Some of my own observations (I'm not a semanticist so these are a lot less insightful than Lelia's comments):
The prevalence of coronavirus in our lives also means that the word "symptoms" alone often means "Covid symptoms".
"Mask" is also pretty vague and can range from a N95/FFP2 mask to a simple cloth covering. The term "face covering" is often used in the UK to disambiguate from medical masks.
I also find it interesting how people, both pro- and anti-vaccine, say "the vaccine" as though there is only one of them, when there are at least twenty different Covid vaccines on offer globally.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
I haven't posted about my research in a while (because pandemic, whee), but I'm pleased to share "Graph-theoretic Properties of the Class of Phonological Neighbourhood Networks", to be presented at CMCL: aclweb.org/anthology/2021…
The paper outlines the beginning of a research agenda in the formal properties of phonological neighbourhood networks, which is a representational tool for looking at how lexical structure is organized.
Studies involving phonological neighbourhood networks are on the rise, yet we (as a field) don't know very much about the intrinsic properties of these networks. This could lead to problems, especially if we just blindly apply standard network-theoretic methods.
All else being equal, we generally expect words to be similar between related languages. However, there are always times when words shift in meaning, perhaps becoming more or less specialised than they used to be. /2
An example is the word for "dog" in German _Hund_, Dutch _hond_, Danish _hund_, and other Germanic languages. The English cognate of this word is _hound_, which has a more specialised meaning: specifically, a hound is a dog used for work or hunting, not a pet. /3
German and English words are usually pretty similar. Maus~mouse, Milch~milk, Wasser~water, sechs~six, Vater~father. But the German word for horse, "Pferd", is nothing like English. What happened? A thread. /1
English and German both share a common ancestor, which linguists refer to as "Proto-Germanic", spoken around 2,000 years ago in the north German plain and modern-day Denmark. Other Germanic languages include Norwegian, Dutch, Gothic, Faroese, and Afrikaans. /2
This proto-language presumably had only a single word for horse. Was it the ancestor of modern "horse" or the ancestor of "Pferd"? Which word is original and which one is an interloper? /3
Fun fact: The word "bear" is originally "the brown one" because there was a taboo against saying the bear's true name. Time for a thread about animal name taboos! /1
The Proto-Indo-European word for bear was *h₂ŕ̥tḱos, literally "the destroyer". This is reflected in modern French "ours", Greek "arktos", Sanskrit "ṛ́kṣa", Persian "خرس", and others. The name "Arthur" comes from the Welsh form. /2
Germanic tribes re-dubbed the bear "the brown one" to avoid saying its name. Russians called it "honey eater", and Lithuanians "the licker", possibly in reference to the folk theory that bears are born formless and their mothers lick them into shape. /3
Has anyone else noticed how a great many problems in academia and academic publishing today are due to the use of publications as a measure of research productivity? A thread:
Using journal "prestige" (or IF) to assess research quality, rather than the attributes of the research itself, increases their value of established journals and publishers. This leads to those journals playing a gatekeeping role rather than a true peer-review role.
In order to retain their high prestige, the gatekeeping journals must prioritize the publication of exciting novel results. This disincentivizes the publication of replications, null results, and work that isn't deemed "ground-breaking".
Okay, this is a pretty amazing auditory illusion. Here's what I think is going on. In the first syllable, there's only one major spectral peak below 2.5kHz. It has a wide bandwidth, which is consistent with an F1 and F2 very close together: an /ɑ/ (for "Laurel"). /1
External Tweet loading...
If nothing shows, it may have been deleted
by @janesolomon view original on Twitter
The higher spectral prominence dips down about halfway through the word, between the two syllables. If the lower spectral prominence is F1 & F2, then the higher one must be F3. A low F3 = /ɹ/! Given the overall frequencies, the voice sounds male. /2
But what if we treat that higher spectral prominence as an F2, rather than an F3? Then we have a very high F2 in the first syllable, consistent with a front vowel or approximant, e.g. /j/. The F2 stays pretty high and the F1 gradually rises, giving a percept of /jæ/. /3