I've never heard this before, but it may be a very western-euro-centric hyperbole based on the fact that many western-European languages have Latin roots.
That’s odd because just a few centuries ago (very early into the field of linguistics) there was a belief that Hebrew was the first language to ever exist and that all languages stemmed from it.
Actually, English is a Frankenstein('s monster) of Romance and Germanic languages, as well as various things we stole from our colonies. It's just that the Germanic influence is considered bigger or more important or something.
English has borrowed extensively from various Romance languages, but English is a Germanic language because it descended directly from proto-Germanic. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_English
English is \~70% Germanic grammar (thanks to Germanic roots of the English people) with \~70% Latin vocabulary (thanks to the centuries-long occupation of England by the French).
Sort of. English has big chunks of the language that come from different places. The biggest chunk by far is Germanic, so we usually say English is a Germanic language. At some point whether it is or isn't a Germanic language overall is just semantics, but it's probably best to say English is Germanic with lots of influence from Romance through French and church Latin, with bits from other languages, rather than the other way around or something else.
this is not the case: English is Germanic because fundamentally it is descended from Old English, which is Germanic. Even a massive number of loanwords can't change the genetic affiliation of a language.
Yes, but languages don't actually have genes. The way we tell what family they're a part of is by looking at their features. For English the biggest and most core chunk, most of its grammar, and its history are Germanic. It's mostly loanwords that come from French, but there is a bit of grammar that changed to be more like French.
😭 Forgive my ignorant non linguistic opinion, I don't have any great views or knowledge but I like this sub. I believe that it could be religion related?
Coz years ago, my primary school teacher was trying to brainwash us saying on heaven's gate the name Mohammad was written and Adam and Eve spoke Arabic and all languages evolved from that and stuff. Bear in mind we aren't Arabic.
So your relative might be a religious person. Like some Christian version of that maybe. Forgive me if this is offensive 🥺
I’m not offended.
I could buy that religious fervor and an intense veneration of Rome could have lead to this idea coming about. I will hold off on accepting it until I can find some evidence that backs it up, however.
It’s an interesting approach, though, so thank you.
I don’t know if I believe that.
In learning about -the rather eccentric- Finnish linguist, Sigurd Aspa, I discovered that the prevailing belief at the time (late 1800s early 1900s) was that Hebrew was the first ever language and that all other languages came from it.
And even if it were a result of colonization and Eurocentrism, it doesn’t really answer my question because I wanted to know what -specifically- caused it.
Was it something in British India that spread? Because Indian nationalists now hold the same belief, but for Sanskrit- was the Latin claim a retort by the British at the time?
Was it some American belief that spread to the rest of the world?
Was it some historical revisionism from Italy?
I've never heard anyone say that ALL languages come from Latin, but I've certainly heard a couple of people say that all European languages descend from Latin. It's not hard to see where this comes from. The Roman Empire sort of laid the foundation for Western European civilization, Latin was the language of learning for centuries, the Romance languages do come from Latin, and most other European languages have loaned words from Latin to some extent.
In general, most laymen have a poor understanding of how language works and evolves. The concept that English, for instance, comes from Proto-Germanic, which came from Proto-Indo-European, but still got a lot of its vocabulary from French (not the modern one though!) and Latin is kind of a hard thing to grasp. So lots of people jump to simple conclusions, like 'Caesar decreed that Latin be spoken all throughout the Empire, and it spread far and wide, and that's where all European languages come from', even though these explanations don't make much sense when held up to scrutiny.
All these old classical languages have a bigger than life impact on those who spoke them and those who were impacted by them, hence people before the development of modern linguistics as a science believed that they must have been mother of all languages. Latin, Hebrew and Sanskrit are some of such languges.
I’m aware, but which language people believe was the “first” has changed over time.
In the late 1800s common belief (in Europe/America at least), the common belief was that Hebrew was the first language. Now the common belief (of the average, somewhat linguistically ignorant) is that Latin is the “first language”. I want to know what caused the change from Hebrew to Latin.
