I am not sure about the meaning of "volume" in the sentence: "By volume, baijiu, a clear liquor made primarily from sorghum and rice and aged in terra-cotta barrels, is the most widely consumed spirit in the world." Does here volume mean amount? If so, then I think the phrase "by volume" should be omitted as it makes little sense in "Baijiu,...,is the most widely consumed spirit in the world." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 114.249.234.150 (talk) 01:03, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds like it means what it says: by gallons, or liters, or whatever unit. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:14, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

there's a difference between weight and volume....it's possible it's not the most consumed by weight..so the clause is specifying that it's referring to volume instead of weight...I'd bet an once of what's described weighs less than an once of whiskey, for example...68.48.241.158 (talk) 01:20, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict × 2) It's necessary to distinguish it from area. Baijiu is mostly in Asia (and if consumed outside of Asia, is consumed as "an Asian drink" instead of just "a drink"), while Scotch whisky is found throughout Asia, Europe, and North America (and I'm certain you could find it in South America and Africa easier than you could baijiu). Ian.thomson (talk) 01:25, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You might get different rankings if you compared different kinds of tipple by total price or by total alcohol content. —Tamfang (talk) 09:55, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The answer is because it's distinguishing it from weight...Google weight vs volume in liquids or in alcoholic spirits...68.48.241.158 (talk) 12:51, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There is indeed a difference between weight and volume - but when it comes to consumption of spirits the difference is likely to be insignificant. In this case, it is more likely to be intended to distinguish between consumption by volume and consumption by value. Baijiu is a comparatively low value product - so although more of it is drunk than any other spirits, more expensive ones are likely to have much higher values of sales. 109.150.174.93 (talk) 14:38, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's a serious stretch to suggest the consumption in this sentence doesn't refer to actual ingestion (though I suppose it's slightly possible).....and the difference between weight and volume can be very significant if you're talking about tens of millions of units....ie one ounce of X might weigh 5% more than 1 ounce of Y...so if sell the same units they're tied for volume but one lags by weight...for taxation purposes in the USA alcohol by weight is what's looked at generally, instead of alcohol by volume....68.48.241.158 (talk) 16:39, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It's probable that the most popular by volume consumed is also the most popular by weight since the densities of spirits won't vary hugely. More likely the intention is to distinguish popularity by quantity consumed from popularity by number of drinkers - there could be a small number of very thirsty Baijiu lovers. --catslash (talk) 17:06, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

if someone claims that a particular drink is the most consumed in the world...the only reasonable question someone might ask, is, "do you mean by weight or by volume?" no one would ask, "do you mean the total number of people who have taken at least one sip of said beverage in the previous year?" or, "do you mean the most money spent on said beverage?"68.48.241.158 (talk) 17:38, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"Most widely consumed" could also mean "consumed by the most people" (or possibly "consumed by the widest demographic"). They probably wouldn't use that wording to refer to value consumed, but that none the less is something that some people would likely be interested in (ditto for number of sales). As such, adding "By volume, " makes it clear what they are saying, and only costs 11 characters. Iapetus (talk) 20:12, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

93.126.95.68 (talk) 03:32, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The Tingler ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.111.96.35 (talk) 03:43, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The spinal cord is called medulla spinalis in Latin, if that's what you meant. Gabbe (talk) 08:40, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If you are asking what is the Greek for spinal cord, σπονδυλική στήλη. 109.150.174.93 (talk) 10:25, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There seems to be plenty of interest in the oldest language (Sanskrit, Hebrew, Aramaic, Basque, take your pick). But what natural language is the youngest?--Llaanngg (talk) 20:49, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Afrikaans appears to be fairly young, having developed in the 18th century from Dutch. It was actually considered a Dutch dialect until the early 20th century. There are quite a few GHits claiming it's the youngest, but I haven't found any reliable sources confirming that. clpo13_(talk) 20:55, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) Some links on it (probably not at all reliable): [1], [2], [3], [4]. Wikipedia also has List of languages by first written accounts but that only discusses the first written instance of a language (which in Afrikaans' case is 1844). clpo13_(talk) 21:02, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

