# Origin of language **URL:** \ **Category:** Factual Questions\ **Created:** [July 13, 2003, 9:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/origin-of-language/188234 "2003-07-13T21:10:20Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 5\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![system](https://global.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/original/2X/e/e489c3b7d8fce19c4b355dd4fc3f88cc39c34b87.png) [@system](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/system)\ **Post date:** [July 16, 2003, 9:22am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/origin-of-language/188234/21 "2003-07-16T09:22:15Z")
With all due respect to JM, I believe some intervention is required. > [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Jomo Mojo \* > In respect of vocabulary, Finnish seems far more archaic than any other known modern living language. It is closest to the reconstructed Proto-Uralic than any other Uralic language. Also, the reconstructions of Nostratic by Vladimir Illich-Svitych, with a time depth of ca. 10,000 years before present (YBP), seem to resemble Proto-Uralic the most closely. While JM likes to cite to the Nostratic hypotheses, I believe it is necessary to add that these hypotheses do not seem very much favored by modern linguists, that is they are considered highly controversial at best. > [@](#): > > So for the most archaic living languages I nominate Finnish, Tamil, and Arabic. However, no one speaks ‘Literary Arabic’, either its modern form or the more highly Quranic and classical form as a native tongue. It’s a pure book langauge. Living spoken Arabic dialects are grammatically divergent, although to my knowledge not as well studied as one might hope. As for the last intervention, I would direct the poster to the more learned comments prior. ---
**Author:** ![Earl\_Snake-Hips\_Tucker](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/earl_snake-hips_tucker/32/3269_2.png) [@Earl\_Snake-Hips\_Tucker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Earl_Snake-Hips_Tucker)\ **Post date:** [July 16, 2003, 2:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/origin-of-language/188234/22 "2003-07-16T14:03:05Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Chefguy \* > \*\*Re: your third question. Finnish is one of the newest languages and is extremely difficult for a non-native speaker. I agree that difficulty is subjective, however. \*\* Hey, **Chefguy** , did you read that in Tom Burnam’s \*“Dictionary of Misinformation”? He mentions that factoid (about being one of the newest) in a section where he, um, “debunks” the “myth” that Chinese is hard. His contention is that “Chinese is one of the world’s oldest languages, and the grammar is fairly simple.” He then goes on and makes the points about Finnish. I have no idea what his sources were. ---
**Author:** ![Dogface](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/9d8465/32.png) [@Dogface](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dogface)\ **Post date:** [July 16, 2003, 2:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/origin-of-language/188234/23 "2003-07-16T14:52:19Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by bardos \* > **One typical example of this phenomena in English is the contraction. I don’t think the contraction was used in the last century in any kind of formal speech and most likely began as a lower-class uneducated phenomena. (see: ain’t)** Ah, ignorance and blind nostalgia, what a wonderful combination. Shakespeare used contractions: 'tis | it is 'sblud | God’s Blood Likewise, here are some tidbits from the OED: ain’t: in use by 1778 can’t: In use by 1741 don’t: in use by 1670 doesn’t: in use by 1818 it’s: in use by 1625 For all of these words, they were in use by the “upper crust” by the 19th century, yes, even the vileness of “ain’t”. Likewise, “respectable” words are actually _ **GASP** _ CONTRACTIONS!!! cello: Contracted from “violincello” piano: Contracted from “pianoforte” bus: Contracted from “omnibus” All of these contractions occurred before the beginning of the 20th century. ---
**Author:** ![bb2000](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/b5ac83/32.png) [@bb2000](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/bb2000)\ **Post date:** [July 16, 2003, 3:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/origin-of-language/188234/24 "2003-07-16T15:31:22Z")
Having driven through Wales, I would say Welsh was the most complicated language due to the fact that it appears to lack any vowels at all. Not to mention the fact that words do not look anything like they should sound - a bit like Maori in that respect. 😃 ---
**Author:** ![ruadh](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/d2c977/32.png) [@ruadh](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ruadh)\ **Post date:** [July 16, 2003, 5:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/origin-of-language/188234/25 "2003-07-16T17:37:34Z")
They look exactly like they should, actually - in the Welsh alphabet. You just don’t know the sounds the letters in the Welsh alphabet make. It’s a much more “phonetic” language than English is, not that that’s hard. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/origin-of-language/188234.md?page=1)