Had to scroll so far(t) to find this comment

The Latin took it from unhinged to hysterical 😂

Well, it's a swine herd who is talking.

@@lighting7508 Just because he refused to pronounce the long vowel ē. ☹️

I was thinking isn't it possible to have passive form of "fart"? Surely, there must have been someone that has been farted some time 😂

how ironic

I feel like Polish spelling is so illogical as for a slavic language. with all those sz/cz and rz. so confusing for no reason

@@olkredesign2410 What doest it have to do with the grammar?

@@olkredesign2410It might look difficult when you first see it as a foreigner, but it’s not really bad at all when you get into it. Sz/cz aren’t any less logical than English sh/ch when you think about it, and at least they always make the same sounds. I’m not Polish either but it’s got a good system

@@maxf9291 I studied Polish so I know what I am talking about. English spelling is not predictable/logical at all, so its pointless to compare with it. In Polish sz and Ś make the same sound. So there are two ways to write same sound. In Czech or Slovak it makes a little more sense and it's not just a bunch of wovels

Yes, seeing all the inflections that Finnish has retained, and coming to the conclusion that it hasn't become more analytic is a bit of a mistake. There are so many constructions that are becoming obsolete in favour of ones with more words and fewer inflections. For example, several of the 15 nominal cases are used only rarely. The abessive case (essentially "without") is generally avoided in favour of using the preposition "ilman". Talotta - > ilman taloa

That's more in the style of southern/western speech. The eastern dialects are more conservative. However, I'm starting to hear more and more young people speak the southern dialect in the east too

Finnish is not a real language though. "Kokoo koko kokko kokoon. Koko kokkoko kokoon? Koko kokko kokoon." I mean... They are not even trying to make it look realistic!

@@spookyr "Buffalo buffalo Buffalo buffalo buffalo buffalo Buffalo buffalo" So, seems like English is not a real language either.

Do you know when this happened?

but once the new analytic system is stablished, if it becomes cumbersome, and all speakers are fluent fro. birth, could the excess prepositions and auxiliaries start to be appended to the core information and do the inverse tragectory?

That’s not necessarily true. With Romanian, which has had constant contact with Turkish, Ukrainian, Bulgarian, Greek, Hungarian and other neighbours (and rulers), we see still a case system and suffix articles. So your argument is invalid for Slavic languages, German (which still has a robust case system), Romanian, etc.

@@pedroavellarcosta9389that is curious too

@@masonharvath-gerrans832 But my argument isn't "languages lose all their inflection when in contact with other languages", it's "languages change to be easier to learn as they grow, because they grow by being learned, and learners tend to simplify or skip the hard parts." Romanian hasn't really grown since it split off from Latin, and the historical situation in the Balkans is characterized by multilingualism and code-switching. Giving us the Balkan Sprachbund (where languages in close contact become more similar over time because speakers don't like to change things up too much when switching languages or borrowing expressions from another language). So that's a very different dynamic. That said, Romanian is still a lot "easier" than its ancestor Latin in terms of abstract morphological rules you need to learn.

İ am russian speaker, I have witnessed this time and time again with caucasians and central asians

possibly just longevity in locale. someone else here suggests its expansion which simplifies. in animal evolution new territories and colonisation tends to favour specific dominant organisms whereas isolation, segregation and lots of time created more diverse niches.

likely because you're comparing them to modern languages. Back then they were just "languages".

@@Fnidner the context matters. Why would an ancient language, closer to the point of inception and with a less complicated lifestyle to facilitate, be more complex than a modern one with thousands of years of additional data and a much wider range of education and professions? Why would a language back then be more complicated than one now? Remember that it would have to evolve and standardize to that point in the first place. What was the need that forced that?

@@OsirusHandle that doesn't really answer the question, though. What about developing civilization would cause a language to become less complex? Why would a hunter gatherer tribe NEED a super complex language, much less one more complicated than people who have mastered countless fields of science and sent men to the moon?

@@palariousit’s not about complexity. Remember that for the most part, nobody was even literate. There were no standard dictionaries nor any lingual sciences. The vast majority of all the ways we label a language “complex” are rules and structures that are meaningless to any speakers that learn innately. It was also exclusionary. Only those with access and wealth can learn to be literate in any language. These languages become complex when trying to be studied or standardized as they were never meant to be anything but oral. And even when it was written form, spellings and grammatical structure was yet to be standardized.

So, we need to make sure no one speaks our languages?

@@ukyoize I assume your question indicates a conservative attitude wherein language simplification (or maybe changes at all) are bad. I reject this idea - changes within a language, whether in the direction of more simple or more complex, are value neutral. They just happen, and we need not do anything to prevent nor encourage them. That aside, any argument that yields the conclusion "we should prevent people from learning x language" must necessarily have some absurdity within it to grant such an absurd conclusion.

Counterargument regarding your examples of auxiliary verbs of mood that supposedly didn't exist in Middle English. How come these exact same auxiliaries of mood/possibilty also exist in German - which obviously didn't undergo any creolization: could - könnten (inf.), would - würden (inf.), should - sollten (inf.), will - werden (inf.), might - möchten (inf.)

I’m not disagreeing with your comment. But it shows why it’s important to separate the idea of simplification without quotes from languages becoming less agglutinative. I don’t doubt that Middle English speakers were capable of communicating what Old and Modern English can about future moods etc. that’s more something I’d expect from a pidgin and not a common language. I guess what I’d be wanting to know is how languages go the other way- if those periphrases become agglutination over time otherwise how do agglutinative languages ever come about? But that’s on me that I’ve never looked into it. Swedish followed a similar timeline, and is about as simple as English and grammatically very similar (and verbs are simpler). English has a roundabout mannerism that came from the Norse and the Danes etc. that sounds more intelligent or polite or poetic to native English speakers. All the words are there in Swedish, but to draw words out just isn’t a thing and neither is colouring tenses. Eg. I don’t think progressive tenses are making up for shades of verbs lost in Middle English. Old English and Modern Swedish have them they just don’t care to use them much even though they’re not creoles.

@@ukyoize - I am not sure what you are asking. Languages change constantly, to the point where the Modern English of Shakespeare needs to be translated into the Modern English of today, and how today's spelling is weird but made perfect sense when spelling was fixed before the Great Vowel Shift.

I actually have another UKposts channel called Serapeum Historia, so this isn't my first rodeo lol

That's what I was thinking too, until he chose "fart" as his example of an English verb. Smh.

@@Swine_Herdthought it was you! Too well spoken to be some other Brit hahaha.

He got the Latin wrong: “domibus nostris” not “nostra”, to say nothing of “out houses” instead of “our houses”. Rather carelessly done IMO. And choosing “fart” is just childish.

@@john.premosethat’s a great verb. It’s a weak verb and one of the oldest reliably traceable Indo Europeans verbs (I haven’t watched the video so I don’t know the relevance of it here).

Bulgarian is a rare case among slavic languages where "to be" verb is widely used in present tense.

@@Miraihi Is it tho? I think it's mainly East Slavic languages (Russian, Ukrainian, Belorussian) that don't use it in present in the sense of 'to be' but rather use the 3rd person one extensively to say 'to have'.

I'm currently learning Bulgarian, as a Englishman who has also learnt Russian to a decent standard, and it's interesting seeing the differences between the languages, it does feel like modern Bulgarian might be closer to older Slavic languages, than say Russian. I am enjoying the fact that you use the "to be" as an auxiliary verb though, I really 'missed' that about Russian!

@@pgf289 Bulgarian is certainly the closest we have to the old church Slavonic. Cyril and Methodius, the creators of the Cyrillic script and its predecessor, Glagolitic script, have been the missionaries at roughly the territory of modern Bulgaria. You can say that Bulgarian for Slavs is a bit akin to Icelandic to Scandinavians.

