Feature Focus - Case-marking
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 30 мар 2020
- On the evolution, function, secondary usage, and loss of cases.
PATREON: / biblaridion
DISCORD: / discord
Further Reading:
Evolution of cases:
openaccess.leidenuniv.nl/bits...
Quirky subject:
shodhganga.inflibnet.ac.in/bi...
www.ideals.illinois.edu/bitst...
Differential object marking:
www.linguistics.fi/julkaisut/S...
Turkish object case-assignment:
web.stanford.edu/group/cslipub... 
Наука
![MURDER DRONES Series Finale [TRAILER]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/p6mhC5Iatns/mqdefault.jpg)
Examplish, my favorite language.
What if examplish is a language that biblaridion has secretly been making without overtly telling us...........
Kechpaja coined it at the 8th Conlang Conference as an example lang name, perfect name honestly. Whole room cracked up during their presentation!
Wish you could speak examplish?
This language has three dialects of it: Basican, Intermediatese, and Advancedish.
www.meamoria.com/lexurgy/app/sc
He needs to release it so its fully learnable
@@a5p7 thank you
1:02
"10 or more cases"
*gets thandian flashbacks*
I want to start a project that involves simplifying Thandian. Anyone else in?
I'm in!
MasicBemester 『メイジク ビー厶スター』
It could be easy, we can just drop the unusual unused features that are too complex and not necessary
@@masicbemester me too
@@masicbemester No, someone should try to recreate Thandian using only what he shows in the video and then send it to Conlang Critic
5:46
"Jon likes this book."
"Jóni líkar þessi bók."
Hmm... I wonder if these languages are related somehow.
Have you heard of Germanic languages?
Yes.
Vikings!
I think its just a coincidence
definitely are
My favorite part of this video is actually when he shows what happens to a case system after it has evolved, which is very helpful for people who want to evolve their conlangs further than one generation from the protolang. Okay, I have made a case system, so now what? Do I need to replace all of the adpositions that I used to build the cases? How do I do that? What happens when additional sound changes wreck my cases and make them too similar to one another? I love that he answers those questions, as it shows a depth that you just can't get from most other conlanging tutorials.
As a Latin student, I love this :)
Great video!
A little correction to the Finnish at 2:45: the genitive of mies is miehen, not miesen
+ 3:45 the bottom sentence is Latvian, not Albanian
+ 6:25 the top right sentence would be Syön omenaa
An additional correction - 6:28 or thereabouts. In Finnish, the singular genitive and singular accusative have the same form. The partitive is distinct. (The whole truth is somewhat more complex, but the partitive and genitive are never identical.) For more on the partitive in Finnish, see my post here miniatureconlangs.blogspot.com/2017/07/the-finnish-partitive-case.html?m=1
ayy Latvian
@@prodbywerty i forget that you guys have internet too
same with hungarian some casemarkings lack the "ó" like "háztol" is not correct, its written like "háztól"
I really love your extensive use of Latin and Turkish grammatical features on the very right occasions. It is good to know your channel, you are doing a great job.
2:45
The genitive's function certainly does enclose possession, but it also goes beyond.
The genitive marks modification of of other nouns, not exclusively possession
zeutomehr
Yeah like in Spanish:
Pastel de chocolate
[Cake of chocolate]
“Chocolate Cake”
it makes more sense to say that it marks the relationship between two nouns
You and Artifexian released a new video at the exact same time and it's tripping me up
2:03 - Hungarian
Since there were quite a number of mistakes, including the translation and the fact that there were four cases missing, of which only 3 were relevant here (elative, causal-final and illative), but also the essive, which is not an official case in Hungarian, was added. The most important 5th forgotten case is the possessive - details below as well as the corrected cases.
Nominative - ház - house (subj.)
