One of my older conlangs, "Santaspeak", had reduplication to form commands. "Ho ho ho" was actually a phrase used by Santa to command his elves to obey, with the third "ho" merely being added for extra emphasis.
LOL Maybe entangle is like chlorine and jump is like sodium. Clorine readily takes in electrons. It only need to get one more to have a full and stable valence. It is like how entangle readilly takes in an object verb. Sodium doesn't take up electrons. It is trying to get rid of them. It only needs to get rid of one more electron to have a full and stable valence. It is like how jump doesn't get an object. I use those two chemical elements as an example because it is used all the time. Whenever they teach about ionic bonding it is always those two used first. They form regular table salt. The chemical compound is sodium chloride. The mineral name is halite. It is the tastiest rock ever. I find it intriguing that sodium and chlorine are really dangerous when separated and they are safe and even healthy when combined together. I am not sure why. Maybe the salt is more stable and it is safer. It can cause problems with blood pressure and kidneys, but that is only if too much is consumed. A moderate amount of salt is very healthy. There is a hilarious prank that warns of the dangers of dihydrogen monoxide. Water is very safe and healthy too, but it is funny to claim that it is dangerous under a fancy technical name. I wonder if one can make a similar prank with the dangers of sodium chloride.
I love making compound words have interesting roots. “Home” means “my tree” for my language and “night” means “no-sky” (as opposed to day meaning “light-sky”)
In the language im working on tenses are made with the words "sunrise" and "sunset" depending on which one comes next. For example, on the morning, if you say "i see animal sunrise" means that you saw an animal. If you say it at night though, it means "i will see the animal." In scribes has to be specified where the sun is, so everyone understands the sentence.
I was thinking something like this, though it wouldn't be relative, but I was also imagining using seasons for the distant future and past. Imagine having to write the damn time and date for your words to be properly understood
Could also mean you would have come, depending on the context, as sie can mean they when referring to a group, but its also a formal you in german, though its capitalized in that case, but since german sentences are always capitalized at the start as opposed to english, its impossible to tell here.
English does capitalise proper nouns, like "English" and "German", though :P But you are right, it could mean "you would have come". I have to say, though, that it seems a bit contrived. Maybe as a question...
@@AHHHHHHHHHHHHl Not far off actually, "(I have been told/I have figured out) I should write this response as if it can be seen." 'Yazmalıyım' is just I should write, 'yazmalıymışım' indicates some sort of revelation about the obligation of the act of writing, by using the "heard past tense" as we call it (as opposed to "seen past tense", which indicates a past event to which we have bared witness).
In many dialects of American English especially those clustered on the Northeastern portions frequently make use of "to jump" in a transitive sense such as "They jumped him yesterday" denoting that he was attacked in a surprise fashion by some group of people. Dialects make everything more fun!
Yknow, the first language i tried to create for my comic (its called zhiwai), i actually came to a lot of these conclusions on my own, which is baffling considering i was in a manic hyperfixation, flailing about with notebooks and sheets of looseleaf and spreadsheets scattered all around me every night and weekend for months. I wanted something simple so i created, essentially, some root words encoded from english and tried to expand out from there while simultaneously creating a writing system based HEAVILY in hangul because i thought hangul was the COOLEST. But there were some issues with how it read. I wanted the language basically to keep some aspects of the story mysterious for a time, so the romanization shouldnt have mattered. But then it became more of a naturalistic storytelling tool. Thats when i fell down the rabbit hole, creating grammar and syntax and trying to find a way to make it look and read more naturalistically. Eventually i burnt out on the project as a whole, but after finding this series, i think ill give it another shot, doing more research and using the general steps youve described.
Japanese has a really interesting example of aspect and tense. So Japanese has a present/future tense and a past tense. However, there is also a verb conjugation called the te form. What the basic te form means differs depending on the type of verb. To die in te form means has already died, but to eat means eating now.
I'm assuming you mean the te-form plus iru. From its basic meaning, it's the same. "The state of being/doing (something). Shinde iru = "being dead/has died", tabete iru = "being in the process of eating". Though I think this is slowly becoming more of a present tense while the lexical verb form is shifting into future.
