Syntax III: Linguistics 101 [Video 7]

[@tiantian9434]

Thank you so much, sir. This one is really revealing, and I might rewatch it tonight and do some further research on it. You've done such great work explaining a complex subject in an exciting and interactive way!

[@nessmercieca9966]

I appreciate the Star Wars and Lotr references so much! This content is helping heaps, thank you 😊

[@Bungadin639]

Thanks for these man. Dare I say it, this is so much clearer than my lectures!

[@newtonlkh]

Very confusing yet very interesting! Thank you!

[@JorgeRafaelNogueras]

These videos are super interesting (although I admit they are getting more and more complicated for my language-lover-yet-not-linguistic-student brain). Still, keep 'em coming! 😃

[@FingtamLanguages]

Yes, I think this will be the last one about syntax, so for the next video you won't need to have watched any of the previous videos to follow along.

[@JorgeRafaelNogueras]

@@FingtamLanguages Ho, mi ne scias, ĉu mi diris al vi, ke mi nuntempe legas tiun Pinkeran libron, kiun vi konsilis ("The language instinct"), do estas interese al mi legi tie kelkajn el ĉi tiaj lingvistikaj konceptoj, kiujn vi klarigas en ĉi tiuj filmetoj. :-)

[@TorstigHjalmr]

7:24 thanks for empaphizing sir!

[@shivanshmanoj7005]

love you for giving star wars sentences

[@fernandagea9010]

My head hurts. bad. But seriously... fascinating!

[@sirrenaissance322]

FIrst video that was confusing. And I study 8 languages. But your series has been excellent.

[@frostice9658]

I do watch Star Wars! Every New Year Holiday! I love your examples.

[@Itsaroub]

the best you are!!

[@mouhcinesaidi5000]

thank you ,

[@MackerelCat]

THANK YOU THANK YOU THANK YOU

[@miryampacheco]

omigod Cher!!!

[@FingtamLanguages]

Lol yeah!

[@KevinAbroad]

Oh god syntactic trees used to be my absolute favourite ahah. Though they're actually complex in some cases when it comes to finding the function of some words x). But just like you (I'm guessing!), I was super fascinated by all the inversion stuff and how flexible some function words can be - sorry I don't have the proper jargon in mind anymore, it's been 5 years! Btw, in French "to shoot someone" is "tirer SUR qlq". Interestingly enough without "sur" it can mean "to f*** someone" so in your sentence you were having sex with the wamprats ahaha. Unless in Canadian French it's different?! But joking aside, I actually wondered how the preposition would affect your tree because it would be in the middle of your adverbial phrase (in the present tense anyway) giving us "Je tire souvent sur des wamprats"

[@FingtamLanguages]

Ah. Interesting. I was originally going to use the example I sent you with the apples, but I thought this sentence was more interesting 😂 I guess I was right! But you're right, the preposition probably changes things because then womp rats isn’t the direct object, but the object of the preposition. But oh well, my linguistic point still gets made even if the womprats are being violated rather than hunted.

[@ajurdaniron422]

From Philippines

[@feruzayozilova4446]

Why did you stop after the 7th video about linguistics 101? That’s a really useful course. I was really hoping to watch all the topics about linguistics

[@FingtamLanguages]

I didn't stop. I'm still making videos.

[@Kaesebaelchen]

Does c-command also apply to x bar theory? It doesn't make sense to me :( because the structure just goes down. Please help!

[@silasfrisenette9226]

When will the next one be out?? :D

[@aminaadnan6805]

Hi i'm here new. I hope this video will help me a lot becoz i don't know about it nd tomorrow i hve new lecture on syntax...

[@FingtamLanguages]

Thanks for commenting. I hope you did well in your syntax course!

[@hugo54758]

Fun fact until the sixteenth century, English didn't require dummy do for negation and interrogation ;)

[@FingtamLanguages]

Really? So did they just do it with the main verb then?

[@hugo54758]

@@FingtamLanguages Yes, like French and German today

[@alasdeangel3929]

I'd argue that English didn't require auxiliary 'do' until the early 19th century. Every English poet until then regularly switched subject nouns and verbs for interrogation and put the word 'not' after the main verb for negation. Using dummy do, however, has been an option for interrogation and negation for as long as English has had a literary tradition.

[@christianedechert4178]

well, maybe we should not take English as the basis for writing generative rules. :D