/sci/ - Science & Math

>>11561546
Most of modern linguistics is pseudo-science.
Even that vowel trapezoid isn't challenged, even though it's obvious that U doesnt care much about where your tongue is, as long as your lips are in the proper position.

>>11561583

> vowel trapezoid

Now that I'm studying it, i think that people stick with it because vowels are so difficult to define otherwise, even with acoustic devices. A lot of phonetics for familiar languages is pretty intuitive and something you know already, just put to formal definitions. To counter your point somewhat, if you learned formal Arabic like I've had to do and tried to get into the dialects, believe you me, those field guides on phonological paradigms are very, very handy, because good fucking luck as an outsider trying to put together what some khat-chewing shepherd from Hadhramout is saying in an audio recording, that needs a scientific approach

I can't wait to get into grammar types and all that shit, that seems to be where the meat and potatoes really are.

What parts of linguistics aren't pseudoscience, in your opinion?

>>11561627
>What parts of linguistics aren't pseudoscience, in your opinion?
Biolinguistics.

>>11561685
>Biolinguistics.
goddamn chomskians hijacked the term. call it zoolinguistics or call it field study (it shouldn't be much different from studying human languages)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y1kXCh496U0

>>11561694

> goddamn chomskians

Heh, that's exactly what I was looking up for it. As for zoolinguistics, it's interesting you bring it up: when I was super into birdwatching, I was learning the different calls birds made and how birds can learn to "speak". To my estimation, scientists believe birds only vocalize as a siren for alerting others, an intimidating sound to ward others of their territory, or a lure for females

>>11561710
Then you will probably be interested in these:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B5lzt42Tb20
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C0CIRCjoICA
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q5ZMGBz8qgI
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mQmF7kbOrmE
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6eliANcZdkw

>>11561732
most probably that shit is dead wrong

>>11561726
>>11561732

Thanks, I'll take a look at these. I would love SO much to do field work with endangered or undeciphered languages, that would be pretty boss

http://www.endangeredlanguages.com/

> web crawling

Fuck off back to your call center pajeet, this aint quora

Is there a simple algorithm for determining how to ask for sex in all languages?

>>11562383

that's beyond the realm of language... you gotta know the look anon

>>11563115

>>11562383
Present yourself as a hunter, gatherer, or translator in some fashion and the rest is fine.

>>11561583
>even though it's obvious that U doesnt care much about where your tongue is, as long as your lips are in the proper position.
That's called allophony, and it's a specificallyEnglish feature (other languages may have other allophonies. Many langauges distinguish those sounds, for example french U/OU, Chinese, german and turkish Ü/U, finnish Y/U...

>>11561583
>even though it's obvious that U doesnt care much about where your tongue is, as long as your lips are in the proper position.
That's called allophony, and it's a specifically English feature (other languages may have other allophonies). Many langauges distinguish those sounds, for example french U/OU, Chinese, german and turkish Ü/U, finnish Y/U...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iQwNYajSk08

>>11561546
check out the book Surviving Linguistics by Monica Macaulay. specifically for grad students. talks about writing, conferences, stuff relevant to all the various subfields. your book set looks decent but try to get workbooks and stuff too

>>11563369

Will do, I'll check it out. What do you mean by workbooks? There are languages I want to take a look at, but how does a linguistics student go about looking into the language families? Does he start with PIE because it's the first one studied and the most prominent?

>>11563982
ignore the language family delusion or deception

>>11564025

What do you mean? There are obvious subclasses of languages based in large part on geographical origin, how is that delusion?

>>11564824
I'll give you just one example: japanese is very similar to russian: they're closer to each other grammatically than say russian and english, they even share several suffices. But according to those family trees, it's not possible.
So instead of seeing it as some tree branches, where one language is superior to the other, I'd see it all as clouds.
Russian and English may have more common lexics, but that doesn't mean a thing in the sense of their development.

>suffices
suffixes

I guess this would belong here. What would be the best (spoken) language to learn if you're going into Software Eng? I'm thinking German or Japanese.

>>11561546
What linguistics books do I need to read and study so I can work at the NSA?

>>11565102

If you want to be a linguist with the alphabet boys and you are younger, I can tell you for a fact that joining the military as a linguist could get you there. If you keep your nose clean (much less have kept your nose clean), find yourself a place in your work, and maybe get some networking from the older folks who don't clam up to you, then you can graft onto a contractor who will hire you, because the vast majority who enter the job stay for only one enlistment and go civilian afterward. Just get your TS, make a profile on ClearanceJobs, and the offers will come rolling in. That path will take several years though until you get to an entry-level position.

I would be more focused in technology, so perhaps pick up some books on acoustic phonetics, cryptography, and dialectology depending on any other useful languages you already know, can't stress the latter enough when that's pretty much most of the ground work. here are the languages that matter:

> Category I language (Dutch, French, Italian, Portuguese, and Spanish)
> Category II language (German)
> Category III language (Belorussian, Czech, Greek, Hebrew, Persian, Polish, Russian, Serbian/Croatian, Slovak, Tagalog [Filipino], Thai, Turkish, Ukrainian, and Vietnamese)
> Category IV language (Arabic, Chinese, Japanese, and Korean)

t. former 35p (army linguist), feel free to ask questions

>>11565248
What are those categories?

>>11565373

It very obviously refers to "distance" from English/difficulty/time spent by a native English speaker to achieve mastery, if not fluency.

>>11563364
>german and turkish Ü/U
can't they be pronounces with the same position of the tongue? only the lips are a little further front in the case of U

>>11565248
How would I go about entering/studying linguistics? I plan on doing religious studies and in doing so I would pick up Greek/Hebrew/French/German if I do graduate work, and I've always has a passion for language.

Assuming that money is no object (as my plan would be more considering long-term development where I'd probably already have funding for education), what sort of education should I pursue? A second bachelors, this time in linguistics, or

>>11565540
*or higher level study in linguistics?

the only languages with soul are icelandic, italian, greek, turkish and chinese. everything else is an ugly mutt soup of loanwords

>>11565452
Nah, a German Ü has the tongue arced up and to the front / close to the lips.

>>11565248
>I would be more focused in technology, so perhaps pick up some books on acoustic phonetics, cryptography, and dialectology
Recommend books you stupid nigger

>>11565373

>>11565391 is pretty much right on this, these are the categories used by the American Department of Defense to classify language learners and ascertain their length of stay at school; cat ones stay for half a year, while cat fours stay a full year and a half.

> cat I: germanic and romance languages which have many words and grammatical structures in common w/ english
> cat II: german has its own autistic constructs which make it a bit harder to learn
> cat III: slavic languages and non-euro languages with a ton of west european commonalities
> cat iv: non-european language with strong native language structures of their own

>>11565540

Despite all I say about being a military """"linguist"""", remember that this is not what you'll do in that job, you're a glorified translator. Many smaller universities have an English department which houses their department, or larger unis have devoted departments. Most of the time though, these classes are pursued as a part of something more practical. Hell, I'd keep going with theology or religious studies; some of them probably require Greek/Roman credits to interpret texts, and I bet there are some good classics departments you can ask around. For Greek and Roman practice, I'd recommend the Perseus Digital Library (http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/collection?collection=Perseus:collection:Greco-Roman)

>>11565616

> Turkish
> not mutted up with loanwords

Though I will concede Ataturk did his part to change it, got some bad news for you lad. Turkish does have soul though, their psych rock is actually pretty fucking righteous

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=al7Vt5LLvZY

>>11565625

Go get spoonfed on a forum, it's really not that hard. Those are the subjects. Do you really think they let lower enlisted monkeys like me look around the nuts and bolts of their technology? Those are the subjects I could muster as important.

>>11565636
>Hell, I'd keep going with theology or religious studies; some of them probably require Greek/Roman credits to interpret texts

That's the plan. I was just curious as to what, if any, graduate options exist for linguistics study, or if it is better to study it via employment.

>>11561546
that IPA chart is getting pretty old now OP

>>11565647

From what I've seen, most linguistics tracks are put into a combined masters-to-doctorate program. If you don't get rock hard at studying the actual process of language, I'd pursue a classics track, maybe think about getting a French or German degree, which I wouldn't know about

>>11565636
>Go get spoonfed on a forum, it's really not that hard.
Spoonfeed me the forum please anon

>>11565656

What is there to replace it? That's the one I saw from Wikipedia tbqh. What new innovations have been seen in phonetics since 2005?

>>11565658
I absolutely adore the structure of language, so that seems like something I'd want to do. Is there any school/program known within the field as "good"?

>>11565660

Very well, let's see...

1. get subjects to study from Yale's undergrad program (https://ling.yale.edu/academics/undergraduate/majors)
2. look up "best [insert subject matter] textbooks" and compare the various threads normies shoot up about them on Reddit and Quora
3. hit up good ol' libgen.is and get the ones I see as relevant to my interests (they're in the OP)
4. ???
5. profit

>>11565666

MIT and Berkeley are generally seen as some of the top schools, along with some in the Midwest like the University of Chicago; the University of Texas in Austin has a great Oriental department from what I hear

>>11565681
Thank you for the information anon.

https://soundcloud.com/andrew-lynch-622652011/before-speech

>>11565248
Category IV are not especially hard, they cannot be learned by whites except aspies.

>>11566296

Well, that's not necessari—oh, never mind, I'm a mongrel :]

>>11565623
Can't you pronounce U with the same position of the tongue? Try.

>>11566678

The umlaut is actually either a close front rounded vowel [y] or a near-front near-close rounded vowel [ʏ]; the rounding is what helps shape the umlaut's sound.

Read up on the IPA, my man

>>11566551
You won't learn chinese without the systemizing ability, it will always seem like it never ends, since it cannot be jest memorized the way western lamguages are. There will always seem things missing and completely new constructions you don't know the meaning of yet.

>>11566551
You won't learn chinese without the systemizing ability, it will always seem like it never ends, since it cannot be jest memorized the way western lamguages are. There will always seem things missing and completely new words, character combinations and sentence constructions you don't know the meaning of yet.

>>11567123

I've thought about learning mandarin for the hell of it, but with those characters to memorize, idk... Arabic was hard enough. Super glad I learned it though

>>11567194
I'm not sure how much it applies to Arabic.

>>11567248

Arabic is highly systemized, but most of that is done through morphology, where I think Chinese focuses more on lexical changes (unless someone knows better)

Purely in terms of written language, and not vocal, what would /sci/ consider to be the least faulty language?

>>11561546
hi current linguistics phd here, ama

>>11561583
> it's obvious that U doesnt care much about where your tongue is, as long as your lips are in the proper position.

so there's no difference between o and u in english? aren't your lips rounded in both of those?

Chomsky is a hack.

>>11561583
> Even that vowel trapezoid isn't challenged, even though it's obvious that U doesnt care much about where your tongue is, as long as your lips are in the proper position.
unclear what your criticism is here--the trapezoid's a vague but useful way to organize vowels into a space that is used (or at least correlates with what is used) by the sound systems of the world's languages to group together and differentiate vowels. Obviously it's not an ultimate theory of vowels--that's a task for phoneticians and cognitive scientists

>>11567612

Thanks anon, here are my questions:

How selective are these programs for admission?

What are career prospects for linguistics phds? My advisor says to look at the LSA info, but it seems like a meme to me

Are there rewarding research work and internships while you're in university?

How often do linguists do field research?

Which grammatical theories interest you?

What are some major unsolved areas of linguistic theory?

Are the grants enough, and how stupid are the politics necessary to get those grants?

