6:33 "If the rock is seeing me, then we've got bigger problems." Although, if The Rock is close enough to see you, you might be able to smell what he's cooking...
The conlanging notifications are really the ones I love to receive and why I watch this channel ! I hope you continue those videos even though it's not what brings the most views
I have to say - I think this is my favourite Conlanging Case Study video. The wonderful surprise of the Word document, my sudden realisation of how much progress has been made in this language, along with the overall passion, joy and confidence in your voice... You deserve this rest after the stress of Alien Biospheres. I am always amazed by those videos, and I know these ones aren't at popular, but this is the content that I love your channel for. Thank you.
For those conlangers working on syntax, Artifexian has some great videos about setting up the word order for a language, one of which features Biblaridion as a guest. Those videos changed how I approach syntactic systems in my conlangs ever since.
The possessor can be put into relative clauses in Spanish as well: Vi al hombre *cuyo* libro leí. (lit: I-saw to-the man whose book I-read), so basically the same in English, only cuyo agrees in gender with the possessed object: El hombre cuyo libro leí (Book-masculine singular) El hombre cuya novela leí (Novel-femenine singular) Even though this is still valid, it's falling out of use very rapidly.
@@yogatonga7529 Usually smth along the lines of "El hombre qué escribió el libro que leí" (The man who wrote the book I read-past) or "El hombre del libro que leí" (The man of the book I read-past)
You could also avoid cuyo like this: Vi al hombre el libro del cual leí. Apparently something that's common but frowned upon in formal speech is the replacement of cuyo with que su, which they call quesuismo. Here I guess it'd be: Vi al hombre que su libro leí.
@@somebodyelse9130 That first sentence sounds so wrong to me as a native spanis speaker. I would change the order to "Vi al hombre del cual leí el libro". Also, the second example ("Vi al hombre que su libro leí") sounds like a weird mixture between formal and informal Spanish, not being natural in any. It would be better expressed changing the position of the verb to "Vi al hombre que leí su libro"; even though the one you said is technically correct.
I think internally headed relative clauses would work well in this language, since you could have a rule where the focused noun (surface subject) in the relative clause is always the head of that relative clause. I was going to do this with a direct-inverse conlang that explicitly marked obviation on nouns (with the head of a relative clause always being proximate). (I'm realizing now that the line between gapping and internally headed relative clauses can be subtle or even unclear when only a word that would be at the edge (e.g. beginning) of the relative clause can be the head, though. In my direct-inverse conlang, I think it was obfuscated and thus I was confused by the language's rampant hyperbaton (in the Greco-Latin sense).) Also, the example of an internally headed relative clause in WALS definitely marks which is which is the head. To quote: In some languages, the head is inside the relative clause; these can be called internally-headed relative clauses. These are illustrated by the examples in (3) from Mesa Grande Diegueño (Yuman; southern California and northwest Mexico); the fact that the head is inside the relative clause is clearest in (3a), in which the head (gaat ‘cat’) occurs between the subject and verb of the relative clause. (3) Mesa Grande Diegueño (Couro and Langdon 1975: 187, 186) a. ['ehatt gaat akewii]=ve=ch chepam [dog cat chase]=def=subj get.away ‘The cat that the dog chased got away.’ b. ['ehatt gaat kw-akewii]=ve=ch nye-chuukuw [dog cat rel.subj-chase]=def=subj 1obj-bite ‘The dog that chased the cat bit me.’ What determines whether 'ehatt ‘dog’ or gaat ‘cat’ is interpreted as the head in these examples is the presence versus absence of the subject relative prefix on the verb: its presence in (3b) signals that the head is the subject of the relative clause, namely 'ehatt ‘dog’, while its absence in (3a) signals that the head is something other than the subject, in this case gaat ‘cat’.
Re: how to figure out which noun is being relativised in internally headed relative clauses, it's not really necessary. There are plenty of langs with participles that only use context to distinguish what's being relativised.
Not that this affects the point you were making at that point in the video at all, although the locative possessive construction definitely does exist in Turkish, it's usually used for what is basically temporary possession and the more default way of conveying predicative possession is by using a genitive possessor and a possessed noun in an existential phrase, e.g. benim bir köpeğim var.
