|
On June 29 2009 02:45 fanatacist wrote:Show nested quote +On June 29 2009 02:42 micronesia wrote:On June 29 2009 02:11 fanatacist wrote:On June 29 2009 01:29 micronesia wrote:
You guys aren't really obeying the "fucking before accented syllable" rule...
Fanatacist how exactly do you pronounce bisu? BEE-soo There is really nowhere else to put it in the word, naw mean? Although my Russian instincts tell me to pronounce it bi(flat)-SU(flat accented) The rule specifically says the 'fucking 'has to be before the accented syllable... so if it's a two syllable word with the first syllable being the accented one then you can't use it effectively. Yes but I don't care. You can still say it... BEE-fucking-soo. It doesn't flow as well as Fucking Bisu, but I never claimed it to do so nor was it my intent to give a definitive list of perfect uses of this technique.
I find myself saying "Fucking Bisu" a lot thanks to Fantasy PL. :p
|
|
|
this is fun-fucking-loving thread
|
man-fucking-woman!
holy (fucking) shit!
|
Chi-fucking-leans
Lzgamer ftw!
|
On June 29 2009 03:51 Arrian wrote:Show nested quote +On June 29 2009 02:58 Andtwo wrote:On June 29 2009 01:49 Arrian wrote:
I thought the property was called 'infixation,' and yes, it's a phenomenon in English that may appear only otherwise in the use of 'bloody' in British English, but that's not confirmed. Infixation isn't a typical property typologically speaking, so to call it 'infixation' is a little more difficult for the linguistic community to accept. This is so no true. Firstly, while infixation isn't a typical property OF ENGLISH, it is a very robust morphophonological process in many many other languages, notably arabic where many root words consist of a 3 constant string and vowels are infixed. (Edit: I just thought of something else--infixation is a common process in ludlings/word games/pig latin as well) Stuff about morphology you probably don't care about: + Show Spoiler +Sidenote, really all that infixation means is that you have your root word and you have your "other stuff" which aren't quite words but sort of means things, aka morphemes, like the -s for plural for instance and in English. You gotta stick that shit somewhere and you have three options "beginning, middlesomewhere, and end". In English all inflectional morphemes (things like -s, -ing, they don't make a new word but they made it plural or progressive or something) go at the end. There are also derivational morphemes--parts of words that kinda sorta mean things but can't easily be added onto words--ie "pre" or "con", you sort of have the idea that pre means before and con means against but it would take you a while to realize that. Those mostly all go at the beginning. All infixes are are some languages like dumping shit in the middle of their words so instead of "bobcats", they'd do it like "bobscat". Some languages like doing things that way--I'm sure some of our readers who speak other languages than English are like that. Sign Languages: + Show Spoiler +
Sign Languages don't necessarily have to obey this rule as you could simultaneous mark your morphological structure. They could also do it the other way, but they will often opt for a simultaneous strategy.
Secondly I have no idea why you think that bloody is "unconfirmed" in British English. It happens. Also in British you sometimes get "blooming" inserted. In American English at least you can also infix other words that are less vulgur such as flippin (fan-flipping-tastic) or god damn "a-god damn-mazing". Also when you are thinking of doing this in your own language that's not English, try using native curse words and at least 3 syllable words. It doesn't work in English either if you use some words *Tex-fucking-as. I am quite aware of the facts surrounding morphology. I am a linguistics major, considering a specialty in morphology. And I'm pretty confident that you're wrong. To begin, infixes do not necessarily even have to have a meaning. In English there is another type of infixation as with the alternation of /tag/ - /tang/ where the engma is epenthesized for morphological reasons. The engma has no meaning associated, yet it is an infix. The reason I have reservations about British and American English 'infixation' is that there has been an idea posited that infixation of expletives and regular infixation are two separate processes (and indeed they must be in their motivations), as regular infixation results in a meaning change, whereas expletive infixation is merely serves an intensive function. Regarding the typological prevalence infixation, I was speaking relatively. Infixation is not as widely attested as other morphological processes (perhaps even circumfixation), and that is simply a fact. When parsing data, the first instinct upon seeing a base change that might suggest infixation should not be that the form is an infix because it is not as well attested. You seem to be mistaking productivity for typological prevalence. In Arabic, infixation is extremely productive. However, most languages do not even witness infixation. That was my point.
