PDA

View Full Version : Are R1a and R1b really Indo-Europeans ?



Kentel
15-01-13, 15:07
Here is a quote from a text I read on the eupedia webpage devoted to genetics :

The Indo-Europeans' bronze weapons and horses would have given them a tremendous advantage over the autochthonous inhabitants of Europe, namely the native haplogroup I (descendant of Cro-Magnon), and the early Neolithic herders and farmers (G2a, J2, E-V13 and T)

The theory according to which superior and patriarcal IE horsemen (Dumézil's mannerbund) arrived in Europe and subjected a population of inoffensive matriarcal pre-IE peasants whose languages they eradicated, has been supported from the very beginning of the IE studies, mostly on ideological grounds (see f.ex. Demoule http://www.anti-rev.org/textes/Demoule99a/ and http://mapageweb.umontreal.ca/tuitekj/cours/DeMouleMytheSurMesure.html).

This so-called invasionist model has moreover many flaws :

Archaeologic:

The debates are always been very vivid between linguists and archaeologists around the PIE question since archaeologists cannot really afford clear evidences to the conjectures of the linguists.

1- There is no objective archaeological attestation of a massive migration in Europe during the Bronze Age, that is : no archaeological culture spreading from the Black Sea to Western Europe at this date. The only continuous cultural horizon which can be connected with a migration in Europe is the dispersal of farming which predates the Chalcolithic (see Renfrew). Kossina's, Childe's and Gimbuta's theories are purely speculative since they rest upon jumps from a culture to another (eg. from Kurgan I,II,III to Yamna to Baden + Globular Amphora to Corded Ware II + Bell-Beaker to Unetice to Tumulus to Urnfield + Halstatt etc.)

2- The material found in the graves (Kurgans or others allegedly IE burial sites) showed no evidence of horse-riding.

3- All in all, it seems pointless to connect an archaeological culture to an ethnic group : technical innovation can spread by contact without any population move.

Genetic:

1- If I understand well R1a is mostly represented in Eastern Europe and R1b in Western Europe. We should thus have a linguistic split corresponding roughly to Slavic/Baltic/Hellenic/ on one side and Celtic on the other, with Italic and Germanic in the Middle. No linguistic branching agrees with such a split, as far as I know. It is even more problematic when we consider that this split between R1a and b occurred around 10 000 BC (Science 290) since it should have produced two clearly distinct linguistic branches at a very early date.

2- The fact that R1b is found at very high frequencies along the Atlantic coasts of Europe, in Siberia and in Central Africa is confusing, to say the least.

3- The dating of the genetic mutations is very inaccurate : f.ex. the G haplogroup has been dated from 30 000 BC (National Geographic Society), 17 000 BC (Semino 2000) and 9500 BC (Cinnioglu 2004).

4- 80% of the modern European genetic material dates back from the Palaeolithic according to Alinei.

5- R1a is connected with the Kurgan Culture, hence with PIE speaking people. I have no objection to this but what about R1b in the meantime ?

Linguistic :

Language variation is very slow, as far as we can observe it. There is f.ex. very little change between mycenean greek and modern greek (within a time span of 3500 years) or between old french and modern french (a time span of 1000 years), hence expecting a split of the PIE language families as late as the Chalcolithic seems unrealistic. In terms of language variation, the differenciation between hittite and latin would require much more than 1500 years.

To conclude this very long post (sorry for that), I have the feeling that linguists are trying to distort the facts in order to make them coincide with a highly ideological view of mankind (cf. Dumezil f.ex), based originaly on a poem from the Veda, namely the - very unclear - 96th Hymn to Indra.

Yetos
15-01-13, 18:30
that is my question also,

I agree with arsenic bronze via tin bronze road, by I am not yet conviced 100% that R1b and R1a had IE as mother language and spread IE.

Kentel
16-01-13, 00:10
that is my question also,

I agree with arsenic bronze via tin bronze road, by I am not yet conviced 100% that R1b and R1a had IE as mother language and spread IE.

Good to hear that I'm not alone, thanks :)

Taranis
16-01-13, 00:40
First off, thanks for this elaborate and thought-provoking (and also a bit provocative at some parts, I appreciate that :grin: ) post!

It'll take a while for me to walk through all your points, because you brought up a number of very interesting ones, but for the moment, I will start with the issue of genetics and get to your linguistic points later:


2- The fact that R1b is found at very high frequencies along the Atlantic coasts of Europe, in Siberia and in Central Africa is confusing, to say the least.