@@pgf289 good luck with your studies of Bulgarian. I think that learning it for someone speaking English or French is easier than other Slavic languages, if the goal is to learn the basics but if you want to go deep into the language, it's not easy. It really depends what you mean closer to old Slavic languages though. In what sense did you main it? It's a very interesting observation.

I would compare Russian and Bulgarian, which has lost all its cases, but developed (THE only one of the Slavic languages) a definite article. It's obvious how much bigger Russian is, but it's retained almost all the pra-Slavic cases, whereas Bulgarian - the source of most of our literary vocabulary - has lost cases. I think there is no single answer here, and each case must be studied separately.

The funny thing about the title is that it uses the dative case instead of the genitive :D

It's not a new thing in Low German. This phenomenon even aided the death of the genitive in Norwegian starting at least half a millennium ago through Hanseatic influence back in the 15th century. Expressions in the form "genitiven sin død" is still gaining popularity in Norwegian, but the genitive was dying anyway so "genitiven sin død" is now only competing with other alternative ways to express the genitive. The true genitive in Norwegian would be "genitivsens død", but nobody would say that. That would sound like mock poetry.

​@@midtskogenthis is so interesting. And, as a German, also scary for the genetive.

It's also the dative plural btw. For most Latin declinations, the datives and ablatives (sg and pl) look the same. So besides -ibus implying the meaning of 'plural' and 'case', there is also ambiguity of which case this actually is 😅

Yep that's correct

@@nullings. yeah, in most romance languages, there are situations where the same words (and sentences) can mean different things depending on the context.

You are right, thought the same

@@aureltoniniimperatorecomun4029 I can't find the form "domis" for the ablative anywhere. Not in my Rubenbauer Hofman grammar, not in wiktionary, nor on any other site that popped up when I googled it. Where did you find it?

Korean DOES have verb conjugation, it just conjugates for different features than Indo-European languages. For example "seung-chuhn-hae" and "seung-chuhn-hae-yoh" are two conjugated forms of the same verb. I thought Japanese did something similar. Whether the semantics could drift toward Indo-European version, I don't see why not. In my little time studying Korean I noticed that one of the more humble verb forms tended to be used for the first person, which makes sense. It's not hard to imagine that system realigning to a first person vs non-first-person, and maybe a second person vs. third person split happening later.

The Aramaic word for God is "Alaha". It's the word Isa PBUH used. Sounds familiar? Written without the confusing vowels it is written A-L-H ܐ ܠܗܐ (alap-lamed-he) as found in Targum or in Tanakh (Daniel, Ezra), Syriac Aramaic (Peshitta), reduced from the Arabic original (of which Aramaic is a dialect continuum as will be explained) it is written in the Arabic script 'A-L-L-H' (Aleph-Lam-Lam-Ha) add an A before the last H for vocalization. The word God in another rendition in Hebrew ʾĕlōah is derived from a base ʾilāh, an Arabic word, written without confusing vowel it is A-L-H in the Arabic script, pronounced ilah not eloah. Hebrew dropped the glottal stop and mumbled it, aramic mumbled a little less and it became elaha. Infact both are written written A-L-H in Arabic, it is pronounced i in Arabic and not A because it is an Alef with hamza below (إ أ ) They are two different forms of Alef. And it mean "a god", it is the non definitive form of A-L-L-H, in which the Alef is without a glottal stop/hamza,(ا), but this kind of nuance is lost in the dialect continua. infact "YHWH" itself is an Arabic word as discussed by Professor. Israel Knohl (Professor of Biblical studies at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem) in the paper" YHWH: The Original Arabic Meaning of the Name." jesus as his name is often misspelled due to the lack of the ayin sound in Greek, which was rendered to Iesous, coupling the nearest sound to ayin, same letter found in 'Iraq', which sounds entirely different in Arabic form 'Iran' in Arabic, with the -ous Greek suffix that Greeks typically add to their names 'HerodotOS', 'PlotinUS', 'AchelOUS' and later mumbled into a J. The yeshua rendition of Isa (his name in the Qur'an) PBUH which is purported to be the name of Jesus is KNOWN to had been taken from greek. Western Syriac also use "Isho". Western Aramaic (separate from Syriac which is a dialect of Eastern Aramaic) use "Yeshu". Western Syriac has been separate from Western Aramaic for about 1000 years. And sounds don't even match up. Syriac is a Christian liturgical language yet the four letters of the name of Jesus «ܝܫܘܥ» [ = Judeo-Babylonian Aramaic: «ישוע» ] sounds totally different in West vs East Syriac, viz. vocalized akin to Christian Arabic, Hebrew, Aramaic «ܝܶܫܽܘܥ» (Yēšūʿ) in West Syriac, but pronounced more akin to Muslim Arabic Quran character name Isa in East Syriac «ܝܑܼܫܘܿܥ» (ʾĪšōʿ). The reason for this confusion is their dropping of phonemes. Only someone that has no idea what the letters are or how they sound would have a name ending in a pharyngeal fricative like the ayin, if it were to be used in a name it would have had to be in the beginning, thus the Arabic rendition is the correct one. An example in English is how the appended -d is a common error amongst the English pronouncing Gaelic names. The name Donald arose from a common English mispronunciation of the Gaelic name Donal. Just how it is with donal becoming donald and the two becoming distinct and the original being regarded as something seperate so too did Isa PBUH turn to Iesous turn to jesus and when they tried going back to the original they confused it for yeshua ( ysu is how it is actually written) for Isa PBUH ( 3'eysah ) Schlözer in his preparation for the Arabia expedition in 1781 coined the term Semitic language: "From the Mediterranean to the Euphrates, from Mesopotamia to Arabia ruled one language, as is well known. Thus Syrians, Babylonians, Hebrews, and Arabs were one people (ein Volk). Phoenicians (Hamites) also spoke this language, which I would like to call the Semitic (die Semitische)." -Before Boas: The Genesis of Ethnography and Ethnology in the German By Han F. Vermeulen. He was only half right though, Arabic is the only corollary to "proto-semitic", infact the whole semitic classification is nonsensical as will be shown. "protosemetic" Alphabet (28), Arabic Alphabet (28), Latin transliteration, hebrew (22) 𐩠 𐩡 𐩢 𐩣 𐩤 𐩥 𐩦 𐩧 𐩨 𐩩 𐩪 𐩫 𐩬 𐩭 𐩮 𐩰 𐩱 𐩲 𐩳 𐩴 𐩵 𐩶 𐩷 𐩸 𐩹 𐩺 𐩻 𐩼 ا ب ت ث ج ح خ د ذ ر ز س ش ص ض ط ظ ع غ ف ق ك ل م ن ه و ي A b t ṯ j h kh d ḏ r z s sh ṣ ḍ ṭ ẓ ʿ ġ f q k l m n h w y א ב ג ד ה ו ז ח ט י כ ל מ נ ס ע פ צ ק ר ש ת Merged phonemes in hebrew and aramaic: ح, خ (h, kh) merged into only kh consonant remain س, ش (s, sh) merged into only Shin consonant remaining ط, ظ (ṭ/teth, ẓ) merged into only ṭ/teth consonant remaining ص, ض (ṣ, ḍ/Tsad ) merged into only ḍ/Tsad consonant remaining ع, غ (3'ayn, Ghayn) merged into a reducted ayin consonant remaining ت, ث (t/taw, th) merged into only t/taw consonant remaining The reason why the protoS alphabet here is 28 and not 29, is because the supposed extra letter is simply a س written in a different position, but it was shoehorned to obfuscated. In Arabic letter shapes are different depending on whether they are in the beginning , middle or end of a word. As a matter of fact, all of the knowledge needed for deciphering ancient texts and their complexity was derived from the Qur'an. It was by analyzing the syntactic structure of the Qur'an that the Arabic root system was developed. This system was first attested to in Kitab Al-Ayin, the first intralanguage dictionary of its kind, which preceded the Oxford English dictionary by 800 years. It was through this development that the concept of Arabic roots was established and later co-opted into the term 'semitic root,' allowing the decipherment of ancient scripts. In essence, they quite literally copied and pasted the entirety of the Arabic root. Hebrew had been dead, as well as all the other dialects of Arabic, until being 'revived' in a Frankensteinian fashion in the 18th and 19th centuries. The entire region spoke basically the same language, with mumbled dialect continuums spread about, and Arabic is the oldest form from which all these dialects branched off. As time passed, the language gradually became more degenerate, Language; When one looks at the actual linguistics, one will find that many were puzzled by the opposite, that is, how the other "semetic" languages were more "evolved" than Arabic, while Arabic had archaic features, not only archaic compared to bibilical Hebrew, Ethiopic, "Aramaic" contemporary "semetic" languages, but even archaic compared to languages from ancient antiquity; Ugaritic, Akkadain. What is meant here by Archaic is not what most readers think, it is Archaic not in the sense that it is simple, but rather that it is complex (think Latin to pig Latin or Italian or Old English, which had genders and case endings to modern English), not only grammatically, but also phonetically; All the so called semitic languages are supposed to have evolved from protosemetic, the Alphabet for protosemitic is that of the so called Ancient South Arabian (which interestingly corresponds with the traditional Arabic origins account) and has 28 Phonemes. Arabic has 28 phonemes. Hebrew has 22, same as Aramaic, and other "semitic" languages. Now pause for a second and think about it, how come Arabic, a language that is supposed to have come so late has the same number of letters as a language that supposedly predates it by over a millennium (Musnad script ~1300 BCE). Not only is the glossary of phonemes more diverse than any other semitic language, but the grammar is more complex, containing more cases and retains what's linguists noted for its antiquity, broken plurals. Indeed, a linguist has once noted that if one were to take everything we know about languages and how they develop, Arabic is older than Akkadian (~2500 BCE). And then the Qur'an appeared with the oldest possible form of the language thousands of years later. This is why the Arabs of that time were challenged to produce 10 similar verses, and they couldn't. People think it's a miracle because they couldn't do it, but I think the miracle is the language itself. They had never spoken Arabic, nor has any other language before or since had this mathematical precision. And when I say mathematical, I quite literally mean mathematical. Now how is it that the Qur'an came thousands of years later in an alphabet that had never been recorded before, and in the highest form the language had ever taken? The creator is neither bound by time nor space, therefore the names are uttered as they truly were, in a language that is lexically, syntactically, phonemically, and semantically older than the oldest recorded writing. In fact, that writing appears to have been a simplified version of it. Not only that, but it would be the equivalent of the greatest works of any particular language all appearing in one book, in a perfect script and in the highest form the language could ever take. It is so high in fact, that it had yet to be surpassed despite the fact that over the last millennium the collection of Arabic manuscripts when compared on word-per-word basis in Western Museums alone, when they are compared with the collected Greek and Latin manuscripts combined, the latter does not constitute 1 percent of the former as per German professor Frank Griffel, in addition all in a script that had never been recorded before. Thus, the enlightenment of mankind from barbarism and savagery began, and the age of reason and rationality was born from its study. God did bring down the Qur’an, Mohamed is his Messenger.

