Setting the Record Straight About Native Languages: Linguistic Relationships
Q: Are Amerindian languages related to Mongolian?
A: No. Many people think American Indians are descended from Mongolian people. This
may be true, but if it is, they left Asia more than 20,000 years ago, which is much too long
a time period for linguistic preservation to occur. None of the Amerindian languages bear any
linguistic resemblance to Asian languages.
Q: Are Amerindian languages descended from Hebrew, Ancient Egyptian, Scandinavian or Celtic languages?
A: No. The people who claim this are trying to prove that American Indians arrived
in the Americas very recently (see Could Native Americans be recent immigrants?
and Are Native Americans a lost tribe of Israel?)
I have seen many websites claiming to "prove" that Amerindian languages are descended
from Semitic or Germanic languages. 90% of these websites are deliberately lying, making
up nonexistant "Algonquian" words that resemble words from Semitic languages. A quick glance
at a dictionary of the Amerindian language in question will reveal these websites for what they are.
The other 10% are using linguistically unsound methods--searching two languages for any two
vocabulary words that begin with the same letter, essentially, and presenting them as evidence.
Using this method, English can be "proved" to descend from Japanese--English "mistake" sounds a little
like Japanese "machigai". In fact, if you randomly generate some vocabulary with a computer program,
you will be able to find a few words with surface resemblance to any language you want. Real
linguistic analysis requires dozens of vocabulary relationships which are regular and
predictable, as well as similarities in phonology and syntax, to show that one language is
related to another. Here's a good website by a Welsh speaker explaining the substantial linguistic differences between
Mandan and Welsh, for example,
or a website by an Athabaskan linguist explaining the differences between
Carrier and Celtic.
No linguist has ever shown a relationship between any Amerindian language family and a Semitic, Germanic or Celtic language.
Q: But I don't know enough about linguistics to look at the phonology and syntax for
myself. Can't I tell anything from vocabulary? A: Yes, but you need to examine at least three languages to make a valid comparison,
and you need to use vocabulary items that have not been hand-selected as the one word in
the language that bears some vague resemblance to the other. The numbers one through five are
a good place to start. If four of the five look similar, or you notice a pattern in the
way they are different from each other, the languages are probably related. Let's look at some
Germanic, Semitic, and Algonquian languages (spelled more or less phonetically):
German
eins
zwei
drei
vier
funf
Dutch
een
twee
drie
vier
vijf
English
one
two
three
four
five
Hebrew
echad
shtayim
shalosh
arba
chamesh
Arabic
wachid
ithnan
thalatha
arba'a
chamsa
Maltese
wiehed
tnejn
tlieta
gherba
hamsa
Ojibwe
bezhig
niizh
niswi
niiwin
naanan
Algonquin
pejig
nìj
niswi
new
nànan
Cree
peyak
nîso
nisto
newo
nîyânan
As you can probably see even from this small amount of data, English is related to Dutch
and German; Hebrew is related to Arabic and Maltese; and Ojibwe is related to
Algonquin and Cree.
On the other hand, if I had taken only the English word "seven" and the Hebrew word
"sheva," maybe I could have convinced you English was related to Hebrew. And if I had shown
you only Hebrew "shalosh" and Arabic "thalatha," you might not have noticed they were
related. (With the larger data set here, you can see that the "TH" sound from Arabic does
not exist in Hebrew or Maltese--it becomes a "sh" in Hebrew all three times, and a "t" in
Maltese all three times.)
Never believe anyone who tries to prove linguistic relationships based on one or two words that sound similar.
Q: Are Micmac, Cree, or Mayan hieroglyphics descended from Egyptian
hieroglyphics?
A: No. They are all non-alphabetic writing systems, but otherwise have nothing
in common at all. Egyptian hieroglyphics
are sort of like a rebus. Some hieroglyphs represent sounds (consonants only, just like modern
Semitic writing systems), others represent words or concepts. Many hieroglyphs are strung
together top to bottom to make a word. Mayan
hieroglyphics, on the other hand, are modular. One glyph contains several elements, including
an element for gender and some for sound (both vowels and consonants). They resemble Chinese
characters more than Egyptian hieroglyphics (though they're not descended from Chinese either).
Micmac hieroglyphs are
primarily pictographs, not representing sounds at all--in fact, many symbols are mnemonics for an
entire phrase or sentence. And
Cree hieroglyphs are a syllabary.
Each symbol regularly represents a syllable with a consonant (indicated by a shape) and
a vowel (indicated by a position). "Hieroglyph" is not a linguistic term. It just means "arcane
writing." Micmac and Cree are not even the same basic type of writing system as Egyptian, and
Mayan, though the same basic type, is a completely different realization of it. It would be
more likely that a completely illiterate person would come up with one of these Amerindian
writing systems than that someone already familiar with Egyptian would.
Native American tribes index
Native American Art
Contacts and FAQ page
