Pseudolinguistics

{{bronze}}{{pseudosciencenav}}{{langnav}}
'''Pseudolinguistics''' is the study of [[language]] in a way that falls short of [[academic]] rigor. It is the [[linguistics|linguistic]] cousin of the [[pseudoscience|pseudoscientific]] family. Of course, pseudolinguistics has strong ties with other fields such as [[pseudohistory]] and [[pseudoarcheology]].

== Basics of linguistics ==
In linguistics, the [[comparative method]] is the accepted method to show that languages are related. Related languages should descend from a definite proto-language, and the daughter languages should have words that transform according to definite sound laws from this proto-language. For example, in Uralic languages, the Proto-Uralic language split into at least two subgroups called Finnic and Ugric, where each 'p' in Finnic is replaced by 'f' in Ugric, e.g. Finnish '''''p'''ata'' corresponds to Hungarian '''''f'''azék''.

In contrast, pseudolinguists usually fail to use the comparative method, relying on false or folk etymologies, spurious similarities, various other kinds of pseudoscience (such as [[Racialism|racialist]] arguments), or flat-out [[PIDOOMA|wild speculation]].

==Pseudolinguistic methods==
The root of much pseudolinguistics derives from a faulty methodology. A typical pseudolinguistic language family claim will show a list of vaguely-similar words with vaguely-similar meanings in both languages. As the Zompist has already eloquently torn apart such claims,<ref name="zompist">[http://www.zompist.com/chance.htm How likely are chance resemblances between languages?] Zompist 2002</ref> there is no need for debunking them here. 
===Glottochronology===
{{cquote| Glottochronology must be about the only scientific technique where the accuracy of
one’s results is enhanced by the removal rather than the augmentation of data!|||{{wpl|Douglas Q. Adams|Douglas Adams}} and J.P Mallory<ref name="m&a">Mallory, J.P; Adams, D.Q. (2006). ''The Oxford Introduction to Proto-Indo-European and the Proto-Indo-European World.'' Oxford, England: Oxford University Press.ISBN 978-0-19-929668-2.</ref>{{rp|95}}}}
'''Glottochronology''', also called '''lexicostatistics''', is a method of estimating the date of divergence between two languages. It involves the comparison of several languages' basic vocabulary and then deriving a date of diversion. In some ways, glottochronology can be compared to [[genetic]] analyses or [[carbon dating]]. Glottochronology was invented by historical linguist Morris Swadesh in the 1950s.<ref name=Campbell2>{{Cite book |last=Campbell |first=Lyle |url=http://dx.doi.org/10.1515/9781474463133 |title=Historical Linguistics |date=2020-12-31 |publisher=Edinburgh University Press |isbn=978-1-4744-6313-3}}</ref>{{rp|427-8}} 

Glottochronology rests on the following assumptions:<ref name=Campbell2/>{{rp|423, 426-7}}
#That there is a basic vocabulary that is culture-free. This is assembled into a '''Swadesh list''', a list of 100 (originally 200) words. These words include names for various body parts, basic verbs, colors, taxonomic terms like "fish", "bird" or "tree", various pronoun forms, [[Sun]], [[Moon]], [[Star]], and geographic terms like "mountain".<ref group=note>For the full list, or rather lists, see the Wikipedia article on {{wpl|Swadesh list}}</ref>
#That this basic, culture-free vocabulary is lost at a rate of 14% every thousand years.{{efn|One can also view this an 86% vocabulary retention rate.}}
#That this rate is constant across languages
#That one can compute the time of divergence between two languages when the amount of basic vocabulary cognates between them becomes known.

