As a native German speaker it is natural for me to understand the case system, but I know that for learners of the German language, this is particularly tough. "Der Mann gibt dem Hund den Knochen, welchen er beim Fleischer gekauft hatte." Look at Afrikaans, the latest outlier of the Germanic languages, in contrast: highly simplified and analytic, yet still intelligible to most German speakers.

@fukpoeslaw3613

2 ай бұрын

Afrikaans is zelfs begrijpelijk voor de meeste Duitsers ? Alleen wanneer je 't leest dan zeker, ik als Nederlander zelfs versta gesproken Afrikaans nauwelijks (kaum) Afrikaans lesen aber ist ganz einfach für mi(ch/r?)

While most ancient Indo-European languages had 3 genders (Masculine, Feminine and Neuter) in their nouns, interestingly, the oldest recorded ancient Indo-European language, Hittite, did not. Instead, it had 2 genders: animate and inanimate. It is possible that this was the situation in early Proto Indo-European and the 3 gender system evolved from an animate/inanimate system later.

@fukpoeslaw3613

2 ай бұрын

Is animate/inanimate like the Dutch system, de = masculine or feminine; het = neuter, so de = animate and het = inanimate? Although there are a lot of animals with het: het paard (the horse), het schaap (the sheep).

@neilmcbride71

2 ай бұрын

@@fukpoeslaw3613 I don't think I would describe the Dutch system as animate/inanimate for 2 reasons. 1) as you have pointed out, there are animate nouns in the neuter gender (het paard, het schaap and even het meisje (although here, it's the diminutive suffix that makes the noun neuter) and inanimate nouns in the common gender (de tafel, de mand, de computer, esv.), and 2) within the context of Indo-European linguistics, the Dutch system developed out of an older 3-way gender distinction - ie Dutch used to have 3 genders. TBH I don't know much about the Hittite and the Anatolian languages, but, interestingly, I understand that the only difference between animate and inanimate nouns was in the nominative case. In all other cases the declension was the same. This kind of makes sense, as inanimate nouns are unlikely to be the subject of a transitive verb (eg the woman can read the book, but the book cannot read the woman)

@v0r0byov

2 ай бұрын

Then why is night feminine in many Indo-European languages if there was not the feminine gender? For example in Russian, German, Spanish

@neilmcbride71

2 ай бұрын

@@v0r0byovThe feminine gender evolved after the ancestors of the Anatolian languages left. The mechanism by which this happened is debated, but one theory is that a suffix *-eh2 which was added to verbs to make abstract nouns later became grammaticalised as a feminine ending. Once the feminine category was born, other words with a feminine reference were added. (Over time, the *-eh2 ending changed to -a which is still a feminine marker in many indo-european languages.)

@parjanyashukla176

2 ай бұрын

"Proto-Indo-European language" actually likely never existed at the first place. It's a senseless model of linguistic evolution that runs counter to even the basic commonsense of sociolinguistics - languages don't evolve like trees do.

@14:10 as a native Lithuanian speaker I see errors in your column for Vilkas; endings seem to be shifted/mixed between the cases. Here are the correct forms: Nominative: Vilk-as Genitive: Vilk-o Dative: Vilk-ui Accusative: Vilk-ą (note the ogonek diacritic on a, indicating long a en.wikipedia.org/wiki/%C4%84) Instrumental:Vilk-u Vocative:Vilk-e Locative:Vilk-e (stress is different from Vocative - it goes on the end e, while in vocative it goes on the front i)

@pawel198812

14 күн бұрын

The Latin case forms are mixed up as well

I think some of the Latin declension forms got mixed up in the table at 14:10. Lup-e is vocative, Lup-um accusative and Lup-i genetive.

