Intro to Historical Linguistics: Comparative Method & Language Family Trees (lesson 3 of 4)

Learn the basics of language history and how languages change over time. This lesson introduces the essentials of the comparative method.
We'll use cognates to group related languages into family trees. Related languages trace their linguistic lineage to a common ancestor called the "parent language". Parent languages are either attested (documented) or reconstructed.
Visit the site for more information:
www.nativlang.com/linguistics/...
music by Kevin MacLeod

[@NativLang]

This subtopic interests me, since I've been reading through _Introducing Maltese Linguistics_ (Comrie et al.) in my spare time! I think that phonology, lexis and morphosyntax unite to classify Maltese as Semitic. It doesn't look like a divergent case.

[@neeleneeleambarpar2151]

I love how your narrative styles as well as voice changed over the years. ❤️

[@NativLang]

It very much depends on your method and your data. The method in these four videos just compares basic word lists. Applied more broadly, this method may merge with a kind of lexicostatistics. A Swadesh list betrays the Sicilian Arabic origins of Maltese. Even with fancier terms, a type of codeswitching is well known in Malta. Speakers can choose between for example 'l-ilsien malti' or 'il-lingwa maltija' to say "the Maltese language".

[@KedikaAbibitumitv]

Excellent demonstration and video

[@NativLang]

I'm a bit confused. But, if I understand the gist of what you're saying, origins matter for determining language family relationships. That's definitely the key component of this method.

[@NativLang]

If this hypothetical language is a creole, it might indeed be classified as a separate and unique line. (Even then, terms like "lexifier language" exist for creole lineages.)

[@MultiSciGeek]

Interesting. These nodes could really confuse you like from which time period a language came because another split could make you think it split later on while they theoretically could be all the same age or maybe one language split of from another where the split one changed and the original one not so much.

[@keegster7167]

yea, especially because languages have very variable rates of change.

[@NativLang]

Not enough information. As in the previous video, the comparative method looks for core cognate relationships. Here, if we determine that this language has Turkic words because it comes from Turkic, then it's also Turkic. But if it borrowed those lexical items (like English did from French), then it's not Turkic. This video series just looks at basic core vocabulary and phonological changes to determine relatedness. But there are limitations! As you point out, grammar also matters.

[@Leto85]

These nodes, can they be made more clear when looking at the history of the regios in where those language were spoken in the past and when the natives migrated to different places? I think that way the nodes could roughly be given a time period.

[@rkpetry]

*_...po, is the Chinese word for tailless 'broom' comet something you'd see at night but also every star is like a po..._*

[@MAD-BIPOLARITY]

It is like Maltese the predominantly vocabulary is latin but it is a Semitic language due the grammar and syntax you can build a phrase in Maltese with fully latin words but the construction will be Arabic style

[@johnalbertdevadosanselwyn2993]

Very helpful. thanks.

[@MAD-BIPOLARITY]

Yes that's what I said if it has a latin grammar and Turkic words of origin Formed internal as our "Dacic" words like copil(child) or bucurie (aslo ferice from lat.felix) then it is a unique language like korean but if the language got influenced by latin and vocab remained intact then it is another story

[@MAD-BIPOLARITY]

There are a lot of branches if a language has latin grammar (the construction and so on,) and has a Turkic origin lexis then if I am right it would be classified as a separate and unique language

[@MAD-BIPOLARITY]

Aslo Romanian ,if you knew shares unique features with every Italian dialect especially at the south from La Spezia-Rimini line but still an unique Romance language as you said

[@MAD-BIPOLARITY]

With phonology especially Tuscan and Neapolitan for grammar especially Sicilian and for lexis especially central Italian dialects (Like Sabine dialect) and Sicilian if you want I can give you examples :)

[@MAD-BIPOLARITY]

Aslo i have put "dacic" cuz our words that are NOT found Antwhere but in our vocabulary and aslo cognate with Albanian(about 160 words) then these are supposed to be from Dacic substrata but since no Dacic writing has been found an exception for plants and names like...umm Burebista maybe then we Cannot prove it and these words are generally classified as unknown etymology

[@leventemaier7181]

Let's say that we have a language called X It's grammar is totally romance but the vocabulary is totally turkic In which family would language X be placed: romance or turkic ???

[@neeleneeleambarpar2151]

You should expand on comparative philology in future videos if that's not too much of a bother! That is to say a delve into the story of pie. See what I did there?

[@iagreewithyou4328]

But we can't really tell how reliable this method is. It has been strongly criticized in the past and for a good reason: Researchers agree that linguistic reconstruction agree that the traditional comparative method is an "intuitive undertaking”. [1] The bias of the researchers regarding the accumulated implicit knowledge can also lead to erroneous assumptions and excessive generalization Dutch linguist Kortland(1993): Linguists make personal judgements on how they consider "natural" for a language to change, and as a result, our reconstructions tend to have a strong bias toward the average language type known to the investigator. Such an investigator finds himself or herself blinkered by their own linguistic frame of reference.[2] German linguist Karl Brugmann(1904): Reconstruction systems could never reflect a linguistic reality.[3] Austrian-Czech linguist Julius Pokorny: Linguistic term IE parent language is merely an abstraction that does not exist in reality. Fox Anthony(1995). Linguistic Reconstruction: An Introduction to Theory and Method. New York: Oxford University Press.: Dr. Nicholas Kazanas: "The first fallacy is that the comparative method is “scientific” and can offer predictions." [...] "Another fallacy is very subtle: it is the tacit assumption that the reconstructed forms are actual and experts in this imaginary field discuss and argue among themselves as if they are realities." Footnotes [1] Schwink, Frederick W.: Linguistic Typology, Universality and the Realism of Reconstruction, Washington 1994 [2] www.kortlandt.nl/publications/art130e.pdf [3] archive.org/details/kurzevergleichen00brug

[@MAD-BIPOLARITY]

What?which video?