How much has SJW bullshit infected the field in academia? I know postmodern theories place a large emphasis on deconstructing language

>>11567609
chinese

>>11567654
> How selective are these programs for admission?
penn, a top 10 program in the united states, admits ~10% of applications every year: https://live-sas-www-ling.pantheon.sas.upenn.edu/graduate/application/graduate-program-application

other depts don't have published figures i'm aware of but that's an incredibly high admissions rate for phds

> What are career prospects for linguistics phds? My advisor says to look at the LSA info, but it seems like a meme to me

depends. if you do computational, you'll make fat stacks as a tech worker. if you do something quantitative but not full on computational, you could pivot into a data science role or something and make ok money. if you don't do either of those things, you might as well have done a phd in philosophy, and should consider your PhD a 5 year passion project that won't be developing your career

> Are there rewarding research work and internships while you're in university?

i assume you're talking about phd programs, yes?

for the summer: again, it kind of depends on what you're doing--if you're doing pure theory, either you're at a top school where they'll summer fund you, or you'll need to find something else. if you're doing computational obviously you'll find tech internships or something in between like an internship at a military research lab or ETS. in my program (top 20 in the US overall I'd say), I think most theoretical students pick up some kind of summer job since we don't have summer funding. (The rich students, of course, don't have to.)

for during the year: you're going to be doing research, of course, year round, and if you're admitted to a phd program then that means profs want to and will work with you--at least your advisor.

> How often do linguists do field research?
it really depends. sociolinguists do the most of it overall i'd say. Some theorists do zero fieldwork, but it has been on the rise over the past 20 years as they've gotten their heads out of their fucking asses

>>11567618
u is twice more "rounded" (i.e. labialized) (maybe that's why in english it can also be written as oo)
the same way i is twice more lingualized, that's why they write it as ee.
I wonder why does aa standing for o (in danish) represents. It's also the case for runes and ogham.

>>11567674
cont'd

> Which grammatical theories interest you?
i'm not a theorist, so take what i say with a grain of salt. i have conflicting feelings about mainline generative theory: the solutions that are dreamt up when challenging data arises stinks heavily of adding epicycles, and i wonder whether the formal apparatus available to generative linguists ought to be overhauled. philosophically, however, i think mainline generative theory is sound: clearly our mind must have something innate that helps us process language to account for the startling facts about language competence (e.g. everyone is basically the same level of competent in a language even independent of IQ (!)). if we have this thing, then it's probably most reasonable to assume in the absence of evidence otherwise that its structure is the same for all human beings, and if that's the case, then human languages are products of different parametric states of this language apparatus. one task of linguistic theory, then, is to discover in detail what this apparatus consists of and all of its parameters.

as much as i want to be sympathetic to chomsky's violent critics, when it comes to purely intellectual matters, honestly i find them all ridiculously unsophisticated and dumb compared to chomsky. it's clear if you read what they're writing they don't even understand what chomsky is saying. it also just seems like wild speculation without justification to say "human language is explainable in terms of general cognitive principles". they do have a point, however, when they note that chomsky has been unprofessional and maybe even unscientific in how he has wielded his influence in the field.

now to your question after that extended roundabout--I'm interested in CCG and HPSG and have been also been curious about the multitude of semantic formalisms that have been cropping up (UCCA, AMR, ...)

>>11567697
cont'd

> What are some major unsolved areas of linguistic theory?
all of semantics, for one thing

> Are the grants enough, and how stupid are the politics necessary to get those grants?
what grants lol

ok seriously now: any phd program worth attending will fund you for x years, but after that it's very unlikely you'll need/get a grant unless you're doing experimental stuff (phonetics, cogsci) or fieldwork.

> How much has SJW bullshit infected the field in academia? I know postmodern theories place a large emphasis on deconstructing language
hard to say since i'm a computational linguist. linguists are on the whole very liberal and sociolinguists and linguistic anthropologists in particular are even more so. i don't think about this much though--if you go to some conferences you might like, idk, get asked to state your pronouns or something. it's not a big deal imo

>>11567697
>everyone is basically the same level of competent in a language even independent of IQ
Could it be because your verbal iq is not that high, so you don't see what those with better level of competence see? Did you make a single breakthrough or have you just memorized other people's ideas to consider them your own?

>>11567697
>they don't even understand what chomsky is saying
So maybe you will so kindly explain? Because all I see in him is some clerk who is presented by jewish press as some genius, but what genius would be a commie to begin with?
People like him make me understand nazis better.
Maybe people like you will be so kind to make me understand that kike faggot better?

>>11567674
>between like an internship at a military research lab
how does that work? why would a linguist work in a military lab?

t. clueless

>>11567722
i'd happily explain all this to you, but seeing what an open and expansive mind you have, i figure you must already understand

>>11567719
i'm not sure i understand what you're saying, but if you're saying this is some stupid shit i'm pulling out of my ass, it's not. it's been observed that some individuals with very low IQ still have relatively unimpaired language abilities: https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/innateness-language/

> Pinker (1994:297-314) articulates this latter line of thought, arguing that there is a double dissociation between ‘general intelligence’ and language in two developmental disorders called Williams Syndrome (WS) and Specific Language Impairment (SLI). People with WS have IQs well below the normal range (50-60), yet are able to speak fluently and engagingly about many topics. Those with SLI, by contrast, have normal (≈90) non-verbal intelligence but speak effortfully and slowly, frequently making errors in their production and comprehension of sentences and words. Pinker argues that there is a double dissociation here, and that it supports the view that there is a special ‘language acquisition device’ that is separable from any general learning abilities children might possess.

>>11567752
can you really not think of any reasons the military might have for wanting to understand natural language?

>>11567836
>some individuals with very low IQ still have relatively unimpaired language abilities
>relatively
relatively to what? Are you trying to tell me that the way you speak cannot tell about your iq? Have you heard imbeciles speaking?
It's no wonder you quote pinker on that (another kike who will probably take place of chomsky, what were the chances he'd also be from those 2%? all the chances, they would never allow goyim take over such politically charged discipline)
> i'd happily explain all this to you, but
yeah, don't fucking bother.
>>11567709
>all of semantics
Stay the fuck away from semantics! It seems those linguists who are tired of your bs don't want to have anything in common with you. I also like the definition of the term: "the branch of linguistics and logic concerned with meaning" and it explains why there suddenly appeared such term as linguistics when philology was kind of the same thing. And probably that very term appeared when language scientists didn't want to have anything in common with grammarirans (but that's a raw guess, it still needs actual research about it)

>>11567917
> it explains why there suddenly appeared such term as linguistics when philology was kind of the same thing

>>11567926
When I passed my entry exams, one of the questions was "what is the difference between linguistics and philology" - I, just a schoolboy, answered that probably linguistics just studies modern languages and teaches people foreign language and stuff, while philology probably deals with etymology and stuff. - They admired some ghetto youth knowing of etymology and said that the actual answer is "Nobody knows" (there was more than one professor in the class when I was told that, all of them happened to be morons anyway)

>>11567917
It's actually surprising how well some unintelligent people can hide their poor intelligence by relying on memorized phrases and such instead of constructing the sentences on the fly. You will eventually notice their speech is unusually formulaic, or they may even no clear idea what their are saying, nevertheless superficially they may appear perfectly fluent.

>>11567917
It's actually surprising how well some unintelligent people can hide their poor intelligence by relying on memorized phrases and such instead of constructing the sentences on the fly. You will eventually notice their speech is unusually formulaic, or they may even have no clear idea what they are saying, nevertheless superficially they may appear perfectly fluent.

>>11567981
I guess that's what education system is doing. Memorize by heart, repeat, understanding not necessary. Good obedient performers of the higher will, the less independent thought the better.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o_CeWip5BpU

>>11567984
>>11567992
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UL3dYghdzFo

>>11567917
>>11567984
>>11567992
>>11567999
is nobody gonna talk to this samefag to keep him from talking to himself

>>11567677
> u is twice more "rounded" (i.e. labialized)
source?

> (maybe that's why in english it can also be written as oo)
> the same way i is twice more lingualized, that's why they write it as ee.
> I wonder why does aa standing for o (in danish) represents. It's also the case for runes and ogham.

I'd be cautious about reading too much into germanic orthographies, they're a fucking mess

>>11567992
>>11567999
It has nothing to do with speaking nonstandard languages or dialects. They may speak perfectly standard, educated language and still be like that.
>>11568034
Wtf, I>>11567984 disagree with this >>11567917 anon.

>>11567992#
>>11567999#
It has nothing to do with speaking nonstandard languages or dialects. They may speak perfectly standard, educated language and still be like that.
>>11568034
No idea what makes you think we are the same person.

>>11568045

>I'd be cautious about reading too much into germanic orthographies, they're a fucking mess

this, and ditto for almost any other orthography imaginable

>>11568045
>source?
are you even human?

>>11568075
>It has nothing to do with speaking nonstandard languages or dialects.
I understood you perfectly well. That video there is unrelated and by mistake.

>>11565053
It's a known thing that languages that are genetically unrelated to each other can converge on similar structures. It can be random chance or language contact. Look into sprachbunds. That doesn't make language families a useless idea.
>>11565452
<Ü> (it's /y/ in IPA) is a front rounded vowel, so the tongue is positioned forward, roughly the same as the /i:/ in a word like <machine>. Regular /u/ is pronounced with the retracted. Both lip and tongue position are important for making different vowel sounds. Depending on the English dialect, the vowel in a word like <food> could be back like or as far forward as [y] even though it's generally represented as /u:/.
>>11567609
Probably a language with a small phoneme inventory that has adopted a writing system within the last hundred years. No matter how well suited an orthography is for a language, it gets more and more inaccurate with time as sound changes accumulate. The reason I said a small phoneme inventory would be best is because most languages that are starting to use a writing system nowadays are going to be using the Latin alphabet, and it only has 5~7 letters that generally get used to represent vowels. The fewer digraphs and diacritics necessary, the better IMO.
>>11567677
My lips are just as rounded when I say <loop> as when I say <core>, so I'm not sure where you're getting this "twice more rounded" thing from. That said, /u:/ and /i:/ in English are written <oo> and <ee> because before the Great Vowel Shift, the sounds were actually /o:/ and /e:/. At that time /u:/ was written <ou> and <ow> and /i:/ was written with <i> or <y>. The GVS turned them into /aʊ/ and /aJ/, which is where you get the pronunciation of words like <town> and <five>.

>>11568183
>It can be random chance or language contact.
in other words, a (((coincidence))) right?
but it's all too political, let's put this one aside, until ai takes this shit away from our shoulders.
> Regular /u/ is pronounced with the retracted.
What is irregular /u/? The only reason you'd want to retract the tongue is you pronounce k next to it, as in queen.
> My lips are just as rounded when I say <loop> as when I say <core>
Almost. Now try to put those sounds next to each other o-u-o-u-o-u and tell me what's the actual difference.

>queen.
duh, not the best example, but you'll get the point if you want to
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2ZBtPf7FOoM

>>11561546
are you doing a linguistics degree or something else? if it's not linguistics, just read slp3 and get on with it: https://web.stanford.edu/~jurafsky/slp3/

you should especially consider skipping course in general linguistics and historical linguistics--they're interesting reads but for data science they're about as useful as russian literature

>>11568150
just because a sound is informally described with a single letter doesn't mean they're the same. german and english /u/, for instance, are different: in most dialects of english /u/ is a diphthongal [ʊə] while in standard german /u/ is a monophthongal [uː]. also, <ü> and <u> in German are not the same sound: they're [yː] and [uː] respectively.

why don't you read a book before you talk out your ass and make yourself look like a retard?

>>11568298
I thought we were talking of the ipa's o and u.
Is there any language where they pronounce u with mouth more open than for o?
Did you really think I'm not aware of that basic "letter is not phoneme" thing?

>>11568221
By regular /u/, I meant the cardinal vowel. English /u/ is rarely actually . I only have for /u/ before /l/ in words like <pool>.

The difference is still in tongue position for me either way.

>>11568379
Okay, whatever. If we spoke in person, we would do it in front of mirror or something.

>>11568289

I want to do a linguistics degree outright.

> tech (compling, data science)
> historical studies
> undeciphered languages/documenting endangered languages

I've learned a degree of Python, I just need to get more experience with a job I'm doing now.

>>11568379

Yeah, and then the French do /u/ with their tongues father back

hey /sci/, any conlang ideas?

no meme but lets assume a weak sapir-whorf to apply, so there can be small improvements in thought etc. any suggestions other than brevity?

