Revisiting Breivik

Q

How does speaking Norwegian give you a different lens on international news, especially regarding the Nordic region or energy?
https://www.quora.com/How-does-speaking-Norwegian-give-you-a-different-lens-on-international-news-especially-regarding-the-Nordic-region-or-energy/answer/Hans-Georg-Lundahl-2

Hans-Georg Lundahl

amateur linguist

5.IX.2025

I recall one item.

French media in 2011 reported that Norwegian Police had reported that the perpetrator was a “Fundamentalist Christian” …

I quickly found out he was anything but. The day after the killing, the Norwegian Freemasons, the “Johannislosjen” excluded Breivik because of his behaviour being at odds with Masonic values.

I linked to the pages on my blog, but they are taken down now. Meanwhile, it is very clear, Norwegian authorities are clueless about religion, and mistook “identitarian Christian” (someone who believes in Christian heritage being part of the National heritage, what Breivik clearly did believe) with “fundamentalist Christian” (someone who believes the doctrines and sacred scriptures of Christianity are literally true, which Breivik clearly did not believe).

More Linguistics Related

"A Modest Proposal" (No, not that one) · Linguistic Related · More Linguistics Related

Q I

Was Proto-Indo-European a real language spoken by ordinary people or a theoretical language used only by experts or people interested in the topic today?
https://www.quora.com/Was-Proto-Indo-European-a-real-language-spoken-by-ordinary-people-or-a-theoretical-language-used-only-by-experts-or-people-interested-in-the-topic-today/answer/Hans-Georg-Lundahl-1

Hans-Georg Lundahl

amateur linguist

28.VII.2025

Proto-Indo-European is a reconstructed language.

It exists in several versions.

One sometimes speaks about “when they spoke Proto-Indo-European” and this actually means more like “when they spoke what our Proto-Indo-European is a stand in for” …

And presuming it was one language.

If ever it was one, it certainly had some differences from our reconstructions. These are made by a will to avoid filling in un-known details. Hence all the word stems ending in a hyphen. If such a word stem actually belonged to a single language of which both Danish and Bengali are descended, like in Danish and Bengali, it had endings. So, showing a stem followed by a hyphen with no ending is certainly not on the “real language spoken by ordinary people” side, it’s only the “experts today” side. Again, “fish” has one word in Latin with descendants, Irish and Germanic (while Welsh has borrowed from Latin, borrowings don’t count the same way). It has another word in Ancient Greek and Lithuanian and possibly some other language (was it Armenian?) and yet another word in Slavic. This could be explained by one of the sides borrowing from non-Indo-European, it could be explained from a variation within PIE (like Sweden has “hink” or “spann” for bucket, depending on region, or like English can call the same kind of drink “soda pop” or “fizzy drink” depending on region), or it could be that a language with the fish/piscis/iasc gloss and another language with the ichthys/zhuvis gloss were existing independently and borrowed other traits common to Indo-European (like personal endings of verbs) from each other.

I

Hans-Georg Lundahl

To compare. One source for Tolkien’s Quenya was the desire to fill in words in the languages of NW Europe and even to some extent NE Europe that are NOT supposed to come in PIE. Icelandic álft for swan “explained” by Sindarin possibly “alph” which corresponds to Quenya “alqua” … Balto-Slavic word for arm or hand, the Lithuania form is directly copied in Quenya, except the spelling difference “ranka” vs “ranca” (In Lithuanian the C would instead be pronounced TS, not what’s in the word).

But here, Tolkien was not just making a purely scientific reconstruction, he wanted a usable language, so, he filled in lots of uncertainties. In fact, digging for pre-Indo-European West of where Finno-Ugrians were would mostly result in uncertainties, not even enough to write poetry in, so Tolkien “filled in” artistically … PIE doesn’t.

II

28.VII.2025

Peter Park

Also, most actual languages spoken by ordinary people have clusters of near-synonyms with overlapping or only fuzzily distinct meanings. Thus,, in modern English, we have clusters like mountain-hill-peak-range, stone-rock-boulder-pebble, river-stream-creek-brook, woman-wife-lady-dame-girl-maiden, child-kid, teenager-adolescent, snake-serpent, bug-insect, urine-piss-pee, penis-cock-prick-willie-weewee, speak-talk-say-tell, bad-evil-wicked, etc. So, when a given language divides into increasingly different dialects that eventually become distinct separate languages, one daughter-language may prioritize one word of such a cluster while another daughter-language prioritizes another word from that cluster.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

That’s also one possible explanation.

Q II

Is it possible for a language that seems radically different today to have an ancient connection to Proto-Indo-European that we just haven't discovered yet?
https://www.quora.com/Is-it-possible-for-a-language-that-seems-radically-different-today-to-have-an-ancient-connection-to-Proto-Indo-European-that-we-just-havent-discovered-yet/answer/Hans-Georg-Lundahl-1

Hans-Georg Lundahl

amateur linguist

28.VII.2025

I don’t think I really understand what you mean by “radically different” … several “branches of Indo-European” are radically different from each other, and we have still “discovered” that they are Indo-European.

Danish and Bengali are different.
Dansk og bengali er forskellige.
ড্যানিশ এবং বাঙালি ভিন্ন।
(=Ḍyāniśa ēbaṁ bāṅāli bhinna.)

Give me a fish, I’m Gollum.
Giv mig en fisk, jeg er Gollum.
আমাকে একটা মাছ দাও, আমি গোলম।.
(=Āmākē ēkaṭā mācha dā'ō, āmi gōlama.)

So, by now, a connection to Indo-European very probably would be discovered. I’d rather ask the opposite question: do all languages thought to be Indo-European really descend from the supposed Proto-Indo-European, or are they more like different languages influencing each other without total or sufficient assimilation? Sufficient for immediate understanding between monolinguals of each, that is.

I often take the Finnish verbal endings for the persons to say that, while Finnish isn’t Indo-European, it could have been a marginal member of the kind of Sprachbund I have in mind. There is still a reason why Finnish isn’t Indo-European. All Indo-European words seem to be borrowed from Iranian and Germanic languages, perhaps Baltic too, recently Slavic as well. Current reconstructions of Proto-Indo-European and sound law hypotheses for Finnish do not allow for Finnish to have inherited these words or the verb endings from PIE, as far as I know.

Q III

What archaeological culture did the first Indo-Europeans in Scandinavia belong to?
https://www.quora.com/What-archaeological-culture-did-the-first-Indo-Europeans-in-Scandinavia-belong-to/answer/Hans-Georg-Lundahl-1

Answer requested by

Collin Moore

Hans-Georg Lundahl

amateur linguist

1.VIII.2025

By “Indo-European” I suppose you mean Yamnaya.

Some recent studies in Spain have suggested the Yamnaya were rather speakers of Basque, which would explain the similarities between Basque and some Caucasus based languages. For those saying “no, Basque was a relict among Hunter Gatherers driven out by Yamnaya …” two observations from that study,[1] or, since I didn’t read it, from a youtube channel[2] the first[3] four videos of which are related to the study:

• The admixture of WHG in Basques is comparable to the admixture of AAF in Corded ware.
• If we compare Basques, not with Yamnaya, but with Corded Ware, the Corded Ware genome in Basques is comparable to the Yamnaya genome i Corded Ware.
• The rest of Spain was not into WHG genome, but in pre-Roman times clearly spoke a language related to Basque, for which the only source possible is Yamnaya.

That was actually a third observation.

Now, to your question as reformulated. Yamnaya genes came to Scandinavia through the Corded Ware culture and therefore with that admixture of AAF. Here[4] is University of Gothenburg:

Then 5,000 years ago, the next population turnover occurred, when people of the Corded Ware culture, with their genetic background in Eastern Europe, entered the scene.

“Around 2800 BCE, people of the Corded Ware culture, also called the Single Grave culture, immigrated to Denmark,” says archaeologist Karl-Göran Sjögren.

Footnotes

[1] Origins and spread of Indo-European languages: an alternative view – Ancient DNA Era
[2] Yamokante
[3] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3J18e8jEMQU
[4] New study unearths our Scandinavian ancestors

Q IV

How did Latin's vowel system change in the move to the Romance languages, and why is it so tricky to reconstruct?
https://www.quora.com/How-did-Latins-vowel-system-change-in-the-move-to-the-Romance-languages-and-why-is-it-so-tricky-to-reconstruct/answer/Hans-Georg-Lundahl-1

Hans-Georg Lundahl

none/ apprx Masters in Latin (language) & Greek (language), Lund University

1.VIII.2025

Latin’s vowel system on the front of the Classical language is simply NOT tricky to reconstruct, we already know it from grammarians.

The vowel system changed indeed, in different ways depending on different parts of the Empire, but grammarians didn’t note this, back then, other than as faults to be corrected. So, reconstructions have to be done, but they are by and large already made, not very tricky any more at least.

Latin had, apart from diphthongs, ten vowels. A, E, I, O, U times LONG / SHORT. On the way to Romance in most places the distinction long / short was lost, but replaced by other distinctions. So, before we get to Italian, Spanish, French, we find seven vowels. A, I and U as in Latin, A from both long and short, I and U from long only. Short I and long E become closed E. Short U and long O become closed O. Short E and O become open E and O. This is a simplification, not taking into account diphthongs and unaccented vowels. Italian basically keeps this, Spanish diphthongises open E and O, French diphthongises both open and closed E and O, in different ways, unless the syllable ended in a consonant (if that was it) and this preserved the original vowel (“sol” from “solum”) or it was unaccented (“sol-” in “soleil” from “solículum”). Spanish also refrains from diphthongising unaccented vowels (tiempo / temporal).

Sardinian and East Romance (Romanian and Dalmatian) had different simplifications of the Latin vowel system.

Joseph Foster

Rumanian diphthongizes those “open” or long /e:/ and /o:/ too when they have the word stress. But the actual phonetic details are different, e.g. Latin nokte-, Rumanian noapte ‘night’, so they happened independently of each other.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

I think that’s when they were close … not open.

Joseph Foster

May be. I’m not fluent in the close / open distinction and need to review it. Unstressed /o/ became /u/ in Rumanian.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

I’m mostly concerned with the stressed vowels. In each, unstressed vowels is an even other chapter, so I left that alone, I think the front vowels from Latin go to Proto-Romance like in Italian, French and Spanish, the back vowels like Sardinian.

In English, “hair” has a more open E sound and “bed” a more close one.

It’s possible the rule I am discussing also only applies to vowels in open syllables, which puts noctem / noapte outside this dicussion.

Aud-i-tum (long i) > ouï (i is preserved)

S-i-tem, r-e-gem (short i, long e) > soif, roi (diphthongisation of close e).

p-e-dem (short e) > pied (diphthongisation of open e).

I recall sth from a Spanish historic grammar about open or closed syllable being more relevant … but forget the details.

Q V

What is the language that is closest to Basque according to phonetics only?
https://www.quora.com/What-is-the-language-that-is-closest-to-Basque-according-to-phonetics-only/answer/Hans-Georg-Lundahl-1

Answer requested by

U Un

Hans-Georg Lundahl

amateur linguist

1.VIII.2025

Not sure if it’s Gascon or Castilian.

