Sprachbund: How Languages Shape Each Other

[@ParchmentLore]

This was an excellent description of a "Sprachbund"! The graphics, examples, and presentation of the video were all very well done! I didn't realize that the shared features in the Southeast Asian languages like retroflexes were indicative of a Sprachbund, but now it makes sense... Keep up the great work!

[@maud3444]

You sir got yourself a new subscriber!

[@senek3811]

@@maud3444 Thanks a lot ! ☺️

[@colinafobe2152]

when listened some Albanian songs I've realized that often words sound as Serbian without understanding it. And although Serbian share Slavic vocabulary and grammar, it sound a bit different from other Slavic languages with clear pronunciation, clear vowels, different accent system. It is possible that centuries of living together with Albanians on Balkans influenced Serbian same with Spanish and Basque or French and Breton Does anyone who dont speak either Albanian nor Serbian can hear that similarity

[@senek3811]

@@colinafobe2152 I think it's the same phenomenon as someone who doesn't know any indian language listening to an indian song, he would think northern languages and southern ones sound almost the same even though they are very different

[@colinafobe2152]

@@senek3811 that is very true. to me, at first listening they sound the same or very similar. Where you from? do you speak Serbian or Albanian? can you hear similar pattern there or it is just me :)

[@senek3811]

@@colinafobe2152 I'm from a french-speaking background but my hearing is used to both serbian and albanian so I personally can hear the differences. But I suppose maybe your perception is also partly due to the musical styles of both countries which are very similar

[@colinafobe2152]

@senek3811 yes of course music style can be similar true. however similar is bulgarian music too but i can feel different vowels there. maybe how we both sing our languages :) i dunno. will have to listen more albanian music and their news to tell if there are similarities or not. thanks merci

[@dactylntrochee]

This video reminds me of what I always perceive to be "tectonic plates" of accent. We know that Romanian is structurally Roman, with regionally borrowed words, but when I hear it, I always think it sounds Slavic. It's as if the accent were a relatively stable underpinning, and that the languages would slide around above them. I notice this in various languages that, while unrelated, have adjacent populations. I've heard the term sprachbund before, but I [incorrectly] assumed it had to do with regional variations. I guess an e.g. would be the idea that the languages of Italy form a sprachbund. I think I stand corrected now. I'll be paying attention in the future.

[@georgios_5342]

0:53 not all of them, actually only half of them, because Serbian and Turkish have no articles, and Greek has a normal definite article preceding the noun

[@senek3811]

indeed, I forgot to add more precision about it

[@actang9429]

Love linguistics!

[@shureee1]

also like shared grammar between japanese and Korean, as well as tones playing a huge part in the east asian languages unlike anywhere else, similarly for African languages with the click sounds and middle east languages having some of those uvular consonants relatively common

[@senek3811]

@@shureee1 Yes, I'll probably talk about those features in a future video

[@porterhouse937]

As a native in (Slavic) Macedonian I had an easier time learning Greek and Albanian (this one was extremely easy) than learning Russian and even Serbian. I also found that I can understand about 60% of Rumunian when I read it without having any prior contact to the language. These languages have the exact same flow and almost identical grammar, the only thing they differ in is the vocabulary.

[@neversarium]

Sadly you use wrong maps from the very beginning... Kazakh language reconquered North Kazakhstan, and russian is not used extensively, especially in Ukraine

[@senek3811]

Hello, what do you mean by "kazakh language reconquered north kazakhstan" ? can you please detail this affirmation ?

[@dove5591]

All Slavic languages are based only upon the Macedonian language: ''Church Slavonic language, Slavic language based primarily on the Macedonian (South Slavic) dialects around Thessalonica (Thessaloníki). It was used in the 9th century by the missionaries Saints Cyril and Methodius, who were natives of Thessalonica, for preaching to the Moravian Slavs and for translating the Bible'' - Britannica.

[@senek3811]

Thanks for your comment! Could you clarify what you mean by "all Slavic languages are based only on Macedonian"? The Britannica article mentions that Church Slavonic was influenced by Macedonian dialects near Thessaloniki, but this was a 9th-century liturgical language. Do you think a liturgical language could be the sole basis for such a diverse group of languages? For example, how do you explain the major differences between Russian, Polish, and Serbian, or the influence of other cultures and languages over the centuries? I’d love to understand your perspective better.

