With 14 languages you could speak with half the people on earth in their native tongue.

[Querneus]

Awadhi is usually considered a much smaller language. It is true that it is a problem to count speakers of languages close to Hindi like Awadhi/Chhattisgarhi/Haryanvi, because these speakers tend to say they simply speak a dialect of Hindi (same goes for Bhojpuri/Magahi/Maithili, even though these other three languages are actually closer to Assamese and Bengali). I think the Swedish encyclopedia got it quite wrong there.

Also, Chhattisgarhi has a few more million speakers than your source reports, as even in the Indian census, where Chhattisgarhi speakers tend to say they speak Hindi, 18 million said that they speak it.

[Iversen]

I have visited China and Japan without speaking any of their languages, nor being able to read their writings, so my estimate is that I could visit almost the whole planet and survive. Besides I don't have time to speak to 7.000.000.000 terranians.

In other words: I study languages because I find them interesting, and MAYBE I can use them when I travel, but it isn't a condition for visiting a place that I can speak the local language - it's just more fun when my two hobbies can be combined.

[jonm]

Great post, Deinonysus! I've been thinking a lot lately about combinations of languages that offer the most "coverage," and this is a really interesting approach.

I notice that the Wikipedia page has two lists of languages by number of native speakers: the 2007 Nationalencyklopedin list that you used and a 2019 Ethnologue list. The numbers and rankings are similar but not identical, and I was just wondering, is there something about the older list that makes it a better choice for this?

Welcome to my second installment of a series I'd like to call, "Oversimplified Answers to Language Questions that Nobody Asked Using the Magic of Spreadsheets".

I'd like to subscribe to this series.

[iguanamon]

Being able to speak to half the world in their own language is a laudable goal, it's just not mine. The languages I've learned are either in close proximity to me or ones for which I have an affinity. I have three smaller and less commonly learned languages- Haitian Creole (app. 10 million speakers); Lesser Antilles Creole French/Kwéyòl (app. 1 million speakers) and Ladino/Djudeo-espanyol (app. 70,000 speakers). 11 million speakers are more than I can speak with in my lifetime. Mandarin or Japanese would not be as useful to me where I live as Haitian Creole and Kwéyòl. I'm not likely to be traveling to China or Japan anytime soon. I'm not interested in the cultures at present. So, I've made language-learning choices more based on my own preferences. I'm not seeing I will never learn Russian, Mandarin, Arabic or Indonesian. The time may come when I will want to do that, just not right now.

Forum members' preferences tend to bear this out to some extent. I see a certain amount of people learning less common European languages like Dutch, Croatian and Danish. Some learn one country languages like Polish and Modern Hebrew or two country languages like Italian, Korean and Greek. It seems to be more of a choice here on the forum along individual preferences than a purposeful goal of being able to communicate with half the world. Expug, is probably the closest, but he also is learning/has learned the languages of his region- Spanish, Guarani and Papiamento.

Still, for those who wish to do this in a systematic way, I think it would be wonderful to be able to access half the world in their own (or second) language. It would make world travel very rewarding.

[Deinonysus]

Great post, Deinonysus! I've been thinking a lot lately about combinations of languages that offer the most "coverage," and this is a really interesting approach.

I notice that the Wikipedia page has two lists of languages by number of native speakers: the 2007 Nationalencyklopedin list that you used and a 2019 Ethnologue list. The numbers and rankings are similar but not identical, and I was just wondering, is there something about the older list that makes it a better choice for this?

Welcome to my second installment of a series I'd like to call, "Oversimplified Answers to Language Questions that Nobody Asked Using the Magic of Spreadsheets".

I'd like to subscribe to this series.

Thanks! The reason I didn't use the 2019 figures it that I created this spreadsheet last year, and at the time only the Nationencyklopedin chart was available. But let's take a look at the 2019 numbers.

So this chart is really two charts in one. One of them has macrolanguages grouped together, and the other does not. Curiously, they treat Chinese as one macrolanguage (despite the different Sinitic languages really not being mutually intelligible as far as I know), but they treat Hindustani as completely separate languages despite them mostly being mutually intelligible (as far as I've heard). And if we're going there, shouldn't German and Italian be macrolanguages as well? Many Germans and Italians don't necessarily speak the standard language at home, but rather speak a related language or dialact (that may or may not be mutually intelligible with the standard language or dialect) but are completely bilingual. So you'd think they would be macrolanguages too.