Unlike Basque they are both Romance, but they have phonetic changes that Basque also has. Leading to phonetic configurations that Basque also has.

Q VI

When learning a new language, how can a deeper understanding of its historical sound changes or grammatical evolution practically help a learner overcome common pronunciation or grammar hurdles?
https://www.quora.com/When-learning-a-new-language-how-can-a-deeper-understanding-of-its-historical-sound-changes-or-grammatical-evolution-practically-help-a-learner-overcome-common-pronunciation-or-grammar-hurdles/answer/Hans-Georg-Lundahl-1

Hans-Georg Lundahl

amateur linguist

2.VIII.2025

If you know some Latin, this thing can be very helpful with Spanish.

Q VII

If we had all the written records of an ancient language like Latin or Ancient Greek from beginning to end (texts, books, everything), could we revive that language?
https://www.quora.com/If-we-had-all-the-written-records-of-an-ancient-language-like-Latin-or-Ancient-Greek-from-beginning-to-end-texts-books-everything-could-we-revive-that-language/answer/Hans-Georg-Lundahl-1

Hans-Georg Lundahl

none/ apprx Masters in Latin (language) & Greek (language), Lund University

2.VIII.2025

Latin and Ancient Greek are already spoken and written, they don’t need reviving.

If we speak of sth that hasn’t survived to our day, there is a separate question of reconstructing it. Sumerian is a case in point, while we have sufficient texts, there are still questions of how certain signes were pronounced. I have seen Aram-Sin spelled as Naram-Lin just a few years ago on wikipedia, that’s because questions still need to be resolved.

Q VIII

Why would someone go to the trouble of creating a complex artificial language for a text like the Rohonc Codex, and what are the leading theories?
https://www.quora.com/Why-would-someone-go-to-the-trouble-of-creating-a-complex-artificial-language-for-a-text-like-the-Rohonc-Codex-and-what-are-the-leading-theories/answer/Hans-Georg-Lundahl-1

Hans-Georg Lundahl

amateur linguist

1.VIII.2025

For the leading theories on the Codex Rohonczi I refer to the wikipedia.[1]

As to the motive for an artificial language, simple fun … I have lacked the leisure to create a language, as I have to learn the guitar and the tin whistle, but each of this would have been fun, if I had had more time and less stress. In some cases (that would depend on content and the kind of people transmitting it through the codex) secrecy could be an added motive.

As to the evidence, I suggest you ask someone who is both a con-langer and alerted to the Rohonc codex a bit more than I am. I had to look it up on wikipedia. I simply don’t know.

Footnotes

[1] Rohonc Codex - Wikipedia
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rohonc_Codex

Q IX

Why is Ancient Greek considered a Indo-European language?
https://www.quora.com/Why-is-Ancient-Greek-considered-a-Indo-European-language/answer/Hans-Georg-Lundahl-2

Hans-Georg Lundahl

amateur linguist

2 years ago

Modern Greek is that too. But here we are dealing first with Ancient.

You have verb forms like (with forms for I, thou, he/she, we, ye, they):

δίδωμι, δίδως, δίδωσι(ν), δίδομεν, δίδοτε, διδόασι(ν)

This involves a presumed set of Proto-Indo-European verb endings or endings common to early Indo-Europan groups like:

-mi, -si, -ti, -men/-mes, -te, -nti

that is also reflected in Latin:

su-m, e-s, es-t, su-mus, es-tis, su-nt

(final -i is lost, you have early -mos instead of -mes, and for -te, you add an -s).

The verb itself is pretty obviously cognate to Latin “do” (which has a more regular -o instead of -mi), Sanskrit “dadati” and Polish “dawać, dać” …

You have so much common vocabulary that English and Russian share 25 % of the vocabulary beween the groups (I am not sure how much it is between English and Greek or Russian and Greek). You have so much common grammar that the groups that have been better at preserving endings still have paradigms like

daję, dajesz, daje, dajemy, dajeście, dają (Polish)

or Modern Greek:
δίνω, δίνεις, δίνει, δίνουμε, δίνετε, δίνουν.

The only question is, are these commonalities and similar ones sufficient to prove common ancestry or could a Sprachbund be the explanation? Nikolai Sergeyevitch Trubetskoy thought and I think the latter could be the case. But whether Indo-European languages are a family or a Sprachbund, it is a group and Greek belongs to it, Ancient and Modern.

I

2 years ago

Bojan Stare

Word in Polish isn`t do, but give. Same in Sanskrit and Greek.

And when you have gaven example - verb,you can also give us dual in English and Greeks languages. And of course in Sanskrit. Could you answer me how many of them you will find it?

Hans-Georg Lundahl

I never said any of above means English “do.”

I mentioned Latin “do” which means - give.

I will look up in Pokorny. Here is their article:

dō- : də-, auch dō-u- : dəu- : du-

English meaning to give

German meaning `geben'

Grammatical comments (perfektiv) Aoristwurzel mit sekundärem Präsens di-dō-mi.

General comments

Derivatives Nominalbildungen: dō-no-m, dō-ro-m, dō-ti-s, də-ti-s `Gabe', dō-tēr- `Geber', Partiz. dō-to-s, də-to-s, -d-to-s, Infinitiv dō-men-ai, dō-u̯en-ai

Material Ai. dá-dā-ti (Aor. á-dā-m, Opt. dēyām, Fut. dāsyáti, Aor. Med. ádita = gr. ἔδοτο, Inf. dámanē : gr. δόμεναι, vgl. lat. daminī, falls ursprüngl. Infinitiv) `gibt' (pāli dinna zu einem Präs. *di-dā-ti), av. dadāiti ds., apers. Imp. dadātuv `er soll geben'; Wurzelnomen ai. dā́[s] ástu `dator estu'; Infin. dā́tum (: lat. Supin. datum); Partiz. ditá-ḥ (unbelegt), sekundär dattá-ḥ, schwundstuf. in ā-t-tá-ḥ, prá-t-ta-ḥ `hingegeben', ablaut. in tvā́-dāta-ḥ `von dir gegeben', av. dāta-; zum Fut. ai. dāsyāmi (: lit. dúosiu) s. Schwyzer Gr. Gr. I 78811;

arm. ta-m `dō', ta-mk` `damus' (*də-i̯e-mi), Aor. etu (= á-dā-m, idg. *e-dō-m);

gr. δί-δω-μι `gebe', Aor. ἔδωκα, Opt. δοίην (*doii̯ēm). Fut. δώσω, Aor. Med. ἐδοτο, Partiz. δοτός, Infin. hom. δόμεναι und hom. thess. usw. δόμεν (suffixloser Lokativ);

ven. zoto `dedit' = gr. ἔδοτο; zonasto `dōnāvit' vielleicht aus *dōnā-s-to von einem denom. *dōnāi̯ō (*dōno-m : lat. dōnum); mess. pi-do (*dō-t : ai. a-dāt);

alb. da-shë Aor. `ich gab' (*də-sm̥);

lat. dō, dās, dat, dămus (*də-mós), dătis, dănt (sekundär fur *dent aus *(di)-dṇ-ti), alat. danunt; dedī, dătum, dăre `gebe, gewähre', refl. `begebe mich' (dās mit ā nach stā- für *dō = lit. duõ, dúo-k [Specht KZ. 55, 182], gr. hom. δί-δω-θι);

vest. di-de-t `dat', päl. di-da `det', umbr. dirsa, dersa, teřa `det' (*didāt), teřtu, dirstu, titu `dato' (*di-de-tōd), teřte `datur' (*di-da-ter), a-teřa-fust `circumtulerit' (*am-de-da-fos-t); osk. da[da]d `dedat' (*dād(-di)-dād), dadid `dederit' (*dād(-de)-dīd), di-de-st `dabit', dedet, umbr. dede `dedit' (= lat. dĕ-d-ĭt, alt dedet), umbr. teřust, dirsust `dederit' (*dedust), usw.; fal. porded `porrexit' (*por(-de)-ded);

redupl. Präsens ital. *di-dō(?) in lat. reddō (reddidī, redditum, reddere) `gebe zurück' aus *re-d(i)-dō (?) ist angeblich themat. Umgestaltung von *di-dō-mi; andere Komposita sind dē-dō, dī-dō, ē-dō, prō-dō, trā-dō und *ven-dō;

Partiz. lat. dătus `gegeben' = falisk. datu `datum', vest. data `data', päl. datas `datas' (: gr. δοτός); Supin. datum (: ai. Infin. dā́tum);

hierher vielleicht trotz WH. I 193 lat. ce-dō `gib her!' Pl. cette aus *ce-dəte (: gr. δότε);

lit. dúomi (heute sekundär dúodu, lett. duôdu, neugebildet zum alit. Ipv. duodi aus *dō-dhi-, ostlit. dúomu), 2. Sg. dúosi, 3. Sg. dúost(i) `gibt', apr. dāst ds., beruhen nach Kořínek Listy filol. 65, 445 und Szemerényi Et. Slav. Roum. 1, 7 ff. (vgl. E. Fraenkel Balt. Sprachw. 11 f.) nicht auf alter Reduplikation (angebl. *dō-də-mi, bsl. *dōdmi, 3. Sg. *dō-də-ti, bsl. *dōdti > *dōsti), sondern auf unreduplizierter athemat. Flexion (*dōmi, Pl. *dəmós); lit. dúosti, abg. dastъ sind Nachahmungen von lit. ė́sti `ißt' usw., die neben lit. *ė́(d)mi, abg. jamь (aus *ēd-m-) liegen, wo das d der Wurzel als suffixal empfunden wurde; zum Fut. lit. dúosiu s. oben S. 223.

Dasselbe würde gelten von aksl. damь `ich werde geben', 3. Pl. dadętь (nach jadętь usw.); aksl. dažda `Gabe' ist Analogiebildung nach *ědja `Essen', wo das d wiederum als Formans betrachtet wurde.

Infin. lit. dúoti, lett. duôt, apr. dāt (*dō-ti-) = aksl. dati, serb. dȁti, russ. datь.

Zum Prät. lit. daviaũ, lett. devu `gab' s. unten.

Partiz. *dō-na- in aksl. prě-danъ, serb. dân, čech. dán, klr. dányj `gegeben'; *dō-ta- ds. in apr. dāts, lit. dúotas, lett. duôts; einzelsprachl. Neuerungen sind serb. dial. dât, čech. dátý; dazu lit. duotina `mannbar', russ.-ksl. podatьnъ, russ. podátnyj `freigebig'; Supin. *dōtun `zu geben' in apr. daton (Infin.); lit. dúotų, aksl. otъdatъ, sloven. dat; vgl. slav. *datъ-kъ in sloven. dodâtɛk, poln. dodatek, russ. dodátok `Zugabe';

hitt. dā- `nehmen', 1. Sg. da-aḫ-ḫi (daḫḫi), 3. Sg. da-a-i (dāi), wird von Pedersen (Muršilis 68) und Kretschmer (Glotta 19, 207) hierher gestellt (`geben' - `für sich geben'- `nehmen'); dagegen Couvreur Ḫ 206 ff.