> 2020
> to learn by books
> to learn PHONETICS by books
> by ancient books
I remember you faggots teaching for centuries that fly has 8 legs (because Aristotle wrote so)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y05yGLkrOko

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J3TwTb-T044

>>11567992
>>11570439
I think that many are only able to pass education at the cost of cognitive defects. Uneducated people are rarely like that. The more educated the worse.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T4KRbENmFDk
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9TwQi9Wp66A
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6dAEE7FYQfc
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Nvvn-ZVdeqQ
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ecIlKjZYipA
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OCvJiqKZbz4

>>11567984
>>11567992
>>11570439
I think that many are only able to pass education at the cost of cognitive defects. Uneducated people are rarely like that. The more educated the worse.

>>11570504
Hello, newphage!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=87OUb8TBwX0

>>11570504
The more indoctrinated the worse.
True education is self-education (with a little help from your friends)
So even though it seems today that education equals indoctrination facilities or that science equals peer-review, internet have already changed this situation. Now the question is how to fund the scientists if they don't need institution taxes are handed to. Probably only smart ones should make science. And smart ones should figure out how to get money (from rich friends and relatives (maybe they have to figure out how to make some allies richer first) from implementing their ideas by themselves or via investors) and as we began speaking about such matters, here's a video where the same guy doesn't mind ubi: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-6t-R3pWrRw&t=1s

>>11570597
nobody gives a shit about your schizo pontificating and samefagging yourself won't change that, gtfo of this thread

>>11571115
You do. Because that's what assholes do: they give shit.
You're also delusional about samefagging and you have nothing to object.

>>11570173

Heh, I didn't know anons were interested in this...

You talking about Esperanto-type conlangs, or stuff out of fiction novels like Tolkien's?

>>11561546
What would be a good introduction for linguistics for someone who isn't in the field?

>>11571181
This would be a good corner-stone.

>>11571207

>>11571181
there are a lot of em, take a look at these and get the one that most intrigues you:

Adrian Akmajian, Richard A. Demers, Ann K. Farmer, and Robert M. Harnish. Linguistics: An Introduction to Language and Communication. (2001).
Mark Aronoff, Janie Rees-Miller. The Handbook of Linguistics. (2003).
Kate Burridge, Tonya Stebbins. For the Love of Language: An Introduction to Linguistics. (2015).
David Crystal. How language works. (2006).
Victoria Fromkin, Robert Rodman, Nina M. Hyams. An Introduction to Language. (2011).
Bruce Hayes - Introductory Linguistics. (2010).
Ray Jackendoff. Foundations of Language: Brain, Meaning, Grammar, Evolution. (2003).
Andrew Radford, Martin Atkinson, David Britain, Harald Clahsen, Andrew Spencer. Linguistics: An Introduction. (2009).
George Yule. The Study of Language. (2010).
Ohio State University Press. Language Files 11: Materials for an Introduction to Language and Linguistics. (2011).

(src: https://www.reddit.com/r/linguistics/wiki/readinglist)

>>11571215
Thanks anon, I will give it a shot

>>11571126
More just experimental languages
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Experimental_language

Tho the ones imitating natural languages are cool too

>>11571215
Has anybody here read any of those books?
Why would anybody want books in this timeline?
Especially paper books, guh...

>>11571464

> Why would anybody want books in this timeline?

Post some good video lecture series from YouTube then, you faggot

>>11571473
I don't know any. That's why the first question I asked was if somebody here read any of those books. What is the best thing about it (the most awesome paragraph of it) would be my second question.
I don't mind written word at all. I only don't understand why would you want to contribute to destruction of forests to get something in uncomfortably tiny script with no search or copy-paste functions. I also consider threads on imageboards way more informative than anything else, because here you can ask questions and get almost instant responses like no youtube channel can guarantee. And of course when we speak of language, video and audio materials is the must.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KYpjFObtV94

>>11571543

> I also consider threads on imageboards way more informative than anything else

Gotta agree with you there. 4chan's how I interface with most of the Internet, unless I'm doing research. There's a bunch of us on here, from all walks of life and income levels; we're ready to give our two cents to anyone who will listen, because for most of us, we sure as hell aren't being listened to irl.

>>11571543

I found a channel which gives sample sets of words spoken in all sorts of languages, including more obscure ones like Abkhazian:

https://youtu.be/oOAnumDL3sk

>>11561546
Topic: what letters should be added/removed/re-added to the English alphabet. I still don't understand why we use the th digraph instead of eth or thorn?

>>11572814
y hav awlredee purfectid inglish, anon.

>>11572814

It seems to me that's because English writers wrote in Latin characters through the formation of their literature, which sometimes don't capture non-Latinate sounds.

not sure if this is a good question at all, but has there been any cases where "in-depth theory" of linguistics has actually helped language modelling in ML?

I need reading recommendations for absolute beginners. Books, Articles, Papers etc.

>>11573578
See>>11566296
Most normal white people learn langauges the way they fail to learn math - lots of equations and what to put in them, a lot o memorized phrases and what to put in them. There is no complicated mechanics proposed by the lingiusts, only a huge arbitrary set that is brute force memorized.
Which is also why they have trouble learning East Asian languages that cannot be learned this way and why aspies are confused by western langauges, because they expect a system where none exists.

>>11573578
>>11573578
See>>11566296 (You)
Most normal white people learn langauges the way they fail to learn math - lots of equations and what to put in them, a lot o memorized phrases and what to put in them. There is no complicated mechanics proposed by the lingiusts, only a huge arbitrary set that is brute force memorized.
Which is also why they have trouble learning East Asian languages that cannot be learned this way and require systemizing, a cognitive ability that is missing in neurotypical whites; and why aspies are confused by western langauges, because they expect a system where there is none.

>>11573578
See>>11566296
Most normal white people learn langauges the way they fail to learn math - lots of equations and what to put in them, a lot of memorized phrases and what to put in them. There is no complicated mechanics proposed by the lingiusts, only a huge arbitrary set that is brute force memorized.
Which is also why they have trouble learning East Asian languages that cannot be learned this way and require systemizing, a cognitive ability that is missing in neurotypical whites; and why aspies are confused by western langauges, because they expect a system where there is none.

>>11573655
The best way to learn a foreign language is to begin thinking in the language (with dictionary and fucked-up grammar) even though "professors" would tell you it's the final stage of knowing the language.

>>11573713
i dont see how this answers the question desu

>>11565248
>tfw i speak arabic, hebrew, russian, english, and french and a little bit of german

>>11573772
It didn't, because it isn't correct. Jowever machine learning essentially discovered the real way languages work by ttial and error. Also explains why they work for western languages, but not others.

>>11573578
> "Every time I fire a linguist, the performance of the speech recognizer goes up"

If anyone is interested in how oral culture and literate culture compare, read Walter j Ong. He's a mcluhan influenced scholar who has some fantastic insights on culture, language and knowledge retention.

>>11574893
Since radio, television and the internet, elements of the oral world have returned. Hence the tribalism.

I was wondering how this was such a based thread and then I realized this was /sci/ not /lit/.

Linguistics, contrary to popular belief, is one of the most logical and deep fields I can think of. Considering humans are literally hardwired for language, it's no surprise the extent at which we have developed and refined this art.

>>11575719

Please, go on... I'm trying to make it my living. I've always had a humanities-oriented mind, but I don't want to waste my intelligence on some larpy sociological bullshit when I do get into school.

>>11575719
>Linguistics, contrary to popular belief, is one of the most logical and deep fields I can think of.
Are you fucking kidding me? It could be one of the most logical and deep field among humanities only. But it is not, it's the same literary babbling as all humanities are today. And it is even worse than that, because linguistics may challenge some deepest political questions, which is not supposed to be allowed, at all.
As somebody above righteously recalled the actual meme:
> "Every time I fire a linguist, the performance of the speech recognizer goes up"

>>11575947

How do you think linguistics properly studied ccan be used to subvert the system today?

>>11561546
Check out Tom Scott on youtube anon..

The Sentences Computers Can't Understand, But Humans Can

https://youtu.be/m3vIEKWrP9Q

Have fun.

>>11575947
The hugely uncomfortable truth (that linguists have been battling since before linguistics was really a thing) is that languages spoken by Europeans seem to be PRIMITIVE compared to all but the most primitive hunter gatherer tribal languages.

>>11576823
What are you talking about? Look at your sentence and tell me some hunter-gatherer could have said something like that. I suspect you was referring to complicated suffixal structure of archaic languages, but being more complicated doesn't make language less primitive. Just as books written in some hard language are not better than books written in a more user-friendly manner (because it is more difficult to write simply of complex matters)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9AN2tbfSGm4

>>11577284
>>11577284
I'm talking about most languages seemingly being more advanced than european languages, with perhaps the exception of languages spoken by khoisan hunters. Anywhere you look. Look at Turkish, Korean, Japanese, (Chinese is claimed to be isolating, even though it obviously doesn't work that way in practice) Dravidian languages, siberian languages, Inuit languages... Meanwhile the indo-european languages got drastically simplified after being imported from the east, so much that I read people claiming that Latin (itself likely already simplified) was an invented literally anguage, because it's just too complex to be normally spoken...

>>11561583
>ven though it's obvious that U doesnt care much about where your tongue is, as long as your lips are in the proper position.
more like there are subtly different Us with changes in the mouth and vocalisation in a continuum especially in languages with small inventories of vowels.

>>11565053
>japanese is very similar to russian
No it's fucking not you retard. Russian is a normal case heavy Indoeuropean language is very similar to its others of that kind. Japanese doesn't have cases to begin with and vastly different in a number of ways not to mention there being no proven relation through textual evidence.

Also, it kinda is bullshit though. It's overdependent on said textual evidence and politics. Korean and Japanese are literally just dialects of one language yet given separate families. Identical grammatically. Also, it's true that the thinking in families is flawed because languages influence eachother by geographic proximity and historical events, and that is not bound by family though it's much easier for alike languages to influence eachother.

>>11577329
>so much that I read people claiming that Latin (itself likely already simplified) was an invented literally anguage, because it's just too complex to be normally spoken...
lol they're dumb. also what you're saying is that grammaticalised things makes a language more advanced but this is not true at all, grammaticalisation is the process of erosion, simplification, and regularisation. Think of all the different ways the subjective mood is done in English, in fact it does not have this mood it has a number of constructions each conveying a very specific mood that is roughly grouped under it.

Today English has a future tense as 'will' has became almost completely grammaticalised. So how was futurity said in the past? In endless ways with specific meanings and connotations. A future tense is a very broad and empty thing compared to that specificity. That's how it works.

As for Latin/Greek, a lot of what makes you say that is Western cultural bias. Thinking these grammaticalisations, these regularisations, equal civilisation and advancement. Also you point out a number of languages that lack the same grammaticalisations as European languages, yet brush over that. No, Indoeuropean languages are generally much more grammaticalised because of the deep roots of it in its case system. Other languages don't have this.

>>11577432
>subjective
subjunctive*

>>11577410
>Japanese doesn't have cases to begin with
Not the same anon here, what do you think the -ga, -wa, -no, etc endings are?

>>11577434
Clitics. Calling them cases is wrong because that refers to Indoeuropean languages. They function differently and do not have agreement. It is a description, broadening the word to cover such a different system is dumb. It's like saying everything is art or everything is political. You are tossing aside utility.

>>11577329
> japanese
> chinese
Now I really don't understand what you're talking about. These two languages are as different as can be. And chinese is conservated by it's ancient writing system on the level when every word was just one syllable (every hieroglyph of theirs is just one syllable) and their grammar is also believed to be very fucking symple.

>>11577451
Zhe shi pingguo.
Zhe shi wonianggeiwode.
Try coming up with syntax where "wonianggeiwode" is not a polysynthetic word.

>>11577457
I'm sorry, baby, I don't speak chinese. You have to break it down for me.

>>11577457
I managed to transliterate the first one as 這是蘋果 (because I knew zhe shi) but you still have to break it down.

