The origin of language
Problematic
Recent work in comparative linguistics suggests that all, or almost all,
attested human languages may derive from a single earlier language.
Hypotheses of origin
Continuity theory: Complexity of language indicates gradual evolution from pre-
linguistic systems among early primates
Discontinuity theory: Human language is unique and cannot be compared
to any non-human system, so language must have
appeared fairly suddenly in human evolution
Monogenesis: a single proto-language between 200,000 and 50,000 years ago
Polygenesis: languages evolved in several lineages independent of one another
Complicating factors in the search for origins
Time
languages develop and change in a variety of ways
Diverge
Diachronic change
Converge
Two or more unrelated languages in contact acquire and display
similar linguistic features not inherited from their respective proto-
languages
Replacement
Speakers gradually shift to a completely different language
Complete loss
A crucial part of the language jigsaw is lost : Hittite
The First Language
Genetic and archaeological evidence suggests that Homo Sapiens originated
in and spread from East Africa, so maybe an ancestor of the Khoisan languages,
spoken around 50,000 years ago
Evidence?
The nature of reconstructed proto-languages suggests older languages made
more phonological and morphological distinctions than their descendants.
Evidence cited includes
Khoisan languages have ‘click’ sounds, no language has developed them.
Phoneme inventories reduce the further they are from Khoisan languages.
East ǃXoon dialect: Non-click consonantsLabial Dental Alveolar Palatal Velar Uvular Glottal
Plosive voiced d dz ɡ ɢ ~ ɴɢ
tenuis p* t ts k q ʔ
voiceless
aspirated
pʰ* tʰ tsʰ kʰ qʰ
voiced aspirated
(breathy voiced?)
dtʰ
(dʱ)
dtsʰ
(dzʱ)
ɡkʰ* ɢqʰ ~
ɴɢqʰ
voiceless ejective tʼ* tsʼ kʼ*, kxʼ (?) (qʼ)
voiced ejective dtsʼ ɡkxʼ
Fricative voiceless f* s x h*
Nasal voiced m n ɲ (ŋ)
glottalized ˀm ˀn
Other (β) (l) (dʲ ~ j)
noisy clicks ‘sharp’ clicks
bilabial dental lateral alveolar palatal
kʘ kǀ kǁ kǃ kǂ
kʘʰ* kǀʰ kǁʰ kǃʰ kǂʰ
ɡʘ ɡǀ ɡǁ ɡǃ ɡǂ
ɡʘh ɡǀh ɡǁh ɡǃh ɡǂh
ŋʘ ŋǀ ŋǁ ŋǃ ŋǂ
ŋ̊ʘ ŋ̊ǀ ŋ̊ǁ ŋ̊ǃ ŋ̊ǂ
↓ŋ̊ʘʰ ↓ŋ̊ǀʰ ↓ŋ̊ǁʰ ↓ŋ̊ǃʰ ↓ŋ̊ǂʰ
kʘˀ kǀˀ kǁˀ kǃˀ kǂˀ
(kʘʼ?)*
ˀŋʘ ˀŋǀ ˀŋǁ ˀŋǃ ˀŋǂ
qʘ qǀ qǁ qǃ qǂ
(qʘʰ?)*
ɢʘ ɢǀ ɢǁ ɢǃ ɢǂ
ɢǀh ɢǃh ɢǂh
kʘˣ kǀˣ kǁˣ kǃˣ kǂˣ
ɡʘx ɡǀx ɡǁx ɡǃx ɡǂx
qʘʼ qǀʼ qǁʼ qǃʼ qǂʼ
kʘʼqʼ kǀʼqʼ kǁʼqʼ kǃʼqʼ kǂʼqʼ
ɡʘqʼ ɡǀqʼ ɡǁqʼ ɡǃqʼ ɡǂqʼ
East ǃXoon dialect: Click consonants
Relatively recent work
(i) The word order in the ancestral language was SOV
(ii) Except for cases of diffusion, the direction of syntactic change,
when it occurs, has been for the most part SOV > SVO and,
beyond that, SVO > VSO / VOS with a subsequent reversion to
SVO occurring occasionally. Reversion to SOV occurs only through
diffusion.
(iii) Diffusion, although important, is not the dominant process in
the evolution of word order.
(iv) The two extremely rare word orders (OVS and OSV) derive
directly from SOV.
Murray Gell-Mann and Merritt Ruhlen, The origin and evolution of word order
PNAS 2011 October, 108 (42) 17290-17295. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1113716108
Nostracists and the Nostratic hypothesis
In 1903 Holger Pedersen proposed ‘Nostratic’ (< Latin nostrāsour countryman’) a common ancestor for
Indo-European Finno-Ugric Samoyed Turkish Mongolian
Manchu Yukaghir Eskimo Semitic Hamitic
Spoken between 15,000 and 12,000 years ago
Study picked up by the Russians in the 1960s, and has continued Holger Pedersen
elsewhere until now
Controversial!
