Talk:Father tongue hypothesis

Linguistics Low‑importance

	Linguistics portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Linguistics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of linguistics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.LinguisticsWikipedia:WikiProject LinguisticsTemplate:WikiProject LinguisticsLinguistics articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Languages Low‑importance

	Language portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Languages, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of languages on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.LanguagesWikipedia:WikiProject LanguagesTemplate:WikiProject Languageslanguage articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Psychology Low‑importance

	Psychology portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Psychology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Psychology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PsychologyWikipedia:WikiProject PsychologyTemplate:WikiProject Psychologypsychology articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Sociology Low‑importance

	Society portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Sociology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of sociology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SociologyWikipedia:WikiProject SociologyTemplate:WikiProject Sociologysociology articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

[edit]

@Exceptions: The most curious thing about this article is the fact that at least one of the exceptions isn't an exception. Balti might perhaps be "among the most conservative dialects of Tibetan", an idea that actually goes back to the Hungarian scholar Ligeti, and has been propagated with more details by Roland Bielmeier,^[1] although this 'conservatism' only holds for phonology, and not at all for morphology. However "most conservative" does not necessarily mean that the language was originally spoken in this area or spoken there for the longest time. As is well known, speakers in colonialised areas and in the periphery may preserve archaic features longer than speakers at the political centre.^[2] There is absolutely no proof that a Tibetan dialect (or language) was spoken in Baltistan before the 7th c. CE. As most people acquainted with Tibetan history know, the western areas were conquered only by the late 7th or early 8th century CE, but they were never fully integrated into the Tibetan 'state'.^[3] There was thus also no compulsion to switch to Tibetan. However the Old Tibetan became an administrative and military lingua franca throughout the Tibetan empire, and it seems that some of the politically or economically opportunistic 'fathers' switched to Tibetan, first as L2, later as L1,^[4] so that Balti is, in fact, as the Baltis themselves claim, a "father tongue" or phaskat.

^[1] ^[2] ^[3] ^[4] Bruguma~enwiki (talk) 22:19, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Um, it's completely irrelevant what languages were spoken in the region before the 7th century, because the Y-chromosomal influx in question happened only with the introduction of Islam from the 15th century on! This is long after the Old Tibetan period and the Tibetan Empire. The fact remains that in the relevant context, which is the modern era and not the 7th century, the Balti language is genetically connected to the maternal, indigenous Tibetan line and not the paternal, externally introgressed line, and thus forms an obvious counterexample to the usual pattern. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 14:13, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ ^a ^b Bielmeier, Roland (1998). "Tibetan in its historical linguistic context". In Stellrecht, Irmtraud (ed.). Karakorum-Hindukush-Himalaya: dynamics of change. Köln: Köppe. pp. 583–610.
^ ^a ^b Bartoli, Matteo (1925). Introduzione alla neolinguistica (principi – scopi – metodi). Genève: Leo S. Olschki.
^ ^a ^b Beckwith, Christopher I. (1987). The Tibetan empire in Central Asia: a history of the struggle for great power among Tibetans, Turks, Arabs, and Chinese during the early Middle Ages. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
^ ^a ^b Zeisler, Bettina (2009). "Reducing phonetical complexity and grammatical opaqueness: Old Tibetan as a lingua franca and the development of the modern Tibetan dialects". In Aboh, Enoch O.; Smith, Norval (eds.). Complex processes in new languages. Amsterdam: Benjamins. pp. 75–95.

Wiki Education assignment: Linguistics in the Digital Age[edit]

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 21 August 2023 and 11 December 2023. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Imccrammer (article contribs).

— Assignment last updated by Fedfed2 (talk) 00:53, 9 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hungarian an exception?[edit]

How is Hungarian an exception? The Father Tongue hypothesis claims language is more correlated with paternal ancestry than with maternal. Unless you can show the Hungarian language was somehow more female mediated (I'm not aware of any mtDNA differences to the neighbouring populations, while Y-N is present at small frequencies), they are not an exception, just simply a population with little ancestry from the one that brought the language. 2A01:36D:118:6065:AB99:9586:48E3:591 (talk) 13:30, 17 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Examples from historic times[edit]

Is there literature that compares examples like the spread of the Arab language after/during the Islamic conquests, the spread of the Spanish language to the Americas and so on to how languages may or may not have spread in prehistory?

Also: languages have historically been spread while leaving virtually no genetic trace — for example English in India, French in sub-Saharan Africa or various Creole languages. Or are we overlooking the genetic component in those cases due to hypodescent making the European ancestry "disappear" in European perception? 2001:A62:1487:D302:4CE8:A2CC:ACB2:2E38 (talk) 21:18, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

[balti-1] Bielmeier, Roland (1998). "Tibetan in its historical linguistic context". In Stellrecht, Irmtraud (ed.). Karakorum-Hindukush-Himalaya: dynamics of change. Köln: Köppe. pp. 583–610.

[bartoli-2] Bartoli, Matteo (1925). Introduzione alla neolinguistica (principi – scopi – metodi). Genève: Leo S. Olschki.

[empire-3] Beckwith, Christopher I. (1987). The Tibetan empire in Central Asia: a history of the struggle for great power among Tibetans, Turks, Arabs, and Chinese during the early Middle Ages. Princeton: Princeton University Press.

[lingua-4] Zeisler, Bettina (2009). "Reducing phonetical complexity and grammatical opaqueness: Old Tibetan as a lingua franca and the development of the modern Tibetan dialects". In Aboh, Enoch O.; Smith, Norval (eds.). Complex processes in new languages. Amsterdam: Benjamins. pp. 75–95.

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]