Proto-World language

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Tree models are sometimes used in describing various proto-languages, the stem of the tree is the proto-language, leaves on the tree mark the extant languages.

The term Proto-World language refers to the hypothetical, most recent common ancestor of all the world's languages – an ancient proto-language from which are derived all modern languages, all language families, and all dead languages known from the past 6,000 years of recorded history.

1 The idea
2 History
3 Reconstruction
4 Criticisms
5 See also
6 References
7 Further reading
8 External links

[edit] The idea

Assuming linguistic monogenesis, Proto-World is theorized to have been spoken roughly 50,000 to 100,000 years ago, the time speculated by archaeogenetics for the phylogenetic separation of the ancestors of all humans alive today. However, there is no guarantee that Proto-World is not younger (or older) than this, thereby making phylogenetics irrelevant to the dating of the language.

In such a scenario, Proto-World would spread from a small population out to other human populations long after they separated. Note also that it would not necessarily be the first language spoken altogether, but only the latest common ancestor of all languages known today, and already may have looked back on a long evolution, and even may have existed alongside other languages of which no trace survived into historical times. For example, it is disputed whether Homo neanderthalensis had the faculty of speech. If they did, their language in all probability would not have been derived from Proto-World as defined above. Furthermore, if they had a language, this would substantiate the claim for the existence of Proto-World, without making any prediction as to its form, because it would imply that the origin of language predates human phylogenetic separation.

Many question the underlying theory of monogenesis, the assumption that all known languages do derive from a common ancestor, suggesting that language may have developed independently in different groups of early humans from proto-linguistic means of communication, thereby disputing the existence of Proto-World, or at least shifting focus to glottogonic issues. This debate is essentially about the definition of the term language, and about whether the system of communication employed by human beings at the time of Mitochondrial Eve qualifies as a language in the narrow sense.

[edit] History

In 1917 the Russian linguist Nikolay Marr expounded a monogenetic theory of language that resolves all modern languages to four primordial exclamations.

Drawing on the works of Vladislav Illich-Svitych, the American linguist Joseph Greenberg claimed that long-distance relationships can be shown by applying a controversial approach he called "mass lexical comparison". The languages are compared by using a limited set of words (including function words and affixes) simply by means of counting cognates. He used this method to establish a classification of African languages. His work has generated considerable interest outside the linguistic community. It is still much debated.

Sergei Starostin [1] cautiously suggested a number of roots from the "Borean language" - the hypothetical ancestor of different language families of the northern hemisphere; possible etymological matches between what he considered the five major macrofamilies of the Old World, Eurasiatic, Afroasiatic, Sino-Caucasian and Austric with potential parallels from Amerind and several African language families added, but noting that it is still much too early to talk of a reconstructed "Proto-Borean" language, let alone Proto-World.

Merritt Ruhlen is one of the most vocal and controversial supporters of the Proto-World hypothesis.

[edit] Reconstruction

The comparative method is a technique used by linguists to demonstrate genetic relationships between languages. Using this method linguists can attempt to reconstruct a proto-language from its various daughter languages. Cognates are words that have a common origin. Examples include: English mouse, German Maus, Swedish mus, Russian myš', Polish mysz, Greek mys. Using the comparative method linguists conclude that the Proto-Indo-European language word for mouse was mūs. Some linguists have identified what they claim are possible cognates that could be evidence of a proto-world language. Joseph Greenberg proposed using a core of 300 words that he felt constituted the core of any language. These include pronouns, body parts and family members. He believed that these core words change much more slowly than others and are a good indicator for a genetic relationship between languages.^[1]

The following table shows some roots in various language families which show similarities.^[2] The symbol V stands for a vowel.

language	Who?	What?	Two	Water	One/Finger	Arm-1	Arm-2	Bend/Knee	Hair	Vagina/Vulva	Smell/Nose
Khoisan	!kū	ma	/kam	k´´a	//kɔnu	//kū	≠hā	//gom	/´u	!kwai	ĉ'u
Nilo-Saharan	na	de	ball	nki	tok	kani	boko	kutu	sum	buti	ĉona
Niger	nani	ni	bala	engi	dike	kono	boko	boŋgo		butu
Afro-Asiatic	k(w)	ma	bwVr	ak’^wa	tak	ganA		bunqe	somm	put	suna
Kartvelian	min	ma	yor	rt^s/q'a	ert	t'ot'	qe	muql	toma	put´	sun
Dravidian	yāv	yā	irantu	nīru	birelu	kaŋ	kay	menda	pūta	počču	ĉuntu
Eurasiatic	k^wi	mi	pālā	ak^wa	tik	konV	bhāghu(s)	bük(ä)	punče	p'ut'V	snā
Dene-Caucasian	k^wi	ma	gnyis	ʔoχ^wa	tok	kan	boq	pjut	t^shām	put´i	suŋ
Austric	o-ko-e	m-anu	ʔ(m)bar	namaw	ntoʔ	xeen	baγa	buku	śyām	betik	ijun
Indo-Pacific		mina	boula	okho	dik	akan	ben	buku	utu		sinna
Australian	ŋaani	minha	bula	gugu	kuman	mala	pajing	buŋku		puda	mura
Amerind	kune	mana	p'āl	akwā	dik'i	kano	boko	buka	summe	butie	ĉuna)

Some of the Indo-European words that come from words in this table are qui (Latin), who, aqua (Latin), digit, bough (from the root bhāghu- meaning elbow or shoulder), fud (dialectal English for vulva).

Based on these correspondences, linguist Merrit Ruhlen (in his book On the Origin of Languages), has developed a table of basic words in Proto World:

Ku = Who?
Ma = What?
Pal= Two
Akwa = Water
Kw = Drink
Kway = Wet
Tik = Finger, Toe, One
KanV = Arm
Bungn = Knee, Bend
Sum = Hair
PutV = Vulva, Vagina
Cuna= Nose, Smell

[edit] Criticisms

Critics say that from a purely statistical point of view, even among any two unrelated languages, there will most likely be a number of similar-sounding words with similar meanings (see also Swadesh list). Starostin did not use statistical methods but methods of internal reconstruction: reconstruction of the proto-language of a family in turn makes it possible to reconstruct the proto-language of a higher level.

In addition, situations are conceivable in which a completely new language may have arisen even at later times. There is no known instance of such an event for spoken languages, but the Nicaraguan Sign Language is an example of a non-articulate language which arose naturally among deaf children raised by hearing parents [2]. However some consider Nicaraguan Sign Language to be an invalid example of spontaneous language generation since pre-existing gestures used by the surrounding hearing-capable population may likely have been its basis. There is no known fully developed spoken language that has emerged spontaneously from a non-speaking population as far as is currently known.

[edit] See also

[edit] References

^ The evolution of human languages
^ The Origin of Language: Tracing the Evolution of the Mother Tongu by Merritt Ruhlen, 1996, p. 103. The table represents less than half of a set compiled by Bengtson & Ruhlen in 1994.

[edit] Further reading

Hock, Hans Henrich & Joseph, Brian D. (1996). Language History, Language Change, and Language Relationship: An Introduction to Historical and Comparative Linguistics. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. Chapter 17.