I feel like Japanese has quite a low chance to develop verb conjugation for person because of the plethora of pronouns

​@@mznxbcv12345babes we were talking abour korean and japanese why did u copy paste an essay

@@CrisCheese_ what a complete buffoon

I speak Armenian, and this is the rare occasion, when an armenian and a turk agree

​​@@BiesGorielyj ok, but you being Armenian has no connection to the topic he is talking.

​@@AsylumDaemon But still funny joke about two nations xD.

This phenomenon has been long known and has deceived Europeans into thinking the trend is from Synthetic to analytic. This is not globally so. Modern Turkish is agglutinative and has 6 cases, and currently is developing slowly over many decades a seventh instrumental case as the particle "ile" ="with "is becoming an affix "-le" or "-la" obeying vowel harmony. This is an example of where becoming synthetic and "increasing complexity" actually simplifies the language. In recent decades we see "diyorsun" morphing into "diyon" in certain dialects - these trends will continue - this one is removing syllables. Some have even postulated that languages cycle through a circle of agglutinative -> separating - >isolating (Analaytic) -> agglutinative and that these cycles happen over many 1000s of years. The future of Europe may be a trend towards agglutination in the millenia to come. You can see it in English in "i am" -> "I'm" , "you all "->"yall"/"youse"/"you lot". "would not have" -> "would'na", "going to"->"gonna". This won't ever stop.

@@idjles Yeah, this idea of cycle is really interesting but I am not sure, as propably most people now hahae.

But he cannot pronounce Latin. "pedəu", haha

This is what I get for recording my videos at one in the morning lol

@@PaulVinonaama Can't play this video out loud. Talks about "farts" and "pedos." lmao

Xhosa and Zulu now use about 50% of English words. Sometimes with an "e" prefix.

Do English words mostly get used as nouns @@Deontjie, or are verbs imported this way too? Is the "e" a noun class prefix?

