Eupedia Forums
Site NavigationEupedia Top > Eupedia Forum & Japan Forum
Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 41

Thread: is it possible to construct a Proto-Native-European?

  1. #1
    Regular Member Achievements:
    1000 Experience Points1 year registered

    Join Date
    28-02-12
    Posts
    55
    Points
    2,499
    Level
    14
    Points: 2,499, Level: 14
    Level completed: 17%, Points required for next Level: 251
    Overall activity: 0%


    Country: Italy



    is it possible to construct a Proto-Native-European?



    i was wondering, in the same way that PIE has been constructed, is it possible to construct a proto language for native european languages which brings together all (or most of) the non-IE languages, based on similar words?

  2. #2
    Advisor Achievements:
    Three FriendsVeteranTagger First Class25000 Experience Points
    Awards:
    Posting Award
    LeBrok's Avatar
    Join Date
    18-11-09
    Location
    Calgary
    Posts
    4,335
    Points
    27,170
    Level
    50
    Points: 27,170, Level: 50
    Level completed: 62%, Points required for next Level: 380
    Overall activity: 99.2%

    Y-DNA haplogroup
    R1b1b2a
    MtDNA haplogroup
    H1c

    Ethnic group
    Citizen of the world
    Country: Canada-Alberta



    I don't think there was one European language before IE. Most likely South was speaking Afro-Asiatic/Semitic form brought with first farmers, mostly J2 people, as with E, T and J1. HG I people, hunter-gatherers from North, were speaking some old language, but who knows what? Most likely we can vaguely speculate about 100 words of that origin. We did this exercise in some other thread, but I can't find it at the moment.
    There was also long and strong influence of HG G, most likely from Caucas, and who knows what they spoke in Neolithic?
    Invention of time machine is highly necessary in this case!

  3. #3
    Advisor Achievements:
    Three Friends1 year registeredTagger Second Class10000 Experience PointsOverdrive

    Join Date
    07-11-12
    Location
    Germany
    Posts
    1,992
    Points
    14,798
    Level
    36
    Points: 14,798, Level: 36
    Level completed: 94%, Points required for next Level: 52
    Overall activity: 99.3%

    Y-DNA haplogroup
    R1b1b2a* (inferred)

    Country: Germany



    Quote Originally Posted by LeBrok View Post
    I don't think there was one European language before IE. Most likely South was speaking Afro-Asiatic/Semitic form brought with first farmers, mostly J2 people, as with E, T and J1. HG I people, hunter-gatherers from North, were speaking some old language, but who knows what? Most likely we can vaguely speculate about 100 words of that origin. We did this exercise in some other thread, but I can't find it at the moment.
    There was also long and strong influence of HG G, most likely from Caucas, and who knows what they spoke in Neolithic?
    Invention of time machine is highly necessary in this case!
    First off, I absolutely agree that there certainly wasn't "one" language family in Europe before the Indo-Europeans, but far more probably several. The easiest evidence for that comes from the two living pre-Indo-European language branches in Europe, the Uralic (Finnish, Estonian, etc.) and Vasconic (Basque, and it's ancestor language, Aquitanian), which are completely unrelated with each other.

    With "native", one must also the question "since when"? If we define "native Europeans" as "bearers of Haplogroup I", then it's fairly safe to assume that these languages already became extinct in the Neolithic.

  4. #4
    Regular Member Achievements:
    1000 Experience Points1 year registered

    Join Date
    28-02-12
    Posts
    55
    Points
    2,499
    Level
    14
    Points: 2,499, Level: 14
    Level completed: 17%, Points required for next Level: 251
    Overall activity: 0%


    Country: Italy



    i was thinking of this because of some cognates between some etruscan words and the proto-ugro-finnic languages

  5. #5
    Regular Member Achievements:
    1 year registered5000 Experience PointsOverdrive
    zanipolo's Avatar
    Join Date
    22-03-11
    Location
    Eastern Australia
    Posts
    1,977
    Points
    9,037
    Level
    28
    Points: 9,037, Level: 28
    Level completed: 48%, Points required for next Level: 313
    Overall activity: 0%

