Several questions awoke with me this morning. I am finally getting up and around to asking them…

1) Is Basque truly unrelated to any other Terran language?

2) Is Welsh also unrelated to any other Terran Language?

3) Is Hungarian, (which is not related to any language in the same geographical location), actually related to the Semetic-Asian language group?

4) The modern Russian alphabet seems derived from the Greek; are the Semetic letters (Ahmaric, Hebrew, Persian, Arabic) all also derived from a common source?

5) If Semetic-Asian languages can be grouped together, how are Mandarin and Hebrew related?

Thank you for reading this and I surely do hope someone can elucidate.

Patricia/AgDrgn

1. No one knows for sure whether Basque is or isn’t related to any other language. Some scholars see a connection with Georgian and even Etruscan, though others disagree.

2. Welsh is a member of the Celtic language group, which includes Irish Gaelic, Scots Gaelic, Breton, Manx, Cornish, Galatian (mentioned in the New Testament) and a mooted language, Ibero-Celtic.

3. Hungarian is related to Estonian, Finnish and Saami (Lapp). It belongs to the Finno-Ugric branch of the Uralic language family. It has no connection with the Semitic language family.

4. All alphabets apparently derive from an early alphabet called Proto-Canaanite, which evolved into Phoenician, Aramaic, Hebrew and other Semitic alphabets. This alphabet was borrowed and adapted by the ancient Greeks and in turn by the ancient Romans, giving us the Greek and Latin alphabets of today (with minor changes). The Cyrillic alphabet, in which Russian and other Slavic languages are written, is an adaptation of the Greek alphabet.

5. The Semitic language family is usually considered to be part of a larger Afro-Asiatic language family that includes many of the languages of Saharan and near-sub-Saharan Africa. In the east, the area in which Semitic languages are spoken ends where the area of the Indo-European languages of Iran and India-Pakistan begins. The Semitic languages are not related to the languages of the Far East.

Hope this helps.

Thank you, it does.

But now another question; why do Welsh people like to say their language is NOT related to the Irish at al group? Or was there another language spoken there previous to the coming of the Gaelingue speaking people to which they are referring?

Thank you again,

AgDrgn

There may have been another language or languages spoken in the British Isles before the advent of the Celtic languages, but there’s no trace of it. That’s because if such a language were spoken, it was before the invention of writing, or at least before its adoption by the local people.

You can read more about the various Celtic languages here, at sites that the good folks at yDc have discovered and made available for the curious.

We are well aware that Welsh is related to Irish being both Celtic languages! Irish is from the Goidelic branch of Celtic along with Scots and Manx Gaelic and Welsh is from the Brythonic including Breton and Cornish. I speak Welsh but I can’t understand any of the Gaelic’s with the exception of a few words? But I can get by with Breton and Cornish easy enough being closer related.

Hwyl fawr ( goodbye)

Q: Is Basque truly unrelated to any other Terran language?

A: (note: usually, linguists use the term "human language", unless they also mean unrelated to zoolinguistic communication forms as well, which generally isn’t talked about) Nobody knows for sure. Chances are, it is related to some, or all human languages, but the time of divergence is so far back that we have no way of knowing. A good hint would be genetics, but then human migration patterns don’t always fit linguistic events.

Q: Is Welsh also unrelated to any other Terran Language?

A: No, it actually is related to other human languages (confirmed), specifically the Celtic branch of the Indo-European languages:

                                                      /—-Welsh
                                       /—————<
         /————Brythonic—|               \—-Breton
         |                             \—Cornish
Celtic-|—Insular(extinct)
         |                             /————-Manx
         \————Goidelic——|                     /—-Irish
                                       \——-Gaelic—<
                                                            \—-Scottish

Q: Is Hungarian, (which is not related to any language in the same geographical location), actually related to the Semetic-Asian language group?