2:10 - Minor Spanish verb corrections: · "(vosotros) amáis" (dyphthong, not hiatus, not "amaís", a single syllable "...áis" · "(vosotros) amasteis (stress is in the middle syllable, also typo and again last syllable is a dyphthong, one single syllable "...eis" and not a hiatus or two syllables "...e-ís") · "(vosotros) amabais (like the previous one, the stress is in the middle syllable and, per the orthographic rules, doesn't need a tilde ("´") when ending in -s or -n (the reverse is the rule for "acute" words, i.e. those that have the stress in the last syllable) · "(nosotros) amábamos" (all "esdrújula" words, i.e. those with stress in the third syllable counting from the end, carry tilde, the same applies to the rarer "sobresdrújulas", with stress in the fourth or so syllables, except those ending in "-mente" ("-ly" in English)

In the declension of the Greek noun λύκος- lykos , you have committed some errors. Nominative lykos, genitive lykou, dative lyko, (λυκω), accusative lykon, vocative lyke. That is how it is declined in the singular.

I love the concept of a video about PIE grammar, as it is hard just to get academics to speculate on it, let alone explore it this way. I would have liked a bigger exploration of actual PIE grammar for a video called PIE grammar.

"vosotros amastais"?? yo sólo conozco "vosotros amasteis". Gracias por su trabajo.

I am native Lithuanian speaker.Your chart has the wrong Lithuanian case endings. Lithuanian does have the instrumental : vilkú. Plural: vilkais. In your chart several of the other case endings are wrong, such as the Lithuanian accusative, which ends in a nasalised "a" (fornerly -an), etc. Please adjust. If needs be, i can furnish the whole paradigm

So useful

*amastáis => amasteis; I know this is not the point, but YT is watched by native speakers of all the languages you pick examples for ;) (Hungarian speaker here, tho)

@erikcarlson9250

Ай бұрын

A wise man loves rebuke.

sanskrit has a "pious mood", right? I once wondered how could we bring such a mood back to our modern languages. We could add a -o/o/o/ suffix to verbs and then do "ooooh" at the end of pronouncing such a verb. e.g. "I salute oooo-h thee!"

@erikcarlson9250

Ай бұрын

Interesting! I know very little about the specifics of Sanskrit. In some American communities, the use of "just" and "so," and possibly a few other words are part of displaying a pious disposition in public speech, especially public prayer. It's interesting to think of piety as a thing that can be expressed grammatically; of course, many languages use verb forms, like the formal plural, to express deference or recognize status, so why not? I've never thought about this before. Thanks!

Congrats to this guy for going back 5000 years and learning the language

In biology there is a discipline called "numerical taxonomy" that decodes the relationships between different species of plants and animals by mathematical means. Basically, it constructs "family trees" of related organisms by calculating the smallest number of evolutionary changes needed to construct a tree that includes all species within a group. Is there some process analogous to this that is used to reconstruct extinct ancestral languages and to quantify the differences between related existing languages?

@parjanyashukla176

2 ай бұрын

It's nonsense anyway, because languages don't have "genetic" 😮 relationships. Makes no sense whatsoever.

@erikcarlson9250

2 ай бұрын

There is a theory of glottochronology that does this by beginning with phonetic changes, and there is a hearty dialogue between the fields of evolutionary biology and historical linguistics in certain areas, all based on the analogy you imply. There are some facts of human behavior that complicate mathematically modeling language change in analogy to genetic evolution, though. Immigration, genocide, media, and forced assimilation change languages very quickly; also, nothing prevents languages from borrowing from non-related languages or from exchanging material and influences with languages from which they have diverged, so English has borrowed related words from different languages (Engl. foot, Latin ped-estrian, French pawn (foot soldier), Greek, pod-iatrist), while birds and lizards can't easily exchange and re-exchange genes. So yes and no, and because language is a human behavior, nothing makes linguistic divergence inherently permanent.