Unfortunately, these assumptions are flawed:
*A lot of items on the Swadesh list such as "person" are not actually culture-free or are easily borrowable.<ref name=Campbell2/>{{rp|429}} Additionally, languages can have multiple words that each fit the meanings on the Swadesh list. Conversely, some languages have no equivalent words on the Swadesh list (colors are especially susceptible to this).<ref name=Campbell2/>{{rp|429-30}} Words can also be changed for cultural reasons or plain taboo.<ref name=Campbell2/>{{rp|430-1}}
*The 86% retention rate is challenged by comparing English and Icelandic. Icelandic retained 97.3% of its basic vocabulary while English only retained 67.8%. The wide gap severely reduces confidences in the 86% number.<ref name=Campbell2/>{{rp|431}} 
*Borrowings from related languages would skew the date of splitting forwards.<ref name=Campbell2/>{{rp|431-2}}

===Other methods===
{{wpl|Mass comparison||,}} like the comparative method, assembles a list of proposed cognates between a large number of languages. Unlike the comparative method, it relies only on superficial similarities between languages and ignores the possibility of [[coincidence]]s or {{wpl|Loanword|borrowings|.}} This makes results derived from it more error-prone, and connections between languages derived from it less trustworthy. <ref name=Campbell>{{Cite book |last= Campbell |first= Lyle |url= https://www.worldcat.org/oclc/263493207 |title= Language classification : history and method |date= 2008 |publisher= Cambridge University Press |others= William John Poser |isbn= 978-0-511-41450-3 |location= Cambridge, UK}}</ref>{{rp|168-172, 202-3}} This method has been used by Joseph Greenberg, John Bengtson and Merritt Ruhlen ''et al.'' to argue for their far-reaching macrofamilies and for proto-world.

Other faulty methods of deriving linguistics connections come from non-linguistic sources, like [[genetics]]. These proposals are invalid for several reasons:<ref name=Campbell/>{{rp|206}}
*A person can learn multiple languages while only having one set of genes their entire lives.{{efn|There are instances of a person having two different genotypes,<ref>{{wpa|Human chimera}}</ref> but these are rare and present from birth.}}
*Individuals and communities can abandon one language and adopt another.

==Pseudolinguistic comparisons==
Many [[Nationalism|nationalists]] [[Nationalist pseudohistory|of various stripes]] like to make up family relationships between languages or language families and then claim the newly discovered kin as a part of their nation. For example, a [[Turkey|Turkish]] linguist might claim that the Finno-Ugric languages are related to Turkish and that therefore the [[Finland|Finns]] are actually Turks (for [[Tribalism|some reason]], you'll rarely hear it the other way around, that my language is related to your language and therefore my people don't exist but are members of your people. This is because of egocentrism. To combat them, just ask them if they believe Germans are Iranian.). This may be why it's popular for [[nationalist]]s across much of Eurasia to claim their country or region was the [[Proto-Indo-European]] homeland.<ref>{{wpa|Proto-Indo-Europeans}}</ref>

Language isolates (i.e. languages not demonstrably related to any others, such as Basque, Ainu, or many [[Native American]] languages), extinct ancient language of some long-gone civilization (Sumerian, Egyptian, etc.), and languages perceived as sacred (Hebrew, Sanskrit) are popular choices for pseudolinguistic comparison and claims. 

===Spurious connections===
Some Mormon apologists claim that the Native American Uto-Aztecan languages are linked in some way to the Semitic languages, a supposed ground-breaking discovery that has attracted little attention in the wider linguistics sphere. The supposed language of the [[Book of Mormon]] (considered by non-Mormons to be [[PIDOOMA|a fabrication]]), "Reformed Egyptian" is also nonsense.<ref>[https://bookofmormoncentral.org/blog/the-who-what-and-why-of-reformed-egyptian-in-the-book-of-mormon "The Who, What, and Why of 'Reformed Egyptian' in the Book of Mormon"], Book of Mormon Central, May 13, 2019</ref>

Joseph Yahuda in his book ''Hebrew is Greek'' claimed that he was able to break a [[Cryptography|cypher]], enabling him to prove that ancient [[Hebrew]] and ancient Greek are the same language, and demonstrating that "the Hebrews were of Hellenic descent, and that the Arabs were of Hittite (Scythian) origin; that they were both intimately related to the Greeks by religion and custom…"<ref>''Hebrew is Greek'' by Joseph Yahuda 1982) Becket Publications. {{isbn|0728900130}}.</ref> This is despite the [[Scientific consensus|consensus]] view among linguists that Greek and Hittite are in the [[Indo-European languages|Indo-European language family]],<ref>{{wpa|Indo-European languages}}</ref> and that Hebrew and Arabic are in the Afroasiatic language family.<ref>{{wpa|Afroasiatic languages}}</ref>
 
