A cool example of rebracketing is "bot" from "robot", even though the root of "robot" (which is originally a Czech word) is ultimately "rob" - a root that has to do with manual work
i know Im asking the wrong place but does anybody know of a way to get back into an Instagram account?? I was stupid forgot the account password. I would appreciate any tips you can give me.
@Ledger Adan Thanks for your reply. I found the site through google and I'm in the hacking process atm. Seems to take quite some time so I will get back to you later with my results.
How I conlang: 1. Make a basis for my conlang: phonology, word order, how I want verbs to work, noun inflections or not etc. 2. Make a basic proto-lang which can realistically evolve into my conlang. Proto-langs are almost always more complicated and so tend to have larger phonologies, more cases, more everything. 3. Keep flitting between the two to ensure that Proto-ABC can realistically evolve into A. 4. Get bored with A and decide I want to do conlang B. 5. Begin coming up with sound changes between Proto-ABC and B so I can have a sister conlang for A. 6. Run the Proto-ABC vocabulary through B sound changes to get my new words for B which are also cognates with A. 7. Decide I want to do C and it is going to be so different to A and B that I need to tweak Proto-ABC without affecting A or B. 8. Hyperventilate. 9. Go to step 1.
@@tuluppampam Yes languages can gain new features, but they tend to lose far more. Also, Proto-langs' phonologies tend to be more complex too. It's a general rule of thumb that languages simplify over time - even if they have a period of increased complexity, these new features will likely simplify over time, too. Just go and trace any European language back step by step and see how it develops.
@@entwistlefromthewho it seems to me after some research that currently the best theory about languages is that they go in a cycle of isolating>agglutinative>fusional, due to rapid speech merging everything together and eroding it Proto-Indo-European was extremely complex (i.e. fusional), so it clearly went on its way towards becoming more isolating, following the cycle Of course making your protolang very complex can allow you to evolve another language more easily, but it isn't a necessity Also, apparently, there's no proof that languages tend to simplify over time, given examples around the world
@@tuluppampam ^ If languages well and truly did simplify over time, we would expect that these many tens of thousands of years would have caused all language to be as dead simple as humanly possible. This is not the case. The mechanism causing languages to simplify is the exact same as the one causing them to complexify: the tendency for speech to shorten as much as it can before losing intelligibility. An easy example of complexity here is that auxilliary verbs in an analytic language might end up fusing to the verb they modify, thus causing the language to tend towards agglutination (see: i would not have X'd -> i'dn't've X'd). From this agglutination of multiple words, one may then be tempted to fuse multiple affixes together into one, causing the language to tend towards fusionality. After this, these affixes may become so scarce that they're dropped almost entirely, and once again replaced by auxilliary verbs to make the language become analytic again. Much of the naturalistic quirkiness in languages tend to come from the fact that this process is imperfect, and many vestigial remnants of older stages of the language remain and interact in odd ways with the newer ways of doing the same thing. Another point: proto-languages are not special. They are completely normal languages, and the mechanisms driving them are the exact same as any other language. If a language family were to derive from modern analytic languages like English or Chinese, we'd be just as likely to call them proto-languages as we would archaic synthetic languages like Proto-Indo-European. As such, it is only a matter of preference where your proto-languages rank on the degree of synthesis scale. I like to evolve my languages from isolating to highly agglutinative, but others may enjoy phasing out complex fusional grammars for highly analytic ones. In either case, just remember that all of the same linguistic rules that apply to your conlang also apply to your proto-conlang.
This series is fantastic! You do a really great job of explaining concepts and making them accessible. (Just for future reference though, ‘Esk*mo’ is a slur, and the Esk*mo-Aleut language family is also called Inuit-Yupik-Unangax. I don’t believe you had any ill intent though.)
@@naolucillerandom5280 also wait for any Spanish speaking country to sue the USA for turning the word negro (black) into a slur Or even Italian countries (which is basically only Italy)
id say that while 'eskimo' isnt really offensive, its used in an offensive manner and that changes our view of the word some actual inuits dont say eskimo is offensive but that its better to use inuk/inuit still you probably shouldnt use it to call an inuk, but in a historical/linguistic sense, imo, its ok to use it if the names already been established or its what was used at the time if eskimo-aleut has been solidified as the name of the language family already, then i see no reason why not to use that name also, eskimo isnt slur level, at most its just a mildly offensive term its a little like 'indian' for 'native american', even though its seen as being kinda offensive by non-natives, many natives actually use the term 'indian' to describe themselves you can use inuit-yupik-unangan as much as you want but for lots of other people its eskimo-aleut. however, i am not saying theres anything wrong with inuit-yupik-unangan or avoiding the term 'eskimo' anyways, im just voicing my own opinion here. feel free to believe whatever you want
I believe in the mama and papa theory, which is probably, no, definitely how it happened Mama and papa naturally arise as sounds human babys make, sorry to those of you who are parents, so its only natural to expand that further into more words Try to debunk the mama and papa theory, but im sure you'll have a hard time (No "Get an actual linguist to say that" type of thing, real arguments please)
Wasn't it like wifman and wereman, with man being person? Then the wif luckily turned into a more reasonable wo, while people just dropped the were entirely, though keeping it for things like werewolf (so technically speaking you could argue that it only implies men to become wolves, while a female one would be a wifwolf, a lot cooler in my opinion)
The term derives from "wif" (woman; female) + "mann" (person; human), thus "female person", basically. The two terms did eventually change in meaning to become "wife" and "man", specifically, but that happened after "wifmann" was already coined. If you think it odd that we'd derive a word that means "woman" in part from a word that already means "woman", you may also want to see "wæpnedmann", which derives from "wæpned" (man; male) + "mann" (person; human).