Accusative - házat - house (object)
Dative - háznak - to/for (the) house
Instrumental - házzal - with (the) house
Terminative - házig - until (the) house
Causal-final - házért - because/for (the) house
Delative - házról - from off/ about (the) house
Superessive - házon - on (the) house
Sublative - házra - onto (the) house
Ablative - háztól - away from (the) house
Adessive - háznál - at/by (the) house
Allative - házhoz - towards (the) house
Elative - házból - from (the) house
Inessive - házban - inside (the) house
Illative - házba - into (the) house
Translative - (házzá) - never heard that before
(Temporal - / - (only for time))
(Essive - házként - as a house)
(Genitive - házé (doesn't really exist like that))
Possessive:
My house - házam
Your house - házad
Her/His house - háza
Our house - házunk
Your house - házotok
Their house - házuk
My houses - házaim
Your houses - házaid
Her/His houses - házai
Our houses - házaink
Your houses - házaitok
Their houses - házaik
"Házé" is used in a really peculiar way. We typically show possession as "ABC XYZ-(j)e" which means "ABC's XYZ", and therefore to say that the ground belongs to the house, we would say, "(a) ház földje". However, when breaking that word order, we use a different method, made distinct much like in English her vs. hers, where we may say, "Azt mondják, a föld a házé, nem a házmesteré." ("They say the grounds are the house's, not the housemaster's.")
Rarely would we ever use it referring to so something like a house because houses tend not to possess many things.
1:58
Romanian also has a Vocative case ( -ule / -o ),which in this case would be ‘Bãiatule”
Vocative has more forms, băi băiete ;) Also, it has five cases: nominative, accusative, genitive and dative
Novvain Yes, it does, but it's an optional case, as Nominative can be substituted instead.
rawkeh Nom/Acc have the same form, and so do Gen/Dat, so they count as only 2.
The most linguists think that the vocative is not a really case because it doesn't mark a function in the sentence.
@@rawkeh no it doesn't, since the accusative and dative have the same forms on nouns as the nominative and genitive, respectively
3:41
We can also use "with" to encode an ornative relationship, one where the role of the dependent is an ornament, component, or endowment. Compare:
to build a house with a friend (comitative)
to build a house with a hammer (instrumental)
to build a house with a window (ornative)
It exists as its own case in Swahili, Hungarian, and Dumi.
Paul van Gemmeren that’s kind of a shortened relative clause, right?
@@rubbedibubb5017 You could express it as a relative clause, but it's by no means unique in that manner. You can do the same thing with the ablative case, the locative case, and even the good ol' genitive case.
a house with windows › a house, which has windows
a gift from Dad › a gift, which came from Dad
a building in Chicago › a building, which is located in Chicago
Bubb's comment › the comment, which belongs to Bubb
Paul van Gemmeren yeah, but how would you say ”I built a house with a friend” with a relative clause? ”I built a house that I built with a friend” sounds weird.
@@rubbedibubb5017 Sure, that sentence doesn't make sense semantically, but the grammar would be sound. Since the act of building the house with a friend is already stated in the relative clause, we don't have to restate that verb phrase in the main sentence. If we replace the main verb, we get
I walked to a house that I built with a friend.
which is a lot less clunky and redundant.
Paul van Gemmeren well yeah that’s true. I guess that was just what I immediately thought.
Great video!
Just a note: at 7:19 you glossed the particle に as marking lative case, where it actually marks dative/locative. The lative marker is へ. It doesn't really matter but the lative case stresses the movement, whereas dative stresses destination.
Also, 荷物 was mistyped as に持つ
You and artefexian uploaded within 5 minutes of each other
I’ve learned/understood more about grammatical cases from conglang related youtube channels than from any linguistic one…
7:21
荷物 not に持つ (nimotsu)
4:01 I would like to fix the sentence in Czech:
"Jdu, Marie!"
"Marie" is a name, thus beginning with a capital letter. The vocative case is the same as nominative in Marie. This is true for nouns in classes "soudce" (judge - masculine), "ruže" (rose - feminine, Marie belongs here), and "moře" (sea - neuter)
Source: I'm a native speaker.
Being a conlanger is so weird, we talk to each other about how to make a way of talking to each other
2:43 "mies," when conjugated into most cases, is affected by consonant gradation and the "s" turns into a "h." the correct form would be "miehen"
oh, and the partitive/accusative case form of omena is in fact omenaa, not omena. 6:30
I'd like to make a case ('scuse the pun) that Korean has actual grammatical cases, not particles. The language has spacing between words, but case markers are always written together with the word they refer to. Also, there are distinct forms of certain case suffixes (topical, nominative, accusative, vocative, instrumental, comitative) depending on the word-final sound.