Mostly used as nouns for items that are new to their language.@@bumpty9830

Finnish is also stable agglutinative non Indo European language

The Aramaic word for God is "Alaha". It's the word Isa PBUH used. Sounds familiar? Written without the confusing vowels it is written A-L-H ܐ ܠܗܐ (alap-lamed-he) as found in Targum or in Tanakh (Daniel, Ezra), Syriac Aramaic (Peshitta), reduced from the Arabic original (of which Aramaic is a dialect continuum as will be explained) it is written in the Arabic script 'A-L-L-H' (Aleph-Lam-Lam-Ha) add an A before the last H for vocalization. The word God in another rendition in Hebrew ʾĕlōah is derived from a base ʾilāh, an Arabic word, written without confusing vowel it is A-L-H in the Arabic script, pronounced ilah not eloah. Hebrew dropped the glottal stop and mumbled it, aramic mumbled a little less and it became elaha. Infact both are written written A-L-H in Arabic, it is pronounced i in Arabic and not A because it is an Alef with hamza below (إ أ ) They are two different forms of Alef. And it mean "a god", it is the non definitive form of A-L-L-H, in which the Alef is without a glottal stop/hamza,(ا), but this kind of nuance is lost in the dialect continua. infact "YHWH" itself is an Arabic word as discussed by Professor. Israel Knohl (Professor of Biblical studies at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem) in the paper" YHWH: The Original Arabic Meaning of the Name." jesus as his name is often misspelled due to the lack of the ayin sound in Greek, which was rendered to Iesous, coupling the nearest sound to ayin, same letter found in 'Iraq', which sounds entirely different in Arabic form 'Iran' in Arabic, with the -ous Greek suffix that Greeks typically add to their names 'HerodotOS', 'PlotinUS', 'AchelOUS' and later mumbled into a J. The yeshua rendition of Isa (his name in the Qur'an) PBUH which is purported to be the name of Jesus is KNOWN to had been taken from greek. Western Syriac also use "Isho". Western Aramaic (separate from Syriac which is a dialect of Eastern Aramaic) use "Yeshu". Western Syriac has been separate from Western Aramaic for about 1000 years. And sounds don't even match up. Syriac is a Christian liturgical language yet the four letters of the name of Jesus «ܝܫܘܥ» [ = Judeo-Babylonian Aramaic: «ישוע» ] sounds totally different in West vs East Syriac, viz. vocalized akin to Christian Arabic, Hebrew, Aramaic «ܝܶܫܽܘܥ» (Yēšūʿ) in West Syriac, but pronounced more akin to Muslim Arabic Quran character name Isa in East Syriac «ܝܑܼܫܘܿܥ» (ʾĪšōʿ). The reason for this confusion is their dropping of phonemes. Only someone that has no idea what the letters are or how they sound would have a name ending in a pharyngeal fricative like the ayin, if it were to be used in a name it would have had to be in the beginning, thus the Arabic rendition is the correct one. An example in English is how the appended -d is a common error amongst the English pronouncing Gaelic names. The name Donald arose from a common English mispronunciation of the Gaelic name Donal. Just how it is with donal becoming donald and the two becoming distinct and the original being regarded as something seperate so too did Isa PBUH turn to Iesous turn to jesus and when they tried going back to the original they confused it for yeshua ( ysu is how it is actually written) for Isa PBUH ( 3'eysah ) Schlözer in his preparation for the Arabia expedition in 1781 coined the term Semitic language: "From the Mediterranean to the Euphrates, from Mesopotamia to Arabia ruled one language, as is well known. Thus Syrians, Babylonians, Hebrews, and Arabs were one people (ein Volk). Phoenicians (Hamites) also spoke this language, which I would like to call the Semitic (die Semitische)." -Before Boas: The Genesis of Ethnography and Ethnology in the German By Han F. Vermeulen. He was only half right though, Arabic is the only corollary to "proto-semitic", infact the whole semitic classification is nonsensical as will be shown. "protosemetic" Alphabet (28), Arabic Alphabet (28), Latin transliteration, hebrew (22) 𐩠 𐩡 𐩢 𐩣 𐩤 𐩥 𐩦 𐩧 𐩨 𐩩 𐩪 𐩫 𐩬 𐩭 𐩮 𐩰 𐩱 𐩲 𐩳 𐩴 𐩵 𐩶 𐩷 𐩸 𐩹 𐩺 𐩻 𐩼 ا ب ت ث ج ح خ د ذ ر ز س ش ص ض ط ظ ع غ ف ق ك ل م ن ه و ي A b t ṯ j h kh d ḏ r z s sh ṣ ḍ ṭ ẓ ʿ ġ f q k l m n h w y א ב ג ד ה ו ז ח ט י כ ל מ נ ס ע פ צ ק ר ש ת Merged phonemes in hebrew and aramaic: ح, خ (h, kh) merged into only kh consonant remain س, ش (s, sh) merged into only Shin consonant remaining ط, ظ (ṭ/teth, ẓ) merged into only ṭ/teth consonant remaining ص, ض (ṣ, ḍ/Tsad ) merged into only ḍ/Tsad consonant remaining ع, غ (3'ayn, Ghayn) merged into a reducted ayin consonant remaining ت, ث (t/taw, th) merged into only t/taw consonant remaining The reason why the protoS alphabet here is 28 and not 29, is because the supposed extra letter is simply a س written in a different position, but it was shoehorned to obfuscated. In Arabic letter shapes are different depending on whether they are in the beginning , middle or end of a word. As a matter of fact, all of the knowledge needed for deciphering ancient texts and their complexity was derived from the Qur'an. It was by analyzing the syntactic structure of the Qur'an that the Arabic root system was developed. This system was first attested to in Kitab Al-Ayin, the first intralanguage dictionary of its kind, which preceded the Oxford English dictionary by 800 years. It was through this development that the concept of Arabic roots was established and later co-opted into the term 'semitic root,' allowing the decipherment of ancient scripts. In essence, they quite literally copied and pasted the entirety of the Arabic root. Hebrew had been dead, as well as all the other dialects of Arabic, until being 'revived' in a Frankensteinian fashion in the 18th and 19th centuries. The entire region spoke basically the same language, with mumbled dialect continuums spread about, and Arabic is the oldest form from which all these dialects branched off. As time passed, the language gradually became more degenerate, Language; When one looks at the actual linguistics, one will find that many were puzzled by the opposite, that is, how the other "semetic" languages were more "evolved" than Arabic, while Arabic had archaic features, not only archaic compared to bibilical Hebrew, Ethiopic, "Aramaic" contemporary "semetic" languages, but even archaic compared to languages from ancient antiquity; Ugaritic, Akkadain. What is meant here by Archaic is not what most readers think, it is Archaic not in the sense that it is simple, but rather that it is complex (think Latin to pig Latin or Italian or Old English, which had genders and case endings to modern English), not only grammatically, but also phonetically; All the so called semitic languages are supposed to have evolved from protosemetic, the Alphabet for protosemitic is that of the so called Ancient South Arabian (which interestingly corresponds with the traditional Arabic origins account) and has 28 Phonemes. Arabic has 28 phonemes. Hebrew has 22, same as Aramaic, and other "semitic" languages. Now pause for a second and think about it, how come Arabic, a language that is supposed to have come so late has the same number of letters as a language that supposedly predates it by over a millennium (Musnad script ~1300 BCE). Not only is the glossary of phonemes more diverse than any other semitic language, but the grammar is more complex, containing more cases and retains what's linguists noted for its antiquity, broken plurals. Indeed, a linguist has once noted that if one were to take everything we know about languages and how they develop, Arabic is older than Akkadian (~2500 BCE). And then the Qur'an appeared with the oldest possible form of the language thousands of years later. This is why the Arabs of that time were challenged to produce 10 similar verses, and they couldn't. People think it's a miracle because they couldn't do it, but I think the miracle is the language itself. They had never spoken Arabic, nor has any other language before or since had this mathematical precision. And when I say mathematical, I quite literally mean mathematical. Now how is it that the Qur'an came thousands of years later in an alphabet that had never been recorded before, and in the highest form the language had ever taken? The creator is neither bound by time nor space, therefore the names are uttered as they truly were, in a language that is lexically, syntactically, phonemically, and semantically older than the oldest recorded writing. In fact, that writing appears to have been a simplified version of it. Not only that, but it would be the equivalent of the greatest works of any particular language all appearing in one book, in a perfect script and in the highest form the language could ever take. It is so high in fact, that it had yet to be surpassed despite the fact that over the last millennium the collection of Arabic manuscripts when compared on word-per-word basis in Western Museums alone, when they are compared with the collected Greek and Latin manuscripts combined, the latter does not constitute 1 percent of the former as per German professor Frank Griffel, in addition all in a script that had never been recorded before. Thus, the enlightenment of mankind from barbarism and savagery began, and the age of reason and rationality was born from its study. God did bring down the Qur’an, Mohamed is his Messenger.

Since when is the a in "passamelo" a suffix?

They meant that the a is the imperative conjugation.

​@danijeljovic4971 they meant that the -a of "pass(a)melo" is the suffix they referred to in the previous example and it stands for the 2nd person imperative singular. Morphologically, in the original verb, "-a" is the suffix, and it remains the same in the new agglutinative form.

Same in Spanish

Same in French - albeit with a slight difference in the sequence of the (in effect) pronouns at the end. We would typically (in the imperative) say "passe le moi" (it is still written as separate words in French, rather than stuck together) - though in some dialects (such as here in Canada), it's not uncommon to hear "passe moi le" (ear-grinding as that is to me...) On the other hand, we DO say "passe-moi ça" and "passe-moi [l'objet]" so there are idiosyncratic agglutinations at work here... The sequencing, placement before/after the verb (and often the form of the pronoun used) also depends on the verb mode and tense: in the infinitive, it would be "me le passer" and in the indicative it would be "tu me le passes" (or "vous me le passez" for the equivalent plural or formal forms). My castillian is getting rusty (and my Italian is very basic) but my impression is that something similar is true (with slight differences) in the other Latin-derived languages.

