I've devoured an incredible amount of your videos over the last few days and I just want to say thank you. Your channel, in my mind, is a great example of the best that internet videos have to offer; bite-sized (usually, anyway) chunks of highly specialized information that would otherwise be hard to find for the average person. I found your videos through your recent discussion of Ullr but have found videos like this where you talk about language in a more broad sense infinitely more fascinating. Thank you for all of your work! I plan on picking up a copy of your translation of the Poetic Edda soon :D
My major in college was Linguistic-Anthropology. However, I changed it due to pressure from my family. Watching your videos remind me of the joy I had in my linguistics courses. [I miss those classes]. Such a joy to watch, every video (even though Scandinavian was not my linguistics focus).
I often wonder how much faster languages are evolving since the internet came into place. My gut feeling is that in 150 years current languages would start to sound to them as Shakespearean English sounds to us.
Just the same as when the "tj" and "kj" merged a while back (not sure when). And it's a shame. I know it's part of the evolution of languages, but I find the sound quite obnoxious when used for "kj" and "tj" actually. One of the reasons "kj" has not been erradicated already, is because it is found in so many words in the Norwegian vocabulary. Side note, "skj", "sk" and "sj" is the same sound in most dialects. It's only just in the recent decades or so that "kj" and "tj" are being replaced with just /ʃ/ so that skj, sk, sj, tj and kj are all the same. Edit: Also "k" in some words like "kirke", "kilo" and "kino".
I think 'tj' and 'kj' are already the same in all major dialects of Swedish, so I'm guessing they merged at some point. I'm not a linguist, but here are a few recent Swedish language developments that I've read about or noticed: - The subjective/objective cases 'de' (they) and 'dem' (them) have mostly merged, and are both now usually pronounced 'dom' like in English 'dominant'. The distinction survives in writing, and plenty of native speakers get them mixed up. (Funny thing is you can usually teach native speakers how to use them properly by telling them to think of 'they' vs. 'them' in English.) I hope the colloquial spelling 'dom' replaces both. - Replacing the objective case 'honom' (him) with the subjective case 'han' (he) is common (and sounds perfectly natural to me). For whatever reason, replacing 'henne' (her) with 'hon' (she) sounds weird. - The back 'sj' sound (which often trips up learners) has become more common. The front 'sj' sound used to be the standard "prestige" pronunciation, and still is in some ways. - Some people have started putting spaces in compound words ("brand bil" (fire truck) instead of "brandbil" (firetruck)), probably due to influence from English. This is something I hope never becomes standard, because it's highly inconsistent even in English, but you never know... Of course there's outrage associated with each of the above, like you'd expect. :)
The reason that it sounds natural replacing accusative-case "honom" with "han", is because that's actually the old correct way, and often persists in spoken form, e.g. "jag såg han". "honom" used to be only dative-case, e.g "jag gav den till honom." In Västgötish dialect we also say e.g. "jag såg 'na", which is a short form from the old-swedish accusative-case feminine pronoun, "hana".
'na for henne has to be pretty widespread. Didn't even realize it was dialectical. There's also 'an (jag såg 'an), but I'm guessing that's just short for 'han' then. Subjective and objective case should have been nominative and accusative case, yeah. I'm just a programmer trying to look like I know stuff. ;)
The usage of "like" in the social groups I take part in results from a demarcation between a direct quote or a summary. If I said "My boss said [x]" it indicates I am quoting my boss verbatim. If I said "My boss was like [x]" my friends would know I'm summarizing or even embellishing the scenario. Thus, "said" is more of synonym to "like" rather than a one to one. Love your videos, you probably know this ^ already but I still found it interesting to add. :)
Another great video, thanks. No offense to my Middle Welsh professor but your explanation of these phenomena finally made them perfectly clear to me, whereas before my understanding was slightly patchy. I'm almost certain the umlaut phenomenon is the same thing as what my professor termed 'vowel elevation' when discussing Welsh plural forms. Fascinating stuff. Thanks again
No, you're right, 'affection' is the term but I think when he described it as vowel elevation, it was in reference to the position of tongue elevation in the production of the different vowel sounds. Tbh, I'm not sure I really understand what it is that you don't understand well; you are clearly operating on a higher level :) In truth, while I'm fascinated by linguistics, it was never my strong suit or the main focus of my studies. p.s. I liked your example; I'd been thinking about 'haul' and 'heuliau' but I wasn't sure how good of an example that would be, and I certainly wouldn't have been able to explain it as well.
There are several causes of vowel changes in Welsh. Affection is similar to Germanic umlaut but is more about raising than fronting, but still a form of assimilation. Other changes were due to stress. Brittonic had penultimate stress which after final syllables were mostly lost, left Early Welsh with final stress. At this stage several unstressed (non-final) vowels became less distinct. The dynamic part of the stress then shifted to the penult, but a tonal (pitch) element remained on the final syllable, keeping those vowels clear and distinct. Obviously stressed monosyllable came through all of this unscathed, hence the various alternations seen today.
Your videos are great - didactic and accessible. I know your focus isn't Latin, but I couldn't help but notice your pronunciation of in 9:00 was really off; is [aɪ] as in "by" (Classical) or [ɛ] as in "bed" (Vulgar), you pronounced it something like [eɪ] from "bait". Also, Latin>Spanish /k/ lenition is messy and had multiple steps as k>tʃ>tθ>(θ or s); I believe Italian's simple k>tʃ would be more didactic, for being both simpler and basically the same mutation English went through. For rhotacism: you don't need [s] or [z], but pretty much any alveolar sound as [l t d n s z] will do. There's even a contemporary English example you can use, Americans pronouncing intervocalic /t/ and /d/ as [ɾ] ("Berry, gorra drink the borrle of wine!"). Also worth mentioning your voice is really clear and calm without being monotone :)
That depends on where and when you learned Latin. There have been more than one different school of pronunciation for Latin. And it is all reconstructed, so it depends on whose reconstruction you use. In a Roman Catholic school, you would have learned his pronunciation. If you learned in a public school, you would have probably learned your pronunciation. And the pronunciation of the diphthong changed over the years in Latin, as far as scholars know. And different schools in England have historically used different pronunciation systems for Latin. And French schools taught different Latin pronunciation than Italian schools. And teachers from those different systems taught pronunciation differently.
billmvg: reconstructed pronunciation of Classical Latin is quite consistent in this regard. We know represented a diphthong beginning with an open vowel that was simplified to a mid-open vowel in most dialects roughly at the third or fourth century of the Common Era (when the Appendix Probi was written). "Roman Catholic" (Ecclesiastical) Latin has nothing to do with it - its pronunciation is too butchered by local languages to be useful for reconstruction.
He pronounces it 'correctly' once at 9:14 He was probably just using an anglicized pronunciation of the word and then accidentally slipped in that correct pronunciation. He does a similar thing in the pronunciation of 'kirk' when comparing it to 'church'. I think maybe since he was focusing on 'lenition' he was trying to simplify the rest of the pronunciation. Or something. Plus, he's only human :)
Often to make a clear point I sum up peripheral issues in as few words as I can, and a specific discussion of Spanish historical phonology is clearly beyond the intent of this video. I certainly hope that I haven't stepped on the toes of any Romance specialists, as I know how annoying it can be when someone doesn't even seem to be trying to get it right. As to the pronunciation of /caelum/, I know that it's [kaɪlum] in Classical, what you heard as [eɪ] is my (heavily American-accented) attempt at a Vulgar pronunciation [ɛ:].
Latin also had an interesting feature which the modern English word "absent" still retains. A related Latin cognate "absunt" essentially had an opposite, if you like to think about it this way, which was "adsunt", literally "here are" to mean "they are present". There's also a singular variation being "abest" and "adest", what's quite neat is you can see the words "sunt" and "est", equivalent of "are" and "is". Latin can be very mathematical, but English only retained "absent" and now has "present" to be the formal opposite of "absent".
I've noticed "gotten" has started to become popular for the present-perfect tense of "to get" in British English. For some time it has been "got"-- "gotten" having disappeared at some point a few few hundred years ago (though "forgotten" has remained). I suspect this revival of "gotten" is owing to American influence, where it has remained the standard way of expressing the present-perfect of "to get".
+ddemaine Yea, although I hear Americans say 'have got' a lot too, which as an American myself, sounds a bit strange to me, since I say 'have gotten', lol, but it seems like the norm even in America.
English is becoming Americanize. Soon we will sound the same again. I heard from some Englishmen they like how the Americans say things. They say we get to the point. We have words that describe things better. Such as: "sidewalk" instead of "pavement. Pavement in American means harden concrete.
Is rhotacism only exclusive to z/s -> r or anyother sound that becomes r? Because we have that in Tagalog, a lot of words that start with "d" become "r" (trilled r).
There are direct examples of rhotacism in English as well - "was, were" for example. I think it was determined by the position of the stress. I think "more" may be another example. Then there's "are" from Anglian "(e)arun" (but possibly equally borrowed from Old Norse) contrasted with "is".
In Northumbrian Old English, the regular 3rd P Sing ending was -es, due to influence from old norse. In Northumbrian Old English, the -est 2nd P Sing ending was confused with the 3rd person ending, because in Old Norse 2nd and 3rd Person Indicative forms of verbs were identical. When native old Norse speakers switched to old english, they confused the 2nd and 3rd person endings and used -es for both. This grammatical change then spread south.
Dr. Jackson Crawford, Firstly I wanna say thank you for so many great videos. But also, what location for the University of Colorado? Denver, Boulder...? You may become what makes me go to CU, if it's the right location..
With regard to the comment about lenition, for those who don't know, I just wanted to point out that in most of Spain cielo is pronounced "thielo" not "sielo". So "th" should be added" to the list. And also that you can see change from K in classical Latin to CH in Italian and ecclesiastial Latin, not just in English. I often wonder why some people in certain countries opted for one sound over the other. In particular in Spain, where "th" speakers are surrounded by "s" speakers like Andalusians, Portuguese, Catalans, French,...
11:13 What about irregularization? E.g. "sneak/snuck/sneaked" is relatively recent. "yeet/yote/yeeted" is entirely new. "think/thought/thunk" is also sometimes used.
Id say I wish you were still teaching here in SoCal but I wouldn't wanna wish such a thing on such a brilliant teacher. Im using the method you taught for writing Skaldic poetry on an assignment tomorrow. Thanks a ton!
All this stuff is awesomely interesting. Particulary the thing with the regularization, I can imagine that and compare it with a similar process in castilian, specially when kids learn the irregular form of verbs conjugation for the first time. Thank you Dr. as usual!
Some of us canadians are beginning to call multiple moose as meese, to have it a-kin to geese, even though the word was introduced to english after regularization after Umlaut, Canadians may favor umlaut more in future than the suffixing -s, tho it may seem like Umlaut, this is a different prosses, more like a plurality regrouping.
Mr Jackson could you say what influences a vowel to change over time? I am told that there was a vowel shift in the middle ages but it does not say why. I am not talking about the historical reasons but rather the physiological reasons
I would say that the use of the word, “like” as “said” it as a phrase marker iis easily fifty years old. I remember it from my earliest childhood in the 70’s.
@@gamesportalsim He got it from his grandparents. It was actually default in English up until recently hence why words like what and why have a 'h' in them.
Thanks Dr Crawford. Interesting point abt Prejudice as a driver of language change. How about just the "desire" for simplification, and wanting to reduce complex tongue movement (like baby-talk?)? A lot of Prakrits (esp Pali) are said to offer easier pronounciations when compared to Sanskrit, say...is that a kind of pidginization also?
hi Dr. Jackson crawford, historical linguist specializing in old Norse. ;) i am curious as to why you left Berkeley? although Colorado seems more appropriate to your..... particular...... idiom!
Among other things, I have only held temporary appointments at the campuses of the University of California where I have taught (most university faculty today are hired on a temporary basis).
I think the hiring of faculty on a temporary basis sounds more like the management of a business than of a university. To whom does a student turn if he / she needs a recommendation, when his / her part--time professors have been compelled to move on? There is little continuity to an institution when the faculty is considered 'temporary'. Better to hire the administration on a temporary basis - perhaps from the faculty.
It's been a while, but that's a good question. Yes, there is, and it happens quite often. It's a variant of those age/regional groups mentioned in the video, only that it is for social groups. In particular, social groups that positively identify with a dominant foreign group ("positive" also can simply be a higher class, in the case of invaders). Some examples would be English taking in French influences when that was the language of the rulers, all countries that were assimilated into the Roman empire taking in Latin, or even many languages taking in American English during the last 70 years. The same can also happen during times of social turmoil, like the French Revolution, where people intentionally changed the way they spoke to not sound like the former aristocratic upper class. Plenty of the changes they introduced were invented, not copied from existing lower-class speakers. Those changes can introduce a large number of loanwords, even replacing established old words, as well as changes to pronunciation and grammar. They can even create creoles to completely replace the original local language. Or, in extreme cases, it can create a new dialect (or split off a new child language) of the foreign language. An example of this would be Indian English.
I've noticed that the vowel sounds have drastically changed with the younger generation compared to the older generation. Mainly the short a sound and short e sound. I'm from deep SW Virginia. I have a goat named Ivy. When I said the goat's name to the young vet the vet thought her name was spelled Avy. To me the way they say egg sounds like agg. Snap sounds like snipe pronounced with the southern I (not ah). So I'm seeing the change that you are talking about. In our area supposedly the older generation sounds a lot like Elizabethan and Scottish. We retained a lot of the accent from a few hundred years ago.
10:00 I thought that Rhotacism means the transformation of "l" into "r". At least that is the phenomenon that happened in Romanian, where you have: (Latin -> Romanian) "quale" -> "care" "caelum" -> "cer" (this is also an example of Lenition, as the "c" is pronounced "ch") "sole" -> "soare" What I always seem to notice when speaking is the transformation of Latin "d" into "z" in Romanian: "deus" -> "zeu" "dies" -> "zi" Though it doesn't happen all the time (Lat. "audire"): "Eu aud" (I hear) - many older people in the countryside tend to say "eu auz" "Tu auzi" (You hear) "El aude" (He hears) Anyway, the regularity of the process astounds me.
One way that language can change is if a lot of foreigners move into a country because they do not have the ambition to speak perfectly just to be understood. Then the language can be simplified. Happened in Sweden during the Hanseatic era when a lot of Germans moved to Sweden.
Thank you for your videos. I could not afford a monthly Patreon, but I did buy your book and recommended it to others. You're doing us a service by making this publicly available.
Interesting example of lenition in German: some dialects in Tyrol realise Standard German [k] as an affricate [kx], while in neighbouring Switzerland the same sound is usually realised as a fricative [x].
@@Valerio_the_wandering_sprite Indeed it is. [kx] was an initial result of that shift, I've read, but most dialects eventually dropped the [x] again, while Swiss ones dropped the [k].
I’m paraphrasing with much of this. I’m currently working on a book (dealing in things this - what you’ll see in this post)..... It’s all (language) described like it’s - 1) all by way of natural progression. 2) was designed to be functional... No and No. So much of what we say was developed through/in literature. I’ll slow it down. Every “ight”.. You bypass the hard sound every time (sounds once vocalized), and you pronounce every “ight” the exact same way. Do you think every “ight” became “ite” via natural progression, or via structuring/structure?..... Part 2: Why do you say “ree-flex” (long re-)? So you don’t realize you’re saying the word that was corrupted “reflect(s)”..... This is why they got rid of accents (like á). Example: You ask me a question. My response. “Let me REFLEX on it. I’ll see if I can RECOIL it”... Reflex, Reflect = same word. As are - Recoil, Recall, Recollect.... Part 3: These are also the same word - resort, restore, resource, recourse, recur...... Example: I’ll use an antique (piece) for the example... if you “resort” an antique “back to its old way”... You resort/restore it back to its old way...... Part 4, One more: Of/Off = same word. Writers alternated spellings throughout works. You might see “of the...” to “off the....” +/- 100 times. They didn’t all have OCD. They were developing separate associations for the separate spellings of the same word. This is what creates for what looks like 2 different words today (of which they’re not)..... Example: a reserve is a backup, and “in the back of” (reserves come in behind). Make of, off.. That’s “back off,” “hold back,” “keep from” - Reserve... Reserve “back of.” Reserve “back off”....... Hope you liked.. ;)
Great video! In modern Icelandic, younger speakers have developed somehting akin to "was like" in English. It's "var eitthvað". Let me give an example in English and then the Icelandic translation: I saw this guy,who walked up to this girl, on a street in downtown Reykavík last weekend, and he was like: "baby, give me kiss!" And the girl was like: "eew, no!". And then the guy was like: "At least give me just one small one on the mouth!" and then girl was like: "Stay away!". And then the girl ran away. And the guy, the total idiot that he was, screamed behind her: "Love you too!" Icelandic translation: Gaurinn gekk upp að þessari stelpu, á götu niðri í miðbæ Reykjavíkur, um síðustu helgi og hann var eitthvað: ,,Elskan, gefðu mér koss!" Og stelpan var eitthvað: ,,Ojj nei!" Og þá var gaurinn eitthvað: ,,Gefðu mér bara einn lítinn á munninn!" Og stelpan var eitthvað: ,,Haltu þig fjarri!" Og síðan hljóp stelpan í burtu. Og gaurinn, algöri hálfvitinn sem hann var, öskraði á eftir henni: ,,Elska þig líka!" This expression of ,,var eitthvað" meaning ,,said" is not that common though. It's not nearly as common as "was like" seems to be in English today but you will hear it from time to time from young speakers (around 30-ish or younger).
One question: When a language's grammar undergoes simplification (for example: loss of declension in nouns or conjugations of verbs) is this a one way street? What I mean is, once the grammar of a heavily inflected language, such as my native language Icelandic, where to undergoe "scandinavization" in terms of it's grammar, would it stand a chance of becoming heavily inflected again in the future? Is the grammar of Icelandic fated to become simplified in the future like most other germanic languages? Many Icelanders fear this and believe this to be a bad thing, but is it really?
Inflection is not a god-sent thing that happens once and then is doomed to be lost. ;-) It also develops through a language change. What I want to say is that at a later stage, after a huge simplification of inflection, a new inflectional system may develop (eg. a declension through merging of prepositions with following nouns). But it will be entirely different than the original one that has been lost, and it takes a lot of time for such inflectional system to develop. So if Icelandic loses its declension and conjugation, it won’t recreate the same system at any later stage (it only could ‘remember’ it by teaching the old language by force). But it can develop something entirely different in its stead later.
Benedykt answers more or less what I would say in response to the question about Icelandic losing inflection; it could happen, and if inflection came "back" it would not be the same as before. Language doesn't have memory, exactly. As to "var eitthvað," you have astonished me. Most of the Icelanders I have ever talked to have been older than I am, and I had no idea that expression had crept into the language. Thank you for that example.
Dr. Crawford and Benedykt, thank you both! Dr. Crawford, I'm not surprised that you haven't heard of 'var eitthvað'. This is highly casual street Icelandic. And It's actually not that common but it's the only expression that I can think of that's, in any way, analogous to 'was like' in English. I'm not a professional translator but if were asked to translate 'was like' I'd use 'var eitthvað'. It's also worth pointing out that when 'var eitthvað' is used instead of 'sagði' (said) it sort of can mean that the person doing the quoting is disapproving, dismissive, disbelieving or incredulous of what was said. Tone of voice plays a part as well. Example: Ég: ,,Pabbi, myndirðu nokkuð nenna að keyra mig í skólann?" Pabbi: ,,Keyra þig í skólann? Bíddu, var ekki bróðir þinn búinn að lofa að keyra þig í skólann í dag?" Ég (með vanþóknunartón): ,,Jú, en þegar ég talaði við hann, núna rétt á áðan, þá var hann bara eitthvað: Ég er svo dauðþreyttur, biddu bara pabba um að keyra þig". Ég: ,,Það er aldrei hægt að treysta á hann! En pabbi, ef þú myndir vilja vera svo vænn og keyra mig í skólann, þá væri það mjög vel þegið. Pabbi: "Já, gott og vel. En drífðu þig þá í skóna, ég er má ekki verða of seinn í vinnuna". Ég: "Takk, pabbi!" English translation: Me: "Dad, do you possibly feel like driving me to school?" Dad: "Drive you to school? Wait, didn't your brother already promise to drive you to school today?" Me (in a disapproving tone of voice): "Yes, but when I spoke with him just earlier now, then he was just like: I'm so dead tired, just ask dad to drive you". Me: "He can never be depended upon! But dad, If you would be so kind as to drive me to school, then it would be very much appreciated". Dad: Yes, very well. But then hurry up and put your shoes on, I can not be too late for work". Me: "Thanks dad!".
hello , when people realise the alphabet is just an anagram , we can write how we want , just as artists and musicians . you`ll be suprised how easy it is , quiet naturally , with regards
What do you mean by 'the alphabet is just an anagram'? You mean that people can switch letters and it can still make sense like 'teh apalhabet is jsut an aganarm'?
hello , if you consider , freedom of speach , then that also relates to free choice of how to compose what you want to write about , which ever way you choose . some artists go abstract , the good ones arrange the shapes and colours so it becomes interesting to some . musicians in india , don`t read music . they relate to a note and base everything round that . correct grammar , ridiculous intellectual words bla bla are all rigid and fixed on a so called proper way to do something . its all psychological mind control . once people realise this its like being self taught , enjoy
Okay, it's difficult to understand you, but I think I get what you're trying to say. In certain ways, yea, language is like art and it's best to do things in a way that you enjoy or that is more artful. But also, proper ways of speaking (prescriptivism) is also useful in certain contexts, the most obvious of which is the sciences, and also allows people to be more concise, and still be undestood well. Language itself is a negotiation of yourself and your audience (and thus, the rest of society).
hello, its difficult for you to understand simply because i`m using my natural way of communicating, just as my ne accent is seen as some sort of badly spoken english language yet its more indigenus than the eloquotion speech training the intellect use . to me that sounds like they have speech impediments , just like the robot voices on you tube . thinking for your self , not only improved the vocabulary but you also realise the sincerity of people by there use of words , just as s wales people almost sing when they are talking . one thing you do learn is live and let live . with regards
To some extent I agree with you, but you have to be practical to whatever situation is at hand. Thus, you must speak differently according to the situation and your goal within an interaction. No one will force you to change the way you speak; they can only recommend better speech; better, defined by the goal they perceive and by the situation of the specific people communicating (along with each of their skills at various ways of speaking). For example, I would not use French when trying to speak to and be understood by an English speaking person. It seems to me that you have some impractical, theoretical philosophical ideology that is merely illogical backlash towards unjust/illogical prescriptivism. Basically you're fighting a badly generalised ideology with the opposite badly generalised ideology.
I've devoured an incredible amount of your videos over the last few days and I just want to say thank you. Your channel, in my mind, is a great example of the best that internet videos have to offer; bite-sized (usually, anyway) chunks of highly specialized information that would otherwise be hard to find for the average person. I found your videos through your recent discussion of Ullr but have found videos like this where you talk about language in a more broad sense infinitely more fascinating. Thank you for all of your work! I plan on picking up a copy of your translation of the Poetic Edda soon :D
I love those general linguistics videos. Thank you for sharing all this information.
;-)
😝😝😝 Hearing an established university professor in a suit say: “I was like” looked and sounded so funny!
I just found you a couple days ago and love your videos! "language never really reaches a state of perfect logic"
My major in college was Linguistic-Anthropology. However, I changed it due to pressure from my family. Watching your videos remind me of the joy I had in my linguistics courses. [I miss those classes]. Such a joy to watch, every video (even though Scandinavian was not my linguistics focus).
I often wonder how much faster languages are evolving since the internet came into place. My gut feeling is that in 150 years current languages would start to sound to them as Shakespearean English sounds to us.
That subtle book plug was funny as hell!
Also, "What happens at Samsey, stays at Samsey."
Didn't appear very subtle...
I have noticed the "skj" and "kj" sounds are dying out in Norwegian and being replaced with the "sj/sh" sound by younger people.
Just the same as when the "tj" and "kj" merged a while back (not sure when).
And it's a shame. I know it's part of the evolution of languages, but I find the sound quite obnoxious when used for "kj" and "tj" actually. One of the reasons "kj" has not been erradicated already, is because it is found in so many words in the Norwegian vocabulary.
Side note, "skj", "sk" and "sj" is the same sound in most dialects. It's only just in the recent decades or so that "kj" and "tj" are being replaced with just /ʃ/ so that skj, sk, sj, tj and kj are all the same.
Edit: Also "k" in some words like "kirke", "kilo" and "kino".
I think 'tj' and 'kj' are already the same in all major dialects of Swedish, so I'm guessing they merged at some point.
I'm not a linguist, but here are a few recent Swedish language developments that I've read about or noticed:
- The subjective/objective cases 'de' (they) and 'dem' (them) have mostly merged, and are both now usually pronounced 'dom' like in English 'dominant'. The distinction survives in writing, and plenty of native speakers get them mixed up. (Funny thing is you can usually teach native speakers how to use them properly by telling them to think of 'they' vs. 'them' in English.) I hope the colloquial spelling 'dom' replaces both.
- Replacing the objective case 'honom' (him) with the subjective case 'han' (he) is common (and sounds perfectly natural to me). For whatever reason, replacing 'henne' (her) with 'hon' (she) sounds weird.
- The back 'sj' sound (which often trips up learners) has become more common. The front 'sj' sound used to be the standard "prestige" pronunciation, and still is in some ways.
- Some people have started putting spaces in compound words ("brand bil" (fire truck) instead of "brandbil" (firetruck)), probably due to influence from English. This is something I hope never becomes standard, because it's highly inconsistent even in English, but you never know...
Of course there's outrage associated with each of the above, like you'd expect. :)
The reason that it sounds natural replacing accusative-case "honom" with "han", is because that's actually the old correct way, and often persists in spoken form, e.g. "jag såg han". "honom" used to be only dative-case, e.g "jag gav den till honom." In Västgötish dialect we also say e.g. "jag såg 'na", which is a short form from the old-swedish accusative-case feminine pronoun, "hana".
'na for henne has to be pretty widespread. Didn't even realize it was dialectical. There's also 'an (jag såg 'an), but I'm guessing that's just short for 'han' then.
Subjective and objective case should have been nominative and accusative case, yeah. I'm just a programmer trying to look like I know stuff. ;)
For the record, I'm from Hälsingland and say 'na.
The usage of "like" in the social groups I take part in results from a demarcation between a direct quote or a summary. If I said "My boss said [x]" it indicates I am quoting my boss verbatim. If I said "My boss was like [x]" my friends would know I'm summarizing or even embellishing the scenario. Thus, "said" is more of synonym to "like" rather than a one to one.
Love your videos, you probably know this ^ already but I still found it interesting to add. :)
I really like this presentation. Thank you, Doctor Crawford.
This video is EXACTLY what I was looking for, thanks a bunch.
Another great video, thanks. No offense to my Middle Welsh professor but your explanation of these phenomena finally made them perfectly clear to me, whereas before my understanding was slightly patchy. I'm almost certain the umlaut phenomenon is the same thing as what my professor termed 'vowel elevation' when discussing Welsh plural forms. Fascinating stuff. Thanks again
No, you're right, 'affection' is the term but I think when he described it as vowel elevation, it was in reference to the position of tongue elevation in the production of the different vowel sounds.
Tbh, I'm not sure I really understand what it is that you don't understand well; you are clearly operating on a higher level :) In truth, while I'm fascinated by linguistics, it was never my strong suit or the main focus of my studies.
p.s. I liked your example; I'd been thinking about 'haul' and 'heuliau' but I wasn't sure how good of an example that would be, and I certainly wouldn't have been able to explain it as well.
Thanks for the kind words. I try.
There are several causes of vowel changes in Welsh. Affection is similar to Germanic umlaut but is more about raising than fronting, but still a form of assimilation.
Other changes were due to stress. Brittonic had penultimate stress which after final syllables were mostly lost, left Early Welsh with final stress. At this stage several unstressed (non-final) vowels became less distinct. The dynamic part of the stress then shifted to the penult, but a tonal (pitch) element remained on the final syllable, keeping those vowels clear and distinct. Obviously stressed monosyllable came through all of this unscathed, hence the various alternations seen today.
More videos on PIE and general linguitics please .
You already have so much of the exclusive Norse stuff ...
I am planning on going to CU and want to study linguistics, I hope I get to see you there!!!
Your videos are great - didactic and accessible.
I know your focus isn't Latin, but I couldn't help but notice your pronunciation of in 9:00 was really off; is [aɪ] as in "by" (Classical) or [ɛ] as in "bed" (Vulgar), you pronounced it something like [eɪ] from "bait". Also, Latin>Spanish /k/ lenition is messy and had multiple steps as k>tʃ>tθ>(θ or s); I believe Italian's simple k>tʃ would be more didactic, for being both simpler and basically the same mutation English went through.
For rhotacism: you don't need [s] or [z], but pretty much any alveolar sound as [l t d n s z] will do. There's even a contemporary English example you can use, Americans pronouncing intervocalic /t/ and /d/ as [ɾ] ("Berry, gorra drink the borrle of wine!").
Also worth mentioning your voice is really clear and calm without being monotone :)
That depends on where and when you learned Latin. There have been more than one different school of pronunciation for Latin. And it is all reconstructed, so it depends on whose reconstruction you use. In a Roman Catholic school, you would have learned his pronunciation. If you learned in a public school, you would have probably learned your pronunciation. And the pronunciation of the diphthong changed over the years in Latin, as far as scholars know. And different schools in England have historically used different pronunciation systems for Latin. And French schools taught different Latin pronunciation than Italian schools. And teachers from those different systems taught pronunciation differently.
billmvg: reconstructed pronunciation of Classical Latin is quite consistent in this regard. We know represented a diphthong beginning with an open vowel that was simplified to a mid-open vowel in most dialects roughly at the third or fourth century of the Common Era (when the Appendix Probi was written).
"Roman Catholic" (Ecclesiastical) Latin has nothing to do with it - its pronunciation is too butchered by local languages to be useful for reconstruction.
He pronounces it 'correctly' once at 9:14 He was probably just using an anglicized pronunciation of the word and then accidentally slipped in that correct pronunciation. He does a similar thing in the pronunciation of 'kirk' when comparing it to 'church'. I think maybe since he was focusing on 'lenition' he was trying to simplify the rest of the pronunciation. Or something. Plus, he's only human :)
Christopher Rowley: I'm aware this happens a lot with people, and it's just a detail.
Often to make a clear point I sum up peripheral issues in as few words as I can, and a specific discussion of Spanish historical phonology is clearly beyond the intent of this video. I certainly hope that I haven't stepped on the toes of any Romance specialists, as I know how annoying it can be when someone doesn't even seem to be trying to get it right.
As to the pronunciation of /caelum/, I know that it's [kaɪlum] in Classical, what you heard as [eɪ] is my (heavily American-accented) attempt at a Vulgar pronunciation [ɛ:].
Latin also had an interesting feature which the modern English word "absent" still retains. A related Latin cognate "absunt" essentially had an opposite, if you like to think about it this way, which was "adsunt", literally "here are" to mean "they are present". There's also a singular variation being "abest" and "adest", what's quite neat is you can see the words "sunt" and "est", equivalent of "are" and "is". Latin can be very mathematical, but English only retained "absent" and now has "present" to be the formal opposite of "absent".
Void
I've noticed "gotten" has started to become popular for the present-perfect tense of "to get" in British English. For some time it has been "got"-- "gotten" having disappeared at some point a few few hundred years ago (though "forgotten" has remained).
I suspect this revival of "gotten" is owing to American influence, where it has remained the standard way of expressing the present-perfect of "to get".
+ddemaine Yea, although I hear Americans say 'have got' a lot too, which as an American myself, sounds a bit strange to me, since I say 'have gotten', lol, but it seems like the norm even in America.
English is becoming Americanize. Soon we will sound the same again. I heard from some Englishmen they like how the Americans say things. They say we get to the point. We have words that describe things better. Such as: "sidewalk" instead of "pavement.
Pavement in American means harden concrete.
recognizing the use of "mans" in AAVE with the context of this introduction is enlightening
Congratulations on your new appointment.
Thank you!
I am loving all these videos Dr. Crawford. Thank you so much for making them!
Nooooooo, I wanted to audit a course of yours at Berkeley. At least I can enjoy your videos. Best of luck in Colorado!
Rivani Biddle If I'm correct the Scandinavian department doesn't allow audits anyways
Is rhotacism only exclusive to z/s -> r or anyother sound that becomes r? Because we have that in Tagalog, a lot of words that start with "d" become "r" (trilled r).
There are direct examples of rhotacism in English as well - "was, were" for example. I think it was determined by the position of the stress. I think "more" may be another example. Then there's "are" from Anglian "(e)arun" (but possibly equally borrowed from Old Norse) contrasted with "is".
Doesn't the third person singular ending -s come from -th?
In Northumbrian Old English, the regular 3rd P Sing ending was -es, due to influence from old norse. In Northumbrian Old English, the -est 2nd P Sing ending was confused with the 3rd person ending, because in Old Norse 2nd and 3rd Person Indicative forms of verbs were identical. When native old Norse speakers switched to old english, they confused the 2nd and 3rd person endings and used -es for both. This grammatical change then spread south.
Dr. Jackson Crawford,
Firstly I wanna say thank you for so many great videos. But also, what location for the University of Colorado? Denver, Boulder...? You may become what makes me go to CU, if it's the right location..
Boulder, and I'm honored to be a factor in anyone's decision like that. Thanks for the kind words on the videos too.
Thanks!
With regard to the comment about lenition, for those who don't know, I just wanted to point out that in most of Spain cielo is pronounced "thielo" not "sielo". So "th" should be added" to the list. And also that you can see change from K in classical Latin to CH in Italian and ecclesiastial Latin, not just in English.
I often wonder why some people in certain countries opted for one sound over the other. In particular in Spain, where "th" speakers are surrounded by "s" speakers like Andalusians, Portuguese, Catalans, French,...
Congratulations on the new position!
Thank you!
Very happy to hear about the new tidings! New job, new book, I wish you the best of luck with them, you're awesome
Thank you!
How did Old Norse develop Maðr from PGerm Mannaz?
Your channel is extremely interesting. Thanks!
I like hate language to like change
11:13 What about irregularization? E.g. "sneak/snuck/sneaked" is relatively recent. "yeet/yote/yeeted" is entirely new. "think/thought/thunk" is also sometimes used.
That's just regularisation by equating the form to another more well-known one or overcorrection.
@@HenryLoenwind Ah. By analogy with Drive-Drove-Driven, Dive has taken the other’s irregular pattern as Dive-Dove-Diven in some dialects.
Could umlaut happen with the u sound at the end of a word so sounds like i e and a would become closer to o and u
Id say I wish you were still teaching here in SoCal but I wouldn't wanna wish such a thing on such a brilliant teacher. Im using the method you taught for writing Skaldic poetry on an assignment tomorrow. Thanks a ton!
All this stuff is awesomely interesting. Particulary the thing with the regularization, I can imagine that and compare it with a similar process in castilian, specially when kids learn the irregular form of verbs conjugation for the first time. Thank you Dr. as usual!
Some of us canadians are beginning to call multiple moose as meese, to have it a-kin to geese, even though the word was introduced to english after regularization after Umlaut, Canadians may favor umlaut more in future than the suffixing -s, tho it may seem like Umlaut, this is a different prosses, more like a plurality regrouping.
Mr Jackson could you say what influences a vowel to change over time? I am told that there was a vowel shift in the middle ages but it does not say why. I am not talking about the historical reasons but rather the physiological reasons
Iberian Spanish soft c is a lisp sound though, not an s.
I would say that the use of the word, “like” as “said” it as a phrase marker iis easily fifty years old. I remember it from my earliest childhood in the 70’s.
Interestingly, the plural of "mongoose" is not "mongeese" but "mongooses".
In fact, this is very useful and very insightful!
Is the "hhhhwhy" part of your native dialect?
It is part of his dialect, yes. He mentioned it in another video.
@@silver6380 what kinda dialect can it be lol, I think it's because he was studying a lot of Norse
@@gamesportalsim He got it from his grandparents. It was actually default in English up until recently hence why words like what and why have a 'h' in them.
Congratulations on your appointment to Colorado!
Thank you!
I hope the Boulder campus is a bit more placid and law-abiding than the Berkeley campus.
why do some of your videos have comments disabled?
Thanks Dr Crawford. Interesting point abt Prejudice as a driver of language change. How about just the "desire" for simplification, and wanting to reduce complex tongue movement (like baby-talk?)? A lot of Prakrits (esp Pali) are said to offer easier pronounciations when compared to Sanskrit, say...is that a kind of pidginization also?
hi Dr. Jackson crawford, historical linguist specializing in old Norse. ;) i am curious as to why you left Berkeley? although Colorado seems more appropriate to your..... particular...... idiom!
Among other things, I have only held temporary appointments at the campuses of the University of California where I have taught (most university faculty today are hired on a temporary basis).
I think the hiring of faculty on a temporary basis sounds more like the management of a business than of a university. To whom does a student turn if he / she needs a recommendation, when his / her part--time professors have been compelled to move on? There is little continuity to an institution when the faculty is considered 'temporary'. Better to hire the administration on a temporary basis - perhaps from the faculty.
I'm wondering if there is anything that accounts for rather drastic language change.
It's been a while, but that's a good question. Yes, there is, and it happens quite often. It's a variant of those age/regional groups mentioned in the video, only that it is for social groups. In particular, social groups that positively identify with a dominant foreign group ("positive" also can simply be a higher class, in the case of invaders). Some examples would be English taking in French influences when that was the language of the rulers, all countries that were assimilated into the Roman empire taking in Latin, or even many languages taking in American English during the last 70 years. The same can also happen during times of social turmoil, like the French Revolution, where people intentionally changed the way they spoke to not sound like the former aristocratic upper class. Plenty of the changes they introduced were invented, not copied from existing lower-class speakers.
Those changes can introduce a large number of loanwords, even replacing established old words, as well as changes to pronunciation and grammar. They can even create creoles to completely replace the original local language. Or, in extreme cases, it can create a new dialect (or split off a new child language) of the foreign language. An example of this would be Indian English.
I've noticed that the vowel sounds have drastically changed with the younger generation compared to the older generation. Mainly the short a sound and short e sound. I'm from deep SW Virginia. I have a goat named Ivy. When I said the goat's name to the young vet the vet thought her name was spelled Avy. To me the way they say egg sounds like agg. Snap sounds like snipe pronounced with the southern I (not ah). So I'm seeing the change that you are talking about. In our area supposedly the older generation sounds a lot like Elizabethan and Scottish. We retained a lot of the accent from a few hundred years ago.
10:00 I thought that Rhotacism means the transformation of "l" into "r". At least that is the phenomenon that happened in Romanian, where you have:
(Latin -> Romanian)
"quale" -> "care"
"caelum" -> "cer" (this is also an example of Lenition, as the "c" is pronounced "ch")
"sole" -> "soare"
What I always seem to notice when speaking is the transformation of Latin "d" into "z" in Romanian:
"deus" -> "zeu"
"dies" -> "zi"
Though it doesn't happen all the time (Lat. "audire"):
"Eu aud" (I hear) - many older people in the countryside tend to say "eu auz"
"Tu auzi" (You hear)
"El aude" (He hears)
Anyway, the regularity of the process astounds me.
One way that language can change is if a lot of foreigners move into a country because they do not have the ambition to speak perfectly just to be understood. Then the language can be simplified. Happened in Sweden during the Hanseatic era when a lot of Germans moved to Sweden.
Thank you for your videos. I could not afford a monthly Patreon, but I did buy your book and recommended it to others. You're doing us a service by making this publicly available.
Thank you!
Welcome, and again it's appreciated.
Hate to tell you guy, but they been saying mans in Toronto
So that's why strong verbs exist! The PIE umlaut (ablaut?)!
His dialect is funny in the way that he says why not like wai but like hwai
السلام عليكم السلام عليكم محمد رسول الله لاهور
Interesting example of lenition in German: some dialects in Tyrol realise Standard German [k] as an affricate [kx], while in neighbouring Switzerland the same sound is usually realised as a fricative [x].
You can hear something similar in Scouse to varying degrees.
@@dingo137 Right you are.
@@Valerio_the_wandering_sprite Indeed it is. [kx] was an initial result of that shift, I've read, but most dialects eventually dropped the [x] again, while Swiss ones dropped the [k].
hwy
Interesting vid
I’m paraphrasing with much of this. I’m currently working on a book (dealing in things this - what you’ll see in this post)..... It’s all (language) described like it’s - 1) all by way of natural progression. 2) was designed to be functional... No and No. So much of what we say was developed through/in literature. I’ll slow it down. Every “ight”.. You bypass the hard sound every time (sounds once vocalized), and you pronounce every “ight” the exact same way. Do you think every “ight” became “ite” via natural progression, or via structuring/structure?..... Part 2: Why do you say “ree-flex” (long re-)? So you don’t realize you’re saying the word that was corrupted “reflect(s)”..... This is why they got rid of accents (like á). Example: You ask me a question. My response. “Let me REFLEX on it. I’ll see if I can RECOIL it”... Reflex, Reflect = same word. As are - Recoil, Recall, Recollect.... Part 3: These are also the same word - resort, restore, resource, recourse, recur...... Example: I’ll use an antique (piece) for the example... if you “resort” an antique “back to its old way”... You resort/restore it back to its old way...... Part 4, One more: Of/Off = same word. Writers alternated spellings throughout works. You might see “of the...” to “off the....” +/- 100 times. They didn’t all have OCD. They were developing separate associations for the separate spellings of the same word. This is what creates for what looks like 2 different words today (of which they’re not)..... Example: a reserve is a backup, and “in the back of” (reserves come in behind). Make of, off.. That’s “back off,” “hold back,” “keep from” - Reserve... Reserve “back of.” Reserve “back off”....... Hope you liked.. ;)
Great video!
In modern Icelandic, younger speakers have developed somehting akin to "was like" in English. It's "var eitthvað".
Let me give an example in English and then the Icelandic translation:
I saw this guy,who walked up to this girl, on a street in downtown Reykavík last weekend, and he was like: "baby, give me kiss!"
And the girl was like: "eew, no!".
And then the guy was like: "At least give me just one small one on the mouth!"
and then girl was like: "Stay away!".
And then the girl ran away. And the guy, the total idiot that he was, screamed behind her:
"Love you too!"
Icelandic translation:
Gaurinn gekk upp að þessari stelpu, á götu niðri í miðbæ Reykjavíkur, um síðustu helgi og hann var eitthvað: ,,Elskan, gefðu mér koss!"
Og stelpan var eitthvað: ,,Ojj nei!"
Og þá var gaurinn eitthvað: ,,Gefðu mér bara einn lítinn á munninn!"
Og stelpan var eitthvað: ,,Haltu þig fjarri!"
Og síðan hljóp stelpan í burtu. Og gaurinn, algöri hálfvitinn sem hann var, öskraði á eftir henni:
,,Elska þig líka!"
This expression of ,,var eitthvað" meaning ,,said" is not that common though. It's not nearly as common as "was like" seems to be in English today but you will hear it from time to time from young speakers (around 30-ish or younger).
One question:
When a language's grammar undergoes simplification (for example: loss of declension in nouns or conjugations of verbs) is this a one way street?
What I mean is, once the grammar of a heavily inflected language, such as my native language Icelandic, where to undergoe "scandinavization" in terms of it's grammar, would it stand a chance of becoming heavily inflected again in the future?
Is the grammar of Icelandic fated to become simplified in the future like most other germanic languages? Many Icelanders fear this and believe this to be a bad thing, but is it really?
Inflection is not a god-sent thing that happens once and then is doomed to be lost. ;-) It also develops through a language change.
What I want to say is that at a later stage, after a huge simplification of inflection, a new inflectional system may develop (eg. a declension through merging of prepositions with following nouns).
But it will be entirely different than the original one that has been lost, and it takes a lot of time for such inflectional system to develop.
So if Icelandic loses its declension and conjugation, it won’t recreate the same system at any later stage (it only could ‘remember’ it by teaching the old language by force). But it can develop something entirely different in its stead later.
Benedykt answers more or less what I would say in response to the question about Icelandic losing inflection; it could happen, and if inflection came "back" it would not be the same as before. Language doesn't have memory, exactly.
As to "var eitthvað," you have astonished me. Most of the Icelanders I have ever talked to have been older than I am, and I had no idea that expression had crept into the language. Thank you for that example.
Dr. Crawford and Benedykt, thank you both!
Dr. Crawford, I'm not surprised that you haven't heard of 'var eitthvað'. This is highly casual street Icelandic.
And It's actually not that common but it's the only expression that I can think of that's, in any way, analogous to 'was like' in English.
I'm not a professional translator but if were asked to translate 'was like' I'd use 'var eitthvað'.
It's also worth pointing out that when 'var eitthvað' is used instead of 'sagði' (said) it sort of can mean that the person doing the quoting is disapproving, dismissive, disbelieving or incredulous of what was said. Tone of voice plays a part as well.
Example:
Ég:
,,Pabbi, myndirðu nokkuð nenna að keyra mig í skólann?"
Pabbi:
,,Keyra þig í skólann? Bíddu, var ekki bróðir þinn búinn að lofa að keyra þig í skólann í dag?"
Ég (með vanþóknunartón):
,,Jú, en þegar ég talaði við hann, núna rétt á áðan, þá var hann bara eitthvað: Ég er svo dauðþreyttur, biddu bara pabba um að keyra þig".
Ég:
,,Það er aldrei hægt að treysta á hann! En pabbi, ef þú myndir vilja vera svo vænn og keyra mig í skólann, þá væri það mjög vel þegið.
Pabbi:
"Já, gott og vel. En drífðu þig þá í skóna, ég er má ekki verða of seinn í vinnuna".
Ég:
"Takk, pabbi!"
English translation:
Me:
"Dad, do you possibly feel like driving me to school?"
Dad:
"Drive you to school? Wait, didn't your brother already promise to drive you to school today?"
Me (in a disapproving tone of voice):
"Yes, but when I spoke with him just earlier now, then he was just like: I'm so dead tired, just ask dad to drive you".
Me:
"He can never be depended upon! But dad, If you would be so kind as to drive me to school, then it would be very much appreciated".
Dad:
Yes, very well. But then hurry up and put your shoes on, I can not be too late for work".
Me:
"Thanks dad!".
You're right, that does seem to pattern very similarly to English "was like" including the differences from plain "said/sagði."
Repeating like is annoying. I guess I am old fashion.
hello , when people realise the alphabet is just an anagram , we can write how we want , just as artists and musicians . you`ll be suprised how easy it is , quiet naturally , with regards
What do you mean by 'the alphabet is just an anagram'? You mean that people can switch letters and it can still make sense like 'teh apalhabet is jsut an aganarm'?
hello , if you consider , freedom of speach , then that also relates to free choice of how to compose what you want to write about , which ever way you choose . some artists go abstract , the good ones arrange the shapes and colours so it becomes interesting to some . musicians in india , don`t read music . they relate to a note and base everything round that . correct grammar , ridiculous intellectual words bla bla are all rigid and fixed on a so called proper way to do something . its all psychological mind control . once people realise this its like being self taught , enjoy
Okay, it's difficult to understand you, but I think I get what you're trying to say. In certain ways, yea, language is like art and it's best to do things in a way that you enjoy or that is more artful. But also, proper ways of speaking (prescriptivism) is also useful in certain contexts, the most obvious of which is the sciences, and also allows people to be more concise, and still be undestood well. Language itself is a negotiation of yourself and your audience (and thus, the rest of society).
hello, its difficult for you to understand simply because i`m using my natural way of communicating, just as my ne accent is seen as some sort of badly spoken english language yet its more indigenus than the eloquotion speech training the intellect use . to me that sounds like they have speech impediments , just like the robot voices on you tube . thinking for your self , not only improved the vocabulary but you also realise the sincerity of people by there use of words , just as s wales people almost sing when they are talking . one thing you do learn is live and let live . with regards
To some extent I agree with you, but you have to be practical to whatever situation is at hand. Thus, you must speak differently according to the situation and your goal within an interaction. No one will force you to change the way you speak; they can only recommend better speech; better, defined by the goal they perceive and by the situation of the specific people communicating (along with each of their skills at various ways of speaking). For example, I would not use French when trying to speak to and be understood by an English speaking person.
It seems to me that you have some impractical, theoretical philosophical ideology that is merely illogical backlash towards unjust/illogical prescriptivism. Basically you're fighting a badly generalised ideology with the opposite badly generalised ideology.
Arabic is unchanged language
I would love to see somebody try to support this statement
No, it's not.
Objectively false
pls pls stop saying h-why
@YLR Entertainment it's so ugly though
@@prod.hxrford3896 Please stop saying 'pls', it´s so ugly.
See how ridiculous it is to criticize people for the way they talk?
A perfect example of prejudice as a motivator for both change and persistence in language.
“hWat, and hWy”