Some other languages and families that have been connected include:
*Celtic and {{wpl|Amazigh}} (this idea is quite popular in some circles in France).{{efn|There is some speculation suggesting a Celto-Semitic Sprachbund,<ref>Orin Gensler. A Typological Evaluation of Celtic/Hamito-Semitic Parallels. Berkeley, 1993. Via Librik. [https://linguistics.stackexchange.com/questions/335/are-there-other-pairs-of-languages-that-are-as-close-grammatically-despite-not-b/346#346 Answer to "Are there other pairs of languages that are as close grammatically despite not being in the same language family as Korean and Japanese?"]. Linguistics Stack Exchange, 2011-09-21. Accessed 2014-02-02.</ref><ref>Steve Hewitt. "[http://www.academia.edu/283231/Remarks_on_the_Insular_Celtic_Hamito-Semitic_question Remarks on the Insular Celtic / Hamito-Semitic question]". Academia.edu. Accessed 2014-03-25. Believed to be preprint of Hewitt, S. (2009), The Question of a Hamito-Semitic Substratum in Insular Celtic. Language and Linguistics Compass, 3: 972–995. doi: 10.1111/j.1749-818X.2009.00141.x.</ref> but not much more.}}
*{{wpl|Basque language#Hypotheses concerning Basque's connections to other languages|Basque and a bunch of other languages}}. This is particularly common with apparent linguistic isolates.
*Some [[Romania]]n nationalists advance the 
theory
 idea that Latin [[Protochronism|is actually a dialect of Dacian.]] 
*Native American tribes speak or spoke [[Welsh Indians|Welsh]], [[1421 theory|Chinese]], or [[Juan Moricz|Hungarian]]. Proponents of these ideas may appeal to assertions in historical documents, avoiding the more obvious route of juxtaposing texts in the supposedly identical languages in question, even if the languages are still alive or at least have reasonably sized bodies of texts available for comparison. A milder version of this is the idea that certain Native American languages [[The Viking and the Red Man|have countless words from Old Norse.]]
*Various theories about [[Picts|Pictish]], now generally considered P-Celtic (or Gallo-Brittonic).

===Macrofamilies===
{{hatnote|See also: [[Indo-European languages#Proposed external relations]]}}
One step up from nationalistic language family connections in terms of scope (and sometimes scholarly backing and rigor) are '''macro-families''', which compare many language families and isolates. 
*Altaic holds that the {{wpl|Turkic}}, {{wpl|Mongolic}}, and {{wpl|Tungusic}} language families are related. Occasionally the [[Korea|Koreanic]] and [[Japan|Japonic]] languages are included as part of a broader "Macro-Altaic" family with the other three being "Micro-Altaic". Even more rarely {{wpl|Ainu language|Ainu}} is included.<ref name=Campbell/>{{rp|235}} Many of the proposed cognates may not be cognates, but borrowings<ref name=Campbell/>{{rp|238}} and many of its proposed characteristics are typologically common, such as vowel harmony, or can be distributed areally.<ref name=Campbell/>{{rp|240}} Because of the way Altaicists handle evidence, like their ignorance of the sociopolitical and cultural history of languages,<ref name="vovin"/>{{rp|75-6}} reliance on wordlists and dictionaries instead of looking at texts,<ref name="vovin"/>{{rp|76}} lack of regular phonological correspondence between proposed cognates,<ref name="vovin"/>{{rp|76-7}} treatment of {{wpl|ghost words}},<ref name="vovin"/>{{rp|77-8}} treatment of loanwords,<ref name="vovin"/>{{rp|84-5}} stretching of the semantics of compared words,<ref name="vovin"/>{{rp|81-3}} and occasional misrepresentation of data<ref name="vovin"/>{{rp|78-80}} it has been called a cult by at least one former supporter.{{efn|
From Alexander Vovin's extremely snarky review of the book ''Etymological Dictionary of the Altaic Languages'' (EDAL):<ref name="vovin">{{cite journal |last=Vovin |first=Alexander |year=2005 |title=The end of the Altaic controversy (review of Starostin et al. 2003) |journal=Central Asiatic Journal |volume=49 |issue=1 |pages=71–132 }}</ref>{{rp|123}}

