(English below) Merci à @Мєтодипоискатєљ de m'avoir conseillé la source dont je parle dans la vidéo, qui a le grand avantage de faire le tour des principales théories relatives à cette question et de formuler une hypothèse intéressante pour y répondre. Gardez toutefois en tête qu'il s'agit d'une question particulièrement débattue et que la réponse formulée dans la vidéo n'en est qu'une parmi de nombreuses autres ! Thanks to @Мєтодипоискатєљ for recommending the source I talk about in the video, which has the great advantage of covering the main theories on this question and formulating an interesting hypothesis to answer it. Keep in mind, however, that this is a particularly debated question and that the answer formulated in the video is only one among many others!
Une petite correction-- en anglais on ne dit pas "Why did they disappeared". Avec le mot "did" on utilise la forme présente du verbe alors on dirait "Why did they disappear". Bonne vidéo et merci pour votre travail! Je suis un vrai fan de votre chaîne!
I remember wondering once why the Proto-PIE *-om had evolved to -o in Proto-Slavic neuters, but to -ъ in Proto-Slavic masculine accusatives, unlike other PIE languages (like -um in Latin for both neuters and masculine accusatives, -on for Greek ones, -am for Sanskrit ones, etc.). What I found was that it's really hard to research this question, and at the end of the day, the answer is still very much up for debate, although the answer you gave, the pronominal *-od taking over the neuter *-om ending and then evolving differently from it (to -o and not to -ъ) is the most accepted one, but I've also seen others. I remember I spend a good few weeks looking that up instead of doing actual work I had to do at the time haha.
Yes, actually, when I started this video, I had in mind another theory (for -os as well as for -om) I read somewhere else, and I was not conscious how debated all these theories are. I almost abandoned the video while making it, but the source I'm talking about in the video somehow made a good summary of the existing theories as well as the hypothesis I eventually mentionned in the video. But yes, it's actually interesting how far this simple question makes us go!
I think that's interesting, especially because I've only seen the *-od ending in demonstratives: in *id/*yod (neuter of *is/*yos, whence Proto-Slavic "*je" and Latin "id") and in *tod (whence Polish "to" and English "that")
Thank you for another great video! Next time when talking about İndoeuropean origins perhaps you could also give examples from İndic or İranian languages, like Sanskrit for example. Just a suggestion. 😁 Thanks again and keep up the great work!
Thanks :) I'll think about it, obviously I have no sufficient knowledge of these languages to really speak about them or make real connections with Slavic languages, but it's true I might find a few occasions to give examples!
@Rozum-Razum_Slavic-linguistics Actually İ only checked Wikipedia to look up things in Sanskrit. İ cannot read Devanagari after all. 😅 İ was certainly surprised to see similarities between Sanskrit and Slovene in their dual verb conjugation. Considering the huge distance between that two language, not only geographically but also temporally.
Qn. saurait dire s'il y a un lien entre la désinence -go du génitif/(accusatif) singulier pronominal en slave avec le "redoublement de l'objet", comme on le nomme, la marque essentielle en langue macédonienne ? Ex: Ние ГО гледаме филмОТ.
Oui, tout à fait, la désinence en -go est une désinence qui, à l'origine, est pronominale, et qui a été étendue, dans les langues slaves, à certains adjectifs au génitif / accusatif animé, de la façon expliquée dans cette vidéo : th-cam.com/video/V0z_Tnjgy84/w-d-xo.html le pronom го est quant à lui une version courte du pronom него, donc c'est bien de la même désinence pronominale qu'il s'agit.
En ukrainien, c'est "вовк", comme quoi il y a hésitation entre les sons l, v et w (en polonais). Mais le plus étrange, c'est la tendance de l'ukrainien à remplacer les 'o' russes par des 'i', comme pour l'aéroport de Borispol, qui s'appelle en ukrainien Borispil (ou la chanson 'Tseli ïiiï', "Embrasse-la", en russe ïeïo). Comment peut-on assimiler le o et le i ? Mystère.
Pour le changement o -> i en ukrainien, il y a cette vidéo : th-cam.com/video/WkuXViD9UZE/w-d-xo.html Et sinon il y aura sûrement une vidéo qui parlera de ce qui s'est passé, entre autres, avec le mot "вовк" dans les mois qui arrivent !
So, yes, the thing is in Lithuanian, neutre gendre doesn't exist anymore, that's why I couldn't put an equivalent ending and I couldn't use the word šimtas, which has a masculine ending. Instead, I put the neutre ending of another Baltic language, Old Prussian, which had a neutre gender with endings that are comparable to the one I'm talking about in the video. And this ending is -an.
