4 ms·
Weren't most languages spontaneously developed?
by darkerside 5y ago
Weren't most languages spontaneously developed?
- melissalobos 5y agoIn the remote past, yes. It is more interesting that this happened recently.
- jan_Inkepa 5y agoMost modern sign languages come genetically from British sign language or French Sign Language. https://www.reddit.com/r/language/comments/ewtpnj/sign_language_family_tree/ https://www.reddit.com/r/language/comments/ewtpnj/sign_langu...
- gizmo686 5y agoNo. Most languages evolved from earlier languages through gradual linguistic drift. Some languages emerged by putting fluent speakers of two or more existing languages into a shared environment and having them form a common language. Nicaraguan Sign Language is the closest example we have of putting a bunch of humans who don't know any language into a shared environment, and watching them develop a new language, with minimal influence of existing languages. Of course, this was not actually a linguistically isolated community. But, for obvious ethical reasons, it is probably about as close to one as we will get.
- darkerside 5y agoThat makes sense. They likely all have ancestors that were spontaneously formed, but are not so themselves. It seems like dialects might be spontaneously formed, and I wonder how we draw the line between languages and dialects.
- cuteboy19 5y ago>I wonder how we draw the line between languages and dialects A language is a dialect with an army and a navy
- ravi-delia 5y agoThe majority opinion I believe is that there is no common ancestor to all of today's languages, implying there have been several languages without parents. Of course, that's a thin majority, and those that believe it aren't that attached because there's no real way to know for sure. It would be neat if languages all had a common ancestor though, because that would leave open the possibility that language developed evolutionarily alongside our ability to understand it. Then maybe no language ever would have been spontaneous.