Hey linguists: does anyone know of a use before 1937 of "complementary distribution" (the term, not the concept) referring to allophones and phonemes? The earliest use I've found is in "The Origin of Aztec TL" by Whorf (1937). Wondering if he was first to use it that way.
The term existed infrequently in the natural sciences before it was used in linguistics, but only became frequent around the same time that Whorf coined "allophone" (see graphs).
The idea of complementary distribution was around, just not that name for it. Whorf coined "allophone" ~1934, though first known use in print is Trager and Bloch (1941). Jones (1957) documents the origins of "phoneme" and "allophone", and has this footnote about his 1917 work.
The first English use of "phoneme" in the modern sense was by Jones (1917), borrowed from the Russian "fonema". The Russian term was coined in the 1870s by a student named Kruszewski, but (his teacher) Baudouin de Courtenay first developed a theory of phonemes starting ~1868.
(Jones also credits a couple of others with independently coming up with an idea similar to phonemes. Sweet in the 1870s with his “broad” vs “narrow” transcription, and probably also Passy around the same time, which went on to influenced the first IPA formulation.)
Thai has 5 tones. It's quite reasonable to think every tone should be possible on every (mono)syllable. But sound change reveals exactly why we basically never see this!
(A comically long thread in my drafts for ages, because I was procrastinating revising the manuscript.) 1/
As it turns out, the distribution of tones in a given tonal language of (South)East Asia has been directly constrained by past segmental sound change, especially syllable shape. 2/
Wait, you might say, syllable shape? Isn't that area of the world famously full of monosyllables and relatively few consonant clusters? How can syllable shape be so important? 3/
I did a thread before on wug trademark filings. I’m going to revisit copyright now. With the April and July demand letters from JBG’s lawyer (which she chose not to disclose in her tweets), the problematic logic of the claim on wug copyright becomes clear. Read on: 1/
Copyright in the US is complex because it’s been extended so many times. The first law in 1790 gave creators just 14 years of control, renewable for 14 more. Extensions happened in 1831, 1909, 1976, 1992, and 1998, with various amendments in between. 2/
The wug came to life in a period before copyright was as long as it is today. The 1992 act made it so all works are automatically copyrighted with no registration required. But that only applied to works whose 28 years were not already up: in other words, works from 1964 on. 3/
This is true! Something that I, as an academic linguist, wish everyone knew: linguists use ‘grammar’ in a different meaning than what they told you ‘grammar’ meant in school. Here is why this should matter to you, a thoughtful person who believes in Truth and Science: 1/
What students are taught in school is a particular form of a language. Most of the time, that’s the variety that has the most social prestige. It most closely resembles the way that the more wealthy, educated, socially dominant class uses language (or wants to think they do). 2/
But this system of classroom-taught rules with clear rights and wrongs isn’t ‘grammar’ to linguists. It isn’t (mainly) what interests us. Linguists are scientists studying the human phenomenon of language. ‘Grammar’ is better described as a set of subconscious, internal rules. 3/