{{quotebox|The only tangible explanation for everything that can be seen in EDAL in that respect, is that the Altaic hypothesis at least in its Moscow version became a set of beliefs highly reminiscent of a religion. However, religion and science cannot coexist, because the first is based on faith, while the second seeks the explanation of the facts that are in need of explanation. EDAL does not explain these facts, it simply creates the "evidence" for the pre-existing belief that is, of course, non-evidence.}} }} Ural-Altaic (which actually predates Altaic proper)<ref name=Campbell/>{{rp|237-8}} combines Altaic and {{wpl|Uralic}}, and thus inherits most of the problems of the former.

*Nostratic has many varied forms. In the form proposed by Vladislav "Slava" Illich-Svitych, who originated the hypothesis,{{efn|Nostracists have been accused of revering Illich-Svitych in an almost [[cult of personality|cult-like way]]:<ref name="personal">{{cite book |last=Campbell |first=Lyle |chapter=Nostratic: A Personal Assessment |date=1998 |title=Nostratic |pages=107-152 |url=http://dx.doi.org/10.1075/cilt.142.08cam |access-date=2024-05-15 |place=Amsterdam |publisher =John Benjamins Publishing Company}}</ref>{{rp|108, 121}}
{{quotebox|Vladislav Markovich ("Slava") Illich-Svitych (1934–1966), henceforth IS, is highly revered by many who work with Nostratic, particularly by scholars from the ex-Soviet Union. IS is largely credited for launching the Nostratic hypothesis and for assembling much of the evidence upon which it is based. While the reverence is commendable, at times there appears to be almost a Slava cult, that is, an emotional attachment to all that IS wrote such that any attempt to move beyond it or to refine it — and heaven forbid to criticize it —, is simply rejected out of hand by those who share these sentiments (cf. Bulatova 1989, Dybo 1989a, Manaster Ramer 1993:228–231). This is the "style and sociology that always seem to loom large in any discussions of the Nostratic hypothesis", "the excessive veneration of Illich-Svitych's memory and the defensiveness about just about every aspect of his theory" about which Manaster Ramer (1993:228, 230) wrote. For example, one suspects there is something of the Slava cult lying behind the very critical reactions from various Nostraticists towards Bomhard's (1984, 1986, 1990, cf. also Bomhard & Kerns 1994) alternative view of Nostratic (see Kaiser & Shevoroshkin 1987, Markey & Shevoroshkin 1986:xxxii–xxxiv). The very strongly worded polemic from the very dedicated among the former Soviet inner circle of Nostraticists has often been observed (cf. Kaye 1989:223, Manaster Ramer 1993).}} 

Campbell later describes an incident where a Nostraticist uses an obsolete reconstruction of Proto-Finno-Ugric, because Illich-Svitych used it:<ref name="personal"/>{{rp|120-1}}
{{quotebox|I suspect that there is something of the "Slava" cult lying behind Dybo's remarks. The thinking would appear to go something like the following.  Since IS used these earlier Uralic sources, others not yet being available to him, and since they are for this reason deeply interwoven into IS's Nostratic reconstructions, and since these are held by the very dedicated to be absolutely correct, then the Uralic forms upon which IS relied must be valid by implication, given the asserted correctness of IS's Nostratic achievement.}}
}} it included: Dravidian, Altaic, Kartvelian, Afroasiatic, Uralic, and Indo-European.<ref name=Campbell/>{{rp|243}} A different version proposed by Allan Bomhard includes Indo-European, Afroasiatic, Uralic-Yukaghir, Elamo-Dravidian, Altaic, and possibly Sumerian.<ref name=Campbell/>{{rp|243}} There is a wide variety of families included or excluded from Nostratic, so it may not make sense to speak of Nostratic as a single hypothesis. A similar hypothesis proposed by Joseph Greenberg is Eurasiatic. It includes Indo-European, Uralic, Yukaghir, Altaic, Ainu, Korean, Japanese, {{wpl|Nivkh}}, {{wpl|Chukotko-Kamchatkan}}, and Eskimo-Aleut. It was meant to be a competing hypothesis, but includes numerous families that have at various times been thought to be Nostratic.<ref name=Campbell/>{{rp|243-4}} Allan Bomhard's version of Nostratic includes a different reconstruction of Proto-Indo-European with the Glottalic hypothesis, where traditionally reconstructed ''b'', ''d'', ''g'' are instead ''p' '', ''t' '', ''k' ''. This means his version includes different cognates than Nostracists who use the traditional reconstructions.<ref name=Campbell/>{{rp|244}}

