this post was submitted on 10 Sep 2025
13 points (100.0% liked)

Linguistics

1506 readers
14 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:

  1. Instance rules apply.
  2. Be reasonable, constructive, and conductive to discussion.
  3. Stay on-topic, specially for more divisive subjects. And avoid unnecessary mentioning topics and individuals prone to derail the discussion.
  4. 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.
  5. Avoid crack theories and pseudoscientific claims.
  6. Have fun!

Related communities:

Resources:

Grammar Watch - contains descriptions of the grammars of multiple languages, from the whole world.

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 

As an avid (ab)user of phrases-as-lemmata, I found this interesting.

Discovered through YouTube: Linguists just made a breakthrough in defining a 'word. ' No, really

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] lvxferre@mander.xyz 2 points 1 week ago (2 children)

That's interesting. I did some grammaticality tests, and my conclusion is that they behave a lot like nouns, but with further restrictions. Like this:

Sentence a. "we're-better-than-you" (PAL) b. "arrogant" (adj.) c. "arrogance" (n.)
1. Their [__] behaviour is annoying. OK OK OK
2. Their [__] is annoying OK? bad OK
3. They [__] fairly often bad bad bad

I'm not a native speaker, mind you. I feel like 2a ("Their we're-better-than-you is annoying.") is kind of passable? It doesn't sound as malformed as using 3a (trying to force the PAL into a verb position), but it sounds worse than 1a. I wonder if native speakers agree or disagree with this.

The text does mention Portuguese (my L1) also allows PALs, so I repeated the tests:

Sentence a. "somos-melhores-que-vocês" (PAL) b. "arrogante" (adj.) c. "arrogância" (n.)
4. O comportamento [__] deles é irritante. bad OK bad
5. O comportamento de [__] deles é irritante. OK ? OK
6. (O/A) [__] deles é irritante. OK (with "o") bad OK (with "a")
7. Eles [__] constantemente. bad bad bad

4a sounds extremely broken, even if its English equivalent (1a) sounds OK. That makes sense if they're behaving like nouns - unlike English, Portuguese doesn't allow nouns to directly modify each other. I'd also probably give 5b a pass but, again, language specificities - it's easier to promote an adjective to a noun in Portuguese than in English.

Interesting share regardless of the above - thanks for sharing it!

[–] Eccentric@sh.itjust.works 2 points 1 week ago (1 children)

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?

[–] lvxferre@mander.xyz 1 points 1 week ago

As if they were replacing some word, right? Except the word might not exist in this case.