# data[].attributes.body
En clase discutimos del contacto de inglés y español, en particular los calcos y la extensión semántica de palabras. Este articulo describe el fenómeno de Spanglish, la combinación de Español y Ingles. Da ejemplos de Spanglish, quien lo hablan, cuando este fenómeno comenzó, donde se puede ser visto, y que es su futuro.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
How Many People Speak Spanglish, And Where Is It Spoken?

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Spanglish is not just a cool linguistic phenomenon, it’s also an increasingly important part of the Latinx culture and identity.

# data[].attributes.headline
Los hispanohablantes en los estados unidos

# data[].attributes.subject
Los hispanohablantes en los estados unidos

# data[].attributes.body
En clase vimos un video sobre la demográficas de los hispanohablantes en los estados unidos. Este articulo resume las estadísticas de la población hispanohablante en los estados unidos, y incluye una gráfica que muestra rápidamente algunos hechos de la población, como el número y porcentaje de hispanohablantes por estado, el hecho que la mayoría de hispanohablantes viven en o Texas, California, o Florida, y la predicción que será 138 millones de hablantes por 2050.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Spanish Speakers in the United States ...According to a 2015 report by Instituto Cervantes, the United States has the second highest concentration of Spanish speakers in the world, after Mexico. Roughly 53 million people, 41 million native Spanish speakers, and approximately 11.6 million bilingual Spanish Speakers live in the United States. There are more people speaking Spanish in the U.S. than Spain (47 million speakers) and Colombia (48 million speakers). By 2050, the United States is expected to have 138 million Spanish speakers, making it the largest Spanish-speaking country in the world.

Spanish is spoken by more than 559 million people globally, and here in the U.S., it is the most common non-English language spoken in U.S. homes. While many people who speak a foreign language also speak English very well, 8% of the United States population (25.1 million) is considered limited-English proficient (LEP), meaning they speak English less than "very well." Spanish speakers in the United States account for 64% (16.2 million) of the country's total LEP population. With a large population of Spanish speakers in the United States, and globally, effective communication with limited-English proficient Spanish speakers is critically important in all major industries, such as business, healthcare, legal, government, and education.

We wrote about the top non-English languages spoken by U.S. state here. Today, we're focusing on Spanish speakers in the United States. Watch the video below to learn the top 10 Spanish-speaking states in the country, and then check out the interactive infographic below to deepen your understanding of Spanish language use in your state.

Spanish Spoken at Home: Top 10 States

*(ranked by percentage of total population)

Spanish Speakers in the United States (Interactive Infographic)

*Hover over the interactive map to display.

As a leader in language services nationwide, our dedicated customer support and leading-edge technology allow us to provide the highest quality language interpretation experience for our clients. Telelanguage has been providing communication and understanding since 1991. Our team of 5,000+ certified interpreters is ready to speak in Spanish, and in over 300 other languages. We offer complete language services solutions, including telephonic interpretation, on-site interpretation, video remote interpretation and written translation.

Learn More About the Importance of Offering Language Services as an Organization. Download the Free White Paper: Connecting Humanity through Technology.
Ready for a more reliable language services partner? Telelanguage can help. Have questions? Chat with us live or contact us for a free quote or demo.
5,000+ interpreters ready to speak in over 300 languages!

Call Telelanguage today at 1-888-983-5352

Certified interpreters available telephonically, face-to-face, or via video remote!

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Spanish Speakers in the United States (Infographic) - Telelanguage

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Spanish Speakers in the United States ...According to a 2015 report by Instituto Cervantes, the United States has the second highest concentration of Spanish speakers in the world, after Mexico. Roughly 53 million people, 41 million native Spanish speakers, and approximately 11.6 million bilingual Spanish Speakers live in the United States.

# data[].attributes.body
En clase hablamos de unas de las reglas que constreñir que palabras y frases pueden alternar. Esto estudio mira a unos hablantes bilingües para analizar estadísticamente que partes de la oración alternan con lo más frecuencia. El estudio refuerza las reglas entendidos de alternancia de código, incluyendo que ocurren con constituyentes (y no entre dos constituyentes diferentes) en varios ambientes sintácticas.

# data[].attributes.body
En clase mencionamos la cultura del pachuco, pero no yo estaba muy claro en que pachuco significa específicamente. Este articulo describe la subcultura, su historia, y sus temas. La cultura originó en la región de El Paso como mexicanos vienen para aprovechar su industrialización nueva, y se realizó por las mezcla y tensión entre la cultura mexicana y americana.

# data[].attributes.body
Este video por PBS canal de idea propone que existe un dialecto del internet. Examina la manera de hablo de sitios como Tumblr y 4chan y considera si estos cuentan como una forma de dialecto, o es más como una comunidad de hablo, donde hay no solo una manera común de hablo sino valores y ideologías comunes que se refleja por la manera.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.entities[].name
BMO From Adventure Time Expressive of Feminism

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.entities[].name
Create Responsible Social Criticism | Idea Channel | PBS Digital Studios

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Are There Internet Dialects? | Idea Channel | PBS Digital Studios

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
We consider ourselves natives of INTERNETLAND, which made us wonder if there's such a thing as an internet dialect. Not pronunciation, per se (since we type in these here parts), but a common way of communicating through word choice, vocabulary, and how these words are arranged and used.

# data[].attributes.headline
Las lenguas indígenas en los estados unidos

# data[].attributes.subject
Las lenguas indígenas en los estados unidos

# data[].attributes.body
En el libro, menciona que hoy en día hay una prominencia más grande de lenguas nativas en Sudamérica que en los estados unidos. Este articulo demuestra la distribución de las lenguas indígenas en los estados unidos. Con esto, es más clara que no hay tantos hablantes indígenas en los estados en comparación con los en Sudamérica.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
How Many Languages?

Language scholars believe that prior to the arrival of Columbus, approximately 300 languages were spoken in North America; since then, the number of indigenous languages has dropped considerably. Figures on current language use vary ( Crystal, 1987; Krauss, 1998; Grimes, 1997) but indicate that roughly half of these languages are now extinct. Many of the remaining languages are considered moribund, or near extinction, as they have few speakers and these speakers are all elders. Some projections suggest that by the year 2050, only twenty indigenous American languages will remain ( Crawford, 1999).

How Many Speakers?

Krauss (1998) notes that the earliest broad survey of language speakers was in 1964; other inventories followed, including SIL International's Ethnologue. According to data provided in Ethnologue, there are over 361,978 speakers of indigenous American languages. It is difficult, however, to determine a precise census of speakers of these languages, and Krauss suggests that reasons for this difficulty include confusing US Census language definitions and biased responses by some respondents. Speakers may deny their language ability (because of a perceived prejudice or stigma) while others may overestimate their own language ability.

The following tables list 154 indigenous American languages which are still spoken in the United States, the number of speakers, and where the speakers are located. The first table arranges the languages alphabetically, while the second arranges them according to number of speakers.

Source: Adapted from B. Grimes (1996). Ethnologue: Languages of the world. Dallas: SIL International. Updated February 1999 at www.sil.org/ethnologue.

Table 2: Indigenous Languages Spoken in the United States (by Number of Speakers)

Source: Adapted from B. Grimes (1996). Ethnologue: Languages of the world. Dallas: SIL International. Updated February 1999 at www.sil.org/ethnologue.

NOTES

1. Hinton (1998) suggests that one reason for these different estimates is varying interpretations of language differentiation—some languages may be considered either distinct languages or simply dialects.

2. These figures are estimates only. Some sources may report dialects or second-language speakers, or number of speakers in neighboring countries.

3. This figure includes speakers in Canada.

4. Additional speakers of this language are in Russia

5. Additional speakers of this language are in Canada.

6. Additional speakers of this language are in Mexico.

7. This figure includes speakers in Mexico.

8. Additional speakers of this language are in Siberia.

REFERENCES

Crystal, D. (1987). The Cambridge encyclopedia of language. New York: Cambridge University Press.

Crawford, J. (1999). Bilingual education: History, politics, theory and practice. (4th ed.) Los Angeles: Bilingual Educational Services.

Grimes, B. (Ed.). (1996). Ethnologue: Languages of the world. (13th ed.) Dallas: SIL, International. Online updates available at http://www.sil.org/ethnologue/

Hinton, L. (1998). Language loss and revitalization in California: Overview. International Journal of the Sociology of Language, 132, 83-93.

Krauss, M. (1998). The condition of Native North American languages: The need for realistic assessment and action. International Journal of the Sociology of Language, 132, 9-21.

NCBE is funded by the U.S. Department of Education's Office of Bilingual Education and Minority Languages Affairs (OBEMLA) and is operated by the George Washington University, Graduate School of Education and Human Development, Center for the Study of Language and Education.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Table 1: Indigenous Languages Spoken in the United States (by Language)

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
How Many Languages? Language scholars believe that prior to the arrival of Columbus, approximately 300 languages were spoken in North America; since then, the number of indigenous languages has dropped considerably. Figures on current language use vary ( Crystal, 1987; Krauss, 1998; Grimes, 1997) but indicate that roughly half of these languages are now extinct.

# data[].attributes.body
En clase hablamos del hecho que es más fácil para un portugués entender español que un hispanohablante entender portugués. Este video explica este fenómeno, que se llama inteligibilidad asimétrica, en qué es más fácil entender para un hablante entender otra lengua que el revés. Da ejemplos y la metodología de meter la magnitud de esta asimetría.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Why some speakers can't understand speakers who understand them - Asymmetric Intelligibility

# data[].attributes.body
En clase escuchamos unos acentos de regiones diferentes. En este video de Netflix, Fred Armisen explora los acentos de muchas regiones de norte América, desde Nueva York a Canadá a México, y explica su proceso de pronunciarlos.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Fred Armisen Does Every North American Accent | Standup For Drummers | Netflix Is A Joke

# data[].attributes.body
Mientras de hablar de hiponimia, homonimia, y polisemia, recordé un video por Michael de VSauce. Este video clarifica las diferencias de los términos homónimo, homógrafo y homófono, la diferencia entre un homónimo polisémico y un homónimo verdadero, y fenómenos como visemes (palabras que se ven igual cuando leer los labios).

# data[].attributes.body
Esta pagina web describe todo lo que querías saber de los actos de habla, incluyendo los niveles de actos de habla, los tipos de actos de habla, y aún la “importancia filosófica” del estudio de actos de habla. Hay muchos tipos de estos actos, pero expone cuatro categorías: contrastivo (afirmar, identificar, disputar), directivo (mandar, aconsejar), comisivo (prometer, ofrecerse), y reconocimiento (saludar, agradecer, disculparse).

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Kent Bach, Routledge Encyclopedia of Philosophy entry

Making a statement may be the paradigmatic use of language, but there are all sorts of other things we can do with words. We can make requests, ask questions, give orders, make promises, give thanks, offer apologies, and so on. Moreover, almost any speech act is really the performance of several acts at once, distinguished by different aspects of the speaker's intention: there is the act of saying something, what one does in saying it, such as requesting or promising, and how one is trying to affect one's audience.

The theory of speech acts is partly taxonomic and partly explanatory. It must systematically classify types of speech acts and the ways in which they can succeed or fail. It must reckon with the fact that the relationship between the words being used and the force of their utterance is often oblique. For example, the sentence 'This is a pig sty' might be used nonliterally to state that a certain room is messy and filthy and, further, to demand indirectly that it be straightened out and cleaned up. Even when this sentence is used literally and directly, say to describe a certain area of a barnyard, the content of its utterance is not fully determined by its linguistic meaning--in particular, the meaning of the word 'this' does not determine which area is being referred to. A major task for the theory of speech acts is to account for how speakers can succeed in what they do despite the various ways in which linguistic meaning underdetermines use.

In general, speech acts are acts of communication. To communicate is to express a certain attitude, and the type of speech act being performed corresponds to the type of attitude being expressed. For example, a statement expresses a belief, a request expresses a desire, and an apology expresses a regret. As an act of communication, a speech act succeeds if the audience identifies, in accordance with the speaker's intention, the attitude being expressed.

Some speech acts, however, are not primarily acts of communication and have the function not of communicating but of affecting institutional states of affairs. They can do so in either of two ways. Some officially judge something to be the case, and othersactually make something the case. Those of the first kind include judges' rulings, referees' calls and assessors' appraisals, and the latter include include sentencing, bequeathing and appointing. Acts of both kinds can be performed only in certain ways under certain circumstances by those in certain institutional or social positions.

2. Communicative and conventional speech acts

4. Direct, indirect and nonliteral speech acts

5. Philosophical importance of speech act theory

How language represents the world has long been, and still is, a major concern of philosophers of language. Many thinkers, such as Leibniz, Frege, Russell, the early Wittgenstein, and Carnap (q.v.), have thought that understanding the structure of language could illuminate the nature of reality. However noble their concerns, such philosophers have implicitly assumed, as J. L. Austin complains at the beginning of How to Do Things with Words, that 'the business of a [sentence] can only be to "describe" some state of affairs, or to "state some fact", which it must do either truly or falsely'. Austin reminds us that we perform all sorts of 'speech acts' besides making statements, and that there are other ways for them to go wrong or be 'infelicitous' besides not being true. The later Wittgensteinalso came to think of language not primarily as a system of representation but as a vehicle for all sorts of social activity. 'Don't ask for the meaning', he admonished, 'ask for the use'. But it was Austin who presented the first systematic account of the use of language. And whereas Wittgenstein could be charged with having conflating meaning and use, Austin was careful to separate the two. He distinguished the meaning (and reference) of the words used from the speech acts performed by the speaker using them.

Austin's attention was first attracted to what he called 'explicit performative utterances', in which one uses sentences like 'I nominate ...', 'You're fired', 'The meeting is adjourned', and 'You are hereby sentenced ...' to perform acts of the very sort named by the verb, such as nominating, firing, adjourning, or sentencing (see PERFORMATIVES). Austin held that performatives are neither true nor false, unlike what he called 'constatives'. However, he came to realize that constatives work just like performatives. Just as a suggestion or an apology can be made by uttering 'I suggest ...' or 'I apologize ...', so an assertion or a prediction can be made by uttering 'I assert ...' or 'I predict ...'. Accordingly, the distinction between constative and performative utterances is, in Austin's general theory of speech acts, superseded by that between saying something and what one does in saying it. This broader distinction applies to both statements and other sorts of speech acts, and takes into account the fact that one does not have to say 'I suggest ...' to make a suggestion, 'I apologize ...' to make an apology, or 'I assert' to make an assertion.

The theory of speech acts aims to do justice to the fact that even though words (phrases, sentences) encode information, people do more things with words than convey information, and that when people do convey information, they often convey more than their words encode. Although the focus of speech act theory has been on utterances, especially those made in conversational and other face-to-face situations, the phrase 'speech act' should be taken as a generic term for any sort of language use, oral or otherwise. Speech acts, whatever the medium of their performance, fall under the broad category of intentional action, with which they share certain general features (see ACTION). An especially pertinent feature is that when one acts intentionally, generally one has a set of nested intentions. For instance, having arrived home without one's keys, one might push a button with the intention not just of pushing the button but of ringing a bell, arousing one's spouse and, ultimately, getting into one's house. The single bodily movement involved in pushing the button comprises a multiplicity of actions, each corresponding to a different one of the nested intentions. Similarly, speech acts are not just acts of producing certain sounds.

Austin identifies three distinct levels of action beyond the act of utterance itself. He distinguishes the act of saying something, what one does insaying it, and what one does by saying it, and dubs these the 'locutionary', the 'illocutionary' and the 'perlocutionary' act, respectively. Suppose, for example, that a bartender utters the words, 'The bar will be closed in five minutes,' reported by means of direct quotation. He is thereby performing the locutionary act of saying that the bar (i.e., the one he is tending) will be closed in five minutes (from the time of utterance), and what is said is reported by indirect quotation (notice that what the bartender is saying, the content of his locutionary act, is not fully determined by the words he is using, for they do not specify the bar in question or the time of the utterance). In saying this, the bartender is performing the illocutionary act of informing the patrons of the bar's imminent closing and perhaps also the act of urging them to order a last drink. Whereas the upshot of these illocutionary acts is understanding on the part of the audience, perlocutionary acts are performed with the intention of producing a further effect. The bartender intends to be performing the perlocutionary acts of causing the patrons to believe that the bar is about to close and of getting them to want and to order one last drink. He is performing all these speech acts, at all three levels, just by uttering certain words.

There seems to be a straightforward relationship in this example between the words uttered ('The bar will be closed in five minutes'), what is thereby said, and the act of informing the patrons that the bar will close in five minutes. Less direct is the connection between the utterance and the act of urging the patrons to order one last drink. Clearly there is no linguistic connection here, for the words make no mention of drinks or of ordering. This indirect connection is inferential. The patrons must infer that the bartender intends to be urging them to leave and, indeed, it seems that the reason his utterance counts as an act of that sort is that he is speaking with this intention. There is a similarly indirect connection when an utterance of 'It's getting cold in here' is made not merely as a statement about the temperature but as a request to close the window or as a proposal to go some place warmer. Whether it is intended (and is taken) as a request or as a proposal depends on contextual information that the speaker relies on the audience to rely on. This is true even when the connection between word and deed is more direct than in the above example, for the form of the sentence uttered may fail to determine just which sort of illocutionary act is being performed. Consider, by analogy, the fact that in shaking hands we can, depending on the circumstances, do any one of several different things: introduce ourselves, greet each other, seal a deal, or bid farewell. Similarly, a given sentence can be used in a variety of ways, so that, for example, 'I will call a lawyer' could be used as a prediction, a promise, or a warning. How one intends it determines the sort of act it is.

2. Communicative and conventional speech acts

The examples considered thus far suggest that performing a speech act, in particular an illocutionary act, is a matter of having a certain communicative intention in uttering certain words. Such an act succeeds, the intention with which it is performed is fulfilled, if the audience recognizes that intention. This is not by magic, of course. One must choose one's words in such a way that their utterance makes one's intention recognizable under the circumstances. However, as illustrated above, the utterance need not encode one's intention. So, in general, understanding an utterance is not merely a matter of decoding it.

A specifically communicative intention is a reflexive intention, of the sort characterized by H. P. Grice (see COMMUNICATION/INTENTION). This is an intention part of whose content is that it be recognized, indeed be recognized partly on the basis that this is intended. Accordingly, it is an intention whose fulfillment consists in its recognition. This feature distinguishes acts of communication from most sorts of acts, whose success does not depend on anyone's recognizing the intention with which they are performed. One cannot succeed in running a marathon just by virtue of someone's recognizing one's intention to do so, but one can succeed in stating something, requesting something, etc., by virtue of one's addressee recognizing that one is stating it, requesting it, etc. This is success at the illocutionary level. It is a further matter, a condition on the success of perlocutionary act, whether the addressee believes what one states or does what one requests.

