As a native German speaker it is natural for me to understand the case system, but I know that for learners of the German language, this is particularly tough. "Der Mann gibt dem Hund den Knochen, welchen er beim Fleischer gekauft hatte." Look at Afrikaans, the latest outlier of the Germanic languages, in contrast: highly simplified and analytic, yet still intelligible to most German speakers.
Afrikaans is zelfs begrijpelijk voor de meeste Duitsers ? Alleen wanneer je 't leest dan zeker, ik als Nederlander zelfs versta gesproken Afrikaans nauwelijks (kaum) Afrikaans lesen aber ist ganz einfach für mi(ch/r?)
Not so tough : in German case distinction is most regularly borne by the article or other determinant (welchem...) exactly as do contract articles in Romance languages. Adjectives bear case endings when they play the role of articles or quantifiers. Names bear case endings when used as derived adverbs (e.g zuhause, mindestens).
@@fukpoeslaw3613 yeah, I speak Dutch (not my first, not even second language, I used to be C1, now I'd say B2 - I understand it easily, but I'd probably mess up a lot trying to speak / write) and I went to introductory Afrikaans classes for one semester: reading Afrikaans (standard Afrikaans like in newspapers, that was our reading material) is very very simple if you know Dutch (and if you know German, learning Dutch is fairly simple, but it's still a foreign language, i.e. you need to sit down and learn for at least a few months to start getting it), I probably could also write down passable Afrikaans (well, a very Dutch-ified "standard" form as taught in textbooks; real spoken Afrikaans seems full of slang and code-switching - it wouldn't sound good but it'd be understood (but then, afaik Afrikaans speakers would understand written down standard Dutch too, so idk)), but listening and speaking is a whole other thing: I understand the phonetics on paper, so, again, I could probably blurt out something comprehensible, even if very unnatural-sounding, but listening is terrible, it feels like everything is reduced in the most random ways, I can't pinpoint the issue but spoken Afrikaans just sounds like gibberish to me, but give me the subtitles in Afrikaans and I'll get it, no issue
@@autumnblaze6267by the way, do you understand Frisian? I can understand spoken westlauwers fries (most of it) but reading it is a lot more difficult. With Afrikaans it's the other way round. (As a child I was exposed to Frisian on trips to family in Frisia. And my parents would speak it to each other a bit.)
2:10 - Minor Spanish verb corrections: · "(vosotros) amáis" (dyphthong, not hiatus, not "amaís", a single syllable "...áis" · "(vosotros) amasteis (stress is in the middle syllable, also typo and again last syllable is a dyphthong, one single syllable "...eis" and not a hiatus or two syllables "...e-ís") · "(vosotros) amabais (like the previous one, the stress is in the middle syllable and, per the orthographic rules, doesn't need a tilde ("´") when ending in -s or -n (the reverse is the rule for "acute" words, i.e. those that have the stress in the last syllable) · "(nosotros) amábamos" (all "esdrújula" words, i.e. those with stress in the third syllable counting from the end, carry tilde, the same applies to the rarer "sobresdrújulas", with stress in the fourth or so syllables, except those ending in "-mente" ("-ly" in English)
*amastáis => amasteis; I know this is not the point, but YT is watched by native speakers of all the languages you pick examples for ;) (Hungarian speaker here, tho)
@14:10 as a native Lithuanian speaker I see errors in your column for Vilkas; endings seem to be shifted/mixed between the cases. Here are the correct forms: Nominative: Vilk-as Genitive: Vilk-o Dative: Vilk-ui Accusative: Vilk-ą (note the ogonek diacritic on a, indicating long a en.wikipedia.org/wiki/%C4%84) Instrumental:Vilk-u Vocative:Vilk-e Locative:Vilk-e (stress is different from Vocative - it goes on the end e, while in vocative it goes on the front i)
and the greek ones too! I think that armenian and latin and greek are all shifted the same though, so what is marked as genitive is actually accusative in all three languages.
IE accusative has -om/-am ending: English: "I see beautiful woman" Slavic: Vidĭom (pĭorº-)k(ĭ)orºsnom žonom Serbian: Vidim prekrasnu ženu Sanskrit and Avestan sometimes have Accusative instead of Nominal corruption: ahAM/azEM, tvAM vs. Slavic ĭazº, tºvº Slavic in its turn has partial Genitive instead of Accusative corruption (in animated male nouns) and Nominal instead of Accusative corruption (in non-animated male and neutral nouns): Vidĭom vĭºlka ("I see a wolf") Vidĭom domº ("I see a house")
While most ancient Indo-European languages had 3 genders (Masculine, Feminine and Neuter) in their nouns, interestingly, the oldest recorded ancient Indo-European language, Hittite, did not. Instead, it had 2 genders: animate and inanimate. It is possible that this was the situation in early Proto Indo-European and the 3 gender system evolved from an animate/inanimate system later.
Is animate/inanimate like the Dutch system, de = masculine or feminine; het = neuter, so de = animate and het = inanimate? Although there are a lot of animals with het: het paard (the horse), het schaap (the sheep).