I thought the difference was in agreement but that goes out the window when applying so broadly. When they're cases then all the words get marked. See the difference between a genitive case and possessive s clitic. Japanese 'cases' are just clitics. Clitic is a phonological distinction otherwise the same an adposition. But these are all relative terms really. In my opinion 'grammatical case' should not be used to refer to any language outside of Indo-European languages which clearly display the case system that this terminology was made to describe. As with all terms, even verb and noun, they're simply not universals and the context of each language matters much more than any broad description.
Another distinction you might vaguely make between adpositions and cases is semantic vs grammatical. Cases get to the point, so bleached, that it's mainly about internal syntax and any meaning could be applied to a given case from initial conditions (which were semantic so maybe not). Whereas adpositions are more bound by a semantic range. To come up with a new use it has to conform to that while it has yet to be semantically-bleached.
In addition to the three big ones - case marking, agreement and word order - I think one or two strategies need to be acknowledged.
1. The Animacy hierarchy
2. Context and Real World Knowledge.
These are closely related, the AH basically being a subcase of the latter. Anyways, Swedish has basically the same case system as English, but no verb congruence, yet permits freer swapping between OVS and SVO even when no case marking element is present. In speech, intonation does some of the lifting, and so serves as a form of case marking. However, in writing, the things that regulate this are complicated - a mess of things that interact, really.
Just got this recommended exactly one year after it was uploaded. Neat
My dialect of Swedish has separate dative forms which are mostly absent in the standard language.
that is cool
På riktigt? Snälla berätta mer
@@falkkiwiben i västerbotten och delar av norrbotten kan man fortfarande höra frå båtöm (från båten) eller liknande former. Det finns även i Jämtland och kanske på något annat ställe också. En lite udda sak är att endast den bestämda formen finns, dvs inte *frå n båte eller vad nu fornnordiska báti skulle bli.
I was having super hard times studying for my Glottologia finals (doing my masters in Linguistics) and your videos helped me a lot! Thank you!
I’m so stoked. Latin is literally such a fun and amazing languages! Like what the actual heck. How can you be so nice!!!!
On "quirky subject"
I can't speak for Sadri
But in German "Dem Fritz" isn't the subject. "Das Bild" is.
"gefallen" roughly translates to "to be pleasing", so this sentence is roughly "To him is pleasing the painting of him"
It is just a convention to put an "animate" noun first
It is the same in Spanish
(A el) le gusta el pescado
(To he) him pleases fish
Russian
Ему нравится картина
Him pleases the painting
This misunderstanding comes from the fact that English doesn't have reflexive verbs or middle voice
So translating such constructions word-by-word results in odd and unnatural text
Right, I've always felt like the concept of "quirky subject" was made up by native English speakers being confused by other languages using different syntax.
So British people really do pronounce "with" with a [ð] rather than a [θ].
Yes. One I'm still not 100% sure about is "thank you". Apparently it's supposed to be pronounced θank you, but that sounds weird for me saying it and when other people say it, I think it's slightly more of a ð sound. Perhaps this is a sound change that is going on in English right now? Or maybe I've just been pronouncing it wrong all my life.
I pronounce it "wiv" and I'm British. I also usually have fronting "fank you", it depends where you live, really.
I'm American and I pronounce "with" with a [ð] rather than a [θ]
New Zealander here, I say it [wəð]
@@mimikal7548 i say it voiceless, but some dialects might say it voiced, I'm not sure. But my dialect of English uses a voicless dental fricative.
Little Error:
In Persian we do not say Ketabo when speaking formaly or when writing, but instead ketabra
As a native speaker, I don’t think there is any mistake in the video in that regard. “-râ” is the literary accusative clitic, while “-(r)o” is the what it is in colloquial speech.
Bra
*little mistake
2:00 Correction about Hungarian.