===Proto-World===
An even bigger step in scope, '''Proto-World''', or '''Proto-Human''', is the hypothetical ancestor of all languages today. While the idea that all living human languages go back to a common ancestor has merit, claims to have reconstructed what it looked like do not. Reconstructions of Proto-World typically use the following methodology:<ref name=Campbell/>{{rp|368}} 
{{quotebox|
A. Ignore vowels entirely: Any vowel matches any other vowel

B. For consonants, roughly similar places of articulation suffices to match cognates [though non-initial consonants are sometimes allowed drastic differences]. Minor place changes are acceptable: velars match uvulars, palatals, etc. Other features play no role whatsoever, so that oral stops correspond to nasals, etc.

C. Any differences in place which parallel widely attested sound changes such as lenition are acceptable, so that any consonant can be reflected by [h]

D. In semantics, any narrowing or any metaphorical extension is acceptable without further justification (such as cultural or historical arguments), so that 'dog' corresponds to 'fox, lynx, deer' etc. and 'arm' to 'elbow/hand, fingernail, foot, armpit, shoulder/arm,' and so forth.}} 

This methodology creates the potential for numerous false cognates. *''kuna'' "woman", one of the most commonly cited examples of a supposed Proto-World word, exemplifies these problems:<ref name=Campbell/>{{rp|369}} 
*The initial k sound can be "k, k', g, x, q, x, h, w, b, ž, ʔ, č etc." 
*The final n sound can be "n, r, m, ã, w?, ʔ, and ∅ etc."
*The words to support the existence of *''kuna'' have a variety of meanings: "‘wife,’ ‘woman,’ ‘lady,’ ‘mother,’ ‘female’ (of any species), ‘spirit of dead woman,’ ‘girl,’ ‘daughter,’ ‘maiden,’ ‘daughter-in-law,’ ‘small girl,’ ‘young woman,’ ‘old woman,’ etc." 

Lyle Campbell and William Poser found that numerous Spanish words with known etymologies and histories fit the patterns established by *''kuna''.<ref name=Campbell/>{{rp|370}} 

Reconstructions of Proto-World face one major problem: After 6000 years, two languages are expected to share only 7% of their words. After 14000 years, nearly all of a language's basic vocabulary can be expected to change. This would make it very difficult to find true cognates even in situations where it is known that two languages are related (such as Hindi and English).<ref name=Campbell/> {{rp|380-6}} At the time depths Proto-World is presumed to have existed, there is more than enough time for this to have happened several times.

====In nationalism====
{{main|Nationalist pseudohistory#Similar words prove we speak the master language}}
Many nationalists like to claim that the language they speak was Proto-World. Some of the languages that been claimed to be Proto-World include [[Sanskrit]], [[Hebrew]], [[Ireland|Gaelic]],<ref>{{wpa|Goídel Glas}}</ref> Tamil<ref name ="Tamil">{{wpa|Devaneya Pavanar}}</ref>, Guarani{{efn|One article<ref>[http://www.cricyt.edu.ar/multequina/indice/pdf/02/2_14.pdf El guarani].</ref> ostensibly about computational analysis of the Guarani lexicon quickly devolves into comparisons between Guarani, Sanskrit, and Ancient Greek. It concludes that Guarani must be Proto-World, unchanged for thousands of years:
{{quotebox|It is undoubtedly true that Guarani does not descend from any language; it merely sprang up naturally from observation of the world that surrounds us.}}
and 
{{quotebox|How is it that [Guarani did not] stray from its roots over the centuries?}}

