This is progress.
>>537449631>those conjugationsBased Swedes making it hard for foreigners to learn SwedishOver here it's graven.Ik graaf/groefJij graaft/groefHij graaft/groefWij graven/groevenJullie graven/groevenZij graven/groeven
>>537449818Learn to read. Left side is Old Norse, not Swedish.
>>537449631through progress, we shall overcome and unite the world
>>537449870Shouldn't have betrayed your forefather's language then, swetard.
>>537449870Lmao you swedes are even faggots on a fuckin nazi board. Lmao kys race traitor
>>537449955go back to jerking off, you're incapable of discussing the topic
>>537449924No, history is a lie. Whig historians are gullible.
>>537450013>the derailment bots have arrived as usual
>>537449631No, it's a grave mistake
>>537449631Only english matters
>>537450243yet another bot
>>537449631It's written down in books so it must be true but part of me doubts the consistent application of these cases in real actual speech in the olden days.
>>537449631I learned a bit of Swedishit's a great language besides the ett/en bullshit
>>537450507That's not the topic. The topic is the simplification that has happened. Same thing has happened to most Indo-European languages in Western Europe, but not in Eastern Europe.And yet we are told history is just progress, and things were so bad in the past etc. It's called whig history, google it.
https://youtu.be/qxOJ4p8e7NQ
All these languages evolved from the same language, Proto-Indo-European. There's a sharp line between Western and Eastern Europe, where Western languages have simplified a lot more over time than Eastern ones.
what's sweden's excuse? english is kind understandable as the big shift from old english happened because they had to first deal with norse invaders and then the normans creating a multilingual environment which leads to this sort of simplification
>>537453403see>>537452189>>537452452All Indo-European languages in Western Europe have simplified a lot over time, but interestingly the Indo-European languages in Eastern Europe haven't simplified much.
>>537453598yeah but the point is why that happened, I think the degree of multilingual interactions plays a big role, that explains much if not all of continental west Europe due to Rome overlapping itself over countless different local languages, as well as england's transition from the highly inflected old english to middle and early-modern english, while on the other hand icelandic remained remarkably close to old norse which in turn is a remarkably conservative Germanic language on par with extinct GothicGreek probably was saved by the extremely long dominant literary tradition keeping the popular language in check somehow
>>537450506Retard, declension is a standard feature that is common in many languages. Like in German? Many languages that never had a writing system until recently have even more complex grammar than that. Read about Navajo grammar.
>>537454142I don't know. I think they're hiding the truth. I think history is a lie. Proto-Indo-European allegedly had no writing, and yet was more complex than Latin and Ancient Greek.
>>537449924there is a view in linguistics that languages tend to simplify but that means to develop tone and lose the amount of possible syllables in the language along with grammatical features like case or gender.English has no tones and several ten thousand syllables that are to be pronounced, while Mandarin has 4 tones and ~420 syllables. There comes a paradox in "simplicity" in a language, because you lose so much information you need to deal with a lot of homophones, tonal specificity and context clues.
An intelligent mind values simplicity over complexity.Maybe you should study logic or something?
>>537454751the second guy to imply a relationship between complex grammar and writing, which doesn't exist. Some languages, that only got a writing system from colonial powers, have the most complex grammar we ever encountered: Chuvash, Navajo, Cherokee
>>537454142>>537454751Also I think this goes even further back than Western Roman Empire vs Eastern Roman Empire, back to Rome vs Greece, possibly even further back. This video talks about how the story of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob is an allegory about forces of nature, things built into the creation of the world and which play out in history, and that this has something to do with the qlippoth in the tree of life in Kabbalah, that's the three vertical lines that are in the picture.https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L9Bme9IUjgQhttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Qlippothhttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tree_of_life_(Kabbalah)
>>537454751the poetic tradition they had hinges heavily on the language being what it is, heavily synthetic, this can even be seen reflected in much later folkish epic poetry from the Balkans who also weren't exactly the most literate people
>>537449631no one cares about your obsolete ooga booga imperial speach
>>537449631Digging was probably more fundamental to them than it is to modern Swedes
>>537455455conjugation like that was done in Old Nordic with every verb, like it is done in French, Spanish or German. It has nothing to do with the verb dig specifically.
>>537450506It's identical in modern Icelandic.
>>537449631The supreme language has only one word. All instances of communication begin with speaking this word, followed by silence and ending with another utterance of the singular word. The duration of the silence carries all meaning.