Now Austin did not take into account the central role of speakers' intentions and hearers' inferences. He supposed that the successful performance of an illocutionary act is a matter of convention, not intention. Indeed, he held that the use of a sentence with a certain illocutionary force is conventional in the peculiar sense that this force can be 'made explicit by the performative formula'. P. F. Strawson argues that in making this claim Austin was overly impressed by the special case of utterances that affect institutional states of affairs, and should have not taken them as a model of illocutionary acts in general. Austin was especially struck by the character of explicit performative utterances, in which one uses a verb that names the very type of act one is performing. For them he developed an account of what it takes for such acts to be performed successfully and felicitously, classifying the various things that can go wrong as 'flaws', 'hitches', and other sorts of 'infelicities'. It is only in certain conventionally designated circumstances and by people in certain positions that certain utterances can have the force they do. For example, only in certain circumstances does a jury foreman's pronouncement of 'Guilty' or 'Not guilty' count as a verdict, a legislator's 'Aye' or 'Nay' as a vote, and a baseball umpire's cry of 'Y'er out' as calling a runner out. In these cases it is only by conforming to a convention that an utterance of a certain form counts as the performance of an act of a certain sort. However, as Strawson argues, most illocutionary acts succeed not by conformity to convention but by recognition of intention. They are not conventional except in the irrelevant sense that the words and sentences being used have their linguistic meanings by virtue of convention (see CONVENTIONALITY OF LANGUAGE).

Strawson's argument raises a serious problem for theories inspired by Austin's view. Consider, for example, the theory advanced by John Searle, who proposes to explain illocutionary forces by means of 'constitutive rules' (conventions) for using 'force-indicating' devices, such as performative verbs and sentential moods. The problem is that the same sorts of illocutionary acts that can be performed by means of such devices can be performed without them. For example, one does not have to use a performative, as in 'I demand that you be quiet', or the imperative mood, as in 'Be quiet!', to demand someone to be quiet. Clearly a theory that relies on rules for using such devices is not equipped to explain the illocutionary forces of utterances lacking such devices. No such difficulty arises for a theory according to which most illocutionary acts are performed not with an intention to conform to a convention but with a communicative intention.

Pretheoretically, we think of an act of communication, linguistic or otherwise, as an act of expressing oneself. This rather vague idea can be made more precise if we get more specific about what is being expressed. Take the case of an apology. If you utter, '[I'm] sorry I didn't call back' and intend this as an apology, you are expressing regret for something, in this case for not returning a phone call. An apology just is the act of (verbally) expressing regret for, and thereby acknowledging, something one did that might have harmed or at least bothered the hearer. An apology is communicative because it is intended to be taken as expressing a certain attitude, in this case regret. It succeeds as such if it is so taken. In general, an act of communication succeeds if it is taken as intended. That is, it must be understood or, in Austin's words, 'produce uptake'. With an apology, this a matter of the addressee recognizing the speaker's intention to be expressing regret for some deed or omission. Using a special device such as the performative 'I apologize' may of course facilitate understanding (understanding is correlative with communicating), but in general this is unnecessary. Communicative success is achieved if the speaker chooses his words in such a way that the hearer will, under the circumstances of utterance, recognize his communicative intention. So, for example, if you spill some beer on someone and say 'Oops' in the right way, your utterance will be taken as an apology for what you did.

In saying something one generally intends more than just to communicate--getting oneself understood is intended to produce some effect on the listener. However, our speech act vocabulary can obscure this fact. When one apologizes, for example, one may intend not merely to express regret but also to seek forgiveness. Seeking forgiveness is, strictly speaking, distinct from apologizing, even though one utterance is the performance of an act of both types. As an apology, the utterance succeeds if it is taken as expressing regret for the deed in question; as an act of seeking forgiveness, it succeeds if forgiveness is thereby obtained. Speech acts, being perlocutionary as well as illocutionary, generally have some ulterior purpose, but they are distinguished primarily by their illocutionary type, such as asserting, requesting, promising and apologizing, which in turn are distinguished by the type of attitude expressed. The perlocutionary act is a matter of trying to get the hearer to form some correlative attitude and in some cases to act in a certain way. For example, a statement expresses a belief and normally has the further purpose of getting the addressee form the same belief. A request expresses a desire for the addressee to do a certain thing and normally aims for the addressee to intend to and, indeed, actually do that thing. A promise expresses the speaker's firm intention to do something, together with the belief that by his utterance he is obligated to do it, and normally aims further for the addressee to expect, and to feel entitled to expect, the speaker to do it.

Statements, requests, promises and apologies are examples of the four major categories of communicative illocutionary acts: constatives, directives, commissives and acknowledgments. This is the nomenclature used by Kent Bach and Michael Harnish, who develop a detailed taxonomy in which each type of illocutionary act is individuated by the type of attitude expressed (in some cases there are constraints on the content as well). There is no generally accepted terminology here, and Bach and Harnish borrow the terms 'constative' and 'commissive' from Austin and 'directive' from Searle. They adopt the term 'acknowledgment', over Austin's 'behabitive' and Searle's 'expressive', for apologies, greetings, congratulations etc., which express an attitude regarding the hearer that is occasioned by some event that is thereby being acknowledged, often in satisfaction of a social expectation. Here are assorted examples of each type:

Constatives: affirming, alleging, announcing, answering, attributing, claiming, classifying, concurring, confirming, conjecturing, denying, disagreeing, disclosing, disputing, identifying, informing, insisting, predicting, ranking, reporting, stating, stipulating

Directives: advising, admonishing, asking, begging, dismissing, excusing, forbidding, instructing, ordering, permitting, requesting, requiring, suggesting, urging, warning

Commissives: agreeing, guaranteeing, inviting, offering, promising, swearing, volunteering

Acknowledgments: apologizing, condoling, congratulating, greeting, thanking, accepting (acknowledging an acknowledgment)

Bach and Harnish spell out the correlation between type of illocutionary act and type of expressed attitude. In many cases, such as answering, disputing, excusing and agreeing, as well as all types of acknowledgment, the act and the attitude it expresses presuppose a specific conversational or other social circumstance.

For types of acts that are distinguished by the type of attitude expressed, there is no need to invoke the notion of convention to explain how it can succeed. The act can succeed if the hearer recognizes the attitude being expressed, such as a belief in the case of a statement and a desire in the case of a request. Any further effect it has on the hearer, such as being believed or being complied with, or just being taken as sincere, is not essential to its being a statement or a request. Thus an utterance can succeed as an act of communication even if the speaker does not possess the attitude he is expressing: communication is one thing, sincerity another. Communicating is as it were just putting an attitude on the table; sincerity is actually possessing the attitude one is expressing. Correlatively, the hearer can understand the utterance without regarding it as sincere, e.g., take it as an apology, as expressing regret for something, without believing that the speaker regrets having done the deed in question. Getting one's audience to believe that one actually possesses the attitude one is expressing is not an illocutionary but a perlocutionary act.

4. Direct, indirect and nonliteral speech acts

As Austin observed, the content of a locutionary act (what is said) is not always determined by what is meant by the sentence being uttered. Ambiguous words or phrases need to be disambiguated (see AMBIGUITY) and the references of indexical and other context-sensitive expressions need to be fixed in order for what is said to be determined fully (see DEMONSTRATIVES AND INDEXICALS). Moreover, what is said does not determine the illocutionary act(s) being performed. We can perform a speech act (1) directly or indirectly, by way of performing another speech act, (2) literally or nonliterally, depending on how we are using our words, and (3) explicitly or inexplicitly, depending on whether we fully spell out what we mean.

These three contrasts are distinct and should not be confused. The first two concern the relation between the utterance and the speech act(s) thereby performed. In indirection a single utterance is the performance of one illocutionary act by way of performing another. For example, we can make a request or give permission by way of making a statement, say by uttering 'I am getting thirsty' or 'It doesn't matter to me', and we can make a statement or give an order by way of asking a question, such as 'Will the sun rise tomorrow?' or 'Can you clean up your room?' When an illocutionary act is performed indirectly, it is performed by way of performing some other one directly. In the case of nonliteral utterances, we do not mean what our words mean but something else instead. With nonliterality the illocutionary act we are performing is not the one that would be predicted just from the meanings of the words being used, as with likely utterances of 'My mind got derailed' or 'You can stick that in your ear'. Occasionally utterances are both nonliteral and indirect. For example, one might utter 'I love the sound of your voice' to tell someone nonliterally (ironically) that she can't stand the sound of his voice and thereby indirectly to ask him to stop singing.

Nonliterality and indirection are the two main ways in which the semantic content of a sentence can fail to determine the full force and content of the illocutionary act being performed in using the sentence. They rely on the same sorts of processes that Grice discovered in connection with what he called 'conversational implicature' (see IMPLICATURE), which, as is clear from Grice's examples, is nothing more than the special case of nonliteral or indirect constatives made with the use of indicative sentences. A few of Grice's examples illustrate nonliterality, e.g., 'He was a little intoxicated', used to explain why a man smashed some furniture, but most of them are indirect statements, e.g., 'There is a garage around the corner' used to tell someone where to get petrol, and 'Mr. X's command of English is excellent, and his attendance has been regular', giving the high points in a letter of recommendation. These are all examples in which what is meant is not determined by what is said. However, Grice overlooks a different kind of case, marked by contrast (3) listed above.

There are many sentences whose standard uses are not strictly determined by their meanings but are not implicatures or figurative uses either. For example, if one's spouse says 'I will be home later'. she is likely to mean that she will be home later that night, not merely some time in the future. In such cases what one means is an expansion of what one says, in that adding more words ('tonight', in the example) would have made what was meant fully explicit. In other cases, such as 'Jack is ready' and 'Jill is late', the sentence does not express a complete proposition. There must be something which Jack is being claimed to be ready for and something which Jill is being claimed to be late to. In these cases what one means is a completion of what one says. In both sorts of case, no particular word or phrase is being used nonliterally and there is no indirection. They both exemplify what may be called 'impliciture', since part of what is meant is communicated not explicitly but implicitly, by way of expansion or completion.

5. Philosophical importance of speech act theory

The theory of speech acts has applications to philosophy in general, but these can only be illustrated here. In ethics, for example, it has been supposed that sentences containing words like 'good' and 'right' are used not to describe but to commend, hence that such sentences are not used to make statements and that questions of value and morals are not matters of fact. This line of argument is fallacious. Sentences used for ethical evaluation, such as 'Loyalty is good' and 'Abortion is wrong,' are no different in form from other indicative sentences. Whatever the status of their contents, they are standardly used to make statements. This leaves open the possibility that there is something fundamentally problematic about their contents. Perhaps such statements are factually defective and, despite syntactic appearances, are neither true nor false. However, this is a metaphysical issue about the status of the properties to which ethical predicates purport to refer. It is not the business of the philosophy of language to determine whether or not there are such properties as goodness or rightness and whether or not the goodness of loyalty and the rightness of abortion are matters of fact. The above argument is but one illustration of what Searle calls the 'speech act fallacy'. He also identifies examples of the 'assertion fallacy', whereby conditions of making an assertion are confused with what is asserted. For example, one might fallaciously argue, on the grounds that because one would not assert that one believes something if one was prepared to assert that one knows it, that knowing does not entail believing. Grice identifies the same fallacy in a parallel argument, according to which seeming to have a certain feature entails not actually having that feature (see ORDINARY LANGUAGE PHILOSOPHY).

For philosophy of language in particular, the theory of speech acts underscores the importance of the distinction between language use and linguistic meaning (see PRAGMATICS and SEMANTICS). This distinction sharpens the formulation of questions about the nature of linguistic knowledge (see LINGUISTIC COMPETENCE), by separating questions about capacities exercised in linguistic interaction from those specific to knowledge of language itself. A parallel distinction, between speaker reference and linguistic reference (see REFERENCE), provokes the question of to what extent linguistic expressions refer independently of speakers' use of them to refer. It is common, for example, for philosophers to describe expressions like 'the car', 'Robert Jones' and 'they' as having different references in different contexts, but it is arguable that this is merely a misleading way of saying that speakers use such expressions to refer to different things in different contexts.

References and further reading

* Austin, J. L. (1962) How to Do Things with Words, Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press. (Develops the distinction between performative and constative utterances into the first systematic account of speech acts.)

Bach, K. (1994) 'Conversational impliciture', Mind & Language 9: 124-62. (Identifies the middle ground between explicit utterances and Gricean implicatures.)

* Bach, K. and R. M. Harnish (1979), Linguistic Commuication and Speech Acts, Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press. (Combines elements of Austin's taxonomy and Grice's theory of conversation into a systematic account of the roles of the speaker's communicative intention and the hearer's inference in literal, nonliteral and indirect uses of sentences to perform speech acts.)

* Grice, H. P. (1989) Studies in the Way of Words, Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press. (The essays on meaning and conversational implicature provide a framework for distinguishing speaker meaning from linguistic meaning and for explaining their relationship.)

* Searle, J. (1969) Speech Acts: An Essay in the Philosophy of Language, Cambridge, Eng.: Cambridge University Press. (Presents a theory of speech acts relying on the notion of constitutive rules.)

* Strawson, P. F. (1964) 'Intention and convention in speech acts', Philosophical Review 73: 439-60. (Applies Grice's account of meaning to support the claim that most speech acts are communicative rather than conventional, as Austin had suggested.)

Tsohatzidis, S. L., ed. (1994) Foundations of Speech Act Theory: Philosophical and Linguistic Perspectives, London: Routledge. (Collection of original essays on outstanding problems in the field, with useful bibliography.)

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Kent Bach, Routledge Encyclopedia of Philosophy entry Making a statement may be the paradigmatic use of language, but there are all sorts of other things we can do with words. We can make requests, ask questions, give orders, make promises, give thanks, offer apologies, and so on.

# data[].attributes.body
En clase discutimos varios roles semánticos, pero se mencionó que hay más roles que fueron listados. Este documento describe unos roles semánticos sobre que no hablamos, como manera (como con tranquilidad o con rapidez), compañía (como con mi hermana), cantidad (como por cinco minutos), y destino (como voy al cine).

# data[].attributes.body
En clase mencionamos las máximas de Grice, y damos unos ejemplos en que estas máximas fueron violadas. Encontré un papel académico que analiza las chistes en la serie Community para identificar cual máxima se viola lo más. (y yo encuentro cómico este papel, no solamente por los chistes, pero también porque unos investigadores podían mirar Community en nombre de investigación).

# data[].attributes.body
En clase y en el libro hablamos de rey Alfonso el Sabio y sus contribuciones a la cultura y uso de español. Este articulo explora en profundidad su vida, sus logros en la lengua y la ley, y el contexto de estos logros.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Alfonso X, king of Castile-León from 1252 until 1284, figures prominently in Spanish history more for his cultural achievements than his political judgment. He recognised the need to unite the disparate Christian communities that he inherited from his father, Ferdinand III of Castile-León.

However, his political goal of administrative reforms and his ambition to become Holy Roman Emperor proved beyond his grasp. He ended up alienating the nobility and towns, deposed by his son, Sancho, and abandoned by his family.

Political failure, however, was more than compensated by his contribution as a scholar (hence his honorific title el Sabio: the Learned) in three fundamental areas vital for the identity and cohesion of a nation: language, law and . In this he probably did more to establish the groundwork for a unified Spanish state than anyone before the Catholic Monarchs, Ferdinand and Isabel, ruled 1474-1516.

Language.
As a scholar, Alfonso valued intellectual accomplishments whatever their source, and in the Iberian Peninsula he could draw upon his own Christian, Roman and Visigothic legacy as well as the wealth of Islamic and Hebraic traditions. His radical contribution was to disseminate with the authority of his royal status the wisdom of these multilingual legacies to his people in Castilian rather than Latin, the universal language of the time, used in diplomacy, education, business, and by the Church.

Amongst Alonso's contributions, too, were commissions to translate scientific and literary works from Arabic or Latin into Castilian. The translation enterprise was vast and carried out in Toledo (already an established centre for translations, but up till then into Latin) and Seville, Alfonso's favourite city. Alfonso's decision to advance Castilian into these fields helped to enrich the language immeasurably. Suddenly exposed to new ideas and new demands, the Castilian language acquired greater syntactic flexibility and a much wider vocabulary as it borrowed abstract, scientific and legal terms from Arabic or Latin.

These were fundamental steps in elevating Castilian, and by extension an important step in making Castile synonymous with Spain. Alfonso's father, Ferdinand III, had already set the trend, by using Castilian in his public record documents.

But Alfonso went further. He made Castilian the working language of his court, becoming one of the first European monarchs to elevate so completely the vernacular tongue. By replacing Latin with Castilian, then, Alfonso was using language as a unifying factor towards the creation of a national identity, with strong patriotic overtones, at a time of fluid boundaries, internal uncertainties and external pressures.

However, Alfonso's privileging of Castilian over Latin should not be seen in isolation. It was part of a wider cultural phenomenon whereby the vernacular was gradually asserting itself in the face of Latin at a time when scholarship was increasingly secularised and challenging the authority of the Church as the source of learning.

Already in the early years of the 13 th century, Alfonso's great grandfather, Alfonso VIII of Castile, had founded the largely secular University of Palencia, ca 1204. Early products of this climate of secularisation were the anonymous Libro de Alexandre (The Book of Alexander) and the Libro de Apolonio (The Book of Apollonius), both inspired by earlier works in Latin.

By this time, Castile's most famous epic poem, the had been composed (around 1200) and the first known literary author in Castilian, the poet-cleric Gonzalo de Berceo (1196?-1264?) was composing a series of poems -the best know being the Milagros de nuestra Senora (The Miracles of Our Lady)- between roughly 1220 to 1260. Another contemporary poem in Castilian was the anonymous Poema de Fernán González (ca.1250) about the founding hero of Castile.

The point is that topics earlier written in Latin -epics, religious works- were now rendered in Castilian, even though -as was most likely the case-the authors of these works were members of the clergy and educated in Latin. This transformation suggests that Castilian was coming of age, and was now able to compete with Latin as a medium for learning (e. g. the deals with the life of Alexander the Great, and his education as well as his military exploits) and for propaganda (e. g. the is meant to inspire devotion for the Virgin).

Like language, law is a potent means towards unity and identity, as the Romans and Visigoths had discovered. Following the chequered advance of the different Christian kingdoms over hundreds of years, there was a pressing need to reform the chaotic state of the law in Castile derived from various sources, e. g. the Visigothic Law.
Fuero Juzgo (Code of Laws), municipal fueros (charters) and common law (i. e. stemming from customs and not statutes). Out of this reform came the Fuero Real (Royal Charter) in 1284.

However, it is the monumental Siete partidas (Seven Divisions) that have earned Alfonso the respect of all lawmakers. It drew on a wide variety of sources, the Fuero Juzgo, the Fuero Real, Roman and church law, the Bible, common law, even literature whose moralising could be molded into a guide for proper conduct. Its genesis seems to have coincided with Alfonso's decision to put himself forward for the title of Holy Roman Emperor, 1256.

Divided into seven parts, the Other Siete partidas is an encyclopaedic work the content of which reaches far beyond the confines of law. As well as a code of law, It is a wide-ranging manual of customs and a guide of social expectations and behaviour. The first partidas deal with: partida, for example, has a discussion on burials, the dimensions of a cemetery and how near to a church it should be, who could be buried in a church, why knights killed in tournaments were excluded, burial expenses and why valuables should not be buried with the dead.