>>11577410
>>11577442
> we use different terms for different language families, and thus they're in different language families.
Lol, no, it doesn't work this way.
Russians use suffix -no to make genetive case.
And oh-wow! the same suffix is used by japanese for the same case.
Russians use suffix -i to make adjectives. And oh-my-god, the very same suffix is used in japanese for the same thing.
Russians then can change that suffix to turn adjective into adverb, and the same is true for japanese, only russians use -o and japanese use -e (both o and e are used in russian to combine two words into one, so they're kind of the same in this context, and I can see exactly how the first word in that context is somewhat adverbial) and I can probably go on, but these two are the most prominent examples. -hochi is a japanese postfix standing for "wanna" and russian word for wanna is hochu (or hoti if it's an imperative)
And of course this contact happened before languages were written, so don't expect any textual evidence here (even though there is so many similar words in russian and english that one freak down here even wrote a book about how japanese is derived from russian (which is complete nonsence of course, all he should have said is that they definitely had some common predecessor)

>>11577469
My-mom-give-me-ADJ

>>11577457
>Zhe shi
>This is
also how can chinese and english be in different families, and still have structures so similar to english?
Also there wo (I) could totally be the singular form of english we.
The fashion to use short words is also common.
It's almost as if English and Chinese grow from one branch, and Russian and Japanese grow from the other branch, only English leaves contact Russian leaves, and Chinese leaves contact Japanese leaves. So it's not just clouds after all, but some freaky dendritic structure. Only it probably grows not the way we thought.

>>11577501
got it:
我娘给我的
but still you have to explain

>>11577525
Explain what? Ok, let's use this example instead:
Zhe shi heisede.
This is black-color-ADJ
This is black.

Zhe shi wonianggeiwode.
This is my-mom-give-me-ADJ
My mom gave me this.

Same syntax, two different (poly) synthetic words.

>>11577580
>Same syntax, two different (poly) synthetic words.
Whatmakesyouthink that thosefivehieroglyphs are oneword?

>>11577607
1. The syntax is identical with the first example, assuming both are adjectives.
2. There doesn't seem to be any way to break it down further into smaller constituent words, the whole thing obviously seems to be an adjective. I asked you above to come up with syntax where it isn't one word.

>>11561732
>Zeta became I
>Iota became Z
hmm...

>>11577649
>The syntax is identical with the first example
So awonderfulsite is one word, because "It is awonderfulsite" has identical syntax with "It is good"?
> There doesn't seem to be any way to break it down further into smaller constituent words
lolwut.
我 (me, my)
娘 (mom)
给 (gave)
我的 (me) and here we have a suffix, which tells that after all chinese has some cases. This one is accusative, I suppose.
What you perform here seems to me to be a result of some chinese linguist getting some butthurt from arrogant europeans calling chinese language primitive. But you should be proud of your language instead, because its writing system managed to preserve it in the form of separated morphemes you know the exact meaning of (I cannot think of any other language that has that) I even believe that we can draw parallels from every european morpheme bact to chinese hieroglyphs. But to do that you have to know the chinese which may take me a couple of decade at this pace. So I present this idea to you (or whoever gets me) you may mention me as some guy from 4chan or you can leave me outside of the equation, let the science be anonymous as it probably should be to avoid those career pricks giving it cancer they are.

>>11577744
>我 (me, my)
>娘 (mom)
>给 (gave)
>我的 (me)
Well, that is the thing. 我的 alone means mine. You won't get the meaning when you break it down.
>seems to me to be a result of some chinese linguist getting some butthurt
Too bad for you, I am not chinese.

>>11577787
>You won't get the meaning when you break it down.
sure you will. just like in japanese 私の 私 is I and の is that postfix -no which could be a cognate of english own (yes, I'm quite aware such comparison is a heresy) and now I wonder if の is a simplified form of 的 because they're graphically similar (even though hentaigana tells not really)
> Too bad for you, I am not chinese.
but you definitely were influenced by their linguists.

>>11577977
But mine is NOT what the whole means. You guess something like "my mom gave mine" when you try to read it as several words, which is not what it means.

>>11578027
my bad, 的 is not -の, but -に or something,

or maybe 的 [de] sometimes can be tranlated as で [de] or にて[nite] but that not for sure

>>11578047
>>11578058
That's not what I mean. I mean in my example you get the correct meaning only when you apply the -de to the whole "wonianggeiwo", not just the word it directly follows. I this is even the same argument that is used for the Greenlandic language being polysynthetic. (If I remember correctly.) You could take virtually any word in any language and argue it's just more words written without spaces, that doesn't make it true.

>>11578080
Thus you could argue that to in "my mom gave it to me" relates not only to "me" but to whole the sentence, it doesn't make it one word though.
>You could take virtually any word in any language and argue it's just more words written without spaces, that doesn't make it true.
Sometimes it does, but only when it makes sense:
for example, russian suffix -ть is pretty much the same english to used for puting a verm into an infinitive form. But if you try to argue that т & ь are two different morphemes, that would be more difficult to rationalize.

>>11578112
That's a sentence. You can't turn that sentence into an adjective though, that wouldn't make any sense.

>>11571912
>because for most of us, we sure as hell aren't being listened to irl.
and that hurts me.

>>11578125
> You can't turn that sentence into an adjective
challenge accepted!
given-by-mother
some linguists may even argue that construction is one word, but we both know it can be seen otherwise.

post your favorite languistic theories, anons. for me, it's Sun Language Theory.

>>11578169
The thing is it happens all the time and it would be impossible to parse such sentences unless you treat those as words, at least not without some brutally complex syntax, if it would even be possible. You still haven't even try to propose how it would work with syntax only.
Na shi bukenengde.
It is impossible.

>>11578256
When I was younger I was even more arrogant, and then I used to say that most of people don't even compose their own sentences, they use phrasebook instead of dictionary.
What you're doing here is common vector of modern linguistics, serving the ruler's narrative of divide et impera. My task is on contrary, to show all the languages to be as similar as possible. And if germans like to combine several words into one, for english speakers it's still easier to understand those complex words as several smaller ones written without spaces.

>>11578307
Doesn't it kinda make chinese seem less alien?
Wo zai kan ni mai3 de shu.
I at read you buy de book.
Or
Wo zaikan nimai3de shu.
I reading bought-by-you book

>>11578307
>My task is on contrary, to show all the languages to be as similar as possible.
Well, what if they just aren't? Why would you chose to be biased one way or another?

>>11578333
It is how it's usually transliterated:
https://www.quora.com/In-Mandarin-what-is-the-difference-between-Ta-zai-kan-shu-and-Ta-zai-kan-ta-de-shu
I don't know where you found that german-like transliteration of chinese into lating, but it's definitely not helping.

>>11578385
Because my way makes it easier to learn language. Maybe that's why it takes a russian a couple of years to learn english in some english-speaking country, but if he trusts professors to teach him, he will not reach that level even in five years.
There's a good read just about it: http://lib.ru/WELLER/stager.txt (the very first paragraph)

>>11567609
What do you mean faulty?
Doesma conlang apply? Then Lojban.
Else Korean (by way of alphabet)

>>11578183

Sounds oddly like how the Hindus view ॐ (Om) to me

how much do we care about formal linguistics?
... the only kind i care about ... ;)

>>11578852
Not as oddly as ॐ being read by some iraqi or irani: like ع and م written left to right

>>11561732

Archaic latin looks dope.

>>11578183
> all languages also consequently originated there and first (were) used by the Turks
We in Russia also have freaks claiming all the languages are derived from Russian language (I think every other country has such wannabe linguists fast to jump to conclusions, forgetting they're simply looking at other languages through prism of their own) but at least here we usually don't take them too seriously. I usually like to settle them down with this question: "So you say all the cultures descended from (nation name) like man descended from monkey? So all the nations descended and we didn't?" Usually it breaks their nationalistic pattern (even though it happens so that I am quite a nazi myself)

>>11577649
>>11577580
they aren't adjectives, they're noun phrases. you have no idea what you're talking about

>>11579549
How do you know they are noun phrases? How do you apply an adjective marker to a phrase? Which of the words is the noun?

>>11578421
>>11578982
Kind of like the Polish teacher, who taught all languages as if they were Polish, who was famous bevause he could teach to speak languages extremely quickly with horribly broken pronunciation and grammar.

>>11579870
it's not an adjective marker in this case. it's a particle creating a noun phrase.
>Which of the words is the noun?
the noun phrase, as a unit.
>it's (a) [mom-give-me]
>i saw a man walking a dog的.
>i saw a [man walking a dog]

>>11579874
>to speak languages extremely quickly with horribly broken pronunciation and grammar
In comparison to other offers in the market, his offer sounds as "too good to be true"
Who's that teacher? Please share.
In return, here's an israeli guy telling you not to learn russian grammar (because he was misunderstood while speaking russian for million times, and not once was it because of grammar)
ah, yeah, he speaks english, but so you know the point and can not watch this video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gcYCT9wEUuU
It could be another story for English, but even though I still make mistakes, I don't think my grammar's horrible. And it takes much less effort to learn english grammar than those teachers who're payed by hours want you to make.

>>11579918
I'm sorry, but that doesn't make sense.
>>11580012
I had to look it up. It was Michel Thomas(he changed his name). Reportedly his teaching involved such things as teaching how to deduce when people mean "want" and when they mean "won't" (or something very similar) because he refused to learn pronunciation and didn't know they sound different.
I don't think we disagree that grammar doesn't really deeds to be explicitly taught, what I say is that treating it as synthetic seems to make learning Chinese much simpler, not harder.

>>11580033
makes more sense than "man walking a dog" being an adjective or a single word
https://resources.allsetlearning.com/chinese/grammar/Modifying_nouns_with_phrase_%2B_%22de%22
literally the first result in google for "的 noun phrase"

>>11580094
Because English doesn't allow it. But it would be virtually impossible to understand why such seemingly awkward constructions are used at all, unless they are indeed long adjectives.

>>11580186
what is an adjective?
的 is a nominaliser like korean 것 or japanese の

>>11580186
>it would be virtually impossible to understand why such seemingly awkward constructions are used at all
What are you talking about? 我娘给我的 is not awkward at all and it's completely comprehensible
我娘 is my mom (as in some nigger-english me mom)
给 gave (as with verb "put" in chinese all forms of the verb are the same)
我的 to me (only they put to at the end)
>>11580200
funny that you make the same mistake I did before: it's not no, but ni.

>>11580200
The parts in green in your link
>>11580245
我的 does not mean "to me".

>>11580245
>我的 to me (only they put to at the end)
okay it seems to be compretery rong. I should stop speaking of languages I donl't know. My bad, I'm sorry.
>>11580200
I'm sorry, you were correct,
>我的
is translated as mine

>>11580363
those aren't adjectives lol
>NP+的+NP
>妈妈做的菜
的 in this sentence is turning 妈妈做 into a noun phrase and then linking it with 菜 to create a larger noun phrase (or one hyphenated noun): the ([mum cook]-[vegetable])
>去北京的火车
the ([go beijing]-[train])

NP+的 followed by nothing is implying a word with the function of which is provided by >thing in english
>妈妈做的
the ([mum cook][thing])
>他写的
the ([he write]-[thing])

>>11580498
But that is several times more complicated than just calling it an adjective.

>>11578946

Italic languages seem pretty aesthetic

bump

>>11582810
was it the best you could do?

>>11578183

Lots of old linguists thought Hebrew was the original language of the world before the tower of Babel

https://charlesasullivan.com/3965/hebrew-and-the-first-language-of-mankind/

>>11578183
what a load of nonsense Why would you assume the sun was the first thing named? The whole point of language is group behaviour. The first words would have been names for tribe members, and words like sun enter later as the vocabulary becomes more advanced. Really who can believe this is even remotely true?

>>11584620
Because bible told them so. We were literally taught the concept of "soul of the language" which was completely undefined, just some abstract something you are supposed to know what some dead professors thought about. Only in the 20th century. Karl Vossler identified soul of language as its accent. Why would I want to spend my time of my prime brain activity to memorizing all that crap? Probably so I have even less opportunity to challenge kikes teaching phoenician to be the first alphabet, even though it's not remotely true.

