The background in this video really looks a whole lot like Norway. Indeed most of the videos I've seen from Colorado looks like they could have been filmed in the mountainous inland areas of Norway. Nice place!
I had no idea about the allative case! Funny how even bachelors of linguistics can learn some of the basics from Dr. Crawford. I sometimes facetiously say "I'm going to home" or "Let's go to home" (or, conversely, "to house"), but I didn't know the reason "home" doesn't have a preposition when it's the destination.
@Sir Percival the Gallant Indeed! I just didn't know about the allative and that the use of "home" in phrases like "to go home" was a relic of it. I can't think of any languages that naturally have enough cases that they can get away with having no pre-/postpositions, but it's fun to try with a conlang. And yes, I recall a lecture or two on the topic of prepositions and postpositions agglutinating with the nouns they modify and forming what we now call case markings. That may not be true in all instances, like the accusative or the ergative, for instance -- and maybe that did happen in some but not others. It just depends.
Very nice youtube channel Professor Crawford. I find old Norse to be a very interesting subject, particularly how it relates to old English. Whenever I watch the History channel show "The Vikings", I find it fascinating to see them speak those ancient tongues.
If language is a car then grammar is the engine and I thoroughly enjoy having a nose around under the bonnet. As with other comments, I also use 'whom'. It's very noticeable when it doesn't get used (which is often, unfortunately).
Great Video! Thanks for demystifying noun cases for me. Nice to see how other languages use other ways of showing the meaning of the noun in the sentence.
Great video, although I'd dispute the assertion that "whom" is extinct. "Endangered" may be a more accurate description, as people still sometimes and in some instances use "whom," and as you had to stop and explain why you weren't using it (and I doubt it would sound funny only to language-geeks like me).
I dunno, I think it's extinct from a linguistic standpoint. It's obviously not gone gone, but no one will misunderstand or find grammatical fault with "who" instead of "whom." If I ask "to who did you give the keys?" instead of "to whom" it doesn't seem strange, cause confusion, or lead to blank stares. If I ask "did you give he the keys" however, anyone hearing it will think they misheard me and likely be confused. (They might reason that maybe I said "did you give ME the keys" and they misheard... but that again makes no sense, as I would already know the answer.) It will likely lead to a follow up "sorry, what?" If I then repeat the sentence exactly the same once again they will think I have a speech disorder! Who vs whom by comparison really has no linguistic significance anymore, it's purely a style choice.
'Whom' is still an active word. It is used to reduce ambiguity. That is, if a sentence uses 'who' more than once, it is beneficial to use 'whom' when you then use a prepositional phrase. That way, your prepositional phrase stands out a bit in normal speech. A prepositional phrase is simply a phrase, a word sequence, consisting of a preposition + a noun. Whom has fallen into disuse because we don't pay attention to our speech enough. The accumulated effect is that we don't communicate as precisely and we don't think as precisely. This, by the way is not a reflection against Dr. Jackson at all. Think of this whole topic as experiencing the border of a dialect; in one person's experience the dialect, or language variation has lost 'whom.' But if you use whom, keep doing it. You use it when you use prepositional phrases.
Man I could never understand the German dative because I didn't know they just dumped a lot of other older cases in there, now that I know those cases I finally understand! Where I'm from we don't have cases anymore either so I struggled quite badly. And when I asked Germans, wait that doesn't look like Dative, why is that Dative? The answer would just be "uh idk it just is".
Having 15-ish cases in my native tongue makes the phenomenon familiar, but my younger self had some trouble in school understanding when to use which writing German. It took a second beginning in it, as well as learning Latin and Koinee, for the innate understanding of using cases in other languages to become explicated and understood. That much less to worry about studying Akkadian...
Fighting with someone (arguably accusative or dative) vs. sitting with someone (dative) vs. opening a door with a key is a fun example of how the same preposition can be used for these different cases (mainly because of the sordid history of "with"), and maybe this distinction will help someone internalize the semantic (meaning) relationships to these cases (although it's true that cases are ultimately syntactic, not semantic, and case-usage can diverge from semantic relationships, there is still often a correlation).
Excellent - though I would love to know at which point during "me, I," at the front did you think "I wish I had chosen a different example!!" But I loved it and it helped me loads
Another great video! Thank you. Noun cases bedevil me, and frankly, I am glad that English lost most of them. I still use “whom,” because in some phrases it sounds funny to my own ear if I don’t. However, those are probably the “fossilized phrases” Dr. Crawford refers to at the very end of the video.
@@GPrinceps Cases would actually be better because doing the equivalents in English is quite irregular and imposing (creates restrictions). Just look at all the different ways you express the instrumental case in English. Not just different words but different sentence structures. Straightforward application of cases is much simpler and freer.