Food -what should be eaten and drunk, the desirability of moderation;

The conduct of the king -how he should sit, dress, behave towards the queen, educate his children etc.;

The qualities necessary to become a knight;

The art of warfare -the role of the cavalry, infantry, military tactics, the use of spies, the function of sentries etc.;

The importance of universities (Alfonso founded appropriately enough the law schools of the University of Salamanca and established its library in 1254, in effect making it -with Oxford and Paris-one of the three great European universities);

Matters such as salaries, student bookstores and the benefits of fresh air, good food and rest;

The partidas set out, too, the full powers of the king, his right to issue laws, do justice, strike money, declare war or peace, establish taxes, fairs, appoint governors, delimit provinces (Hillgarth I 298).

There was resistance to the king's authority from the nobility and towns, wedded as they were to their particular privileges and fueros, and it was not until well into the 14th century that the Partidas were finally made law in Castile.
Recognition of Alfonso's contributions to the codification of laws can be found in a marble relief bust over the gallery doors to the US House of Representatives; his is one of twenty three recognised as the greatest legislators in world history.
Note on Language: At the same time that Castilian was being promoted by Alfonso, Catalan was being advanced in the east of the Peninsula with the conquest of Valencia (1238) and an expanding empire in the Mediterranean. Although technically all this was undertaken by the Crown of Aragón, the driving force was the House of Barcelona, the dynastic name for Catalonia. Linguistically, too, Catalan was enriched by the enormous output of the multifaceted scholar, Raimundo Llull (1232-1315), author of e. g. Blanquerna the first major literary work in Catalan.

The linguistic minorities of Spain -notably Catalan, Basque, Galician- have long fought against the assumption that Castile is Spain. Their objections form the core of the struggle between centralisation and diversity especially since the country's decentralisation following the death of the dictator, General Francisco Franco in 1975.

Barton, Simon Dodds, Jerrilynn. Menocal, MarÍa Rosa and Balbale, Abigail K Alfonso X el Sabio and Colaborators in the Siete Partidas - http://www.asesoriamoran.com/historia_de_la_contabilidad.htm, Public Domain, A History of Spain New York 2 The Arts of Intimacy: Christians, Jews and Muslims in the Making of Castilian Culture New Haven, London 2008 https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?curid=291898
Gies, David T ed. The Cambridge History of Spanish Literature Cambridge 2009.
González Jiménez, Manuel Alfonso X el sabio 1252-1284 Palencia 1993.
Hillgarth, J.N The Spanish Kingdoms 1250-1516 Oxford 2 vols 1976,1978.
O'Callaghan, Joseph The Learned King: The Reign of Alfonso X of Castile Philadelphia1993.
Image of Alfonso el Sabio: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alfonso_X_of_Castile
Marble relief of Alfonso X: By USCapitol - Alfonso X, the "Wise" (1221-1284), Public Domain, https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?curid=21978161
nd ed. 2009.
Burns, Robert I ed Emperor of Culture: Alfonso X the Learned of Castile and His Thirteenth Century Renaissance Philadelphia 1990.
Deyermond, Alan A Literary History of Spain: The Middle Ages London 1971.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Alfonso X, king of Castile-León from 1252 until 1284, figures prominently in Spanish history more for his cultural achievements than his political judgment. He recognised the need to unite the disparate Christian communities that he inherited from his father, Ferdinand III of Castile-León.

# data[].attributes.body
El libro trae el concepto interesante del calque, pero da muchos ejemplos de esto fenómeno. Esto articulo de Wikipedia da una lista comprehensiva de los calques de todas lenguas, incluyendo español. Lo que me interesa es que unas frases comunes en inglés, como “sangre azul” y “el momento de verdad” realmente vienen de español.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
A calque or loan translation is a word or phrase borrowed from another language by literal, word-for-word ( Latin: " verbum pro verbo") or word-for-word translation. This list contains examples of calques in various languages.

# data[].attributes.body
Como se dijo en clase, muchas palabras españolas originaban de árabe. Este foro da una lista no exhaustiva de algunas de estas palabras y una descripción breve de la transformación de la palabra árabe a español. También hay un artículo en Wikipedia con la lista completa de palabras, si estás curioso.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Spanish Grammar Articles and Lessons | SpanishDictionary.com

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Expert articles and interactive video lessons on how to use the Spanish language. Learn about 'por' vs. 'para', Spanish pronunciation, typing Spanish accents, and more.

# data[].attributes.body
En clase discutimos la historia de los cambios de sonidos en español, y pensé que sería interesante mirar la historia de estos cambios en inglés. Este enlace representa la historia completa de los cambios fonológicos en inglés, incluyendo los periodos de inglés, desde el periodo germánico al inglés antiguo al inglés moderna.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
The phonological history of English describes the changing phonology of the English language over time, starting from its roots in proto-Germanic to diverse changes in different dialects of modern English.

In the following description, abbreviations are used as follows:

This section summarizes the changes occurring within distinct time periods, covering the last 2,000 years or so. Within each subsection, changes are in approximate chronological order.

The time periods for some of the early stages are quite short due to the extensive population movements occurring during the Migration Period (early AD), which resulted in rapid dialect fragmentation.

This period includes changes in late Proto-Germanic, up to about the 1st century. Only a general overview of the more important changes is given here; for a full list, see the Proto-Germanic article.

.
Word-final /n/ was then lost after unstressed syllables with nasalization of the preceding vowel. Hence PrePG * > early PG *dagam > late PG *dagą > OE dæġ "day (acc. sg.)". The nasalisation was retained at least into the earliest history of Old English.

Word-final /t/ was lost after an unstressed syllable. This followed the loss of word-final /n/, because it remained before /t/: PrePG * > early PG *burunt > late PG *burun "they carried".

/e/ was raised to /i/ in unstressed syllables.
The original vowel remained when followed by /r/, and was later lowered to /ɑ/.

Early i-mutation: /e/ was raised to /i/ when an /i/ or /j/ followed in the next syllable.

This also affected the diphthong /eu/, which became /iu/.

As a consequence of this change, /ei/ > /iː/. The Elder Futhark of the Proto-Norse language still contained different symbols for the two sounds.

z-umlaut: /e/ is raised to /i/ before /z/.

Early PG *mez "me, dative" > late PG *miz > OHG mir, OS mi, ON mér (with general lowering and lengthening of i before r).

This change was only sporadic at best because there were barely any words in which it could have occurred at all, since /e/ remained only in stressed syllables. The umlauting effect of /z/ remained, however, and in Old West Norse it was extended to other vowels as well. Hence OEN glaʀ, hrauʀ, OWN gler, hreyrr.

Pre-nasal raising: /e/ > /i/ before nasal + consonant. PrePG *bʰendʰonom > PG *bendaną > *bindaną > OE bindan > ModE bind (Latin of-fendō).
This was later extended in Pre-Old English times to vowels before all nasals; hence OE niman "take" but OHG neman.

Final-syllable short vowels were generally deleted in words of three syllables or more. PG *biridi > Goth baíriþ /beriθ/ "(he) carries" (see above), and also PG *-maz, *-miz > *-mz (dative and instrumental plural ending of nouns, 1st person plural ending of verbs, as on the Stentoften Runestone).

This was the period that existed after the East Germanic languages had split off. Changes during this time were shared with the North Germanic dialects, i.e. Proto-Norse. Many of the changes that occurred were areal, and took time to propagate throughout a dialect continuum that was already diversifying. Thus, the ordering of the changes is sometimes ambiguous, and can differ between dialects.

Allophonic i-mutation/Germanic umlaut: Short back vowels were fronted when followed in the next syllable by /i/ or /j/, by i-mutation: /ɑ/ > [æ], /o/ > [ø], /u/ > [y]

In this initial stage, the mutated vowels were still allophonically conditioned, and were not yet distinct as phonemes. Only later, when the /i/ and /j/ were modified or lost, were the new sounds phonemicized.

i-mutation affected all the Germanic languages except for Gothic, although with a great deal of variation. It appears to have occurred earliest, and to be most pronounced, in the Schleswig-Holstein area (the home of the Anglo-Saxons), and from there to have spread north and south. However, it is possible that this change already occurred in Proto-Germanic proper, in which case the phenomenon would have remained merely allophonic for quite some time. If that is the case, that would be the stage reflected in Gothic, where there is no orthographic evidence of i-mutation at all.

Long vowels and diphthongs were affected only later, probably analogically, and not in all areas. Notably, they were not mutated in most (western) Dutch dialects, whereas short vowels were.

a-mutation: /u/ is lowered to /o/ when a non-high vowel follows in the next syllable.

This is blocked when followed by a nasal followed by a consonant, or by a cluster with /j/ in it. Hence PG *gulþą > OE/ModE gold, but PG *guldijaną > OE gyldan > ModE gild.

This produces a new phoneme /o/, due to inconsistent application and later loss of word-final vowels.

Final-syllable long vowels were shortened.

Final /ɛː/ becomes /e/ in ON (later raised to /i/), /ɑ/ in West Germanic. PG *hailidē ("he/she/it healed") > ON heilði, but OE hǣlde, OHG heilta.

The final long diphthong /ɔːi/ loses its final element and usually develops the same as /ɔː/ from that point on. PG *gebōi ("gift", dative singular) > NWG *gebō > ON gjǫf, OHG gebu, OE giefe (an apparent irregular development).

"Overlong" vowels were shortened to regular long vowels.

PG /ɛː/ (maybe already /æː/ by late PG) becomes /ɑː/. This preceded final shortening in West Germanic, but postdated it in North Germanic.

This period occurred around the 2nd to 4th centuries. It is unclear if there was ever a distinct "Proto-West Germanic", as most changes in this period were areal, and likely spread throughout a dialect continuum that was already diversifying further. Thus, this "period" may not have been a real timespan, but may simply cover certain areal changes that did not reach into North Germanic. This period ends with the further diversification of West Germanic into several groups before and during the Migration Period: Ingvaeonic, Istvaeonic ( Old Frankish) and Irminonic ( Upper German).

Loss of word-final /z/.

This change occurred before rhotacization, as original word-final /r/ was not lost.

But it must have occurred after the Northwest Germanic split, since word-final /z/ was not eliminated in Old Norse, instead merging with /r/.

/z/ was not lost in single-syllable words in southern and central German. Compare PG *miz > OS mi, OE me vs. OHG mir.

The OE nominative plural -as (ME -s), OS nominative plural -ōs may be from original accusative plural *-ans, due to the Ingvaeonic Nasal-Spirant law, rather than original nominative plural *-ōz, which would be expected to become *-a (OHG -a, compare ON -ar).

Rhotacization: /z/ > /r/.
This change also affected Proto-Norse, but only much later. /z/ and /r/ were still distinct in the Danish and Swedish dialect of Old Norse, as is testified by distinct runes. (/z/ is normally assumed to be a rhotic fricative in this language, but there is no actual evidence of this.)

West Germanic gemination: single consonants followed by /j/ except /r/ became double (geminate). This only affected consonants preceded by a short vowel, because those preceded by a long vowel or by another consonant were never followed by /j/ due to Sievers' law.

This period is estimated to have lasted only a century or so, the 4th to 5th; the time during which the Franks started to spread south into Gaul (France) and the various coastal people began colonising Britain. Changes in this period affected the Ingvaeonic languages, but not the more southerly Central and Upper German languages. The Ingvaeonic group was probably never homogeneous, but was divided further into Old Saxon and Anglo-Frisian. Old Frankish (and later Old Dutch) was not in the core group, but was affected by the spread of several areal changes from the Ingvaeonic area.

The Anglo-Frisian languages shared several unique changes that were not found in the other West Germanic languages. The migration to Britain caused a further split into early Old English and early Old Frisian.

Ingvaeonic nasal spirant law: Loss of nasals before fricatives, with nasalization and compensatory lengthening of the preceding vowel. Hence PG *munþaz became ModG Mund but in Ingvaeonic dialects first became *mų̄þa. Old English then denasalised the vowels, giving OE mūþ > ModE "mouth".

Anglo-Frisian brightening:

Fronting of /ɑ/ to /æ/ (unless followed by a geminate, by a back vowel in the next syllable, or in certain other cases). Hence OE dæġ /dæj/ "day", plural dagas /dɑɣɑs/ "days" (dialectal ModE "dawes"; compare ModE "dawn" < OE dagung /dɑɣuŋɡ/).

This does not affect nasal /ɑ̃/. And since this is a back vowel, /ɑ/ in a preceding syllable was prevented from being fronted as well. This created an alternation between the infinitive in *-aną and strong past participle in *-ana (< PG *anaz), where the former became -an in OE but the latter became *-ænæ > -en.

Fronting of /ɑː/ to /æː/ (generally, unless /w/ followed).

Final-syllable /æ/, /ɑ/ and /ɑ̃/ are lost.
No attested West Germanic languages show any reflexes of these vowels. However, the way it affected the fronting of /ɑ/ as described above shows that at least /ɑ̃/ was retained into the separate history of Anglo-Frisian.

This period is estimated to be c. AD 475-900. This includes changes from the split between Old English and Old Frisian (c. AD 475) up through historic early West Saxon of AD 900:

Breaking of front vowels.

Most generally, before /x, w/, and /r, l/ + consonant (assumed to be velarized [rˠ, ɫ] in these circumstances), but exact conditioning factors vary from vowel to vowel.

Initial result was a falling diphthong ending in /u/, but this was followed by diphthong height harmonization, producing short /æ̆ɑ̆/, /ĕŏ/, /ĭŭ/ from short /æ/, /e/, /i/, long /æɑ/, /eo/, /iu/ from long /æː/, /eː/, /iː/.
Written ea, eo, io, where length is not distinguished graphically.

Result in some dialects, for example Anglian, was back vowels rather than diphthongs. West Saxon ceald; but Anglian cald > ModE cold.

A-restoration: Short /æ/ is backed to /ɑ/ when a back vowel follows in the next syllable.
This produces alternations such as OE dæġ "day", pl. dagas (cf. dialectal dawes "days").

Palatalization of velar consonants: /k, ɡ, ɣ, sk/ were palatalized to /tʃ, dʒ, ʝ, ʃ/ in certain complex circumstances. A similar palatalization happened in Frisian, but by this point the languages had split up; the Old English palatalization must be ordered after Old-English-specific changes such as a-restoration.

Generally, the velar stops /k, ɡ/ were palatalized before /i(ː)/ or /j/; after /i(ː)/ when not before a vowel; and /k/ was palatalized at the beginning of a word before front vowels. (At this point, there was no word-initial /ɡ/.)

/ɣ/ was palatalized in somewhat broader circumstances: By any following front vowel, as well as by a preceding front vowel when a vowel did not immediately follow the /ɣ/.

/ʝ/ later becomes /j/, but not before the loss of older /j/ below.

/sk/ is palatalized in almost all circumstances. PG *skipaz > ModE ship (cf. skipper < Dutch schipper, where no such change happened), but West Frisian skip. PG *skurtijaz > OE scyrte > ModE shirt, but > ON skyrt > ModE skirt. An example of retained /sk/ is PG *aiskōną > OE ascian > ModE ask; there is evidence that OE ascian was sometimes rendered metathetized to acsian, which is the presumed origin of ModE ask.

Palatal diphthongization: Initial palatal /j/, /tʃ/, /ʃ/ trigger spelling changes of a > ea, e > ie. It is disputed whether this represents an actual sound change or merely a spelling convention indicating the palatal nature of the preceding consonant (written g, c, sc were ambiguous in OE as to palatal /j/, /tʃ/, /ʃ/ and velar /ɡ/ or /ɣ/, /k/, /sk/, respectively).

Similar changes of o > eo, u > eo are generally recognized to be merely a spelling convention. Hence WG /juŋɡ/ > OE geong /juŋɡ/ > ModE "young"; if geong literally indicated an /ɛ̆ɔ̆/ diphthong, the modern result would be *yeng.

It is disputed whether there is Middle English evidence of the reality of this change in Old English.

i-mutation: The most important change in the Old English period. All back vowels were fronted before a /i, j/ in the next syllable, and front vowels were raised.

/æa/, /eo/ > /iy/ > /yː/; this also applied to the equivalent short diphthongs.

Short /e/ > /i/ by an earlier pan-Germanic change under the same circumstances; often conflated with this change.

This had dramatic effects in inflectional and derivational morphology, e.g. in noun paradigms (fōt "foot", pl. fēt "feet"); verb paradigms (bacan "to bake", bæcþ "he bakes"); nominal derivatives from adjectives (strang "strong", strengþ(u) "strength"), from verbs (cuman "to come", cyme "coming"), and from other nouns (fox "fox", fyxenn "vixen"); verbal derivatives (fōda "food", fēdan "to feed"); comparative adjectives (eald "old", ieldra "older, elder"). Many echoes of i-mutation are still present in the modern language.

Close-vowel loss: Loss of word-final /i/ and /u/ (also from earlier /oː/) except when following a short syllable (i.e. one with a short vowel followed by a single consonant.) For example, PIE * > PG *sunuz > OE sunu "son (nom. sing.)", PIE * > PG *fehu > OE feohu "cattle (nom. sing.)", PIE * > PG *winiz > OE ƿine "friend (nom. sing.)", but PrePG * > PG *fōtiz > WG *fø̄ti > OE fēt "foot (nom. pl.)".

following a long syllable.

A similar change happened in the other West Germanic languages, although after the earliest records of those languages.

Following this, PG */j/ occurred only word-initially and after /r/ (which was the only consonant that was not geminated by /j/ and hence retained a short syllable).

H-loss: Proto-Germanic /x/ is lost between vowels, and between /l, r/ and a vowel. The preceding vowel is lengthened.
This leads to alternations such as eoh "horse", pl. ēos, and ƿealh "foreigner", pl. ƿēalas.

Vowel assimilation: Two vowels in hiatus merge into a long vowel.
Some examples come from h-loss. Others come from loss of /j/ or /w/ between vowels, e.g. PG frijōndz > OE frīond > frēond "friend"; PG saiwimiz "sea (dat. pl.)" > *sǣƿum > OE sǣm.

Back mutation: Short e, i and (in Mercian only) a are sometimes broken to short eo, io, and ea when a back vowel follows in the next syllable.

Vowel reductions in unstressed syllables:

/oː/ became /ɑ/ in final syllables, but usually appears as o in medial syllables (although a and u both appear).

/æ/ and /i/ (if not deleted by high-vowel loss) became /e/ in final syllables.

/u/ normally became /o/ in a final syllable except when absolutely word-final.

In medial syllables, short /æ, a, e/ are deleted; short /i, u/ are deleted following a long syllable but usually remain following a short syllable (except in some present-tense verb forms), merging to /e/ in the process; and long vowels are shortened.

/ø, øː/ are unrounded to /e, eː/, respectively. This occurred within the literary period.
Some Old English dialects retained the rounded vowels, however.

Early pre-cluster shortening: Vowels were shortened when falling immediately before either three consonances or the combination of two consonants and two additional syllables in the word.

Thus, OE gāst > ModE ghost, but OE găstliċ > ModE ghastly (ā > ă/_CCC) and OE crīst > ModE Christ, but OE crĭstesmæsse > ModE Christmas (ī > ĭ/_CC$$).

Probably occurred in the seventh century as evidenced by eighth century Anglo-Saxon missionaries' translation into Old Low German, "Gospel" as Gotspel, lit. "God news" not expected *Guotspel, "Good news" due to gōdspell > gŏdspell.