Nominalbildungen: ai. dā́tar-, dātár- `Geber', gr. δώτωρ, δωτήρ ds., schwachstufig δοτήρ, δότειρα, lat. dător, datrīx. - Ai. dātrá-, av. dāϑra- n. `Geschenk'.

*dō-tel- in aksl. dateljь (*dō-tel-i̯u-) `Geber', čech. udatel `Angeber', russ. dátelь `Geber'.

Ai. *dāti- `Schenkung, Gabe' in dā́ti-vāra- `gern verteilend, freigebig', havya-dāti- `die Opfergabe besorgend, das Darbringen des Opfers', av. dāiti- `Geben, Schenken, Gewährung', gr. δῶτις Hes. (und kons. St. *dō-t- in δώς) `Gabe', Δωσί-θεος, -φρων, lat. dōs, -tis `Mitgift', lit. Inf. dúoti: slav. *datь `Gabe' (z. B. in aksl. blagodatь `χάρις', russ. pódatь `Steuer'), Inf. dati; schwachstufig ai. díti-ḥ, gr. δόσις `Gabe', lat. dati-ō, -tiōnis (alt *-tīnes) `das Schenken' (Suffix wie in gr. δωτί̄νη `Gabe'); mit Vokalschwund in Enklise ai. bhága-tti- `Glücksgabe'.

Ai. dā́na- n. `Geschenk' (substantiviertes -no-Partiz.) = lat. dōnum, osk. usw. dunum ds. (duunated `dōnāvit'); cymr. dawn ds., air. dān m. `donum, ars, ingenium (Begabung)', vgl. slav. *danъ-kъ in serb. dának `Abgabe, Steuer' usw. und den -ni-St. aksl. danь `Abgabe, Zoll', lit. duõnis `Gabe'; schwachstufig alb. dhënë `gegeben', f. `Gabe, Abgabe', geg. dhânë;

gr. δῶρον `Geschenk' (-ro- in pass. Geltung, vgl. z. B. clā-ru-s), aksl. darъ `Gabe' (m. wie *danъkъ), arm. tur ds.;

ai. dāyá- `gebend', dāyá- m. `Geschenk', apreuß. dāian Akk. `Gabe', serb. prȍ-daja `Verkauf' (usw., Berneker 176).

Als 2. Kompositionsglied ai. -dā- z. B. in aśvadā́- `Rosse schenkend', slav. mit Überführung in die o-Dekl., z. B. russ. dial. pó-dy Pl. `Abgaben, Steuern', serb. prî-d `Draufgabe beim Tausch'; lit. priẽdas `Zugabe, Zulage'.

dō̆-u- liegt vor in ai. dāvánē `zu geben' (auch Perf. dadáu `habe gegeben'), av. dāvōi `zu geben', kypr. δυϝάνοι `er möge geben', Inf. δοϝεναι (über ark. Partiz. ἀπυ-δόας s. Schwyzer Gr. Gr. I 745 f.), kontrahiert hom.-att. δοῦναι;

lat. duim, duīs usw. `dem, dēs', Fut. II -duō, enthalten einen Aorist-stamm *du- aus *dou̯-; duim ist aus Optat. *-dou̯īm in den Kompositis entstanden (prō-duint aus *prō-dou̯int, usw.), dann auch bei Kompositis von *dhē- : per-duim, usw. Zum ital. Optativ *dou̯īm trat wohlerst sekundär im Umbr. und Fal. ein Präsens *dou̯iō in fal. doviad `möge gewähren' (es scheint daher lat. duam usw. in Kompositis geschwächtes *doviām zu sein), umbr. pur-dovitu, pur-tuvitu, -tuetu `porricito', purtuvies `porricies', umbr. purditom (*-d(o)u̯itom) `porrectum', purtiius (*d(o)u̯īus) `porrexeris', purtifile `*porricibilem', aus synkopiertem *por-d[o]u̯ī́- mit Wandel von du̯ zu d; in purdovitu Imper. wurde die Synkope durch den Indik. *pór-dovīt gehindert;

lit. daviaũ `ich gab', dovanà f. `Gabe', lett. dâvana f. `Gabe', Iterativ dãvât, dāvinât `anbieten, schenken', aksl. -davati `verteilen' (eine der Musterformen für die Iterative auf-vati).

Über as. twīthōn `gewähren' usw. s. unter deu-2 `freundlich gewähren'.

Here is the site, it will not link to each article, you need to toggle at a menu bar on the left to get to first the right letter then the right article:

J. Pokorny's Indo-European Etymological Dictionary [dead link]
https://indo-european.info/pokorny-etymological-dictionary/whnjs.htm

Hans-Georg Lundahl

“Could you answer me how many of them you will find it?”

After looking at what I just copied, for this one Germanic and Celtic are absent.

II

5.VIII.2025

Christopher Bader

The Indo-European languages are absolutely not a Sprachbund, that is a group of unrelated or distantly related languages that have converged in certain respects due to geographical proximity and population contact. Ancient Greek and Vedic Sanskrit were spoken thousands of miles apart, yet they are so similar that they must be genetically related.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Both the theory of a common ancestral language and the theory of convergence by geographic proximity (less so the theory of convergence by trade proximity, like there was trade between Villanova culture with Mycenaean clear influx and Denmark), both suppose that the geographic distance is secondary.

As to your specific example:

Mitanni[1] (c. 1550–1260 BC),[a] earlier called Ḫabigalbat in old Babylonian texts, c. 1600 BC;[1] Hanigalbat or Hani-Rabbat in Assyrian records,[b] or Naharin in Egyptian texts, was a Hurrian-speaking state in northern Syria and southeast Anatolia (modern-day Turkey)[2] with Indo-Aryan linguistic and political influences.

I suppose you are aware that the Aryan element in Mitanni is older than Vedic Sanskrit, and that East Anatolia is way closer to Greece than India is.

Footnotes

[1] Mitanni - Wikipedia
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mitanni

Q X

Do we have any written evidence of Indo-European languages before Sanskrit?
https://www.quora.com/Do-we-have-any-written-evidence-of-Indo-European-languages-before-Sanskrit/answer/Hans-Georg-Lundahl-1

Hans-Georg Lundahl

amateur linguist

2 years ago

Hittite, Mycenaean Greek, I am not sure what the language of the Mitanni is called (Hurrite or Mitanni?) but that one too. Luwian, Lydian. And in small inscriptions even Italic and Venetic.

Written evidence of Sanskrit only comes after Ashoka’s edict with its written evidence for Prakrit, a daughter language of Sanskrit or dialects contemporary to it.

4.VIII.2025

Stefan Speck

Hurrite is not Indo-European.

6.VIII.2025

[Cannot answer, he disabled the answer button, but he's correct, the Mitanni ruled over speakers of Hurrian, but their élite were speaking an Indo-European language, actually related to Vedic and Sanscrit, but older.]

Q XI

What makes Icelandic so conservative in keeping old letters like 'þ' and 'ð', compared to other Scandinavian languages?
https://www.quora.com/What-makes-Icelandic-so-conservative-in-keeping-old-letters-like-%C3%BE-and-%C3%B0-compared-to-other-Scandinavian-languages/answer/Hans-Georg-Lundahl-2

Hans-Georg Lundahl

amateur linguist

6.VIII.2025

Icelandic was from a certain point in the Middle Ages on not used as official language of an independent state. The official language from a certain point on was Danish. Icelandic was cultivated as a hobby.

Norwegian from a certain point on was in a similar position, except that only parts of Norway retained the original Norwegian close to Icelandic, other parts took over Danish with a changed pronunciation.

Danish and Swedish however hit the printing press as official languages of two kingdoms (one comprising also modern Finland, that’s Sweden, the other also Norway and Iceland, that’s Denmark). Printing was not at its absolute peak of sophistication, so Þ (thorn) got replaced with th, Ð (Eth) or mostly lower case ð got replaced with dh, and for good measure, g got replaced with gh in positions analogous to dh.

Since then Danish and Swedish both lost the sound of th, replacing the digraph with t (except in some pronouns where it was pronounced dh often enough and got replaced with d), while Icelandic didn’t. Once Icelandic became an interest for people with printing press, the letters Þ (thorn) and Ð (Eth) were by now easy to reproduce in print, and printers did.

Another question is why Icelandic was so phonetically conservative as to preserve thorn. Linguists have sometimes spoken of insular conservatism. While this has been invoked for English conserving thorn and w, Tolkien however pointed to the vicinity of Welsh, which also has both sounds. Ultimately a sound changing or remaining in a language is mysterious.

Q XII

How do you attempt to change the language in Vietnam?
https://www.quora.com/How-do-you-attempt-to-change-the-language-in-Vietnam/answer/Hans-Georg-Lundahl-2

Hans-Georg Lundahl

amateur linguist

6.VIII.2025

Why would I attempt it?

Ask “why” before “if” in some cases, and ask “if” before “how.”

I have neither occasion nor interest in changing the language of Vietnam, in fact I spell my Swedish differently precisely in order to refuse the changes imposed partly by élites and partly by the Government … my spelling and conjugation is basically early 19th C.

Q XIII

What historical events led to Switzerland's diverse linguistic landscape with German, French, Italian, and Romansh?
https://www.quora.com/What-historical-events-led-to-Switzerlands-diverse-linguistic-landscape-with-German-French-Italian-and-Romansh/answer/Hans-Georg-Lundahl-2

Hans-Georg Lundahl

amateur linguist

13.VIII.2025

• Switzerland started out as different micro-states that were not fully independent, in a region of Charlemagne’s Empire, at the linguistic border between French, German and Italian. Romansch is basically a South French to North Italian dialect. The position was similar in Lotharingia.
• They happened to coalesce around originally a few German cantons which, while in this Lotharingian middle were vassals under a Habsburg (whose ancestors came from there)[1] who lived several hundred km to the East, in Austria.
• Their de facto independence was not recognised at first, other than as banditry. In some places these bandits conquered (Ticino), in other places some city had a reason to prefer bandits over the own feudal liege lord (Geneva). The situation changed when the Westphalian Peace Treaty of 1648 recognised the Confederatio Helvetica. Obviously Popes (up to modern Antipopes) and French Kings employing Swiss guards did not consider the Swiss as all of them automatically bandits. Vorarlberg is more likely to recall the bad old days that way. Isn’t that so, Bregenz?[2] [3]
• In German, the main inspiration was rural independence, and so the main German is Swiss German. In French, the Genevans dominated and attempted linguistic perfection, which of course involved aligning more closely with Paris. In Italian, I would say “Italian” is parallel to the French and due to Swiss guards of Rome, while the Swiss Guards of Royal Paris contributed to the standard French nature of Swiss French, and I would say the more native form is more like Romansch. I could be wrong on that one.