@@fukpoeslaw3613 I don't think I would describe the Dutch system as animate/inanimate for 2 reasons. 1) as you have pointed out, there are animate nouns in the neuter gender (het paard, het schaap and even het meisje (although here, it's the diminutive suffix that makes the noun neuter) and inanimate nouns in the common gender (de tafel, de mand, de computer, esv.), and 2) within the context of Indo-European linguistics, the Dutch system developed out of an older 3-way gender distinction - ie Dutch used to have 3 genders. TBH I don't know much about the Hittite and the Anatolian languages, but, interestingly, I understand that the only difference between animate and inanimate nouns was in the nominative case. In all other cases the declension was the same. This kind of makes sense, as inanimate nouns are unlikely to be the subject of a transitive verb (eg the woman can read the book, but the book cannot read the woman)
@@v0r0byovThe feminine gender evolved after the ancestors of the Anatolian languages left. The mechanism by which this happened is debated, but one theory is that a suffix *-eh2 which was added to verbs to make abstract nouns later became grammaticalised as a feminine ending. Once the feminine category was born, other words with a feminine reference were added. (Over time, the *-eh2 ending changed to -a which is still a feminine marker in many indo-european languages.)
"Proto-Indo-European language" actually likely never existed at the first place. It's a senseless model of linguistic evolution that runs counter to even the basic commonsense of sociolinguistics - languages don't evolve like trees do.
I love the concept of a video about PIE grammar, as it is hard just to get academics to speculate on it, let alone explore it this way. I would have liked a bigger exploration of actual PIE grammar for a video called PIE grammar.
sanskrit has a "pious mood", right? I once wondered how could we bring such a mood back to our modern languages. We could add a -o/o/o/ suffix to verbs and then do "ooooh" at the end of pronouncing such a verb. e.g. "I salute oooo-h thee!"
Interesting! I know very little about the specifics of Sanskrit. In some American communities, the use of "just" and "so," and possibly a few other words are part of displaying a pious disposition in public speech, especially public prayer. It's interesting to think of piety as a thing that can be expressed grammatically; of course, many languages use verb forms, like the formal plural, to express deference or recognize status, so why not? I've never thought about this before. Thanks!
The benedictive mood. Actually a variation upon aorist as far as I can recall. Sanskrit authors departed very little from regular imperfective forms, and participles. They preferred to form compound tenses by agglutination (krtavaan, having done) rather than to refer to non-standard principal parts like perfects and aorists : the latter were preserved mostly to take into account dialects where they were the most usual forms of past, as in Pali where aorist was the standard everyday preterite.
@@MrMirville Also called the precative, or in Sanskrit grammarian terms, so-called "āśīrliṅ" or the optative ("liṅ") used for blessings/wishing ("āśīs"). It's essentially conjugated like the optative of the aorist with an -s- thrown in but Panini/Sanskrit grammarians don't typically classify it or associate it with the aorist (called "luṅ"). In any case, although the aorist was common Vedic but quite rare in the classical language, this precative mood I'm guessing is not so very common even in the Vedas, and pretty much absent later on.
In the declension of the Greek noun λύκος- lykos , you have committed some errors. Nominative lykos, genitive lykou, dative lyko, (λυκω), accusative lykon, vocative lyke. That is how it is declined in the singular.
The Latin is also incorrect - it should be lupus, lupum, lupī, lupō, lupō, lupī, lupe, and then Latin has no instrumental case (it uses an ablative of means or instrument). Pretty major mistake
In biology there is a discipline called "numerical taxonomy" that decodes the relationships between different species of plants and animals by mathematical means. Basically, it constructs "family trees" of related organisms by calculating the smallest number of evolutionary changes needed to construct a tree that includes all species within a group. Is there some process analogous to this that is used to reconstruct extinct ancestral languages and to quantify the differences between related existing languages?
There is a theory of glottochronology that does this by beginning with phonetic changes, and there is a hearty dialogue between the fields of evolutionary biology and historical linguistics in certain areas, all based on the analogy you imply. There are some facts of human behavior that complicate mathematically modeling language change in analogy to genetic evolution, though. Immigration, genocide, media, and forced assimilation change languages very quickly; also, nothing prevents languages from borrowing from non-related languages or from exchanging material and influences with languages from which they have diverged, so English has borrowed related words from different languages (Engl. foot, Latin ped-estrian, French pawn (foot soldier), Greek, pod-iatrist), while birds and lizards can't easily exchange and re-exchange genes. So yes and no, and because language is a human behavior, nothing makes linguistic divergence inherently permanent.
@@parjanyashukla176I'm not sure what you mean by "genetic relationships," but languages are not static; they change over time and thus diverge from each other. The English of today is not the same as the English of Shakespeare. Dialects spoken in different regions of a land are not identical, and can become more different over time. For instance, the Spanish and Portuguese of today are more dissimilar from each other than ancestral Spanish and ancestral Portuguese of eight hundred years ago. This is what allows us to speak of languages being more or less closely related to each other, and in turn lets linguists construct trees showing these relationships. Is there something about this that you disagree with?
@@erikcarlson9250Yes, although biological species have some limited ability to get genes from non-ancestral populations (so-called "jumping genes," mediated perhaps by viruses), languages have much fluidity for swapping influences. I was just wondering if this has kept researchers from modeling mathematically the processes of linguistic evolution. Is there a computer program where one could in principle use modern Indo-european languages as inputs and have the program spit out Proto-indoeuropean as an output?
