| View previous topic :: View next topic |
Boreades

In: finity and beyond
|
|
|
|
All of the AEL Linguistics Department are glued to their TVs, watching Eurovision 2014.
I hasten to add, this is purely in the academic pursuit of knowledge.
Nothing at all to do with girls in skimpy dresses and boys in tight trousers.
Hatty, please do sit down, you're blocking the view.
Mick, have you just eaten all the crisps and pickled onions?
Anyway, what was I saying?
Oh yes, the big question is, why are they nearly all singing in English?
Or, perhaps I should rephrase that.
Why are the ones who are not singing in English doing so?
|
|
|
|
 |
|
Mick Harper
Site Admin

In: London
|
|
|
|
It's an accident of history. You maximise your chances by singing in the language most people understand and that language presently is English. Not just presently, but probably forever. This happened because the previous 'international language', French, in the nineteenth century, lost out to English in the twentieth largely because the Americans (and the Brits) refuse to learn foreign languages and, since they were dominant in many international fields (air traffic control just to give a minor example) everybody else had to learn English.
Then the global economy took off and everybody is now obliged to learn English. The Eastern bloc held out for some time (promoting Russian as the international language) but even they are now fully in line. The only possibility now is if China insists on Chinese when she takes over.
AE says we (English-speakers) should take advantage of this situation by not bothering to learn foreign languages at school. Naturally the education lobby says different, "It broadens/trains the mind." So does studying pornography.
|
|
|
|
 |
|
Boreades

In: finity and beyond
|
|
|
|
 |
|
Boreades

In: finity and beyond
|
|
|
|
 |
|
Wile E. Coyote
In: Arizona
|
|
|
|
| Boreades wrote: |
Oh yes, the big question is, why are they nearly all singing in English?
|
I am afraid orthodoxy has caught Ishmael up, they now realise that Humans use similar sounds for common words in more than 6,000 languages.
English is of course the language that best approximates to these common sounds. This explains why foreigners have an immediate good grasp of English, yet we struggle with their posh, bastardized, over-complicated attempts to communicate. To be fair we did have the advantage of being an island. Once the trees came down uniting the disparate bands roaming the taskscape... in the so-called mesolithic.... these earlier sounds were quickly standardised, and the first English words and sentences were expressed.
I will say it again .......Humans use similar sounds for common words ......
Please put my PO in the post, Boro.
Ok, it did take two years to work out.......
http://www.sciencealert.com/humans-use-similar-sounds-for-common-words-in-more-than-6-000-languages
|
|
|
|
 |
|
Boreades

In: finity and beyond
|
|
|
|
Oops, it's taken me two years to have a look at that article.
But why do so many human languages demonstrate these ties to this hidden, universal language of sounds that informs the way we speak?
The researchers aren't themselves sure. They considered it could be the remnant of some form of "prehistoric protolanguage" that was once spoken by the earliest humans before the evolution of modern languages |
Or Doggerland, as we say in prehistoric North West Europe?
PO in the post any day now ... to the AEL Pension Fund address?
|
|
|
|
 |
|
N R Scott

In: Middlesbrough
|
|
|
|
This is really interesting. The reason why these researchers are so surprised by these findings though is because they always focus on the sound and never on how the sounds are made.
| For example, the word for "nose" often involves "neh" or "oo" sounds; the terms for "red" and "round" usually include an "r" sound. |
When we make the 'N' sound we literally push our tongue up to the roof of our mouth, beneath the nose. Like we're pointing at the nose with our tongue when we make the sound. Similar with the 'ng' sound which goes through the nose, like a bunged up nose.
When we say 'R' we literally curl the tongue. So it makes sense that we would use it for words like round.
|
|
|
|
 |
|
Pete Jones
Site Admin

In: Virginia
|
|
|
|
| Wile E. Coyote wrote: | | they now realise that Humans use similar sounds for common words in more than 6,000 languages. |
Here's an odd duck.
English's CHALK is allegedly from Latin's word for "limestone" (CALX) and Greek's word for "pebble" (KHALIX). Ok, fine, nothing to get too excited about.
But English's CAULK is allegedly also from Latin's CALX, which also results in CALICO, meaning "I fill in with limestone." Presumably, this CALICO-ing of CALX involved smearing a limestone slurry into cracks so that it becomes a type of mortar(?)
Limestone is calcium carbonate, which can come from crushed up seashells. You can see that even CALCIUM is related to CALX.
I think there's something wrong because Greek has a word that fouls all this up: KOKHLOS. It means "shellfish with a spiral shell."
KOK- is no different than CAULK and even CHALK, and all are, in essence, limestone/seashells.
The water gets muddier though....
|
|
|
|
 |
|
Pete Jones
Site Admin

In: Virginia
|
|
|
|
The following Wiki quote refers to Greek's KONKHOS, which means "conch shell."
| More likely from Pre-Greek; compare the similar words καγκÏλας (kankúlas, “musselâ€) and especially κόχλος (kókhlos, “spiral conch, snailâ€) |
So, the mainstream linguists will link KONKHOS and KOKHLOS together, and the pesky N that appears is written off as "prenasalization" that was from "Pre-Greek."
But, if we're in Pre-Greek times, how the heck do Latin and English know that limestone is made of seashells? How long ago before the Greeks was this a known thing?
Apparently very long ago....
|
|
|
|
 |
|
Mick Harper
Site Admin

In: London
|
|
|
|
| how the heck do Latin and English know that limestone is made of seashells? |
On this narrow question: from Day One. You can see them embedded. If it was obvious to Bubbles it was obvious to Squeaks.
|
|
|
|
 |
|
Pete Jones
Site Admin

In: Virginia
|
|
|
|
I suspected this was the case.
But I wonder why they link CALX (limestone) with KHALIX (pebble). Because there's a much better Greek match: Greek's KALYX means shell or pod or husk. KALYX is a direct hit, but it's ignored.
I suspect its because they are too married to the idea of regular, law-like sound change. I suspect Latin C = Greek KH is defined in their charts, and so a Greek K (in KALYX) violates the rule. And so it is ruled out.
They want to be scientists, and so uniform change is required. Even when clear semantics and practically identical sounds are staring them in the face.
|
|
|
|
 |
|
Pete Jones
Site Admin

In: Virginia
|
|
|
|
Apparently very long ago....[continued]
This is a bit long, but notice that the K-vowel-K structure carries through, while the meaning expands from "shell" to "spiral shell," to just a plain ol' geometric "spiral":
Alternatively connected to Akkadian 𒅆𒄖𒇲 (IGI.GU.LAâ‚‚ /â qÅ«qÄnuâ /, “an insect; a disease; a parasitic wormâ€)...
whence also Jewish Babylonian Aramaic ×§×•Ö¼×§Ö¸× Ö¸× (qÅ«qÄnÄ) and distorted Classical Syriac ܩܘܪܩܥÜÜ¢, Ü©Ü˜Ü Üܘܢ (“parasitic wormâ€) derive....
(distinguished from the borrowings of κογχÏλιον (konkhúlion) ܩܘܟÜÜ Üܘܢ (qÅ«kÄliyawn), Ü©Ü˜ÜŸÜ Üܘܢ (qÅ«kaliyawn), Ü©Ü˜ÜŸÜ ÜÜ (qÅ«kaliyÄ), Ü©Ü˜ÜšÜ ÜÜ (qūḥaliyÄ, “spiral shapeâ€)) |
That last script is Classical Syriac, where qūḥaliyÄ just means spiral shape. This language was from the early Christian centuries, apparently. K-vowel-K and Q-vowel-H are basically identical (even the linguists say so), because of the guttural pronunciation of that H.
Notice that Akkadian's meaning of "insect" is just a shelled animal still. In this case an exoskeleton.
What is the upshot?
|
|
|
|
 |
|
Pete Jones
Site Admin

In: Virginia
|
|
|
|
Contemporary English words like CAULK are present all the way back in Akkadian. And they are obviously connected if you trace back through some straightforward metaphors.
I guess there could be a loanword explanation, with the lending being traceable from modern English all the way back to the second millennium BC. That seems like a stretch. Even if there are 1,000-some phantom years of baloney chronology in there, it's still a long time.
But it's not just English and Akkadian (and Classical Syriac, Greek, and Latin)....
K'AK = shell (Dargwa, in the Caucasus)
KACSINT = shell (Hungarian)
QUAGGA = mussel (Dutch)
COKI = small shell (Tamil)
XAAK = shell (Tlingit)
COUCHE = shell (French)
HOGKI = shell (Naragansett Algonquian)
COCOYEHULOA = shell (Nahuatl)
KUGKU = snail (Aguaruana, in Brazil)
CAKKAR = spiral (Sanskrit)
KACS = tendril (a spiral vine) (Hungarian)
KUKU-O = shell (Rapa Nui)
I'll stop. It's everywhere but Australia (as far as I know). Typical.
|
|
|
|
 |
|
Mick Harper
Site Admin

In: London
|
|
|
|
The upshot is the existence of a world mind that moves in mysterious ways.
PS You have though provided my AE conversation-of-the-day. The AEL moves in mysterious ways.
|
|
|
|
 |
|
Pete Jones
Site Admin

In: Virginia
|
|
|
|
One effect, one cause, right?
Potential causes:
1. Mysterious world mind.
2. Some linguists think sounds are psychologically caused in a law-like manner and so vocabulary is not arbitrary.
3. Others (most) insist on arbitrariness and so would explain this by the idea that there was once only one language. But the last group would also insist that this first language has to be so old that we should at most find the barest scraps of it in modern languages. Certainly not a single word for something as straightforward as a seashell all over the world
|
|
|
|
 |
|
|