Zep Broondar, Star Wars Linguist
« previous post | next post »
Today's Savage Chickens:
[h/t David Curwin]
Past Yoda syntax posts, mostly from long ago in a galaxy far away:
"Yoda's syntax the Tribune analyzes; supply more details I will!", 5/18/2005
"Speak this way I do because wiser than I actually am I sound", 5/18/2005
"Syntax is a disturbance in the there", 5/19/2005
"Unclear of Yoda's syntax the principles are, if any", 5/20/2005
"Yoda is Luce reborn", 5/26/2005
"Mix master", 6/11/2005
"Not over it is", 6/23/2005
"Never thought the day would he see", 8/7/2005
"Hawaiian-style predicate inversion, Yoda uses", 12/21/2017
Athel Cornish-Bowden said,
September 1, 2020 @ 7:32 am
"On ne dit pas : « Juif vous avez l'air »… Mais « Vous avez l'air Juif ».
Si je vous dis : « Con vous avez l'air », c'est pas français. C'est juste, mais c'est pas français."
Jean-Paul Belmondo in L'as des as (1982)
Jenny Chu said,
September 1, 2020 @ 7:39 am
A few months ago, in a somewhat ill-conceived corporate ice-breaking exercise, we were asked to say what Star Wars character we were, and to explain why. Alas that Zep Broondar had not yet been introduced! (I had to go with Mahd Windcaller, in case you were wondering.)
Philip Taylor said,
September 1, 2020 @ 8:38 am
"Si je vous dis : « Con vous avez l'air », c'est pas français. C'est juste, mais c'est pas français" — What does « Con » mean in this context ? It is not a word that I know, and although my Collins-Robert has it as a headword, the meanings given do not seem appropriate to the quotation.
Athel Cornish-Bowden said,
September 1, 2020 @ 8:45 am
The literal meaning of "con" is cunt, but in ordinary use it has almost lost its capacity to offend and is far more frequent in everyday conversation than the English term. (You can hear young women saying "Je suis conne" when they realize they've just said something stupid.) It's just a general term of abuse, but with an implication of stupid and objectionable.
mollymooly said,
September 1, 2020 @ 9:17 am
"Le Dîner de Cons" was remade by Hollywood as "Dinner for Schmucks". Apparently, much else was lost in translation.
Thomas Rees said,
September 1, 2020 @ 9:58 am
Don’t you remember Henry V Act III scene 4?
David Marjanović said,
September 1, 2020 @ 11:27 am
Con is now an adjective meaning "stupid", secondarily a noun meaning "dumbass" (quel con ! and I'm pretty sure quelle conne !), and I'm sure many young native speakers are quite surprised to find out there's an older use as a rather different noun.
Not use Object-Subject-Verb order Yoda does. Use Comment-Topic-Verb order he does.
Francoisw Lang said,
September 1, 2020 @ 1:00 pm
@Thomas Rees
> Don’t you remember Henry V Act III scene 4?
Are you referring to this exchange?
KATHERINE
Ainsi dis-je: “d'elbow, de nick, et de sin.” Comment appelez-vous le pied et la robe?
KATHERINE
That’s what I said, “de elbow, de nick, et de sin.” What are the words for le pied and la robe?
ALICE
“Le foot,” madame, et “le count.”
ALICE
“De foot,” madame, and “ de count .”
KATHERINE
50“Le foot” et “de count.” Ô Seigneur Dieu! Ils sont mots de son mauvais, corruptible, gros, et impudique, et non pour les dames d'honneur d'user. Je ne voudrais prononcer ces mots devant les seigneurs de France pour tout le monde. Foh! “Le foot” et “le count”! Néanmoins, je réciterai une autre fois ma leçon ensemble: “d' hand, de fingre, de nails, d' arme, d'elbow, de nick, de sin, de foot, le count.”
Coby Lubliner said,
September 1, 2020 @ 2:51 pm
As far as I know, "cunt" is used in the UK the same way as "con" in France.
