I'm a native speaker of Tagalog (a language with the Austronesian alignment). Austronesian alignment is very hard to grasp for people not speaking Philippine/Taiwanese aboriginal languages. So I usually explain this topic like this: in Tagalog, yes, we absolutely *change* the whole sentence's structure if the direct object has the definite article "the". For example: (1) Nag-luto ako ng kanin. "I cooked rice." Observe that "rice" is indefinite, no "the". Because of that, we can use the -um- or mag- verb conjugation (but it's safe to assume -um- for intransitive and mag- for transitive because there are exceptions). Lutò or "cook" is transitive so let's use mag-. Mag+luto = magluto. Now, nag- is the completed form of mag-. So nag+luto = nagluto, "cooked". Next, the sentence above is what I call a "indefinite" sentence. For "indefinite sentences," the word structure is verb - ang (absolutive) - subject - ng (ergative) - direct object - sa (oblique) - indirect object. Tagalog is a split-ergative language, which means nouns and pronouns have different ergative-absolutive declensions. Ako is the absolutive form of ako, which is "I." We use the absolutive form because it is the subject. So basically ang + ako = ako. Next, kanin means "rice" which is the direct object, so we use the ergative case or ng. Adding it all up, we have: nagluto ako ng kanin. (2) L-in-uto ko ang kanin. "I cooked the rice." So now, "rice" is *definite*. Which means we need to change everything. This is what I call the "definite" sentence. We use -in, -an, i- and ma- verb conjugation for these sentences. Magluto in the first example becomes lutuin, with the -in conjugation, (the o became u) which becomes linuto in the completed aspect. The word structure for these is: verb - ng (ergative) - subject - ang (absolutive) - direct object - sa (oblique) - indirect object. So luto is "cook," lutuin is "cook the," linuto is "cooked the," ko is the ergative form of ako (ergative because it is the subject), and kanin is absolutive because it is the direct object. Other examples: Kumanta (-um-, some of the transitives that don't allow mag-) ako (absolutive) ng kanta (ergative). = I sang a song. (notice that "song" is indefinite.) Kinanta (-in) ko (ergative) ang kanta (absolutive). = I sang the song. P.S. Anyways, here's a sample of Tagalog verb conjugation: sumayaw, sumayaw, sumasayaw, sasayaw magsayaw, nagsayaw, nagsasayaw, magsasayaw sayawin, sinayaw, sinasayaw, sasayawin sayawan, sinayawan, sinasayawan, sasayawan isayaw, isinayaw, isinasayaw, isasayaw masayaw, nasayaw, nasasayaw, masasayaw pasayawin, pinasayaw, pinasayaw, papasayawin ipasayaw, ipinasayaw, ipinapasayaw, ipapasayaw pasayawan, pinasayawan, pinapasayawan, papasayawan makasayaw, nakasayaw, nakakasayaw, makakasayaw
of all the Austronesian languages in the world you chose Amis, and of all the language videos in the world, I, a part Amis stumbled upon yours the odds in this...
Austronesian Alignment can be difficult to grasp. Luckily, Tagalog does so (my native language). I was surprised to see the word ‘vavuy’ from Amis. In Tagalog, we also say ‘baboy’ for pig.
@@sundalongpatpat 1) we put special affix in verb. 2) we mark one and only noun/pronoun with a special marker. In Amis, it is "ku" (well, according to the video I don't speak it). In Tagalog, it is the "ang". Other Philippine languages have same or similar marker. 3) The special affix in the verb determines the role of the noun/pronoun marked with ang. For example, "um" infix may indicate that the noun/pronoun marked with ang is the *agent* (see video). Ex: Bumili ang lalaki ng pagkain. (The man brought food). "Lalaki" (man) has the ang, so lalaki is the agent, and did the buying. On the other hand, "in" infix may indicate that the noun/pronoun marked with ang is the *patient* (see video). Ex: Binili ng lalaki ang pagkain (The man bought food). "Pagkain" (food) has the ang, so pagkain is the patient, and "experienced" the buying. Vocab: bili - buy, ng - of or by.
intransitive verbs: adjectival phrases. A state is posited rather than an activity. Thus, the transitive verb describes activities. Your Basque is good 👍
In the future I would avoid saying things like "unnecessary complexity". All languages have redundant systems to some extent that can be used for different effects in discourse.
