Now, with different ablaut types, this apparent "stress related" vowel change, seems to be realized slightly differently. Since these ablaut patterns are highly regular, you'll see me focus primarily on the Nonnarten Acrostatic forms, as they're the easiest on the eyes to see. In reality, what I've shown can apply to pretty much all ablaut forms.
Now, regarding my original idea before the stress-related idea, I had spotted another possibility. I'd like to explore the idea, that at least in the case of the root-vowel, that the:
o-grade - Marked a sort of "default" case, including the Nominative, Vocative, and Accusative cases.
e-grade - Marked cases that were either Genetival and or Prepositional in meaning.
While not far off from my previous post, its an idea I'd like to explore further as well. It's not entirely exclusive from it either, as this system could reasonably have arisen from the previous.
Though once you get to the secondary places where you'll find vowels, such as in the stems and endings, this gets a little trickier. For instance, half the plural endings have -o- in them (Genetive, Ablative, Dative (alternatively -mus), and Ablative. Though it wouldn't necessarily contradict my hypothesis, it creates problems for my stress-related theory when it comes to certain Ablaut forms, where the ablaut vowel falls in the stem, though these differences are resolveable, it still bothers my thirst for simplicity.
As far as the verbs are concerned, I'll get to them at a later date. I want to try to not quote wikipedia twice if I can't help it. Especially since I'm less familiar with the ablaut when it comes to verbs, I won't so easily spot the error and be able to correct them. At least not at this time.
Tuesday, August 19, 2014
Saturday, August 16, 2014
Thoughts on IE Nominals and Ablaut
I'm curious about a pattern I noticed with nouns, there seem to be two basic clusters that noun cases fall into; At least when it comes to their basic ablaut patterns. We'll call them Cluster A and Cluster B, and they're defined by their ablaut forms:
Cluster A: Nominative, Vocative, and Accusative
Cluster B: Instrumental, Dative, Ablative, Genetive, and Locative
I wasn't sure what I was seeing in this. I was tempted to compare it to Arabic and Akkadian's case conjugations. Which in the case of Arabic offers up Nominative -u, Accusative -a, and Possessed/Genetive -i. I'm not so sure that correlation is meaningful though, especially since I know too little of the nominal conjugations of the other AfroAsiatic languages to draw such a connection. So I set the idea to the backburner.
It was a curious pattern from a language I created, that developed when -e- became an oblique form that eventually replaced the use of -o- when Acrostatic root nouns were highly productive. Especially when I added an Ergative -a-, so the pattern was freaky similar, but was a coincidence I'd otherwise have missed.
In all honesty, I knew from the start it was a coincidence. Though it was a curious one, and it got me thinking about it. Obsessing over the ablaut is a better term. I wanted to know its origin. What if it evolved from an earlier consonantal root system? Or maybe it was developing in that direction and stopped? I didn't have any convincing ideas as of yet.
Though while writing this, I did think about Uralic and its stress patterns at the level of ProtoUralic, and I noticed that it followed this basic formula:
CV=Syllable, and not Consonant+Vowel specifically per se, at least here:
CV́CVCV̀CV(CV̀)(CV),etc...
Due to their geographical proximity towards one another, what if at a stage earlier than what is reconstructed for ProtoIndoEuropean, or possibly at the level of ProtoIndoEuropean itself, it had this same basic pattern? Perhaps, like the above, its a pattern that doesn't really exist, but has seemed to have appeared by coincidence. Though I think its an interesting idea to explore nonetheless.
What I'm thinking is, what if -o- became -e- when preceeded by an adposition of some sort? As if at one point, adpositions influenced the way the noun they modified was pronounced. In the same way that the noun that is modified by the indefinite article in Modern English, influences the way the indefinite article is pronounced:
The indefinite article, when preceeding a Noun that starts with a vowel or consonant, becomes:
Vowel: an
Consonant: a
In other words, perhaps:
Singular Acrostatic Root Noun "night"
What I immediately liked about this idea, was that I really didn't have to change much. Though I did have to suppose that, as a rule, any noun in Case Cluster B, was required to be preceeded by an adposition, or some sort of particle or prefix. While I'd like to see someone with actual university-level credentials on historical linguistics analyze this (not just my armchair amateurish theorization), I would like to note some potential evidence and flaws for this idea:
In the case of the word "fatherless":
Now, I'm not sure if the vowel patterns have more to do with having a prefix attached or if its something that happens with the inclusion of an adjective, I'd like to hear someone in the field's take on it. In the meantime, I'll be researching this further. (No, wikipedia isn't my main source for PIE, its simply convenient for copying and pasting.)
It appears like the inclusion of a prefix or particle before the noun, is what changed the vowels within the Noun itself.
