The Family of Languages That Developed From Latin Are Called What?

Categories
Nooks and crannies
Yesteryear
Semantic enigmas
The body beautiful
Crimson tape, white lies
Speculative science
This sceptred isle
Root of all evil
Upstanding conundrums
This sporting life
Phase and screen
Birds and the bees

NOOKS AND CRANNIES

If the origin of well-nigh 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 man (or rather man sapiens sapiens). A look 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 (similar to those simplified evolutionary trees you should notice in whatever biology class volume), and Latin isn't really the root of every linguistic communication but an adjunct from Indoeuropean language. Nevertheless, this one isn't *the* root either. As to new languages, one possibility is sufficient differentiation (ofttimes helped by political structures) - such as Dutch some centuries ago or nowadays "Swiss German", both beingness offsprings from German language. Just note that Swiss TV news and films are subtitled for Germany and Austria A similar trend might one day make American a language separate from (British) English.

  R. Wittig, Freiberg, Federal republic of germany

• To answer your start question, Latin belongs to a very broad family unit of languages which nosotros telephone call "Indo-European", and which we assume spread prehistorically from the emerging cultures of India and the Middle East. It has some affinity with Greek (which was the language of ane of the virtually important Mediterranean cultures of classical times), and as it grew from the distinct language of the district of Latium, it would have captivated elements of Etruscan and the Celtic languages of aboriginal Italy. To answer your 2d question, by and large newer languages are seen to be degenerate versions of older ones, their usage changing with decadence rather than to any program, and have all been field of study to outside influences, to a greater or lesser extent. Our own English has often been called piddling 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 every bit ours, nosotros 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 sure other people will wish to add together to this. As to Chinese and Japanese, I leave that to someone else.

  Paul Thompson, Perth Scotland

• Latin is far from being the origin of near languages, but forms the footing of the Romantic languages of Europe. English borrowed some Latin during the Roman occupation, only Latin was in no style involved with all the languages in, for example, the Philippines or Africa. I believe in that location are some linguists who believe that they may one day be able to deduce that at that place was an original human language from which all others diverged.

  Vivienne Cox, London Great britain

• Latin is function of the Indo-European family of languages which came from an unknown mutual root language; Proto Indo-European. Sanskrit, Latin, Celtic and Germanic languages are (amidst others)said to vest to the Indo-European family. Japanese however is not part of a large family of languages. I accept heard it said that Japanese is related to no other language, only on the other manus it apparently has some similarities to Korean and for some reason, Turkish.

  sam, murayama japan

• The first 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, Romanaian, etc.), but these constitute only a tiny minority of the globe'due south 7,000-odd languages, even if betwixt 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 Italy known every bit Latium (Italian 'Lazio') several centuries BC. Latin's similarities to other European and Indian languages justify its inclusion among the Indo-European languages, which are thought to descend from an ancestral language known as 'Proto Indo-European', spoken several chiliad years ago. The only new languages which are 'formulated' in the normal sense of that term are bogus languages (east.thou. computer 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 beingness 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' yous're talking about - although Chinese people are in the habit of calling them 'dialects', some of the varieties labelled in this way are so dissimilar that we can equally well think of them as languages in their own right. Mandarin Chinese, which is spoken by a large proportion of the population of Mainland china, is (like many other languages of that country) classified as a Sino-Tibetan linguistic communication. Japanese, on the other mitt, is put in a linguistic communication family on its own, as it doesn't appear to exist related in any obvious fashion 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 before language(southward), of course, and since Japan is an archipelago the ancestral language(s) would presumably accept been brought from the mainland of east asia when the islands were first populated. For further information see Ethnologue (world wide web.ethnologue.org).

  D. Watt, York, England

• Latin is the origin of some European languages east.grand. French, Italian, Spanish etc (the Romance languages). However, Latin is closely related to other Indo European Languages and shares many words with the majority of present-day languages. It is likely that separate languages arise from proximity, accept y'all ever heard engineers hash out sprockets and shims?