About your decision to shift stress with the singulative suffix, that's exactly what happens in Breton because systematic penultimate stress (though tbf it's often used to integrate loanwords from French like candle "boujienn" from "bougie" or nerve, "nervenn" from "nerf"
Slavic languages care about accusative and animacy. Inanimate masculine and neuter nouns look the same as in nom when in the acc, whereas animate masculine nouns in the acc look like gen
East Slavic languages do a similar thing to the one you described with possession. E.g. in Ukrainian: У мене є птах Word for word: In I-acc be-3sg bird Meaning: I have a bird
у кого, у чого - то не знахідний, то родовий, але тут вживається у формі прийменникового відмінка глагол-зв'язка у нас не змінюється, та "птах" стоїть у називному тобто глосс буде "at 1SG.GEN/PREP COP bird-NOM"
17:53 This is what I found on how you know what the element being relativized is: _"In her 1987 article, Williamson observed that in Lakota the head in an IHRC (internal head relative clause) cannot be marked as definite. This “indefiniteness restriction” has been generalized to IHRCs in general and to date no evidence has emerged to counter this claim."_ So in the Hidatsa language, in a sentence like: [Wacéeš wašúkawa akutíheeš] šipíšac. [wacée-š wašúka-wa aku-tí-hee-š] šipíša-c [man-det.d dog-det.i rel.s-die-3.caus.d.sg-det.d] black-decl ‘The dog [that the man killed] is black.’ (det.d: definite determiner / det.i: indefinite determiner / rel.s: specific relative / 3.caus.d.sg: third person causative / decl: declarative mood) You know the dog is the head of the IHRC because man is marked with the -š definite determiner and dog with the -wa indefinite determiner. A noun with the -š definite determiner cannot be the head of the IHRC because the definiteness of the clause is placed at the end of the relativized verb (here in akutíheeš, with that -š ending), so the only option for the head is the dog with the -wa ending. Then again, Hidatsa DOES mark the relativeness of the verb with the aku- (or aru-) prefix (seen in akutíheeš) and with the definite determiner -š sufix at the end of the verb. I don't know how that would be in other languages.
8:50 two things: 1. You’re probably thinking of the de facto neuter declension, which is usually the third column in tables, but is considered a variation of the second declension. 2. In Laton, virtually ALL neuter substantives and adjectivals share a single form between the nominative and accusative
so is "applicatives" the technical term for latin and ancient greek verbal prefixes ? like "con/syn-meta", "ex", "ab/apo", "ad/epi"... ? which can all promote the verb direct object's to the cases they govern themselves (usually instrumental or genitive)
Stress could be shifted within certain nouns' paradigms as part of regularization. This wouldn't have to effect the auxiliaries as they are more frequently used and can be more irregular
Also, Turkish has a rule saying nominative object has to be right next to the (final) verb. This sometimes raises a problem of ambiguity. As another rule, Turkish adjectives act like adverbs without a change: "Yeni ekmek aldım." I just bought (a load of) bread. Yeni: new/just Ekmek: bread Al-mak: to-buy, aldım: I (have) bought Now that we cannot insert the adjective between the nomative direct object and the verb, it has either to preceed the object or follow the final verb. If not, the sentence can also mean "I bought a new loaf of bread.", for an adjective must follow its object in Turkish, as another rule. SOV system has come to be the default word order; and therefore, other structures like SVO are generally abstained from in official contexts like media, television etc. However, in dialy life it is often violated(!). How can this problem be solved? 1) It can be easily understood from the context. 2) By placing a comma after the adverb to cut the relation between the two words ("Yeni, ekmek aldım."). However, while speaking it is generally not possible. 3) By taking either the nominative object or the adjective after the final verb ("Yeni aldım ekmek.", "Ekmek aldım yeni."). However, this could put the emphasis on the word before the final verb, especially if written. Note: you cannot make the object accusative (ekmek(NOM.) -> ekmeği(ACC.)) to arrange the word order in accordance with the SOV structure because it will make the object definite (the bread).
I'm assuming you are talking about the template of a reference grammar. I think you can find one in the description of video 101 or 102 of LangTime Studio channel. That's the reference grammar David and Jessie works with.
Interesting you mention Ainu, which is indeed a very fascinating language. Its neighbour Japanese actually has my favourite type of relative clause: you litterally just put the verb in front of the noun, no extra marking needed. 'The dog that I have' would be 'motteiru inu', lit. 'take-PROGRESSIVE dog', and the person is based on context (Although you can add the person: watashi ga motteiru inu 'I NOM take-PROG dog')
I think that shifting the stress will involve changing a lot of forms, which you've said you didn't want to do. I think it might be best to just stick with the stress rules you have.