/ĭŭ/ and /iu/ were lowered to /ĕŏ/ and /eo/ between 800 and 900 AD.

Initial /ɣ/ became /ɡ/ in late Old English. This occurred within the literary period, as evidenced by shifting patterns in alliterative verse.

This period is estimated to be c. 900-1400.

Homorganic lengthening: Vowels were lengthened before /ld/, /mb/, /nd/, /rd/, probably also /ŋɡ/, /rl/, /rn/, when not followed by a third consonant or two consonants and two syllables.

This probably occurred around AD 1000.

Later on, many of these vowels were shortened again; but evidence from the Ormulum shows that this lengthening was once quite general.

Remnants persist in the Modern English pronunciations of words such as child (but not children, since a third consonant follows), field (plus yield, wield, shield), old (but not alderman as it is followed by at least two syllables), climb, find (plus mind, kind, bind, etc.), long and strong (but not length and strength), fiend, found (plus hound, bound, etc.).

Pre-cluster shortening: Vowels were shortened when followed by two or more consonants, except when lengthened as above.
This occurred in two stages, the first stage occurring already in late Old English and affecting only vowels followed by three or more consonants, or two or more consonants when two syllables followed (an early form of trisyllabic laxing).

Diphthong smoothing: Inherited height-harmonic diphthongs were monophthongized by the loss of the second component, with the length remaining the same.

/ɣ/ became /w/ or /j/, depending on surrounding vowels.

New diphthongs formed from vowels followed by /w/ or /j/ (including from former /ɣ/).

Length distinctions were eliminated in these diphthongs, yielding diphthongs /ai, ɛi, ei, au, ɛu, eu, iu, ɔu, ou/ plus /ɔi, ui/ borrowed from French.

Middle English breaking: Diphthongs also formed by the insertion of a glide /w/ or /j/ (after back and front vowels, respectively) preceding /x/.

Trisyllabic laxing: Shortening of stressed vowels when two syllables followed.
This results in pronunciation variants in Modern English such as divine vs divinity and south vs. southern (OE sūðerne).

Middle English open syllable lengthening: Vowels were usually lengthened in open syllables (13th century), except when trisyllabic laxing would apply.

Reduction and loss of unstressed vowels: Remaining unstressed vowels merged into /ə/.
Starting around 1400 AD, /ə/ is lost in final syllables.

Initial clusters /hɾ/, /hl/, /hn/ were reduced by loss of /h/.

Voiced fricatives became independent phonemes through borrowing and other sound changes.

The /t͡s/ cluster, present in words imported from Norman, is deaffricated, and merges with /s/ (which had perhaps been apical in medieval times, as in closely-related Dutch and Low German), thus merging sell and cell.
But unlike French, /t͡ʃ/ and /d͡ʒ/ are fully preserved.

Up to Shakespeare's English

This period is estimated to be c. AD 1400-1600.

H-loss completed: /x/ (written gh) lost in most dialects, so that e.g. taught and taut become homophones, likewise bow (meaning "bend") and bough.

/al/ and /ɔl/ when not followed by a vowel undergo mutations:

Before /k/, a coronal consonant or word-finally, they are diphthongized to /aul/ and /ɔul/. (By later changes, they become /ɔːl/ and /oul/, as in modern salt, tall, bolt, roll.) After this, the combinations /aulk/ and /ɔulk/ lose their /l/ in most accents, affecting words like talk, caulk, and folk. Words acquired after this change (such as talc) were not affected.

Before /f, v/, the /l/ becomes silent, so that half and calf are pronounced with /af/, and salve and halve are pronounced with /av/. /ɔlv/ is exempt, so that solve keeps its /l/. /ɔlf/ is not wholly exempt, as the traditional pronunciation of golf was [ɡɔf].

Some words have irregular pronunciations, e.g. from non-standard dialects (salmon) or spelling pronunciations (falcon in American English).

Great Vowel Shift; all long vowels raised or diphthongized.

Doubled consonants reduced to single consonants.

Loss of most remaining diphthongs.

/au/ became /ɔː/, merging with the vowel in broad and the /ɔː/ of the lot-cloth split below.

The long mid mergers: /ɛi, ɔu/ are raised to /ei, ou/, eventually merging with /eː, oː/, so that , and , become homophones in most accents.

The above two mergers did not occur in many regional dialects as late as the 20th century (e.g. Northern England, East Anglia, South Wales, and even Newfoundland).

/ɔi/ and /ui/ merge to /oi/, the only Middle English diphthong that remains in the modern standard English varieties.

Up to the American-British split

This period is estimated to be c. AD 1600-1725.[citation needed ]

At some preceding time after Old English, all [r] become [ɹ].

Initial cluster reductions:

The foot-strut split: In southern England, /ʊ/ becomes unrounded and eventually lowered unless preceded by a labial and followed by a non-velar. This gives put [pʊt] but cut [kʌt] and buck [bʌk]. This distinction later become phonemicized by an influx of words shortened from /uː/ to /ʊ/ both before (flood, blood, glove) and after (good, hood, book, soot, took) this split.

Ng-coalescence: Reduction of /ŋɡ/ in most areas produces new phoneme /ŋ/.

In some words, /tj, sj, dj, zj/ coalesce to produce /tʃ, ʃ, dʒ/, and the new phoneme /ʒ/, a sound change known as yod-coalescence, a type of palatalization: nature, mission, procedure, vision.

These combinations mostly occurred in borrowings from French and Latin.

Pronunciation of -tion was /sjən/ from Old French /sjon/, thus becoming /ʃən/.

This sound mutation still occurs allophonically in Modern English: did you /ˈdɪdjuː/ → [ˈdɪdʒuː] didjou.

The meet-meat merger: Meet and meat become homophones in most accents.

Changes affect short vowels in many varieties before an /r/ at the end of a word or before a consonant

/ɛ, ɪ, ʌ/ merge before /r/, so all varieties of ModE except for some Scottish English and some Irish English have the same vowel in fern, fir and fur.

Also affects vowels in derived forms, so that starry no longer rhymes with marry.

/a/, as in cat and trap, fronted to [æ] in many areas. In certain other words it becomes /ɑː/, for example father /ˈfɑːðər/. /ɑː/ is actually a new phoneme deriving from this and words like calm (see above).

The : in some varieties, lengthening of /ɔ/ before voiced velars (/ŋ/, /ɡ/) (American English only) and voiceless fricatives (/s/, /f/, /θ/). Hence American English long, dog, loss, cloth, off with /ɔː/ (except in dialects with the cot-caught merger where the split is made completely mute).

/uː/ becomes /ʊ/ in many words spelt oo: for example, book, wool, good, foot. This is partially resisted in the northern and western variants of English English, where words ending in -ook might still use /uː/.

After American-British split, up to World War II

This period is estimated to be c. AD 1725-1945.

Split into rhotic and non-rhotic accents: syllable-final /ɹ/ is lost in the English of England, producing new centering diphthongs /ɛə/ (square), /ɪə/ (near), /ɔə/ (cord), /oə/ (sore), /ʊə/ (cure), and the highly unusual phoneme /ɜː/ (nurse).

Unrounding of LOT : /ɒ/ as in lot and bother is unrounded in Norwich, the West Country, in Hiberno-English and most of North American English

The Boston accent is an exception where the LOT vowel is still rounded.

In North American English, /ɒ/ is typically also lengthened to merge with /ɑː/ in father, resulting in the : so that most North American dialects only have the vowel /ɑː/.
Out of North American dialects that have unrounded LOT, the only notable exception is New York City.

The trap-bath split: in Southern England /æ/ inconsistently becomes /ɑː/ before /s, f, θ/ and /n/ or /m/ followed by another consonant.

The long vowels /eː oː/ from the Great Vowel Shift become diphthongs /eɪ oʊ/ in many varieties of English, though not in Scottish and Northern England English.

Reduction of /hw/ to /w/ results in the in most varieties of English, aside from Scottish, Irish, Southern American, and New England English.

In American and Canadian English, and to some degree in Australian and New Zealand English, /t, d/ are flapped or voiced to [ɾ] between vowels.

Generally, between vowels or the syllabic consonants [ɹ̩, l̩, m̩], when the following syllable is completely unstressed: butter, bottle, bottom [ˈbʌɾɹ̩ ˈbɑːɾl̩ ˈbɑːɾm̩].

But /t/ before syllabic [n̩] is pronounced as a glottal stop, so cotton [ˈkɑːʔn̩].

Happy-tensing (the term is from Wells 1982): final lax [ɪ] becomes tense [i] in words like happY. Absent from some dialects.

: merger between the diphthongs /aɪ/ and /ɔɪ/ in some accents of Southern England English, Hiberno-English, Newfoundland English, and Caribbean English.

H-dropping begins in England and Welsh English, but this does not affect the upper-class southern accent that developed into Received Pronunciation, nor does it affect the far north of England or East Anglia.

Some of these changes are in progress.

Restoration of post-vocalic /r/ in some non-rhotic accents of Southern American English

Changes to the low front vowel /æ/

Lock-loch merger: the replacement of [x] with [k] among some younger Scottish English speakers from Glasgow Annexe 4: Linguistic Variables, Department of Language and Linguistics | University of Essex.

: the raising of /ɛ/ to /ɪ/ before nasal consonants in Southern American English and southwestern varieties of Hiberno-English.

Fronting of back vowels:

In many varieties of English, /uː/ is fronted to [u̟], [ʉː], or [ɵu̯]
Resistance occurs in Northern American English and New York City English.

In British English and some American English, /oʊ/ is fronted to [ɵʊ], [əʊ], or [ɛʊ]

T-glottalization becomes increasingly widespread in Great Britain.

Various treatments of the th sounds, the dental fricatives /θ, ð/:

L-vocalization: [l] changes to an approximant or vowel, such as [w], [o] or [ʊ]. This occurs in Estuary English and other dialects.

Yod-dropping: loss of /j/ in some consonant clusters. Though it occurs in some environments in many British English dialects, it is most extensive in American and (in younger speakers) Canadian English.

Northern Cities Vowel Shift in Inland Northern American English:

The following table shows a possible sequence of changes for some basic vocabulary items, leading from Proto-Indo-European (PIE) to Modern English. The notation ">!" indicates an unexpected change, whereas the simple notation ">" indicates an expected change. An empty cell means no change at the given stage for the given item. Only sound changes that had an effect on one or more of the vocabulary items are shown.

NOTE: Some of the changes listed above as "unexpected" are more predictable than others. For example:

Some changes are morphological ones that move a word from a rare declension to a more common one, and hence are not so surprising: e.g. * "three" >! * (adding the common West Germanic feminine ending -u) and * "heart" (stem *) >! * (change from consonant stem to n-stem).

Some changes are assimilations that are unexpected but of a cross-linguistically common type, e.g. "four" >! where ** would be expected by normal sound change. Assimilations involving adjacent numbers are especially common, e.g. * "four" >! * by assimilation to * "five" (in addition, /kʷ/ > /p/ is a cross-linguistically common sound change in general).

On the other extreme, the Early Modern English change of "one" >! is almost completely mysterious. Note that the related words alone ( < all + one) and only ( < one + -ly) did not change.

Monophthongs

This table describes the main historical developments of English vowels in the last 1000 years, beginning with late Old English and focusing on the Middle English and Modern English changes leading to the current forms. It provides a lot of detail about the changes taking place in the last 600 years (since Middle English), while omitting any detail in the Old English and earlier periods. For more detail about the changes in the first millennium AD, see the section on the development of Old English vowels.

This table omits the history of Middle English diphthongs; see that link for a table summarizing the developments.

The table is organized around the pronunciation of Late Middle English c. 1400 AD (the time of Chaucer) and the modern spelling system, which dates from the same time and closely approximates the pronunciation of the time. (Modern English spelling originates in the spelling conventions of Middle English scribes and its modern form was largely determined by William Caxton, the first English printer (beginning in 1476).

As an example, the vowel spelled ⟨a⟩ corresponds to two Middle English pronunciations: /a/ in most circumstances, but long /aː/ in an open syllable, i.e. followed by a single consonant and then a vowel, notated aCV in the spelling column. (This discussion ignores the effect of trisyllabic laxing.) The lengthened variant is due to the Early Middle English process of open-syllable lengthening; this is indicated by (leng.). Prior to that time, both vowels were pronounced the same, as a short vowel /a/; this is reflected by the fact that there is a single merged field corresponding to both Middle English sounds in the Late Old English column (the first column). However, this earlier Middle English vowel /a/ is itself the merger of a number of different Anglian Old English sounds:

1. the short vowels indicated in Old English spelling as ⟨a⟩, ⟨æ⟩ and ⟨ea⟩;

2. the long equivalents ⟨ā⟩, ⟨ēa⟩, and often ⟨ǣ⟩ when directly followed by two or more consonants (indicated by ā+CC, ǣ+CC, etc.);

3. occasionally, the long vowel ⟨ē⟩ when directly followed by two consonants, particularly when this vowel corresponded to West Saxon Old English ⟨ǣ⟩. (Middle English, and hence Modern English, largely derives from the Anglian dialect of Old English, but some words are derived from the West Saxon dialect of Old English, because the border between the two dialects ran through the London area. The West Saxon dialect, not the Anglian dialect, is the "standard" dialect described in typical reference works on Old English.)

Moving forward in time, the two Middle English vowels /a/ and /aː/ correspond directly to the two vowels /a/ and /ɛː/, respectively, in the Early Modern English of c. 1600 AD (the time of Shakespeare). However, each vowel has split into a number of different pronunciations in Modern English, depending on the phonological context. The short /a/, for example, has split into seven different vowels, all still spelled ⟨a⟩ but pronounced differently:

1. /æ/ when not in any of the contexts indicated below, as in man, sack, wax, etc.

2. A vowel pronounced /ɑː/ in General American (GA) and /ɒ/ in Received Pronunciation (RP) when preceded by /w/ and not followed by the velar consonants /k/, /ɡ/ or /ŋ/, as in swan, wash, wallow, etc. (General American is the standard pronunciation in the U.S. and Received Pronunciation is the most prestigious pronunciation in Britain. In both cases, these are the pronunciations typically found in news broadcasts and among the middle and upper classes.)

3. /ɑːr/ (GA) or /ɑː/ (RP) when followed by a written ⟨r⟩, as in hard, car, etc. (This does not include words like care, where the ⟨a⟩ was pronounced as long /aː/ in Middle English.)

4. But /ɔːr/ (GA) or /ɔː/ (RP) when both preceded by /w/ and followed by written ⟨r⟩, as in war, swarm, etc.

5. /ɔː/ when followed by an /l/ plus either a consonant or the end of a word, as in small, walk, etc. (In the case of walk, talk, chalk, etc. the /l/ has dropped out, but this is not indicated here. Words like rally, shallow and swallow are not covered here because the /l/ is followed by a vowel; instead, earlier rules apply. Nor are words like male covered, which had long /aː/ in Middle English.)

6. /ɑː/ when followed by /lm/, as in palm, calm, etc. (The /l/ has dropped out in pronunciation.)

7. In RP only, the pronunciation /ɑː/ is often found when followed by an unvoiced fricative, i.e. /f/, /s/ or /θ/ (but not /ʃ/), as in glass, after, path, etc. This does not apply to GA and also unpredictably does not affect a number of words of the same form, e.g. crass, math, etc.

NOTE: In this table, abbreviations are used as follows:

Diphthongs

This table describes the main developments of Middle English diphthongs, starting with the Old English sound sequences that produced them (sequences of vowels and g, h or ƿ) and ending with their Modern English equivalents. Many special cases have been ignored.

Note: V means "any vowel"; C means "any consonant"; # means "end of word".

This table describes the main changes from Late Proto-Indo-European and Proto-Germanic up through Old English, Middle English and Modern English. It focuses on the Old English and Middle English changes leading to the modern forms. Other tables are also available to cover specific areas in more detail:

This table only describes the changes in accented syllables. Vowel changes in unaccented syllables were very different and much more extensive. In general:

1. In Old English, long vowels were reduced to short vowels (and sometimes deleted entirely) and short vowels were very often deleted. All remaining vowels were reduced to only the vowels /u/, /a/ and /e/, and sometimes /o/. (/o/ also sometimes appears as a variant of unstressed /u/.)

2. In Middle English, almost all unstressed vowels were reduced to /ə/; then, final /ə/ was dropped. The main exception is Old English -iġ, which becomes Modern English -y.

3. Unstressed vowels in Modern English other than those spelled <e> are due either to compounds or to borrowed words (especially from Latin and Old French).

NOTE: The Old English words in this table are given in their Anglian form, since this is the form that underlies Modern English. However, standard Old English was based on the West Saxon dialect, and when the two dialects differ, the West Saxon form is indicated with a WS in parentheses following the Anglian form.

NOTE: In this table, abbreviations are used as follows:

¹" Pre-Germanic" in this context refers to a post- PIE language that maintains PIE phonology but with morphological adjustments made as necessary to account for the Proto-Germanic form. Reconstructions are only given for solidly reconstructible Proto-Indo-European roots.

¹A + separates the sounds that produced the Proto-Germanic vowels in question from the sounds that formed the conditioning environment. The notation means a sequence of zero or more consonants.

² I-umlaut refers to a sound change that took place around 500 AD with pervasive effects on English vowels. Specifically, vowels were fronted or raised whenever an /i/ or /j/ followed in the next syllable. Nearly every vowel was affected. Affected vocabulary is shown in a different color.

³PIE n̥ and n̥H became Proto-Germanic un; similarly for m̥, l̥ and r̥. K refers to either of the PIE sounds ḱ or k, which fell together in Proto-Germanic and the other Centum languages; or to any of the nine PIE velars when followed directly by a voiceless consonant (especially t). H refers to any laryngeal sound. The ogonek (e.g. ą, ǭ) indicates a nasal vowel. Long vowels are noted with a macron (e.g. ē, ō). Extralong vowels are noted with a circumflex (e.g. ô).

⁴The origins of Proto-Germanic ē are somewhat in dispute.

Baker, Peter S. (2007), Introduction to Old English (2nd ed.), Oxford: Blackwell, ISBN 978-1-4051-5272-3 .

Beowulf, translation by Francis Barton Gummere, Project Gutenberg, archived from the original on 2005-09-29.

Campbell, A. (1959), Old English Grammar, Oxford: Oxford University Press, ISBN 0-19-811943-7 .

Cercignani, Fausto (1983), "The Development of */k/ and */sk/ in Old English", Journal of English and Germanic Philology, 82 (3): 313-323.

Cercignani, Fausto (1981), Shakespeare's Works and Elizabethan Pronunciation, Oxford: Clarendon Press.

Dobson, E.J. (1968), English pronunciation, 1500-1700, 2, Oxford: Clarendon Press, OCLC 310545793.

Lass, Roger (1994), Old English: A historical linguistic companion, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, ISBN 0-521-43087-9 .

Mitchell, Bruce; Robinson, Fred C. (2001), A Guide to Old English (6th ed.), Oxford: Blackwell, ISBN 0-631-22636-2 .

Plotkin, Vulf (1972), The Dynamics of the English Phonological System, The Hague: Mouton.