Francois Lang said,
September 1, 2020 @ 3:01 pm
@ Coby Lubliner
But I believe that "cunt" in BrE is stronger (i.e., more taboo) that "con" in French,
just as "cunt" in AmE is stronger than in BrE.
Bob Ladd said,
September 1, 2020 @ 4:31 pm
I'm pretty sure Francois Lang's response to Coby Lubliner is exactly right.
David Marjanović said,
September 1, 2020 @ 4:37 pm
As an adjective? People slap their head and say "I'm cunt", and that in more or less polite company?
(I've witnessed j'suis conne used like that.)
BTW, derivation never sleeps; there's an additional word connard for male dumbasses, with a venerable Frankish suffix on the venerable Latin root.
David P said,
September 1, 2020 @ 4:43 pm
Anthony Lane in the New Yorker, May 23, 2005, reviewing Star Wars: Revenge of the Sith, in a rant about Yoda:
David P said,
September 1, 2020 @ 4:44 pm
Oops. Lost the Anthony Lane quote:
Also, while we’re here, what’s with the screwy syntax? Deepest mind in the galaxy, apparently, and you still express yourself like a day-tripper with a dog-eared phrase book. “I hope right you are.” Break me a fucking give.
William Berry said,
September 1, 2020 @ 9:41 pm
The Anthony Lane bit is amusing. AL is a clever fellow, but in the line David P quotes, not clever enough. “Break me a fucking give” makes no sense whatsoever; Yoda’s utterances, while definitely weirdly constructed, are always clear enough in meaning.
Chris Button said,
September 1, 2020 @ 9:53 pm
How about we analyze "Pain in the ass, you are" without any verb at all:
noun phrase + noun + copula
I suppose parts of speech in syntax might be much like the consonants and vowels in phonology–the sooner linguistics gets over them, the better …
Or rather, Yoda is mindful of the power of personal branding. Can't we assume that he's in on the game, hence his inconsistent syntax?
So "connerie" in French is basically "cuntery" in English.
William Berry said,
September 1, 2020 @ 10:45 pm
@Chris Button:
Rather off-topic, but how about an entire language that never uses a single noun or verb?
In Borges’s Tlon, Uqbar, Orbis Tertius, “The moon rose above the river” is rendered as “upward, above the onstreaming, it mooned”. (Yeah, obviously there must be gerunds, participles, etc., but still.)
I know I probably sound like a groupie here, but I continue to be astonished at the extent of writerly invention in that story. I’ve read it many times; every time there is something new and amazing.
William Berry said,
September 1, 2020 @ 11:34 pm
“Without using a single noun, I should have said. Obviously there are verb forms.
Seth said,
September 2, 2020 @ 2:21 am
@ William Berry – wouldn't Yoda-ese have it as "A fucking break, give me"?
Also, I don't see any need for him to be 100% consistent. One phrasing to him might be colloquial,
while another phrasing more formal, and yet another his idea of poetic.
Michael Watts said,
September 3, 2020 @ 8:03 am
Why would we consider the copula not to be a verb? In the (English) sentence cited, it very clearly is one. In general…?
I remember a Chinese girl similarly remarking on having said something stupid by exclaiming 傻屄的我.
Philip Anderson said,
September 3, 2020 @ 9:27 am
@ Coby Lubliner
“Cunt” is definitely stronger in BrE, but “twat” might be a better analogy. It has the same literal meaning, and for some people that is still the principal one, but colloquially it just means an idiot.
David Cameron got into trouble for using it to describe Twitter users, and Robert Browning once used it under the mistaken impression it referred to an article of clothing! (He had apparently read an old verse rhyming “old nun’s twat” with “cardinal’s hat”)
[(myl) See also:
"Twat v. Browning", 1/19/2005
"More on Browning, Pippa and all", 1/19/2005
]
Michael Watts said,
September 3, 2020 @ 11:18 am
This would explain why Browning himself tried to rhyme "twats" with "bats". But to me, "twat" uses the LOT vowel. (Or, equivalently, the CLOTH, PALM, or THOUGHT vowel.)