    Y-DNA haplogroup
    T1 - L446
    MtDNA haplogroup
    H26a1

    Ethnic group
    Venet
    Country: Australia



    Quote Originally Posted by 8mike View Post
    i was thinking of this because of some cognates between some etruscan words and the proto-ugro-finnic languages
    there is one man who says adriatic venetic spoke a Finnic ( but not ugric ) language ....see below...its over 360 pages

    http://www.paabo.ca/veneti/


    while Baltic venedi spoke an old galidian language ( which formed baltic prusian later on ), on another post

  6. #6
    Regular Member Achievements:
    Overdrive10000 Experience PointsVeteran

    Join Date
    02-10-11
    Posts
    1,816
    Points
    12,338
    Level
    33
    Points: 12,338, Level: 33
    Level completed: 56%, Points required for next Level: 312
    Overall activity: 71.0%


    Ethnic group
    Makedonian original
    Country: Greece



    Quote Originally Posted by zanipolo View Post
    there is one man who says adriatic venetic spoke a Finnic ( but not ugric ) language ....see below...its over 360 pages

    http://www.paabo.ca/veneti/


    while Baltic venedi spoke an old galidian language ( which formed baltic prusian later on ), on another post
    Can you Help me?
    I mean what this 2 languages were? both IE? or 1 IE and 1 not?
    I ask cause I did not understand the Finnic not Ugric (you mean not Magyar?)

  7. #7
    Advisor Achievements:
    Three FriendsVeteranTagger First Class25000 Experience Points
    Awards:
    Posting Award
    LeBrok's Avatar
    Join Date
    18-11-09
    Location
    Calgary
    Posts
    4,335
    Points
    27,170
    Level
    50
    Points: 27,170, Level: 50
    Level completed: 62%, Points required for next Level: 380
    Overall activity: 99.2%

    Y-DNA haplogroup
    R1b1b2a
    MtDNA haplogroup
    H1c

    Ethnic group
    Citizen of the world
    Country: Canada-Alberta



    Quote Originally Posted by zanipolo View Post

    while Baltic venedi spoke an old galidian language ( which formed baltic prusian later on ), on another post
    Is this another proofless statement of yours?!

    If this is just your guess, your own deduction, or someones guess, please, start your sentence from " I guess "I think", "Probably", "I believe" etc. Otherwise people will want the proof, or just make fun of your statement or yourself, knowing that you can't prove it. Other words, you confuse people and, at the same time, make an easy target of yourself.

    Now, show us Baltic Veneti's text and its analyses.

  8. #8
    Advisor Achievements:
    Three FriendsVeteranTagger First Class25000 Experience Points
    Awards:
    Posting Award
    LeBrok's Avatar
    Join Date
    18-11-09
    Location
    Calgary
    Posts
    4,335
    Points
    27,170
    Level
    50
    Points: 27,170, Level: 50
    Level completed: 62%, Points required for next Level: 380
    Overall activity: 99.2%

    Y-DNA haplogroup
    R1b1b2a
    MtDNA haplogroup
    H1c

    Ethnic group
    Citizen of the world
    Country: Canada-Alberta



    Quote Originally Posted by 8mike View Post
    i was thinking of this because of some cognates between some etruscan words and the proto-ugro-finnic languages
    Very interesting. Do you have a list of these words, or could link us to a website.

  9. #9
    Regular Member Achievements:
    1 year registered5000 Experience PointsOverdrive
    zanipolo's Avatar
    Join Date
    22-03-11
    Location
    Eastern Australia
    Posts
    1,977
    Points
    9,037
    Level
    28
    Points: 9,037, Level: 28
    Level completed: 48%, Points required for next Level: 313
    Overall activity: 0%

    Y-DNA haplogroup
    T1 - L446
    MtDNA haplogroup
    H26a1

    Ethnic group
    Venet
    Country: Australia



    Quote Originally Posted by LeBrok View Post
    Is this another proofless statement of yours?!

    that's very rude indicating I never present a link to what I find even if I do not believe what I attach.