However, there is a slight problem with this, at least in the case of the negative prefix n-, It would have been predicted that the prefix would get the stress, not the root. Or perhaps, like with ʔeme>me after the loss of the laryngeal, a prior particle ʔene>ne~n was similarly reduced?
As you can see below in the chart taken from wikipedia, suffixes do sometimes have influence upon how vowel patterns are realized, or so it seems. It does seem to appear to be stress-related in nature. At least from what I can tell. This doesn't deal so much with my theory, and would necessarily be knowledged gleaned before my hypothesis came into existence, so it can't really be used as evidence of any sort:
Taken from Wikipedia:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proto-Indo-European_nominals
Cluster A: Nominative, Vocative, and Accusative
Cluster B: Instrumental, Dative, Ablative, Genetive, and Locative
I wasn't sure what I was seeing in this. I was tempted to compare it to Arabic and Akkadian's case conjugations. Which in the case of Arabic offers up Nominative -u, Accusative -a, and Possessed/Genetive -i. I'm not so sure that correlation is meaningful though, especially since I know too little of the nominal conjugations of the other AfroAsiatic languages to draw such a connection. So I set the idea to the backburner.
It was a curious pattern from a language I created, that developed when -e- became an oblique form that eventually replaced the use of -o- when Acrostatic root nouns were highly productive. Especially when I added an Ergative -a-, so the pattern was freaky similar, but was a coincidence I'd otherwise have missed.
In all honesty, I knew from the start it was a coincidence. Though it was a curious one, and it got me thinking about it. Obsessing over the ablaut is a better term. I wanted to know its origin. What if it evolved from an earlier consonantal root system? Or maybe it was developing in that direction and stopped? I didn't have any convincing ideas as of yet.
Though while writing this, I did think about Uralic and its stress patterns at the level of ProtoUralic, and I noticed that it followed this basic formula:
CV=Syllable, and not Consonant+Vowel specifically per se, at least here:
CV́CVCV̀CV(CV̀)(CV),etc...
Due to their geographical proximity towards one another, what if at a stage earlier than what is reconstructed for ProtoIndoEuropean, or possibly at the level of ProtoIndoEuropean itself, it had this same basic pattern? Perhaps, like the above, its a pattern that doesn't really exist, but has seemed to have appeared by coincidence. Though I think its an interesting idea to explore nonetheless.
What I'm thinking is, what if -o- became -e- when preceeded by an adposition of some sort? As if at one point, adpositions influenced the way the noun they modified was pronounced. In the same way that the noun that is modified by the indefinite article in Modern English, influences the way the indefinite article is pronounced:
The indefinite article, when preceeding a Noun that starts with a vowel or consonant, becomes:
Vowel: an
Consonant: a
In other words, perhaps:
Singular Acrostatic Root Noun "night"
| sing. | nom. | nókʷt-s |
|---|---|---|
| voc. | nókʷt | |
| acc. | nókʷt-m̥ | |
| inst. | kóm nékʷt-(e)h₁ | |
| dat. | dó nékʷt-ey | |
| abl. | h₂ét nékʷt-s | |
| gen. | h₂ét nékʷt-s | |
| loc. | ʔén nékʷt-(i) | |
| dual | nom.-voc.-acc. | nókʷt-h₁e |
| plur. | n.-v. | nókʷt-es |
| acc. | nókʷt-n̥s | |
| inst. | kóm nékʷt-bʰi | |
| dat.-abl. | dó nékʷt-m̥os | |
| gen. | ʔén nékʷt-oHom | |
| loc. | ʔén nékʷt-su |
What I immediately liked about this idea, was that I really didn't have to change much. Though I did have to suppose that, as a rule, any noun in Case Cluster B, was required to be preceeded by an adposition, or some sort of particle or prefix. While I'd like to see someone with actual university-level credentials on historical linguistics analyze this (not just my armchair amateurish theorization), I would like to note some potential evidence and flaws for this idea:
In the case of the word "fatherless":
| Ablaut grade | PIE (reconstruction) | Greek | (Greek transliterated) | Translation |
| e-grade or full grade | *ph2-tér-m̥ | πα-τέρ-α | pa-tér-a | "father" (noun, accusative) |
| lengthened e-grade | *ph2-tḗr | πα-τήρ | pa-tḗr | "father" (noun, nominative) |
| zero-grade | *ph2-tr-és | πα-τρ-ός | pa-tr-ós | "father's" (noun, genitive) |
| o-grade | *n̥-péh2-tor-m̥ | ἀ-πά-τορ-α | a-pá-tor-a | "fatherless" (adjective, accusative) |
| lengthened o-grade | *n̥-péh2-tōr | ἀ-πά-τωρ | a-pá-tōr | "fatherless" (adjective, nominative) |
Now, I'm not sure if the vowel patterns have more to do with having a prefix attached or if its something that happens with the inclusion of an adjective, I'd like to hear someone in the field's take on it. In the meantime, I'll be researching this further. (No, wikipedia isn't my main source for PIE, its simply convenient for copying and pasting.)
