Thoughts from Klyosov R1b data and the IE problem

I think R1b L23 conquered the Balkans 4000 BC , this area was in a crisis before their arrival. (4500 BC the Minoans started copper melting)
I think L51 came later on wagons, they crossed the Balkans and settled upstream along the Danube leaving R1b L23 in place in the Balkans. Is that possible?

R1b M73 went eastward, along with R1a. R1b M73 where the ones exploiting the copper mines in Bashkotarstan, west of South Ural. After that, R1a started exploiting the copper mines east of South Ural.
 
I am still waiting for Varna necropolis,
when a genntic search is done, I Think we can have a clear view,

about klyosov, and from West to East,
that seems to be connected with Tocharian movement from Near East to East

and maybe (I say maybe since noone yet gathered archaological data) the gold mettalurgy and Balkanic burial system to East.
 
is there a genetic search for Varna necropolis underway? can you tell more about that?
 
Anatolians carry R1a and R1b. Before the islamization and mongol invasion The Anatolians know their white skin with blonde hair all isolated anatolian villiages are blonde green blue eyes, Christians Anatolians have Nordic looking .
We anatolians dont lİke mongols and kurds. İ am anatolİan mİtannİ descend İ wİsh everyone return theİr homeland anatolİa for anatolİans​

I suggest you tone down your ethnic and supremacist agenda.
 
the proposal of BernardSeicher is judicious, among the best that I read.
But I would think more that IE would be a language of synthesis. A blended language and simplified can be to allow people to communicate together.
 
Actually, Proto-Indo-European was a fairly complex and formal language, more so than modern IE languages.
 
the proposal of BernardSeicher is judicious, among the best that I read.
But I would think more that IE would be a language of synthesis. A blended language and simplified can be to allow people to communicate together.

Actually, Proto-Indo-European was a fairly complex and formal language, more so than modern IE languages.

Aberdeen, you are correct. The idea that Proto-Indo-European was a creole or pidgin has been raised multiple times, but as you said, its fairly complex: in PIE there were 8 declensions (Nominative, Genitive, Dative, Accusative, Instrumental, Ablative, Locative, Vocative), for instance, and three numbers (Singular, Dual and Plural). That is not the sign of a 'blended language', as such languages tend to have a rather simplified grammar.
 
Aberdeen, you are correct. The idea that Proto-Indo-European was a creole or pidgin has been raised multiple times, but as you said, its fairly complex: in PIE there were 8 declensions (Nominative, Genitive, Dative, Accusative, Instrumental, Ablative, Locative, Vocative), for instance, and three numbers (Singular, Dual and Plural). That is not the sign of a 'blended language', as such languages tend to have a rather simplified grammar.

I think people who assume that Proto-Indo-European was a creole or pidgin language have never read what the linguists have to say about it and are just assuming that a nomadic pastoral people from the steppes who had more than one genetic signature would have been speaking a simplified polyglot language, as a result of the mixing of various tribes. And that seems like a perfectly reasonable assumption until one learns the extent to which linguists are able to reconstruct the language and we find that it's actually quite a formal and structurally conservative language. And, to me, that's one of the more puzzling aspects of the whole IE problem. To me, their linguistic style sounds more like what one might expect from a sedentary nation of scribes and priests. And yet apparently the things they actually liked were herding cattle, making bronze weapons, killing people and forcing the survivors to learn their language. I wonder how one says "Aahh! You stabbed me!" in Proto-Indo-European.
 
the indo-european proto nobody knows, but the old languages ie introduce characteristics of the ergativit?, of big numbers of declension of vouvoiment numerous ( different use to the second person) which one find in the European languages no indo as to basques, Hungarian, hittites.
It gives very much possible that IE is a pidgin and even a mixture of languages along the Black Sea;
If they notice English or French they are in good direction.
Can they trust in Kliuzov?
 
the indo-european proto nobody knows, but the old languages ie introduce characteristics of the ergativit�, of big numbers of declension of vouvoiment numerous ( different use to the second person) which one find in the European languages no indo as to basques, Hungarian, hittites.
It gives very much possible that IE is a pidgin and even a mixture of languages along the Black Sea;
If they notice English or French they are in good direction.
Can they trust in Kliuzov?

I'm sorry but you are definitely mistaken. There is no sign whatsoever of ergativity in Proto-Indo-European, because the language had an accusative case and a nominative case (as opposed to an ergative case and an absolutive case, which is the counterpart in ergative languages). Also, Hittite was an Indo-European language (part of the Anatolian language family, along with the Luwic languages), and Hittite was an accusative/nominative language. The same applies for the other 'old' Indo-European languages such as Greek, Latin and Sanskrit.

