ITT:

weird features and quirks of your native language

>inb4 finns can relate

Other urls found in this thread:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grammaticalization#Clines_of_grammaticality_-_cycles_of_categorial_downgrading
omniglot.com/language/numbers/danish.htm
twitter.com/AnonBabble

Also Estonian has no future tense

optative mood. Only Albanian and Armenian have inherited and kept optative mood.

stupid shit

I wonder how languages evolve to be incredibly inflected while some practically never do.

I believe it relates to how much of a subhuman one is

Yeah, I can't imagine speaking only literal caveman speak like bad English, the true global language.

What is it?

the further you go back in the past the more complex languages are. like proto-indo-european was supposed to have been super complex with grammatical constructions for every shade of meaning, but through time lost all of that. my theory is that as civilization/society developed and progressed further, the need for such specificity disappeared; and it's also important to realize that for complex grammar, you use your neural network, i.e, "street smarts" and intuition/quick recall. some of the most grammatically complex languages exist in NEW GUINEA.

A mood of the verb that talks about a wish or curse
vdis-Die
vdeksh[optative mood of vdes]- May you die

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grammaticalization#Clines_of_grammaticality_-_cycles_of_categorial_downgrading

No, they were kept, but rather turned into adverbs, which IE didn't have many

vdeksh subhuman

Charmng

We have middle sound between a and o (Hungarians have a same), and between je and i.

Not in all dialects, but in most.

>mfw doesn't have any tense at all

I guess dual form is the most unique thing about Slovene. There's other languages with genders and cases but I think only Sorbian has dual of other European languages. Also, we have a lot of quite diverse dialects.

We have a very productive system of reduplication that often involves final consonants and/or tonal mutation.

Full reduplication:
nhanh (fast) - nhanh nhanh (faster)
người (people) - người người (everyone)
Partly reduplication with tonal mutation:
chậm (slow) - chầm chậm (a bit slow)
Reduplication with final consonant and tonal mutation:
mệt (tired) - mền mệt (a bit tired)

what about words like "fastest", "slowest" etc.?

For superlative, we put the particle "nhất" after the adjective.

We use a lot of words in english but adapted to spanish.

Double negation here is pretty much standard.

that is really wierd

fun fact: russian has specific letter for "ts" sound:
>ц
sh sound:
>ш
soft sh sound (like the "sh" if you were about to say "shieeeeeeet"):
>щ
hard sh sound, or zh:
>ж
please help me I am retarded or something maybe because drunk

I don't know of any letter between A and O
I cannot imagine what is between I and Je (maybe we have different understanding of the two?)

t. fluent native russian

>sh
>soft sh
I will never understand this meme with other Slavic languages.

I guess he meant ё but being an uneducated russian cuck he assumed the sound stands between a & o

you do not have?

щи good soup

Now that I think of it, it really is. But I didn't even notice it until someone pointed it out when I was in middle school.

English used to be far more flexible than it is today, which is in contrast far more complex and rigid.

Š, č and ž are enough.

So with this and Lesotho, the flags haven't been updated past 2006?

so how do you suggest things to do in the future?

If something will happen at a known time in the future, you can use an adverbial of time.

"Ma lähen poodi." can mean I'm going to the store or I will go to the store (at some point in the future).

A lot of the time adverbials of time are used though:
"Ma lähen homme poodi." - I will go/am going to the store tomorrow.

Pretty same thing in Finnish.

This is not too uncommon, we have a future form but you can say it like that as well.

Dativo ético.
Basically a grammatically incorrect construction that actually means something semantically and has been recognizes for God knows how long by the Spanish Royal Academy. Example:
>(A mother says) = ¡El niño no come!
"My kid doesn't eat"; grammatically correct and semantically correct.
>(A mother says) = ¡El niño no me come!
"My kid doesn't eat me"; grammatically INCORRECT -because, of course, the meaning here is not that the kid doesn't eat the mother, but that the kid doesn't eat at all-, semantically correct.

This quirk functions semantically because the reflexive pronounce -in our example, "me"- retracts the action back to the mother, turning the meaning into one of worry for said mother. Dativo éticos are used everyday, by everyone without even realizing it.

The way we form numbers:

42 = 2 and 40
953 = 900, 3 and 50

Aside from German and related languages, only Sanskrit and its descendents do it as well, I think.

We do as well but it was borrowed from German.

The fact that "megszentségteleníthetetlenségeskedéseitekért" is an actual word that everyone can pronounce and understand the meaning of for the first time they hear it

There's a construction that slightly resembles it in English. If a mother is talking to her friend about her young child, she might say "He never eats for me!" The meaning is not that the child refuses to eat for the mother's benefit, but that the mother has a difficult time getting the child to eat (perhaps implying that someone else, like the father or a babysitter, has more success here).

Danish still puts the ones before the tens, and it's one of the two allowed orders in Norwegian.

Danish goes full retard with its numbers
omniglot.com/language/numbers/danish.htm

Only french has it in a more autistic way.