    If this is just your guess, your own deduction, or someones guess, please, start your sentence from " I guess "I think", "Probably", "I believe" etc. Otherwise people will want the proof, or just make fun of your statement or yourself, knowing that you can't prove it. Other words, you confuse people and, at the same time, make an easy target of yourself.

    Now, show us Baltic Veneti's text and its analyses.
    And no this is not my guess, I was purely indicating this part of the statement because many people think all venetic's spoke the same language....and I do not refer only to the eupedia thread but others as well.
    If you dislike all the link I attach be them right or wrong, then blame the writers and not me. Who are you to judge what is right or was is wrong. It up to each individual to find out. In regards to the link, even though it is 360 pages long and makes sense in cases, I do not believe it.
    In regards to the baltic venedi, I believe they where a baltic people most likely a branch of the lithuanians, lats, kars or samogian people. HGs today prove they are finnic ( thats against what I think)

    The line should have read, it was stated ......and I did read it on another link

    EDIT - here is the one of the reasons I think they are lithuanian
    http://books.google.com.au/books?id=...epage&q=venedi language&f=false

    and ( page 450)
    http://books.google.com.au/books?id=...venedi&f=false

  10. #10
    Regular Member Achievements:
    1 year registered5000 Experience PointsOverdrive
    zanipolo's Avatar
    Join Date
    22-03-11
    Location
    Eastern Australia
    Posts
    1,977
    Points
    9,037
    Level
    28
    Points: 9,037, Level: 28
    Level completed: 48%, Points required for next Level: 313
    Overall activity: 0%

    Y-DNA haplogroup
    T1 - L446
    MtDNA haplogroup
    H26a1

    Ethnic group
    Venet
    Country: Australia



    Quote Originally Posted by Yetos View Post
    Can you Help me?
    I mean what this 2 languages were? both IE? or 1 IE and 1 not?
    I ask cause I did not understand the Finnic not Ugric (you mean not Magyar?)
    i do not understand all yours questions, but venetic is a IE language ( as professors of linguistics indicate) and yes Finnic can be seperated from the Ugric " magyar".
    I think it is seperated like baltic-slavic . You can only have baltic, like west-baltic, east -baltic

  11. #11
    Advisor Achievements:
    Three Friends1 year registeredTagger Second Class10000 Experience PointsOverdrive

    Join Date
    07-11-12
    Location
    Germany
    Posts
    1,992
    Points
    14,798
    Level
    36
    Points: 14,798, Level: 36
    Level completed: 94%, Points required for next Level: 52
    Overall activity: 99.3%

    Y-DNA haplogroup
    R1b1b2a* (inferred)

    Country: Germany



    Quote Originally Posted by zanipolo View Post
    i do not understand all yours questions, but venetic is a IE language ( as professors of linguistics indicate) and yes Finnic can be seperated from the Ugric " magyar".
    I think it is seperated like baltic-slavic . You can only have baltic, like west-baltic, east -baltic
    Finnic languages and Hungarian (Magyar) are much more distantly related than the Blatic and Slavic languages. You have to consider that the Uralic languages are a very old language family: Proto-Uralic was the language of a hunter-gatherer society (note however, that this does not automatically mean that Proto-Uralic was spoken in the Paleolithic!). I remember reading somewhere that the distance between Finnish and Hungarian has been compared to the distance between German and Persian amongst the Indo-European languages.

    In any case, I don't think that Etruscan is closely related with the Uralic languages. The most promising I've seen thus far, is trying to link it with one of the Caucasian language families (in particular Northeast Caucasian - the same language family that includes Chechen).