Such a program could be devised, but criticism at every step in light of comparative, archeological, and very fuzzy semantic data is important. As far as sound changes go, though, we already have a basic set of algorithms--consider Grimm's Law (of course, conditioned by Verner's Law, and obscured at times by borrowing or other circumstances). @@MartinMMeiss-mj6li
Arabic has a sort of similar system still in use and understood today. But it's much less complex. There are only three general cases, the nominative, accusative, and dative. The nominative is for all things related to the subject in the sentence. The accsuative is for all information related to the verb itself, (the objects, the time and place, the cause, the amount, etc.). The dative is for anything that comes after a preposition, or a noun that relates to a previous noun without the relation of a verb. Also, these cases change the nouns in regular ways for the vast majority of nouns (excluding those that have vowels at the end). These are, adding a "-u" at the end for the nominative, an "-a" for the accusative, and an "-i" for the dative. Here is an example: اكل الضيوف فى القاعة سبعين وجبة اشباعا لجوعهم مساء The guests ate seventy meals in the hall in the evening for the satiation of their hunger. The guests (ad-duyufu): Came in the nominative to indicate that they are the subject. Seventy meals (sab'ina wadjbah): The word "meals" is in the accusative because it is the verb's object, whike the word "seventy" is in the accusative because it indicates the amount of the verb. In the hall (fi al-qa'ati): Since this came after a preposition, it is in the dative case In the evening (masā'a): This did not come after a preposition, and instead indicated the time of the verb, and so was in the accusative case. For the satiation (ishba'a): This indicated the cause for the verb, and so was also in the accusative Of their hunger (li ju'ihim): This came in the dative due to the preposition. The "m" added at the end is a suffix to indicate that the hunger belonged to a group of people. If it was only one man, it would have been, "li ju'ihi." There is another form of the accusative which I chose not to put here because it's hard to translate to English, but it basically is an exaggeration of the intensity verb. For example, I could say, "اكلت الطعام" (I ate the food), which is normal, but if I add the word "اكلا" at the end, which is in the accusative, it indicates that I ate a lot. Sort of like, "I ate the food with great eating." There is also the accusative adjective which describes the way in which the subject did the action (basically the adverb), but I did not add it since the sentence was already unnecessarily long (there is really no need to use all of these words, I was just showing how the cases were applied.) In Arabic exams, these sorts of questions (called "i'rab"), where the question asks you to indicate what case this noun or verb is in and why, are hated by most students, mostly because of the way it is taught. Personally, I find it rather nice.
@@erikcarlson9250 The main error is in the order of the cases in English; it should have been 'Nom, Voc, Acc, Gen, Abl, Dat, Instr. and Loc.' Then it matches with the four languages.
@@parjanyashukla176Want to explain? Ive never heard about it being agenda driven but im really curious! Its very counter intuitive that a language tree would be so spread out with so much space but ive never heard of it being wrong?
I am native Lithuanian speaker.Your chart has the wrong Lithuanian case endings. Lithuanian does have the instrumental : vilkú. Plural: vilkais. In your chart several of the other case endings are wrong, such as the Lithuanian accusative, which ends in a nasalised "a" (fornerly -an), etc. Please adjust. If needs be, i can furnish the whole paradigm
Sorry, all I see here after a lot of minutes is only a hodge-podge of different stages of post-PIE -- already with a front page invoking lupus. Not an inducement to continue watching.
I do wonder how you came up with the 6 tenses? Afaik the common theory is the Cowgell-Rix system. Which kind of avoids using the concept tense for the most part (as it didn't work that straigt forward), but even in a more simplfied interpretation you wouldn't get more them 4 "tenses" (durative-present, durative-past, aoist, perfect/stative).
I don’t think always comes from “in all ways”. The practice of using the singular genetive s-form to make adverbs of time existed already in old english, but there, the phrase was “ealne weg”, which was an accusative form. The s was added only in a later stage of English by analogy to other adverbs. You would also use the accusative with the word “þurh”, meaning “through”, so its literal meaning is closer to the modern phrase “the whole way through”. The word “eall” could be used to mean “the whole”, unlike its modern descendant “all”, but to make it mean “every”, you would’ve used a plural form, and the s-genetive was always a singular form. The word “weg” was never even used like its modern descendant “way” to mean “method” or “manner”, it was always like “path”. For “manner” you had “wīse”, so “in all ways” would’ve been “eallum wīsum” or some instrumental case construction like that.
There is a bit of subliminal text on the screen which flashed up for only a fraction of a second at 16:30. I had to stop and re-wind the video dozens of times (not just several times, but dozens of times) - even going at a speed of 0.25 - before I managed to see what it says. “Oops - got some Latin out of order sorry”. If you want to edit the video in order to make a correction or apology like that, then do it properly so that we can see. The way you did it subliminally was infuriating and really annoying.
Thank you! I made an editing error there, and I certainly didn't mean to trouble anybody's subconscious. Ooof. At least I didn't say it backwards, I guess, or worse yet, in backwards Latin. I'll put that on my list of corrections to make when I revise this video.
why did u not simply use ᴅᴏᴍ| for the locative of latin, as this is a word where the old case is still present in a disctincive form. by the way, something that textbooks and non-historic scholars still dont get in 2024, the apex (´) is a neccessary part of latin orthography, like it is with the acute in spanish, omitting them is simply wrong. hence, ʟᴜᴘᴏ́ and ʟᴜᴘ|. just cuz in most weathered stone inscriptions they are barely visible does not mean that there is any where they did _not_ use them (or the long | in case of i)
*Why *By *don't *Hence Using lowercase letters at the beginning of a sentence or omitting the apostrophe in "don't" is *simply wrong.* Also: My browser shows DOM| and LUP|.
The description of the Accusative is wrong! The primary usage of the accusative in all inflected languages is being a subject of an action, such as being accused (!), taken, given, stolen, seen, destroyed, possessed, painted, washed, and so on. None of these actions involves a preposition in English. Accusative may also have additional usage in some languages, which translated to English requires prepositions.