What if we're/the ego is an AI? The alphabet is our programming language. It's man-made, a tool, technology. We think in it. Basically like a couple thousand years of cleverbot.

>>11584892
based. what is the first alphabet then?

>>11584915
Most probably Ogham.
I think phenotype was the same centuries down:
whites were inventing everything, while jews were scheming as usual.

>>11584912
because we can do and say human things without knowing the words for them.

>>11561546
>Anyone have experience with this field of study?
yes

>>11584918
"human" is also just man-made invention, conceptually speaking.

>>11584930

> yes

A-anything else you have to say about it?

>>11584915
Likely egyptian. Hieroglyphics are an alphabet. (More or less)
>>11584917
What makes you think that?

>>11584751
>Really who can believe this is even remotely true
the theory had some political fundamentals since Atatürk wanted the Turkish society to be more secular and wanted to separate us from the arabic culture. turkish language was heavily influenced by the arabic language in those times (it still is), he worked hard to remove those loan words from Turkish. today arabic has the biggest percentage in our language along with French, in terms of loan words.
Politically, The Sun Language Theory states that all those arabic loan words are not arabic in the end of the day, they're Turkish.
However, the theory have never received public acceptance, not even by Atatürk's himself.

>>11585043
In few words: decades of digging in that field.
Let me give you a more extended argument from the top of my head:
a) the most primitive forms
b) parallels with the second most primitive in graphics: ᚐ is to ᚑ just as ᛆ is to ᚮ just as a is to aa (aa is o in Denmark)
the third most primitive is whether paleohispanic syllabaries or tifinagh (picrelated) where a is also one dot and two dots are labial vowel, and I can go for hours about it.
c) radiocarbon dating being one of the biggest nothingburgers I know of: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Before_Present

>>11585043

Anybody know any good books on hieroglyphics? They're cool af

>>11586216
This bilingua would be perfect if it was transcribed, alas. It's strange, egyptologists should have had a foible for trilinguas.
But I'd learn it not by books, but via internet resources. But I will wait for somebody who knows some good ones, and for now, here would probably be one of the best places to start:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transliteration_of_Ancient_Egyptian#Uniliteral_signs
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Egyptian_biliteral_signs
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Egyptian_triliteral_signs

Something like this would be nice, but I didn't manage to find the rest of it.

>>11586587
> budgeani
oh me, lazy lamer, of course!
https://archive.org/details/TheBookOfTheDead-Budge-1895

>>11586603

Nice :)

Anyone have any references on crazy languages, like Mycenaean or something?

I'm interested in the neurology of linguistics.
Things like people who have strokes and speak with jambled words but think they're talking normally or lose access to their first language but not a second one.
I want to go back to sapolsky's lectures on human behavioral biology about language, he said something about how there can, logically, exist over 20 organizations verbs, subjects, objects and this sorta stuff (i don't know) but all human languages only use a few of those possibilities. Another interesting thing is that mixed languages created by refugees and immigrants in sudden contact always have the same structure.

>>11561583
Especially when they classify English as "Germanic", when in actuality it is more Latin-French.

>>11585071
>b) parallels with the second most primitive in graphics: ᚐ is to ᚑ just as ᛆ is to ᚮ just as a is to aa (aa is o in Denmark)
That actually suggests a late origin. A primitive writing system would be expected to write either syllables, or ecen domino-like chained syllabary, likely with pictograms mixed in etc. This suggests the exact opposite, a highly advanced writing system designed by somebody highly literate in another alphavlbet.

>>11587626
>>11585071#
>b) parallels with the second most primitive in graphics: ᚐ is to ᚑ just as ᛆ is to ᚮ just as a is to aa (aa is o in Denmark)
That actually suggests a late origin. A primitive writing system would be expected to write either syllables, or even domino-like chained syllabary, likely with pictograms mixed in etc. This suggests the exact opposite, a highly advanced writing system designed by somebody highly literate in another alphabet

>>11585071
>>11587630
Because, alphabet isn't really something very obvious. It woud start possibly with noticong that speech consists of words (that can be perhaps graphically reoresented) this primitive ideographic system may then be extended by rebus like substitutions of words that sound similar. Eventually it could be noticed that some sound rhyme, or that they can be divided into syllables, which would simplify the writing further (syllabaries were sometimes invented by cultures that encountered writing, but haven't been taught how it worked, so it could be guessed to be the simplest plausible early writing system. Only later you may be able to divide the syllables further, like into initials and finals, and this may eventually lead to an alphabet. It takes more work to notice things such as that m to b is the same as n to d, etc.

>>11587630
Before syllables were recognized, ba and bu and bi were probably recognized as the same b. Before writing system to write down myths was magic and music and math. So in the basis of it is some tai-chi-tier-shiet like odd and even (adam and eve, a & b (d & v) lingua and labia, water and fire, and so on)

>>11585071#
>>11587630 (You)#
Because, alphabet isn't really something very obvious. It woud start possibly with noticing that speech consists of words (that can be perhaps graphically reoresented). This primitive ideographic system may then be extended by rebus like substitutions of words that sound similar. Eventually it could be noticed that some words rhyme, or that they can be divided into syllables, which would simplify the writing further. Syllabaries were sometimes invented by cultures that encountered writing, but weren't taught how it worked, so it could be guessed to be the simplest plausible early writing system. Only later you may be able to divide the syllables further, like into initials and finals, and this may eventually lead to an alphabet. It takes more work to notice things such as that m to b is the same as n to d, etc

>>11587663
>Before syllables were recognized, ba and bu and bi were probably recognized as the same b.
Yes, that is indeed how some writing systems worked, but that would be expected to happen after syllables were known ba bi bu don't actually sound really alike, it was possibly noticed that they are all pronounced with lips coming together.

>>11587669
>ba bi bu don't actually sound really alike
bt stl ancnt wrtng sstms oftn omttd vwls
>>11587665
You should smoke more weed to turn yourself into some shamanic savage to understand how the ancient people thought.
Phonetic writing system could begin not where we see it now. It probably began with music, because that's where you need to know how it sounds. So hieroglyphics and alphabetics probably began independently (even if interconnectedly) even though egyptian writing system combines both, but egyptian writing system is some pinnacle of it, even though we only began digging further than that.

>>11587026
I don't know much about it, but after some heavy trip on mushrooms I was speaking with middle-eastern accent for a couple of months. I even approached to their company to ask why they speak this way if they secretly eat mushrooms or what, they were shocked with me being so brave mocking them in their face and asked me not to eat mushrooms again.

>>11565053
>japanese is very similar to russian
Do you even know Russian and Japanese? How are they similar grammatically? Russian has tons of agreements between word classes, including 3 genders, very synthetic inflections which, by the way, are obligatory not to mention syntax with bunch on depended clauses. While the Japanese is almost the opposite: bunch of optional grammar, isolational nouns, agglutinative verbs, minimal agreement and the approach to pronouns no native russian speak could imagine.
If we want to look at phonology, those two might come from 2 different planets all together.

>>11561546(OP)
Are you the linguistics guy from before a couple of days ago?

>>11587812
I am native russian and I know chotto (choott in russian) nihongo (all three syllables are probably chinese borrowings, because ingenious japanese reading of those hieroglyphs are polysillable) some upper basic level or something.
> Russian has tons of agreements between word classes, including 3 genders, very synthetic inflections which, by the way, are obligatory not to mention syntax with bunch on depended clauses. While the Japanese is almost the opposite: bunch of optional grammar
Watch this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gcYCT9wEUuU
Both are grammatically difficult, and as they say in russia: dolboebizm zakonov kompensiruetsa pohuizmom pri ih sobludenii (asininity of laws is compensated by negligence of their enforcing (dura lex sed dura))
> isolational nouns, agglutinative verbs, minimal agreement and the approach to pronouns no native russian speak could imagine.
You should explain these to me so I can tell you if I can imagine it or it's just our linguist comprehend our language diffirently.
> If we want to look at phonology, those two might come from 2 different planets all together.
As I said, I once ate mushrooms and began speaking with different accents, maybe they had conflicts on what accent (or musical mode) to use and then russians mixed with westerners, and japanese mixed with easterners. I imagine it as if they went to fnd where the sun goes up (I heard they're related to koreans, I think they're related to philipinians too: philipinian writing systems existed before christians, they are similar to japanese kanas in many accounds, some of them have only three vowels, and those vowels are in order which is common among japanese and europeans: a i u

Basque looks pretty neat

>>11587814

Yeah, I’ve been wanting to get a discussion going. Based on what’s in this thread, I’ll bake some bread for a recurring general.

I thought I understood what a subject was, but then I found out that the agent and the subject of a sentence are not always the same.

>>11589702
Why would you want to know that irrelevant shit?

>>11589785

Ergatives and accusatives frendo, and all between

>>11587124
Based retard. Modern English is part of the Germanic branch of the Indo-European family. It's just been bastardised to hell by the inclusion of Franco-Latin terminology by the Normans.
If you want to see this in action, go listen to some Scottish dialects and compare their words with Norwegian.

>>11587026
the clearest link between neurology and language is syntax, so you might want to look into that first. I recommend reading Chomsky's "Syntactic Structures" and then read other books/journals about generative grammar. Investigating the emergence of Nicaraguan sign language while also learning about the gestural practices of apes (i know not exactly "human language" but its important to consider since we do share much of our neurology with them) will also be helpful.

>>11590100
> chomsky
notto disu shitto agen
(or you may try to convince me that braindead commie faggot is worth reading by quoting the most tremendous paragraphs of his; we're not commies, we approve of freedom of speech and thought)

>>11590100
>the clearest link between neurology and language is syntax
Absurd.

>>11591257
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xtgx0KTjoxM

Not interested in linguistics myself but I have a torrent that has a lot of linguistics resources

magnet:?xt=urn:btih:1ad01a626310a2692f74c3e401fd15ba4d5ab30c&dn=Language%20and%20Linguistics%20Collection%20(Updated!)&tr=udp%3a%2f%2ftracker.openbittorrent.com%3a80%2fannounce&so=0-340


Let me know if it doesn't work, I am kind of new to torrenting.

>>11591072
True! The world and its knowledge is manipulated with evil secrecy by jewsih communist faggots. You found all your answers already. No deeper knowledge can a brainlet like myself endow you with.

>>11591257
How? Language structure has proven to be neurologically wired, read into FoxP2.

>>11591725
Actually im wrong. FoxP2 is genetic and not neurological. but still the neurological composition of the Planum Temporale (a region of the brain proven to effect language) and its left lateralization can be found in humans as well as great apes. Since PT also controls the motor function of hands, and since great apes display a very basic use of syntax in their hand gestures, it is not unreasonable to believe that the PT present in apes is responsible for their gestural communication and that later evolved into a system of speech communication in humans.

>>11591703
>You found all your answers already.
chances are it is the only false claim in your sarcastic rant
>>11591747
>it is not unreasonable to believe
go believe somewhere else.
>>11566509 goes in every field.

>>11591725
That's nonsense. Of course genes may make you unable to speak, very little is hardwired as evidenced by the variety of languages and dyslexic people do process language differently from others. Why would you pick syntax as especially important?

>>11561546
Is it true that all western alphabets come from ancient Hebrew?

>>11591830
It is false. Otherwise russian and latin would also have samekh. They all have common source that's for sure, but phoenician is not even close to it.
When they teach "our alphabet descended from phoenician" they speak about their alphabet, not yours. Just as when they say "we descended from neanderthals" they speak of themselves, not of you coyboy.

>>11591798
because there is no mystery of how neurology effects phonetics or phonology, it is fully traceable to tongue and mouth motor functions. besides the poster i was responding to specifically expressed interest in SVO permutations and the structural similarities that arise in creoles, both of which involve syntax.

>>11591877
But the latin alphabet has the same letters as well as well as russia the only difference is in how they are spoken.