Footnotes

[1] Habsburg Castle - Wikipedia
[2] DIE STADTRETTERIN GUTA
[3] SAGEN.at - Frau Guta

Q XIV

How do linguists determine the common roots of words across different Indo-European languages when phonetic and semantic changes have occurred?
https://www.quora.com/How-do-linguists-determine-the-common-roots-of-words-across-different-Indo-European-languages-when-phonetic-and-semantic-changes-have-occurred/answer/Hans-Georg-Lundahl-2

Hans-Georg Lundahl

amateur linguist

13.VIII.2025

If too many changes in semantics and phonetics have occurred, they don’t.

If a few of each have occurred since nearest example without them and they make sense, they do.

Make sense in the case of semantic changes: a salmon word turns into a general fish word, a sparrow word into a general bird word, a jump word into a salmon word (Latin saltare — salmo, whence English salmon). Salmons are fish, and the word that became “fish” in Tocharic is not “salmon” but “laks-” … Sparrows are birds, so Latin “passer” = sparrow has become Spanish “pajaro” = bird.

Make sense in the case of phonetics: basically having a more or less consistent reconstructed form and follow the sounds laws from the reconstructed (or sometimes documented) ancestor to the diverse languages.

Note, in many cases straight phonetic change is not all there is to it. In Latin, “solum” means soil and “solem” means sun. In Spanish “suelo” and “sol”, no problem. In French, straightforward phonetic change would make “sol” of both, but “sol” only means “soil” … “soleil” is from Latin (if it went that far back) *soliculum which would literally mean “little sun” … the sun is a smaller part of the visual field of the sky than the soil of the visual field on earth, so “sol” = “soil” and “sol-eil” (little “sol”) = “sun”.

Whatever happened to “piscis” (Latin) “iasc” (Irish) and “fish” it’s not just phonetic change from a same original word, since recostructing “pisc-is” makes it an I-stem, while “iasc” had to go back on an O-stem and “fish” seems to go back on a Consonant Stem.

It makes sense to assume that Lithuanian “vapsva” and Germanic “wasp / Wespe” have the same origin. According to Linguists, so has Polish “osa” … initial w woud disappear, sw woulc become s, and short A on the stem would become O, just as Lithuanian Algirdas is in Polish Olgerd. The P? Why not **opsa? Well, a consonant of the P, T, K, B, D, G, S types and some other types disappears in the Slavic languages at the end of a syllable. So, “vapsva” would become “osa” no problem. The actual problem is, given the amount of change, can we be sure that “osa” has no other origin?

Q XV

Could Neanderthals have developed complex language and problem-solving like modern humans, or was that impossible for them?
https://www.quora.com/Could-Neanderthals-have-developed-complex-language-and-problem-solving-like-modern-humans-or-was-that-impossible-for-them

Answers

Answer I

Hans-Georg Lundahl: Could Neanderthals have developed complex language and problem-solving like modern humans, or was that impossible for them?
https://www.quora.com/Could-Neanderthals-have-developed-complex-language-and-problem-solving-like-modern-humans-or-was-that-impossible-for-them/answer/Hans-Georg-Lundahl-1

Hans-Georg Lundahl

none/ apprx Masters in Latin (language) & Greek (language), Lund University

12.VIII.2025

No human could “develop complex language” and Neanderthals arguably spoke Hebrew like other pre-Flood people.

“Developing complex language” is an impossible task, it’s a task of invention, but you can’t start inventing until you have “complex” language.

They certainly did problem solving, like when finding out how to make glue or burn marrow fat with wicks.

Answer II

Steve Martin: Could Neanderthals have developed complex language and problem-solving like modern humans, or was that impossible for them?
https://www.quora.com/Could-Neanderthals-have-developed-complex-language-and-problem-solving-like-modern-humans-or-was-that-impossible-for-them/answer/Steve-Martin-325

Steve Martin

Former geophysicist, Christian & creationist

12.VIII.2025

Neanderthals were just ancient humans. They were not plagued by the decay & harmful mutations that we suffer, so could have done surprising things.

12.VIII.2025

Hans-Georg Lundahl

They were plagued by some harmful mutations, though.

Dispositions to diabetes and substance addiction are genes found in Neanderthals.

13.VIII.2025

Steve Martin

Really? As they lived far in the past they would have been closer to their creation & so in a better genetic state. Perhaps these nasty effects started at an early state.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Different lines degraded at different times.

For the line from Adam to Noah, only ten generations, intermingling with some Neanderthals involved part of the genetic misadaption showing in the post-Flood era. The Neanderthals in the days of Noah could have been many generations further away from Adam than Noah or even have some Nephelim admixture.

Steve Martin

For the line from Adam to Noah, only ten generations, intermingling with some Neanderthals

Where did these Neanderthals come from?

involved part of the genetic misadaption showing in the post-Flood era. The Neanderthals in the days of Noah could have been many generations further away from Adam

They would have to be Adam’s offspring.

than Noah or even have some Nephelim admixture.

We know the lineage to Noah.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

“Where did these Neanderthals come from?”

From Adam.

“They would have to be Adam’s offspring.”

I’m not objecting. But Noah was TEN generations off. What if a Neanderthal was TWENTY–FORTY generations off?

That would be an “age at birth of son” medium of 56 years, which is possible, for the number 40.

“We know the lineage to Noah.”

Yes, and he was of the Cro-Magnon race; not the Neanderthal race. However one or more of his three daughters in law was Neanderthal.

Steve Martin

I’m not objecting. But Noah was TEN generations off. What if a Neanderthal was TWENTY–FORTY generations off?

Then he would have been the 24th generation from Adam.

14.VIII.2025

Hans-Georg Lundahl

I didn’t say twenty-fortH. I said twenty-fortY.

So, 20th to 40th generation from Adam, further off from Adam than Noah was, precisely as I said. And therefore more mutations.

Steve Martin

Ok.

Q XVI

How do linguists use sound correspondences to track the evolution and splits of ancient languages over time?
https://www.quora.com/How-do-linguists-use-sound-correspondences-to-track-the-evolution-and-splits-of-ancient-languages-over-time/answer/Hans-Georg-Lundahl-2

Hans-Georg Lundahl

amateur linguist

16.VIII.2025

Let’s take a Germanic word.

• Fish in English and Fisch in German sound the same.
• Vis in Dutch has simply S instead of SH sound.
• Fisk in Swedish, Danish and Norwegian has two sounds, S and K.
• Fiskr / Fisk in Old Icelandic, Fiskur / Fisk in Modern Icelandic has an R / UR after the K in Nominative, while the Accusative exactly matches Swedish, Danish and Norwegian.

From this we could guess that first West Germanic split from North Germanic by turning SK into SH. Then German and English kept the SH sound while Dutch made it S. In North Germanic, the majority dropped an old Nominative, precisely as all West Germanic ones did while Icelandic kept a separate nominative.

So, Germanic splits into WG and NG, WG splits into Dutch and English-German, WG influences three NG languages, while Icelandic is more conservative.

Is this correct? Not quite. The split in WG is actually between German-Dutch and English-Frisian (I’ve left out Frisian, which I don’t know even how to read and more or less write). The SK to SH is a common development of German and English, after they split, and in Dutch, it’s actually SK > SX >S.

But add more words, and things will clear up. Note, a Nominative form is actually outside this question, since you asked about sound correspondences, and here we have morphology, which is different.

Now, this kind of thing, if repeated often enough, will bring out the splits provided there is a common ancestral tongue the languages descend from, and may also give the illusion of splits when it comes to languages that influenced each other long ago, without ever being the same. I’d say Indo-European could be in the risk zone for it. I e for an illusory history of common descent, when it was more like common developments of non-identic languages affected mutually borrowed words in the same way.

English and Icelandic have a closer distance than English and Italian.

The distance between English and Icelandic is: 42,8 (meaning proximity is 57,8).
The distance between English and Italian is: 52,5 (meaning proximity is 47,5).
The distance between English and Polish is: 59,0 (meaning proximity if 41,0).
The distance between English and Persian is: 77,3 (meaning proximity is 22,7).
The distance between English and Finnish is: 85,6 (meaning proximity is 14,4).

These results come from an online calculator for comparing the relatedness of languages.[1] Let me analyse.

Italian and English are both Indo-European and part of the West European Sprachbund.
Polish and English are both Indo-European and part of the European Sprachbund, of which the West European one is a subset, but Polish is not West European.
Persian and English are both Indo-European. Persian is neither part of the West European or of the European Sprachbund.

How can I show that English and Icelandic share a common ancestor? Is there a bridge?

The distance between English and Swedish is: 31,0 (meaning the proximity is 69,0).
The distance between Icelandic and Swedish is: 20,0 (meaning the proximity is 80,0).

I can do even better, there is a bridge between English and Swedish:

The distance between Dutch and English is: 21,8
The distance between Dutch and Swedish is: 20,7

There is no similar bridge between English and Italian, English and Polish and English and Persian, one that would be closely related to both, even if they are less closely related to each other. And no one pretends that English is related to Finnish (not even Tove Jansson).

However, English and Persian by 77,3 % distance comes closer to English and Finnish by 85,6 than to English and Italian by 52,5.

Nevertheless, there are words that can trace splits even between Finnish and English. Kuningas is related to king. Because borrowed words will also follow sound correspondences due to sound changes in each language. The article King of the Romans[2] is in Finnish Roomalaisten kuningas[3]

Footnotes

[1] online genetic proximity calculator
[2] King of the Romans - Wikipedia
[3] Roomalaisten kuningas – Wikipedia

16.VIII.2025

Hans-Georg Lundahl

For those that did not understand all of the context, Germanic is a “branch of Indo-European” … English, Dutch, German, Swedish, Danish, Norwegian and Icelandic all belong to it. The first three are called West Germanic, the other four North Germanic.

Italian is part of Romance, descendant of Italic, other “branch of Indo-European”, Polish of Slavic, again another “branch of Indo-European,” Persian of Indo-Iranian, again another “branch of Indo-European” while Finnish is part of Uralic which is NOT Indo-European.

Between French and Spanish, the distance was actually closer, under 30 %, and not too dissimular between French and Portuguese, but there were clearly bridges (French, Provençal, Catalan, Spanish, Portuguese, the distance is always less than 20 %).

Linguistic Related

"A Modest Proposal" (No, not that one) · Linguistic Related · More Linguistics Related

Q I

How can linguists tell which languages are related to each other, and how distantly?
https://www.quora.com/How-can-linguists-tell-which-languages-are-related-to-each-other-and-how-distantly/answer/Hans-Georg-Lundahl-1

Hans-Georg Lundahl

amateur linguist

14.VII.2025

It’s not always that they can, if “related” means “descend from common parents language”.

When it comes to languages as closely related as Dutch and English or Spanish and French, there is basically no doubt they are related (or, if Germanic languages descend from more than one parents language, all descend from both or all, not one from one and other from other with mutual influences).

Similarily Finnish and Sapmi, Turkish and Azeri and so on …

But when it comes to saying Germanic and Romance both (supposedly) descend from Proto-Indo-European, I find that as uncertain as saying Finnish and Turkish both descend from Proto-Altaic. Hint: an Altaic unity has been proposed, pretty accepted, and then rejected.