The genitive "case" is not a case because after the -é suffix you can add any other suffix from the other cases. After a case ending, no other ending is possible (there are only 2 exceptions that I know of).
_Házzá_ means *(turning) into the house.*
I would translate _házig_ as *as far as the house.*
_Háztól_ is *(away) from the house,*
while _házról_ is *about the house* or *off the house.*
_Házon_ is *on the house [location],*
while _házra_ is *on the house [motion],* so *onto the house.*
You say that suffixing case systems are the most common despite word order, but then how do *prepositions* turn into case *suffixes?*
I assume that postpositions turn into cases more often than prepositions do. It happens just by phonological erosion.
Most languages that predominately use prepositions don't have case. The only language family I know of that has case but predominately uses prepositions is Indo-European, and in that, the case system is much, much, *much* older than the prepositions, so it's possible that it *used* to predominately use postpositions, evolved case, and then switched to prepositions afterwards.
I've been wondering this for a very long time as well
i've heard the theory that it has to do with eliding prepositions becoming postpositions to put focus on the noun before finally suffixing onto the verb, but i've got no idea if that's true.
I know for my own language Dutch that, especially adverbially, it is more common to use postpositions instead of prepositions. "Ik ga het huis in" for "I'm going into the house." Dutch word order is super weird, but maybe this is a thing that happens more often.
can you make a vid about *examplish*
5:58 So Sadri is a language spoken by mice?
Favori youtube kanalımsın Biblaridion :)
Hm. So last night i had a Biblaridion-inspired idea thing.
Since adjectives typically evolve from either verbs or nouns, it would make sense to derive emotional state words from action words, something like this for example:
-angry, lit. "kill-feel"
-happy, lit. "laugh-feel"
-scared, lit. "run-feel"
-jealous, lit. "steal-feel"
-sad, lit. "wither-feel"
etc.
(of course, which word becomes what is culture-dependent soooo this also involves making social constructs, which is fuuun. :))
Whatchyathink?
I really like jealous being "steal-feel", since it could also refer to more intangible things like success or love.
Very helpful! Great work!
This is like 3 years late, but at 2:18 the verb in Tamil needs to be conjugated for 3rd singular *feminine*. You have the masculine ending there. So, the sentence should read பெண் பையனை பார்க்கிறாள் (peṇ paiyaṉai pārkkiṟāḷ) (or ending in -ār for formality)
In my native language, Serbian, both Dative and Genitive are sometimes used to mark a direct object. We use Accusative 99% of the time to mark the direct object and Dative to mark the indirect object, as you would assume. But in some fixed phrases, as well as in some specific constructions, Genitive and Dative are used to mark the direct object.
Examples:
"Imaš li vode?" - Do you have water? (literally: Do you have OF THE water?)
"Mi ih nazivamo ljudima." - We call them people. (literally: We call them TO THE people.)
In both of those cases, Accusative could have been used (so "vodu" instead of "vode", and "ljudi" instead of "ljudima") and both sentences would technically be grammatically correct, but they would sound very stiff and out of place.
---
And on the Instrumental vs Commutative field, we have only Instrumental, but use a nifty trick to distinguish the meanings. When we want to say that something is being done IN THE COMPANY of someone else, we double it up by adding the word "as", meaning "with."
Example:
"Idem na posao autobusom sa kolegom." - I go to work BY bus WITH a colleague.
Both "autobusom" and "kolegom" are in the Instrumental case, but by putting "sa" in front of "kolegom," we imply we go to work with him, not BY him.
BTW, if you use this with inanimate objects, you absolutely have to specify HOW is that object with you, or WHERE EXACTLY it is, because if you don't do it, it sounds like that object is walking beside
you, LITERALLY xD
Example:
"Idem na posao sa telefonom u ruci." - I go to work with the phone in my hand.
"Idem na posao sa telefonom." literally sounds like the phone and you are walking side by side lol
This is why I love learning and studying languages. This stuff can't be made up xD
Thanks for reading all of this crap btw :D
Then how would u say "I go to work with my phone"? Without having to specify that you're holding it in your hands
@@pia_mater Idem na posao telefonom, maybe?
i was hoping you'd make a video on case marking... thanks!