@MartinMMeiss-mj6li

2 ай бұрын

@@parjanyashukla176I'm not sure what you mean by "genetic relationships," but languages are not static; they change over time and thus diverge from each other. The English of today is not the same as the English of Shakespeare. Dialects spoken in different regions of a land are not identical, and can become more different over time. For instance, the Spanish and Portuguese of today are more dissimilar from each other than ancestral Spanish and ancestral Portuguese of eight hundred years ago. This is what allows us to speak of languages being more or less closely related to each other, and in turn lets linguists construct trees showing these relationships. Is there something about this that you disagree with?

@MartinMMeiss-mj6li

2 ай бұрын

@@erikcarlson9250Yes, although biological species have some limited ability to get genes from non-ancestral populations (so-called "jumping genes," mediated perhaps by viruses), languages have much fluidity for swapping influences. I was just wondering if this has kept researchers from modeling mathematically the processes of linguistic evolution. Is there a computer program where one could in principle use modern Indo-european languages as inputs and have the program spit out Proto-indoeuropean as an output?

@erikcarlson9250

2 ай бұрын

Such a program could be devised, but criticism at every step in light of comparative, archeological, and very fuzzy semantic data is important. As far as sound changes go, though, we already have a basic set of algorithms--consider Grimm's Law (of course, conditioned by Verner's Law, and obscured at times by borrowing or other circumstances). @@MartinMMeiss-mj6li

in 14:12 the first column (naming all the cases) is wrong/mixed up (also the same is true for the next slide)

Vocative would be most appropriate probably, most frequent too.

2:04 *vosotros amasteis.

How similar is this to classical latin?

Your Sanskrit declension for Vrka (Wolf) is incorrect.

@erikcarlson9250

2 ай бұрын

I plan to replace this video with a corrected version (and correct the Lithuanian as well) soon.

@parjanyashukla176

2 ай бұрын

​@@erikcarlson9250 There is no need to do so, because your "Indo-European" linguistics is basically an agenda-driven, pseudoscientific field.

@Ouitzde

2 ай бұрын

@@erikcarlson9250 The main error is in the order of the cases in English; it should have been 'Nom, Voc, Acc, Gen, Abl, Dat, Instr. and Loc.' Then it matches with the four languages.

@themanne234

Ай бұрын

​@@parjanyashukla176Want to explain? Ive never heard about it being agenda driven but im really curious! Its very counter intuitive that a language tree would be so spread out with so much space but ive never heard of it being wrong?

@jeremias-serus

Ай бұрын

@@parjanyashukla176 hindutva moment

I can finally communicate with yo mama

The Latin case forms in the single table (10 min) do not match the Latin case forms in the bigger table (12 min)

The description of the Accusative is wrong! The primary usage of the accusative in all inflected languages is being a subject of an action, such as being accused (!), taken, given, stolen, seen, destroyed, possessed, painted, washed, and so on. None of these actions involves a preposition in English. Accusative may also have additional usage in some languages, which translated to English requires prepositions.

@DemetriosKongas

2 ай бұрын

You are wrong. The primary usage of the accusative is to indicate the object of the action. E.g. I throw the ball (in Greek ριπτω την σφαίραν - sphairan is the accusative of the noun sphaira/σφαίρα) (sphere).

@Ateesh6782

Ай бұрын

In the sentence “I accuse her”, the subject is “I”, which is the nominative; “her” is the object (accusative).

@davidaxelos4678

26 күн бұрын

You mean object, not subject of an action, e.g. accusation.

@Gubbe51

24 күн бұрын

@@davidaxelos4678 Yes, you are right.

why did u not simply use ᴅᴏᴍ| for the locative of latin, as this is a word where the old case is still present in a disctincive form. by the way, something that textbooks and non-historic scholars still dont get in 2024, the apex (´) is a neccessary part of latin orthography, like it is with the acute in spanish, omitting them is simply wrong. hence, ʟᴜᴘᴏ́ and ʟᴜᴘ|. just cuz in most weathered stone inscriptions they are barely visible does not mean that there is any where they did _not_ use them (or the long | in case of i)

@TheSandkastenverbot

6 күн бұрын

*Why *By *don't *Hence Using lowercase letters at the beginning of a sentence or omitting the apostrophe in "don't" is *simply wrong.* Also: My browser shows DOM| and LUP|.