  12. #12
    Regular Member Achievements:
    1 year registered5000 Experience PointsOverdrive
    zanipolo's Avatar
    Join Date
    22-03-11
    Location
    Eastern Australia
    Posts
    1,977
    Points
    9,037
    Level
    28
    Points: 9,037, Level: 28
    Level completed: 48%, Points required for next Level: 313
    Overall activity: 0%

    Y-DNA haplogroup
    T1 - L446
    MtDNA haplogroup
    H26a1

    Ethnic group
    Venet
    Country: Australia



    Quote Originally Posted by Taranis View Post
    Finnic languages and Hungarian (Magyar) are much more distantly related than the Blatic and Slavic languages. You have to consider that the Uralic languages are a very old language family: Proto-Uralic was the language of a hunter-gatherer society (note however, that this does not automatically mean that Proto-Uralic was spoken in the Paleolithic!). I remember reading somewhere that the distance between Finnish and Hungarian has been compared to the distance between German and Persian amongst the Indo-European languages.

    In any case, I don't think that Etruscan is closely related with the Uralic languages. The most promising I've seen thus far, is trying to link it with one of the Caucasian language families (in particular Northeast Caucasian - the same language family that includes Chechen).
    I was making the point that you can have the finnic without the uralic part, they do not always go together .

    In regards to the etruscans, .......and I read recently they decended from old thracian lands of Transylvannia around 1200BC. I could not be bothered in linking this site. And I am not saying they where thracians.
    I posted another link on etruscans in another thread recently.

  13. #13
    Advisor Achievements:
    Three FriendsVeteranTagger First Class25000 Experience Points
    Awards:
    Posting Award
    LeBrok's Avatar
    Join Date
    18-11-09
    Location
    Calgary
    Posts
    4,335
    Points
    27,170
    Level
    50
    Points: 27,170, Level: 50
    Level completed: 62%, Points required for next Level: 380
    Overall activity: 99.2%

    Y-DNA haplogroup
    R1b1b2a
    MtDNA haplogroup
    H1c

    Ethnic group
    Citizen of the world
    Country: Canada-Alberta



    Quote Originally Posted by zanipolo View Post
    that's very rude indicating I never present a link to what I find even if I do not believe what I attach.



    And no this is not my guess, I was purely indicating this part of the statement because many people think all venetic's spoke the same language....and I do not refer only to the eupedia thread but others as well.
    If you dislike all the link I attach be them right or wrong, then blame the writers and not me. Who are you to judge what is right or was is wrong. It up to each individual to find out. In regards to the link, even though it is 360 pages long and makes sense in cases, I do not believe it.
    In regards to the baltic venedi, I believe they where a baltic people most likely a branch of the lithuanians, lats, kars or samogian people. HGs today prove they are finnic ( thats against what I think)

    The line should have read, it was stated ......and I did read it on another link

    EDIT - here is the one of the reasons I think they are lithuanian
    http://books.google.com.au/books?id=...epage&q=venedi language&f=false

    and ( page 450)
    http://books.google.com.au/books?id=...venedi&f=false

    I'm sorry, but because some historian wrote a book in 1830 (old must be true) with his speculations about Baltic Veneti it is not a proof. Since then we dug, excavated and read all the sources, and thus far, we don't have a clue of what language they spoke? Where did exactly they live (as every historian points to different place, and by width of a modern country lol)? We can't guess their ethnicity, even worse, we can't decide to which culture we should pin them to, Lusatian?
    All we can say that most likely they were either celtic, germanic, balto-slavic kind. We don't even know if there name was an exonym or not.

  14. #14
    Regular Member Achievements:
    1 year registered5000 Experience PointsOverdrive
    zanipolo's Avatar
    Join Date
    22-03-11
    Location
    Eastern Australia
    Posts
    1,977
    Points
    9,037
    Level
    28
    Points: 9,037, Level: 28
    Level completed: 48%, Points required for next Level: 313
    Overall activity: 0%

