How Language Evolved from Climate and Terrain

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Honestly? he's obviously pulling your leg.

No, he genuinely believes that.

 

[AV1611VET]

Our colleague AV1611 believes that the original language of man was Elizabethan English.

Jacobean English.

 

[AV1611VET]

No, he genuinely believes that.

Not.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Not.

Ah, my mistake.
Still, either one is a ridiculous claim.

 

[AV1611VET]

Still, either one is a ridiculous claim.

Then correct me.

What was the original language of man?

If you don't know, then how do you justify telling me Jacobean English is a ridiculous claim?

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Then correct me.

What was the original language of man?

If you don't know, then how do you justify telling me Jacobean English is a ridiculous claim?

I don't know what the original language of man was, or if there ever was one, according to the Bible. But we know it wasn't Jacobean English since no evidence exists for Jacobean English having existed until the Jacobean period.

 

[AV1611VET]

I don't know what the original language of man was, or if there ever was one, according to the Bible.

Genesis 11:1 And the whole earth was of one language, and of one speech.

But we know it wasn't Jacobean English since no evidence exists for Jacobean English having existed until the Jacobean period.

Keep looking.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Genesis 11:1 And the whole earth was of one language, and of one speech.

That's a claim, not evidence.

Keep looking.

No. You're the one who's been making the claim so you're the one who needs to dig for better evidence.

 

[AV1611VET]

That's a claim, not evidence.

Looks like you're SOL* then.

* short on luck

No. You're the one who's been making the claim so you're the one who needs to dig for better evidence.

I wasn't aware I gave evidence in the first place.

Evidence can be manipulated and misleading.

But in the case of what I believe, there isn't even evidence to be manipulated or to mislead anyone.

Science is myopic.

I just don't think you're qualified to tell me I'm wrong until you can come up with something better.

But ... hey ... if demanding evidence is the way science works then ... well ... looks like you're SOL.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

<snip>

So you've basically got squat.

 

[juvenissun]

Nothing circular about it - there is a history of progressive change and divergence.

You must have the original language, then it started to change.
So, on a big plain area, the original languages were different. Then it became more similar through time. That is the history of progressive change.

Are you suggesting that the original language of people dwelled in a large plain area was the same? Then it became more and more different?

 

[AV1611VET]

So you've basically got squat.

It's more than you got.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

It's more than you got.

... not really.
List of proto-languages.
List of languages by first written accounts.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

You must have the original language, then it started to change.

So, on a big plain area, the original languages were different. Then it became more similar through time. That is the history of progressive change.

Are you suggesting that the original language of people dwelled in a large plain area was the same? Then it became more and more different?

There are certainly examples of different languages blending together over time (especially in Britain, with it's waves of invaders with different languages), but there are also examples of populations with a relatively uniform language spreading out into an area and establishing separate communities, resulting in a progressive divergence of linguistic characteristics between the communities.

As I said previously, the distances between communities didn't have to be very large - by modern standards - for this to happen, if the large majority of the population spent the large majority of their time in their own community.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

You must have the original language, then it started to change.
So, on a big plain area, the original languages were different. Then it became more similar through time. That is the history of progressive change.

Are you suggesting that the original language of people dwelled in a large plain area was the same? Then it became more and more different?

Spanish, Italian, Portuguese and French [EDIT: mistakenly wrote "Spanish" two times] were all the same language in the distant past. That language was Latin. There's a reason why these are called the roman languages.

Then there's also the germanic languages like German, Dutch, English,...

It's actually quite amusing that language can be traced back pretty much geographically through time, which pretty much makes sense in light of human evolutionary history and the out-of-africa theory.

You can categorise languages in different ways. One of the most interesting ways (imo), is which "sounds" are present in any given language. Note that I said "sounds" and not "letters". There are more sounds then there are letters.

The amount of different sounds could be considered as the amount of "variation" in the language, analogous to genetic variation.

When we do that and compare the languages of the world, what do we find? The same kind of pattern exhibited by the genetic variation of DNA in human populations accross the world.

Most of the genetic variation is found in the "mother population" in africa. There's more genetic variation between 2 random native africans then between a random native swedish person and a random native chinese person.

The amusing part? The same goes for the sound variation in languages. African languages have LOADS more sounds then non-african languages.

While chinese and english sound NOTHING alike at first sight, they DO share most of the same sounds.

In african languages, you can find loads of sounds that ONLY occur in africa. Some of which even only in specific tribes. The most famous one probably that "click" sound.

It's really interesting to see the paralelles with general, high-level, migration paths of human history.

 

[Bungle_Bear]

Jacobean English.

The KJV is not Jacobean English. It is a very awkward language based on Elizabethan/Jacobean English but which is not representative of the language spoken during that period.

 

[AV1611VET]

... not really.

Don't give me any lists, Warden.

I want to know what you think this language was:

Genesis 11:1 And the whole earth was of one language, and of one speech.

I think it was Jacobean English.

 

[AV1611VET]

The KJV is not Jacobean English. It is a very awkward language based on Elizabethan/Jacobean English but which is not representative of the language spoken during that period.

Fair enough.

Give it a name and we're in business.

I promise I'll drop the Jacobean English belief then.

 

[Bungle_Bear]

Fair enough.

Give it a name and we're in business.

I promise I'll drop the Jacobean English belief then.

I don't need to give it a name as it already has one. It's called Biblical English.

And guess what? Biblical English was not spoken in Mesopotamia in 3000BCE.

 

[AV1611VET]

I don't need to give it a name as it already has one.

Ya?

And I'm ... well ... you know who.

It's called Biblical English.

I just Googled it and it doesn't seem to be registered as an official language.

But if that's what you want to use ... I'm easy.

The whole world spoke Biblical English up to Genesis 11.

And guess what?

What?

Biblical English was not spoken in Mesopotamia in 3000BCE.

Oh, oh!

Houston, we have a problem.