I should add that Hungarian and Finnish (both Uralic languages) are also are accusative/nominative languages, not ergative/absolutive, as are for example the Afroasiatic (including Berber, Egyptian and Semitic) languages.

It is not possible for Proto-Indo-European to have been a pidgin/creole, as it had a very complex grammar, and in general creole languages have a very simplified grammer.
 
I'm sorry but you are definitely mistaken. There is no sign whatsoever of ergativity in Proto-Indo-European, because the language had an accusative case and a nominative case (as opposed to an ergative case and an absolutive case, which is the counterpart in ergative languages). Also, Hittite was an Indo-European language (part of the Anatolian language family, along with the Luwic languages), and Hittite was an accusative/nominative language. The same applies for the other 'old' Indo-European languages such as Greek, Latin and Sanskrit.

I should add that Hungarian and Finnish (both Uralic languages) are also are accusative/nominative languages, not ergative/absolutive, as are for example the Afroasiatic (including Berber, Egyptian and Semitic) languages.

It is not possible for Proto-Indo-European to have been a pidgin/creole, as it had a very complex grammar, and in general creole languages have a very simplified grammer.


I am not an expert of the linguistics therefore I use wiki
examples given by wiki of the evolution of the ergative

Examples:

ancient Greek:
θύομαι ? I sacrifice for me ? (medium value),
κεῖμαι ? I am lying ? (medium tantum of intransitive value),
μάχομαι ? I fight ? (medium tantum of intransitive value)
Sanskrit:
यज॑ते y?jate ? it sacrifices for itself ? (medium value),
शेते॑ ś?te ? it is lying ? (medium tantum of intransitive value),
Latin:
inquinor ? I get dirty ? (medium tantum in medium value),
uēlor ? I become covered ? (medium tantum in medium value),
sequor ? I am ? [follow] (medium tantum in active value),
Icelandic:
matast to "eat ? (intransitive value),
sj?st ? to be seen ? (passive value),
kl? ? ast "get dressed" (medium value),
i ? rast "regret" (medium tantum),
skj?tlast "to be wrong" (medium tantum).
Russian:
кусаться "bite" (intransitive value)
целоваться "embrace each other" (intransitive value)
 
Last edited:
First off, welcome on the forum.

Honestly, I am afraid to say this, but these dates are absolutely impossible. This gets very clear from the adherence/non-adherence of sound laws. It is absolutely impossible that the Indo-European languages diverged before the latest Neolithic / Chalcolithic due to the fact that there are common words for agriculture, horses, cattle, and metal-working. Likewise, that the Centum and Satem splits are 10,000 years old is completely impossible. How could there be a common word for "horse" in Indo-European (ek´wos) if the Indo-European language family was older than the domestication of the horse?

Likewise, the association of R1a and R1b with the Indo-European languages is dubious, because only specific subclades (R1b-M269 and R1a1a) appears to be tied with the spread of the Indo-European languages, and even this produces a very incomplete and inaccurate picture. For instance is the distribution of R1a not limited to areas where Satem-IE languages are spoken. For instance, R1a reaches ~20% in Scandinavia, ~10% in Greece. Both the Germanic languages and Greek are Centum.

Also, never mind that with high likelihood R1b and R1a weren't in Europe that early.

interesting post of Bertrand, interesting answer by you (at first concerning the date of split) - just a detail: concerning kentum/satem I'm also tempted to think the bulk of the R1a tribes contributed to satemization -
concerning Greeks, R1a 10% is not so high - the 20% R1a of Scandinavia are in fact the result of two waves (I think), the R1a bearers of the second wave being in minority among other people (Y-R1b-U106 + -I1) and unable to change a dominant centum pronounciation - but I believe "my supposed" first wave of R1a was satem speaking OR RATHER on the way to - the R1a's newcomers in Greece were maybe among a proto-satem (not completely evolved) group, as the northwestern R1A's (corded?)
just my point for the moment- concerning U152 in steppes I 'm confused at this point
good thread, even if I discard completely a lot of Kyosov affirmations - what I conserve is the N-Pakistan (and surroundings) origin of R1b -
 
I am not an expert of the linguistics therefore I use wiki
examples given by wiki of the evolution of the ergative