+ Show Spoiler +I'm not really sure what this /tag/ - /tang/ ([tag]-[taη], [tag]-[taηg]???) alternation is, but epenthesis is not a morphological process--it's a phonological one, thus the not carrying any meaning. Epenthesis is much more things like ham(p)ster or Chom(p)sky which are also not infixation (which may lean towards the phonetic even and not phonological, JJ Ohala and Blevins deal with this if you're interesting). Also other languages have morphological intensifier markers so I don't see why it couldn't be similar even if it is a whole word. Especially since it's very restrictive in form--the infix itself it typically follows the metrical foot structure unlike the "middle name" phenomenon of things like "jesus tap dancing christ"/"jesus tittyfucking christ", which is why we get things like god damn, bleeding, bloody, fucking but not hell, shit, damn (Ari-god damn-zona > *Ari-damn-zona). I can't really give you an example of a non-word morpheme that qualifies but it does work with "eff-ing" (Ari-effing-zona). If you really want to make the hairsplit distinction that infixation must be a bound morpheme, you can though--I just don't see the use in doing so. Also infixation might be somewhat "uncommon", but it's not really an ultra rare process like forming a coda around a fricative/plosive. Here's a list for instance, and while it's quite uncommon in indo-european languages, cross linguistically, I'm not sure it's that rare on some level, just not very intuitive. http://books.google.com/books?id=C3VS4SrghvkC&pg=PA74&lpg=PA74&dq=languages with infixation&source=bl&ots=GGHOa1Rnim&sig=7ZuRrUzBsZ8giBECclIhQmEL1TY&hl=en&ei=7vhHStLsPIvDtwek1u2MCg&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=3 Page 231 gives a list of over 111 languages displaying the process. Furthermore, typology is not an especially useful construct. Because infixation seldom occurs in Indo-European languages but runs rampant in Austronesian languages, what use do we find from typology. Also, more arguments against typology are found in Evans & Levinson (2009) in Behavioral and Brain Sciences. As a linguistics major, you might find it interesting.
TLDR: it's close enough to real infixation to count and infixation isn't THAT uncommon and typology is kinda like ehh whatever.
Also, expletive infixation is really cool. It's one of the more accessible things in linguistics and something that caught my interest early on. Any linguistic process that leads to a picture of jesus sexing himself is ok in my book.
|
hahahaha jae fucking dong
|
On June 29 2009 08:52 DanceCommander wrote:
hahahaha jae fucking dong
hashahaha
|
GfuckingG? you hear that alot. kespa would LOVE it!
how about zi-fucking-zi yo?
kes-fucking-pa
|
best lingui-fucking-istics ever.
|
Oh this thread isnt about fan-fucking?
darn it
|
United States889 Posts
On June 29 2009 08:48 Andtwo wrote:Show nested quote +On June 29 2009 03:51 Arrian wrote:On June 29 2009 02:58 Andtwo wrote:On June 29 2009 01:49 Arrian wrote:
I thought the property was called 'infixation,' and yes, it's a phenomenon in English that may appear only otherwise in the use of 'bloody' in British English, but that's not confirmed. Infixation isn't a typical property typologically speaking, so to call it 'infixation' is a little more difficult for the linguistic community to accept. This is so no true. Firstly, while infixation isn't a typical property OF ENGLISH, it is a very robust morphophonological process in many many other languages, notably arabic where many root words consist of a 3 constant string and vowels are infixed. (Edit: I just thought of something else--infixation is a common process in ludlings/word games/pig latin as well) Stuff about morphology you probably don't care about: + Show Spoiler +Sidenote, really all that infixation means is that you have your root word and you have your "other stuff" which aren't quite words but sort of means things, aka morphemes, like the -s for plural for instance and in English. You gotta stick that shit somewhere and you have three options "beginning, middlesomewhere, and end". In English all inflectional morphemes (things like -s, -ing, they don't make a new word but they made it plural or progressive or something) go at the end. There are also derivational morphemes--parts of words that kinda sorta mean things but can't easily be added onto words--ie "pre" or "con", you sort of have the idea that pre means before and con means against but it would take you a while to realize that. Those mostly all go at the beginning. All infixes are are some languages like dumping shit in the middle of their words so instead of "bobcats", they'd do it like "bobscat". Some languages like doing things that way--I'm sure some of our readers who speak other languages than English are like that. Sign Languages: + Show Spoiler +
Sign Languages don't necessarily have to obey this rule as you could simultaneous mark your morphological structure. They could also do it the other way, but they will often opt for a simultaneous strategy.
