@OkyanusKarSen
I don't know about the other examples, but as a Turkish speaker, the double marking actually serves a purpose and is not actually needlessly redundant; in Turkish we have a thing called "nominal phrases". When in English we would say "I am a student", in Turkish we say "Öğrenci-yim" (Student-personal marker) without using a verb meaning "to be". Turkish once had a dedicated "to be" verb (different from "olmak" which today covers the basic meaning but is not used in the same way as English, it is used to mark a change in status, such as "I became a student", "öğrenci oldum", or in philosophical contexts, where we refer to the verb as an isolated concept), but ditched it over time, making it become an optional suffix: so in old Turkish we would say "Öğrenci dururum", and now we can say either "öğrenciyim" or "öğrenciyim-dir" (oh hey, its like Japanese), -dir being a phonetically adjusted suffix version of the verb afore mentioned. So, saying "Kadın-ın köpek-i" (kadının köpeği) seperates it from "kadın köpeği", which would be a "womanly dog" or a "dog for women", and from "kadın köpek", which would not form a phrase by its own, but would mean "dog that is a woman"; woman would become an adjective. It would also seperate it from "kadının köpek", which would mean "dog belongs to woman" (in the more common word order it would be "köpek kadının", since here "kadının" is the nominal verb in the phrase, of which "köpek" is the subject, but this order is not wrong, just special and is an order that may be used in poetry, or in everyday speech, if we want to put the emphasis on the verb and not the subject).
@cormarine9812
This topic has always been slightly confusing to me - looking forward to this video!
@mauvelynx7289
4:20 is etymologically: iç-i-n-de inside (noun) - POSS - thematic consonant - LOCATIVE
@SwordFreakPower
More of these please! Following your main language series can be challenging at times as a noob. But this is great stuff!
@lol-xs9wz
As a Turk, I have always found it redundant that Turkish marks both the head and the dependent in possessive phrases. Funnily enough, I noticed this when I didn't know anything about linguistics. xd
@CommonCommiestudios
This dude legit went from making Thandian to making videos for conlangers
@TheZetaKai
My favorite series, on my favorite channel, I'm squeeing. EDIT: Having watched the video, my only complaint is that I wish I had watched this sooner. Like, last year sooner. I could have used this explanation of marking strategies when I was designing my conlangs from the beginning.
@pauleugenio5914
Omg dude, such a nice way to understand wtf is going on in Turkish. I definitely realized how possession worked by now, but having someone else explain it in such simple terms makes me really appreciate it 🇹🇷🦃
@AdamLiebowitz
@Biblaridion I think you got the Hebrew example backwards. The word המלך ("hamelekh") means "the king", not "his gown". The final khaf that you highlighted in blue is part of the word "melekh", not a possessive suffix, although it is true that the final khaf can act as a possessive suffix in other cases (but it's a second person posessive). גלימת ("glimat") is marked as being in the construct state, because if it weren't in the construct state it would be גלימה ("glima"). So a more accurate literal translation would be "gown-of the-king".
@gal749
On 3:25 the possessive suffix is on the first word - the ת at the end of גלימת. Also, it doesn't mean "his", here it just translates to "gown-of the-king" as the gloss says. Still a great video, and it's still a good example. Just slightly incorrect.
@ellies_silly_zoo
Amazing to have feature focus again, best series on this channel together with conlang case study! I learnt a lot from this one, I was always confused by how possessee marking was supposed to work
@Swooper86
Hungarian actually has two ways to mark possessive phrases. Using your example: "Péter háza" (not *házá) or "Péternek a háza", adding the dative -nek/nak to the possessor while keeping the possession marker on the object (this also requires the definite article a/az on the object). The latter is more formal and corresponds roughly to "the house of Péter" in English.
@MisterHunterWolf
I feel like I understand the syntax side of languages a lot more after watching this video, especially because Ive forgotten about adpositions.
@deejayaech4519
My conlang is wierd. It can be either strongly head marking or strongly dependent marking based on if you are trying to emphasis the head or dependent of a sentence. It has polypersonal agreement and a noun case system, and while both are expected to be used at the same time in formal writing, in less formal language, you can use the noun case system without polypersonal agreement to emphasize the noun, or poly-personal agreement without the case system to emphasize the verb, assuming the roles of the sentence are obvious. But in ambiguous cases, both are used. It can also be zero marking in very informal speech, but only if the subject has higher animacy then the object, or in the case of intransitive verbs without poly-personal agreement.
@xmvziron
Ah, finally a good explanation on the subject. Thank you!
@Alice-gr1kb
6:01 fun fact! in sign languages this is not true. nearly every sign language marks at least some verbs for their objects, but only some mark for subjects, such as ASL (and i don’t think any sign language marks only for subjects)
@ancientswordrage
Fantastic video as usual! If you ever want to expand on this, I'd be happy to read a pdf or watch more videos on it
@justinbchen
When it comes to describing Hungarian as a mixed system, it's worth noting that Hungarian also has polypersonal agreement. This is traditionally analyzed as "definiteness" marking, but is in reality conjugating for both subject and object. András Bárány and Kevin Kwong have done some important theoretical work breaking this down.
@thunder_2124
Yay another episode.
@Biblaridion
CORRECTIONS: 1. 3:22 - The construct state suffix isn't the final ך in המלך (king), but the final ת in גלימת (gown). I must have somehow got the words mixed up. 2. 4:10 - The Finnish example should be "Keskellä kylää" 3. 5:25 - The Greek example should be "βλέπω τον σκύλο" ("τον σκύλο" being the correct form for the Accusative) 4. 7:03 - The first word of the top sentence should be "Az" not "A", and the bottom sentence should be "háza" not "házá". If anyone spots any more errors, let me know by replying to this comment.