Related to the question about whether facial expressions are universal.

Are there words/verbal expressions/sounds that exist in every language and have the same meaning in every language?

(I’d also count words that are very similar.)

One example, that I believe is universal is M followed by a vowel followed by another M and optionally another vowel, meaning “Mother”.

At least in any language I know, this seems to hold true (mom, Mama, mamma, Mami, …).

Any other examples?

Edit: To clarify, I am not looking for very popular words that have been imported into most languages (like how almost everyone worldwide knows what Ketchup is), but about words that are “native” to humans. So if you pick someone from an uncontacted native tribe and tell them nothing, they would be able to understand/use that word/sound/verbal expression.

  • tyo_ukko@sopuli.xyz
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    4
    ·
    1 year ago

    Just to counter the “Mother” example, in Finnish the word is “äiti”. One could argue “mamma” is also used, but in my opinion it’s just Swedish influence and not really used in the Eastern parts.

    The topic is very interesting however, and recently I’ve read about the theory of universal grammar https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universal_grammar which is a theory roughly saying that every human has an innate biological understanding for certain rules of grammar - independent of upbringing, culture and the like. For example, every human language will distinguish between nouns and vowels and verbs. The concept is fascinating, but so is the criticism. You could argue that the whole idea is just unfalsifiable pseudoscience or post-hoc explanation for what has been observed.

    • kanervatar@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      Funny enough, in Russian side Karelian they call mother “muamo”.

      Äiti is a loan word from Gothic “aiþei”, which is quite interesting as such words aren’t usually loaned to replace the original. The original Finnish word for mother is “emä”, but this is not used about humans anymore.

    • Square Singer@feddit.deOP
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      1 year ago

      Regarding the “mother” example: Most languages also feature words that describe “mother” but don’t follow the pattern (e.g. “mother”).

      I meant the word that is used by babies/small children and in connection with babies/small children.

      Does this apply to “äiti”? (Serious question, I have no idea of the Finnish language).

      I always figured it’s because it’s one of the first sounds a baby can consciously make.

      Universal grammar sounds very interesting, and the criticism is a well. But yeah, it’s kinda hard to falsify this.

      On the other hand, these basic elements that universal grammar identifies seem to me (=>not a linguist) like something you can’t do without. I wouldn’t know what a language would do e.g. without a noun/verb separation. There are things and there are actions, which are two fundamentally different concepts. Makes sense that this separation exists in every language.

      • tyo_ukko@sopuli.xyz
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        I don’t know if Finnish kids say “m”-words for their mother, even when small. My kids used to say something like “mama” (or rather “mämä” where “ä” is like “a” in “apple”) to mean basically “I want” and pointing at everything. Very hard to say.

        I wouldn’t know what a language would do e.g. without a noun/verb separation. There are things and there are actions, which are two fundamentally different concepts. Makes sense that this separation exists in every language.

        I was thinking about this, and a plausible scenario I came up with would be very simple language, where you would only use nouns in a simple setting. Like “food, mouth” would mean eating, “food, storage” would mean store the food etc. You certainly couldn’t build very complex discussions, but some information could be passed. But it’s just a layman’s thought experiment, for whatever it’s worth.

    • Lumidaub@feddit.de
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      How is universal grammar not falsifiable? Wouldn’t there just have to be one human, natural language that doesn’t follow the presumed rules to falsify?

      • tyo_ukko@sopuli.xyz
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        I think you have to dive deeper into the sources of the article to fully understand that :)

        My guess is that the UG is vague enough to allow this criticism. Maybe it doesn’t define the rules well enough, or they are left too general to accommodate for every known language.