>>11591798
"evidenced by a variety of languages" the variety you speak of isnt as diverse as you think. Syntax deals with the principles of structure found in the totality of human language. Any peculiarity unique to a language, say malagasy's verb-object-subject format, still build sentences through constituent elements like Noun Phrases, Verb Phrases, Prepositional Phrases etc. what field of linguistics would you consider to have a more observable relationship with neurology then?

>>11591884
You forgot the difference in the way they look.
But either way that argument of yours is not very good, because it could be used the other way around: greeks could take it from some northern nation, people often mention etruscans, but that's because they don't know nobody else.
Greek have many myths of how alphabet was created in different stages. And the first of all is that there were 5 vowels and only two other letters B & T (and I guess that is some pentatonic scale with a couple of other signs, such as bemol-diez or something)
Jews also have some myths about lettes (but not of their creation actually, not of that I'm aware of) the most interesting one is about three mothers, which are also vowel, labial, lingual. Even though semitic linguistics don't recognize vowels, for whatever reason (I know at least three)
That argument of yours only tells that they share the structure, but who borrowed that structure from who is yet too early to tell. We are taught that greeks acquired alphabet from phoenicians, because Herodotus said so. But Plutarch called Herodotus father of lies, and said that he was phoenician himself, and that it was the underlying reason for such a claim.

>>11591925
>Any peculiarity unique to a language, say malagasy's verb-object-subject format, still build sentences through constituent elements like Noun Phrases, Verb Phrases, Prepositional Phrases etc.
How would you make it work otherwise?
>what field of linguistics would you consider to have a more observable relationship with neurology then?
Any? Phonology, morphology, speech production. What do you think makes syntax so special? Syntax seems rather unimportant for a language, many languages seem to be mostly syntax free.

>>11561546
;inguistics

>>11561735
dunno about the history from before phoenician, but the borrowing of phoenician by greek is pretty well researched, and then from greek to italic/archaic latin (and, later, cyrillic) is even clearer; most of that seems most likely true to me

>>11577674
>Iota became Z
iota is a greek letter; that semitic letter that looks like an iota is the zayin

>>11592178
>the borrowing of phoenician by greek is pretty well researched
Nobody daring to challenge it doesn't make it well researched. You cannot demonstrate how exactly it was researched, I guess, because all their education is incentive to learn other people's thoughts to pretend those thoughts are really yours.

>>11592178

I believe iota is the yodh.

>>11591877
based and redpilled

>>11592083
>How would you make it work otherwise?

if these components are so essential to language, to the point that they cant work otherwise, then shouldnt they be studied?

>many languages seem to be mostly syntax free
id be surprised if you can even name one example.

>>11592362
>id be surprised if you can even name one example.
Russian and Latin use morphology instead of syntax.

>>11592595
You have poor understanding of syntax if all you can gather it to mean is word order. The case markings of those languages (the morphology) you mention are only assigned based on their position on a syntactic structure. I encourage you to actually study syntax since you've obviously given it the most minimal attention before dismissing it.

>>11592667
> syntactic structure
some bs conception you patched your bs theory with?
> Marcus amat Pudentillam
> Marcus Pudentillam amat
> Pudentillam amat Marcus
> Pudentillam Marcus amat
> amat Marcus Pudentillam
> amat Pudentillam Marcus
> each one is correct (though slightly different in focus).
But let's play your game.
If I gave you this example:
> The shit's fucked up!
How would you know if 's is is or has?

>>11592772
why do you insist on your scant knowledge of linguistics? To repeat, mere word order isn't syntax, but in the case you are actually seeking truth let me elaborate. The -us suffix is nominative while -um is accusitive, yes you are correct that once the morphemes are tied to the word then the sequence in which they appear is irrelevant for the grander meaning. Let me ask you this though, how do you determine wether something is the subject or object of a sentence? It's because there is some other faculty in our brains that arrange the ideas in an underlying structure despite the utterances showing no hints of this process. There is overwhelming evidence for this which I referred to in my previous posts.

As for your question involving the phrase "The shit's fucked up!", it is inconsequential to our discussion of the validity of syntax, and frankly I'm curious of what you're trying to argue. Both "is" and "has" would make the sentence grammatical, a hearer would have to guess which one the speaker meant based on context but then you're reaching into pragmatics which is a whole different field.

Let me use you're own example to educate you. If the phrase was using "is" and is expressed in future tense, what changes would occur? well firstly the future tense auxilary "will" would have to be included but "that shit will is fucked up" that doesn't sound right does it? No "is" will have to revert back to its infinitive form. Buts what's this? The change of one grammatical aspect of the sentence resulted in even further changes to accommodate the first change. Its almost like there is a system or structure that binds these words together so that altering one single word requires an overhaul of the sentence.

>>11593047
The term you wanted to use is "grammatic structure" why the fuck you call it syntactic in languages where it's implemented by morphologic means is beyond me. My guess is that your people just adore sins and taxes, but your tactics will not hold on. Keep on reading the "linguist" who only knows english and a little hebrew.

>>11593102
Seek help. Your fears and anxiety will forever infect whatever scientific thoughts you have. The fact that you think a linguist needs to know many languages shows how out of touch you are with the field and probably explains your Latin posturing.

>>11593156
If a linguist wants to be a good theorist, he doesn't necessarily needs to know many languages, but a couple of different kind would definitely be of help. The fact thy assigned the least educated moron to be the greatest of us all only shows that they're rofl in our faces.

>>11593165
WE WILL TAKE OVER GOYIM AND NOTHING CAN STOP US

Arabic was pretty fun brehs, gonna be listening to the Quran for this Ramadan though I'm not a Muslim

I feel like there's a perfect sentence that's not been thought of yet, that when you hear it, everything just makes sense. Similar to math and equations.

>>11593867
niggers tongue my anus

>>11593867
You're thinking of yet undiscovered formula put in a textual form.

>>11593183
ווען די פייגל האָבן געקענט רעדן, זיי אַרגיוד אפילו מער ווי די מענטשן. זיי טשערפּט און קראַקאַלד אַלע טאָג. און וואָלט איר מאל טראַכטן אַז זיי וועלן האַלטן ביי נאַכט, ניט, זיי וועלן אלא טייַנען אין די לעוואָנע - ליכט. עס זענען נאַכט פייגל גענוג, אָדער אפֿשר נישט?
עס איז געווען ניט מער מעגלעך, עס איז געווארן גאָר טויב. די פיר-לעגד אַנימאַלס געוואלט צו באַקלאָגנ זיך. אָבער צו וועמען, איך פרעגן איר, צו וועמען האָבן זיי קאַמפּליינד? יענע פייגל, יענע כוויסלינג קראָוז אַז אַלע קראָווד צוזאַמען, איר וואָלט באַקומען האָרני.
די פייגל געדאַנק עס איז נאָך שטיל גענוג. זיי באַשלאָסן צו קלייַבן אַ מלך, וואָס דערנאָך האט צו ענדיקן אַלע די דיספּיוץ. א מלך האט מאַכט, ער גיט אָרדערס און די אנדערע האָבן צו הערן, אָבער ווי טאָן איר קלייַבן אַ מלך? דאָס איז נישט אַזוי שווער. דער פויגל וואָס קען פליען העכסטן געווארן מלך. ווער נאָך?
אין פאַרטאָג, זיי פלו צוזאַמען אין אַ גרויס סוואָרם אויף די עפענען פעלד. אַ ראַש וואָס האט! אָבער דאָס מאָל עס איז געווען אַ גליקלעך ראַש, פול פון דערוואַרטונג. פֿאַר אַמאָל זיי האבן נישט פליען מאַלקאַנדער אין די פּלומעס. די ביקערינג וואָלט באַלד זיין איבער פֿאַר גוט.

>>11594224
די רייוואַנז סקראַטשט אויבן אַלע פויגל קולות. כל די פייגל פלו אַרויף. אַז ס ווי זיי מסכים. עס איז געווען ווי אויב נאַכט געפאלן ווידער, אַלע יענע פליגל האָבן פינצטער די זון. זיי געגאנגען העכער און העכער און פייגל האלטן קעגן, גרויס און קליין ינטערטוויינד. איר האָט אַנאַונסט די זון ווידער. אפילו די לאַרק איז אָטעם און איידער די כייַע איז שטיל, עס מוזן פליען שוין נאָענט צו די זון.
דער אָדלער איז לינקס איבער צייַט. ער איז אויפגעשטאנען און אויפגעשטאנען אין גרויסע קרייזן, זיינע אויגן האָבן זיך שמאָלגערט קעגן דער ליכטיקער זון. דער אָדלער רויז און רויז צו זיין שפּיץ. ער קען ניט גיין העכער. און וואָס זאָל ער? אַראָפּ ער האָט געהערט די פייגל רופן: דער אָדלער איז מלך, דער אָדלער איז מלך!
אָבער וואָס איז דאָס געווען אויף די פּלאַמז פון זיין עק? א זייער, זייער קליין פויגל פלו אַרויף, פיל העכער ווי די אָדלער פלו און די פליט ווי שנעל ווי עס קען געבן: "איך בין מלך, איך בין, איך בין! איך בין קעניג! ”דאָרטן האָט דער קעפער געקלאַפּט, אַ פעסט שטיק העכער דעם אָדלער און עס האָט נאָך העכער געקלונגען, יאָ, עס איז בכלל ניט געווען מיד.

>>11594225
און דאַן פלאָוטיד אַראָפּ און געשריגן אין אַ ינקרעדאַבלי הויך קול: "מלך איך בין, איך בין, איך בין!" איך בין מלך! "" דו ביסט אַ שיין מלך פֿאַר מיר! "געשריגן די פייגל. זיי פּעלץ טשיטיד. "איר שטינקען מיט דיין סקווינץ. וואָס וואָלט איר האָבן שטאַרקייט אָדער ביסטרע פליגל! איר זעט נאָך נישט פליען. און זיי פּעקד די שנאָבל מיט זייער בעאַקס, עס האט צו זיין חרובֿ.
אָבער עס איז געווען צו שנעל פֿאַר זיי. עס אנטלאפן אין אַ מויז לאָך הינטער אַ רעדנ מיט אַ האַלבנ מויל, וואָס איז וואָס די רויאַל הימל סקימד אַזוי נאָענט צו דער ערד. און זיי בויען זייער נעסץ אין האָלעס און האָלעס. זיי האָבן מורא פֿאַר די פייגל, אָבער זיי בלייבן מלך. זיי רופן עס ווינטער און זומער. מיט א קעניגלעכער שטימע: „איך בין קעניג, איך בין, איך בין! איך בין קעניג! '

>>11593183
In de tijd toen de vogels konden spreken maakten ze nog meer ruzie dan de mensen. Ze kwetterden en krakeelden de godganse dag. En zoudt ge soms peinzen dat ze er ’s nachts mee ophielden, nee, ze maakten liever ruzie in de maneschijn. Er zijn nachtvogelsgenoeg, of niet misschien?
Het was niet meer te doen, ge werdt er puur doof van. De viervoetige dieren wilden hun beklag maken. Maar bij wie, ik vraag het u, bij wie moesten ze klagen? Die vogels, dat floot maaren dat kraaide allemaal dooreen, horendol zoudt ge worden.
De vogels vonden het nu toch ook stillekesaan genoeg. Ze besloten een koning te kiezen,die moest dan maar een einde maken aan al die twisten. Een koning, die heeft macht, die geeft bevelen en de anderen moeten luisteren.Maar hoe kies ge een koning? Dat was niet zo moeilijk. De vogel die het hoogst kon vliegen werd koning. Wie anders?
Bij zonsopgang vlogen ze in een grote zwerm samen op het open veld. Een lawaai dat dat gaf! Maar deze keer was het een blij lawaai, vol verwachting. Voor één keer vlogen ze malkander niet in de pluimen. Binnenkort zou het gekibbel voorgoed achter de rug zijn.

