SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
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?"
(Score: 1) by Francis on Sunday October 18 2015, @01:14AM
It's hard to say that most or all languages are related. I think it's rather unlikely.
I'm not sure how you'd prove it, but I suspect that the early origins of language would be similar to the early days of radio and TV where voice over artists were learning how to make all sorts of crazy sounds with their own body to make different sounds that they didn't know would be possible. Other than that, you have folks like Bobby McFerin more recently engaged in similar efforts to explore the range of possible sounds that we can produce with our vocal cords and mouths.
Once folks could make sounds reliably, assigning them to nouns and actions is relatively straightforward.
The only way to know if there is a precursor language to all the others would be to identify the timing of spoken language with respect to when humans as a group spread out over the globe. If vocalization happened after that point, then it would be a pretty strong point in favor of multiple-genesis points.
But, I doubt very much that this is an answerable question. There were no recordings and we don't even have access to the vocal chords and bodies of the earliest individuals to use language.