Conlanging Case Study: Part 35 - Participles, Adjectives, and Adverbs
Vložit
- čas přidán 15. 08. 2023
- Theory Neutral podcast - open.spotify.com/show/0fb2gsd...
Conlangery podcast - conlangery.com/episode-list/
PATREON: / biblaridion
DISCORD: / discord - Věda a technologie
I feel like "manlessly"/"tolookiindo" over time might develop into senses like "automatically", "mechanically" or maybe even "inevitably"
2:30 there was a legendary post on Tumbler a while ago where some guy claims any noun can become a verb if you're brave enough. It devolved to a remix of Webster's and someone asked how are we able to understand their meaning when fundamental grammar is completely subverted.
The answer:
"When English doesn't english properly, Brain brains by itself to logic that English!"
I'd propose that since you've seen a prevalence of adjective-like uses of participles, then the human brain likely has some subconscious, hard-coded wiring that avoids verb-like usage even if etymology. :)
"you just can't verb a noun"
That seems to really depend on context and which noun you're verbing . At least in my friend group and the corners of the internet I look at, 'english' and 'brain' are fairly regularly used as verbs, but your example sentence isn't one we would use. I suspect because we have specific meanings in mind, specifically 'think/understand' for 'brain' and 'speak/make intelligible' for 'english'. Also, I think we try to avoid using a word in two different ways in the same sentence. Further, we generally expect the subject to be a person. Finally, we almost always use those two "verbs" in the negative, as well (for example, "I just couldn't brain that puzzle," or "I was so tired I couldn't even english.")
There are exceptions such as "unicorns don't real" (subject not a person) and "I just verbed that noun" (not negative).
@@silverharloe This a genuinely good reply. (Love) (appreciation for genuine contradiction)
Afaik I can't support nor discredit your personal anecdotes. But I can claim that the instances you've described are verbing a noun that shouldn't be a verb. Would that not fall into the (admittedly way too general) category of fundamental grammatical subversion? A noun becomes a verb, an adjective becomes an adverb. Pure subversion, pure under-dog support? Could've your friend-group's affluence for English language on the English dominated Internet guided you all towards a skewed POV of verbing non-verbs?
@@theorixlux2605 I don't really know the answer to your last question, but I'm an older fellow and my friend group met in college around five years before the internet was generally available. Playing with language and stretching it to its limits was a bit of a game for us - many subversions were tried and only some survived as amusing enough to keep using. I wonder, however, if this isn't a normal thing that happens in language all the time - does the verb sense of 'hand' not derive from the noun 'hand'? Was there someone saying, "hey! you can't use that noun as a verb!" the first time someone said "hand me that"?
Also, I'm not claiming any of us were poets, but poets do poke at the edges of the language often, too. (As did Shakespeare, but I'm no bard).
How many verbs were coined directly from nouns? Is there a particular reason we should be saying "only the correct verbs were coined from nouns in the past. We've done all the ones we should have, and all the ones we did before were good so we definitely shouldn't stop using any of those, but any new attempts to coin verbs from nouns are just wrong." ?
I don't know. You make a valid point and ask a very good question (though now I question how 'question' became both a verb and a noun), but I think I need to *table* the question until I can do more research.
I can human as much as I man
Tech for robots isn't required to imagine inanimate objects which act like a person - the golem legend is ancient, as are variations of animate trees.
I have no idea what this man is saying but I am still enjoying the heck out of it
For some reason the idea of a difference between "like an X" and "X-less" being just one letter (-nk-/-k-) seems really funny to me. I can just picture an unfortunate non-native speaker screaming in frustration at how unreasonable, non-intuitive and flat out stupid his TL is. Kinda like "venal" and "venial" in english or in a similar vein "obsequies" and "obsequious", or on the opposite end "flammable" and "inflammable". As a non native english speaker I get similar vibes. Though admittedly doing that not as an exception but as a general pattern might be a lot more exasperating.
In English can and can't is kinda like this
cause most speakers turn that final t in can't into a glottal stop, meaning the difference is very subtle between two opposite meanings
@@northwesternmapping9069 yeah, I saw a doctor four years ago and I'm still unsure whether he said "I can confirm (that diagnosis)" or "I can't confirm (that diagnosis)" - I heard it as "can't" at the time and assumed it was nothing, but a couple months later another doctor said "you came in for (that diagnosis) a couple months ago, why didn't you start treatment for it then?" - but since the original doctor didn't recommend any specific treatment, I guess he did say "can't", but who knows?
