Editing Proto-Human language

{{short description|Proposed common ancestor to all human languages}}
{{Infobox proto-language
| name = Proto-Human
| altname = Proto-Sapiens, Proto-World
| acceptance = hypothetical; widely rejected
| era = [[Paleolithic]]
| familycolor = superfamily
| target = All extant and extinct human languages
}}
The '''Proto-Human language''', also known as '''Proto-Sapiens''', '''Proto-World''', or '''the Urlanguage''' is the hypothetical direct [[Genetic relationship (linguistics)|genetic]] predecessor of all human languages.<ref>{{Cite web | url = https://www.thegreatcoursesdaily.com/how-are-the-various-proto-world-families-linked/ | last1 = McWhorter | first1 = John | title = How are the Various Proto-World Families Linked? | date = 2020-09-04 | quote = The Proto-World language, also known as the Proto-Human or Proto-Sapiens, is believed to be the single source of origin of all the world’s languages. | access-date = 2021-12-16 | archive-date = 2021-12-16 | archive-url = https://web.archive.org/web/20211216140546/https://www.thegreatcoursesdaily.com/how-are-the-various-proto-world-families-linked/ | url-status = dead }}</ref> 

The concept is speculative and not amenable to analysis in [[historical linguistics]]. It [[Tacit assumption|presupposes]] a ''monogenetic'' [[origin of language]], that is, the derivation of all [[natural language]]s from a single origin, presumably at some time in the [[Middle Paleolithic]] period. As the predecessor of all ''extant'' languages spoken by [[modern humans]] (''[[Homo sapiens]]''), Proto-Human as hypothesized would not necessarily be ancestral to any hypothetical [[Neanderthal language]].{{fact|date=May 2025}}

==Terminology==
The concept has no generally accepted term. Most treatments of the subject do not include a name for the language under consideration (e.g., Bengtson and Ruhlen<ref name="bengtson-ruhlen-1994">{{cite book |author1=Meritt Ruhlen |author2=John Bengtson |title=On the Origin of Languages: Studies in Linguistic Taxonomy |date=1994 |pages=277–336 |url=http://www.cecuritec.com/wp/wp-content/uploads/2011/01/Global.pdf |access-date=2020-06-27 |language=en |chapter=Global etymologies}}</ref>). The terms ''Proto-World'' and ''Proto-Human''<ref>{{cite web |author-link=Harold C. Fleming |first=Harold |last=Fleming |url=http://www.people.fas.harvard.edu/~witzel/MTLR-34b.htm |date=2003 |title=(Mother Tongue) Long Ranger 34 (b) |archiveurl=https://web.archive.org/web/20040502180220/http://www.people.fas.harvard.edu:80/~witzel/MTLR-34b.htm |archivedate=2004-05-02 }}</ref><ref>Used by [[John Bengtson]] (2007).</ref> are in occasional use. [[Merritt Ruhlen]] used the term ''Proto-Sapiens''.{{fact|date=May 2025}}

==History of the idea==
The first serious scientific attempt to establish the reality of monogenesis was that of [[Alfredo Trombetti]], in his book ''L'unità d'origine del linguaggio'' (1905).<ref name="ruhlen1994a">{{cite book |last1=Ruhlen |first1=Meritt |title=The Origin of Language: Tracing the Evolution of the Mother Tongue |date=1994 |publisher=Stanford University Press|location=Stanford}}</ref>{{rp|263}}<ref>{{cite book |last1=Trombetti |first1=Alfredo |title=L'unità d'origine del linguaggio |date=1905 |language=it |publisher=Luigi Beltrami |location=Bologna}}</ref> Trombetti estimated that the common ancestor of existing languages had been spoken between 100,000 and 200,000 years ago (not long after the appearance of [[anatomically modern humans]]).<ref name="trombetti1922">{{cite book |last1=Trombetti |first1=Alfredo |title=Elementi di glottologia |date=1922–1923 |publisher=Zanichelli |location=Bologna |language=it }}</ref>{{rp|315}}