It appears like the inclusion of a prefix or particle before the noun, is what changed the vowels within the Noun itself.
However, there is a slight problem with this, at least in the case of the negative prefix n-, It would have been predicted that the prefix would get the stress, not the root. Or perhaps, like with ʔeme>me after the loss of the laryngeal, a prior particle ʔene>ne~n was similarly reduced?
As you can see below in the chart taken from wikipedia, suffixes do sometimes have influence upon how vowel patterns are realized, or so it seems. It does seem to appear to be stress-related in nature. At least from what I can tell. This doesn't deal so much with my theory, and would necessarily be knowledged gleaned before my hypothesis came into existence, so it can't really be used as evidence of any sort:
Taken from Wikipedia:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proto-Indo-European_nominals
| acrostatic root noun | acrostatic lengthened root noun | amphikinetic (?) root noun | hysterokinetic r-stem | amphikinetic n-stem | hysterokinetic n-stem | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| gloss | night (f.) | moon (m.) | foot (m.) | father (m.) | lake (m.) | bull (m.) (< "ox") | |
| sing. | nom. | *nókʷts | *mḗh₁n̥s | *pṓds | *ph₂tḗr | *léymō | *uksḗn |
| voc. | *nókʷt | *mḗh₁n̥s | *pód | *ph₂tér | *léymon | *úksen | |
| acc. | *nókʷtm̥ | *mḗh₁n̥sm̥ | *pódm̥ | *ph₂térm̥ | *léymonm̥ | *uksénm̥ | |
| inst. | *nékʷt(e)h₁ | *méh₁n̥s(e)h₁ | *pedéh₁ | *ph₂tr̥éh₁ | *limnéh₁ | *uksn̥éh₁ | |
| dat. | *nékʷtey | *méh₁n̥sey | *pedéy | *ph₂tr̥éy | *limnéy | *uksn̥éy | |
| abl. | *nékʷts | *méh₁n̥sos | *pedés | *ph₂tr̥és | *limnés | *uksn̥és | |
| gen. | *nékʷts | *méh₁n̥sos | *pedés | *ph₂tr̥és | *limnés | *uksn̥és | |
| loc. | *nékʷt(i) | *méh₁n̥s(i) | *péd(i) | *ph₂tér(i) | *limén(i) | *uksén(i) | |
| dual | nom.-voc.-acc. | *nókʷth₁e | *mḗh₁n̥sh₁e | *pódh₁e | *ph₂térh₁e | *léymonh₁e | *uksénh₁e |
| plur. | n.-v. | *nókʷtes | *mḗh₁n̥ses | *pódes | *ph₂téres | *léymones | *uksénes |
| acc. | *nókʷtn̥s | *mḗh₁n̥sn̥s | *pódn̥s | *ph₂térn̥s | *léymonn̥s | *uksénn̥s | |
| inst. | *nékʷtbʰi | *méh₁n̥sbʰi | *pedbʰí | *ph₂tr̥bʰí | *limn̥bʰí | *uksn̥bʰí | |
| dat.-abl. | *nékʷtm̥os | *méh₁n̥smos | *pedmós | *ph₂tr̥mós | *limn̥mós | *uksn̥mós | |
| gen. | *nékʷtoHom | *méh₁n̥soHom | *pedóHom | *ph₂tr̥óHom | *limn̥óHom | *uksn̥óHom | |
| loc. | *nékʷtsu | *méh₁n̥su | *pedsú | *ph₂tr̥sú | *limn̥sú | *uksn̥sú | |
| proterokinetic neuter r/n-stem | amphikinetic collective neuter r/n-stem | amphikinetic m-stem | proterokinetic ti-stem | proterokinetic tu-stem | proterokinetic neuter u-stem | ||
| gloss | water (n.) | water(s) (n.) | earth (f.) | thought (f.) | taste (m.) | tree (n.) | |
| sing. | nom. | *wódr̥ | *wédōr | *dʰéǵʰōm | *méntis | *ǵéwstus | *dóru |
| voc. | *wódr̥ | *wédōr | *dʰéǵʰom | *ménti | *ǵéwstu | *dóru | |