A: Perhaps you mean the Afro-Asiatic language family (or the "Semito-Hamitic" language family)? Well, it might be, but as far back as we can trace, nobody has found any concrete relationship. In other words, no. Hungarian is from the Urgic sub-branch of the Finno-Urgic language family, sometimes grouped together with the Samoyedic language family (making the Uralic language family, sometimes grouped with the Altaic language family to make the Ural-Altaic language family. but we have no concrete linking of Uralic and Altaic, just some grammatical and phonetic indications)

Q: The modern Russian alphabet seems derived from the Greek; are the Semetic letters (Ahmaric, Hebrew, Persian, Arabic) all also derived from a common source?

Generally it is called the Cyrillic alphabet, as it’s not just Russian, but a whole slew of other languages both related and unrelated to Russian use it. The alphabet was invented by two missionaries, and your judgement is correct, most of the letters were taken from Greek, and a couple from Hebrew.

But about "Semitic" letters: the Amharic alphabet was invented fairly recently, perhaps you mean Aramaic? The Aramaic alphabet and the Hebrew alphabet are very closely related. The Persian and Arabic alphabets are one and the same (but one should note that Persian is not Semitic, even though Arabic is. Persian is Indo-European), and yes, the Perso-Arabic script (as many like to call it) is related to the Hebrew-Aramaic script. If you look at the letters, you will often find similarities if you look hard enough. For example, the the Hebrew letter "Siin" looks exactly the same as the Arabic letter of the same name. Of course, Arabic letters have 4 forms each, depending on whether they are at the beginning, middle, or end of a word, or if they are alone, so sometimes they will not look exactly the same, but if the Arabic "Siin" is at the beginning or middle of a word, it will look just like Hebrew, and if it is at the end or alone, it will look just like Hebrew, except with a tail at the end. Then there is "Shin", in Hebrew, you simply add a dot to "Siin", and in Arabic, you add a caret (or three dots) above Siin to get "Shin".

Agoraphile is incorrect, not all of the worlds writing systems are related, although most of them fall into one megafamily, starting (I think?) with the first writing system ever, Sumerian cuneiform. This developed into the modern mega-subfamilies of Semitic and Brahmic, Brahmic includes all the scripts of India, as well as the scripts of Cambodia, Laos, and the indigenous scripts of the Philippines (the subfamily is named this way because all these scripts descend from a single script, the Brahmi script). The Semitic includes Hebrew, Arabic, Greek, Latin, Cyrillic, and perhaps a couple others. Arabic itself has one daughter script, called Divehi, used in the Maldives.

Q: If Semetic-Asian languages can be grouped together, how are Mandarin and Hebrew related?

A: Earlier I said that perhaps you mean Afro-Asiatic languages. To the best of our knowledge, Afro-Asiatic languages are only spoken in North Africa and the Middle East, so they definitely do not include Mandarin.

I apologise if I sound condescending, I don’t mean it.

Thank you, I did not find your response to be condescending. After all, you are explaining something to someone who knows very little about this subject. It is much the same when I am explaining things about the fields in which I am knowlegable to someone who isn’t.

BTW, I did mean Ahmaric and not Aramaic. There are three Aramaic prayers in the Jewish liteny (is that the correct word?), one of these being the Kaddish which I have heard reiterated all through my life. Ahmaric I have only recently been introduced to through an Ethiopian friend. The script looks nothing like Hebrew. Hence my query.

Again, I thank all the respondants for their answers to my (somewhat simplistic?) questions.

Patricia/AgDrgn

[quote author=Mark_Williamson link=board=translate;num=1044113070;start=0#5 date=02/16/03 at 02:18:12]Agoraphile is incorrect, not all of the worlds writing systems are related, although most of them fall into one megafamily, starting (I think?) with the first writing system ever, Sumerian cuneiform. This developed into the modern mega-subfamilies of Semitic and Brahmic, Brahmic includes all the scripts of India, as well as the scripts of Cambodia, Laos, and the indigenous scripts of the Philippines (the subfamily is named this way because all these scripts descend from a single script, the Brahmi script). The Semitic includes Hebrew, Arabic, Greek, Latin, Cyrillic, and perhaps a couple others. Arabic itself has one daughter script, called Divehi, used in the Maldives.

