1
01:00:00,000 --> 01:00:02,500
They tend to be overlooked, because if you
2
01:00:02,500 --> 01:00:04,533
see what you think is a dependent clause floating
3
01:00:04,533 --> 01:00:08,866
about on its own, it invites the interpretation
that the speaker's made an error.
4
01:00:08,933 --> 01:00:12,800
If you're really focused on the rules
or-- and we'll get to this in a moment--
5
01:00:12,800 --> 01:00:16,233
if you're focused on sentences in
isolation from the broader conversation.
6
01:00:16,233 --> 01:00:33,533
[MUSIC PLAYING]
7
01:00:33,533 --> 01:00:35,300
Welcome to Conlangery, the podcast
8
01:00:35,300 --> 01:00:37,766
about constructed languages and
the people who create them.
9
01:00:37,766 --> 01:00:39,366
I'm George Corley.
10
01:00:39,366 --> 01:00:44,566
And with me, the next town over,
is William Annis.
11
01:00:44,566 --> 01:00:46,900
After a long time.
12
01:00:46,900 --> 01:00:48,066
Yes, yes.
13
01:00:48,066 --> 01:00:53,166
He used to be down the road a ways,
but I have moved.
14
01:00:53,166 --> 01:00:54,966
So I'm not in Madison anymore.
15
01:00:54,966 --> 01:00:57,166
I'm not going to tell you exactly where I am, though.
16
01:00:59,866 --> 01:01:04,900
But this is going to be something
17
01:01:04,900 --> 01:01:07,433
I haven't actually done
since we started video
18
01:01:07,433 --> 01:01:09,933
episodes, but it's
kind of a return to form.
19
01:01:09,933 --> 01:01:13,300
I've been doing a lot of interviews of people.
20
01:01:13,300 --> 01:01:19,133
And William used to be
just the regular co-host of
21
01:01:19,133 --> 01:01:23,133
Conlangery, if you were
here for audio episodes.
22
01:01:23,133 --> 01:01:30,199
And he's coming back to talk
about a linguistics topic again.
23
01:01:30,199 --> 01:01:38,199
And hopefully, we can do-- I'll be
doing more interviews in the future,
24
01:01:38,199 --> 01:01:42,599
but I'll also come back and do a little bit more of this,
25
01:01:42,599 --> 01:01:47,199
because this is the thing that people
really liked about the audio podcast.
26
01:01:47,400 --> 01:01:51,466
And I think it's good to introduce,
27
01:01:51,466 --> 01:01:56,566
now that we have video folks on YouTube as well, to there.
28
01:01:56,599 --> 01:02:03,099
But William, thank you for coming on.
29
01:02:03,099 --> 01:02:04,133
It's been so long.
30
01:02:04,133 --> 01:02:07,000
There's fancy new technology.
31
01:02:07,000 --> 01:02:12,166
I had to sully my computer with Chrome,
but I'm like, for George, I can do it.
32
01:02:12,199 --> 01:02:19,500
Yes, I don't know why-- nobody
develops these video platforms for Firefox.
33
01:02:19,533 --> 01:02:20,666
I don't know.
34
01:02:20,699 --> 01:02:21,733
I wish they would.
35
01:02:21,800 --> 01:02:25,733
It's just Chrome has too much
penetration, and they just go for that.
36
01:02:25,800 --> 01:02:29,066
And they could get a bunch of different browsers with that.
37
01:02:29,066 --> 01:02:36,000
But anyway, yes, we are here.
38
01:02:36,000 --> 01:02:38,400
You can see William for once.
39
01:02:38,400 --> 01:02:39,733
And I have a face for radio.
40
01:02:43,066 --> 01:02:51,066
I will see if people who are
longtime audio listeners who
41
01:02:51,066 --> 01:02:55,199
have not seen William's face-- I
wonder what your reaction is going to be.
42
01:02:55,199 --> 01:03:01,400
Because any time I see someone I'm
used to hearing in audio see their face,
43
01:03:01,400 --> 01:03:04,533
it's like, that face--
the face doesn't match
44
01:03:04,533 --> 01:03:08,466
the voice, like almost
every single time.
45
01:03:08,500 --> 01:03:09,666
Why is his head so shiny?
46
01:03:11,966 --> 01:03:17,466
Well, hopefully I can adjust with color correction there.
47
01:03:17,466 --> 01:03:21,199
OK, so anyway, what are we talking about today, William?
48
01:03:21,233 --> 01:03:22,599
We're talking about subordination.
49
01:03:22,599 --> 01:03:25,766
This was an idea I had a long time ago.
50
01:03:25,833 --> 01:03:28,466
And then it took us many months to finally get to this.
51
01:03:28,466 --> 01:03:31,866
There was a little COVID in there for me.
52
01:03:31,900 --> 01:03:37,599
And in the course of making my usual slew of notes,
53
01:03:37,599 --> 01:03:41,199
my opinion is there are a few of these
topics that deserve their own show.
54
01:03:41,199 --> 01:03:43,966
We've already done one on relative clauses.
55
01:03:44,033 --> 01:03:48,000
But I think we could do an entire
episode on temporal clauses.
56
01:03:48,033 --> 01:03:53,400
Absolutely, we could do an
entire show on conditional clauses.
57
01:03:53,400 --> 01:03:57,166
If we haven't already, we could probably
do it again and other sorts of things.
58
01:03:57,333 --> 01:03:59,400
So today, we'll do a
top-level overview of...
59
01:04:00,699 --> 01:04:02,366
.. whatever it is subordination means.
60
01:04:03,066 --> 01:04:06,966
Different kinds of meanings and semantics
61
01:04:06,966 --> 01:04:10,966
those can have, different ways of forming those.
62
01:04:10,966 --> 01:04:17,566
I have a lot on my favorite thing,
insubordination, which sounds fun.
63
01:04:17,566 --> 01:04:19,533
I like the idea of insubordinate grammar, which
64
01:04:19,533 --> 01:04:23,599
is the term that people have settled
on for an underdescribed feature where
65
01:04:23,599 --> 01:04:28,599
subordinate clauses cut loose from
the main clause and go off on their own.
66
01:04:28,599 --> 01:04:29,933
And that's super interesting.
67
01:04:29,933 --> 01:04:31,300
So that's what we'll cover today.
68
01:04:31,300 --> 01:04:33,599
And then some of the things we can deep dive
69
01:04:33,599 --> 01:04:35,933
into in later episodes,
I think, would be
70
01:04:35,933 --> 01:04:38,066
better, rather than try
to cover them all here.
71
01:04:38,066 --> 01:04:40,500
Or we'll end up with
another one of our two-hour episodes,
72
01:04:41,333 --> 01:04:44,699
which is
asking a lot of people.
73
01:04:44,699 --> 01:04:47,099
Yeah, we don't do that anymore.
74
01:04:47,099 --> 01:04:49,066
That was early on.
75
01:04:49,099 --> 01:04:50,666
Before we knew better.
76
01:04:53,300 --> 01:05:00,866
OK, so what is a subordinate
clause, basically?
77
01:05:00,900 --> 01:05:02,533
We'll start with a simple definition.
78
01:05:02,533 --> 01:05:06,066
And that's just when a sentence is crammed
79
01:05:06,066 --> 01:05:09,166
inside another sentence, either as an argument,
80
01:05:09,433 --> 01:05:12,133
like a subject or direct object, or a modifier.
81
01:05:12,199 --> 01:05:16,099
And those modifier ones usually get called adverbial clauses.
82
01:05:16,133 --> 01:05:17,699
And that's different from coordination,
83
01:05:17,699 --> 01:05:20,933
where sentences just follow each other like ducks in a row.
84
01:05:20,966 --> 01:05:24,733
"And," "or," and "but" are normally
85
01:05:24,733 --> 01:05:29,500
the standard coordinating conjunctions and clauses.
86
01:05:29,533 --> 01:05:36,500
But obviously, immediately, theoretical issues arise.
87
01:05:36,500 --> 01:05:41,333
And it's not clear to me anymore that speaking of subordination
88
01:05:41,366 --> 01:05:50,699
is useful as a distinct thing from
other kinds of clause combining.
89
01:05:50,699 --> 01:05:54,599
So my favorite heroes, Dixon and Aikhenvald,
90
01:05:54,599 --> 01:05:58,500
have a book called "The Semantics of
Clause Linking" that covers all of them.
91
01:05:58,533 --> 01:06:02,333
And that probably makes sense, because there is more overlap.
92
01:06:02,333 --> 01:06:08,266
"And" can do surprisingly subordinating-like
things in many languages, which we're not
93
01:06:08,266 --> 01:06:11,000
going to talk about too much today.
94
01:06:11,066 --> 01:06:15,500
So the distinction isn't always maybe
as clear-cut as we might think.
95
01:06:15,533 --> 01:06:17,233
In some cases, it absolutely is, but...
96
01:06:19,866 --> 01:06:23,800
And sometimes I'll talk about embedded clauses
97
01:06:23,800 --> 01:06:27,133
versus subordination, or dependent
clauses versus subordination.
98
01:06:27,133 --> 01:06:31,333
These are all terms used to
describe basically the same thing.
99
01:06:31,333 --> 01:06:36,466
The big thing is, normally, a subordinate
clause has been modified in some way such
100
01:06:36,666 --> 01:06:40,699
that it cannot normally go wandering off on its own.
101
01:06:40,699 --> 01:06:41,333
Right.
102
01:06:41,333 --> 01:06:52,500
So if you think about just English examples,
relative clauses do this in English,
103
01:06:52,500 --> 01:07:04,066
where, like, "I saw the man who," I don't
know, "I saw the man who watched the movie."
104
01:07:04,066 --> 01:07:04,566
I don't know.
105
01:07:04,566 --> 01:07:05,800
That's a bad example.