Levantine said,
September 3, 2020 @ 2:17 pm
In British English, I’ve only ever heard “twat” pronounced to rhyme with “bat”. Before moving to the US in my 20s, I had no idea of the word’s literal meaning—I had always thought of it as a stronger alternative to “twit”.
“Cunt” remains an extremely vulgar word in British English, though it doesn’t have the same misogynistic force it seems to carry in American English.
Philip Taylor said,
September 3, 2020 @ 2:24 pm
And in British English, I have only ever heard "twat" pronounced to rhyme with "lot" ! Which part(s) of the UK, Levantine ? I am a southerner, currently residing in Cornwall but for most of my life living on or near the London/Kent and Kent/Sussex borders.
Levantine said,
September 3, 2020 @ 2:45 pm
Philip Taylor, I’m a Londoner (A North Londoner to be more precise). I didn’t know that the “lot” pronunciation was even possible in British English!
Levantine said,
September 3, 2020 @ 2:47 pm
For what it’s worth:
https://dictionary.cambridge.org/us/amp/pronunciation/english/twat
Philip Taylor said,
September 3, 2020 @ 3:59 pm
Well, John Cowan backs me up in his LPD, putting the LOT variant first —
Maybe it's a "North of the Thames" / South of the Thames" thing !
Philip Taylor said,
September 3, 2020 @ 4:24 pm
Oops, John Wells. Temporary brain failure.
Andrew Usher said,
September 3, 2020 @ 6:40 pm
'Twat' may vary in Britain, but in America is only LOT; this is the historically expected pronunciation, rhyming with 'squat' and stressed 'what'. A well-documented regular sound change made short A after /w/ (or /hw/) change to LOT unless itself followed by a velar (/k/, /g/, /ŋ/). Strangely, 'water' appears to have lengthened _after_ this change so that it now rhymes with 'daughter' and not with 'squatter', for which I have no explanation.
Withe French 'con', it seems that rapid change has continued, which is why many dictionaries still don't show contemporary usage. In particular, the developement into an adjective, and the introduction of the unetmylogical feminine form, are new to me. The level of offensiveness of the French word has also dropped quickly, it seems. 'Connerie' may not be truly equivalent to 'cuntery' – though the same form, obviously, 'cuntery' in English could refer only to behavior; but 'connerie' also to (perhaps usually to) a situation allegedly produced by such, as with English 'idiocy'.
Francois Lang seems to have butchered the Shakespeare scene when quoting it; the original English would have been more appropriate. Its point, of course, was that English 'foot' and 'gown' (the intended word, though seemingly a stretch phonetically) could be heard as French 'fout(re)' and 'con', then about as vulgar as the corresponding English words. And that some of the audience would get it!
William Berry:
"Break me a fucking give" is also 'clear in meaning'. That is not the test of grammaticality!
k_over_hbarc at yahoo.com
Arthur Baker said,
September 3, 2020 @ 8:12 pm
David Marjanović
Thanks for reminding me of "connard" – I was occasionally called that when I lived in France. But there was also "connasse" for female dumbasses. Is that still current?
Michael Watts said,
September 3, 2020 @ 10:47 pm
I couldn't disagree more strongly as to 'what'. You might expect a LOT vowel, but you're not going to get it; stressed 'what' uses STRUT.
Here I'm confused. Are you still talking about American English? You just pointed out that 'squat' uses the LOT vowel. 'Daughter' and 'squatter' are perfect rhymes.
William Berry said,
September 4, 2020 @ 12:05 am
@Andrew Usher:
I didn’t say anything about “grammaticality”.
As to meaning: “Colorless green ideas sleep furiously” has been described as “grammatically correct but semantically nonsensical”. IANAL (ha!) but, as a former undergrad English major (too many decades ago!), I tend to equate “semantically nonsensical” with, I don’t know— lacking in meaning (?).
There might be some way to argue that “Break me a fucking give” has a clear meaning* but such an argument would be, well, meaningless.
*Well, sure, it has a kind of mocking, rhetorical “meaning” which doesn’t quite work (rhetoric, mean), which was my original point (meaning!).
(Maybe I missed your point completely, I don’t know. It’s late, I’m sleepy. Whatever.