What can you tell us about your plans for ts'ap'u k'ama and suma'a, and how well are the current versions of those languages developed or how much more development is needed on them?
wow, that's funny, in my conlang I did something very similar with the possessive constructions. were "my dog" would be "dog, I have" but then the verb "have" got suffixed and formed the genitive case
Concept: A language uses pronoun retention for relative clauses in the "proto-lang", but then evolves a totally different pronoun set, and the old ones are reanalyzed as relative pronouns.
(I might do that myself actually, for a language whose "thing" is that the proto-lang was agglutinative, it went through a stage of aggressive synthesis, but sound changes destroyed the system so much it was reanalyzed as an isolating language, with most of even the transparent derivational strategies being rendered non-productive)
In German there are 2 strategies for relative sentences. The much more common one is using relative pronounce, but you can also use participles. With that strategy only the subject can be relativized, but you can use valency for other parts of speech. for example Ich sehe den mich gestern getroffenden Mann. I see the me yesterday meeting man/ I see the man who met me yesterday Ich sehe den von mir gestern getroffenen Mann. I see the by me yesterday met man/ I see the man who I met yesterday
I think there don’t have to be any clarifications for the internally headed clauses, as long as the relative clause doesn’t have too many arguments and some of them are pronouns it should be clear.
Language that (sort of) does not allow the subject to be relativized: Chukchi. Only absolutive nouns can be relativized in Chukchi. Relativization on ergative nouns requires an antipassive construction first. Also, one possibility for inalienable possession (especially if you don't like those forms): Maintain the older genitive (now accusative) but only for inalienable possession, using the phrasal construction with 'have' for alienable possession.
the notion of "subject", both transitive agents and intransitive subjects, doesn't generalize well to ergative languages. r. m. w. dixon's "ergativity" has a chapter on this. but the absolutive is the default noun case in ergative langs, like the subject/nominative is in accusative languages, so them both being at the top of the accessibility hierarchy in their respective types... that makes sense and feels like a more generalized consistent rule to me.
@@cassiopeiasfire6457 hence my "(sort of)", because the question of whether the ergative or absolutive should be seen as more subject-like in a transitive clause doesn't have a simple answer and is likely to vary between languages. That said, morphological ergativity doesn't necessarily imply syntactic ergativity, and so while not a full counterexample Chukchi is still notable in terms of relativization restrictions.
Side question, is there a linguistic connection to alienability and animacy? Cause I can totally imagine a language that decides on alienability based on the possessee's animacy.
If a language can't relativize subjects, then it generally can't relativize anything. If a language can't relativize anything, than whatever it does instead is in danger being called a form of "relative clause. Are correlative, adjoined, and especially doubly headed relative clauses really relative clauses?
can I make life start on land? Can I make speculative evolution of self replicating machines? when will you introduce a sapient species to your alien biospheres project?
6:33 "If the rock is seeing me, then we've got bigger problems." Although, if The Rock is close enough to see you, you might be able to smell what he's cooking...
Dude I know this isn't as popular as your Biospheres videos, but this is what I subscribe for. I'm really excited to see how this develops.
Me too
Absolutely the same, as well as all the other conlang/linguistics vids
same
Same!!
Idem
The conlanging notifications are really the ones I love to receive and why I watch this channel ! I hope you continue those videos even though it's not what brings the most views
You should definitely do a feature focus on applicatives - I feel like that’s something I haven’t heard a lot about that seems really really cool.
that would be wonderful! i find applicatives beautiful but often confusing in the details.
I think a video just on valency in general would be pretty cool.
Ahh, possessive construction, the thing that makes written Hebrew basically a different language from spoken Hebrew.
I have to say - I think this is my favourite Conlanging Case Study video. The wonderful surprise of the Word document, my sudden realisation of how much progress has been made in this language, along with the overall passion, joy and confidence in your voice... You deserve this rest after the stress of Alien Biospheres. I am always amazed by those videos, and I know these ones aren't at popular, but this is the content that I love your channel for. Thank you.
back "soon", this is lightspeed!
For those conlangers working on syntax, Artifexian has some great videos about setting up the word order for a language, one of which features Biblaridion as a guest. Those videos changed how I approach syntactic systems in my conlangs ever since.
These are by far my favourite of your videos, beside your conlang showcases and feature focuses obviously!
Same here!
