Bro became crazy russian dad

I think prescriptivism with regards to the definitions of words can be ok when it doesn't come from a place of being deliberately obtuse. if someone is using a word so incorrectly that you genuinely can't tell what they mean (and I mean genuinely not "oh you used literally but you actually mean figuratively hahaha I'm so smart"), asking them to clarify and then correcting the mistake that lead to the confusion is not an inherently wrong thing to do.

bro sounds like an exhausted emo with dutch accent

god damn, you really pronouncing them better than me wtf.

something to add about the phonemes, in brazilian portuguese usually r has "h" sound, not "x" sound, it depends from the accent, like, the average brazilian accent there's just ''h'', but in my accent r has 4 different phonemes, "r" between vowels n after a consonant(before a vowel) "h" at the start of the word, "h" or "x" before a consonant(after a vowel) and at the end i just drop it or "x" or "h", but if the next word starts with vowel it's a "r" ("tente cantar assim"(try to sing at this way) would "'kã'ta'ra'sim")

🤤

*Phonologies of English* *Middle English (~1800-~2100)* *Consonants* Nasals: m n ŋ Plosives: p b t d k ɡ Affricates: tʃ dʒ Fricatives: f v θ ð s z ʃ ʒ h Approximants: l ɹ j w *Vowels* Closed: i ɪ u Mid: ɛ ø ə Open: æ ɑ Diphthongs: ɑɪ æu ɞɪ eu ɪu *Modern English (~2100-)* *Consonants* Nasals: Plosives: p b t d k ɡ Affricates: ts tʃ dʒ Fricatives: f v θ s z ʃ ʒ ç ɣ Approximants: l ɹ j *Vowels* Close: i ɪ u Close-Mid: e ẽ ø ə o Mid: ɛ ɜ Open: æ ɑ

Sounds like XQC talking

Your pronunciation of "fyra" made me jump out of my chair

About Italian I want to point out that while /z/ is present only as allophone in most varieties (and in some southern ones it's actually absent altogether), it is phonemic (even if not very productive) in the standard traditional language and some central varieties with few minimal pairs such as /fuzo/ past participle of fondere (to melt) and /fuso/ spindle. And the traditional pronunciation is actually /kasa/. I think it's also important to note that in (most of) those varieties where the distribution is allophonic the pronunciation is still /s/ in intervocalic position when at the beginning of a morpheme if the word is felt as a compound by the speaker, e.g. the word risolvere can be pronounced with /s/ or /z/ depending on whether the speaker recognises it as being formed by ri- + solvere or not

Dialects are written, but there is no standard form of writing them. Basically you can just write it anyway... so it's not "really" written.. it's not standard or taught. And, moreover, it's only written in Social Media really... like in chats between friends, etc.

Another reason to use Classical: Sardinian actually does descend directly from it. If not straight up from late Republican era (!) Latin.

You pronounce ח like you’re compensating for all the learners who can’t pronounce it. Overall your pronouncing is way too fast and not very precise. This a a video, take your time and speak properly instead of speedrunning it and getting basic things wrong while being incomprehensible half of the time (in Hebrew and least). Also, why exactly do you think adverbs don’t exist? They definitely do.

min 12:08 .... we have in Romanian GINTA .... Noi, romanii, suntem de ginta latina = We, Romanians, are of the Latin race .... :)

It's not that the Arabic language is the language of God or we consider it holy. Sure, you may find some uneducated people who think that but it's not accurate. God knows all languages and favour none over others. The only reason the Qur'an is in Arabic is because the place where it was it was revealed had Arabs. As for why people (especially Indonesians, shout out to them) choose to learn Arabic instead of settling for a translation is because of various reasons: - translation kills any piece of writing. No matter what we're translating, there's a certain aspect that will be lost in translation. This is crucial for a holy text that should not be tampered with in the slightest. - the Qur'an uses Al Balagha البلاغة, which is the art of effective and persuasive speech or writing, particularly in Arabic literature and oratory traditions. Al-Balagha encompasses the skillful use of language, figures of speech, metaphors, rhyme schemes and stylistic devices to convey ideas in a powerful and impactful manner. This is why if you ever looked up translations, you'd find them riddled with added parentheses that explain the meaning, which brings us to yet another point - the Qur'an is deeply complex. Many verses have layers that are only understood recently or may not have been understood yet. This makes it so that translations can suddenly become sacrilege that needs quick updating, which creates a lot of problems. - last point I can think of, as a Muslim, is the amount of non Arabs who had hate breath into their souls against Islam. These people would often bring a verse that has been translated in English which makes it easily misinterpretable for them. They grow so convinced of the meaning they understood that they assume that everything I say is a lie. However, if they read it in Arabic they will see that the meaning it truly carries cannot be easily translatable and can only be explained through Expressions that are close but not true to the actual meaning

