Polysynthetic Languages Are Actually Pretty Normal (Reuploaded)
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 3 มิ.ย. 2022
- I couldn't fix the recording itself, since I'm out of town without my mic, but I could fix the volume issues. I made the background music a lot quieter.
Sorry about the consistent audio issues. Audio editing isn't my strong suit. In the future, I will send a draft of my video to someone who has a better ear for audio and music.
Constructive criticism is always deeply appreciated. Thank you for making me aware of the audio issues, and please do not hesitate to provide blunt, honest feedback in the future.
DISCORD - / discord
MUSIC
Local Forecast by Kevin MacLeod is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 license. creativecommons.org/licenses/...
Source: incompetech.com/music/royalty-...
Artist: incompetech.com/
![[ไฮไลต์] แบดมินตันชาย วิว กุลวุฒิ (ไทย) vs LEE Zii Jia (มาเลเซีย) รอบรองชนะเลิศ | โอลิมปิก 2024](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/mvBiEAqlssw/mqdefault.jpg)
"language typology is throwing languages on a dnd alignement chart and reading their horoscopes" might be the only true original sentence ive heard
commenting to save it
2:27 Learning all the verb conjugations in Spanish is easy. Using them while speaking on the other hand is a nightmare and my brain just shuts off. Which is funny because my native language has more or less the same amount of verb conjugations plus many noun cases. English in this regard is easier than Spanish.
I agree. My native language has much more complicated conjugation than the Romance languages, but I still can not do it.
As native spanish speaker, yeah, English is very easier than romance languages, i know speak spanish because i have do it like ever, but when i un-asemble the sentences i use in a normal day talk, is a lot of afixxes.
@@vincentwhite938 *much easier *afixes
@@novaace2474 There is far more wrong with Vincent's sentence that just those two things.
@@novaace2474 *affixes lmao
I didn't think the original audio was bad but I'm glad I have an excuse to watch the video again ahahah
Me too
Since when is Russian agglutinative !?
Russian is Fusional, i thought…
I am liking the anti-Eurocentric Linguistics videos, It is eye opening to see the real reason why languages are classified as one thing over the other
bro frying that vocal hard
creaking that voice hard
It is really annoying
This is the first time polysynthetic languages have made sense to me
Thank you, now I feel less stupid and can possibly make the polysynthetic nightmare conlang of my dreams
Isn't Russian fusional tho?
that's what I thought
Yeah it is, there are a lot of iffy takes and piece of information in this video.
As the presenter pointed out... most languages are some mix of agglutinative and fusional. Fusion can only happen in certain phonological environments, so even Spanish has some verb tenses where all the separate latin suffixes remain unfused. Typology is really better conceptualized as a cycle: where particles become attached to word stems (analytic->agglutinative), then phonological shifts cause affixes to fuse (agglutinative-> fusional), then affixed forms are mistaken for word stems and used along with newly created particles (fusional->analytic). Obviously then, at any given point in time a language will be between categories: and some parts of it's grammar will remain in one stage for a lot longer than others due to sounds being preserved in certain phonological environments. The languages on the end blocks are honestly just the ones with such restrictive phonotactics that either they don't allow compounding at all, or everything is forced to elide: either way, the difference between "word" and "sentence" gets a bit blurry. I'm not sure that if you asked an Inuit person they would say their language has really long words (certainly, the Chippewa don't even though Ojibwe behaves like the other languages that are labeled "polysynthetic"). But really, Ojibwe isn't terribly different from say Greek: in that it's participles are very agglutinative and used constantly. It's entirely normal in Greek to have sentences made entirely out of monster participles, but it's not every sentence. Same is true for Ojibwe. But I don't think most people would call Greek polysynthetic. The only real difference here is that the Greeks got to categorize their own language, and the Chippewa didn't.
True. That's what i thought
bro your oc is terrifying
great vid btw
les oranges isn't one word cause you can put other words (some adjectives) in between, and the same linking sound thing happens. meanwhile chemin de fer (railroad) is considered one word (or one lexeme) because you can't stick other words between. see also acronyms like SNCB, SNCF (Société Nationale des Chemins de fer Belges/Françaises)
(0:20) The way some of those languages include "language" and some don't, is a bit annoying.
Wouldn't it just be "русский", "アイヌ" and "аԥсшәа"?
And why is "аԥсшәа" in title case when Caucasian languages seem to be just lowercase?
In Turkish suffixes are only functional such as
A verb, can take suffixes to show, "tense, negativity, pronoun, passive voice,ability, must, command, if, wish ( i mean "let me, lets"",).