I have studied Chinese in school - in the Sino-Tibetan language family (Chinese, Cantonese etc) the tones do not convey grammatical meaning and therefore are not related to whether the language is analytic or synthetic. Instead the tones are used to differentiate words with the same pronunciation to give them different meaning. For example saying a certain word going low to high means something different than saying it from high to low. Now on the question of whether they are analytic or synthetic, the Chinese languages are analytic. They do not have lots of endings added to the same word but instead use lots of adverbs to convey grammatical meaning like English (they use even more in fact). Japanese and Korean on the other hand are their own respective language families and are unrelated to the Chinese languages, and they are synthetic.

Very occasionally, there are relics of exoactive derivations with the reconstructed Old Chinese suffix *-s, which is purportedly responsible for the difference in tone between 買 (OC *mˤrajʔ "to buy") and 賣 (OC *mˤrajʔ-s "to sell"), and other exoactive-endoactive pairs. Otherwise, it's much rarer to find morphology coded into tone in East Asia and MSEA. Typologically, the northern branches of Chinese are less analytic than the southern varieties. However, I think you might still be interested in the fossilised remnants of proto-Vietic infixes in modern Vietnamese. These typically did not result in tonal alternations but did give rise to pairs of related words with different initials. A pair like chết "to die" (from PV *k-ceːt), without lenition, and giết "to kill" (from PV *k-pr-ceːt), with post-sesquisyllabic lenition *c > *ʝ > z/j, is most commonly cited.

Though it is less obvious than Indo-European language, modern Japanese becomes simplifier over time. Compared to Classical Japanese, It has less variety of conjugation patterns (9→5) and no distinctive forms between terminal form and attributive form. However, the biggest difference is a phonetic aspect. Classical Japanese had 8 vowels (now 5) . Considering Classical Chinese had much complex phonetic system (it had double consonants and ending consonants), Simplification of East Asian languages is more obvious in the phonetic aspect.

@@ether6107 Korean and Vietnamese shall be similar to Chinese. They only dropped the Chinese characters but not the language itself. They only changed the Chinese writing to a different form.

@@CN_SFY_General that's compete nonsense and 100% of linguists will say the exact same thing They evolved from completely different sources and are from different families entirely. This means their vocabulary is completely different and the differences cannot be due to gradual pronunciation changes. For example the English word "father" comes from the old German word "fæder", and that comes from "pater" in Proto Indo-European. Meanwhile father in Korean is "abeoji", in Mandarin it's "fuqin", and in Vietnamese it's "bo". There is no way to connect these words at all, so they obviously came from different sources while the Germanic languages did not. Also, just because they are neighbors does not mean they are from the same family. Cantonese is more similar to Mandarin than Korean even though they are from farther apart geographically because they are from the same family. The writing system has nothing to do with the family of the language as well. For example, Turkish used to use the Arabic script but now uses the Latin script - that doesn't make Turkish a Semetic language.

There won't be a next one. He is dead.

​@@civilservant9528Bro what

You could make the same argument for passé simple also. Altough these two tenses are still found in literature, it's pretty rare to use them in spoken french, and there are even weirder tenses, like passé antérieur or plus-que-parfait that I'm pretty sure many native speakers, including myself, don't really know how to use properly in writing, let alone in spoken french...

Also some subjunctive tenses aren't used in spoken French. Spanish and Portuguese have retained a much more inflectional and complex verb system, being pro-drop languages too.@@eldonad

This periphrastic "new future" which uses go as a marker for future (go is being grammaticalized as it does not mean "go" anymore) is happening in a particular West European Linguistic Area: English, French, Spanish, and Portuguese. I don't know if it is going on in Celtic or Basque languages. "Going to" is spreading and replacing the older future forms. In the case of English, "going to" is replacing "will" (though will will probably hold on in some uses), which can be seen in text analysis as "going to" was barely present in 19th century texts, is frequent in texts of the 1930s, and is more frequent now. It is spreading. The same is happening in colloquial spoken Latin American Spanish. Voy a ir vs iré. Voy a ir is much much more common, with the future synthetic form almost being relegated to just written language.

@@erichamilton3373 Romanian also uses a go + infinitive structure for its future tense. Funnily enough, Catalan developed the same construction, but it evolved as a PAST tense (preterite). So Fr. "tu vas parler", Sp. "vas a hablar" = you're going to speak. But Cat. "vas parlar" = you spoke. The demise of the future simple in Spanish has been grossly exaggerated though, and this has been going on for decades now. Even in those Spanish dialects where it's used the least (like Argentinian Spanish) the synthetic form is still regularly used in oral colloquial speech, and it's still almost exclusively used in the written language. What's more, there seems to be a clear semantic difference between the two, with the future simple conveying a greater distance/detachment by the speaker as to the future event that is being uttered. It's true that, even if it were to disappear as a future tense, it will probably survive as a "conjectural" tense.

@@erichamilton3373 In Castilian Spanish the use of the periphrastic form “ir+infinitivo” is only limited for a subjective near future event (voy a estudiar, vamos a comprar un coche, vais a ir al cine, etc.). The synthetic future form is necessary in order to express distant future events (estudiaré medicina, tendremos un coche, habrá un lugar, diréis esto, etc.)

I was just about to say this. My impression is that the genitive has been declared dead way too early, it seems to be going quite strong, mainly not in casual speech, but in any and all situations where people try to sound scholarly or to be authoritative, so much that it is used in some contexts where it originally wasn't. Also, in many cases the dative replacement for genitive possession ("von dem/der") still seems very childish or outright wrong. While saying "das Haus von meinem Vater" instead of "das Haus meines Vaters" ('my father's house') might be pretty much normal nowadays, saying "die Hauptstadt von dem Land" like in the video is fine colloquially, but wouldn't be used in any formal setting, and giving LotR the title "Der Herr von den Ringen" would sound like a complete parody, because it lacks any kind of poetic sound to it. So I can't imagine these latter kinds of uses of the genitive possessive being replaced anytime soon. Regarding the replacement of dative -e, this is a process that has been going on for more than 100 years, and leaving it out has been pretty much standard since at least the 60s/70s, I would say. It won't take long, I think, until this will no longer be regarded as correct outside of the idioms you mentioned ("wie es im Buche steht" or "im Sinne" are other ones). Not so sure about "dem Menschen" though

​@@MrNathanael94Ja, das glaube ich auch. Übrigens hat sich gerade der Genitiv im Englischen am längsten gehalten.