Secondly I have no idea why you think that bloody is "unconfirmed" in British English. It happens. Also in British you sometimes get "blooming" inserted. In American English at least you can also infix other words that are less vulgur such as flippin (fan-flipping-tastic) or god damn "a-god damn-mazing". Also when you are thinking of doing this in your own language that's not English, try using native curse words and at least 3 syllable words. It doesn't work in English either if you use some words *Tex-fucking-as. I am quite aware of the facts surrounding morphology. I am a linguistics major, considering a specialty in morphology. And I'm pretty confident that you're wrong. To begin, infixes do not necessarily even have to have a meaning. In English there is another type of infixation as with the alternation of /tag/ - /tang/ where the engma is epenthesized for morphological reasons. The engma has no meaning associated, yet it is an infix. The reason I have reservations about British and American English 'infixation' is that there has been an idea posited that infixation of expletives and regular infixation are two separate processes (and indeed they must be in their motivations), as regular infixation results in a meaning change, whereas expletive infixation is merely serves an intensive function. Regarding the typological prevalence infixation, I was speaking relatively. Infixation is not as widely attested as other morphological processes (perhaps even circumfixation), and that is simply a fact. When parsing data, the first instinct upon seeing a base change that might suggest infixation should not be that the form is an infix because it is not as well attested. You seem to be mistaking productivity for typological prevalence. In Arabic, infixation is extremely productive. However, most languages do not even witness infixation. That was my point. + Show Spoiler +I'm not really sure what this /tag/ - /tang/ ([tag]-[taη], [tag]-[taηg]???) alternation is, but epenthesis is not a morphological process--it's a phonological one, thus the not carrying any meaning. Epenthesis is much more things like ham(p)ster or Chom(p)sky which are also not infixation (which may lean towards the phonetic even and not phonological, JJ Ohala and Blevins deal with this if you're interesting). Also other languages have morphological intensifier markers so I don't see why it couldn't be similar even if it is a whole word. Especially since it's very restrictive in form--the infix itself it typically follows the metrical foot structure unlike the "middle name" phenomenon of things like "jesus tap dancing christ"/"jesus tittyfucking christ", which is why we get things like god damn, bleeding, bloody, fucking but not hell, shit, damn (Ari-god damn-zona > *Ari-damn-zona). I can't really give you an example of a non-word morpheme that qualifies but it does work with "eff-ing" (Ari-effing-zona). If you really want to make the hairsplit distinction that infixation must be a bound morpheme, you can though--I just don't see the use in doing so. Also infixation might be somewhat "uncommon", but it's not really an ultra rare process like forming a coda around a fricative/plosive. Here's a list for instance, and while it's quite uncommon in indo-european languages, cross linguistically, I'm not sure it's that rare on some level, just not very intuitive. http://books.google.com/books?id=C3VS4SrghvkC&pg=PA74&lpg=PA74&dq=languages with infixation&source=bl&ots=GGHOa1Rnim&sig=7ZuRrUzBsZ8giBECclIhQmEL1TY&hl=en&ei=7vhHStLsPIvDtwek1u2MCg&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=3 Page 231 gives a list of over 111 languages displaying the process. Furthermore, typology is not an especially useful construct. Because infixation seldom occurs in Indo-European languages but runs rampant in Austronesian languages, what use do we find from typology. Also, more arguments against typology are found in Evans & Levinson (2009) in Behavioral and Brain Sciences. As a linguistics major, you might find it interesting. TLDR: it's close enough to real infixation to count and infixation isn't THAT uncommon and typology is kinda like ehh whatever. Also, expletive infixation is really cool. It's one of the more accessible things in linguistics and something that caught my interest early on. Any linguistic process that leads to a picture of jesus sexing himself is ok in my book.
I mispoke. However, the morphophonological alternation is quite apparent. It occurs in latinate bases such as [taeg] and [frag] (meaning 'touch' and 'break' respectively) becoming in some context of some affixes (forget which ones, it's been two years) become [tae{engma}g] and [fra{engma}g] or something like that. I could find it if you wanted.
My point simply was that infixation is not particularly common. It's not as rare, as you agree, as finding something like a supine verbal, but it's not what could be characterized as common, and even less common would be a language which uses it as extensively as Arabic.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
