Milkshakes. Earthquakes. After reading Atkins/Levin, I can see why "milkquake," or "earthshake," or even "milk-tremble," sound so terribly strange--even though the verbs shake, quake, quiver, shiver, shudder, tremble, and vibrate are all semantically similar. As the reading points out, "quake" is used with self-controlled bodies (internal causation) like the earth. Milk, meanwhile, generally doesn't quake itself. "Shake" denotes an external causation; some outside force is shaking the milk to produce a milkshake. Interestingly, in both these examples, "shake" and "quake" aren't verbs in these cases, but nouns that reflect the passive of a verb; milk having (been) shaken, earth having quaked. Thus, you can ask for a "shake" at TAP, or ask about the "quake" that happened in '89. Or is this just an example of compound words being shortened in the vernacular?
This fits in well with the second Haspelmath reading, or at least the second part, about compound words--complex lexemes formed out of other lexemes. In "earthquake," though, it's a N+V construction; the same goes for "milkshake." On these constructions, Haspelmath says, "The N+V pattern is not really productive either (for instance, one cannot say to hair-wash...)" But what about milkshakes and earthquakes? Haircuts? I was confused about this. Perhaps I was correct in assessing the second lexeme as a noun?
To relate this to the final reading, I'd be very interested in examining the translations of "milkshake" and "earthquake" and other such complex lexemes in other languages. Are the lexemes (N+V) in the same order? Do they use the same verbs, or do they not care so much about manner ("shake"(external) being a distinct manner of movement from "quake" (internal))?
At any rate, it's time for me to go to TAP and ask for a milk-shiver, and ask about that crazy earth-tremble that happened back in '89.
Interesting observation with "earthquakes" and "milkshake." After the reading, I started to think about external and internal causations too. I noticed that "frostbite" has external "bite" while "heartbeat" has internal "beat." These words definitely cannot be changed into "frostchew" (internal chew) and "heartpound" (external pound."
ReplyDeleteThis was a really engaging blog post about the strange contradictions, however, I enjoyed your analysis about how 'earthquake' and 'milkshake' might actually be N+N rather than N+V. A shake or quake as a noun may still follow the discussions that Haspelmath articulated.
ReplyDeleteI found your example with "milkshake" and "earthquake" a great explanation of the differences between the shake verbs. Your note on the passive tense of the verb is interesting to think about because I think this applies to a lot of words that end in a shake verb, like handshake (hands have shaken together).
ReplyDeleteHi Dylan, thanks for your very interesting post. While post is initially humorous I very much enjoyed your linking the post to Haspelmath's analysis of complex lexemes. You raise a thought-provoking point about the consistencies of these complex lexemes through other languages. As an international student I have been trying to make comparisons to other languages and will be thinking about how much this applies across the board, thank you!
ReplyDeleteI really like how you used the milkshake earthquake example to illustrate takeaways from each reading. I feel like it helped draw the connections you were looking to draw clearly.
ReplyDeleteI think the conversation introduced by Atkins/Levin that you engage with here is an interesting one! I find it fascinating how there are these unwritten rules about how verbs have types of entities that they are typically used with and imagine it's incredibly confusing for language learnings. I also wonder if when I speak Mandarin whether or not I'm using verbal oddities equivalent to "Milkquake" and just don't know it.
ReplyDeleteI think that your comment on wanting to know about compound word translations is particularly interesting. One thing that comes to mind is the word "basketball" and its translations in other languages. Since it's an English-derived word, pretty much all of the translations sound similar to basketball or are the direct translations of "basket" + "ball". I am curious to see if this is the case with other compound words, especially whether or not they exist as compound words in other languages.
ReplyDeleteDylan, I think you made an excellent summary example of the Atkins/Levin readings. Earthquake and Milkshake do indeed have similar second halves of quake and shake, but you made a great point talking about the connotations of quake and shake where shake seems to be force applied from the outside. I think sometimes, these connections are very obvious and other times they are more unintuitive, which adds to the language complexity learning curve, especially when learning languages without being a native speaker.
ReplyDelete