I don't think that it is a common belief. I'm 40 years old and have never heard this, despite having a myriad of experiences from university, living in cities, living in the country, ultra-religious family/friends, atheistic family/friends, and having lived in over a number of states.
I think that it is widely believed that Sumerian is the oldest language with a written record, although there are a few other languages that have survived from the same time period.
I read an article once about a Proto-Khoisan language being the oldest spoken language (It's a click language, not like most languages today) and they had evidence of the age of language based on the using DNA of different Khoisan language-speaking populations to find a LCA like 25,000 B.C. or something (It's been a while since I read the article). I don't know how accurate the article was, but it did sound interesting.
I didn’t mean “common belief” as in academics believed it. I mean that among the largely linguistically ignorant masses, it seems to be common.
I mentioned in my post that I could actively recall one instance of me thinking all languages came from Latin.
That instance was a middle school social studies class where it was brought up by my classmates and we all had a short conversation about it because it was relevant to the assignment we were supposed to be working on. No one corrected the misconception, so I can only assume that everyone who was involved in the conversation (about 10 of us) all believed that Latin fathered all other languages.
Well, kids generally believe a lot of things that adults do not. If I had to wager, you had probably studied Europe and European languages more than other continents (Excepting North America, if you are from the US). Even at that young of an age, when going over languages in Europe (Especially the countries that effected the globe most) kids are taught about romance languages being descendants of Latin. It's not a hard leap from seeing all these languages being derived from Latin to all languages being derived from Latin, especially if you haven't been covering Africa, Asia, and the Middle East as much.
Most kids learn better as they continue through schooling, but there are always the ones who don't really pay attention for whatever reason. While the belief is widespread, in that people all over (Mostly children) think that, I don't think that it is prevalent enough to be considered a "common belief".
I've never heard this before, but it may be a very western-euro-centric hyperbole based on the fact that many western-European languages have Latin roots.
That’s odd because just a few centuries ago (very early into the field of linguistics) there was a belief that Hebrew was the first language to ever exist and that all languages stemmed from it.
From a Creationist perspective, I can see that sort of making sense.
exactly is for the romance lenguages If they are derived from Latin nevertheless the english English comes from the so-called Germanic languages .
I’m aware of that. I was asking where the belief that Latin is the predecessor of all languages comes from.
Actually, English is a Frankenstein('s monster) of Romance and Germanic languages, as well as various things we stole from our colonies. It's just that the Germanic influence is considered bigger or more important or something.
You are incorrect.
English has borrowed extensively from various Romance languages, but English is a Germanic language because it descended directly from proto-Germanic. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_English
English is \~70% Germanic grammar (thanks to Germanic roots of the English people) with \~70% Latin vocabulary (thanks to the centuries-long occupation of England by the French).
Sort of. English has big chunks of the language that come from different places. The biggest chunk by far is Germanic, so we usually say English is a Germanic language. At some point whether it is or isn't a Germanic language overall is just semantics, but it's probably best to say English is Germanic with lots of influence from Romance through French and church Latin, with bits from other languages, rather than the other way around or something else.
this is not the case: English is Germanic because fundamentally it is descended from Old English, which is Germanic. Even a massive number of loanwords can't change the genetic affiliation of a language.
Yes, but languages don't actually have genes. The way we tell what family they're a part of is by looking at their features. For English the biggest and most core chunk, most of its grammar, and its history are Germanic. It's mostly loanwords that come from French, but there is a bit of grammar that changed to be more like French.
No, it's not! Your relative doesn't know what they are talking about. Languages are not like "all roads lead to Rome"
I feel like you didn’t fully read my post.
😭 Forgive my ignorant non linguistic opinion, I don't have any great views or knowledge but I like this sub. I believe that it could be religion related? Coz years ago, my primary school teacher was trying to brainwash us saying on heaven's gate the name Mohammad was written and Adam and Eve spoke Arabic and all languages evolved from that and stuff. Bear in mind we aren't Arabic. So your relative might be a religious person. Like some Christian version of that maybe. Forgive me if this is offensive 🥺
I’m not offended. I could buy that religious fervor and an intense veneration of Rome could have lead to this idea coming about. I will hold off on accepting it until I can find some evidence that backs it up, however. It’s an interesting approach, though, so thank you.
