lpetrich
Contributor
One might first ask how that can be possible. Pots aren't people, as archeologists warn us, and words aren't people, either. Consider all the people who have learned English. It is the third most spoken first language, after Chinese and Spanish, and the first most spoken second language. It is spoken by people all over the world, people of all races and almost all ethnicities.
But most people speak the language(s) that they grew up with, and that is how language can offer clues to prehistory.
Even so, people can borrow words, or more precisely, copy them, from other languages. Linguistic purists sometimes try to fight borrowing, like French linguistic purists who oppose "franglais" ("Frenglish"), English words borrowed into French. Like trying to say "le fin de semaine" instead of "le weekend". But phrases like that are calques or loan-translations, formations using existing linguistic resources.
So why don't people's languages get all mixed up?
To see what happens, we must look at history. Fortunately, speakers of some languages have left long paper trails. Or papyrus trails or clay trails or rock trails, as the case may be. So let us look at some of these trails.
But most people speak the language(s) that they grew up with, and that is how language can offer clues to prehistory.
Even so, people can borrow words, or more precisely, copy them, from other languages. Linguistic purists sometimes try to fight borrowing, like French linguistic purists who oppose "franglais" ("Frenglish"), English words borrowed into French. Like trying to say "le fin de semaine" instead of "le weekend". But phrases like that are calques or loan-translations, formations using existing linguistic resources.
So why don't people's languages get all mixed up?
To see what happens, we must look at history. Fortunately, speakers of some languages have left long paper trails. Or papyrus trails or clay trails or rock trails, as the case may be. So let us look at some of these trails.