A noun can take suffixes to show "plural, genetive/possesive, dative, locative, accusative (the) , ablative,"
-----------------
adjective, adverb, verb and object are different words of a Turkish sentence.
syntax can change, (only adjective must be before noun, and indefinite object must be before verb ) , if syntax changes it changes emphasised word of the sentence.
but suffix order can not change, if it changes then meaning changes
example;
çiçekleri sulamasaydın, çiçekler çürürdü. =If you didn't water the flowers, the flowers would rot.
çiçekleri sulamadıysan, sula.= If you have not watered the flowers, water them.
sa=if, dı=past tense, n= you
sulama-saydın ; conditional suffix is before past tense (Past Unreality)
sulama-dıysan ; conditional suffix is after past tense (Past Reality)
Since when do unwatered flowers rot? Surely, they would sooner wither, wilt and dry out, no?
Reminds me of the difference between adjectival participles and adverbial participles in Lithuanian.
_Gėlių nepalaisčius, jos nuvys_ - "the flowers not having been watered to satisfaction, they will wither" - there is no implied actor who could have watered the flowers.
_Gėlių nepalaistęs, laistyk_ - "Not having watered the flowers to satisfaction, water (them)" - there is an active participant, "you" (which has been indicated as masculine in the example sentence).
Also
_Nelaistytos gėlės nuvys_ - simply "Unwatered flowers will wither" - the flowers themselves are the actor. Even English has this one.
I love flexing the complexity of my mother tongue, sorry ;D
5:38 local man reinvents Prolog
Isn't Russian (and Slavic in general) just as famously fusional as Romance?
Yeah that's what I was thinking: it just has cases.
Aha! Thank you, I learned another golden nugget of knowledge today that never occurred to me :) most appreciated sir!!
great video! i think i learned many new things and learned some of the things i forgot c:
I'm not sure I buy that head-marking is sufficient to explain what makes polysynthesis distinct. Noun incorporation is more often used ime as a criterion and you can be strongly head-marking without allowing that
Many agglutinative languages, like Turkish for example, have elements of polysynthesis, just like many analytical languages like English have elements of agglutination. In Turkish, both subject AND object can sometimes be thrown and glued into the verb, but as long as the object remains vague. However if the object needs to be definitive, like a specific noun, it must be seperate as its own word. That is why we don't consider Turkish to be polysnthetic, just like because of words like 'unconsciousness' don't make English properly agglutinative. But all languages can be placed in an analytical - synthetic spectrum.
Russian is fusional, not agglutinative
Great video!
Why are you whispering?
i'm really confused as to why you consider Russian an _agglutinative_ language.. it's a strongly inflectional Indo-European language.. pretty much all of which are fusional languages
The best agglutinative language is Nahuatl. The grammar is actually rather simple, but the sheer number of particles can be really daunting--at least until you realize that one particle (say, ni-, which means "I") can be applied to the beginning of literally ANY word to indicate you're talking about yourself: nitlacua (I eat), nitlacatl (I'm a man), ni-ANYthing.
Finding Cure Dolly in my japanese language learning journey was a wild experience and really taught me how much japanese is a very straightforward language thats usually crammed into an english shaped box when its presented to english speakers. So of course english speakers get confused trying to learn some english-shaped hodgepodge of arbitrary grammar rules like its supposed to be attached to a real language thats even vaguely usable.
Like, bro, genki had me thinking the -tai helper adjective was a VERB. which is. Not morphologically possible in japanese???? 😂
Me: *watches the video
Other people: *comments about the audio
Well the audio quality is on another level here
3:20 Russian is agglutinative now? I've only ever heard it described as fusional (or synthetic more generally). It certainly doesn't look agglutinative at all to me
i’m on team synthetic analytic languages are boring
except chinese. they can hang
Same
I think people consider analytic languages boring because you just put one word after the other, no inflections which may see "smarter"
This video explained nothing to me. The first 6 minutes contain the preparation for an explanation, then what' supposed to be the explanation is dumped on the viewer in the course of 30 seconds, and fails to contain any sort of explanation or illustration at all. Not even one word from either group of languages to illustrate the difference. I suspect this is intentional to prevent the viewer from thinking about your explanation even for a second before disagreeing with it. Indeed: according to your typology English is a polysynthetic language because you see "he eats" has the 3d person singular marker -s on the head "eat". What's that, this doesn't qualify it for being polysynthetic? Then where do we draw the line?
Well, damn. Time for a new video.
I definitly think the pacing of the video could be improved quite a bit but I feel like some of your criticisms are unfair.
There were a few examples sprinkled throughout the video.
