Video

C and X are useless though and can be substituted with other characters, even with intervocalic voicing you can just remove the useless E at the end and make S strictly the /s/ sound.

as a polish speaker it's absolute cap that masculine word ≠ male ect

As Ukrainian I can't hear the difference between w and v

To be honest. Communication as a whole is made up, that's why there are so many versions of it (languages, dialects, accents), that does it really matter how we classify it if we all understand it either way?

and of course the word will originally had the same semantic meaning as wish or want. and then it gained a future meaning. And it can still mean that in rare occasions, but i suppose linguists will do what they will

1:33 notice how all of them use (except for hemp) use the character for horse, including the character for horse itself.

Thought this said My Mom's Most Controversial Video

If you couldn't tell these videos were made by a Leftist, I don't know what to tell you, lol. (Complimentary)

I don't see how "It will rain tomorrow" is more certain than "it's gonna rain tomorrow". I think there's a subtle difference but i don't think that is it. Semantically, any sentence I can think of that uses "will" or "going to" to indicate a future event has an equal amount of certainty. "If you keep on like this, you're going to lose your job" "If you keep on like this you'll lose your job" "if you keep on like this, you WILL lose your job" In all cases, the speaker expresses a certainty.

Tbf the circumflex is etymologically really interesting

"English has no future (tense)" and it was settled

I am a German native speaker and the grammatical gender of German makes perfect sense and isn't arbitrary at all. The only thing not making sense are the labels attached. May them be called masculine, feminine, neuter, male, female or männlich, weiblich, sächlich, they are all wrong. When looking on German words, more than 99 % don't have a natural gender or sex. So why do we label the gender categories by those exceptions and not by the rule? When you consider the oldest attested Indo-European languages the system actually is quite clear: - The grammatical gender wrongly termed masculine is the standard gender reserved for nouns without something special. In Latin these are the nouns usually ending in -us. - The grammatical gender wrongly termed neuter developed later and is reserved for results of actions or words which are dealing with an action. In Latin these are the nouns usually ending in -um. - The grammatical gender wrongly termed female developed last and is reserved for words with an abstract meaning. They developed to give words kind of an summing up meaning. In Latin these are the nouns usually ending in -a. Grammatical gender developed as a tool to derive new words in an easy way in Indo-European langagues. This is the secret super power of grammatical gender. So why do words for animate beings of female sex fall into the third category? Because all of them are abstract derivations from other nouns to specifically mark that this word denominates someone with female sex. Here is the point where the historic dominance by persons with male sex becomes visible. The old Indo-European system has been carried on by German to a large extent until today, e.g.: schreiben -> der Schreiber -> das Geschriebene -> die Schrift to write -> writer (someone who writes) -> something written (the result of the act of writing) -> script (the abstract system used to write something down) German does this even with borrowings from languages which don't have a gender system, e.g.: - comeback: das Comeback, because it grammatically describes an activity or procedure - a band: die Band, because it grammatically is an abstract description for a group of people There are expcetion to this but then these words usually first have been used by specialists or are denominations for animate beings of female sex. Over the course of time, there have been shifts in gender, as well. But they are all due to words losing their endings, leading to that shift just because the rules of the German grammar don't alow the changed words to stay in the previous category.

Boo-hoo "bUt RaCisM" Fuck off. You see "racism" because you want to be offended. You even said it yourself 10:49 Soooo close to self-awareness but missed it.

As someone who types in hebrew I just assumed this how how it is supposed to work

talking about "will" as though it's a tense is useful to teach children about grammar that indicates something about time, but that doesn't make it true. It's a simplification. You don't have to talk about aspect and modality and so on to give a basic overview of how time works in English this way, it's nice and simple. But because it's so nice and simple, it also means it can't accurately describe how English truly works, because it's so much more complicated. It's complicated in ways that don't really make sense to teach a 5-year-old about. However, if someone has already learned another language, it's a very different story. In that case, you want to use the tools that they already have to teach them about English. And conversely, if you want someone to learn a second language, doing away with the simplifications they've been taught about English will also much better equip them to handle whatever new language they're going to learn.

someone make a conlang with a similar premise but actually speakable

‏0:34 My hot take: (sometimes) prescriptivism is good, actually.

