3 ms·

Perhaps, it would be more useful for students if foreign language courses start with explaining one thing that is well known to linguists, but maybe does not ha

Perhaps, it would be more useful for students if foreign language courses start with explaining one thing that is well known to linguists, but maybe does not have enough recognition by a wide audience. Most European languages are at some extent just dialects of the same common language[1]. And most of the words we use in distinct languages are (at some extent) just different pronunciations of the same vocabulary. This happened no just because of the borrowings between cultures, but because centuries ago these nations speak one single common language that has diverge in centuries into different dialects. More over it is more or less researched how the words and the grammar rules have evolved from the proto-language up to it's modern form. So in fact we can (again, at some extent) translate many modern words to their ancient form, and then translate them back into another modern European language. Of course it is not always that simple process, and there is a lot of exceptions and difficulties, and the true borrowings too. But I think that understanding just some common ideas of linguistics could help in studying of foreign languages (from the same family of languages). At least maybe it will be more fascinating than just a pure memoization. [1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proto-Indo-European_language https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proto-Indo-European_language

eru 3y ago
> [...], but because centuries ago these nations speak one single common language that has diverge in centuries into different dialects. It's more complicated than that. First, it's more than just 'centuries ago'. Second, there weren't any nations back then. Third, it wasn't necessarily the case that a common language, proto-Indo-European, was spoken over a large area. There was just as much, and even more, diversity of languages back then. It's just that the speakers of proto-Indo-European brought their language with them when they migrated and/or conquered. Just like the Romans later brought Latin with them and influenced what would later become French and Spanish. The people living 2100 years ago in what is not France did not speak Latin. The people living 600 years ago in what is now South Africa, did not speak Middle Dutch, even though people there now speak a language descendant from Middle Dutch.
- bobthepanda 3y ago
  Yes, language standardization is relatively recent with the advent of mass education and mass media (radio/tv/etc.)
- jaclaz 3y ago
  >influenced what would later become French and Spanish To be picky, also Italian, Portuguese and Romanian. If you are native or fluent in any of these languages and also have a basic knowledge of Latin, you are usually capable of reading simple texts in any of the other ones, deriving the meaning of the "diverging" words by the rest of the sentences or by connecting the word with a different Latin root. Paradoxically, the bigger issues come from "false friends" that - while not very common - can be deceiving.
  - eru 3y ago
    > To be picky, also Italian, Portuguese and Romanian. Well, and a lot more. Latin also influenced eg German and English etc, but less so.
jwrallie 3y ago
I severely underestimated how long it would take for me to learn Japanese based on my experience of learning English while being a native Portuguese speaker. English felt like a very different language but underneath it is so much closer in comparison.
bdw5204 3y ago
If you're familiar with ancient and medieval European history, you're pretty much familiar with the origins of most of the European languages. Areas that were part of the Roman Empire generally speak Latin dialects like Spanish, French, Italian and Portuguese. The exception being the eastern part of the Roman Empire which historically spoke Greek and still speaks Greek (except for the parts of the Roman Empire that remain Islamic). Germany and Scandinavia speak Germanic languages because they were never Roman. Britain was only partially Roman and for significantly less time than France or southern Europe so it retained its Celtic languages except in the part conquered by the Anglo-Saxons (a Germanic tribe) who originally spoke a German language called Old English which was mostly mutually comprehensible with Old Norse (the language of a Germanic tribe called the Vikings who invaded England a few centuries after the Anglo-Saxons and were eventually converted to Christianity and assimilated). Then they were conquered by a French nobleman in 1066 and the English nobility spoke French for a few centuries before it fused with "Old English" into something that sounds somewhat like English. Because of this, English speakers already know a significant number of words in both Germanic and "Romance" (Latin) languages, even moreso than for other Indo-European languages. But you still need to be careful not to trust a German offering you a "gift" (the German word for "poison" because, in German, it was a euphemism that lost its original meaning of English "gift"[0]). [0]: https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Gift https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Gift
- thaumasiotes 3y ago
  > The exception being the eastern part of the Roman Empire which historically spoke Greek and still speaks Greek (except for the parts of the Roman Empire that remain Islamic). Aren't there big chunks of the Eastern Roman Empire that now speak Slavic languages? Also, the parts of the Eastern Roman Empire that currently remain Islamic constitute nearly the entire Eastern Roman Empire, including the capital.
  - bdw5204 3y ago
    I'm much less familiar with Eastern European history but that appears to be due to another wave of migration in early medieval Europe where Slavic peoples who originally lived further east moved into those areas after the Huns drove the Germanic tribes westward.[0] [0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slavs#Migrations https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slavs#Migrations
elfahbeht 3y ago
This is the basic idea behind the Language Transfer series of courses - https://www.languagetransfer.org/ https://www.languagetransfer.org/
jmopp 3y ago
Before I had clicked the link I thought you were not referring to Proto-Indo-European but to Standard Average European — how many of the European languages (particularly the western European languages) have peculiarities in grammar and syntax that are not explained by descent, but by areal features. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Standard_Average_European https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Standard_Average_European
occamschainsaw 3y ago
There's also the issue of drift [0] [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drift_(linguistics) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drift_(linguistics)

