The Romance Languages (E.g., French, Spanish) Belong to the ________ Language Family.

Categories
Nooks and crannies
Yesteryear
Semantic enigmas
The torso beautiful
Reddish tape, white lies
Speculative science
This sceptred isle
Root of all evil
Ethical conundrums
This sporting life
Stage and screen
Birds and the bees

NOOKS AND CRANNIES

If the origin of most languages is Latin, what is the origin of Latin? Also, how is a new language formulated? And what is the origin of the far eastern languages such as Chinese and Japanese?

Richard Lundy, Wirral

• The trouble is connected to the origin of human being (or rather homo sapiens sapiens). A wait into http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Origin_of_language might requite some insight. The traditional (and not all that far back reaching) idea is a kind of family tree (like to those simplified evolutionary trees you should find in any biology grade book), and Latin isn't really the root of every linguistic communication but an offshoot from Indoeuropean language. Nevertheless, this one isn't *the* root either. As to new languages, ane possibility is sufficient differentiation (oftentimes helped past political structures) - such as Dutch some centuries ago or nowadays "Swiss German", both being offsprings from German. But note that Swiss Boob tube news and films are subtitled for Germany and Austria A similar tendency might one day brand American a language separate from (British) English.

  R. Wittig, Freiberg, Federal republic of germany

• To reply your first question, Latin belongs to a very wide family of languages which we phone call "Indo-European", and which nosotros assume spread prehistorically from the emerging cultures of Bharat and the Heart East. Information technology has some affinity with Greek (which was the language of one of the virtually important Mediterranean cultures of classical times), and as it grew from the singled-out language of the district of Latium, it would have absorbed elements of Etruscan and the Celtic languages of aboriginal Italy. To answer your second question, by and large newer languages are seen to be degenerate versions of older ones, their usage changing with decadence rather than to whatsoever programme, and have all been subject to exterior influences, to a greater or bottom extent. Our own English language has often been called little more than a dialect of French! More convincingly information technology has been called a creole or pidgin of Anglo-Saxon and Norman French. Sometimes, in the development of a language such as ours, we can spot historical events which influenced it. For example, the inovative and inventive language of William Shakespeare, and the enforced standardisation in the 19c and early 20c. I am certain other people will wish to add to this. As to Chinese and Japanese, I get out that to someone else.

  Paul Thompson, Perth Scotland

• Latin is far from beingness the origin of nearly languages, but forms the basis of the Romantic languages of Europe. English borrowed some Latin during the Roman occupation, merely Latin was in no way involved with all the languages in, for example, the Philippines or Africa. I believe there are some linguists who believe that they may one twenty-four hours be able to deduce that there was an original human linguistic communication from which all others diverged.

  Vivienne Cox, London Britain

• Latin is part of the Indo-European family of languages which came from an unknown common root linguistic communication; Proto Indo-European. Sanskrit, Latin, Celtic and Germanic languages are (among others)said to vest to the Indo-European family unit. Japanese notwithstanding is not part of a large family of languages. I have heard information technology said that Japanese is related to no other linguistic communication, but on the other hand it obviously has some similarities to Korean and for some reason, Turkish.

  sam, murayama nippon

• The outset question is invalid: Latin isn't the origin of most languages. Vulgar Latin was the ancestor of a number of European languages (the Romance languages French, Italian, Spanish, Portuguese, Romanian, etc.), but these institute simply a tiny minority of the world's 7,000-odd languages, even if between them they are spoken by a sizeable minority of people alive today. Latin was the Italic language spoken by the Latins, who settled the area of Italia known as Latium (Italian 'Lazio') several centuries BC. Latin'south similarities to other European and Indian languages justify its inclusion among the Indo-European languages, which are thought to descend from an bequeathed linguistic communication known as 'Proto Indo-European', spoken several thousand years agone. The only new languages which are 'formulated' in the normal sense of that term are artificial languages (eastward.g. calculator languages, or invented spoken languages like Esperanto). It could be argued that pidgins are 'formulated' in some sense, although they seem to arise spontaneously without much deliberate designing or planning being involved on the part of their speakers. Finally, if you're looking for an origin for Chinese, you take to specify which of the many languages labelled 'Chinese' you're talking about - although Chinese people are in the habit of calling them 'dialects', some of the varieties labelled in this way are and then different that we can equally well recall of them as languages in their own correct. Mandarin Chinese, which is spoken by a big proportion of the population of China, is (similar many other languages of that state) classified as a Sino-Tibetan language. Japanese, on the other mitt, is put in a language family on its own, as it doesn't appear to be related in whatever obvious manner to other languages of east Asia, or indeed anywhere else. It has borrowed from (Mandarin) Chinese very heavily, so for that reason shares numerous superficial features with it. Japanese must accept developed from some earlier linguistic communication(s), of course, and since Nippon is an archipelago the ancestral linguistic communication(south) would presumably accept been brought from the mainland of eastern asia when the islands were first populated. For further data meet Ethnologue (www.ethnologue.org).

  D. Watt, York, England

• Latin is the origin of some European languages e.thou. French, Italian, Castilian etc (the Romance languages). However, Latin is closely related to other Indo European Languages and shares many words with the majority of present-twenty-four hour period languages. It is likely that divide languages arise from proximity, have y'all ever heard engineers discuss sprockets and shims?