But on to the charts. I'm only going to show one screenshot of each one. Here is the chart with macrolanguages grouped together:

WL 2019 Macro.png

The primary difference is it has the massive category of "Chinese", so you only need 13 "languages" to get to 50%. Punjabi is split into the Lahnda macrolanguage (Western Punjabi and Saraiki), and Eastern Punjabi as a completely separate language. Which seems... weird to me, but I don't know enough about Punjabi to really say which is correct.

The non-macrolanguage chart is a bit more interesting because "learning" a macrolanguage may be an impossible task of mastering tons of varieties that are not mutually intelligible. This chart shows the result of a negative answer to "Is Arabic one language"? And the result is that Arabic is kicked out of not only the top 5, but the top 20. The most spoken dialect is Egyptian, at #23. Most notably, the most efficient way to reach 50% using this chart is to skip Arabic altogether. And it will take at least 22 languages to hit the 50% mark.

WL 2019 Nonmacro.png

[Saim]

Punjabi is split into the Lahnda macrolanguage (Western Punjabi and Saraiki), and Eastern Punjabi as a completely separate language. Which seems... weird to me, but I don't know enough about Punjabi to really say which is correct.

It’s totally wrong, based on an old mistake by Ethnologue.

“Lahnda” and “Western Punjabi” are the same thing. “Lahnda” is just the traditional Punjabi word for “West”. It was coined by Grierson to refer to Saraiki, Hindko and Pothohari-Pahari, i.e the languages spoken in the far western areas of the Greater Punjab region (which is not the same thing as the Punjabi language area!).

In Pakistani-administered Punjab the most common variety is Maajhi, which is not a Western Punjabi dialect, and is also spoken in large parts of Indian-administered Punjab (notably in the Sikh holy city of Amritsar). It is just Punjabi (=“Eastern” Punjabi per Ethnologue).

The reason Ethnologue got confused is because Pakistani-administered Punjab is sometimes referred to as “Western Punjab” and Indian-administered “Eastern Punjab”. But that has nothing to do with the “Western Punjabi/Lahnda languages” as a linguistic group.

Languages of Pakistan


Western Punjabi, Punjabi and Western Pahari dialects in Pakistan and India

(Note that on this map only Northern Hindko is marked as Hindko, whereas in the other map Southern Hindko dialects like Chachi are also included. Also the “Pahari” in this map is a variety of Western Punjabi, not Western Pahari.)

[jonm]

Deinonysus, thanks for unpacking the two Ethnologue charts as well. Some thoughts below.

Saim, that's a helpful clarification on Punjabi. I just had a look at the log you kept in Pakistan and found it very interesting. Could I ask you, do you find it true in practice that with your Urdu you can also understand everyday spoken Hindi? And with Punjabi as spoken in Pakistan and India, is the situation somewhat analogous, with the two varieties differing mainly at higher registers? I'm interested in Indo-Aryan languages and in learning Urdu and Hindi in particular, and I tend to think of it as a two-for-one deal, writing systems and advanced vocabulary aside. Just wondering if that's been your experience.

Back to the charts...

I guess any time you draw a line around language varieties and count them as part of a larger grouping, you're forced to tolerate a fair amount of arbitrariness and imprecision. I think that's true whether you're grouping idiolects into dialects, dialects into languages, or languages into macrolanguages.

I'm not at all qualified to make such judgments, but here's a fanciful hypothetical scenario: The Ethnologue folks bring me their non-macrolanguage data set and say, "We realize you're completely unqualified, but for thought-experiment purposes you have a day to group some of these languages into macrolanguages based only on what you've read in this thread and elsewhere."

There are three levels of "zooming out" that I would consider. At the first level, I would group together varieties whose everyday registers (so I've read) are very similar but whose formal and literary registers differ. So Hindi and Urdu would be grouped together, as would the varieties of Punjabi spoken on either side of the border. But Punjabi wouldn't include the Lahnda languages, since a quick look at Wikipedia suggests that they differ from Punjabi in more significant ways than high-register vocabulary. ("Saraiki is to a high degree mutually intelligible with Standard Punjabi and shares with it a large portion of its vocabulary and morphology. At the same time in its phonology it is radically different (particularly in the lack of tones, the preservation of the voiced aspirates and the development of implosive consonants)....")

Zooming out once more, I would group together the different varieties of Arabic. Whereas Hindi and Urdu diverge at higher registers, with Arabic it's the high variety, MSA, that everyone shares and the vernaculars that are different. Since the situations aren't analogous, it's difficult to meaningfully compare them, but my impression is that the differences among Arabic vernaculars and between the vernaculars and MSA are greater than the differences between Hindi and Urdu or between varieties of Punjabi, so that's why I consider this another level out.