6:01 bro mandarin has the word hui for the feature, Zheng Zia for present continuous, le for past (I did), and gou […] le for I have done. Also nothing just means I do

Couldn't agree with you more! The English "future" is a set of related constructions that indicate the future in the discourse, but are not morphological. It reminds me of William Croft's take on construction grammar. He proposes that things like tenses, adjectives, and other categories, can only really be defined as those things if they fit the strict and narrow definition. But, since most of every language doesn't fit these narrow definitions, we can refer to the meaning/role they play in the sentence. Saying "I will go to the store" is a future construction meaning that I will perhaps travel to the store at some point in the future. Especially since English is so analytic, we don't do too much in the way of morphology, but have a plethora of periphrastic constructions to achieve these meanings. When you say that English is past/non-past, that isn't a limit on what we can express in English, it's just a description of our *morphological* range of tense. All is possible in every language!

I completely agree

still better than poliespo

idk feels like its getting overcomplicated when you grow up with it, it just comes natural

Autism mentioned 😃, Its indeed like learning Chinese

Brücke its so much beautiful than puente it doesn't depends by its gender. It happens the same with cockroach, in Spanish it's LA cucaracha and in Catalan it's LA panerola, it's so much beautiful in catalan and so disgusting in Spanish. In conclusion, I think it depends about the word and the gender only influence the perception, but the power is in the word. I appreciate your valuable time that you spent to read this text ❤❤.

I have tried it as well. My ChatGPT had the perfect solution for the grammar. If you add “-nom” to the noun, it is nominative, if you add “-acc” to the noun it is accusative and if you add “-gen” to the noun it is genitive To conjugate verbs it uses a similar system. “-1sg” is first person singular, “-1pl” is first person plural, “-past” is past tense and so on. So the sentence “Loma kal-gen naki mita-nom taru-3sg” means “The small friend of the big house eats” (word by word it would be: “Big house small friend eat” with house being genitive and friend being nominative). And “Sefa nilo-nom reka-acc tosa-3sg-fut” means “The happy child will see the tree” (word by word: “happy child tree see” with child being nominative, tree being accusative and see being 3rd person singular in the future tense. How did it come up with such a creative grammar? And yeah, “The small friend of the big house eats” is one of the actual examples ChatGPT gave me. Oh and by the way, if you wonder about pronunciation: Gari mita-pl-nom loma kal-pl-gen taru-3pl-past Is pronounced as: /gari mita-la-nɔm loma kal-la-gɛn taru-im-po/ So yeah, absolutely logical: The grammatical markers seem to have a different phonetic inventory. Cause ɔ and ɛ did not exist in the original inventory, and while the pronunciation for the words is pretty straight forward, you really have to learn how to pronounce the grammatical markers. But I have to give some credit: For now it was pretty consistent.

2:53 frr

no spanish native speaker would ever say the form "ir a + verb" is a tense, it's just periphrasis. it really goes over my head that people can't seem to see that in english too🤨🤨🤨

Man, you just come here and kick the hornet’s nest and then leave.

The fact that you did not reveal that important dead langue makes me so mad i cant even

Lowering government spending TENDS to be great for the economy, EU is actually a burden on germany.

thank you estrogen tom scott <3

It's *not* fun. It's tedious, tiring and VERY stressful. VERY.

Saw this on my feed. I don't know who you are or the context for whatever you're talking about... But the answer is yes. To finalise this piece, I shall click off without ever understanding what even happened here.