Also he definitly did not imply that english is polysynthetic. He said that *in addition to being highly synthetic*, a language also has to be pretty heavily head-marking in order to be considered polysynthetic. And as he stated at the beginning of the video, english is definitly not highly synthetic. It's quite analytical. I also wouldn't describe it as heavily head-marking, there's quite a lot of dependant-marking in the little marking that english has. So english meets neither of the criteria he has laid out in the video.
I agree; the video left me confused. Maybe if you're already familiar with the 3 "agglutinative" languages in the example it would have made more sense. (And many commenters have stated that Russian should be considered fusional not agglutinative.) As it is, I didn't see any examples (or barely any) of how these 3 languages fail to be polysynthetic. I don't really know much about the languages other than Japanese and Turkish both being SOV.
Wait isn't Türkis also rather head marking? I could be wrong but I think I read it a few times as being described as that.
Nevertheless, great channel
I'm sure you're right - Turkish isn't my area. A lot of languages are also double marking in certain contexts (they mark both the head and the dependent). It's entirely possible that Turkish is both.
What usually defines a "polysynthetic" language is that it's almost exclusively head marking. It's not perfect (the term "polysynthetic" is a bit of a flawed classification in general) but it's a better metric than "extra synthetic."
Thanks for the valuable insight! I'd love to hear more of your perspectives on Turkish
@@babelingua Turkish is predominantly dependent marking, but has head marking elements
most people in alaska just say "yupe-ick"
Can't handle the vocal fry.
Russian is so very not agglutinative, it's fusional, we have tons of morphemes that express several grammatical categories at once, like the adjectival suffix "-ому" (-omu) which expresses singular, masculine/neuter & dative case. same thing with verbs, suffix "-ет" (-jet) is indicative, non-past, singular & 3rd person. both cases would require using a completely different morpheme if at least one of the categories changed
Another!
russian is fusional my man, do your research
the recording quality is fine but can you please be less zesty when you talk 🙏
Nice bideo
russian is not agglutenative
the longest compound word I can remember is like 3 roots, or 2
smth like 'healthprotection' (здравоохранение)
it's fusional lol
ASMR
It's all interesting and well explained but it's also quite hard and unpleasant to listen to it because of the persistent vocal fry. Ghrrrr...
Yeah, I'm out of town without my mic, so I couldn't fix the actual recording--all I could change was the volume, etc. There's so much vocal fry because I recorded when everyone else was asleep, and I didn't want to whisper. Audio has been a consistent issue for me, so I'm gonna start sending my video drafts to someone else for review before I actually publish.
Why do you dislike creaky voice?
@@babelingua you don't need to justify your phonation bro. Why is that even a thing?
@@niku.. I think it's because we never use it in my native language and it sounds to me as if someone was choking.
polysynthetic languages are analytic languages with less spaces. change my mind.
3:13 Russian is in fact fusional
I really like your voice
+1 for your voice and Nim Chimpsky, jk it's just a great video
Turkish guy here, let me explain it very briefly:
agglutinative = conjoins the subject and the verb in the same word 90% of the spoekn time.
polysynthetic = conjoins the subject, object and the verb in the same word 90% of the spoken time("Slang Turkish" or "street Turkish" or "Tiktok Turkish" or whatever sometimes do that unfortunately, at the detriment and mutting of our language unfotunately)
Now here is a challange: For Turkish speakers, and non-Turkish people who are adapt at Turkish language, such a word like: "Getiriyoronumu ? "('is HE/SHE/IT[subject] bringing[verb] her/him/it[object] here', notice both the subject and oject conjoined with the verb in a single word) will SOMEHOW make sense, although such a word is lexically and grammatically incorrect. But somehow such a "fake" word will make sense to native Turkish speakers even though this is not a legit word. Normally such a word should be seperated into three different morphemes in proper Turkish: "Onu getiriyor mu ?" however the ,aforementioned non-legit pseudo-Turkish word also makes sense for most Turkish speakers
Linguistic purism is BS. Period.
How do you think Spanish came to be?
Certainly not disallowing Latin from evolving.
@@doyouwantthetotalwar if enough people use it, it is legit.
Linguistic prescriptivism is a matter of blind nationalism, nothing more.
Nope. It is just that 'Tiktok Turkish' or polysynthetic-ish pseudoTurkish just sounds... retarded. Unfortunately many adolescents not only tend to speak but keep inventing such mutations...
Turkish can only have polypersonal agreement when the object is ambigious and can only be deemed with pronouns. If the object is required to be definite, like an absolute noun, one cannot create a pseudo suffix for that noun. Thankfully, this is a limitation of Turkish for those 9 year olds from further distorting our language.
Bad video!
*reports your comment