William Berry said,
September 4, 2020 @ 12:09 am
“(rhetoric, mean)” should be “(rhetorically, I mean)”
And at least a half-dozen other edits. Good night!
ajay said,
September 4, 2020 @ 4:10 am
And in British English, I have only ever heard "twat" pronounced to rhyme with "lot" !
Amazed by this as I have lived in the UK all my life (Scotland, southern England, London) and never heard anyone pronounce it this way – it's always been rhymed with "bat".
Its point, of course, was that English 'foot' and 'gown' (the intended word, though seemingly a stretch phonetically)
Gown! Of course! That joke always puzzled me.
ajay said,
September 4, 2020 @ 8:47 am
'Twat' may vary in Britain, but in America is only LOT; this is the historically expected pronunciation, rhyming with 'squat' and stressed 'what'.
Not in "Blazing Saddles" it isn't; Hedy Lamarr
(that's HEDLEY)
Hedley Lamarr, played by the American actor Harvey Korman, rhymes it with "hat" when addressing Lily as a "Teutonic twat". That is, I think, the only time I've heard an American use the word…
Andrew Usher said,
September 4, 2020 @ 5:34 pm
One example from a comedy film is no good proof. The word is fairly uncommon, but not so much that I've never heard it, or have any doubt about its pronunciation; Dictionaries also confirm in this case.
I have read a mention of that pun of Shakespeare's specifically, so I immediately recalled was was being gotten at.
Michael Watts:
All I can say is [wäːt]?!
Yes, of course, 'squat' and 'squatter' have LOT; but it should be equally uncontroverted that 'daughter' has THOUGHT. 'Water' goes with the latter, which is the surprising thing (and one I have never seen mentioned as anomalous), as before the sound change in question, it rhymed with 'matter' as would have 'squatter'.
Chris Button said,
September 4, 2020 @ 8:22 pm
@ Michael Watts
I tend to see it as an equation around which either side of the phrase can spin:
pain in the ass = you
you = pain in the ass
@ William Berry
There's also the other group that acknowledge only monosyllabic adjectives. Although personally I would prefer to view adjectives as verbs that have been "decopulated". And yes, I concur that it's a magnificent piece of writing by Borges.
Andrew Usher said,
September 4, 2020 @ 8:49 pm
That is the traditional understanding of the copula, and semantically it is good enough; but it is _grammatically_ a verb, though with some peculiarities. If one were to ban 'to be' from the verb class, then one would have the question about what to do about other verbs that behave or can behave in the same copulative manner ('linking verbs').
Chris Button said,
September 5, 2020 @ 6:04 am
@ Andrew Usher
Well, I was really challenging parts of speech in general.
Although, I should caveat that I tended to avoid syntax like the plague. I was far more interested in phonology, although that was largely from a historical comparative perspective because I didn't have much time for all the theoretical stuff that didn't seem to incorporate the evolutionary side of things. Therefore, any comments I make on syntax are hunches rather than well-considered analyses. So please take anything I say here with a pinch of salt. You've been warned!
Perhaps you could think of the copula in syntax in a similar way to the schwa in phonology. It's essentially built-in and can then be colored much like schwa. So, sometimes it's overt, like /ə/ in phonology, where we might compare "be" in English. But sometimes it's underlying, like in a syllabic nasal /n̩/, where we might compare words like "seem" in English.
For example, if we retain a noun/verb distinction to keep the discussion relatively simple here, a basic example outside of English could be the the Chinese greeting ni hao. It includes ni as a noun meaning "you" and hao as a verb meaning "are good" with an in-built copula. Linguists (particularly those trained in western methods) tend to analyze hao as an adjective, but that is essentially to artificially "decopulate" it, as I noted in my comment to William Berry.
Michael Watts said,
September 11, 2020 @ 10:00 pm
It is my understanding that Russian has the following features:
1. There is a robust morphological distinction between verbs and adjectives.
2. Predicative sentences like "you are good" contain no verb. It's "you good", and "good" is unambiguously an adjective.
Why would we not take a similar analysis of Chinese?