>Just merge all the inflections dude! It's an ADVANTAGE dude, trust me dude! The 5th declension is going in the right direction dude.Spoken like a true Englishman.
>NOOOOOO you NEED 87 different ways to say the same word depending on context, despite none of them actually conveying additional information!!
>>24684156>See, here's the 5th declension, see how it's starting to look like ENGLISH dude? Everything that's more similar to English is by definition closer to perfection dude! You're just not getting it dude.
>>24684161>I'm a linguistics student so I know what ADVANTAGE over agglutinative languages means. Since I'm a college student I took it upon myself to improve Latin. See, I FIXED Latin dude, now we're talking, btfo'd those agglutinaters, a work of PERFECTION! The more similar to English the greater the advantage is the rule always, OF COURSE. God I love using the phrase "of course". Now this is ACCURACY! All the advantages of agglutinative languages, none of the drawbacks, dude.
Who is this sometimes I see you on /v/
>>24684160They do convey additional information. I'm referring to the pseuds and retards in this thread >>24681637 who say fusional languages have advantages over agglutinative languages but have no arguments. Fuck them.
>>24684168What, I'm never on /v/.
never have I seen a man so broken by the language of the heros
>>24684156Latin is neat because you can say so much with so little because a lot of info is built into the words themselves. But if you go far enough in the opposite direction then you end up with classical Chinese, which also says so much with so little because all that info is so strongly implied. Obviously people stopped speaking classical Chinese because it's fucking autistic and nobody had any idea what anyone was saying, but it's great for poetry.
>>24684863What?
>>24684903I'm not a grammar or linguistics guy so bear with:In Latin, lots of information is baked into the way each word is ended. So, while in English you might have to say "the girl gives money to her sister", in Latin you just say "puella sorori pecunium dat". IMO the fact Latin doesn't fill up its lines with words like "the", "to", "her", "at" etc. makes poetry more powerful. Poetically speaking, "sister" means something, while "to" doesn't, if you get me?Chinese is the exact opposite. Chinese NEVER changes its words. Not even for tense or plurality. So "I fought ten cats" is the same as "I fight a cat". If we spoke like Chinese people speak, we'd say stuff like "yesterday I fight you, today I make friend with you". Note that Chinese people indicate tense by using words like "yesterday" or "today".Well, Classical Chinese goes further. Classical Chinese has this really autistic thing where almost every word is represented by just one syllable, which makes for powerful poetry but makes for maddening normal conversation. They also rarely use those words which indicate a relation between things, like "to" or "at" or "for", but unlike Latin they just don't fucken include the information at all and expect you to figure it out. I'm not a grammar guy so 'll just give you an example. Below is a Classical Chinese poem rendered 1:1 into English:>Bed ahead bright moon light>Fancy is on ground frost>Lift head gaze(longingly)* bright moon>Lower head think old countryWhich, in a pretty literal English translation, would have to include all these words in square brackets, like so:>Ahead [of my] bed [is] bright moon light>[I] fancy [it is] frost [on the] ground>[I] lift [my] head [and] gaze(longingly)* [at the] bright moon>[I] lower [my] head [and] think [of my] old countryYou can see how removing all those words makes the poetry more powerful because you literally only have the words which really matter to the emotion of the poem. That also makes it unworkable as anything but a literary language.*I don't think we have a single word which captures the meaning of gazing longingly at something but I wanted to emphasise this is just one character.
>>24684156English is the first step towards telepathy. Native Anglophones are, unironically, more evolved. People with non-native parents evolve 50% more brain power which they pass on to their kids, who then turn out more normal (Lamarckism is real btw)
>>24684980chinese must be the most telepathic celestial beings on earth hen by your line of though.
>>24684156the mistake here is believing that every single word has to be directly translated to another single word
>>24685277No, I was mocking a retard in this thread >>24681637. The question was whether fusional languages have any advantages over agglutinative languages. He said syncretism, ie picrel, having multiple identical inflections, is an advantage and makes it more accurate. He never explained why it's an advantage, what he means by "more accurate" and why it's more accurate.
>>24685543how many languages do you know
>>24685558What a fucking dumb response. Make a fucking argument or fuck off.
>>24684160>despite none of them actually conveying additional information!!But they do.
>>24684969Well, I haven't looked into isolating languages and polysynthetic languages yet. It's interesting and something I will look into. It was unclear but I made this thread as a spinoff of another thread which is about fusional languages vs agglutinative languages, which both are synthetic languages. The question in that thread was whether fusional languages have any advantages over agglutinative languages. One guy said syncretism, but didn't explain why it would be an advantage, see >>24685543Watch https://youtu.be/qxOJ4p8e7NQ&t=567Especially watch from the timestamp for a rundown on fusional vs agglutinative, but then watch the whole video just because it's good.the other thread: >>24681637
>>24685566Touched a nerve, did I?
>>24685661No you didn't, you just showed that you don't know how to argue, and you keep doing it with this post. Study logic/argumentation, begin by listening to this from the timestamp, it explains your fallacy, which is a classic mistake of people who haven't studied any logic whatsoever, and which renders discussions utterly futile: https://youtu.be/U3Jm8zF7bJ8?&t=2857
>>24685188accurate
>>24685681I think you should study language insteadAnyone who talks of how much better one language is and only knows one is a fool
>>24684969>>24684980Now do German
>>24685715Again showing your total ignorance. Logic is a part of language, just as grammar and rhetoric are. Make an argument or fuck off. I am not talking about any language being superior overall, I'm talking about advantages of the fusional aspects of fusional languages over the agglutinative aspects of agglutinative languages. If you don't have a any clue whatsoever of any example of such an advantage, then simply fuck off.
>>24685742Nta but rec for understanding language? Completely ignorant so I wouldnt know where to begin.
>>24685188Yes. Most of their "bug" behavior is simply due to the deterioration of their telepathic capacity.
>>24685755this bookhttps://archive.org/details/logicorrightuseo00watttable of contents (but page numbers are wrong because it's from another printing)see my reply to this postsome guy made a 41 videos long video series based on that bookthe first videohttps://youtu.be/m8MyllahXgwthe rest of the videos are in herehttps://www.youtube.com/@informedchristians6982/videoshttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isaac_Watts#Logic_and_sciencehttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isaac_WattsYou want to look into the Trivium. Read picrel which is from the book I linked to get an idea what the book is about. The Trivium is grammar, logic and rhetoric. While the book says the book is about logic, the word logic had a broader meaning back then, operations I and II we would call grammar today, operation III we would call logic, and operation IV we would call rhetoric.
>>24685919table of contents
