Register  Login  Active Topics  Maps  

Origins of the Indo-European Language Fam

 Language Learning Forum : Philological Room Post Reply
stelingo
Hexaglot
Senior Member
United Kingdom
Joined 5592 days ago

722 posts - 1076 votes 
Speaks: English*, Spanish, Portuguese, French, German, Italian
Studies: Russian, Czech, Polish, Greek, Mandarin

 
 Message 1 of 4
26 August 2012 at 8:02am | IP Logged 
'Modern Indo-European languages - which include English - originated in Turkey about 9,000 years ago, researchers say.'

Link to BBC online article here

Link to the report here (You need to subscribe)

Edited by stelingo on 26 August 2012 at 8:04am

1 person has voted this message useful





emk
Diglot
Moderator
United States
Joined 5292 days ago

2615 posts - 8806 votes 
Speaks: English*, FrenchB2
Studies: Spanish, Ancient Egyptian
Personal Language Map

 
 Message 2 of 4
26 August 2012 at 6:34pm | IP Logged 
Thank you for the link!

I haven't read the paper in question (I don't have access to Science), but this
isn't the first paper where somebody has tried to do historical linguistics using
algorithms from bioinformatics.

There's a very predictable bit of academic politics that flares up every time somebody
publishes one of these papers:

* Science is an extremely prestigious journal. But like Nature (the only
journal of similar stature), it's a little too anxious to publish groundbreaking
papers, whether or not they're actually correct. The most famous example of this was
the "water memory" paper in Nature. Typically, what happens is that these
journals will publish a paper by a physicist claiming to "revolutionize" computer
science, or by a biologist claiming to "revolutionize" linguistics. And the peer
reviewers—whose job it is to keep incompetent BS out of the journal—don't seem to know
very much about computer science or linguistics.

* There's a field called "historical linguistics" which has spent the last 150-plus
years painstakingly reconstructing dead languages, and which has had several
spectacular confirmations. For example, somebody will make a radical prediction, and a
newly discovered language will later confirm it. Historical linguists work word-by-
word, carefully identifying loan words, verb paradigms, and other tricky wrinkles in
the data.

* Historical linguistics was a major inspiration for evolution and modern biology,
dating back to the 1800s. Since this time, of course, biology has become a booming
field of its own, and has written lots of powerful software for analyzing genetic
history.

* Every few years, some biologist will get the bright idea of throwing raw linguistic
data into some bioinformatics software, and will submit the results to Science
or another interdisciplinary journal of the sort. But the problem is that the
biologists rarely (a) know anything about historical linguistics, (b) clean their data
to remove known loan words, or (c) consult with anyone who has a clue before running
off to announce their "revolutionary discovery".

Now, if the historical linguists hadn't spent a century and a half building family
trees for Indo-European by hand, debating every individual word, some of these papers
by overenthusiastic biologists would be an excellent first draft of historical
linguistics. But the work has been done before, and it has generally been done better.

So, I would take these research results with a grain of salt until the historical
linguists have a chance to look at this paper carefully and respond to these claims.
They might be true! Or they might not.
11 persons have voted this message useful



Levi
Pentaglot
Senior Member
United States
Joined 5327 days ago

2268 posts - 3328 votes 
Speaks: English*, French, Esperanto, German, Spanish
Studies: Russian, Dutch, Portuguese, Mandarin, Japanese, Italian

 
 Message 3 of 4
26 August 2012 at 9:58pm | IP Logged 
All individual studies need to be taken with a grain of salt. Very seldom in science is one study sufficient to revolutionize the way we think about something. Only when other researchers start coming to the same conclusion, when multiple independent lines of evidence converge on a single idea, and a real consensus forms in the research community, can we have a high degree of confidence that we have stumbled upon the truth or at least something that approximates the truth.

When it comes to historical linguistics, the available data is always going to be fuzzy, and extremely so when you're going back thousands of years. I'm always skeptical when people claim to have conclusive knowledge regarding the details of a proto-language that was never written down. It's good to think about these things and speculate, see which ideas make sense in light of the evidence we do have, but it's important to be humble and recognize that our educated guesses based on indirect observations don't constitute definite knowledge.

I think it's entirely plausible that Proto-Indo-European was spoken in Anatolia. However, I don't think that you can conclusively disprove alternative hypotheses of its origin just using statistical analysis of PIE's daughter languages. There is some geographical information you can glean, for example the fact that PIE had words for certain kinds of trees and geographical features that survive into widely disparate modern languages, which gives us some idea what things must have been in PIE speakers' environment.

But that only tells us that PIE was spoken somewhere in central Eurasia, which is a big place. And we're not even certain that it was a single language in a single location; PIE could easily have been a dialect continuum that spanned a wide geographical area and whose nomadic speakers were always on the move. If PIE is going to be tied to a specific region, then multiple researchers using multiple independent methods of inferring its location need to be consistently converging on the same conclusion, and that's just not happening.
2 persons have voted this message useful





Iversen
Super Polyglot
Moderator
Denmark
berejst.dk
Joined 6463 days ago

9078 posts - 16473 votes 
Speaks: Danish*, French, English, German, Italian, Spanish, Portuguese, Dutch, Swedish, Esperanto, Romanian, Catalan
Studies: Afrikaans, Greek, Norwegian, Russian, Serbian, Icelandic, Latin, Irish, Lowland Scots, Indonesian, Polish, Croatian
Personal Language Map

 
 Message 4 of 4
27 August 2012 at 11:30am | IP Logged 
Like Emk I have only read the article in BBC (though I might be able to find science on some library in my hometown). But is surprises me than anybody are willing to make guesses that go 5000 or even 8000 years back in time - long before the first Sumerian and Egyptian writings appeared, and even longer before the hittites appeared. We know from for instance English that a language can change a lot in a short time, especially in troubled times (and the hittites who appeared in present day Turkey almost 4000 years ago were certainly capable of making times troubled for their surroundings!). On the other hand people who are left in peace and ignored and cut off from 'civilization' can keep their language stable for very long periods, witness Lituanian and Icelandic. This is a very different situation from the cladistic analysis of mankind where you could count on a roughly stable rate of mutations. In language history you must be prepared for large geographical and historical fluctuations in the 'mutation rate'.

Besides this analysis is based on some supposed core words (somewhat along the lines of thought of Greenberg), but in some languages most of the vocabulary apart from number, family members and pronouns comes from other languages. And again 'troubled times' is a likely reason. This makes the delimitation of the core vocabulary problematic, unlike our genes which don't constantly absorb things from the outside world.

It wouldn't surprise me if the Indoeuropan languages all go back to ancestors in Asia minor, and from there the different branches could spread in all directions. But just as the Turks apparently came from Central Asia just a thousand years ago (the first inscriptions in a language from that group were found in the Orkhon Valley in Mongolia) those elusive Protoindoeuropeans could have followed the same path westwards some three thousand years before.

I have not yet seen any clear evidence which once and for all places the original ancestor of the Indoeuropean languages in either Central Asia or Asia minor, only circumstantial evidence which can point in several directions.

Edited by Iversen on 27 August 2012 at 6:21pm



5 persons have voted this message useful



If you wish to post a reply to this topic you must first login. If you are not already registered you must first register


Post ReplyPost New Topic Printable version Printable version

You cannot post new topics in this forum - You cannot reply to topics in this forum - You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum - You cannot create polls in this forum - You cannot vote in polls in this forum


This page was generated in 0.2188 seconds.


DHTML Menu By Milonic JavaScript
Copyright 2024 FX Micheloud - All rights reserved
No part of this website may be copied by any means without my written authorization.