Category Archives: Indo-Hittite

Articles in the English Language

Foreign language learners probably have more problems with articles than with most other aspects of English. This is because the rules of English articles are obscure, if they even exist at all, and because many L2 learners of English come from languages which use no articles at all.

English really has a three way distinction in articles:

Zero article

a, an (indefinite article)

the (definite article)

It is easy to see how a three way distinction like this could be useful for a primitive people. Suppose we are talking about a tiger. Let us observe the noun tiger with all three English articles.

A tiger (What this means really is, “Any old tiger,” “no specific tiger,” just a tiger in the general sense.)

The tiger (This is a lot more specific. In English, when we say, “the tiger” we are usually referring to some certain specific tiger, as in, “that tiger right over there that’s about ready to charge us.”)

Tiger [zero article] (In English, this would have to be capitalized, because when we say, “Tiger” we are referring to something that has the name “Tiger,”  as in a pet cat named Tiger, a man nicknamed Tiger.

Many languages do without articles altogether and seem to do just fine, but one can see where a 3-way distinction like this might just come in handy.


Filed under Applied, Balto-Slavic-Germanic, English language, Germanic, Indo-European, Indo-Hittite, Language Families, Language Learning, Linguistics

How Far Back in History Does the European Race Go?

Etype shares a great many myths about “Aryans,” by which means I am not sure what.

The greatest number of linguistic precursor markers for the Aryan language that is shared throughout the globe and the greatest concentrated number of speakers of that language is German.

However this is not to be discussed, as Nazi anthropology and Germans are to be repudiated as thoroughly as possible…even if this means twisting common sense…which is easy enough these days…witness the small-pox blanket myth, something so simple anyone should have been able to refute it…yet for some reason it ran around loose like a dog no one dared collar…even if the entire idea was completely, spuriously insane.

Anthropology like most science, is filled with many of these myths that are demonstrably insane.

The idea that science is a warehouse of verities and not something the state would notice might be good to bolster various spurious arguments for collective mind control is itself deluded.

If there is any truth to the original findings, and need I remind you it was in Germany where the science of modern anthropology and anthropological linguistics originated and developed… later post-war jury rigged for British propaganda purposes. Then possibly the Aryans originated around the Baltic during a thermocline some 10.000 to 30.000 years ago.

Recently excavations found Lithuanian settlements that contained bronze tools and evidence of textile clothing that were carbon dated to 40,000 years old. However this totally uproots many favorite common theories, so you don’t hear much of it.

But it is more certain than any opposing theory, despite the latter’s currency, that Europeans are older than 10,000 years old, has more consistent evidence than any prevailing idea, whatever sanction our betters lay on it.

On that topic, the evidence for the out-of-Africa theory is actually paper thin, the fossil record to support it could fit on a garden table…and does not account for the fact glaciers swept Europe and N Asia in this time period, and this may be why the oldest fossils are found in Africa to date….

The African genesis theory is mostly supported mostly by group think and the fact that opposing theories sound a lot like Europeans who prefer logic to what the established state says is good for them to think.

There is absolutely no reason for anyone to think that the Aryans were not much the same as today’s European, other than what seems the knee jerk need to conform to common fallacy – such as Europeans evolved in isolation the last 10000 years.

The “Aryan” language is most closely related to Persian or Sanskrit and the other Indian languages, not German.

As far as “Aryans’ originating 10-30,000 YBP in the Baltic region, I do not know what he means by Aryans. He means White people? White people originated around Finland 9-11,000 YBP.

I know nothing of 40,000 YBP Lithuanians, but 35,000 year old Europeans look nothing like Europeans. There’s nothing remotely European about them. They may look a bit like African Hottentots.

The traditional European phenotype only dates back 10,000 years. Before that, Europeans looked very different.

In fact, the African genesis theory is pretty uncontroversial in anthropology today. It is only rejected by nonscientists, mostly White nationalists and White racists with an axe to grind against Black people.

The “Aryans” only date back to 5,000 YBP. That’s it. If you are talking White people, well, White skin and blue eyes go back 9-11,000 YBP. Before that, European skulls and genes look more Arab than anything else. Going back ~20,000 YBP, European skulls look most like the skulls of the Indian tribes of NW America such as the Makah of Washington state. Going back 35,000 YBP, the oldest Europeans do not look like any known race. They may look more like a Bushman than anything else.


