Hmm....

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/7911645.stm

Some of the oldest words in English have been identified, scientists say.

Reading University researchers claim "I", "we", "two" and "three" are among the most ancient, dating back tens of thousands of years.

Their computer model analyses the rate of change of words in English and the languages that share a common heritage.

The team says it can predict which words are likely to become extinct - citing "squeeze", "guts", "stick" and "bad" as probable first casualties.

"We use a computer to fit a range of models that tell us how rapidly these words evolve," said Mark Pagel, an evolutionary biologist at the University of Reading.

"We fit a wide range, so there's a lot of computation involved; and that range then brackets what the true answer is and we can estimate the rates at which these things are replaced through time."

Sound and concept

Across the Indo-European languages - which include most of the languages spoken from Europe to the Asian subcontinent - the vocal sound made to express a given concept can be similar.

New words for a concept can arise in a given language, utilising different sounds, in turn giving a clue to a word's relative age in the language.

At the root of the Reading University effort is a lexicon of 200 words that is not specific to culture or technology, and is therefore likely to represent concepts that have not changed across nations or millennia.

"We have lists of words that linguists have produced for us that tell us if two words in related languages actually derive from a common ancestral word," said Professor Pagel.

"We have descriptions of the ways we think words change and their ability to change into other words, and those descriptions can be turned into a mathematical language," he added.

The researchers used the university's IBM supercomputer to track the known relations between words, in order to develop estimates of how long ago a given ancestral word diverged in two different languages.

They have integrated that into an algorithm that will produce a list of words relevant to a given date.

"You type in a date in the past or in the future and it will give you a list of words that would have changed going back in time or will change going into the future," Professor Pagel told BBC News.

"From that list you can derive a phrasebook of words you could use if you tried to show up and talk to, for example, William the Conqueror."

That is, the model provides a list of words that are unlikely to have changed from their common ancestral root by the time of William the Conqueror.

Words that have not diverged since then would comprise similar sounds to their modern descendants, whose meanings would therefore probably be recognisable on sound alone.

However, the model cannot offer a guess as to what the ancestral words were. It can only estimate the likelihood that the sound from a modern English word might make some sense if called out during the Battle of Hastings.

Dirty business

What the researchers found was that the frequency with which a word is used relates to how slowly it changes through time, so that the most common words tend to be the oldest ones.

For example, the words "I" and "who" are among the oldest, along with the words "two", "three", and "five". The word "one" is only slightly younger.
William the Conqueror (Getty)

The word "four" experienced a linguistic evolutionary leap that makes it significantly younger in English and different from other Indo-European languages.

Meanwhile, the fastest-changing words are projected to die out and be replaced by other words much sooner.

For example, "dirty" is a rapidly changing word; currently there are 46 different ways of saying it in the Indo-European languages, all words that are unrelated to each other. As a result, it is likely to die out soon in English, along with "stick" and "guts".

Verbs also tend to change quite quickly, so "push", "turn", "wipe" and "stab" appear to be heading for the lexicographer's chopping block.

Again, the model cannot predict what words may change to; those linguistic changes are according to Professor Pagel "anybody's guess".

High fidelity

"We think some of these words are as ancient as 40,000 years old. The sound used to make those words would have been used by all speakers of the Indo-European languages throughout history," Professor Pagel said.

"Here's a sound that has been connected to a meaning - and it's a mostly arbitrary connection - yet that sound has persisted for those tens of thousands of years."

The work casts an interesting light on the connection between concepts and language in the human brain, and provides an insight into the evolution of a dynamic set of words.

"If you've ever played 'Chinese whispers', what comes out the end is usually gibberish, and more or less when we speak to each other we're playing this massive game of Chinese whispers. Yet our language can somehow retain its fidelity."

Computer model nough said :p

I am always sceptic if it's about word evolution and restoring ancient, extinct languages etc. I don't say that this doesn't work at all, but you need enough reliable information (written records, closely related languages). You could build up rules for such word evolutions with few information, but that's more like a shot in the wide blue sky then a proof. And if they even say they can predict the future, I'd be very careful with what they say. They say that the word bad will probably disappear... I can hardly believe this. Categorizing things in bad and good is so common, I can't believe that a word that describes this will disappear. I mean, this is even connected to the learning process. Just imagine a little child. It tries out a lot of things and then categorizes them. If it was a bad experience, then it won't do it again. Just think of food for example. If anyone eats something (no matter whether the person is a child or an adult) he will decide whether he liked it or not. If not, he probably won't eat that food again. Things like that happen every day. I also made the experience that I can remember bad things better then good (I think that's normal). Thus I'd say "good" would disappear before "bad". So the word bad appears to me like a basic word (there may be synonyms or words that describe things in a finer way, but still I'd say "bad" is too common; I actually use it quite often, I'd say if I describe things in english) and basic words are unlikely to disappear. Not to say that predicting the future is difficult at all.