That Finnish tense part seems to be wrong. "Minä näin koiran myöhemmin" is nonsensical and would literally mean "I saw a dog later", since "näin" ("[I] saw") is past tense. Correct version would be the present tense "näen" ("[I] see"), or just like in English, "tulen näkemään" which is "[I] will see" where the verb is in passive. Also "tulla" means "come" but serves as "will". (Also the inflection of the verb implies person, so the pronoun ("minä") can be left out to make the phrase seem more natural, so the way I would say this phrase in writing would be like "Näen koiran myöhemmin" or "Tulen näkemään koiran myöhemmin")
Ah yes, I can see now I must have copied ‘näin’ instead of ‘näen’ by accident when composing the sentence. That’s irritating, I wish there were a way to fix that. Thanks for pointing it out, though.
I don't usually use "tulla" to indicate future tense, i use "mennä" or "aikoa" instead; but this doesn't work with passive verbs like "nähdä". So, i would say "menen katsomaan"/"aion katsoa". Or in reality: "meen kattomaa"/"aijjon kattoo".
Love the thoroughness of your explanations - I wish there were more examples between explanations. Also - just nitpicking - to jump can take an object if you use it as to assault or attack suddenly he jumped them
My language is extremely in the works right now but it’s called Aldaranti. The name of the language is made up of two words: Aldara(meaning four people) and tighu (meaning to speak) altogether it’s “the language of the four people” and this is so because Aldera, the nation this language is spoken, is made up of four smaller kingdoms that fought in a war, but United at the end. This basically gives me a get out of jail free card for any massive changes in the language. The word “tighu” and the sounds “gh” and “kh” both said in the back of the throat, were slowly changed due to the southwestern kingdoms pronunciation. After years, it became normal to say standard k’s and g’s like that. The eastern nation brought by a lot of words that previously hadn’t existed in the northern region’s language, so some sounds were added to the alphabet, the main one being “oo” (as in book) As for my inspiration, I don’t know. There’s hints of mandarin and Arabic I took but overall I’d say it’s just a mish mash of many languages. As for the culture of the nation I’m focused on, I’m heavily basing it on China and parts of eastern Europe. If I had the mind to focus on one thing and expand on it accordingly, maybe I’d be more sure as to were my inspirations lie, but I’m not that guy. I can’t focus for the life of me. I’ll come to some conclusion, change it, and call it history. In the end, it doesn’t matter, because I’m the one telling the story.
Hypothetical tense - now that's interesting. If I build a conlang, I like the idea of using a future tense derived from "I hope" while a hypothetical tense derives from "I dream."
English does have a small number of preserved causative verb forms: lay (from lie), raise (from rise), fell (from fall). There's one other commonly cited one that I'm not thinking of, at the moment. Note that they all involve a shift in the internal vowel, because that's how 'strong' verbs got inflected, back in the day (no endings).
Quite right, although I don't think Finnish's system has a single all-purpose future encoding particle that fulfils the same function of "will" in English.
@@Biblaridion true. But overall, English can show future tense in the same ways finish does Neither have a future, although i guess for English it makes more sense as it's analytic.
@@friskjidjidoglu7415 just because it doesn't have a future tense doesn't mean it can't express the idea of the future just that is not in our morphology Chinese has no issue expressing the future either.
I got distracted because I wanted to check how my favorite conlang Ithkuil handles plurality and tense, and big surprise it's kind of complicated: Plurality is handled jointly by Configuration, Affiliation, and Perspective (mostly Configuration), and tense is handled by Perspective (it does double duty) and Extension. There are nine configurations and six extensions. Edit because I forgot to mention: Great video! You've earned a subscribe from me.