Monogenesis was dismissed by many linguists in the late 19th and early 20th centuries when the doctrine of the [[Polygenism|polygenesis]] of the human races [[polygenesis (linguistics)|and their languages]] was popularized.<ref name="sassure">{{Cite book|title=Cours de linguistique générale|last=de Saussure|first=Ferdinand|publisher=Open Court.|year=1986|location=Chicago|language=fr|trans-title=Course in General Linguistics|orig-year=1916|translator-last=Harris|translator-first=Roy}}</ref>{{rp|190}}

The best-known supporter of monogenesis in America in the mid-20th century was [[Morris Swadesh]]. He pioneered two important methods for investigating deep relationships between languages, [[lexicostatistics]] and [[glottochronology]].<ref name="ruhlen1994a" />{{rp|215}}

In the second half of the 20th century, [[Joseph Greenberg]] produced a series of large-scale classifications of the world's languages. These were and are controversial but widely discussed. Although Greenberg did not produce an explicit argument for monogenesis, all of his classification work was geared toward this end. As he stated: "The ultimate goal is a comprehensive classification of what is very likely a single language family."<ref name="greenberg1987">{{cite book |last1=Greenberg |first1=Joseph H. |title=Language in the Americas |date=1987 |publisher=Stanford University Press |location=Stanford}}</ref>{{rp|337}}

Notable American advocates of linguistic monogenesis include [[Merritt Ruhlen]], [[John Bengtson]], and [[Harold C. Fleming|Harold Fleming]].{{fact|date=May 2025}}

==Date and location==
The first concrete attempt to estimate the date of the hypothetical ancestor language was that of [[Alfredo Trombetti]], who concluded it was spoken between 100,000 and 200,000 years ago, or close to the first emergence of ''[[Homo sapiens]]''.<ref name="trombetti1922" />{{rp|315}}

It is uncertain or disputed whether the earliest members of ''Homo sapiens'' had fully developed language. Some scholars link the emergence of language proper (out of a [[proto-linguistic]] stage that may have lasted considerably longer) to the development of [[behavioral modernity]] toward the end of the [[Middle Paleolithic]] or at the beginning of the [[Upper Paleolithic]], roughly 50,000 years ago.{{fact|date=May 2025}}

Thus, in the opinion of [[Richard Klein (paleoanthropologist)|Richard Klein]], the ability to produce complex speech only developed some 50,000 years ago (with the appearance of modern humans or [[Cro-Magnon]]).{{fact|date=May 2025}}

[[Johanna Nichols]] (1998) argued that vocal languages must have begun diversifying in our species at least 100,000 years ago.<ref>Johanna Nichols, 1998. The origin and dispersal of languages: Linguistic evidence. In Nina Jablonski and Leslie C. Aiello, eds., ''The Origin and Diversification of Language,''  pp. 127-70. (Memoirs of the California Academy of Sciences, 24.) San Francisco: California Academy of Sciences.</ref>

In 2011, an article in the journal ''[[Science (journal)|Science]]'' proposed an African origin of modern human languages.<ref>{{cite journal | author=Quentin D. Atkinson|title=Phonemic Diversity Supports a Serial Founder Effect Model of Language Expansion from Africa|journal=Science| date=2011-04-15|volume=332|issue=6027|pages=346–349| doi =10.1126/science.1199295 |pmid=21493858|bibcode=2011Sci...332..346A|s2cid=42021647}}</ref> It was suggested that human language predates the [[Recent African origin of modern humans|out-of-Africa migrations]] of 50,000 to 70,000 years ago and that language might have been the essential cultural and cognitive innovation that facilitated human colonization of the globe.<ref>{{cite web | url =https://www.science.org/content/article/language-may-have-helped-early-humans-spread-out-africa |title=Language May Have Helped Early Humans Spread Out of Africa|work=Science|author=Michael Balter| date=2011-04-14| accessdate =2021-08-13}}</ref>

