Language Atlas
Claims this atlas currently marks as unsettled or as tested and found false. A debated fact is one scholars hold competing positions on; a debunked one has been checked against the record and found not to hold. Both are kept in view rather than quietly smoothed over, with the reasoning that put each one where it stands.
25 statements.
Afro-Asiatic, Proto-Language StatusProto-Afroasiatic is reconstructed only in broad outline. The time depth of the family, plausibly ten thousand years or more, is substantially greater than Indo-European or Bantu, which limits how confidently the common ancestor can be reconstructed.
Afro-Asiatic, Language Families
Standing
Concerns Proto-Language Status
Currently States Proto-Afroasiatic is reconstructed only in broad outline. The time depth of the family, plausibly ten thousand years or more, is substantially greater than Indo-European or Bantu, which limits how confidently the common ancestor can be reconstructed.
Each of the six branches is individually well established; the deep time depth of the family as a whole is what limits secure reconstruction of the common ancestor.
Source Glottolog
Akkadian, Attested To (Year)75
Akkadian, Languages
Standing
Concerns Attested To (Year)
Currently States 75
The latest securely dated cuneiform text in Akkadian is an astronomical almanac from 74/75 CE, but this marks only the end of scribal/scholarly use, not of spoken use, which had given way to Aramaic many centuries earlier; the two dates should not be conflated.
Source Encyclopaedia Britannica
Altaic, Proto-Language StatusRejected by most historical linguists as a genuine reconstruction; treated instead as an inventory of borrowed and convergent forms accumulated through prolonged contact among Turkic, Mongolic and Tungusic speakers.
Altaic, Language Families
Standing
Concerns Proto-Language Status
Currently States Rejected by most historical linguists as a genuine reconstruction; treated instead as an inventory of borrowed and convergent forms accumulated through prolonged contact among Turkic, Mongolic and Tungusic speakers.
A reconstructed "Proto-Altaic" has been proposed, notably in Sergei Starostin's etymological dictionary citing shared basic vocabulary such as the words for eye, ear, neck and bone, but most specialists attribute this shared material to borrowing and long-term areal convergence rather than common ancestry. A minority of scholars continues to defend the genetic relationship.
Source Wikipedia: Altaic Languages
Aramaic Alphabet, In Use Since (Year)-800
Aramaic Alphabet, Scripts
Standing
Concerns In Use Since (Year)
Currently States -800
Omniglot dates the script's adaptation from Phoenician to around 800 BCE, with its oldest known inscription circa 850 BCE; Encyclopaedia Britannica's account places its emergence somewhat earlier, in the tenth to ninth centuries BCE, rising to prominence after Assyria's eighth century BCE conquests.
Source Omniglot: The Online Encyclopedia of Writing Systems and Languages
Austroasiatic, Proto-Language StatusProto-Mon-Khmer, the family's largest branch, is reconstructed in detail; a single Proto-Austroasiatic uniting all branches is less securely established.
Austroasiatic, Language Families
Standing
Concerns Proto-Language Status
Currently States Proto-Mon-Khmer, the family's largest branch, is reconstructed in detail; a single Proto-Austroasiatic uniting all branches is less securely established.
The wider Austric hypothesis linking Austroasiatic to Austronesian, and possibly Kra-Dai and Hmong-Mien, remains a minority position most specialists do not accept.
Source Wikipedia: Austroasiatic Languages
Bengali, Attested From (Year)782
Bengali, Languages
Standing
Concerns Attested From (Year)
Currently States 782
8th century CE; a Sanskrit-Chinese dictionary compiled in 782 CE contains 51 Bengali words, the earliest documented evidence, though whether this represents a fully differentiated language is not certain.
Source Wikipedia: Bengali Language
Georgian Script, In Use Since (Year)430
Georgian Script, Scripts
Standing
Concerns In Use Since (Year)
Currently States 430
Bracketed between King Mirian III's conversion of Iberia (326 or 337) and the Bir el Qutt inscriptions of 430, the latest secure attestation used here; the exact date within that century-long window is not settled.
Source Wikipedia: Georgian Scripts
Iroquoian, Proto-Language StatusA widely cited glottochronological estimate attributed to Lounsbury (1961), based on 34 to 38 percent shared Swadesh-list cognates between Cherokee and the Northern Iroquoian languages, places the Cherokee/Northern Iroquoian split around 3,500 to 3,800 years ago; an independent estimate from Sorosoro's own linguistic documentation places the same split at roughly 1800 to 1500 BCE, a closely matching range. Neither figure has been verified here against Lounsbury's original 1961 publication, which could not be directly accessed.
