| Forum Index > General Forum |
|
Simberto
Germany12066 Posts
However, it would also be really hard to test that theory because no community is ever completely static for hundreds of years. I think the hypothesis that language only changes when the surroundings change is not really self-evident. It would require some proof to convince me that that is the case. | ||
|
imp42
398 Posts
Once such a (possibly local) optimum is reached the language might become static, given the environment does not change. But even for the most remote, yet undiscovered tribe in the Amazonas the environment is likely to have changed a lot during the last 100 years, as reports from first encounters suggest. | ||
|
Thieving Magpie
United States6752 Posts
On December 28 2016 03:01 Simberto wrote: I am not that convinced that that is true. However, it would also be really hard to test that theory because no community is ever completely static for hundreds of years. I think the hypothesis that language only changes when the surroundings change is not really self-evident. It would require some proof to convince me that that is the case. Could we at least agree that the more isolated the language, the more likely it will be untainted by the practices and influences of other languages? But I guess the question really is: "What is the longest sustained language" As opposed to the "What is the least influenced language" Or maybe the question is really asking "Is it possible for language to remain un-evolved" | ||
|
Yoav
United States1874 Posts
On December 28 2016 02:13 Gorsameth wrote: Because a community that is completely static for hundreds of years is just that, static. The changing world around us and how we interact with it and each other is what causes changes in our language. If nothing about how we live changes and we never come into contact within anyone outside our closed community, why would our language change? Nah. Languages change all on their own. Lots of examples for that. English conjugates verbs with an "s" now in most forms. In archaic forms, this was a "eth." No foreign influence did that... just lazy tongues over centuries. Homeric Greek spells out full contract verbs; by the classical period, vowel clusters get much simpler (though this makes them less "regular" in terms of rules). The English word "silly" has had like 5 different meanings over the last thousand years just because concepts shifted into each other. In Latin as many other languages, "p" sounds gradually devolve into "f" sounds in many words. In many languages the letters "s" and "n" are gradually lost where they appear in the middle of words in certain contexts. In Hebrew, just about every stem has been simplified from a grammatically "pure" but awkward form. And so on and so forth. | ||
|
Thieving Magpie
United States6752 Posts
On December 28 2016 08:54 Yoav wrote: Nah. Languages change all on their own. Lots of examples for that. English conjugates verbs with an "s" now in most forms. In archaic forms, this was a "eth." No foreign influence did that... just lazy tongues over centuries. Homeric Greek spells out full contract verbs; by the classical period, vowel clusters get much simpler (though this makes them less "regular" in terms of rules). The English word "silly" has had like 5 different meanings over the last thousand years just because concepts shifted into each other. In Latin as many other languages, "p" sounds gradually devolve into "f" sounds in many words. In many languages the letters "s" and "n" are gradually lost where they appear in the middle of words in certain contexts. In Hebrew, just about every stem has been simplified from a grammatically "pure" but awkward form. And so on and so forth. Relevant reading on this topic: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grimm's_law Also, regional dialects being similar can sometimes create the illusion of a unified language. Much like south english plurals being originally es (Eye => Eyes) while north english plural were normally en (Man => Men) eventually converging into a standardized english due to the technology of the printing press. For the most part, the idea of consistency in language and writing did not really come about until the printing press. As much as Latin was bring strictly controlled, its fairly fluid in its evolution. | ||
|
Yoav
United States1874 Posts
On December 27 2016 09:43 Uldridge wrote: My question is twofold: What are the ancient languages still spoken today? Could a person speaking the today's version of said language converse with someone speaking the language from the year 0? 1000 BC? Even further? A general rule is that languages are more fluid prior to national centralization and prior to a defining piece of national literature. For English, the defining national literature is the King James Bible (roughly contemporaneous with Shakespeare) which meant that people around all England were suddenly experiencing the same variety of Oxford/London/invented English. Germany was politically diffuse for far longer, but Luther's Bible had some of the same effects to a lesser degree. For Hebrew, the defining literature is the Tanakh. Extreme lack of centralization led to many versions of more practical forms of speech, but the universally accessible literature meant that there was some standardization. That said, the dialects found even in the Bible vary a reasonable amount. See the "Song of the Sea" or "Song of Deborah" for particularly old Hebrew. Greek is a strange example because national centralization and defining literature were separated by a fairly long time. Homer is the defining literature, but national centralization only occurs with Alexander, hundreds of years later. In the mean time, many other works are entered into the canon of Greek literature. There is a fair bit of stability under the Roman Empire until it falls in 1453, + Show Spoiler + *shots fired* Incidentally, the standard answer to this is Tamil, which is only considered "proper" if spoken in a very ancient way, and is therefore preserved among a certain set. Sanskrit would have some viability as an answer for somewhat similar reasons. | ||
|
Thieving Magpie
United States6752 Posts