    Y-DNA haplogroup
    T1 - L446
    MtDNA haplogroup
    H26a1

    Ethnic group
    Venet
    Country: Australia



    Quote Originally Posted by LeBrok View Post
    I'm sorry, but because some historian wrote a book in 1830 (old must be true) with his speculations about Baltic Veneti it is not a proof. Since then we dug, excavated and read all the sources, and thus far, we don't have a clue of what language they spoke? Where did exactly they live (as every historian points to different place, and by width of a modern country lol)? We can't guess their ethnicity, even worse, we can't decide to which culture we should pin them to, Lusatian?
    All we can say that most likely they were either celtic, germanic, balto-slavic kind. We don't even know if there name was an exonym or not.
    I am sorry, but you are wrong, but the book is updated every 40 years ( which 2008 is last print) and although some things have changed, what I linked has not. The page in question in my book does not correspond to the page I linked due to changes done by scientific historians over the course of 180 years.
    If you did not realise, the book is one of clearing up the ancient historians meanings of people, areas etc into one basic clear answer.
    Look up the year 1200 for lithuanian history and work backwards from there and you will realise they are the Venedae. Then ask yourself , who are the lithaunians and you will find, all baltic prussian tribes, lats, kars, livs , samogitians, galidians, sambians, warmians etc etc , but not ests who are finnic

    Besides, even if its dated 1830, I still see we do not say strabo, pliny etc etc are too old , their papers are outdated, they have speculated, blah blah blah. Who decides what dates of authors we can or cannot use?....you!

    So, what proof do you have that the baltic venedi are celtic or germanic or as you wrongly say Balto-slavic ( which is linguistic and not tribal identity)

    In regards to adriatic veneti, ..look up professor Perego in her 2010 archeological finds. To find out what they are/where.

  15. #15
    Regular Member Achievements:
    Overdrive10000 Experience PointsVeteran

    Join Date
    02-10-11
    Posts
    1,816
    Points
    12,338
    Level
    33
    Points: 12,338, Level: 33
    Level completed: 56%, Points required for next Level: 312
    Overall activity: 71.0%


    Ethnic group
    Makedonian original
    Country: Greece



    Quote Originally Posted by Taranis View Post
    Finnic languages and Hungarian (Magyar) are much more distantly related than the Blatic and Slavic languages. You have to consider that the Uralic languages are a very old language family: Proto-Uralic was the language of a hunter-gatherer society (note however, that this does not automatically mean that Proto-Uralic was spoken in the Paleolithic!). I remember reading somewhere that the distance between Finnish and Hungarian has been compared to the distance between German and Persian amongst the Indo-European languages.

    In any case, I don't think that Etruscan is closely related with the Uralic languages. The most promising I've seen thus far, is trying to link it with one of the Caucasian language families (in particular Northeast Caucasian - the same language family that includes Chechen).
    in comparison to that there is also the Adygean theory, but both Chechen and Adygean seems to be far from the Historical data, exept the case of a possible Pelasgian road of G HG that starts from Adygeans to south minor Asia and then to Italy,
    although it seems that the G HG of minor asia and Etruscans is a bit different?

    So when you say Chechen we Speak about a Turkic population?

  16. #16
    Advisor Achievements:
    Three Friends1 year registeredTagger Second Class10000 Experience PointsOverdrive

    Join Date
    07-11-12
    Location
    Germany
    Posts
    1,992
    Points
    14,798
    Level
    36
    Points: 14,798, Level: 36
    Level completed: 94%, Points required for next Level: 52
    Overall activity: 99.3%

    Y-DNA haplogroup
    R1b1b2a* (inferred)

    Country: Germany



    Quote Originally Posted by Yetos View Post
    in comparison to that there is also the Adygean theory, but both Chechen and Adygean seems to be far from the Historical data, exept the case of a possible Pelasgian road of G HG that starts from Adygeans to south minor Asia and then to Italy,
    although it seems that the G HG of minor asia and Etruscans is a bit different?
    I did not talk about Haplogroups here.

    So when you say Chechen we Speak about a Turkic population?
    Chechens have nothing to do with Turks or speakers of Turkic languages. The Chechen language belongs to the Northeast Caucasian language family, one of the three native language families of the Caucasus (the other two are the Northeast Caucasian languages, which includes Abkhaz and Adyghe, and the Kartvelic languages, which includes the Georgian languages).