Iroquoian, Language Families
Standing
Concerns Proto-Language Status
Currently States A widely cited glottochronological estimate attributed to Lounsbury (1961), based on 34 to 38 percent shared Swadesh-list cognates between Cherokee and the Northern Iroquoian languages, places the Cherokee/Northern Iroquoian split around 3,500 to 3,800 years ago; an independent estimate from Sorosoro's own linguistic documentation places the same split at roughly 1800 to 1500 BCE, a closely matching range. Neither figure has been verified here against Lounsbury's original 1961 publication, which could not be directly accessed.
Source Sorosoro: Iroquoian Languages
Japonic, Proto-Language StatusProto-Japonic is reconstructed chiefly from Japanese and the Ryukyuan languages. Proposed deeper connections to Korean or to a broader Altaic grouping are considered fringe hypotheses by most comparative linguists; Japonic is treated on this atlas as an independent family.
Japonic, Language Families
Standing
Concerns Proto-Language Status
Currently States Proto-Japonic is reconstructed chiefly from Japanese and the Ryukyuan languages. Proposed deeper connections to Korean or to a broader Altaic grouping are considered fringe hypotheses by most comparative linguists; Japonic is treated on this atlas as an independent family.
The internal Proto-Japonic reconstruction from Japanese and Ryukyuan is not seriously disputed; the external hypotheses are the fringe element.
Source Glottolog
Khoisan, Proto-Language StatusNo Proto-Khoisan can be reconstructed, because the grouping is not now believed to be a genuine genetic family at all.
Khoisan, Language Families
Standing
Concerns Proto-Language Status
Currently States No Proto-Khoisan can be reconstructed, because the grouping is not now believed to be a genuine genetic family at all.
Only its three constituent families, Khoe-Kwadi, Tuu and the formally demonstrated Kx'a grouping (2010), have their own internal reconstructions in progress.
Source Wikipedia: Khoisan Languages
Koreanic, Proto-Language StatusKorean is usually treated at the family level as a language isolate; Koreanic here groups it with the closely related and severely endangered Jeju language. Proposed deeper connections to Japonic or to a broader Altaic grouping are fringe hypotheses rejected by most comparative linguists.
Koreanic, Language Families
Standing
Concerns Proto-Language Status
Currently States Korean is usually treated at the family level as a language isolate; Koreanic here groups it with the closely related and severely endangered Jeju language. Proposed deeper connections to Japonic or to a broader Altaic grouping are fringe hypotheses rejected by most comparative linguists.
Korean at the family level is usually treated as an isolate rather than as securely reconstructed from multiple sister languages.
Source Glottolog
Mayan, Proto-Language StatusThe proto-Mayan homeland is usually placed in the southern Guatemalan highlands, refined by Terrence Kaufman (1976) to the area around modern Soloma, Huehuetenango, on "least moves" and river-geography grounds, though competing hypotheses favor northern South America, coastal Veracruz or the Belize lowlands. Time depth is similarly contested: Kaufman's (1976) glottochronological estimate places the family's initial breakup around 2200 BCE, roughly 4,200 years ago, and remains the figure most used by archaeologists, but two later computational estimates diverge sharply, Atkinson (2006) proposing a much older 6,000 to 6,500 years and Holman et al. (2011) a much younger 2,200 years; no published study has yet adjudicated between them (Law 2013).
Mayan, Language Families
Standing
Concerns Proto-Language Status
Currently States The proto-Mayan homeland is usually placed in the southern Guatemalan highlands, refined by Terrence Kaufman (1976) to the area around modern Soloma, Huehuetenango, on "least moves" and river-geography grounds, though competing hypotheses favor northern South America, coastal Veracruz or the Belize lowlands. Time depth is similarly contested: Kaufman's (1976) glottochronological estimate places the family's initial breakup around 2200 BCE, roughly 4,200 years ago, and remains the figure most used by archaeologists, but two later computational estimates diverge sharply, Atkinson (2006) proposing a much older 6,000 to 6,500 years and Holman et al. (2011) a much younger 2,200 years; no published study has yet adjudicated between them (Law 2013).
Source Danny Law, Mayan Historical Linguistics in a New Age, Language and Linguistics Compass 7/3, 2013
Na-Dene, Proto-Language StatusProto-Athabaskan-Eyak-Tlingit is broadly accepted; reconstruction beyond that core, toward a hypothetical Dene-Yeniseian ancestor, is not.
Na-Dene, Language Families
Standing
Concerns Proto-Language Status
Currently States Proto-Athabaskan-Eyak-Tlingit is broadly accepted; reconstruction beyond that core, toward a hypothetical Dene-Yeniseian ancestor, is not.
The core family (Athabaskan, Eyak and Tlingit) is broadly accepted; Haida, once included, is now generally classified as an unrelated isolate, and Edward Sapir's own proposal linking Na-Dene to the Yeniseian languages of Siberia remains a minority hypothesis pending further comparative work.
