spurious correlation
>>534809783Grammar cases are SO DUMB. in Khmer we don't have any. Make it make sense. Why? What's the point?I guess it's just some people want to make things more difficult to act cool. No different than a teenager doing bad habbits.
added the iron curtain
>>534809898>Why?There is [still theoretical] milenar cycle in languages [due to soundchanges] that make them lose unstressed vowels, then fuse diferent consonants then after than a simplification makes them monosyllabic Then this cycle repeatsEnglish, mandarin and your seamonkeys languages are in the monosyllabic phase
>>534811410I dont think you know what gramatticla case is. It has nothing to do with syllabals
>>534809898Well, cases have multiple functions. For example the vocative case shows that a noun is the addressee. English used to show this with "O", as in>Hear me, O Albion!https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/O#Particlebut now all it has to show it is prosody and punctuation. So for>Let's eat, grandma.and>Let's eat grandma.in English all you have to tell you whether "grandma" is the addressee or the thing eaten, ie the object, is prosody in spoken language and a comma in written language. In Latin the distinction is made by whether "grandma" is in the accusative case, aviam, or in the vocative case, avia.>Let's eat, grandma.Edamus avia.>Let's eat grandma.Edamus aviam.
>>534809783Weird map.French and Spanish moved the declensions to the article, which isn't quite the same as having no grammatical cases.puella turning to la fille or das Mädchen reproduces the same case system (albeit simplified) just with a different "tool", the article.
>>534811481Yes I do know, latin had back then, Portuguese doesn't have it anymoreThe irregularities in languages occur due to this simplification cycle over eras You are in the monosyllabic phaseAfter that you have an aghlutinative phase, in this phase parts of the phrase startt to glue together then things that were more or less free start fo have fixed places and become suffixes, prefixes, but still highly regular [e.g. Finnisch]Then the affixes start to fuse together with the root of the words and irregularities due to fusion of sounds start to appear thus fusional languages, latin, russian, ukrainische sanskrit goes into this basketNext step is the fusion gies even further and become polysynthetic [basically you have each letter having a meaning insode a word, american ondian lamguages and caucasus's regiobal languages are here]
>>534812535Also, removing case, gender and number from the noun allows for the creating of richness with the stackable articles.la fille -> la jeune fille -> la jolie jeune fille, etc. which gives your language more depth and richness and flows nicely at the price of the information density of latin nouns.
>>534812535Don't know what you're talking about. There is no case in the article of French and Spanish. German on the other hand has the case declension in the article or adjective and not the noun itself, as opposed to Latin which has it in every single word of a noun phrase, including the noun itself. German is content with one word per noun phrase showing the case, hence the quite complex system in German for declension, which is all for the purpose of having the heavy lifting done by only one word per noun phrase. Hence why you say>an der schönen blauen DonauOnly "der" is doing the heavy lifting, the rest of the words are lazy.
>>534813042>There is no case in the article of French and Spanish.No, they simplified it to gender and number: le/la/les. That's two of the functions of latin noun declensions preserved, and one dropped. As a system, that's a shift that maintains similar functionality by different means, and like I said before, moves the information density to the articles (and word order).
>>534812615All of the languages in the OP evolved from the same language, Proto-Indo-European, so I don't know what you're talking about.
>>534811481In your monosyllabic [analytic languages] you have a fuckton number of determinatives, they function just like cases of fusional languages
>>534809783>>534810011add orthodox vs catholic too, achmed, my nordic brother
>>534813375You started off talking about cases though.
>>534813528Yea, i would say the shift to articles is not the same as abandoning cases. It just reassigns the function to a differnt syntactic unit which comes with practical benefits.It's fundamentally not a "dumbing down" like you present it to be.
>>534813455Yes, but the phonological developments make romance languages, english and Scandinavian languages lose the cases mostly Original PIE had 8 confirmed cases, up to 11 depending on the reconstructionExemple of this losing of cases due to soundchanges is the accusative and nominative ftom latin -UM, -US change both to -O in most of romance language.
>>534809783I can see Soviet Union
>>534809898>in khmerpol pot really did a number on you monkeys
>>534813521Yeah I was just going to say that. And Latin vs Greek/Old Church Slavonic. The Orthodox Church and the Cyrillic alphabet both come from Greece, so this goes all the way back to Rome vs Greece. Basically what Rome did was figure out how to oppress the masses, that's where they got their empire building power from, and this then moved into the British empire and the American empire, capitalism vs communism started already in Antiquity.see>>534803733>>534804941The dumbing down of the Western masses started long ago, we see it today in the languages and the education.
