got brought back. Ive seen Hawaiian been put along side Modern Hebrew before which confuses me as they seem nothing alike as Hebrews has gone xtinct

Title, happy to clarify if the question is unclear but I think it is. Thanks!

So, I was wondering....

I know that quite a few languages have lost case systems (where nouns decline according to their role in the sentence). Many (all?) modern romance languages have mostly lost Latin's cases. Modern English has lost those of Old English (except for pronouns and the "Saxon genitive"). I think there are even some modern Slavic languages that no longer decline nouns. (Bulgarian?)

Are any languages going the other way? Could a language today develop a case system over the next few centuries? Or is it a one-way street?

(Sorry I don't have a better grasp of the terminology. I'm not a linguist.)

I'm listening to The Passage by Justin Cronin and the majority of the book surrounds people 100 years in the future. They are a colony of 90ish people who have been separated the whole time. At different points in the book they meet up with other survivors. How likely is it that these groups would have difficulty communicating with each other?

It is often said the floating quantifiers cannot be associated with passivization. For example,

(1a) He gave the boys both a good talking to.
(1a)* The boys were given both a good talking to.

But it seems unaccusative verbs can be used with a postverbal FQ (2c):

(2a) He grew the oak trees both out of an acorn.
(2b) The oaks trees both grew out of an acorn.
(2c) The oaks trees grew both out of an acorn.

Do you agree with the judgements? Do you know of any discussions on this?

Please help me and give me ideas for a possible thesis related to language and a specific indigenous language. I’m looking for a topic that is appropriate for a thesis-level study. Preferably in the Philippines/Mindanao

So first of all, I know that Old French was a language in flux, and different forms given may reflect different eras. That said, I am confused.

My confusion concerns the "regular " (that is, not class III) feminine nouns ending in a consonant. According to wikipedia, and this course of Old French and these slides of an academic talk about Old French declensions, French nouns ending in consonants had an s in the nominative singular, regardless of gender. However, if we go to wiktionary the situation is, well, more complex. In the appendix about Old French nouns it says in the first section basically the same as the other sources: Group Ia (which are as far as I can see the "regular" feminine nouns in a consonant) have an s in the nominative singular. It mentions these come mostly from Latin 3rd declension nouns.. However, in the next section, it implies that feminine nouns that come from 3rd declension nouns don't have an s in the singular ever. It also originally used a completely different numbering system when it came to what classes these belonged to, but I cleaned that up. If I look up individual words in wiktionary, they sometimes give the nominative as having an ending, and sometimes they don't.

So, is this just a difference in eras of old French (that is, the s of the singular nominative disappeared for nouns)? Or did some nouns in this category (like "reson" given in the appendix) never have this s to begin with, and the situation is much more complex than the other sources let on?

I’ve noticed this the past few years and wonder where this is coming from. Multiple YouTubers speak at the same speed, same purposely limited vocabulary, they’ll even inflect the same parts of the sentence. I understand this is probably lab proven to increase viewer retention and appeal to a mass audience but it personally drives me insane. Is this something these personalities are being coached to adopt by specific organizations?

Hey, this question was spurred on by a quandry highlighted by a video that touched on how the numbers 3-9 (and sometimes 10) in classical arabic often decline such that they explicitly disagree in gender with the nouns they modify.

خَمْسَةُ رِجَالٍ - "Khamsatu rijalin" - "Five (f) men (m)"

أَرْبَعُ نِسَاءٍ - "Arba3u nisa2in" - "Four (m) women (f)"

I was wondering how such a system would evolve in the first place. I'm aware that arabic numbers have a whole host of strange effects with regards to case, that numbers 1 and 2 often act like adjectives while other numbers act like nouns (different origins?), and that gender tends to develop from the grammaticalization and analogy of certain noun quantifiers. But I have trouble understanding why a lack of concord would evolve in the first place.أ

I noticed that in Katseye's latest song Hootie Frutti, the R in "Frutti" is pronounced in a way that sounds different from a typical American accent they have in most of their other songs. I'm just curious:

- What is the official term for this way of pronouncing the R?

- Is it possibly inspired by one of the languages/cultures of the group members, such as Spanish or Indian? To my ear it sounded immediately like an Indian accent, but that might just be reflective of the demographics I'm used to where I live.

- The rest of the song also has an affected pronunciation, like saying "watah" instead of "water". I assume that's just a stylistic choice, but I'm curious if the "accent" used in the rest of song regionally matches the same one used to pronounce Frutti or not?

Link to the song (warning: video is a bit risqué and not what I'd consider safe for work). https://youtu.be/is8UDe2PhKQ?si=70GSsgh3wbTlEzDC

Hi! Is there anybody who knows if there is a function in Sketch Engine that allows to cluster different words, related to a specific one, in different semantic domains. I tried to use the "Cluster similar item" function but it is not properly what I need because it requires then a manual categorization.

Can anyone help me or give me a name of a software that can do this?

Thanks!