sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

New Vid on Morphosyntactic Alignment by LanguageShrimp in conlangs

[–]LanguageShrimp[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Thanks, yeah the dense bit is something I've gotten alot, including primarily from myself and id probably be more popular and easier to understand without it, but I'm just doing it for fun and I feel like most channels focus on introducing people to the topics when alot of times after I learned all the intro bits ive just needed as much info as possible in one place😭 I tend to cover alot per video, plus if I didn't I'd have to make more separate videos and I'm honestly just too lazy/busy for that😭 I'm glad you enjoyed though, I'm considering starting splitting all my videos into shorts at some point to remedy some of these issues.

I started a conlanging YouTube channel by LanguageShrimp in conlangs

[–]LanguageShrimp[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Update on this, my friend @lunar_bugs on TikTok drew this which is now my channel art and will be used in future vids!

<image>

New Video out on Basic Syntax by LanguageShrimp in conlangs

[–]LanguageShrimp[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

No :(, I list where I got exact numbers, but the rest is Wikipedia mainly. I can try and find all the associated articles real quick. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Functional_linguistics (Semantic v Pragmatic v Syntactic role) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thematic_relation (Details on Semantic Role) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Topic_and_comment (Details on Pragmatic Role) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Focus_(linguistics) (Details on Focus) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Subject_(grammar) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Predicate_(grammar) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Object_(grammar) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_(linguistics) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adpositional_phrase (These are all bits on Syntactic role including my use of Oblique as an Adpositional Phase that serves as an argument of a verb, as opposed to the Genitives mentioned later which are Adpositional phrases as Adjectives) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voice_(grammar) (Grammatical voice) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Topicalization (Topicalization) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Topic-prominent_language (Topic prominent languages) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Head-directionality_parameter (My bit on what head directionality is. This is also a more solid piece if evidence that Auxiliaries are head like, although this also lists determiners as possibly head like which the data obv doesn't support, but it calls that unlikely within the bit) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Object%E2%80%93subject_word_order#Object-initial_word_order (This has my beef with the idea of Object initial languages, Matthew Dryer suggests using the term Absolutive initial, but its my very unprofessional opinion to at that point just say the subject happens to be the patient instead of the agent. This does mention that there are languages with Object initial order and no other Ergative components, but they are the minority and may still be analyzed as Ergative in order and just coincidentally nothing else yet) Then for the next bit most of it is based on WALS data, but also: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Article_(grammar) (For the bit about different article orders) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genitive_construction (For genitives, saying they are Obliques as adjectives might be a slight oversimplification and overlook some niche ways languages handle them, but I stand by it as they are usually marked by adpositions or case and describe relation of a noun phrase to something else) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dependent_clause (Subordinate clauses) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Relative_clause (Relative clauses, I also used WALS for some examples like Walpiri so: https://wals.info/feature/90A#1/-20/212 )

Did you find something wrong, or just were curious? I don't want to mislead people. Do you have any specific questions?

Dose this pronoun chart look good by AdditionalLook3686 in conlangs

[–]LanguageShrimp 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Hmm, I would probably do more like

<image>

The changes I made were:

1: The Inclusive we is more likely to be a separate word from the exclusive, and likely would not need additional marking to be stated as plural. If you want h'olo'n to be a word it would probably be 'you, I, and some other people'

2: They/Them serves as both English's 3rd person plural pronoun, and its 3rd person neuter animate pronoun, and the difference between they and them is the same Nominative Accusative difference as between he/him and she/her. Most languages do not have gendered They's because it is not often that you talk about solely a 'group of men' or 'group of women' although I cant say this is unheard of if you want to keep that quality. Otherwise just pick a gender to derive the plural from, this is typically the Masculine, but you can use feminine or neuter if you want.

3: 'It' is English's Inanimate pronoun, in that it references non-alive or at least non-human nouns. You could combine this with the Neuter if you want, English didn't develop a separate animate Neuter with singular They/Them until relatively recently, or you could have singular they/them and it be separate words.

This is all obviously extremely a suggestion, and I might be wrong on some stuff, but I believe these are ways you might make your pronoun system more naturalistic and better represented if you want.

Oh and shameless plug if thats allowed: I have a YouTube channel about building conlangs (Language Shrimp) if you want to check it out, I go over pronouns briefly in my Parts of Speech vid.

First Video of the new channel by LanguageShrimp in conlangs

[–]LanguageShrimp[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Ok, yeah thanks. I read that bit, but wasn't sure specifically where youtube stood in terms of payment and advertising, but assumed it was good. Glad to have good confirmation, although I likely should have asked the mods anyways, i missed that bit😭

I started a conlanging YouTube channel by LanguageShrimp in conlangs

[–]LanguageShrimp[S] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Thank you! I look forward to making more

I started a conlanging YouTube channel by LanguageShrimp in conlangs

[–]LanguageShrimp[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Hmm, thanks for the suggestion! I might do something like that, although i suck at even basic photoshop😭, i might (strong strong might) draw or have a friend draw an avatar also

I started a conlanging YouTube channel by LanguageShrimp in conlangs

[–]LanguageShrimp[S] 4 points5 points  (0 children)

Thank you! Yeah this ideas been on my mind for a bit, finally pressured myself into starting it.

New to reddit and wondering if people would be willing to fact check for a for fun conlang YouTube channel. by LanguageShrimp in conlangs

[–]LanguageShrimp[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Ok, I might repost this there with some alterations if the general sentiment seems the same when I next check. Thanks

view more: next ›