106
01:07:05,800 --> 01:07:12,966
But anyway, but "who watched the movie,"
like that-- there's no subject pronoun.
107
01:07:12,966 --> 01:07:20,699
The "who" is like a linking thing
that signals it's a relative clause.
108
01:07:20,699 --> 01:07:25,566
And so that "who watched the movie," I
mean, you could turn it into a question,
109
01:07:25,566 --> 01:07:30,133
but it's not really an independent clause anymore.
110
01:07:30,133 --> 01:07:32,699
It has to be attached.
111
01:07:32,733 --> 01:07:36,233
There are sometimes--
112
01:07:36,866 --> 01:07:41,199
Tests for this can be tricky in English
because we murdered our subjunctive.
113
01:07:41,199 --> 01:07:42,199
Yeah, yeah.
114
01:07:42,566 --> 01:07:49,566
And there's also times where the subordinating, like,
115
01:07:49,566 --> 01:07:53,599
complementizer-type thing is, like, deleted,
116
01:07:53,599 --> 01:08:01,133
like a "that" is deleted, where I think
that something-- "I think that it was blue."
117
01:08:01,133 --> 01:08:02,466
You say, "I think it was blue."
118
01:08:02,466 --> 01:08:06,533
So in English, a lot of times, it's fuzzier.
119
01:08:06,533 --> 01:08:08,900
In a lot of other languages, you would
120
01:08:08,900 --> 01:08:13,099
have a different verb form or something else that's signaling.
121
01:08:13,099 --> 01:08:15,766
But we'll get into all of those strategies.
122
01:08:15,766 --> 01:08:19,966
Yeah, it can be even-- in some languages,
it is extremely blunt and obvious.
123
01:08:19,966 --> 01:08:21,566
In other languages, it's trickier.
124
01:08:21,733 --> 01:08:24,766
I think Mohawk, I have a note
on this, where a subordinate
125
01:08:24,766 --> 01:08:26,866
clause is marked off
entirely by intonation.
126
01:08:27,199 --> 01:08:29,533
[LAUGHTER]
127
01:08:29,533 --> 01:08:36,399
So nothing, no conjunctions, nothing else.
128
01:08:36,399 --> 01:08:38,566
And the main point here is that, in general,
129
01:08:38,566 --> 01:08:40,933
subordinate clauses have to be fiddled with some way
130
01:08:40,933 --> 01:08:43,666
to make them work within the main clause grammatically.
131
01:08:43,733 --> 01:08:47,300
And we'll talk about different kinds of fiddling shortly.
132
01:08:47,333 --> 01:08:51,300
And normally, parts of the subordinate clause
133
01:08:51,333 --> 01:08:57,966
are not allowed to go wandering
about other parts of the main clause.
134
01:08:58,000 --> 01:08:59,533
But with relative clauses, you have
135
01:08:59,633 --> 01:09:07,000
a pivot word, which is part of both clauses, in effect.
136
01:09:07,000 --> 01:09:11,600
But in general, the two clauses are kept separate.
137
01:09:11,633 --> 01:09:14,566
And something has been done to the subordinate clause
138
01:09:14,566 --> 01:09:16,566
to make it fit in with the rest of the sentence.
139
01:09:16,566 --> 01:09:19,166
It's a separate constituent, as people say.
140
01:09:19,166 --> 01:09:21,733
It is its own thing.
141
01:09:21,766 --> 01:09:24,266
It's a sentence embedded into a sentence.
142
01:09:24,266 --> 01:09:27,333
And it has to be kept unified, generally.
143
01:09:27,333 --> 01:09:27,866
Yeah.
144
01:09:30,399 --> 01:09:36,566
So when it comes to different strategies
for subordination, there's a lot of--
145
01:09:36,633 --> 01:09:38,800
there's so many different kinds of terminology.
146
01:09:39,600 --> 01:09:44,899
One set of terms that I'm familiar with,
147
01:09:44,899 --> 01:09:50,133
so I will tend to use, is a balanced
verb versus a deranked verb.
148
01:09:50,133 --> 01:09:55,100
A balanced verb is a kind of verb
clause that can be used independently.
149
01:09:55,100 --> 01:09:59,966
And a deranked clause or verb cannot be used independently.
150
01:09:59,966 --> 01:10:03,699
And there are lots of ways to derank a verb.
151
01:10:03,833 --> 01:10:05,800
Could be a completely different conjugation type.
152
01:10:05,800 --> 01:10:07,399
Could be a change in mood.
153
01:10:07,399 --> 01:10:14,266
Could be a converb, participles, nominalization, extra goo.
154
01:10:14,266 --> 01:10:18,133
Like jumping back into form, talking about ancient Greek.
155
01:10:18,133 --> 01:10:20,666
Some kinds of ancient Greek subordinate clauses
156
01:10:20,666 --> 01:10:25,100
require both a mood change and a particle in the clause.
157
01:10:25,133 --> 01:10:26,500
Oh, OK.
158
01:10:26,500 --> 01:10:29,166
So you have to-- yeah.
159
01:10:29,199 --> 01:10:35,333
And we have links to cover all of these things.
160
01:10:35,333 --> 01:10:42,100
We just have the Wikipedia link will cover
the basics of balancing versus deranking.
161
01:10:42,133 --> 01:10:48,733
But yeah, so you can have a situation.
162
01:10:48,733 --> 01:10:52,266
So it's both a particle and a mood change in ancient Greek.
163
01:10:52,300 --> 01:10:55,000
Yeah, for some clauses.
164
01:10:55,000 --> 01:10:56,266
For some clauses.
165
01:10:56,266 --> 01:10:58,600
Some clauses, just it's a mood change.
166
01:10:58,666 --> 01:11:00,300
Yeah.
167
01:11:00,333 --> 01:11:10,800
I think a lot of times subjunctive--
subjunctive is like a broad, ill-defined term.
168
01:11:10,833 --> 01:11:15,500
But often, the subjunctive is used in this way
169
01:11:15,500 --> 01:11:19,899
to mark that this clause is dependent on the other clause.
170
01:11:19,899 --> 01:11:22,100
And that is also kind of deranking.
171
01:11:22,100 --> 01:11:23,066
Yeah, yeah.
172
01:11:23,100 --> 01:11:25,766
So the point about balanced here is,
173
01:11:25,766 --> 01:11:29,366
especially in some kinds of temporal clauses in English,
174
01:11:29,399 --> 01:11:33,699
like before and after, the sentence
just looks like a normal sentence.
175
01:11:33,733 --> 01:11:36,566
"Before, you've got to talk to the doctor, do this."
176
01:11:36,600 --> 01:11:41,533
That is a balanced clause using a conjunction
177
01:11:42,766 --> 01:11:47,399
versus a deranked, which, "if I were to fall asleep..."
178
01:11:47,399 --> 01:11:50,766
So the last vestiges of
the English subjunctive
179
01:11:50,833 --> 01:11:53,933
sometimes occur in
conditional clauses.
180
01:11:53,933 --> 01:11:57,233
And I mean, could you also consider
181
01:11:57,399 --> 01:11:59,533
infinitive clauses in here?
182
01:11:59,566 --> 01:12:00,899
Because we have that.
183
01:12:00,899 --> 01:12:01,800
Well, right.
184
01:12:01,800 --> 01:12:07,466
So an infinitive, I consider a kind
of nominalization most of the time.
185
01:12:07,466 --> 01:12:11,066
So yes, absolutely infinitives are part of that.
186
01:12:11,066 --> 01:12:15,600
So things like infinitives, things
that are clearly deranked in English
187
01:12:15,666 --> 01:12:21,133
are things like infinitives, gerunds, or any--
188
01:12:21,133 --> 01:12:27,366
gerunds, participles, anything with
the -ing form, those kind of things.
189
01:12:27,433 --> 01:12:30,566
Yeah, "Sleeping during a thunderstorm is very difficult."
190
01:12:30,566 --> 01:12:33,399
So that's a deranked, "Sleeping during a thunderstorm."
191
01:12:33,500 --> 01:12:35,466
It's a nominalized clause.
192
01:12:35,466 --> 01:12:38,166
Yeah, yeah, yeah.
193
01:12:38,166 --> 01:12:41,100
And I think that's an important thing to say,
194
01:12:41,100 --> 01:12:46,166
is like, nominalization is a really easy pathway to this.
195
01:12:46,166 --> 01:12:51,966
Because very often, these subordinate
clauses are taking an argument position.
196
01:12:51,966 --> 01:12:54,966
They are taking the same place as a noun.
197
01:12:54,966 --> 01:12:59,800
So if you have a good distinction between
nouns and verbs in your language, then you
198
01:12:59,800 --> 01:13:02,866
can stick some kind of
a nominalizer onto the verb,
199
01:13:02,899 --> 01:13:07,366
and use that for
your subordinate clauses.
200
01:13:07,433 --> 01:13:09,300
But you don't have to.
201
01:13:09,300 --> 01:13:15,699
This is always-- always, this is options for
you to do, because languages are diverse.
202
01:13:15,699 --> 01:13:17,100
They do all kinds of different things.
203
01:13:17,133 --> 01:13:17,833
Yeah.
204
01:13:18,233 --> 01:13:22,533
I'm trying to find a fun example I saw.
205
01:13:22,766 --> 01:13:28,000
But I can't find it.
206
01:13:28,000 --> 01:13:31,733
We've talked about conjunctions, many kinds of those.
207
01:13:31,733 --> 01:13:38,800
I will confess, a lot of the time, my
approach is very boring for temporal clauses,
208
01:13:38,800 --> 01:13:44,666
when they could be a lot more interesting
than I have been making them, typically.
209
01:13:44,666 --> 01:13:46,899
Conjunctions, nominalization-- and nominalization
210
01:13:46,899 --> 01:13:52,066
doesn't just have to mean doing
something to turn the verb into a noun.