Trudgill, Peter (2002), The Dialects of England, Oxford: Blackwell.

Wells, John C. (1982), Accents of English, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, ISBN 0-521-22919-7, (vol. 1). ISBN 0-521-24224-X (vol. 2)., ISBN 0-521-24225-8 (vol. 3).

Labov, William; Ash, Sharon; Boberg, Charles (2006), The Atlas of North American English, Berlin: Mouton-de Gruyter, ISBN 3-11-016746-8

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The phonological history of English describes the changing phonology of the English language over time, starting from its roots in proto-Germanic to diverse changes in different dialects of modern English. In the following description, abbreviations are used as follows: This section summarizes the changes occurring within distinct time periods, covering the last 2,000 years or so.

# data[].attributes.body
Para los anglohablantes, la existencia de las oraciones yuxtapuestas parece raro. En ingles, el acto de combinar dos clausulas independientes sin una conjunción sino una coma es se considera un error llamado un “empalme de coma”, pero su validez en español está más contestada. Los detalles de esta controversia son resumidos en este artículo.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
In fact, Spanish-speaking learners of English are notorious for their so-called 'run-on' sentences, most notably the inappropriate use of a comma to join independent clauses without a conjunction (and, but, although, etc.); this is known as a comma splice .

In English, a comma splice is generally considered a blatant mistake, and several alternatives are offered to correct it:

-Es mi decisión, no voy a discutir [Two independent clauses connected by a comma; very common]
-It's my decision, I'm not going to argue. [Comma splice] -It's my decision. I'm not going to argue. [Full stop] -It's my decision; I'm not going to argue. [Semi-colon] -It's my decision -I'm not going to argue. [Em-dash] -It's my decision, and/but/so I'm not going to argue. [Coordinating conjunction] -Since it's my decision, I'm not going to argue. [Subordinating conjunction]

In Spanish, this kind of construction is generally referred to as 'oraciones yuxtapuestas', and it seems to be somewhat of a grey area: some resources suggest that these are only possible when used in a distributive sense, e.g. ' Unos están fríos, otros están calientes'; yet, in practice, use is widespread and generally accepted in informal writing.

"Se separan por comas las oraciones yuxtapuestas de sentido distributivo: 'Unos se ganaban la vida cazando, otros pescando, los más cultivando los campos'; también las expresiones correlativas que reproducen un mismo esquema gramatical, propias de dichos populares o fórmulas fijas: 'Hecha la ley, hecha la trampa'; 'Ojo por ojo, diente por diente'". DPD

Wikilengua, normally a reliable source, claims that this use of the comma ( la coma de yuxtaposición) is incorrect, except in certain cases; however, they have based their conclusion on the comma splice, which, as mentioned, is tolerated far less in English.

"Es uno de los errores más habituales hoy en la puntuación, junto con la supresión de la coma en casos donde es necesaria. No obstante, su uso es válido: -en literatura como recurso estilístico (Caía la noche, llegaba el silencio)
-para unir oraciones yuxtapuestas de sentido distributivo
-en las expresiones correlativas características de los dichos populares o las fórmulas fijas (Hecha la ley, hecha la trampa)
-para reproducir la lengua hablada

the comma when not used in ' Ejemplode.com is another source that condemns sentido distributivo'.

"La coma se utiliza para unir oraciones yuxtapuestas que tienen un sentido distributivo; de lo contrario, sería un error de redacción unir oraciones por medio de comas, como, por ejemplo es erróneo escribir 'Luisa llamó a su padre, él no le contestó'. -'Unos están fríos, otros están calientes'
-'Unos dijeron la verdad, otros dijeron mentiras'".

The following examples from the Wordreference entry for the verb ' callar' illustrate how the Spanish sentences tend to run on, while the English translation favours the full stop/period. In shorter sentences expressing spoken English, however, sometimes you will see the comma splice in the English translation -as seen in the Collins entry for " callar".

"De repente se callaron los cantos de los pájaros, su silencio presagiaba una tormenta. "David siempre calla y escucha, no le gusta acaparar la conversación. - David is always silent (or: always keeps silent). He doesn't like to monopolize the conversation." "¡calla, que no puedo oír la radio! - be o keep quiet, I can't hear the radio!" [Comma-splice] Wordreference/Collins
- Suddenly, the bird songs fell silent. Their silence presaged a storm."

Fundéu, when consulted, suggested a semi-colon ( punto y coma) would be "preferable" in the following examples, yet in practice, use of a semi-colon would seem stilted to many Spanish speakers.

-"Cuéntale la verdad, te quedarás más tranquila" -"Tienes razón, te haremos caso" -"En realidad, no había ninguna relación de causalidad entre las medidas del gobierno y los cambios en los indicadores, todo era al azar"

In conclusion, the use of the comma to link two independent clauses is widespread, especially in informal written Spanish and when expressing dialogues and other spoken communication.

However, having read novels written by several renowned Spanish authors, including Arturo Pérez-Reverte and Javier Marías, my impression is that the use of oraciones yuxtapuestas in literature is minimal, except in the cases mentioned above, i.e. expressing spoken Spanish or internal dialogue, in a distributive sense, and in certain fixed expressions.

In Español-Avanzado Articles

˜
-comma splice in Spanish - oraciones yuxtapuestas-

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
comma splice in Spanish - oraciones yuxtapuestas

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
In fact, Spanish-speaking learners of English are notorious for their so-called 'run-on' sentences, most notably the inappropriate use of a comma to join independent clauses without a conjunction (and, but, although, etc.); this is known as a comma splice .

# data[].attributes.body
Para los anglohablantes como yo, hay mucho confusión sobre el uso de “se”, y especialmente sobre la diferencia entre el se impersonal y el se pasivo. Este mensaje explica un poco la diferencia entre los dos casos. Además tiene un enlace al fallo de la Real Academia Española sobre los usos de “se”, si quieras la opinión oficial.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Impersonal "se" and work almost the same way, except for what you have already mentioned. So yes, your summary is perfectly correct. The difference between both is that the direct object of the active voice sentence becomes the subject in passive "se" sentences, while impersonal "se" sentences don't have a subject because, as you correctly assume, the active version contains an intransitive verb (and in Spanish, unlike English, only direct objects can be the subject of a passive sentence).

Consider:

Aquí la gente habla español. Subject = la gente; verb = habla; direct object = español.

Aquí se habla español. Subject = español; verb = (se) habla, where "se" is a reflex passive marker or "marca de pasiva refleja".

You can tell "español" is the subject because the verb "habla" must agree with it. If you change it with a plural Noun Phrase, you have to pluralize the verb too:

Aquí se hablan varios idiomas. Subject = varios idiomas; verb = (se) hablan, where "se" is a reflex passive marker or "marca de pasiva refleja".

In impersonal "se" sentences, the verb can never be pluralized. Compare:

En el avión la gente no fuma. Subject = la gente; verb = fuma; there is no direct object

En el avión no se fuma. Subject = there's no subject; verb = (se) fuma, where "se" is an impersonal sentence marker or "marca de impersonal"

Since there's no direct object in the active sentence to start with, there's no subject in the passive one. You can easily tell one from the other by looking at the verb. If it is transitive and there's something that looks like an object, that's probably the subject, and you have to conjugate the verb accordingly (passive sentence). If the verb is intransitive, then it must always be in singular (impersonal sentence).

An exception to this rule is when the direct object is a person and is introduced by "a". From the RAE:

Si el elemento nominal expresa persona y no va precedido de la preposición a, se emplea también la construcción de pasiva refleja:

Se buscan actores para la película.
Se contratarán nuevos trabajadores para el proyecto.
Se necesitan especialistas en informática.

Si el elemento nominal expresa persona y va precedido de la preposición a, debe emplearse la construcción impersonal; por tanto, el verbo irá en singular aunque el elemento nominal sea plural:

Entre los gitanos se respeta mucho a los ancianos.
Se entrevistó a los candidatos para el puesto.
Se busca a quienes presenciaron lo ocurrido.

In SpanishDict, all the sentences below are said to be impersonal:

Se habla español en Uruguay. (They speak Spanish in Uruguay.)

¿Cómo se va al teatro? (How does one get to the theater?)

Se escribe "pastel" p-a-s-t-e-l. (You spell "pastel" p-a-s-t-e-l.)

¿Cómo se dice "table" en español? (How do you say "table" in Spanish?)

Se dice que va a llover (They say it is going to rain.)

You can tell some of them aren't actually impersonal by changing the Noun Phrase. Consider

Se hablan varios idiomas en Uruguay. (They speak several languages in Uruguay.)

¿Cómo se va al teatro? (How does one get to the theater?)

Se escribe "pastel" p-a-s-t-e-l. (You spell "pastel" p-a-s-t-e-l.)

¿Cómo se dicen estas palabras en español? (How do you say these words in Spanish?)

Se dicen muchas cosas (They say a lot of things.)

As you can see, the verbs in the first, fourth and fifth sentences changed so they would agree with the subject (the italicized parts), so they aren't actually impersonal but reflex passive sentences. The second one is impersonal because "ir" is intransitive, and the third one is tricky. I would call "pastel" p-a-s-t-e-l a complemento circunstancial de modo, or maybe a complemento predicativo, but not a subject. Had the same sentence been worded as "Pastel" se escribe p-a-s-t-e-l, then it would have been more evident that Pastel is the subject, and the sentence could have been classified as a reflex passive sentence as well.

What is curious about that page is that practically the same sentence ("Se habla español aquí" and "Se habla español en Uruguay") is classified first as an impersonal sentence and then as a passive one. Maybe it was just a slip. The rest of the information from the same page is correct.

For a more detailed explanation of the uses of "se", check out this entry on the RAE (only in Spanish).

Edit: I just checked out the other two sources you mention. Wyzant got it right except for when they say "The pronoun "lo", "la", "los" or "las" may replace the direct object. Example: "Aquí se lo habla" (el Español)". That's utterly wrong. Under no circumstance can a passive sentence take a direct object; what they call direct object is actually the subject, and of course "aquí se lo habla" is nonsense. SpanishGrammarGenius is both concise and correct.

A key concept here is that just because a verb can take a direct object it doesn't mean it's working transitively, so to speak. A good example is given in the first page:

"En Colombia se baila mucho la Cumbia." Since "la Cumbia" is a direct object of the verb "bailar", this sentence is in the passive voice.

"En Colombia se baila mucho." Since there is no direct object for the verb "bailar", the sentence is an impersonal one.

The fact you decide to call the first sentence impersonal or passive is unimportant: if the only difference is verb agreement, which only makes a difference when the subject is plural, and the subject is absent when the verb is working intransitively, whatever you decide to call it won't have any implications, neither grammatically nor pragmatically.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Differences between "passive se" and "impersonal se"

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Impersonal "se" and work almost the same way, except for what you have already mentioned. So yes, your summary is perfectly correct.

# data[].attributes.body
El libro describe un fenómeno que se llama “la escalada clítica”. Este concepto me confunde, y por consiguiente encontré un documento académico sobre el tema para confundirme más. El documento explica que es este fenómeno y da una teoría original para explicar por qué ocurre en unos casos y en otros no.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
1 Introduction

I investigate certain previously unnoticed facts in relation to Clitic-Climbing (CC) contexts in Spanish where the clitic cannot climb for morphophonological (i.e., P(honetic)F(orm)) reasons (including a prohibition against contiguous identical clitics; see the series of papers on Heggie & Ordóñez 2005), as in (1).

Based on such cases, I provide a new argument for Pronounce Lower Copy/Lower Copy Pronunciation, a mechanism available as part of Chomsky's (1995; 2013) Copy Theory of Movement. According to the Pronounce-Lower-Copy proposal, a violation (in this case, a violation of the restriction that bars certain clitic clusters, such as identical clitic forms in Spanish) can be circumvented by phonologically realizing a lower copy of a member of a movement chain (i.e., X(P) ... X(P)). Thus, I argue that the Pronounce Lower Copy strategy in cases like (1)b privileges the low copy of the clitic in PF in order to void the problem that would arise in the PF representation due to pronouncing the same two clitic forms adjacent to each other, as would be the case in (1)a. By contrast, no issue arises provided that the second clitic is lexicalized in its base position, as in (1)b. Therefore, Pronounce Lower Copy adds to the range of repair operations (which include salvaging strategies such as spurious se) saving derivations that would otherwise fail because of illicit clitic combinations (e.g., sequences of adjacent homophonous clitics: * se se, although I show that violations caused by other impossible clitic clusters are circumvented via Pronounce Lower Copy as well). The proposal has important theoretical consequences and yields a variety of welcome results, such as avoiding the need to incur a severe 'look-ahead' problem that would arise under the alternative analysis wherein CC does not occur in the syntax in cases like (1) because a later PF requirement would prevent certain clitic combinations. As Bobaljik (2002: 198) puts it, "operations in one component cannot 'look ahead' to be decided by factors at a subsequent stage." The approach to be defended here has the additional virtue of allowing PF to alter word order without assuming PF movement. I also look at cases beyond homophonous clitics and at potential extensions to other Romance varieties.

The paper is organized as follows: in Section 2 a brief review of (non-)clitic climbing and the major formal accounts of the phenomenon are presented, including the principal data point discussed here; in Section 3, the ingredients of the analysis pursued in this paper are laid out; in Section 4, the analysis is applied to CC environments such as (1) and to additional contexts; Section 5 concludes the paper.

2 Clitic climbing

A prototypical case of clitic climbing is furnished in (2), which features the modal verb deber 'must.' In CC, a clitic that is generated as an object of the lowest predicate appears as a proclitic of the highest verb. As shown by the English paraphrase, the two contrasting sentences are equivalent in meaning. The literature on CC has by and large failed to find any interpretive differences between (2)a and (2)b, suggesting that CC with modals like deber 'must' is optional. I turn to non-CC cases below.

This phenomenon has attracted much attention in the Romance literature for more than four decades. From a theoretical viewpoint, two major analyses have been pursued which assume movement -climbing- of the clitic.

On the one hand, Rizzi (1976; 1982), Wurmbrand (2001), and Cinque (2004) champion the one-clause or restructuring view wherein the predicates involved ( deber + llamar in (2)b, for example) form a combined, complex predicate or periphrasis (i.e., the infinitive and the inflected modal are reanalyzed as a unique head). Hence, the relevant cases are monoclausal (no intermediate CP occurs between the predicates). CC is therefore interpreted as an instantiation of the transparency effects stemming from clause union (see Section 4).

On the other hand, the view established by Kayne (1975; 1989) is that CC involves two clauses (i.e., biclausality), with a CP being projected in between the two verbs. As Ordóñez (2013) points out, independently of which of the two analyses turns out to be correct, their common denominator is that clitic movement instantiates head movement (though seeMatushansky 2006: 84 for the claim that clitics move as maximal (XP) projections but adjoin as heads (Xº)).

2.1 Non-clitic climbing contexts

Clitic climbing does not always exhibit the type of free variation illustrated in (2). In what follows, I will make reference to various contexts in which CC is impeded, and finish this subsection by concentrating on the main data point of this squib.

First, it is well known that there is a great deal of dialectal variation with regard to the phenomenon in question. In the Romance languages spoken in the North of Italy, for instance, clitic climbing is generally banned, in contrast to what happens in the South. Hence, while the (standard) Italian spoken in Northern Italy favors non-clitic climbing, the Italian spoken in the South typically opts for clitic climbing instead (see, among others, Kayne 1992; 2013 for empirical evidence). For Spanish, RAE-ASALE (2009: 1235) notes that clitic climbing is more robust in speech and in informal registers (on the issue of variation, seeCinque 2006 and Sitaridou et al. 2015).

Leaving aside variation for the time being, it is also the case that certain intervening elements, such as adverbs, complementizers, negation, and most prepositions, tend to block climbing (see Ordóñez 2013 and Gallego 2016 for evidence; see RAE-ASALE 2009: 1239 for exceptions). One illustrative example is the well-known contrast in (3), which includes the verb querer 'want' plus an infinitive -a quintessential CC environment. Here, the presence of the negation between the inflected verb and the infinitive causes the clitic lo to stay low.

This type of evidence has been brought to bear on different issues, depending on the theoretical perspective adopted. On the one hand, for those advocating that clitic climbing is the result of restructuring in a clause-union environment, the presence of the negation would disrupt the necessary relationship between the inflected verb and the infinitive, thus breaking the verbal complex characteristic of monoclausal sentences and, in turn, disallowing transparency effects such as clitic climbing. Alternatively, for those who assume biclausality in cases like (3), the presence of no impedes movement of the clitic to the inflectional head Tº. Thus, such data have been taken to be an argument in favor of the movement analysis of clitics, as they display sensitivity to locality constraints on movement.

Similarly, with certain predicates, such as causatives, clitic climbing in Spanish is subject to a poorly understood but well-documented animacy restriction, due to which animate clitics cannot appear with the high verb (Fernández-Soriano 1999; 2016; RAE-ASALE 2009; Ordóñez 2013). This is exemplified in (4)a, where the low clitic is an animate (more specifically, [+human]) direct object. This example stands in glaring contrast to (4)b, with an inanimate/[-human] one. Note that the dative clitic is an argument of the higher predicate and therefore does not originate within the lower VP, and that the non-CC versions of both sentences are perfectly acceptable (i.e., Te hizo invitarlo/comprarlo).

Lastly, the novel case that this squib is concerned with, exemplified in (1) and illustrated again by the examples in (5), is particularly interesting because contrary to what happens in (4), it displays no animacy restriction. This is straightforwardly corroborated by (6)a, where the CCed direct object clitic lo is coreferential with a preverbal [+human] direct object. Thus, although a problem clearly arises in (5)a, the issue cannot be animacy, unlike in (4)a.

The periphrastic case of quedarse + -ing verb is considered by RAE-ASALE (2009: 2211) to be a semi-lexicalized construction, since quedarse in this context strongly tends to co-occur with the -ing verbal forms mirando 'looking' and viendo 'seeing.' The configuration is said to be frequent in areas such as Mexico, Central America, and the Caribbean, especially with the accusative forms le/les (see below), although it is also found in other parts of the Spanish-speaking world, such as Spain.

In the next section I introduce in some detail the ingredients necessary for the analysis of the contrasting examples in (5)a and (5)b to be pursued here.

3 The Copy Theory of Movement

One of the hallmarks of the transformational generative paradigm is the assumption that a syntactic derivation involves movement operations -transformations. For instance, in a sentence where the time of the event is questioned, this constituent is expressed by means of a wh-item (typically when) which appears at the beginning of the sentence via the displacement property, also known as movement (or internal merge/re-merge, as inChomsky 2001 et seq.). In early conceptions of the generative paradigm, operations moving constituents were assumed to leave a t(race) generated by movement in the base position, as in (7).

With the advent of the Minimalist Program for Linguistic Theory (Chomsky 1995 et seq.), Trace Theory was replaced by the Copy Theory of Movement (CTM), primarily for empirical reasons (see, e.g.,Bošković & Nunes 2007). According to this proposal, movement is a composite operation that involves copying and deleting, as in (8).

The different copies create a non-trivial chain, that is, a chain that is formed by movement. The head of the chain is the highest element and its tail is the element in the base position.

