German Politician promises to get rid of "Arabic" Numbers if elected

Noboru said:
What does BP mean? 50 000 before Christ? If yes, that's pretty old! Sure it's the same Language and not a proto- or pre- one?

Kuma said:

Before present... it was explaining about geological phenomenon from that era... also yes, it migh be a proto language, but it does passed trough centery and will always being developed so language it self already there.... you might be surprised how much english langauage changed just in span for 500 years... let alone thousand years... however, the relation is still there... language is is not revolution, but evolution... however, we can't actually prove it since too few recorded proof... all of them is conclusion given by comparing it with others...

Fijure said:


I kinda doubt its 50000 years old, that is like reaaaaaaaaaaaaaaally old in this context. As far as I'm aware linguistics has tracked the Austronesian languages back to an origin in Taiwan about 5000 BC, but I've never heard of their origin before the Neolithic Revolution in southern China. Austronesian reached Indonesia with the Austronesian migrations from 3000 BC onwards, where the original populations were displaced, from which the expansions continued to Polynesia.

Noboru said:
@Kuma : Well, that's still fairly old. The Difference between a Proto-Language and a normal Language is, that a Language doesn't have to be evolved directly from the Proto-Language. Take English for Example. It doesn't come directly from Proto-Germanic, but from North Sea Germanic Dialects. Or the modern Romance Languages don't come directly from the Proto-Italic Language, but from its Descendant Latin.

English changed much more between 800 and 1300 than between 1500 and 2000. But English is a special Case, since the Language got errm subdued by French-speaking Men from the North.

Yes, it's a Pity when there aren't many very old written Records in a Language. That's why we use the Comparison Method and going back to the original Topic, Names of Numbers seem to be one of the better Indicators to prove Relationships, since they are among the oldest Words.

Wonder if there is something like a Grimm's Law for Austranesian Languages as well.

Fijure said:
@Kuma

Interesting. The picture I had of the regions history was the population by the australoid people (who can still be found today as the natives of Australia, New Guinea, the Andaman Islands and the Negritos of the Philippines) in the early Stone Age 50000 years ago, but that these only had little relation with the Austronesians who expanded out of Taiwan and gradually replaced / mixed up with them in the millenia after 3000 BC. Though it makes sense that the modern Indonesians would descend from a mix, like how modern Latin Americans descend from a mix of Europeans and Native Americans. I would have thought the Austronesian and Australoid languages were vastly different though.