I read some and have noticed relations between not commonly linked languages .
Welsh and Latin both use 'Pen' as in pat the top of ultimate = penultimate. Also, Penmaenmawr means large end of big rock or Big headland in Welsh
On train with danger instructiongs I noticed the Welsh word for danger 'perygl' is quite similar to english Perilous. Maltese has the word 'Peryglo' for danger...
And I was once roleplaying a vampire and was given a piece of paper with a coded message on it. Apparently, my pc was supposed to seek out the one who knew the langauge. I didn't know so I spent three and ahalf hours decrypting it whilst I had nothing else on. My translation weven turned out more accurate than my games master's copy...
Yes, and Latin, German and Japanese all use "-ne?" to indicate a question or a tag question, although not very closely related, if at all. Coincidence? Probably, but an interesting one nevertheless.
I actually know wht Antidisestablishmentarianism means.
Me too. Are you an antidisestablishmentarianist? (I think I am a disestablishmentarianist.)
My favourite Latin insult is "Tanti es quanti fungus putidus" (You are worth as much as a rotten mushroom.) I think it's from Plautus. :razz:
Yeah -- I can see how that could be. Although I generally suppose all Indo-European languages to be linked in some way. Is this due to the heavy influence of Judeo-Christian culture on English speaking peoples, do you suppose?
Cool.
I heard that Basque, Etruscan, and possibly Finnish were all non-Indo-European languages, but not much about the Semitic languages.
Not too good with languages but I once had this lovely little book 'The Reader's Digest book of facts' and it went on to say that there there was a common North African language which split into Phoenician, Aramaic And Hebrew. if this id correct, it would mean that many European languages (except Basque as it's apparently a special case) they all descend from semitic origins, especially the Romance languages.
It then went on to describe Phoenician giving rise to Greek, which gave rise to Etruscan which gave rise to Latin.
As for Perygl, I can't find anything on it at the moment.
Shows how much I don't know then... back to the drawing board... And the encyclopedia Britannica...
Latin is not descended from Greek, but is related to Greek. The romance languages are descended from Latin, but there is Latin influence through most of Western Europe.
Both Latin and Greek are generally agreed to be Indo-European languages, descended from a language that is no longer spoken nor known. But these languages (of which English is one) provide a clue as to what the basic structure and grammatical rules of ancient Indo-European could have been.
This, along with the cultural influence that it carried with it, is believed to have come from somewhere around Eastern Europe or West Asia and "Indo-European" also describes several of the languages spoken in India. (Many of which can trace their roots to Ancient Sanskrit.)
Cool.
I heard that Basque, Etruscan, and possibly Finnish were all non-Indo-European languages, but not much about the Semitic languages.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Language_family
Goody. I checked this out. It's pretty good. I will print it out when I get a chance.
I am concerned by the site listing certain dialects, like Japanese "ben", as separate languages, although it does at times explain the regional differences here. But generally a very comprehensive list. Thnx. :smile:
It's no harder for me to understand Scots than it is for me to understand Geordie. To me therefore, if Scots was classed as a different language, Geordie would also have to be. Both 'dialects' use my mother tongue's words in recognisable fashion.
(I do agree that many have been the victims of English culturalism)
The question being is how far does a dialect have to deviate from its mother tongue to become a language?
Funny thing about that--the difference between a "dialect" and a "language" can often boil down to what cultural prejudices one has.
I don't know that it's that simple. I will check either a dictionary or Wikipedia when I get a chance, but the distinction, although SLIGHTLY blurred, is generally one of understanding.
For instance, can a speaker of one language / dialect UNDERSTAND another reasonably well, with little practice? Does one have to learn new verb forms etc to be able to comprehend another's words?
For instance, the differences between American English and Scotch English, although they can complicate understanding by a degree, are slight enough that for one speaker to comprehend another does not require the use of a dictionary or any special learning.
Given time and isolation, the two may have evolved into separate languages, in the same fashion as two isolated populations may evolve into separate species. (Such circumstances have, of course, not occurred. So an American moving to Scotland would still be able to communicate with little difficulty or lack of understanding.
The same could be said for someone moving from Tokyo to Osaka, Japan. There are differences in idiom and accent, but they would have little trouble communicating. But a move to China, say, would produce considerably more difficulty.
That, as far as I see it, is the difference between a language and a dialect.
Nyanchan, just so you know, the Scots I know would be telling you right about now about how Scots os the dialect and Scotch is a Malt whiskey.
On a more serious note, Wikipedia does have a section written in Scots. I can read it fairly well. I would say it may be worth your time.