This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||
|
This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Kate.mackay10.
Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT ( talk) 14:33, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
Good work on this article, Ishwar. -- Doric Loon 22:58, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
A couple of months ago, I suggested that some material written by Benwig which had been temporarily lodged at what is now Talk:Indo-European ablaut#Arabic should be worked into the Apophony article. I don't know enough Arabic to do anything with it, but perhaps, Ishwar, you might look at that and see whether any of it is worth including here. -- Doric Loon 23:06, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
i suggest that this article be moved to Ablaut as ablaut is the more common term. – ishwar (speak) 16:39, 23 November 2005 (UTC)
To summarise, we have two articles, currently at apophony and Indo-European ablaut, and three talk pages.
The entry currently at ablaut has no significant history... it has always been a redirect somewhere (let's keep it that way). Its talk page could be preserved by cut-and-paste as the talk page history is contained in the signatures. So there's no technical problem with the proposed move.
ISTM that there are many right answers here. We're in an area where there is ongoing research and controversy, and the terminology of various authorities is a suspect (wait for it) various. The example given of ablaut in a non-Indo-European language was only published in 2003. It's exciting to me (as a former linguistics student, SIL Melbourne) that we have a cadre of Wikipedians capable of sustaining these discussions, and interested in doing so. I think that the suggestion above that we need to distinguish current from historical usage is a good observation, but it's not the whole answer, as what is current usage and what historic is itself controversial.
And you all seem well aware of the dangers of straying into original research. I mention that mainly to caution any newcomers to this discussion.
I would however caution that some of the comments in the three talk pages could be seen as personal attacks. Attack the statement, not the person. But I also note that these heated comments seem to have been taken with admirable understanding and a sense of humour. Hang in there!
I look forward to this discussion coming to a consensus, and despite my desire to clean up the backlog of proposed moves, my suggestion is that this remain proposed for a while longer while this consensus is sought. Andrewa 18:20, 25 December 2005 (UTC)
Can I just point out that it is not true to say that the distinction between ablaut and umlaut (in the original senses of the words) is ONLY diachronic. I do grant you that the distinction is primarily thought of as diachronic, because it is of fundamental importance for diachronic studies and only has limited usefulness to synchronic studies. But the fact remains that scholars HAVE made a synchronic distinction, and this distinction is useful in the modern languages classroom. Take foot and feet. We know that historically this is vowel harmony - oo gets dragged to ee to harmonize with a suffix which once existed. But the suffix no longer exists, and yet the alternation is systematic. What we see in the modern language is not harmony but fronting. ALL Germanic nouns which form their plurals by vowel alternation do it by fronting: the vowel of the plural is a fronted version of the vowel of the singular. Man-men, German Buch-Bücher, Gott-Götter - they are all moving in the same direction. The same is true of all adjectives forming their comparatives by alternation (hoch-höher), and all weak verbs forming their present stems by alternation (providing you know to take the past tense form as the starting point: bought-buy). However the alternation in Germanic strong verbs does not follow this system: the vowel changes appear to be random. Even if we knew nothing about the history of the forms, we would be able to see from the modern languages that there are two phenomena, and since one of them is regular enough to be useful for language-teaching, the distinction has practical value as well as theoretical interest.-- Doric Loon 20:05, 27 November 2005 (UTC)
The stress is, in some dialects, always on the second syllable. This is true in most dialects in England. Avengah ( talk) 01:18, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
The section on umlaut versus ablaut says "Note that in Indo-European historical linguistics the terms ablaut and umlaut refer to different phenomena and are not interchangeable." The Description section has a table listing goose/geese as an example of apophony, which the lede defines as synonymous with ablaut. But the article on Germanic umlaut, in the section "Morphological effects", says that goose/geese is an example of umlaut, and indeed it would seem to be since it involves fronting.
So should goose/geese be removed from the table? Duoduoduo ( talk) 19:30, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
As a newcomer to this field, I wonder why we are calling it "vowel alternation"? It seems merely to be alteration. Moving from sing to sang, the vowel alters, but it only alternates if we (choose to) say sing, sang, sing. What am I missing here? Aboctok ( talk) 21:04, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
Does anybody know how many languages this phenomenon appears in? There are examples on the page, but it doesn't give a number. Adjective Recoil ( talk) 05:30, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
The article uses a lot of HTML tags, which is generally seen to be A Bad Thing. See
Category:Articles with HTML markup from April 2020 (0)
I was about to define a new template to generate bold and underlined text, so it could replace the 64 uses of the <u>...</u>
tag.
I was going to call it {{
bu}}, which is simple but dull. I assume that there is a another name that would better describe what it would be used for here.
What should the template be called? —
GhostInTheMachine
talk to me
18:42, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
In linguistics, apophony (also known as ablaut, (vowel) gradation, (vowel) mutation, alternation, internal modification, stem modification, stem alternation, replacive morphology, stem mutation, internal inflection etc.) is ...
Per WP:LEADCLUTTER, please trim the list to the most common terms or move the list down. If any of the terms have more specific meanings you could also introduce them separately. Jruderman ( talk) 02:12, 5 July 2024 (UTC)
This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||
|
This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Kate.mackay10.
Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT ( talk) 14:33, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
Good work on this article, Ishwar. -- Doric Loon 22:58, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
A couple of months ago, I suggested that some material written by Benwig which had been temporarily lodged at what is now Talk:Indo-European ablaut#Arabic should be worked into the Apophony article. I don't know enough Arabic to do anything with it, but perhaps, Ishwar, you might look at that and see whether any of it is worth including here. -- Doric Loon 23:06, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
i suggest that this article be moved to Ablaut as ablaut is the more common term. – ishwar (speak) 16:39, 23 November 2005 (UTC)
To summarise, we have two articles, currently at apophony and Indo-European ablaut, and three talk pages.
The entry currently at ablaut has no significant history... it has always been a redirect somewhere (let's keep it that way). Its talk page could be preserved by cut-and-paste as the talk page history is contained in the signatures. So there's no technical problem with the proposed move.
ISTM that there are many right answers here. We're in an area where there is ongoing research and controversy, and the terminology of various authorities is a suspect (wait for it) various. The example given of ablaut in a non-Indo-European language was only published in 2003. It's exciting to me (as a former linguistics student, SIL Melbourne) that we have a cadre of Wikipedians capable of sustaining these discussions, and interested in doing so. I think that the suggestion above that we need to distinguish current from historical usage is a good observation, but it's not the whole answer, as what is current usage and what historic is itself controversial.
And you all seem well aware of the dangers of straying into original research. I mention that mainly to caution any newcomers to this discussion.
I would however caution that some of the comments in the three talk pages could be seen as personal attacks. Attack the statement, not the person. But I also note that these heated comments seem to have been taken with admirable understanding and a sense of humour. Hang in there!
I look forward to this discussion coming to a consensus, and despite my desire to clean up the backlog of proposed moves, my suggestion is that this remain proposed for a while longer while this consensus is sought. Andrewa 18:20, 25 December 2005 (UTC)
Can I just point out that it is not true to say that the distinction between ablaut and umlaut (in the original senses of the words) is ONLY diachronic. I do grant you that the distinction is primarily thought of as diachronic, because it is of fundamental importance for diachronic studies and only has limited usefulness to synchronic studies. But the fact remains that scholars HAVE made a synchronic distinction, and this distinction is useful in the modern languages classroom. Take foot and feet. We know that historically this is vowel harmony - oo gets dragged to ee to harmonize with a suffix which once existed. But the suffix no longer exists, and yet the alternation is systematic. What we see in the modern language is not harmony but fronting. ALL Germanic nouns which form their plurals by vowel alternation do it by fronting: the vowel of the plural is a fronted version of the vowel of the singular. Man-men, German Buch-Bücher, Gott-Götter - they are all moving in the same direction. The same is true of all adjectives forming their comparatives by alternation (hoch-höher), and all weak verbs forming their present stems by alternation (providing you know to take the past tense form as the starting point: bought-buy). However the alternation in Germanic strong verbs does not follow this system: the vowel changes appear to be random. Even if we knew nothing about the history of the forms, we would be able to see from the modern languages that there are two phenomena, and since one of them is regular enough to be useful for language-teaching, the distinction has practical value as well as theoretical interest.-- Doric Loon 20:05, 27 November 2005 (UTC)
The stress is, in some dialects, always on the second syllable. This is true in most dialects in England. Avengah ( talk) 01:18, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
The section on umlaut versus ablaut says "Note that in Indo-European historical linguistics the terms ablaut and umlaut refer to different phenomena and are not interchangeable." The Description section has a table listing goose/geese as an example of apophony, which the lede defines as synonymous with ablaut. But the article on Germanic umlaut, in the section "Morphological effects", says that goose/geese is an example of umlaut, and indeed it would seem to be since it involves fronting.
So should goose/geese be removed from the table? Duoduoduo ( talk) 19:30, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
As a newcomer to this field, I wonder why we are calling it "vowel alternation"? It seems merely to be alteration. Moving from sing to sang, the vowel alters, but it only alternates if we (choose to) say sing, sang, sing. What am I missing here? Aboctok ( talk) 21:04, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
Does anybody know how many languages this phenomenon appears in? There are examples on the page, but it doesn't give a number. Adjective Recoil ( talk) 05:30, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
The article uses a lot of HTML tags, which is generally seen to be A Bad Thing. See
Category:Articles with HTML markup from April 2020 (0)
I was about to define a new template to generate bold and underlined text, so it could replace the 64 uses of the <u>...</u>
tag.
I was going to call it {{
bu}}, which is simple but dull. I assume that there is a another name that would better describe what it would be used for here.
What should the template be called? —
GhostInTheMachine
talk to me
18:42, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
In linguistics, apophony (also known as ablaut, (vowel) gradation, (vowel) mutation, alternation, internal modification, stem modification, stem alternation, replacive morphology, stem mutation, internal inflection etc.) is ...
Per WP:LEADCLUTTER, please trim the list to the most common terms or move the list down. If any of the terms have more specific meanings you could also introduce them separately. Jruderman ( talk) 02:12, 5 July 2024 (UTC)