  17. #17
    Regular Member Achievements:
    Overdrive10000 Experience PointsVeteran

    Join Date
    02-10-11
    Posts
    1,816
    Points
    12,338
    Level
    33
    Points: 12,338, Level: 33
    Level completed: 56%, Points required for next Level: 312
    Overall activity: 71.0%


    Ethnic group
    Makedonian original
    Country: Greece



    Quote Originally Posted by Taranis View Post
    I did not talk about Haplogroups here.



    Chechens have nothing to do with Turks or speakers of Turkic languages. The Chechen language belongs to the Northeast Caucasian language family, one of the three native language families of the Caucasus (the other two are the Northeast Caucasian languages, which includes Abkhaz and Adyghe, and the Kartvelic languages, which includes the Georgian languages).
    I see you are fun of the 'Aquiline nose'

    well that means that Julius ceasar could be Etruscan

    I read that theory about Hattians being Adygeans (not chechens but Adygeans, North west Caucas)

    my problem is to prove if Sea peoples were Hattians or not.

    cause if sea peoples were Speaking Hattian then we might search for the N caucas origin of Hattian language,
    I am interesting to see more of your believe.

    until then I believe more that they are connected with Eblait to Akkadiian to a minor Asia non IE Language.
    Although I still use the Hath- cause I believe that semitic is a Caucasian language that Spread south and return, than a language that spread from South to North.

    Adygea is far to me, except if both Hettit and Hattians did not enter the same time, and they surely learn Seafaring very fast so create their maps and vessels and travel all mediterenean from Italy to Palestine, it is a daring challenge which only Minoans dare before Phoenicians and then Greeks. (except Jason and Argonauts).
    but then how come Adygeans pass Colchis and land of Hettit?

  18. #18
    Regular Member Achievements:
    1 year registered1000 Experience Points

    Join Date
    03-03-12
    Posts
    212
    Points
    1,827
    Level
    11
    Points: 1,827, Level: 11
    Level completed: 93%, Points required for next Level: 23
    Overall activity: 15.0%


    Ethnic group
    Serbian
    Country: Netherlands



    Quote Originally Posted by Taranis View Post
    With "native", one must also the question "since when"? If we define "native Europeans" as "bearers of Haplogroup I", then it's fairly safe to assume that these languages already became extinct in the Neolithic.
    why would that be fairly safe to assume?

    you are aware that up to 2500-3000 years ago proto-latin language possibly only "survived" in a village called Rome and few little villages around it (small area between river Tiber, Apenines and Monte Circeo) while now derived languages cover whole latin America and big part of Europe?

  19. #19
    Advisor Achievements:
    Three Friends1 year registeredTagger Second Class10000 Experience PointsOverdrive

    Join Date
    07-11-12
    Location
    Germany
    Posts
    1,992
    Points
    14,798
    Level
    36
    Points: 14,798, Level: 36
    Level completed: 94%, Points required for next Level: 52
    Overall activity: 99.3%

    Y-DNA haplogroup
    R1b1b2a* (inferred)

    Country: Germany



    Quote Originally Posted by how yes no 3 View Post
    why would that be fairly safe to assume?
    Compare the dominance of Bantu languages in southern Africa against non-Bantu ones (ie, the Khoisan languages): we have large-scale iron age migrations that happened comparably recently and can be excellently traced archaeologically (pre-Bantu hunter-gatherers vs. iron age Bantus). By the time the European showed up in these areas, very little was left of the native hunter-gatherers that had not intermingled, and it was only in fairly reclusive desert areas that the Khoisan languages actually survived.

    It's difficult to imagine that Europe's hunter-gathers fared particularly better against the Neolithic immigrants, and it's even more difficult to imagine that there was particularly much left of these hunter-gatherer languages by the time that the Bronze Age immigrations took place. As I said, the only language family in Europe where we can genuinely assume that they were originally a hunter-gatherer language are the Uralic languages, and it's most likely that this happened because farming was simply not viable in the tundra climate of Northeastern Europe, and as a result the Neolithic Farmers never spread there.