Schlözer in his preparation for the Arabia expedition in 1781 coined the term Semitic language: "From the Mediterranean to the Euphrates, from Mesopotamia to Arabia ruled one language, as is well known. Thus Syrians, Babylonians, Hebrews, and Arabs were one people (ein Volk). Phoenicians (Hamites) also spoke this language, which I would like to call the Semitic (die Semitische)." -Before Boas: The Genesis of Ethnography and Ethnology in the German By Han F. Vermeulen He was only half right though, Arabic is the only corollary to "proto-semitic", infact the whole semitic classification is nonsensical for anyone with a somewhat functioning mass between their ears. hebrew, aramaic, rest of madeup dialect continua only have 22 letters of the 29 protosemitic letters Arabic has all 29. The difference betweeen Arabic and the other creoles and Pidgin is the same as that between Latin and pig latin or italian. |Classical Arabic | 28 consonants, 29 with Hamza and 6 vowels; some consonants are emphatic or pharyngealized; some vowels are marked with diacritics | Complex system of word formation based on roots and patterns; roots are sequences of consonants that carry the basic meaning of a word; patterns are sequences of vowels and affixes that modify the meaning and function of a word | Flexible word order, but VSO is most common; SVO is also possible; subject and object are marked by case endings (-u for nominative, -a for accusative, -i for genitive); verb agrees with subject in person, number, and gender; verb has different forms for different moods and aspects | | Akkadian | 22 consonants and 3 vowels; some consonants are glottalized or palatalized; vowels are not marked | Similar system, but with different roots and patterns; some roots have more than three consonants; some patterns have infixes or reduplication | Fixed word order of SVO; subject and object are not marked by case endings, but by prepositions or word order; verb agrees with subject in person, number, and gender; verb has different forms for different tenses and aspects | | Aramaic | 22 consonants and 3 vowels (later variants have more); no emphatic or pharyngealized consonants (except in some dialects); vowels are not marked (except in later variants such as Syriac) | Simple system of word formation based on prefixes and suffixes; some roots or patterns exist, but are less productive than in Arabic or Akkadian | "Semitic" is just mumbled Arabic, really. Imagine English with a third of its letters removed and simplified grammar. That's Aramaic, Hebrew, etc. For example, combine T and D into just T; there's no need to have 2 letters. The same goes for i, e, y - they should all be just y from now on, etc., etc. Arabic is the only corollary to proto-Semitic. In fact, the whole classification of Semitic languages is nonsensical for anyone with a somewhat functioning brain. Hebrew, Aramaic, and the rest of these made-up dialect continua only have 22 letters out of the 29 proto-Semitic letters. Arabic has all 29. The difference between Arabic and the other creoles and Pidgin is the same as the difference between Latin and pig Latin or Italian. "Phoenician" is an Arabic dialect continuum, and not only that, it is pidgin. It is simplified to the point of stupidity. Anyone with a basic knowledge of Arabic would see this clearly. What happened was that Arabic handicapped "scholars" saw the equivalent of Scottish Twitter spelling, with added mumbling due to phonemic mergers (22 letters, not 29), and mistakenly thought they were seeing a different language." Let's start with a simple sentence: ## The house is big Arabic: البيتُ كبيرٌ al-bayt-u kabīr-un Proto-Semitic: *ʔal-bayt-u kabīr-u Hebrew: הבית גדול ha-bayit gadol Akkadian: bītum rabûm Amharic: ቤቱ ገደሉ betu gedelu As can be seen, Arabic and Proto-Semitic have the same word order (noun-adjective), the same definite article (al-), and the same case endings (-u for nominative). Hebrew and Akkadian have lost the case endings and changed the definite article (ha- and -um respectively). Amharic has changed the word order (adjective-noun) and the definite article (u-). But Arabic is not only similar to Proto-Semitic, it is also pre-Semitic, meaning that it is the original form of Semitic before it split into different branches. This is because Arabic preserves many features that are not found in any other Semitic language, but are found in other Afro-Asiatic languages, such as Egyptian and Berber. These features include: - The definite article al-, which is derived from the demonstrative pronoun *ʔal- 'that'. This article is unique to Arabic among Semitic languages, but it is similar to the article n- in Berber and the article p-, t-, n- in Egyptian. - The dual number for nouns and verbs, which is marked by the suffix -ān or -ayn. This number is rare in other Semitic languages, but it is common in other Afro-Asiatic languages, such as Egyptian and Berber. - The imperfective prefix t- for verbs, which indicates the second person singular feminine or third person plural feminine. This prefix is unique to Arabic among Semitic languages, but it is similar to the prefix t- in Berber and Egyptian. - The passive voice for verbs, which is marked by the infix t between the first and second root consonants. This voice is unique to Arabic among Semitic languages, but it is similar to the passive voice in Egyptian and Berber. Finally, a more complex sentence: The letter was written with a pen. Arabic: كُتِبَتِ الرِّسَالَةُ بِالقَلَمِ kutiba-t al-risāla-t-u bi-l-qalam-i Proto-Semitic: *kutiba-t ʔal-risāla-t-u bi-l-qalam-i Hebrew: המכתב נכתב בעט ha-michtav niktav ba-et Akkadian: šipram šapāru bēlum Egyptian: sḏm.n.f p-ẖry m rnp.t Berber: tturra-t tibratin s uccen Here, Arabic and Proto-Semitic have the same word order (verb-subject-object), the same passive voice marker (-t-), the same definite article (al-), and the same preposition (bi-). Hebrew has changed the word order (subject-verb-object), lost the passive voice marker, changed the definite article (ha-) and the preposition (ba-). Akkadian has changed the word order (object-subject-verb), lost the passive voice marker, changed the definite article (-um) and the preposition (bēlum). Now how is it that the Qur'an came thousands of years in a language that is lexically, syntactically, phonemically, and semantically older than the oldest recorded writing? Now how is it that the Qur'an came thousands of years later in an alphabet that had never been recorded before, and in the highest form the language had ever taken? The creator is neither bound by time nor space, therefore the names are uttered as they truly were, in a language that is lexically, syntactically, phonemically, and semantically older than the oldest recorded writing. In fact, that writing appears to have been a simplified version of it. Not only that, but it would be the equivalent of the greatest works of any particular language all appearing in one book, in a perfect script and in the highest form the language could ever take. It is so high in fact, that it had yet to be surpassed despite the fact that over the last millennium the collection of Arabic manuscripts when compared on word-per-word basis in Western Museums alone, when they are compared with the collected Greek and Latin manuscripts combined, the latter does not constitute 1 percent of the former as per German professor Frank Griffel, in addition all in a script that had never been recorded before. Thus, the enlightenment of mankind from barbarism and savagery began, and the age of reason and rationality was born from its study. God did bring down the Qur’an, Mohamed is his Messenger.

-e as a suffix to mark the dative hasn't been part of Standard German for centuries. It only survived in writing and poetry for the sake of rhythm, just as schwas are syncoped all the time for the same purpose in poetry and colloquial speech. Something that does occur is nouns changing from weak declension to strong declension, thereby losing their -en suffix in the dative and accusative case and switching it for -s in the genitive. Your "Menschen"-example is precisely that. That's happening to a lot of nouns. German cases are primarily marked by articles anyway and this does significantly strengthen singular-plural distinction as the plural keeps its -en suffix.

​@@MrNathanael94I'd say if you look at modern Dutch it showcases a state when this change is complete. Dutch lost the case system, and it is only found in fixed expressions, and the replacement for cases are much like this change that is now affecting German. The preposition 'van' for marking the possessor, 'aan' as a replacement for dative, and accusative doesn't really have or need a replacement, even in modern German only masculine looks different from the nominative versions.

Next video will probably be a short one explaining tense, aspect and mood

@@Swine_Herd Could you please tell me why you chose this name?

THANK YOU

In Polish it's the opposite. The vocative is disappearing from informal language, I may use it in case of some friendly "nicknames", but wouldn't address my friends unsing it with their full name, that would sound too formal. I remeber one collegue sayig: "Vocative makes me feel uneasy, I feel as if a teacher is scolding me that I misbehaved." Though it's still in use in a bit more formal situations, when addressing some Pan/Pani, not just by their first name.

@@nerilka9527To make it clearer, in Russian the vocative has been lost, the one you're thinking about, and is only used in texts and some fixed expressions nowadays. The neo-vocative in the video has nothing to do with it, grammatically or semantically, and is actually used informally. It's widespread, but the Russians don't really think about it as a "case", more like an informal way of address.

Ah, thank you 😀 - I will post new things on my other channel too, I promise !

