Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Language/2009 July 21
| Language desk | ||
|---|---|---|
| < July 20 | << Jun | July | Aug >> | July 22 > |
| Welcome to the Wikipedia Language Reference Desk Archives |
|---|
| The page you are currently viewing is an archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current reference desk pages. |
July 21
editlanguage speaking hsn
editi want a book or learning technique to learn language of lambadi —Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.199.243.59 (talk) 04:54, 21 July 2009 (UTC) please contact me on **** email removed as per Refdesk guidelines
Oldest language
editWhich is the oldest language in the world (Living and Nonliving)?Iumesh (talk) 10:18, 21 July 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Iumesh (talk • contribs) 10:16, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
- See List of languages by first written accounts. +Angr 11:44, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
- There's no easy answer as languages predate history - try Origin of language for more details. Alternatively see Adam 83.100.250.79 (talk) 11:45, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
- It is likely that there was a time when only one human language existed (even if language evolved more than once, or if several 'dialects' of whatever precursor there was all crossed some line into being languages independently, it seems unlikely that they would all have done so at precisely the same time), and in that sense that language was 'the oldest human language' - but it is very unlikely we shall ever know anything definite about that language, and certainly not a name for it. But in general questions about the relative ages of languages are sterile, because languages derive from other languages and the point at which a language can be said to have begun is pretty arbitrary. --ColinFine (talk) 18:20, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
- You don't really believe that, do you? Weepy.Moyer (talk) 18:56, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
- I believe it. Colin wasn't saying that all humans at one point spoke the same language (à la Tower of Babel). He's saying that there must have been a group of humans, at some early time, who were the first to use what we now call "language", and whatever language they used must have been the first language. But the chances of ever identifying this group or their language are zero. -- JackofOz (talk) 21:25, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
- You don't really believe that, do you? Weepy.Moyer (talk) 18:56, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
- It is likely that there was a time when only one human language existed (even if language evolved more than once, or if several 'dialects' of whatever precursor there was all crossed some line into being languages independently, it seems unlikely that they would all have done so at precisely the same time), and in that sense that language was 'the oldest human language' - but it is very unlikely we shall ever know anything definite about that language, and certainly not a name for it. But in general questions about the relative ages of languages are sterile, because languages derive from other languages and the point at which a language can be said to have begun is pretty arbitrary. --ColinFine (talk) 18:20, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
- There's no easy answer as languages predate history - try Origin of language for more details. Alternatively see Adam 83.100.250.79 (talk) 11:45, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
- Though we don't know which human native language is the oldest one, we do know which language is the oldest human artificial language that became a native one: no doubt, It is...Esp...(try to continue...)... HOOTmag (talk) 22:07, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
- Well, that depends on what you mean by 'artificial' and what you mean by 'native'. You could make a case for Sanskrit as an artificial language; and Esperanto is native to rather few people. --ColinFine (talk) 23:44, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
- That's getting into prehistory, but try the Proto-Indo-European language hypothesis. Squidfryerchef (talk) 16:26, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
Language error involving idiosyncratic misunderstanding of a word
editIs there a term for the phenomenon wherein one hears/reads a word, picks up an incorrect definition of it(likely from context, and perhaps loosely related to the real meaning), and uses the word in that idiosyncratic sense? For example, I know someone who, when young, always used "typical" to mean "predictable" or "obvious". 137.151.174.128 (talk) 19:08, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
- I'd say Malapropism. (I thought at first you meant eggcorn). --ColinFine (talk) 23:36, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
- Not nece-celery. A malapropism has to sound similar to the correct word to qualify. "For all intensive purposes" is a malapropism for "for all intents and purposes". And "I have satisfied all your pacific requirements" is quite close to " ... specific ...". But "typical" sounds nothing like "predictable" or "obvious", so it's not a malapropism. I know what the questioner is asking, though: there are people whose speech is peppered with malapropisms and other word errors; they seem to have an uncanny ability to pick the wrong word every time. I've never heard a term for this, other than "prone to error". -- JackofOz (talk) 08:53, 22 July 2009 (UTC)