Plurals depend on how many in mine. One person is “khvaian” and many people is “Khvaien” “an” is singular, and “en” is plural. Khvai in its own could be used as well, but only in a more theoretical way. I mean that by saying that instead of talking about a person in front of you, khvai is talking about a person that doesn’t exist. It’s only used for hypotheticals. It’s the difference between saying “say a person did…” and “say ONE person did…” I’m not sure if that makes sense at all to anyone but me. This same rule goes for pretty much all nouns except names and concepts, names stand alone without suffixes, and concepts have to be determined to be plural or singular. “Death” for example has to explicitly state whether or not it is plural. Names such as surnames, unlike English, do not suggest more than one person in it. Where English would be “the smiths” mine would be “the smith” since it a family name, it is already apparent that there is multiple in it, so there’s no need for a suffix. Sometimes this stuff hurts my own brain. It doesn’t help I lose my papers and forget what I wrote on them.
Speaking of "doubling a word", in Chinese it kinda act as adding a "very" to the word, while in Japanese it can be to refer the "collection" of something, say, ki=tree, kigi=woods; hi=day, hibi=daily, but it can also mean "very" as well.
In my conlang, Xaski, the future tense preffix came from the word for time. The past prefix came from two words - the word for opposite, followed by the word for time. Thanks for making me understand grammar isn't REALLY BORING!
Tense is not aspect or mood. Most language teachers conflate the three terms to avoid using too much linguistics jargon and make themselves easier to understand, but this should never be done when teaching conlangers who need to know the differences between these.
True, and I think I say as much in the video. However, I would also say that Tense, Aspect, and Mood are never totally distinct from each other; you'll never find a natural language that has, for example, a verb template with three slots - one for tense, one for aspect, and one for mood. Usually verb inflections will encode some combination of the three, even if the inflection was derived from a single lexeme.
@@Biblaridion You conflated them at the start of the video. Tense, aspect and mood may be marked together in most natural languages, but they are still completely separate concepts.
@@edmund-osborne Yeah, from 2:22 to 2:46 Biblaridion referred to aspects as tenses several times. Later on he did explain about aspects, but that part in the beginning could really confuse noobs. :|
i have a conlang which has a "prophetic" tense. it's a language spoke by a species with the ability to recieve prophecies, but they're not always from the future, they could see into the past as well. unfortunately the prophecies never go into specific detail about when things will happen, and it's impossible for the prophet to actually remember the prophecy until it's spoken, so eventually a new tense came about that didn't assume a time period (although it is sometimes possible to figure out a time frame from context after the fact. the prophecies are like dreams, in that some people have very clear and straight-forward prophecies, and some people wake up rambling about vague symbolism and such). it only has third person, because the person is removed entirely from the prophecy, so relative concepts like "me" and "you" don't exist, there's only "they". since future prophecies are considered more useful, the prophetic tense is usually translated as the future "shall", even if it happened in the past, but it depends on the translator.
To mark tense on a verb in Españato 2.0: T is past, P is present, F is future, X is conditional. To mark imperfective aspect, you add an R after the time consonant. For the 3 persons, you use the vowels A, E and I. Indicative has stress on the last syllable (acute), subjunctive has stress on the penultimate (plain). If it finishes with N it's a singular, if it finishes with S it's a plural.
@@rosenberry9150 the tense is marked with a vowel, serfén means "you will be" for example. The number was just a similarity to Spanish, but since I wrote this comment I see that only nouns and pronouns should decline by person, and case is a better way to mark what is what. So, just serfé.
That's why Google Translate can't translate very well Update: This is a very old comment. I typed this 2 years ago, before Google Translator could translate as well as it can today.
@@devonoknabo2582 i guess lang creators weren't an exception to the "everyone's a dumbass equally, it only differs in which way from one person to another." quote of truth.