Don't have a horse in this race but great vid:)

this goes agaist everything I've been taught about he English lanugage in the most satisfying way and I'm not gonna lie, I kinda love it

I love watching linguistics videos on CZcams, (they were actually my first introduction into the topic before I was old enough to enroll in a university and become a linguistics student), and I'm beginning to notice a pattern whenever linguistic data about the way language subconsciously works is brought up. Time and time again, people will get incredibly defensive, even aggressively so, about the way they think they speak their native language when the truth is counterintuitive. A recent example that comes to mind is a video by Ling Otter (or something like that, I don't remember the name perfectly) about allophones in Spanish. For instance, how the d will be pronounced as a voiced dental plosive when preceded by a consonant, but softened into more of a dental fricative when preceded by a vowel. A common example of this is the initial D in dedo vs. a dedo, which in the first instance, is distinct from the second D, as the second one is always preceded by a vowel. In the second instance, where the same phonetic environment exists for both D's, they sound alike. But due to the fact that these are allophones and thus practically unnoticable to L1 speakers unless pointed out, many Spanish native speakers commented under that video that this is misinformation and to not believe him, forcing him to do a followup video adressing the comments (who were ironically spreading misinformation by claiming his claims to be misinformation). And now the same happened to you. Just goes to show how important language is to people, I guess, and how deeply we care about it

This is interesting because I have OLP. It’s a type of synesthesia where I subconsciously give all words a gender. I’ve tried learning French, but it was so hard because I would gender words based on how my OLP genders words. Eg. for me shoes are very masculine but in French they are feminine.

bro's changing english all by himself

1:44 well, maybe that's in Serbian but I speak Croatian and bol itself is a feminine word, I've never heard anyone refer to it as male So ig it depends on context if it's physical or mental pain

wait so does german not have a future tense either? because id translate "i will" directly into "ich werde" so is that both not future tense? or does it just magically turn into one because it switched languages? why? Im so confused

Soon

masterpiece

Hakka speaker here. In fact many Chinese dialect sharing same word with others, just different pronouncing. Over the past 2000 years, people have migrated from the north to the south in waves due to wars. In the northern region which is mainly flat, transportation was convenient and communication was frequent, so people's pronunciation was easy to maintain consistency. In the southern region which is mainly hilly mountains, transportation was blocked. As long as they were separated by mountains and rivers, the people on the two sides might not have communicated for hundreds of years, which easily led to the formation of dialect islands. On the Chinese internet, southern netizens often jokingly say that southern dialects have retained the pronunciation of ancient Chinese.

3:29 The PC ("J'ai joué") is more often used for the simple past to be fair to you, but I wouldn't say it's completely different because it can also carry this "retrospective present" meaning, i.e. "J'ai joué au football toute ma vie

lol 古德猫宁(gu de mao ning)

I bet most of the people disagreeing with you on this point are motivated by emotion not logic (welcome to the internet). They don’t like the idea their language is “lacking” something, in this case a grammatical future tense, so they make up illogical reasons why it does have one

Thought we only had these debates for Japanese, but nope English has is too lmao

I am with you, English and some other Germanic languages dot not have future tense in the same sense as other languages have.

2:35 they do be hunting rabbits tho

Why would Tolkien be thinking of black people? Creatives create their art based in their life and the other stories, in this case, myths that they consume. The books are clearly based on european culture and myth that is used to re create a soldier's fantastical view of a world after fighting a great war. Why would race be a source of inspiration of creation for him when religion, culture and personal lived experience is where he gets his inspiration. I'd be suprise if Tolkine ever talked to a black man. The obsession of race is a product of our time, and when talking about an author you have to contextualize his writing with his life. Whatever moder interpretation based on how you see the world is irrelevant to him and how he saw the world. Wanna see race and call the orcs black people? Go ahead, but it was clear to me when you saw them rising from the ground and mud that they where symbologyof men going through hell and war represented as a creature, just how those soldiers turned into killing machines during the war. If you ask me, ever comparing the orcs with with black people when there's nothing to link them outside of a color spectrum is insane. We even have the fact they are born of the elves, implying thematically that they where people that where took and turned to this beings forged for war. It might be harsh now, but black people are quite irrelevant or unexistant in european folklore and culture, the generations that lived when european countries where 99% european are still alive, there is no lore of non-europen in europe, unlike the US, europeans didn't, you know, know about black people or care for them, for that matter, they where to ocupied living their lifes to give a relevant or long lasting thought about people from a diffrent culture far away with more melanin.