Interesting, I had not come across the allative before. I have studied Greek and Russian, as well as German, so cases are not so strange for me. Hungarian (my second language now) has loads.
That's why there is a strict words order in the English language sentence. Say - A dog bites a cat / A cat bites a dog - the whole meaning is the opposite if the object is not cased.
So with Old Norse, only the nominative, accusative, genitive and dative are used? The other cases mentioned in the video are used in other languages and not relevant to me if I only want to study Old Norse?
Thanks Doc. Knowing the cases was never my strong point - never came across it at all at any school I attended. Might have dropped through the cracks for all the moving about. I was kind of I was surprised when you said Whom was extinct, kinda hard to deny.
The order in which you presented the cases, being arranged by frequency (NAGD), is how I learned it in Greek. But from what I understand, this is not the order in which they are generally taught or listed (NGDA in Latin for example). Why is this? Frequency seems to be such a logical and convenient way to order them, is there some reason it is not usually so? Thanks!
Obviously, I'm not the one you're asking, but the order in which they appear in a grammar for a specific language may reflect the pattern by which those nouns change, or the degree of "markedness," meaning how far they stray from, or conversely move to, the most common form (which is sometimes the root or stem but not always). There may also be visual patterns that become clear when looking at a chart of the noun declensions which is dependent on the order in which they appear. For me, I find NADG more intuitive because you're moving from subject to direct object to indirect object to the least noun-like case, the possessive. For example, "horse's" in "horse's saddle" is more of an adjective in this instance, while "my" in "my horse's saddle" is a determiner, not an actual pronoun (because pronouns replace whole noun-phrases, not just single nouns).
NAGD, I feel, is the best order for learning accusative language cases, especially when the accusative is identical to either the nominative or genitive as it is in many Slavic languages. Though I personally prefer to order the Slavic cases as NAGLDIV because of case syncretism. If a Latin textbook were ever to include the locative as a separate case, I'm sure they'd use a similar order: Nom-Acc-Gen-Loc-Dat-Abl. Naggle-dah.
Hi, Dr.Crawford, I'm a big fan of your work here on YT, and I wanna ask you a really special favor, could you please reply this comment with a pic of how the word ulfhedinn is written in younger futhark runes, it's for a tattoo and it's very special to me. Anyway, thanks, you do a really great job, so please continue. Greetings from Brazil.
If you’d like, I could try and give you a rough rendition of the word. I would suggest “ᚢᛚᚠᚼᛁᚦᛁᚾ”, if you’re going by the archaic younger Futhark runes. “ulf” was easy enough. I doubt that this rendition would be wrong. I’ve chosen the rendition of “heðinn” as “hiþin”, since the original root of the word “hedenaz” contained an “e” sound. Since “e” was combined with “i” as the rune “ᛁ”. Although ᛅ could also mean “e”, I have chosen not to use it, since it is usually used only when the “a” was an “e” in an earlier form of the word. Then again, I’m just a dilettantish amateur on the Internet, so take my advice with a grain of salt.
I love the lessons, thank you, but why say that "whom" is dead when you just used it and I understand it ( and use it properly)? And also, why do you pronounce the 'h' in Wh-words? Have you always done that? Where are you from? Did/do the people there do that too? I find it very distracting, but that's my cross to bear, just curious. Finally, does a case position against a verb or the complete sentence? Since case reflects sentence structure, I'd say the latter. How am I wrong? Why must it relate to the verb? Thank you.
It's not just the personal pronouns that have case forms, but also who (nominative)/whom (dative/accusative)/whose (genitive). It is odd that people often use "who" instead of "whom" but "me" instead of "I", and use "whom" and "I" in a hypercorrect way ("Whomever did that to him and I"). Some English speakers seemingly do not understand case. Another one I find humorous is the use of "myself" when not referring to a first-person singular subject.
The background in this video really looks a whole lot like Norway. Indeed most of the videos I've seen from Colorado looks like they could have been filmed in the mountainous inland areas of Norway. Nice place!
I had no idea about the allative case! Funny how even bachelors of linguistics can learn some of the basics from Dr. Crawford. I sometimes facetiously say "I'm going to home" or "Let's go to home" (or, conversely, "to house"), but I didn't know the reason "home" doesn't have a preposition when it's the destination.
@Sir Percival the Gallant
Indeed! I just didn't know about the allative and that the use of "home" in phrases like "to go home" was a relic of it. I can't think of any languages that naturally have enough cases that they can get away with having no pre-/postpositions, but it's fun to try with a conlang.
And yes, I recall a lecture or two on the topic of prepositions and postpositions agglutinating with the nouns they modify and forming what we now call case markings. That may not be true in all instances, like the accusative or the ergative, for instance -- and maybe that did happen in some but not others. It just depends.