"I", "we", "two" and "three"

i wonder why "one" isnt in there...

Well, it says that "one" is slightly younger.

You know, "one' was also pronounced as "own" until rather recently.

Well, it says that "one" is slightly younger.

You know, "one' was also pronounced as "own" until rather recently.
Was two pronounced "t-whoa?"

This seems a wee bit suspect to moi.

There was likely a good reason why to, too, and two were all spelled differently. I suspect there were pronunciation differences, but I can't cite an article.

What shocked me the most was the word "bad". Really, they think "bad" is going extinct? That's one of the first descriptive words little kids learn! Are they going to replace it with the Kung-Pao: Enter the Fist substitute of "badong" (bad + wrong)?

And, if the growing number of plastic squeeze containers in the grocery store are any indicator, squeeze might be around for awhile longer.

Actually Antilogic I prefer G'nodab.

And yes I actually do use that word.

Actually Antilogic I prefer G'nodab.

And yes I actually do use that word.

I have to say, I have no idea how to pronounce that. I'm guessing the 'G' isn't silent because you used the accent...

I think "one" as a concept would have some bleed-through of meaning with articles (a, the) and concepts of wholeness, so it probably changes slightly quicker, on average, than other numbers.

Popular reporting of linguistics is generally terrible, this is no exception.

The Language Log article on this: http://languagelog.ldc.upenn.edu/nll/?p=1186.

edit: Also this - http://languagelog.ldc.upenn.edu/nll/?p=1191

Amazing! Thanks for posting.

nuts, and here I thought it was gullible

Arocdnicg to rsceearch at Cmabrigde Uinervtisy, it deosn’t mttaer in waht oredr the ltteers in a wrod are, the olny iprmoatnt tihng is taht the frist and lsat ltteer are in the rghit pcale. The rset can be a toatl mses and you can sitll raed it wouthit pobelrm. Tihs is buseace the huamn mnid deos not raed ervey lteter by istlef, but the wrod as a wlohe
----
Somewhat related :D

Arocdnicg to rsceearch at Cmabrigde Uinervtisy, it deosn’t mttaer in waht oredr the ltteers in a wrod are, the olny iprmoatnt tihng is taht the frist and lsat ltteer are in the rghit pcale. The rset can be a toatl mses and you can sitll raed it wouthit pobelrm. Tihs is buseace the huamn mnid deos not raed ervey lteter by istlef, but the wrod as a wlohe
----
Somewhat related :D
Yet someone else has something similar in their sig that says only X% of people can read it. Personally, I'd trust Cmabrigde, but I wonder which is true?

I think when they said "bad" would go "extinct" they meant that it would evolve into another word.

Dammit people, this is an awful, stupid, useless article!

Dammit people, this is an awful, stupid, useless article!
So you're saying it should be moved to OT? :mischief:

Incidentally, I agree.

Was two pronounced "t-whoa?"

This seems a wee bit suspect to moi.

There's been a weird dance in English around the nature and function of "E"s at the end of words; whether they are silent, have an effect on other vowels in the sentence or don't. If you've ever tried to read Chaucer, for example, and found that he follows no meter, its because words in his time were pronounced differently than today, though written similarly.

Arocdnicg to rsceearch at Cmabrigde Uinervtisy, it deosn’t mttaer in waht oredr the ltteers in a wrod are, the olny iprmoatnt tihng is taht the frist and lsat ltteer are in the rghit pcale. The rset can be a toatl mses and you can sitll raed it wouthit pobelrm. Tihs is buseace the huamn mnid deos not raed ervey lteter by istlef, but the wrod as a wlohe
----
Somewhat related :D

Yet someone else has something similar in their sig that says only X% of people can read it. Personally, I'd trust Cmabrigde, but I wonder which is true?

