Mama and Papa

[FearGod]

Most of the world east and west use the same words for calling father and mother, Mama & Papa

Doesn't it indicate that the origin of modern humans were Adam & Eve and hence Mama and
Papa have kept unchanged for that long period of time.

What do you think?

 

[Rival]

No, and here is an article explaining why:

Why ‘Mom’ and ‘Dad’ Sound So Similar in So Many Languages
The story of a strange linguistic coincidence
JOHN MCWHORTER | OCT 12, 2015

Is there anything inherently “doggy” about the word “dog”? Obviously not—to the French, a dog is a chien, to Russians a sobaka, to Mandarin Chinese-speakers a gǒu. These words have nothing in common, and none seem any more connected to the canine essence than any other. One runs up against that wall with pretty much any word.

Except some. The word for “mother” seems often either to be mama or have a nasal sound similar to m, like nana. The word for “father” seems often either to be papa or have a sound similar to p, like b, in it—such that you get something like baba. The word for “dad” may also have either d or t, which is a variation on saying d, just as p is on b. People say mama or nana, and then papa, baba, dada, or tata, worldwide.

Anyone who happens to know their way around a lot of languages can barely help noticing this eerie similarity. But when it comes to European languages closely related to English, like the Romance and Germanic ones, this isn’t so surprising. After all, these languages are children of what was once one language, which linguists call Proto-Indo-European and was likely spoken on the steppes of what is now Ukraine several millennia ago. So if French has maman and papa, and Italian has mamma and babbo, and Norwegian has mamma and papa, then maybe that’s just a family matter.

But when we’re talking several millennia, even closely related languages have a way of morphing beyond recognition. For example, Welsh is also a child of that language from Ukraine, but neither French nor English has managed to produce words like that town name—Llanfairpwllgwyngyllgogerychwyrndrobwllllantysiliogogogoch—that the newscaster Liam Dutton recently became a viral sensation for pronouncing properly. For a member of the same linguistic family, Welsh has struck out pretty far on its own. Yet “mother” and “father” in Welsh are mam and tad.

Did Welsh pick this up from the English spoken amidst it in Great Britain? Perhaps—but the facts are the same with languages English is spoken much less “amidst.” In Africa, Swahili has mama and baba. In the Philippines, Tagalog has nanay and tatay. Fijian has nana and tata. Mandarin, so intimidatingly different from English to the learner, soothes unexpectedly in offering up mama and baba. Chechen in the Caucasus? Naana and daa. Native American languages? Eskimo has anana and ataata; Koasati, spoken in Louisiana and Texas, turns out to have mamma and taata; down further in El Salvador, Pipil has naan and tatah.

It’s tempting to imagine this means that the first humans called their parents mama and dada, and that those two warm, hearty words have survived the slings and arrows of human history to remain in use today. But the notion is too good to be true. Over time in language, sounds smush along their way to becoming new ones, and even the meanings people assign to a word drift all over the place.

Take that language in Ukraine that later became most of the languages of Europe. By comparing today’s languages and tracing backward, we can determine what a lot of the words in that Ukrainian language were, just as we can look at all of today’s mammals and the fossils of their ancestors and know that the first mammal was a rodent-like critter with hair that gave birth to live young. In Proto-Indo-European, the word mregh meant “short.” The Greeks’ version of that word came to refer to the upper arm, which is short, while in Latin it referred to a pastry that looked like crossed arms; the term then passed into French referring not to arms but shoulder straps. All of those words seeped into English later, such that what started as a word meaning “short” became “brachial” (from Greek), “pretzel” (the crossed arms, from Latin), and “bra” (“shoulder strap” became brassiere). The most direct descendant of mregh in English is “merry,” of all things. That which is short is often sweet, such that the word came to mean “short and sweet” and, eventually, just sweet—merry, that is.

Certainly, then, words like mama and dada wouldn’t necessarily stay the same, or even close to the same, in languages around the world and over tens of thousands of years. So what happened?

The answer lies with babies and how they start to talk. The pioneering linguist Roman Jakobson figured it out. If you’re a baby making a random sound, the easiest vowel is ah because you can make it without doing anything with your tongue or lips. Then, if you are going to vary things at all, the first impulse is to break up the stream of ahhh by closing your lips for a spell, especially since you’ve been doing that to nurse. Hence, mmmm, such that you get a string of mahs as you keep the sound going while breaking it up at intervals.

Babies “speaking” in this way are just playing. But adults don’t hear them that way. A baby says “mama” and it sounds as if he’s addressing someone—and the person he’s most likely addressing so early on is his mother. The mother takes “mama” as meaning her, and in speaking to her child refers to herself as “mama.” Voilà: a word mama that “means” mother. That would have happened with the first humans—but more to the point, it has happened with baby humans worldwide, whatever language they are speaking. That means that even as the first language was becoming countless others, this “mama mistake” was recreating “mama” as the word for “Mom,” whatever was going on with words like mregh.

