Category Archives: Isolates

Simplification of Language with Increasing Civilization: A Result of Contact or Civilization Itself

Nice little comment here on an old post, Primitive People Have Primitive Languages and Other Nonsense? 

I would like to dedicate this post to my moronic field of study itself, Linguistics, which believes in many a silly thing as consensus that have never been proved and are either untrue or probably untrue.

One of the idiocies of my field is this belief that in some way or another, most human languages are pretty much the same. They believe that no language is inherently better or worse than any other language, which itself is quite a dubious proposition right there.

They also believe, incredibly, that no language is more complex or simple than any other language. Idiocy!

Another core belief is that each language is perfectly adapted for its speakers. This leads to their rejecting claims that some languages are unsuitable for the modern world due to lack of modern vocabulary. This common belief of many minority languages is obviously true. Drop a Papuan in Manhattan, and see what good his Torricelli tongue does him. He won’t have words for most of the things around him. He won’t even have verbs for most of the actions he sees around him. His language is nearly useless in this environment.

My field also despises notions that some languages are better suited to poetry, literature or say philosophy than others or that some languages are more or less concise or exact than others or that certain concepts or ways of thinking are better expressed in one language as opposed to another. However, this is a common belief among polyglots, and I would not be surprised if it was true.

The question we are dealing with below is based on the notion that many primitive languages are exceeding complex and the common sense observation that as languages acquire more speakers and civilization increases, one tends to see a simplification of language.

My field out and out rejects both statements.

They will tell you that primitive languages are no more complex than more civilized tongues and that there is no truth to the statement that languages simplify with greater numbers of speakers and increased civilization. However, I have shot these two rejected notions to many non-linguists, and they all felt that these statements had truth to them. Once again, my field violates common sense in the name of the abstract and abstruse “we can’t prove anything about anything” scientific nihilism so common in the intellectually degraded social sciences.

Indeed, some of the most wildly complex languages of all can be found among rather primitive peoples such as Aborigines, Papuans, Amerindians and even Africans. Most language isolates like Ket, Burashaski and Basque are pretty wild. The languages of the Caucasus are insanely complex, and that region doesn’t exactly look like Manhattan. Siberian languages are often maddeningly complex.

Even in China, in the remoter parts of China, language becomes highly differentiated and probably more complex. I know an American who was able to learn Cantonese and Mandarin who told me that at age 35, for an American to learn Hokkien was virtually impossible. He tried various schemes, but they all failed. He finally started to get a hold of the language with a strict eight hour a day study schedule. Anything less resulted in failure. Hokkien speakers that he spoke too said you needed to grow up speaking Hokkien to be able to speak the language well at all. By the way, this is another common sense notion that linguists reject. They say there are no languages so difficult that it is very hard to pick them up unless you grew up with them.

The implication here is that Min Nan is even more complex than the difficult Mandarin or even the forbidding Cantonese, which even many Mandarin speakers give up trying to learn because it is too hard.

Min Nan comes out Fujian Province, a land of forbiddingly high mountains where language differentiation is very high, and there is often difficult intelligibility even from village to village. In one area, fifteen years ago an American researcher decided to walk to a nearby village. It took him six very difficult hours over steep mountains. He could have taken the bus, but that was a four-day trip! A number of these areas had no vehicle roads until recently and others were crossed by vast rivers that had no bridges across them. Transportation was via foot. Obviously civilization in these parts of China is at a more primitive level, and it’s hard to develop Hong Kong-style cities in places with such isolating and rugged terrain.

It’s more like, “Oh, those people on the other side of the ridge? We never go there, but we heard that their language is a lot different from ours. It’s too hard to go over that range so we never go to that area.”

In the post, I theorized that as civilization increased, time becomes money, and there is a need to get one’s point across quickly, whereas more primitive peoples often spend no more than 3-4 hours a day working and the rest sitting around, playing  and relaxing. A former Linguistics professor told me that one theory is that primitive people, being highly intelligent humans (all humans are highly intelligent by default), are bored by their primitive lives, so they enjoy their wildly complex languages and like to relax, hang out and play language games with them to test each other on how well they know the structures. They also like to play tricky and maybe humorous language games with their complicated languages. In other words, these languages are a source of intellectual stimulation and entertainment in an intellectually impoverished area.

Of course, my field rejects this theory as laughably ridiculous, but no one has disproven it yet, and I doubt if the hypothesis has even been tested, hence it is an open question. My field even tends to reject the notion of open questions, preferring instead to say that anything not proven (or even tested for that matter) is demonstrably false. That’s completely anti-scientific, but that’s the trend nowadays across the board as scientistic thinking replaces scientific thinking.

Of course this is in line with the terrible conservative or reactionary trend in science where Science is promoted to a fundamentalist religion and scientists decide that various things are simply proven true or proven not true and attempts to change the consensus paradigm are regarded derisively or with out and out fury and rage and such attempts are rejected via endless moving of goalposts with the goal of making it never possible to prove the hypothesis. If you want to see an example of this in Linguistics, look at the debate around  Altaic. They have set it up so that no matter how much existing evidence we are able to gather for the theory, we will probably never be able to prove it as barriers to proof have been set up to make the question nearly unprovable.

It’s rather senseless to set up Great Wall of China-like barriers to proof in science because at some point,  you are hardly proving anything new, apparently because you don’t want to.

Fringe science is one of the most hated branches of science and many scientists refer to it as pseudoscience. Practitioners of fringe science have a very difficult time as the Scientific Establishment often persecutes them, for instance trying to get them fired from professorships. Yet this Establishment is historically illiterate because many of the most stunning findings in history were made by widely ridiculed fringe scientists.

The commenter below rejects my theory that increased civilization itself results in language simplification, as it gets more important to get your point across as quickly  as possible with increasing complexity and development of society. Instead he says civilization leads to increased contact between speakers of different dialects or language, and in such cases,  language must be simplified, often dramatically, in order for any decent communication to occur. Hence increased contact, not civilization in and of itself, is the driver of simplification.

I like this theory, and I think he may be onto something.

To me the simplification of languages of more ‘civilized’ people is mostly a product of language contact rather than of civilization itself. If the need arises to communicate with foreign people all of the time, for example in trade, then the language must become more simple in order to be able to be understood by more people.

Also population size matters a lot. It has been found that the greater the number of speakers, the greater the rate of language change. For example Polynesian languages, although having been isolated centuries or even millennia ago, still have only minor differences from one another.