You are wrong. The primary usage of the accusative is to indicate the object of the action. E.g. I throw the ball (in Greek ριπτω την σφαίραν - sphairan is the accusative of the noun sphaira/σφαίρα) (sphere).
its crazy to me to think a prehistoric langauge (you get what i mean) can have grammar inflections like this. its crazy why ancient people would even do this. because i speak chinese which is one of the oldest languages (i know mandarin is a more modern dialect but the writing system has stayed the same for a long time and bonded all these unintelligble dialects) and they have none of this grammar BS, its just ME EAT YESTERDAY, SO GOOD. (not Yesterday I ATE, and IT WAS so good). Idk why anybody would incorporate this in a language intentionally. I thought it derived from later adjustments. crazy to think about.
People don't change their language intentionally, and such complexity like this does make it harder for a foreigner to learn, but it's just as easy for a baby to learn this language as it is any other language (babies start speaking around the same age all around the world). This kind of language makes it so that you need to say less words to communicate the same thing.
Half of the video is explaining about basic grammar concepts. Complete waste of time. If someone is interested in the PIE, shouldn't it be assumed that these people already have these concepts in the baggage?
Carlson my advice for you is: start from Albanien language who is the root of the tree of Indo-European languages. I assure you that you will be satisfied
My advice is don't let people with a nationalist agenda near historical linguistics. Start with the comparative method and don't forget that extra-ordinary claims need extra-ordinary evidence.
@@neilmcbride71 or suspicious human I am not focused to nationality but to the name of the language used today. Anyway is not worth to spend time with you who reaches the conclusion as in love stories with “amore a prima vista” or love at first sight.
@@FidelKrasniqi-j3m anonymous person, I have been into historical linguistics since my Linguistics degree which I completed in 1995 - almost 30 years of love. Can you point me to a serious scholar of Proto Indo-European who claims that Albanian is at the root of the Indo-European languages (whatever that means)? Those who are genuinely interested in the science behind the reconstruction of Proto Indo-European and the development if the daughter languages should read 'Indo European Language and Culture' by Benjamin W. Forsten - a serious textbook used in serious Universities. It will walk you through the Comparative method and Internal reconstruction. BTW Albanian is a daughter language of Proto Indo-European and it's a very interesting one that has undergone some unusual sound changes from its parent (especially with the *s sibilant).
There are several groups like this on RUclips: it all started from Albanian; Sanskrit came first: or Tamil was the root of everything, according to taste. Some of the last group claim that Tamil is 200,000 years old, which suggests that the original Tamilians lived in trees and had fur and a tail.
Albanian is nowhere near the root of the tree of Indo-European languages. The only ones who spout this nonsense are Albanian non linguists who have heard this from other Albanians who don't know what they're talking about
Sanskrit contains 10 tenses and not four. This Indo-European theory is pure bunkum based on pre-determined conclusions, selective reading of lexical and archaeological evidence and racial propaganda.
Here we go again, a right wing nationalist snowflake pulls out the "racial propaganda" weapon because he can't believe that some people are NOT nationalist idiots but just want to know what happened. First of all: have you understood the distinction between tense, mood and voice? I'm sure you haven't. Second: have you understood why virtually every linguist agrees that indoeuropean languages are indeed related and didn't just borrow words from each other? Third and most importantly: PROVE YOUR STATEMENT!!!
@@YUGYWDASGOW It's based on propaganda and imagined history. The roots of this theory go back to the colonial age, and has its origins in Germanic nationalism. Nicely disseminated with the "science" stamp on it as if discovered in a laboratory.
Instead of elaborely studying Sanskrit language and literature these people too much depend on their opinions and willful guesses! First of all, Why Indo-Europens and not Euro cacasians or Euro anatolians!! If Rigveda is not there, many of the present day people in Europe and other places would not have known that they are related to common ancestor!!This is the truth!! Again, Proto Indo European is another lie!! Rigvedic Sanskrit is the first purified proto Indo Euro[ean language, the Aryans had Rigveda even before 6000 years ago as per recent archeology!! Those European groups as per Rigveda migrated from ancient India after Dasa rajna or ten kings war when the dried Saraswathi river flowing as mighty roaring war which is as per Rigveda! As per Rigveda ,Ar definition is given in Rigveda as on who tills and cultivate land!! Aryans are founders of darming and cultivation and assumed this as their identity as such Aryans are founders of human civilization!!
Please explain which sound changes are necessary to get from Rigvedic Sanskrit to Welsh. Of course, if Sanskrit is the ancestor of Welsh, as you claim it is, then it must necessarily be possible to get from the former to the latter.
As a native German speaker it is natural for me to understand the case system, but I know that for learners of the German language, this is particularly tough. "Der Mann gibt dem Hund den Knochen, welchen er beim Fleischer gekauft hatte."
Look at Afrikaans, the latest outlier of the Germanic languages, in contrast: highly simplified and analytic, yet still intelligible to most German speakers.
Afrikaans is zelfs begrijpelijk voor de meeste Duitsers ? Alleen wanneer je 't leest dan zeker, ik als Nederlander zelfs versta gesproken Afrikaans nauwelijks (kaum)
Afrikaans lesen aber ist ganz einfach für mi(ch/r?)
Not so tough : in German case distinction is most regularly borne by the article or other determinant (welchem...) exactly as do contract articles in Romance languages. Adjectives bear case endings when they play the role of articles or quantifiers. Names bear case endings when used as derived adverbs (e.g zuhause, mindestens).
