One pluray feature you didn't mention is that some languages considers all numbers ending with 1 (ending with 11 can be an exception) counts as singular, so 20 cats but 21 cat. Some languages consider 0 to be singular, and paucal can be for all numbers ending with 2-4 (with 12-14 being exceptions). Scottish Gaelic considers 1 and 11 to be singular, 2 and 12 being dual, 3-10,13-19 being paucal, and. 0,20+ to be plural. Hebrew have a singular, dual and a plural form for every number ending with 0 that is 20 or higher; the rest is regular plural.
In some Slavic languages, examples are from Slovenian, noun following 1,2,3,4 is in nominative case of singular, dual or plural and after 5 it is in genitive. (1 vlak- (train), 2 vlak-a, 3 vlak-i, 5 vlak-ov), and because tens come before ones like in German, noun after 21, 31 etc. is in genitive plural, but 101 is in singular, 102 in dual et. as hundreds are not there. It is some sort of paucal number.
The plural was created in stages. 1. Tuli srgim { many birds } 2. When said rapidly i and whatever consonant it followed became metathosized. Tul sirgim. 3. Tul became shorted to tu and the consonant under went lenition {tu sjrgim} 4. Tu was completely lost and now plurals are formed through lenition. The verb is tense less but there is a basic way to express if something is, was, or will be. Again this happened in stages. 1. Duna {out} saro {in} The people who speak the language interpret time as something that grows outward. This that are out have already occured and things that haven't or that are {in} us are considered future events. 2. Pgjesc duna prutsib tom was shorten to pgjesc na prutsib tom fish out cat eating. The same happened to saro being shortened to sa. 3. The change effected the pronouns too Pravol duna anto nim you became pravol danto nim then pravol dato nim and finally pravol do nim. You drank water
3:18 You might want to learn the difference between sentience & sapience. Humans are sapient, but animals (nonhuman) are sentient. So maybe it should be sapient/insapient?
Evidentially is best done according to espitemological hierarchy. So what that means is not distinguishing by sight, hearing, tasting,, etc. All of those examples are the same thing - first hand sensory empirical input. Instead, they'd all be that one category. Another more meaning differentiating category is second hand reporting - hearing it from a friend, reading it from a paper, etc. These are all the same category - relayed info. Whether you heard it or read it is a meaningless distinction. This is about evidentially (quality and level of truth of info) not about which sensory organs you got the information from. Other categories will be induction (extrapolating), deduction (using logic from some starting postulates), theory (a robust king of the hill champion that has been tried to be dethroned by many high quality contenders (basically, science). And you can make other categories but they must be meaningful in this regard not differentiating things irrelevant to evidentially.
@erdgerd9584 You can absolutely have a subjunctive in the past. Spanish has the imperfect subjunctive, which is used for past events that might have happened, as well as "if" statements in the past
@@entwistlefromthewho Most explanations I've heard of this phenomenon say that pluralizing a mass noun in English shifts it's semantic meaning, and this makes the most sense to me. "Water" exclusively means the substance, but when it's pluralized it means something related, but not exactly the same. Derived.
1:48 There are also inverted number systems, where a noun is in the number you would expext it to be unless its specified by an affix Bad example: A pair of soks = ba A sock/many soks = ba-t A man = po Many men= po-t Stars = va A star = va-t Dunno, i found this really intresting lol Ugh and at 4:10 This is not really natural lol Great video tho
I think this happens when a language doesn't differentiate plurals at all but instead specify how many often until the word for one gets affixed to the root word
One of Biblaridion's recent videos deals with how inverse number can evolve: th-cam.com/video/A5PA9BFhbiU/w-d-xo.html In short, it usually starts with noun classes that are marked for singulative, dual or plural (or left unmarked, as the default). Due to sound changes, the singulative and plural markers become homophones, by pure coincidence. They would eventually be reanalyzed as the same marker, leading to inverse number.
I really dislike requiring agreement across words, especially when, say, the options for nouns are completely different from the options for verbs. If they're going to have agreement, which is a bad grammar pattern to begin with, at least make them the same across the words being correlated.
"Gender" was a linguistic term describing noun classes waaay before it was ever used to describe biological gender.
Evidentially. How do you know what you say there?
"Biological" gender
@@bowl1858 Cultural?
9:05
And then in italian we have a monster of a subjunctive case that evolved into meaning fucking everything
it's in almost all romance languages.
Nice content, but maybe lower the volume of the background music.
One pluray feature you didn't mention is that some languages considers all numbers ending with 1 (ending with 11 can be an exception) counts as singular, so 20 cats but 21 cat. Some languages consider 0 to be singular, and paucal can be for all numbers ending with 2-4 (with 12-14 being exceptions). Scottish Gaelic considers 1 and 11 to be singular, 2 and 12 being dual, 3-10,13-19 being paucal, and. 0,20+ to be plural. Hebrew have a singular, dual and a plural form for every number ending with 0 that is 20 or higher; the rest is regular plural.