In the case of many speakers, not all will be able to learn all the rules of a language, so they will tend to use the most common ones. And if the language is split in many dialects, then speakers of each dialect must find a compromise in order to communicate, which might come out as simple. If we add sociolects, specific registers for some occasions, sacred registers, slang etc, something that will arise in a big and stratified civilization, then the linguistic barriers people will need to overcome become greater. So it is just normal that after some centuries, this system to simplify.

We don’t need to look farther than Europe. Most languages of the western half being spoken in countries with strong trade links to one another and with much of the world later in history are quite analytic, but the languages of the more isolated eastern part are still like the older Indo-European languages. Basques, living in a small isolated pocket in the Iberian Peninsula, have kept a very complex language. Icelanders, also due to isolation, have kept a quite conservative Germanic language, whereas most modern Germanic languages are ridiculously simplified. No one can argue in his sane mind that Icelanders are primitives.

On the other hand, Romanian, being spoken in the more isolated Balkans, has retained more of the complex morphology of Latin compared to West Romance languages. And of course advance of civilization won’t automatically simplify the language, as Turkish and Russian, both quite complicated languages compared to the average European tongue, don’t seem to give up their complexity nowadays.

On the other hand, indigenous people were living in a much more isolated setting compared to the modern world, the number of speakers was comparatively low, and there was no need to change. Also, neighboring tribes were often hostile to one another, so each tribal group sought to make itself look special. That is the reason why places with much inter-tribal warfare like New Guinea have so many languages which are so different from one another. When these languages need to communicate, we get ridiculously simple contact languages like Hiri Motu.
So language simplification is more a result of language contact rather than civilization itself.

7 Comments

Filed under Aborigines, Altaic, Amerindians, Anthropology, Applied, Asia, Basque, Cantonese, Caucasus, China, Chinese language, Cultural, Dialectology, Europe, Germanic, Indo-European, Isolates, Language Families, Language Learning, Linguistics, Mandarin, Min Nan, Near East, Papuans, Race/Ethnicity, Regional, Russian, Science, Siberian, Sinitic, Sino-Tibetan, Sociolinguistics, Turkic, Turkish

Western Europe: What Native Languages Are Spoken in Spain?

Montleek:  Robert, is it possible that in Western Europe, the regional lects have been preserved better, while in eastern Europe are preserved worse? There was communism/socialism in Eastern Europe, therefore more tendency not to continue speaking with regional lect. Robert, is it possible that in western Europe, the regional lects have been preserved better, while in eastern Europe are preserved worse? There was communism/socialism in eastern Europe, therefore more tendency not to continue speaking with regional lect .

In Spain, there is are several major languages such as Asturian-Leonese, Extremaduran-Cantabrian, Eonavian/Berciano, Basque, Catalan, Aragonese, Benasquesque, Galician and some odd forms of Portuguese. Murcian, Andalucian, Churro and Manchengo are very marginal cases, but are probably better seen as divergent dialects of Castillian.

With Catalan and Asturian-Leonese, you are absolutely in a situation of a different lect in every town or even village.

Eonavian is absolutely a separate language though it is not recognized. Berciano is the southern part of the Eonavian language.

There is definitely more than one language in Galician.

Cantabrian is actually a language and not a Spanish dialect. In fact, it is a part of the recognized language called Extremaduran.

There may be 3-4 languages inside Basque; surely there are at least two.

Benasquesque is actually a separate language between Catalan and Aragonese.

Occitan is only spoken as Aranese, but is probably a separate language.

Leave a comment

Filed under Andalucian, Aragonese, Asturian, Basque, Catalan, Europe, Galician, Indo-European, Indo-Hittite, Isolates, Italic, Italo-Celtic, Italo-Celtic-Tocharian, Leonese, Occitan, Portuguese, Regional, Romance, Spain

The Basque-Caucasian Hypothesis

I have gotten a lot of crap from my enemies for being on the Academia.edu site in the first place, but really anyone can join.

The following was posted by one of the reviewers in an Academia session by one of the leading lights of the Basque-Caucasian theory. As you can see, the mythological and multiple lines of genetic evidence are starting to pile up pretty nicely too. This is neat stuff if you are interested in the Basque-Caucasian link in addition to work going on into the remains of the Neolithic Farmers who were subsumed in the Indo-European waves. It turns out there is quite a bit left in different parts of Europe, especially in terms of Neolithic Farmer mythology.

From a discussion among academics and independent scholars on a paper on the Basque-Caucasian Theory in Historical Linguistics during a session in on Academia:

I am not a linguist but interested in the topic as it proposes a linguistic correlation between Caucasic languages and Basque, as it parallels my own current research on reconstructing European Paleolithic mythologies using ethnographic analogies constrained by on archaeogenetics and language macrofamily correlations.

Tuite (2006, 2004, 1998, 1997) has pointed out the hunter-gatherer beliefs and myth motifs shared across a ‘macro-Caucasic’ area to the Hindu Kush and into Western Europe. Basque deities Mari, Sugaar, and Ama Lurra and their associated mythologems have striking similarities to the macro-Caucasic hunter mythologies (not found in Finno-Ugric or Middle Eastern ancient mythologies.)

I am currently writing a paper identifying many examples of Southern/Western Gravettian art in Italy, Spain, southern France that appear to depict imagery only explicable by analogy to Macro-Caucasic religious myth and ritual.

With respect to mtDNA fossil genetics, three skeleton samples are from Paglicci Cave, Italy, ~25 cal BP: one is macro-N-mtDNA (homeland Caucasus/Caspian/Iran; currently highest frequencies Caucasus, Arabia), and two skeletons, RO/HV-mtDNA (homeland northern Middle East; currently highest frequencies, Basque, Syria, Gilaki, Daghestan).

During the later Magdalenian another diffusion occurs apparently by a similar route: HV4-mtDNA emerges in Belarus-Ukraine (~14±2 ka) and under Late Glacial Maximum HV4a (~13.5 ka) moves south and splits in the three refugia: southern Italy, southern Russia (HV4a1, ~10 ka), the Middle East (HV4a2, ~9 ka), and Basque area (HV4a1a, ~5 ka, suggesting full emergence of distinct Basque culture and language), (Gómez-Carballa, Olivieri et al 2012).