  Derry, Cork, Republic of ireland

• Latin is not "the origin of most languages." Very few: Italian, French, Spanish, Portuguese, Romanian, and Romansch (and possibly Walloon). These are called Romance languages because they derive from the Roman language, i.due east., Latin. Cultural influxes and population shifts more often than not business relationship for the formation of new languages. Latin grew out of the disharmonism between the Osco-Umbrian invaders and the indigenous Etruscans in what we at present call Italy. You might, with some justification, call English language a "new" language, for the Anglo-Saxon invaders of Britain spoke a language that you would not recognise, simply they chosen it English (or possibly Anglisch - the tongue of the Angles). A lost linguistic communication that we linguists phone call Aryan was the source of a "new" linguistic communication, called Gothic, That one was the ancestor of High german, Dutch, Swedish, Icelandic, English, Norwegian, Frisian, Franconian, and Danish. We phone call this group Germanic languages. I know little or goose egg of such oriental languages every bit Japanese, Chinese, Korean, etc.

  Mark, Honey Island, Texas The states

• The origin of most languages is NOT Latin. (Do you lot really think Standard mandarin or Cantonese or Tagalog or Sanskrit are Latin-based?) Many European languages have a strong Latin base simply because the Romans ruled Europe for hundreds of years - languages such every bit French, and Spanish are called 'Romance' languages for this reason. Most European languages are related, having originally derived from ancient Indian languages.

  Lane Blume, Marrickville, Commonwealth of australia

• The origin of most languages is most definitely NOT Latin, and information technology is non the origin of English, which comes via German and a lot of other influences (including Latin and a lot of French) from the Indo-European language group, so your language is related to languages from south Asia, notably Sanskit. Latin can exist said to be the origin of the romance languages, Italian (manifestly), French, Portuguese, Spanish and some less wide-spread languages all based in Europe. Not all European languages are strongly influenced by Latin, notably Basque, Magyar and the Baltic languages. The natives of Papua New Guinea speak thousands of different languages, none of which owes any debt of origin in Latin, as is the case with all Asian languages, equally you have guessed. In fact it is probably the other style circular, Latin evolved from a language adult in Pakistan, on the banks of the Indus River. All societies of people develop languages. If they are in contact with other cultures, they borrow from each other, but if they are isolated, as some Amazon tribes accept been until recently, they invent their own unique language. I promise you study languages, and in English language, look at a dictionary when a word interests you, and see where it came from.

  Stephen Dark-brown, Wellington, NZ

• Your premise is fake. Latin is the antecedent of a small group of Indo-European languages - the Romantic group, of which Spanish is the major member. The Germanic group, of which English is part, is descended from Gothic. The Slavic, Turkic, Indo-Iranian, and Semitic groups are likewise examples of linguistic communication families which are non descended from Latin. All are function of the Indo-European grouping, which are thought to take descended from a common linguistic communication which pre-existed Latin, Hebrew, Gothic and Sanskrit. East Asian languages are quite dissever, as are a handful of European langugages. The Finno-Ugric grouping (Hungarian, Finnish and Estonian) is unconnected to the Indo-European family and Georgian and Basque are idea to exist unconnected to whatever other languages.

  Quentin Langley, Woking, UK

• Not sure if this is an answer or further query simply Irish/Gaelic is claimed as being the just stand-solitary linguistic communication in western Europe, with Latin having niggling bearing on information technology. Personally, Bengali seems to accept some shared characteristics, but that might be shared Anglicisation.

  Claire Higgins, Ballymena, Ireland

• This was taken from Yahoo - 16/four/2011 All the world's languages may engagement back to a single 'female parent tongue' spoken in pre-celebrated Africa, according to new research. The study suggests that between 50,000 and 70,000 years ago humans spoke in a single dialect that proved the catalyst for man civilisation. The report past Dr Quentin Atkinson from The University of Auckland in New Zealand is based on phonemes - singled-out sounds such as vowels and consonants that make upwards language. He analysed the number of phonemes constitute in 504 world languages, and hypothesized that languages with the well-nigh phonemes were the oldest. Also, the dialects furthest away from the 'female parent tongue' were plant to exist less complicated. The report found that some of Africa's languages (which characteristic clicks) accept over a 100 phonemes, while Hawaiian - spoken on the furthest point on the migration road out of Africa, only has thirteen. In brusque, the farther away from Africa you get, the fewer phonemes are found. Effectively then, Dr. Atkinson argues that the sub-Saharan region of Africa is the cradle of all man language. This fits with what scientists call the 'Out of Africa' theory - that early humans evolved just in this region, so migrated to the rest of the earth around lxx,000- fifty,000 years agone, the period mentioned in the written report. "It was the catalyst that spurred the human expansion that nosotros all are a product of," Dr. Atkinson told the Wall Street Periodical. During this time at that place were sudden, dramatic advances in human behavior, with our ancestors creating cave art and making sophisticated hunting tools out of bone. Experts argue that these advances were the result of linguistic communication, which prompted more than abstract thinking. The study also suggests that while linguistic communication began to be spread throughout the earth during this period, humans may have actually begun communicating verbally over many years earlier. Professor Robin Dunbar, an anthropologist at Oxford Academy told The Mail that based on this study, the origin of language could now be pushed back to between 100,000 and 200,000 years ago. Written by Orlando Parfitt

  Phil Biggerton, Coventry Britain

Add your reply

williamstwounds.blogspot.com

Source: https://www.theguardian.com/notesandqueries/query/0,,-197552,00.html

Share this post