| acc. | *wódr̥ | *wédōr | *dʰéǵʰōm | *méntim | *ǵéwstum | *dóru | |
| inst. | *udénh₁ | *udnéh₁ | *ǵʰméh₁ | *mn̥tíh₁ | *ǵustúh₁ | *drúh₁ | |
| dat. | *udéney | *udnéy | *ǵʰméy | *mn̥téyey | *ǵustéwey | *dréwey | |
| abl. | *udéns | *udnés | *ǵʰmés | *mn̥téys | *ǵustéws | *dréws | |
| gen. | *udéns | *udnés | *ǵʰmés | *mn̥téys | *ǵustéws | *dréws | |
| loc. | *udén(i) | *udén(i) | *ǵʰdʰsém(i) | *mn̥téy (-ēy) | *ǵustéw(i) | *dréw(i) | |
| dual | nom.-voc.-acc. | *méntih₁ | *ǵéwstuh₁ | *dórwih₁ | |||
| plur. | n.-v. | *ménteyes | *ǵéwstewes | *dóruh₂ | |||
| acc. | *méntins | *ǵéwstuns | *dóruh₂ | ||||
| inst. | *mn̥tíbʰi | *ǵustúbʰi | *drúbʰi | ||||
| dat.-abl. | *mn̥tímos | *ǵustúmos | *drúmos | ||||
| gen. | *mn̥téyoHom | *ǵustéwoHom | *dréwoHom | ||||
| loc. | *mn̥tísu | *ǵustúsu | *drúsu | ||||
| neuter s-stem | proterokinetic h₂-stem | hysterokinetic h₂-stem | eh₂-stem (ā-stem) | o-stem | neuter o-stem | ||
| gloss | cloud (n.) | woman (f.) (> "queen") | tongue (f.) | grain (f.) | nest (m.) | work (n.) | |
| sing. | nom. | *nébʰos | *gʷḗn | *dn̥ǵʰwéh₂s | *dʰoHnéh₂ | *nisdós | *wérǵom |
| voc. | *nébʰos | *gʷḗn | *dń̥ǵʰweh₂ | *dʰoHn[á] | *nisdé | *wérǵom | |
| acc. | *nébʰos | *gʷénh₂m̥ | *dn̥ǵʰwéh₂m (-ām) | *dʰoHnéh₂m (-ā́m) | *nisdóm | *wérǵom | |
| inst. | *nébʰes(e)h₁ | *gʷnéh₂(e)h₁ | *dn̥ǵʰuh₂éh₁ | *dʰoHnéh₂(e)h₁ | *nisdóh₁ | *wérǵoh₁ | |
| dat. | *nébʰesey | *gʷnéh₂ey | *dn̥ǵʰuh₂éy | *dʰoHnéh₂ey | *nisdóey | *wérǵoey | |
| abl. | *nébʰesos | *gʷnéh₂s | *dn̥ǵʰuh₂és | *dʰoHnéh₂s | *nisdéad | *wérǵead | |
| gen. | *nébʰesos | *gʷnéh₂s | *dn̥ǵʰuh₂és | *dʰoHnéh₂s | *nisdósyo | *wérǵosyo | |
| loc. | *nébʰes(i) | *gʷnéh₂(i) | *dn̥ǵʰwéh₂(i) | *dʰoHnéh₂(i) | *nisdéy | *wérǵey | |
| dual | nom.-voc.-acc. | *nébʰesih₁ | *gʷénh₂h₁e | *dn̥ǵʰwéh₂h₁e | ? | *nisdóh₁ | *wérǵoy(h₁) |
| plur. | n.-v. | *nébʰōs | *gʷénh₂es | *dn̥ǵʰwéh₂es | *dʰoHnéh₂es | *nisdóes | *wérǵeh₂ |
| acc. | *nébʰōs | *gʷénh₂n̥s | *dn̥ǵʰwéh₂ns (-ās) | *dʰoHnéh₂ns (-ās) | *nisdóns | *wérǵeh₂ | |
| inst. | *nébʰesbʰi | *gʷnéh₂bʰi | *dn̥ǵʰuh₂bʰí | *dʰoHnéh₂bʰi | *nisdṓys | *wérǵōys | |
| dat.-abl. | *nébʰesmos | *gʷnéh₂mos | *dn̥ǵʰuh₂mós | *dʰoHnéh₂mos | *nisdó(y)mos | *wérǵo(y)mos | |
| gen. | *nébʰesoHom | *gʷnéh₂oHom | *dn̥ǵʰuh₂óHom | *dʰoHnéh₂oHom | *nisdóoHom | *wérǵooHom | |
| loc. | *nébʰesu | *gʷnéh₂su | *dn̥ǵʰuh₂sú | *dʰoHnéh₂su | *nisdóysu | *wérǵoysu | |
| Athematic | Thematic | |||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| acrostatic root noun | hysterokinetic r-stem | proterokinetic ti-stem | proterokinetic neuter u-stem | eh₂-stem (ā-stem) | o-stem | neuter o-stem | ||||||
| PIE | Post-PIE1 | |||||||||||
| gloss | night (f.) | father (m.) | thought (f.) | tree (n.) | grain (f.) | nest (m.) | work (n.) | |||||
| sing. | nom. | *nókʷt-s | *ph₂t-ḗr | *mént-i-s | *dór-u | *dʰoHn-éh₂ | *dʰō̬n-ā̬́ | *nisd-ó-s | *wérǵ-o-m | |||
| voc. | *nókʷt | *ph₂t-ér | *mént-i | *dʰoHn-[á]2 | *dʰō̬n-á | *nisd-é | ||||||