Can't speak for others, but hearing you play around with sounds until you find something you like sounds like a lot of fun.
your talking about verbal adjectives got me thinking about my research into hoe gerunds can, in many languages, serve an adjectival function. I know you mentioned it briefly, but it gave me food for thought here.
About the "inanimate thing that acts as a man": in Russian, the word for 'robot' /róbat/ is animate (therefore Acc.: sg. is /róbata/ and pl. /róbataf/ (and not /róbat/ and /róbati/)). And about animateness: in Russian, it's semantical, not etymological (like in your conlang). For example: /ul’ítka/ can mean both 'snail' and 'cochlea'; if it means 'snail', Acc. pl. is /ul’ítak/, if 'cochlea' - /ul’ítk’i/
P.S. I used slashes kinda incorrectly, it's not IPA
It makes sense that Robot is animate since it derives from the slavic root for "serf-work" or "hard-labour"; the comparison to labourers and serfs was very intentional in the original Czech R.U.R. play
@@doorhanger9317 sorry, but that's total BS. Yes, it makes sense, but because of meaning of the word robot, not its etymology.
Also it's kinda funny that the Russian word for 'dead man' /m'irtv'éts/ is animate.
Not having watched this yet, and barely remembering the last one, my main comment is that *of course* participles behave like adjectives because the whole point of them is that you want the syntax of a noun with a verb's meaning. If you wanted the verb's meaning with a verb's syntax, you would just use a verb, not bother with participles. As for relative clauses, I think that's because they're a lot "heavier weight", mentally speaking, than "mere" adjectives. Adding an extra clause to a sentence is a lot more fuss than throwing in an extra adjective. But maybe that's just my anglophone brain.
Yay new video you kinda sounded different at the start
the -iim suffix just gives me that "cellar door" feeling
Its always nice to see you upload!
Big fan of your channel
Where did your video on your favorite languages go?
Ooo, Hz. Biblaridion yeni video atmış
I honestly think you could regularize the case system through the inverse number where inanimate singular is the same as animate plural. I think it fits with your initial goal for the language and will make generating case tables easier as well as creating some irregularity with more common nouns if you wanted.
Woo! New video!
Yæy!
I have a video idea, making spelling reforms for languages that use latin alphabet to make them seem more beautiful?
did you delete your 'my favourite languages' video?
Hey Bibladorian, I was hoping you could give me some insight. When building a lamguage from the ground up, how do you "get around"/avoid stero-types in your translations? Purely as an easy example ,(emphasis on EXAMPLE), when you say "Tolo" means "man", we your viewers understand "mankind" thanks to context (that context being an object yhat acts like a man) (an object acting like a man would act exactly like how an object acting like a women would act)
Видео вышло в 16 августа в 22 часа по Бишкекскому времени
Ура, другой конлангер из Центральной Азии! Я из Алматы - Казахстан.
Kinda late but if you don't want geminate /d/ you could have it degeminate after intervocalic /d/ becomes /ð/. Making /ð/ marginally phonemic, contrasting only in rare situations where you previously had geminate d. I feel like that kind of stuff happens a lot in natural languages where the line between phonemes and allophones is blury, I think it'd be cool.
for an English example of blurring the line between phonemic and allophonic:
/θ/ and /ð/ have vanishingly (quite literally, actually) few minimal pairs. the "big" two being thigh/thy and ether/either. the former pair contains a word that's basically non-existent in most modern english dialects, and whether or not the letter even constitutes a minimal pair is dependent on your dialect pronouncing both initial vowels the same
So will this language have non-productive morphology pretty much entirely? Unusual for you!
What do you mean by non-productive morphology?
When will the final episode of the alien biosphere come out? Not to rush, just curious.
I'm not Bib himself, but I reckon it will be sometime in early 2024.
@@Chubbchubbzza007 thanks
q'i is a frigging cursed syllable hahaha
Oh hey blib
Hey
Heyy
Heyyy
Heyyyy
Heyyyyy
Heyyyyyy