Danish goes full retard with everything desu

I know, I speak Danish. It's good to understand the way the numbers are formed, but ultimately you need to get used to them to the point that it's not a calculation when you hear one. "halvtreds" needs to _mean_ 50 to you just as much as "fifty" or "fünfzig" does in English or German. If you hang onto the math behind it (20 + 20 + 10), it slows you down.

Finnish/estonian cases are not that hard as it seems actually. Some of them just replace positioning of the object like when in english you would say IN the house, in finnish you would say taloSSA while in russian you have to use both proposition and case ending B дoмE but in the same time in russian this case is not used exclusively to mean positioning of an object.

It's six of one and a half-dozen of the other, as the saying goes. You can memorize a different case for everything (Finnish) or a different combination of preposition and case for everything (Russian).

Mine has something called penjodoh bilangan or collective nouns. A bit like the English "a school of fish". E.g. we use "ekor" (tail) for animals, seekor kucing (one cat) but it also applies to tailess animals. We also use "buah" (fruit) for many things such as sebuah rumah (one house). Go figure.

Yes, I agree that it isn't difficult to understand how to use them. What makes them difficult, however, is that there's no consistent rules to apply, there are ton of exceptions and you'd basically have to memorize each word by word. Same thing applies to plural forms.
In addition, some words are written the same in various cases, e.g. tool - chair (nominative), tooli (genitive), tooli (partitive), tooli (illative), but pronounced differently - the genitive version has a slightly shorter "oo" than partitive and illative, but too long to write it with a single "o". And this is one word.

why are we so based?

It's like that in Arabic too.

>tfw been doing it too for some reason
wtf?

>haha yes estonian is very hard we have so many words for happy

No you don't. You have only one, onnelik. The rest are just conjugations. Only a retard would count "see" and "saw" or "a house" and "in a house" as two different words, the same applies to this. I want to violently murder everyone who posts these stupid pictures.

Yes, very quirky. English doesn't have one either you know.

In English we use the words "freedom" and "liberty" to refer to different things, even though they mean the same thing. We often use freedom to refer to personal choices and liberty to refer to our rights.

>Yes, very quirky. English doesn't have one either you know.
It does. The future tense in English is formed analytically (read: mark it with more words, like "I will go"). Estonian and Finnish literally do not have this. If it isn't obvious from the context, you have to state when the action takes place because they have a past/non-past system, where the present and future are identical ("I'm going to eat cheese tomorrow" is literally something like "Tomorrow I eat cheese").

Well, I phrased that wrongly. I meant you have no conjugation to tell of the future either (like see, saw, seen).

>Tomorrow I eat cheese
Not really. It's not grammatically incorrect, but we have a "will" verb too. Minä tulen syömään juustoa huomenna = I will(lit. come to) eat cheese tommorrow. It is still pretty much identical to english. Estonian has the same thing since it's practically the same language.

Exactly where does it say that these are different words? Of course it fucking counts as a single word, English just has one way of saying it

There is no _synthetic_ future in English, yes. Synthetic = change the same word (add endings, switch vowels, whatever). Analytic = use more words.

My knowledge of Finnish grammar is admittedly rusty. Is that sentence still OK if you remove 'huomenna' from it?

You can express all of those in english as well. If your definition of quirkiness is not having a space between the word "happy" and your equivalent of "to" for example, then I don't know what to say.

Yes, but then it's just "I will eat cheese".

>Dativo éticos are used everyday, by everyone without even realizing it
Maybe in Spain

Qalalarımızdağı süt - milk that's in our cities
qala - a city/ lar - plural/ ım - 1st person posessive singular/ ız - plural (ımız - 1st person posessive plural)/ da - locative/ ğı - modifier// süt - milk

Qalalarımızdağı sütim - my milk that's in our cities
Qalalarımızdağı sütimiz - our milk that's in our cities

That's wrong, because when you have compound constructions like "in a house" (or "will go", which is by definition a future tense, even if it's a compound tense), their construction is very predictable and easy. The "in" is not a property of the word, but rather a property of the language, and thus is generally unchancing. Of course, if you have 100% regular declensions, then the net result is the same. However, this is not the case for Estonian, seeing as the genitive, partitive and short-form illative cases aren't perfectly regular (except for some general rules, such as the the genitive always ending with a vowel).

So the end result is that with "in a house" you simply need to learn "in" and you can apply it to whatever other noun. But if you learn that the genitive of "õpik" is "õpiku", you can't simply blindly apply that to "rukis", which becomes "rukki" in the genitive.

And seeing as the other regular declensions are constructed with the genitive, having an irregular genitive has a significant impact at that level.

Ц - c
Ч - č
Ш - š
Ж - ž

In Slovak.