In some Slavic languages, examples are from Slovenian, noun following 1,2,3,4 is in nominative case of singular, dual or plural and after 5 it is in genitive. (1 vlak- (train), 2 vlak-a, 3 vlak-i, 5 vlak-ov), and because tens come before ones like in German, noun after 21, 31 etc. is in genitive plural, but 101 is in singular, 102 in dual et. as hundreds are not there. It is some sort of paucal number.
Would you look at that? an awesome yet unpopular channel, what a surprise. Nice vid :)
0:33 (bottom text) "If you don’t speak English, why are you still looking at this?"
Yeah, but with four mistakes
:)
:|
:(
:c
The plural was created in stages.
1. Tuli srgim { many birds }
2. When said rapidly i and whatever consonant it followed became metathosized. Tul sirgim.
3. Tul became shorted to tu and the consonant under went lenition {tu sjrgim}
4. Tu was completely lost and now plurals are formed through lenition.
The verb is tense less but there is a basic way to express if something is, was, or will be. Again this happened in stages.
1. Duna {out} saro {in}
The people who speak the language interpret time as something that grows outward. This that are out have already occured and things that haven't or that are {in} us are considered future events.
2. Pgjesc duna prutsib tom was shorten to pgjesc na prutsib tom fish out cat eating. The same happened to saro being shortened to sa.
3. The change effected the pronouns too
Pravol duna anto nim you became pravol danto nim then pravol dato nim and finally pravol do nim. You drank water
3:18 You might want to learn the difference between sentience & sapience. Humans are sapient, but animals (nonhuman) are sentient. So maybe it should be sapient/insapient?
Wow this was amazing I dont know why this video doesn't have more views
Evidentially is best done according to espitemological hierarchy.
So what that means is not distinguishing by sight, hearing, tasting,, etc. All of those examples are the same thing - first hand sensory empirical input.
Instead, they'd all be that one category. Another more meaning differentiating category is second hand reporting - hearing it from a friend, reading it from a paper, etc. These are all the same category - relayed info. Whether you heard it or read it is a meaningless distinction. This is about evidentially (quality and level of truth of info) not about which sensory organs you got the information from.
Other categories will be induction (extrapolating), deduction (using logic from some starting postulates), theory (a robust king of the hill champion that has been tried to be dethroned by many high quality contenders (basically, science).
And you can make other categories but they must be meaningful in this regard not differentiating things irrelevant to evidentially.
Wow, you were the best one to explain verbs' aspect and mood, big thanks!
That alien remark did really age well now in 2023
Would perfect be required as an aspect? Not required, but would it be a bad idea for a low to moderate level conlanger to not include it?
I loved the video. Subscribed instantly
Welcome aboard :)
but wouldn't a subjunctive mood only make sense for the future tense?
In Spanish we have for all times but I don't know how that works I just know how to use it
@@HelderGriff well can you translate a subjunctive for the past?
@erdgerd9584 You can absolutely have a subjunctive in the past. Spanish has the imperfect subjunctive, which is used for past events that might have happened, as well as "if" statements in the past
your work is amazing!
arnt evidentials realis moods?
Zaccari Jarman technically they are but they often can co-occur with other moods. At least from my understanding.
Technically you can count waters when it refers to specific bodies of waters. The Waters of Scotland; on foreign waters, etc.
...but it isn’t really the same noun, is it. A body of water =/= the substance water
@@jan_Masewin It is the same noun though - water. It has a wide semantic field, but it is the same noun.
@@entwistlefromthewho Most explanations I've heard of this phenomenon say that pluralizing a mass noun in English shifts it's semantic meaning, and this makes the most sense to me. "Water" exclusively means the substance, but when it's pluralized it means something related, but not exactly the same. Derived.
@@entwistlefromthewho the noun can be oculted but isn't water in those cases.
@@SomeTomfoolery in portugueses when water is pluralized it's means lakes, oceans, rivers, etc.
Exactly what i needed right now!
1:48
There are also inverted number systems, where a noun is in the number you would expext it to be unless its specified by an affix
Bad example:
A pair of soks = ba
A sock/many soks = ba-t
A man = po
Many men= po-t
Stars = va
A star = va-t
Dunno, i found this really intresting lol
Ugh and at 4:10
This is not really natural lol
Great video tho
I think this happens when a language doesn't differentiate plurals at all but instead specify how many often until the word for one gets affixed to the root word
@@jcxkzhgco3050 not really since the suffix is always the same
One of Biblaridion's recent videos deals with how inverse number can evolve: th-cam.com/video/A5PA9BFhbiU/w-d-xo.html
In short, it usually starts with noun classes that are marked for singulative, dual or plural (or left unmarked, as the default). Due to sound changes, the singulative and plural markers become homophones, by pure coincidence. They would eventually be reanalyzed as the same marker, leading to inverse number.
0:30 My Esperanto speaking brain hates this >>:[[
I really dislike requiring agreement across words, especially when, say, the options for nouns are completely different from the options for verbs.
If they're going to have agreement, which is a bad grammar pattern to begin with, at least make them the same across the words being correlated.
It not make sense at the evolutive perspective of a language. Even english dont makes the concordance that way.
This video doesn't address the creation/derivation of adverbs in a naturalistic language.