@@fukpoeslaw3613 yeah, I speak Dutch (not my first, not even second language, I used to be C1, now I'd say B2 - I understand it easily, but I'd probably mess up a lot trying to speak / write) and I went to introductory Afrikaans classes for one semester: reading Afrikaans (standard Afrikaans like in newspapers, that was our reading material) is very very simple if you know Dutch (and if you know German, learning Dutch is fairly simple, but it's still a foreign language, i.e. you need to sit down and learn for at least a few months to start getting it), I probably could also write down passable Afrikaans (well, a very Dutch-ified "standard" form as taught in textbooks; real spoken Afrikaans seems full of slang and code-switching - it wouldn't sound good but it'd be understood (but then, afaik Afrikaans speakers would understand written down standard Dutch too, so idk)), but listening and speaking is a whole other thing: I understand the phonetics on paper, so, again, I could probably blurt out something comprehensible, even if very unnatural-sounding, but listening is terrible, it feels like everything is reduced in the most random ways, I can't pinpoint the issue but spoken Afrikaans just sounds like gibberish to me, but give me the subtitles in Afrikaans and I'll get it, no issue
@@autumnblaze6267 interesting and just what i already thought. What's your first two languages?
@@autumnblaze6267by the way, do you understand Frisian? I can understand spoken westlauwers fries (most of it) but reading it is a lot more difficult. With Afrikaans it's the other way round. (As a child I was exposed to Frisian on trips to family in Frisia. And my parents would speak it to each other a bit.)
2:10 - Minor Spanish verb corrections:
· "(vosotros) amáis" (dyphthong, not hiatus, not "amaís", a single syllable "...áis"
· "(vosotros) amasteis (stress is in the middle syllable, also typo and again last syllable is a dyphthong, one single syllable "...eis" and not a hiatus or two syllables "...e-ís")
· "(vosotros) amabais (like the previous one, the stress is in the middle syllable and, per the orthographic rules, doesn't need a tilde ("´") when ending in -s or -n (the reverse is the rule for "acute" words, i.e. those that have the stress in the last syllable)
· "(nosotros) amábamos" (all "esdrújula" words, i.e. those with stress in the third syllable counting from the end, carry tilde, the same applies to the rarer "sobresdrújulas", with stress in the fourth or so syllables, except those ending in "-mente" ("-ly" in English)
*amastáis => amasteis; I know this is not the point, but YT is watched by native speakers of all the languages you pick examples for ;) (Hungarian speaker here, tho)
A wise man loves rebuke.
@14:10 as a native Lithuanian speaker I see errors in your column for Vilkas; endings seem to be shifted/mixed between the cases.
Here are the correct forms:
Nominative: Vilk-as
Genitive: Vilk-o
Dative: Vilk-ui
Accusative: Vilk-ą (note the ogonek diacritic on a, indicating long a en.wikipedia.org/wiki/%C4%84)
Instrumental:Vilk-u
Vocative:Vilk-e
Locative:Vilk-e (stress is different from Vocative - it goes on the end e, while in vocative it goes on the front i)
The Latin case forms are mixed up as well
and the greek ones too! I think that armenian and latin and greek are all shifted the same though, so what is marked as genitive is actually accusative in all three languages.
Yes the same for Sanskrit
IE accusative has -om/-am ending:
English: "I see beautiful woman"
Slavic: Vidĭom (pĭorº-)k(ĭ)orºsnom žonom
Serbian: Vidim prekrasnu ženu
Sanskrit and Avestan sometimes have Accusative instead of Nominal corruption: ahAM/azEM, tvAM vs. Slavic ĭazº, tºvº
Slavic in its turn has partial Genitive instead of Accusative corruption (in animated male nouns) and Nominal instead of Accusative corruption (in non-animated male and neutral nouns):
Vidĭom vĭºlka ("I see a wolf")
Vidĭom domº ("I see a house")
While most ancient Indo-European languages had 3 genders (Masculine, Feminine and Neuter) in their nouns, interestingly, the oldest recorded ancient Indo-European language, Hittite, did not. Instead, it had 2 genders: animate and inanimate. It is possible that this was the situation in early Proto Indo-European and the 3 gender system evolved from an animate/inanimate system later.
Is animate/inanimate like the Dutch system, de = masculine or feminine; het = neuter, so de = animate and het = inanimate? Although there are a lot of animals with het: het paard (the horse), het schaap (the sheep).
@@fukpoeslaw3613 I don't think I would describe the Dutch system as animate/inanimate for 2 reasons. 1) as you have pointed out, there are animate nouns in the neuter gender (het paard, het schaap and even het meisje (although here, it's the diminutive suffix that makes the noun neuter) and inanimate nouns in the common gender (de tafel, de mand, de computer, esv.), and 2) within the context of Indo-European linguistics, the Dutch system developed out of an older 3-way gender distinction - ie Dutch used to have 3 genders.
TBH I don't know much about the Hittite and the Anatolian languages, but, interestingly, I understand that the only difference between animate and inanimate nouns was in the nominative case. In all other cases the declension was the same. This kind of makes sense, as inanimate nouns are unlikely to be the subject of a transitive verb (eg the woman can read the book, but the book cannot read the woman)
Then why is night feminine in many Indo-European languages if there was not the feminine gender? For example in Russian, German, Spanish
@@v0r0byovThe feminine gender evolved after the ancestors of the Anatolian languages left. The mechanism by which this happened is debated, but one theory is that a suffix *-eh2 which was added to verbs to make abstract nouns later became grammaticalised as a feminine ending. Once the feminine category was born, other words with a feminine reference were added. (Over time, the *-eh2 ending changed to -a which is still a feminine marker in many indo-european languages.)
"Proto-Indo-European language" actually likely never existed at the first place. It's a senseless model of linguistic evolution that runs counter to even the basic commonsense of sociolinguistics - languages don't evolve like trees do.
I love the concept of a video about PIE grammar, as it is hard just to get academics to speculate on it, let alone explore it this way. I would have liked a bigger exploration of actual PIE grammar for a video called PIE grammar.
sanskrit has a "pious mood", right?