>>11594233
De raven krasten boven alle vogelstemmen uit. Alle vogels vlogen op. Zo hadden ze het afgesproken. Het was of de nacht weer viel, al die vleugels verduisterden de zon. Hoger en hoger gingen ze en gedurig aanvielen er vogels af, grote en kleine dooreen. Ge kondt de zon weer een beetje zien. Zelfs de leeuwerik geraakte buiten adem en eer dat beestje zwijgt, moet het al vlak tegen de zon vliegen.
De arend bleef nog over op den duur. Hij steeg en steeg in grote kringen.Hij kneep zijn ogen nog allengs niet toe tegen defelle zon. De arend steeg en steeg tot zijn hoogtepunt. Hoger kon hij niet. En waarom zou hij? Beneden hoorde hij de vogels roepen: de arend is koning, de arend is koning!
Maar wat was dat op de pluimen van zijn staart? Een heel, heel klein vogelke vloog op, veel hoger dan de arend vloog het en het vloot zo hard als het geven kon:‘Koning ben ik, ben ik, ben ik! Koning ben ik!’Daar fladderde het koninkske, een ferm stuk boven de arend en het klom nog hoger, ja, het was nikske vermoeid.

>>11594235
En toen zweefde het naar beneden en zonder ophouden riep het met een ongelooflijk luide stem:‘Koning ben ik, ben ik, ben ik! Koning ben ik!’‘Gij zijt mij een schone koning!’ riepen de vogels. Ze voelden zich bedrogen.‘Gij stinkaard met uw loense streken, wat zoudt gij kracht hebben of rappe vleugels! Ge ziet u nog niet vliegen’. En ze pikten met hun snavels naarhet koninkske, het moest kapot.
Maar het koninkske was hun te rap af. Het vluchtte in een muizeholleke achter een haag.Vandaar dat de koninkskes zo laag langs de grond scheren. En ze bouwen hun nesten in holen en gaten. Ze hebben schrik van de vogels, maar ze blijven koning. Dat roepen ze winter en zomer. Met een koninklijke stem:‘Koning ben ik, ben ik, ben ik! Koning ben ik!’
https://vimeo.com/48940765

palindrome

>>11594624
palimpsest

People say linguistics isnt a real science? Well show them this thread as the proof. Linguists prove every bit as autistic and petty as any mathematician, dont ever say otherwise.

>>11565053
>according to those family trees, it's not possible

>>11595074
i like these new threads desu. there are much more qualified anons itt than you think.

>>11595108
something to object?

>>11592362
>if these components are so essential to language, to the point that they cant work otherwise, then shouldnt they be studied?
The point is if they come from neurology or not. We already know there are at least two different neurologies when it comes to phonology, that can even be seen on brain scans: normal one, which comes from phonemes, to words and sentences; and the dyslexic one, which recognizes each morpheme as one unit. It's possible that similar differences exist on the grammar level, but each results in language that is mostly identical, with minimal observable differences.
Czech and Sanskrit are largely syntax free, I think, in addition to Russian and Latin as somebody else mentioned.
>>11592667
>>11593047
>The case markings of those languages (the morphology) you mention are only assigned based on their position on a syntactic structure.
No, the endings carry meaning, the meaning changes if you change them, while syntax may be mostly meaningless (as shown with the Latin examples in >>11592772)
and can be changed without changing the meaning.
>>11593156
I've seen so many linguists insist they don't need to speak any foreign language. It always show, like it does with you. No, the languages really don't work that way, they are not ciphers of English with Endings hinting on how to unscramble the sentences, they really carry the meaning themselves, nobody scrambles and unscramble the sentences in their heads. Learn to speak at least one unrelated language, for fucks sake!

>>11587909
>isolational nouns
Nouns don't get affixes added on to them.
>agglutinative verbs
Verbs get a ton of affixes added on to them.
>minimal agreement
Words mostly don't have to be changed to match each other for things like gender, person, and number.
>pronouns
In Japanese, pronouns are open class, meaning that new ones get added and there's a fuck ton of them. Russian pronouns are closed class - there's a small set of them and new additions are super rare.
>a i u
Those are the expected vowels for a language with only three of them because they are as acoustically distinct from each other as vowels can be.

>>11595470
yes, the fact that it's not true

>>11595538
>normal one, which comes from phonemes, to words and sentences; and the dyslexic one, which recognizes each morpheme as one unit
where are you getting this from? Its really isn't that clearly divided, many people that have "normal" language building capabilities still store morphemes as individual units. The question of whether most people even store morphemes as units or as multiple alternate versions of the same word is still an ongoing debate. In other words the existance of morphemes is still dubious because its hard to set the boundries of what exactly is considered a word. Theres little understanding if morphemes are interpreted to be word modifiers or single words by their speakers. Just take a quick look at any polysynthetic language and tell me if you can discern whats a morpheme and whats a word,
>No, the endings carry meaning, the meaning changes if you change them
Syntax governs morphology. This is the third time i say this.
>It always show, like it does with you
Why would you assume this, My first language was spanish, english was my third, im quite proficient in latin, and I'm currently studying an idigenious Mexican language because I will be doing field work with purepecha. It is precisely my experience with all these langauges that leads me to say everything I have stated in my posts. I never suggested that languages are deciphered with English as reference. To deny there is processes in the brain that compute in the span of a millisecond regardless of your awareness is silly.

>>11561710
>To my estimation, scientists believe birds only vocalize as a siren for alerting others, an intimidating sound to ward others of their territory, or a lure for females
chicken have sounds for all those plus:
shut up and sleep already.
can’t decide if this thingy is edible or dangerous
I’m okay, mommy.
how dare you? (two intensities)
will you give me a bit from what you are eating?(directed at humans)
etc.
the alerts are differentiated, too. “flying danger” sounds different from “furry animal watching us from the bush”
t. somewhat autist spent a lot of time as a child tending to chicken

>>11596197

it'd be interesting to learn about avian phonetics, ngl

Studying linguistics seems to have turned me into something of an occultist.
I'm convinced schools deliberately make studying language boring, to deter people from studying non-mainstream fields.

>>11596416
>https://www.wired.com/2009/05/songbirdculture/
>http://web.mit.edu/6.034/www/6.s063/final-paper/birdsong.pdf
>https://www.theguardian.com/science/animal-magic/2015/jun/29/babblers-birds-origin-evolution-language#img-1
>https://www.nature.com/articles/ncomms10986

Not exactly about avian phonetics but useful to understanding their communication. I'm the anon that keeps defending syntax as neurologically determined, I hope this clears up my stance.I will even go as far to say that language as we understand it sprung from syntax.

>>11595756
Speak more clearly please. Is what those trees claim not true (where's the russian and where's japanese) or their similarity is not true?

>>11596604
"according to those family trees, it's not possible" is not true

>>11595707
>(speaking of japanese)
>>isolational nouns
>Nouns don't get affixes added on to them.
is の a separate word in your opinion?
>>agglutinative verbs
>Verbs get a ton of affixes added on to them.
like in пepe-pac-пpe-ДEЛИ-в-ший-cя?
>>minimal agreement
>Words mostly don't have to be changed to match each other for things like gender, person, and number.
ya vizhu krasivy devushka is great russian even though it's not grammatically correct.
Krasivuyu devushku is some pronoun added to the mix, I still don't know what pronoun it is, I only recently found that -м in russian verb бyдeм could be pronoun мы (we) because it's not only in form the same, it also semantically fits exactly right. I only don't know if similar suffix -м in пpeдcтaвлeниeм is also this.
-ю could easily stand for я (me) because both graphically and phonetically it's similar to italian io (and even if some ai-powered researcher proves mathematically accurate that these morphemes are not etymologically related, they will still be incredibly useful to comprehend foreign language instead of memorizing it.
>>pronouns
>In Japanese, pronouns are open class, meaning that new ones get added and there's a fuck ton of them. Russian pronouns are closed class - there's a small set of them and new additions are super rare.
я (мeня and ten forms of it) ты (~ten cases) oн (eгo eмy) oнa (eё eй) oни (их им) мы (ten forms with m turned into n)
вы (and its forms) ктo чтo кoгo чeгo кoмy чeмy пoчeмy тo тoгo тoмy тe тeх тeми тeм
and also unorthodox formы eгoный eёный ихний чo
and also obsolete forms ceй cия cии ceгo cию cих
and so on, there're probably twice as much.
>>a i u
>Those are the expected vowels for a language with only three of them because they are as acoustically distinct from each other as vowels can be.
But why the order is the same?

>>11596607
Probably you have some other family trees, please show them to me.

>>11596702
>Probably you have some other family trees
incorrect and retarded inference

>>11596604
there is no more similarity between japanese and russian than we expect from unrelated languages

>>11596712
https://yarn.co/yarn-clip/84214fa2-87c9-4c35-8f96-3e0f12f45760

>>11596733
your task is to make those languages as difficult as possible (divide et impera) probably because with your profession you earn on linguistic ignorance of the public
My task is to show how similar those languages actually are. The guy above you was showing me the diffirences between russian and japanese, I think I demonsrated that if those features are anything, they're more similarity than differences.

>>11596604
>Corsican not on the Italic branch
>that whole gallo iberian branch (GALLO IBERIAN? North Italian languages closer to French than to Italian?!!)
>Occitan on the Iberian branch
>the random placement at the bottom for Armenian, Cetic languages, Greek because "lolz where else"
There's probably a bunch of other mistakes on the indo-iranian side if there are so many on the european side.
What or when is "year zero"? 0.AD? When most of these languages didn't exist yet?

I don't know where the fuck this gay ass shit is from but you should delete it from your computer

>>11596939
It was one of the first results for language family trees in the search bar. Is this one any better?

I think these genealogies are one of those reasons (there are many) people don't take linguistics seriously.
Hindi among slavic languages is very nice, yet not far from the truth considering how many similar lexics russian and sanskrit have.

I'd rather expect actual tree to be looking more like this (with ancient languages shown in the depth of the 3rd axis)

>>11595778
>Its really isn't that clearly divided, many people that have "normal" language building capabilities still store morphemes as individual units.
That isn't what I'm talking about. Dyslexic people recognize morphemes as indivisible units.
>The question of whether most people even store morphemes as units or as multiple alternate versions of the same word is still an ongoing debate.
That is perhaps possible in a language with highly irregular remnants of old morphology, such as English. It's obviously impossible in polysynthetic languages contrary to what you say, because they don't have a finite list of words that could be memorized this way.
>Just take a quick look at any polysynthetic language and tell me if you can discern whats a morpheme and whats a word,
The distinction what is a word or isn't might be blurry, but morpheme never is. Morphemes are unambiguous.
>Syntax governs morphology. This is the third time i say this.
And this is the second time I'm saying it isn't. As a student of a polysynthetic language, you should know better. Many have non'linear morphology that make it impossible to even draw syntax trees, because vords may depend on each other and the meaning may depend on several interdependent morphemes at once.
>I never suggested that languages are deciphered with English as reference.
You never stated it, but you seem to be doing it.

>>11595778
>Its really isn't that clearly divided, many people that have "normal" language building capabilities still store morphemes as individual units.
That isn't what I'm talking about. Dyslexic people recognize morphemes as indivisible units.
>The question of whether most people even store morphemes as units or as multiple alternate versions of the same word is still an ongoing debate.
That is perhaps possible in a language with highly irregular remnants of old morphology, such as English. It's obviously impossible in polysynthetic languages contrary to what you say, because they don't have a finite list of words that could be memorized this way.
>Just take a quick look at any polysynthetic language and tell me if you can discern whats a morpheme and whats a word,
The distinction what is a word or isn't might be blurry, but morpheme never is. Morphemes are unambiguous.
>Syntax governs morphology. This is the third time i say this.
And this is the second time I'm saying it isn't. As a student of a polysynthetic language, you should know better. Many have nonlinear morphology that make it impossible to even draw syntax trees, because words may depend on each other and the meaning may depend on several interdependent morphemes at once.
>I never suggested that languages are deciphered with English as reference.
You never stated it, but you seem to be doing it.

>>11597097
If somebody has access to some good ai, plaese ask it to compare different languages only about lexics (will it be able to see to be as быть and beat as бить among english and russian and अग्नि as oгни in hindi and russian?) and to draw the lines which thickness be related to the quantity of similar words among languages?