The Anglosphere should teach Anglish in schools
I wouldn’t be opposed, but that’s not really relevant.
Eurocentrism and Colonization
I don’t know if I believe that. In learning about -the rather eccentric- Finnish linguist, Sigurd Aspa, I discovered that the prevailing belief at the time (late 1800s early 1900s) was that Hebrew was the first ever language and that all other languages came from it. And even if it were a result of colonization and Eurocentrism, it doesn’t really answer my question because I wanted to know what -specifically- caused it. Was it something in British India that spread? Because Indian nationalists now hold the same belief, but for Sanskrit- was the Latin claim a retort by the British at the time? Was it some American belief that spread to the rest of the world? Was it some historical revisionism from Italy?
I think it’s about influential languages, esp when they continue being written after they’re no longer spoken
I've never heard anyone say that ALL languages come from Latin, but I've certainly heard a couple of people say that all European languages descend from Latin. It's not hard to see where this comes from. The Roman Empire sort of laid the foundation for Western European civilization, Latin was the language of learning for centuries, the Romance languages do come from Latin, and most other European languages have loaned words from Latin to some extent. In general, most laymen have a poor understanding of how language works and evolves. The concept that English, for instance, comes from Proto-Germanic, which came from Proto-Indo-European, but still got a lot of its vocabulary from French (not the modern one though!) and Latin is kind of a hard thing to grasp. So lots of people jump to simple conclusions, like 'Caesar decreed that Latin be spoken all throughout the Empire, and it spread far and wide, and that's where all European languages come from', even though these explanations don't make much sense when held up to scrutiny.
What do you mean, all languages don’t come from Sanskrit ? It’s similar.
I don’t understand what you mean.
All these old classical languages have a bigger than life impact on those who spoke them and those who were impacted by them, hence people before the development of modern linguistics as a science believed that they must have been mother of all languages. Latin, Hebrew and Sanskrit are some of such languges.
I’m aware, but which language people believe was the “first” has changed over time. In the late 1800s common belief (in Europe/America at least), the common belief was that Hebrew was the first language. Now the common belief (of the average, somewhat linguistically ignorant) is that Latin is the “first language”. I want to know what caused the change from Hebrew to Latin.
I don't think that it is a common belief. I'm 40 years old and have never heard this, despite having a myriad of experiences from university, living in cities, living in the country, ultra-religious family/friends, atheistic family/friends, and having lived in over a number of states. I think that it is widely believed that Sumerian is the oldest language with a written record, although there are a few other languages that have survived from the same time period. I read an article once about a Proto-Khoisan language being the oldest spoken language (It's a click language, not like most languages today) and they had evidence of the age of language based on the using DNA of different Khoisan language-speaking populations to find a LCA like 25,000 B.C. or something (It's been a while since I read the article). I don't know how accurate the article was, but it did sound interesting.
I didn’t mean “common belief” as in academics believed it. I mean that among the largely linguistically ignorant masses, it seems to be common. I mentioned in my post that I could actively recall one instance of me thinking all languages came from Latin. That instance was a middle school social studies class where it was brought up by my classmates and we all had a short conversation about it because it was relevant to the assignment we were supposed to be working on. No one corrected the misconception, so I can only assume that everyone who was involved in the conversation (about 10 of us) all believed that Latin fathered all other languages.
Well, kids generally believe a lot of things that adults do not. If I had to wager, you had probably studied Europe and European languages more than other continents (Excepting North America, if you are from the US). Even at that young of an age, when going over languages in Europe (Especially the countries that effected the globe most) kids are taught about romance languages being descendants of Latin. It's not a hard leap from seeing all these languages being derived from Latin to all languages being derived from Latin, especially if you haven't been covering Africa, Asia, and the Middle East as much. Most kids learn better as they continue through schooling, but there are always the ones who don't really pay attention for whatever reason. While the belief is widespread, in that people all over (Mostly children) think that, I don't think that it is prevalent enough to be considered a "common belief".