On December 28 2016 09:14 Yoav wrote: A general rule is that languages are more fluid prior to national centralization and prior to a defining piece of national literature. For English, the defining national literature is the King James Bible (roughly contemporaneous with Shakespeare) which meant that people around all England were suddenly experiencing the same variety of Oxford/London/invented English. Germany was politically diffuse for far longer, but Luther's Bible had some of the same effects to a lesser degree. For Hebrew, the defining literature is the Tanakh. Extreme lack of centralization led to many versions of more practical forms of speech, but the universally accessible literature meant that there was some standardization. That said, the dialects found even in the Bible vary a reasonable amount. See the "Song of the Sea" or "Song of Deborah" for particularly old Hebrew. Greek is a strange example because national centralization and defining literature were separated by a fairly long time. Homer is the defining literature, but national centralization only occurs with Alexander, hundreds of years later. In the mean time, many other works are entered into the canon of Greek literature. There is a fair bit of stability under the Roman Empire until it falls in 1453, + Show Spoiler + *shots fired* Incidentally, the standard answer to this is Tamil, which is only considered "proper" if spoken in a very ancient way, and is therefore preserved among a certain set. Sanskrit would have some viability as an answer for somewhat similar reasons. is Tamil and Sanskrit still being "spoken" today? I had understood his question to be about languages that are spoken casually and conversationally among laymen of its ilk. (Hence my comment about recent found tribes being the likeliest to have an untainted or uninfluenced language, ie more "natural" language) | ||
|
xuanzue
Colombia1747 Posts
| ||
|
Yoav
United States1874 Posts
On December 28 2016 11:08 Thieving Magpie wrote: is Tamil and Sanskrit still being "spoken" today? I had understood his question to be about languages that are spoken casually and conversationally among laymen of its ilk. (Hence my comment about recent found tribes being the likeliest to have an untainted or uninfluenced language, ie more "natural" language) Tamil is the everyday language of 70 million people. About 5 million people speak Sanskrit, though it is the mother tongue of very few. | ||
|
xM(Z
Romania5299 Posts
On December 28 2016 15:36 xuanzue wrote: why is the cognac so expensive? what makes it so especial compared with any other brandy? because of the banana wars + Show Spoiler + Banana wars (from wiki)The European Union and United States have had a long-running dispute over the EU's banana imports.[36][37] As part of their international aid, the EU offered tenders on a first-come-first-served basis for bananas from countries in Africa, the Caribbean and the Pacific. The United States argued that this favored local producers in former colonies of EU member-states, over US-owned corporations in Latin America. The Clinton administration responded by imposing heavy tariffs on luxury goods created in the EU.[38] Such goods included cashmere from Scotland and French Cognac brandy, made in the original constituency of then Prime Minister of France Jean-Pierre Raffarin. The Clinton administration then took the banana wars to the World Trade Organization (WTO) in 1999, when Chiquita made a $500,000 donation to the Democratic Party.[36] The two sides reached an agreement in 2001.[39] | ||
|
Uldridge
Belgium5234 Posts
| ||
|
Thieving Magpie
United States6752 Posts
On December 28 2016 22:03 Uldridge wrote: Thanka for the interesting answers guys. Now a follow-up if I may: how would linguists approach understanding a new language when it's spoken by a just discovered tribe? Trying to compare would be my first guess, but what if it's not like any other language out there? Step one is record all sounds. Step two is making a phoneme chart of all their words Step three is phoneme analysis to see if it it is unique | ||
|
RvB
Netherlands6326 Posts
On December 28 2016 22:03 Uldridge wrote: Thanka for the interesting answers guys. Now a follow-up if I may: how would linguists approach understanding a new language when it's spoken by a just discovered tribe? Trying to compare would be my first guess, but what if it's not like any other language out there? There is actually a movie and a book about this. Aliens come to earth and then this chick has to translate their language. en.m.wikipedia.org en.m.wikipedia.org | ||
|
Thieving Magpie
United States6752 Posts
On December 28 2016 22:23 RvB wrote: There is actually a movie and a book about this. Aliens come to earth and then this chick has to translate their language. en.m.wikipedia.org en.m.wikipedia.org I must ask my friend who used to do linguistic research about the accuracy of this film :D | ||
|
JimmiC
Canada22817 Posts
| ||
|
Sent.
Poland9333 Posts
| ||
|
Thieving Magpie
United States6752 Posts
On December 29 2016 01:10 JimmiC wrote: Do you think you could do a better job of raising a clone then a child? (exact copy of yourself rather then a naturally occurring child of yours and your partner) Do you think you would do a better job raising your clone then your parents did with you? False conclusion: Assuming a clone of you would act the same as you. Being as you were never raised by a copy of you, your life has different variables than his and hence requires different responses which creates different lessons. *However* lets assume this is a repeated process. Each clone of yours that grows up then clones himself and raises that child, and then their child clones themselves and raises that child. At N progenies where N is, what I would assume, a fairly high number, I could imagine a genetic evolution where each generation gets easier and easier to raise. | ||
|
Dark_Chill
Canada3353 Posts
On December 28 2016 22:03 Uldridge wrote: Thanka for the interesting answers guys. Now a follow-up if I may: how would linguists approach understanding a new language when it's spoken by a just discovered tribe? Trying to compare would be my first guess, but what if it's not like any other language out there? Point to yourself and say your name. If possible, point to your linguist partner and say his name. Then point to them and wait/hope for a response. With this established (they should understand that you want to know what stuff is) begin exchanges where you point at objects, say what they are and wait for them to say what they are. The next step I'd think of is to go over each word again but add to it written words. Your name written out, your partner's name, and everything else. With this, you can go over what your alphabet sounds like. Even if the language isn't comparable, you can still try and teach your language and hope that they can help you understand theirs after. | ||
|
JimmiC
Canada22817 Posts
| ||
|
Thieving Magpie
United States6752 Posts
On December 29 2016 03:11 JimmiC wrote: So do you think you would do a better job then your parents knowing that the clone of you would act different? I never said it would act the same as you. If it does not act the same as you then it would be no different than any other child. | ||
| ||
The PiG Daily
Best Games of SC
herO vs Rogue
GuMiho vs ShoWTimE
Clem vs herO
[ Submit Event ] |
|
StarCraft 2 StarCraft: Brood War Dota 2 League of Legends Counter-Strike Other Games |
|
Sparkling Tuna Cup
WardiTV Invitational
Epic.LAN
IPSL
eOnzErG vs McRibbed
LancerX vs StRyKeR
AI Arena Tournament
OSC
Yamato Cup
IPSL
Artosis vs RiceHat
Kyrie vs Sony
Map Test Tournament
WardiTV Weekly
[ Show More ] |
|
|
EPT
