MOR101 - The Nature of Words 

Resourceful, graphic, scientific, clear, suggestive, and amazingly focused on the topic, this kind of video class is bound to be in the preference of thousands of university students. This is a significant step in the development of our teaching-learning theory and practice.

Excellent lessons! These videos clear up a lot of doubts that I get in my Linguistics classes or when I study alone. It's great for all those questions we don't ask our Ts 'cause the class is too big and there's obviously not much time for each of our doubts. Plus, whenever I get doubts from rereading the material, this answers them much be'er...too many books in Linguistics explain topics as if we were all abstract thinkers (like linguists), but we're just beginning to discuss topics!

Very good ,sir.

We have all sorts of E-Assessment that we couple with our virtual sessions and our E-Lectures. You have to become a member of the VLC to make use of all these facilities.

Even though you wrote it in Arabic, we understand: Thanks a lot, we'll try our best.

Thank you for these lectures. They are very clear and easy to follow.

Great video, Professor Handke. I would like to point out a small issue with the Chinese example though. The word 两 (liang) is a fall-rise tone in isolation. However, Mandarin Chinese has tone sandhi rules, the most notable of them being the change that occurs when two fall-rise tone syllables occur together. The measure word for books(本）（ben) is also a fall-rise tone, so the tone value of 两 should change to a rising tone in this particular context according to Mandarin tone sandhi rules.

09:56 This kinda reminds me of how it works in Polish: The word for "book" is "książka", for "two" is "dwa", but "two books" is "dwie książki", so "dwa" changes into "dwie", because it has to inflect to the feminine gender of the word "book" in plural (because we have "książki", which is plural, instead of "książka", which is singular).

Ich hab einfach nicht zu sagen ...exzellent 👍

thanks professor...really i have got clear and well idea

isolating Languages use classifiers and particles a great dal. Most Descriptive Grammars would never consider them a word--maybe a clitic. Although some classifiers can represent nouns as in Thai.

good call on the japanese ones - i forgot about those - reminds me of the 'ang' 'ng' 'sa' 'mga' of tagalog - but then that raises the issue of the difference between 'clitics' and 'determiners' ('the' and 'a' in english) - i think dan everett (the 'piraha' guy) wrote a book on that some time ago and argues that there are no clitics in any language - never read it though

This may or may not be related to the content of the video. If it is not, I apologize profusely. I'm a writer who's just finished your phonology section. I'm making a constructed language for one of my projects, and was wondering what order I should undertake it in, and if you'd be able to tell me which playlists would be most helpful in this endeavour. I've got the phonology and phonotactics down, but making the grammar is confusing me to no end; is this the playlist I'd want to watch first?

His work (An SIL type guy who rejected the missionary agenda) changed many people's mind about Chomsky Grammar and gave more credence to a Van Valen RRG (at least for world's languages--Chomsky works well for English, though)

clitics are a very interesting topic for me - can you think of any particles/ clitics in the isolating languages you're refering to (I'm assuming thai) or any other languages you know of that are NOT classifiers? in short: particles/ clitics that are not classifiers (A)? i know they (A) can be seen as 1) future markers in bosnian - 2) location markers in turkish ... but am curious about non-classifier particles in isolating languages if there are any?

(Cont.) If you go back and listen to the way your student pronounces it, you will notice she pronounces 两 with a rising tone. Then, why did she tell you it was a fall-rise? I suppose it is because when you asked the question about its tone value, you were referring to 两 in isolation, so your student either was defaulting back to the isolated pronunciation in her mind, or she is not completely aware of the tone sandhi rule herself.

yea - chomsky bugs me - his m.a. thesis - the whole affix hoping thing - works very well for english - and because of this basically established the field of modern syntax - but you can't really establish a set of rules for one language and expect it to apply to all the languages in the world good point though - it makes me wonder what's going on in some of the syntax journals right now - i miss that stuff :(

Very helpful...just I need some help.... I'm a student of 3 year englis language...so if yo can advice me what shall i read and learn because the sociolanguittics will be my option next year....thank you

Are you saying that you understood without translating these words into English?

U don't have a quiz in ur website ??

They are in all isolating languages: Shan, Bru, Lao Su, etc. just study minority languages and you will find out. Also, Japanese 'wa' 'ga' 'o' AlsoItalian and Spanish have clitics. Particles are all over isolating languages. Lots of MAs and PhDs written on them just do the research

I think there is too much emphasis on getting a gramamr that can describe any language int eh world (thus RRG which is pretty complex). To me it's like a map: a map of London might not work in Bangkok but that doesn't mean it's not the best map of London. Syntax does drive the grammar in many languages--but again not all (e.g., Latin). Particles that operation at phrase, clause, or complex clause level--you really just have to specialize.

it's a professor.

this is classic Arabic, and no one in the real word using it