eru 3y ago

> [...], but because centuries ago these nations speak one single common language that has diverge in centuries into different dialects. It's more complicated than that. First, it's more than just 'centuries ago'. Second, there weren't any nations back then. Third, it wasn't necessarily the case that a common language, proto-Indo-European, was spoken over a large area. There was just as much, and even more, diversity of languages back then. It's just that the speakers of proto-Indo-European brought their language with them when they migrated and/or conquered. Just like the Romans later brought Latin with them and influenced what would later become French and Spanish. The people living 2100 years ago in what is not France did not speak Latin. The people living 600 years ago in what is now South Africa, did not speak Middle Dutch, even though people there now speak a language descendant from Middle Dutch.

bobthepanda 3y ago
Yes, language standardization is relatively recent with the advent of mass education and mass media (radio/tv/etc.)
jaclaz 3y ago
>influenced what would later become French and Spanish To be picky, also Italian, Portuguese and Romanian. If you are native or fluent in any of these languages and also have a basic knowledge of Latin, you are usually capable of reading simple texts in any of the other ones, deriving the meaning of the "diverging" words by the rest of the sentences or by connecting the word with a different Latin root. Paradoxically, the bigger issues come from "false friends" that - while not very common - can be deceiving.
- eru 3y ago
  > To be picky, also Italian, Portuguese and Romanian. Well, and a lot more. Latin also influenced eg German and English etc, but less so.

jwrallie 3y ago

I severely underestimated how long it would take for me to learn Japanese based on my experience of learning English while being a native Portuguese speaker. English felt like a very different language but underneath it is so much closer in comparison.

bdw5204 3y ago

If you're familiar with ancient and medieval European history, you're pretty much familiar with the origins of most of the European languages. Areas that were part of the Roman Empire generally speak Latin dialects like Spanish, French, Italian and Portuguese. The exception being the eastern part of the Roman Empire which historically spoke Greek and still speaks Greek (except for the parts of the Roman Empire that remain Islamic). Germany and Scandinavia speak Germanic languages because they were never Roman. Britain was only partially Roman and for significantly less time than France or southern Europe so it retained its Celtic languages except in the part conquered by the Anglo-Saxons (a Germanic tribe) who originally spoke a German language called Old English which was mostly mutually comprehensible with Old Norse (the language of a Germanic tribe called the Vikings who invaded England a few centuries after the Anglo-Saxons and were eventually converted to Christianity and assimilated). Then they were conquered by a French nobleman in 1066 and the English nobility spoke French for a few centuries before it fused with "Old English" into something that sounds somewhat like English. Because of this, English speakers already know a significant number of words in both Germanic and "Romance" (Latin) languages, even moreso than for other Indo-European languages. But you still need to be careful not to trust a German offering you a "gift" (the German word for "poison" because, in German, it was a euphemism that lost its original meaning of English "gift"[0]). [0]: https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Gift https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Gift

thaumasiotes 3y ago
> The exception being the eastern part of the Roman Empire which historically spoke Greek and still speaks Greek (except for the parts of the Roman Empire that remain Islamic). Aren't there big chunks of the Eastern Roman Empire that now speak Slavic languages? Also, the parts of the Eastern Roman Empire that currently remain Islamic constitute nearly the entire Eastern Roman Empire, including the capital.
- bdw5204 3y ago
  I'm much less familiar with Eastern European history but that appears to be due to another wave of migration in early medieval Europe where Slavic peoples who originally lived further east moved into those areas after the Huns drove the Germanic tribes westward.[0] [0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slavs#Migrations https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slavs#Migrations

elfahbeht 3y ago

This is the basic idea behind the Language Transfer series of courses - https://www.languagetransfer.org/ https://www.languagetransfer.org/

jmopp 3y ago

Before I had clicked the link I thought you were not referring to Proto-Indo-European but to Standard Average European — how many of the European languages (particularly the western European languages) have peculiarities in grammar and syntax that are not explained by descent, but by areal features. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Standard_Average_European https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Standard_Average_European

occamschainsaw 3y ago

There's also the issue of drift [0] [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drift_(linguistics) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drift_(linguistics)