Finally, we could zoom out one more level and count Chinese as a macrolanguage. But I agree with Deinonysus that if Chinese counts as a single macrolanguage despite the different varieties not really being mutually intelligible, then there are lots of other macrolanguages that you should probably consider too, and "native language" becomes a lot less meaningful.

So I'd probably stop at counting Hindi-Urdu, Punjabi, and Arabic as macrolanguages, but not Chinese. In other words, this is my long way around to cosigning just what Deinonysus did in the original post, using the Nationalencyklopedin data set but regarding Hindi and Urdu as distinct but inseparable.

It is interesting, though, to look at the non-macrolanguage Ethnologue chart and see how the most efficient route to 50% no longer includes Arabic at all. With respect to Mandela's observation about the power of speaking to someone in their language, I imagine it's true that if you can only speak MSA with someone, it probably doesn't go to their heart to the same degree that speaking with them in their vernacular would. Still, I wouldn't want to leave out Arabic if I were attempting this. Maybe it's a good reminder for folks like me who are tempted to learn the most widely-spoken languages that even if you knew enough standard varieties to get to 50%, you'd still have some learning left to do if you wanted to talk like a local.

Edit: Slightly reworded parts where I counted Hindi and Urdu together so as not to risk inviting scorn.

[verdastelo]

Could I ask you, do you find it true in practice that with your Urdu you can also understand everyday spoken Hindi? And with Punjabi as spoken in Pakistan and India, is the situation somewhat analogous, with the two varieties differing mainly at higher registers? I'm interested in Indo-Aryan languages and in learning Urdu and Hindi in particular, and I tend to think of it as a two-for-one deal, writing systems and advanced vocabulary aside. Just wondering if that's been your experience.

Although the question was not addressed to me, I thought I could jump in.

Pakistani stage dramas in Punjabi were quite popular in India during the 1990s. My parents are not very educated but they could still appreciate the humour and laugh. So the colloquial language must be similar, if not identical.

As for higher registers, I have yet to read anything written (other than a few poems of Baba Najmi) in Western Punjabi to make a judgement. The poems weren't difficult to understand.

But Punjabi wouldn't include the Lahnda languages, since a quick look at Wikipedia suggests that they differ from Punjabi in more significant ways than high-register vocabulary.

The Punjabi University in my town of Patiala does consider Lahnda to be a dialect of Punjabi. They simply call it ਪੱਛਮੀ ਪੰਜਾਬੀ (Western Punjabi) or ਪਾਕਿਸਤਾਨੀ ਪੰਜਾਬੀ (Pakistani Punjabi) and have even published several anthologies of Western Punjabi Literature. Here is an article on Pakistani Punjabi Literature from ਬਾਲ ਵਿਸ਼ਵਕੋਸ਼: ਭਾਸ਼ਾ, ਸਾਹਿਤ ਅਤੇ ਸੱਭਿਆਚਾਰ (Children's Encyclopedia. Language, Literature, and Culture.).

Finally, we could zoom out one more level and count Chinese as a macrolanguage. But I agree with Deinonysus that if Chinese counts as a single macrolanguage despite the different varieties not really being mutually intelligible, then there are lots of other macrolanguages that you should probably consider too, and "native language" becomes a lot less meaningful.

Not until their speakers want it.

Despite their political differences, the Taiwanese have not swapped Mandarin with Hakka and Cantonese is not the primary written language in Hong Kong. The situation in South Asia is a bit different.

Here we simply refuse to accept that Hindi and Urdu are one language. And you risk inviting scorn if you suggest otherwise. Notice the first comment of An Illusion of Two Different Languages. (NOTE. I wrote this blog post way back in 2011. The top comment is from a Canadian who confused Urdu with Hindi.)

[Saim]

Could I ask you, do you find it true in practice that with your Urdu you can also understand everyday spoken Hindi?

Yes, absolutely. In the earlier stages of learning "Urdu" one of my main activities was watching Hindi films. It's essentially the same.

And with Punjabi as spoken in Pakistan and India, is the situation somewhat analogous, with the two varieties differing mainly at higher registers? I'm interested in Indo-Aryan languages and in learning Urdu and Hindi in particular, and I tend to think of it as a two-for-one deal, writing systems and advanced vocabulary aside. Just wondering if that's been your experience.