Hi. the usage of "-den" in your Turkish example is somewhat irregular. The "-den" often only binds itself to noun when it indicates material of an object, like say "tahtadan dolap" (wardrobe made of wood). Otherwise it binds itself to closest verb, so in the sentence 7:28, it sounds more like the boy was looking at from the city to the soldier. The regular usage would be like "şehirden gelen askere" (soldier coming from the city). In casual usage when the meaning is clear, "gelen" is sometimes dropped. This is also what happens when it is used for indicating material, the full version is "tahtadan yapılmış dolap"The implict "yapılmış" (made) is dropped, this specific drop is much more common.
This cleared up so much
You should show us another one of your languages. They're pretty cool.
Damn boy, quality content !
2:12 Tamil is simplified,
When writing its
:paiyan pogiraan பையன் போகிரான்
But generally speaking we say
: Paiyae pooraan பையன் போரான்
Dropping the "'gi' sound and the 'an' become "'ae' as in the english word 'man'
But we don't have symbols for representing that sounds
Historic spelling
I feel a spelling reform is in order.
@@imrukiitoaoffire1908 yes
@@imrukiitoaoffire1908 actually one was done in the 1975 but what it did was to remove one consonant
Can you make a video on Reduplication plsssss
No.
It will be a video, but not a video video
Does it make sense to say that a hunter gatherer or hunting focused society would tend towards evolving a locative case, as they need to identify locations more precisely? For example, the frequent use of pre/postpositions such as "on", "beside" and "away from" would lead to many different ones becoming affixed to the noun, becoming a case system.
Well every civilizations aroused from some nomadic hunter gatherers, they discovered agriculture and then civilization came.
But not many languages have a locative case, either because they lost it or because they found another way.
It's not necessary Cases are formed by inflection, cases could be marked by Particles or other words like English "In", "On", "At" etc.
In fact every grammatical cases can be marked by particles or words of the language has it.
The book 𝗼𝗳 Anna.
The house build 𝘄𝗶𝘁𝗵 work.
These are not particles as in English grammar they aren't treated like that but same how English expresses cases by these words and not through inflection, other languages also can.
Examples include Chinese which have no Inflection whatsoever.
Danish originally had Nominative, Akkusative, Genitive and Dative, however, today only genitive is marked by a suffix. The neat part is that the distingsion between the akkusative and dative has migrated to the preposition. This is most easily translated into english for the word ind and inde. With ind meaning into and inde meaning in. The same aplies for other preposition, like: ud/ude for out, op/oppe for up, ned/nede for down. It does however, only apply to words that would otherwise be ambigious.
Danish doesn't have genetive, Scandinavian possesive is not a noun form as it doesn't tie to nouns. The classic phrase "Kongen af Danmark's trone" is usually used as an example. If it was genetive the king (kongen) would be the marked noun.
Can you do a feature focus on vowel harmony?
In the example of the vocative case, there should be a big M in the sentence Jdu, Marie! In Czech names always begins with a capital letter, like in English. :)
6:33
Top right should be omena-a and it is partitive
Bottom right is accusative
ooh, what about tripartite alignment? always wanted to know how these evolve and work, they're pretty interesting
2:16 correction: 'returned' in the perfect tense should be rediit with two i's rather than one
If cases can be marked with particles, then where do we draw the line between ‘case particles’ and adpositions? What if prepositions like, say, ‘to’ and ‘with’ are just particles to mark the dative and instrumental-comitative?
I thought the difference was in agreement but that goes out the window when applying so broadly. When they're cases then all the words get marked. See the difference between a genitive case and possessive s clitic. Japanese 'cases' are just clitics. Clitic is a phonological distinction otherwise the same an adposition. But these are all relative terms really. In my opinion 'grammatical case' should not be used to refer to any language outside of Indo-European languages which clearly display the case system that this terminology was made to describe. As with all terms, even verb and noun, they're simply not universals and the context of each language matters much more than any broad description.
