Language desk
< May 14	<< Apr \| May \| Jun >>	May 16 >

Welcome to the Wikipedia Language Reference Desk Archives
The page you are currently viewing is an archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current reference desk pages.

May 15

Transliteration from Arabic

I would be grateful if a user could please transliterate from Arabic letters to English letters the entry in a population register shown on the link. <a href="http://chaimsimons.net/Arabicletters.jpg"> </a>Thank you 89.138.85.124 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 07:36, 15 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

They are not legible. Omidinist (talk) 18:17, 15 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There are two methods which might improve the clarity of the Arabic letters. One of them is to decrease the size of the image. The second is to go to the actual Population Register. This can be found on the internet at: http://www.archives.gov.il/archives/#/Archive/0b0717068002269e/File/0b071706809d4c06 Scroll down to page 75. The required entry is the fourth family down from the top of the page, or alternatively it is the fourth family up from the bottom of the page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Simonschaim (talk • contribs) 04:29, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

How many languages have ever existed?

I've been wondering, has anyone attempted to estimate how many languages have ever been spoken? If so, how are these estimates made, and what are the results? I realize that this question is probably impossible to answer conclusively, but I'd be interested to know of any attempts made. 2602:306:321B:5970:9889:9295:DC56:B865 (talk) 14:07, 15 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

First define "language" unambiguously, then we might be able to start a meaningful discussion. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 14:12, 15 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This blog - http://thelousylinguist.blogspot.co.uk/2010/11/94000-language-deaths.html - suggests about 100,000 (give or take 40,000) and links to some research on the subject. Wymspen (talk) 14:24, 15 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

To save anyone the bother of reading the blog which Wymspen linked to, his/her argument is that If we assume that languages come and go at a pace that correlates with populations, then we can assume that the current 6000 living languages are about 6% of the total number of languages that ever existed. That means the total number of languages that have ever existed is around 100,000. Not a whiff of a basis for that assumption. this essay is one of several to mention David Crystal estimating in his Language Death (which I don't have, so I've no idea of the reasoning) between 64,000 and 140,000; it also quotes a figure from Mark Pagel of up to 500,000; and presents a model which I haven't read (but which you might, if interested) which gives a figure of ~150,000. At a minimum, it's not such a silly question that no-one's bothered to ask it. Henry ^Flower 20:58, 15 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Your point being that there is no such thing as a silly question? Do you have an RS for that? One simple question. How many indigenous language families were there in Europe before the advent of Indo-European? The answer? No one has a clue. μηδείς (talk) 00:22, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No, my point being that respectable linguists have addressed the question; and that this being a reference desk, we could (shock horror) actually refer people to them. Henry ^Flower 04:27, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"Respectable" perhaps is a relative term, Origin of language notes that the subject is nigh-on impenetrable, and that ANY attempts to answer questions such as this one (any discussion of the number of languages ever spoken has to first start with how language originated!) are basically impossible to answer, and that attempts to do so amount to little more than wild speculation, albeit some speculation done by people with certain post-nominal letters sometimes gets more attention, it isn't necessarily any less speculation. --Jayron 32 15:23, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I've always been fascinated by the certainty with which some linguists state there was exactly one. Someguy1221 (talk) 02:44, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not satisfied that I understand the phrase "a pace that correlates with populations". Does it mean that there are 16 times as many dead humans as live humans, and therefore we can estimate that there are 16 times as many dead languages as live ones, or something else? —Tamfang (talk) 09:22, 18 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that's what it means. Henry ^Flower 09:26, 18 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ethnologue has catalogued just over 7000 current languages, but there is always a problem that languages often exist on a dialect continuum and that "There is no universally accepted criterion for distinguishing two different languages from two dialects (i.e. varieties) of the same language". This sort of calculation is bound to vary wildly depending on the criteria used for the counting. After all, people living in Brazil today speak a version of Latin, though the transition from Vulgar Latin to Brazilian Portuguese didn't happen in one instant. There wasn't ever a time when people suddenly couldn't understand their neighbors, like one day a group of Latin speakers woke up and suddenly was speaking Portuguese. Such changes happen gradually over many centuries. So, while we may be able to say, today, that Latin and Brazilian Portuguese are distinct languages, at some point in history, they weren't, and what was THAT? Was that a variety of Latin? A variety of Portuguese? A distinct third language? --Jayron 32 14:38, 15 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