Nice, simple and to the point

Conditional mood:

V1 (stem of a verb) + affixes -sa/-se + personal affixes

kir- - to enter
kirsem - if I enter (kir- + se + m (I person))
+ kisemiz - if we enter

bar- - to go
barsañ - if you go (bar- + sa + ñ (II person))

Sentences:

düken - a shop -> dükenge - to a shop
men - I

dükenge barmasañ, men baramın - if you don't go to the shop I will go (bar- + ma (negative affix) + sa + ñ)

Oh, *kirsek

I do admit that having a word like "in" is easier than what we have, but pictures like OP's are still missing the point. The only difference is that the "in" is attached to the word, that's all. It might be harder, but listing the estonian equivalent of in a house without showing the english one is just dishonest.

As for exceptions, every language has them. Chaining endings isn't done on spoken language either usually, because it's unnatural even for natives. Nobody would for example say "taloissani" (=in my houses), but "minun taloissa" (means the same, but the genetive is put on the pronoun).

I just find it very annoying when people try to claim how difficult their language is, when they should know well how retarded the arguments really are. Japanese works by chaining endings too, yet nobody claims it's hard because of that.

>I do admit that having a word like "in" is easier than what we have, but pictures like OP's are still missing the point. The only difference is that the "in" is attached to the word, that's all. It might be harder, but listing the estonian equivalent of in a house without showing the english one is just dishonest.
fair point

>As for exceptions, every language has them.
Of course, but in English this happens to be one specific area where there aren't any exceptions (at least, I can't think of any off the top of my head).

>Chaining endings isn't done on spoken language either usually, because it's unnatural even for natives. Nobody would for example say "taloissani" (=in my houses), but "minun taloissa" (means the same, but the genetive is put on the pronoun).
Speaking of which, I have a question: does Finnish allow to use both the genitive pronoun and the possessive suffix (i.e. "minun taloissani")? And is "minun taloissa" still considered acceptable in the written language, even if it's not the preferred form?

Asking for permission

stem of a verb + üwge/ uwğa + bola ma?

kir- (to enter) -> kirüwge bola ma? - may I enter?
bar- (to go) -> baruwğa bola ma? - may I go?

Example:

Dükenge baruwğa bola ma? - may I go to the shop?

I think Serbocroatian has that too, since they're in the habit of saying for instance 'zdrav mi budi' (stay healthy to me) in place of 'zdrav budi' (stay healthy)

I've seen you post quite a bit about the Kazakh language over the years.

Have you ever considered formally writting stuff about the Kazakh language in English, either via something simply such as a blog, or even something more advanced like a book? I'm guessing there currently aren't a whole lot of Kazakh ressources for English-speakers.

>does Finnish allow to use both the genitive pronoun and the possessive suffix (i.e. "minun taloissani")?
It is technically the only correct form. You are supposed to always use the genetive form, even if you use a pronoun too. It does sound kind of childish though, because you're stating the same thing twice. The closest equivalent would be "my own house". You could also use it to stress that something really is yours.

>And is "minun taloissa" still considered acceptable in the written language
No, since it's technically incorrect finnish. I'd just drop the pronoun in written language. The written language has never actually been spoken in Finland, which is why it's so different.

>It is technically the only correct form.
So is Finnish not pro-drop, or does the pro-drop only apply to the nominative case?

On a side note, it's interesting how similar the Mari language is to Finnish on this topic, but it's also slightly different. The genitive pronoun is completely optional and both ways (with or without pronoun, but with a possessive suffix) are completely equal. Technically you're allowed to remove the possessive suffix if you have a pronoun (and it seems to happen often in the colloquial language), but it's preferred in the formal language to not do this.

I thought about it
But I think I haven't enough experience to write about the language yet

And many people don't seem to be interested in the Kazakh language. It's my autismo

Posessive affixes:

düken-im - my shop (dükenimde - in my shop)
düken-iñ - your shop (dükeniñ üshin - for your shop)
düken-i - his/her/its shop (dükenine qaray - towards his/her/its shop)
düken-imiz - our shop (dükenimizge - to our shop)
düken-iñiz - your shop (honorat.) (dükeniñizde ne bar? - what do you have in your shop?)
düken-i - their shop

>Also Estonian has no future tense
Makes sense since Estonia has no future. Very pragmatic decision in the making of the language.

>So is Finnish not pro-drop, or does the pro-drop only apply to the nominative case?
The pro-drop only applies to the spoken language. It gets kind of hard to hear what someone is saying if he uses more than 2 endings in a word and speaks at a normal pace. This isn't a problem when written so it's easier to just chain the endings and leave it at that.

>On a side note, it's interesting how similar the Mari language is to Finnish on this topic
Yeah, it is an uralic language so it's natural it would be similar. I assume it was the same in Finnish originally, but when the written language was made they needed to make some specific rules.

Sentence:

Dükenimizge kirseñ (If you enter our shop), it köresin (you'll see a dog)

...

The comprehensive sentence looks like:

Sen(you) bizdiñ(our) dükenimizge kirseñ, sen(you) it köresin

It isn't natural though