@@Swine_Herd OK why did you use the word fart, and why are you called a swine herd? Is there something going on with you?

The history of English is fascinating because of all the major influences (Anglo-Saxon, Norse, Anglo-French), and its modern tendency to borrow words from everywhere. You might be interested in the History of English Podcast, Dr Geoff Lindsey, and David Crystal, who all have lectures on UKposts. The last two are linguists, and the first one may be too.

Thank you, I'll check that out! @@sluggo206

By becoming more synthetic so you mean moving from agglutinative to fusion?

how about something like shouldn't've (?). or just shouldn't

The nominative plural.

It's plural stem for any non-nominative case. Though, in partitive that i turns to j. just because we'd otherwise have three vowels in a row.

I don't think the shift to -j- between vowels is limited to vowels the partitive case. Also, if the word body ends in i, then the non-nominative plural is -e-, unless of course the word body changes so that it no longer ends in i in that particular case - and yeah, the word body can change depending on which suffix you are affixing. Gradation is one famous kind of word body change but not the only one. All in all the suffixes do fuse quite a bit in Finnish, it's far from a purely agglutinative language. I don't speak Latin so I don't know how Finnish compares to that. If your threshold for an agglutinative language is that you can usually delineate where each morpheme starts and ends in a specific instance of a word, then I suppose Finnish is agglutinative.

It's funny because the Spanish "ía" suffix actually stems itself from an analytical root, much like the synthtization of future suffixes he mentioned in the video. Where "cantaré" (I will sing) stems from Latin "cantare habeo" --> Old Spanish "cantar he", "cantaría" stems from another form of "habere", the old pluperfect indicative: Latin "cantare habia" --> Old Spanish "cantar hía" --> modern Spanish "cantaría".

Didn't Turkish "lose" one of its future tenses, turning it into a sort of "optative but for bad things" moo?

@@smergthedargon8974 I'm not sure what exactly you mean. If you mean the optative -e suffix, I don't know why it would only be used for bad things. And I don't have any knowledge on the history of this suffix so I don't know about it being used as a sort of future tense, though it doesn't sound far-fetched.

Do you think it is because new suffixes were invented in the Istanbul dialect or rather they were resistant to getting lost compared other dialects? Since because Istanbul dialect was written for hundreds of years while general Anatolian Turkish was ignored for the most part until 1930's maybe literate people were more aware of the intricacies of the suffix system and illeterate general populus were simplifing. Also can you give specific examples? Only thing that I can think of is the question marker. Azerbaijanis and Eastern Anatolians don't use the question marker and rely on the tone while asking a question. Thanks

@@efe_c.99 as you said especially in questions Azerbaijani tend to not use suffixes even if the language has question suffixes but other than that the first example come to my mind is Azerbaijani Turks saying "yaşım var (i have age)" while Turkiye Turks say "yaşındayım (at that age)". Though other than these factors and examples i need to make a better proper research to actually give a more comprehensive output. We actually have records of old Anatolian Turkish especially in forms of folk poems (there's also elitist/palace poems called as "divan poems", thats why we categorize them in two sections). Probably there are new suffixes that Istanbuli Turkish created too but I believe its more about using already existing suffixes in a wider spectrum of words.

@@recep2939 I see, thanks :)

@@efe_c.99 well i also thank you for thinkering. Have a nice day!

In German using more suffixes is also considered more proper and civilized. Interesting question why then it develops in the opposite direction.

In this Swiss German is very German. Standard German does the same. Ich habe ihm... = ich hab'im...

Can you explain further? im struggling to understand

@@ssmoky There was a long time when the genitive case seemed to slowly vanish from the German language, a phenomenon that was a commonplace grievance amongst German school teachers. Then, a good 20 years ago, popular author and language critic Bastian Sick published a book titled "Der Dativ ist dem Genitiv sein Tod" ("The dative case is the death of the genitive case", ironically expressed with a dative case instead of the correct genitive case). This book became a bestseller, and its title was a commonly heard phrase for some time. The problem now being in the public conscience, subsequently many Germans sought to apply the genitive case more often lest they sound stupid or even be told the reprehensive saying of the genitive case's death. This was the first spark to rekindle the waning use of the genitive case in everyday German, and today, a generation on, it is again alive and well. Some people even tend to use it hypercorrectly, i.e. in places where it formerly didn't belong, e.g. after the prepositions mentioned above, which, with the exception of 'trotz', originally governed the dative case exclusively.

I would agree that the genitive is staying alive, but it tends to sound formal and may not fit the topic or situation. If you use genitive to talk about how trashed you got with your friends last Saturday night, or how wildly enchanted you are by your partner's smile, it will sound formal, "analytic" and out of place. To avoid confusion for German learners: "Der Dativ ist dem Genitiv sein Tod" is NOT correct dative case. Correct dative would be: "Der Dativ ist der Tod vom Genitiv". The author intentionally uses an incorrect mix of dative ("dem") and genitive ("sein"), to drive the point home and to make it funny.

@@plasticlove2458This is in no way universal, but totally depends on dialectal and/or social context. Remember that German is a pluricentric language, and standard German is even an artificial language. While many German dialects use the genitive case differently or don't even use it at all, as far as standard German is concerned, my point stands: the genitive case has neve been used more often than it is now. And to reintroduce some confusion for German learners: To a western German ear, "Der Dativ ist der Tod vom Genitiv" sounds even more wrong than "Der Dativ ist dem Genitiv sein Tod", and the latter would be considered a correct form in everyday use. The fun in the title does not stem from absolute incorrectness, but from the fact that you would expect the title of a book to be standard German, a variety in which both expressions are equally incorrect. Consequentially, it's in reality a matter of style, not of grammar. Furthermore, on the cover of the first edition, the title is depicted in the form of an information sign, a context where a noun-heavy syntax with many genitive constructions is especially common ("Das Befahren der Waldwege mit Kraftfahrzeugen ist Unbefugten verboten"), so by adding this layer, they embiggened the grotesqueness to an dextreme.

@@TiberentenTV It actually only proves it's getting more and more out of use. When some form becomes obsolete, native speakers tend to mix the forms with one another because they no longer feel the destinction. My native language is Russian so I can come up with a lot of such examples in Russian but consider the use of the English -eth verb ending that can be used to sound archaic even when it doesn't match the right person (3rd person that is) or the various French words that originate from oblique cases of the Latin words (garçon from accusative vs. gars from nominative) now that doesn't mean we still have cases in French, does it? You can make an argument that it's still alive because of that but what is alive is only the form and not the grammar. Russian has a lot of words that gained their plural from dual (things that come in pairs like eyes, legs, horns, river banks etc.) so during and right after the shift you could argue that dual is still alive based solely on these remnants but grammatically there was no dual already and these are the plural forms now. I don't know how long the German genetive is going to last or if it's ever going to vanish but if it ever will it's going to have this phase of being mixed with Dativ to the point there's no clear distinction except that maybe it sounds cooler

There is no such form as 'nostrābus' - the -ābus ending only exists for a few words.

-īs is the correct ending, but -ābus isn't

@@landy4497 I misunderstood, I thought he meant that the /i/ in domibus was long.

@@Glossologia 👍

I could have sworn farty is a word too🙂

Yes, just like Spanish will combine words which are really separate, like "contigo", "hacerlo".

This is currently happening with Hindi and Urdu, which does have postpositions. The first person accusative pronoun, for example, is "mujhe". In Urdu, you just use the postposition "ko" to use it in the dative case. In Hindi, though, the pronoun actually changes inflection to "mujhko".

this is a very profound comment. and in fact I'm wondering now where the future tenses in latin (its fusional endings i mean, or those of the subjunctive, as well) came from at first...