About the loss of the initial latin F in spanish you could affirm even more the basc influence theory as the gascon dialect of occitan family precisely had the same modification (even more generalized) and is still doing this sound which is an important part of its phonetic. The fact is that its territory is exactly the same as the one of the ancient nothern basc zone above the Pyrenees. For exemple you have Filius which became Hilh or even inside of words such as Infernum which became in·hèrn (with the middle point as in catalan to avoid the wet sound of the occitan groups LH, NH which were given to portuguese writing system during the middle ages with the occitan trobadors).

Apa ( water) in Romanian and Sanskrit, also "abba" in Sardinian.

If you’re not a native Romanian, your pronunciation is amazing. Bravo!

american and english won't diverge, are you insane? have you seen the news that kids in uk that watch american influencers pronounce some words like they would in american now? i guess you haven't, this video is from 1 year ago, but i think it's very clear they could only become more similiar

The genitive case is in fact the general oblique case when an object is neither direct nor indirect. Thats the Greek word for generally. For example in German: ich gedenke deines Todes. Deines Todes is genitive case because it is neither den Tod nor dem Tode. In this xase if you use datice it sounds like as if you mind for the death, instead of mind of the death.

Wait, aren't Vowel initial syllables disallowed in arabic?

That rough Slavic accent turns me so on.

hi :3 UwU

im Dutch prescriptivists are called language nazis

Id recommend to add German as well

Honestly English doesn't feel like a real language, it feels like a badly desgined conlang, & I feel if we use more germanic/saxon words it'd feel more unique

About point 2, Portuguese uses elisions and sandhi for our most common prepositions that mark the direct object like "a/a" for direct object, "pro/pra" which is a fusion of per + our definite article for indirect object, "de/da" for our genitives, etc.. So, if our preposition's elisions could one day be reanalyzed as prefixes, as they can't occur on their own unlike the words they were based of, wouldn't "d'" be a genitive case? "pr'" our dative case? "n'" our locative case? Given the fact that despite our word order being SVO, Portuguese can be somewhat flexible with word order(Many of our phrases are in SOV like "Eu te amo"), but we need the prepositions to mark the object of the sentence. If case markings don't necessarily need to be suffixes, our elisions of our most used prepositions could easily be reanalyzed as cases, and Portuguese would have at least 6 or 7 of them. Also, if we consider they fuse with the articles instead of the object nouns when the object doesn't start with a vowel, these could be thought as them inflecting for number and gender since the prepositions that are most ellided are also the ones we commonly fuse with our articles, and our articles are literally just vowels or a vowel+nasal and s which on normal speech, is fused into the following word through sandhi. They could be easily thought as just gender/number inflections for the "case markings" instead of the articles they are.

The funny thing about cases is that they are also arbitrary. If I call you, are you the direct object of my call or are you the receiver? In Russian you use dative (позвонить + dat), but in German you use accusative (anrufen + akk). Once I found out that cases are basically decoration, language learning became a lot easier. 😅

7:57 I just wanted to say that the Dutch phrase you use here isn't really correct. I've never seen or heard "want" get used the same way as "omdat" or "gezien" as it is here. You probably either meant "gezien/omdat het als 't woord *het* klinkt, moeten we ze hetzelfde schrijven!" ("seen as it sounds like the word *het*, we should write them the same way!") or "want als het als 't woord *het* klinkt, moeten we ze hetzelfde schrijven!" ("because if it sounds like the word *het*, we should write them the same way!") I actually hadn't noticed this facet of the want-omdat distinction before myself!

