Debunkers dot Org

A Tradition of Looking Behind the Curtain
It is currently Wed Nov 22, 2017 6:27 pm

All times are UTC - 5 hours [ DST ]

Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 2 posts ] 
Author Message
 Post subject: empires of the word
PostPosted: Fri May 05, 2017 9:23 pm 
User avatar

Joined: Fri Apr 04, 2008 10:48 am
Posts: 4317
Location: Broomfield, Colorado
Quite enlightening; full of interesting insights – although now and then something’s a little suspect. Author Nicholas Ostler claims a working knowledge of 26 languages, and shows them off in Empires of the Word. This is a history of the world’s major languages and their evolution over time. Ostler starts with the Semitic languages – Akkadian, Phoenician, Aramaic, Arabic; then continues in roughly the historical order of when the language became important one the world scene: Egyptian, Chinese, Sanskrit, Greek, Celtic, Latin, German, Slavic. In the second half, Oslter goes on to trace the spread of languages once navigation made intercontinental travel practical; Spanish and Portuguese, Dutch, French, Russian and English; and in a conclusion Ostler speculates on the future of these languages.

Among the interesting insights: Sumerian is the first written language, is ideographic (like Chinese), and isn’t related to any other as far as anybody can tell. However, the people who conquered Sumer recognized the value of writing and adapted it to their own language, Akkadian, by taking the sound values of Sumerian ideograms and using them to represent syllables in Akkadian. Other languages of the Middle East – Elamite, Hurrian, Urartian, Hittite – used the same method (Hittite is interesting because while the others are Semitic it belongs to the Indo-European language family, and was originally written ideographically with hieroglyphs but adopted cuneiform). This method seems extremely clumsy, but it was made to work for millennia, and Ostler assigns it importance equivalent to the printing press in world language technology.

The Phoenicians made the next step, the alphabet, probably facilitated by the fact that papyrus was more convenient for business than clay. Phoenician was once in use from the Black Sea to Cornwall, but (with the salient exception of Carthage) the Phoenicians just maintained trading stations and never established colonies; thus their language disappeared with them. Punic, the language of Carthage, lasted longer; St. Augustine mentions there were still Punic speakers in North Africa in the fifth century AD. Ostler notes that a language very closely related to Phoenician, Hebrew, is “back from the dead”; like some other religious languages (Ge’ez, , Coptic, Old Church Slavonic) it was confined to religious use for millennia (Jesus almost certainly knew Hebrew but the everyday language of the Middle East in His time was Aramaic; in fact some of the more recent parts of the Old Testament – parts of Daniel, for example – were written in Aramaic, not Hebrew). But Hebrew is once again in use in Israel, after a more than 2000-year hiatus.

Ostler compares Egyptian and Chinese – this is one of the places where he isn’t very successful. He tries to draw an analogy between the country’s languages and their geopolitical situation, with both being repeatedly invaded by outside powers who then adopted Chinese or Egyptian in place of whatever their own language was. This seems to be true for China, but doesn’t work for Egypt; Egyptian had been written in hieroglyphs for more than 1000 years before the country had a foreign invasion – it’s much more defensible than China. It’s true that near the end of its history as an independent state Egypt was invaded by Nubians, Assyrians, Persians and Macedonians – and it was Macedonian Greek that finally replaced the native language, to be replaced in turn by Arabic. Ostler claims Coptic, still the liturgical language of the Egyptian Orthodox Church, is still “Egyptian” and thus the language is still in use, sort of; Coptic has long since dropped hieroglyphs in favor of an alphabet based on Greek (with a couple of extra letters to accommodate sounds not used in Greek). Perhaps; there are other examples of languages where the orthographic system changed – I already mentioned Hittite, and there’s Linear B (and maybe Linear A) for Greek.

Chinese has been stable for a remarkably long time, despite the apparent difficulty in using an ideographic language. Ostler notes a salient advantage that I hadn’t really appreciated; Chinese spoken language variants, such as Wu and Yue (“Shanghainese” and “Cantonese”) are unintelligible to a Mandarin speaker – but everybody can read the characters. Ostler notes that Mandarin will be the most common language in the world for a long time into the future, unless something really disastrous happens.

Among the Phoenician’s accomplishments was teaching the alphabet to Greeks (who, in turn, taught it to Etruscans and thence to Romans and thence to us). Greek illustrates one of Ostler’s recurring themes – the rise and fall of “administrative” languages. Greek settlers colonized “Magna Graecia”, establishing cities in Spain, France, Sicily, Italy, Africa, and the Black Sea littoral. Then Alexander spread Greek to Anatolia, the Levant, Egypt, Mesopotamia, Iran, Afghanistan, and India. After Alexander’s empire collapsed, Greek remained the language of the Eastern Roman Empire (which eventually was all the Roman Empire there was) and hung on there until 1453. In many of these places, Greek remained a language of the elite – the Parthian kings of Iran inscribed their coins in Greek long after they had replaced the Seleucids. And, Ostler (who holds a degree in Classics from Oxford in addition to a PhD in Linguistics from MIT) notes, it remained that way well into the 20th century, when every well-educated person in the West was expected to know Latin and Greek. Actual native speakers of Greek are now confined to Greece proper, Macedonia, and a few small villages in extreme southern Italy that are the last remnants of Magna Graecia.

