Hungarians = Aryan?

[gebhk]

Hi Peter89

I am no liguist myself, however for what its worth, I get the feeling that some linguists are still loath to abandon the idea that language and genetics are inseparably linked, albeit in a more subtle way than was thought in the 1800s. As a result, much debate has been spawned about the precise location of modern languages in language trees and language families based on the similarities and differences between these languages, human migration etc. This somewhat ignores the facts that language, like genetics, is subject to divergent and convergent evolution albeit at a much faster rate. By that I mean that the environment may have as much or greater impact on language than its roots. In other words, you cannot assume that modern Finnish and Estonian developed from a common sub-branch, different to Hungarian, just because they are more similar to each other than Hungarian, which in turn, is more similar to Khansi. The similarities and differences (especially in vocabulary) may reflect respectively the common or divergent natural, cultural, political, etc environments and patterns of liguistic cross-pollination as they do the origins of the languages in question.

[Peter89]

Hi Peter89

I am no liguist myself, however for what its worth, I get the feeling that some linguists are still loath to abandon the idea that language and genetics are inseparably linked, albeit in a more subtle way than was thought in the 1800s. As a result, much debate has been spawned about the precise location of modern languages in language trees and language families based on the similarities and differences between these languages, human migration etc. This somewhat ignores the facts that language, like genetics, is subject to divergent and convergent evolution albeit at a much faster rate. By that I mean that the environment may have as much or greater impact on language than its roots. In other words, you cannot assume that modern Finnish and Estonian developed from a common sub-branch, different to Hungarian, just because they are more similar to each other than Hungarian, which in turn, is more similar to Khansi. The similarities and differences (especially in vocabulary) may reflect respectively the common or divergent natural, cultural, political, etc environments and patterns of liguistic cross-pollination as they do the origins of the languages in question.

Well. Languages are subjected to influences. My favorite example is the Latin we taught to speak and the restored Latin, which sounds totally different. In the Middle Ages, they had no clear idea how the Latin was pronounced. We still don't know it, yet we speak a standardized Latin which is probably not the historical language, and nobody raises an eyebrow.

Because that's what languages are.

There is also the phenomenon of language-standardization; for example, Romanian language was re-Latinized in the XVIII.-XIX. centuries; thus effectively eliminated much of the loanwords and influences of the neighbouring Slavic languages. There is no indication whatsoever that with the help of the universal and compulsory school system and the mass media a "Finno-Ugrization" of Hungarian, Finnish, Estonian, etc. could not be carried out. The problem is of course the lack of reason. Why would anyone pay too much attention for a language reform that will benefit exactly no one?

In my opinion, all of these languages will die out sooner than we expect now.

[gebhk]

I would certainly agree that there is a trend towards homogenisation and not just in languages. This undoubtedly is the result of the ever increasing range and quantity of interconnectivity accessible to the average human. Personally I hate the fact that you can be parachuted into any part of the UK and you would have no idea where you are because people speak the same, the shops are all the same, the streets look the same etc. But it is what it is.

However, one cannot assume that this trend will continue inexorably until complete homogenisation occurs and, even if it does, that that is how things will remaion. If there is one thing history has taught us is that things evolve and language and culture evolve with them.

The problem with Latin, of course, is that it is a language that is as dead as the dinosaurs. Much as with attempts to recreate a dinosaur we have the bare bones and from them we have to guess how they fit together, what the beast looked like, what colur it was, how it behaved, by extrapolating from living animals. This is always going to be tricky, especially when we know from the 'bones' that Latin was very different in some respects from mainstream modern laguages.