These studies further support the existence of a Macro-Basque-Caucasic mythological stratum as well as shared language substrate.

The cutting-edge liberal theory is that Basque (and some other odd far-flung languages) is part of the Caucasian language family. In other words, at one time, the Basques and the peoples of the Caucasus like Chechens were all one people.

What this probably represents is the ancient Neolithic farmers who covered Europe before the Indo-European invasion replaced almost all of the languages of Europe. All that is left is Basque and the peoples of the Caucasus. Everything in between got taken by IE except for some late movements by Uralic and Turkic speakers. Up in the north, the Lapp Uralic speakers are, like Basques, the last remains of the Neolithic farmers. The Sardinians also an ancient remaining group of these people, but their language has been surmounted recently by a Latinate tongue.

As it turns out, the Basques and Caucasians also share a number of cultural similarities. There are also some similar placenames. And there is some good genetic evidence connecting the Basques with the Caucasian speakers.

It’s all there, but the conservatives are balking, to put it mildly, about linking Basque with the Caucasian languages.

I have long believed in this theory.

I read a book over 20 years ago comparing Basque to the Caucasian languages and a few other distant tongues and thought the case was proved even via overkill by the book. And recent work is so super that one wonders why the conservatives are still winning. I feel that the link between Basque and the Caucasus languages is now proven to an obvious and detailed degree.

2 Comments

Filed under Anthropology, Antiquity, Art, Asia, Basque, Belarus, Caucasus, Cultural, Eurasia, Europe, France, Genetics, History, Iran, Isolates, Italy, Language Families, Linguistics, Middle East, Near East, Regional, Russia, Spain, Turkic, Ukraine

A Look at the Basque Language

Method and Conclusion. See here.

Results. A ratings system was designed in terms of how difficult it would be for an English-language speaker to learn the language. In the case of English, English was judged according to how hard it would be for a non-English speaker to learn the language. Speaking, reading and writing were all considered.

Ratings: Languages are rated 1-6, easiest to hardest. 1 = easiest, 2 = moderately easy to average, 3 = average to moderately difficult, 4 = very difficult, 5 = extremely difficult, 6 = most difficult of all. Ratings are impressionistic.

Time needed. Time needed for an English language speaker to learn the language “reasonably well”: Level 1 languages = 3 months-1 year. Level 2 languages = 6 months-1 year. Level 3 languages = 1-2 years. Level 4 languages = 2 years. Level 5 languages = 3-4 years, but some may take longer. Level 6 languages = more than 4 years.

This post will look at the Basque language in terms of how difficult it would be for an English speaker to learn it.

Basque

Basque, of course, is a wild language. There is an old saying that the Devil tried to learn Basque, but after seven years, he only learned how to say “Hello” and “Goodbye.” Many Basques, including some of the most ardent Basque nationalists, tried to learn Basque as adults. Some of them succeeded, but a very large number of them failed. Based on the number that failed, it does seem that Basque is harder for an adult to learn as an L2 than many other languages are. Basque grammar is maddeningly complex, and it often makes it onto craziest grammars and craziest language lists.

There are 11 cases, and each one takes four different forms.

The verbs are quite complex. The verbal complexity is because it is an ergative language, so verbs vary according to the number of subjects, the number of objects and if any third person is involved.

This is the same polypersonal agreement system that Georgian has. Basque’s polypersonal system is a polysynthetic system consisting of two verb types – synthetic and analytical. Only a few verbs use the synthetic form.

Three of Basque’s cases – the absolutive (intransitive verb case), the ergative (transitive verb case) and the dative – can be marked via affixes to the verb. In Basque, only present simple and past simple synthetic tenses take polypersonal affixes.

The analytical forms are composed of more than one word, while the synthetic forms are all one word. The analytic verbs are built via the synthetic verbs izan “be”, ukan “have” and egin “do”.

Synthetic:

d-akar-ki-o-gu “We bring it to him/her.” The verb is ekarri “bring”.

z-erama-zki-gu-te-n “They took them to us.” The verb is eraman “take”.

Analytic:

Ekarriko d-i-o-gu = “We’ll bring it to him/her.” Literally: “We will have-bring it to him/her.” The analytic verb is built from ukan “have”.

Eraman d-ieza-zki-gu-ke-te “They can take them to us.” Literally: “They can be taking them to us.” The analytic verb is built from izan “be”.

Most of the analytic verbs require an auxiliary which carries all sorts of information that is often carried on verbs in other languages – tense, mood, sometimes gender and person for subject, object and indirect object.

Jaten naiz.
“Eat I-am-doing.”
“I am eating.”

Jaten nintekeen.
“Eat I-was-able-to.”
“I could eat.”

Eman geniezazkiake.
“Give we-might-have-them-to-you-male.”
“We might have given them to you.”

In the above, naiz, nintekeen and geniezazkiake are auxiliaries. There are actually 2,640 different forms of these auxiliaries!

A language with ergative morphosyntax in Europe is quite a strange thing, and Basque is the only one of its kind.

The ergative itself is quite unusual:

Gizona etorri da. “The man has arrived.”

Gizonak mutila ikusi du. “The man saw the boy.”

gizon “man”
mutil “boy”
-a “the”

The noun gizon takes a different form whether it is the subject of a transitive versus an intransitive verb. The first sentence is in absolutive case (unmarked), while the second sentence is in the ergative case (marked by the morpheme -k).

If you come from a non-ergative IE language, the concept of ergativity itself is difficult enough to conceptualize, not to mention actually learn in an ergative language. Consequently, any ergative language will automatically be more difficult than a non-ergative one for all speakers of IE languages.

Ergativity also works with pronouns. There are four basic systems:

Nor: verb has subject only
Nor-Nork: verb has subject + direct complement
Nor-Nori: verb has subject + indirect complement.
Nor-Nori-Nork: verb has subject + direct + indirect complement

Some call Basque the most consistently ergative language on Earth.

If you don’t grow up speaking Basque, it’s hard to attain native speaker competence. It’s quite a bit easier to write in Basque than to speak it.

On the plus side, Basque verbs are quite regular. There are only a few irregularities in conjugations, and they have phonetic explanations. In fact, the entire language is quite regular. In addition, most words above the intermediate level are borrowings from large languages, so once you reach Intermediate Basque, the rest is not that hard. In addition, pronunciation is straightforward.

Basque is rated 5.5, nearly hardest of all.