Source Wikipedia: Na-Dene Languages
Niger-Congo, Proto-Language StatusNo Proto-Niger-Congo has been securely reconstructed, and the genealogical unity of Niger-Congo as a single family, rather than a geographic grouping of related but separately descended families, remains an open question in historical linguistics.
Niger-Congo, Language Families
Standing
Concerns Proto-Language Status
Currently States No Proto-Niger-Congo has been securely reconstructed, and the genealogical unity of Niger-Congo as a single family, rather than a geographic grouping of related but separately descended families, remains an open question in historical linguistics.
Niger-Congo unity itself, as opposed to a looser areal grouping of several distinct large families such as Atlantic-Congo, is disputed among historical linguists; this atlas follows the broader traditional grouping while naming the dispute.
Source Glottolog
Nilo-Saharan, Proto-Language StatusUnreconstructed beyond individual branches; the genetic unity of the proposed family is itself the open question, not merely the shape of its common ancestor.
Nilo-Saharan, Language Families
Standing
Concerns Proto-Language Status
Currently States Unreconstructed beyond individual branches; the genetic unity of the proposed family is itself the open question, not merely the shape of its common ancestor.
Glottolog, published by the Max Planck Institute, does not recognise the unity of the family, and some linguists have called it 'Greenberg's wastebasket' for otherwise unclassified non-click African languages; others, including Roger Blench, argue morphological evidence across the branches makes the family likely valid. No Proto-Nilo-Saharan has been securely reconstructed because the genetic unity of its branches is itself unresolved.
Source Wikipedia: Nilo-Saharan Languages
Pama-Nyungan, Proto-Language StatusProto-Pama-Nyungan is reconstructed and computational phylogenetic studies of vocabulary support the family as a genuine genetic grouping descended from a common ancestor roughly 5,000 years ago.
Pama-Nyungan, Language Families
Standing
Concerns Proto-Language Status
Currently States Proto-Pama-Nyungan is reconstructed and computational phylogenetic studies of vocabulary support the family as a genuine genetic grouping descended from a common ancestor roughly 5,000 years ago.
R.M.W. Dixon has argued he could find nothing that reliably sets Pama-Nyungan apart as a valid genetic group and treats the similarities among Australian languages as the product of contact within a sprachbund rather than shared descent.
Source Wikipedia: Pama-Nyungan Languages
Panini, Birth Year-400
Panini, Linguists
Standing
Concerns Birth Year
Currently States -400
Panini's exact dates are unresolved. Scholarly estimates range across the sixth to fourth centuries BCE, with a fourth-century-BCE floruit (contemporary with the rise of the Mauryan Empire) the most commonly cited middle estimate; some place him as early as the sixth century BCE, contemporary with the Buddha. No date more precise than a range commands consensus.
Source Encyclopaedia Britannica
Rongorongo, In Use Since (Year)1450
Rongorongo, Scripts
Standing
Concerns In Use Since (Year)
Currently States 1450
Genuinely disputed among scholars: proposed dates range from the 13th century, tied to the start of agricultural forest-clearing on the island, to as late as the 1770s, a hypothesis that the script was inspired by the 1770 Spanish annexation treaty and forgotten within a century. A 2024 Nature-published carbon-dating study of the Rome tablets found most dated to the 19th century, with one securely dated to the mid-15th century; that securely dated figure is recorded here as the best-attested physical date, not necessarily the invention date.
Source Wikipedia: Rongorongo
Sino-Tibetan, Proto-Language StatusProto-Sino-Tibetan reconstruction remains contested. Whether Sinitic and Tibeto-Burman form a clean two-way split, or whether Sinitic is one branch among several coordinate Trans-Himalayan branches, is actively debated among specialists.
Sino-Tibetan, Language Families
Standing
Concerns Proto-Language Status
Currently States Proto-Sino-Tibetan reconstruction remains contested. Whether Sinitic and Tibeto-Burman form a clean two-way split, or whether Sinitic is one branch among several coordinate Trans-Himalayan branches, is actively debated among specialists.
Family membership of the Sinitic and Tibeto-Burman languages is broadly accepted; the internal branching structure is not.
Source Glottolog
Swahili, Speaker Count16000000.000000
Swahili, Languages
Standing
Concerns Speaker Count
Currently States 16000000.000000
Sources diverge sharply on what is being counted. Ethnologues figure of roughly 16 million counts first-language speakers only; other widely cited estimates put total speakers, overwhelmingly second-language users of Swahili as an East African lingua franca, at well over 100 million, with some estimates as high as 200 million. There is no real dispute that Swahili has vastly more second-language than first-language speakers, only over how to weight that population in a single headline number.
Source Ethnologue: Languages of the World