I wrote that all alphabetic writing systems derive from a common origin. I perhaps should have indicated that all alphabetic writing systems in use today derive from a common origin, as cuneiform, at the end of its evolutionary path, would have to be called an alphabetic system of writing.

Cuneiform arose about 3,000 BC as a non-alphabetic system that mostly depicted concrete nouns. As it evolved, the sound values of these words came to be represented by the symbols and the word-meaning receded, with a sort of syllabary the result. Cuneiform was indeed invented by the non-Semitic Sumerians, and then adopted by Old Akkadian and some other languages as well. At its peak under the Sumerians, cuneiform had some 2,000 signs in its inventory. This number was reduced to about 30 during its last gasp about 2,000 years ago, when it was used to write Ugaritic, an ancient Semitic language closely related to Phoenician, and when it had evolved into an alphabet. The Ugaritic sign inventory is strictly cuneiform in style and bears no resemblance to early Canaanite or Phoenician writing.

I wrote that all alphabetic writing systems derive from a common origin. I perhaps should have indicated that all alphabetic writing systems in use today derive from a common origin, as cuneiform, at the end of its evolutionary path, would have to be called an alphabetic system of writing.

Sorry, that still isn’t true. One should take a look at Han’gul, the Korean alphabet, and one will see that it isn’t related to Sumerian cuneiform. However, some people believe that it was in fact derived from the Mongolian alphabet, which in turn was derived from the Uigur alphabet, which was derived from the Sogdian alphabet, which was derived from the Aramaic alphabet, which was derived from the Hebrew alphabet, etc. Of course I could mention Klingon, but that doesn’t count :D

I hate to be the one that ruins it for you but… Klingon is a Terran language… LOL

Patricia/AgDrgn

[quote author=Mark_Williamson link=board=translate;num=1044113070;start=0#8 date=02/17/03 at 16:33:38]Sorry, that still isn’t true. One should take a look at Han’gul, the Korean alphabet, and one will see that it isn’t related to Sumerian cuneiform.

Cuneiform writing, originated by the Sumerians and adopted/adapted by other ancient peoples, is unrelated to any other writing system, Han’gul included.

I suppose Han’gul could be termed an alphabet, although I would call it a syllabary. Its basic signs are not written in linear succession, but stacked in blocks to form graphemes that represent some 168 discrete syllables. The complement of either Japanese Katakana or Hiragana symbols numbers only 120, and as far as I know, no one calls these writing systems alphabetic.

The Blackwell Encyclopedia of Writing Systems defines an alphabet as ‘a writing system characterized by a systematic mapping relation between its signs (graphemes) and the minimal units of speech (phonemes).’ This source defines a syllabary as ‘the signary of a writing system where speech is represented by means of graphemes each of which has a syllable as its value.’

Just to confuse things a little more, BEWS offers this definition of syllabic alphabet: ‘A writing system which treats the syllable as the unit of representation while at the same time recognizing the segment as the unit of analysis.’ But it applies the term syllabic alphabet only to writing systems that can be traced back to old Brahmi, plus Ethiopic/Amharic.

I have another question. I know so very little about this, that I tend to have a lot of them and I suspect they are oversimplified. However, moving from "old" world languages to "new’ world languages, I recall reading somewhere about the uniqueness of Navajo either spoken or written I am not sure. Can anyone elucidate for me?

Another question concerns Mayan. I believe it is related to ther languages as spoken, but I have not read anywhere whether or not its written (carved?) form is unique or not. I think, however, that it is syllabaretic (is that a correct form?) but of this I am not certain.

Thank you all for helping educate me in this field.

Patricia/AgDrgn

[quote author=AgDrgn link=board=translate;num=1044113070;start=0#12 date=02/18/03 at 12:06:00]I recall reading somewhere about the uniqueness of Navajo either spoken or written I am not sure. Can anyone elucidate for me?