Filed under Anthropology, Balto-Slavic-Germanic, Europe, Europeans, German, Germanic, History, Indic, Indo-European, Indo-Iranian, Indo-Irano-Armenian, Indo-Irano-Armeno-Hellenic, Language Families, Linguistics, Physical, Race/Ethnicity, Regional, Sanskrit, Science, Whites

Observation of an Age Effect in English Language Learning Among Filipinos

I talk to quite a few Filipinos on the Net, mostly women. I have noticed an age effect for English language skills among those that I talk to.

Over 50: I didn’t talk to any, but other people told that this group has in general poor English skills, with many of them speaking little to no English at all.

40-50: Worst English skills of all. All had high school degree and no college.

30-40: English skills in this group were much better but were still quite variable. Some in this group had some college. A few had even graduated from college. College did not seem to have much effect on English skills.

21-30: English skills in this group were generally better than in the 30-40 group, and some with some college had excellent English skills. One with a couple years of college had near perfect English.

20-under: This group uniformly had excellent English skills, the best of all of the groups so far. Some had some university education.

There could be a couple of explanations for better skills amongst the younger.

It’s possible that it could be an effect of how recently they left school. Education in the Philippines is heavily in English, but Tagalog and other languages are also used. The group that has most recently left school or is still in school would be expected to have the best English.

The longer they are out of school, the more their English skills would be expected to deteriorate, as most Filipinos use Tagalog and or another Filipino language much of the time. The 40+ group with no college had been out of school for 25-30 years.

On the other hand, it’s possible that English language instruction or teaching in English in the Philippines and has improved markedly in the past 25-30 years. The reasons how this has occurred would be worth examining. Why is easy. In the past 25-30 years, Filipino society has put an increasing premium on English skills.

However, even now there are problems with English medium instruction in the Philippines. Filipinos tell me that quite a few teachers have English skills that are poor at best, so kids are not getting proper input.

Recent articles in the Filipino press have lamented the poor English skills of the average Filipino, odd considering that the Philippines is a country where English is one of the official languages.


Filed under Applied, Asia, Asians, Education, English language, Filipinos, Language Learning, Linguistics, Philippines, Race/Ethnicity, Regional, SE Asia, SE Asians

The Proto-Hellenic Homeland

The proto-Greek homeland prior to 4000 YBP.

From Indo-European linguist V. I. Georgiev:

The Proto-Greek region included Epirus, approximately up to Αυλών in the north including Paravaia, Tymphaia, Athamania, Dolopia, Amphilochia, and Acarnania), west and north Thessaly (Hestiaiotis,, Perrhaibia, Tripolis, and Pieria), i.e. more or less the territory of contemporary northwestern Greece)

So prior to 4000 YBP, the proto-Greeks were already in Greece. When did they come there? Sometime between 4800 YBP and 4000 YBP. Who was already there? Probably some sort of non-Indo-European group that that existed in Greece prior to the Greeks. There are many non-IE words in the Greek language and placenames in Greece and the surrounding area.

These people are generally called Pelgasians, but no one quite knows who they were. A relationship with the Etruscans of Italy is possible. They may also have been a non-IE group from Anatolia or from the Caucasus. At any rate, the Greeks moved in over 4000 years ago and intermingled with the people already there, creating the Greek people who created Classical Greece 1,500 years later.

Where did the proto-Greeks come from? No one seems to know, but it’s generally thought that they came from somewhere to the north.


Georgiev, Vladimir Ivanov. 1981. Introduction to the History of the Indo-European Languages. Publishing House of the Bulgarian Academy of Sciences. pp. 156.


Filed under Ancient Greece, Antiquity, Europe, Greece, Greek, Hellenic, History, Indo-European, Indo-Hittite, Indo-Irano-Armeno-Hellenic, Language Families, Linguistics, Regional

The Linguistic Isolation of Brazilians

From the comments section, a comment from a Brazilian physician, of all people:

Brazilians do not understand anything in Spanish.

A lot of Brazilians think they can understand Spanish due to the affinity of the languages, but when we try to communicate, we discover it’s quite different.
When I traveled to Europe saying that I was Brazilian, people tried to talk to me in Spanish, but I had always to ask to speak in English.

