this post was submitted on 10 Sep 2025
14 points (100.0% liked)
Linguistics
1598 readers
1 users here now
Welcome to the community about the science of human Language!
Everyone is welcome here: from laypeople to professionals, Historical linguists to discourse analysts, structuralists to generativists.
Rules:
- Instance rules apply.
- Be reasonable, constructive, and conductive to discussion.
- Stay on-topic, specially for more divisive subjects. And avoid unnecessary mentioning topics and individuals prone to derail the discussion.
- Post sources when reasonable to do so. And when sharing links to paywalled content, provide either a short summary of the content or a freely accessible archive link.
- Avoid crack theories and pseudoscientific claims.
- Have fun!
Related communities:
- !linguistics_humor@sh.itjust.works
- !languagelearning@sopuli.xyz
- !conlangs@mander.xyz
- !esperanto@sopuli.xyz
- !japaneselanguage@sopuli.xyz
- !latin@piefed.social
Resources:
Grammar Watch - contains descriptions of the grammars of multiple languages, from the whole world.
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
To me as a native speaker, 1c is ungrammatical. I do agree that 2a is surprisingly grammatical though.
I will say grammar is really not my strong suit (and I only had time to skim the paper) but I have a decent background in semantics. Maybe I've just been working a lot with euphemisms lately, but PALs almost seem to function like euphemisms?
As if they were replacing some word, right? Except the word might not exist in this case.