{{anchor|Phonemic diversity}}
In Perreault and Mathew (2012),<ref>{{cite journal | last1 = Perreault | first1 = C. | last2 = Mathew | first2 = S. | year = 2012 | title = Dating the origin of language using phonemic diversity | journal = PLOS ONE | volume = 7 | issue = 4| page = e35289 | doi = 10.1371/journal.pone.0035289 | pmid = 22558135 | pmc = 3338724 | bibcode = 2012PLoSO...735289P | doi-access = free }}</ref> an estimate of the time of the first emergence of human language was based on [[phonemic]] diversity.{{Clarification needed|reason=What is phonemic diversity or phoneme inventory? The linked Phoneme article does not mention these terms.|date=October 2024}} This is based on the assumption that phonemic diversity evolves much more slowly than grammar or vocabulary, slowly increasing over time (but reduced among small founding populations).
The largest phoneme inventories are found among [[African languages]], while the smallest inventories are found in South America and Oceania, some of the last regions of the globe to be settled.
The authors used data from the colonization of Southeast Asia to estimate the rate of increase in phonemic diversity.
Applying this rate to African languages, Perreault and Mathew (2012) arrived at an estimated age of 150,000 to 350,000 years, compatible with the emergence and early dispersal of ''H. sapiens''.
The validity of this approach has been criticized as flawed.<ref>{{cite journal |last1=Hunley |first1=Keith |last2=Bowern |first2=Claire |last3=Healy |first3=Meghan |title=Rejection of a serial founder effects model of genetic and linguistic coevolution |journal=Proceedings of the Royal Society B |volume=279 |issue=1736 |pages=2281–2288 |date=2 January 2012 |pmc=3321699 |pmid=22298843 |doi=10.1098/rspb.2011.2296 }}<br>{{cite journal |last1=Bowern |first1=Claire |title=Out of Africa? The logic of phoneme inventories and founder effects |journal=Linguistic Typology |date=November 2011 |volume=15 |issue=2 |pages=207–216 |doi=10.1515/lity.2011.015 |s2cid=120276963 |issn=1613-415X|hdl=1885/28291 |hdl-access=free }}</ref>

==Claimed characteristics==
Speculation on the "characteristics" of Proto-World is limited to [[linguistic typology]], i.e. the identification of universal features shared by all human languages, such as [[grammar]] (in the sense of "fixed or preferred sequences of linguistic elements"), and [[Recursion#In language|recursion]], but beyond this, nothing is known of it.<ref>Campbell & Poser (2008:391)</ref>

[[Christopher Ehret]] has hypothesized that Proto-Human had a very complex consonant system, including [[click consonant|clicks]].<ref>{{cite AV media | url=https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Mmr0AE1Qyws  |archive-url=https://ghostarchive.org/varchive/youtube/20211211/Mmr0AE1Qyws| archive-date=2021-12-11 |url-status=live| title=CARTA: The Origin of Us -- Christopher Ehret: Relationships of Ancient African Languages | date=August 1, 2013}}{{cbignore}}</ref>

A few linguists, such as [[Merritt Ruhlen]], have suggested the application of [[mass comparison]] and [[internal reconstruction]] (cf. Babaev 2008). Several linguists have attempted to reconstruct the language, while many others{{who|date=January 2018}} reject this as [[fringe science]].<ref>{{Cite journal|url=https://www.csmonitor.com/2007/0719/p13s01-stgn.html|title=Linguists seek a time when we spoke as one|journal=Christian Science Monitor|date=19 July 2007 |first=Moises |last=Velasquez-Manoff |access-date=18 May 2018}}</ref>

===Vocabulary===
Ruhlen tentatively traces several words back to the ancestral language, based on the occurrence of similar sound-and-meaning forms in languages across the globe. Bengtson and Ruhlen identify 27 "global etymologies".<ref name="bengtson-ruhlen-1994" /> The following table lists a selection of these forms:<ref name="ruhlen1994">{{cite book |last1=Ruhlen |first1=Meritt |title=The Origin of Language: Tracing the Evolution of the Mother Tongue |date=1994 |publisher=John Wiley and Sons |location=New York |isbn=9780471159636 |access-date=27 June 2020 |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=UVBzFDrpBwYC}}</ref>

