Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by martyb on Saturday October 17 2015, @10:34PM   Printer-friendly
from the ask-your-pop dept.

In Africa, Swahili has mama and baba . In the Philippines, Tagalog has nanay and tatay. Fijian has nana and tata. Mandarin, so intimidatingly different from English to the learner, soothes unexpectedly in offering up mama and baba. Chechen in the Caucasus? Naana and daa. Native American languages? Eskimo has anana and ataata; Koasati, spoken in Louisiana and Texas, turns out to have mamma and taata; down further in El Salvador, Pipil has naan and tatah.
...
The answer lies with babies and how they start to talk. The pioneering linguist Roman Jakobson figured it out. If you're a baby making a random sound, the easiest vowel is ah because you can make it without doing anything with your tongue or lips. Then, if you are going to vary things at all, the first impulse is to break up the stream of ahhh by closing your lips for a spell, especially since you've been doing that to nurse. Hence, mmmm, such that you get a string of mahs as you keep the sound going while breaking it up at intervals.

Babies "speaking" in this way are just playing. But adults don't hear them that way. A baby says "mama" and it sounds as if he's addressing someone—and the person he's most likely addressing so early on is his mother. The mother takes "mama" as meaning her, and in speaking to her child refers to herself as "mama." Voilà: a word mama that "means" mother. That would have happened with the first humans—but more to the point, it has happened with baby humans worldwide, whatever language they are speaking. That means that even as the first language was becoming countless others, this "mama mistake" was recreating "mama" as the word for "Mom," whatever was going on with words like mregh.

Papa and dada happened for a similar pan-human reason. After babies begin making m with their lips, they pick up making a sound that involves a little more than just putting their lips together—namely, putting them together, holding them that way for a second, and then blowing out a puff of air. That's p—or, depending on your mood, b. Alternatively, babies also start playing with their mouths a little further back from the lips—on that ridge behind the upper teeth that we burn inconveniently by sipping soup when it's too hot. That's where we make a t or a d. The order in which babies learn to make sounds explains why the next closest usual caretaker to mom is so often called papa or baba (or tata or dada).

Hmm, wonder how they explain similarities in the word for "beer?"


Original Submission

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 4, Insightful) by frojack on Saturday October 17 2015, @10:50PM

    by frojack (1554) Subscriber Badge on Saturday October 17 2015, @10:50PM (#251249) Journal

    The pioneering linguist Roman Jakobson figured it out.

    Really? it takes a linguist?

    When the only sound a baby can make that isn't a cry is used for the only thing in their world (a parent) it doesn't take a linguist.

    --
    No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.
    Starting Score:    1  point
    Moderation   +2  
       Insightful=2, Total=2
    Extra 'Insightful' Modifier   0  
    Karma-Bonus Modifier   +1  

    Total Score:   4  
  • (Score: 1) by Walzmyn on Saturday October 17 2015, @11:25PM

    by Walzmyn (987) on Saturday October 17 2015, @11:25PM (#251262)

    My thoughts exactly. I noticed with my 4 that they started making 'momma' and 'dadda' sounds naturally as they started using their voice.

  • (Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday October 18 2015, @03:23AM

    by Anonymous Coward on Sunday October 18 2015, @03:23AM (#251343)

    It takes a linguist to verify what you suspected. Many things in science are counter-intuitive. This could have easily been intuitive or counter-intuitive. The linguist has access to many languages including obscure ones like Koasati [wikipedia.org]. (Only about 400 people in the world speak it.) I grew up in Louisiana and I'd never heard of this language before this article.

  • (Score: 2) by jimshatt on Sunday October 18 2015, @09:01PM

    by jimshatt (978) on Sunday October 18 2015, @09:01PM (#251596) Journal
    What TFA neglects to mention is that the linguist in question wrote a book about it in 1971, so it's not like he 'discovered it' just now. I can imagine that the study of phonetics was just beginning to take form. But even so, it's pretty obvious.

    Besides, isn't this how we learn most things in life? Just do something random and see what response you get. Repeat the positive ones the most, the neutral ones less often and the negative the least (but not never because you never know in what context it might get a positive response).