can't wait for english spelling to make even less sense

It should be noted that arbitrary grammatical gender and natural animacy are not mutually exclusive systems. In Latin, every noun belongs to one of three genders, which dictates how modifiers inflect, and is animate or inanimate, which only really matters in the passive voice. Animate agents in passive sentences have to take the preposition ab (or ā), and inanimate agents cannot. For example, the sentences "These poems were written by Marius the poet," and "These poems were written by a skilled hand," are respectively "Hae poēmae *ā* Mariō poētā scrīptae sunt," and "Hae poēmae manū gnarā scrīptae sunt."

Do Americans really say [bøk]??

the way you pronounce [ʊ] is kinda weird

i was listening to this in the background. hearing phonetics used in full sentences is so trippy.

Maybe I've just been taught wrong (in Australia) but it feels like Japanese is losing formality distinctions (and other complex features like classifiers like -mai and -wa), I mean my mum told me the other day that rabbits are counted with the same classifier as birds (-wa), but I have never been corrected by Japanese speakers when I use -hiki to refer to my rabbit, and I never found myself in a situation where I had to use anything more formal than -San or -Kun or -Sensei, even at a university

సరే పద్యాలుకెళ్లి నేర్చుకో First-u

Great! But there are few corrections in your video: 1. Proto-Dravidian is on average, dated before 2500 BCE and some findings also point it to 4000 BCE. 2. The number 60-80% Sanskrit words in Telugu isn't true. The influence of Sanskrit depends on the context. You would find 70-75% of Dravidian words in everyday speech. Infact, we also have a literary version called 'Acca Telugu', similar to the Anglish, a completely Dravidian-based Telugu literature. Refer the texts: yayāti caritra by ponneganti telagana. 3. Proto-Telugu is a 'freshly' split language from PSC family, which is totally based on reconstructions, and might probably contemporary to Vedic Sanskrit. Cheers!

I am one of said overzealous linguists, my current conlang project has 7 persons, dealing with obviation in various types of dimensions

Woah, buddy, take a breath sometimes. I watched this in 0.75 speed and still had to pause/go back several times. And I'm a native speaker of Portuguese who understands 3 of the other languages pretty well. That said, great content, and great pronunciation. Bonus: in Central Brazil (and Paraguay), there is also the "American R" sound when in coda position. As for the dark L in Portuguese, I'd say I hear it often in Portugal's case, but in Brazil only by Italian diaspora, mostly older people.

Thank you for the video man, I really liked it

this is like the single most useful lingo video I've ever seen T_T

While Japanese may be infamous, personally I feel Vietnamese turns it up to 11. - And as for T-V I think you could have mentioned 3rd person formality using in German, Polish, and Danish and also the thing where a language has a separate form for the V-form that is neither the 2nd nor 3rd person plural. My example is always my native Faroese, where the formal pronoun is tygum which is different from both the 2nd person plural tit/tykur and the 3rd person plural teir/tær/tey. Of course, verbs do not conjugate for person in the plural in Faroese so while we group it with the 2nd person it doesn't really matter. Point is, that the pronoun itself is different. EDIT: As for cases: While in most cases, yes, the subject is in Nom, direct object is Acc and indirect object is Dat this is sooooo not always the case. In Old Norse and archaic Faroese you have: Meg droymdi ein dreym (Faroese); here the subject is in the accusative case. In the sentence, "Hjálp(ið) mær!" the direct object is now in the dative case; or in the benefactive case if your language has that one. And yes, as shown, sentences can have no nominative case. Also, even though nominative is usually the dictionary form, it doesn't always say much about the form of the word or it can be marked. So in Faroese, masculine nouns usually have -ur in nominative singular but -Ø in accusative singular meaning the accusative is the unmarked form; the most extreme of this is probably the word for man which in the unmarked accusative is mann but the marked nominative is maður. An example from Latin is the Greek loanword sphinx; the root of this word is actually sphing-. Yes, I know I went waaay beyond introductory but felt it should me mentioned. :)

bro said zöology 💀💀

There's so much more to talk about with pronouns. What about languages that don't have them, especially 3p? What about proximity distinctions? Different forms for pronouns referring to dependent clauses? What the hell are reflexive pronouns? Why are is there a distinction between posessive and genitive?