There is a mention of Homer's "Eurythmy", with the Greek letters having certain meanings, such as ''A'' meaning "clear, open" and ''I'' meaning "thin, small", among other cited examples: 
{{quotebox|These values, these gestures of the letters, do not coincide with any language besides Greek, yet we are astonished to find that they are exactly the same in Guarani. [...] We would say that one could invent words, based on Homer's descriptions and Eurythmy, which would then be perfectly understandable to any speaker of Guarani.}}

It bizarrely asserts that Guarani is so logical that it resembles an artificial language like Esperanto ([http://jbr.me.uk/ranto/ !]) more than it does a natural one.
}}, [[Protochronism|Romanian]], and [[Netherlands|Dutch]].<ref>{{wpa|Johannes Goropius Becanus}}</ref> The [[Turkish nationalism|Sun Language Theory]] claims that language was invented by the Turks as a way to convert ritual blathering into a means of meaningful communication. This "theory" was promoted by the [[Turkey|Turkish]] government under [[Mustafa Kemal Atatürk|Atatürk]] in the 1930s.

A particularly stupid example is Valery Chudinov.<ref>[https://archive.is/bawdB Чудинов]. Archived from lurkmore.to.</ref> He concluded that Russians are more ancient than most civilizations by "[[Apophenia|noticing]]" monosyllabic Russian words enscribed on ancient artifacts, the ocean floor, the [[ancient astronauts|sun's surface]] and drying plaster. 

Occasionally, a lost continent like [[Mu]], [[Lemuria]], or [[Atlantis]] is invoked to explain how a language family spread.<ref>[https://io9.gizmodo.com/everything-you-need-to-know-about-lemuria-the-lost-con-1624866897 Everything You Need To Know About Lemuria, The Lost Continent Of Lemurs]</ref> Tamil has at one point been claimed to have spoken on the lost continent of Lemuria.<ref name ="Tamil"/>

====Adamic====
There is a religious form of proto-world called the "{{wpl|Adamic language||}}", allegedly spoken by all of mankind before the abandonment of the [[Tower of Babel]]. In the Middle Ages, perceptive scholars identified Basque as the Adamic language, as it was one of the few known languages clearly not related to any other language. 

Of course, the other candidate for Adamic is Hebrew. Isaac Mozeson created something he calls "Edenics", which purports to trace all languages to old Hebrew by ignoring vowels and permuting consonants.<ref>[http://forward.com/culture/187585/did-adam-and-eve-speak-hebrew-in-the-garden-of-ede/ Did Adam and Eve Speak Hebrew in the Garden of Eden?] Philologos (certainly a pseudonym), ''Forward'' 17 November 2013</ref>

===Spurious disconnections===
At the opposite end of spurious linguistics connections, some people like to claim that that a language ''isn't'' related to another: 