As unsure as it would be if one proposed Altaic, Indo-European, Eskimo-Aleutic all descended from Nostratic, which some do.

If all examples of languages having both differences and similarities and the similarities well beyond pure coincidence were just explained by the languages starting identic and drifting apart, fine, if so one could certainly make a case for knowing “German is more related to Dutch than to French, more to French than to Finnish, more to Finnish (possibly even) than to Greenlandic Eskimo” … but the problem is, another process can also explain it, they start out unrelated, they then are spoken in areas with lots of bilingual speakers and so both words and systematic features are mutually borrowed.

One of the cases for Altaic was vowel harmony. Here is current wikipedia[1] on that vowel harmony:

There are some proposed sound correspondences for Tungusic languages. For example, Norman (1977) supports a Proto-Tungusic *t > Manchu s when followed by *j in the same stem, with any exceptions arising from loanwords. Some linguists believe there are connections between the vowel harmony of Proto-Tungusic and some of the neighboring non-Tungusic languages. For example, there are proposals for an areal or genetic correspondence between the vowel harmonies of Proto-Korean, Proto-Mongolian, and Proto-Tungusic based on an original RTR harmony. This is one of several competing proposals, and on the other hand, some reconstruct Proto-Tungusic without RTR harmony.

Obviously, “areal” means, they borrowed this feature from each other, “genetic” means a reference to common parent language. In other words, linguists don’t know, it could have happened either way. If the differences are bigger than the similarities, areal features may take less time, if they are on the other hand smaller than the similarities (as with German and Dutch) a common parent language takes less time.

A Creationist and an Evolutionist will disagree on which explanation for Nostratic language similarities is the better one. So, if Nostratic is genetic, Proto-Nostratic was spoken “If the Nostratic hypothesis is true, then Proto-Nostratic was most likely spoken between 15,000 and 12,000 BCE.”[2] Now, as a Creationist, I don’t believe that date even existed. The carbon dates would correspond[3] to actual dates, in my own somewhat amateur table:

2699 BC (!)
20.835 pmC, dated as 15,666 BC

2691 BC
Eber born

2686 BC
24.08 pmC, dated as 14,456 BC
…
2660 BC
30.555 pmC, dated as 12,461 BC

2647 BC
33.784 pmC, dated as 11,618 BC

So, obviously, for Nostratic similarities, I prefer areal features. I make a similar point about Indo-European and Altaic.

Footnotes

[1] Tungusic languages - Wikipedia
[2] https://study.com/academy/lesson/nostratic-language-family-history-research-reconstruction.html
[3] Newer Tables, Flood to Joseph in Egypt

Q II

Is Italy as simple a language as English?
https://www.quora.com/Is-Italy-as-simple-a-language-as-English/answer/Hans-Georg-Lundahl-1

Answer requested by

Md.Shakhawath Hossan

Hans-Georg Lundahl

amateur linguist

9.VII.2025

Probably a bit simpler overall.

• simpler spelling
• fewer tenses (English has sixteen)
• simpler declinsion (Italian only has plurals, positions, prepositions).

On the more complexities for Italian side:

• more Italian tenses are simple and therefore sometimes irregular
• the declinsion of Italian pronouns is less simple.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

14.VII.2025

Italian, not Italy, by the way. Italy is the country.

Q III

How do we know that Classical Latin had nasal vowels? For example, how do we know that "monstrum" was pronounced [ˈmõː.strũː] as Wiktionary suggests and not [ˈmon.strum] in c.100 BC-100 AD? Have French and Portuguese retained nasal vowels from Latin?
https://www.quora.com/How-do-we-know-that-Classical-Latin-had-nasal-vowels-For-example-how-do-we-know-that-monstrum-was-pronounced-%CB%88m%C3%B5%CB%90-str%C5%A9%CB%90-as-Wiktionary-suggests-and-not-%CB%88mon-strum-in-c-100-BC-100-AD-Have/answer/Hans-Georg-Lundahl-1

Answer requested by

Dan Kost

Hans-Georg Lundahl

none/ apprx Masters in Latin (language) & Greek (language), Lund University

14.VII.2025

Latin lost nasal vowels and French and Portuguese got new ones.

How we know? Like we know French and Portuguese have them now. For how the language was pronounced, we don’t just have the spelling, we also have grammarians describing it.

Q IV

How many words do I need to create a language? I have the structure, I just need to build my vocabulary.
https://www.quora.com/How-many-words-do-I-need-to-create-a-language-I-have-the-structure-I-just-need-to-build-my-vocabulary/answer/Hans-Georg-Lundahl-1

Answer requested by

Aileana Rose

Hans-Georg Lundahl

amateur linguist

11.VII.2025

What do you want the language FOR?

If you want to replace Esperanto, you need pretty many words.

If you want to write a few poems by imagined populations, you need about as many words as there are in the poems. Consequently, not surprisingly, Quenya actually has fewer words than Esperanto. Shocking, I know, but that’s the fact.

Q V

How do linguists use historical reconstruction to determine if a language was originally ergative or accusative, especially when written records are scarce?
https://www.quora.com/How-do-linguists-use-historical-reconstruction-to-determine-if-a-language-was-originally-ergative-or-accusative-especially-when-written-records-are-scarce/answer/Hans-Georg-Lundahl-2

Hans-Georg Lundahl

amateur linguist

8.VI.2025

If all daughter languages are consistently accusative, one presumes the parent language was accusative, if they are ergative, ergative.

If the languages differ, or if there are inconsistencies about accusative / ergative within a language, linguists would probably argue both hypotheses, one arguing one, another arguing the other.

I think the linguists who argue ergative for original PIE do so because of traits they don’t find totally consistent with fully accusative type, in some of the daughter languages.

Q VI

How do constructed languages (like Esperanto) handle agglutination, and do they draw any inspiration from Indo-European examples?
https://www.quora.com/How-do-constructed-languages-like-Esperanto-handle-agglutination-and-do-they-draw-any-inspiration-from-Indo-European-examples/answer/Hans-Georg-Lundahl-2

Hans-Georg Lundahl

amateur linguist

13.VI.2025

Constructed languages are not one family, there are many differences between Esperanto and Quenya, and also between them and Proto-Indo-European.

It depends who is constructing, what he is constructing it for (Esperanto as auxiliary language, Quenya as art language, PIE as linguistically reconstructed language) and (apart from the last category) personal choices.

So, the short answer is “in different ways” and the question is, by the term “constructed languages” so broadly asked, I cannot give a longer or more exhaustive answer.

Q VII

Is it possible to reach b2 level bulgarian in 1 year?
https://www.quora.com/Is-it-possible-to-reach-b2-level-bulgarian-in-1-year/answer/Hans-Georg-Lundahl-2

Hans-Georg Lundahl

amateur linguist

10.VII.2025

1. Depends on your native language or previous good level foreign languages. Is it or one of them Slavic? If so, probably yes.
2. Also depends on your learning routine. If you immerse yourself in Bulgarian several hours a day for one year, without skipping a day and without skipping the grammar, probably yes or at least B1, even if you don’t speak any Slavic language prior to Bulgarian.

Q VIII

How significant were the Silk roads in mixing cultures and languages between Mesopotamia and Asia? Could this explain linguistic similarities?
https://www.quora.com/How-significant-were-the-Silk-roads-in-mixing-cultures-and-languages-between-Mesopotamia-and-Asia-Could-this-explain-linguistic-similarities/answer/Hans-Georg-Lundahl-2

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Studied Latin (language) at Lund University

10.VII.2025

Oh, on the last question, maybe could. Obviously depends on how long it has been at work for.

Speaking of that, did you know that European branches of Indo-European had a cross road from the Mediterranean to Denmark in 1400–1200 BC. Maybe also could explain a few similarities now put down to common heritage from PIE.

On the first question, I don’t know much on the subject, but I would say very important. Just my spontaneous hunch from half remembered items of information and things.

Q IX

How do people balance the cultural importance of regional languages with the practical difficulties of learning them?
https://www.quora.com/How-do-people-balance-the-cultural-importance-of-regional-languages-with-the-practical-difficulties-of-learning-them/answer/Hans-Georg-Lundahl-2

Hans-Georg Lundahl

amateur linguist

10.VII.2025

1. What people? Locals already know them.
2. For non-locals, that’s up to their taste!

Q X

Why do people say Finnish is more complex than French? What makes Finnish grammar so challenging compared to other European languages?
https://www.quora.com/Why-do-people-say-Finnish-is-more-complex-than-French-What-makes-Finnish-grammar-so-challenging-compared-to-other-European-languages/answer/Hans-Georg-Lundahl-2

Hans-Georg Lundahl

amateur linguist

11.VII.2025

Totally depends on which language you start with.

Finnish has more noun cases than French. But French has more verb forms than Finnish.

Q XI

If English "tear" shares the same Indo-European root as Latin "lacrima" and Greek "dacryma", why is there no trace of the 'c' sound in the English word? Why is it not spelt "teighr", as Indo-European *k usually gives 'gh' in English (as in "eight")?
https://www.quora.com/If-English-tear-shares-the-same-Indo-European-root-as-Latin-lacrima-and-Greek-dacryma-why-is-there-no-trace-of-the-c-sound-in-the-English-word-Why-is-it-not-spelt-teighr-as-Indo-European-k-usually-gives-gh-in/answer/Hans-Georg-Lundahl-2

Answer requested by

Teo Samarzija

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Studied Latin (language) at Lund University

12.VII.2025

Whether or not “Indo-European” is the true origin of the word or not, pre-Germanic to Germanic gives k > χ, and then from there:

• χ > h word initially
• χ = ach-laut and χ > ich-laut in some other positions, spelled -gh (eight used to be pronounced eiçt)
• χ > disappears, and sooner in some positions (like before -r) than in others (eight lost the sound only later).

Pokorny states that 316. dak̂ru- occurs in Greek (from whence borrowed into Latin), in Celtic, both P and Q) and in Germanic. A similar word 50. ak̂ru occurs in Indo-Iranian, Lithuanian, Tocharian.

"A Modest Proposal" (No, not that one)

"A Modest Proposal" (No, not that one) · Linguistic Related · More Linguistics Related

Q

Could adding new letters to the English alphabet ever solve its spelling inconsistencies, or is it just too complicated?
https://www.quora.com/Could-adding-new-letters-to-the-English-alphabet-ever-solve-its-spelling-inconsistencies-or-is-it-just-too-complicated/answer/Hans-Georg-Lundahl-1

Hans-Georg Lundahl

amateur linguist

5.VII.2025

Either new letters or new letter combinations and reuse of the ones already there would solve the inconsistencies.

However, the result would be a very drastic change in spelling, comparable to the one between Anglo-Saxon and Middle English.