FWIW, Cambridge never did such a study. They *did* do a similar study, after they heard about this "study" attributed to them, and found that it really depends a lot on the words used in the paragraph.

(And, of course, the discussion of this at Cambridge has itself disappeared....)

FWIW, Cambridge never did such a study. They *did* do a similar study, after they heard about this "study" attributed to them, and found that it really depends a lot on the words used in the paragraph.

(And, of course, the discussion of this at Cambridge has itself disappeared....)

Weird, I hadn't heard that before.

Incidentally, the book unSpun recommends checking attributions with the people whom the articles/studies are attributed. A good piece of advice.

Was two pronounced "t-whoa?"
Pretty much. Middle English is 'twa', which I think can still be heard in parts of Yorkshire (or at least could fifty years ago). Certainly it survives in Scots.

Pretty much. Middle English is 'twa', which I think can still be heard in parts of Yorkshire (or at least could fifty years ago). Certainly it survives in Scots.
Damn, my smartarse comments once more turned out to actually be pretty correct. I do that too much.

@Padma: Interesting, thanks for the info.

@Cheezy: Hell, I know for a fact that Shakespeare outright changed the pronunciation of words so that they'd rhyme - Hyperion comes to mind - so I believe you.

There's been a weird dance in English around the nature and function of "E"s at the end of words; whether they are silent, have an effect on other vowels in the sentence or don't. If you've ever tried to read Chaucer, for example, and found that he follows no meter, its because words in his time were pronounced differently than today, though written similarly.

What I always heard was that the terminal "e"s in Middle English, which were pronounced as a Schwa, was indicative of an inflected ending that had died out since Old English times. They were pronounced most of the time. Middle English poetry, much like Latin poetry, often pretty much ignored the final syllable of a line. Syllables were also accented pretty much the same way as in Latin, including where the accent is on the penult if it is long, the antepenult if it is short, and never the ultima. The terminal "e" would never be accented, but even when it wasn't pronounced it would still count as the ultima thus change. By Shakespeare's time the terminal "e"s were almost never pronounced, but poets of course sometimes pronounced them for the sake of the meter, as they continue to do to this day.



I'm actually reading some Chauncer now for my English class, which the theme of studying Medieval Science and Technology. Most of what we read has been Modern English translations of texts written in Latin (some of which I chose to read in the original language instead), but we are just getting in to reading Middle English works. Last week we went over his treatise on the Astrolabe (which is of course prose, not poetry), and we are supposed to have read the Cannon's Yeoman's prologue and tale by Thursday. Sometime after that we will read Chaucer's Middle English translation of Boethius's Consolatio Philosophiae, which we already read in a more modern (but, in my opinion, not very good) translation. (Note: I never got as far as I was supposed to in reading any of those, but most people in my class read less or none.)




I'm sure the ability to read words without paying attention to the order of the letters depends heavily on how good a reader one is, and how familiar one is with the words being used. It would be impossible for this to work if the reader had no idea what the word would be if it were spelled correctly.

William the Conqueror, to my knowledge, did not speak English, but French.

I don't hold much respect for the opinions in this article. It's all good and fine to predict the evolution of a language based on past evolutions etc etc, but you can never take into account all of the changes taking place in that society that might affect the language.

For example, before the French revolution the "proper" way to pronounce the pronoun "toi" was "tway", but since this was an aristocratic pronunciation after the revolution it has completely disappeared from usage. The sole exception to this is in parts of Quebec, where you can still hear the "tway" pronounciation because by the time of the French Revolution Quebec was already part of the British Empire and the Church in Quebec stayed strong as ever, maintaining the aristocratic usages.

There's a good chance Arabic will replace English as the only spoken language in Great Britain in the not so distant future.

If not that, then text speak.

There's a good chance Arabic will replace English as the only spoken language in Great Britain in the not so distant future.

Oh, what rubbish.

If not that, then text speak.

That I can believe, however.

I for one welcome our new teenage overlords.

If not that, then text speak.

2 l8.:crazyeye:
(By the way, I don't text. That blasphemous invention is the bane of the English language! Vote Grammar-Nazi Party!)

Oh, what rubbish.

If I told Julius Caesar that in a few centuries, Rome would be invaded and conquered by Germans, he'd say that was rubbish too.