[@dove5591]

The Macedonians went to central Europe in Moravia to Evangelize the slavic tribes and the Glagolitic and Cyrillic alphabets are only Macedonian alpabets made only for the Macedonian language in Macedonia by the Macedonians. This is not their language of these Slavic nations they speak on Macedonian dialects that came from this standardized medieval Macedonian language when the Macedonians translated the Holy Bible. Whole languages are extinct because of the Macedonian language such as the real Bulgarian language that was a Turkic language. There were only 3 liturgical languages in the Roman Empire and just like the Macedonian language assimilated the slavic and the bulgarian and other eastern european tribes the latin language assimilated the germanic and other tribes that went to western Europe such as the Goths that ruled with spain and Italy or the Suebi in portugal or the franks in france and all the tribes that went there that was under the control of the Latin church and in the same way the greek language assimilated many iranian and anatolian and albanian and Turkish and Turkic groups such as the Karamanlides who are Ethnic Turks and descendants of the Turkic Emirate of Karaman who came from Azerbaijan and before that from Mongolia and today they are the dominant population in greece or the Arvanites who are Albanians who came to greece in the 13th century and were the dominant population in greece before the Ottoman Empire or the Vlachs in greece or the Arabs and Berbers in greece who had countries in greece such as the Arab Emirate of Crete that ruled with Athens. The Macedonian church sent many liturgical texts in Russia and Poland that is why the oldest texts in the Old Church language are from Macedonia and are in Poland today they are from the Macedonian monastaries. But the Macedonian church ruled with Serbia and Croatia and Bosnia and Montenegro and Bulgaria so these nations today speak closer languages to Macedonian because of the Macedonian church the Ohrid Archbisopric that before that was the Archbisopric of Justiniana prima and the Macedonian church is Biblical and is the oldest and is the first church in Europe. The Macedonian Saint Clement who made the Cyrillic is named after the Macedonian Biblical Saint Clement of Philippi where the Macedonian Church was born.

[@senek3811]

@@dove5591 Thanks for your detailed response! I have a few questions to better understand your perspective: 1. You mention that Glagolitic and Cyrillic were created only for Macedonian. If that’s the case, why do historical records show that these alphabets were designed to adapt to multiple Slavic dialects, not just Macedonian? 2. If Old Church Slavonic was exclusively Macedonian, how do you explain its adaptation across such diverse Slavic nations, with significant differences in grammar, vocabulary, and pronunciation? 3. You mention that entire languages like the "real Bulgarian" went extinct because of Macedonian influence. Could you provide specific linguistic evidence or sources supporting this claim? 4. Regarding the Ohrid Archbishopric, while it’s true it played an important role in spreading Christianity, do you think political and religious influence alone could account for the development of entire languages across vast territories? 5. Finally, how do you reconcile this idea with the fact that many Slavic languages developed independently after the 10th century due to geographic, cultural, and historical isolation?

[@dove5591]

Well see for yourself: ''Although the vocabulary and grammar of the early texts written in the Old Church Slavonic language include some Old Bulgarian features, the language was nevertheless based originally on a Macedonian dialect. Old Church Slavonic was the first Slavic language to be put down in written form. That was accomplished by Saints Cyril (Constantine) and Methodius, who translated the Bible into what later became known as Old Church Slavonic and who invented a Slavic alphabet (Glagolitic). In the early 21st century the modern Macedonian language was spoken by about two million people in the Balkan countries.'' - Britannica

[@dove5591]

The answer for the first 3 questions is in the second quote that I shared from Britannica as for the last 2 questions you should know that the Orthodox church during the middle ages is not secular you can see that even today in greece as you know greece is not secular country. And during the Middle Ages all nations under the Macedonian and Latin and greek speaking churches could use only these 3 languages it was prohibited to translate the Holy Bible in another language and this is the consequence total assimilation of all nations under these 3 Churches. That is why the Russian Church the largest in Orthodoxy still uses the Macedonian Liturgical language same as the Macedonian Orthodox Church. As for the last question I said that the modern Slavic languages are just dialects of the Medieval Macedonian language that started to exist after the Macedonian translation of the Holy Bible in Macedonian and the Evangelization of the Slavic tribes as you know even the name Slavic is not theirs it is a Macedonian word from the Glagolitic translation of the Holy Bible from the Gospel of John 1:1 and means the Blessed People in the Word - Jesus Christ Our Lord God or in Macedonian blagoSLOVENITE luge vo SLOVOTO - благоСЛОВЕНИТЕ луѓе во Словото for those that can understand Slavic languages. You should also know the Macedonian people belongs and is the Origin of the Macedinian Mesolithic Proto-European I-haplogroup Y-chromosome DNA. The Slavic tribes belong to the east Asian R1a haplogroup Y-chromosome DNA that came from the Altai region. The Macedonians are Genetically only Macedonian and are not related genetically to the Slavic tribes. Genetic descendants of the Macedonians are the Swedes and Danes and Romanians and Sardinians and the Serbo-croatian speaking nations.

[@kreany8981]

Hey i love this video but i just wanna clarify afghanistan isnt south asian its central asian due to cutural genetic factors etc amazing video nonetheless

[@senek3811]

@@kreany8981 thanks a lot. But I checked and according to UNESCO it's part of both central and southern asia. But these are just geographical concepts anyways, it doesn't have much meaning in real life.

[@kreany8981]

@@senek3811 yeah fair enough i feel like lots of people would clarify it as central asian due to culture history and genetics anything past of east indus i believe is where south asia starts

[@haraliitkulja9612]

🇦🇱🇦🇱🇦🇱