I was born, grew up and live in the Northeast of Brazil, and I’m pretty sure to say that Brazilians understand better English than Spanish, although in the extreme South it’s the opposite.
Brazilian people are monolingual. I’d say that only 10% of Brazilians know a second language. We are such a big country, and our economy is local. We barely interact with Spanish Latin America, unfortunately.

We understand better English cause we consume a lot of American and British culture, but only a very few Brazilians care to learn a second language. Mostly because for a lot of professions it’s not necessary.

You see, even me, a physician who depends on the English language to keep updated in my field, have a hard time with English. I took half an hour to write this simple opinion which I bet is full of mistakes.

This rings true with what I have found. I have met some Brazilians, mostly women. They often thought they spoke Spanish pretty well, but when you started speaking it with them, they were pretty lost. One had better English than Spanish. Quite a few others had such good English, that I didn’t even bother speaking Spanish with them. Another one knew some Spanish and English. I spoke to her in Spanish and English and she responded to me in Portuguese, Spanish and English. Within a few hours, I was already speaking some Portuguese. With another one, we tried to speak something called Portunol, which is some Spanish-Portuguese mixed language spoken on the Argentine-Brazilian border. It didn’t work very well.

I would agree with this guy on one thing: Brazilians think they speak and understand Spanish better than they really do. And English-speaking Brazilians are not uncommon.

Brazil has about 190 million people. You really don’t need to learn any other language to do just fine in Brazil, and most don’t.

It is similar in Hispanophone Latin America. I meet South Americans all the time who range in age from 26-46, and many of them can barely speak a single word of English. I have to communicate with them exclusively in Spanish. When you think about it, they are on a continent with hundreds of millions of Spanish speakers. Why bother to learn another language? Why bother to learn English? What for?

I can also affirm that South Americans definitely do not bother to learn Portuguese. Portuguese know more Spanish than South Americans know Portuguese. The typical South American attitude towards Portuguese is, “Why should I learn that?”


Filed under Americas, Applied, Brazil, Brazilians, Hispanics, Indo-European, Indo-Hittite, Italic, Italo-Celtic-Tocharian, Language Families, Language Learning, Latin America, Linguistics, Multilingualism, Portuguese, Race/Ethnicity, Regional, Romance, South America, Spanish

How To Divide Languages from Dialects – Structure or Intelligibility?

There are many ways of dividing languages from dialects. The three general methods are:

1. Historical

2. Structural

3. Intelligibility

The traditional method has tended to utilize structural and sometimes historical, but intelligibility is also often used. For an example of historical, let us look at some lects in France and Spain.

The various “patois” of French, incorrectly called dialects of French, are more properly called the langues d’oil. It is often said that they are not dialtects of French for historical reasons. Each of the major langues d’oil, instead of breaking off from French Proper (really the Parisien langue d’oil) had a separate genesis.

This is what happened. France was originally Celtic speaking. Around 700-800, the Celtic languages began being replaced by vulgar Latin. People didn’t travel around in those days, so a separate form of vulgar Latin + Celtic evolved in each region of France: Gallo and Angevin in the northwest, Poitevin and Saintongeais in the west, Norman and Picard in the north, Champenois, Franche-Compte and Lorrain in the east, Berrichon, Tourangeau and Orleanais in the center. None of these split off from French (Parisien)!

Each one of them evolved independently straight up from vulgar Latin on top of  a Celtic base in their region from 700-1200 or so. The distance between the langues d’oil and French is almost as deep as between English and Frisian.

After French was made the official language of France in 1539, the langues d’oil came under French influence, but that was just borrowing, not genetics.

In addition, in Spain, there are various languages that are not historically related to Spanish. Aragonese is straight up from vulgar Latin on a Basque base, later influenced by Mozarabic. Catalan started evolving around 700 or so. Murcian evolved from vulgar Latin later influenced by Mozarabic, Catalan and Aragonese. Extremaduran, Leonese and Asturian also broke off very early. None of these are historically Spanish dialects because none of them broke away from Spanish!

Of course it follows that langues d’oil, Catalan and Aragonese, evolving independently of French and Spanish from 700-1200 to present, will have deep structural differences between themselves and French and Spanish.

