This link leads to a great deal of information about language dominance, which seems not to be comparison of languages but rather tests of individuals' language skills.

Could anyone expand on the aforsaid or how language dominance is conventionally defined in the linguistic field?

Secondly, how does one go about creating a primordial alphabet and morpheme or grammar distinct from the attested ones?

Could anyone expand on the aforsaid or how language dominance is conventionally defined in the linguistic field?

I would assume that language dominance has to do with a situation where a conqueror or colonizer culture imposed its language on a subjugated people. Cf. Latin during the Roman empire, or Arabic during the spread of Islam. You might want to check out this article.

Secondly, how does one go about creating a primordial alphabet and morpheme or grammar distinct from the attested ones?

I'm not quite sure what your question here is. Are you trying to create an artificial language that does not share so-called universal traits of other extant languages? It's the word primordial which threw me. Most writing systems known to us are descendants from two or three anicent writing systems: Chinese characters, Anicent Semitic alphabet, etc.

I'm wondering, to what extent can an artificial language be an authentic original creation. In its morphology phonemics + semantics. One that developed, primoridaly, and not from an existing language?

There are two kinds of artifical languages (aka conlangs, i.e., constructed languages): a priori, where the grammar and vocabulary are created, and a posteriori, where the vocabulary and grammar are based on existing natural languages. You might look at two of the more famous and popular conlangs, Esperanto and Lojban. The former looks familiar to speakers of most IE languages, but the latter is rather different, though the vocabulary is derived from the world's top 5 languages by a specific method. Another conlang that is popular but really quite strange is Klingon. It was invented by a linguist for the Star Trek motion pictures and TV series. The grammar and the dictionary (one book) of Klingon is considered the IP of Paramount Pictures.

In Shipley's dictionary, when he places for eg. pel I, pel II, pel III, etc... are these roots cognates or roots that sound alike? Should pel I, II, and III be counted as one root or several?

Should pel I, II, and III be counted as one root or several?

If he's following conventional practice, they're homonyms.

Thus far, I've counted, with a slight margin of error, at least, 334 of Shipley's IE-English roots have Irano-Aryan forms. I gather, there are approximately 535 in total. Does his dictionary include the PIE forms of all IE. languages or just English. Anotherwords, there are PIE forms of other IE. languages apart from English, that were not included in the text?