My first conlang, which I am currently making, Kuki, already has some grammar. Surrounded by parentheses means optional (C)(C)V(C) syllable structure. C is for consonant, V for vowel. Words should have 1 to 4 syllables Monosyllabic words require a consonant. Subject-verb-object word order. Vowels: a, e, i, o Consonants: b, d, ɸ, h, ʒ, k, l, m, n, p, s, t, θ Vowel letters: A, E, I, O Consonant letters: B, D, F, H, J, K, L, M, N, P, S, T ( and all their lowercase counterparts ) *Possessors* Order is possessor-possessee, similar to English. Kuki uses ' to show that something owns something else. Example: "Thike efaton' doboth." - "This person's heart." *Plurals* If a world ends with a vowel, then the plural should be suffixed with "-s", if the word ends with a consonant it should be "-is." Example: "Eleses' dobothis." - "Eels' hearts." "Eleses' desobes." - "Eels' beds." *Verb conjugation* Verb conjugation should be handled by affixes. If the affix starts with a vowel, and the original verb ends with a vowel, the affix's first vowel will replace the verb's last. "Be" as an adverb indicates that an action is currently happening, or was happening. Verbs in the present are also their infinitive. Tense: past(-ed), present, future(-ad) Example: "Mi bed dole, eth nomi mi be lod." - "I was small, but now I am big." "Joe deso." - "Joe sleeps." "Joe be deso." - "Joe is sleeping." "Joe be desed." - "Joe was sleeping." There are other rules, but I won't put them in this comment
Even though most finnish linguists don't consider it "good language" and prefer to use the present tense with context to signify future, finnish actually does have a future particle in the same way as "will": the "tulla" verb, meaning "to come", is commonly used especially in spoken language as a future tense of sort. For example, "syön" is "I eat". Normally to say "I will eat" you would have to explain the future tense with context or additional time markers eg. "syön huomenna" or "I will eat tomorrow", but many people use the "tulla" verb as in "tulen syömään" (literally "I come to eat" but understood as "I will eat")
Ayo thanks Biblariadon! I created a language called Himnu and I didn't know what to do for grammar. But, this video helps a ton and I was able to create solid grammar rules.
2:10 A native Finnish speaker here. You got it right when you wrote "Future = Present tense + time expression" but wrote "näin" instead of "näen" like it was supposed to be. Good job tho! Your videos have been a ton of help to me while I'm making my own conlang!
I found another tense from hitchhikers guide to the galaxy which describes time travelling to the future, coming back and then talking about the future in said new tense.
I made my tenses using the word for time. Which is read as "zeuzia." You start with a root verb eg. Makh-kshla (to reed) and then, based in the tense, you add a part of zeuzia. Past = +sia Present = +nothing Future = + zeu
"to die" is actually not active, it's passive, therefore "to kill" is active and the causative would be "to make someone kill someone" (you can't turn "to die" into a passive, it's already passive)
@@idonthaveausername8658 if you can come up with a situation where you make someone die without either killing them, or making/causing someone/thing else (to) kill them, it would probably be valid. Otherwise, not so much. Though "I shall write him such a letter that he shall die" is valid enough... Though the meaning is that it's a letter which will cause such emotion that the reader will have a heart attack or the like. Though, again,you're not making someone die, you're either killing them or causing them to be killed (even in cases of suicide.)
Yes and at 1:25 we don't have a collective plural form in German. Like, what's the collective plural of "Tasse" supposed to be? This just doesn't exist.
it gets especially confusing when words emdimg in the same syllable in singular have different endings in plural. Die Ampel (the streetlight) - Die Ampeln Das Kapitel (the chapter) - Die Kapitel
It may not be a single syntactic structure, but I believe there is causative in English, formed by the auxiliary verb "to have" + object + past participle >>> To have the light off.
Just making a note for myself: Plurals, tense-aspect-mood (auxiliary verbs), valency (i.e. if a verb can take what is considered to be the "object" in languages with a Nominative-accusative morphosyntactic alignment), causative
I'm not surprised, but am extremely disappointed. The one thing I struggled with when learning German was the distinction between perfect and imperfect past tense. My teacher couldn't tell me, she wasnt a good teacher anyway, but that was the one thing that made learning impossible for me. And yet I find it simply and easily explained to my when I look into what makes a language because I'm board.
I literally just put a certain word at the beginning of a sentence for future or unpredictable future, then one at the end for recent or distant past. Four different words for four tenses. Present is unchanged and usually taken literally, so my verb conjugations shouldn't be too effected by it.