So you can see that the historical way of splitting languages ties in well with the structural method. Where languages have a deep historical split and a millenia or so of independent development, it follows logically that some deep structural differences would have evolved in a thousand years or so. So these two methods are really wrapping around each other.

Now we get to intelligibility. Intelligibility actually ties in well to structural analyses. Linguists who say we divide on structure and not on intelligibility are being silly. Where you have deep structural differences between Lect A and Lect B, it logically follows that you have intelligibility problems. Profound structural differences between two lects makes it hard for one to understand the other. The differential structure really gets in the way of understanding. So once again, one method is wrapping around the other.

As we can see, historical, structural and intelligibility analyses of splitting languages all tend to be part of the same process, that is, they are all talking about the same thing. And they will tend to reach similar conclusions when it comes to splitting languages.


Filed under Aragonese, Asturian, Catalan, Celtic, Dialectology, Europe, France, French, History, Indo-European, Indo-Hittite, Italic, Italo-Celtic, Italo-Celtic-Tocharian, Language Families, Leonese, Linguistics, Regional, Romance, Sociolinguistics, Spain, Spanish

Dying Minority Languages and Standardization: Some Problems

I have been studying some of the minority languages of Europe lately. One thing that they have in common is that in a number of cases, there have been proposals made for centralization and standardization of the language. Dying languages very much need standardization. This is because in many cases, these languages are split up in a number of dialects. These dialects are typically quite different, and in many cases, they are flat out separate languages with poor intelligibility with other dialects.

If everyone just goes on speaking their dialects, they won’t be able to talk to other speakers much, and the language will soon die, because most dialect speakers are 35-60+. It’s not a useful solution. Sure, the dialects are very interesting and it might be nice to preserve them, but it seems to be a lost cause. Further, most dialects are not being passed on to children anymore. For the languages to survive, the dialects must all die.

For instance, Occitan has a multitude of dialects, 23 of which are actually separate languages. A unitary Occitan has been created based on Languedocien, one of the largest Occitan macrolanguages. The problem is that this new neo-Occitan is nothing like the Occitan spoken by  Auvergnat, Croissant, Limousin and Gascon speakers.

Further, the unitary spelling and writing style does not represent the way that these languages speak. For instance, a particular word may be written in a unitary way in neo-Occitan, but the graph for that word would look nothing like the way the word is pronounced in the speaker’s language. The word “bricklayer” might be written something like “frondyard.” Ridiculous or what?

Children are being taught neo-Occitan in special language schools. The neo-Occitan is regarded as an abomination by speakers of traditional dialects, and neo-Occitan speakers can’t understand traditional dialect speakers.

A similar thing is going on with the Breton language in Brittany in northwest France. This is actually a Celtic tongue similar to Welsh that is strangely enough spoken in France. Breton is actually made up 4 major dialects that are frankly all separate languages. Intelligibility is poor between the four Breton lects, but the lects are not being passed on to children and most speakers are over 50 anyway.

In schools called Diwans the children are being taught a neo-Breton, an invented “language that no one speaks.” The neo-Breton speakers come out of the schools, and they can’t understand speakers of the traditional Breton lects. And speakers of traditional dialectal Breton can’t understand neo-Breton. Kids and their elders are speaking the same language, but they can’t understand each other. Sad situation.

In the Basque country, a similar situation is going on. The schools are teaching a neo-Basque, a fake language made up of the amalgamation of all of the major Basque dialects plus a lot of made-up neologisms. Speakers of traditional dialects have a hard time with neo-Basque, and neo-Basque speakers have a hard time with traditional speakers.

Nevertheless, there is no way around standardization. Teaching every group of children the separate small dialect of their region is useless. It will create new generations of speakers that can’t even communicate with most of the speakers of the language. If they are taught the unified language, at least they will be able to communicate with all other speakers of the language, at least when the older dialect speakers die off.

Languages must be standardized. It’s essential. Not only so everyone can talk to everyone, but so that everyone can read everyone. Can you imagine what chaos it would be if every writer of English wrote English phonetically in exactly the way that they speak it. You might have millions of different Englishes out there. Yet this is the way that nonstandardized languages are typically written, phonetically.

Further, spelling must be standardized. There must be a correct way and an incorrect way to spell most any given word of English. This makes reading faster and communication transparent. If you don’t like English spelling rules, then don’t write in English!