| acc. | *nókʷt-m̥ | *ph₂t-ér-m̥ | *mént-i-m | *dʰoHn-éh₂-m (-ā́-m) | *dʰō̬n-ā̬́-m | *nisd-ó-m | ||||||
| inst. | *nékʷt-(e)h₁ | *ph₂t-r̥-éh₁ | *mn̥t-í-h₁ | *dr-ú-h₁ | *dʰoHn-éh₂-(e)h₁ | *dʰō̬n-ā̬́? | *nisd-ó-h₁ | *wérǵ-o-h₁ | ||||
| dat. | *nékʷt-ey | *ph₂t-r̥-éy | *mn̥t-éy-ey | *dr-éw-ey | *dʰoHn-éh₂-ey | *dʰō̬n-ā̬́-y | *nisd-ó-ey | *wérǵ-o-ey | ||||
| abl. | *nékʷt-s | *ph₂t-r̥-és | *mn̥t-éy-s | *dr-éw-s | *dʰoHn-éh₂-s | *dʰō̬n-ā̬́-s | *nisd-é-ad | *wérǵ-e-ad | ||||
| gen. | *nékʷt-s | *ph₂t-r̥-és | *mn̥t-éy-s | *dr-éw-s | *dʰoHn-éh₂-s | *dʰō̬n-ā̬́-s | *nisd-ó-syo | *wérǵ-o-syo | ||||
| loc. | *nékʷt-(i) | *ph₂t-ér-(i) | *mn̥t-éy (-ēy) | *dr-éw-(i) | *dʰoHn-éh₂-(i) | *dʰō̬n-á̬-y | *nisd-é-y | *wérǵ-e-y | ||||
| dual | nom.-voc.-acc. | *nókʷt-h₁e | *ph₂t-ér-h₁e | *mént-i-h₁ | *dór-w-ih₁ | ? | ? | *nisd-ó-h₁ | *wérǵ-o-y(h₁) | |||
| plur. | n.-v. | *nókʷt-es | *ph₂t-ér-es | *mént-ey-es | *dór-u-h₂ | *dʰoHn-éh₂-es | *dʰō̬n-ā̬́-s | *nisd-ó-es | *wérǵ-e-h₂ | |||
| acc. | *nókʷt-n̥s | *ph₂t-ér-n̥s | *mént-i-ns | *dʰoHn-éh₂-ns (-ās) | *dʰō̬n-ā̬́-s | *nisd-ó-ns | ||||||
| inst. | *nékʷt-bʰi | *ph₂t-r̥-bʰí | *mn̥t-í-bʰi | *dr-ú-bʰi | *dʰoHn-éh₂-bʰi | *dʰō̬n-ā̬́-bʰi | *nisd-ṓ-ys | *wérǵ-ō-ys | ||||
| dat.-abl. | *nékʷt-m̥os | *ph₂t-r̥-mós | *mn̥t-í-mos | *dr-ú-mos | *dʰoHn-éh₂-mos | *dʰō̬n-ā̬́-mos | *nisd-ó-(y)mos | *wérǵ-o-(y)mos | ||||
| gen. | *nékʷt-oHom | *ph₂t-r̥-óHom | *mn̥t-éy-oHom | *dr-éw-oHom | *dʰoHn-éh₂-oHom | *dʰō̬n-á̬-ō̬m | *nisd-ó-oHom | *wérǵ-o-oHom | ||||
| loc. | *nékʷt-su | *ph₂t-r̥-sú | *mn̥t-í-su | *dr-ú-su | *dʰoHn-éh₂-su | *dʰō̬n-ā̬́-su | *nisd-ó-ysu | *wérǵ-o-ysu | ||||
Sunday, March 30, 2014
A Thought Experiment on Linguistic Change (1)
I was basically doing a little thought experiment, and noticed something interesting. I was thinking about how much english has changed over the span of 250 years, and then how much it has changed over the span of 500 years, and how after 1000 years its unrecognizeable. Then I wondered, is there a pattern behind this?
I'm not a fan of glottochronology, nor glottochronological methodology, but I did notice a fairly consistent pattern. I noticed that phonological change seems to occur generationally in steps, and that, it becomes noticeable after about 4-5 generations. So if I were to divide that 250 years up into 125 years.
The assumption made here, is that isolated or not, two areas where a language is spoken, will undergo slightly different changes. Those changes may or may not be regular, that is, if language A underwent 3 sound changes, language B might not also undergo 3 sound changes, but they would at least be noticeably different as a requirement after 125 years in some way. I'd say that it'd be the latest time span before language B would resemble exactly the ancestral form of both language A and B, if it hadn't already gone through some change.