Très intéressant ! Quelqu'un saurait d'où vient la désinence -go du génitif singulier pronominal en Slave ? Il semblerait qu'elle n'ait d'équivalent nulle part, pas même en Balte.
Alors, voici un passage tiré de la source que je mentionne dans la vidéo (p138) : Since we find an unambiguous reflex of an original pronominal genitive ending in PS *kesa (CS *česo), it is to begin with more likely that PS *‑aga (CS *‑ogo) also somehow reflects a pronominal genitive ending. I am therefore more inclined to think that PS *‑aga reflects an irregular phonetic development of PBS *‑asa, perhaps caused by the fact that the ending contains two identical vowels (cf. the different scenario assumed by Rasmussen 1987a/1999: 122-124). This development is similar to the Russian development of g to v in the ending ‑ogo, with a parallel in Slovincian, which is due to a late weakening of [ɡ] to [γ] to [v] between two identical vowels (Stang 1969a: 75-76). It is evident, however, that the explanation by a sporadic sound change is purely ad hoc.
La réponse se trouve dans cette vidéo : th-cam.com/video/Y5qMEvVDtqI/w-d-xo.html Elle ne parle pas de toutes les langues slaves, mais le fonctionnement devrait être le même un peu partout.
@@astrOtuba Well perhaps! I'm new at this actually, so I may be too cautious. In my original understanding of things, people may want to help and stay out of the credits!
I'm not sure I understand. I enter two versions of the title and the description of each video, one in French, the other in English. Then I have no control on to whom TH-cam decides to show the French and the English version
(English below) Merci à @Мєтодипоискатєљ de m'avoir conseillé la source dont je parle dans la vidéo, qui a le grand avantage de faire le tour des principales théories relatives à cette question et de formuler une hypothèse intéressante pour y répondre. Gardez toutefois en tête qu'il s'agit d'une question particulièrement débattue et que la réponse formulée dans la vidéo n'en est qu'une parmi de nombreuses autres !
Thanks to @Мєтодипоискатєљ for recommending the source I talk about in the video, which has the great advantage of covering the main theories on this question and formulating an interesting hypothesis to answer it. Keep in mind, however, that this is a particularly debated question and that the answer formulated in the video is only one among many others!
Une petite correction-- en anglais on ne dit pas "Why did they disappeared". Avec le mot "did" on utilise la forme présente du verbe alors on dirait "Why did they disappear". Bonne vidéo et merci pour votre travail! Je suis un vrai fan de votre chaîne!
Plus précis: "disappear" c'est en ce cas une infinitive. Pour ça on peut pas dire par exemple "He did can.": "can" n'a pas forme d'infinitive
Ouhla mais oui ! Merci, c'est corrigé !
I remember wondering once why the Proto-PIE *-om had evolved to -o in Proto-Slavic neuters, but to -ъ in Proto-Slavic masculine accusatives, unlike other PIE languages (like -um in Latin for both neuters and masculine accusatives, -on for Greek ones, -am for Sanskrit ones, etc.). What I found was that it's really hard to research this question, and at the end of the day, the answer is still very much up for debate, although the answer you gave, the pronominal *-od taking over the neuter *-om ending and then evolving differently from it (to -o and not to -ъ) is the most accepted one, but I've also seen others.
I remember I spend a good few weeks looking that up instead of doing actual work I had to do at the time haha.
Yes, actually, when I started this video, I had in mind another theory (for -os as well as for -om) I read somewhere else, and I was not conscious how debated all these theories are. I almost abandoned the video while making it, but the source I'm talking about in the video somehow made a good summary of the existing theories as well as the hypothesis I eventually mentionned in the video. But yes, it's actually interesting how far this simple question makes us go!
I think that's interesting, especially because I've only seen the *-od ending in demonstratives: in *id/*yod (neuter of *is/*yos, whence Proto-Slavic "*je" and Latin "id") and in *tod (whence Polish "to" and English "that")
How slavic I like that you're interested about us. Thanks for so detailed and interesting explanation!
C’est une magnifique chaîne que je viens de découvrir aujourd’hui !
Oh merci, ça fait plaisir !
Merci pour le travail !
Merci ! Ca me fait plaisir de voir qu'il est apprécié !
Je viens de découvrir cette chaîne
Les langues slaves doivent être plus célébrées
Thank you for another great video!
Next time when talking about İndoeuropean origins perhaps you could also give examples from İndic or İranian languages, like Sanskrit for example. Just a suggestion. 😁
Thanks again and keep up the great work!
Thanks :) I'll think about it, obviously I have no sufficient knowledge of these languages to really speak about them or make real connections with Slavic languages, but it's true I might find a few occasions to give examples!
@Rozum-Razum_Slavic-linguistics Actually İ only checked Wikipedia to look up things in Sanskrit. İ cannot read Devanagari after all. 😅
İ was certainly surprised to see similarities between Sanskrit and Slovene in their dual verb conjugation. Considering the huge distance between that two language, not only geographically but also temporally.
Qn. saurait dire s'il y a un lien entre la désinence -go du génitif/(accusatif) singulier pronominal en slave avec le "redoublement de l'objet", comme on le nomme, la marque essentielle en langue macédonienne ? Ex: Ние ГО гледаме филмОТ.
Oui, tout à fait, la désinence en -go est une désinence qui, à l'origine, est pronominale, et qui a été étendue, dans les langues slaves, à certains adjectifs au génitif / accusatif animé, de la façon expliquée dans cette vidéo : th-cam.com/video/V0z_Tnjgy84/w-d-xo.html
le pronom го est quant à lui une version courte du pronom него, donc c'est bien de la même désinence pronominale qu'il s'agit.
@@Rozum-Razum_Slavic-linguistics Благодарам ! Merci pour Votre prompte et claire réponse.
En ukrainien, c'est "вовк", comme quoi il y a hésitation entre les sons l, v et w (en polonais). Mais le plus étrange, c'est la tendance de l'ukrainien à remplacer les 'o' russes par des 'i', comme pour l'aéroport de Borispol, qui s'appelle en ukrainien Borispil (ou la chanson 'Tseli ïiiï', "Embrasse-la", en russe ïeïo). Comment peut-on assimiler le o et le i ? Mystère.
Pour le changement o -> i en ukrainien, il y a cette vidéo : th-cam.com/video/WkuXViD9UZE/w-d-xo.html
Et sinon il y aura sûrement une vidéo qui parlera de ce qui s'est passé, entre autres, avec le mot "вовк" dans les mois qui arrivent !
1:20 I didn't quite understand what "-an" was. One hundred in Lithuanian - ŠIMTAS
So, yes, the thing is in Lithuanian, neutre gendre doesn't exist anymore, that's why I couldn't put an equivalent ending and I couldn't use the word šimtas, which has a masculine ending. Instead, I put the neutre ending of another Baltic language, Old Prussian, which had a neutre gender with endings that are comparable to the one I'm talking about in the video. And this ending is -an.
Très intéressant !
Quelqu'un saurait d'où vient la désinence -go du génitif singulier pronominal en Slave ? Il semblerait qu'elle n'ait d'équivalent nulle part, pas même en Balte.
Alors, voici un passage tiré de la source que je mentionne dans la vidéo (p138) :
Since we find an unambiguous reflex of an original pronominal genitive
ending in PS *kesa (CS *česo), it is to begin with more likely that PS *‑aga (CS
*‑ogo) also somehow reflects a pronominal genitive ending. I am therefore
more inclined to think that PS *‑aga reflects an irregular phonetic development
of PBS *‑asa, perhaps caused by the fact that the ending contains two
identical vowels (cf. the different scenario assumed by Rasmussen 1987a/1999:
122-124). This development is similar to the Russian development of g to v in
the ending ‑ogo, with a parallel in Slovincian, which is due to a late weakening
of [ɡ] to [γ] to [v] between two identical vowels (Stang 1969a: 75-76). It is
evident, however, that the explanation by a sporadic sound change is purely
ad hoc.
Pourquoi l'accusatif de la 2nde déclinaison est le génitif animé ou le nominatif inanimé?
La réponse se trouve dans cette vidéo : th-cam.com/video/Y5qMEvVDtqI/w-d-xo.html
Elle ne parle pas de toutes les langues slaves, mais le fonctionnement devrait être le même un peu partout.
Why is the patron's nickname blured in the end?
@@astrOtuba Aha, yes, because I wanted to have the permission to put his name
@@Rozum-Razum_Slavic-linguistics isn't it a rule of thumb that nicknames of patrons are displayed in end credits?
@@astrOtuba Well perhaps! I'm new at this actually, so I may be too cautious. In my original understanding of things, people may want to help and stay out of the credits!
Do you not know how to write the title of the video in French?
I'm not sure I understand. I enter two versions of the title and the description of each video, one in French, the other in English. Then I have no control on to whom TH-cam decides to show the French and the English version
Slovian
Wylk
Sto
Sto vlků
Slavonic church orthodox langage is ☦️🇧🇬Old Bulgarian🇧🇬☦️
Old Church Slavonic is based on the *Macedonian* dialects around Solun 🇲🇰
Nothing to do with bulgar, turkic language from turkic nomads