1 Comment

Filed under Applied, Basque, Isolates, Language Learning, Linguistics

Is Old High German Close to Old Persian?

I am going to republish this older piece that has been called into question. Supposedly this language is totally made up. However, that is almost certainly not true, although I am looking into it at the moment. A Croatian professor even wrote a 27,500 word dictionary of this language. I am enclosing here 97 different references that discuss this language in the hopes that this puts an end to the Gan-Veyan controversy once and for all.

Beatrix writes:

Robert,Is it true that 1,000 yrs ago a German & a Persian spoke basically the same language?

No, it is not  true at all that Old German and Old Persian were the same language 1,000 years ago.

However there are some Croatian dialects such as Archaic Islander Čakavian spoken on the islands off the coast of Croatia that are quite similar to Persian or Iranic. They are actually closer to Kurdish and Zazaki though. They are actually completely separate languages, as the lexical similarity with Croatian is only 4%! There is a theory that the pre-Slavic Croatians may have come originally from Persia, and there may be something to that.

These ancient tongues are the remains of the pre-Slavic languages spoken in this area before the Slavs came. The language that these tongues are closest to is called Liburnian. The Liburnians inhabited that region thousands of years ago. Liburnian is an ancient Indo-European language.

I did a study on one of those old languages, an Archaic Islander Čakavian tongue called Gan-Veyãn. I obtained a short dictionary of Gan-Veyãn and went through half of it from M-Z looking on my guesses as where the roots seemed to have originated. The results were remarkable and are listed in order with the language with the most roots first and the language with fewest roots last.

  • Indic
  • Persian
  • Avestan
  • Hittite
  • Akkadian
  • Basque
  • Tocharian
  • Sumerian
  • Lithuanian
  • Aramaic
  • Hurrian
  • Etruscan
  • Gothic
  • Russian
  • Ukrainian
  • Celtic
  • Kurdish
  • Armenian
  • Latin
  • Arabic
  • Mittani
  • Apian
  • German
  • Geez

I will go down the list now and describe these languages.

Indic means all of the Indo European or IE languages related to Hindi.

Persian is well known.

Avestan is best described as Old Persian.

Hittite is an ancient IE tongue formerly spoken in Turkey.

Akkadian is a language isolate formerly spoken in Iraq by the people of that name who had a kingdom there.

Basque is the well known language isolate and pre-IE language spoken in northeastern Spain. Although it formally has no relatives, I would say it is related to NE Caucasian languages like Chechen. In fact the placename Iberia has deep connections to the land of Georgia.

Tocharian is an ancient IE languages formerly spoken by Caucasian people who lived in what is now Xinjiang in far western China where the Uyghurs now live.

Sumerian is an ancient tongue, a language isolate formerly spoken in the Sumerian Kingdom in Iraq.

Lithuanian is interesting because for some reason it is one of the most archaic living IE languages.

Aramaic of course is the language of Jesus spoken in the Levant, Mesopotamia, Iran and Turkey. It is still spoken by Assyrian Christians in Syria, Iraq, Iran and Turkey to this day.

Hurrian is an ancient IE language like Hittite formerly spoken in Turkey.

Etruscan is an ancient language isolate formerly spoken in Italy.

Gothic is the ancient Germanic language of the Visigoths who lived not only in Germany but also in Poland, the Czech Republic, Slovakia and Hungary.

Russian and Ukrainian are well known. This ancient language may have roots close to these two Slavic languages because in a way Russian and Ukrainian are ancient Slavic languages being heavily based on Old Church Slavonic, a liturgical language that originated in northeastern Greece with roots close to Old Slavic or even Proto-Slavic.

Kurdish is the well known Iranic language of the Kurds.

Armenian is a living language, but it is rather ancient and archaic as IE languages go.

Latin is well known and these islands were part of the Roman Empire for a while.

Arabic is well known and quite a few languages along the European coast of the Mediterranean Sea have some Arabic in them.

Mittani is a language isolate formerly spoken around northern Iraq and Iran that nevertheless seems to have some relationship with Indo-Iranian languages.

Apian is an ancient IE language formerly spoken in Italy.

German is well known. How German words got into this language is a head scratcher but Croatia itself is quite close to Germany as a former part of the Austro-Hungarian Empire which had German as an official language.

Geez is the ancient language of the Ethiopian and Egyptian Coptic Christians which was thought to be long dead. However a family in Cairo was recently discovered who spoke Geez at home.

References

Anonymous. 1988. Verbânske Štatûti 1388 (Glagoljica + Prijevod). Krčki Zbornik 10: 1-173. Povijesno Društvo Otoka Krka.

Antonio, Ive, 2000. L’ Antico Dialetto di Veglia. Rome: Istituto della Enciclopedia Italiana.

Barač, L. I Sur. and 10 co-authors. 2003. Y-Chromosomal Heritage of Croatian Population and its Island Isolates. Eur. J. Human. Genet. 11: 535-542.

Bartoli, M.G. 1906. Das Dalmatische, I (Glossare und Texte), Ii (Grammatik und Lexikon). Vienna: Schriften der Balkankomission, 5: 316 + 468; reprinted as Holder, A. 2000. 2nd Ed. Il Dalmatico. Rome: Rome Istituto della Enciclopedia Italiana.

Batović, Š. 1982. Kultura Starih Liburna 12: 1-40. Rijeka: Dometi.

Bolonić M. & Žic-Rokov, I. 1977. Otok Krk Kroz Vijekove. Zagreb: Kršćanska Sadašnjost.

Bolonić, M. 1980. Otok Krk, Kolijevka Glagoljice. Zagreb: Kršćanska Sadašnjost.

Bonifačić, N. R. Undated. Zidine Zvonimirove I Jurandvorski Ulomci. Krčki Zbornik 1: 181-200. Split.

Božanić, J. 1983. Komiška Ribarska Epopeja. Čakavska Rič 11: 83-181. Split.

Božanić, J. 1996. Iskustvo Vremena Komiških Ribara. Čakavska Rič 24: 7-94. Split.

Božanić, J. (ed.). 1995-2004. Čakavska Rič, pp. 22–32. Književni Krug.

Brajković, V. & Mardešić, P. 1972-1989. Pomorska Enciklopedija, Knj. I.-Viii. Zagreb: Leksikografski Zavod.