"If the rock is seeing me, then we have bigger problems"
The possessor can be put into relative clauses in Spanish as well: Vi al hombre *cuyo* libro leí. (lit: I-saw to-the man whose book I-read), so basically the same in English, only cuyo agrees in gender with the possessed object:
El hombre cuyo libro leí (Book-masculine singular)
El hombre cuya novela leí (Novel-femenine singular)
Even though this is still valid, it's falling out of use very rapidly.
What do you use instead?
What do you use instead?
@@yogatonga7529 Usually smth along the lines of "El hombre qué escribió el libro que leí" (The man who wrote the book I read-past) or "El hombre del libro que leí" (The man of the book I read-past)
You could also avoid cuyo like this:
Vi al hombre el libro del cual leí.
Apparently something that's common but frowned upon in formal speech is the replacement of cuyo with que su, which they call quesuismo. Here I guess it'd be:
Vi al hombre que su libro leí.
@@somebodyelse9130 That first sentence sounds so wrong to me as a native spanis speaker. I would change the order to "Vi al hombre del cual leí el libro". Also, the second example ("Vi al hombre que su libro leí") sounds like a weird mixture between formal and informal Spanish, not being natural in any. It would be better expressed changing the position of the verb to "Vi al hombre que leí su libro"; even though the one you said is technically correct.
I think internally headed relative clauses would work well in this language, since you could have a rule where the focused noun (surface subject) in the relative clause is always the head of that relative clause. I was going to do this with a direct-inverse conlang that explicitly marked obviation on nouns (with the head of a relative clause always being proximate). (I'm realizing now that the line between gapping and internally headed relative clauses can be subtle or even unclear when only a word that would be at the edge (e.g. beginning) of the relative clause can be the head, though. In my direct-inverse conlang, I think it was obfuscated and thus I was confused by the language's rampant hyperbaton (in the Greco-Latin sense).)
Also, the example of an internally headed relative clause in WALS definitely marks which is which is the head. To quote:
In some languages, the head is inside the relative clause; these can be called internally-headed relative clauses. These are illustrated by the examples in (3) from Mesa Grande Diegueño (Yuman; southern California and northwest Mexico); the fact that the head is inside the relative clause is clearest in (3a), in which the head (gaat ‘cat’) occurs between the subject and verb of the relative clause.
(3) Mesa Grande Diegueño (Couro and Langdon 1975: 187, 186)
a.
['ehatt gaat akewii]=ve=ch chepam
[dog cat chase]=def=subj get.away
‘The cat that the dog chased got away.’
b.
['ehatt gaat kw-akewii]=ve=ch nye-chuukuw
[dog cat rel.subj-chase]=def=subj 1obj-bite
‘The dog that chased the cat bit me.’
What determines whether 'ehatt ‘dog’ or gaat ‘cat’ is interpreted as the head in these examples is the presence versus absence of the subject relative prefix on the verb: its presence in (3b) signals that the head is the subject of the relative clause, namely 'ehatt ‘dog’, while its absence in (3a) signals that the head is something other than the subject, in this case gaat ‘cat’.
Re: how to figure out which noun is being relativised in internally headed relative clauses, it's not really necessary. There are plenty of langs with participles that only use context to distinguish what's being relativised.
"It’s tempting me…" yes me too Bib, every new verb mood sings to me
Today is my birthday! Thanks for this awesome birthday present Bib!
Happy birthday
@@kjartanruminy6297 Much appreciated
Happy birthday!
@@adlai8086 Thanks. You guys are the best
Happy birthday!
This is my favorite of your series’
Your conlanging videos are my favorites!!!
Not that this affects the point you were making at that point in the video at all, although the locative possessive construction definitely does exist in Turkish, it's usually used for what is basically temporary possession and the more default way of conveying predicative possession is by using a genitive possessor and a possessed noun in an existential phrase, e.g. benim bir köpeğim var.
I love your conlang videos! Keep at it!
About your decision to shift stress with the singulative suffix, that's exactly what happens in Breton because systematic penultimate stress (though tbf it's often used to integrate loanwords from French like candle "boujienn" from "bougie" or nerve, "nervenn" from "nerf"
i liked during the little intro section purely because i'm so happy to see another one of these so quickly
I normally dont like conalang vids but i respect what you love doing and am gald your taking a break from alien biospheres you deserve it champ.