211
01:13:52,066 --> 01:13:55,800
Like, we have the classic--
we'll go back to another standby--
212
01:13:55,800 --> 01:14:01,133
Mandarin, de shihou (的时候),
for when, where you're just
213
01:14:01,133 --> 01:14:06,133
taking a clause, and then a possessive or
attributive marker, and the word for time.
214
01:14:06,133 --> 01:14:09,699
So "When I saw my father," whatever.
215
01:14:09,699 --> 01:14:10,466
Right.
216
01:14:10,466 --> 01:14:15,733
In that case, it's
sort of-- so shihou.
217
01:14:15,766 --> 01:14:25,800
So in that case, shihou, "time", is like the noun there.
218
01:14:25,800 --> 01:14:29,333
And then you're adding a relative clause
219
01:14:29,399 --> 01:14:36,566
for what the actual subordinate clause is there.
220
01:14:36,566 --> 01:14:47,666
Whereas in English, we have more of a--
so "When something, something happened,"
221
01:14:47,666 --> 01:14:57,466
then that's sort of a
more like-- just like a lot of
222
01:14:57,466 --> 01:15:01,300
our other clauses with the
relative pronoun and such.
223
01:15:01,399 --> 01:15:03,666
Yeah.
224
01:15:03,666 --> 01:15:08,333
So that's another strategy, is you
225
01:15:08,333 --> 01:15:12,300
could come up with one kind of subordinating structure
226
01:15:12,300 --> 01:15:16,600
and reuse it to make other subordinating structures.
227
01:15:16,666 --> 01:15:17,766
Correct, yeah.
228
01:15:17,766 --> 01:15:18,766
Yeah.
229
01:15:20,433 --> 01:15:25,100
I couldn't find an online resource for this,
230
01:15:25,100 --> 01:15:28,766
but Hixkaryana , which is famous for its default word order,
231
01:15:28,766 --> 01:15:32,066
also has an enormous number of nominalization types.
232
01:15:32,399 --> 01:15:34,566
Which at first, you're like,
what a weird derivational system.
233
01:15:34,566 --> 01:15:38,800
But then you realize it's almost entirely structural.
234
01:15:38,800 --> 01:15:40,399
It's for grammar purposes.
235
01:15:40,399 --> 01:15:45,199
It's not for creating new kinds of words.
236
01:15:45,199 --> 01:15:46,533
Right, right.
237
01:15:46,533 --> 01:15:53,066
So you're nominalizing verbs just to get that--
238
01:15:53,066 --> 01:15:56,466
Right, so an example one is a manner nominalization.
239
01:15:56,466 --> 01:16:01,166
The way you sneeze is not a special kind of word
240
01:16:01,166 --> 01:16:06,100
you normally use, except to shove it into a clause.
241
01:16:06,133 --> 01:16:07,699
The way he talks annoys me.
242
01:16:07,733 --> 01:16:12,133
So a special nominalization just for manner.
243
01:16:12,133 --> 01:16:15,500
Where English is-- in some sense, English
is doing the same kind of nominalization
244
01:16:15,500 --> 01:16:17,666
with a relative clause, the way in which he talks.
245
01:16:17,766 --> 01:16:20,866
Yeah, the same kind of thing.
246
01:16:20,866 --> 01:16:24,933
So one fun thing I just wanted to note--
247
01:16:24,933 --> 01:16:28,766
I found this little paper here
on the semantics of perception.
248
01:16:28,766 --> 01:16:37,100
And this looks like paper, like a
presentation notes, rather than a full paper.
249
01:16:37,133 --> 01:16:39,133
It's talking about verbs of perception
250
01:16:39,133 --> 01:16:41,600
and the kinds of subordinate clauses they can take.
251
01:16:41,666 --> 01:16:43,800
"I see that it is raining."
252
01:16:43,800 --> 01:16:46,199
"I heard that he went to the store."
253
01:16:46,266 --> 01:16:47,266
That sort of thing.
254
01:16:47,300 --> 01:16:53,600
There's a fun thing in Spanish that differences
255
01:16:53,600 --> 01:16:57,800
between vision and hearing can lead to grammatical changes.
256
01:16:57,800 --> 01:17:00,533
So visual perception mainly involves object perception,
257
01:17:00,533 --> 01:17:02,966
while auditory perception aligns more with event.
258
01:17:03,066 --> 01:17:07,199
So in Spanish, this affects pronominal agreement
259
01:17:07,500 --> 01:17:08,500
with perception verbs.
260
01:17:08,533 --> 01:17:11,566
Visual perception tends to favor object agreement,
261
01:17:11,633 --> 01:17:14,100
while auditory perception
often triggers event
262
01:17:14,100 --> 01:17:18,399
agreement, which means it
will always be in the singular.
263
01:17:18,399 --> 01:17:20,066
So if you look on--
264
01:17:20,333 --> 01:17:25,300
this is on page 3 of this paper I linked to, George.
265
01:17:25,300 --> 01:17:26,500
Where is that?
266
01:17:26,600 --> 01:17:28,100
Which paper is that?
267
01:17:28,133 --> 01:17:32,100
It's the one under nominalization,
so above the big table.
268
01:17:32,100 --> 01:17:32,866
OK.
269
01:17:32,899 --> 01:17:34,066
So this one.
270
01:17:34,066 --> 01:17:35,300
I already opened that.
271
01:17:38,199 --> 01:17:43,100
So we have a document that
I have also shared-- this one?
272
01:17:43,100 --> 01:17:44,000
OK.
273
01:17:44,000 --> 01:17:44,966
So page 3.
274
01:17:44,966 --> 01:17:45,466
OK.
275
01:17:45,466 --> 01:17:47,733
So we have-- So
the example is 8-9.
276
01:17:47,733 --> 01:17:50,699
"Se veían desfilar ese día por las ..."
277
01:17:50,699 --> 01:17:53,533
OK.
278
01:17:53,533 --> 01:17:55,733
OK.
279
01:17:55,733 --> 01:17:56,366
Oh, OK.
280
01:17:56,366 --> 01:18:07,066
So you have-- so the use of seeing versus
hearing, it changes the meaning here.
281
01:18:07,066 --> 01:18:08,533
OK, that's interesting.
282
01:18:08,533 --> 01:18:13,933
Right, because this sort of impersonal expression,
283
01:18:13,933 --> 01:18:19,333
one can hear dogs barking, you'd think that it would be plural.
284
01:18:19,333 --> 01:18:23,566
But because it's an event, and the verb is hear versus see,
285
01:18:23,866 --> 01:18:24,666
it goes into the singular.
286
01:18:24,666 --> 01:18:28,699
So there's subtle kinds of semantics related to, again,
287
01:18:28,699 --> 01:18:34,100
the whole business of verbs of perception
and how they work with everything.
288
01:18:34,100 --> 01:18:37,066
But certainly, with
subordination is really interesting.
289
01:18:37,066 --> 01:18:40,666
And again, probably we can do a deep dive on that later.
290
01:18:40,699 --> 01:18:46,300
Yeah, that's-- I mean, but that's really important.
291
01:18:46,300 --> 01:18:52,733
Because a lot of times, like the big thing--
I know that you're not totally into it,
292
01:18:52,833 --> 01:18:56,100
but a big thing that people do is historical stuff.
293
01:18:56,100 --> 01:18:59,366
And they're looking for sources for grammaticalization.
294
01:18:59,366 --> 01:19:00,000
Absolutely.
295
01:19:00,033 --> 01:19:07,500
And this can be a source for a distinction
that gets grammaticalized later.
296
01:19:07,500 --> 01:19:09,399
Absolutely, yeah.
297
01:19:09,399 --> 01:19:11,000
And it's just important to understand
298
01:19:11,033 --> 01:19:15,000
that we're thinking, especially English speakers,
299
01:19:15,000 --> 01:19:17,666
we're mostly thinking
in terms of conjugations
300
01:19:17,666 --> 01:19:20,733
and maybe conjugations
with some mood dances.
301
01:19:20,800 --> 01:19:25,366
But nominalization is super common all over
the place to do a lot of these functions.
302
01:19:25,399 --> 01:19:27,833
And it's very important to
remember that that noun phrase
303
01:19:27,833 --> 01:19:33,266
has to be worked into the
rest of the clause somehow.
304
01:19:33,266 --> 01:19:35,733
In many Australian
languages, these subordinate
305
01:19:35,733 --> 01:19:39,266
clauses take all
kinds of case marking.
306
01:19:39,266 --> 01:19:43,966
To add additional subtleties, the process,
307
01:19:43,966 --> 01:19:47,566
this very exuberant process of case marking subordinate
308
01:19:47,566 --> 01:19:51,399
clauses, is so strong that it has had a strong impact
309
01:19:51,600 --> 01:19:55,500
on the historical development of a bunch of these languages.
310
01:19:55,666 --> 01:19:58,333
So that's something to keep
in mind if you're going with
311
01:19:58,333 --> 01:20:02,699
a more nominalizing mode
for a bunch of these things.
312
01:20:03,833 --> 01:20:10,600
All right, so nominalization, conjunctions,
intonation, as I said, mohawk.
313
01:20:10,600 --> 01:20:20,933
Just like one clause, it happens at a
slightly higher pitch, and then it drops.
314
01:20:21,000 --> 01:20:23,266
We have another paper on clause combining
315
01:20:23,466 --> 01:20:28,666
in languages of North America.
316
01:20:28,666 --> 01:20:40,699
So here we have some differences between--
so we have complements versus adjuncts.
317
01:20:40,699 --> 01:20:43,366
That's a distinction you need to think about,
318
01:20:43,366 --> 01:20:52,666
like a complement of a verb, versus
an adjunct, a modifier kind of thing.
319
01:20:52,666 --> 01:20:56,333
Sometimes they'll use different strategies for subordination.