I'd have to agree that the possessive means that English has 2 cases for nouns. For pronouns, you could argue that English has 4 cases (nominative, accusative, genitive, dative), although the dative case is identical to the accusative case. And here's a question for pendants: what's the difference between having 0 cases and having 1 case?

That's right. Those 0's are mostly wrong. Cases ------------ Language - Pronouns | Nouns --------------------------------------------------------- German - 4 4 (3) Danish - 3 2 English - 3 2 (1) Italian - 3 1 I don't know if it's true that German is starting to lose its genitive case for nouns. But changing the word order and adding a word meaning 'of' in-between instead of using a proper genitive declension is already one of two ways to mark 'belonging to' in English, and the only way in the Romance languages when it comes to nouns. This is not the case in Danish though. There's definitely two cases for Danish nouns. And they show no signs whatsoever of weakening or being replaced. When a noun has the genitive role in a sentence, then that noun gets an 's' on its tail. Always. No exception. If it tries to get away without, then the whole sentence loses all its meaning. So, there are not 1 or 0 cases in Danish when it comes to nouns, but 2. And as for pronouns. In English, in Italian, in Danish, and so on, there are 3 cases, not 0 (or 1).

May I pedantically point out that I may be a pedant, but not a pendant? (I'll just let that one hang for a while.)@@mrab4222

It's possessive case, not genitive. Genitive can imply a few more things such as origin or substance. For example, one can say, Стакан воды in Russian, meaning "(a) Glass (of) water" where "воды", "water" is genitive. But you can't say in English, "A glass water's", or "Water's glass" to convey the same meaning.

@@J.RyanWhittlesey-uf3gc Italian preserved traces of the genitive in personal names as surnames (Paoli); Spanish and French preserves the genitive as shortening of stock names for the days of the week (miercoles or mercredi for dies Mercuris). English has a genitive for personal names (Jack's car, Fido's blanket McDonald's) and for some stock uses (three days' journey). But we speak of measurements (once a genitive use) as in "three cups of milk" in a prepositional phrase or use the genitive without inflection before the object (garage door, gas tank).

And languages that start agglutinative either maintain their agglutinativity or evolve into a polysynthetic language

@@Kiyoliki i think proto indo european was agglutinative at an earlier stage. The multiple suffix morphemes fused together into a single suffix morpheme by the common period before the branches diverged.

@@Kiyoliki polysynthetic are agglutinative languages, but also fusional languages can be.

@@Uulfinn I don't think so. Yes, maybe they share a common ancestor with the Finno-Ugric languages at some point, but the thing is, that postpositions or prepositions don't make the declension alone. For example, in Latin or German etc. such positions require other certain cases. As a Finnish linguist once explained to me is that most cases in Finnish are what in Indo-European languages are or were positions + declension on the noun, and those suffixes in Finnish probably consists of the old noun declension plus a postposition, which have merged, and that's why formed a new case. Or in other words, the postposition merged fully into the noun declension and looks like a distinct and separated case. English has almost none postpositions, which does make it unlikely to develope agglutination in that sense. But also Japanese almost does agglutination only on verbs, while nouns have just a limited set of postposition markers, which functions as more less declensions, which is why such postpositions are written on that noun in Korean, which actually has almost the same grammar as Japanese. In Chinese, those markers are in fact independent words, which can lose their actual meaning and just function as a grammatical particle/marker, like of ”yesterday“ would stop meaning yesterday but only indicating that an action happened the in the past.

@@SchmulKrieger i never said indo european and finno ugric were related. I said proto indo european was probably agglutinative at a much earlier time before the multiple affixes fused together into a single suffix. You're talking about something else.

It served its purpose 😁 I liked it.

are you saxon

@@user-bf3kp3ii4l Thuringia, right next to Saxony

​@@masonharvath-gerrans832 makes sense, here i'll just copy paste from my previous comment The Genitive case is not dying out in German. Rather it has never existed. This is mainly related to the standardisation of German mostly being based on Martin Luther's dialect and how he wrote his bible. Luther was a Saxon (east german). And Saxons, likely due to proximity and interaction with Slavs took on the genitive case. To my knowledge it is the only german dialect which does have the genitive case. Maybe some other eastern dialects have a genitive case too, but point being outside of Saxony you won't hear the genitive case being used because it just never existed in any other dialects. So the Genitive case has always only been used in written German (outside of Saxony).

@@user-bf3kp3ii4l the Genitive case is lacking only in Upper German dialects. For example, the Dutch language had a genitive case up until it was no longer used in the spoken language. As far as I know, Low German has or had a fully functional genitive case as well.

​@@user-bf3kp3ii4lSorry, but that is just completely wrong on so many levels. I am a German who grew up in Berlin and have had 50 years to listen to Germans from absolutely all parts of Germany speaking, in all kinds of formal and informal contexts, and it is absolutely not true that people outside of Saxony wouldn't use the genitive. Neither is your claim about how that came about at all plausible. I have a PhD in history and have spent decades reading old German texts, both pre- and post-Luther, all of them outside of Saxony (predominantly Württemberg, Brandenburg, Pomerania, Eastern Prussia, but many others as well), and many of these are absolutely written in heavy dialect - yet they employ the genitive, much as transcriptions of historical spoken language do. Note that these texts were not 'prettified' in any other way, so there is no reason to assume that they would have forced genitives into themif people hadn't actually used these while speaking. And your idea that Saxon German might have a Genitive because of 'contact with Slavs' is hilariously absurd - not only because from about 1200 until 1945, Saxony actually didn't have direct Slavic neighbours except a tiny number of - fairly oppressed - Sorbs in Lusatia (Lusatia only became Saxon in 1635, 100 years after Luther); on the other sides, their neighbours were what would later be called Sudeten Germans on the other side of the Bohemian border, Germans everywhere to the North and West, and even alongside the borders which Saxony only reached in 1635 (when it obtained Lusatia), Germans again the Neumark, and an overwhelming majority of Germans in Lower Silesia. But more importantly, your idea presupposes that language A changes to become closer to another one, B, simply because speakers of A live (somewhat) in the vicinity of speakers of B - and furthermore, that it would change not just superficially (i.e. introduce a few loan words, which happened between German and Polish/Czech, though fairly asymmetrically, with more German words going into these two languages than the other way round), but fundamentally i.e. on the level of grammatical cases. In reality, that would require an extremely specific relationship, and cultural or political dominance of some kind (though even then I cannot think of any European case where the changes would have reached the level of introducing an extra case such as the genitive), none of which historically applied between Saxon and its Slavic more-or-less-neighbours. Finally, even if being in geographical proximity could have the effects you claim, then one would have to ask oneself why on earth all those western variations of German didn't drop their cases as French did (given that there was as close to France as Saxony was to Slavic speakers) - or why, for that matter, all the other German dialects that were as close if not in fact closer to Slavic neighbours as Saxony (which by your logic would include Bavaria, given they were as close to Bohemia/Czechia as the Saxons) would not also have adopted cases from Czech or Polish.

Into which one would, at the very least, fart.

Less inflection does not mean less complexity. Periphrastic constructions can be complex.

Entropy pulls languages in every direction. There are forces that pull languages towards being more analytic, and there are forces that pull them towards synthesis, and we see languages, over time, move in circles, not in a line that leads to some inevitable end. A change in a language that makes it more concise might make it harder to speak, a change that makes it easier to speak might make it harder to understand, a change that makes it easier to understand might make it wordier. None of these forces "win out" they will battle for as long as we have language, cycling our languages through infinite series of changes. We'll never cycle back and reach the language we had originally, but we also are not degenerating towards some maximally simple language. This isn't physics, energy does not decrease over time in this system.