    This shouldn't be a discussion about genetics, but If you look at the It's clear that all subclades of Haplogroup I are individual lineages that happened to survive inside Neolithic/Bronze Age lineages and then became more abundant again as a result of later expansions/migrations, and that all Paleolithic languages that may have been originally tied with Haplogroup I are completely extinct.

    you are aware that up to 2500 years ago proto-latin language possibly only "survived" in a village called Rome and few little villages around it?
    Latin wasn't restricted to a village and a few villages around it, but an entire region (Latium), and it was inhabited by iron-age peoples who technologically (and if the we take the Falisci, Oscans and Umbrians, also linguistically) not very different from their iron age neighbours.

  20. #20
    Regular Member Achievements:
    1 year registered5000 Experience PointsOverdrive
    zanipolo's Avatar
    Join Date
    22-03-11
    Location
    Eastern Australia
    Posts
    1,977
    Points
    9,037
    Level
    28
    Points: 9,037, Level: 28
    Level completed: 48%, Points required for next Level: 313
    Overall activity: 0%

    Y-DNA haplogroup
    T1 - L446
    MtDNA haplogroup
    H26a1

    Ethnic group
    Venet
    Country: Australia


  21. #21
    Regular Member Achievements:
    1 year registered1000 Experience Points

    Join Date
    03-03-12
    Posts
    212
    Points
    1,827
    Level
    11
    Points: 1,827, Level: 11
    Level completed: 93%, Points required for next Level: 23
    Overall activity: 15.0%


    Ethnic group
    Serbian
    Country: Netherlands



    Quote Originally Posted by Taranis View Post
    Latin wasn't restricted to a village and a few villages around it, but an entire region (Latium), and it was inhabited by iron-age peoples who technologically (and if the we take the Falisci, Oscans and Umbrians, also linguistically) not very different from their iron age neighbours.
    small part of Latium is "old Latium" where latin was spoken in time frame I mentioned
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Old_Latium

    in whole Europe there could have easily been many much larger regions where language of hunter gatherers could easily survive... so, it is not safe to assume....

    e.g. neolithic farmers would spread in planes and river valleys but not in high mountains...

    so it is quite possible that old inhabitants would gather in some of such regions and after getting stronger conquer larger areas and impose their language....

    consequently if we want to look into proto-native-european and we assume it was not PIE (which is not really safe to assume) we should look in shared non-IE vocabulary between geographically remote and isolated places not interesting for neolithic farmers...

  22. #22
    Regular Member Achievements:
    1000 Experience Points1 year registered

    Join Date
    28-02-12
    Posts
    55
    Points
    2,499
    Level
    14
    Points: 2,499, Level: 14
    Level completed: 17%, Points required for next Level: 251
    Overall activity: 0%


    Country: Italy



    Quote Originally Posted by LeBrok View Post
    Very interesting. Do you have a list of these words, or could link us to a website.
    these are the words i remember:

    Etruscan "tume" (tomb or to bury) Hungarian "temet" (bury) from "tom" (to put in) + "et" (live in) -- maybe related to τύμβος
    Etruscan "cel" (arise) Hungarian "kel" (arise)
    Etruscan "cul" (underworld) Ugro_Finnic "*kul" (death)
    Etruscan "zat" (battle) Hungarian "csata" (battle)
    Etruscan "zilac" (star) Hungarian "csilag" (star)
    Etruscan "zin" (make) Hungarian "csin" (make)
    Etruscan "cexa" (love) Hungarian "kegy" (love)

    but i don't know the source of those Etruscan words (except the first one), they might be invented.