Thanks sir for your clear explanation. Btw I speak fluent tagalog as 2nd language that I learnt without much trouble during my teen-ages from circumstances (I mean didn't study it properly) so I understand perfectly how austronesian alignment works, but when it comes to "pure" ergativity like hindi or basque I find it very difficult to grasp
Using the given sample "the man hunts a pig" in Tagalog we could say any of the following: Nanghuhuli ang mama(lalaki) ng baboy. Humuhuli ng baboy ang mama(lalaki).
Very instructive video, thank you! I have a question about the Amis examples: in the Agent focus example "ku kapah" is translated as 'the man' and thus given definite status. However in the Patitent Focus sentence, "ku vavuy'"be translated as indefinite. Shoudln't "ku vavuy" be translated as a definite 'the pig'?
Good question. Focus does not necessarily equal definiteness. In the example in the video the patient focus sentence could be emphasising that a pig is what is being hunted (not some other animal) without necessarily referring to a specific pig. In either sentence the agent and the patient could each be definite or indefinite.
The conlang I'm making has a 2d written form and therefore doesn't mark ergativity on the noun but rather marks the verb to indicate what noun is playing what role including alignment and other similar traits such as possession.
A much better question is to ask why a culture with tripartite marking would maintain such a supposedly "inefficient" system. I have a few gueses, what are yours?
I'm a native speaker of Tagalog (a language with the Austronesian alignment). Austronesian alignment is very hard to grasp for people not speaking Philippine/Taiwanese aboriginal languages. So I usually explain this topic like this: in Tagalog, yes, we absolutely *change* the whole sentence's structure if the direct object has the definite article "the". For example:
(1)
Nag-luto ako ng kanin. "I cooked rice." Observe that "rice" is indefinite, no "the". Because of that, we can use the -um- or mag- verb conjugation (but it's safe to assume -um- for intransitive and mag- for transitive because there are exceptions). Lutò or "cook" is transitive so let's use mag-. Mag+luto = magluto. Now, nag- is the completed form of mag-. So nag+luto = nagluto, "cooked".
Next, the sentence above is what I call a "indefinite" sentence. For "indefinite sentences," the word structure is verb - ang (absolutive) - subject - ng (ergative) - direct object - sa (oblique) - indirect object. Tagalog is a split-ergative language, which means nouns and pronouns have different ergative-absolutive declensions. Ako is the absolutive form of ako, which is "I." We use the absolutive form because it is the subject. So basically ang + ako = ako. Next, kanin means "rice" which is the direct object, so we use the ergative case or ng. Adding it all up, we have: nagluto ako ng kanin.
(2)
L-in-uto ko ang kanin. "I cooked the rice." So now, "rice" is *definite*. Which means we need to change everything. This is what I call the "definite" sentence. We use -in, -an, i- and ma- verb conjugation for these sentences. Magluto in the first example becomes lutuin, with the -in conjugation, (the o became u) which becomes linuto in the completed aspect. The word structure for these is: verb - ng (ergative) - subject - ang (absolutive) - direct object - sa (oblique) - indirect object. So luto is "cook," lutuin is "cook the," linuto is "cooked the," ko is the ergative form of ako (ergative because it is the subject), and kanin is absolutive because it is the direct object.
Other examples:
Kumanta (-um-, some of the transitives that don't allow mag-) ako (absolutive) ng kanta (ergative). = I sang a song. (notice that "song" is indefinite.)
Kinanta (-in) ko (ergative) ang kanta (absolutive). = I sang the song.
P.S. Anyways, here's a sample of Tagalog verb conjugation:
sumayaw, sumayaw, sumasayaw, sasayaw
magsayaw, nagsayaw, nagsasayaw, magsasayaw
sayawin, sinayaw, sinasayaw, sasayawin
sayawan, sinayawan, sinasayawan, sasayawan
isayaw, isinayaw, isinasayaw, isasayaw
masayaw, nasayaw, nasasayaw, masasayaw
pasayawin, pinasayaw, pinasayaw, papasayawin
ipasayaw, ipinasayaw, ipinapasayaw, ipapasayaw
pasayawan, pinasayawan, pinapasayawan, papasayawan
makasayaw, nakasayaw, nakakasayaw, makakasayaw
of all the Austronesian languages in the world you chose Amis, and of all the language videos in the world, I, a part Amis stumbled upon yours
the odds in this...
You are the first guy I found that uses Czech (my mother-tongue) as a main example,. Thank you, really cool video!