Brusić, Z. 1989. Kasnoantička Utvrdjenja Na Otocima Krku i Rabu. Izdanja Hrvatskog Arheološkog Društva 13: 111-119. Zagreb.

Dorčić, V. 1961. Bašćanska Mornarica Prije Prvog Svjetskog Rata. Anali Jadranskog Instituta 3.

Dorčić, V. 1970. Prezimena i Nadimci U Baški Na Krku. Krčki Zbornik 1: 475-480. Krk.

Dorčić, V. 1980. Mjesto Gdje Je Nadjena Bašćanska Ploča. Pazin: Istarska Danica.

Dorčić, V. 1995. Nekoliko Podataka O Narodnim Običajima U Baški. Krčki Zbornik 33:2. Krk.

Faber, A. 1987. Osvrt Na Neka Utvrdjenja Otoka Krka Od Prethistorije Do Antike i Srednjeg Vijeka. Prilozi 3-4: 113-140. Zagreb: Institut Za Povijesna Istraživanja.

Fisher, J. 1975. Lexical Affiliations of Vegliote. Fairleigh Dickinson. New Jersey: Rutherford Univ. Press.

Fishman, J. A. 2000. Can Threatened Languages Be Saved? (A 21st Century Perspective). Multilingual Matters, Ltd.

Fučić, B. 1957. Bašćanska Ploča Kao Arheološki Predmet. Vajsov Zbornik 6:8, 247-262. Slovo.

Fučić, B. 1971. Jurandvorski Ulomci. Krčki Zbornik 3: 157-175. Povijesno Društvo Krk.

Geić, D. & Šilović, M. S. 1994. Rječnik Trogirskog Cakavskog Govora. Muzej Grada Trogira.

Greppin, J. 1991. The Survival of Ancient Anatolian and Mesopotamian Vocabulary until the Present. J. Near East Studies 50: 203-207.

Guberina, P. 1962. Da Li Je Veljotska Diftongizacija Romanska? Rad Jazu 327: 41-55.

Hamm J., Hraste M., & Guberina P. 1956. Govor Otoka Suska. Hrvatski Dijalektološki Zbornik 1: 7-214. Zagreb.

Hamm, J. 1957. Cakavizam i Njegova Geneza. Iz Problematike Čakavskih Govora I. Radovi Instituta Jazu 3: 21-38. Zadar.

Hamm, J. 1960. Cakavci i Romani. Radovi Historijskog Instituta Jazu 6:7, 65-80. Zadar.

Hraste, M. 1961. Cakavizam Na Istočnoj Obali Jadranskoga Mora. Firenze.

Japundžić, M. 1995. Tragom Hrvatskog Glagolizma. Zagreb.

Kostial, I. 1913. Čakavska “Duhovna Bramba” Iz Bašćanske Drage. Vjesnik Staroslavenske Akademije U Krku, 68-71. Krk.

Kranjčević, M. 2003. Ričnik Gacke Čakavšćine. Otočac: Čakavski Sabor Pokrajine Gacke.

Kustić, N. 2003. Cakavski Govor Grada Paga S Rječnikom. Zagreb: Društvo Pažana.

Lesica, I. 1989. Jela Otoka Krka. Krčki Zbornik 20: 1-119. Povijesno Društvo Krk.

Lovrić, A. Ž. 1969: Prilog Poznavanju Onomastike Senjskog Arhipelaga. Hidrografski Godišnjak 16: 125-143, 3 tables + 2 maps. Split.

Lovrić, A. Ž. & Mileković, M. H. 1996. Antičke Epske Legende Na Ranohrvatskom Prajeziku Krčkih Gorštaka (Vêyska Zaÿk). Ognjište 7: 166-174. Karlovac.

Lovrić, A.Ž. & Tomašić, F. 1996. Veyske Pučke Pjesme Brdskih Sela Na Otoku Krku. Hrvatski Književni List 30:5, p. 39. Zagreb.

Lovrić, M. & Tomašić, F. 1996. Legende U Veyskom Govoru Brdskih Sela Na Otoku Krku. Posebni Pretisak Iz Čakavske Riči: 90-96. Split: Književni Krug.

Lovrić, A. Ž. & Mileković, M. H. 1997. Ranohrvatski Prijevod Bašćanske Ploče U Veyskoj Cakavšćini. Hrvatski Književni List 31:6, 13-14. Karlovac.

Lovrić, M. 1998: Podrijetlo Liburna i Njihovo Etnokulturno Naslijedje U Hrvata. Ognjište 9: 175-187. Karlovac.

Lovrić, A. Ž. & Lovrić, M. 1998: Astralna Kultura I Bogatstvo Starohrvatskog Zvizdoslovja. Ognjište 9: 224-247 and three maps. Karlovac.

Lovrić M., Malinar H. & Rac, M. 1999: Zagonetka Krčke Korintije (Uri-Kvorÿta), Najveće Neistražene Gradine Na Jadranu. Ognjište 10: 295-306, Karlovac.

Lovrić, A. Ž. & Mileković, H.M. 1999. Ranohrvatski Jezik I Njegovi Pradialekti. Hrvatsko Slovo 194: 12-13 and one map. Zagreb: Društvo Hrvatskih Književnika.

Lovrić, A.Ž. 1999. Krivotvorba Bosančice i Bašćanske Ploče. Hrvatsko Slovo 202, p. 13. Zagreb: Društvo Hrvatskih Književnika.

Lovrić, A. Ž., Rac, M. & Mileković, M.H. 2002. Diversity of Old-Croatian Names for Seaweeds and Maritime Nature in the Adriatic Islands. Natura Croatica 11:4, 455-477. Zagreb: Nat. Hist. Mus.

Lukežić, I. 1990. Čakavski Ikavsko-Ekavski Dijalekt. Rijeka: Izdavački Centar.

Lukežić I. & Turk M. 1998. Govori Otoka Krka. Libellus II:2, 1-325. Rijeka.

Magašić, M. I Surad. 1976. Bašćansko Područje, Smjernice Razvoja. Krčki Zbornik 8. Povijesno Društvo Otoka Krka.

Magašić, M. I Sur. 2003. Bašćanske Besede. Općina Baška.

Malecki, M. 1929. Cakawizm Z Uwzglednieniem Zjawisk Podobnych Z Mapa. Krakow: Prace Pau 14.

