|
All languages are inherently related. If they weren't, they wouldn't exist. So all these so-called "language isolates" are simply not. It's like the evolution of avian dinosaurs to modern-day birds. Sure, they might look like they shouldn't be related at all, but when you look at the animals in between, you'll start to realise that they infact, are. It's just that we haven't found that in between part yet. All languages share ancestry with another, and sure, some languages might be very hard to classify (some, even impossible), but they're still related to one another. Whether it be Basque, or Bintauna, or Nuxalk, or whatever. This whole idea that there are "language isolates" is in my opinion, a load of BS. It's just that you haven't bothered to put the effort to link the languages together. Diskcleanup (talk) 17:26, 23 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- It's not a load of BS. It's just that there is no known genetic relationship between Basque and other known languages. It is, at once, both plainly true, and entirely uninteresting that all languages are inherently related, in the same way that all life is related, but not terribly useful in then refusing to acknowledge that some life is closer related to others, for example if someone notes that a human is relatively closer related to a chimpanzee than to a pistachio, you should not respond to such a statement with "All life is related!" Well, no shit, Sherlock, all life is related, but it is not all related to the same degree. Similarly, though all languages are likely related, they are not related to the same degree, and it is helpful to categorizing languages as language isolates because it makes a statement about the degree of relationship between that language and other languages around the world. Basque really doesn't have much in common with any other known language. Your insistence that it is related to all other languages is true in only the most unhelpful sense, but it is so distantly related that it shares no historically-traceable nor linguistically common elements with basically anything else being spoken today. That's why we call it an isolate.--Jayron32 17:51, 23 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- I'd add two qualifications to this: first, the statement "that all languages are inherently related" is not necessarily true. Language polygenesis (the idea that languages might have arisen independently in different places and that some of today's languages might still be derived from ultimately separate sources) is still a logical possibility (although people might differ over how likely it is). Second, the difference between accepted relationships and language isolates is not just a difference of degree of relationship. As Jayron said quite rightly before that, the issue about isolates is that there is no known relationship – or you might put it more strongly, no knowable one. I'd say the difference between a known relationship and a possible but unknowable one is something much more fundamental and concrete than a mere difference of "degrees". Fut.Perf. ☼ 18:47, 23 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- That's entirely untrue. All languages HAVE to be related to one another. If all animals (or living beings in that case) are related to each other, then why can't languages be too? Languages and animals are very similar in many ways, and replying with "no shit" is quite rude of you as you're basically dismissing my entire point. Aswell as that, Basque is definitely related to nearby languages, and you saying that they aren't makes you look like a fool. Diskcleanup (talk) 19:01, 23 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- Your assertion that
All languages HAVE to be related requires rather extraordinary support. What are your sources for that claim? Folly Mox (talk) 19:11, 23 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, since you think everybody else here is a fool, I leave it to yourself to work out where in this statement the logical errors lie. Have fun. Next time you post here, please ask an actual question and expect to listen to answers; that's what this page is for. Fut.Perf. ☼ 19:13, 23 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- Wow, how WP:CIVIL. Diskcleanup (talk) 19:31, 23 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- As civil as calling others here fools. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 20:43, 23 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- Presumably the user is irritated because their unreferenced changes were reverted, as noted at [1]. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 20:52, 23 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- Well first, User:Fdom5997 and his little cabal of sockpuppets (which no admin has ever bothered to deal with, I mean they literally side with him even after he FLAGRANTLY violated WP:GRAVEDANCING on an alt) has been blatantly disrespectful to me, and I'm not irrated over that because I wasn't even aware that they were reverted. (unjustly for that matter, like come on! The admins here aren't that bad!) Diskcleanup (talk) 21:39, 23 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- You just started yesterday, and all three of your attempts were reverted by someone else. What has user Fdom5997 got to do with anything? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 21:50, 23 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- A lot. Don't judge a book by its cover. Just because I "joined 1 day ago" doesn't mean I'm new here. Ever heard of IP addresses? Heard there's an encyclopedia anybody can edit that talks about them. Diskcleanup (talk) 21:57, 23 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- Are you admitting to sockpuppetry??? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 22:01, 23 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- No. I'm simply stating that I also have an interest in linguistics. Fdom edits a lot on WP, so obviously I'll come across him a few times. Don't jump to conclusions, fool Diskcleanup (talk) 22:04, 23 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- OK, Mr. Civility... You're making an accusation against Fdom without providing any evidence. First, if you've got an issue with Fdom, it belongs at WP:ANI, not here. Second, what has Fdom got to do with your question on this ref desk? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 22:06, 23 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- What do you mean no evidence? Look at User:Libertydom5997's contributions! And he's just being a pest, to be honest. Diskcleanup (talk) 22:11, 23 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- What do any of that user's edits have to do with the question you asked here? Take your complaint to ANI or shut up about it. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 22:16, 23 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- And now you're being hypocritical. WP:CIVILITY much? Diskcleanup (talk) 22:17, 23 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- I have no idea on what grounds you claim that all languages have to be related. Any of the following three scenarios could plainly have occurred: 1) language arose only once, and all known languages are related. 2) language arose more than once, and not all languages are related. 3) language arose more than once, but it happens that only one of the lineages survived, so all known languages are related. ColinFine (talk) 21:13, 23 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- The earliest of the homo sapiens developed language, and when they migrated out of Africa, their languages evolved aswell. So thus, language only arose once, and all languages are related to eachother. Diskcleanup (talk) 21:32, 23 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- Note that the OP is part of the Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Nestofbirdnests/Archive sock drawer. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 11:47, 24 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
|