$ = has Irano-Aryan cognates

abel
ag
agh
agher $
agu(e)si
aguhno
ai I
ai II
aidh
aier $
aig
aios $
aiu $
ak $
aks $
akua $
al I
al II $
al III
albh
ambhi $
amer
amma $
an $
andh $
andho
ane $
angh $
anghui $
ank $
ano
ant $
ap, apo $
apsa
ar I $
ar II $
are
arek
arg $
ari $
?arkh
arq
?asinus
at
atos
atr
au I
au II
au III
au IV
aud
aue $
auei $
aues $
aug $
akua
au(s) $
baba
?baca
bak
bamb
bat
bel
beu; bhel; bhleu $
bha I $
bha II
bhad $
bhag $
bhaghu
bhago
bhar $
bhareku
bhares $
bhasko
bhau(t)
bhe
bhedh
bheg $
bhegu
bhei
bheid $
bheigu
bhel I $
bhel II
bheld
bhelk
bhendh $
bhengh
bher I
bher II $
bher(e)gh $
bherem
bhereu
bhes I $
bhes II
bheu $
bheudh
bheug I
bheug II
bheug II
bhili
bhlag
bhoso
bhrag
bhrater $
bhreg, bhrei
bhreus $
bhru $
bhrud $
bhudh
bhugo
bhugo
bhuko
bhurig
?bibli
?bomb
?border
braghu, mreghu $
buff
?burd
?burs
ca
caca
cal
caput $
?char
coc
?cruc
cub, qeb
cucu
?cura, coir
da I
da II $
dakru $
dam
dau
de, do $
dei $
deik $
dek I $
dek II $
dekm $
del I $
del II
del II I$
dem $
denk $
dens
deph
der $
derb
d(e)re
derk
deru $
deu
deuk $
dhabh
dhal
dhar $
dhe $
dhe II $
dheie
dheigh $
dheigh N $
dhe(I) I
dhel II, dheub
dhem
dhembh
dh(e)r $
dh(e)ragh
dhers $
dheu I $
dheu II
dheubh
dheugh
dhregh
dhreibh
dhren
dhreu $
dhrigh
dhugeter $
dhun
dhur $
dinghu $
dlku
do $
duei
duo $
?ebri
ed $
eg I $
eg II
eg III
eghs
egni
ei I $
ei II
eik $
eir, ir $
eis $
eku $
el
?elaia
(e)lei
em
en $
endher $
enek $
engu $
enos
er $
ere
ergh, rei, res $
ert
es $
esu
eti
etman
eu $
eudh
euoi
eus
?fin $
?frons
fur
ga
gal, gar $
gar $
garg
gel I, ghel
gel II $
gembh
geme(e) $
gen
geph
ger I $
ger II
ger III
ger IV $
ger V, gren $
?ger VI
gerbh $
?ges
geu
ghaido
ghais
ghaiso
ghans $
ghau $
ghdhem $
ghdhies $
ghdhu
ghe
ghebh
ghedh
ghel I
ghel II
g(h)enu $
gher I
gher II $
gher III
gher IV
gher V
ghers
gheslo
gheu
ghi$
ghou(e)
ghre
ghrebh I
ghrebh II $
ghredk(????)
ghreib
ghrem
ghren
ghuer
gib
gieu $
?gigas
?glact
gleubh
glokh
?glor
gn, gen $
?grand
gras
gru
gua, gue(n) $
guadh
gue $
guebh
guei $
guel I
guel II $
guel III
guelbh $
guen $
guer
guet $
guhdhei
guhdher
guhen
guher $
guhisl $
guhren
gultur $
guretso
?gutta
ha
?haifst
?honos $
?hule
hum, hmmm, ahem
I
ia
iag I
ie
ieg $
iegua
?ieiun
iek
ieku-rt $
iem $
ies $
ieu $
ieug, ius $
ieuos $
?im
Ios $
?iso
iu $
?jing
ka $
kad $
kadh
kagh
kaghlo
kai
kaiko????
kailo $
kait
kaito
kak
kal
kam $
kan $
kand $
kann $
kanth
kap $
kaph $
kapr $
kar, krak $
kars
kas $
kas(tr)
kat
kau I
kau II
kau III
kaul
ke
keg
kei I $
ke II
keiro, koiro
keku
kel I
kel II, kla $
kel III
kel IV $
kel V
kel VI $
kel VII
kel VIII, (s)kel
kel I $
kelb
keleuo
kelp, (s)kelp
kem I
kem II
kem III
kem IV
ken I
ken II
ken III
ken IV
keneko
kenk I
kenk II $
kenk III $
kens $
kent
ker I, (s)ker(b) $
ker II
ker IV, kr $
keru
ker VI
ker VII $
kerd $
kerdh $
kere $
ker(s) I
kers II $
kert
keu
keu II $
keuero
keup $
?khalk
kista
kla
kleg $
klei $
kleng
klep
kleu I $
kleu II
kleu III
klou
kn, ken, kneu $
kneiguh
knid
ko $
kob
kogkhos
kokhlos
kokila $
kolem
kollei
kom
konemo
konk
?konops
?kophin
kormo $
koro $
kosel
kost
krapo
kred $
kred II
(k)rek
krep $
kreu $
kreup
kreut
krup
krut
ksei $
ksero $
ksun
?kuberna?????
kue
kuei I $
kuei II
kuei III $
kueis
kueit $
keul $
keulp
kuenth
kuep
kuer $
?kuere
kuerp
kues $
kuet
kuetuer $
kuknos
kuno $
kuo $
kurmi
kus $
lab
labh, rabh
ladh
?laed
laiuo
laks
laku
lal
?laos
lap
?lapid
las
lat
lau
leb, (s)lab $
leg I $
leg II
legh $
leguh $
lei I
lei II
leib
leid I
leid II
leig I
leig II $
leigh
leiku
leip II
leis $
leit
leith
leizd
lek I
lek II
lem $
lendh I
lendh II
lento
?leo
lep I
lep II
letro
leu I $
leu II
leu III
leubh $
leud
leudh
leug $
leugh $
leuk $
leup
lino
lthra
lou $
lus
ma I
ma II $
mad $
mag
magh $
maghos $
mai I
mai II
mak $
maken
man??? $
mano
man???? $
?map
?margar
mari
marko
?mas
mat
math $