Slavic languages care about accusative and animacy. Inanimate masculine and neuter nouns look the same as in nom when in the acc, whereas animate masculine nouns in the acc look like gen
East Slavic languages do a similar thing to the one you described with possession. E.g. in Ukrainian:
У мене є птах
Word for word:
In I-acc be-3sg bird
Meaning:
I have a bird
у кого, у чого - то не знахідний, то родовий, але тут вживається у формі прийменникового відмінка
глагол-зв'язка у нас не змінюється, та "птах" стоїть у називному
тобто глосс буде "at 1SG.GEN/PREP COP bird-NOM"
17:53 This is what I found on how you know what the element being relativized is: _"In her 1987 article, Williamson observed that in Lakota the head in an IHRC (internal head relative clause) cannot be marked as definite. This “indefiniteness restriction” has been generalized to IHRCs in general and to date no evidence has emerged to counter this claim."_
So in the Hidatsa language, in a sentence like:
[Wacéeš wašúkawa akutíheeš] šipíšac.
[wacée-š wašúka-wa aku-tí-hee-š] šipíša-c
[man-det.d dog-det.i rel.s-die-3.caus.d.sg-det.d] black-decl
‘The dog [that the man killed] is black.’
(det.d: definite determiner / det.i: indefinite determiner / rel.s: specific relative / 3.caus.d.sg: third person causative / decl: declarative mood)
You know the dog is the head of the IHRC because man is marked with the -š definite determiner and dog with the -wa indefinite determiner. A noun with the -š definite determiner cannot be the head of the IHRC because the definiteness of the clause is placed at the end of the relativized verb (here in akutíheeš, with that -š ending), so the only option for the head is the dog with the -wa ending.
Then again, Hidatsa DOES mark the relativeness of the verb with the aku- (or aru-) prefix (seen in akutíheeš) and with the definite determiner -š sufix at the end of the verb. I don't know how that would be in other languages.
More Biblaridion = best Biblaridion
Very nice video! I honestly like the conlanging case study series a lot.
Here's some romaniztion suggestions, maybe use for /c/ and for /ɟ/, and for /ɕ/ and for /ʑ/, and for /ħ/ and for /ʕ/
Keep up the good work!
8:50 two things:
1. You’re probably thinking of the de facto neuter declension, which is usually the third column in tables, but is considered a variation of the second declension.
2. In Laton, virtually ALL neuter substantives and adjectivals share a single form between the nominative and accusative
so is "applicatives" the technical term for latin and ancient greek verbal prefixes ? like "con/syn-meta", "ex", "ab/apo", "ad/epi"... ? which can all promote the verb direct object's to the cases they govern themselves (usually instrumental or genitive)
Won't making the nominative/locative identical in inanimates break the inverse number?
Stress could be shifted within certain nouns' paradigms as part of regularization. This wouldn't have to effect the auxiliaries as they are more frequently used and can be more irregular
Yes, Hebrew only uses the direct object marker את /ʔet/ before a definite or proper noun.
Also, Turkish has a rule saying nominative object has to be right next to the (final) verb. This sometimes raises a problem of ambiguity. As another rule, Turkish adjectives act like adverbs without a change:
"Yeni ekmek aldım."
I just bought (a load of) bread.
Yeni: new/just
Ekmek: bread
Al-mak: to-buy, aldım: I (have) bought
Now that we cannot insert the adjective between the nomative direct object and the verb, it has either to preceed the object or follow the final verb. If not, the sentence can also mean "I bought a new loaf of bread.", for an adjective must follow its object in Turkish, as another rule. SOV system has come to be the default word order; and therefore, other structures like SVO are generally abstained from in official contexts like media, television etc. However, in dialy life it is often violated(!).
How can this problem be solved?
1) It can be easily understood from the context.
2) By placing a comma after the adverb to cut the relation between the two words ("Yeni, ekmek aldım."). However, while speaking it is generally not possible.
3) By taking either the nominative object or the adjective after the final verb
("Yeni aldım ekmek.", "Ekmek aldım yeni."). However, this could put the emphasis on the word before the final verb, especially if written.
Note: you cannot make the object accusative (ekmek(NOM.) -> ekmeği(ACC.)) to arrange the word order in accordance with the SOV structure because it will make the object definite (the bread).
You could require the operations on “to have”, and then do some suffixing or something.
Do you have reference grammars of your other languages? If so, how do you write them and have you ever thought about making them public?
I'm assuming you are talking about the template of a reference grammar. I think you can find one in the description of video 101 or 102 of LangTime Studio channel. That's the reference grammar David and Jessie works with.
Love this.