Another distinction you might vaguely make between adpositions and cases is semantic vs grammatical. Cases get to the point, so bleached, that it's mainly about internal syntax and any meaning could be applied to a given case from initial conditions (which were semantic so maybe not). Whereas adpositions are more bound by a semantic range. To come up with a new use it has to conform to that while it has yet to be semantically-bleached.
In Finnish when you say 'the man's car' the word mies (man) gets modified to miehen in genetive case. similar modification happens with other cases too
When the genetive case is added on the word "mies", there occurs gradiation which weakens the s to an h. So it becomes "miehen".
A question, why do case markers end up as a suffix even if it was a prepositional language? You mentioned it but never explained why
I wish there had been a video explaining what an ablative and dative were when I was seven.
2:17 well little mistake in the Tamil example there, parkiran is masculine form, parkiral is the feminine form.
off topic but that jazz drum intro goes SO hard
2:22 Tamil 2nd example is wrong. It should be 'Pen Paiayannai Paakiral, not Paakiran, as Paakiran is see.3sg.masculine not feminine.
A small correction. At 2:20 the Tamil sentence should read 'Pen paiyanai pārkkirāl'. Pārkkirān is '(he) sees'. Pārkkirāl is '(she) sees'.
Yooo this SLAPS yuhhhh
Modern Greek has three very common and one extremely rare. Nominative, genitive and accusative, and then one that isn't mentioned he and is used to call others.
I'm making a language with no syntax and to have so many possible ways to indicate definition that you could produce a sentence with the same letters, words but eith different affixes , tones and forced stress. Yes I made 2 types of stress an aggressive stress and a nirmal stress that can go to 2 different dpots in a words and indicate different meanings. So 4 different modes each word, false forced stress can go in any vowel while normal can only go 2. All the pronouns is Akta but with different stresses powers of stress and tones
Wooo Examplish!
Thanks!
Fuck yeah a new video
I'm wondering: which font do you use? it's so beautiful
He uses Book Antiqua, it's a nice font isn't it
I don’t quite understand how a head initial language with prepositions can develop case suffixes. A little clarification please!
Thanks in advance.
So, a bit of advice-wanting:
When evolving the system and creating declensions, could the vowel of the majority of the declension become part of the nominative marking? I know that sounds weird, so please let me show you what I mean:
Say you have some words "pomi" "mito" "nite"
We add cases:
nominative: pomi, mito, nite
accusative: pomisu, mitosu, nitesu
genitive: pomiasi, mitoasi, niteasi
Then add evolution:
pomi > pom, mito > mit, nite > nit
pomisu > pomis, mitos, nites
pomiasi > pomias, mitōs, nitēs
could those vowels in the accusative and genitive appear in the nominative (by analogy) to mark which declension these words are in?
Yeah they could, but they don't have to.
5:00 su is also with in Lithuanian
Please tell me where you got your information on Malayalam!! Anyone!
I have been trying to find a good resource for Malayalam for a while but can't find anything.
Thank you all
Love your videos, but I've got a question: "How to evolve vocative case?"
I’m not a professional but the main way seems to have a particle word indicating address, something like “O” in English (“O king”, “O Christmas tree”) and have it attach to the noun like with other cases
3:45
The example you used there is in Latvian, not Albanian.
Oof
What about languages (like Icelandic) with several differing patterns depending on the noun. Where nouns have different endings for the same case and number, depending on the noun in question.
How do those messy systems come about?
those are called declensions. they develop when a long time passes from the affixing of the case markers and sound changes gradually alter the forms
In a future English I might have tense marking on the subject, is that realistic?
yeah some languages in west Africa have that
2:23 "Father returned" lmao
7:20 it's supposed to be 荷物 not に持つ
Why do you write Georgian examples using a Romanization as at 3:10, but Russian examples in Cyrillic?
Can a postpositional language that has a Verb first word order (V??) turn verbs into adpositions? If so, would the verbs realistically be postpositions or prepositions?
old me: Just copy past Latin and chance the prefixes, ad sum new classes and if you're daring, ad locative or even instrumentalis cases, and you're done.
hey, what font do you use for example text?
