Active Users:376 Time:03/05/2024 02:54:21 PM
The point - which isn't made very clear in this article, but I read it elsewhere - is diversity. Legolas Send a noteboard - 15/04/2011 09:44:37 PM
I do have a couple of issues with the concept though. One part of the article states that some African languages have 100 phonemes and this is the evidence that they are older. But it also states that the more people who speak a language the more phonemes there are and English only has 45. Even if you go back to old English did less people speak old English than spoke some of these south African tribal languages? This seems odd to me.

The idea about the origins of languages is that in the beginning language had a great deal of phonemes, but as groups of people broke off to move away in various distances, each of these groups was not only smaller but also less diverse than the group that remained behind in Africa, almost per definition, and some of the excess phonemes fell into disuse (different ones in each group, of course) as the groups were relatively homogeneous and tended towards the use of the same phonemes. And the idea is that the big changes in language happened especially in that early phase, and less so later on (when cultures and peoples had developed, who had good reasons to want to conserve their language). Of course the numbers became very different later on, with no African language ranking among the ten, maybe even twenty, most-spoken languages in the world.

The point of the "the amount of phonemes will grow as more people speak a language" thing is again diversity - it's not the numbers in se that do it, it's the side-effect of sub-cultures being created, speakers being more likely to live far away from each other and see their speech evolve slightly differently.
I also have trouble understanding the mechanics of why this would happen, why geographic distance from the origin would affect the development of a language. If you have two groups that split and one of those groups moves away why would that affect how their language developed? They both spoke the same language and then one day a group said "fine you stay here we are going to look for food in that valley". Why would the language of the group that moved change in a predictably different way than the group that stayed? Not saying it isn't true but I would like to know more about what they think would have caused this shift.

If the groups are equal in size and diversity, it wouldn't. But the pattern of human dispersal across the globe is one of small groups moving out of Africa in various directions, then later on small groups moving out Asia and Europe to the Americas and Australia, and finally small groups crossing the Pacific in boats and reaching the various islands there.
Reply to message
/Science: From the NYT: Phonetic Clues Hint Language Is Africa-Born - 15/04/2011 06:24:38 PM 1033 Views
Interesting. - 15/04/2011 07:05:27 PM 448 Views
I don't have enough information about to say it is wrong but I do have questions - 15/04/2011 07:07:39 PM 507 Views
The point - which isn't made very clear in this article, but I read it elsewhere - is diversity. - 15/04/2011 09:44:37 PM 534 Views
Re: Your posts are 95% pure gold. *NM* - 16/04/2011 01:35:31 AM 208 Views
I still fail to see why South Africa would have more diversity. - 17/04/2011 07:44:19 PM 545 Views
I can't assess it without reading the whole paper. - 15/04/2011 11:25:22 PM 483 Views
Have written to LanguageLog to ask what they think. - 15/04/2011 11:35:12 PM 447 Views
Re: *NM* - 15/04/2011 11:35:40 PM 266 Views
Something like this? - 17/04/2011 04:41:31 PM 489 Views
Indeed. Thanks for posting it. - 18/04/2011 08:52:25 AM 445 Views
Re: Indeed. Thanks for posting it. - 18/04/2011 08:55:29 AM 459 Views

Reply to Message