That means, the first generation which could only use the new spelling would be incapable of reading texts from when the older (current) spelling was (is) the only one. They would need to learn it nearly like learning a foreign language, or, if not, forego a Fantastic Four from 1970 or a novel by Chesterton from 1914, unless it had been transscribed into the new spelling.

As it is, we can read books from centuries ago, since at least for some of them we can access dictionary comments on what words have changed meaning and on what meanings had different words back then, plus in quite a few cases it would be obvious from context.

I didn’t find Shakespear all that daunting. This is because we have preferred keeping the spelling over changing it and so making it consistent with a changing pronunciation.

Another problem with your proposal is, if you wanted to change English spelling to a condition consistent with today’s pronunciation, which one? London? New York? York, Edinburgh, Dublin? What’s inconsistent in one pronunciation is consistent in another one.

So, to anyone who knows about language and loves letters, which maybe really isn’t you, your proposal is way too costly for way too little to gain. It’s not phonetics that’s too complicated. It’s the kind of things that happen when spelling or pronunciation rules change. Like in 800 to 813, an Englishman[1] came to Tours to improve the pronunciation of Latin in Church. The attempt was successful, and yes it went on beyond his death in 804. But by 813 it was clear, Latin in Church was no longer the high style of a language everyone understood, it was a foreign language.

I’ll now cite what happened in 813 from wiki[2]

A Council of Tours in 813 decided that priests should preach sermons in rusticam romanam linguam (rustic romance language) or Theodiscam (German),[10] a mention of Vulgar Latin understood by the people, as distinct from the classical Latin that the common people could no longer understand.[11] This was the first official recognition of an early French language distinct from Latin.[12]

Theodiscam probably was closer to Dutch than to German. But the language of the people was not “Vulgar Latin” as a language originally distinct from Classical Latin, the language of the people was the continuation of Classical Latin, and the thing that made it no longer understandable was the change in pronunciation as per Alcuin of Tours. In 813, it’s a bit early to call this popular language “early French” because that took an extra step or two: applying approximately same pronunciation rules to show the pronunciation of the popular language, first example we have preserved being from 842[3] and then making this a regular feature, not a solution to help out a foreigner, first example of the regular feature we have observed being from around 880.[4]

So, rebooting spelling rules or pronunciation rules can result in language divorce, which is how I would describe what happened between Alcuin arriving in Tours and another cleric writing Sequence of Saint-Eulalia. Sorry for not sharing your enthusiasm.

Footnotes

[1] Alcuin - Wikipedia
[2] Council of Tours - Wikipedia
[3] Oaths of Strasbourg - Wikipedia
[4] Sequence of Saint Eulalia - Wikipedia

Anti-Industrialism Is Not Catharism

Q: Why was J.R.R. Tolkien against industrialization?
https://www.quora.com/Why-was-J-R-R-Tolkien-against-industrialization/answer/Hans-Georg-Lundahl-2

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Studied Latin (language) at Lund University

Jun 2nd, 2025

Take a look at the video How One Company Secretly Poisoned The Planet[1] — or take a look at a car accident.

Cars had been one of the products of industrialism Tolkien enjoyed most in his youth. Then he thought about it, and one thing that came to his mind was a hit and run ending in a death in Paris, which he had witnessed. It also hit him how much land was sacrificed to parking places and to roads in asphalt.

Back then, there was lead in car fuel. So, every mile ridden in a car contributed to poison the air somewhat. Fortunately, this is now forbidden.

His friend C. S. Lewis never used zips. For trousers, he had buttoned ones, because a button can be sewn back to its place fairly easily by hand. Sewing a whole new zipper is wastful, since the whole thing is discarded for just one tooth out of place, and hard unless you know how to sew them on by sewing machines. Which CSL didn’t, and, though I’ve seen it done, I don’t know either.

Canned food is obviously less pleasant than freshly cooked, unless you are good at seasoning. Farmers in a pre-industrial society tend to be majority population and well off and easy going compared to farmers in an industrial society, indebted, menaced if small, always in a hurry to make ends meet.

So, if you like farmers to be many and happy, if you prefer no car hits and (back then) no lead in the atmosphere, if you prefer buttons over zips, cooking from raw ingredients over cans, what would make you love industrialism?

Footnotes

[1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SC2eSujzrUY

Latin and Italian

Q: When the Roman Empire fell, was it the end of Latin as a speaking language? When did Italian become the speaking language of Italy?
https://www.quora.com/When-the-Roman-Empire-fell-was-it-the-end-of-Latin-as-a-speaking-language-When-did-Italian-become-the-speaking-language-of-Italy/answer/Hans-Georg-Lundahl-1

Answer requested by

Christopher Panzner

Hans-Georg Lundahl

none/ apprx Masters in Latin (language) & Greek (language), Lund University

8.VI.2025

Pentecost Sunday of 2025

No.

Let’s first distinguish spoken and written language.

In spoken language, there is a slow gradation between Latin and Italian. Already 100 AD “Homo vidit Caesarem” would have been pronounced, no longer “homaw weeditt kyessarem” but “homoh veedit kayssarem” (English values for “ye” and “ay”). Those changes persist into modern Italian. As late as 1300, I think, one would have in Italian called a king “rege” inherited from Latin “regem” which was later shortened to “rè” that being the modern version in Italian.

However, there was a definite shift from when the spoken language was still, more and more awkwardly, spelled as Latin, and when one started to spell it as Italian instead. As in France such a shift came between 813 (change of Latin pronunciation to way older versions still surviving in England) and something like 880 (Canticle of St. Eulalia), in Spain and Italy that shift came about 200 years later. In Spain it also took decades between a council in Burgos, parallel to the Council of Tours and precursors, and a first literary text (El Cantar del mio Cid).

However, I think in Italy, importation of French and Provençal literature gave an impulse to writing in the actual regional vernacular where one was. The oldest known poem is Salv’a lo vescovo senato[1] which mentions two bishops both of whom ceased to rule in 1157, some 40 years earlier than El Cid.

Imagine writing the English of Chaucer. But you pronounce it in Modern English. This means, your spoken language is not giving you all the necessary clues to write it correctly. This is how writing Latin was before this kind of shift (in France, Italy, Spain, as said).

Also, the Roman Empire fell, if it did, in 1918. The last East-Roman Emperor, also known as Czar, was shot with his family. The last West-Roman Emperor, also known as Kaiser, left the Hofburg of Vienna. But obviously, after the date you think of, 4 September 476 (initiating a lack of West-Roman Emperors up to Charlemagne), Latin was still the written language, and spelling your native spoken language as Latin was not much harder than it had been some decades earlier for St. Jerome when he translated the Vulgate.

EDIT: My bad, 813 didn’t mark the attempt to restore Latin pronunciation, that had begun in Tours in 799 or 800, it marked the date when one realised the new (old) Latin was not being learned by common people. Imagine an Anglican reading from King James were to take up the Middle English Wycliff Bible instead (if the extant Middle English Bible is from Wycliff), and pronouncing it with correct Middle English pronunciation (example from Chaucer provided in footnote[2] ) and tried to teach it to the congration and failed … 813 is when he gave up.

EDIT II: While the fall of the Roman centralism in the Latin Western part didn’t exactly change the language over night, it speeded up change, by removing part of the structures previously teaching Latin in its most classic form and that means, changes were no longer restrained by that curriculum.

Footnotes

[1] bibliotheca Augustana [R i t m o l a u r e n z i a n o]
[2] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mVG77xTPH6E

Abortion is Still Murder

Q: What if a very young girl (aged under 15) gets pregnant because she is raped, and abortion is illegal in her country? How is that fair on the young girl? She was raped, she didn’t ‘choose’ to have sex so that’s not an argument.
https://www.quora.com/What-if-a-very-young-girl-aged-under-15-gets-pregnant-because-she-is-raped-and-abortion-is-illegal-in-her-country-How-is-that-fair-on-the-young-girl-She-was-raped-she-didn-t-choose-to-have-sex-so-that-s-not-an/answer/Hans-Georg-Lundahl-1

Hans-Georg Lundahl

none/ apprx Masters in Latin (language) & Greek (language), Lund University

3 years ago

While it is perhaps unfair on her, it would be still more unfair to the unborn baby to abort it, and it is clearly not always the choice of such young mothers to abort, they are more than once under pressure when doing it.

Even a girl of 12 or 13 would agree it wasn’t the baby who raped her.

I

Person

2 years ago

Pregnancy can be very dangerous. Especially if it’s going to be a child or 11, or so. Why not a legal abortion?

Hans-Georg Lundahl

11.V.2025

In an emergency when there is a question of saving one life or none at all, I wouldn’t punish a doctor saving the mother if he did no other act to kill the baby.

II

Person

2 years ago

But it’s not a baby, it’s an underdeveloped mass. Also, this would probably lead to the mother setting the baby up for adoption. We might end up with a lot of parentless children. How is it fair to make them suffer the ‘cruelties’ of life? Also, it’s still an underdeveloped mass.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

11.V.2025

“it’s an underdeveloped mass.”

False.

“Also, this would probably lead to the mother setting the baby up for adoption.”

I’m also for lowering the marital age, so the mother and father could marry.

“We might end up with a lot of parentless children.”

Given all childless couples who have contracepted and married late, even awaiting the lowering of marital age, not very likely.

“How is it fair to make them suffer the ‘cruelties’ of life?”

Yeah, you seem so harrassed by them, should one kill you, on that logic? If not, why not?

“Also, it’s still an underdeveloped mass.”

Also, still false.

To be clear: underdeveloped may be correct if compared to viability outside the womb, but “mass” is a totally inadequate description of a human being. Apart obviously, from weight calculations. “The boat has 25 passengers and the mass must be correctly distributed,” fine, but “mass” in this context isn’t.

Language Related, Conlangs, Language Policy, Indo-European, Language Origin

Actually some time since I had a series of language related quora questions appear as a post here. Time for a new one:

Conlangs

Hans-Georg Lundahl shared
https://www.quora.com/profile/Hans-Georg-Lundahl-2/One-could-add-that-while-Atlantean-is-fictitious-as-native-language-of-the-submarine-population-it-is-not-fictitious-a

Studied Latin (language) at Lund University

Jan 25 2025

One could add that, while Atlantean is fictitious as native language of the submarine population, it is not fictitious as vocabulary and grammar that are functional enough to write movie lines in.

That’s why linguists don’t refer to such things as “fictitious languages” plus the obvious that the term refers to sth else, to when not just the native language or whatever of a population doesn’t have that population, but when it doesn’t even have words and grammar.

Q I

What language is used in the Justice League and Aquaman movies to represent the Atlantean language? Is it English or a fictional language?
https://www.quora.com/What-language-is-used-in-the-Justice-League-and-Aquaman-movies-to-represent-the-Atlantean-language-Is-it-English-or-a-fictional-language/answer/Hans-Georg-Lundahl-2

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Studied Latin (language) at Lund University

Jan 25 2025

If it’s English, then Atlantean is a fictional language.

If it’s a “fictional language” it’s not fictional but constructed.