Papa and dada happened for a similar pan-human reason. After babies begin making m with their lips, they pick up making a sound that involves a little more than just putting their lips together—namely, putting them together, holding them that way for a second, and then blowing out a puff of air. That’s p—or, depending on your mood, b. Alternatively, babies also start playing with their mouths a little further back from the lips—on that ridge behind the upper teeth that we burn inconveniently by sipping soup when it’s too hot. That’s where we make a t or a d. The order in which babies learn to make sounds explains why the next closest usual caretaker to mom is so often called papa or baba (or tata or dada).

There’s a similarly mundane explanation for another uncanny pattern among certain words. The linguist Johanna Nichols has noted that in Europe and much of northern Asia, the pronouns for “I” and “you” start with m and t—or something pronounced like t on that burnable ridge in the mouth, s—too often for it to be an accident. English-speakers are familiar with French’s moi and toi, or Spanish’s me and tu. It goes further, with Russian’s menja and tebja, Finnish’s minä and sinä, and even to Eurasian languages further east, like a language of Siberia called Yukaghir that uses met and tet.

Nichols has proposed that the reason a language like Yukaghir’s pronouns for I and you look so much like the mama/tata alternation—as well as why French has moi and toi and English once had me and thou—is because even as these languages have changed over time, the sounds of the words for I and you have been influenced by the way mama and tata differ. The m sound is used for what is closest—mama for Mommy and “me” for the self. The t sound—often learned just after m—is for what’s just one step removed from the closest: Daddy hovering just over there, which we can understand would feel like “you” rather than “(Mommy and) me.”

This time, however, it isn’t the whole world—it’s just a part of Eurasia where this distinction happens to have shaped how pronouns sound. Elsewhere, words for “me” and “you” are, for example, Mandarin’s wǒ and nǐ or Indonesian’s saya and anda.

Otherwise, if we want to know why a word sounds the way it does, there are only glimmers. Indeed, in English, “glimmer” is one of many words starting with gl- that refer to light-oriented things—“glow,” “glare,” “glitter,” “gleam,” “glance,” “glower.” It’s also been shown that humans tend to associate tight sounds like ee with smallness and fleetness. The anthropologist Brent Berlin did a neat experiment in which he played 600 students two words from an obscure language of the Amazon, Huambisa, and asked which one referred to a bird (little and flittery) and which referred to a fish. The words were chunchuíkit and máuts. Almost all of the students intuited that chunchuíkit, with its tweety “chui,” was the bird.

Ultimately, language is vastly more than things like “Me glimmering, Mom!” No theory will ever account for why the words in a sentence like “He couldn’t even get halfway over that wall!” are the way they are. Language is too changeable to allow us that pleasure, standing as we are at the end of a possibly 150,000-year timeline since human speech began.

But we can at least enjoy knowing why we call them the Mamas and the Papas.

 

[FearGod]

No, and here is an article explaining why:

Doesn't make sense, now back thousands of years ago, if babies in china said Papa then how it was
chosen for the father and if all the babies in China said Mama then how it was chosen for the mother,
then how the same words chosen for father and mother exactly all around the world.

 

[Rival]

Doesn't make sense, now back thousands of years ago, if babies in china said Papa then how it was
chosen for the father and if all the babies in China said Mama then how it was chosen for the mother,
then how the same words chosen for father and mother exactly all around the world.

Read the article and then respond. I've bolded the important bit.

 

[FearGod]

Read the article and then respond. I've bolded the important bit.

Yes i already read it, does it make sense to you?

 

[Rival]

Yes i already read it, does it make sense to you?

Yes, it's really not difficult. The only part you're struggling with is your own bias.

 

[Rival]

"If you’re a baby making a random sound, the easiest vowel is ah because you can make it without doing anything with your tongue or lips. Then, if you are going to vary things at all, the first impulse is to break up the stream of ahhh by closing your lips for a spell, especially since you’ve been doing that to nurse. Hence, mmmm, such that you get a string of mahs as you keep the sound going while breaking it up at intervals.

Babies “speaking” in this way are just playing. But adults don’t hear them that way. A baby says “mama” and it sounds as if he’s addressing someone—and the person he’s most likely addressing so early on is his mother. The mother takes “mama” as meaning her, and in speaking to her child refers to herself as “mama.” Voilà: a word mama that “means” mother. "

 

[FearGod]

Yes, it's really not difficult. The only part you're struggling with is your own bias.

Nothing about bias, but about logic.
If babies started to say Mama or Papa doesn't mean all humans around the world
had chosen it to be father and mother, we don't have to accept someone's opinion
as if a mere fact.

 

[Rival]

Nothing about bias, but about logic.
If babies started to say Mama or Papa doesn't mean all humans around the world
had chosen it to be father and mother, we don't have to accept someone's opinion
as if a mere fact.

They don't 'say' it, it's a noise that a baby first learns to make. 'Ah' is the simplest, followed by 'm', hence, 'm-ah-m-ah' Mama. The mother takes this as referring to her, even though it's really not.