If I told Julius Caesar that in a few centuries, Rome would be invaded and conquered by Germans, he'd say that was rubbish too.

So? If you'd told Julius Caesar that Rome would be invaded and conquered by the Japanese, he'd have said that that was rubbish too. Guess which of these two scenarios more closely resembles the one you described? I suggest that you take your jingoism off-topic, and come up with some better rationale for it while you're at it.

So? If you'd told Julius Caesar that Rome would be invaded and conquered by the Japanese, he'd have said that that was rubbish too. Guess which of these two scenarios more closely resembles the one you described? I suggest that you take your jingoism off-topic, and come up with some better rationale for it while you're at it.

Don't be silly. Julius Caesar would have no idea who the Japanese were and it would have taken too much of his time to properly explain them.

If you don't understand how languages spread or how many times nations rise and fall, then that's your problem.

If you think Arabic would come into play as a major linguistic force, wait a few centuries. If not Arabic, then another competing culture.

And if you think Britain is some isolated isle, free from the globalizing world and nothing changes, then, you need to come up with some better rational.

You don't have to think that nothing changes in Britain in order to question the assertion that English will cease to be spoken there in the near future. That assertion is absurd and utterly baseless. Britain experienced massive, unrelenting immigration from speakers of every language under the sun until a century ago, and yet English remained its common language - all that happened is that English changed somewhat, and even then, less than you'd think. It didn't get replaced by French after all those Huguenots flooded into the country in the seventeenth century, for example. Which tells us that one thing that has definitely never changed about the British and probably never will is that they're constantly complaining about all these foreigners coming in and messing with their culture.

You don't have to think that nothing changes in Britain in order to question the assertion that English will cease to be spoken there in the near future. That assertion is absurd and utterly baseless. Britain experienced massive, unrelenting immigration from speakers of every language under the sun until a century ago, and yet English remained its common language - all that happened is that English changed somewhat, and even then, less than you'd think. It didn't get replaced by French after all those Huguenots flooded into the country in the seventeenth century, for example. Which tells us that one thing that has definitely never changed about the British and probably never will is that they're constantly complaining about all these foreigners coming in and messing with their culture.

OK, you got me. English is an impervious language that will survive no matter what, just like Mahican and Yola language.

Say, just one question. How come Britain doesn't speak Latin as its primary language anymore?

You're incredibly witty. But I've given reasons for my view, and you haven't given any for yours.

I'm not going to continue such an off-topic argument anyway. Take it to Off Topic, where I'm sure your rhetorical ability will be fully appreciated.

Say, just one question. How come Britain doesn't speak Latin as its primary language anymore?

There was never a point in time when English was around in Britain that Latin was the primary language. French was the langauge of court for about 300 years and Latin was only used in Mass (and in some churches, not even as a functional language - i.e. they were merely silently mimed).

Latin is still alive in the many Romance languages we have today. If you argue they're different, they're just as different as Modern English from Old English or Middle English.

Historically in Europe, languages died out only because the peoples were wiped out - the Britons were a good example when they had to run off to Wales after being slaughtered by the Saxons. In fact, "Welsh" derived from Saxon "wellas" which means "other" .

Therefore, barring epic destruction of over a billion people, the English language will still survive in some form or the other. Probably incomprehensible to our ears, but it would have evolved from it.

Agreed completely with BananaLee (and Plotinus) - I just wanted to add that anyway it's worth noting that dying languages will be an entirely different story now that we have so many texts and even recordings of them! Seriously, study of history and especially language history is going to be completely changed by the existence of recordings and the Internet. They're just not old enough for us to already see those incredible differences.

Don't be silly. Julius Caesar would have no idea who the Japanese were and it would have taken too much of his time to properly explain them.

If you don't understand how languages spread or how many times nations rise and fall, then that's your problem.

If you think Arabic would come into play as a major linguistic force, wait a few centuries. If not Arabic, then another competing culture.

And if you think Britain is some isolated isle, free from the globalizing world and nothing changes, then, you need to come up with some better rational.

Wow, you sure showed that strawman!

If you don't understand how languages spread or how many times nations rise and fall, then that's your problem.

If you think Arabic would come into play as a major linguistic force, wait a few centuries. If not Arabic, then another competing culture.

And if you think Britain is some isolated isle, free from the globalizing world and nothing changes, then, you need to come up with some better rational.