This segues into another puzzle – why did Latin quickly replace native languages in Gaul, Spain, and even Romania (which was only occupied briefly by Rome)? Ostler has a couple of suggestions – Rome planted a lot of legionary veterans as colonists, and the local Celtic speakers saw Latin as the language of economic success – rather like English today. That, in turn, requires an explanation of why Latin was replaced again by local languages, and Ostler’s explanation for this is the collapse of literacy after the end of the Western Roman Empire. Each community began to adopt its own pronunciation and grammar. Ostler suggests that literate people – who would have been almost entirely churchmen – would read out Latin texts but with local pronunciation. We call the language groups replacing Latin the Romance languages; it turns out that was once an actual name; in 842 Ludwig the German and Charles the Bald signed a treaty known as the Strasburg Oath, written in Latin, Old High German, and “Romance”, and the church councils of Tours (813) and Mainz (847) instructed priests to write out homilies in “Romance” so the common people could understand them (presumably when read aloud; it’s unlikely the “common people” of the time were literate in any language).

Continuing on this theme, Ostler speculates on why the barbarian conquests of the Roman Empire produced so little lasting language effect – except in one case. Germanic speaking peoples – Vandals, Goths, Angles, Jutes, Saxons and Franks (the word “France” derives from a people who spoke German) – overran the empire from the Rhine to North Africa but didn’t make any change in language – except in Iceland, where there was no competition, and England. Ostler speculates the final determinant in the English language was the Black Death in the 14th century. Up until then, the locals probably spoke British (Celtic) or English (Germanic) depending on where they lived, but the nobility spoke Norman French. If the historical pattern had held, one would expect some variant of French to gradually become the national language. Instead, Oestler theorizes, the plague disrupted English social stratification such that it was no longer necessary to know French to hold a prestige – even if not necessarily noble – position. (He makes an interesting – if not necessarily convincing – economic argument here; if the population of a country is cut in half, as England’s was by the Black Death, everybody’s net worth doubles). By 1362 court pleas could be entered in English rather than French (although still recorded in Latin); in 1381 Richard II was able to give a convincing speech in English to the rebels during the Peasant’s Revolt; and in 1399 Henry IV was the first English king to give his coronation address in English. (It might not be easily understood by a modern English speaker – try reading the Canterbury Tales in the original language some time – but it was probably good enough contemporaries).

That brings us to Oestler’s predictions for the future. As already noted, Mandarin will continue to be the most common language well into the future – it’s spoken by twice as many people as the runner-up, English. All the European languages, with the exception of Spanish, will decline – and Spanish will only increase outside of Europe. Oestler seems pessimistic about the future of English, noting that other “prestige” languages – Aramaic, Greek, Latin – have dropped off the charts. He concedes that English is still the language of science, but seems pessimistic here as well, claiming that scientific research will decline as it is no longer supported by the majority. I hope he’s wrong here. One thing he doesn’t discuss at all is machine translation; by 2050 (say) it will probably be possibly for someone literate only in English to have an perfectly mutually intelligible online conversation with someone literate only in Malayan.

One surprise is Arabic doesn’t make Oestler’s list of the top 20 world languages; there are, after all, over a billion Muslims in the world and every one of them is supposed to be able to read, or at least recite, verses from the Quran. I suspect Oestler may be trying to tiptoe around a political correctness minefield here; although good Muslims are supposed to know Arabic a lot of them only have rote-memorized things that they don’t understand.

I was also surprised to find that Malayan – the national language of Indonesia – is actually the native language of only a small fraction of the population (the majority language is Javanese). Malayan was adopted by the Dutch when they colonized Indonesia as a trade and servant language. There’s a similar situation in Pakistan with Urdu; it was originally an “army” language (the word “Urdu” is related to the word “horde”) intended to provide a common language for sepoys serving in the Indian army (Urdu and Hindi are essentially the same language and are mutually intelligible; however Urdu is written with Arabic script and Hindi is written with Devanagari). Swahili is in the same category; although it’s the national language of the Democratic Republic of Congo, Kenya, and Tanzania, it’s not the native language of anybody; instead it’s a “trade language” derived from Bantu and Arabic.

Good maps show language development. Extensive quotes, in the original script, transliteration, and translation to English (I note Oestler’s Egyptian orthography and transliterations, while technically correct, do not follow standard “Egyptologese” practice). Extensive bibliography. Enjoyable, instructive and recommended.

 Post subject: Re: empires of the word
PostPosted: Fri May 05, 2017 10:30 pm 
User avatar

Joined: Fri Apr 04, 2008 10:52 am
Posts: 1425
Location: California-prev Texas Montreal Virginia
Another impressive review.

Fifty five years ago I took a mid-winter daytime train trip from Germany to Denmark. Not tourist season. I was the only native English speaking occupant in the six passenger compartment. Others, all male as I recall, were from various European countries. Everyone spoke some English and that was almost the only language used. It was a real eye-opener.
-- I enjoyed 9th grade Latin. Had to take German for pre-med. Spanish would have been of greater value.

Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 2 posts ] 

All times are UTC - 5 hours [ DST ]

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests

You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group
Americanized by Xaphos © 2007, 2008