[@arunaame]

hi, can u sent me this lecture(text)?

[@BoierRistea]

Speechless?! Your silence it is a good answer for me! Take a look at A Latin Origin for the Romanian Word DA (YES)

[@NativLang]

Thanks for sharing! The case in your link is basically as follows: (1) It's not unheard of for languages to borrow their word for 'yes', so Romanian could have borrowed 'da'. (2) Alternatively, we could imagine it coming from Latin 'ita'. Those are both interesting but thin speculations. TBH I haven't read his paper, so there's probably more to it.

[@BoierRistea]

***** "Thin speculations" it is for someone with very thin preparation. Take a look: lat. lat. domus (house) > belarus, bg., pol., rus., slovac, crt., sb. dom, ceh. dům, mace. doma; ; lat. culmen (top, peak) > OCS chlŭmŭ (hill), cf. bg. khŭlm, rus. kholm, but other slavic don't (cf. belarus pahorak, ceh. pahorek, slovac pahorok, ucr. pahorb, pol. pagórek, bosn., crt., sb. brdo, mace. rid). OCS was developed its vocabulary in the south region of Danube. And was an insatiable hunger for words!

[@TehKevinYang]

Can you perhaps remove the music? It's very distracting and doesn't really help

[@BoierRistea]

Why they chose to reconstruct Proto-Romance *octo instead of *opto? Is there a hidden logic here?

[@NativLang]

Good question! A very short answer: They compared more data. A better answer: For fun, let's just look at the 3 languages on that tree (Spanish, Italian and Romanian). How does each language treat Latin 'ct' in 'octo'? What about Latin 'pt', like in the word 'septem'? Latin > Spanish, Italian, Romanian sePTem > sieTe, seTTe, șaPTe oCTo > oCHo, oTTo, oPT In Italian, both words have 'tt'. In Romanian, both have 'pt'. This doesn't give us a good reason to prefer 'pt'. On the other hand, Spanish 'ch' favors an ancestor with 'ct' (octo) instead of 'pt' (opto).

[@BoierRistea]

Very fair! But just at the first glance...Do you have any idea from where coming Latin language? If you think Latin was her words and the others just had to learn, we can construct the following scenario: -(water) lat. aqua > rum. apă > skt. aapa आप, -(sun) lat. solis > rum. soare > skt. suurya सूर्य, -(six) lat. sex > rum. şase > lit. šeši > skt. ShaSh षष् etc. My knowledge, the oldest text written in Sanskrit (Rig-Veda) has at least 3,000 years. Where were the Latins when Rome was not built?

[@NativLang]

***** This branches out into the entire Indo-European family - even more complex with much more data to compare! Your examples hint at the fact that dates matter. The "oldest" and "most conservative" (least changed) languages in a family are given huge weight. So, whence cometh Latin? Sanskrit? Lithuanian? Old Latin is a sister to other Italic languages like Faliscan and Umbrian. Vedic Sanskrit is a very conservative Indic language. Indic and Italic both descend from Proto-Indo-European. Lithuanian is from yet another branch of the same family, and possibly the most conservative living Indo-European language. In classes and books, I've seen Lithuanian noun declensions compared to Sanskrit many times. In my (very, very limited) Sanskrit studies, I only saw texts dating from around 2,200 years. However, the amazingly structured oral tradition of Ancient India makes many people confident that the recited Vedic texts are far older, with 3,500 years often quoted.

[@BoierRistea]

***** I agree. In this condition which is the proportion of latin heritage in modern romanian language? And which is the proportion of daco-geti (old habitants of today Romania) heritage in ancient latin language? More concise, it is romanian a latin language or latin an daco-geti dialect?

[@NativLang]

***** The phonology, grammar and core vocabulary of Romanian are very Romance. (For lexical items, Marius Sala of the Romanian Academy has quoted 30% directly inherited from Latin, with another 40% borrowed from other Romance languages and a mere

[@MAD-BIPOLARITY]

Oooh aslo we have one dialect spoken by 500-1000 called istro-Romanian it is spoken in istra former Italy the truth is that it got assimilated by Croatian and now it is hardly classified as an Romance language it is the same story as Maltese an istro-Romanian would say româru iezik or limba româră but why it got assimilated?it is about history and I'm gonna tell you things/facts about Romanians that you will barely believe,so...

[@BoierRistea]

Anyway, the supposed reconstructed of *octo don't reflect the formation of the word.

[@PaddiBusch88]

good video! but the drumming is horrible!

[@NativLang]

Thanks! I've played with music and volume over the years. Hope I've gotten better!