When you're talking about timeframes stretching centuries, putting a label on the language spoken like "English" or "French" or "Arabic" is silly. There is no "English". It doesn't exist as a single entity. What we do have is a unfathomable series of dialects which share some common vocaublary and grammar but differ from each other very much in many ways.

Language is affected by so many things: Geography, Social class, Time period (Chaucer's english is VERY different from the English of Beowolf), and even a person's mother tongue affects the English you know and speak.

English won't be replaced by any other language, ever. It will absorb and adopt features of other languages it comes in contact with and evolve and change, but it can't be replaced.

English won't be replaced by any other language, ever. It will absorb and adopt features of other languages it comes in contact with and evolve and change, but it can't be replaced.

Replace the word ENGLISH with any other language, and you have just stated a truth of history: every language ever spoken, at any specific time, is utterly unique, and will either absorb or repel linguistic pressures according to cultural forces.

Regarding English, I find it hard to believe that it has survived as long as it has already!... More likely, it is to be supplanted by Mandarin or Hindi over the next millennium.

You're incredibly witty. But I've given reasons for my view, and you haven't given any for yours.


You're too kind. I'm really an idiot.


There was never a point in time when English was around in Britain that Latin was the primary language.

Not true, Latin is still the primary dead-language of the Catholic Church, which is presently used in England.

When you're talking about timeframes stretching centuries, putting a label on the language spoken like "English" or "French" or "Arabic" is silly. There is no "English". It doesn't exist as a single entity. What we do have is a unfathomable series of dialects which share some common vocaublary and grammar but differ from each other very much in many ways.

Language is affected by so many things: Geography, Social class, Time period (Chaucer's english is VERY different from the English of Beowolf), and even a person's mother tongue affects the English you know and speak.

English won't be replaced by any other language, ever. It will absorb and adopt features of other languages it comes in contact with and evolve and change, but it can't be replaced.

You never know what circumstances will be in the future. In the case of native Americans, they're language was replaced, due to deaths...of all who spoke it.

To wonder if English will be replace entired by a new language...it would be foolish to rule that out...and equally foolish to think it will happen.

It is true languages evolve and change with time. If man should build generation ships to go across the stars, would they lose the word for "Rain"?

Not true, Latin is still the primary dead-language of the Catholic Church, which is presently used in England.

Wat?

You do realise that the official church of the United Kingdom is the Church of England right? And the Catholic Church uses the vernacular in Mass and has used vernacular since Vatican II.

During the time the Catholic Church was prevalent in England, English was already the main language of court and affairs of state. Prior to that (pre-Henry II), it was French in court, English on the fields.

Seriously, if you want to make silly statements, back them up with some half-sound evidence.

Wat?

You do realise that the official church of the United Kingdom is the Church of England right? And the Catholic Church uses the vernacular in Mass and has used vernacular since Vatican II.

During the time the Catholic Church was prevalent in England, English was already the main language of court and affairs of state. Prior to that (pre-Henry II), it was French in court, English on the fields.

Seriously, if you want to make silly statements, back them up with some half-sound evidence.

I thought the official church of the UK was, "The Church of the Almighty Pound"...

You're going to need to prove that Catholic churches in England never say anything in Latin.

There was never a point in time when English was around in Britain that Latin was the primary language. French was the langauge of court for about 300 years and Latin was only used in Mass (and in some churches, not even as a functional language - i.e. they were merely silently mimed).

When did I ever say that Latin was never used in the Catholic Church? I said it was never a *primary* language (key word bolded and italicised for emphasis), which was in answer to your question: -

Say, just one question. How come Britain doesn't speak Latin as its primary language anymore?

I'm guessing "chinese whispers" is on the chopping block because we call taht the telephone game her.

How come Britain doesn't speak Latin as its primary language anymore?

Latin was never the primary spoken language in England. Not even during Roman times. In the Roman era, Latin was the language of the soldiers, the administrators, and so on. But two farmers who were neighbours didn't greet each other in Latin; they did it in Brythonic, albeit with some Latin loan-words. Brythonic wasn't replaced in England until the arrival of Germanic groups (like the Saxons), and it never did die out completely; Breton and Welsh are Brythonic dialects, with about a million speakers today (300k and 700k).

As far as Latin being used by the Church, it was just that: used by the clergy (a tiny fraction of the population), and not as their primary tongue either, but just for religious functions.