{|class="wikitable sortable" style="margin:.5em auto"
|-
!scope="col"| Language<br /> phylum
!scope="col"| Who?
!scope="col"| What?
!scope="col"| Water
!scope="col"| Hair
!scope="col"| Smell / Nose	
|-
! scope="row" style="text-align:left" | [[Nilo-Saharan languages|Nilo-Saharan]]
| *na || *de || *nki || *sum || *t͡ʃona 
|-
! scope="row" style="text-align:left" | [[Afroasiatic languages|Afroasiatic]]
| *k(w) || *ma || *ak’ʷa || *somm || *suna
|-
! scope="row" style="text-align:left" | [[Dravidian languages|Dravidian]]
| *yāv || *yā || *nīru || *pūṭa || *čuṇṭu 
|-
! scope="row" style="text-align:left" | [[Eurasiatic languages|Eurasiatic]]
| *kʷi || *mi || *akʷā || *punče || *snā
|-
! scope="row" style="text-align:left" | [[Dené–Caucasian languages|Dené–Caucasian]]
| *kʷi || *ma || *ʔoχʷa || *t<sup>ʃ</sup>ām || *suŋ
|-
! scope="row" style="text-align:left" | [[Indo-Pacific languages|Indo-Pacific]]
| &nbsp;|| *mina || *okho || *utu || *sɨnna
|-
! scope="row" style="text-align:left" | [[Amerind languages|Amerind]]
| *kune || *mana || *akwā || *summe || *čuna
|- class="sortbottom"
| colspan="6" | ''Source:''.<ref name="ruhlen1994" />{{rp|103}} The symbol ''V'' stands for "a vowel whose precise character is unknown" (ib. 105).
|}

Based on these correspondences, Ruhlen<ref name="ruhlen1994" />{{rp|105}} lists these roots for the ancestor language:

*''*ku'' = 'who'
*''*ma'' = 'what'
*''*akʷa'' = 'water'
*''*sum'' = 'hair'
*''*čuna'' = 'nose, smell'

Selected items from Bengtson's and Ruhlen's (1994) list of 27 "global etymologies":<ref name="bengtson-ruhlen-1994" />

:{| class="wikitable sortable"
! No. !! Root !! Gloss
|-
| 4 || *čun(g)a || 'nose; to smell'
|-
| 10 || *ku(n) || 'who?'
|-
| 26 || *tsuma || 'hair'
|-
| 27 || *ʔaq'wa || 'water'
|}

===Syntax===

There are competing theories about the [[Linguistic typology#Dominant order|basic word order]] of the hypothesized Proto-Human. These usually assume subject-initial ordering because it is the most common globally. [[Derek Bickerton]] proposes [[Subject–verb–object word order|SVO]] (subject-verb-object) because this word order (like its mirror [[Object–verb–subject word order|OVS]]) helps differentiate between the subject and object in the absence of evolved [[Case marker|case markers]] by separating them with the verb.<ref>{{cite book |last=Bickerton |first=Derek |author-link=Derek Bickerton |date=1981 |title=Roots of Language |url=https://library.oapen.org/handle/20.500.12657/32840 |location=Ann Arbor |publisher=Karoma |page= |hdl=20.500.12657/32840 |isbn=9783946234104}}</ref>

By contrast, [[Thomas Givon|Talmy Givón]] hypothesizes that Proto-Human had [[Subject–object–verb word order|SOV]] (subject-object-verb), based on the observation that many old languages (e.g., [[Sanskrit]] and [[Latin]]) had dominant SOV, but the proportion of SVO has increased over time. On such a basis, it is suggested that human languages are shifting globally from the original SOV to the modern SVO. Givón bases his theory on the empirical claim that word-order change mostly results in SVO and never in SOV.<ref>{{cite book |last=Givón |first=Talmy |author-link=Thomas Givón |date=1979 |title=On Understanding Grammar |url= |location=Cambridge, MA |publisher=Academic Press |page= |isbn=978-0-12-285451-4}}</ref>

Exploring Givón's idea in their 2011 paper, [[Murray Gell-Mann]] and [[Merritt Ruhlen]] stated that shifts to SOV are also attested. However, when these are excluded, the data indeed supported Givón's claim. The authors justified the exclusion by pointing out that the shift to SOV is unexceptionally a matter of borrowing the order from a neighboring language. Moreover, they argued that, since many languages have already changed to SVO, a new trend towards VSO and VOS ordering has arisen.<ref>{{Cite journal |last1=Gell-Mann |first1=Murray |last2=Ruhlen |first2=Merritt |date=2011 |title=The origin and evolution of word order |journal=Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America |volume=108 |issue=42 |pages=17290–17295 |bibcode=2011PNAS..10817290G |doi=10.1073/pnas.1113716108 |pmc=3198322 |pmid=21987807 |doi-access=free}}</ref>  