Palatino or URW Palladio
2:16 Boy is Paiyan not with n̥( n is dental and n̥ is retroflex)
And it should be pārkkirāl̥ in the second sentence.
Which nouns/verbs can be used to derive both a resultative case and a gerundive case?
What do you mean by a resultative case? A gerundive isn't a case, it's a type of verbal adjective used in Latin.
@@Biblaridion 1. Resultative: Noun created by performing the verb. 2. Gerundive: I was going for verbal noun. I didn't know the technical term for the case.
@@animefan25 For a verbal noun, you can have a noun like "act" or "thing" become affixed to the verb stem ('run' + 'act' = (the action of) running). Having a specific derivational affix to create a noun that results from the verb isn't particularly common, but you could use any sort of word that means "product", "creation", or even "offspring" (e.g. 'fire-offspring' = ashes). In the Thirean languages, I evolved a resultative suffix from a proto-thirean word meaning "fruit", "crop", or "harvest", because the resulting noun was metaphorically described as the fruit that the verb grows (kind of like the English expression “The fruits of one’s labour”).
There's a typo: the Japanese sentence at 7:22 is spelt ケンは東京から京都に荷物を送った。
2:48 the stem of the nouns change when infected in Finnish.
The word "mies" (man) should be "miehen" (man's) in genetive
Can case marking in some way be or become irregullar, or is that very rare?
Daan Debacker It can, especially with common words, but no language has completely irregular case-marking
Just one correction, noun states in Afro-Asiatic languages are seen as something similar but not exactly the same as case typically.
At 2:18 I think there may be a mistake in the Tamil. The verb should agree with the feminine gender of the Subject, so it would be பெண் பையனை பார்க்கிறாள் (Peṇ paiyaṉai pārkkiṟāḷ).
Correct
Correct!!! Are you a tamil?
It's the girl who is doing the action
@@michaeljvm Only half-tamil, but I spoke it growing up.
Oh great!
why is woman in the construct state in the berber example phrase?
Can you please do another conlang showcase?
I know this is an old video but I need help, what is the 1sg.SUBJ-3sg.OBJ.-INDEF.HUM.OBJ-INDEF.NON.HUM.OBJ-carry-CAUS.-APPL. In the beginning, like I see similar stuff in your videos and I’m trying to make sense of it, like I can see it’s talking about cases and objects and subjects. But it’s hard to understand what it’s communicating. Could someone tell me. I’d like to know because it’s killing me
This really helps me with my german :D
Can someone explain to me the process by which a predominately head-initial language developed case suffixes? I can’t find an explanation anywhere! Thanks!
I'd say, if you want case suffixes put them in your proto already.
The way they would develop is if the language a long time ago had postpositions, got some of them suffixed and later switched to prepositions (which can be seen in PIE as we can reconstruct some fossilised postpositions).
You could do it like that, but you can save yourself some effort and add case suffixes in the proto already, very useful if you want a whole family to have them.
is it possible for case suffixes to be borrowed between absolutely unrelated languages?
i mean, if i have a language (#1) with a decently extensive noun case system in a close linguistic contact with another language (#2) with a decently extensive noun case system, which, let's say, has a noun case that is absent from #1, is it possible for #1 to completely borrow that concept from #2? or should i rather evolve the suffixes for this case from the prepositions, verbs etc that are native for #1?
id say a native lexical source is much more likely
@@wtc5198 it's kinda obvious that this is more likely, what i'm asking is whether this is possible in principle
@@sporeman2334 Romanian borrowed part of its vocative inflexions from Slavic, but I'd say that's an edge case as vocative isn't strictly speaking a grammatical case, even if it morphologically works like one.
It's frequent for case marking affixes to evolve under the influence of nearby languages with case marking affixes, but they are typically formed from native sources rather than borrowed.
2:51 miehen auto on punainen*
it is the genitiv stem.
how do you get captions so fast??????
Guys Biblaridion has a reddit
www.reddit.com/r/biblaridion/
I joined
@izmit Dewd nice
Could the next one be noun class of classification
Ah yes, *JobbyTheHong transformation music*
Nice
8:58 "i am going to the house's stomach" wow