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.

  • Barbash@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    5
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    I read somewhere recently that “OK” is the most widely used expression accross languages. Not universal per se, but close enough.

    • Aceticon@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      Not even that.

      For example the Spanish will use “éeeh” and the Portuguese “áaah”.

      I’ve heard those described by a voice coach as “resting sounds” and from my observation they depend not just on the language one speaks but sometimes even on regional accent.

  • theRealBassist@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    4
    ·
    1 year ago

    Hi! I’m a linguist, and this topic is one that comes up commonly.

    The answer is no. There is no such thing as languages/words that are native to humans. You can have things that are widely shared (mama/papa based on baby-talk as an example), but seeing as language itself is not universal to humans, there is no such thing as a word that is universal.

    Feel free to ask any questions if you’re curious!

    • FearTheCron@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      How common are things like the bouba/kiki effect in linguistics? It seems there are some sounds that are based on something other than learned behavior, how much does this cause commonality in real language?

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

        Hi! Sorry for the delay, took a break from social media.

        It’s often an effect of local convergent evolution, effectively.

        Like if the group next to you has certain associations, well you’re likely to have similar associations. It’s also hard to verify some of that research due to the nature of how it’s conducted.

        • FearTheCron@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          No worries, thanks for the response!

          Interesting answer, scanning through the Wikipedia article on kiki/bouba it makes sense that we don’t really have solid evidence that it isn’t a learned trait. It may be hard to get a population of people who developed language independently of all other humans ever and see if they maintain the strong correlation with naming kiki and bouba.

          So I guess that brings up another question I have kinda wondered about. What is the most “isolated” spoken language on the planet? By that, I mean the language that evolved most independently of other spoken languages. Is there anything interesting that can be learned by comparing such a language to the European languages that are dominant among the global population?

          • theRealBassist@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            Great question! Here’s the thing though, the language had to come from somewhere right? The people had to come from somewhere.

            The assumptions and associations that make up the basis of language are thousands of years old. Obviously languages change and societies change, but no one has ever protested about the “k” sound being too “harsh” or something, or at least not seriously.

            Even an extremely isolated population would likely still be heavily influenced by whatever the parent language is.

    • jballs@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      Haha I first read your “The answer is no” sentence and thought you were literally referring to the word “no”. If anything would be universal or at least well understand, I would think “no” would be a likely candidate. Guess not!

  • tyo_ukko@sopuli.xyz
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    3
    ·
    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.

    • 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?

  • ElmiHalt@sopuli.xyz
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    2
    ·
    1 year ago

    Well, in Georgian language “mama” is the word for father and “deda” is the word for mother so.

    As to the actual exoressive words that are not about items then no, I don’t believe there’s any “universal words” - some words kinda became “natural” for many cultures like “ok”, “'alo” (when answering a call). Yet Turkish for “ok” is “tamam” and older folks might not understand “ok”. In my experience even sounds are not quite the same across the globe.

    Overall I think there’s definitely a way to universally express basic needs and feelings like anger, sadness, confusion, etc. with sounds and expressions combined - people might not get the cause but they’ll get the point.

    P. S. On the second thought - crying is quite universal, yeah.

  • Kraiden@lemmy.nz
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    2
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    I’m far from any kind of authority on this, but I think you’ll find the similarities in language (like ma mama mom mum mother mummy) come from the fact that very many languages today stem from the same root languages.

    What I find far more interesting is where they diverge.

    Ananas Anana Aнана́с Ananass Nanas Mananasi

    … In English?

    Pineapple…

    Wtf!

    Edit: I’ve just remembered reading that “mama” and “papa” come from the sounds that babies make naturally…

    https://www.babbel.com/en/magazine/why-does-mother-sound-the-same-in-so-many-languages

  • riskable@kbin.social
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    The closest thing to a universal word is a scream. After some experience nearly all humans–regardless of region or native languages–can tell the difference between a scream of sudden fear and the scream of a mother who’s child just died.

    The scream of pain is a bit cultural/regional (“ow!”, “fuck!”, “damnit!”) but I’m guessing most humans could tell what someone means when they shout any given sound or word after accidentally banging their finger with a hammer or stepping on a lego brick while barefoot.

  • T156@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    Waving to say Hi or Hello seems to be close enough to universal at this point. It’s not completely universal, since there are some cultures, like the Sentinelese that might be isolated enough that they would not understand what it means, but for the most part, you can go most places in the world, wave at someone, and reasonably expect it to be interpreted as a greeting (whether greeting a stranger is appropriate in the culture is another thing entirely).

    Various noises are also fairly universal, since humans mostly make the same kinds of noises. A sneeze may vary slightly in how it is written out, but it’s near-universal in its interpretation (if you’re a human). Same for a scream.

  • BrerChicken @lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    In the 13th century, Frederick II was the Holy Roman Emperor. He supposedly carried out a famous language deprivation experiment where he had infants raised by foster mothers who were not allowed to talk to them–they could only feed and bathe then. This was to see if there is a natural human language, he thought Greek or Hebrew might emerge. It turns out that the children all died. In sociology this is taught as proof that humans need language and social interaction to survive. But the whole story comes from a single Franciscan monk who was apparently not a fan of the emperor, so there’s some doubt.

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

      I would put some doubt on that story, since most children that were born deaf still survive.

      Also, in many orphanages throughout the centuries, children often didn’t get much more care than described in that experiment.

      • mystik@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        If that story is true, there was no communication with these children. But children born deaf still learn to communicate via sign language or other motions. The language becomes non-spoken, but is visual and very rich and expressive.

  • curiosityLynx@kbin.social
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    There is not a single word that’s universal to all languages.

    1. Even if there had ever been one at some point, there are languages that have/had word retirement as part of the culture speaking it: If a word is used as someone’s name and that person dies, that word is now taboo and a new word is needed to refer to what the old word stood for.

    2. Conlanging, especially by laypeople, often explicitly makes up most or all of its vocabulary from scratch or uses cyphers to make the connection invisible. I wouldn’t be surprised if a people made up their own secret language from scratch, maybe initially with very similar grammar, that developed into a native language for a community.

    3. Have you heard of Cockney rhyming slang? Take a word like “fart”, use a two part word that rhymes with it, like “raspberry tart”, then drop the rhyming part. That leaves you with “raspberry” meaning “fart” and no discernible connection to the old words this utterance/meaning pair came from.

    4. Sign languages are languages as well, and in multiple instances developed from the ground up without influence from the surrounding spoken languages.

    • Noremac@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      Have you heard of Cockney rhyming slang? Take a word like “fart”, use a two part word that rhymes with it, like “raspberry tart”, then drop the rhyming part. That leaves you with “raspberry” meaning “fart” and no discernible connection to the old words this utterance/meaning pair came from.

      So that’s where “blowing raspberries” came from? Pretty neat.

  • wreel@lemmy.sdf.org
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    Caca: that’s and ancient word that many speculate is older than even the proto-indo-european roots and may have been part of the same lexicon of the originating humans who migrated into East Asia.