

Dolgopolsky list - Thevet
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dolgopolsky_list

======
phuff
More commonly linguists talk about Swadesh lists. For the most complete modern
collection of Swadesh-like lists and a program/algorithm for automatically
generating a language family tree from them see:
[http://asjp.clld.org](http://asjp.clld.org)

~~~
ar-jan
While ASJP is used to explore potential relationships, it should be noted that
it cannot reliably determine language relatedness by itself. The gold standard
for that is still the comparative method. [1]

1:
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparative_method_%28linguist...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparative_method_%28linguistics%29)

------
aerique
Boy, that put me on a Wikipedia hike trail on subjects I had little to no
knowlegde of. Thanks!

------
legulere
Already the third one was replaced in english not that long ago: you replaced
thou

~~~
bhousel
From what I understand, "you" was you-formal, and "thou" was you-familiar.
(They weren't completely the same word)

However, IANAL (linguist)

~~~
dragonwriter
"You" was plural and/or formal, "thou" was the singular/informal form and so,
per the list, "thou" was item #3 of the list of "words least likely to be
replaced as the language evolves".

------
praptak
Related: [http://www.washingtonpost.com/national/health-
science/lingui...](http://www.washingtonpost.com/national/health-
science/linguists-identify-15000-year-old-ultraconserved-
words/2013/05/06/a02e3a14-b427-11e2-9a98-4be1688d7d84_story.html)

~~~
ar-jan
The research behind that article is extremely problematic. See e.g. [1] and
[2]. The WP article adds its own overinterpretations to it, such as as the
nonsensical "But if you went back 15,000 years and spoke these words to
hunter-gatherers in Asia in any one of hundreds of modern languages, there is
a chance they would understand at least some of what you were saying."

1:
[http://languagelog.ldc.upenn.edu/nll/?p=4612](http://languagelog.ldc.upenn.edu/nll/?p=4612)

2: [http://languagesoftheworld.info/bad-
linguistics/ultraconserv...](http://languagesoftheworld.info/bad-
linguistics/ultraconserved-words-reveal-linguistic-macro-families.html)

------
riffraff
most words seem to be rather fundamental concepts except: nit? I wonder why
would that be so timeless a word.

~~~
ghshephard
That's easy - until very, very recent human history, the louse/lice/nit has
been a constant (and really annoying) companion of much of humanity. Not
surprising the word stabilized in populations that used it all the time.

What's interesting - is you could could probably use "semantic stability" to
track preponderance of various pests, diseases, etc... in various
populations/locations.

See: [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Louse](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Louse)

This would also suggest that the word might destabilize in
societies/civilizations which have managed to reduce the louse impact.

~~~
sukilot
But more consistent part of life than "day" and "night" and "light"?

~~~
ghshephard
Might have been more consistently _used_.

------
agumonkey
I was looking for such a thing for ages and never came even near that list.