gosh thank you so much for making this video, super digestible and useful

7:38 Swedish typically uses a common/neuter distinction, but there are some situations where a special inflection can be used to indicate that something has "manly" attributes. This isn't the same as a "masculine" gender, because "masculine" is assigned strictly as a grammatical convention. It's also not "male" because it doesn't necessarily have to be a biological male. I've seen this described as a "natural gender", but based on the description here, it's not the same as "virile" in Telugu, because it doesn't necessarily have to be human. So what does one call this? We already have a "human"/"nonhuman" distinction so requiring that something also be human in order to be "virile"/"muliebrile" seems less useful, i.e. it seems sufficient to say "virile human" or "male human" and let "virile" indicate "manly" attributes regardless of sex or grammatical convention.

Are there any nouns in English that can absolutely never be pluralized, not even to indicates varying types like the meat/meats example? Perhaps "silence", since the definition of that is considered so absolute there's no room for different types of it? Suddenly I can't stop thinking about what a mass noun actually is. There's plenty of nouns where a singular form refers to an abstract concept rather than a defined physical object, but that does not feel like a *grammatical* distinction. 8:55 Among native speakers of Czech, the 7 cases are usually referred to by numbers rather than linguistic terms. I'm in danger lol. But I'm curious now, is this a unique Czech thing or is internally referring categories of features by nondescriptive numbers a common thing?

Native American languages mark nouns for obviation to differentiate more important subjects from less important subjects and also to create relative clauses. For example, in the sentence "He throws his ball" where "he" and "his" are referring to different people, "he" would be marked as proximate and "his ball" would be marked as obviative. This can lead to a dizzying array of grammatical persons when combined with systems of animacy--Each noun has to be marked for obviation and each verb form also has specific conjugations for obviative noun forms, and also for transitivity in relation to those nouns. There are also situations in which a transitive verb can be made intransitive when a noun is marked for obviation. Ojibwe has a total of 14 grammatical persons when all is said and done--It's extremely complex and it adds a lot of grammatical depth to the language

Formality is definitely not the hardest part of Japanese. It is just mostly some very conjugatable verb forms plus some separate vocabulary for basic verbs such as "walk", "see", "eat", "give", "receive" etc. for basic (informal), polite, respectful and humble and some forms of nouns that depend on whether it is possessed by you or a respected person. More specific terms or the situation when certain words are used are taught at your specific workplace and is creeping into talk of "in groups" and "out groups" which is more sociology than linguistics. The hardest part of Japanese is probably kanji/orthography, which means most kanji have 2-3 readings (but there are some with a lot more) coming from Old/Middle Chinese and native Japanese readings, plus readings used in names and descriptive readings formed from "mistaken" Chinese readings. There are 2000+ taught kanji and you could use ones outside of that stylistically. When two kanji are put next to each other which of the Chinese readings is to be used is dependent on the compound, and on top of that there are a few scenarios where two kanji come together to form a new reading. On the other hand, for a native spoken Japanese word to be written there is usually one most commonly used way to write it in kanji but there are other ways of writing it depending on context and style.

Nice video. I would like to add a few comments The main argument against calling the construct state a grammatical case is that it is a form of head-marking. It is possible for a language to have both a construct state and a genitive case, sometimes occuring together, being an example of double marking (kind of like 'a friend of mine'). Edit: I realize now my this doesn't make much sense as an example of double marking. Let me illustrate (the aunt has a car): 1.my aunt's car : dependent marking 2.*my aunt her-car: head marking 3.*my aunt's her-car: double marking The reason why the "locative" case in Russian is called "prepositional" might be that there are a few nouns that have distinct forms for the locative and the prepositional (in the singular). As for the singular/dual/plural distinction, in at least some languages, the dual form is often defective, i.e. limited in use to only, pronouns some verb forms, and some nouns, most often natural pairs or body parts, while the plural retains its more regular meaning of "at least two"