A question which immediately arises in the wake of our brief outline of the CTM proposal is why it is the highest copy of a movement chain that tends to get overtly realized. The following quotation by Bošković (2001: 125) provides a natural answer to this question:

Why is there a preference for pronouncing heads of chains? We can think of this as phonology trying to be "faithful" to syntax by reflecting syntactic movement whenever it can. In slightly different terms, the system is trying to provide evidence for (overt) syntactic movement. An obvious way of doing this for phonologically overt elements is to pronounce them in the moved position.

Put another way, movement must in principle be detectable (see also Trinh 2001). Accordingly, Nunes (2004) and Roberts (2010) make the related claim that not all copies can be deleted, given the principle of recoverability of deletion.

Crucially, however, there are cases in which the highest copy is not PF-realized, as will be shown in relation to Romanian multiple-wh-fronting in the following subsection.

3.1 Pronounce Lower Copy/Lower Copy Pronunciation

Despite the general preference to privilege the highest copy created by movement in PF, a sizeable body of research has shown that on occasion, a non-high copy in a movement chain has to be pronounced in order for the derivation to be convergent. In other words, there are cases when phonologically realizing the leftmost copy causes a problem in PF; nonetheless, this issue can be sidestepped by favoring a different, lower copy (i.e., by pronouncing the element in question in a different position), while keeping movement in the (narrow) syntax.

A number of works have offered a host of empirical arguments from different constructions and from different languages to this effect, including cases of A-movement, A-bar movement, head movement, and remnant movement (e.g., Bobaljik 1994; 2002; Pesetsky 1997;Franks 1998; Bošković 2001 et seq.; Nunes 2004; 2011; Reglero 2004; Bošković & Nunes 2007; Kandybowicz 2008; Saab 2008; Villa-García 2013; 2015;in press; see also the collection of papers inCorver & Nunes 2007). The operation in question has been dubbed Pronounce Lower Copy (PLC) or Lower Copy Pronunciation (LCP). The strong version of PLC (Franks 1998) would have it that a low copy in a movement chain can only be pronounced if convergence so demands (i.e., if pronouncing the head of the chain causes a problem). Thus, the requirement to realize the highest copy of a non-trivial chain can be overridden iff the derivation fails in the event that the PF realization of the highest copy takes place. On this view, PLC is a last-resort operation effected to save a derivation that would otherwise crash.

One of the most compelling arguments for PLC comes from the behavior of wh-phrases in Romanian, a multiple-wh-fronting language (Bošković 2001; 2002; Bošković & Nunes 2007). In questions involving more than one question word, all the wh-phrases are normally fronted to the preverbal field. This is shown by (9).

By the same token, if the requirement that all wh-phrases in multiple-wh-questions be fronted in this language holds, one would expect all of the wh-phrases in a question to appear at the beginning. For instance, if we replace cine 'who' for ce 'what' to form the Romanian equivalent of What precedes what?, we would in principle obtain (10).

Nevertheless, in contrast to (9), the question in (10) is unacceptable for most native speakers, as it creates an issue vis-à-vis phonologically identical forms, which are barred (* ce ce). Can the meaning of (10) be expressed at all in Romanian? In other words, how does the system avoid the problem induced by (10)? Bošković (2002) shows that in cases like this, the object wh-phrase, ce, must appear postverbally. Put differently, ce seems to stay postverbally in a low position (i.e., as if it had not undergone movement to the preverbal field). This is indicated by (11), which is the grammatical counterpart of (10).

There are in principle two options for the derivation of (11). One is to assume that the relevant wh-constituent does not move to the left of the clause, despite evidence that wh-phrases ordinarily front in Romanian, as shown by (9) above:

In contrast, the reason for the putative absence of movement in this case seems to be morphophonological in nature, as has been noted, which begs the question of why the syntax would care about factors that pertain to PF. The analysis in (12), simplified by only showing the derivation of the constituents that are directly relevant to our discussion, would suffer from an acute 'look-ahead' problem, as ce ₂ would not move so as to avoid a problem arising only once the derivation reaches PF.

Following Bošković's (2001) lead, the other derivational possibility is to assume instead that syntactic movement in (11) actually takes place, in compliance with the requirement that all wh-phrases move in Romanian, as in (10)/(13). Critically, however, a problem ensues in the PF component if the highest copies of the moved wh-phrases are pronounced together (cf. (10)), as represented schematically in (14).

Instead, this is one instance in which the system can -and in fact must- choose a low copy of a moved element in order to bypass a violation. This PLC-based analysis is shown in (15), which illustrates the simplified derivation of (11).

Therefore, (11) is an illustration of the intricate interaction between syntax and morphophonology, with a PF requirement taking precedence over a syntactic one. Contra the previously outlined account (cf. (12)), the PLC analysis solves the issue posed by (10) without making changes to the syntax of multiple-wh questions, without appealing to PF movement, and importantly without incurring a rather theoretically unappealing 'look-ahead' problem. As a result, the PLC alternative in (15) is preferable to the account in (12).

With special reference to Spanish and other Romance languages, Villa-García (2013; 2015) has extended this type of analysis to account for the notorious contrast in (16)a and (16)c, assuming that subjects are also amenable to a CTM account (Stjepanović 1999;Ortega-Santos 2006; Boeckx & Gallego 2008).

On this view, pronouncing a high copy of the subject, as in (16)b, would lead to an ill-formed outcome in PF (Zubizarreta 2012 actually attributes the ungrammaticality of (16)a to phonological reasons). This problem vanishes if a low copy of the subject is PF-privileged, as in (16)d, which is the derivation of the grammatical counterpart of (16)a, given in (16)c.

In the next section, I argue that the novel facts presented in this squib regarding CC constitute further evidence for the CTM, and in particular for PLC.

4 Clitic climbing restrictions in Spanish: A novel argument for Pronounce Lower Copy

Returning to the basic CC contrast in (5), repeated here in (17), one may be tempted to conclude that the sole culprit of the ungrammaticality of (17)a is the presence of two phonologically identical forms (i.e., *me me).

However, as (18) shows, the issue seems to be morphophonological -not just phonological- in nature, as other clusters like * me te are also excluded.

As is well known, for instance, * me te is not a licit clitic cluster in Spanish (Fernández-Soriano 1999; 2016; RAE-ASALE 2009; Ordóñez 2012;2013; 2015; Ormazabal & Romero 2015, and references therein). The data also point to the conclusion that what matters is adjacency, not factors such as non-interpretability of co-occurring forms, for instance, as the counterpart of (18)a where me and te are apart from one another is a perfect outcome (cf. (18)b; see also (17)b).

4.1 Moving clitics

A first assumption that seems natural and well justified on independent grounds is that Romance CC involves movement of at least one clitic from its base position in the VP (i.e., its canonical postverbal object position) to the TP domain (Kayne 1975; 1989; Roberts 2010, inter alia. Ordóñez 2013 offers various arguments militating in favor of the movement of clitics with particular reference to Spanish clitic climbing; see also Boeckx & Gallego 2007 andGallego 2016). In this connection, Spanish provides direct evidence that there are various positions for the clitic in CC environments, for the same clitic can occur concurrently in different positions in some speakers' colloquial speech, as well as in varieties such as Chilean Spanish (RAE-ASALE 2009: 1234; Mann 2012; González-Urzúa 2016). This is illustrated in (19); (19)b is of particular interest, since it involves the pattern investigated here:

The standard assumption is that clitics that appear in proclitic positions with inflected verbs are heads that incorporate (or head adjoin) to the left of the host (Roberts 2010, inter alia). A run-of-the-mill case of proclisis would be analyzed as follows, where I take Spanish-style V-to-T movement for granted (see, e.g.,Ordóñez 2015). Note that the analysis applies to both regular proclitics and CC proclitics:

For the particular CC case this paper is concerned with, which involves the pronominal verb quedarse plus an -ing form of the lower verb, recall that the highest/leftmost clitic (CL ₁) is part of the high verb and therefore does not undergo CC, and the second or low clitic (CL ₂) is initially merged/construed with the lowest predicate.

4.2 Obligatory CC in restructuring contexts and non-CC environments: PLC

It goes without saying that one of the main conundrums that the literature on cliticization phenomena has faced is how to explain the (apparent) optionality of CC in cases like (2). An authoritative line of research which began with the seminal work of Rizzi (1982) contends that CC is the result of a complex-predicate-formation operation that effectively creates a single clause (cf. monoclausality) (see Section 2). This process is generally referred to in the literature as restructuring (see, e.g.,Wurmbrand & Lohninger 2019). Given that clitic placement is clause-bound, the fact that CC can occur across two predicates indicates that the two verbs occur in a restructured/monoclausal environment. Under this analysis, CC is obligatory because restructuring has occurred, as shown abstractly in (21). As noted above, clitics move to functional projections in the TP layer (presumably for feature-checking purposes, as inRizzi 2000 and Roberts 2010, inter alia, though the actual motivation for clitic movement remains a topic of intensive research, as discussed byGallego 2016, among many others). If the two verbal predicates in (21) form a unique complex predicate under clause union/monoclausality, it follows that the clitic will climb to the inflectional domain.

On this view, in cases where the clitic does not climb, as in (2)a above and (23)b below, restructuring has not taken place, as schematized in (22).

Interestingly, although in the case at issue, which features the verb quedarse + an -ing verb, both the CC and the non-CC options seem to be readily available (cf. (23)), some speakers actually seem to favor the CC option. More specifically, two Spanish speakers, one from Valladolid and the other from Zamora, prefer the version with CC, exemplified in (23)a. (Note that in general they prefer the le version of the clitic (cf. leísmo), but speakers of other dialects tend to use lo). This strong preference for CC in the structure of interest also holds for a Venezuelan consultant, who also employs le.

But even if both (23)a and (23)b are available to most speakers, the underlying derivations of the two sentences are distinct, with only the restructuring analysis triggering climbing of the clitic (cf. (21)). The alternative order in which the clitic is low (i.e., in which CC has not occurred) is thus symptomatic that restructuring has not obtained (as claimed by the representation in (22)). In other words, in non-CC contexts, the two verbs remain independent from each other, hence preventing transparency effects like CC. This is substantiated by cases like the following, where the presence of an adverb disrupts the necessary adjacency between the two verbs for complex-predicate formation to occur. As a consequence, CC is impossible and the clitic associated with the lowest predicate mandatorily remains low and surfaces as an enclitic, in contrast to what happens in cases like (23), without the intervening adverbial.

Significantly, in the cases that this paper focuses on, illustrated again in (25) for convenience, there is no a priori reason to assume that restructuring does not occur, since no intervening material appears to break the relationship between quedarse and mirando (cf. (25)a vs. (24)a). Recall that in principle both the restructuring and the non-restructuring derivations are possible for most speakers, in light of (23) (cf. the derivations in (21) and (22)).

One plausible derivation here would be to simply assume a non-restructuring context in (25), as in (22). This would automatically yield the desired outcome, (25)b, which poses no problem at all, as the clitics would never be adjacent to one another under this readily available derivational option.

Let us now look at the more interesting case, however, under the reasonable assumption that the restructuring derivation is in principle freely available in (25), as in (21). Suppose for a moment that in (25), the accusative clitic needs to remain to the right of its predicate, as in (25)b, and that the reason is that in this case, restructuring is barred. This approach poses the question of what would prevent the restructuring derivation in (25). Clearly it would be far-fetched to claim that a morphophonological issue regarding the impossibility of certain clitic combinations such as * me me would impede complex-predicate formation, in particular because one would expect restructuring to occur before clitic combinations are assessed, arguably in the PF component; this account thus also faces a 'look-ahead' problem, in analogous fashion to the account of the Romanian facts sketched in (12). Moreover, it is not at all clear why illicit clitic combinations would have a bearing on whether predicates restructure or not. Therefore, deriving (25)b by stipulating that restructuring simply cannot take place in this specific case appears to be ad hoc and does not seem to be a promising account of the absence of CC in the data at hand, notwithstanding that in principle both the non-restructuring and restructuring derivations should be available.

Let us assume then that in theory the clitic is able to move up in the syntax in (25), at least as far as the available restructured context is concerned. The reason why some clitic combinations are not legitimate has been much debated in the literature, with accounts that range from Agree-based analyses to morphological approaches. Suppose then that the clitic needs to move for purposes of φ-feature satisfaction à la Roberts (2010). One approach would be to think that (i) this movement does occur, but then something happens which precludes the appearance of the clitic as a proclitic of the highest verb. An alternative would be to propose that (ii) the clitic does not move at all and stays low (i.e., it does not climb). Motivating (ii) is not obvious, since in principle the low clitic would move in order to satisfy its own features (seeBošković 2007). Furthermore, given that in such cases restructuring is in principle in place (i.e., there is no way to block clause-union syntactically), how to prevent transparency effects like clitic climbing is not apparent at all. Similarly, if it is PF that rules out certain clitic combinations, as seems reasonable, the familiar 'look-ahead' problem from the Romanian case in (10)/(12) would become ostensible here as well: "an apparently syntactic operation [i.e., CC] appears to be blocked just in case it would interfere with a post-syntactic operation" (Bobaljik 2002: 200; my addition in square brackets, JVG).

Thus, let us assume that in (25)b, movement of the low clitic does take place normally, as in (25)a (cf. (i)). As soon as the syntax does its job, the structure is sent to the interfaces. Once the structure reaches PF, the system assesses whether the output of syntactic operations adheres to the well-formedness conditions of the PF component. Because certain combinations of contiguous clitics such as * me me in (25)a and * me te in (18)a are ruled out in PF, then the only procedure that the system can resort to so as to rescue the derivation at this point is to privilege (i.e., pronounce) the low copy of the clitic. This is precisely why the clitic must occur low in (18) and (25). This derivation is illustrated in (26), with (26)a showing the particular case of (25)b and (26)b representing the simplified abstract derivation of the CTM/PLC system. (I deliberately ignore verb movement here to avoid visual clutter).

Recall that in this case restructuring is available, but it does not produce a legitimate output. In consequence, the derivation crashes in PF unless a salvaging strategy is employed, namely PLC. The Spanish non-CC examples in (1)b/(5)b/(18)b/(25)b are thus now cast as an environment where in principle CC is allowed to proceed syntactically, but crucially a low copy needs to be PF-favored in order to save a derivation, in much the same way as in the familiar Romanian case (cf. (11)/(15)). Incidentally, the copy that is privileged in PF is the same copy that is privileged in L(ogical)F(orm), as this is the clitic's base position as the object of the lowest predicate.

The CTM/PLC system offers a principled account of the contrast in (25) and has a number of added advantages, including the avoidance of a severe 'look-ahead' problem and the need to assume that the restructuring derivation is banned owing to putatively irrelevant (PF-related) illicit clitic clusters. The current analysis overcomes these issues and also dispenses with movement being effected in PF, the major theoretical significance of the CTM/PLC mechanism being that it enables PF to affect word order (by privileging a copy that is independently available) without having to invoke PF movement. In Section 4.4 I provide additional data from other Romance varieties in support of this approach. Before undertaking this task, however, I turn to the compatibility of the PLC system outlined here with alternative analyses of CC.

4.3 PLC and competing accounts of CC

It is important to bear in mind that the approach just sketched actually does not commit us to assuming a restructuring/clause-union account, and would in fact also be compatible with a biclausal analysis of CC à la Kayne (1975) (see also Ordóñez 2013, among others). Under this type of account, sentences where intervening material prevents the clitic from surfacing as a proclitic, as in (3)/(24), are not seen as cases where restructuring is blocked, but rather as regular structures involving two CPs where intervening material (e.g., negº no) may be a hindrance to movement operations. Accordingly, pronouncing the lowest copy of the clitic due to the presence of offending material (such as negation) would be an instantiation of the more general rescue-by-resumption approach. On this view, phonologically realizing a resumptive pronoun has an ameliorating effect with respect to locality-of-movement violations, which implies that locality is to a certain extent PF-related. Put another way, locality violations can be fixed by phonologically realizing a copy within the barrier/island as a resumptive pronoun. The availability of this rescuing strategy has been independently argued for by Shlonsky (1992), Pesetsky (1997), Bošković (2001; 2011), and Bošković & Nunes (2007). The approach is illustrated in (27), with the negation barring CC in cases like (3)a, whose grammatical counterpart requires the clitic to surface low (cf. (3)b).

In the particular configuration that this paper is concerned with, (26), where the issue is not triggered by a locality problem, the CTM/PLC approach would be applied in exactly the same way as under the monoclausal analysis outlined in the preceding subsection, with lower-copy pronunciation of the clitic saving a derivation that would crash on account of an ill-formed clitic cluster in PF.

4.4 Other cases amenable to PLC: Beyond Spanish

The construction consisting of quedarse + an -ing verb is not the only clitic-related pattern where a different copy of a moved clitic may be chosen for purposes of PF compliance. Other CC environments that can in principle be analyzed as involving PLC include perception verbs like those in (28).

Again, *la la clusters are ungrammatical, a problem that fades away if the low clitic is pronounced in its base position as the object of cantar (cf. (28)b; V-la i la V-la k), in parallel fashion to what happens in (26). For reasons of space, I will not delve further into these potential cases here.

Before concluding this section, reference to other (Romance) languages is in order. First, it is of note that Catalan manifests a construction akin to the main basic paradigm this squib centers upon, as shown in (29), kindly provided to me by Josep Ausensi-Jiménez, Carolina González García, and Clàudia Pons-Moll.

This contrast, which is in principle also amenable to a PLC account, reveals that the pattern investigated here is not limited to Spanish.

Departing from the specific construction at issue, but still within the realm of CC, Bellinzonese, a Romance language spoken in Northern Italy, disallows two identical sa sa clitics in CC environments featuring a must-like modal, as (30)a shows. Importantly, however, the construction improves dramatically if the reflexive clitic is pronounced (i.e., PF-realized, in our terms) in its base position, as an enclitic of the lexical verb, as indicated by (30)b.

Such cases lend further cross-linguistic plausibility to the PLC/CTM account of the contrasts with which this paper is concerned.

Lastly, as noted by an anonymous reviewer and by Simone De Cia (p.c.), it is important to note that contiguous identical clitic forms such as se se in languages like Sovramontino, another Romance language of the North of Italy, are legitimate, as shown in (31), which is a regular clitic cluster in a non-CC environment.

Data like (31) are compatible with the claim that the constraints that ban certain clitic sequences differ from language to language, with Catalan and Spanish observing the restriction in question, but not Sovramontino.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Glossa: a journal of general linguistics

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
I investigate certain previously unnoticed facts in relation to Clitic-Climbing (CC) contexts in Spanish where the clitic cannot climb for morphophonological (i.e., P(honetic)F(orm)) reasons (including a prohibition against contiguous identical clitics; see the series of papers on Heggie & Ordóñez 2005 ), as in (1).

# data[].attributes.body
Según a este papel, hay evidencia en muchos campos que indica que la mayoría de las lenguas modernas origina de una lengua común. Con esta suposición, este papel hace el argumento que esta lengua tenía una SVO orden de palabras. Además, el papel resume las patrones de evolución de una orden a otra la que experimentan la lenguas.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Recent work in comparative linguistics suggests that all, or almost all, attested human languages may derive from a single earlier language. If that is so, then this language-like nearly all extant languages-most likely had a basic ordering of the subject (S), verb (V), and object (O) in a declarative sentence of the type "the man (S) killed (V) the bear (O)."