Hi, we are two french students, we were completely lost after a lesson about this subject, and now we understand much better, thank you so much !
Austronesian Alignment can be difficult to grasp. Luckily, Tagalog does so (my native language). I was surprised to see the word ‘vavuy’ from Amis. In Tagalog, we also say ‘baboy’ for pig.
Cognates for pig in Austronesian isn't that uncommon.
I still don't get it, dude. ELI5.
@リードくん Nope, it's the affixes we put in the verb to indicate the *role* of noun/pronoun in the "ang" form.
@@sundalongpatpat 1) we put special affix in verb. 2) we mark one and only noun/pronoun with a special marker. In Amis, it is "ku" (well, according to the video I don't speak it). In Tagalog, it is the "ang". Other Philippine languages have same or similar marker. 3) The special affix in the verb determines the role of the noun/pronoun marked with ang.
For example, "um" infix may indicate that the noun/pronoun marked with ang is the *agent* (see video).
Ex: Bumili ang lalaki ng pagkain. (The man brought food). "Lalaki" (man) has the ang, so lalaki is the agent, and did the buying.
On the other hand, "in" infix may indicate that the noun/pronoun marked with ang is the *patient* (see video).
Ex: Binili ng lalaki ang pagkain (The man bought food). "Pagkain" (food) has the ang, so pagkain is the patient, and "experienced" the buying.
Vocab: bili - buy, ng - of or by.
@@AGLubang wow, fun fact: javanese also has um and in infix. indonesia/malay doesnt have such thing.
Thanks a lot for your video, I will definitely recommend it to the classmates of mine who have problems with Morphosyntactic Alignment!
intransitive verbs: adjectival phrases.
A state is posited rather than an activity.
Thus, the transitive verb describes activities.
Your Basque is good 👍
In the future I would avoid saying things like "unnecessary complexity". All languages have redundant systems to some extent that can be used for different effects in discourse.
Thanks sir for your clear explanation.
Btw I speak fluent tagalog as 2nd language that I learnt without much trouble during my teen-ages from circumstances (I mean didn't study it properly) so I understand perfectly how austronesian alignment works, but when it comes to "pure" ergativity like hindi or basque I find it very difficult to grasp
thanks for actually explaining this properly
Using the given sample "the man hunts a pig" in Tagalog we could say any of the following:
Nanghuhuli ang mama(lalaki) ng baboy.
Humuhuli ng baboy ang mama(lalaki).
I’m so glad I found your videos !
thanks for such an edicational video
Oh dear, this will take a while to wrap my head around.
got it.
@@lukesmith8896 lmao
Please upload more lectures on these repevant topics. We are waiting for it
Very instructive video, thank you! I have a question about the Amis examples: in the Agent focus example "ku kapah" is translated as 'the man' and thus given definite status. However in the Patitent Focus sentence, "ku vavuy'"be translated as indefinite. Shoudln't "ku vavuy" be translated as a definite 'the pig'?
Good question. Focus does not necessarily equal definiteness. In the example in the video the patient focus sentence could be emphasising that a pig is what is being hunted (not some other animal) without necessarily referring to a specific pig.
In either sentence the agent and the patient could each be definite or indefinite.
@@hughmortyproductions8562 That helps thanks!!!
The conlang I'm making has a 2d written form and therefore doesn't mark ergativity on the noun but rather marks the verb to indicate what noun is playing what role including alignment and other similar traits such as possession.
Can you tell us about why is a language ergative? (Is it because of case markers? If yes, how?)
Could you do us a favor and make a video about obviative/proximant system
thank you for making such an informative video
well explained !!!
Very Helpful thank you
That was captivating and informative . Could you please nake a video about the object and indirect object alignment
A much better question is to ask why a culture with tripartite marking would maintain such a supposedly "inefficient" system. I have a few gueses, what are yours?
Useful video! thanks a lot!!
Actually I'm looking for other sources or references of morphosyntactic, in case you guys know please hit me up
nice video
What about the marked nominative alignment?🤔 You haven't mentioned the marked nominative alignment but it's rare among languages.
Well it’s still nominative-accusative, so the alignment itself is the same, what’s different is which is marked.
Hey, it is not rare for "obvious reasons". There are plenty of ambiguities in English that I find damn difficult to deal with.
Welcome to German and Japanese homonymic spectrum
I can't believe english doesn't have Direct-Inverse marking. What a piece of trash. Even Spanish has animacy.
You know evidentialitym
?
Bud, what?