mavor
mazdos $
me I $
me II $
me III $
me IV $
med $
medhi $
medhu $
mei I
mei II $
mei III
mei IV $
mei V
meigh
meik $
meino
mel I, (s)mel
mel II
mel III
mel IV
mel V
melg
melit
melo
mems
men I $
men II $
men II
men IV $
mend
menegh $
menth
mer I
mer II $
merbh
?merc
mek $
meu I, meud, (s)meug $
meu II $
mezg I
mezg II
?miles
?mimo
mlub
mo
mod
modhro
mok
mom, mum
momo
mori$
mormur
moro
morui
mozzo
mregh-m(n)o
mu
mus $
mut
?muth
nabh, ombh $
nana
nas $
nau I
nau II $
ndher $
ne $
nebh $
ned
nei $
nekut $
nem $
nepot $
ner
nert
nes
netr $
neu I
neu II
neud $
?neuh $
neun, eneuen $
neuos, nu $
ni $
?niger
?nitron
nogu $
not
?nous
?o
Od
odi $
oino $
oito
(o)iua $
okto $
oku $
ol I
ol II
oma, am
ombher
om(s)
oner
onogh $
onomen $
op I $
op II
?opak
or, os $
orbh
orghi $
ors
os
ost, oss $
?oti
oui
ous, au $
ozd
pa $
paen $
pag, pak $
pal, pol
pan $
?pare
past
ped $
peg
pei
peig, peik
peik, peig $
peisk
pek I
pek II $
peku
pel I
pel II
pel III
pel IV
pel V
pel V, ple $
pel Vi
pel VII
pela, plak, plat $
pele
pen
pend $
penkue $
pent $
per $
per N $
perd $
perk $
?pers
pes, pet I $
pet II $
peter $
?peti
peu I
peu II $
peue
p(e)ug
peuor $
phol
?phula$
p(i)lo
pip
?pippa
piss
?pius
plab
plak
?plaud
pleik
ple$
pleu
pleus
plor
plou
?plumbum
pneu
po(I)
poieo
pol
?popul
porko $
porko II
porpu $
poti $
pou $
prai $
?pres
preu $
preus
?prika
prokto
(p)ster
pu $
puk
rad I, red
rad II
rap
?re, ned???
rebh
reg I $
reg II
reg III
rei I
rei II
reidh $
reig I
reig II
rendh
rep I
rep II
rep III
ret
reth $
reu
r(e)udh $
reu(g)
reuos
reup, reub
?ride
rkthos $
?rud
sa $
sab $
sag
sai
sak
sakkara $
sal I $
sal II
?sang
sano
sap
sauel, suen $
saus $
se I $
se II $
sed $
segh $
sei
seiku $
sek $
seks, seuks $
seku I $
seku II
sel I $
sel II
sel III
sel IV
selk
selp
sem I $
sem II $
semi $
sen $
sengu
senguh $
seni $
senk
sent $
sep
septem $
ser I $
ser II $
ser III
serk
serp
seu I
seu II
seu III $
seug
?silva
s(i)u
skai
(s)kamb
skand
(s)kel $
skelo
(s)keng
skren
sketh
(s)keu $
skeub
(s)keud
(s)keup
(s)khal
skot $
(s)krei
(s)kualo
skut
(s)lagu
slak
(s)leidh
slenk
(s)leu
(s)leubh
(s)li
smarakt
(s)me
smegh
(s)mei I
smei II
(s)meit $
?(s)meld
(s)mer $
smerd
smeru
(s)meugh
(s)na $
(s)ne
sneg
(s)neiguh $
sneit
(s)ner I
(s)ner II
(s) neubh $
solo $
so(s), se $
speik, (s)pik
(s)peis
spek $
spel
?spelug$
spend I
(s)pend II
sper I
sper II $
sper III
sp(h)ei I $
sp(h)ei II
sp(h)el I
sp(h)el II
sp(h)er I
sp(*h)er II
(s)p(h)er(e)g $
(s)p(h)ieu
(s)pingo
(s)pleid
(s)poim
?(s)pong
srebh
srep
sreu $
(s)rig
sta $
stag
stak $
stebh????
(s)teg $
steg(h)
stei
steibh, steip
steig $
steigh
stel
sten
(s)tene
ster I, stel, (s)tera???? $
(s)ter II
ster III
ster IV
(s)teu $
(s)teue
stoman $
strebh
streig, streng
stre(p)
(s)trid, strig
suad $
suard
sue, se $
suei I
suei II
sueid I
sueid II $
(s)uekuos
suel
suem
suen $
suep I $
suep II
(s)uer I???? $
(s)uer II, sur $
(s)uer III, (s)qet(p) $
suesor $
sui, sei
suombh
suord
sus $
t, th $
ta, ti
tag I
tag II
tak
?taka
?tara
taur $
tekh(s) $
tekhu(s) $
tel, tal
tem
teme $
temp $
ten, ton $
teng $
tep
t(e)r I $
t(e)r II, ter
t(e)r III, tar??? $
Ter(eq), torq $
terp
ters $
t(e)u
t(e)u(e) $
teuta
tit, tik $
to, tu $
toe
tol, tel, tal, (t)la
tolku
tong $
top
tragh
tre, tri $
treb
trep
treud
trozdos
tuegh
tueis
tuer I
tuer II
tuerk $
ua I
ua II
uab
uad
uadh
uag I, uag $
uag II
uagh, (s)uagh
uai
uak
ual $
ual(s)
uat
ud $
udero
ue, aue, uen $
uebh(s)??? $
Ued
uedh $
ueg I
ueg II $
uegh $
ueguh
uei $
ueid $
u(e)idh $
ueik I $
ueik II
ueik III
ueip, ueib
ueis
uek(s) $
uel I
uel II $
uel II $
uelk
uelt
uelu
uem $
uen $
uendh $
uer I
uer II $
uer III
uer IV
uer V
uer VI $
uer VII $
u(e)rad
(u)er(e)dh
uerg $
uero
uers $
ues I $
ues II $
ue(s)h
uesper
ue(s)r $
uet
ugu, ud $
uid
uidhu
?uio
uiro $
ul
ulkuo $
ulp $
upo $
ureg $
?urod $
?x
?xenos
?yack
yap
?zip
zoilism