# data[].attributes.body
En clase aprendimos de los modos diferentes de español, incluyendo el subjuntivo. Este modo es un reto para intuir, especialmente para los anglohablantes, que no lo usan mucho. Este sitio es un recurso que le dice todo lo que podría querer saber sobre el subjuntivo, de sus casos de uso a las conjugaciones, regulares y no.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
¿Qué es el subjuntivo?

El subjuntivo es el modo verbal de la irrealidad o de la conjetura. La palabra "subjuntivo" quiere decir que el sentido de los tiempos verbales de este modo depende del verbo de la oración principal.

Ejemplo

Subjuntivo vs. Indicativo

La diferencia fundamental entre los enunciados en subjuntivo y en indicativo es la intención comunicativa que el o la hablante tiene al transmitir su mensaje.

En indicativo, el o la hablante hace una declaración a través de un enunciado afirmativo, negativo o interrogativo con la que afirma, niega o cuestiona de forma directa algo.

Ejemplo:

¿Lograré dominar el subjuntivo?

En subjuntivo, el o la hablante expone su percepción acerca de algo. Las oraciones en subjuntivo van encabezadas por una expresión u oración que hace expresa esa subjetividad.

Ejemplo:

Dudo que pueda aprenderlo todo en una sesión.

Un enunciado en subjuntivo no expone ni cuestiona la verdad o falsedad de una información, sino que expresa la actitud del o de la hablante ante esa información.

¿Cuándo se utiliza el subjuntivo en español?

En español, el subjuntivo se utiliza tanto en oraciones simples como en subordinadas después de determinadas expresiones o construcciones.

El subjuntivo en oraciones simples

El subjuntivo en oraciones simples se usa tras determinadas fórmulas, como ojalá, quizá (o quizás) o ni que.

Ejemplo:

Ojalá la próxima clase sea más fácil.

Quizá tenga que practicar en casa.

¡Ni que sea imposible!

El subjuntivo en oraciones subordinadas

El subjuntivo en oraciones subordinadas se utiliza después de una conjunción, por lo general que.

La oración principal expresa a través del verbo la actitud del o de la hablante ante la acción contenida en la oración subordinada que se conjuga en subjuntivo. La actitud puede señalar incertidumbre, probabilidad, deseo, obligación o emoción.

Ejemplo:

La oración principal también puede expresar la voluntad del o de la hablante de influir sobre alguien. Esto se hace con los denominados verbos de influencia, como aconsejar, desear, mandar, necesitar, obligar, ordenar, suplicar, recomendar, querer, prohibir, etc. La oración subordinada que sigue a estos verbos también se formula en subjuntivo.

Ejemplo:

El consejo prevalece sobre la idea de ver películas. Se desconoce si las películas se ven o no.

El cambio de sujeto en las oraciones con subjuntivo

Otra característica propia de algunos enunciados que contienen un verbo en subjuntivo es que hay un cambio de sujeto con respecto al de la oración principal.

Subjuntivo o infinitivo

En una oración compuesta, si los verbos tienen sujetos diferentes, la oración subordinada conjuga el verbo en subjuntivo y va introducida por una conjunción que funciona como nexo.

Ejemplo:

Quiero que vengas al cine conmigo.

sujeto 1 (yo) + nexo + sujeto 2 (tú) → subjuntivo

Si el sujeto es el mismo para ambos verbos, la oración subordinada se expresa en infinitivo.

Ejemplo:

Quiero ir al cine contigo.

sujeto 1 (yo) = sujeto 2 (yo) → infinitivo

Si el verbo de la oración principal exige una preposición, se coloca delante del nexo o del infinitivo.

Ejemplo:

Me alegro muchísimo de que vengas al cine conmigo.

Me alegro muchísimo de ir al cine contigo.

Infinitivo y subjuntivo

Los verbos dejar, permitir y prohibir pueden ir seguidos tanto de un infinitivo como de un verbo en subjuntivo cuando los sujetos son diferentes.

Ejemplo:

Los dueños del cine no dejan comer palomitas en la sala.

Los dueños del cine no dejan que comamos palomitas en la sala.

Indicativo o infinitivo

Los verbos acordarse de, recordar, olvidarse de y olvidar van seguidos de indicativo cuando los sujetos son diferentes. Si el sujeto es el mismo, les sigue un infinitivo.

Ejemplo:

Acuérdate de que la cita es a las 8.

Acuérdate de llegar a las 8.

Conjunciones seguidas de subjuntivo

La conjunción por defecto tras la que una oración subordinada se conjuga en subjuntivo es que; sin embargo, hay muchas otras. Algunas conjunciones van siempre seguidas de subjuntivo, mientras que otras admiten tanto el subjuntivo como el indicativo según el sentido del enunciado.

Conjunciones que rigen el subjuntivo

Conjunciones que admiten subjuntivo e indicativo

Según su significado o según el tiempo de la oración, algunas conjunciones pueden ir seguidas de subjuntivo o de indicativo.

Según el significado

Seguidas de subjuntivo, la oración expresa un escenario hipotético.

Seguidas de indicativo, la oración expresa un escenario real, que tiene lugar.

Según el tiempo de la oración

Las conjunciones temporales c ada vez que, cuando, desde que, en cuanto, hasta que, siempre que, tan pronto como pueden ir seguidas de subjuntivo o de indicativo.
Seguidas de subjuntivo
Si el enunciado presenta un acción futura.

Ejemplo:

Te llamo cuando salga de trabajar.
Te llamaré cuando salga de trabajar.
Llámame cuando salga de trabajar.

Si el enunciado es hipotético y va encabezado por un condicional.

Ejemplo:

Me encantaría llamarte cuando tuvieras tiempo.
Seguidas de indicativo
Si el enunciado expresa una acción presente, habitual o pasada.

Ejemplo:

Por costumbre, llamo a mi madre cuando salgo de trabajar.

Te llamé cuando salí de trabajar.

→ Consulta la página sobre las Conjunciones para saber con más detalles cuáles van seguidas de indicativo y cuáles de subjuntivo.

La secuencia temporal

El uso de los diferentes tiempos del subjuntivo depende también de la secuencia de tiempos que se dé en el enunciado.

La secuencia temporal del enunciado es la sucesión de los tiempos verbales de la oración principal (en indicativo o en imperativo) y la oración subordinada en subjuntivo. Según el tiempo verbal de la oración principal, la oración subordinada se conjugará en un tiempo u otro del subjuntivo.

Haz clic sobre el nombre de los tiempos verbales del subjuntivo para acceder a la explicación de su conjugación y uso.

Tiempos simples del subjuntivo: presente y pretérito imperfecto

Tiempos compuestos del subjuntivo: pretérito perfecto y pretérito pluscuamperfecto

Estructuras fijas seguidas de subjuntivo

Ciertas estructuras van siempre seguidas de subjuntivo. Estas son algunas de las más comunes:

Verbos y expresiones seguidos de subjuntivo

Tras algunos verbos y expresiones es necesario usar siempre el subjuntivo. Hemos recopilado estos casos en las listas siguientes:

Ejercicios online para practicar y mejorar tu español

Mejora tu nivel de español en el apartado de ejercicios de Lingolia. Cada lección de gramática contiene un ejercicio de acceso libre para repasar los aspectos básicos de cada tema, así como una lista de ejercicios específicos y organizados por nivel disponibles solo para los usuarios de Lingolia Plus. Las soluciones contienen una breve explicación sobre las respuestas correctas.

Tiempos del subjuntivo - Ejercicio de acceso libre

Tiempos del subjuntivo - Ejercicios

Tiempos del subjuntivo - Ejercicios Lingolia Plus
Mostrar todos los ejercicios de este tema

A1 Básico A2 Básico alto B1 Intermedio B2 Intermedio alto C1 Dominio

Completa los huecos Selecciona la respuesta correcta Ordena los elementos Variado

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
El subjuntivo es el modo de la irrealidad. El subjuntivo indica en español que el hablante se refiere a un escenario imaginario, el cual puede ser presente, pasado o futuro.

# data[].attributes.body
En los años recientes, hemos visto un esfuerzo por el uso de las formas neutras de las palabras. En ingles, por ejemplo, el pronombre neutro “they” ha aumentado en popularidad. Similarmente, hay un movimiento a usar la palabra “latinx” en lugar de “latino” o “Hispánico”, con el -x representando un morfema nuevo del neutro. Este articulo cuenta la historia de la palabra y lo que significa para unas personas.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Ask several people with Latin American roots what term best describes us collectively, and you'll certainly receive a variety of answers. Some will say we're Latinos or Latinxs, while others will opt for Hispanic, and still there are some who will criticize these words for promoting a panethnic identity that erases their countries and doesn't necessarily result in real camaraderie among people of Latin American descent. And while criticisms of these words are valid, the terms do have utility - even today.

"Some would argue that groups are powerful because they can organize by an identity," Cristina Mora, author of Making Hispanics, Bureaucrats, and Media Constructed a New American, tells me . "With that, labels are important. This does not mean they are perfect, but it does mean that labels matter."

Having a word that groups us into one category has been used as a political tool in the past, and this line of thinking certainly inspired the emergence of Hispanic and Latino in the United States. There's a long history of naming practices for our communities, as Ramón A. Gutiérrez outlines in his essay, "What's in a Name? The History and Politics of Hispanic and Latino Panethnicities." Newspapers from the 1850s reveal that in San Francisco, for example, the term "Hispano-Americanos" appeared in ads. And after the term Latin America was coined around this same time period, the word Latino also came into use. However, as Mexican populations grew in the United States, Mexican and Mexican-Americans became more prevalent. "Hispanic and Latino, as abbreviated versions of Hispano-Americano and latinoamericano, flourished in California's Spanish-language discourse during the second half of the nineteenth century but had virtually disappeared by the 1920s," Gutiérrez writes.

For many decades after that, people of Latin American descent were referred to as their own distinct nationalities. And Mexicans and Puerto Ricans, for example, were categorized as white on the Census. This was a source of frustration for Chicano activists who argued that not having a separate category for people of Latin American descent meant they couldn't show the government that they had separate needs. Mora's research shows that activists, particularly the - now known as UnidosUS - lobbied the government for a term that would unite these varied groups. The organization was instrumental in uniting Mexicans and Puerto Ricans "to hammer out a Hispanic agenda," Mora tells National Council of La Raza Latino USA.

The media also helped popularize the term. " The Spanish-language media was key to creating a narrative about Hispanics," Mora tells Berkeley News . "For example, one of the most popular Spanish-language programs at that time was the Miami-based El Show de Cristina, billed as the Spanish-language version of Oprah. On the set, Cristina might have a Colombian family, a Mexican family and a Puerto Rican family talking about the difficulties of raising second- generation immigrant children or passing on the Spanish language and traditions. This created an image that we were together, that we share the same problems, that we are a community."

After 1980, the Census created its first report on this group in the United States, and according to Mora, Univision used these figures - which activists originally hoped would show the needs of our communities - to show advertisers our buying power.

While the word Hispanic has helped bring some progress, it's also been heavily criticized, even decades ago. Hispanic refers to anyone from Spain or Spanish-speaking parts of Latin America. It, therefore, promotes Spanish heritage, something many oppose because of the violent ways that they colonized our countries and the erasure of Afro-Latinos and Indigenous people. Today, some dismiss the word Hispanic and call it a government creation. This is something that Grace Flores-Hughes, the government official credited with coining the term, has spoken out against.

"There are many Hispanic activists who think that Richard Nixon did it," she tells The Washington Post . "Well, no, Richard Nixon was very busy - he didn't have time to be doing this. When I explain it [to other Latinos], they get relieved. They were holding this anger that some nasty Anglo named them. Well, no, it wasn't. It was this little Hispanic bureaucrat."

And though Flores-Hughes believes the word Hispanic is a much more accurate name for us, people have pushed back against this term for a long time and offered Latino as the solution. Latino refers to people from the Spanish and Portuguese-speaking countries of Latin America, but it does not include those from Spain or Portugal. This word, however, typically doesn't make room for people from Latin America whose countries were not colonized by Spain or Portugal, leaving out Belizeans and Haitians. (There are some people with ties to these countries who do self-identify as Latino.)

Through a quick Google search, and largely thanks to Mora, it's easy to pinpoint the start of the word Hispanic. But the origins for Latino aren't as clear. Michael Rodríguez-Muñíz, an assistant professor of sociology and Latina/Latino studies at Northwestern University, says this is because there hasn't been a "systematic study of the categories Latino, Latina (and the change to) Latinx. It hasn't received the kind of attention that Hispanic has."

Across various age groups in our community, about 50 percent of people say they do not have a preference between Latino and Hispanic, according to Pew Research Center . However, those who did have a preference veered toward Hispanic in larger numbers.

But with Latino seen as a more inclusive word, it's become necessary to describe our communities. Places like Chicago - which had and have a large Mexican and Puerto Rican population - helped bring about this change.

"Here, in Chicago, you had a lot of use of Latin, so without the O, for a lot of the '60s and '70s, actually," Rodríguez-Muñíz says. "I don't know if that was actually in play in places like Los Angeles. And so we see a series of labels that are circulating, percolating, and then through the processes that Cristina Mora described [in her book], we see this consolidation around the category Hispanic. And around the same time, we're starting to see people using Latino. At that point, it's not very clear what the politics are - in terms of what the difference is of Hispanic - but the point that's of interest here is that you do have a moment where people are grappling, for a lot of different reasons, with the label to capture this population. And after the 1980s, you see this kind of tug of war between Hispanic and Latino. But a decade before, people were using Latin or people were using Spanish-speaking or Spanish descent, that kind of thing. But those kind of fell out of favor after Hispanic and then, Latino came to the fore."

Since then, the term Latino has been adapted to become even more specific. For groups often excluded from the discourse, words like Afro-Latino, Muslim Latinos, and Asian Latinos have helped to center their experiences. It's an example of the malleability of the words we use to describe ourselves. That's why Latinx, a new(ish) word is now taking center stage.

In the last few years, the word Latinx has gained momentum - appearing in emails from politicians to TV shows like One Day at a Time to mainstream media . However, the word inspires many a heated argument. Latinx - which has existed online since at least 2004 - arose as a gender-neutral alternative to Latino and Latina. However, some believe that Latino already effectively groups a large number of men and women with Latin American origins and that substituting the O for the X unnecessarily complicates the language. And while the Real Academia Española - the official source on the Spanish language - may fall into this camp, Merriam Webster recently added the word to its dictionary.

In the introduction for his new book, Latinx: The new Force in American Politics and Culture , Ed Morales, a journalist and lecturer at Columbia University's Center for the Study of Ethnicity and Race, writes, "The advent of the term Latinx is the most recent iteration of a naming debate grounded in the politics of race and ethnicity. For several decades, the term Latino was the progressive choice over Hispanic... For all of Latinx's space-age quirkiness, the term has a technocratic emptiness to it that can make it hard to warm up to. It feels like a mathematician's null set, and many are unsure of how to pronounce it. But even amid ongoing debate around the term on campuses and in the media, the growing movement to embrace Latinx highlights how it dispenses with the problem of prioritizing male or female by negating that binary. The real power of the term and its true meaning, however, erupts with its final syllable. After years of Latin lovers, Latin books, Latin music, and Latin America, the word describes something that is not as much Latin - a word originally coined by the French to brand non-English and Dutch-speaking colonies with a different flavor - as it is an alternative America, the unexpected X factor in America's race debate."

The conversation of Latinx has mostly revolved around whether this word makes sense and how to pronounce it. It has even sparked a host of think pieces arguing both sides of the equation. And while Latinx comes with heavy scrutiny, for those who are non-binary, it helps them feel seen.

"Being Latinx is to exist outside the binary, to be somewhere on the spectrum but still feel a solid place in it," Em Alves tells Latina . "Being Latinx is to feel solid in two or more places. For me, it's embracing the rich and beautiful culture of our people, while rejecting the gender restrictions of the generations before us. I identify as a queer, hard femme Latinx, and my Latinidad is such an integral part of how I experience my gender and sexuality. Latinx acknowledges me for who I am, in all my parts."

But regardless of the very compelling arguments made for Latinx, there are still many who remain reticent - or outright resistant - to the word.

Through my conversations and research into the background of these terms, it became clear that the origins and evolution of what we call ourselves is as complicated as our history in the United States. We'll probably never find a perfect term, especially as some prefer to identify as their (or their family's) country of origin. "I think it's important to both really work on what is your Puerto Rican identity, what is your Dominican identity, what is your Colombian identity," Morales says. "But at the same time, work on what is Latino identity. I think it's a mistake to stump one in favor of the other."

And while the language we use is important, perhaps what matters most is whether or not these words are helping us fight for everyone in our communities.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Hispanic vs. Latino vs. Latinx: A Brief History of How These Words Originated

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Ask several people with Latin American roots what term best describes us collectively, and you'll certainly receive a variety of answers. Some will say we're Latinos or Latinxs, while others will opt for Hispanic, and still there are some who will criticize these words for promoting a panethnic identity that erases their countries and doesn't necessarily result in real camaraderie among people of Latin American descent.

# data[].attributes.body
En clase hablamos de las clases abiertas, que aceptan palabras nuevas fácilmente, y las clases cerradas, que no aceptan palabras nuevas. Este articulo demuestra la adición de palabras, como lista unas palabras que fueron añadidas recientemente al diccionario español por La Real Academia Española. Tales palabras incluyen tuit, espanglish, amigovio (amigo-novio), y cederrón (CD-ROM).

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
La Real Academia Española (RAE) aceptó 20 vocablos sean incorporados al uso oficial de la lengua española. Se trata de términos que derivan de viejas palabras o completamente nuevas que provienen del uso de las nuevas tecnologías.

Los modismos incorporados circulan desde hace tiempo en la lengua popular pero recién con la aprobación de la entidad encargada de regular el idioma podrán utilizarse sin que se considere un error ortográfico.

Estas son las nuevas 20 palabras del diccionario español

Palabro: palabra rara o mal dicha

Amigovio: persona que mantiene con otra una relación de menor compromiso formal que un noviazgo pero mayor a una amistad.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Las nuevas palabras aceptadas por la Real Academia Española

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
La Real Academia Española oficializó la inclusión de vocablos que serán reconocidos en el buen uso de la lengua.

# data[].attributes.body
Durante la clase, una tarea fue idear unos ejemplos de palabras compuestas (palabras que se componen con dos o más raíces), y recuerdo que yo tenía dificultad con esto. Por esta razón, encuentro una lista de cien ejemplos de palabras compuestas. Algunos de mis ejemplos favoritos son duermevela, paraguas, matasanos, y vaivén.

# data[].attributes.body
El trino alveolar es un fonema importante en la lengua de español, pero a veces es difícil a producir. Como anglohablante, yo tomaba un tiempo para aprenderlo, y todavía no estoy perfecto con esto. Este video da contexto sobre el trino alveolar, y entonces explica unos ejercicios para ganar competencia con el trino.