One might as well ask how many families have existed. μηδείς (talk) 19:48, 15 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

One answer is "All of them." ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 04:54, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Which of course, probably isn't correct. For example, there are plenty of sign languages, e.g. New Zealand Sign Language, American Sign Language and perhaps even International Sign which aren't spoken, at least in accordance with the ordinary English meaning of the world. In fact our article says "Sign languages share many similarities with spoken languages (sometimes called "oral languages")". Nil Einne (talk) 09:15, 17 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That assumes the OP meant "what percentage of languages have ever been spoken?" as opposed to other forms of communication. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:45, 17 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No it doesn't. Nil Einne (talk) 03:05, 19 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

More explaination Nil Einne (talk) 02:59, 19 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No it doesn't. You're the first one to bring up whether all languages that ever existed were spoken with a pointless joke which is just plain wrong. Barring a very odd definition of languages, it's likely the number of languages which existed but were never spoken is too small to make a difference to the OP's question (i.e. it's likely the difference will be well within the margin of error or any estimate, and any estimate where this isn't the case is circumspect). For precision someone could have clarified whether the OP was only genuinely interested in spoken languages if needed although as said, there doesn't seem to be any real reason for this, but that's a different point.

In other words, it doesn't actually matter that the OP's question potentially doesn't properly cover what they actually wanted to know but instead technically misses some languages, although it's also possible they were only interested in spoken languages; but your jokey response is still wrong, pointless and stupid whatever the OP actually wanted to know. Now maybe the later 2 apply to these comment as well, but I strongly dislike it when jokes or offhand comments are made which aren't even right (or make no sense), if you're going to joke you can at least make sure you get it right.

(Although I think these comments do touch on a point that is relevant namely why this question will never have a satisfactory answer even as an estimate. Assuming the OP is interested in all languages not just spoken ones, the issues of dialect-continuums was touched on above. Chinese is on obvious popular example where you have many variants largely mutually unintelligible. You can then consider how to classify written Chinese in relation to this. Whether these complexities are enough to make a differences, i.e. including sign languages etc, that isn't in the margin of error, I expect not but it does further illustrate the problems facing any linguist who attempted this.)

Nil Einne (talk) 23:27, 18 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

BTW, in case there is still some confusion, it seems clear from the title, and in any case I think was clear to everyone else including me that the OP was interested in an estimate of the number of languages that have existed. Because of their actual question, it's not totally certain if they are interested in estimates which include non-spoken languages. Most likely they are or don't care, and there's a good chance linguists who have tried to estimate have not bothered with such complexities simply because the number is likely to be too small to significantly affect the answer.

If the OP was only interested in estimates of spoken languages and not all languages, then their questions is technically okay although, especially given the title, it may be helpful for them to reword it to make it clear they are only interested in spoken languages. If the OP is interested in estimates of all languages or doesn't care, then their question is technically poorly worded although as I've said several times, it doesn't really matter. Still as a nitpicker myself, I wouldn't complain about someone seeking clarification.

Whatever the OP actually meant, it's clear that an answer 'all of them' isn't useful because it's plain wrong. Under most definitions of "spoken" and also definitions of "language" used by linguists, there are some languages which have never been spoken. An answer "nearly all of them" would probably be true, even if still pointless, still I wouldn't have complained about such an answer. An estimate of the proportion of languages that were spoken would likewise be pointless. Still if such an estimate really existed and this was given as an answer, it's actually the sort of jokey answer which should IMO get kudos.

Nil Einne (talk) 02:59, 19 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]