h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

I've heard many theories about how languages first developed. Some linguists seem to think there was one protolanguage all the other current language families ultimately developed from. Are these linguistic isolates also thought to fit in to that scheme in some as yet undiscovered way?

Well, I guess the existence of linguistic isolates is a big thorn in the side for the linguists who believe in one original protolanguage, because they basically disprove it. This is really why linguists are so determined to find links between linguistic isolates and other languages. Basque, for instance, is said to have similarities with the Na-dene language family of North-West Canada and Western USA. Other people say that Basque is the remnant of an ancient language group that existed in Europe before the Indo-Europeans arrived. Truth is, no-one really knows, and I suppose they never will. But it's fun to think about it

There's no evidence but it's logical to assume that Basque is the descendant of the pre-Indo-European language of Europe. There are suggestions that it is related to Georgian but no definite proof as far as I know. The idea that it is related to North American languages seems rather far-fetched to me.

Yeah, it is far fetched. I think it's fair to say that Basque is definitely an isolate, because even if it was related to pre-Indo-European languages, these other languages are so far extinct that we'll never be sure. Actually, Basque was originally spoken over a much wider area of Southern France - there are supposedly traces of Basque in most place names throughout the South of France. Maybe they aren't traces of Basque but of extinct related languages. Who knows?

I posted the gist of an article I read on this subject under the thread of 'isolates'. The relationship of Basque to some American Indian languages is not so far-fetched as it seems at first. According to this article, which appeared in the Atlantic Monthly* some years back, the American Indian Languages in North America which are spoken in the Canadian area are distinct from those further north (i.e. Alaska and Eskimo areas) and from those to the south, by being more akin to Indo-European languages while the other two groups are more Asian. THis would indicate waves of invasion or emigration, just like the tendency of language groups to sweep West out of Asia in differnt waves - the Magyars, the Huns, the Mongols, etc. No reason to think that groups did not invade or get pushed eastward over the land bridge to Alaska at different times just as they moved westward in Europe. So similar languages could be pushed in two directions and isolated ever more completely, finally coming to rest in areas where they could not be dislodged (mountains) or which nobody else wanted (Polar areas or deserts). People in hardship areas tend to get tough and desperate and eventually, in turn, invade their richer (softer) neighbors who have let the feeling of having once conquered dissolve into a feeling of superiority and invincibility. So a group of Asian language speakers could have ended up in Spain, just as their fellows might be found in South America or Alaska; a group of European language speakers might wind up in both Canada and Norway. In fact, in a modern version of this, we have Swedish and Norwegian speakers in the middle American states of Minnesota and the Dakotas. The Dakota-Minnesota accent found amusing by so many in the film 'Fargo' descends from Scandinavian immigrants. Similarly, my father, whose parents came from Eire, used to refer to milking the cow as 'sneg'ing the 'goneen' - which I assume is some version of the Gaelic. (although with Dad, you never knew...) And the famed 'New Joisey' and 'Bahston' accents are remnants of Irish immigrant accents. Or imagine how unlikely someone might find the possibility of a descendant ofJamaican English being related to future versions of British English in some future age if the relationship between two such distant lands is not known.

Interesting things happen with the mix of conquerors and natives. If the conquerors remain long and make up a good percentage of the population (Saxons in England), or if they mix and make the knowledge of their language an avenue to advancement (Arabs in Morocco in the 8th century), the conquering language may prevail as a whole, but for several reasons the conquered may contribute. One reason is the need to communicate with the fallen for commerce and business, or just to get things done. Thus the Norman conquerors (who had became French-speaking because there were relatively few Norse amongst the many French-speakers they ruled), when in England kept their own words for animals as meat when they spoke amongst themselves ["Pass the pork" (porc), "have some beef"(boeuf), "Delicious young pullet (poulet)", capon, etc.], nonetheless came to use the Saxon terms when speaking to the serfs who supplied them with food (pig, cow, chick[en], cock - no snickers, kids!). Very few languages have unrelated words for the animal and its meat. Similarly, nannies or guardians for children might be drawn from the speakers of the conquered language who would convey terms of endearment or some other words to their charges. Another cause of taking on lower caste language is, after the privileged smart-assed children of the overlords arrive, they tend to think it is 'cool' to use the cant of the underclass - picking up Cockney terms in Britain, or Black American, Yiddish or (FORMERLY underclass) Italian expressions in America, for example. And a third cause is simply being outnumbered - like the aforementioned Norsemen in Normandy.

I have read that rivers tend to keep their ancient names more than other geographical features. I suppose that the conquerors already have seen many rivers and need a name for THIS one. It is simplest to take the local name, particularly since one will most often need to refer to it amongst local people (I doubt the Romans chatted to the the local British about the Tiber very often), unless there is some unique characteristic that it might be named for (such as the many 'Red' rivers in America, or the Platte River - which means 'flat' and, believe me it is! or the Grande, named by folks who came from the southwest and had not yet seen the Mississippi which is a whole lot Grande-er.). Most American Rivers retain their Native American names - Genesee, Mississippi, etc.) Similarly, I believe most British river names come from the oldest languages - the Dee, and so on.

* note: If I can ever locate a copy of this article, I will post the name of the piece and it's author and the issue of the Atlantic Monthly which carried it.