The thing is that Punjabi in Pakistan is not really written or used in high registers. When people write in Punjabi they will naturally tend towards an "Urduised" style, because that's the language Punjabi-speakers generally are literate in and were educated in (unless they went to English-speaking schools).

Punjabi in India does borrow Sanksritic neologisms from Hindi, but my sense is that they don't insist on them as much as in written Hindi.

But Punjabi wouldn't include the Lahnda languages, since a quick look at Wikipedia suggests that they differ from Punjabi in more significant ways than high-register vocabulary. ("Saraiki is to a high degree mutually intelligible with Standard Punjabi and shares with it a large portion of its vocabulary and morphology. At the same time in its phonology it is radically different (particularly in the lack of tones, the preservation of the voiced aspirates and the development of implosive consonants)....")

I have a Sargodhi (transitional between Punjabi/Majhi and Saraiki) grammar and even that seemed pretty different to, but other than that I don't think I've had enough contact with the Lahnda languages to be able to say how different they are.

I can say this though: Saraiki-speakers, Hindko-speakers from Khyber-Pakhtunkhwa and Pothohari-Pahari speakers from Kashmir (they call their language "Pahari") don't generally see themselves as Punjabi speakers. Hindko-speakers and Pothohari-Pahari speakers (they call their language "Pothohari") in Punjab Province do, in general, see their language as a variety of Punjabi.

So I'd probably stop at counting Hindi-Urdu, Punjabi, and Arabic as macrolanguages, but not Chinese.

"Macrolanguage" is a term invented by Ethnologue and only really used by sources citing Ethnologue. It's not a term used in linguistics.

As for higher registers, I have yet to read anything written (other than a few poems of Baba Najmi) in Western Punjabi to make a judgement. The poems weren't difficult to understand.

Can you read Shahmukhi?

The Punjabi University in my town of Patiala does consider Lahnda to be a dialect of Punjabi. They simply call it ਪੱਛਮੀ ਪੰਜਾਬੀ (Western Punjabi) or ਪਾਕਿਸਤਾਨੀ ਪੰਜਾਬੀ (Pakistani Punjabi) and have even published several anthologies of Western Punjabi Literature. Here is an article on Pakistani Punjabi Literature from ਬਾਲ ਵਿਸ਼ਵਕੋਸ਼: ਭਾਸ਼ਾ, ਸਾਹਿਤ ਅਤੇ ਸੱਭਿਆਚਾਰ (Children's Encyclopedia. Language, Literature, and Culture.).

I wouldn't be surprised to hear that the university in Patiala considers Lahnda to be a dialect of Punjabi, as that's the traditional view among local scholars in Punjab.

I understand that "Western Punjabi" is kind of an ambiguous term, but Pakistani Punjabi is not Lahnda, because the most common dialect in Pakistani Punjab is Majhi. "Lahnda" is Multani, Bahawalpuri, Peshawari, Mirpuri, etc.

[jonm]

verdastelo and Saim, thank you both for all your insights about these languages. That definitely gives me a much clearer picture.

Here we simply refuse to accept that Hindi and Urdu are one language. And you risk inviting scorn if you suggest otherwise. Notice the first comment of An Illusion of Two Different Languages. (NOTE. I wrote this blog post way back in 2011. The top comment is from a Canadian who confused Urdu with Hindi.)

Thanks for this reminder, and your blog post gives a good sense of the history and context. I've reworded my post slightly.

So I'd probably stop at counting Hindi-Urdu, Punjabi, and Arabic as macrolanguages, but not Chinese.

"Macrolanguage" is a term invented by Ethnologue and only really used by sources citing Ethnologue. It's not a term used in linguistics.

Well, I was imagining a scenario where I was making these judgments for Ethnologue, so I guess it's only fitting.

More seriously though, that's good to know. I studied linguistics too, but I'm not very well versed in this area. I'm mainly into phonetics and cognitive grammar.

Funny thing is, minutes before you replied, that sentence said that I would count Hindi-Urdu, Punjabi, and Arabic, but not Chinese, as single languages, since that seems to be how linguists generally classify them, though perhaps not in the countries in question. But as verdastelo reminded me, for some people who might read my post, these issues can be quite charged, so I did some quick rewording to try to avoid giving offense. Seems like neither phrasing was a winner.

For the purposes of forum discussions about learning all these languages, I wonder if there's a better shorthand for when you have varieties that are considered separate languages in the countries where they're spoken, but learning one really gets you most of the way to understanding the other. Malaysian and Indonesian might be another example.