>>534809898You just use them instead of word order and prepositions to indicate function. It's been proven that analytical languages (one aspect of which is not having those cases) are more efficient but it's a small difference and in conversation you don't care about that so people just carry on using what they learnt as kids. Nevertheless European languages have a long tendency towards analyticity compared to antiquity, including losing cases. It's been eradicated form western Europe in the 9th-14th centuries aside from German speakers who are contrarian and even them reduced their numbers compared to old germanic languages, and the genitive case is slowly disappearing there over the last 150 years. It's really just slavs and the fingolian tongues (Hungarian, Finnish, Estonian) that keep them.
>>534816701>It's been proven that analytical languages are more efficient?Those languages are easier to learn. That's efficient for communication of simple things. Inflected languages are superior for complex texts such as philosophical texts, because they are clearer and less ambiguous syntactically.The OP is showing Indo-European languages, which all evolved from Proto-Indo-European, and how the simplification of languages correlates with various other things. Finno-Ugric language "cases" aren't comparable to Indo-European cases.
>>534817030>?Information rates are higher in French and English which are the most analytical of the IE languages, no matter the size of texts, both in speaking and reading. >Those languages are easier to learn.Being analytic or not has little to do with being easier to learn. Chinese is harder to learn (obviously excluding speakers of close languages) than Slavoid case-galore. >because they are clearer and less ambiguous syntactically.Nope, at least among Indo-European variants. I agree that it is somewhat true of some Asian languages but that's the influence of other unrelated elements of languages and the retarded method of writing. No one in his right mind would claim Russian or Polish to be particularly clear, neither was Greek. Latin and German fare better on this front by already being easier on synthesis but I don't think even naziboos will recommend it for clarity. If you mention philosopher, you can read Leibniz on why he liked writing in French and not Latin (even less the German of his time), aside from questions of lexicon (which was imported in other languages later), he is already talking about the analytic character of it.
>>534818210>Information ratesWorthless metric that only applies when the language is about simple things. Get into dense texts and English needs to spell things out constantly with acronyms, parentheses etc that inflected languages don't.>Being analytic or not has little to do with being easier to learn.You've never studied any language other than English. It has a lot to do with being easier to learn.>NopeEverything you posted after this is pure crackpipe materialEnglish monolinguals like to make up all sorts of bullshit to put their retarded language in a good light. Learn languages before you discuss languages.To illustrate my point about information rates, see picrel. The German text has more letters. But first you need to delete one of seiner and ihrer because only one is used. Secondly there is information that's conveyed in the German and not in the English, namely which of the two possible antecedents the pronoun is referring to. Because English doesn't tell you which you would have to spell it out in English in a parenthesis, or restate the antecedent, or use an acronym, which adds to the number of letters.
Necesse est condere forum vel tabulam nuntiorum imaginarumve latinam.
>>534818990Furthermore the German text there says "des Neuen Testaments" while the English text says "the NT", which adds to the difference. For a fairer comparison it should be des Neuen Testaments/the New Testament or des NT/the NT. But then again "grammar textbook" in English was translated to "Grammatik".
>>534818990>>534819390Just accusing me of not knowing languages doesn't mean much. >Worthless metric Translation: actually measurable thing. Which of course you dismiss out of the blue for no reason, because it's supposed to be about "simple things" even though there is nothing indicating such "simplicity" (good luck measuring that too). Meanwhile you have failed to produce anything about your claims. You post a specific short text, not taking into account the efficiency involved in reading over mases of information (as I did above, in which German does relatively poorly). Just look at the example you give. Stockpile as many pronouns split by gender as you want, it will still have a totally negligible effect on any metric of relevance. I guess by your measure we should have at least 12 genders to make pronouns even more specific and distinguish among 12 possible references, all hail the tranny languages!
Hebes difficultatem miratur, simplicitatem prudens.
>>534820027Grammatical gender has nothing to do with sex. You really only need to have two genders to get the full benefit of having gender. When the antecedent you want to refer to has the same gender as one or more other possible antecedents you can change either the word you want as the antecedent or any of the contestants to a synonym with another gender, as long as you are keeping the gender different between the word you want to be the antecedent and the words you wish to exclude. English, having zero genders, doesn't have this option, it's all "its" and similar, so you have to use acronyms, restate the antecedent instead of using a pronoun, use "former" and "latter", spell it out some other way in a parenthesis etc. That's why nonfiction books in English begin every chapter with a long list of acronyms or other abbreviations and then use these in the text instead of the nouns or pronouns. Inflected languages don't do this and don't need this, the syntax is unambiguous without it.