Feel free to fill in the blanks with Irano-Aryan forms ancient or new. Thanks.

quote:

Originally posted by mojobadshah:
Could anyone expand on the aforsaid or how language dominance is conventionally defined in the linguistic field?

Secondly, how does one go about creating a primordial alphabet and morpheme or grammar distinct from the attested ones?

On language dominance I want to refer you to my response to zmjezd's response to your's on your second question.
On "primordial alphabet and morpheme...you would benefit consulting chap. 9 of Daniel Tammet's book BORN ON A BLUE DAY. I have found his experience real fascinating.

I don't think that anyone who has taken the slightest interest in the English language can have any doubt at all of its mongrel nature. English has absorbed words, phrases and expressions from hundreds - maybe thousands - of languages. This is, I suggest, one of the reasons for its pre-eminence.

quote:

Originally posted by Richard English:
I don't think that anyone who has taken the slightest interest in the English language can have any doubt at all of its mongrel nature. English has absorbed words, phrases and expressions from hundreds - maybe thousands - of languages. This is, I suggest, one of the reasons for its pre-eminence.

I don't see why. English isn't the only language that borrows a lot of foreign words. Japanese and spoken Hindi contain a large number of English borrowings. I think it's more likely that English is so popular because of political and social factors - it's perceived as a prestigious and useful language to learn.

quote:

English isn't the only language that borrows a lot of foreign words.

Of course not. But I'll bet it borrows more than any other language. By most of the estimates I've seen (and discussed on this very board) English has more words than any other language as well - many of them borrowed.

It's not the only reason for the pre-eminence of English, of course, but it is surely one. I believe that languages that try to "preserve their purity" are likely to weaken - just as can happen with over-inbred dogs.

quote:

Originally posted by Richard English:
It's not the only reason for the pre-eminence of English, of course, but it is surely one. I believe that languages that try to "preserve their purity" are likely to weaken - just as can happen with over-inbred dogs.

But I still don't see the connection between borrowing a lot of words and being a pre-eminent language.

