More on language in general

No, "Language Divorce" is Not my Amateur Term for Divergent Evolution! · Proto-Languages - How Are they Reconstructed? · Sabellian and some more, but first Vulgar Latin · Indo-European and Romance are Very Different as to Diachronic Linguistics · More on Language : Latin to Romance · More on Latin to Romance and Middle English to English · More on language in general

Q

Is the notion that all languages are equally complex a proven fact or a politically correct shibboleth?
https://www.quora.com/Is-the-notion-that-all-languages-are-equally-complex-a-proven-fact-or-a-politically-correct-shibboleth/answer/Hans-Georg-Lundahl-2

Answer requested by

Edward Hubbard

Hans-Georg Lundahl

amateur linguist

11.VIII.2023

A language can be complex in two ways.

It can be complex in reflection of society and its complex norms. In that way, not all languages are equally complex. In Japanese, “I” is a full noun, but it’s a different one depending on your own status and the status of the one you are speaking to. Only some people are called “sensei” for you, and only by some people. That complexity may very well be lacking in a more egalitarian society or a society. On the other end of the spectrum, when all houses are made of snow and ice, all houses are termed igdlu in Greenlandic, and a derivative of igdlu by way of adding a verb ending meaning “to make X” and another noun ending meaning “material to accomplish Y” (referring to the verb), the long word meaning “material to build an igdlu” can only refer to specific types of snow and ice, and not to bricks or stones or wood, in this very elementary society of technological options.

It can also be complex in relation to doing what a language is supposed to do. In that way, not all languages have equally complex morphology, not all languages have equally complex syntax, not all languages have equally complex vocabulary, or derivations. BUT all languages have equally complex overall complexity. Greenlandic is as mentioned spoken in a very non-complex society, prior to arrival of Danes, but it has one of the most intricate systems of word derivation.

Turkish and Hebrew have very intricate morphology, but both have very simple syntax. Latin might seem to be the odd one out with complex both morphology and syntax, but has very simple vocabulary. Chinese has an utterly simple morphology (unless you count auxiliaries), nearly no endings at all, but a very heavily complex syntax. You cannot even say “three professors” you have to say “three person professor” …

Also, all languages have:

• three levels of expression, phrase, morpheme and phoneme (1. full meaning achieved by unique combination of morphemes, 2. partial meaning achieved by standard combination of phonemes, 3. no meaning in itself, just there to differentiate morphemes)
• infinite recursivity
• infinite productivity of morphemes by finite palette of phonemes
• possibilities to speak of negated or otherwise absent things.

This is obviously a feature even before the rival claims of morphology, syntax and vocabulary to solve the more intricate things of what the language can express.

Apart from vocabulary issues, all languages can express everything, they only differ in what they must express. In some languages, a student is expressed as either male or female (der Student, die Studentin). If it’s an unknown, he’s presumed to be male until proven female. In the plural of such languages, the masculine plural (die Studenten) is used for mixed groups even more than for purely male ones. But English gets away with saying student irrespectivly of gender. I e, English doesn’t need to express gender, but can (“those male students are harrassing this beautiful lady student”) …

While the person telling me these things was fairly PC, I don’t think there are any valid counterexamples. There is no such thing as a language midway between ape and human expression. The one imagined by Tarzan’s author Edgar Rice Burroughs (as “language of great apes”) wouldn’t function in real life. With Rahan, the authors seem to have imagined this Cro-Magnon lived before pronouns were invented, since Rahan never says “I” but only “Rahan” of himself, but this cannot be consistently kept up in all dialogues.

Edward Hubbard

11.VIII.2023

Thanks for the reply.

Can you explain what you mean by Latin having simple vocabulary? I can understand the concept of simple/complex morphology/syntax, but how can vocabulary be simple or complex?

Hans-Georg Lundahl

11.VIII.2023

Well, it can be small or big.

With the opportunities Latin morphology and syntax makes, words can be better utilised to different shades from context, so you need fewer different words.

Q

What is the general opinion among linguists: did several proto-languages arise independent of each other, or could all of the world's languages be in fact related, but all the evidence has been destroyed by time (such as irregular sound changes)?
https://www.quora.com/What-is-the-general-opinion-among-linguists-did-several-proto-languages-arise-independent-of-each-other-or-could-all-of-the-worlds-languages-be-in-fact-related-but-all-the-evidence-has-been-destroyed-by-time-such-as/answer/Hans-Georg-Lundahl-2

Hans-Georg Lundahl

amateur linguist

Aug 5 2023

Both opinions exist, and I mean within the community of people who accept Evolutionary origins of human language as a whole, which I do not.

Merrit Ruhlen claims to have reconstructed 32 words of Proto-World.

Some people would not even consider him or Greenberg as sound when it comes to Proto-Amerindian.

Q

Is enough of Proto-Indo-European reconstructed to theoretically communicate with the speakers of the original language using our reconstructed version if we could go back in time?
https://www.quora.com/Is-enough-of-Proto-Indo-European-reconstructed-to-theoretically-communicate-with-the-speakers-of-the-original-language-using-our-reconstructed-version-if-we-could-go-back-in-time/answer/Hans-Georg-Lundahl-1

Answer requested by

Riley Miller

Hans-Georg Lundahl

amateur linguist

11.VIII.2023

No, it is not. Here is why

• words are lacking;
• a form for “if” is probably lacking;
• there are several alternative reconstructions around, plus any reconstruction may amalgamate by sheer bad luck the stage at one point for one feature with the stage at a point a thousand years or two thousand years later (conventional chronology) for another feature;
• which is one more reason why the reconstruction project is no proof there was a PIE, and so a fourth reason could be if one indo-european word came from one language another from another, one feature from one language, another from another. I e, if the Indo-European unity were one of a Sprachbund and not of a family.

Q

Do you think that Latin was derived from Sanskrit or did they both come from a common ancestor language?
https://www.quora.com/Do-you-think-that-Latin-was-derived-from-Sanskrit-or-did-they-both-come-from-a-common-ancestor-language/answer/Hans-Georg-Lundahl-1

Hans-Georg Lundahl

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

11.VIII.2023

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Latin and Sanskrit certainly did not come one from the other.

They are also not simply unrelated.

The two options are:

• they both came from a common ancestor (usually referred to as Proto-Indo-European)
• or they were at one time involved in same or related groups of languages influencing each other mutually.