  23. #23
    Regular Member Achievements:
    1000 Experience Points1 year registered

    Join Date
    28-02-12
    Posts
    55
    Points
    2,499
    Level
    14
    Points: 2,499, Level: 14
    Level completed: 17%, Points required for next Level: 251
    Overall activity: 0%


    Country: Italy



    Quote Originally Posted by zanipolo View Post
    the PIE root *uer means "river" so the ones in *ver may be just PIE. The ones with "sal, if they are somehow salty rivers, may be another PIE root. *al means "to grow" or "to begin" so if those were settlements their root can be PIE. The one which is non PIE is *dur

  24. #24
    Regular Member Achievements:
    Overdrive10000 Experience PointsVeteran

    Join Date
    02-10-11
    Posts
    1,816
    Points
    12,338
    Level
    33
    Points: 12,338, Level: 33
    Level completed: 56%, Points required for next Level: 312
    Overall activity: 71.0%


    Ethnic group
    Makedonian original
    Country: Greece



    Quote Originally Posted by 8mike View Post
    the PIE root *uer means "river" so the ones in *ver may be just PIE. The ones with "sal, if they are somehow salty rivers, may be another PIE root. *al means "to grow" or "to begin" so if those were settlements their root can be PIE. The one which is non PIE is *dur
    Nope I think the *dur is clear IE,
    word cognates with IE words for water υδωρ edu udens jur dwr etc(greek brygian latvian armenian welsh)
    just compare river Oder Eder and the rest, they just seem to mean water,

  25. #25
    Advisor Achievements:
    Three Friends1 year registeredTagger Second Class10000 Experience PointsOverdrive

    Join Date
    07-11-12
    Location
    Germany
    Posts
    1,992
    Points
    14,798
    Level
    36
    Points: 14,798, Level: 36
    Level completed: 94%, Points required for next Level: 52
    Overall activity: 99.3%

    Y-DNA haplogroup
    R1b1b2a* (inferred)

    Country: Germany



    Quote Originally Posted by 8mike View Post
    these are the words i remember:

    Etruscan "tume" (tomb or to bury) Hungarian "temet" (bury) from "tom" (to put in) + "et" (live in) -- maybe related to τύμβος
    Etruscan "cel" (arise) Hungarian "kel" (arise)
    Etruscan "cul" (underworld) Ugro_Finnic "*kul" (death)
    Etruscan "zat" (battle) Hungarian "csata" (battle)
    Etruscan "zilac" (star) Hungarian "csilag" (star)
    Etruscan "zin" (make) Hungarian "csin" (make)
    Etruscan "cexa" (love) Hungarian "kegy" (love)

    but i don't know the source of those Etruscan words (except the first one), they might be invented.
    The Etruscan words as such are not invented (from what I can tell), but their meaning appears to be invented, or just taken from Hungarian without caring what the word means in Etruscan. One example is the Etruscan word "zilac", which means "leader" or "chief" (it is found in the Pyrgi tablets), and which in that list is listed as "star".

    Given how far removed Hungarian is from Proto-Uralic, it would seem very unlikely that Hungarian and Etruscan words would be that similar. It's also highly suspicious due to a clear lack of sound correspondence: Etruscan "zilac" is corresponded with Hungarian "csilag", but Etruscan "cexa" is corresponded with Hungarian "kegy". So, apprently Hungarian *g corresponds to both Etruscan *k and *ks. Which one is it?

    I'm aware that there have been proponents of a relationship between Etruscan and the Uralic languages (or just Hungarian alone, which makes even less sense, given how well-established it is that Hungarian is an Uralic language!), notably Mario Alinei (the same person who is a proponent of the Paleolithic Continuity "theory"), but in my opinion that is complete bogus.

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. Meet The Proto-Indo-Europeans
    By 8mike in forum History & Civilisations
    Replies: 71
    Last Post: 23-07-14, 10:34
  2. Germanic and Proto-Slavic
    By Taranis in forum Linguistics
    Replies: 38
    Last Post: 29-05-12, 13:42
  3. Proto-Semitic and Proto-Indo European
    By spongetaro in forum Linguistics
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 29-12-11, 14:21
  4. The original Proto-Semitic marker
    By Semitic Duwa in forum Y-DNA Haplogroups
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: 26-06-10, 13:41
  5. What do you like about your first/native language?
    By Mycernius in forum Linguistics
    Replies: 23
    Last Post: 24-10-05, 07:44

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •