Penchant for one-quantity-above-life-towards-good-foam-food? I see the real reason you like space-language so much is because you want to remain weightless.
@@NStripleseven one-quantity-above-life-towards = banana in aUI good foam food = pie in ygyde one-quantity-above-life-towards good foam food = banana pie
A large vowel inventory never seems very off-putting to me, as my native language is Danish, which has about sixteen monophthongs, five unstressed vowels as well as eleven stressed vowels, most of which may be either long or followed by a "stød" (similar to a glottal stop, but distinct in a way that is notoriously difficult to explain to non-native speakers). However, I guess as I am getting into conlanging, I should probably start thinking in broader terms in regard to creating appealing or more "natural" vowel inventories.
The fact the Danish and English vowel systems are unstable and speakers are beginning to merge certain pairs kind of demonstrates that they're at least a little unnatural 😂 (though not so unnatural as to have never arisen in the first place)
I know it doesn't really matter 6 years after the fact, but I actually found a book on aUI in my university's library from before vocabulary reform. It seems like "vu" was not the word for man, but "he," with the corresponding word "yvu" meaning "she." Man and woman are "vus" and "yvus" respectively, both suffixed with the "thing" morpheme. It's still kinda sexist since it implies women are the "inactive" gender, but at least it doesn't literally objectify women.
Instead, it objectifies both genders! Also I hope that the negation was meant to refer not to v (active) but rather vu (man), to indicate that woman is not man, I HOPE.
@cool-person1161: yes, these are outdated formulations, but the -s [Thing/Concrete] ending gives 'concreteness' to an abstract concept and also functions as a reifying ending, making the word a concrete instance of a human. The active/passive aspect refers to biological activity of the sperm (active) vs. egg (conceptive). Difference in sex is, after all, a most basic, biological phenomenon - but defining gender difference is no longer attempted in pronouns since it seems impossible to generalize in any meaningful way. So aUI uses ‘cu’ [Existing-Human] (pronounced ‘shu’) as a gender-free pronoun. The symbol and sound for Human (two legs or arms like the peak of a triangle; /u/ as in push) are actually most closely related to Mind/Spirit (whole triangle; U as in true): aUI tries to illustrate how humans are essentially spiritual (not primarily sexual beings). Please see my reply to @cube6794 for further explanation regarding DSDs (formerly 'intersex')
I can't believe I'm noticing this just now and I don't know if this is Mitch's fault or not, but you defined a uvular trill as a laryngeal trill and I don't why that's funny to me but it does seem kind of weird that an auxlang would have an epiglottal trill
Below are my comments to clarify some of Jan's critiques (they ended up appearing in reverse order except for the first one below). Thanks so much for you interest. Lmk if you have any more questions. Andrea Weilgart Patten
8) 3:49 ân-kot: yes, by simply looking at the morpheme elements contained in a word formulation its meaning may not be obvious. You have to know some of the basic combinations: in ân- [One-Quantity-] in ân-kot is short for one-dimensional (ânam = long); ot [Life-Toward] = fruit (life’s goal); k-ot [Above-fruit] tree fruit: long-tree-fruit = banana. But the elements are still morphemes and retain their meaning within the short, basic combinations.
I saw the book about this language decades ago in the Dewey Decimal section of the University of Oregon library. It certainly was baffling to look through! Thanks for giving it a go... I have fantasized about using it in a sci-fi film as an alien language.
Inflecting adjectives to make adverbs isn't super anglocentric, it's just inflectional-centric (Japanese does it), and for something aUI it's a very sensible move to make.
7) 3:19 The original formulations for man and woman were also based on biological activity of the sperm (active) vs. egg (conceptive/passive), and the ‘Thing’ ending, which both had, also functions as a reifying ending, making the word a concrete instance of a human. Difference in sex is, after all, a most basic, biological phenomenon - but defining gender difference is no longer attempted in pronouns since it seems impossible to generalize in any meaningful way. So aUI uses ‘cu’ [Existing-Human] (pronounced ‘shu’) as a gender-free pronoun.
9) 4:17 yes, the grammar is adapted to English speakers to make it familiar; it could also be adapted to the grammars of other languages - the basic elements still retain their original meaning, so it is not a wholly arbitrary structure superimposed on an otherwise meaningful system.
a*mkot actually makes sense. one quantity can be interpreted as one dimensional/long, life towards is bringing life/tree, and above is making the tree a fruit.
I think the new words for man and woman are not sexist at all. It explains an objective difference between men and women, which is important for alien to understand.
male gametes aren't seeds tho. and in fact both those nouns don't explicitly indicate that the woman contributes a gamete too, i would argue that they imply the opposite that the male provides genetic information and the female 'carries' it. if the language is supposed to be for communicating with aliens or whatever it's bad info. for example aliens might assume the word for female is more akin to what male seahorses do (perhaps because the aliens are seahorses themselves !!), and thus get the sexes reversed, and that' just one way to misinterpret it.
I always thought it was odd that English has separate eh and ih sounds, such a minor distinction but can make a lot of difference (litter/letter, miss/mess) and I swear it can only be understood in the greater context of how someone speaks because even with minor accentation one easily becomes the other.
I know this is a seven year old video (at the time I am writing this), but I just want to say that the updated differentiation between man woman (seed-bearer vs. life-bearer, to put it very briefly) isn't sexist because it doesn't unfairly discriminate. They simply describe a fundamental difference between men and women in a non-judgemental way, much like the words "man" and "woman" do not have any inherent judgement on either person when used in isolation and without context. That said, if someone has proof that "man" or "woman" are inherently judgemental or discriminatory - with sources that explain this history - I would love to see it and learn more!
2) 1:59 yes, actually up to 6 allophonic variations are permissible (for i, y, Ø, & r) but the total number of corresponding phonemes is still 42, counting the nasalized numerals.
The symbol and sound for Human (two legs or arms like the peak of a triangle; /u/ as in push) are actually most closely related to Mind/Spirit (whole triangle; U as in true): aUI tries to illustrate how humans are essentially spiritual (not mainly sexual beings).
@@columbus8myhw I mean there is the surname Aioi but that's just 2 very common diphthongs so it's really not a problem. aUI is just difficult because it's not clear where the dipthong is meant to be or if it's just meant to be 3 monophthongs in a row, and since it's not a widely spoken language like Japanese is there's no easy way to find an agreed upon answer. In general though, if you're making an IAL and people familiar with the Latin alphabet can't tell how to pronounce its 3-phoneme name when written in the Latin alphabet, that's not a great sign lol
@@MistKitten You can't tell entirely due to English influence, in romance it's pretty obvious (BTW the word "obvious" also has three bowels in a row plus U which used to be vowel and don't see you complaining)
To be fair to aUI, it's hard to break down 'man' and 'woman' into simple parts the best I can think of is XY human and XX human, but that excludes trans and intersex people
breaking down gender is really hard, because you tend to fall into gender essentialism, bio determinism and/or rely heavily on gender roles. a difficult task, really. i think languages that are meant to be truly universal should have a word for "human", regardless of gender, leave the names for genders as an open group or something and just kinda wait. i think with aUI specifically it coulf be beneficial to just pick words that don't actually fit the regular noun formation conventions, just because breaking gender down to really narrow concepts just ends up really weird. i can't really reduce concepts of gender down to the basics, because like, gender is very weird, in my eyes at least.
@@thewanderingmistnull2451 sure, but my point is that is XX human is the aUI word for "woman", trans women and intersex ppl won't fit into the strict definition, and having a definition that doesn't fit the exact meaning of the word seems to ruin the whole point of oligosynthesis
HBMmaster I dont think they conflate them. The words are describing the biological differences between men and women wich are meaningful (just like man and woman) even when describing a transgender person. It does not exclude additional labels like psychological sex (gender). I think its a bit lazy to call it sexist since does not imply treating the sexes differently in areas where they do not differ.
1) 2:05 yes, we should really count the numerals as part of the morphemes since they do often appear in word formulations, as you pointed out, so that would be 42 vs. 31
I recently remembered this video existed. I think at some point I was one of the many people asking how the gender words in this language could be considered sexist. I’ve since wisened up a bit; it’s a correct assessment. That said, I can see why this language did what it did… One, it’s old. Two, talking about gender (in the modern sense; as something human, complex, constructed, and not biocentric or whatever it was called) would be extremely hard in this language (without, as you’ve said before, just making morphemes for them, which in my opinion is a sacrifice because it wouldn’t quite fit with how “fundamental” the other morphemes seem to be). I was thinking about making a conlang of my own, that, if it ever talks about genders, will just treat them as loanwords (sort of like loglan infamously does for certain places and languages, but executed better). It’ll hopefully influence any hypothetical speakers to not focus on them so much (and just see everyone for what they are: fellow humans). Thoughts and opinions on this?
right, this is def a conundrum for aUI! I've wrestled with this for quite a while and decided that it seems impossible to define gender difference in any general, meaningful way other than to stay with our common denominator: Human! So aUI uses ‘cu’ [Existing-Human] (pronounced ‘shu’) as a gender-free pronoun. Even sex indicators can be spread over a continuum from male to female so that my newer definitions (using sperm/egg distinction) are not 100% valid, I see. However, intersex conditions are relatively rare: .018% - 1.7% depending on how inclusive the definition is set. I would think for the purpose of defining a male/female distinction a more narrow, precise definition would be used which counts only those "conditions in which chromosomal sex is inconsistent with phenotypic sex, or in which the phenotype is not classifiable as either male or female" pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/12476264/ i.e. in which there is "sexual ambiguity." www.realityslaststand.com/p/intersex-is-not-as-common-as-red In any case, in all types of DSDs (Disorders/Differences in Sex Developement) "fertility outcome is significantly reduced." www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0015028217317089 pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34196232/
haha; yes, these are outdated formulations, but the -s [Thing/Concrete] ending gives 'concreteness' to an abstract concept and also functions as a reifying ending, making the word a concrete instance of a human. The active/passive aspect refers to biological activity of the sperm (active) vs. egg (conceptive). Difference in sex is, after all, a most basic, biological phenomenon - but defining gender difference is no longer attempted in pronouns since it seems impossible to generalize in any meaningful way. So aUI uses ‘cu’ [Existing-Human] (pronounced ‘shu’) as a gender-free pronoun. The symbol and sound for Human (two legs or arms like the peak of a triangle; /u/ as in push) are actually most closely related to Mind/Spirit (whole triangle; U as in true): aUI tries to illustrate how humans are essentially spiritual (not primarily sexual beings). Please see my reply to @cube6794 for further explanation regarding DSDs (formerly 'intersex')
I will say, the only mixed-case thing that kinda makes sense here is making L capital, because with I and i being two vowels you'd need a way to distinguish between I the vowel and l the consonant. The problem ofc being that I and i are two separate vowels and couldn't be written some other way.
A problem comes with trying to create a logically, unambiguous language in the first place. You're a lot more subjective then you think, but obviously still possible to make it more logically and clear, but I suggest to remember that language is art.
Tbf, it seems that the intended phonemes for a and A are "ʌ" and "a:" respectively. Whoever wrote the Wiki article didn't know standard IPA format, or referenced someone who didn't. It's just exactly the long and short vowels of Latin (with the exception of specifying a short and long y), pretty standard.
I'll do with with i ag a and wan taso *i ag a* bim rim da! i iv ad a. tubev Yf i. “jYtvu i, ânai Ub trO, iE Ub brO, fnu’c YnEn Ib Ynam ag yim can-nam. yi vYotAv fnu, fum aYn-Am bru, ag Ydim tA. yUg fA fnu irv fnum da, irv ad dam yim a.” *wan taso* ijo li moku e mi. mi wile pakala. pimeja li tawa insa kon mi. jan ala li ken sona e pilin ike mi. toki musi o, sina jan pona mi wan taso. telo pimeja ni li telo loje mi, li ale mi. tenpo ale la pimeja li lon. *sona lon insa lon* nasin suno pi pona lukin suno li suno lon nasin sewi li lukin e suno ante "jan sama suno o, suno linja wile o, seli olin o, mi mute li mute ala li lili lon ale pimeja jan pona mi pi tenpo lili pimeja li moli e mi mute lon tenpo kama pi suno ala taso tenpo ni la, mi mute o suno e suno mi o suno tawa nasin pi sewi pimeja suli *âm â* E dov fu. fu tnOv zwEv yi ev tag fum OU yu gUv-wØrc fum YrO UI-vUvs, bu Ec fum âm bru fE yim jE Ec fum og-âi, Ib fum can-nam cnAm Ec yi *i ag cE* riOm eda Ub i âki iv at kam eda iOv Yj âki "âki jYtvu, ânam i Ub tO, iE Ub brO, fnu Ec YnEn Ib Ynam ag can-nam, xE Ec yim, fum bru Ec YnEn A yi vyOv fnu ag i-Ybm tA yUg fAm, fnu irv fum i irv at eda Ub nam yim kan *wan taso* ijo li moku e mi mi wile pakala pimeja li tawa insa kon mi mi wile e ni: jan ala li sona e pilin ike mi toki musi o, sina jan pona mi wan telo pimeja ni li teji loje mi, li ale mi tenpo ale li pimeja
Thankfully, the vowel inventory is far more reasonable than what is presented here. There's the standard five of /i/ /u/ /e/ /o/ /a/ with both short and long variants, romanized with long vowels capitalized, as well as the short-only /œ~ø/ ‹Ø› (formerly ‹Q›) and /y/ ‹Y› (realization before consonants; /j/before vowels).
I fail to see why the second set of words for man/woman are sexist. It's pretty much the best way to sum up the biological differences, and if this language were to be used (hypothetically) as a communicative medium for alien species, then it's the best way to explain the biology behind our species.
Vu - man Yvus - woman. That's worse than English because according to this video y~s makes the word essentially mean not-man. So we have men and not men. That doesn't make sense biologically. How is that a biological explanation at all? The default human should never be "man". That's sexist. The default human should be human, especially since most cultures recognize more than just men and women.
purplepain The new words for man and woman aren't any better because there are still men who have wombs and ovaries and women who can produce sperm. Non-trans people even. So it's just wrong and oversimplifying a huge spectrum
Zeno Nope, that's an extremely incorrect thing to say based on chromosomes? What about the many many many people who don't match the chromosome binary? Junk and secondary sex charactaristics are also soooo not binary, so wtf do you mean "biologically male and female"?
Zeno The more appropriate word for the first attempt at man and woman is sexist, but the second attempt is more cissexist because it's trying to erase everyone that doesn't fit your arbitrary and ignorant idea of "biological sex".
To explain something I see a lot, even though it’s an old video: I’m seeing a large amount of arguments about how either the original definition of man and woman or the updated definition are not sexist, so I’d like to try to clear it up. Firstly, the original definitions are objectively sexist. They define women as inactive and essentially little more than objects, while men are considered ‘active’. The updated definitions aren’t *as* bad, but run into the same problem (which was still present before), which is that they are inherently transphobic and do not include non-binary people. It’s not political to claim these groups exist btw, there have been studies showing that gender is a spectrum, not binary, and does not always line up with your physical sex. aUI’s updated definition defines men and women (and gender) as essentially what’s between their legs: as just their sex assigned at birth and their physical reproductive systems, which inherently denies the existence of trans and non-binary people. In addition, there is no gender neutral form, which means that it groups people into 2 categories, and doesn’t allow you to mention anyone without specifying gender. At the very least, an international language should be gender neutral, with optional affixes or forms for the binary genders.
Sorry to be so late to this discussion but I appreciate all the effort at trying explain aUI's outdated formulations. I'm trying give some further background and updated thinking to previous comments. Yes - there is a gender neutral form: HUMAN! one of the 41 basic elements or primes. aUI uses ‘cu’ [Existing-Human] (pronounced ‘shu’) as a gender-free pronoun. The symbol and sound for Human (two legs or arms like the peak of a triangle; /u/ as in push) are actually most closely related to Mind/Spirit (whole triangle; U as in true): aUI tries to illustrate how humans are essentially spiritual (not mainly sexual beings). But you know that gender and sex are not the same thing. Yes, it's a huge conundrum to try to define the difference between men and women based on any common characteristic other than biology...I don't know what the answer is (unless marking the symbol for Human somehow...or do you have a good idea? 'Man' and 'woman' might be problematic too: [before 900; Middle English womman, wimman, Old English wīfman=wīf female + man human being; see wife, man] www.thefreedictionary.com/woman Please also see www.thefreedictionary.com/man for a good usage note on the background of man/woman.
This sounds a lot like the conlang I'm working on, which is combining syllables with each one being a morpheme to make a full word, except... wack and able to result in entirely unpronounceable words.
jin-jang also sorts masculine and feminine qualities into the same class as active and passive natures respectively. and it is hardly considered to be sexist.
@@cutecommie it's just dualism, if you associate one aspect with yin you have to associate the opposite with yang, so which one is which becomes 50:50. Passive having negative connotations is entirely your own perspective.
@@cutecommie In Daoism the passive is positive (receptive, open) and the active is negative (warlike, offensive) In fact, the Dao (Way), whick invented the concept, is more often associated with feminine principle since it believes the society to be unbalanced towards agression
How is it sexist to use "human carrying life" for women, when the one for man had to do with semen. "Semen is latin for Seed" Basically it was saying men create the seed, and women recieve it. Not sexism, but two sides of the same process.
@@HBMmaster you stated two facts, and then asked us to figure it out. Why, it’s up to you to prove it to me. Yes... to describe different genders of Homo Sapiens you must describe them by there differences. Women bear children, Men “plant seeds”. Sure there is better ways to describe that, but in that moment there is no implicit bias in that definition. Maybe you are biased, maybe you’ll learn to ‘figure it out’.
(3:35) I think you explained somewhere that you said this was sexist because it doesn't take into account agender people and for example trans-people. But the thing is that those descriptions are to refer to someone more biologically. I'm not sure how else you would objectively describe humans other than not doing it.
yeah its not really sexist so much as it is transphobic. Even aside from whateverphobias, its weird to reduce humans to their biological aspects? and its ESPECIALLY weird and gross-feeling to reduce them specifically to reproductive roles??? like its just gross and objectifying for any gender... it feels like being referred to like breeding stock... like, this language already has a morpheme for "human," why cant we just use that, instead of adding all those weird objectifying qualifiers?
@@puppetaccess The thing is that was the revised version years later. The previous version was even worse, referring to men as "active human"s and women as "inactive human"s.
I know it's kind of an overdone point in these comment sections by now but I want to talk about gendered wording in conlangs. Specifically, why is it a problem for IAL and other conlangs like them? To me, it makes sense that some of the more Euro-centric ones would have them because (as far as I'm aware) some European languages have them and the most spoken one-Spanish-has them a lot. It would make sense to me to have a similar gendered grammar system in place. To me, it makes sense that since most people are cis that these languages would have general terms for those two sexes (even with that I do agree that conlangs should factor in vocabulary for trans, aes, nonbinary, etc. individuals as to not leave them out of using these conlangs). For art conlangs especially it seems like weird thing to rail against when those gendered words could be integral to the world building of where it's featured (see Láadan). Sorry for the paragraph and if I came off as hot-headed, I'm just confused by why this aspect of conlangs is always picked on in these videos and they're honestly the only part that I feel put-off by. Otherwise, I really enjoy these! Keep them up.
Well, grammatical gender and human gender aren't the same thing, so I'll address both. Grammatical gender refers to having more than one class of noun which are treated differently grammatically. The example you chose, Spanish, has masculine and feminine genders, but those aren't related to human gender. The names are more or less arbitrary. They might as well be called planet and potato. Grammatical gender in this right is usually picked on because it makes no sense to include in an auxlang. Speakers of languages with grammatical gender have no trouble adapting to languages without them, but the opposite isn't so. Imagine that every noun you use in a language you're learning has to be either marked for planetness or potatoness, and the adjectives, verbs, determiners, etc. all worked differently for each. So somethingplan like thisplan would be normalplan, and youpot just have to memorize everyplan nounplan's genderplan, and there's no rhymeplan or reasonpot to it allpot. As for human gender, I don't really know what Jan Misali meant here.
My engilang will be an optimised version of Spanish, and I have decided decided that all inanimate nouns will be neuter, only animate nouns will vary with them - O is masculine, A is feminine, U is neuter.
It came from Greece; we were the first to acknowledge The idea of a democratic college, oh yeah. So it started there. Before that we were all just ruled by royals They thought that common folk should just be loyal, oh yeah. Greek: "Well we weren’t having that anymore" So we tried The first system for the common people No longer treat them like a bunch of sheeple Each law voted for by the people Democracy meant they got to keep all the power But only if they qualify - Greek: "Slaves, women and foreigners need not apply. Mm." You’re meant to join in if you like it or not If you refuse, we call you an ‘idiot’, oh yeah. That word came from there… Romans were less rude and we thought it better To have a Senate and appoint Senators to implement The laws of government. This sort of meant that for the common bloke Democracy became a bit of a joke Power was just held by a load of rich geezers Till the Republic was ended by Caesar - Caesar: Thought I’d give being a dictator a crack But then they stabbed me in the ba-a-a-a-ack. Civil War was aimed to bring a chance to restrain the King Still the people were ignored, power stayed with King and Lord. Cromwell’s Roundheaded intent? Cromwell: Restrain the King with Parliament - Charles I: Ended when I lost my head - Cromwell: I won, but then we got Charles the Second instead! Still we tried to stand up for choice Make Parliament hear the people’s voice But it was hard to get that message through Nothing changed till 1832. But there’s one thing to note The working class and women still can’t vote. For common worker’s the fight’s not done Until the end of World War One Suffragette: Votes for women thanks to Suffragettes And no-one’s found a better system yet. As Churchill said to our great-grandmothers - Churchill: "Democracy’s worst… apart from all the others."
@@OrangeDied I never formally announced that I would be making a video about this. the Big List refers to my directory of which conlangs have been requested for review and how many times they've been requested, back when requests were open.
No, that would be /æ/, /ä/ to my knowledge does not exist in English. It's in Swedish, and from my experience as a native Swedish speaker, I don't recognise it in English.
I haven't see any word with, sample, aa (Space-Space) or AA (time-time), et cetera. So if this kind of combination doesnt exist is because is the pronunciation of A (time), same with the other vowels.
I think we're conflating gender and sex. The new words talk purely about sex, not gender. Basic roots for gender won't work in aUI's case as aUI is the language of space and the Aliens might have more than 2 sexes or only 1.
I generally like Esperanto, and though the usual words are "viro" and "virino", a back formation for woman is "Ino", which is a term I generally support. Now if the Akademio would find a pronoun for non-binary individuals. I suggest "gi".
It seems like aUI just doesn’t to a good job at the phoneme definition, but the main way to distinguish male and female is by activity and passivity/reception in reproduction and gametes. By analogy we call couplers and connectors and electrical fittings by male and female. The action and non action thing is probably because they didn’t have a word for passive besides non-active for reasons of simplicity. I don’t know enough to know if they could have framed it in terms of giving and receiving, but defining sexes biologically is not just about sexism. It also isn’t about restricting the role of women to being mothers. Sexual organisms that transmit genetic material are males and their counterparts that receive it are female, not the other way around. If males got pregnant, they wouldn’t be males but rather females, regardless of secondary characteristics that in animals like spiders are reversed from what we expect in humans.
@@Persun_McPersonson It seems perfectly normal to me; catering to such a small minority only adds extra unnecessary complexity. The most common cases should be addressed first, and the uncommon cases treated as exceptions to the standard case. This is a good rule of thumb for most endeavors, including building a language meant for reasonably efficient/clear communication. If the vast majority of people using it have to make concessions for fringe cases, it needlessly complicates and obfuscates the language and its semantics.
@@flubnub266 It seems "normal" to you because you're used to it and it has been a normalized way of thinking for a long time. Secondly, disrespecting the existence of millions of people just because they're less common than you is a toxic and vile mindset, something being less common is not a good reason to dismiss it, it's just an apathetic excuse. Thirdly, there being exceptions proves that the "rule" is inaccurate in the first place and so should be re-evaluated. Your argument reminds me of how homophobes would argue that the definition of marriage was dependent on there being both a man and a woman, and anything outside of that just didn't fit the definition and so wasn't really marriage; they were using majority rule mental gymnastics to reject parts of reality that made them uncomfortable. Inclusive language actually makes communication _more_ clear as it doesn't make untrue assumptions about a person based on the outdated cultural baggage of a phrase, so your point is moot. There's a difference between true needless complexity and simply representing the actual nuances of life as a human. What you're arguing for is oversimplification to the point of hurting millions of people-that's the opposite of what language is meant for, a certain level of complexity is always needed.
@@Persun_McPersonson You seem to be reading a lot of ill intent into what I said which simply isn't there. I didn't make an argument as much I simply described the way natural languages are structured, which is that majority cases are given short/root terms, and exceptions are typically that term with some kind of modifier (for example, "woman" -> "transwoman"). "Disrespect" has nothing to do with it; that's just how things naturally end up for the sake of convenience. No rule is perfect and always has exceptions. If we had to constantly list off every special case that a person is _not,_ communication would grind to a halt. As a left-handed person, I would be perfectly happy to be referred to as "reverse-handed" or something like that, because it's true! I am in a considerable minority and do not wish to make _most people in the world_ waste time clarifying that they are right handed for my sake. Imagine the environmental impact if law changed to require left-handed versions of everything to be manufactured _just in case_ a left-handed person shows up. It's just wasteful. A language can have only so much complexity before its users end up breaking it down and simplifying it with slang and abbreviations. Humans are optimizers; and this is just how things turn out on their own.
@@flubnub266 There doesn't need to be purposeful ill intent for your view to still be harmful. Plenty of people think things that aren't good but do so with complete earnestness because they happen to literally believe in it. What you're describing is indeed what ends up happening a lot of the time just as a result of it being convenient, but convenience should not trump truth and fairness. It's wrong to treat exceptions as effectively irrelevant until they can't be avoided and you have to specify their existence. Always referring to cis women just "women" while always specifying trans women as trans women and never referring to them as just "women" inherently gives negative implications; you can try to ignore those implications, but that's moreso just you justifying your majority rule favoritism and apathy towards people who are upset at continuing to be marginalized. As a fellow lefty, majority rule is regressive and harmful. Being called "reverse-handed" gives off a very off-putting implication, it's almost dehumanizing in a way. It is not wasteful to want people to use language that paints you as an equal instead of a weird exception to their conceptualization of reality. Also left-handed versions of things are not nearly as easy to come by as right-handed things so I'd actually love a government mandate that makes them a little more prominent. There's nothing so annoyingly complex about using inclusive language, you're just not _used_ to it. Optimization to the detriment of truth and morals is not justifiable, and it's still very much possible to optimize within the extra complexity. In the end you're just justifying tradition and not changing how things are, "language can only be so complex!" is just an excuse that exists to justify the apathetic mindset it takes to not see anything wrong with disinclusive language.
yeah, you got it! yes, by simply looking at the morpheme elements contained in a word formulation its meaning may not be obvious. You have to know some of the basic combinations: in ân- [One-Quantity-] in ân-kot is short for one-dimensional (ânam = long); ot [Life-Toward] = fruit (life’s goal); k-ot [Above-fruit] tree fruit: long-tree-fruit = banana. But the elements are still morphemes and retain their meaning within the short, basic combinations.
@@aUILanguageofSpace tIOI, nE rUms at bu! aUI is (one) my favorite(s) conlangs ever (together with Toki Pona and Lojban). Its a lot of fun👌 and one of the best conlang ever made. I even have a personal aUI PDF (with all official information and I would like to make it free in google for everyone, but... IDK🤔). The only thing I crash with aUI is to find an free aUI symbols font 😅, with stacking and all. Greetings!
so the language is "space spirit sound"? space+spirit=universe? hell? dimension? heaven? god? universe+sound=aUI this is the worst language worse than toki ponaLOL
It seems that the main point of view of these critical episodes concerning conlangs is a subjective attitude of a subjective funny interpretation of sex and gender cumulated in a theory called "sexism".
I feel like I should mention that the symbol for "negation" and the symbol for "existence" combined make the symbol for "good". Hmm...
@@halfnwhole751 I vibrated with gas explosion from my mouth! Thank you!
No you’re wrong, do not combine it that way. “Negation” and “existence” combine look like “-“ sign and top of “|” no a “+” sign
it's dialectics
Tuấn Nguyễn so T
suicidal
Oof ouch aUI
This comment is officially sacred ground.
Glumbor Tango
TAKE OFF YOUR SHOES YOU ARE WALKING ON SACRED GROUND
Lol 😂
Yes
@@OP-bb3vw þe shoes will make it feel more aUI
"existence" + "negation" = good..
uH oH
Based
Based and anti-cosmicpilled
Misali: says some really complicated sounds
Also Misali: auawauwauawua... we? Weweweeeee....
Spelled tell me how that's spelled and tell me how you think that's pronounce
That's going to be really confusing because Latin exist A-wi or A-u-i-
@@GlitchoneNew Its one of the easiest things to pronounce in existence. It's just three vowels.
owwweeeee
I love one-quantity-above-life-towards good foam food
Penchant for one-quantity-above-life-towards-good-foam-food? I see the real reason you like space-language so much is because you want to remain weightless.
banana pie
Really don’t get that one
@@NStripleseven
one-quantity-above-life-towards = banana in aUI
good foam food = pie in ygyde
one-quantity-above-life-towards good foam food = banana pie
We're two-thirds of the way to System of a Down lyrics. Quick, what's the kay(f)bop(t) word for "terracotta"?
A large vowel inventory never seems very off-putting to me, as my native language is Danish, which has about sixteen monophthongs, five unstressed vowels as well as eleven stressed vowels, most of which may be either long or followed by a "stød" (similar to a glottal stop, but distinct in a way that is notoriously difficult to explain to non-native speakers). However, I guess as I am getting into conlanging, I should probably start thinking in broader terms in regard to creating appealing or more "natural" vowel inventories.
Danish lmao
The fact the Danish and English vowel systems are unstable and speakers are beginning to merge certain pairs kind of demonstrates that they're at least a little unnatural 😂 (though not so unnatural as to have never arisen in the first place)
I've been told that Danish makes English look like Spanish
stød
how's you and your soft d doing
You should include more samples of the languages so we can see what it looks like, if we can recognise words etc.
one-quantity-above-life-towards has been stuck in my mind for weeks and is the only thing I'm ever calling bananas from now on
Why is the fact that you compare parts of a language to English for it being convoluted and bad so funny to me?
I know it doesn't really matter 6 years after the fact, but I actually found a book on aUI in my university's library from before vocabulary reform. It seems like "vu" was not the word for man, but "he," with the corresponding word "yvu" meaning "she." Man and woman are "vus" and "yvus" respectively, both suffixed with the "thing" morpheme. It's still kinda sexist since it implies women are the "inactive" gender, but at least it doesn't literally objectify women.
Instead, it objectifies both genders! Also I hope that the negation was meant to refer not to v (active) but rather vu (man), to indicate that woman is not man, I HOPE.
@@wilh3lmmusic yes, these are outdated formulations; please see reply below
@cool-person1161: yes, these are outdated formulations, but the -s [Thing/Concrete] ending gives 'concreteness' to an abstract concept and also functions as a reifying ending, making the word a concrete instance of a human. The active/passive aspect refers to biological activity of the sperm (active) vs. egg (conceptive). Difference in sex is, after all, a most basic, biological phenomenon - but defining gender difference is no longer attempted in pronouns since it seems impossible to generalize in any meaningful way. So aUI uses ‘cu’ [Existing-Human] (pronounced ‘shu’) as a gender-free pronoun.
The symbol and sound for Human (two legs or arms like the peak of a triangle; /u/ as in push) are actually most closely related to Mind/Spirit (whole triangle; U as in true): aUI tries to illustrate how humans are essentially spiritual (not primarily sexual beings).
Please see my reply to @cube6794 for further explanation regarding DSDs (formerly 'intersex')
"This is a complete mess!" Talking about the same set of vowel as in Swedish.
So aUI is John Wilkins' philosophical alphabet ＩＮ ＳＰＡＣＥ?
JoeyJoJo yes...
I N S P A C E
I could listen to the pronunciation of "Yvus" all day long
Uppercase Q does look like a vowel letter
x kinda too
Q is pronunced as German ö, so somewhere between o and e. The official aUI website uses Ø as a romanization of the sound.
I can't believe I'm noticing this just now and I don't know if this is Mitch's fault or not, but you defined a uvular trill as a laryngeal trill and I don't why that's funny to me but it does seem kind of weird that an auxlang would have an epiglottal trill
ah, yes, the most common sound, the *EPIGLOTTAL TRILL* .
3:00
Challange accepted: Create a font that allows to write aUI
Below are my comments to clarify some of Jan's critiques (they ended up appearing in reverse order except for the first one below). Thanks so much for you interest. Lmk if you have any more questions. Andrea Weilgart Patten
8) 3:49 ân-kot: yes, by simply looking at the morpheme elements contained in a word formulation its meaning may not be obvious. You have to know some of the basic combinations: in ân- [One-Quantity-] in ân-kot is short for one-dimensional (ânam = long); ot [Life-Toward] = fruit (life’s goal); k-ot [Above-fruit] tree fruit: long-tree-fruit = banana. But the elements are still morphemes and retain their meaning within the short, basic combinations.
I love some one quantity above life towards foam food
Me, deciphering this comment: Hmm, banana foam. What’s banana foam? Or banana foam-food! Banana bread!
wow, his next video should be like, votgil or something
?
@@4n0ngaming its a joke
*vötgil
@@Anonymous-df8it that's... that's the joke
still waiting on that video 😩
I saw the book about this language decades ago in the Dewey Decimal section of the University of Oregon library. It certainly was baffling to look through! Thanks for giving it a go... I have fantasized about using it in a sci-fi film as an alien language.
aUI is one of the best and original conlangs ever, and my favorite conlang together with Toki Pona and Lojban!!!
Inflecting adjectives to make adverbs isn't super anglocentric, it's just inflectional-centric (Japanese does it), and for something aUI it's a very sensible move to make.
7) 3:19 The original formulations for man and woman were also based on biological activity of the sperm (active) vs. egg (conceptive/passive), and the ‘Thing’ ending, which both had, also functions as a reifying ending, making the word a concrete instance of a human. Difference in sex is, after all, a most basic, biological phenomenon - but defining gender difference is no longer attempted in pronouns since it seems impossible to generalize in any meaningful way. So aUI uses ‘cu’ [Existing-Human] (pronounced ‘shu’) as a gender-free pronoun.
Pff, the language of space is clearly Aeiou
9) 4:17 yes, the grammar is adapted to English speakers to make it familiar; it could also be adapted to the grammars of other languages - the basic elements still retain their original meaning, so it is not a wholly arbitrary structure superimposed on an otherwise meaningful system.
5) 3:00 I have since had an aUI typeface designed that automatically stacks the symbols.
4) 2:38 pnev: [Before-Much-Move(speed)-Action/Verb] is one possibility for ‘win’ in the context of a race.
2:04 vore phonemes
Ahh, a man of culture i see
Homestuck vore
a*mkot actually makes sense. one quantity can be interpreted as one dimensional/long, life towards is bringing life/tree, and above is making the tree a fruit.
I think the new words for man and woman are not sexist at all. It explains an objective difference between men and women, which is important for alien to understand.
male gametes aren't seeds tho. and in fact both those nouns don't explicitly indicate that the woman contributes a gamete too, i would argue that they imply the opposite that the male provides genetic information and the female 'carries' it. if the language is supposed to be for communicating with aliens or whatever it's bad info. for example aliens might assume the word for female is more akin to what male seahorses do (perhaps because the aliens are seahorses themselves !!), and thus get the sexes reversed, and that' just one way to misinterpret it.
I always thought it was odd that English has separate eh and ih sounds, such a minor distinction but can make a lot of difference (litter/letter, miss/mess) and I swear it can only be understood in the greater context of how someone speaks because even with minor accentation one easily becomes the other.
I know this comment is old, sorry. But there are even southern US dialects that merge the sounds so "pen" sounds like "pin"
@@isaacthecorncob Not just southern, also some western US dialects do that
@@jangamecuber I I actually didn't know that, thanks!
I know this is a seven year old video (at the time I am writing this), but I just want to say that the updated differentiation between man woman (seed-bearer vs. life-bearer, to put it very briefly) isn't sexist because it doesn't unfairly discriminate. They simply describe a fundamental difference between men and women in a non-judgemental way, much like the words "man" and "woman" do not have any inherent judgement on either person when used in isolation and without context.
That said, if someone has proof that "man" or "woman" are inherently judgemental or discriminatory - with sources that explain this history - I would love to see it and learn more!
2) 1:59 yes, actually up to 6 allophonic variations are permissible (for i, y, Ø, & r) but the total number of corresponding phonemes is still 42, counting the nasalized numerals.
The symbol and sound for Human (two legs or arms like the peak of a triangle; /u/ as in push) are actually most closely related to Mind/Spirit (whole triangle; U as in true): aUI tries to illustrate how humans are essentially spiritual (not mainly sexual beings).
If you have problems with too many vowels in a row, you might have trouble with the Japanese word for blue, aoi
There are more Japanese words that are entirely vowels too
@@glowstonelovepad9294 Are there? The only other one I can think of right now is ue, meaning up
@@columbus8myhw 合う and 会う (both pronounced au)
@@columbus8myhw I mean there is the surname Aioi but that's just 2 very common diphthongs so it's really not a problem.
aUI is just difficult because it's not clear where the dipthong is meant to be or if it's just meant to be 3 monophthongs in a row, and since it's not a widely spoken language like Japanese is there's no easy way to find an agreed upon answer. In general though, if you're making an IAL and people familiar with the Latin alphabet can't tell how to pronounce its 3-phoneme name when written in the Latin alphabet, that's not a great sign lol
@@MistKitten You can't tell entirely due to English influence, in romance it's pretty obvious (BTW the word "obvious" also has three bowels in a row plus U which used to be vowel and don't see you complaining)
0:50 And thus a jan Misali staple was born.
To be fair to aUI, it's hard to break down 'man' and 'woman' into simple parts the best I can think of is XY human and XX human, but that excludes trans and intersex people
breaking down gender is really hard, because you tend to fall into gender essentialism, bio determinism and/or rely heavily on gender roles.
a difficult task, really. i think languages that are meant to be truly universal should have a word for "human", regardless of gender, leave the names for genders as an open group or something and just kinda wait.
i think with aUI specifically it coulf be beneficial to just pick words that don't actually fit the regular noun formation conventions, just because breaking gender down to really narrow concepts just ends up really weird.
i can't really reduce concepts of gender down to the basics, because like, gender is very weird, in my eyes at least.
Choosing to identify as the other sex does not change your genetic makeup.
@@thewanderingmistnull2451 sure, but my point is that is XX human is the aUI word for "woman", trans women and intersex ppl won't fit into the strict definition, and having a definition that doesn't fit the exact meaning of the word seems to ruin the whole point of oligosynthesis
based aui???
@@lurji based aui
Okay, everyone knows this is just french level II
how are the new words for man and woman sexist?
they conflate sex and gender
it's less sexist than the older words, but still a little bit sexist
HBMmaster I dont think they conflate them. The words are describing the biological differences between men and women wich are meaningful (just like man and woman) even when describing a transgender person. It does not exclude additional labels like psychological sex (gender). I think its a bit lazy to call it sexist since does not imply treating the sexes differently in areas where they do not differ.
Not sexist to call men seed makers and women egg makers.
No, sex is what you are born with and gender is what you identify is.
At least that's my understanding of it.
Conflating sex and gender isn't sexist, at best it's uninformed, at worst it's transphobic, but it's not sexist.
1) 2:05 yes, we should really count the numerals as part of the morphemes since they do often appear in word formulations, as you pointed out, so that would be 42 vs. 31
Pee-wee herman's native venusian?
I recently remembered this video existed. I think at some point I was one of the many people asking how the gender words in this language could be considered sexist. I’ve since wisened up a bit; it’s a correct assessment.
That said, I can see why this language did what it did… One, it’s old. Two, talking about gender (in the modern sense; as something human, complex, constructed, and not biocentric or whatever it was called) would be extremely hard in this language (without, as you’ve said before, just making morphemes for them, which in my opinion is a sacrifice because it wouldn’t quite fit with how “fundamental” the other morphemes seem to be).
I was thinking about making a conlang of my own, that, if it ever talks about genders, will just treat them as loanwords (sort of like loglan infamously does for certain places and languages, but executed better). It’ll hopefully influence any hypothetical speakers to not focus on them so much (and just see everyone for what they are: fellow humans). Thoughts and opinions on this?
right, this is def a conundrum for aUI! I've wrestled with this for quite a while and decided that it seems impossible to define gender difference in any general, meaningful way other than to stay with our common denominator: Human! So aUI uses ‘cu’ [Existing-Human] (pronounced ‘shu’) as a gender-free pronoun. Even sex indicators can be spread over a continuum from male to female so that my newer definitions (using sperm/egg distinction) are not 100% valid, I see. However, intersex conditions are relatively rare: .018% - 1.7% depending on how inclusive the definition is set. I would think for the purpose of defining a male/female distinction a more narrow, precise definition would be used which counts only those "conditions in which chromosomal sex is inconsistent with phenotypic sex, or in which the phenotype is not classifiable as either male or female" pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/12476264/ i.e. in which there is "sexual ambiguity." www.realityslaststand.com/p/intersex-is-not-as-common-as-red
In any case, in all types of DSDs (Disorders/Differences in Sex Developement) "fertility outcome is significantly reduced." www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0015028217317089
pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34196232/
That is *hilariously* sexist, but to be fair, inactive human shaped object is a pretty good description of me in particular :P
haha; yes, these are outdated formulations, but the -s [Thing/Concrete] ending gives 'concreteness' to an abstract concept and also functions as a reifying ending, making the word a concrete instance of a human. The active/passive aspect refers to biological activity of the sperm (active) vs. egg (conceptive). Difference in sex is, after all, a most basic, biological phenomenon - but defining gender difference is no longer attempted in pronouns since it seems impossible to generalize in any meaningful way. So aUI uses ‘cu’ [Existing-Human] (pronounced ‘shu’) as a gender-free pronoun.
The symbol and sound for Human (two legs or arms like the peak of a triangle; /u/ as in push) are actually most closely related to Mind/Spirit (whole triangle; U as in true): aUI tries to illustrate how humans are essentially spiritual (not primarily sexual beings).
Please see my reply to @cube6794 for further explanation regarding DSDs (formerly 'intersex')
0:21 hearing "doctor w..." just. primes my brain to think a certain thing. if you know you know
a, e, i, o, u are not strange at all, they like italian (or spanish and portuguese)
In portoghese è un po diverso però si
I will say, the only mixed-case thing that kinda makes sense here is making L capital, because with I and i being two vowels you'd need a way to distinguish between I the vowel and l the consonant. The problem ofc being that I and i are two separate vowels and couldn't be written some other way.
How's "human capable of carrying life" bad when the corresponding male term is "seed-making human"?
_Changes it to Three-legged human_
There, fixed
Well the whole system is gender-essentialist and doesn't consider the existence of trans people, which is pretty bad.
Those vowels sound like what french vowels sounded like when I first started learning it.
A problem comes with trying to create a logically, unambiguous language in the first place. You're a lot more subjective then you think, but obviously still possible to make it more logically and clear, but I suggest to remember that language is art.
aUI is like if Chinese actually pronounced their little parts.
zhuyin basically
Tbf, it seems that the intended phonemes for a and A are "ʌ" and "a:" respectively. Whoever wrote the Wiki article didn't know standard IPA format, or referenced someone who didn't. It's just exactly the long and short vowels of Latin (with the exception of specifying a short and long y), pretty standard.
time to multibabel translate back and forth between AUI and TokiPona 20 times back and forth.
You start.
I'll do with with i ag a and wan taso
*i ag a*
bim rim da!
i iv ad a.
tubev Yf i.
“jYtvu i,
ânai Ub trO,
iE Ub brO,
fnu’c YnEn Ib Ynam
ag yim can-nam.
yi vYotAv fnu,
fum aYn-Am bru,
ag Ydim tA.
yUg fA
fnu irv fnum da,
irv ad dam yim a.”
*wan taso*
ijo li moku e mi.
mi wile pakala.
pimeja li tawa insa kon mi.
jan ala li ken sona e pilin ike mi.
toki musi o, sina jan pona mi wan taso.
telo pimeja ni li telo loje mi, li ale mi.
tenpo ale la pimeja li lon.
*sona lon insa lon*
nasin suno pi pona lukin
suno li suno lon nasin sewi
li lukin e suno ante
"jan sama suno o,
suno linja wile o,
seli olin o,
mi mute li mute ala li lili
lon ale pimeja
jan pona mi pi tenpo lili
pimeja li moli e mi mute
lon tenpo kama pi suno ala
taso tenpo ni la,
mi mute o suno e suno mi
o suno tawa nasin pi sewi pimeja suli
*âm â*
E dov fu.
fu tnOv zwEv
yi ev tag fum OU
yu gUv-wØrc fum YrO
UI-vUvs, bu Ec fum âm bru
fE yim jE Ec fum og-âi, Ib fum can-nam
cnAm Ec yi
*i ag cE*
riOm eda Ub i
âki iv at kam eda
iOv Yj âki
"âki jYtvu,
ânam i Ub tO,
iE Ub brO,
fnu Ec YnEn Ib Ynam
ag can-nam, xE Ec yim,
fum bru Ec YnEn A
yi vyOv fnu
ag i-Ybm tA
yUg fAm,
fnu irv fum i
irv at eda Ub nam yim kan
*wan taso*
ijo li moku e mi
mi wile pakala
pimeja li tawa insa kon mi
mi wile e ni: jan ala li sona e pilin ike mi
toki musi o, sina jan pona mi wan
telo pimeja ni li teji loje mi, li ale mi
tenpo ale li pimeja
Thankfully, the vowel inventory is far more reasonable than what is presented here. There's the standard five of /i/ /u/ /e/ /o/ /a/ with both short and long variants, romanized with long vowels capitalized, as well as the short-only /œ~ø/ ‹Ø› (formerly ‹Q›) and /y/ ‹Y› (realization before consonants; /j/before vowels).
I think aUI means "space spirit sound"
This seems kinda like they where trying to make a spoken version of brainfuck (programming language)
I'm also interested in structural inambiguity, but I don't like the design of lojban, especially explicit word pairs for nesting
Can we get a translation of Yoda's laugh?
I fail to see why the second set of words for man/woman are sexist. It's pretty much the best way to sum up the biological differences, and if this language were to be used (hypothetically) as a communicative medium for alien species, then it's the best way to explain the biology behind our species.
Vu - man Yvus - woman. That's worse than English because according to this video y~s makes the word essentially mean not-man. So we have men and not men. That doesn't make sense biologically. How is that a biological explanation at all? The default human should never be "man". That's sexist. The default human should be human, especially since most cultures recognize more than just men and women.
purplepain The new words for man and woman aren't any better because there are still men who have wombs and ovaries and women who can produce sperm. Non-trans people even. So it's just wrong and oversimplifying a huge spectrum
Polarizer Conlangs we are talking about biologically, they are still male and female.
Zeno Nope, that's an extremely incorrect thing to say based on chromosomes? What about the many many many people who don't match the chromosome binary? Junk and secondary sex charactaristics are also soooo not binary, so wtf do you mean "biologically male and female"?
Zeno The more appropriate word for the first attempt at man and woman is sexist, but the second attempt is more cissexist because it's trying to erase everyone that doesn't fit your arbitrary and ignorant idea of "biological sex".
4:10 is this because bananas have more dna than us?
10) 4:32 the adverb ending is not commonly used
They aren't morphemes in their own right; they're lexemes in their own right.
To explain something I see a lot, even though it’s an old video:
I’m seeing a large amount of arguments about how either the original definition of man and woman or the updated definition are not sexist, so I’d like to try to clear it up.
Firstly, the original definitions are objectively sexist. They define women as inactive and essentially little more than objects, while men are considered ‘active’.
The updated definitions aren’t *as* bad, but run into the same problem (which was still present before), which is that they are inherently transphobic and do not include non-binary people. It’s not political to claim these groups exist btw, there have been studies showing that gender is a spectrum, not binary, and does not always line up with your physical sex.
aUI’s updated definition defines men and women (and gender) as essentially what’s between their legs: as just their sex assigned at birth and their physical reproductive systems, which inherently denies the existence of trans and non-binary people. In addition, there is no gender neutral form, which means that it groups people into 2 categories, and doesn’t allow you to mention anyone without specifying gender.
At the very least, an international language should be gender neutral, with optional affixes or forms for the binary genders.
Sorry to be so late to this discussion but I appreciate all the effort at trying explain aUI's outdated formulations. I'm trying give some further background and updated thinking to previous comments. Yes - there is a gender neutral form: HUMAN! one of the 41 basic elements or primes. aUI uses ‘cu’ [Existing-Human] (pronounced ‘shu’) as a gender-free pronoun.
The symbol and sound for Human (two legs or arms like the peak of a triangle; /u/ as in push) are actually most closely related to Mind/Spirit (whole triangle; U as in true): aUI tries to illustrate how humans are essentially spiritual (not mainly sexual beings).
But you know that gender and sex are not the same thing. Yes, it's a huge conundrum to try to define the difference between men and women based on any common characteristic other than biology...I don't know what the answer is (unless marking the symbol for Human somehow...or do you have a good idea? 'Man' and 'woman' might be problematic too: [before 900; Middle English womman, wimman, Old English wīfman=wīf female + man human being; see wife, man] www.thefreedictionary.com/woman
Please also see www.thefreedictionary.com/man for a good usage note on the background of man/woman.
cry more
German sort of has an adverb-making suffix too (-weise), but adverbs in German are… bizarre
This sounds a lot like the conlang I'm working on, which is combining syllables with each one being a morpheme to make a full word, except... wack and able to result in entirely unpronounceable words.
It originate from the ge'ez old ethiopian language.
jcbk ninety was truly on to something
jin-jang also sorts masculine and feminine qualities into the same class as active and passive natures respectively. and it is hardly considered to be sexist.
Care to explain how men are active and women passive in a non-sexist way?
i don't. you might ask scholars knowing better jin-jang topic.
@@cutecommie it's just dualism, if you associate one aspect with yin you have to associate the opposite with yang, so which one is which becomes 50:50. Passive having negative connotations is entirely your own perspective.
@@cutecommie In Daoism the passive is positive (receptive, open) and the active is negative (warlike, offensive)
In fact, the Dao (Way), whick invented the concept, is more often associated with feminine principle since it believes the society to be unbalanced towards agression
vowels are like impossible in this one lmao
1:34 Why did you struggle with /ɔ/ so much? It’s literally the sound in “or”.
He also seems to struggle with /ɑ/ and pronounce it more like /ɑ̃
/, even though it's in the word "palm".
Every single dialect that fronts or breaks /u:/ also raises /ɔ:/ and /ɔr/
@@bootmii98 Lol that’s true for me too but I didn’t know that a year ago. He still seems to pronounce loads of them wrong
@the guy who is The IPA is independent of accent
Do the conlang called Glosa
the description box haha
I'm jan misali and we'll be looking at OO EE OO A A TING TANG WALLA WALLA BING BANG
How is it sexist to use "human carrying life" for women, when the one for man had to do with semen. "Semen is latin for Seed"
Basically it was saying men create the seed, and women recieve it. Not sexism, but two sides of the same process.
women and men have sex with each other and that's the defining thing that makes them women and men. you figured it out.
@@HBMmaster you stated two facts, and then asked us to figure it out. Why, it’s up to you to prove it to me.
Yes... to describe different genders of Homo Sapiens you must describe them by there differences. Women bear children, Men “plant seeds”. Sure there is better ways to describe that, but in that moment there is no implicit bias in that definition. Maybe you are biased, maybe you’ll learn to ‘figure it out’.
@@HBMmaster How is it ***ist tho?
(3:35) I think you explained somewhere that you said this was sexist because it doesn't take into account agender people and for example trans-people. But the thing is that those descriptions are to refer to someone more biologically. I'm not sure how else you would objectively describe humans other than not doing it.
yeah its not really sexist so much as it is transphobic. Even aside from whateverphobias, its weird to reduce humans to their biological aspects? and its ESPECIALLY weird and gross-feeling to reduce them specifically to reproductive roles??? like its just gross and objectifying for any gender... it feels like being referred to like breeding stock...
like, this language already has a morpheme for "human," why cant we just use that, instead of adding all those weird objectifying qualifiers?
@@LlamasOnJUPITER it was a product of its time. Should it continue to evolve I'm sure it will address it like every other actively used language.
If there isn't a better way to define male and female, they should have just made morphemes for those terms.
@@puppetaccess
The thing is that was the revised version years later. The previous version was even worse, referring to men as "active human"s and women as "inactive human"s.
That’s not THAT many vowels. (All right fine I’m from Limburg.)
aUI is 05ab1e the conlang
So that makes Toki Pona the brainfuck
I know it's kind of an overdone point in these comment sections by now but I want to talk about gendered wording in conlangs. Specifically, why is it a problem for IAL and other conlangs like them? To me, it makes sense that some of the more Euro-centric ones would have them because (as far as I'm aware) some European languages have them and the most spoken one-Spanish-has them a lot. It would make sense to me to have a similar gendered grammar system in place. To me, it makes sense that since most people are cis that these languages would have general terms for those two sexes (even with that I do agree that conlangs should factor in vocabulary for trans, aes, nonbinary, etc. individuals as to not leave them out of using these conlangs). For art conlangs especially it seems like weird thing to rail against when those gendered words could be integral to the world building of where it's featured (see Láadan). Sorry for the paragraph and if I came off as hot-headed, I'm just confused by why this aspect of conlangs is always picked on in these videos and they're honestly the only part that I feel put-off by. Otherwise, I really enjoy these! Keep them up.
Well, grammatical gender and human gender aren't the same thing, so I'll address both. Grammatical gender refers to having more than one class of noun which are treated differently grammatically. The example you chose, Spanish, has masculine and feminine genders, but those aren't related to human gender. The names are more or less arbitrary. They might as well be called planet and potato. Grammatical gender in this right is usually picked on because it makes no sense to include in an auxlang. Speakers of languages with grammatical gender have no trouble adapting to languages without them, but the opposite isn't so. Imagine that every noun you use in a language you're learning has to be either marked for planetness or potatoness, and the adjectives, verbs, determiners, etc. all worked differently for each. So somethingplan like thisplan would be normalplan, and youpot just have to memorize everyplan nounplan's genderplan, and there's no rhymeplan or reasonpot to it allpot.
As for human gender, I don't really know what Jan Misali meant here.
@@joeradford1055 Fair enough, though I think there is an argument to be made there for the aesthetic value of grammatical gender.
@@-AAA-147 Oh yeah, grammatical gender is really nice, and they're fun to work on in conlangs.
My engilang will be an optimised version of Spanish, and I have decided decided that all inanimate nouns will be neuter, only animate nouns will vary with them - O is masculine, A is feminine, U is neuter.
What did you say was better than predicate logic? Oligasynthesis?
Sort of a proto-Ithquil...
It came from Greece; we were the first to acknowledge
The idea of a democratic college, oh yeah.
So it started there.
Before that we were all just ruled by royals
They thought that common folk should just be loyal, oh yeah.
Greek: "Well we weren’t having that anymore"
So we tried
The first system for the common people
No longer treat them like a bunch of sheeple
Each law voted for by the people
Democracy meant they got to keep all the power
But only if they qualify -
Greek: "Slaves, women and foreigners need not apply. Mm."
You’re meant to join in if you like it or not
If you refuse, we call you an ‘idiot’, oh yeah.
That word came from there…
Romans were less rude and we thought it better
To have a Senate and appoint Senators to implement
The laws of government.
This sort of meant that for the common bloke
Democracy became a bit of a joke
Power was just held by a load of rich geezers
Till the Republic was ended by Caesar -
Caesar: Thought I’d give being a dictator a crack
But then they stabbed me in the ba-a-a-a-ack.
Civil War was aimed to bring a chance to restrain the King
Still the people were ignored, power stayed with King and Lord.
Cromwell’s Roundheaded intent?
Cromwell: Restrain the King with Parliament -
Charles I: Ended when I lost my head -
Cromwell: I won, but then we got Charles the Second instead!
Still we tried to stand up for choice
Make Parliament hear the people’s voice
But it was hard to get that message through
Nothing changed till 1832.
But there’s one thing to note
The working class and women still can’t vote.
For common worker’s the fight’s not done
Until the end of World War One
Suffragette: Votes for women thanks to Suffragettes
And no-one’s found a better system yet.
As Churchill said to our great-grandmothers -
Churchill: "Democracy’s worst… apart from all the others."
Do a critique about Aelis please!
just updated the Big List
@@HBMmaster so uh... how's the aelis video coming?
@@OrangeDied I never formally announced that I would be making a video about this. the Big List refers to my directory of which conlangs have been requested for review and how many times they've been requested, back when requests were open.
Those vowels sound pretty Swedish
negation action human thing
The A("ä") is spoken like the a in "cash" I think
No, that would be /æ/, /ä/ to my knowledge does not exist in English. It's in Swedish, and from my experience as a native Swedish speaker, I don't recognise it in English.
I thought the Capital Vowels were long vowels. Actually, it will be more since there isn't aa,ee,ii,oo,uu, in aUI.
yes, the long (extended) vowels are capitalized in the Roman transcription. (not sure what you mean by aa, ee...?)
@@aUILanguageofSpace c! fu yr gUv hE JaN MiSALi ba-pAv yfE!
I haven't see any word with, sample, aa (Space-Space) or AA (time-time), et cetera. So if this kind of combination doesnt exist is because is the pronunciation of A (time), same with the other vowels.
Just a question, but if aUI's new words for man and woman are sexist, then what would you suggest?
either have basic roots for genders or don't talk about genders
yin yang seems appealling. thats how im building my conlang, which seems like a mix of biblical hebrew, lojban, and aUI
Conlang Critic A language should be able to be used to talk about anything. So “do not talk about genders” is not a valid option.
I think we're conflating gender and sex. The new words talk purely about sex, not gender. Basic roots for gender won't work in aUI's case as aUI is the language of space and the Aliens might have more than 2 sexes or only 1.
I generally like Esperanto, and though the usual words are "viro" and "virino", a back formation for woman is "Ino", which is a term I generally support. Now if the Akademio would find a pronoun for non-binary individuals. I suggest "gi".
s e c c s i z m
s e c h s z i z u m m
It seems like aUI just doesn’t to a good job at the phoneme definition, but the main way to distinguish male and female is by activity and passivity/reception in reproduction and gametes. By analogy we call couplers and connectors and electrical fittings by male and female. The action and non action thing is probably because they didn’t have a word for passive besides non-active for reasons of simplicity. I don’t know enough to know if they could have framed it in terms of giving and receiving, but defining sexes biologically is not just about sexism. It also isn’t about restricting the role of women to being mothers. Sexual organisms that transmit genetic material are males and their counterparts that receive it are female, not the other way around. If males got pregnant, they wouldn’t be males but rather females, regardless of secondary characteristics that in animals like spiders are reversed from what we expect in humans.
OK, but reducing _men_ and _women_ to being "male" or "female" feels a little weird and is definitely transphobic.
@@Persun_McPersonson It seems perfectly normal to me; catering to such a small minority only adds extra unnecessary complexity. The most common cases should be addressed first, and the uncommon cases treated as exceptions to the standard case. This is a good rule of thumb for most endeavors, including building a language meant for reasonably efficient/clear communication. If the vast majority of people using it have to make concessions for fringe cases, it needlessly complicates and obfuscates the language and its semantics.
@@flubnub266
It seems "normal" to you because you're used to it and it has been a normalized way of thinking for a long time. Secondly, disrespecting the existence of millions of people just because they're less common than you is a toxic and vile mindset, something being less common is not a good reason to dismiss it, it's just an apathetic excuse. Thirdly, there being exceptions proves that the "rule" is inaccurate in the first place and so should be re-evaluated. Your argument reminds me of how homophobes would argue that the definition of marriage was dependent on there being both a man and a woman, and anything outside of that just didn't fit the definition and so wasn't really marriage; they were using majority rule mental gymnastics to reject parts of reality that made them uncomfortable.
Inclusive language actually makes communication _more_ clear as it doesn't make untrue assumptions about a person based on the outdated cultural baggage of a phrase, so your point is moot. There's a difference between true needless complexity and simply representing the actual nuances of life as a human. What you're arguing for is oversimplification to the point of hurting millions of people-that's the opposite of what language is meant for, a certain level of complexity is always needed.
@@Persun_McPersonson You seem to be reading a lot of ill intent into what I said which simply isn't there. I didn't make an argument as much I simply described the way natural languages are structured, which is that majority cases are given short/root terms, and exceptions are typically that term with some kind of modifier (for example, "woman" -> "transwoman").
"Disrespect" has nothing to do with it; that's just how things naturally end up for the sake of convenience. No rule is perfect and always has exceptions. If we had to constantly list off every special case that a person is _not,_ communication would grind to a halt.
As a left-handed person, I would be perfectly happy to be referred to as "reverse-handed" or something like that, because it's true! I am in a considerable minority and do not wish to make _most people in the world_ waste time clarifying that they are right handed for my sake. Imagine the environmental impact if law changed to require left-handed versions of everything to be manufactured _just in case_ a left-handed person shows up. It's just wasteful. A language can have only so much complexity before its users end up breaking it down and simplifying it with slang and abbreviations. Humans are optimizers; and this is just how things turn out on their own.
@@flubnub266
There doesn't need to be purposeful ill intent for your view to still be harmful. Plenty of people think things that aren't good but do so with complete earnestness because they happen to literally believe in it.
What you're describing is indeed what ends up happening a lot of the time just as a result of it being convenient, but convenience should not trump truth and fairness. It's wrong to treat exceptions as effectively irrelevant until they can't be avoided and you have to specify their existence. Always referring to cis women just "women" while always specifying trans women as trans women and never referring to them as just "women" inherently gives negative implications; you can try to ignore those implications, but that's moreso just you justifying your majority rule favoritism and apathy towards people who are upset at continuing to be marginalized.
As a fellow lefty, majority rule is regressive and harmful. Being called "reverse-handed" gives off a very off-putting implication, it's almost dehumanizing in a way. It is not wasteful to want people to use language that paints you as an equal instead of a weird exception to their conceptualization of reality. Also left-handed versions of things are not nearly as easy to come by as right-handed things so I'd actually love a government mandate that makes them a little more prominent. There's nothing so annoyingly complex about using inclusive language, you're just not _used_ to it. Optimization to the detriment of truth and morals is not justifiable, and it's still very much possible to optimize within the extra complexity. In the end you're just justifying tradition and not changing how things are, "language can only be so complex!" is just an excuse that exists to justify the apathetic mindset it takes to not see anything wrong with disinclusive language.
a*n = long
kot = fruit (from trees)
yeah, you got it! yes, by simply looking at the morpheme elements contained in a word formulation its meaning may not be obvious. You have to know some of the basic combinations: in ân- [One-Quantity-] in ân-kot is short for one-dimensional (ânam = long); ot [Life-Toward] = fruit (life’s goal); k-ot [Above-fruit] tree fruit: long-tree-fruit = banana. But the elements are still morphemes and retain their meaning within the short, basic combinations.
@@aUILanguageofSpace
tIOI, nE rUms at bu! aUI is (one) my favorite(s) conlangs ever (together with Toki Pona and Lojban). Its a lot of fun👌 and one of the best conlang ever made.
I even have a personal aUI PDF (with all official information and I would like to make it free in google for everyone, but... IDK🤔).
The only thing I crash with aUI is to find an free aUI symbols font 😅, with stacking and all.
Greetings!
I have no idea what you're talking about but it's very interesting
The name sounds like what a young child would say when they get a cut.🙄
Holy shit, it’s a M E G A R E B U S Y L L A B A R Y
so the language is "space spirit sound"?
space+spirit=universe? hell? dimension? heaven? god?
universe+sound=aUI
this is the worst language worse than toki ponaLOL
hi :D UwU
2:03 42 CONFIRMED
Make a video about Afrihili
just updated the Big List
Toki Poni sucks, how can it be your favourite?
Why?
I think this is good, very good, I don’t get what you don’t like about it
Pedro Falcão
?
Where's the grammatical gender for unicorn flying backwards, NOT forward, but still differentiated from forwards?¿
It seems that the main point of view of these critical episodes concerning conlangs is a subjective attitude of a subjective funny interpretation of sex and gender cumulated in a theory called "sexism".