It’s easy to understand why typical dialect speakers regard the neo-languages are some sort of abomination. Let us use an example from English.

Suppose there was an attempt to unify all of the Englishes on Earth into some sort of World English.

This language would include speech and writing based on the phonetics of various types of British English, Scottish English, African English, Indian English, Singlish, Australian English, Canadian English and New Zealand English.

As if that were not bad enough, the speech and writing would also be based partly on various US Englishes: Southern English, Ebonics, New York English, Boston English and Appalachian English.

If you turned on the TV, the announcers would be speaking in some insane English based on all of the English dialects listed above. Any English writing would also be phonetically based on a mixture of all of the above dialects. The new language would also have a ton of new terms derived from slangs of the various Englishes.

Could you imagine how furious we speakers of US English would be? This is the way traditional dialect speakers feel about the unified neo-languages slated to replace their dialects.


Filed under Basque, Celtic, Dialectology, Europe, France, Indo-European, Indo-Hittite, Isolates, Italic, Italo-Celtic, Italo-Celtic-Tocharian, Linguistics, Occitan, Regional, Romance, Sociolinguistics

Does Language Learning Carry Over to New Languages?

Not nearly as much as one might think.

For instance, I am relatively well versed in the Romance languages. I can read Spanish quite well, but not fluently. I can read a bit of French. And I have studied reading Italian and Portuguese for a bit.

So one would think that with all that Romance under my belt, I could just jump right into some new Romance languages and read them just like that, right?

Not so fast now.

Lately I have been going through lots and lots of Occitan texts on the Net. Occitan is approximately between Spanish and French. Honestly, I can’t make heads or tails of Occitan. Sometimes I can pick out a bit of information that I am looking very hard for, but mostly I just throw up my hands. My online translator calls Occitan “Catalan” and tries to translate it into English. Some say that Catalan and Occitan are one language. According to my translator, that is not so. Running the Catalan translator through Occitan fixes it up a bit, but it still leaves a gigantic steaming mess on the page. It’s nearly useless.

With Portuguese, Spanish and French, one would think Catalan would be a breeze, right? Think again. My translator is almost always able to grab it, but sometimes it can’t. When it can’t, I am stuck with Catalan and I am well and truly lost. Once again, I just throw up my hands. Obviously, it looks like some kind of Iberian language, but it’s so screwed up and crazy that you just don’t want to bother with it.

It’s said that Aragonese is nearly a Spanish dialect. Intelligibility is on the order of 80%. But try reading an Aragonese text sometime. It’s clearly derived from something like Spanish, but it’s so screwed up and crazy that you just want to run away from it. Try to read it and you are quickly lost and angry. My online translator thinks that Aragonese is Spanish. Run Aragonese through the Spanish translator and it fixes it up a bit, but it still a crazy mess and you can’t make a lot of sense of it.

Galician is a sort of Portuguese-Spanish hybrid that is often intelligible to many Spanish speakers. But don’t bother with trying to read Galician texts. They’re a frustrating mess. I dipped into it a bit, but it’s so screwed up and confusing that I quickly gave up.

One would think that with a bit of French under the belt, one could pick up on the various French patois of the langues d’oil. Forget it. It looks like a chaotic disaster on the page. The translator calls the various patois French. Running them through a French translator in general doesn’t really improve matters all that much. It’s still a messy disaster.

The moral to the story is don’t think that semi-getting a few languages under your belt is going to help you even with reading closely related languages. Things are not so simple.


Filed under Applied, Aragonese, Catalan, Galician, Indo-European, Indo-Hittite, Italic, Italo-Celtic-Tocharian, Language Families, Language Learning, Linguistics, Multilingualism, Occitan, Romance

What Languages Are You Studying?

Please feel free to update us on your current language learning endeavors, if they exist.

As for me:

English: Native speaker, no need to study anything. In fact, it’s unusual that I run across a word that I don’t know. The most recent one was analphabetism. I bet you don’t know what that means.

Spanish: I have been studying Spanish on and off since I was 6 years old. Studying Spanish is more or less of an ongoing thing with me. We have a lot of bilingual signs and prinouts in our area. I often read them with the English translations to bone up on my Spanish.

I could do better. There is a bilingual newspaper that is issued around here for free, but I never bother to pick it up.