*[[India]]n nationalists claim that Indian [[Indo-European languages]] are actually unrelated to European languages and that the language family was created as an excuse for European [[colonialism]]. Their claims may stem from the fact that the man who coined the term Indo-European, one {{wpl|William_Jones_(philologist)|Sir William Jones}}, was a British colonial judge and philologist who made the observation that Sanskrit, Latin, and Greek share word roots and so paved the way for the field of [[comparative method|comparative linguistics]].<ref>[https://www.britannica.com/science/comparative-linguistics Comparative Linguistics] Britannica, T. Editors of Encyclopaedia (2011, November 23.) ''Encyclopedia Britannica.''</ref><ref>[https://play.google.com/store/books/details?id=mNk_5vKDvj8C&rdid=book-mNk_5vKDvj8C&rdot=1 Discourses Delivered Before the Asiatic Society: And Miscellaneous Papers, on the Religion, Poetry, Literature, Etc., of the Nations of India] by Sir William Jones, accessed October 14, 2021. ''Google Play Books''</ref> The nationalists are in some ways as wrong-minded about Indian Indo-European languages being unrelated to European languages as Jones was right about a great many things.
*Modern [[Hebrew]] has been claimed to not be a Semitic language, and that it is instead a Yiddish based creole of some sort, or a constructed language.<ref group=note>This does not include the claim that Hebrew was revived in the 19th and 20th century, {{wpl|Revival of the Hebrew language|because that is indeed true}}.</ref>
*At least one book alleges that the Romance languages are [[Le français ne vient pas du latin|not descended from]] [[Latin]].
* Some [[Hungary|Hungarian]] nationalists believe that the Hungarian language is actually related to various non-Uralic languages, such as Hunnic{{efn|What is preserved of the {{wpl|Hunnic language}} are some proper names and three common words, all three believed to be [[Indo-European languages|Indo-European]] borrowings. The idea that Hungarian is related to Hunnic is therefore absolutely untestable on linguistic grounds.}} or Sumerian.<ref>[http://www.butterfliesandwheels.org/2004/a-paradigm-shift-in-finnish-linguistic-prehistory/ A ‘Paradigm Shift’ in Finnish Linguistic Prehistory] Merlijn de Smit 22 august 2004</ref><ref>[http://www.huffingtonpost.com/john-feffer/the-hungarian-horseradish_b_5153419.html The Hungarian Horseradish] John Feffer ''Huffpost'' 15 april 2014</ref> Usually mixed with [[conspiracy theories]] (Like claiming "the Finno-Ugric theory was pushed by the Hapsburgs"<ref>Johanna Laakso, [https://archive.is/YF3r Linguistic Shadow-boxing]. Archived from univie.ac.at.</ref><ref>[http://www.hunmagyar.org/tor/controve.htm The controversy on the origins and early history of the Hungarians]. hunmagyar.org.</ref> or the Bolsheviks),<ref name ="LHI">{{Cite book |title=Language, history, ideology: the use and misuse of historical-comparative linguistics |date=2024 |publisher=Oxford University Press |isbn=978-0-19-882789-4 |editor-last=Hamans |editor-first=Camiel | |editor-last2=Hock |editor-first2=Hans Henrich |location=New York }}</ref>{{rp|15}} [[wishful thinking]], and [[national mysticism]]. This idea is usually predicated by charlatans with expensive books.

==Miscellaneous pseudolinguistics==
===Undeciphered writing systems===
Undeciphered writing systems like Linear A from [[Greece|Crete]] or [[Rongorongo]] attract people who claim to have deciphered them but invariably have not.<ref> ''TimesHigherEducation'' [https://web.archive.org/web/20151121203843/https://www.timeshighereducation.com/features/silent-letters-from-the-past/169332.article Silent letters from the past] 24 May 2002 </ref>

The [[Voynich Manuscript]] also attracts people who claim to have deciphered it, but invariably, they have not.<ref> ''Cipher Mysteries'' [http://www.ciphermysteries.com/the-voynich-manuscript/voynich-theories Voynich Theories] </ref>

===Languages and the mind===
Weak interpretations of the [[Sapir-Whorf hypothesis]] (the concept that language has an effect on how we interpret the world) are considered to be a part of legitimate linguistics. However, many linguists now regard the original proposition of the hypothesis, and stronger interpretations (suggesting that language defines and constrains our thoughts) as pseudolinguistics. (Modern linguistics regards the thought-control through language in ''[[Nineteen Eighty-Four]]'' as impossible.) Related to this are linguistic myths such as the claim that the Inuit have hundreds of words for snow, supposedly reflecting their deep interest in the subject.<ref>[http://www.lel.ed.ac.uk/~gpullum/EskimoHoax.pdf The great Eskimo vocabulary hoax], Geoffrey Pullum</ref>

[[Neurolinguistic programming]] also incorporates some pseudo-linguistic claims.

There is also [[xenoglossy]], the idea that an individual can somehow spontaneously learn a language.

===Religious===
Religion often provides the basis for pseudolinguistics:
*Young-Earth creationists claim that [[Hanzi of Genesis|Chinese characters prove the veracity of the Biblical account of creation]].
*The ideas of [[channelling|channelled]] languages and [[glossolalia]].

===Aliens=== 
Because aliens are not here to comment, anything specific about extraterrestrial languages, i.e. astrolinguistics, is mostly speculation. 