Language families included in Nostratic not always agreed on
Language families proposed for inclusion in Nostratic vary
Nostratic Reconstructions are themselves based on proto-languagereconstructions
Nostratic English
(IPA)
/KʼelHæ wetʼei ʕaKʼun kæhla/ Language is a ford through the river of time,
/kʼat͡ɬai palhVkʼV na wetæ/ it leads us to the dwelling of those gone before;
/ɕa da ʔakʼV ʔeja ʔælæ/ but he cannot arrive there,
/jakʼo pele tʼuba wete/ who fears deep water.
Uncertain values: Kʼ could be /kʼ/ or /qʼ/
H could be /h/ or /ħ/
V / ʌ = uncertain vowel.
IF you are interested
Relatively recent work
Allan Bomhard: Toward Proto-Nostratic a new approach to the comparison
Ebook of Proto-Indo-European and Proto-Afroasiatic.
Allan R Bomhard John C Kerns: The Nostratic macrofamily : a study in
Call No. 410 B69 distant linguistic relationship
Nostratic Dictionary
Aharon Dolgopolsky’s Nostratic Dictionary seems to be widely
and freely available on the interweb as a PDF.
Proto-Indo-European (PIE)
PIE is not the ‘original’ language, it is not even the earliest form of itself. It is
the earliest ‘point’ that the parent language can be identified
It has been reconstructed using the comparative method
Putative date: 4000 BC (Late Neolithic)
At least 1500–2000 years between Proto-Indo-European language and the earliest
attested IE language (Hittite)
PIE is the most widespread language family, although no direct evidence of it
remains.
IE SUBGROUPS
Subgroup Earliest documents
CELTIC 500 AD
GERMANIC 500 AD (Gothic)
ITALIC 700 BC (Old Latin)
GREEK 1500 BC (Mycenean), 800 BC (Homer)
ALBANIAN 1500 AD
ARMENIAN 500 AD
BALTIC 1500 AD
SLAVIC 900 AD
IRANIAN 600 BC (Avestan)
INDIC 1500 BC (Vedic) 800 BC (Classical)
TOKHARIAN 700 AD
ANATOLIAN 1500 BC (Hittite)
Proto-Indo-European Urheimat
Broadly agreed stages of development
A homeland on the East Ukrainian / South Russian steppes.
Spread into Europe, the Middle East, and central Asia
Formation of daughter languages
PIE ‘Urheimat’ hypotheses
Archaeology suggests a group of related populations scattered over a vast
homeland. Linguistically, this does not hold up.
‘bee’ and ‘birch’
4 principle locations suggested:
1. The Pontic Steppes (present day Ukraine) c4100 BC. Supported by
archaeology. (Gimbutas, Mallory)
2. Pontic-Caspian c4500-3000 BC. Archaeology agrees with reconstructed
Indo-European customs.
3. Central Europe / Balkans c5000 BC. Some archaeological evidence.
4. Anatolia c7000-6000 BC. Archaeology and PIE language reconstruction
say too early.
PIE Semantics
Reconstructed forms reveal a culture with:
A patrilineal kinship system
Domesticated cattle, sheep, horses and dogs
Agriculture and cereal cultivation
A climate with winter snow, cold climate vegetation
Water transportation
Technology; tools, weapons, the plough and solid wheel
Polytheistic religion, including a *dyeus ph2tēr
Heroic poetry and song lyrics
What does this confirm about PIE language?
Reconstruction of the consonant system of PIE.
Cognate sets
Old English Latin Greek Sanskrit
FOOT fo:t ped- pod- pa:d-
FATHER fæder pater pate:r pitar-
SLEEP swefan sopor hypnos svapati
OVER, ABOVE ofer super huper upari
Correspondence f p p p
PIE *p
Exercise 1:
Old English Latin Greek Sanskrit
YOU (Singular) θu:/θe: tu:/te: tu /toi tvam/te
THREE θri: tre:s treis trayas
TURN weorθan werto: - varta:mi
BROTHER bro:θor fra:ter phra:te:r bhra:tar
Correspondence
PIE
θ t t t
*t
Exercise 2.
Old English Latin Greek Sanskrit
WHAT? hwæt kwid ti cid
FOLLOW saihwan (Gothic) sekwor hepomai sacate
LEAVE li:hwan (Gothic) linkwo: leipo: rikta
CIRCLE,
WHEEL
hwe:ogol kolo:
(‘dwell’)
kuklos, cakram
Correspondences
PIE
hw k(w) p / t / k c / k
*kw
stop → affricate → fricative →placeless
approximant→ no sound
affrication →spirantization
(deaffrication)→ debuccalization → elision
[p] or [pʰ]
→ [pɸ] → [ɸ] →
[h] → (zero)
→ [pf] → [f] →
[t] or [tʰ]
→ [tθ] → [θ] →
→ [ts] → [s] →
[k] or [kʰ] → [kx] → [x] →
Note: the change voiceless stop > fricative is more common than voiceless stop >
affricate > fricative.