Part of the problem is that when you are as good at Spanish as I am, learning more Spanish (such as reading Spanish papers) is really a serious drag. Spanish as written down especially in papers does not translate literally. Not only are there a ton of not commonly used words, but there are also a lot of figures of speech. In addition, there are lots of phrases, that, when looking at the Spanish and then at the English, one wonders how they managed to go from one to the other. The Spanish-English translation is not transparent at all.

As you learn Portuguese, French and Italian, it only helps you with your Spanish, though the assistance is not obvious. After a while, all Romance just starts running together. You might as well just study Latin and get it over with.

I speak Spanish to Spanish speakers around here on a regular basis. It’s a lot of fun, and they really appreciate if you can speak three words of their language, unlike the French.

The Spanish-speakers who are actually born in Mexico appreciate it a lot more than the ones who are born in the US. I am not sure why that is, but in so many ways, Hispanics who were born in Latin America are much better people than Hispanics who were born on the US. It’s popular to dog on Latin America, but Latin American Hispanic culture is much superior to US Hispanic culture.

There are deep elements of respect, pride, kindness, brotherhood, politeness and dignity present in Latin American Hispanic culture that are almost neutered in US Hispanic culture. US Hispanics are pretty much just typical asshole Americans, except that they happen to be Hispanics. And in many ways, such as the lumpenization of their culture, US Hispanics are actually worse than the rest of Americans.

I’m not sure what it is with US Hispanics, but something has gone terribly wrong. They’ve lost most of what’s grand about Latin American culture, and they’ve replaced it with what’s worst about US culture, in addition to concocting up various cultural poisons of their own. It’s cultural mongrelization of the worst sort, all of the bad, none of the good and a bunch of new innovations, almost all bad.

Portuguese: Past. I studied it a bit in the past when I was hanging around with this Brazilian woman. Now I’ve given it up. I am already studying Spanish and French, and after a while, you are just studying too many Romance languages. The words are so similar that you start getting them all tangled up in your head. You go to say a Spanish word and you say the Portuguese, Italian or French word instead. If you have some Spanish (especially), French and Italian, you get lots of help with Portuguese.

Italian: I study this language a little bit, but not too much. I am not very good at it, but it’s interesting. If you know some French, Spanish and Portuguese, you can go a long way with Italian.

French: My latest fetish is French. I am not very good at it, so I am at the point where learning the language is fun because you’re always learning new stuff. I have blown off verbs and just concentrate on vocabulary. Verbal conjugations in Romance languages suck anyway. Even in Spanish, they can be quite complex.

German: Past. Mostly I just picked up some basic vocabulary. Attempts to run beyond that, I am afraid, run into Hell. I understand that they still have case, and that the nouns are pretty crazy. There are supposedly other difficult aspects of this language, but I am not sure what they are. Learning basic vocabulary is pretty fun though.

That’s about it. For the most part, as a language learner, I concentrate on the Romance languages. They are difficult enough, believe me! Going beyond Romance seems like a gigantic PITA to me. You’re pretty much traveling to whole new planets. Why bother when Romance is hard enough as it is?


Filed under Applied, Balto-Slavic-Germanic, French, German, Germanic, Indo-European, Indo-Hittite, Italian, Italic, Italo-Celtic-Tocharian, Language Families, Language Learning, Linguistics, Portuguese, Romance, Spanish

Reclassification of Occitan: A Massive Update

My post on the reclassification of the Occitan language* has received a massive update. The piece has doubled in size to 59 pages. In addition, I increased the number of languages from 12 to 22. This was a ton of hard work, and it was hard to find good data on these questions. Unfortunately, most of the good data was in the French language, which luckily I can sort of read. Quite a bit was also in Occitan, which honestly I can hardly read at all.

Occitan, a sort of cross between Spanish and French, is spoken in the south of France. It is in extremely bad shape, although it has up to 3 million speakers. It receives no support at all from the Jacobin government in France. “French is the official language of the state,” it says right there in the Constitution. France can’t ratify the EU Charter on Minority Languages because it violates the French Constitution.

*Mostly of interest to people into linguistics, France or the Occitan language.

Leave a comment

Filed under Europe, France, Indo-European, Indo-Hittite, Italic, Italo-Celtic-Tocharian, Language Families, Linguistics, Occitan, Regional, Romance