I once wondered how could we bring such a mood back to our modern languages. We could add a -o/o/o/ suffix to verbs and then do "ooooh" at the end of pronouncing such a verb. e.g. "I salute oooo-h thee!"
Interesting! I know very little about the specifics of Sanskrit. In some American communities, the use of "just" and "so," and possibly a few other words are part of displaying a pious disposition in public speech, especially public prayer. It's interesting to think of piety as a thing that can be expressed grammatically; of course, many languages use verb forms, like the formal plural, to express deference or recognize status, so why not? I've never thought about this before. Thanks!
The benedictive mood. Actually a variation upon aorist as far as I can recall. Sanskrit authors departed very little from regular imperfective forms, and participles. They preferred to form compound tenses by agglutination (krtavaan, having done) rather than to refer to non-standard principal parts like perfects and aorists : the latter were preserved mostly to take into account dialects where they were the most usual forms of past, as in Pali where aorist was the standard everyday preterite.
@@MrMirville Also called the precative, or in Sanskrit grammarian terms, so-called "āśīrliṅ" or the optative ("liṅ") used for blessings/wishing ("āśīs"). It's essentially conjugated like the optative of the aorist with an -s- thrown in but Panini/Sanskrit grammarians don't typically classify it or associate it with the aorist (called "luṅ"). In any case, although the aorist was common Vedic but quite rare in the classical language, this precative mood I'm guessing is not so very common even in the Vedas, and pretty much absent later on.
In the declension of the Greek noun λύκος- lykos , you have committed some errors. Nominative lykos, genitive lykou, dative lyko, (λυκω), accusative lykon, vocative lyke. That is how it is declined in the singular.
The Latin is also incorrect - it should be lupus, lupum, lupī, lupō, lupō, lupī, lupe, and then Latin has no instrumental case (it uses an ablative of means or instrument). Pretty major mistake
In biology there is a discipline called "numerical taxonomy" that decodes the relationships between different species of plants and animals by mathematical means. Basically, it constructs "family trees" of related organisms by calculating the smallest number of evolutionary changes needed to construct a tree that includes all species within a group.
Is there some process analogous to this that is used to reconstruct extinct ancestral languages and to quantify the differences between related existing languages?
It's nonsense anyway, because languages don't have "genetic" 😮 relationships. Makes no sense whatsoever.
There is a theory of glottochronology that does this by beginning with phonetic changes, and there is a hearty dialogue between the fields of evolutionary biology and historical linguistics in certain areas, all based on the analogy you imply. There are some facts of human behavior that complicate mathematically modeling language change in analogy to genetic evolution, though. Immigration, genocide, media, and forced assimilation change languages very quickly; also, nothing prevents languages from borrowing from non-related languages or from exchanging material and influences with languages from which they have diverged, so English has borrowed related words from different languages (Engl. foot, Latin ped-estrian, French pawn (foot soldier), Greek, pod-iatrist), while birds and lizards can't easily exchange and re-exchange genes. So yes and no, and because language is a human behavior, nothing makes linguistic divergence inherently permanent.
@@parjanyashukla176I'm not sure what you mean by "genetic relationships," but languages are not static; they change over time and thus diverge from each other. The English of today is not the same as the English of Shakespeare. Dialects spoken in different regions of a land are not identical, and can become more different over time. For instance, the Spanish and Portuguese of today are more dissimilar from each other than ancestral Spanish and ancestral Portuguese of eight hundred years ago. This is what allows us to speak of languages being more or less closely related to each other, and in turn lets linguists construct trees showing these relationships. Is there something about this that you disagree with?
@@erikcarlson9250Yes, although biological species have some limited ability to get genes from non-ancestral populations (so-called "jumping genes," mediated perhaps by viruses), languages have much fluidity for swapping influences. I was just wondering if this has kept researchers from modeling mathematically the processes of linguistic evolution. Is there a computer program where one could in principle use modern Indo-european languages as inputs and have the program spit out Proto-indoeuropean as an output?
Such a program could be devised, but criticism at every step in light of comparative, archeological, and very fuzzy semantic data is important. As far as sound changes go, though, we already have a basic set of algorithms--consider Grimm's Law (of course, conditioned by Verner's Law, and obscured at times by borrowing or other circumstances). @@MartinMMeiss-mj6li
Arabic has a sort of similar system still in use and understood today. But it's much less complex. There are only three general cases, the nominative, accusative, and dative. The nominative is for all things related to the subject in the sentence. The accsuative is for all information related to the verb itself, (the objects, the time and place, the cause, the amount, etc.). The dative is for anything that comes after a preposition, or a noun that relates to a previous noun without the relation of a verb. Also, these cases change the nouns in regular ways for the vast majority of nouns (excluding those that have vowels at the end). These are, adding a "-u" at the end for the nominative, an "-a" for the accusative, and an "-i" for the dative.
Here is an example:
اكل الضيوف فى القاعة سبعين وجبة اشباعا لجوعهم مساء
The guests ate seventy meals in the hall in the evening for the satiation of their hunger.
The guests (ad-duyufu): Came in the nominative to indicate that they are the subject.
Seventy meals (sab'ina wadjbah): The word "meals" is in the accusative because it is the verb's object, whike the word "seventy" is in the accusative because it indicates the amount of the verb.
In the hall (fi al-qa'ati): Since this came after a preposition, it is in the dative case
In the evening (masā'a): This did not come after a preposition, and instead indicated the time of the verb, and so was in the accusative case.