[[Harald Hammarström]] reanalysed the data. In contrast to such claims, he found that a shift to SOV is in every case the most common type, suggesting that there is, rather, an unchanged universal tendency towards SOV regardless of the way that languages change and that the relative increase of SVO is a historical effect of European colonialism.<ref>{{cite web |url=https://www.eva.mpg.de/fileadmin/content_files/linguistics/conferences/2015-diversity-linguistics/Hammarstroem_slides.pdf |title=The Basic Word Order Typology: An Exhaustive Study |last=Hammarström |first=Harald |date=2015 |website=www.eva.mpg.de |publisher=Max Planck Institute |access-date=2023-05-02 |quote= |archive-date=2022-08-11 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20220811222639/https://www.eva.mpg.de/fileadmin/content_files/linguistics/conferences/2015-diversity-linguistics/Hammarstroem_slides.pdf |url-status=bot: unknown }}</ref>

== Criticism ==

Many linguists reject the methods used to determine these forms. Several areas of criticism are raised with the methods Ruhlen and Gell-Mann employed. The essential basis of these criticisms is that the words being compared do not show common ancestry; the reasons for this vary. One is [[onomatopoeia]]: for example, the suggested root for ''smell'' listed above, *''čuna'', may simply be a result of many languages employing an onomatopoeic word that sounds like sniffing, snuffling, or smelling. Another is the [[taboo]] quality of certain words. [[Lyle Campbell]] points out that many established proto-languages do not contain an equivalent word for *''putV'' 'vulva' because of how often such taboo words are replaced in the lexicon, and notes that it "strains credibility to imagine" that a Proto-World form of such a word would survive in many languages.

Using the criteria that Bengtson and Ruhlen employ to find cognates to their proposed roots, Campbell found seven possible matches to their root for woman *''kuna'' in Spanish, including ''cónyuge'' 'wife, spouse', ''chica'' 'girl', and ''cana'' 'old (of a woman)' (adjective). He then goes on to show how what Bengtson and Ruhlen would identify as reflexes of *''kuna'' cannot possibly be related to a Proto-World word for 'woman'. ''Cónyuge'', for example, comes from the Latin root meaning 'to join', so its origin had nothing to do with the word 'woman'; ''chica'' is related to a Latin word meaning 'insignificant thing'; ''cana'' comes from the Latin word for 'white', and again shows a history unrelated to the word for 'woman'.<ref>Campbell & Poser (2008:370–372)</ref> Campbell asserts that these types of problems are endemic to the methods used by Ruhlen and others.

Some linguists question the very possibility of tracing language elements so far back into the past. Campbell notes that given the time elapsed since the origin of human language, every word from that time would have been replaced or changed beyond recognition in all languages today. Campbell harshly criticizes efforts to reconstruct a Proto-Human language, saying: "the search for global etymologies is at best a hopeless waste of time, at worst an embarrassment to linguistics as a discipline, unfortunately confusing and misleading to those who might look to linguistics for understanding in this area".<ref>Campbell & Poser (2008:393)</ref>

==See also==
* [[Adamic language]]
* [[Borean languages]]
* [[Linguistic monogenesis and polygenesis]]
* [[Linguistic universals]]
* [[List of languages by first written accounts]]
* [[List of proto-languages]]
* [[Origin of language]]
* [[Origin of speech]]
* [[Recent African origin of modern humans]]
* [[Universal grammar]]

