It's Mother's day, Not Muther's Day...

Page may contain affiliate links. Please see terms for details.
Why isn't it moth?
Because you've confused cause and effect.

The first syllables babies generally say, no matter what language their parents speak is "ma" followed closely by "da" or "pa". So it's mum, mom, marm, mama, maman etc because that's the first word a baby can say. Play with Google translate, the translation for mama is nearly identical languages as diverse as French, Chinese, Filipino, Arabic etc - languages that have no shared root.

Mama is programmed into our DNA.

Romans extended ma to mater, and from them we get mother via old English modor.
 
Last edited:

stephec

Legendary Member
Location
Bolton
You don’t need an r to say is properly. All I can conclude is that it’s hardly surprising northerners can’t say bath properly but no problem saying dole or special brew.
That's because we have a tin bath in front of the coal fire once a month.
 

srw

It's a bit more complicated than that...
Because you've confused cause and effect.

The first syllables babies generally say, no matter what language their parents speak is "ma" followed closely by "da" or "pa". So it's mum, mom, marm, mama, maman etc because that's the first word a baby can say. Play with Google translate, the translation for mama is nearly identical languages as diverse as French, Chinese, Filipino, Arabic etc - languages that have no shared root.

Mama is programmed into our DNA.

Romans extended ma to mater, and from them we get mother.
French, Latin, Arabic, English and most of the languages of Europe and Southern Asia are Indo-European, so share a common root. English got mother from a Germanic root, not from Latin; both Latin and the Germanic languages (and Greek) got it from a shared Indo-European root.

The Filipino* for mother is ina. Alternative versions include inang, nanay, and inay, which are different. It's not too much of a stretch to believe that it got mama from an imperial occupier. Google translate is pretty useless when it comes to Chinese languages (there's more than one), because it mostly just shows idiograms.

All of which reminds me I've got some Latin and Greek homework to do.

*according to Google Translate. I know a smattering of historical linguistics and no Filipino.
 
[QUOTE 5179215, member: 259"]Erm. No. :smile:[/QUOTE]
OED

_20180311_180413.JPG
 
French, Latin, Arabic, English and most of the languages of Europe and Southern Asia are Indo-European, s
The languages I used were Filipino (Austronesian), Chinese (Sino-Tibetan), Arabic (Afroasiatic) the only Indo European languages I mentioned were English (old and new), French and Latin. I did not suggest they didn't share a root. Quite the opposite.

I should have remembered old English did not have Latinate roots (there was a language here long before the Romans arrived), but confused myself because so many modern English words do, via French.
 

srw

It's a bit more complicated than that...
Y
The languages I used were Filipino (Austronesian), Chinese (Sino-Tibetan), Arabic (Afroasiatic) the only Indo European languages I mentioned were English (old and new), French and Latin.

I should have remembered old English did not have Latinate roots, but confused myself because so many modern English words do, via French.

My mistake - I'd forgotten that Arabic was Semitic, not Indo-European.

Still, I find genetic explanations for specific words implausible, and I don't think mama in Filipino is a good example unless we can lay our hands on that Filipino etymology.
 
Still, I find genetic explanations for specific words implausible,
I don't mean we are born with the "mama" in our brains being a word for your mother, just that the two things,
  • that "mama" is one of the first clear syllables to emerge from babies' babbling almost universally
  • parents want their babies talking directly to them ASAP, also pretty universally
means that it would be unsurprising for mama to emerge as one of the first nouns in many proto languages, which seems to be the case
 
Top Bottom