Essentially, my point is, if we were able to hear a voice recording of Abraham Lincoln speaking while still living in Illinois, he'd have a slightly different accent than someone today living in that same part of Illinois.
Now, since the settlement of North America, and even the spread westward in the 1860's onward, we actually do see dialectical differences. The map posted by the Washington Post below could be subdivided further, but it shows the basic outline:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/govbeat/wp/2013/12/02/what-dialect-to-do-you-speak-a-map-of-american-english/
Now, at the borders of these dialects, there tends to be merging of differing dialects. For instance, as someone from Upstate New York, my own speech seems to obey some sound changes for both New England Western and the Inland Northern dialects, and sounds quite similar to the south eastern parts of Ontario and Quebec.
The basic idea is, if you trace your way backward, from dialect to language to language family, to language superfamily, etc.... you can get a somewhat reliable most recent possible date a given language was spoken. While far from finished. The basic idea, before I run through in more depth, is that based on the internal relationships between dialects, you can work your way backward to get an idea as to how long ago a language would have been spoken:
2000-1875 CE Dialectical differences between American English - 125 years
1875-1750 CE Dialectical differences between American and British English - 250 years
1750-1625 CE Dialectical differences in Early Modern English in England - 375 years
1625-1500 CE Modern English developes from Middle English - 500 years
Now, for our purposes, we're counting Middle English as a seperate language. I think that it is sufficiently different from modern english to be counted as such, in the same way that as similar as Portuguese and Spanish are, they are different languages still. Or to make a more time similar comparison, Dutch and Afrikaans.
1500-1375 CE Dialectical differences occur within Middle English, compare Yola and the dialect that gave us Modern English, that are subclassifiable (as say American and British English are subclassifiable).
1375-1250 CE Dialectical differences occur within Middle English.
1250-1125 CE Middle English evolves from the clash between Old English and Norman French. Old English being a seperate language for the same reason Modern and Middle English are being considered seperate.
1125-1000 CE Start of that developement of Middle English from Old English.
1000-875 CE Old English shows multilevel dialectical differentiation
875-750 CE Old English dialects show dialectical differentiation
750-625 CE Old English shows dialectical differentiation
625-500 CE Old English developes from West Germanic. (450 CE is given for the start of Prehistoric Old English according to wikipedia.)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Old_English
It's important to note, that the dates given above are approximate, and they don't coincide perfectly with that given by linguists. A language can be divided up arbitrarily at any point, the point here is utilitarianly.
The basic idea that I came up with, is that after:
125 years dialects begin to emerge from a language. (at this stage, the language itself is still a dialect of a previous language).
250 years dialects form within dialects of a given language. Forming a cluster of related dialects.
375 years a full blown family of dialects emerges within a language, as it begins to split into different languages.
500 years, dialects that began to differentiate 125 years ago, begin to form into seperate languages.
For instance, Latin was brought to Sardinia in 238 BCE.
http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/524166/Sardinian-language
Almost immediately, dialectical differences between Vulgar Latin and Sardinian began to occur, as the two began to develope along different trajectories. By about 600 CE, Vulgar (Nonclassical) Latin, had split into nonmutually intelligeable dialects, or languages.
If we were to measure this time distance based on the present, we'd measure our way backwards in intervals of 125 years. Vulgar Latin would exist in Sardinia from about 250 BCE to 125 BCE when it became the Sardinian Dialect of Vulgar Latin.
125-1 BCE would see the rise of dialects within Sardinian Vulgar Latin on the island.
1-125 CE would see multiple level dialectical differentiations in Sardinia.
125-250 CE would then have Sardinian develope into a seperate language.
Now, whether a group of dialects developes into one or multiple languages, depends on whether those dialects end up forming a coherent group. The same process that brought English to being similar to Norman French, is the same process that would've developed Sardinian and Icelandic into languages. The speakers of the dialects in those groups commonly communicated with one another, as they lived on the same island or same country, so there was a high degree of linguistic exchange between their communities.
You could do the same by comparing the spread of words like tea~chai into and into and through Europe from East Asia. You have communities of speakers with a method of communication (between Europe and East Asia, the oceanic and silk road trade routes).
Basically, in a nutshell, the process by which one language would develope into another, seems to take about 500 years. We'll explore this more in further posts.
I'm not a fan of glottochronology, nor glottochronological methodology, but I did notice a fairly consistent pattern. I noticed that phonological change seems to occur generationally in steps, and that, it becomes noticeable after about 4-5 generations. So if I were to divide that 250 years up into 125 years.