Malecki, M. 1929. O Podzial Gwar Krku, Z Mapa. Prace Filologiczne 14: 563-581. Krakow. Reprinted in 1963 as Prijevod: O Podjeli Krčkih Govora, S Kartom. Filologija 4: 223-235. Zagreb.

Malinar H. I Sur. 1998. Krčka Korintija (Uri-Kuorÿta), Najveća Neistražena Gradina Na Jadranskim Otocima. Monograph: Old-Iranian Origin of Croats, pp. 473-487 + one map. Tehran: Iranian Cultural Center.

Matoković, B. 2004. Ričnik Velovaroškega Splita. Split-Zagreb: Vlastita Naklada.

Mayer, A. 1957-1959. Die Sprache der Alten Illyrier (I. Wõrterbuch Der Illyrischen Sprachreste, Ii. Etymologie und Grammatik der Illyrischen Sprache). Vienna: Schriften Der Balkankommission 15.

Meyer, K. H. 1929. Untersuchungen Zur Čakavština der Insel Krk. Leipzig: Slavisch-Baltische Quellen und Forschungen 3.

Milevoj, M. 1992. Gonan Po Nase (Rječnik Labinskog Govora). Labin: Matthias Flacius Illyricus.

Milevoj, M. 1994. Vadin Po Nase (Rječnik Labinskog Govora). Labin: Matthias Flacius Illyricus.

Miotto, L. 1991. Vocabolario del Dialetto Veneto-Dalmata, Ed. 2. Trieste: Lint.

Moguš, M. 1966. Današnji Senjski Govor. Senjski Zbornik 2: 5-152. Senj.

Moguš, M. 2002. Senjski Rječnik. Senj: Hazu I Matica Hrvatska.

Mohorovičić, A. (edit.). 1987. Rapski Zbornik. Zagreb: Jazu.

Mohorovičić, A. & Strčić, P. (ed.). 1988. Bašćanska Ploča, I I Ii. Zagreb-Krk-Rijeka: Zbornik Reprinta.

Muljačić, Ž. 1966. Lo Cakavizmo alla Luce della Linguistica Contrastiva. Die Welt der Slaven 11:4, 367-379. Wiesbaden.

Murgić S. I Sur. 1999. Predslavenski Tragovi Antičkih Hrvata U Istri i Na Krku. Zbornik Bujština 99: 6-18. Zadar: Matica Hrvatska Umag.

Murgić S. I Sur. 1999. Poredba Predslavenskih Pradialekata U Hrvatskoj (Ćiribirci i Veyanne). Monograph: Old-Iranian Origin of Croats, pp. 235-252. Tehran: Iranian Cultural Center.

Mužić, I. 1997. Slaveni, Goti I Hrvati Na Teritoriju Rimske Provincije Dalmacije. Zagreb: Dominović 5 Izdanje.

Piasevoli, A. 1993. Rječnik Govora Mjesta Sali Na Dugom Otoku (Oliti Libar Saljski Besid). Zadar: Matica Hrvatska.

Prioli, M. 1603. Visitatio Apostolica Dalmatiae D. Vegliensis Anno 1603. Miscellanea Vii: 100-101. Vatican City: Archivio Vaticano.

Prister, L. 1980. Vela I Mala Luka. Bilten Baška 2:2, p. 17. Rijeka: Tipograf.

Ragužin, A. 1998. Glasovita Župa Baška, I-Ii. Krk.

Roki-Fortunato, A. 1977. Lîbar Vĩškiga Jazìka. Toronto: Libar Publ.

Rošić, Đ. B. 2002. Linguistic Identity of the Dialect of Fiume. Toronto: Doctoral Dissertation.

Seršić, S. 1995. O Narodnim Običajima U Bašćanskoj Dragi. Krčki Zbornik 33: 259-264.

Skok, P. 1950. Slavenstvo i Romanstvo Na Jadranskim Otocima, I-Ii. Zagreb: Posebna Izdanja Jazu.

Sokolić-Kozarić, M. 2003. Rječnik Čakavskog Govora Novog Vinodolskog. Rijeka-Novi Vinodolski.

Stipčević, A. 1974. Iliri (Povijest, Život, Kultura). Zagreb: Školska Knjiga.

Strohal, R. 1913. Dijalekt Grada Vrbnika Na Otoku Krku U Prošlim Vjekovima Usporedjen S Današnjim. Rad Jazu 199: 67-152.

Strčić, P. (ed.) 1993. Narodni Običaji Otoka Krka. Krčki Zbornik 32-33, 1-424. Povijesno Društvo Otoka Krka.

Suić, M. 1956. Granice Liburnije Kroz Stoljeća. Radovi Jazu 2: 273-297. Zadar.

Sulojdžić A. I Sur. 1992. Govori Otoka Krka, Uvod U Antropološka
Istraživanja. Filologija 20-21, 1992-1993. Zagreb.

Šimunović, P. & Olesch, R. 1979-1983. Čakavisch-Deutsches Lexikon, I–Iii. Cologne and Vienna: Bõhlau Verlag.

Šimunović, P. 1986. Istočnojadranska Toponimija. Split: Logos.

Štefanić, V. 1937. Opatija Sv. Lucije U Baški i Drugi Benediktinski Samostani Na Krku. Zagreb: Croatia Sacra 1936: 1-86.

Štefanić, V. 1944. Narodne Pjesme Otoka Krka. Zagreb: Hrvatski Nakladni Zavod.

Štefanić, V. 1960. Glagoljski Rukopisi Otoka Krka. Zagreb: Jazu.

Tentor, M. 1909. Der Čakavische Dialekt der Stadt Cres. Archiv fũr Slawische Philologie 30: 146-205. Berlin.

Tentor, M. 1913. Najstariji Hrvatski Glagoljski Brevijar. Vjesnik Staroslavenske Akademije 1913:2, p.33. Krk.

Tentor, M. 1950. Leksička Slaganja Creskoga Narječja i Slovenskoga Jezika Protiv Vukova Jezika. Razprave Sazu 1: 69-72. Ljubljana.

Tolk, H. V. I Sur. and nine co-authors. 2000. Mt-DNA Haplogroups in the Populations of Croatian Adriatic Islands. Coll. Anthropol. 24: 267-279.

Tomašić, F. 1997. Srednjovjeke Pučke Pjesme U Ranohrvatskom Govoru Gan-Veyãn Iz Otoka Krka. Ognjište 8: 217-227. Karlovac.