Very nice youtube channel Professor Crawford. I find old Norse to be a very interesting subject, particularly how it relates to old English. Whenever I watch the History channel show "The Vikings", I find it fascinating to see them speak those ancient tongues.
I think it’s really cool that they actually went through the effort of having the lines translated.
If language is a car then grammar is the engine and I thoroughly enjoy having a nose around under the bonnet. As with other comments, I also use 'whom'. It's very noticeable when it doesn't get used (which is often, unfortunately).
Great Video! Thanks for demystifying noun cases for me. Nice to see how other languages use other ways of showing the meaning of the noun in the sentence.
Great video, although I'd dispute the assertion that "whom" is extinct. "Endangered" may be a more accurate description, as people still sometimes and in some instances use "whom," and as you had to stop and explain why you weren't using it (and I doubt it would sound funny only to language-geeks like me).
I had no idea that it was "endangered". I just thought that people say "who" simply because it's a common mistake (sort-of like you're vs. your).
I would agree that “whom” is that because very rarely do the millennials know when to use it
I dunno, I think it's extinct from a linguistic standpoint. It's obviously not gone gone, but no one will misunderstand or find grammatical fault with "who" instead of "whom." If I ask "to who did you give the keys?" instead of "to whom" it doesn't seem strange, cause confusion, or lead to blank stares. If I ask "did you give he the keys" however, anyone hearing it will think they misheard me and likely be confused. (They might reason that maybe I said "did you give ME the keys" and they misheard... but that again makes no sense, as I would already know the answer.) It will likely lead to a follow up "sorry, what?" If I then repeat the sentence exactly the same once again they will think I have a speech disorder! Who vs whom by comparison really has no linguistic significance anymore, it's purely a style choice.
'Whom' is still an active word. It is used to reduce ambiguity. That is, if a sentence uses 'who' more than once, it is beneficial to use 'whom' when you then use a prepositional phrase. That way, your prepositional phrase stands out a bit in normal speech. A prepositional phrase is simply a phrase, a word sequence, consisting of a preposition + a noun. Whom has fallen into disuse because we don't pay attention to our speech enough. The accumulated effect is that we don't communicate as precisely and we don't think as precisely. This, by the way is not a reflection against Dr. Jackson at all. Think of this whole topic as experiencing the border of a dialect; in one person's experience the dialect, or language variation has lost 'whom.' But if you use whom, keep doing it. You use it when you use prepositional phrases.
Whom is probably more common in British English and in written, rather than spoken, use.
Man I could never understand the German dative because I didn't know they just dumped a lot of other older cases in there, now that I know those cases I finally understand! Where I'm from we don't have cases anymore either so I struggled quite badly. And when I asked Germans, wait that doesn't look like Dative, why is that Dative? The answer would just be "uh idk it just is".
Naturally the first thing he’d say to a stranger is “Howdy!”
Having 15-ish cases in my native tongue makes the phenomenon familiar, but my younger self had some trouble in school understanding when to use which writing German. It took a second beginning in it, as well as learning Latin and Koinee, for the innate understanding of using cases in other languages to become explicated and understood.
That much less to worry about studying Akkadian...
Fighting with someone (arguably accusative or dative) vs. sitting with someone (dative) vs. opening a door with a key is a fun example of how the same preposition can be used for these different cases (mainly because of the sordid history of "with"), and maybe this distinction will help someone internalize the semantic (meaning) relationships to these cases (although it's true that cases are ultimately syntactic, not semantic, and case-usage can diverge from semantic relationships, there is still often a correlation).
Excellent - though I would love to know at which point during "me, I," at the front did you think "I wish I had chosen a different example!!" But I loved it and it helped me loads
Another great video! Thank you. Noun cases bedevil me, and frankly, I am glad that English lost most of them.
I still use “whom,” because in some phrases it sounds funny to my own ear if I don’t. However, those are probably the “fossilized phrases” Dr. Crawford refers to at the very end of the video.
@@GPrinceps Cases would actually be better because doing the equivalents in English is quite irregular and imposing (creates restrictions). Just look at all the different ways you express the instrumental case in English. Not just different words but different sentence structures. Straightforward application of cases is much simpler and freer.
Thank you for this! it actually helps me with Finnish.
Allative is replaced sometimes by Accusative in German, I think.
Interesting, I had not come across the allative before. I have studied Greek and Russian, as well as German, so cases are not so strange for me. Hungarian (my second language now) has loads.
Love your lessons, thanks!!
That's why there is a strict words order in the English language sentence. Say - A dog bites a cat / A cat bites a dog - the whole meaning is the opposite if the object is not cased.
"Whom is exitnct." Whom so ever is feeling really nervous right now. And I love that hat!
interesting how you dont use whom, but still hold on to [ʍ]
So with Old Norse, only the nominative, accusative, genitive and dative are used? The other cases mentioned in the video are used in other languages and not relevant to me if I only want to study Old Norse?
I find it very impressive that he kind of pronounces the 'h' in words like 'what' or 'when'
Yeah, h-what and h-which. He talked about that in some earlier video
N N Could you send me the name or link of the video, if you remember. I’ve been wondering about that for a while.
@@user-bl3fo7dz3o i dont remember the name of the video. That might not have been the main topic, i think he just mentioned it...
Gulielmus Princeps Thank you!
Thanks Doc. Knowing the cases was never my strong point - never came across it at all at any school I attended. Might have dropped through the cracks for all the moving about. I was kind of I was surprised when you said Whom was extinct, kinda hard to deny.
Whom isn't extinct, Jackson. Her majesty the Queen strongly disagrees. Great vid besides that!
The order in which you presented the cases, being arranged by frequency (NAGD), is how I learned it in Greek. But from what I understand, this is not the order in which they are generally taught or listed (NGDA in Latin for example). Why is this? Frequency seems to be such a logical and convenient way to order them, is there some reason it is not usually so? Thanks!
Obviously, I'm not the one you're asking, but the order in which they appear in a grammar for a specific language may reflect the pattern by which those nouns change, or the degree of "markedness," meaning how far they stray from, or conversely move to, the most common form (which is sometimes the root or stem but not always). There may also be visual patterns that become clear when looking at a chart of the noun declensions which is dependent on the order in which they appear.
For me, I find NADG more intuitive because you're moving from subject to direct object to indirect object to the least noun-like case, the possessive. For example, "horse's" in "horse's saddle" is more of an adjective in this instance, while "my" in "my horse's saddle" is a determiner, not an actual pronoun (because pronouns replace whole noun-phrases, not just single nouns).
Concerned Citizen what a great comment! Thank you 😊
NAGD, I feel, is the best order for learning accusative language cases, especially when the accusative is identical to either the nominative or genitive as it is in many Slavic languages. Though I personally prefer to order the Slavic cases as NAGLDIV because of case syncretism.
If a Latin textbook were ever to include the locative as a separate case, I'm sure they'd use a similar order: Nom-Acc-Gen-Loc-Dat-Abl. Naggle-dah.
Hi, Dr.Crawford, I'm a big fan of your work here on YT, and I wanna ask you a really special favor, could you please reply this comment with a pic of how the word ulfhedinn is written in younger futhark runes, it's for a tattoo and it's very special to me. Anyway, thanks, you do a really great job, so please continue. Greetings from Brazil.
Sorry bro, he only takes requests like these if they’re from his Patreon-supporters.
If you’d like, I could try and give you a rough rendition of the word. I would suggest “ᚢᛚᚠᚼᛁᚦᛁᚾ”, if you’re going by the archaic younger Futhark runes. “ulf” was easy enough. I doubt that this rendition would be wrong. I’ve chosen the rendition of “heðinn” as “hiþin”, since the original root of the word “hedenaz” contained an “e” sound. Since “e” was combined with “i” as the rune “ᛁ”. Although ᛅ could also mean “e”, I have chosen not to use it, since it is usually used only when the “a” was an “e” in an earlier form of the word. Then again, I’m just a dilettantish amateur on the Internet, so take my advice with a grain of salt.
Bro, thank you very much, it helped me a lot
Pedro Henrique Bitencourt My pleasure, bro. Happy to see that finally my comments on the Internet have actually helped someone
I love the lessons, thank you, but why say that "whom" is dead when you just used it and I understand it ( and use it properly)? And also, why do you pronounce the 'h' in Wh-words? Have you always done that? Where are you from? Did/do the people there do that too? I find it very distracting, but that's my cross to bear, just curious. Finally, does a case position against a verb or the complete sentence? Since case reflects sentence structure, I'd say the latter. How am I wrong? Why must it relate to the verb? Thank you.
When I studied basic Latin years ago I thought its six cases were bad enough, now I know it could have been so much worse.
It's not just the personal pronouns that have case forms, but also who (nominative)/whom (dative/accusative)/whose (genitive). It is odd that people often use "who" instead of "whom" but "me" instead of "I", and use "whom" and "I" in a hypercorrect way ("Whomever did that to him and I"). Some English speakers seemingly do not understand case. Another one I find humorous is the use of "myself" when not referring to a first-person singular subject.
Muito bom seus conhecimentos
Just added you on patreon!
"Whom" is not extinct! :D Then again, perhaps I'm a dinosaur.
I'm 17 (i.e., no dinosaur) and I use whom.
I'm not a dinosaur, but I learned from one. I am very attached to the word "whom."
It is