In the real novel by Gilbert Keith Chesterton, The Return of Don Quixote[1], there is a fictional play, Blondel the Troubadour. There are lines quoted from Blondel the Troubadour, and those lines are obviously real lines of poetry. But all the other lines of the play are fictional, because Chesterton didn’t write them and because the novel character supposed to have written the play doesn’t exist.

So, if what we hear in the movies (which I have not seen) is English, then Atlantean is fictional. If instead we hear some words of Atlantean, at least for those words Atlantean isn’t fictional but constructed.

Looking up the word “Atlantean language” it seems it’s actually constructed[2] , namely by Mark Okrand.[3] He probably didn’t construct a complete language, at least not yet, but he very probably constructed lots more of it than just what is heard or written in the films. The actors did take very real and not fictional language lessons in order to master, as comprehensible language, the lines they were saying in Atlantean.

Footnotes

[1] http://www.gkc.org.uk/gkc/books/Don_Quixote.txt
[2] Atlantean language - Wikipedia
[3] Marc Okrand - Wikipedia

Q II

Can a fictional language be created and used as a native tongue?
https://www.quora.com/Can-a-fictional-language-be-created-and-used-as-a-native-tongue/answer/Hans-Georg-Lundahl-2

Hans-Georg Lundahl

amateur linguist

Dec 3 2024

I think there was a child who was raised in Klingon.

So, he is a native speaker of Klingon, even if he quit using it at age five, so perhaps “was” would be more appropriate.

A conlang or constructed language for long is actually a better term. A language is “fictional” if it is stated in a fictional work as existing. It is constructed if it is actually shown. So, in Lord of the Rings Westron is a fictional language, consistently replaced with English, but Quenya is a constructed language, with a poem by Galadriel and an Oath of Elendil as actual samples.

Constructed languages can be constructed to the level of completion when one can use them, Esperanto is in principle no different from Quenya, and Esperanto is usable. And any language which one can use, one can also transmit to children.

Q III

How would you create a new language? What factors would you consider in designing its writing and pronunciation?
https://www.quora.com/How-would-you-create-a-new-language-What-factors-would-you-consider-in-designing-its-writing-and-pronunciation/answer/Hans-Georg-Lundahl-2

Hans-Georg Lundahl

amateur linguist

Oct 31 2024

Totally depends on what you would want it for.

Artlangs like Quenya or Black Speech, obviously a good portion of beauty or ugliness.

Auxiliary languages, and I’d priorise those spanning a region of related languages, the maximum matches and minimum dysmatches of words in the auxiliary language and any really occurring language of the region.

Language politics

Q IV

What language would be most beneficial for a Uyghur to learn?
https://www.quora.com/What-language-would-be-most-beneficial-for-a-Uyghur-to-learn/answer/Hans-Georg-Lundahl-2

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Studied Latin (language) at Lund University

23.III.2025

Normally Uyghur and Chinese, both.

Q V

Do you believe there will be a time when learning multiple languages is no longer necessary? If so, what language do you think will become the universal language and why?
https://www.quora.com/Do-you-believe-there-will-be-a-time-when-learning-multiple-languages-is-no-longer-necessary-If-so-what-language-do-you-think-will-become-the-universal-language-and-why/answer/Hans-Georg-Lundahl-2

Hans-Georg Lundahl

amateur linguist

Mar 14 2025

Learning multiple languages is already not necessary, it’s an option to get the opportunities that learning languages gives you, not a life necessity.

I do NOT believe that there will be a universal language, or, if there is, that it will totally replace the others.

God confused the languages because it served and still serves a purpose. And one is, preventing too much unity among those who disobey God, and another is, learning languages is an occasion for humility.

Q VI

How do professional linguists choose which endangered languages to study and preserve?
https://www.quora.com/How-do-professional-linguists-choose-which-endangered-languages-to-study-and-preserve/answer/Hans-Georg-Lundahl-2

Hans-Georg Lundahl

amateur linguist

24.III.2025

Personal interest comes into what languages you study. Endangered or otherwise.

That and opportunity in which ones you preserve.

By the way, preservation of endangered languages is just one of the jobs you can do as a linguist. I don’t think you can speak of “professional linguist” but rather of “academic linguist” as the opposite of amateur linguist in my self description. Linguist is a competence, not exactly a job title. Though, obviously, any authority or company that uses linguists can make their job title for the relevant job “linguist” whether it’s a film maker helping to teach the actors a language or a missionary trying to translate the Bible into the latest discovered language that has no alphabet yet.

Q VII

When does linguistic evolution become acceptable in formal writing?
https://www.quora.com/When-does-linguistic-evolution-become-acceptable-in-formal-writing/answer/Hans-Georg-Lundahl-2

Hans-Georg Lundahl

amateur linguist

24.III.2025

When it becomes used by a sufficient number of writers who are already considered competent.

Babel and Indo-European

Q VIII

Can you explain the difference between a proto language and a parent language?
https://www.quora.com/Can-you-explain-the-difference-between-a-proto-language-and-a-parent-language/answer/Hans-Georg-Lundahl-2

Hans-Georg Lundahl

amateur linguist

Dec 19 2024

When two or more languages are seen as related:

• their parent language is whatever one really spoke before the splitting up;
• their proto-language is whatever one reconstructs as their parent language, whether it coincides well or ill with it and whether they had a common parent language or not.

Parent language is also posited without splitting up. In the Old Norse period, Swedish and Icelandic were still pretty much the same language. Proto-Norse (which isn’t totally a proto-language as defined above, since it is attested) is its parent language. Koiné is the parent language of Dhimotiki, and would be so even if the Pontic split off didn’t exist.

Q IX

Is it true that all languages have a direct ancestor or original language, except for English which was derived from multiple languages?
https://www.quora.com/Is-it-true-that-all-languages-have-a-direct-ancestor-or-original-language-except-for-English-which-was-derived-from-multiple-languages/answer/Hans-Georg-Lundahl-2

Hans-Georg Lundahl

amateur linguist

Feb 3 2025

Most languages do have direct ancestors, including English.

Anglo-Saxon is the oldest ancestor of English we have in writing.

English isn’t a just total mixture of AS with Old Norse and Anglo-French, it’s AS taking on words and features (sometimes in basic grammar) of ON and AF. It’s Sprachbund, not language mixture. This is also a pretty common thing.

Between the Koiné Greek of Aristotle and Modern Greek, for instance, you have admixtures of Latin, Turkish, probably Albanian and Bulgarian too, and maybe more.

French descends from Latin, but has admixtures of Gaulish, Frankish, Arabic, and more recently other languages (I’d say Italian, Spanish, German loans are post-1500).

Russian descends from Old Russian or Old East Slavic, a language not directly attested as they wrote Church Slavonic, but indirectly shown when someone in a Church Slavonic text would insert an Old East Slavic name of a person or a place without translating. So do Ukrainian and Belarusian. Russian then has admixtures from Tataric and probably some Finno-Ugric languages that are not there in Ukrainian or Belarusian.

Feb 3 2025

Kaden Vanciel

Those languages mentioned are descendants of Proto-Indo-European if I may point out.

Feb 4 2025

Hans-Georg Lundahl

That is disputed.

They certainly are correctly classified as Indo-European, but there is some dispute whether Indo-European is a family, descending from a common proto-language, or a Sprachbund.

Q X

How do linguists decide which language family a heavily mixed language belongs to?
https://www.quora.com/How-do-linguists-decide-which-language-family-a-heavily-mixed-language-belongs-to/answer/Hans-Georg-Lundahl-2

Hans-Georg Lundahl

amateur linguist

23.III.2025

Depends.

1. Normally, you go with basic grammar, majority of words.
2. But in some cases this can give equivocal results, Armenian was once, wrongly, considered part of the Persian or Iranian family. It has many loan words from Persian, and I suppose some of them are so old they don’t sound like modern Persian. Like “joy” and “royal” in English don’t sound like “joie” and “royal(e)” in French.

If you were digging for an occasion to argue for Indo-European family unity rather than all included language families starting as “heavily mixed languages” by each other and then separated from that neighbourly situation, well, the problem is, so much vocabulary is missing from each “branch of Indo-European” … For instance, take the words “father, mother, son, daughter, brother, sister” … There is only Proto-Indo-European and Germanic that has all six. Latin and Irish have other words for son and daughter, and Welsh has another word for father too. Greek has other words for brother and sister. Baltic and Slavic both have other words for father, Slavic has the “ther” ending sometimes replaced by “-ts” in masculine (like in the other word for father) and “ka” in feminine, so only sister ends in “r” …

It’s not an easy task to determine what the Indo-European word for “head” was, and I thought the situation was similar for “hand” but it turns out the Greek word is shared by Armenian and by Hittite, so it’s original. It’s “replaced by other words” (or never borrowed) in Celtic, Latin/Romance, Germanic, Balto-Slavic. The words one to ten, twenty, hundred, are similar across the board, but the teens and the tens above twenty are made in different ways. The word for thousand is different across the board, with Germanic sharing one with Balto-Slavic. The way the teens work are also similar between Baltic and the words “eleven” and “twelve” in Germanic, different in Slavic.

twelve or thirteen men

Polish: dwunastu lub trzynastu mężczyzn
Lithuanian: dvylika ar trylika vyrų

Germanic -l(e)ve(n) = Lithuanian -lika.

But we don't say **threlve, we say thirteen.

The Slavic like the Baltic is consistent from 11 to 19, and the Slavic ending is separate, the Germanic ending from 13 to 19 is separate.

In Greek and Latin, you simply add "and ten" or "ten" to the unit, so, basically Latin "eleven" is "oneteen" ...

Let's test twenty or thirty instead ...

Polish: dwudziestu lub trzydziestu mężczyzn
Lithuanian: dvidešimt ar trisdešimt vyrų (adds "ten" which would in Germanic and Latin be an addition rather than a multiplication)

If we compare the Polish endings for twelve and twenty, which is closer to "ten" ("dziesięć")?

dwunastu or dwudziestu?

Polish too adds "ten" which in Latin and Germanic would be addition. To be fair, it seems probable "dwunastu" is short for "dwu na dziestu" if we compare Ukrainian:

twelve or twenty
дванадцять або двадцять = dvanadtsyatʹ abo dvadtsyatʹ

So, Polish makes teens like Greek "one and ten" in Greek, "one on ten" in Polish.

One “clear marker” of Indo-European is verb endings, but Finnish has more Indo-European verb endings than Germanic, even at the oldest stage. And Germanic is, while Finnish isn’t Indo-European.

Q XI

Can speakers of Indo-European languages understand each other as if they were speaking one language?
https://www.quora.com/Can-speakers-of-Indo-European-languages-understand-each-other-as-if-they-were-speaking-one-language/answer/Hans-Georg-Lundahl-2

Hans-Georg Lundahl

amateur linguist

Mar 9 2025

Russian, Spanish and English are all Indo-European languages.

According to a certain theory, this means they all descend from Proto-Indo-European.

But according to how you select for what groups (I named Slavic, Romance and Germanic in my three examples) are Indo-European, this simply means they share certain key features. Or each a sufficient number from a larger list. These are NOT sufficient to understand each other.

