Learn Akkadian Episode 9: N System Verbs
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 3 ноя 2024
- Sorry for the delay on this video! Amraṣ (I was ill) but now I am back with the N System!
In this Episode of LearnAkkadian, I talk about the N System, a verbal system which gives us a passive or ingressive meaning of the root.
Thank you to everyone who has supported Learn Akkadian!
Find more on my Patreon
www.patreon.co...
Greetings from Brazil! 👏👏
I'm loving this videos. You are really helping me as I review my Huehnergard watching these videos
Always a pleasure to see these
Greetings from Iraq ❤
Thanks for the vid, good to see that you"re okay now :)
Following the golden rule (perhaps the 3rd one :D ), consonants can be doubled
all singular, 3rd person common:
isarriq: G future/present
issarriq: N durative
issariq: N preterite
Exactly, thank you!
thank you very much!
Do you think you could someday show us an actual, real tablet, and how you work with it?
That’s a great idea! I’ll see what I can do.
1:45 I've seen this referred to as the inchoative aspect, yours is the first video where I find the name "ingressive" for this. Is it only the Akkadian grammar that uses this term?
im not sure if you're doing this on purpose. but i think you're muddying the language with mediocre reasonings. like "to be good" being an intrinsic meaning, which is fine, but then you're like swapping it to "to become good" - to become good from what? i was already good, i didn't need to become good.
there's also a very clear difference in meaning between the two statements: "the king hit something" and "the king was hit", so i am not sure how you can say that it's the same thing, when ... it's just not.
These meanings are not being swapped but are intended to demonstrate the difference between the G system and N System meaning of one Akkadian verb. The first is the G system which gives the standard reading of the verb whereas the second different meaning derives from the N System form in which the verb takes a passive (the king was hit) or ingressive (to become good) meaning. Hope this helps clarify!
@@learnakkadian thanks for the response. i'll rewatch everything and if i have made a mistake i'll owe you an apology for misunderstanding 😅
@@katmai90210 You're treating this like as if sounds are inherently philosophical. But sounds have no correspondence to philosophical structure. It's totally arbitrary what sounds and what morphologies get attached to what meanings. It's just a matter of grammar how one meaning becomes another closely related one, whether or not they are actually objectively all that closely related or not. All languages work like that. Consider the Chinese character for good: "好," the thing on the left means female and the one on the right means child. Now I don't think a family is the most good thing in the world, but clearly that's the association a very common Chinese character has present in it, regardless.
@@Thindorama damn, that chinese character signifying "good" is a nice example of how representation of words most definitely should carry their inherent meaning and not having it just arbitrary. maybe going back further in time we'll reach a point where one of the languages did just that.
Anyway, as far as i can tell, it doesn't seem like any of these videos teach Akkadian.