The assumption made here, is that isolated or not, two areas where a language is spoken, will undergo slightly different changes. Those changes may or may not be regular, that is, if language A underwent 3 sound changes, language B might not also undergo 3 sound changes, but they would at least be noticeably different as a requirement after 125 years in some way. I'd say that it'd be the latest time span before language B would resemble exactly the ancestral form of both language A and B, if it hadn't already gone through some change.
Essentially, my point is, if we were able to hear a voice recording of Abraham Lincoln speaking while still living in Illinois, he'd have a slightly different accent than someone today living in that same part of Illinois.
Now, since the settlement of North America, and even the spread westward in the 1860's onward, we actually do see dialectical differences. The map posted by the Washington Post below could be subdivided further, but it shows the basic outline:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/govbeat/wp/2013/12/02/what-dialect-to-do-you-speak-a-map-of-american-english/
Now, at the borders of these dialects, there tends to be merging of differing dialects. For instance, as someone from Upstate New York, my own speech seems to obey some sound changes for both New England Western and the Inland Northern dialects, and sounds quite similar to the south eastern parts of Ontario and Quebec.
The basic idea is, if you trace your way backward, from dialect to language to language family, to language superfamily, etc.... you can get a somewhat reliable most recent possible date a given language was spoken. While far from finished. The basic idea, before I run through in more depth, is that based on the internal relationships between dialects, you can work your way backward to get an idea as to how long ago a language would have been spoken:
2000-1875 CE Dialectical differences between American English - 125 years
1875-1750 CE Dialectical differences between American and British English - 250 years
1750-1625 CE Dialectical differences in Early Modern English in England - 375 years
1625-1500 CE Modern English developes from Middle English - 500 years
Now, for our purposes, we're counting Middle English as a seperate language. I think that it is sufficiently different from modern english to be counted as such, in the same way that as similar as Portuguese and Spanish are, they are different languages still. Or to make a more time similar comparison, Dutch and Afrikaans.
1500-1375 CE Dialectical differences occur within Middle English, compare Yola and the dialect that gave us Modern English, that are subclassifiable (as say American and British English are subclassifiable).
1375-1250 CE Dialectical differences occur within Middle English.
1250-1125 CE Middle English evolves from the clash between Old English and Norman French. Old English being a seperate language for the same reason Modern and Middle English are being considered seperate.
1125-1000 CE Start of that developement of Middle English from Old English.
1000-875 CE Old English shows multilevel dialectical differentiation
875-750 CE Old English dialects show dialectical differentiation
750-625 CE Old English shows dialectical differentiation
625-500 CE Old English developes from West Germanic. (450 CE is given for the start of Prehistoric Old English according to wikipedia.)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Old_English
It's important to note, that the dates given above are approximate, and they don't coincide perfectly with that given by linguists. A language can be divided up arbitrarily at any point, the point here is utilitarianly.
The basic idea that I came up with, is that after:
125 years dialects begin to emerge from a language. (at this stage, the language itself is still a dialect of a previous language).
250 years dialects form within dialects of a given language. Forming a cluster of related dialects.
375 years a full blown family of dialects emerges within a language, as it begins to split into different languages.
500 years, dialects that began to differentiate 125 years ago, begin to form into seperate languages.
For instance, Latin was brought to Sardinia in 238 BCE.
http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/524166/Sardinian-language
Almost immediately, dialectical differences between Vulgar Latin and Sardinian began to occur, as the two began to develope along different trajectories. By about 600 CE, Vulgar (Nonclassical) Latin, had split into nonmutually intelligeable dialects, or languages.
If we were to measure this time distance based on the present, we'd measure our way backwards in intervals of 125 years. Vulgar Latin would exist in Sardinia from about 250 BCE to 125 BCE when it became the Sardinian Dialect of Vulgar Latin.
125-1 BCE would see the rise of dialects within Sardinian Vulgar Latin on the island.
1-125 CE would see multiple level dialectical differentiations in Sardinia.
125-250 CE would then have Sardinian develope into a seperate language.
Now, whether a group of dialects developes into one or multiple languages, depends on whether those dialects end up forming a coherent group. The same process that brought English to being similar to Norman French, is the same process that would've developed Sardinian and Icelandic into languages. The speakers of the dialects in those groups commonly communicated with one another, as they lived on the same island or same country, so there was a high degree of linguistic exchange between their communities.
You could do the same by comparing the spread of words like tea~chai into and into and through Europe from East Asia. You have communities of speakers with a method of communication (between Europe and East Asia, the oceanic and silk road trade routes).
Basically, in a nutshell, the process by which one language would develope into another, seems to take about 500 years. We'll explore this more in further posts.
Saturday, March 29, 2014
Linguistically Inclined
I was going to call myself the amateur scholar, but that name was already taken. So I came up with "Linguistically Inclined", as it basically sums up what my work will be. Though I won't just touch on linguistics, but also history, archaeology, anthropology, and even current events at times.
Anyway....