320
01:20:56,333 --> 01:20:58,166
Sometimes they'll be similar.
321
01:20:58,199 --> 01:21:03,600
It's just going to be language dependent.
322
01:21:03,600 --> 01:21:10,733
We have a bunch of papers to
look at here that you can check into.
323
01:21:13,300 --> 01:21:17,166
Let's talk about, what is clause chaining?
324
01:21:17,166 --> 01:21:24,533
Right, I'm not sure where clause
chaining belongs in all this discussion.
325
01:21:24,533 --> 01:21:27,866
But as I was saying earlier, that the distinction
326
01:21:27,866 --> 01:21:30,933
between subordinate and coordinating clauses
327
01:21:30,933 --> 01:21:38,166
is maybe not as strict as we're
suggesting while we're talking here.
328
01:21:38,233 --> 01:21:42,199
So we talked about this when we had Matt Pearson on to talk
329
01:21:42,366 --> 01:21:43,066
about converbs.
330
01:21:43,066 --> 01:21:46,566
He has something called medial verbs in Okuna.
331
01:21:46,633 --> 01:21:52,166
And these are verb forms that cannot exist on their own.
332
01:21:52,233 --> 01:21:57,399
But in any normal translation, you would just use "and."
333
01:21:57,433 --> 01:22:00,533
They're a verb form used for sequencing.
334
01:22:00,566 --> 01:22:06,399
I did A, and then B, and then C, and then finally, I did X.
335
01:22:06,466 --> 01:22:09,699
And depending on the structure of the word order default
336
01:22:09,699 --> 01:22:17,800
in the language, you might save your fully
inflected verb for the end or the front.
337
01:22:17,899 --> 01:22:23,333
So medial verbs are usually where you get a main verb,
338
01:22:23,366 --> 01:22:27,333
and then these other subsequent verb forms that just say--
339
01:22:27,333 --> 01:22:29,800
that basically mean "and then, and then, and then."
340
01:22:29,899 --> 01:22:32,800
Whereas in languages with converbs,
341
01:22:32,866 --> 01:22:35,966
they might use the general converbs as the sequencing
342
01:22:36,033 --> 01:22:39,966
in addition to other sorts of more things
that we might think is more dependent.
343
01:22:40,066 --> 01:22:45,733
Yeah, and just to refresh people, converbs
are like a particular kind of verb form.
344
01:22:45,800 --> 01:22:46,733
Yeah.
345
01:22:46,766 --> 01:22:52,566
That we covered in the audio
archives-- I can link to that.
346
01:22:52,633 --> 01:22:57,466
But those are-- oh, I mean, they're
347
01:22:57,466 --> 01:23:00,966
sort of similar to a participle, similar to other things.
348
01:23:01,033 --> 01:23:05,666
Often what they do is they encode
349
01:23:05,699 --> 01:23:15,866
some sort of connective meaning between two verb phrases.
350
01:23:15,899 --> 01:23:19,933
Well, many-- you can have a
language, you can have one
351
01:23:19,933 --> 01:23:22,266
or two converb forms,
which mean all sorts of things.
352
01:23:22,266 --> 01:23:26,266
Or you can get languages, especially
some from the Caucasus, or my favorite,
353
01:23:26,266 --> 01:23:29,600
Coptic, where they mean all
sorts of very, very specific things.
354
01:23:29,600 --> 01:23:31,000
And you have lots of converbs.
355
01:23:31,066 --> 01:23:33,133
And they cover a lot of this.
356
01:23:33,133 --> 01:23:38,333
In my opinion, many kinds of
converbs qualify as subordinate clauses.
357
01:23:38,333 --> 01:23:38,899
Right.
358
01:23:38,899 --> 01:23:41,533
They can have adverbial meanings.
359
01:23:41,533 --> 01:23:46,100
They can also have just like
conjunctive meanings attached to it.
360
01:23:46,133 --> 01:23:51,366
And that gets into-- combined
with this clause chaining thing,
361
01:23:51,366 --> 01:23:54,966
that gets into what you're saying
about the boundary being fuzzy.
362
01:23:54,966 --> 01:24:00,300
Because if you have a chain of verbs where only one of them
363
01:24:00,300 --> 01:24:07,466
has full inflection, but semantically it's not really
364
01:24:07,466 --> 01:24:11,399
like embedded meanings, then the question is,
365
01:24:11,766 --> 01:24:19,766
is that conjoined sentences, or is it a subordination?
366
01:24:19,833 --> 01:24:23,733
Because grammatically, it's kind of looking like subordination.
367
01:24:23,733 --> 01:24:28,600
But semantically, it's like, oh,
these are just conjoined clauses.
368
01:24:28,666 --> 01:24:32,800
So that can be an interesting way to play with that.
369
01:24:32,800 --> 01:24:33,466
Right.
370
01:24:33,466 --> 01:24:35,000
And that's why it's fuzzy.
371
01:24:35,000 --> 01:24:36,699
These things can have multiple meanings.
372
01:24:36,733 --> 01:24:39,100
And as I said, "and" can do weird things in English as well.
373
01:24:39,100 --> 01:24:40,033
Right, right.
374
01:24:42,199 --> 01:24:46,399
So popping back a bit for strategies for subordination,
375
01:24:46,466 --> 01:24:50,366
we've talked about conjunctions and nominalization.
376
01:24:50,366 --> 01:24:52,899
Or another thing you could do is have
377
01:24:52,899 --> 01:24:58,100
a different conjugation paradigm for different clause types.
378
01:24:58,100 --> 01:25:01,199
That can be as simple as the standard Indo-European,
379
01:25:01,466 --> 01:25:04,100
like, oh, we'll use the subjunctive.
380
01:25:04,333 --> 01:25:06,000
But you can have other languages like Coptic,
381
01:25:06,000 --> 01:25:10,266
which has many pages
of paradigm forms, which
382
01:25:10,266 --> 01:25:15,399
encode specific
subordinate clause types.
383
01:25:15,466 --> 01:25:19,800
And there are other languages that have separate paradigms
384
01:25:19,800 --> 01:25:23,300
that go beyond just having a different mood or something.
385
01:25:23,300 --> 01:25:25,866
Right, right, right.
386
01:25:25,866 --> 01:25:33,733
I've talked a bit about nominalizations that
can take different kinds of case marking.
387
01:25:33,733 --> 01:25:34,266
Right.
388
01:25:34,266 --> 01:25:36,333
Another kind of search,
you can-- go ahead.
389
01:25:36,333 --> 01:25:40,500
Let's talk about this, because with case marking,
390
01:25:40,500 --> 01:25:44,266
are we talking about they take an argument role,
391
01:25:44,366 --> 01:25:51,666
and then they get ergative case, or accusative case,
392
01:25:51,666 --> 01:25:55,699
or whatever, case marking to fit the argument that they're in?
393
01:25:55,899 --> 01:25:56,899
Yes.
394
01:25:57,033 --> 01:26:00,133
Or locatives are very commonly used for temporal.
395
01:26:00,133 --> 01:26:00,800
OK.
396
01:26:01,000 --> 01:26:02,000
Yeah, that makes sense.
397
01:26:02,133 --> 01:26:08,266
Right, where you smack
a dative onto an infinitive,
398
01:26:08,266 --> 01:26:10,800
or a {unclear}, or some
kind of verbal noun.
399
01:26:10,966 --> 01:26:12,533
And you get that sort of temporal thing.
400
01:26:12,533 --> 01:26:13,600
That's interesting.
401
01:26:13,666 --> 01:26:15,500
You can do the same sort of thing
402
01:26:15,733 --> 01:26:20,500
by sticking an adposition phrase there, too.
403
01:26:20,699 --> 01:26:21,699
Yeah, yeah.
404
01:26:21,800 --> 01:26:22,666
Yeah.
405
01:26:23,500 --> 01:26:25,199
And in addition to different kinds of case marking,
406
01:26:25,199 --> 01:26:28,466
the clause itself might have its normal case marking
407
01:26:28,666 --> 01:26:31,199
capabilities mangled.
408
01:26:31,199 --> 01:26:32,766
- So if you have
- Right.
409
01:26:32,966 --> 01:26:34,366
And again, we go back to ancient Greek.
410
01:26:34,366 --> 01:26:38,166
If you have a clause where, because of its dependency,
411
01:26:38,166 --> 01:26:40,933
it is using an infinitive for the verb, right?
412
01:26:40,933 --> 01:26:41,733
It's been deranked.
413
01:26:41,933 --> 01:26:43,100
It's an infinitive.
414
01:26:43,233 --> 01:26:46,266
The subject has to be expressed with the accusative.
415
01:26:46,466 --> 01:26:47,300
Right.
416
01:26:47,433 --> 01:26:48,600
OK.
417
01:26:48,766 --> 01:26:50,000
And in English, we do the same.
418
01:26:50,066 --> 01:26:56,733
Like, "he was talking," "I saw him talking."
419
01:26:56,733 --> 01:26:57,266
Yeah.
420
01:26:57,266 --> 01:26:57,733
Right?
421
01:26:57,733 --> 01:27:00,800
He is talking, it has to be the him.
422
01:27:00,866 --> 01:27:05,333
Again, makes it fit into normal English structure better.
423
01:27:05,333 --> 01:27:06,000
Right, right.
424
01:27:06,000 --> 01:27:07,366
"I saw he talking," is not--
425
01:27:09,899 --> 01:27:17,899
Yeah, "I saw he talking," that is not the way we do it.
426
01:27:17,899 --> 01:27:18,766
Yeah.
427
01:27:18,833 --> 01:27:23,666
But that is interesting, like, what
428
01:27:23,666 --> 01:27:27,466
happens when you have a pronoun that's in between the two.
429
01:27:27,466 --> 01:27:38,266
Obviously, that happens more often
with stuff like relative clauses and such.