  Derry, Cork, Ireland

• Latin is not "the origin of most languages." Very few: Italian, French, Spanish, Portuguese, Romanian, and Romansch (and perhaps Walloon). These are called Romance languages because they derive from the Roman language, i.e., Latin. Cultural influxes and population shifts mostly business relationship for the formation of new languages. Latin grew out of the clash betwixt the Osco-Umbrian invaders and the ethnic Etruscans in what we at present call Italian republic. You might, with some justification, phone call English a "new" language, for the Anglo-Saxon invaders of United kingdom spoke a language that you lot would not recognise, but they called information technology English (or maybe Anglisch - the tongue of the Angles). A lost language that we linguists call Aryan was the source of a "new" language, called Gothic, That i was the ancestor of German, Dutch, Swedish, Icelandic, English, Norwegian, Frisian, Franconian, and Danish. We call this group Germanic languages. I know little or nothing of such oriental languages every bit Japanese, Chinese, Korean, etc.

  Mark, Honey Island, Texas The states

• The origin of nigh languages is Not Latin. (Do you really think Mandarin or Cantonese or Tagalog or Sanskrit are Latin-based?) Many European languages accept a strong Latin base simply considering 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 aboriginal Indian languages.

  Lane Blume, Marrickville, Commonwealth of australia

• The origin of nearly languages is almost definitely Not Latin, and it is not 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, and so your linguistic communication is related to languages from south Asia, notably Sanskit. Latin can be said to be the origin of the romance languages, Italian (obviously), French, Portuguese, Castilian and some less wide-spread languages all based in Europe. Not all European languages are strongly influenced past 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 instance with all Asian languages, equally you have guessed. In fact it is probably the other way round, Latin evolved from a language developed in Islamic republic of 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, just if they are isolated, as some Amazon tribes have been until recently, they invent their own unique language. I hope you study languages, and in English, look at a dictionary when a give-and-take interests y'all, and encounter where it came from.

  Stephen Brown, Wellington, NZ

• Your premise is false. Latin is the ancestor of a small-scale grouping of Indo-European languages - the Romantic group, of which Spanish is the major fellow member. The Germanic group, of which English is role, is descended from Gothic. The Slavic, Turkic, Indo-Iranian, and Semitic groups are also examples of linguistic communication families which are not descended from Latin. All are part of the Indo-European group, which are idea to take descended from a mutual language which pre-existed Latin, Hebrew, Gothic and Sanskrit. East Asian languages are quite split, equally are a handful of European langugages. The Finno-Ugric group (Hungarian, Finnish and Estonian) is unconnected to the Indo-European family and Georgian and Basque are idea to be unconnected to any other languages.

  Quentin Langley, Woking, UK

• Not sure if this is an reply or further query but Irish/Gaelic is claimed every bit being the only stand-alone language in western Europe, with Latin having little bearing on it. Personally, Bengali seems to have some shared characteristics, only that might exist shared Anglicisation.

  Claire Higgins, Ballymena, Republic of ireland

• This was taken from Yahoo - xvi/4/2011 All the world's languages may date back to a single 'mother tongue' spoken in pre-historic Africa, co-ordinate to new research. The written report suggests that betwixt 50,000 and 70,000 years ago humans spoke in a single dialect that proved the catalyst for man civilisation. The report by Dr Quentin Atkinson from The University of Auckland in New Zealand is based on phonemes - distinct sounds such as vowels and consonants that make up language. He analysed the number of phonemes establish in 504 world languages, and hypothesized that languages with the nigh phonemes were the oldest. Too, the dialects furthest away from the 'mother tongue' were institute to be less complicated. The study establish that some of Africa'south languages (which characteristic clicks) have over a 100 phonemes, while Hawaiian - spoken on the furthest point on the migration route out of Africa, just has 13. In short, the further abroad from Africa you go, 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 only in this region, then migrated to the residuum of the world around 70,000- fifty,000 years agone, the period mentioned in the study. "It was the catalyst that spurred the human expansion that nosotros all are a production of," Dr. Atkinson told the Wall Street Periodical. During this time there 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 consequence of linguistic communication, which prompted more abstract thinking. The report also suggests that while language began to be spread throughout the world during this catamenia, humans may have actually begun communicating verbally over many years before. Professor Robin Dunbar, an anthropologist at Oxford Academy told The Post that based on this report, the origin of linguistic communication could now be pushed back to between 100,000 and 200,000 years agone. Written past Orlando Parfitt

  Phil Biggerton, Coventry UK

Add your answer

henrypainarompat.blogspot.com

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

Share this post