 

[FearGod]

They don't 'say' it, it's a noise that a baby first learns to make. 'Ah' is the simplest, followed by 'm', hence, 'm-ah-m-ah' Mama. The mother takes this as referring to her, even though it's really not.

So mothers didn't know Mama except from their babies, but how they used to call their own mothers?

 

[Rival]

So mothers didn't know Mama except from their babies, but how they used to call their own mothers?

What are you talking about? This is something all babies do. From the very first humans, hence why it's everywhere.

 

[FearGod]

What are you talking about? This is something all babies do. From the very first humans, hence why it's everywhere.

Which first humans?

 

[Rival]

Which first humans?

 

[SecularWonder]

Most of the world east and west use the same words for calling father and mother, Mama & Papa

Doesn't it indicate that the origin of modern humans were Adam & Eve and hence Mama and
Papa have kept unchanged for that long period of time.

What do you think?

Not sure I follow what you're saying through this thread. Most of the world using a word (or similar word) doesn't mean anything about Adam and Eve. It means as languages spread and evolved, certain words retained certain sounds or meanings. Some languages use words that sound NOTHING like "mama and papa" many, in fact.

And as for a child's first words meaning something... It kind of sounded like you were trying to say that the first words are often "mama or papa" (or the wildly different words for mother or father in other languages) because it's somehow known to the baby? It's not, it's merely the word that parents usually try to imprint on them first. If I had a child and spent most of the focus on teaching it to say spaghetti, it's first word would be spaghetti or some attempt at it. Children absorb and mimic. They learn what they are shown, nothing more, nothing less. If you separated a child from it's parents at birth and kept it isolated without hearing any words at all until it was past the age most children learn "momma and papa (or whatever their equivalent is) it would absolutely not know how to say the words, or recognize the words if spoken to them.

 

[FearGod]

It means that we have the words Mama and Papa 200000 years ago,
east and west thought to use the noise made by their babies as calling
father and mother, sorry that i don't see it as making sense to me, but
anyway i understand your point but i can't see a reason for me to accept
it as the right answer.

 

[FearGod]

Not sure I follow what you're saying through this thread. Most of the world using a word (or similar word) doesn't mean anything about Adam and Eve. It means as languages spread and evolved, certain words retained certain sounds or meanings. Some languages use words that sound NOTHING like "mama and papa" many, in fact.

And as for a child's first words meaning something... It kind of sounded like you were trying to say that the first words are often "mama or papa" (or the wildly different words for mother or father in other languages) because it's somehow known to the baby? It's not, it's merely the word that parents usually try to imprint on them first. If I had a child and spent most of the focus on teaching it to say spaghetti, it's first word would be spaghetti or some attempt at it. Children absorb and mimic. They learn what they are shown, nothing more, nothing less. If you separated a child from it's parents at birth and kept it isolated without hearing any words at all until it was past the age most children learn "momma and papa (or whatever their equivalent is) it would absolutely not know how to say the words, or recognize the words if spoken to them.

That's a view, but what if it wasn't the real answer.
Why mama not for milk, for example do you want ma, to mean breast,
or later on do you want ba, to mean water....etc, why we have to make
it as father and mother east and west all around the world and thousands
of years ago, how by coincidence all agree on mama and papa as to be
specified for mother and father.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

Most of the world east and west use the same words for calling father and mother, Mama & Papa

Doesn't it indicate that the origin of modern humans were Adam & Eve and hence Mama and
Papa have kept unchanged for that long period of time.

What do you think?

No. Just spit balling (guessing) here. Wouldnt Adam and Eve's children call their parents different names according to their culture? Pops in the US parts of MidWest and South East use that for elders not just mother and father. I use ma within the family and mother to everyone else. I dont imagine Eve and Adam children using ma. In their culture, theyd probably get pinched. In my culture, probably smacked.

That and I dont see the connection of calling our parents by proper nouns relate to Adam and Eve. Especially English words which many dont have an underlining meaning as part of the grammar as say Hebrew and African languages do.

Whats the connection?

 

[ImmortalFlame]

That's a view, but what if it wasn't the real answer.
Why mama not for milk, for example do you want ma, to mean breast,
or later on do you want ba, to mean water....etc, why we have to make
it as father and mother east and west all around the world and thousands
of years ago, how by coincidence all agree on mama and papa as to be
specified for mother and father.

It's not a coincidence. Did you understand the article that Rival posted? How exactly does it make less sense than saying that these words are somehow derived from Adam and Eve?

 

[FearGod]

It's not a coincidence. Did you understand the article that Rival posted? How exactly does it make less sense than saying that these words are somehow derived from Adam and Eve?

From one generation to the next, but not one in the east and the other in the west, hence
Adam and Eve and their children as the first generation makes more sense to me.

 

[The Emperor of Mankind]

Most of the world east and west use the same words for calling father and mother, Mama & Papa

Doesn't it indicate that the origin of modern humans were Adam & Eve and hence Mama and
Papa have kept unchanged for that long period of time.

What do you think?

... how the hell do you get from 'mama' and 'papa' to 'the origin of modern humans were Adam & Eve'?