430
01:27:38,366 --> 01:27:43,933
But it's-- and we can do a whole thing on relative clauses,
431
01:27:43,933 --> 01:27:50,600
because there's so many different
layers of how those get worked together.
432
01:27:50,666 --> 01:27:54,566
But-- We did a relative
clause show a long time ago,
433
01:27:54,733 --> 01:27:56,500
like more than 10 years ago.
434
01:27:56,500 --> 01:27:57,766
Maybe we can revisit it.
435
01:27:57,766 --> 01:28:01,133
Revisiting some of them, now
that we're both older and know more.
436
01:28:01,166 --> 01:28:05,100
Yeah, I could re-listen to it and see.
437
01:28:05,133 --> 01:28:09,566
I think something that unites all of this stuff
438
01:28:09,566 --> 01:28:17,399
is one thing you need to do when you're doing subordination
439
01:28:17,466 --> 01:28:28,133
is you have to think about what role is
this sentence taking in the matrix sentence.
440
01:28:28,166 --> 01:28:31,766
Because-- so you talk about nominalization.
441
01:28:31,833 --> 01:28:37,766
Well, why does nominalization-- why is
nominalization used for subordination?
442
01:28:37,833 --> 01:28:43,933
Because very often, it is taking the
place of a-- what would normally be a noun.
443
01:28:44,000 --> 01:28:46,600
Either it is taking an argument role,
444
01:28:46,666 --> 01:28:53,199
or it is in some oblique role, object of a preposition,
445
01:28:53,300 --> 01:28:58,666
of an adposition, or a locative, or
benefactive, something like that.
446
01:28:58,766 --> 01:29:02,366
But you have to keep in mind that you also
447
01:29:02,366 --> 01:29:12,100
have to consider when a sentence becomes
something akin to an adjective or an adverb.
448
01:29:12,199 --> 01:29:13,699
Especially adverbs, yeah.
449
01:29:13,733 --> 01:29:15,966
Yeah, adverbs all the time.
450
01:29:15,966 --> 01:29:18,566
That's temporal constructions.
451
01:29:18,633 --> 01:29:21,166
You're adding an adverb all the time.
452
01:29:21,233 --> 01:29:25,166
Which, I mean, that can be still related.
453
01:29:25,233 --> 01:29:27,833
You could still end up
using a nominalization
454
01:29:27,866 --> 01:29:30,266
with an adposition
or something like that,
455
01:29:30,266 --> 01:29:35,066
or a nominalization with case marking to get that meaning.
456
01:29:35,133 --> 01:29:40,500
Or you could go with something completely different.
457
01:29:40,500 --> 01:29:44,466
But I think when you're doing your different flavors
458
01:29:44,466 --> 01:29:46,666
of subordination, that's the thing to keep in mind,
459
01:29:46,666 --> 01:29:51,466
is what role is this sentence playing in the matrix sentence?
460
01:29:51,466 --> 01:29:52,399
Yep.
461
01:29:52,399 --> 01:29:54,866
I'm going to start with an abstract thing, which, George,
462
01:29:54,866 --> 01:29:56,866
I've not put in the notes here, but which I think about a lot.
463
01:29:56,899 --> 01:29:58,199
So sorry about that.
464
01:29:58,199 --> 01:30:00,899
And then we'll move on to the types.
465
01:30:00,899 --> 01:30:04,166
And that is your different kinds of--
466
01:30:04,233 --> 01:30:06,566
sometimes these clauses are called complement clauses.
467
01:30:06,566 --> 01:30:09,699
And many of them have a broad distinction
468
01:30:09,699 --> 01:30:15,300
between where the subordinate clause is either a fact,
469
01:30:15,300 --> 01:30:18,100
it could be an activity
indicating an extension
470
01:30:18,133 --> 01:30:22,966
in time, or it could be
indicating a potential.
471
01:30:23,066 --> 01:30:27,833
Fact-type complements,
fact-type subordinate
472
01:30:27,833 --> 01:30:34,066
clauses are most likely
to not be deranked.
473
01:30:34,066 --> 01:30:36,533
They're most likely to be balanced.
474
01:30:37,366 --> 01:30:41,000
But they-- or maybe a mood change, but that's about it.
475
01:30:41,000 --> 01:30:44,333
Activity types are very often nominalized.
476
01:30:44,333 --> 01:30:46,300
And then finally, the potential type definitely
477
01:30:46,300 --> 01:30:50,899
is going to have most likely to be reduced tense and aspect
478
01:30:50,899 --> 01:30:57,466
marking, reduced pronominal marking,
most often using a different mood.
479
01:30:57,466 --> 01:30:58,933
Right, right, right.
480
01:30:58,933 --> 01:31:02,500
And so certain kinds of verb types
481
01:31:02,500 --> 01:31:06,600
are more often going to take one of these or the other.
482
01:31:06,600 --> 01:31:10,500
Attention verbs or perception verbs
usually take an activity complement.
483
01:31:10,500 --> 01:31:13,399
"I see him walking to the store."
484
01:31:13,399 --> 01:31:15,199
Or they might take facts.
485
01:31:15,199 --> 01:31:21,133
Verbs of thinking take either fact or activity.
486
01:31:21,133 --> 01:31:24,100
Decisions take fact or potential.
487
01:31:24,100 --> 01:31:27,800
Verbs of liking or preferring typically take activities.
488
01:31:27,866 --> 01:31:32,100
So all of these have-- it's
worth thinking about these,
489
01:31:32,100 --> 01:31:37,100
because most languages are
going to have five, six, seven
490
01:31:37,199 --> 01:31:41,333
of these different types, possibly with some subtypes.
491
01:31:41,333 --> 01:31:44,066
You do not need every kind of subordination strategy
492
01:31:44,066 --> 01:31:47,766
that exists in your conlang, nor do you need two.
493
01:31:47,766 --> 01:31:51,866
There will be differences
that all have to do both the semantics
494
01:31:52,300 --> 01:31:54,966
and the
structure of your language.
495
01:31:54,966 --> 01:31:55,966
Right, right, right.
496
01:31:56,033 --> 01:32:03,666
Any time we're going over all these different options,
497
01:32:03,666 --> 01:32:08,100
there is a tendency for a lot
of conlangers to do what we
498
01:32:08,166 --> 01:32:12,966
call the kitchen sink and
just throw everything in, right?
499
01:32:12,966 --> 01:32:22,566
But it's useful to know all of your options
and then decide what you're going to pick.
500
01:32:22,566 --> 01:32:27,933
And it may be the case that choosing one option
501
01:32:27,933 --> 01:32:32,766
leads you to have different other varieties.
502
01:32:32,766 --> 01:32:39,766
Maybe you end up with just one strategy that dominates,
503
01:32:39,766 --> 01:32:45,366
like you have one nominalizer
that gets used for everything, right?
504
01:32:45,366 --> 01:32:48,399
Especially if you can have nouns modifying nouns,
505
01:32:48,399 --> 01:32:53,333
then you could do your relative clause with
the same thing, all that kind of thing.
506
01:32:53,333 --> 01:32:57,466
But maybe if you go with a converb strategy
507
01:32:57,500 --> 01:33:00,466
and then you decide to make a few different converb forms,
508
01:33:00,466 --> 01:33:04,033
then you're like, OK, well,
I've got-- now I've got lots
509
01:33:04,033 --> 01:33:08,133
of different subordination
strategies going all at once.
510
01:33:08,166 --> 01:33:13,199
And also, you know what?
511
01:33:13,266 --> 01:33:19,800
It's always an option to just stick a
sentence in a sentence in the relevant place.
512
01:33:19,866 --> 01:33:23,399
Just like you mentioned
the Mohawk example, it's only
513
01:33:23,433 --> 01:33:27,133
distinguished on intonation,
that you can just do that.
514
01:33:27,133 --> 01:33:31,000
And some languages' relative clauses to an English speaker
515
01:33:31,199 --> 01:33:32,399
look bonkers, because
it's like, you've just shoved
516
01:33:32,433 --> 01:33:36,866
that sentence inside another
one with no over-marking.
517
01:33:36,866 --> 01:33:38,933
Like, in-place relatives can be tricky.
518
01:33:39,000 --> 01:33:43,766
Or even just not even just stick that sentence in the place,
519
01:33:43,766 --> 01:33:48,266
but also have the noun in the
relative clause sentence impeded.
520
01:33:48,266 --> 01:33:53,733
And it's even more wacky-looking to us.
521
01:33:53,800 --> 01:34:00,566
It's a perfectly natural thing to do,
but it looks strange to English speakers.
522
01:34:00,633 --> 01:34:01,933
OK.
523
01:34:02,000 --> 01:34:03,666
And then my last on the list was converbs,
524
01:34:03,666 --> 01:34:06,000
but we've already talked about those, so we'll skip over.
525
01:34:06,000 --> 01:34:12,366
So let's talk about some common
types of subordinate conjunctions.
526
01:34:12,399 --> 01:34:14,600
And I've got a list
here, just like cause, like
527
01:34:14,600 --> 01:34:20,533
because, reason, or
cause, reason, result, place.
528
01:34:20,533 --> 01:34:22,933
I see where he's leaving.
529
01:34:22,933 --> 01:34:25,066
Report, I said that someone said that.
530
01:34:25,066 --> 01:34:30,266
Manner, which could be like a real manner,
or a hypothetical, sort of like an as-if.
531
01:34:30,300 --> 01:34:35,100
And then one that's a possible consequence,
which you don't use much in English, lest.
532
01:34:35,133 --> 01:34:36,199
Lest.
533
01:34:36,199 --> 01:34:36,966
For fear that.
534
01:34:36,966 --> 01:34:38,066
Yeah.
535
01:34:38,066 --> 01:34:40,699
Some languages have things like this and use them a lot more.