# data[].attributes.body
En clase hemos hablado de la similitud [b] y [β] en español y la confusión de la ortografía de palabras con “b” y “v”. Este documento académico se propone demostrar en profundidad la razón histórica de esta diferenciación por el análisis de manuscritos históricos. No lo he leído en entero por su largo y nivel de vocabulario, pero es un recurso bueno si quiera aprender mas sobre la fonología de español.

# data[].attributes.body
En clase hemos hablado de cambios de sonidos en relación con su ambiente, como en el proceso de asimilación. Pero hay tipos diferentes de fenómenos fonológicos en español, como la metátesis (el intercambio de dos sonidos en una palabra). Este página explica más sobre la metátesis y da unos ejemplos comunes.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
La metátesis es una figura retórica, pero también es una característica del uso del lenguaje que consiste en invertir el orden de una letra o sílaba dentro de una palabra. Por ejemplo, la metátesis se observa cuando decimos estógamo, en vez de decir estómago. Sin embargo, esta figura retórica también consiste en modificar el orden de las palabras en una oración o en una frase.

Si la metátesis se efectúa con intención, entonces es posible hablar de figura retórica. Por el contrario, si se trata de un error o accidente que comete el redactor u orador, es correcto decir que la metátesis es un vicio o uso del lenguaje.

No se debe abusar de las metátesis como figura retórica ya que si no es posible que el lector no comprenda el mensaje que se intentó dar. Por último, el origen de esta palabra deriva del griego " metathesis" y quiere decir " cambio" o " transposición ".

Usos de la Metátesis

Es muy empleada la metátesis en la jerga o en el lunfardo. De este modo, está presente como un recurso estilístico en la composición de muchas canciones, especialmente en las letras de tango. También suele usarse en el humor o para simular un lapsus.

Es un recurso usado en las canciones infantiles para interactuar con los niños pidiendo colaboración para corregir el supuesto error.

Por otra parte, la metátesis se puede usar para evitar la censura de ciertas palabras prohibidas o bien para expresar ideas en relación con la política o lo sexual.

Además, esta figura se emplea como recurso para producir confusión y, en ciertos casos, hacer cómplice al receptor de aquello que se intenta transmitir. Por ejemplo, al decir " todo puede empezar a malir sal" en lugar de " todo puede empezar a salir mal " es una manera de incluir con la palabra al receptor y hacerlo parte de una intención.

Clases de Metátesis

Existen tres clases de metátesis:

1. Metátesis recíproca. Se da cuando un sonido cambia de lugar con otro sonido. Por ejemplo. Murciégalo, en lugar de murciél

2. Metátesis sencilla. Se presenta cuando uno de los sonidos cambia de lugar. Por ejemplo, al decir Guillremo en vez de Guillermo.

3. Metátesis en contacto. Es parecida a la metátesis recíproca, solo que en este caso las letras que cambian de lugar son contiguas. Por ejemplo: rrope en lugar de perro.

30 Ejemplos de Metátesis

A continuación, se ofrece una lista de ejemplos de metátesis donde la primera palabra escrita expresa el modo incorrecto y el uso de metátesis, mientras que la segunda palabra enuncia la escritura del modo correcto. Los sonidos que cambian de lugar provocando la metátesis se resaltarán con negritas.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
La metátesis es una figura retórica, pero también es una característica del uso del lenguaje que consiste en invertir el orden de una letra o sílaba dentro de una palabra. Por ejemplo, la metátesis se observa cuando decimos estógamo, en vez de decir estómago.

# data[].attributes.headline
Factores sociales de aprender español como adulto

# data[].attributes.subject
Factores sociales de aprender español como adulto

# data[].attributes.body
El libro aconseja en como aprender una lengua como adulto. Esto es un video animado que presenta unos de los factores sociológicos los que pueden explicar el porqué es más difícil ganar fluencia en otra lengua como un adulto que como un niño, y que estrategias utilizar para aprender como adulto.

# data[].attributes.body
El libro y nuestras discusiones tocaban un poco en los logros que alcanzan los niños durante su desarrollo de lenguaje, pero no hablábamos de las características de los niveles de esto desarrollo. Esta imagen resume los aspectos de estos niveles, y el articulo adjunto describe cada nivel en más detalle.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Gifted Children Can Reach Language Milestones Earlier Than Their Peers

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
One characteristic of gifted children is advanced language ability, which means these children reach developmental milestones relating to language earlier than developmental charts would indicate. This means that gifted children tend to talk earlier, have larger vocabularies, and use longer sentences than non-gifted children. How can parents tell if their child's language development is advanced?

# data[].attributes.body
En clase sacamos brevemente el tema de los “niños salvajes”, específicamente el caso de Genie. Este articulo describe el caso en mas detalle. La niña era enseñada formar frases cortas en Ingles, pero nunca aprendió dominar la gramática de la lengua, señalando que en humanos existe un periodo crítico en su infancia en lo que pueden adquirir una lengua primera.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Genie was born to deranged parents. Her father was extremely intolerant of loud noises and didn't want children, but he and his wife ended up having babies. Lots of them. Most of them died from child neglect. Genie was one of few who survived.

Because of her father's sensitivity to noice and lack of care for others, Genie spent the first 13 years of her life strapped to a potty or a chair in a homemade straightjacket. If she made any noise whatsoever, her dad would beat her with a baseball bat. She was never spoken to. She was a true feral child.

When Child Protective Services finally intervened, Genie had virtually no physical abilities beyond those of a toddler. She was severely underweight and couldn't speak.

Linguist Susan Curtiss befriended her and attempted to teach her language and challenge her mental abilities. Susan Curtiss quickly learned that Genie was highly intelligent. She was able to tell sophisticated stories, not in words, but in pictures. Using pictures, she could tell intricate narratives.

Susan Curtiss worked with Genie to teach her English. Genie soon developed a rather large lexicon and was able to express herself. But despite extensive training, she remained unable to produce grammatical sentences. Here is a transcript of one of her reports of her time in the hands of her father:

Father hit arm. Big wood. Genie cry ... Not spit. Father. Hit face-spit ... Father hit big stick. Father angry. Father hit Genie big stick. Father take piece wood hit. Cry. Me cry.

Despite the tragedy that surrounds the case of Genie, her case teaches us an important lesson about language abilities. Telling a story (not necessarily in a grammatical way or even by using words) as well as understanding language are very different from being able to produce grammatical sentences in a language.

The language areas of the brain are actually divided between Wernicke's area and Broca's area (among other important language facilitating areas). Wernicke's area sits on the left side of the head (just above the ear) in the temporal lope, whereas the Broca area is located at the beginning of the frontal part of the brain (a bit further front). Wernicke's area is responsible for understanding speech and other communicative signals, whereas Broca's area is mainly in charge of producing grammatical sentences (alongside the motor area, which is needed to express what you want to say verbally-using lip movement and gestures, for instance).

The case of Genie confirms that there is a certain window of opportunity that sets the limit for when you can become relatively fluent in a language. Of course, if you already are fluent in another language, the brain is already primed for language acquisition and you may well succeed in becoming fluent in a second or third language. If you have no experience with grammar, however, Broca's area remains relatively hard to change: you cannot learn grammatical language production later on in life. But the abilities to understand language and produce language in ways that do not rely on grammar largely make use of Wernicke's area in the temporal lope. This area is capable of expanding and rewiring throughout life-even after the teen years. The case of Genie confirms this. Grammar was beyond reach for her. But language comprehension and storytelling were not.

The takeaway of this tragic case sits well with the established idea that Wernicke's area in the brain-the area for language comprehension-absorbs various languages and meaningful signals in a unified way, whereas the Broca area-the area of the brain that is in charge of grammatical speech production-stores native (or first) languages and (second) languages learned later in life in separate areas.
Berit "Brit" Brogaard is an author of The Superhuman Mind.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Sad case of child abuse sheds light on language production versus comprehension.

# data[].attributes.body
El libro, cuando hablar de la familia indoeuropeo de lenguas, menciona el origen de esta rama de lenguas: una lengua proto-indoeuropeo hipotética. Este artículo describe la gramática, vocabulario, y características generales posibles de esta lengua, y los métodos que usaban los lingüistas históricos para averiguar estas características.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Indo-European is a family of languages that first spread throughout Europe and many parts of South Asia, and later to every corner of the globe as a result of colonization. The term Indo-European is essentially geographical since it refers to the easternmost extension of the family from the Indian subcontinent to its westernmost reach in Europe. The family includes most of the languages of Europe, as well as many languages of Southwest, Central and South Asia. With over 2.6 billion speakers (or 45% of the world's population), the Indo-European language family has the largest number of speakers of all language families as well as the widest dispersion around the world.

The cradle of the Indo-Europeans may never be known but an ongoing scholarly debate about the original homeland of Proto-Indo-European (PIE), may some day shed light on the ancestors of all Indo-European languages as well as the people who spoken it. There are two schools of thought:

Some scholars (e.g., Marija Gimbutas) propose that PIE originated in the steppes north of the Black and Caspian Seas (the Kurgan hypothesis). Kurgan is the Russian word of Turkic origin for a type of burial mound over a burial chamber. The Kurgan hypothesis combines archaeology with linguistics to trace the diffusion of kurgans from the steppes into southeastern Europe, providing support for the existence ot a Kurgan culture that reflected an early presence of Indo-European people in the steppes and southeastern Europe from the 5th to the 3rd millenium BC.

Other scholars (e.g., Gamkrelidze and Ivanov) suggest that PIE originated around 7,000 BC in Anatolia, a stretch of land that lies between the Black and Mediterranean seas. It lies across the Aegean Sea to the east of Greece and is thus usually known by its Greek name Anatolia (Asia Minor). Today, Anatolia is the Asian part of modern Turkey.

It would not have been possible to establish the existence of the Indo-European language family if scholars had not compared the systematically recurring resemblances among European languages and Sanskrit, the oldest language of the Indian subcontinent that left many written documents. The common origin of European languages and Sanskrit was first proposed by Sir William Jones(1746-1794). Systematic comparisons between these languages by Franz Bopp supported this theory and laid the foundation for postulating that all Indo-European languages descended from a common ancestor, Proto-Indo-European (PIE), thought to have been spoken before 3,000 B.C. It then split into different branches which, in turn, split into different languages in the subsequent millennia.

Since PIE left no written records, historical linguists construct family trees, an idea pioneered by August Schleicher, on the basis of the comparative method. The comparative method takes shared features among languages and uses procedures to establish their common ancestry. It is not the only method available but is one that has been most widely used. The examples below show how this method actually works with some Indo-European languages.

proto means 'old' in Greek

* means the form was reconstructed, not attested.

> means 'became'

Indo-European languages are classified into 11 major groups, 2 of which are extinct, comprising 449 languages ( Ethnologue).

Baltic
This conservative group has preserved many archaic features thought to have been present in PIE. Some scholars think that Baltic languages share a common ancestral language with the Slavic languages. This hypothetical language is called Balto-Slavic.

Celtic
Celtic languages were largely unknown until the modern period. They were once spread over Europe in the pre-Christian era. The oldest records of these languages date back to the 4th century AD.
Slavic Indo-Iranian

Tocharian (extinct)
Attested by texts dating to 500-1000 AD that were found in early 20th century in Chinese Turkestan

Anatolian (extinct)
Unknown until the 20th century when it was discovered during excavations in Turkey. Texts written in cuneiform date to 13th-7th centuries BC.

In addition to these main groups, there are fragmentary records of other Indo-European languages. These records, mostly in the form of inscriptions, do not provide sufficient material for the reconstruction of PIE.

Dialects

Structure

Sound system
There have been numerous attempts to reconstruct the vowels and consonants of PIE, all of which encountered serious problems due to the uneven nature of the written records and to the huge differences in the age of the records. As a result, the reconstruction of PIE phonology continues to be a matter of scholarly debate and speculation. Among the most notable reconstructions are those by August Schleicher, Karl Brugmann, Winfred Lehmann, Oswald Szemerènyi, and Jacob Grimm.

First Germanic Sound Shift (Grimm's Law)
You probably know of Jacob Grimm as the author of fairy tales. But he was also one of the great linguists of the 19th century. He found evidence for the unity of all the modern Germanic languages in the phenomenon known as the First Germanic Sound Shift (also known as Grimm's law ), which set the Germanic branch apart from the other branches of the Indo-European family. This shift occurred before the 7th century when records started to be kept. According to Grimm's law, the shift occurred when /p, t, k/ in the classical Indo-European languages (Latin, Greek, and Sanskrit) became /f, t, h/ in Germanic languages. For example, Latin pater > EnglishLatin cornu > English horn.
You can easily see the resemblances among four common words across five Indo-European languages.

for an amusing illustration of Grimm's Law and of words for family, plants, animals, sky, and counting in nine Indo-European languages.

Centum-Satem division
The Centum-Satem division explains the evolution of PIE labiovelar, velars, and palatovelar consonants.

Labiovelar consonants include [kw, gw, xw, ngw] which are pronounced like [k, g, x, ng] but with rounded lips.

Velars are consonants articulated with the back part of the tongue (the dorsum) against the soft palate (the back part of the roof of the mouth, known also as the velum). They include [k, g, x, ng].

Palatovelar consonants are articulated with the back part of the tongue against the hard palate. They include [k', g', x', ng']. For example, [k'] is pronounced as the k in keen.

The terms centum-satem come from the words for 'one hundred' in representative languages of each group. Please note that not all languages fall neatly into these categories.

Satem languages include Baltic, Slavic, Albanian, Armenian, and Indo-Iranian languages. For example, Sanskrit satam, Lithuanian simtas, Russian sto.
Click here to see the complete satem language tree.

Centum languages include Romance, Celtic, Germanic, and Greek. For example, Latin centum, Irish cead, English hundred, Greek.

Click here to see the complete Centum language tree.

Stress
It is believed that PIE had a pitch accent system. All words had only one accented syllable which received a high pitch. Stress could fall on any syllable of a word.

Grammar
Unevenness of existing records and huge gaps in the chronology among Indo-European languages make the reconstruction of PIE grammar a difficult task. Discoveries of Hittite, Tocharian and Mycenaean Greek in the 20th century have made changes in the data base on which the reconstruction of PIE is based that in turn have modified existing views of PIE. .

Many of the older well-documented languages, such as Sanskrit, Greek, and Latin, have rich morphologies with clearly marked gender and number, as well as elaborately marked case systems for nouns, pronouns, and adjectives. Verbs in these languages also have elaborately marked systems of tense, aspect, mood, and voice, in addition to person, number, and gender. Reconstructed PIE is based on the assumption that it contained all the features found in attested languages. If a given language lacks a particular feature, it is assumed that the feature was lost or that it had merged with other features.

Modern Indo-European languages reflect the rich morphology of PIE to various degrees. For instance, Sanskrit, Greek, Latin, Baltic, Slavic, Celtic, Armenian have extremely rich morphologies. On the other hand, Germanic, Romance, Albanian, and Tocharian do not possess quite as many finely differentiated morphological features.
Nouns, pronouns and adjectives

Case
Sanskrit had the most cases (8), followed by Old Church Slavonic, Lithuanian, and Old Armenian (7), Latin (6), Greek, Old Irish, Albanian (5), Germanic (5).

Gender
The three genders (masculine, feminine, neuter) have survived in a number of Indo-European languages.

Number
The three numbers (singular, dual, plural) survived in Sanskrit, Greek, and Old Irish. Vestiges of the dual number can be found in many other Indo-European languages.

Adjective-Noun agreement
Adjective-noun agreement has survived in many Indo-European languages.

Verbs
Reconstructed PIE verbs had different sets of endings tense/aspect, voice and mood in addition to person and number. :

Tense and aspect
It is thought that the PIE verb system was aspect-based, although traditionally, aspect has been confused with tense. Although tense was not formally marked in PIE, most Indo-European languages define their verbal systems in terms of tense, rather than aspect. .

Voice
PIE had two voices: active (e.g.,The child broke the glass) and medio-passive which combined reflexive and passive voices (e.g., The child washed himself and The child was washed by his mother). In addition to the active voice, various Indo-European languages use the middle or the passive voices.

Mood
It is hypothesized the PIE had four moods: indicative, optative, subjunctive, and imperative. Most of these moods exist in all Indo-European languages.

Person and number
PIE verbs were marked for person (1st, 2nd, 3rd) and number (singular, dual, plural).

Word order
Less is know about the syntax of PIE than about its morphology. What is known about PIE word order, therefore, is a subject of conjecture and debate. It is thought likely that word order in PIE sentences was Subject-Object-Verb. This word order is found in Latin, Hittite, Vedic Sanskrit, Tocharian, and to some extent in Greek.

Vocabulary
The comparative method enables linguists to reconstruct a basic PIE vocabulary referring to many common elements of their culture. This basic vocabulary is not uniformly attested across all Indo-European languages which suggests that some words may have developed later or were borrowed from other languages. Among words that are reliably reconstructed are words for day, night, the seasons, celestial bodies (sun, moon, stars), precipitation (rain, snow), animals (sheep, horse, pig, bear, dog, wolf, eagle), kinship terms (father, mother, brother, sister, son, daughter), tools (axe, yoke, arrow).

to explore cognates in different Indo-European languages

Writing

Written records for various Indo-European languages have different date lines. The table below shows when the first written records appeared, what writing system was used, and which writing systems are used by the languages today.

Difficulty

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Indo-European Language Family | About World Languages

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Indo-European is a family of languages that first spread throughout Europe and many parts of South Asia, and later to every corner of the globe as a result of colonization. The term Indo-European is essentially geographical since it refers to the easternmost extension of the family from the Indian subcontinent to its westernmost reach in Europe.

# data[].attributes.body
He encontrado un sito genial, spanishetymology.com, que intenta enseñar español por contar la evolución de la lengua. El sitio enumera los cambios de los sonidos y el significado de palabras varias. Por ejemplo, el enlace que he proveído da el cambio de palabras con ‘w’ a palabras con ‘g’ y ‘gu’. Hay muchos mensajes cortos, y es un modo fácil de aprender sobre español cuando estás aburrido.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
The "W" sound is a classic Germanic and Anglo-saxon sound. Harsh, it is.

Interestingly, the Germanic and English words with the w- become the gu- sound as these words evolved into Spanish. Yes, in this case, the Germanic and English words - centuries ago - made its way back into Spanish rather than the more common pattern of vice-versa!

One example: the name William maps to the Spanish name... Guillermo. I first discovered this because I was once in a bookstore in Buenos Aires and there was a book "Enrique IV" by "Guillermo Shakespeare". I needed about a minute to figure out what was happening ( Enrique is Spanish for Henry).

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Category: W to GU | Spanish Etymology, Learning Spanish

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The "W" sound is a classic Germanic and Anglo-saxon sound. Harsh, it is. Interestingly, the Germanic and English words with the w- become the gu- sound as these words evolved into Spanish. Yes, in this case, the Germanic and English words - centuries ago - made its way back into Spanish rather than the more common pattern of vice-versa!

# data[].attributes.body
En Voy a la playa con mis amigos, el rol semántico de amigos es:

A.    Manera

B.    Compañía

C.    Cantidad

D.    Destino

# data[].attributes.body
¿El subjuntivo es parte de qué categoría?

A.    Aspecto

B.    Número

C.    Tiempo

D.    Modo