For the satiation (ishba'a): This indicated the cause for the verb, and so was also in the accusative
Of their hunger (li ju'ihim): This came in the dative due to the preposition. The "m" added at the end is a suffix to indicate that the hunger belonged to a group of people. If it was only one man, it would have been, "li ju'ihi."
There is another form of the accusative which I chose not to put here because it's hard to translate to English, but it basically is an exaggeration of the intensity verb. For example, I could say, "اكلت الطعام" (I ate the food), which is normal, but if I add the word "اكلا" at the end, which is in the accusative, it indicates that I ate a lot. Sort of like, "I ate the food with great eating." There is also the accusative adjective which describes the way in which the subject did the action (basically the adverb), but I did not add it since the sentence was already unnecessarily long (there is really no need to use all of these words, I was just showing how the cases were applied.)
In Arabic exams, these sorts of questions (called "i'rab"), where the question asks you to indicate what case this noun or verb is in and why, are hated by most students, mostly because of the way it is taught. Personally, I find it rather nice.
I think some of the Latin declension forms got mixed up in the table at 14:10. Lup-e is vocative, Lup-um accusative and Lup-i genetive.
"vosotros amastais"?? yo sólo conozco "vosotros amasteis". Gracias por su trabajo.
Congrats to this guy for going back 5000 years and learning the language
in 14:12 the first column (naming all the cases) is wrong/mixed up (also the same is true for the next slide)
Your Sanskrit declension for Vrka (Wolf) is incorrect.
I plan to replace this video with a corrected version (and correct the Lithuanian as well) soon.
@@erikcarlson9250
There is no need to do so, because your "Indo-European" linguistics is basically an agenda-driven, pseudoscientific field.
@@erikcarlson9250 The main error is in the order of the cases in English; it should have been 'Nom, Voc, Acc, Gen, Abl, Dat, Instr. and Loc.' Then it matches with the four languages.
@@parjanyashukla176Want to explain? Ive never heard about it being agenda driven but im really curious! Its very counter intuitive that a language tree would be so spread out with so much space but ive never heard of it being wrong?
@@parjanyashukla176 hindutva moment
Vocative would be most appropriate probably, most frequent too.
I am native Lithuanian speaker.Your chart has the wrong Lithuanian case endings. Lithuanian does have the instrumental : vilkú. Plural: vilkais. In your chart several of the other case
endings are wrong, such as the Lithuanian accusative, which ends in a nasalised "a" (fornerly -an), etc. Please adjust. If needs be, i can furnish the whole paradigm
Lithianian: su manIMI = "with me"
Slavic: sº mºnOIMĬO > sº mºnOĬOM (Russian: so mnOĬU) = "with me"
Vedic: sa bhayanAINA (bhayanENA: Sanskrit) = "with horror"
Slavic: sº boĭazniĭOĬMĬO > sº boĭazniĭOĬOM (Archaic Russian: s boĭazniĭEĬU) = "with horror"
-OIM(Ĭ)O ~ -OINO ending
Sorry, all I see here after a lot of minutes is only a hodge-podge of different stages of post-PIE -- already with a front page invoking lupus. Not an inducement to continue watching.
I do wonder how you came up with the 6 tenses? Afaik the common theory is the Cowgell-Rix system. Which kind of avoids using the concept tense for the most part (as it didn't work that straigt forward), but even in a more simplfied interpretation you wouldn't get more them 4 "tenses" (durative-present, durative-past, aoist, perfect/stative).
Can you share more details?
I don’t think always comes from “in all ways”. The practice of using the singular genetive s-form to make adverbs of time existed already in old english, but there, the phrase was “ealne weg”, which was an accusative form. The s was added only in a later stage of English by analogy to other adverbs. You would also use the accusative with the word “þurh”, meaning “through”, so its literal meaning is closer to the modern phrase “the whole way through”. The word “eall” could be used to mean “the whole”, unlike its modern descendant “all”, but to make it mean “every”, you would’ve used a plural form, and the s-genetive was always a singular form. The word “weg” was never even used like its modern descendant “way” to mean “method” or “manner”, it was always like “path”. For “manner” you had “wīse”, so “in all ways” would’ve been “eallum wīsum” or some instrumental case construction like that.
So useful
There is a bit of subliminal text on the screen which flashed up for only a fraction of a second at 16:30. I had to stop and re-wind the video dozens of times (not just several times, but dozens of times) - even going at a speed of 0.25 - before I managed to see what it says. “Oops - got some Latin out of order sorry”. If you want to edit the video in order to make a correction or apology like that, then do it properly so that we can see. The way you did it subliminally was infuriating and really annoying.
Thank you! I made an editing error there, and I certainly didn't mean to trouble anybody's subconscious. Ooof. At least I didn't say it backwards, I guess, or worse yet, in backwards Latin.
I'll put that on my list of corrections to make when I revise this video.
How similar is this to classical latin?
nice video, but your audio is very quiet. next time could you please amplify your voice?
why did u not simply use ᴅᴏᴍ| for the locative of latin, as this is a word where the old case is still present in a disctincive form. by the way, something that textbooks and non-historic scholars still dont get in 2024, the apex (´) is a neccessary part of latin orthography, like it is with the acute in spanish, omitting them is simply wrong. hence, ʟᴜᴘᴏ́ and ʟᴜᴘ|. just cuz in most weathered stone inscriptions they are barely visible does not mean that there is any where they did _not_ use them (or the long | in case of i)
*Why
*By
*don't
*Hence
Using lowercase letters at the beginning of a sentence or omitting the apostrophe in "don't" is *simply wrong.*
Also: My browser shows DOM| and LUP|.
2:04 *vosotros amasteis.