We could consider Afrikaans a kind of Dutch spoken in SA. At least they are mutually intelligible. --Llaanngg (talk) 21:02, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

According to this article, Afrikaans is the third-youngest language (1923), behind Light Warlpiri (mid-1980s) and the Guniyandi language (1982). Tevildo (talk) 21:00, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There's nothing in our Guniyandi article about it coming into being as recently as 1982. In fact it's described as an endangered langage. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 21:10, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, the information linked is obviously wrong. Llaanngg (talk) 22:54, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Do they mean youngest, or more recently discovered? I am afraid this article is mixing both definitions. --Llaanngg (talk) 21:04, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

(ec) For most naturally-evolving languages, the question is arguably meaningless. Most languages (except possibly Creoles and some very few other exceptional cases) aren't "born" – each language has essentially the same depth of historical background of transmission from generation to generation, forming an unbroken chain down the millennia. The fact that some variety, like Afrikaans, may at some point cease to be regarded as merely a dialect and start being perceived as a language separate from some other related variety, is linguistically pretty much meaningless. Having said this, we can turn to the genuine exceptions, and here I'd guess that Nicaraguan Sign Language is a pretty strong candidate, having been around only since the 1970s. Fut.Perf. ☼ 21:05, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Very interesting! Now I'm lost in a never-ending chain of sign language articles, thanks. clpo13_(talk) 21:09, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'd expect that it's a creole or sign language. In these cases we could at least pinpoint when they started to form.Llaanngg (talk) 22:58, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

On reading the question, without seeing the answers, my immediate guess was also a creole or a sign language. (If I had a million dollars, I'd create [the conditions for] an entirely new sign language.) But another angle on the question is to consider new dialects and sociolects. One that has been studied is Multicultural London English; apparently our category is City colloquials. Or - unconnected to deaf people - there is the rise of Baby Sign. Carbon Caryatid (talk) 23:12, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Tok Pisin is also fairly young. Not younger than the others so mentioned. The problem with identifying a single "language" as distinct from others and when it becomes a distinct language on its own is analogous to the Species problem. Just as biologists can have difficulty defining what makes two different populations of living creatures to be different species, linguists can have difficulty defining what makes two different populations of speakers having distinct languages. See also A language is a dialect with an army and navy. --Jayron32 01:46, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hey @Future Perfect at Sunrise:, I get what you're saying, as the same objection could be given to the question "what is the youngest species". It is true that every living being (and language) has a history that is just as long, and Jayron notes the species problem above. However, biologists still talk about speciation, even though it can be difficult to clearly express what we mean and our methods are continually improving. And we can say things like "X is a very old species", meaning that it has remained largely unchanged for a long time, while "Y is a young species" means that it has a shallower split on a phylogenetic tree. We use a sort of short hand to fit a more complicated scientific notion into a more convenient expression in natural language. So my question to you is: Since linguists do make and use phylogenetic trees (e.g. [5] [6]), isn't this a good basis for talking about the "age" of a language? SemanticMantis (talk) 15:26, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Another point of view is that this is a political question. When Yugoslavia still existed, there used to be a language there called Serbo-Croatian. Now they speak Serbian in Serbia and Croatian in Croatia. (I am undubtedly oversimplifying the situation in those countries, but you see my point.) So was this the most recent instance of such a change of designation, or is there a newer one? --69.159.61.172 (talk) 09:35, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hindi and Urdu split along political and religious lines, they use different writing systems, Urdu uses Arabic script, Hindi is written in Devanagari script. As spoken languages the mutual intelligibility is still very high, they're basically indistinguishable. Another example is the gradual divergence between North and South Korean. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 09:45, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, as one language they were (or are) known as Hindustani. DuncanHill (talk) 17:51, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There is the well recorded phenomenon of Cryptophasia, when twins develop their own private languages as they learn to speak. Somewhere a pair of twins is developing a completely new, natural language right now. 109.150.174.93 (talk) 13:47, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Has any instance of cryptophasia ever developed into the native language of a multigenerational community? If that has not happened then it's not a "language" for the purposes of this discussion. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 15:35, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It could have - given that no-one knows how 99.9% of the world's languages actually got started. 217.44.50.87 (talk) 17:05, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]