Examples:

ancient Greek:
θύομαι � I sacrifice for me � (medium value),
κεῖμαι � I am lying � (medium tantum of intransitive value),
μάχομαι � I fight � (medium tantum of intransitive value)
Sanskrit:
यज॑ते y�jate � it sacrifices for itself � (medium value),
शेते॑ ś�te � it is lying � (medium tantum of intransitive value),
Latin:
inquinor � I get dirty � (medium tantum in medium value),
uēlor � I become covered � (medium tantum in medium value),
sequor � I am � [follow] (medium tantum in active value),
Icelandic:
matast to "eat � (intransitive value),
sj�st � to be seen � (passive value),
kl� � ast "get dressed" (medium value),
i � rast "regret" (medium tantum),
skj�tlast "to be wrong" (medium tantum).
Russian:
кусаться "bite" (intransitive value)
целоваться "embrace each other" (intransitive value)

Sorry, but you are clearly mistaken, because all of the languages you cite above (Greek, Latin, Icelandic, Sanskrit, Russian) all have nominative cases and accusative cases. The existence of intransitive verbs are no evidence for ergativity.
 
Linguist i am not therefore I prefer to let speak the specialists confirmed in latin and basque: Videgain, Michalena, Etxamendy ... therefore it is them that you may question, I am tired of this pointless debate without end and in loss of time, I do not think that it is essential not more.

It appears that the Supposed specificities of basque (ergative syntax, nominal prédicat, absence of kind, morphology, etc. ) are the caractéristiques of the indo-européen of before the hypothétique séparation groups, and whose aspects archaïques begin at se révéler (Martinet, Vaillant, Laroche, C. Tcheckoff). Finally, the lexical stock irréductible of Euskera - if this means without common roots - do we is not appeared at this day


http://rokus01.files.wordpress.com/2010/12/etchamendy.pdf
 
Sorry, but you are clearly mistaken, because all of the languages you cite above (Greek, Latin, Icelandic, Sanskrit, Russian) all have nominative cases and accusative cases. The existence of intransitive verbs are no evidence for ergativity.


This is false the nominative form exists in basque aslo the language IE have lost their declination ergative by their simplification (pidgin;Why? Because it can be considered the nominative form of language IE as the simplified form of the ergatif in the employment of the transitive, but in this case makes the essential auxiliary by its form active or inactive ).
In linguistics, the absolutif is a present case in the languages ergatives, or he is opposed to the case ergatif.

For example, in Basque, the name mutil (boy) takes the appropriate conjugation of the absolutif singular -a as well as subject of the sentence intransitive mutila etorri da (the boy has come) that object of the transitive sentence Irakasleak ikusi mutila of (the professor has seen the boy), in which the subject takes the appropriate conjugation ergative -ak.
For example French cas de l'absolutif:
l'homme a un chien (actif ,transitif direct.). L'homme est un chien (passif).
on retrouve dans l'emploi pronominal r?fl?chi des formes de l'ergatif des orignines: pronoms premi?re personne MOI et ME, lorsque il devient sujet et compl?ment simultan?ment : je moi rends --->je me rends---->me rends
There are some similarities of simplification of the French in comparison to the Russian for example in the use of the instrumental with declination or prepositif. Such this sentence.
And such between the dative and the prepositif: menia- -- >ot menia and obo mne ...
Therefore we can speak of simplification of the language.
 
Last edited:
This is false the nominative form exists in basque aslo the language IE have lost their declination ergative by their simplification (pidgin;Why? Because it can be considered the nominative form of language IE as the simplified form of the ergatif in the employment of the transitive, but in this case makes the essential auxiliary by its form active or inactive ).
In linguistics, the absolutif is a present case in the languages ergatives, or he is opposed to the case ergatif.

The whole "Indo-European languages formed through pigdinization" is obviously false. All pidgin and creole languages have an extremely simplified grammar. If one now assumes that Proto-Indo-European (or the individual branches of Indo-European) were the result of pidginization, then you must assume that the parent language was more complex. Considering that virtually all of "old" Indo-European languages (ie, Latin, Greek, Avestan, Sanskrit, Hittite, but also for example Gaulish, Celtiberian) and even some modern languages (Lithuanian for example) have a very complex grammar. If now you were to claim that Proto-Indo-European was a pidgin or creole, the consequence is that it was simplified from something else, more complex (more complex than eight noun cases, three numbers, etc.) which is something that is utterly nonsensical in my opinion.

Think about it: if you assume that the ergative case was lost in Indo-European, that would mean that this happened (independently?) in Latin, Sanskrit and Greek, which means that Proto-Indo-European would have been even more complex, and that seems to me entirely superfluous to claim, unless you have the foregone conclusion that Indo-European must have been more complex because you want to connect it to Basque (which, to me, seems to be your core point).