>>537449631and the same in modern finnish>kaivan, kaivoin>kaivat, kaivoit>kaivaa, kaivoi>kaivamme, kaivoimme>kaivatte, kaivoitte>kaivavat, kaivoivatso?
>>537457290The video I posted earlier mentions Finnish and other agglutinative languages and a theory on why they have changed less over time. >>537452189They're very different languages so comparing them to Indo-European languages is comparing apples and oranges, secondly the simplification of languages in the map >>537452452 is for Indo-European languages.
>>537458250Languages that interacted with other IE languages changed, while those that were more isolated changed less.Icelandic changed almost nothing after it become isolated. Slavic languages changed little, but the Slavic language that changed the most is Russian, because it became a multi ethnic empire. This does not explain why Greek is so conservative.
>>537458739we're all free to hypothesize
>>537449631Does Swedish really not have conjugation ?
>>537449631i'm learning Russian and holy hell it is aids with all the cases needed. to say "i don't have a cat" is simple in English, but in Russian it is: "У мeня нeт кoшки" (lit: i have no cat) BUT you need to add the "и" because of нeт, otherwise it is simply "кoшкa".ALL FUCKING NOUNS DO THIS AND THERE IS NO RHYME OR REASON TO ITthere's also no articles at all in Russian and the word order appears to be random sometimes. truly a masterful language. you Euros have some DUMB FUCKING SHIT in your symbols called a "language".
>>537460440There is some conjugation, but not for person and number. You can easily check any word on wiktionary.org, for examplehttps://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/gr%C3%A4va#Conjugation
>>537460966>Russian speaker: "I want to say 'I have no cat', but I have to build an awkward 'do + verb' construction and add a pointless article that does nothing."
>>537460966Most things in grammar have a reason. Maybe study Latin first, that might help you see what's going on. Latin is the language you study to understand grammar. Here's one book.https://archive.org/details/latinforbeginner00doog
>>537449631German:to dig = grabenthe grave = das Grab
>>537460966Also which books are you using? I've used these for Russian.https://annas-archive.gl/md5/7a912ebc799177f0c56660617ef1971ehttps://annas-archive.gl/md5/053ac45be095d8fcb5a3028d034b57ac
ye Olde English used to have similarly useless conjugations until the Normans took over. They didn't want to lose izzat by learning all of the intricacies of the language of their thralls and so the conjugation of English verbs became simplified.
>>537460440But Swedish has a cool feature which Slavic languages also have, reflexive possessive pronouns. As far as I know only Scandinavian and Slavic languages have this. It's possessive pronouns like "his" but it changes when the possessor is the subject of the sentence, so it's like saying "his own". In English when you say "he ate his sandwich" that's ambiguous if it's his own sandwich or a sandwich belonging to another man. In Swedish you have>he ate his sandwich (another man's sandwich)han åt hans smörgås>he ate his (own) sandwichhan åt sin smörgås
>>537454790>there is a view in linguistics that languages tend to simplifyIt goes in waves.Modern Chinese is more grammatically complex than middle ages Chinese; it's effectively an agglutinating language now with some polysynthetic elements.Same with French.
>>537462199>Smör gåsNo way. You are now trolling at this point.
>>537461953Yeah I know. All of Western Europe's languages have simplified to varying degrees. But Eastern Europe's languages have simplified way less. It's a very sharp line between the two groups. See map here >>537452452. This is despite the fact they all come from the same ancestor language, Proto-Indo-European, which was a very complex language, more complex than Latin and Ancient Greek.>thrallThe Swedish word is träl. There is also an adjective "trälig" which means tedious.
>>537462736what?
>>537463181Butter goose?
>>537463480Yeah, it's a bit funny but apparently "gås" has another meaning. We also say "macka".https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/sm%C3%B6rg%C3%A5s
>>537463974Ahh interesting. I can see how that makes sense.
>>537462736>Norwegian: Ravn>Danish: Ravn>Icelandic: Hrafn>Swedish: Korp>not having your own word for raven
>>537462199Baltic languages (or at least Lithuanian) has something like that, where you even conjugate names in possessives doesn't it
>>537466037You got me there.
>>537449631
over here we say dig dugging dagged dugger digger digdangdiggy they all mean the same
>>537460966 My American brother why are you learning russian? I only have two languages and my second is Spanish which has some utility at least.
And that's likely less complex than Proto Indo European. Hebrew and Navajo have complex things still but I'm sure /pol/ doesn't think they're superior to whatever language they speak. Do you want to speak a super complex language? There's also that one African language that has tones and clicks to the point where speakers develop calluses on the parts involved in making the sounds.