I wanted to start with an observation that I've made. If you look at a map of the world's language families, you'll notice something quite striking and odd. In fact, at first, it doesn't even make any sense.
As we all now now, humans left Africa 70,000 years ago, and spread acrossed the globe eastward, until we basically covered all continents except Antartica. Now, if you look at how many language families are represented on each continent, you'll find the opposite of the expected results. Places like South America appear more linguistically diverse than Asia, and Asia more linguistically diverse than Africa:
Central and South America
- Alacalufan languages
- Arauan languages
- Araucanian languages
- Arawakan languages
- Arutani–Sape languages
- Aymaran languages
- Barbacoan languages
- Cahuapanan languages
- Carib languages
- Catacaoan languages
- Chapacuran languages
- Charruan languages
- Chibchan languages
- Chimuan languages
- Choco languages
- Chon languages
- Esmerelda–Yaruro languages
- Guaicuruan languages (Waikurian)
- Hibito–Cholon languages
- Hodï languages
- Ge languages
- Jicaquean languages
- Jirajaran languages
- Jivaroan languages
- Katembri–Taruma languages
- Katukinan languages
- Lencan languages
- Lule–Vilela languages
- Mascoian languages
- Mashakalian languages
- Matacoan languages
- Misumalpan languages
- Mosetenan languages
- Mura languages
- Nadahup languages
- Nambiquaran languages
- Otomakoan languages
- Pano–Tacanan languages
- Peba–Yaguan languages
- Puinavean languages (Maku)
- Quechuan languages
- Salivan languages
- Tequiraca–Canichana languages
- Timotean languages
- Tiniguan languages
- Tucanoan languages
- Tupian languages
- Uru–Chipaya languages
- Witotoan language
- Xincan languages
- Yabutian languages
- Yanomam languages
- Zamucoan languages
- Zaparoan languages
- Algic languages
- Caddoan languages
- Chimakuan languages
- Chumashan languages
- Eskimo–Aleut languages
- Hokan
- Iroquoian languages
- Keres languages
- Mayan languages
- Mixe–Zoquean languages
- Muskogean languages
- Na-Dene languages
- Oto-Manguean languages
- Penutian
- Siouan–Catawban languages
- Tanoan languages
- Totonacan languages
- Uto-Aztecan languages
- Wakashan languages
- Wintuan languages
- Yukian languages
- Bunaban languages
- Daly languages
- Limilngan languages
- Djeragan languages
- Nyulnyulan languages
- Wororan languages
- Mirndi languages
- Arnhem Land languages
- Gunwinyguan languages
- Pama–Nyungan languages
- Tasmanian languages
- Baining languages
- Border languages
- Central Solomons languages
- East Bird's Head – Sentani languages
- Eastern Trans-Fly languages
- Fas languages
- East Geelvink Bay languages
- Lakes Plain languages
- Left May languages
- Kwomtari languages
- Mairasi languages
- Nimboran languages
- North Bougainville languages
- Piawi languages
- Ramu – Lower Sepik languages
- Senagi languages
- Sepik languages
- Skou languages
- South Bougainville languages
- Tor–Kwerba languages
- Torricelli languages
- Trans-Fly – Bulaka River languages
- Trans–New Guinea
- West New Britain languages
- West Papuan languages
- Yuat languages
- Japonic languages
- Andamanese languages
- Austroasiatic languages
- Austronesian languages
- Ongan languages
- Tai–Kadai languages
- Miao-Yao languages (Hmong-Mien)
- Sino-Tibetan languages
- Mongolic languages
- Tungusic languages
- Turkic languages
- Caspian languages(NE Caucasian
- Hurro-Urartian languages
- Pontic languages (NW Caucasian)
- Yeniseian languages
- Dravidian languages
- Indo-European languages
- Kartvelian languages (S Caucasian)
- Luorawetlan languages (ChuckotkoKamchatkan)
- Tyrsenian languages
- Uralic languages
- Yukaghir languages
Africa and Southwest Asia
- Afro-Asiatic languages
- Niger–Congo languages
- Nilo-Saharan languages
- Khoe languages
- Tuu languages
- Kx'a languages
- Ubangian languages
- Mande languages
- Songhay languages
- Kadu languages
- Koman languages
It's been suggested that this is due to the spread of agriculture, pastoralism, and other technological innovations. Earlier groups either assimilated into, or were replaced by, groups that they expanded into. Kind of like how most of Mexico now speaks spanish, even amongst people with high degrees of native ancestry.
Though its not always the conquered that adopts the languages of the conquerer. When he persians conquered the Assyrian Empire, they borrowed Aramaic for administrative purposes. Aramaic appears to be just a trade language that had replaced the earlier Akkadian. Predicting what languages will replace what is a less than straightforward seeming process.
Lists of language families taken from:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_language_families
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)