For my language, you add extra symbols to the words to make it grammatically correct. Example: Oodloh yohnoh kiavie (keep in mind my language has different letters altogether so this is just the sound the letters make) and then you would add a dot like this ^ to represent the sentence was in past tense. This only counts for writing things down, but when you're speaking it the ^ is pronounced 'hid'
I got a lot of tenses... like a lot (29): Infinitive (to see) Present (I see) Past (I saw) Future (I will see) Present perfect (I have seen) Past perfect (I had seen) Future perfect (I will have seen) Recent past (I saw yesterday) Remote past (I saw a long time ago) Near future (I will see today) Remote future (I will see in the future) Present continuous (I am seeing) Past continuous (I was seeing) Future continuous (I will be seeing) Past future (I was going to see) Distant past (I once saw) Necessitive (I should see) Past progressive (I was seeing) Future progressive (If I will see) Conditional (If I saw) Past conditional (If I had seen) Present perfect continuous (I have been seeing) Past perfect continuous (I had been seeing) Future perfect continuous (I will have been seeing) Universal (People see) Usual (I usually see) Hypothetical 1 (I would see) Hypothetical 2 (I may probably see) Hypothetical 3 (I might see) Some, I named myself, like the hypothetical, universal, usual, and past future.
This is the episode of the series that makes you go AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA
I love this series, well done. :D As a Turkish speaker I do not have enough English knowledge to explain the correctness/falsity of the examples given, but the correct spelling of Turkish sentences should be in the following form: Ben köpeği görüyorum Ben köpeği gördüm Ben köpeği görüyormuşum Ben köpeği göreceğim Ben köpeği göreceksem Ben köpeği görseymişim Ben köpeği görmüşmüşüm Ben köpeği görecektim Ben köpeği görmüştüm Ben köpeği görmeliyim Thanks for this nice video, peace.
I would like to mention that chinese doesn’t have direct tenses, but does have tense markers that aren’t related entirely to time words. 我跑步(I run) 我在跑步(I’m running) 我跑步了(I ran)
I am Ukrainian speaker, and for the first time since I learned English construct "to be going to" in high school, I perceived it literally. So we use the construct "to prepare to"/”збираюсь" (which has roots to "gather my stuff (to go)"/"збираю себе
It's checkers where "jump" is undeniably transitive and still carries the same basic meaning as the intransitive form of the word. "jump the shark" is really a shortened version of "jump OVER the shark," so "jump" is intransitive here. "We jumped him and took his money" uses "jump" as a transitive verb, but there's not necessarily any literal leaping off the ground or over an object. The sentence uses an alternate meaning of "jump." In checkers, the word "jump" is used to literally mean one object passing over another and therefore requires an object. "I jumped your king." This transitive form of "jump" still retains the same basic meaning as the intransitive form.
I decided on a rule: what is modified/acted upon comes first and verbs splits subjects from objects. I have a feeling I'm making an ergative language but it'll be interesting.
In Germany there are some well quiet a few special cases like the word “Zug” (train) its plural is “Züge” (trains) which adds the dots on the u and the e German is complicated
My past tense will completely depend on if there is a word like yesterday. Unlike how I added 'in' to make something plural, nothing will be added to the verb to show its past, present or future tense. But then I thought, ' how will anyone know if you did/ are doing something in the past of today, or in the future of today. So I said " well, I'll just scrap that and put will, or have and if it doesn't have that, it's present. I'm not very good at this, but I don't care.
This is what I did for my tenses: Past not recent: If word ends in vowel then suffix p But if word ends in consonant then suffix i Past recent: If word ends in vowel then suffix l But if word ends in consonant then suffix a Present: Word stays same Future: If word starts with vowel then prefix b But if word starts consonant then prefix e’ But also if you are formally talking about a human then if word starts with vowel prefix t, and for consonant it would prefix u
For my grammar, I use the same word to mean different things. (I haven’t gotten a font together, so I will use the English versions of words) For example, saying “You book” would mean “Your book”, and “You sad” would mean “You’re sad”
Turkish tenses page is full of wrong information. Conditional is not a tense, it is a mood. Turkish have two past tenses. Future progressive should have been future conditional. Görmüşmüşüm does not mean "I once saw a dog". It means "some say that I saw a dog ut it is not correct". It signifies disbelief
in mine mamamia means please and repetition emphasizes meaning so mamamia mamamia mamamia let me go means pretty please with a cherry on top let me go.
