Very good lecture! You explained this way better than Tom Scott or NativLang. You pose the question, why there are more suffix-preferring languages. Maybe because the stem is the most important part of the word, so it's good if we hear it sooner. 33:54 Your Hungarian accent is entertaining. 😄 To be exact the Hungarian object suffix is just -t, not -át.
The Turkish long word can be translated into Finnish too except the "reportedly" suffix: eurooppalaistuttamattomisiltamme. Let's add some other suffixes: eurooppalaistuttamattomisiltammekohankinkos which means "I wonder if also of the ones who are uneuropeanised?"
Same thing in Kapampangan language (an austronesian language spoken in the central luzon part of the philippines and it's agglutinative language too), "Mipamakipangaemakapagpangamikiyuropiyanuanan" is the translation of that turkish long word. The only root word that was use here is "Yuropiyanu (european)" the rest are prefixes and suffix.
I think suffixation would be more common because when you want to " add " a meaning ,, adding would most probably come after the base thing ,, on top of it ,, and keeping the base meaning in the beginning ,, also , is it just me that noticed that the more costal the language region is the more analytic it it , and the more land surrounded it is the more synthetic it is …
You're correct, but I believe this is because dealing with complex morphology is difficult, and so-if you have noticed-the more widespread a language is, the more simple it tends to be in morphology and (to some extent) in grammar and phonology; the more isolated a language is, on the other hand, the more it can evolve off into its own weird niche. We might suspect coastal peoples would have more contact with others than interior ones; and, hence, the influence of other languages upon-& of foreign folks trying to learn to speak-our hypothetical coastal language has thereby caused it to evolve to the simpler end of the spectrum. That's my hypothesis, anyway.
This is such as a marvelous linguistic course. The professor is a great teacher. Thanks for putting this online.
thanks for putting this out in the world, you're a great teacher!
Very good lecture! You explained this way better than Tom Scott or NativLang.
You pose the question, why there are more suffix-preferring languages. Maybe because the stem is the most important part of the word, so it's good if we hear it sooner.
33:54 Your Hungarian accent is entertaining. 😄 To be exact the Hungarian object suffix is just -t, not -át.
The Turkish long word can be translated into Finnish too except the "reportedly" suffix: eurooppalaistuttamattomisiltamme. Let's add some other suffixes: eurooppalaistuttamattomisiltammekohankinkos which means "I wonder if also of the ones who are uneuropeanised?"
Same thing in Kapampangan language (an austronesian language spoken in the central luzon part of the philippines and it's agglutinative language too), "Mipamakipangaemakapagpangamikiyuropiyanuanan" is the translation of that turkish long word. The only root word that was use here is "Yuropiyanu (european)" the rest are prefixes and suffix.
That doesn't make any sense, as you've translated it ("I wonder if" who or what_ "is among..." etc). Is it grammatical in Finnish?
Thank you soo much for putting this course online!
This is good stuff, good stuffness.
thank you for your useful information and clear declaration.
Thank you for helping me I'm on my final term of morphology and syntax
Great delivery
ver well explained , thank you
great video. Thanks.
I don't speak Turkish but your accent sounds pretty convincing.
believe me it isn't. He is the best anyway:)
I think suffixation would be more common because when you want to " add " a meaning ,, adding would most probably come after the base thing ,, on top of it ,, and keeping the base meaning in the beginning ,, also , is it just me that noticed that the more costal the language region is the more analytic it it , and the more land surrounded it is the more synthetic it is …
You're correct, but I believe this is because dealing with complex morphology is difficult, and so-if you have noticed-the more widespread a language is, the more simple it tends to be in morphology and (to some extent) in grammar and phonology; the more isolated a language is, on the other hand, the more it can evolve off into its own weird niche.
We might suspect coastal peoples would have more contact with others than interior ones; and, hence, the influence of other languages upon-& of foreign folks trying to learn to speak-our hypothetical coastal language has thereby caused it to evolve to the simpler end of the spectrum.
That's my hypothesis, anyway.
Waaaw thanks sir
Would English not have a morphological process? England + ish makes a language
❤
An example: all Turkic languages are morphologically heavy.
Hungarian is just like Latin or any language with declensions finish Russian Germany etc
Ok
"Isolate language" seems a racist term.
good teacher