Q XII

How do linguists trace the evolution of ancient languages to their modern descendants?
https://www.quora.com/How-do-linguists-trace-the-evolution-of-ancient-languages-to-their-modern-descendants/answer/Hans-Georg-Lundahl-2

Hans-Georg Lundahl

amateur linguist

24.III.2025

Depends very much on whether they use documentation (like between Latin and French) or reconstruction (like between Proto-Indo-European and Proto-Italo-Celtic, Proto-Italo-Celtic and Proto-Italic, Proto-Italic and Old Latin).

When it comes to Latin to French, the period between Caesar and Alcuin is one where spoken language changes while the written retains basically the spelling of Caesar’s language, and the tracing is one of sound changes reflected in spelling mistakes. For the principle, imagine a version of English where no H is pronounced, but where people also don’t go to English schools. You could detect that by someone writing “hover the ill” instead of “over the hill” … From Alcuin on, there is a very brief gap of some decades before you get that first texts often considered as “written in Old French” (definitely not Classic Old French, some reassign them to Proto-Gallo-Romance …) namely Strassburg Oaths and Eulalia Sequence. And as, from Alcuin on, the spelling convention was fixed in Latin, the conventional relation of sound and spelling could be preserved instead of an old spelling from Eulalia and Roland up to the printing press.

When it comes to Proto-Indo-European to Latin, the method is very different, since the process (real or supposed) has no written traces, by the time we get to Old Latin it’s by definition already Latin.

You collect a number of languages supposed to descend from Proto-Indo-European. In each clear family (like Germanic or Italic) you chose one or more of the oldest language forms (in Italic you’d prefer Latin and extinct Umbrian over French or Italian). You look at things that are identic or similar in meaning and reasonably similar in sound. Second person in -S (though in lots of Old Germanic languages, it could look like -ST instead)? Italic, Greek, Germanic …. a word meaning “carry” (in general) or “deliver a baby”? Fero, phero, bära, ge-bären, beirim (Old Irish biru?), bhárati …

You make a large collection of those things, you hope they have been inherited by the original mother language, since that is your working hypothesis, you try to work out how it sounded in the original language, and in this connection you need two things:

• a proto-form
• sound changes that lead from the proto-form to the forms that are attested.

So, for the verb mentioned, and it’s one of the flag ships for Indo-European scholarship, take this approach, first just use the stem:

*bher- → bhar- (Old Indian, Sanskrit)
*bher- → *βer- → *φer- → fer- (Latin)
*bher- → *βer- → *ber- → lengthened in second last syllable : bär- (Swedish), ge-bär- (German), bear (English) …

Then do the same thing for the endings that correspond. Spoiler, not all endings do correspond, though many do.

Q XIII

Can the phonology of Proto-Indo-European be reconstructed for a specific reconstructed morpheme, such as 'to be'?
https://www.quora.com/Can-the-phonology-of-Proto-Indo-European-be-reconstructed-for-a-specific-reconstructed-morpheme-such-as-to-be/answer/Hans-Georg-Lundahl-2

Hans-Georg Lundahl

amateur linguist

Dec 4 2024

Yes and no.

• If you assume that PIE existed
• and if you take one of the reconstruction models

THEN you can reconstruct precisely the phonology of a specific morpheme.

Q XIV

What can ancient writing systems tell us about how humans think and communicate?
https://www.quora.com/What-can-ancient-writing-systems-tell-us-about-how-humans-think-and-communicate/answer/Hans-Georg-Lundahl-2

Hans-Georg Lundahl

amateur linguist

24.III.2025

Usually, a single language has one writing system, rarely two (Old Swedish has been written both in Runes and in the Latin alphabet). If any at all.

One writing system can be used by more than one language or language family. In that case, there is always cultural contact either present or at least past.

So, for instance, if prior to Göbekli Tepe people from Spain to Indonesia repeated 32 not obviously pictorial signs, and if after Göbekli Tepe you find very different types of proto-writing popping up in Mohenjo-Daro and Greece and perhaps elsewhere, we can conclude that before Göbekli Tepe there was a single language or at least languages in contact with each other, and after Göbekli Tepe a discontinuity both with that past and with each other in different places.

Q XV

What are some of the earliest known languages? Is there evidence to support the theory that all languages evolved from one common language?
https://www.quora.com/What-are-some-of-the-earliest-known-languages-Is-there-evidence-to-support-the-theory-that-all-languages-evolved-from-one-common-language/answer/Hans-Georg-Lundahl-2

Hans-Georg Lundahl

amateur linguist

Oct 31 2024

A few things to keep in mind.

• The idea all languages over the world, from Chinese to Kiché evolved from a single language, called “Proto-World” by adherents should not be confused with the idea that all Indo-European languages (46 % speak them as first language over the world) evolved from Proto-Indo-European. The strictly linguistic evidence for the latter is not uncontrovertible, Trubetskoy who founded Balkan linguistics was against it, and the linguistic evidence for the former is obviously much more slender than that. One adherent (Merrit Ruhlen, I think, or he could have cited earlier adherents) reconstructed 32 root words he considered as recurring all over the world, while for Proto-Indo-European Pokorny lists 2,222 main entries. To be clear, not all of those are evidenced from all “branches of Indo-European” some get only three out of ten big ones, and not always even plus a few small obscure ones.
• There is theological evidence that the actual first language was Hebrew, and that most non-Hebrew or at least all non-Semitic and plenty of non-Hebrew Semitic ones did not naturally evolve, but split off from Hebrew by miraculous change, see Genesis 11, yes, this is how the text is taken by Church Fathers and Scholastics who have commented on it. The Hebrew spoken immediately after the Flood, before Babel need not have been strictly letter for letter the same that Moses would write down 1447 years later if it was at the Exodus event he began writing. But it would still be at least as recogniseable as Old English from Beowulf or King Alfred is seen from Modern English. Probably a bit more due to longer lifespans.
• Evolution believers think that human language began to exist some time between “at least” half a million years ago “as far back as” in Homo erectus and as late as Homo Sapiens only, around the time of the Neanderthal extinction or even pushing back to 90 000 years ago. Compared to that, the earliest languages we have now are recent. There is nothing in language development since these earliest attested languages (they obviously think Sumerian is older than any recognisable form of Hebrew), whether they survived or not, to remotely illustrate the ideas of Evolution believers that language as we know human language developed from “more primitive” predecessors. The “language of the great apes” in Tarzan is strictly speaking fan fiction on evolutionary linguistics. It has no support in actual historic linguistics. So, all “evidence” for human languages developing from different strands of hominins independently or from a single strand are speculations in the shadow field evolutionary linguistics, no support at all in linguistics proper.

To the first question. As I said, Evolution believers would say Sumerian was spoken as early as 3500 BC (a carbon date I consider as equivalent to a real date between 2039 and 2022 BC), and written down only 900 years later, and obviously Hebrew even in the form of Proto-Sinaitic is not recorded in writing earlier than well after that.

Wikipedia has an excellent entry on that. List of languages by first written record.[1]

Footnotes

[1] List of languages by first written account - Wikipedia

Q XVI

Did ancient civilizations have a common language or did they speak different languages and were isolated from each other?
https://www.quora.com/Did-ancient-civilizations-have-a-common-language-or-did-they-speak-different-languages-and-were-isolated-from-each-other/answer/Hans-Georg-Lundahl-2

Hans-Georg Lundahl

amateur linguist

Oct 31 2024

1. Mankind in the Upper Palaeolithic could have had a common language, as Genevieve von Petzinger found 32 symbols recurring everywhere from Spain to Indonesia. Of these, the hashtag has been found in Neanderthal caves.
2. For Göbekli Tepe, we have no written remains at all.
3. Proto-writing after Göbekli Tepe seems diverse.
4. Deciphered writings even later definitely are diverse, and record different languages.
5. Nevertheless, while Egyptians, Sumerians, Akkadians, Hatti, Hittites, Mitanni, Elamites had different languages, they were not isolated, but had already established relationships using the skills of bilingual people.

Here is how I read this, as a Christian:

1. Pre-Flood and early post-Flood mankind, up to the death of Noah 350 years after the Flood all spoke Hebrew. Neanderthals would have before the Flood spoken a dialect in which AH and OH didn’t occur. Or at least those with flat roof skulls, a feature posing a problem to pronounce such vowels.
2. 350 to 401 after the Flood, the elites from all around the world were drafted by Nimrod to Babel. He had no use for writing, neither had his colleague over in Jericho.
3. In 401 when Phalec was born, or rather somewhat before it, perhaps as much as seven years, mankind was breaking up bc of the confusion of tongues. Hence his name, as the seven years up to his birth had seen men divide more and more. The ones who tried to write afterwards were “reinventing” the lost “wheel” and coming up with new shapes.
4. Once writings are made that we can still or at least again read, the languages were obviously already different.
5. And these civilisations with deciphered writings started out so late after Babel that they had begun to reconnect through bilinguals. All of above writings come from the times of Joseph in Egypt or later.

Some will pretend this doesn’t make sense with the time scale, well, it does if carbon dates are inflated and more and more the further back we go, past a certain point which I consider the fall of Troy.

Language Origin

Q XVII

What is the logic behind how spoken language works? How were noises and sounds associated with things and ideas to form the "word"?
https://www.quora.com/What-is-the-logic-behind-how-spoken-language-works-How-were-noises-and-sounds-associated-with-things-and-ideas-to-form-the-word/answer/Hans-Georg-Lundahl-2

Answer requested by

Lucas Gomas

Hans-Georg Lundahl

amateur linguist

Mar 10 2025

The logic is, it is mainly notional.

You mainly predicate one notion about one other notion.

This means, the phrase is nearly always at least two morphemes.

Also, in order to have a sufficient number of morphemes, for this to work, the morpheme is nearly always at least two phonemes, not just one noise, but a number of them in a specific order.

You cut things with a knife. You tuck someone in a blanket. Cut and tuck contain the same three phonemes, but not in the same order.

The next question you ask is how this came to happen. Well, for those who insist it happened by evolution, no one knows how. For those who insist it didn’t happen by evolution, some of us know God gave this as a gift to Adam on the very first day he was alive.

Other

Q XVIII

What is the most effective way to understand an ancient text from a different language without having to learn all related languages beforehand?
https://www.quora.com/What-is-the-most-effective-way-to-understand-an-ancient-text-from-a-different-language-without-having-to-learn-all-related-languages-beforehand/answer/Hans-Georg-Lundahl-1

Hans-Georg Lundahl

amateur linguist

25.III.2025

Feast of Annunciation

1. To learn THAT language.
2. or to read in translation.

In either case, you are perfectly entitled to inform yourself about ancient translations, if any.

“Battologein” means “stutter-speak” and while the Vulgate picks on about the probable intended sense of “holding speaches nervously” by stating “use verbosity” the Syriac and Coptic, as I have been told on Quora, translate “stutter” …. not a single translation prior to the heresiarch Calvin uses “vain repetitions” as a translation.