Well, it depends about how your tense system works. Basically, decide if the unmarked form of a verb is interpreted as the perfective or the imperfective. If it's the imperfective, then the continuous and perfective may be marked by affixes, while if it's the perfective, then, since the continuous is a subset of the imperfective, then the imperfective marking might just be interpreted as a sort of continuous anyway. Alternatively, if you wanted to go with a deeper time-depth, you could say that the proto-system had a perfective/imperfective distinction, and then later, some auxiliary verb got used with the unmarked verb to make the continuous (I do something pretty similar to this in part 7).
chinese does have a future and past tense kind of thing but its hard to say if its a tense or not. they put 会 or 了 before or after the verb to indicate if an action will be completed, is complete or happened already. for example: wo zuo wo de zuoye - i am doing my homework; wo hui zuo wo de zuoye - i will/can do my homeowork; wo zuo le wo de zuoye - i did/finished my homework.
Hey, is there someone who can help me on the valency parte? I'm really confused about the passive... How could "I animal see take" mean I'm seen by the animal? For me it sounds like "I take the vision of the animal". And finally, could you give me more examples of how to evolve a passive?
2:03 A few corrections: Mingtian is tomorrow, not yesterday, and 'I have seen a dog' is 'Wo kan guo gou', not 'Wo kan gou guo'. The 'guo' is usually affixed to the verb.
I'm really embarrassed that I got 明天 wrong. I messed up a lot with the Mandarin in these episodes (mostly because I was relying on what little Mandarin I can speak).
The mandarin sentences all have some mistakes in this video, first, as a native mandarin speaker, 我看狗 is rare used, it means more like "I'm staring a dog", we would use the verbs 看到 or 看見 more and these verbs show the sudden actions that just happen immediately, so we would use the perfective aspect particle 了, so the sentence 我看見了狗 is more natural. Then 我看見了一隻狗, 我看見了很多狗. The other mistake is the aspect marker 了、著、過 must always be after the verb, so the sentence * 我看狗過 is false, it should be 我看過狗. Yeah, the 過 here is an experienced aspect marker, not an adverb tho. Keep working on learning Chinese, it would help you know more than Indo-European languages 😆
Uh. Dude, sorry if I sound disrespectful. But, Chinese writing sistem have thousands of ideograms. To me it feels like learning to read is a life long process. How did you felt when started to learn an alphabet based language, like english, with only 26 characters?
I'm making a conlang too, in mine, "the person will take the animal" as in "the person will adopt the animal" is: "Sanaɾi kenawa-oɾ Átibvuss", is pronounced as [Sanaɾi kenawa-oɾ atibβus], and in direact translation, something like "Person will take dog"
Stupid question, but I ran into this thing in my attempt at conlanging. Let's say I'm doing the future tense the way it's in the example (using "to go" as an axulliary verb). Would a sentence "A person will go" (using the sample langage from the vid) be "Alu ua ua"? I know English works this way (A person is going to go), but this sounds waaay less awkward due to first "go" being in continous form. My brain just can't accept seeing two identical words repeated one after another. Is that a legit language thing, or does it sound too artificial to be plausible?
Good question. There's no simple answer, but its quite likely that the original word for "to go" will lose its semantic meaning and become pure grammatical marking, and then some other word, possibly meaning something like "to move" or "to walk", will become the new word for "to go".
Thanks a lot for reply :) Guess I'll end up switching from "to go" to some less used verb in my language. I'm thinking either about using "to become" or just going the English way and using "to will".
hey, i'm working on a conlang of my own, and i was wondering if you have a template that i can use to write down all my words, sounds, rules, and grammar. thanks!