Tomičić, Ž. 1989. Arheološka Svjedočanstva O Ranobizantskom Vojnom Graditeljstvu Na Sjevernojadranskim Otocima. Prilozi Odjela Za Arheologiju 5-6: 29–53. Zagreb: Institut Za Povijesna Istraživanja Sveučilišta U Zagrebu.

Turčić, B. 2002. Sedmoškojani, Prvi Čokavski Rječnik. Rijeka: Adamić.

Ursini, F. 1987. Il Lessico Veneto-Dalmata del Novecento (Sedimentzioni Culturali sulle Coste Orientali Dell’adriatico). Venice: Atti e Memorie del Società Dalmata Xv.

Vajs, J. 1908. Hlaholske Kodexy Ve Vrbniku Na Ostrove Krku. Praha: Časopis Musea Kralovstvi Českeho Lxxxvi.

Vančik, B. 1997. Svi Puti Vode K Čakavštini. Ognjište 8: 204-216. Karlovac.

Velčić, N. 2003. Besedar Bejske Tramuntane. Beli-Rijeka: Čakavski Sabor-Adamić.

Vidović, R. (ed.). 1971-1994. Čakavska Rič Br. 1–21, Split: Matica Hrvatska.

Vidović, R. 1977-1993. Pomorska Terminologija i Pomorske Tradicije (Rječnik I–Iii.). Čakavska Rič 7:2, 99-156; 10: 145-180; 21:1, 23-41. Split: Matica Hrvatska.

Vidović, R. 1984. Pomorski Rječnik. Split: Logos.

Vinja, V. 2000-2004. Jadranske Etimologije I-Iii. Zagreb: Hazu i Školska Knjiga.

Yošamýa, Mitjêl I Sur. 1998. Podrijetlo Liburna i Njihovo Etnokulturno Naslijedje U Hrvata. Ognjište 9: 175-187. Karlovac.

Yošamýa, Mitjêl. 1999. Veyski Prazemljopis Svijeta i Jadrana (Iskon I Nestanak Starohrvatskog Mjestopisa). Ognjište 10, 185-196. Karlovac.

Yošamýa, Mitjêl I Sur. 1999. Predslavenske Legende Indoiranskog
Podrijetla Na Starohrvatskim Pradialektima. Monograph: Old-Iranian Origin of Croats, pp. 353-366. Tehran: Iranian Cultural Center.

Yošamýa, Z. 2001. Zavjera Šutnje O Kvarnerskoj Jazovki (U Jami Kričavno Na Krku Pobijeni Otočani i Ličani). Politički Zatvorenik 112/113: 20-21. Zagreb (Srpanj-Kolovoz).

Yošamýa, Z. & Mileković, M. H. 2001. Podrijetlo, Značenje I Sudbina Starodalmatskog Jezika. Bujština: 247-255. Matica Hrvatska Umag.

Yošamýa, Mitjêl. 2004. Bascânski Besidãr. Zagreb: Itg.

Yošamýa, Mitjêl I Sur. 2005. Gan-Veyãn, 27,500 Besêd Rječnici Istočnog Kvarnera (Gan-Veyãn and Cakavism of Baška). Zagreb: Torra Editûra Itg.

Žic, I. 2001. Vrbnik Na Otoku Krku, Narodni Život i Običaji. Rijeka: Adamić.

12 Comments

Filed under Afroasiatic, Arabic, Armenian, Balto-Slavic, Balto-Slavic-Germanic, Basque, German, Germanic, Indic, Indo-European, Indo-Hittite, Indo-Iranian, Indo-Irano-Armenian, Indo-Irano-Armeno-Hellenic, Isolates, Italo-Celtic-Tocharian, Language Families, Linguistics, Russian, Semitic, Slavic, Tocharian

Answers to the Languages of Spain Post

Map of the languages of Spain.

Map of the languages of Spain.

There are nine languages in the map above.

You folks were not able to answer all nine of them correctly, so I will give you the answers.

Pink – Catalan

Light green – Aranese or Occitan (no one got this one)

Purple – Aragonese (no one got this one)

Aquamarine – Basque

Red – Castillian

Green – Asturian-Leonese

Yellow – Galician

Dark green – Extremaduran (no one got this one)

Brown – Fala (no one got this one)

Aranese is the Aranese dialect of Occitan which is either a separate language or a dialect of Occitan depending on how you look at it. Fala is actually a dialect of Galician but it is considered a language for sociopolitical reasons. There is another part of the dark green Extremaduran language which is typically not recognized. This is Cantabrian, spoken to the east of the green Asturian-Leonese area and to the west of the aquamarine  Basque area.

Leave a comment

Filed under Aragonese, Asturian, Basque, Catalan, Europe, Galician, Geography, Indo-European, Indo-Hittite, Isolates, Italic, Italo-Celtic-Tocharian, Language Families, Leonese, Linguistics, Maps, Occitan, Regional, Romance, Spain, Spanish

A Look at the Karok Language

Method and Conclusion. See here.

Results. A ratings system was designed in terms of how difficult it would be for an English-language speaker to learn the language. In the case of English, English was judged according to how hard it would be for a non-English speaker to learn the language. Speaking, reading and writing were all considered.

Ratings: Languages are rated 1-6, easiest to hardest. 1 = easiest, 2 = moderately easy to average, 3 = average to moderately difficult, 4 = very difficult, 5 = extremely difficult, 6 = most difficult of all. Ratings are impressionistic.

Time needed. Time needed for an English language speaker to learn the language “reasonably well”: Level 1 languages = 3 months-1 year. Level 2 languages = 6 months-1 year. Level 3 languages = 1-2 years. Level 4 languages = 2 years. Level 5 languages = 3-4 years, but some may take longer. Level 6 languages = more than 4 years.

This post will look at the Karok language in terms of how difficult it would be for an English speaker to learn it.

Karok

Karok is formally a language isolate, but some theories put into Hokan, although Hokan itself is not even a recognized grouping.

Karok spoken by a few dozen people in northern California. The last native speaker recently died, however, there are ~80 people who have varying levels of L2 fluency.

In Karok, you can use a suffix for different types of containment – fire, water or a solid.

pa:θ-kirih
throw into a fire”

pa:θ-kurih
“throw into water

pa:θ-ruprih
throw through a solid

The suffixes are unrelated to the words for “fire”, “water” and “solid”.