==References==
===Notes===
{{Reflist}}
{{Reflist|group="notes"}}

===Sources===
{{refbegin|2}}
* Bengtson, John D. 2007. [http://jdbengt.net/articles/fossilwords.pdf "On fossil dinosaurs and fossil words"].
* Campbell, Lyle, and William J. Poser. 2008. ''Language Classification: History and Method''. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
* {{cite journal |last1=Edgar |first1=Blake |title=Letter from South Africa |journal=Archaeology |date=March–April 2008 |volume=61 |issue=2 |url=http://www.archaeology.org/0803/abstracts/letter.html |access-date=5 November 2018 |archive-date=28 December 2012 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20121228001741/http://www.archaeology.org/0803/abstracts/letter.html |url-status=dead }}
* Gell-Mann, Murray and Merritt Ruhlen. 2003. [http://www.nostratic.ru/books/(254)gell-ruhlen-syntax.pdf "The origin and evolution of syntax"]{{dead link|date=January 2025|bot=medic}}{{cbignore|bot=medic}}. (Also: [http://www.nostratic.ru/books/(254)gell-ruhlen-syntax.pdf HTML version]{{dead link|date=January 2025|bot=medic}}{{cbignore|bot=medic}}.)
* Givón, Talmy. 1979. ''On Understanding Grammar''. New York: Academic Press.
* Greenberg, Joseph. 1963. [https://web.archive.org/web/20100920162920/http://ling.kgw.tu-berlin.de/Korean/Artikel02/ "Some universals of grammar with particular reference to the order of meaningful elements"]. In ''Universals of Language'', edited by Joseph Greenberg, Cambridge: MIT Press, pp.&nbsp;58–90. (In second edition of ''Universals of Language'', 1966: pp.&nbsp;73–113.)
* Greenberg, Joseph H. 1966. ''The Languages of Africa'', revised edition. Bloomington: Indiana University Press. (Published simultaneously at The Hague by Mouton & Co.)
* Greenberg, Joseph H. 1971. "The Indo-Pacific hypothesis". Reprinted in Joseph H. Greenberg, ''Genetic Linguistics: Essays on Theory and Method'', edited by William Croft, Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2005.
* Greenberg, Joseph H. 2000–2002. ''Indo-European and Its Closest Relatives: The Eurasiatic Language Family. Volume 1: Grammar. Volume 2: Lexicon''. Stanford: Stanford University Press.
* Klein, Richard G. and Blake Edgar. 2002. ''The Dawn of Human Culture''. New York: John Wiley and Sons.
* {{cite journal | last1 = McDougall | first1 = Ian | last2 = Brown | first2 = Francis H. | last3 = Fleagle | first3 = John G. | year = 2005 | title = Stratigraphic placement and age of modern humans from Kibish, Ethiopia | journal = Nature | volume = 433 | issue = 7027 | pages = 733–736 | doi = 10.1038/nature03258 | pmid = 15716951 | bibcode = 2005Natur.433..733M | s2cid = 1454595 | url = http://doc.rero.ch/record/15078/files/PAL_E2238.pdf }}
* Nandi, Owi Ivar. 2012. ''Human Language Evolution, as Coframed by Behavioral and Psychological Universalisms'', Bloomington: iUniverse Publishers.
* Wells, Spencer. 2007. ''Deep Ancestry: Inside the Genographic Project''. Washington, D.C.: National Geographic.
* {{cite journal | last1 = White | first1 = Tim D. | last2 = Asfaw | first2 = B. | last3 = DeGusta | first3 = D. | last4 = Gilbert | first4 = H. | last5 = Richards | first5 = G.D. | last6 = Suwa | first6 = G. | last7 = Howell | first7 = F.C. | year = 2003 | title = Pleistocene ''Homo sapiens'' from Middle Awash, Ethiopia | journal = Nature | volume = 423 | issue = 6941| pages = 742–747 | doi=10.1038/nature01669| pmid = 12802332 | bibcode = 2003Natur.423..742W | s2cid = 4432091 }}
{{refend}}

==External links==
* [http://www.friesian.com/trees.htm "Genetic Distance and Language Affinities Between Autochthonous Human Populations"]
* Babaev, Kirill. 2008. [https://web.archive.org/web/20100826010439/http://www.nostratic.ru/index.php?page=8 "Critics of the Nostratic theory"], in ''[https://web.archive.org/web/20100323195513/http://www.nostratic.ru/index.php?page=main Nostratica: Resources on Distant Language Relationship]''.

{{Long-range comparative linguistics}}

{{DEFAULTSORT:Proto-Human Language}}
[[Category:Proto-languages|Human]]
[[Category:Middle Stone Age]]
[[Category:Linguistic theories and hypotheses]]
[[Category:Evolution of language]]
[[Category:Linguistic universals]]
[[Category:Long-range comparative linguistics]]