The only thing that I've understood from this series so far is: Turkish being coined the name "the hardest language to learn" is justified, which I never understood as a Turkish person
So my language primarily evolves from English and I just had an idea for the plural. So basically they're saying 's for their plurals but over time things change and they start to say 'sâ because sometimes it's hard to hear an s at the end of a word on its own. Eventually that causes them to start saying Sá for 'more' which evolves to Sán 'many'. So 'winters' goes from Nyins TO Nyin'sa And Sányin is many winters. However Nyin means cold. So evolved from cold(s) to more cold to many cold. So 'there will be more cold in winter' would be Nyisa Nyin Cold more winter {Colder winter} VS Sanyi ~~Nyin~~ Nyinsa Many cold ~~winter~~ winter more {Many cold Winters} To write as simply as possible anyway.
Ok so on 2:10 it says: 'Minä näin koiran myöhemmin' is supposed to be written 'Minä näen koiran myöhemmin'. It is very important because 'näin' means: 'i saw' and 'näen' means 'i see'. So basically it says: 'I saw a dog later' and it doesn't make sense. Sorry...just had to point that out.. XD
This is awesome and informative. Nitpicking a bit but in Mandarin, 只 pronounced ‘zhǐ’ usually means ‘only’ whereas the measure word 只 is usually pronounced ‘zhī’
Sometimes plural form of a word is completely different from a singular one. Like person and people Same in Russian Человек/люди As well as there are some words in a language that does not follow the usual way for making it plural Child/children And for sure even the common way sometimes affect the word, changing a sound/stressing ( sometimes in order to avoid too much similarity with some other word that already exists) Or adapts itself to be easier to pronounce and just sound nice I think it’ll sound more realistic if adding some exceptions for a few words, not just a strict same pattern
3:29 The verb to have is used for the perfect tense, not the perfective aspect, and therefore does not mean the action has been completed. For example, "I have seen the dog" vs. "I have been seeing the dog".
Tbh i think there's a confusion between the perfective and imperfective aspect and the global and secant aspect. It's probaly because of the definition of Saussure who nammed "perfective/imperfective'' what's now called "global/secant" ;p
In 2:23 I need to correct some of them as a Turkish speaker. Pluperfect should be “Ben köpeği görmüştüm.” Necessitive should be “Ben köpeği görmeliyim.” Also all those “kopeği”s needs to be “köpeği”. Other than that everything is perfect. I love your videos. Thank you :)
I have a new system! I haven’t done any research, so I may be wrong in thinking that this is a first, but I’m excited anyway! My conlang, Tarivinian, has noun gender suffixes stuck on the ends of verbs, which are different depending on the tense. For example, the sentence ‘Osa saw the dog’ would be: ‘Osa fūeya ostno’. Broken down, that’s: Osa (Nominative) fūe (dog) ya (Accusative suffix) ost (to see) no (female perfect suffix). It’s complicated, but very good for breaking the language down to simple MORPHEME-MORPHEME-MORPHEME etc. word structure. What do you think?
Verbs that inflect for the gender of the subject are totally possible (Hebrew, Russian, Swahili, etc.), it just depends on how you're deriving these gender/tense suffixes. Most of the time, gender evolves from separate adjectives that get affixed to nouns and pronouns, and then gender agreement on verbs evolves when the gender pronouns get affixed to the verb. If you do it like that, then the tense and gender suffixes might fuse together over time into a single inseparable suffix, which sounds like what you're going for.
Thank you! I never expected to get a reply from you, but there we go! Also, if you would like me to put a link to my conlang in the comments, just ask! I would love to share my first conlang with an expert, so you could critique me in the areas that I went wrong in. When it’s finished, of course.
a sentence in my language so far: "anaketala saroki lapu noko matara fita anerataku" /anaketala saɾoki lapu noko mataɾa ɸita aneɾataku/ [FUT] person animal [PLR] big thing to see cause (the person will be made to see the big animal)
I used a liquid in every noun, and used a rolled R for plurals, and a 'regular' R for singular nouns. Ex. Ura (tree), Urra (trees). (I don't know if Romanizing the rolled R as 'rr' was the best idea.)