That doesn't stop some people from thinking that [[ancient astronauts]] taught us writing or that dead languages such as Egyptian are in fact descended from alien tongues. Aliens have in all likelihood never visited Earth for much the same reasons that we have not visited them, and if they did, it is highly unlikely their languages would be pronounceable by humans. Think Chewbacca.

Then there's this guy:
{{#ev:youtube|YjpcZPT1-NA|300}}

==Linguistic discrimination==
{{main|Linguistic discrimination}}
Pseudolinguistics has been used a tool to discriminate. Until a few decades ago, the French claimed the regional languages of France were dialects of French<ref>[http://observers.france24.com/en/20120404-speakers-france-endangered-languages-protest-recognition-local-regional-minority-presidential-election Speakers of France’s endangered languages demand recognition]. France24, 4 April 2012.</ref> in the {{wpl|Vergonha}} [[Linguistic discrimination|in an effort to discredit them and weed them out from daily use.]] The French were mostly successful in that effort, as the minority languages ({{wpl|Occitan||,}} {{wpl|Arpitan||,}} {{wpl|Gallo||,}} etc.) are almost extinct today and are kept going only by a special effort of their respective provinces. [[African American Vernacular English]] has also been discriminated against.

==Prescriptivism==
It is a common misconception that your average linguist is a portrait of an old-school English teacher who viscerally reacts to "bad English" as if it were bad breath or a mental illness. A linguist would perhaps ''want'' to hear how you speak naturally – no need to be on your best behavior {{nofact}} 

Real linguistics is about understanding how real people use language, and the chief reference is the language as it is really spoken. In contrast, prescriptivists want to tell people how language should be used, based not on real-life examples but on a variety of bizarre and illogical arguments, including historical arguments, comparison with other languages (usually Latin for English-language prescriptivists), and other [[logical fallacy|logical fallacies]]. Oxford Bibliographies Online says of linguistic prescriptivism: "this ideology and its practices are now usually ascribed to nonlinguists or nonacademic linguists, whereas modern academic linguists ... restrict themselves to the study and description of the structure of language and its natural use."<ref>[https://www.oxfordbibliographies.com/view/document/obo-9780199772810/obo-9780199772810-0208.xml Linguistic Prescriptivism], Robin Straaijer, Oxford Bibliographies Online, 23 Aug 2017</ref>

One common example is the so-called ban on splitting infinitives in English, such as in the phrase "to boldly go" which is considered bad writing by some. These have existed in English at least since the 14th century, but have been criticised by pedants since the Victorian age. Some people say this is based on a comparison with Latin because there is no such thing as a split infinitive in Latin: an infinitive in Latin is a single word, while in English it is two words ("to go"), so it is impossible to split an infinitive in Latin but easy in English. On the other hand, others point out that "go", not "to go", is actually the infinitive in English, and therefore suggest that there's no logic behind the prohibition: most of the infinitive police think it's uneducated or just don't like it.<ref>[https://web.archive.org/web/20190508063823/http://www.arrantpedantry.com/2016/09/08/to-boldly-split-infinitives To Boldly Split Infinitives], Arrant Pedantry, Sep 8, 2016</ref><ref>{{wpa|Split infinitive}}</ref>

==See also==
*[[Linguistics]]
*[[Alphabet]]
*[[Occam's razor]] — the majority of nationalist pseudolinguistics is based around the notion that this doesn't exist
==External links==
*[https://aeon.co/essays/why-is-linguistics-such-a-magnet-for-dilettantes-and-crackpots Why is linguistics such a magnet for dilettantes and crackpots?], Gaston Dorren
*[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Folk_linguistics Folk linguistics] on [[Wikipedia]]
*[http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/The_Works_of_the_Rev._Jonathan_Swift/Volume_16/Of_the_Antiquity_of_the_English_Tongue Of the Antiquity of the English Tongue], a satirical piece by Jonathan Swift

==Notes==
{{reflist|2|group=note}}

==References==
{{reflist|3|80%}}

{{pseudonav}}

[[Category:Pseudoscience]]
[[Category:Language]]
[[Category:Pseudolinguistics| ]]

[[ru:Лингвофричество]]

Categories: Pseudoscience, Language, Pseudolinguistics