Linguist i am not therefore I prefer to let speak the specialists confirmed in latin and basque: Videgain, Michalena, Etxamendy ... therefore it is them that you may question, I am tired of this pointless debate without end and in loss of time, I do not think that it is essential not more.

It appears that the Supposed specificities of basque (ergative syntax, nominal prédicat, absence of kind, morphology, etc. ) are the caractéristiques of the indo-européen of before the hypothétique séparation groups, and whose aspects archaïques begin at se révéler (Martinet, Vaillant, Laroche, C. Tcheckoff). Finally, the lexical stock irréductible of Euskera - if this means without common roots - do we is not appeared at this day


http://rokus01.files.wordpress.com/2010/12/etchamendy.pdf

I'm not going to commend on that, because my French isn't that good (is there an English language version available?). I have to say though, what makes me raise an eyebrow is that the first thing the guy does is boast that he has a doctoral title (I don't want to transgress on him here) - but it doesn't strik me as a sign of professionalism that you have to go and boast about that. :rolleyes:

By the way, I would recommend you the etymological dictionary of Basque by the late linguist Larry Trask. To me it is clear that:

- the (core) vocabulary of Basque shows no sign whatsoever of a connection with the Indo-European languages. Borrowings from Indo-European languages do exist (Latin and Romance languages, in particular, but also Celtic), but this is a relatively recent thing.
- the grammar of Basque (an agglutinative, ergative-absolutive language) is very dissimilar to that reconstructed for Proto-Indo-European (a fusional, nominative-accusative language, notably also with three different numbers - singular, dual and plural - the dual which I might add, is non-existent in Basque!)
- Therefore, it is clear that Basque and Proto-Indo-European are not closely related with each other, and the idea that Proto-Indo-European was simplified from another language makes no sense if it in itself was so complex.

Also, no offense, I do sense that we are not getting each others point because of your deficit in English skills... (or my deficit in French skills) if that is the case (again, no offense), I would think it would be the best thing to leave it as is, and agree to disagree on the matter. :)
 
I might add, one language family that would qualify as being the result of a past pidginization are the Japonic languages, they match the criterion, as there is no gender, no numbers, and no articles - and the verb system of Japanese is (compared to that of Proto-Indo-European, for example) extremely simple (only two tenses).
 
This is not decisive for call a pidgin a language not having the article and the kind because it is also the case of the basque but the basque to several forme verbatim as the Hittite. I am not a connoisseur in the languages but i know enough play to know these information
I would remind you that the Basques have a semi society matriarchal the opposite of the majority of the peoples which could explain the absence of feminine gender and male
Behia cow
cows behiak
Oreina deer
deers orein asko (grand nombre)
dogs xakurra
dogs txakurrak
the man behind counting on their fingers as children, and when this number is exceeded it is common to use a plural signifant the many
http://www.euskomedia.org/PDFAnlt/riev/01/01154154.pdf

may be there is not the Proto IE but can exist be born IE language mixing language and probably would be the pidgin language of an ancient people led by the R1b group and may be the Basque could be a another development different from those old forgotten languages​​.
In my personal opinion
It is unfortunate that tchuvash Bashkir Urals have lost their language because this group has 75% of R1b

 
I've read somewhere that old Slavic kon was kobn, the horse female is kobyla in polish. Now we are closer to Italian caballo. Also horse run called trot is called kłus (eng phonetic: kwus, qwus) in polish, now we are close to IE eq'wos.

sorry for no global positive theory of mine - very often I put just some limited points: but it could help or at least eliminate false conclusions based upon mistaking "looks" of things:
the speacial [FONT=Times New Roman, serif]Ł [/FONT][FONT=Times New Roman, serif]/ [/FONT][FONT=Times New Roman, serif]ł[/FONT] /w/ of polish is well an ancient 'L' so we cannot assume a link with a supposed *kwus << equus - only a very modern loan could explain a non eymological spelling using this special evolved [FONT=Times New Roman, serif]Ł [/FONT]to exprim a /w/ distinct from polish 'W' = /v/ - the ancient I-E 'w' have turned into /v/ in polish and other languages -
so k[FONT=Times New Roman, serif]Ł[/FONT]us seems from *klos: maybe ??? an ancient **kros <> I-E >> germanic hros (horse, ros) ??? with ??? k-r <> cursus/carros ???
just an amateur hypothesis still to be proved -
 

This thread has been viewed 69940 times.

Back
Top