Lenition
Proto-Indo-European consonants
Labial dental
Velar
Laryngealpalatal plain
labio-
velar
Oral
stops
*p (*b) *t *d *ḱ *ǵ *k *g *kʷ *gʷ
asp. *bʰ *dʰ *ǵʰ *gʰ *gʷʰ
Nasal stops *m *n
Fricative *s*h₁, *h₂,
*h₃
Lateral *l
Trill *r
Semivowels *y *w
PIE Phonology: traditional reconstruction
Proto Indo-European (PIE)
Some vowel Correspondences
Gothic Latin Greek Sanskrit PIE
IS ist est esti asti *e
I ic ego: ego: aham *e
EIGHT ahtau okto: okto: astau *o
NIGHT nahts nokt- - nakt- *o
FROM,AWAY af ab apo apa *a
FIELD akrs agr- agros ajras *a
MOTHER mo:dor ma:te:r me:te:r ma:tar *a:WIDOW
widuwo: widua e:itʰeos vidhava *iYOKE
juk jugum zugon yugam *u
Proto-Indo-European Laryngeals
Most Indo-Europeanists accept some version of laryngeal theory because it
simplifies some hard-to-explain sound changes and patterns of alternation that
appear in various Indo-European languages.
Ferdinand de Saussure first posited influential, but now missing, sounds to
explain irregular vowel correspondences. He called them coéfficents sonantiques
and wrote them *ə₁ *ə₂ *ə₃
The revelation of Hittite
Anatolian languages the only Indo-European languages where laryngeals are
attested directly and consistently as consonantal sounds.
Otherwise, their presence is inferred by the effects they had on neighbouring
sounds.
PIE vowels
The only proper vowels are /e o a/ These segments are always syllabic.
e o
a
The sonants (j w r l m n) are peculiar in that they are both syllabic (vowels) and
consonants, depending on what sounds are adjacent
*i and *u
phonetically vowels, phonologically they were non-syllabic sonorants. These are
sometimes called ‘vocoids’ (a sound made with an open oral cavity such that
there is little audible friction in the mouth)
Indo-European had eight cases:
Nominative (nom.) subject of a finite verb
Accusative (acc.) direct object of a verb
Genitive (gen.) possessive (N’s and of)
Dative (dat.) indirect object
Ablative (abl.) movement from something, or the cause of something
Vocative (voc.) marks an addressee
Locative (loc.) indicates a location
Instrumental (inst.) marks a noun used in performing an action
Problems
Disagreement over reconstructed inflections, because some endings (e.g. the
genitive plural) are difficult to reconstruct
Dual endings of cases are controversial. They are not widely attested and
diverge greatly where they are.
PIE Morphology
NOUN Inflections
Singular Dual Plural
Animate Neuter Animate Neuter Animate Neuter
Nominative *-s, *-Ø
*-m, *-Ø*-h₁(e)
*-ih₁*-es
*-h₂, *-ØVocative *-Ø
Accusative *-m *-ih₁ *-ns
Instrumental *-(e)h₁ *-bʰih₁ *-bʰi
Dative *-(e)i *-me *-mus
Ablative*-(o)s
*-ios *-ios
Genitive *-h₁e *-om
Locative *-i, *-Ø *-h₁ou *-su
PIE Morphology
PIE roots predominantly monosyllabic with a basic shape CVC(C).
Variable word stress
New words derived by:
Derivational affixes e.g. (é)-tis (abstract nouns from verbs)
*gʷem (‘to step’) + *-tis > gʷémtis ‘walking’
Ablaut alternations to root: *ḱernes ‘horned’ *ḱernos ‘horn’
Stress shift: *bʰóros ‘burden’ *bʰorós ‘carrier’
Reduplication: kʷekʷlos ‘wheel’ (Gmc. ‘circle’)
Compounding: *drḱ-h₂ḱru ‘tear’ (‘eye’ + ‘bitter’)
The king and the god
To rḗḱs éh1est. So n̥putlos éh1est. So rēḱs súhnum éwel(e)t. Só tós(j)o ǵʰeutérm̥
(e)pr̥ḱsḱet: "Súhxnus moi ǵn̥h1jotām!" So ǵʰeutēr tom rḗǵm̥ éweukʷet: "Ihxgeswo
deiwóm Wérunom". So rḗḱs deiwóm Werunom h4úpo-sesore nu deiwóm
(é)ihxgeto. "ḱludʰí moi, phater Werune!" Deiwós Wérunos km̥ta diwós égʷehat.
"Kʷíd welsi?" "Wélmi súxnum." "Tód h1éstu", wéukʷet loukós deiwos Werunos.
Rēǵós pótniha súhnum gegonh1e.
Source: Mallory, J.P.; Douglas Q. Adams (1997). Encyclopedia of Indo-European Culture.
Once there was a king. He was childless. The king wanted a son. He asked his
priest: "May a son be born to me!" The priest said to the king: "Pray to the god
Werunos". The king approached the god Werunos to pray now to the god. "Hear
me, father Werunos!" The god Werunos came down from heaven. "What do you
want?" "I want a son." "Let this be so", said the bright god Werunos. The king's
lady bore a son.