>>11597673
it told me Bxg4

>>11598047
I'm sorry, I don't understand.
These are the best there is, but it's so poor and sometimes silly (when they don't connect greek neither to english nor to italian nor to russian, I go hmm) that I didn't even want to show it to you, because it's obvious that it was drawn not by some magnificient ai, but by some pathetic meatbags. Please make it from scratch.

>>11598693
I asked a good AI, it told me bishop takes g4.

>>11598706
I was sorta butthurting that I couldn't win my father no matter how many moves forward I thought, until I realized it's all about memorized combinations, when one guy won him in few moves, and my father said "how did you do it? I have to remember this"

>>11596460
The same thing happened to me: to understand how people who invented alphabets thought, I had to approach their states of minds, I even conjectured that god exists to see where it may lead me (into a happy marriage or into madness depending on turns it may take) and then occult public takes writing systems way more seriously (once again runes are probably more ancient then many other european writing systems, because they're even more magical than hebrew (which probably borrowed kabbalah from greeks, because isopsephy is supposed to be chronologically first in use, but no guarantee on this being true of course) because I never read precautions to be careful with hebrew script (other than in case of 231 gates) but runes are asked to be used very cautiously per se (and I had experiences saying that maybe there's something to it)
Thus here's a question: should we discover all these ancient ways of thought in the broad light? What if there lay some vices reformers of the past made enormous efforts to eradicate?

>>11597524
>Dyslexic people recognize morphemes as indivisible units.
I still don't exactly what you mean by this. Some non dyslexic people also recognize morphemes as indivisible units.
>don't have a finite list of words that could be memorized this way.
No language has a finite list of words. Words are created all the time. And yes polysynthetic speakers can still memorize clusters of morphemes as individual words. Any phrase with enough habit becomes automatic, their components blend, and a singular unit is recognized.
>Morphemes are unambiguous
Not all are. Allomorphs exist for this reason.
>Many have nonlinear morphology that make it impossible to even draw syntax trees
See the pic along with my post, taken from Baker's Polysynthesis Parameter, for an example of what you claim to be impossible. You can read the entire paper for even more examples.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hS2aS2pxmi8
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=31zzMb3U0iY
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GzIyEMzEhdA

>>11600450
>Allomorphs exist for this reason.
I'm sorry for intervention into your dialogue, but allomorphs don't disprove what he said. Think about it again. and your picrelated is just mind-numbing crap, oh how I hate that school of emasculated thought! Good luck to your opponent, because it seems to me you use trolling by stupidity against him.

>>11561546
What does a linguist even do? Like, specially on undergrad and gradschool?

syntax, huh?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Archi_language
> Mathematically, there are 1,502,839 possible forms that can be derived from a single verb root.

>>11600560
jerk off and make autistic in-jokes

>>11600572
>Mathematically
key word. people will say something similar about korean but really there's maybe 60 suffixes but you can attach more than one of them at a time so technically there's thousands of ways to conjugate a verb but in reality it's not that complex at all.

>>11600572

BENIS :DDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDD

>>11600450
>I still don't exactly what you mean by this. Some non dyslexic people also recognize morphemes as indivisible units.
non dyslexic people hear language more like the accoustic equivalent of an alphabet, learning to read and write amounts yo learning which letter corresponds to which sound that they hear. Dyslexic people hear only morphemes, speech sounds more like the accoustic equivalent of chinese, so they need to memorize how to write each morpheme, no matter how regular the spelling is.
>No language has a finite list of words. Words are created all the time.
you know what I mean and that this isn't it.
>And yes polysynthetic speakers can still memorize clusters of morphemes as individual words. Any phrase with enough habit becomes automatic, their components blend, and a singular unit is recognized.
It is indeed possible that morphemes can fuse at some point, but at that point they can no longer be used productively.
>Allomorphs exist for this reason.
Allomorphs don't have anything to do with that.
>See the pic
I have no idea what it says and don't care about to try figuring out. You could just as well post a treatise on astrology.

>>11600450
>I still don't exactly what you mean by this. Some non dyslexic people also recognize morphemes as indivisible units.
non dyslexic people hear language more like the accoustic equivalent of an alphabet, learning to read and write amounts to learning which letter corresponds to which sound that they hear. Dyslexic people hear only morphemes, speech sounds more like the accoustic equivalent of chinese characters, so they need to memorize how to write each morpheme, no matter how regular the spelling is.
>No language has a finite list of words. Words are created all the time.
you know what I mean and that this isn't it.
>And yes polysynthetic speakers can still memorize clusters of morphemes as individual words. Any phrase with enough habit becomes automatic, their components blend, and a singular unit is recognized.
It is indeed possible that morphemes can fuse at some point, but at that point they can no longer be used productively.
>Allomorphs exist for this reason.
Allomorphs don't have anything to do with that.
>See the pic
I have no idea what it says and don't care about to try figuring out. You could just as well post a treatise on astrology. It's deliberately obfuscated and as complicated as possible, to support the claim that languages are too hard to learn, and they must be hardwired to the brain at birth.

>>11561546
Can humanities subhumans fuck off, not science or math. Fuck you

>>11601917
here, I left a comment in a parallel thread, telling that sciences and humanities have similar problems: >>11602008
Letters and digits have the same history (letters can expalin the history of numbers and so on) and the third use of the same signs (letters are used in math too) is musical notation (a field also related to both language and math) maybe those three forms just another reincarnation of the three mothers, especially when they're given in this form: Math, myth, mus.
You wouldn't consider music unscientific (because Pythagoras himself considered it so important) and language deserves scientific inquiry no less (even though today that field is usurped by kikes and cunts, we'll take it back)
Also here: librarians preserved Archimedes's book, physicists have photographed it, linguists have translated it:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Archimedes_Palimpsest
http://www.archimedespalimpsest.net/

p.s: speaking of numbers and words for them, how the fuck did picrelated happen!

>>11587124
try to speak without any Germanic words, dipshit
Hint:
>try ... -ic ...

>>11576823
how is this field and its followers filled with such dimwitted theories?
this is blatantly just your fatalistic idea about how the west has fallen too far from "Nature" or some shit
PIE family languages are less synthetic than that used to be 1000s of years ago but they are becoming more analytic, much like English's own shedding of the inflected case system
Eastern languages can be seen to be doing the opposite, like Chinese, which has no inflection at all I believe, begining to see words combined to form almost inflections themselves
I forget what the Chinese word is, but there is a word roughly meaning "already" which is now often being used as an affix meaning like "in the past", aka a past tense inflection,

you dumb bitch

>>11577410
Japanese and Korean are unrelated. See Old Korean and Old Japanese for reference. Grammatical and lexical similarities are likely due to a Spachbund effect.

>>11577434
Postpositions and topic clitics

>>11577457
Parse por favor

>>11577485
All coincidence

>>11577580
Zhè shì wǒ mā gěi wǒ de
this be I mom give me CLITIC

The “de” (的) at the end is a clitic that corresponds with Japanese no “-‘s” and English “that, which”

>>11584917
Dr. /pol/, accept that you use an Afro-Asiatic writing system. The very name Europe probably comes from Semitic itself (cf Arabic Ma-ghreb, Hebrew erev “evening”). Lmao. Also Europeans did have their own writing systems like Linear A and B but they’re all gone.
Take your antipsychotics

>>11601559
>you know what I mean and that this isn't it.
I don't know how else I can interpret the phrase "finite set". Please elaborate. If you meant to say that they don't have words aside from those composed by morphemes then I repeat that this is an issue with the boundary of meaning you apply to the whatever you consider to be the lowest indivisible units of a language. If you're sensitive about the word "syntax" would presenting my argument as "there is a faculty in our brain that arranges the most basic meaningful units of language in a predetermined pattern" change anything?
>at that point they can no longer be used productively.
Would you say compound words (the fixed fusion of two or more units of meaning) are no longer productive?
>Allomorphs don't have anything to do with that
Allomorphs are employed to resolve contextual morphological ambuiguity.
> It's deliberately obfuscated and as complicated as possible
Seriously? what's so difficult to comrphend? It's quite basic syntax terminology.
>languages are too hard to learn, and they must be hardwired to the brain at birth.
Im saying the opposite of this first clause, languages are extraordinarily easy to learn in infancy, but yes the reason they are easy is because they are hardwired at birth.

>>11587124
Every word in your sentence (excluding proper nouns for obvious reasons) is derived from Germanic, other than “especially”, “classify”, and “actuality”, including the essential structure words like “they”, “as”, and “in”. Nice try, Guillaume le Conquereur.

>>11587678
Semitic languages, Egyptian, etc in the Afro-Asiatic family use triconsonantal roots like Semitic k-t-b “writing; book” to construct words. Hence Arabic yaktūb “he writes”, maktaba “office”, kitab “book” & Hebrew kotev “writing”

>>11603073
a) how did you find out?
b) what difference does it make for a person who wants to learn a foreign language, if it's actualy etiymology, or just mnemonics? After all, don't academic etymologic dictionaries contradict each other? Sure they do.

>>11603176
>accept that you use an Afro-Asiatic writing system
What should I accept next? The satan?
> The very name Europe probably comes
That's correct, probably. What if I told you that from russian perspective european is literally "jewish lands"? Because you all faggots were praying jewish gods centuries before us. Now compare where's Russia and where's Arabia and tell me why your etymology is any way better than mine. (pays can be seen in french for "country" but also in english pays, whose country you're is defined by who your pay your peni (fines) & podati (taxes) & maybe even plati (pay) if we need to use roots from the same language.
Speaking of nation's names. Why shouldn't I take name Rus directly from Latin rus (village) when kievan rus & novgorod rus was both referring to the areas around those cities.
And why should I accept official etymology for egypt:
> from Amarna Hikuptah, corresponding to Egyptian Ha(t)-ka-ptah "temple of the soul of Ptah," the creative god associated with Memphis, the ancient city of Egypt.
When its original name 𓆎𓅓𓏏𓊖 can be easily transcribed into both Egypt and Kopt (if we recognize first sign like the root for angle known in both english angle and in russian ugol. And second sign is transliterated as M, which is not that far from Π, and the third sign is exactly T, and the fourth sign (also 𓊖) is just the hieroglyph for city or something of the kind.)

This thread turned out to be pretty cool, lads. I've prepared a bread for next iteration:

https://pastebin.com/xfFvkbFE

I'll also post some of the good pics from here.

>>11603647
/sci/ already has >>11600898 where we all can roll when this one dies.

>>11603065
And what are the differences other than the names?

>>11603178
>I don't know how else I can interpret the phrase "finite set". Please elaborate. If you meant to say that they don't have words aside from those composed by morphemes
No, I mean words have a finite set of forms in English. Word words speak, speaks, speaking spoke spoken. Easily possible to memorize. In fact necesasry because of the irregularities.
Impossible in langauges where the grammar is still prodictive since there is no finite list that could be derived from one morpheme. Try listing all possible words that can be derived from the morpheme that means to speak in the mexican language you said you're learning.
>Would you say compound words (the fixed fusion of two or more units of meaning) are no longer productive?
No idea why you're asking that. Once a morpheme stops being recognized as a morpheme, it isn't LOGICALLY possible to use it productively. It has to be recognized as such to make that possible.
>Allomorphs are employed to resolve contextual morphological ambuiguity.
No. They are typically used to ease pronunciation, similar to allophones. Different forms used after consonants and vowels are fairly common, for example.
>Seriously? what's so difficult to comrphend? It's quite basic syntax terminology.
It uses vocabulary invented for no apparent reason that the definition of which itself refers to another made up vocabulary and so on ad infinitum. I'm inclined to call it fractal gibberish.
>Im saying the opposite of this first clause, languages are extraordinarily easy to learn in infancy, but yes the reason they are easy is because they are hardwired at birth.
This is facepalm worthy.
Really the problem is that you're trying to prove that there are rules in language that cannot be learned, which is inherently self contradictory.

>>11603658

Fuck :/... oh well, I'll put my ego aside and put the pastebin, thanks for mentioning this anon

>>11603755
>pastebin
>>/sci/thread/11561546

>>11604386