The description of the Accusative is wrong! The primary usage of the accusative in all inflected languages is being a subject of an action, such as being accused (!), taken, given, stolen, seen, destroyed, possessed, painted, washed, and so on. None of these actions involves a preposition in English. Accusative may also have additional usage in some languages, which translated to English requires prepositions.
You are wrong. The primary usage of the accusative is to indicate the object of the action. E.g. I throw the ball (in Greek ριπτω την σφαίραν - sphairan is the accusative of the noun sphaira/σφαίρα) (sphere).
In the sentence “I accuse her”, the subject is “I”, which is the nominative; “her” is the object (accusative).
You mean object, not subject of an action, e.g. accusation.
@@davidaxelos4678 Yes, you are right.
är du skandinavvisk?
My Great grandparents were Swedish. I can read Old Icelandic, but I don't think that counts!
The Latin case forms in the single table (10 min) do not match the Latin case forms in the bigger table (12 min)
I can finally communicate with yo mama
its crazy to me to think a prehistoric langauge (you get what i mean) can have grammar inflections like this. its crazy why ancient people would even do this. because i speak chinese which is one of the oldest languages (i know mandarin is a more modern dialect but the writing system has stayed the same for a long time and bonded all these unintelligble dialects) and they have none of this grammar BS, its just ME EAT YESTERDAY, SO GOOD. (not Yesterday I ATE, and IT WAS so good). Idk why anybody would incorporate this in a language intentionally. I thought it derived from later adjustments. crazy to think about.
People don't change their language intentionally, and such complexity like this does make it harder for a foreigner to learn, but it's just as easy for a baby to learn this language as it is any other language (babies start speaking around the same age all around the world). This kind of language makes it so that you need to say less words to communicate the same thing.
"Gotten"?
yes.. that is a word
@@WGGplantTo an American
@@paulbennett772 lemme guess. youve never heard of "eaten" either
Too many errors. I got brain rot just by watching
Half of the video is explaining about basic grammar concepts. Complete waste of time. If someone is interested in the PIE, shouldn't it be assumed that these people already have these concepts in the baggage?
Very poor & superficial
Carlson my advice for you is: start from Albanien language who is the root of the tree of Indo-European languages. I assure you that you will be satisfied
My advice is don't let people with a nationalist agenda near historical linguistics. Start with the comparative method and don't forget that extra-ordinary claims need extra-ordinary evidence.
@@neilmcbride71 or suspicious human I am not focused to nationality but to the name of the language used today.
Anyway is not worth to spend time with you who reaches the conclusion as in love stories with “amore a prima vista” or love at first sight.
@@FidelKrasniqi-j3m anonymous person, I have been into historical linguistics since my Linguistics degree which I completed in 1995 - almost 30 years of love. Can you point me to a serious scholar of Proto Indo-European who claims that Albanian is at the root of the Indo-European languages (whatever that means)?
Those who are genuinely interested in the science behind the reconstruction of Proto Indo-European and the development if the daughter languages should read 'Indo European Language and Culture' by Benjamin W. Forsten - a serious textbook used in serious Universities. It will walk you through the Comparative method and Internal reconstruction.
BTW Albanian is a daughter language of Proto Indo-European and it's a very interesting one that has undergone some unusual sound changes from its parent (especially with the *s sibilant).
There are several groups like this on RUclips: it all started from Albanian; Sanskrit came first: or Tamil was the root of everything, according to taste. Some of the last group claim that Tamil is 200,000 years old, which suggests that the original Tamilians lived in trees and had fur and a tail.
Albanian is nowhere near the root of the tree of Indo-European languages. The only ones who spout this nonsense are Albanian non linguists who have heard this from other Albanians who don't know what they're talking about
Sanskrit contains 10 tenses and not four.
This Indo-European theory is pure bunkum based on pre-determined conclusions, selective reading of lexical and archaeological evidence and racial propaganda.
Here we go again, a right wing nationalist snowflake pulls out the "racial propaganda" weapon because he can't believe that some people are NOT nationalist idiots but just want to know what happened. First of all: have you understood the distinction between tense, mood and voice? I'm sure you haven't. Second: have you understood why virtually every linguist agrees that indoeuropean languages are indeed related and didn't just borrow words from each other?
Third and most importantly: PROVE YOUR STATEMENT!!!
Based on science. If you don’t like it it’s alright.
@@YUGYWDASGOW
It's based on propaganda and imagined history. The roots of this theory go back to the colonial age, and has its origins in Germanic nationalism. Nicely disseminated with the "science" stamp on it as if discovered in a laboratory.
Instead of elaborely studying Sanskrit language and literature these people too much depend on their opinions and willful guesses! First of all, Why Indo-Europens and not Euro cacasians or Euro anatolians!! If Rigveda is not there, many of the present day people in Europe and other places would not have known that they are related to common ancestor!!This is the truth!! Again, Proto Indo European is another lie!! Rigvedic Sanskrit is the first purified proto Indo Euro[ean language, the Aryans had Rigveda even before 6000 years ago as per recent archeology!! Those European groups as per Rigveda migrated from ancient India after Dasa rajna or ten kings war when the dried Saraswathi river flowing as mighty roaring war which is as per Rigveda! As per Rigveda ,Ar definition is given in Rigveda as on who tills and cultivate land!! Aryans are founders of darming and cultivation and assumed this as their identity as such Aryans are founders of human civilization!!
Please explain which sound changes are necessary to get from Rigvedic Sanskrit to Welsh. Of course, if Sanskrit is the ancestor of Welsh, as you claim it is, then it must necessarily be possible to get from the former to the latter.
Not even close buddy