Carlson my advice for you is: start from Albanien language who is the root of the tree of Indo-European languages. I assure you that you will be satisfied

@neilmcbride71

2 ай бұрын

My advice is don't let people with a nationalist agenda near historical linguistics. Start with the comparative method and don't forget that extra-ordinary claims need extra-ordinary evidence.

@user-gs2wb2lp1v

2 ай бұрын

@@neilmcbride71 or suspicious human I am not focused to nationality but to the name of the language used today. Anyway is not worth to spend time with you who reaches the conclusion as in love stories with “amore a prima vista” or love at first sight.

@neilmcbride71

2 ай бұрын

@@user-gs2wb2lp1v anonymous person, I have been into historical linguistics since my Linguistics degree which I completed in 1995 - almost 30 years of love. Can you point me to a serious scholar of Proto Indo-European who claims that Albanian is at the root of the Indo-European languages (whatever that means)? Those who are genuinely interested in the science behind the reconstruction of Proto Indo-European and the development if the daughter languages should read 'Indo European Language and Culture' by Benjamin W. Forsten - a serious textbook used in serious Universities. It will walk you through the Comparative method and Internal reconstruction. BTW Albanian is a daughter language of Proto Indo-European and it's a very interesting one that has undergone some unusual sound changes from its parent (especially with the *s sibilant).

@faithlesshound5621

2 ай бұрын

There are several groups like this on KZread: it all started from Albanian; Sanskrit came first: or Tamil was the root of everything, according to taste. Some of the last group claim that Tamil is 200,000 years old, which suggests that the original Tamilians lived in trees and had fur and a tail.

@Vaidelotelis

2 ай бұрын

Albanian is nowhere near the root of the tree of Indo-European languages. The only ones who spout this nonsense are Albanian non linguists who have heard this from other Albanians who don't know what they're talking about

Half of the video is explaining about basic grammar concepts. Complete waste of time. If someone is interested in the PIE, shouldn't it be assumed that these people already have these concepts in the baggage?

Sanskrit contains 10 tenses and not four. This Indo-European theory is pure bunkum based on pre-determined conclusions, selective reading of lexical and archaeological evidence and racial propaganda.

@TheSandkastenverbot

6 күн бұрын

Here we go again, a right wing nationalist snowflake pulls out the "racial propaganda" weapon because he can't believe that some people are NOT nationalist idiots but just want to know what happened. First of all: have you understood the distinction between tense, mood and voice? I'm sure you haven't. Second: have you understood why virtually every linguist agrees that indoeuropean languages are indeed related and didn't just borrow words from each other? Third and most importantly: PROVE YOUR STATEMENT!!!

Instead of elaborely studying Sanskrit language and literature these people too much depend on their opinions and willful guesses! First of all, Why Indo-Europens and not Euro cacasians or Euro anatolians!! If Rigveda is not there, many of the present day people in Europe and other places would not have known that they are related to common ancestor!!This is the truth!! Again, Proto Indo European is another lie!! Rigvedic Sanskrit is the first purified proto Indo Euro[ean language, the Aryans had Rigveda even before 6000 years ago as per recent archeology!! Those European groups as per Rigveda migrated from ancient India after Dasa rajna or ten kings war when the dried Saraswathi river flowing as mighty roaring war which is as per Rigveda! As per Rigveda ,Ar definition is given in Rigveda as on who tills and cultivate land!! Aryans are founders of darming and cultivation and assumed this as their identity as such Aryans are founders of human civilization!!

@tiagorodrigues3730

Ай бұрын

Please explain which sound changes are necessary to get from Rigvedic Sanskrit to Welsh. Of course, if Sanskrit is the ancestor of Welsh, as you claim it is, then it must necessarily be possible to get from the former to the latter.

@amj.composer

4 күн бұрын

Not even close buddy