536
01:34:40,699 --> 01:34:46,333
Like, it seems like the Australian
languages really like their lests.
537
01:34:46,333 --> 01:34:47,133
Oh, really?
538
01:34:47,133 --> 01:34:48,733
OK, that's interesting.
539
01:34:48,733 --> 01:34:49,266
Yeah.
540
01:34:49,266 --> 01:34:51,266
But it's not like you sound goofy
541
01:34:51,433 --> 01:34:53,100
if you say that in English.
542
01:34:53,133 --> 01:34:54,466
Yeah.
543
01:34:54,466 --> 01:34:58,366
Chinese really likes resultative clauses.
544
01:34:58,433 --> 01:35:06,600
In Chinese, it's kind of-- if it's
the same subject, it's like the verbs
545
01:35:06,699 --> 01:35:10,533
kind of form a pseudo-compound.
546
01:35:10,633 --> 01:35:16,133
And so that's an interesting strategy that that uses.
547
01:35:16,233 --> 01:35:19,500
And then it also messes with like aspect as well.
548
01:35:19,600 --> 01:35:24,000
Yeah, it does funny things with aspect marking.
549
01:35:24,000 --> 01:35:26,133
A lot is going on with those.
550
01:35:26,233 --> 01:35:36,466
And there's very weird things, like the
whole example of kill-retreat, meaning--
551
01:35:36,500 --> 01:35:37,500
do you know that example?
552
01:35:37,500 --> 01:35:38,666
I do not know kill-retreat.
553
01:35:38,666 --> 01:35:39,866
That's great.
554
01:35:39,966 --> 01:35:45,500
OK, so there's an example that you hear a lot in Chinese.
555
01:35:45,500 --> 01:35:48,666
他们杀退了敌人 (tāmen shātuì le dìrén)
556
01:35:48,699 --> 01:35:52,866
So they kill-retreat enemies.
557
01:35:52,899 --> 01:36:00,899
What that means is they were going to kill
the enemies and the enemy retreated, right?
558
01:36:01,233 --> 01:36:12,066
So kill, which is normally a telic verb,
normally has an endpoint, becomes atelic
559
01:36:12,100 --> 01:36:18,266
because it's not realized that you killed
all the enemies because they retreated.
560
01:36:18,300 --> 01:36:23,966
So that's-- telicity is another episode that we covered.
561
01:36:23,966 --> 01:36:28,066
Yeah, we talked about the telicity
one, didn't we, these cancelable--
562
01:36:28,199 --> 01:36:32,100
Yeah, I think we may have covered that example.
563
01:36:32,233 --> 01:36:35,933
But you can end up with weird semantics
564
01:36:35,933 --> 01:36:42,100
when you add a different sort of subordination in there
565
01:36:42,233 --> 01:36:54,466
because they are very good at
canceling things and adding weird--
566
01:36:54,500 --> 01:36:58,466
canceling what you expected to be an entailment and stuff
567
01:36:58,666 --> 01:37:00,600
like that, yeah.
568
01:37:00,666 --> 01:37:08,166
So cause, reason, result, place, report, manner--
569
01:37:08,233 --> 01:37:13,166
you have a whole section here on specifically temporal clauses.
570
01:37:13,166 --> 01:37:16,666
Again, all of this-- and that's
just the tiniest bit of stuff I read.
571
01:37:16,666 --> 01:37:19,399
So we can go over this to get
people thinking about some stuff.
572
01:37:19,399 --> 01:37:23,766
But I really want to do a whole temporal clause show
573
01:37:23,766 --> 01:37:27,066
because there's so much that goes on with these things.
574
01:37:27,100 --> 01:37:33,300
Yeah, so you can have-- so
you're saying, OK, so the past--
575
01:37:33,433 --> 01:37:38,933
so I just want to think about six temporal conjunctions
576
01:37:39,000 --> 01:37:46,266
in English that distinguish between past--
this is in comparison to the main clause.
577
01:37:46,300 --> 01:37:50,066
It could be past, co-temporal,
like at the same time, or the future.
578
01:37:50,100 --> 01:37:53,766
And it could refer to either a point or a duration.
579
01:37:53,866 --> 01:37:59,133
So past point is after, past length is since.
580
01:37:59,300 --> 01:38:05,100
Same time point is when, same time duration is while.
581
01:38:05,133 --> 01:38:10,500
Future point is before, future duration is until.
582
01:38:10,500 --> 01:38:11,500
Right.
583
01:38:12,666 --> 01:38:20,666
And we do happen to have a nice regular chart
584
01:38:20,766 --> 01:38:22,166
for that in English.
585
01:38:22,166 --> 01:38:26,199
I'm assuming that in many languages that is not the case.
586
01:38:26,266 --> 01:38:31,566
Boy, if you can get it-- I
have no non-copyrighted
587
01:38:31,566 --> 01:38:34,366
references talking
about this subject.
588
01:38:34,366 --> 01:38:37,533
But the two or three pages you need
589
01:38:37,600 --> 01:38:45,000
for a full chart of Korean
subordinate clause types is amazing.
590
01:38:45,000 --> 01:38:46,133
It's huge.
591
01:38:46,166 --> 01:38:50,800
And there are many temporal things that
all look like they're translated the same.
592
01:38:50,800 --> 01:38:53,866
They can't possibly all be the same,
but I've not had a chance to dig into it.
593
01:38:54,100 --> 01:38:58,266
But I will try to find good references for that if I can,
594
01:38:58,266 --> 01:39:01,466
if we can do a temporal subordinate clause episode,
595
01:39:01,466 --> 01:39:08,566
because it's huge, many things, much more
rich than most languages I'm used to seeing.
596
01:39:08,600 --> 01:39:16,600
So let's talk about how they can overlap and things like that.
597
01:39:16,600 --> 01:39:17,100
Right.
598
01:39:17,300 --> 01:39:20,600
So again, many kinds of subordinate clauses
599
01:39:20,600 --> 01:39:23,800
are polysemous with other kinds of subordinate clauses.
600
01:39:23,800 --> 01:39:28,000
So in English, and in German, and in many languages,
601
01:39:28,000 --> 01:39:36,766
when clauses, which look
temporal, can also be conditional.
602
01:39:36,766 --> 01:39:40,966
"When it rains, get an umbrella."
603
01:39:40,966 --> 01:39:42,666
That's not a temporal consideration.
604
01:39:42,800 --> 01:39:43,800
That's a conditional.
605
01:39:44,833 --> 01:39:55,966
While clauses can evolve into conditionals
or clauses of concession, like "although".
606
01:39:56,033 --> 01:39:57,866
And while clauses are one of those
607
01:39:58,066 --> 01:40:03,366
that locative case marking is a really popular thing.
608
01:40:03,433 --> 01:40:08,666
After is much less likely to be polysemous with other things.
609
01:40:08,666 --> 01:40:15,000
Before is often deranked and usually
involves negation in complicated ways.
610
01:40:15,000 --> 01:40:17,733
Have we ever talked about expletive negation?
611
01:40:17,800 --> 01:40:19,699
Oh, honestly, I don't know.
612
01:40:19,699 --> 01:40:20,666
It's been so long.
613
01:40:20,666 --> 01:40:22,066
We've been doing this for so long.
614
01:40:22,066 --> 01:40:24,733
Expletive negation, it doesn't really exist in English.
615
01:40:24,800 --> 01:40:28,666
But again, it does occur in Greek.
616
01:40:28,666 --> 01:40:34,666
Like, "I was afraid she died," in Greek was, "I was afraid--"
617
01:40:34,699 --> 01:40:38,866
it looks like, "I was afraid she didn't die."
618
01:40:38,866 --> 01:40:42,866
But that's coming from, we believe, a kind of optative.
619
01:40:42,933 --> 01:40:45,266
"I was afraid, may she not be dead."
620
01:40:45,266 --> 01:40:48,399
Right, so that's expletive negation.
621
01:40:48,399 --> 01:40:50,800
And there are certain kinds of verbs where that happens.
622
01:40:50,800 --> 01:40:53,366
And the before constructions are often
623
01:40:53,366 --> 01:40:59,399
a situation where you get expletive
negation because of the semantics.
624
01:40:59,399 --> 01:41:00,699
Right, right, right.
625
01:41:00,733 --> 01:41:09,133
And you talk about-- so in English,
obviously, we're mentioning these mostly
626
01:41:09,133 --> 01:41:17,133
come from prepositions and one interrogative pronoun.
627
01:41:17,166 --> 01:41:20,333
But we have-- all of the strategies
628
01:41:20,433 --> 01:41:22,866
apply to temporal as well as any other.
629
01:41:22,899 --> 01:41:25,899
You could use case marking.
630
01:41:25,933 --> 01:41:32,266
You could use-- I mean, anywhere you could
use adpositions, you can use case marking.
631
01:41:32,266 --> 01:41:33,566
You can use converbs.
632
01:41:33,566 --> 01:41:35,866
You can use any of those strategies.
633
01:41:35,866 --> 01:41:40,066
Or again, just stick a sentence in a sentence.
634
01:41:40,166 --> 01:41:43,133
But it is interesting--
635
01:41:43,166 --> 01:41:45,933
I just want to
interject quickly, with temporal clauses,
636
01:41:45,933 --> 01:41:50,399
there might be iconicity related to
the ordering of the clauses themselves.
637
01:41:50,399 --> 01:41:56,300
So for example, even in a language
that has very strict head final--
638
01:41:56,333 --> 01:41:59,466
and so that normally means your dependent clauses come first--
639
01:41:59,466 --> 01:42:03,666
things like result clauses might
still come last for iconic reasons.
640
01:42:03,666 --> 01:42:04,800
Right, right, right.
641
01:42:04,800 --> 01:42:09,566
Because the result comes after
because that's what happens naturally.