Karok gets a 6 rating, hardest of all.

Leave a comment

Filed under Applied, California, Isolates, Language Families, Language Learning, Linguistics, North America, Regional, USA, West

A Look at the Yuchi Language

Method and Conclusion. See here.

Results. A ratings system was designed in terms of how difficult it would be for an English-language speaker to learn the language. In the case of English, English was judged according to how hard it would be for a non-English speaker to learn the language. Speaking, reading and writing were all considered.

Ratings: Languages are rated 1-6, easiest to hardest. 1 = easiest, 2 = moderately easy to average, 3 = average to moderately difficult, 4 = very difficult, 5 = extremely difficult, 6 = most difficult of all. Ratings are impressionistic.
Time needed. Time needed for an English language speaker to learn the language “reasonably well”: Level 1 languages = 3 months-1 year. Level 2 languages = 6 months-1 year. Level 3 languages = 1-2 years. Level 4 languages = 2 years. Level 5 languages = 3-4 years, but some may take longer. Level 6 languages = more than 4 years.

Yuchi

Yuchi is a language isolate spoken in the Southern US. They were originally located in Eastern Tennessee and were part of the Creek Confederacy at one time. Yuchi is nearly extinct, with only five remaining speakers.

Yuchi has noun genders or classes based on three distinctions of position: standing, sitting or lying. All nouns are either standing, sitting or lying. Trees are standing, and rivers are lying, for instance. If it is taller than it is wide, it is standing. If it is wider than it is tall, it is lying. If it is about as about as wide as it is tall, it is sitting. All nouns fall into one of these three genders, but you can change the gender for humorous or poetic effect. A linguist once asked a group of female speakers whether a penis was standing, sitting or lying. After lots of giggles, they said the default was sitting, but you could say it was standing or lying for poetic effect.

All Yuchi pronouns must make a distinction between age (older or younger than the speaker) and ethnicity (Yuchi or non-Yuchi).

Yuchi gets a 6 rating, hardest of all.

Leave a comment

Filed under Amerindians, Applied, Isolates, Language Families, Language Learning, Linguistics, Race/Ethnicity, Regional, South, USA

A Look at American Indian Languages and the Kootenai Language

Method and Conclusion. See here.

Results. A ratings system was designed in terms of how difficult it would be for an English-language speaker to learn the language. In the case of English, English was judged according to how hard it would be for a non-English speaker to learn the language. Speaking, reading and writing were all considered.

Ratings: Languages are rated 1-6, easiest to hardest. 1 = easiest, 2 = moderately easy to average, 3 = average to moderately difficult, 4 = very difficult, 5 = extremely difficult, 6 = most difficult of all. Ratings are impressionistic.
Time needed. Time needed for an English language speaker to learn the language “reasonably well”: Level 1 languages = 3 months-1 year. Level 2 languages = 6 months-1 year. Level 3 languages = 1-2 years. Level 4 languages = 2 years. Level 5 languages = 3-4 years, but some may take longer. Level 6 languages = more than 4 years.

American Indian Languages

American Indian languages are notoriously difficult to learn, though few try to learn them in the US. In the rest of the continent, they are still learned by millions in many different nations. You almost need to learn these as a kid. It’s going to be quite hard for an adult to get full competence in them.

One problem with these languages is the multiplicity of verb forms. For instance, the standard paradigm for the overwhelming number of regular English verbs is a maximum of five forms:

steal
steals
stealing
stole
stolen

Many Amerindian languages have over 1,000 forms of each verb in the language.

Kootenai

The Salishan languages are maddeningly difficult languages for English speakers to learn. Yet the Salishans always considered the neighboring language Kootenai to be too hard to learn.

Kootenai has a distinction between proximate/obviate along with direct/inverse alignment, probably from contact with Algonquian. However, the Kootenai direct/inverse system is less complex than Algonquian’s, as it is present only in the 3rd person. Kootenai also has a very strange feature in that they have particles that look like subject pronouns, but these go outside of the full noun phrase. This is a very rare feature in the world’s languages. Kootenai scored very high on a weirdest language survey.

Kootenai is an isolate spoken in Idaho by 100 people.

Kootenai is rated 6, hardest of all.

Leave a comment

Filed under Algonquian, Amerindians, Applied, Idaho, Isolates, Kootenai, Language Families, Language Learning, Linguistics, Race/Ethnicity, Regional, Salishan, USA, West

A Look at the Burushaski Language

Burushaski is formally a language isolate spoken in the far northwest of Pakistan near the border with China in the Hunza Valley. It is still alive and may have 30,000 speakers.

Burushaski people are interesting in that they live a very long time. The Hunza has one of the largest populations of centenarians on Earth. No one knows why they live so long except that they live in mountainous terrain and walk up and down steep hills for most of their lives as another long-lived people, the Sardinians, also do. Their diet has also been studied, and it turns out that two staples are apricots and yogurt, for whatever that is worth. They live at a very high altitude also. Whether that factors into longevity is not known.

Method and Conclusion. See here.

Results. A ratings system was designed in terms of how difficult it would be for an English-language speaker to learn the language. In the case of English, English was judged according to how hard it would be for a non-English speaker to learn the language. Speaking, reading and writing were all considered.

Ratings: Languages are rated 1-6, easiest to hardest. 1 = easiest, 2 = moderately easy to average, 3 = average to moderately difficult, 4 = very difficult, 5 = extremely difficult, 6 = most difficult of all. Ratings are impressionistic.

Time needed. Time needed for an English language speaker to learn the language “reasonably well”: Level 1 languages = 3 months-1 year. Level 2 languages = 6 months-1 year. Level 3 languages = 1-2 years. Level 4 languages = 2 years. Level 5 languages = 3-4 years, but some may take longer. Level 6 languages = more than 4 years.

Burushaski

Burushaski is often thought to be a language isolate, related to no other languages, however, I think it is Dene-Caucasian. It is spoken in the Himalaya Mountains of far northern Pakistan in an area called the Hunza. It’s verb conjugation is complex, it has a lot of inflections, there are complicated ways of making sentences depending on many factors, and it is an ergative language, which is hard to learn for speakers of non-ergative languages. In addition, there are very few to no cognates for the vocabulary.

Burushaski is rated 6, hardest of all.

Leave a comment

Filed under Anthropology, Applied, Cultural, Isolates, Language Families, Language Learning, Linguistics