Re: Grimm shift as starting point of "Germanic"

--- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "Brian M. Scott" <BMScott@...> wrote:

>
> At 6:05:37 PM on Monday, March 17, 2008, tgpedersen wrote:
>
> > --- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "Brian M. Scott"
> > <BMScott@> wrote:
>
> >> At 12:34:47 PM on Monday, March 17, 2008, tgpedersen wrote:
>
> >>> --- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "Brian M. Scott"
> >>> <BMScott@> wrote:
>
> >>>> At 7:57:11 PM on Sunday, March 16, 2008, tgpedersen wrote:
>
> >>>>>>> In other words, with some words, you'll have to
> >>>>>>> resort to 'expressiveness' to explain the
> >>>>>>> gemination, which is no explanation at all.
>
> >>>>>> Why not? In many languages, "expressive" formnations
> >>>>>> do have their own peculiar phonology and
> >>>>>> phonotactics, and follow different historical
> >>>>>> developments.
>
> >>>>> What is 'expressive'? What does it express?
>
> >>>> Emotional coloring.
>
> >>> That's hardly better. Coloring by which emotion?
>
> >> Any, including 'This isn't something prosaic' and 'I want
> >> to give this term special emphasis'.
>
> [...]
>
> >>>> Indeed, I now see that this is exactly
> >>>> the characteristic that Larry Trask used to define the term:
>
> >>>> *expressive formation* Either of two rather different cases.
> >>>> 1. A modified form of a word possessing additional
> >>>> emotional colouring, such as small size or affection. ...
> >>>> 2. (also *descriptive form*) A lexical item which is
> >>>> coined _de novo_, often in defiance of the ordinary
> >>>> phonological structure of words, and often to denote
> >>>> something with intrinsic emotional colouring. ...
>
> >>> And here's apart of my posting you left out:
> >>> "
> >>> It sounds to me like someone is playing on the word's
> >>> connotations of 'hypochoristic' and 'diminutive' but
> >>> doesn't want to say it straight out, since that would
> >>> provide an actual criterion for evaluating the use of
> >>> that epithet, by which it would surely fail. Those
> >>> supposed 'expressive' forms have nothing semantic in
> >>> common.
> >>> "
>
> >> I omitted it because I thought that anyone reading the
> >> definition without prejudice would have seen that it
> >> answered the allegation satisfactorily. I still think so.
>
> > Pfft. Anything you haven't heard before is 'prejudice' to
> > you.
>
> Eh? *You're* the one who's having trouble with the concept,
> not I.

No, little Brian, when Torsten disagrees with something which is in
the books, it is not because he hasn't understood it. It is because he
wants to replace it with something better. One day, if you go to a
university, you will understand. Maybe?

>
> >>> re 1)
> >>> 'small size' = diminutive
> >>> 'affection' = hypochoristic
> >>> That was pretty accurate of me. Now if that's what he
> >>> means, why doesn't he say so? [...]
>
> >> Because it isn't what he means. Expressive slang
> >> formations, for instance, often carry pejorative
> >> emotional coloring.
>
> > Trask doesn't say that, so why quote him?
>
> Because his definition was handy and obviously allows for
> pejorative emotional coloring (among many others).

It was formulated in such vague terms that it permitted Brian to tell
Torsten that the definition in the book was right and Torsten wrong,
which is what matters in a definition.

>
> >> Augmentatives as well as diminutives can be expressive
> >> formations. And the boundary between expressive formation
> >> and onomatopoeia is fuzzy; <zing> in 'The Hunan chicken
> >> doesn't have its usual zing tonight' is expressive,
> >> falling under his (2), but it seems to have an
> >> onomatopoetic component when used to describe an arrow
> >> flying by.
>
> > And?
>
> I'm partly illustrating the possible range of expressive
> formations and partly emphasizing that it's a fuzzy
> category, since you seem to be having trouble with that.

Erh, no, I was not having trouble with understanding that. That's why
I called for a better definiton.

> (A graded category, actually, and quite possibly radial as
> well.)

Brian realized how insipid the definition was and added some power
words to it to make Torsten go away.

> >> The category of expressive formations is like
> >> pornography: it's hard to define and a lot of
> >> disagreement over details, but there's considerable
> >> agreement on the membership or non-membership of specific
> >> candidates.
>
> > What a load of blather.
>
> It would probably make more sense to you if you took your
> fingers out of your ears and stopped going 'Nyaa, nyaa, I
> can't hear you'.

The reason I do that is so I won't hear Brian go: "Mommy, mommy,
Torsten is using bad words and and I told him not to, and he won't
stop! Can I have his cookie?"

You're the youngest brother, aren't you?


Torsten