642
01:42:09,566 --> 01:42:13,766
And so the grammar gets changed to move the result clause,
643
01:42:13,766 --> 01:42:17,899
- for example, to the end where normally--
- Another thing with that is a result--
644
01:42:17,899 --> 01:42:24,000
if you have any kind of broader, either historically
645
01:42:24,000 --> 01:42:33,733
or synchronically in your language,
you have any kind of broader-- what is it?
646
01:42:33,800 --> 01:42:35,066
Verb sequences?
647
01:42:35,066 --> 01:42:37,100
What is the term that I'm looking for?
648
01:42:37,100 --> 01:42:38,600
Serial verbs?
649
01:42:38,600 --> 01:42:40,933
Serial verb constructions, yes.
650
01:42:40,933 --> 01:42:43,166
If you have any kind of serial verb constructions,
651
01:42:43,166 --> 01:42:46,666
you're very, very likely to have that iconicity happen.
652
01:42:46,666 --> 01:42:47,500
Oh, yeah, yeah, yeah.
653
01:42:47,500 --> 01:42:51,466
Because serial verb
constructions are just like that.
654
01:42:51,566 --> 01:42:55,199
They tend to have that iconicity of temporal order.
655
01:42:57,300 --> 01:43:06,066
That's why Chinese has the resultative
immediately after the matrix verb.
656
01:43:06,100 --> 01:43:11,666
And they also have lots of cases of prepositional phrases
657
01:43:11,666 --> 01:43:14,933
that come from verbs coming before the verb.
658
01:43:14,933 --> 01:43:20,699
It all kind of leads into
that-- my theory, at least.
659
01:43:20,933 --> 01:43:28,933
So that's all super interesting.
660
01:43:29,000 --> 01:43:32,566
But my question is, with this ordering,
661
01:43:32,600 --> 01:43:37,733
does that ever happen with past versus future clauses?
662
01:43:37,733 --> 01:43:39,166
Oh.
663
01:43:39,199 --> 01:43:41,733
I didn't see any of that in my reading.
664
01:43:41,733 --> 01:43:44,266
But that would be worth looking to pay attention
665
01:43:44,266 --> 01:43:46,399
to see if there's something like that in the future.
666
01:43:46,466 --> 01:43:48,866
That would be super interesting.
667
01:43:48,899 --> 01:43:51,033
It's kind of--
668
01:43:51,033 --> 01:43:54,366
So I did see
a paper specifically on the
669
01:43:54,366 --> 01:43:58,666
conceptual metaphors of time
as it relates to subordination.
670
01:43:58,699 --> 01:44:01,533
But I didn't dig into it heavily.
671
01:44:01,600 --> 01:44:05,366
I should have, probably, because that would really
672
01:44:05,366 --> 01:44:09,133
imply that, like, where is the future
in relation to you in your language?
673
01:44:09,133 --> 01:44:11,266
Is it in front of you, or is it behind you?
674
01:44:11,266 --> 01:44:13,600
Ooh, we should look at just Aymara conjugations.
675
01:44:13,600 --> 01:44:16,666
I mean, I'm just saying the position of that in the sentence--
676
01:44:16,666 --> 01:44:23,366
because obviously, in English, we can just
place the temporal clause wherever we want.
677
01:44:23,433 --> 01:44:27,899
But it doesn't seem to
really-- not perfectly, but there's
678
01:44:27,899 --> 01:44:30,733
several different slots in
the sense where it can go.
679
01:44:30,800 --> 01:44:35,366
Because adverbs in English just go float on the sentence.
680
01:44:35,466 --> 01:44:38,666
But there doesn't seem to be any of that.
681
01:44:38,699 --> 01:44:42,966
Like, before or after will just occur anywhere.
682
01:44:43,066 --> 01:44:49,000
And it's usually not tied to the actual temporal order of events.
683
01:44:50,966 --> 01:44:56,899
But it would be interesting if we had
a language that was militant about,
684
01:44:57,000 --> 01:45:00,899
like, if it's a before clause, it has to happen.
685
01:45:00,899 --> 01:45:03,333
It has to be placed before the matrix clause.
686
01:45:03,399 --> 01:45:06,466
And if it's an after clause, it
has to be after the matrix clause.
687
01:45:06,500 --> 01:45:08,600
I don't know if that would ever actually happen.
688
01:45:08,666 --> 01:45:11,866
But it would be interesting if we
found a language that's like that.
689
01:45:11,899 --> 01:45:13,300
Yeah, I don't know if there'd be--
690
01:45:13,300 --> 01:45:15,199
it is interesting that
it's normally result
691
01:45:15,266 --> 01:45:17,466
clauses that come in
for this sort of dislocation,
692
01:45:17,466 --> 01:45:21,500
where cause and effect seems to matter more than time.
693
01:45:21,533 --> 01:45:24,533
Right, right, right.
694
01:45:24,533 --> 01:45:30,833
One last thing that I think,
since we're coming close
695
01:45:30,866 --> 01:45:34,466
to time, I want you to
get to your favorite thing.
696
01:45:34,466 --> 01:45:35,266
Insubordination.
697
01:45:35,266 --> 01:45:36,199
Insubordination, yes.
698
01:45:36,199 --> 01:45:37,199
I love it so much.
699
01:45:37,266 --> 01:45:40,699
So as I said, there's a recent entire book on it,
700
01:45:40,833 --> 01:45:42,933
because it's only a recently investigated phenomenon.
701
01:45:42,933 --> 01:45:44,399
It had all sorts of terrible names.
702
01:45:44,500 --> 01:45:47,699
And now, finally, everyone's converging on insubordination.
703
01:45:47,733 --> 01:45:50,066
I just think it's fun.
704
01:45:50,066 --> 01:45:52,566
They tend to be overlooked, because if you
705
01:45:52,566 --> 01:45:54,600
see what you think is a dependent clause floating
706
01:45:54,600 --> 01:45:58,933
about on its own, it invites the interpretation
that the speaker's made an error.
707
01:45:59,000 --> 01:46:02,866
If you're really focused on the rules
or-- and we'll get to this in a moment--
708
01:46:02,866 --> 01:46:06,300
if you're focused on sentences in
isolation from the broader conversation.
709
01:46:07,133 --> 01:46:08,199
Oh, OK.
710
01:46:08,266 --> 01:46:11,600
So insubordination is generally agreed
711
01:46:11,600 --> 01:46:15,933
to evolve from full sentences, where a stereotyped main clause
712
01:46:15,933 --> 01:46:19,500
got dropped, or a situation where a clause is implicitly
713
01:46:19,500 --> 01:46:21,366
part of what the other speaker has just said.
714
01:46:21,366 --> 01:46:22,766
So the other speaker has said something
715
01:46:22,766 --> 01:46:24,733
that we're going to pretend is the main clause.
716
01:46:24,733 --> 01:46:29,100
And the response-- Is
a subordinate clause.
717
01:46:29,100 --> 01:46:30,266
Yes.
718
01:46:30,266 --> 01:46:32,266
So this is like a discourse thing.
719
01:46:32,266 --> 01:46:34,000
Yes.
720
01:46:34,000 --> 01:46:38,666
Conversation analysis, the discourse stuff.
721
01:46:38,666 --> 01:46:40,500
Which a lot of conlangs just don't get to.
722
01:46:40,533 --> 01:46:42,333
So it's important to think about this.
723
01:46:42,333 --> 01:46:44,366
And if you think about how it's used,
724
01:46:44,366 --> 01:46:47,366
it's really clearly related to discourse and pragmatics a lot.
725
01:46:47,433 --> 01:46:49,066
So politeness rituals.
726
01:46:49,066 --> 01:46:51,533
"If you could fill out this form, please."
727
01:46:51,600 --> 01:46:53,566
Uh-huh.
728
01:46:53,566 --> 01:46:54,600
Well, then what?
729
01:46:54,600 --> 01:46:56,166
We leave it implied.
730
01:46:56,166 --> 01:46:58,300
This is a normal way in English.
731
01:46:58,300 --> 01:47:04,199
We use insubordination with conditionals to do politeness.
732
01:47:04,199 --> 01:47:06,866
But we also can do it to use threats.
733
01:47:06,866 --> 01:47:09,133
"If you touch my car!"
734
01:47:09,899 --> 01:47:14,266
And then, let people
imagine the rest of that sentence.
735
01:47:14,300 --> 01:47:15,300
Right.
736
01:47:15,333 --> 01:47:24,066
So yes, requests, threats, warnings, politeness rituals.
737
01:47:24,066 --> 01:47:26,766
Also kinds of evaluation.
738
01:47:26,766 --> 01:47:29,000
We don't say this much in English anymore,
739
01:47:29,000 --> 01:47:32,066
but "that you dare to
say that" has an I can't
740
01:47:32,066 --> 01:47:36,566
believe, that you dare
to say that in front of it.
741
01:47:36,566 --> 01:47:37,366
So evaluation.
742
01:47:37,366 --> 01:47:44,100
So it's all much more emotional,
pragmatic, and politeness things.
743
01:47:44,100 --> 01:47:50,933
Conditionals seem to be a super common source for these.
744
01:47:50,933 --> 01:47:51,566
Right.
745
01:47:51,566 --> 01:47:52,466
But not the only.
746
01:47:52,466 --> 01:47:54,866
The examples you gave are mostly conditionals, right?
747
01:47:54,866 --> 01:47:56,500
Yeah, in English, they're conditionals.
748
01:47:56,500 --> 01:48:01,533
Oh, and there are other ways you
can use result clauses and other things.
749
01:48:01,533 --> 01:48:06,266
Let me look at Dahlstrom here, because I
have some examples that I wanted to see.
750
01:48:06,266 --> 01:48:07,966
So here's a fun one.
751
01:48:07,966 --> 01:48:12,866
So Dahlstrom, again, now people are talking
about insubordination a little bit more.