Another question concerns Mayan. I believe it is related to their languages as spoken, but I have not read anywhere whether or not it’s written (carved?) form is unique or not.

I can’t help you much with these questions as my linguistic knowledge drops off sharply at the Straits of Gibraltar.

Navajo is a member of the Na-Dené language group, which also includes Apache and various native American languages of the Pacific Northwest. I suggest a troll through yDc’s North American languages section, where you’ll find lots of information. You can also keep yourself enjoyably busy at yDc’s Central and South American languages section.    

Do let us know what you find out, Patricia! I, too, would like to know more about New World languages.

Ilka

Cuneiform writing, originated by the Sumerians and adopted/adapted by other ancient peoples, is unrelated to any other writing system, Han’gul included.

Then what writing system is it that most modern scripts are all descended from? (one shouldn’t say alphabetic, because Brahmi scripts are included!)

I suppose Han’gul could be termed an alphabet, although I would call it a syllabary. Its basic signs are not written in linear succession, but stacked in blocks to form graphemes that represent some 168 discrete syllables.

Yes, but does it matter how they are stacked? Still, each block consists of 2-4 jamo which each has an individual sound, similar to if we were to write English

LI  THI
KE   S . Correct me if I’m wrong, here, but instead of recognising those blocks as whole units, one recognises them instead as individual letters. Similarly, one could say that English is ideographic because instead of letters representing single sounds (which they for sure don’t), combinations of them yield single words, so that "duck" could be considered the equivalent of a Chinese character. But no, it is composed of concrete single units which can be separated from each other in only one way (whereas in Chinese, one may have the character "tian", heaven, which could be separated into the character "gong", work, and the character "ren", person, or into the characters "ta", big, and "yi", one, or even "ren", person, and "er", two). Hangul is an alphabetic script because each grapheme represents not a syllable but rather a single phoneme.

The complement of either Japanese Katakana or Hiragana symbols numbers only 120, and as far as I know, no one calls these writing systems alphabetic.

Yes, because in hiragana and katakana each grapheme represents one syllable, rather than a phoneme, with the exception of the A I U E O and the N. None of these characters can be divided in half, to a part that represents the consonant and one that represents the vowel, as can be done in Hangul.

The Blackwell Encyclopedia of Writing Systems defines an alphabet as ‘a writing system characterized by a systematic mapping relation between its signs (graphemes) and the minimal units of speech (phonemes).’ This source defines a syllabary as ‘the signary of a writing system where speech is represented by means of graphemes each of which has a syllable as its value.’

Yes, exactly corresponding with my idea that Hangul is not a syllabary but an alphabet.

Just to confuse things a little more, BEWS offers this definition of syllabic alphabet: ‘A writing system which treats the syllable as the unit of representation while at the same time recognizing the segment as the unit of analysis.’ But it applies the term syllabic alphabet only to writing systems that can be traced back to old Brahmi, plus Ethiopic/Amharic.

Yes, in "syllabic alphabets", each consonant has an inherent vowel (usually an A) and symbols are added to change the inherent vowel.

I have another question. I know so very little about this, that I tend to have a lot of them and I suspect they are oversimplified. However, moving from "old" world languages to "new’ world languages, I recall reading somewhere about the uniqueness of Navajo either spoken or written I am not sure. Can anyone elucidate for me?

Both spoken and written it is unique—from European and Asian languages. It is very similar to quite a few other North American languages (ie Dakelh, Apache, some languages of Northern California and the border between Alaska and Canada)

Mostly it is that it’s very complicated—I’m in NAV 116 (1st yr 2nd semester), and it’s very difficult compared to Spanish or Chinese.

Another question concerns Mayan. I believe it is related to ther languages as spoken, but I have not read anywhere whether or not its written (carved?) form is unique or not. I think, however, that it is syllabaretic (is that a correct form?) but of this I am not certain.

Syllabaretic? Not sure what you mean by that. But it is indeed a syllabary, combined partially with hieroglyphics so that some words are spelled out and others are written with hieroglyphs.