Interesting you mention Ainu, which is indeed a very fascinating language. Its neighbour Japanese actually has my favourite type of relative clause: you litterally just put the verb in front of the noun, no extra marking needed. 'The dog that I have' would be 'motteiru inu', lit. 'take-PROGRESSIVE dog', and the person is based on context (Although you can add the person: watashi ga motteiru inu 'I NOM take-PROG dog')
I think that shifting the stress will involve changing a lot of forms, which you've said you didn't want to do. I think it might be best to just stick with the stress rules you have.
What can you tell us about your plans for ts'ap'u k'ama and suma'a, and how well are the current versions of those languages developed or how much more development is needed on them?
You might need to stick this under the announcement video, I’d love to know the answer
wow, that's funny, in my conlang I did something very similar with the possessive constructions. were "my dog" would be "dog, I have"
but then the verb "have" got suffixed and formed the genitive case
In Latin, the definition of the neuter gender is the word has a common subject/direct object form.
9:41-12:18 If those are the operations for the modern lang, then what are the operations in the protolang?
i love this 😀
You could have the inan. nominative shift to the akkusativ instead
which ainu grammar have you been going thru?
If that one word that caused a bit of a kerfuffle in 1054 is any indication, -que does as you say.
Concept: A language uses pronoun retention for relative clauses in the "proto-lang", but then evolves a totally different pronoun set, and the old ones are reanalyzed as relative pronouns.
(I might do that myself actually, for a language whose "thing" is that the proto-lang was agglutinative, it went through a stage of aggressive synthesis, but sound changes destroyed the system so much it was reanalyzed as an isolating language, with most of even the transparent derivational strategies being rendered non-productive)
You could have it so the verb “to have” gets fossilized in the possession construction, and then do turkish relative clauses.
7:00 what if the rock really does see me? Does 'I' take the accusitive and the rock remains nominitive?
Keep up the linguistics!
everyone gangsta until the rock sees you
In German there are 2 strategies for relative sentences.
The much more common one is using relative pronounce, but you can also use participles. With that strategy only the subject can be relativized, but you can use valency for other parts of speech.
for example
Ich sehe den mich gestern getroffenden Mann.
I see the me yesterday meeting man/ I see the man who met me yesterday
Ich sehe den von mir gestern getroffenen Mann.
I see the by me yesterday met man/ I see the man who I met yesterday
what's your overall feeling on acquiring a bigger audience due to Alien Biospheres's popularity?
You could just have a possession order
24:58, my favorite game show lmao
It’s time to play..... DERIVE THAT APPLICATIVE!!!
I think there don’t have to be any clarifications for the internally headed clauses, as long as the relative clause doesn’t have too many arguments and some of them are pronouns it should be clear.
Language that (sort of) does not allow the subject to be relativized: Chukchi. Only absolutive nouns can be relativized in Chukchi. Relativization on ergative nouns requires an antipassive construction first.
Also, one possibility for inalienable possession (especially if you don't like those forms): Maintain the older genitive (now accusative) but only for inalienable possession, using the phrasal construction with 'have' for alienable possession.
the notion of "subject", both transitive agents and intransitive subjects, doesn't generalize well to ergative languages. r. m. w. dixon's "ergativity" has a chapter on this. but the absolutive is the default noun case in ergative langs, like the subject/nominative is in accusative languages, so them both being at the top of the accessibility hierarchy in their respective types... that makes sense and feels like a more generalized consistent rule to me.
@@cassiopeiasfire6457 hence my "(sort of)", because the question of whether the ergative or absolutive should be seen as more subject-like in a transitive clause doesn't have a simple answer and is likely to vary between languages. That said, morphological ergativity doesn't necessarily imply syntactic ergativity, and so while not a full counterexample Chukchi is still notable in terms of relativization restrictions.
Side question, is there a linguistic connection to alienability and animacy? Cause I can totally imagine a language that decides on alienability based on the possessee's animacy.
A rather nit-picky spelling correction: it's "princip*al* parts" instead of "princip*le* parts".
.
If a language can't relativize subjects, then it generally can't relativize anything. If a language can't relativize anything, than whatever it does instead is in danger being called a form of "relative clause. Are correlative, adjoined, and especially doubly headed relative clauses really relative clauses?
another one!
lets gooo
can I make life start on land? Can I make speculative evolution of self replicating machines? when will you introduce a sapient species to your alien biospheres project?
pog he back
Haha Doug Dimmadome.
poggeres
Hello again
i was here.
38
Fourth!
Edit: Well 5th, Isaiah Samuels beat me by 1 seconds. I've never been this early before