752
01:48:12,866 --> 01:48:21,399
Where in Plains Cree, you can have an
independent question, "Are you hungry?"
753
01:48:21,399 --> 01:48:25,199
And you can also have an "Are you hungry?"
with what they call a conjunct inflection.
754
01:48:25,199 --> 01:48:26,399
So a dependent form.
755
01:48:30,866 --> 01:48:39,266
The dependence, the insubordinate
version, is used in a context where you're
756
01:48:39,266 --> 01:48:41,366
trying to understand why they're doing something.
757
01:48:41,366 --> 01:48:43,633
Like if someone's
running to the fridge and
758
01:48:43,633 --> 01:48:45,899
rummaging around, you'd
use the subordinate one.
759
01:48:46,300 --> 01:48:48,266
Whereas if you were just like, if someone was visiting,
760
01:48:48,266 --> 01:48:50,133
and you're like, hey, do you want some food,
761
01:48:50,133 --> 01:48:52,733
then you would just use the normal independent one.
762
01:48:52,800 --> 01:48:56,233
So that's a very subtle contextual distinction.
763
01:48:56,233 --> 01:49:00,399
So insubordination doesn't have
to be like these big things either.
764
01:49:04,433 --> 01:49:07,266
So I just wanted to talk about that.
765
01:49:07,266 --> 01:49:12,166
There's an entire literature on this
now that if you search on insubordination,
766
01:49:12,266 --> 01:49:15,300
you will find papers now, an entire book, as I said.
767
01:49:15,300 --> 01:49:17,633
Right, right, right.
768
01:49:17,633 --> 01:49:22,199
And we're going to have links in the show notes.
769
01:49:22,433 --> 01:49:26,166
And if you're on YouTube, in the description to the papers
770
01:49:26,333 --> 01:49:28,366
that we are referring to here.
771
01:49:28,366 --> 01:49:34,466
And probably citations for books and
stuff that we can't necessarily link to.
772
01:49:34,466 --> 01:49:36,333
OK.
773
01:49:36,333 --> 01:49:40,399
So that's really great.
774
01:49:40,399 --> 01:49:42,000
Are there any other things that you
775
01:49:42,166 --> 01:49:46,399
want to cover before we sign off?
776
01:49:46,399 --> 01:49:48,366
Like any particular things?
777
01:49:48,366 --> 01:49:50,300
No, nothing new.
778
01:49:50,300 --> 01:49:53,966
It's just that there are many more--
again, as is always the case with typology,
779
01:49:53,966 --> 01:49:58,100
there's more things than probably most
of us have thought about available to us.
780
01:49:58,100 --> 01:50:02,699
Well, it's definitely been helpful to me,
and I hope it'll be helpful to listeners.
781
01:50:02,699 --> 01:50:07,366
Because I need to do
some more interesting
782
01:50:07,366 --> 01:50:10,500
subordination than I did
with the last language.
783
01:50:10,500 --> 01:50:17,000
Which I think the last language, I
did something with relative clauses.
784
01:50:17,000 --> 01:50:21,399
But then with other subordinations, I was
like, just stick a sentence in a sentence.
785
01:50:21,399 --> 01:50:22,699
And that works.
786
01:50:22,733 --> 01:50:24,233
You don't want to do that every time.
787
01:50:24,233 --> 01:50:24,733
Yeah.
788
01:50:24,733 --> 01:50:31,766
I've been casual about temporal subordination
in pretty much all of my languages.
789
01:50:31,766 --> 01:50:33,966
And there's just so much more that could go on there.
790
01:50:34,033 --> 01:50:40,000
I do like using adpositions for temporal clauses.
791
01:50:40,000 --> 01:50:47,800
And having the thoughts about, OK, what spatial metaphor
792
01:50:47,800 --> 01:50:52,066
am I going to use to
choose the adposition
793
01:50:52,100 --> 01:50:54,199
that goes with the
temporal clause, right?
794
01:50:54,199 --> 01:50:54,933
That is important.
795
01:50:54,933 --> 01:50:57,600
You've got to work out your conceptual metaphor of time
796
01:50:57,600 --> 01:51:00,266
before you start coming up with grammar for it.
797
01:51:00,266 --> 01:51:04,266
Yeah, you can think
about, OK, is time in front
798
01:51:04,266 --> 01:51:06,533
of you or behind you or
above you or below you
799
01:51:06,533 --> 01:51:13,500
or all those things, or however that works out.
800
01:51:13,500 --> 01:51:20,899
But again, there's lots of options out there.
801
01:51:20,899 --> 01:51:27,399
Go read the materials that we're going
to link and take a look at those things.
802
01:51:27,399 --> 01:51:30,666
And we'll try to do a few more episodes on some of these.
803
01:51:30,666 --> 01:51:34,500
And I think we probably
will do a whole one
804
01:51:34,500 --> 01:51:41,199
on temporal clauses
sometime in the future.
805
01:51:41,199 --> 01:51:41,699
Yeah.
806
01:51:41,699 --> 01:51:45,000
And conditionals, too, I think, if we've not done it before.
807
01:51:45,000 --> 01:51:48,699
I'm going to-- probably we'll have interviews
808
01:51:48,833 --> 01:51:49,899
and some other guests.
809
01:51:49,933 --> 01:51:53,033
I think I will be moving on and doing
810
01:51:53,033 --> 01:51:55,100
more of these linguistics episodes in the future.
811
01:51:55,100 --> 01:51:59,199
So stay tuned for that.
812
01:51:59,233 --> 01:52:03,300
Getting back into that either linguistics episodes
813
01:52:03,300 --> 01:52:11,600
or like conlanging techniques kind of things can
be something I come back to a little bit.
814
01:52:11,699 --> 01:52:15,366
But thank you, William, for being on.
815
01:52:15,399 --> 01:52:16,833
Thanks for having me.
816
01:52:16,933 --> 01:52:24,100
And we are-- do you have any final wisdom?
817
01:52:24,166 --> 01:52:25,266
Nope, no wisdom this time.
818
01:52:29,666 --> 01:52:37,433
You can check out William at Linguini.
819
01:52:37,433 --> 01:52:38,300
Yes, Lingweenie.org.
820
01:52:38,300 --> 01:52:42,199
Yeah, the Lingweenie blog.
821
01:52:42,233 --> 01:52:44,466
I can -- Acta Lingweenie
822
01:52:44,533 --> 01:52:45,666
I can link to that.
823
01:52:45,733 --> 01:52:50,699
He is also the guy who made
the Conlanger's Thesaurus,
824
01:52:50,733 --> 01:52:55,366
which a lot of people
out there apparently use.
825
01:52:55,466 --> 01:52:56,399
I'm glad they do.
826
01:52:56,399 --> 01:52:56,966
I'm glad.
827
01:52:57,066 --> 01:52:58,833
Yeah.
828
01:52:58,933 --> 01:53:04,500
And the word generator that I use every single day,
829
01:53:04,600 --> 01:53:10,566
lexifer, yes, which you've seen on my streams.
830
01:53:10,600 --> 01:53:13,866
This is the guy who made that one.
831
01:53:14,033 --> 01:53:16,433
But thank you, William, for being on.
832
01:53:16,433 --> 01:53:19,566
And I hope to have you on again to talk,
833
01:53:19,600 --> 01:53:23,333
to have another deep
dive on another big
834
01:53:23,366 --> 01:53:29,199
linguistics topic, more
typology sharing and things.
835
01:53:29,300 --> 01:53:33,266
And with that, I'm going to say happy conlanging.
836
01:53:33,333 --> 01:53:34,699
Ciao.
837
01:53:34,866 --> 01:53:36,199
OK.
838
01:53:36,199 --> 01:53:38,300
Thank you for listening to Conlangery.
839
01:53:38,333 --> 01:53:41,633
You can find archives and show notes at conlangery.com.
840
01:53:41,699 --> 01:53:46,366
And if you'd like to support the show, the
best way to do that is to go to our Patreon
841
01:53:46,466 --> 01:53:49,066
at patreon.com/conlangery.
842
01:53:49,133 --> 01:53:54,899
With just $1, you can get access to exclusive
polls for my Tongues and Runes series.
843
01:53:55,000 --> 01:54:02,633
And also, for $5, you can get every
podcast episode early and ad-free.
844
01:54:02,666 --> 01:54:05,166
And now to thank our patrons.
845
01:54:05,166 --> 01:54:10,300
Mintaka, Kenan Kigunda,
Conor Stewart Roe, Jesse,
846
01:54:10,433 --> 01:54:15,699
Kaye, Alex Rossell-Hayes,
Vyren Patrick, Tabby,
847
01:54:15,766 --> 01:54:20,899
Alexis Hugelmann, Sylvia Sotomayor, Grammar Antifa,
848
01:54:20,966 --> 01:54:25,699
Grakka Grunk, Sigourney Hunter,
iloivar Jaana Mentoleum,
849
01:54:25,766 --> 01:54:30,399
Niklas Norblad, Anthony Docimo, Jake Penny,
850
01:54:30,433 --> 01:54:35,166
Artifexian, Miles
Wronkovich, Daniel Quigley,
851
01:54:35,199 --> 01:54:41,699
Paul Roser, our table,
Langworm, Nai, and Horn Bory.
852
01:54:41,766 --> 01:54:42,833
Thank you.
853
01:54:42,866 --> 01:54:48,100
Conlangery's theme music is by Null Device.
854
01:54:48,166 --> 01:54:52,600
Conlangery is distributed under a Creative Commons Attribution
855
01:54:52,600 --> 01:54:58,199
Non-Commercial Share Alike 4.0 international license.
856
01:54:58,800 --> 01:55:02,166
[MUSIC PLAYING]
857
01:55:02,300 --> 01:55:05,666
[MUSIC PLAYING]
858
01:55:07,666 --> 01:55:15,666
[BLANK_AUDIO]