By pre-eminent do you mean "popular"?

It's a question of vigour and strength. English is a scrappy mongrel of a language that will take on any other and probably win.

Compare French - once the equal of English - and now relatively unimportant in the eyes of that part of the world that doesn't happen to be French-speaking. And also a language that is hugely concerned with maintaining its purity.

And by pre-eminent I mean popular - and important - and widely understood - and widely used. All the things that mean it is overall the most important language.

OK but you still haven't explained how borrowing a lot of words makes a language popular.

It's not a simple cause and solution equation - 10% borrowed words equals 25% more popularity - that would be silly. But it's just part of the overall mix. More words, more flexibility or expression. More new words, more up to date. More foreign imports, greater recognition by the exporting country.

Imported words, like imported people, add to the cultural and knowledge mix of the language and the nation respectively. My theory is that both will usually lead to stronger languages and stronger nations.

quote:

Originally posted by Richard English:
More foreign imports, greater recognition by the exporting country.

Imported words, like imported people, add to the cultural and knowledge mix of the language and the nation respectively. My theory is that both will usually lead to stronger languages and stronger nations.

I don't believe that a larger vocabulary means more flexibility of expression, since that implies that speakers of languages with smaller vocabularies than English are less able to express themselves, and there's no evidence for this afaik.

I don't see how a larger vocabulary makes a language more up to date either. I guess you mean the language has new words to describe new technology, but we don't necessarily need to create new lexical items to describe new technology, and this brings up the difficult question of exactly what a word is anyway.

quote:

Originally posted by Richard English:
More foreign imports, greater recognition by the exporting country.

I suppose that's possible.

quote:

speakers of languages with smaller vocabularies than English are less able to express themselves, and there's no evidence for this afaik.

Obviously every speaker of any language is able to express him or herself. But the greater the choice of vocabulary the greater the choice of ways of verbal expression.

quote:

but we don't necessarily need to create new lexical items to describe new technology

Really? And how would you describe satisfactorily the various aspects of modern technology that have become parts of our lives over the last century - or even the last decade. Try to describe the functions and component parts of, say, your motor car without using 20th century words.

quote:

Originally posted by Richard English:

quote:

speakers of languages with smaller vocabularies than English are less able to express themselves, and there's no evidence for this afaik.

Obviously every speaker of any language is able to express him or herself. But the greater the choice of vocabulary the greater the choice of ways of verbal expression.

Maybe, but I'm not sure why that should make English popular. You'd think that a good lingua franca would be one with a small vocabulary that's easy to learn.

quote:

Really? And how would you describe satisfactorily the various aspects of modern technology that have become parts of our lives over the last century - or even the last decade. Try to describe the functions and component parts of, say, your motor car without using 20th century words.

For instance, television in German is Fernsehen. I admit this argument is weak since Fernsehen is a separate lexical item and the whole problem of how to define a word. But it seems to me that you wouldn't necessarily need to increase your vocabulary to describe new technology, since languages are always adding and losing words, and they could add them and lose them at the same rate.

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Richard English:
Compare French - once the equal of English - and now relatively unimportant in the eyes of that part of the world that doesn't happen to be French-speaking. And also a language that is hugely concerned with maintaining its purity.
/QUOTE]

Hey there, RE, not so fast! Take a gander at any French blog these days to assure yourself that mainstream French has departed from the days of Académie rigueur and continues to do so, much to the chagrin of the old guard I expect.

For an exploration of the meaning of "language dominance", you can't do better than George Weber's "Ten Most Influential Languages", an article which is still often quoted. His method considers many different factors and is worth a look. By the way, French actually scored No.2 (behind English, and just ahead of Spanish)!

Some of the figures quoted at La Francophonie dans le Mondeclarify why French is still right up there in influence. To me, the most telling is that it was still as recently as 10 yrs ago the second (again, to English) most frequently taught language in the world. Maybe the next time they count, the American classroom trend toward Spanish will nudge them to third, who knows.

This message has been edited. Last edited by: bethree5,

quote:

and they could add them and lose them at the same rate.

But they might not. And I suggest that the number of words in English is growing overall. Certainly the number of OED entries increases significantly every edition (although I am aware that OED do not usually remove words, even if they become obsolete).