R1b is dominated by three main subclades: M269 - in Europe, the Caucasus and Anatolia, M88 in the Near East and Africa, and M73 in Asia.

Western European R1b is part of M269, and from the looks of it, the result of a massive founder effect. Most R1b in Western Europe is part of the subclade L51, which is in turn dominated by the subclade L11. Conversely, L11 is basically nowhere found outside of Western Europe.

How R1b arrived in Western Europe (eg. maritime or land route) and from where (Balkans? Black Sea Area?) is still fuzzy as of the moment. What we do know is that R1b was absent in Neolithic sites in Catalonia (http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2011/10/24/1113061108.abstract) and Germany (instead G2a was the dominant Y-Haplogroup there, which was also Ötzi's Haplogroup). The currently oldest find of R1b comes from a Beaker-Bell site in Germany (http://www.academia.edu/1596369/Emerging_genetic_patterns_of_the_European_Neolithi c_perspectives_from_a_Late_Neolithic_Bell_Beaker_b urial_site_in_Germany). I'm not too happy with associating the spread of R1b with the Beaker-Bell Culture though, since the expansion patterns do not match: R1b-L51 makes more sense as having dispersed across Western Europe from approximately the upper Rhone area rather than central Portugal.

With regard for R1b-V88, as I argued in this thread (http://www.eupedia.com/forum/threads/27352-Original-Haplogroup(s)-and-homeland-of-the-Proto-Afroasiatic-peoples), it is possible to associate the dominance of V88 and lactase persistence amongst the Chadic-speaking peoples (as well as their neighbours) with evidence for some migration from the eastern Mediterranean to subsaharan Africa.


3- The dating of the genetic mutations is very inaccurate : f.ex. the G haplogroup has been dated from 30 000 BC (National Geographic Society), 17 000 BC (Semino 2000) and 9500 BC (Cinnioglu 2004).

I'd like to hear what Sparkey has to say on the issue. I have to say this thought: at the moment we probably have no fully reliable way to disprove the hypothesis that Haplogroup G2 was actually in Europe since the Mesolithic or earlier, but on the flip side, I've not seen anybody argue for European G2 being Meso- or Paleolithic. I think, given the abundance of G2 in samples from Neolithic farmers, that G2 is most probable to be actually Neolithic.


4- 80% of the modern European genetic material dates back from the Palaeolithic according to Alinei.

Is that Mario Alinei? The same Alinei who posited the Paleolithic Continuity hypothesis? If yes, I'd like to know when he made that statement (I heavily suspect that it may no longer hold up).


5- R1a is connected with the Kurgan Culture, hence with PIE speaking people. I have no objection to this but what about R1b in the meantime ?

Well, we can also reverse the question: if we say R1b is the original Indo-European Haplogroup, what would this make of R1a?

(to be continued :smile: )

kamani
16-01-13, 00:49
To my knowledge the oldest R1b in europe is about 2,800–2,000 BC, in Bell Beaker culture, Kromsdorf, Germany. This puts "R" in europe in
the Bronze Age, early Hittite empire timeframe. So far we don't go against mainstream IE theory.
However we have things like R1b1a2a L23/S141, time of origin 5000 BC, which is found in Greeks, Albanians, and anatolian branch of IE speakers.
Then we have things like R1b1a2a1a1, a child of the previous, time of origin 4000 BC, which is found in Italo-celtic and germanic IE speakers.
So an hypothesis is that R1b has been in europe before the bronze age, we just haven't found any ancient dna yet to prove it.

Taranis
16-01-13, 01:12
Linguistic :

Language variation is very slow, as far as we can observe it. There is f.ex. very little change between mycenean greek and modern greek (within a time span of 3500 years) or between old french and modern french (a time span of 1000 years), hence expecting a split of the PIE language families as late as the Chalcolithic seems unrealistic. In terms of language variation, the differenciation between hittite and latin would require much more than 1500 years.

I think with regard for language evolution, these are indeed slower examples. On the flip side we have for instance Primitive Irish to Old Irish, or Old Brythonic to Old Welsh / Old Breton. I must admit that both examples are somewhat flawed in so far that Primitive Irish and Old Brythonic are poorly attested languages, but I think that they do hold up. But I agree nontheless, the thorn in the IE model are the Anatolian languages, which have both features lost elsewhere, and are lacking features found elsewhere. From this perspective, and "Indo-Hittite" model (that is, an early split between Proto-Anatolian, and the rest of the IE languages) is certainly interesting. Interesting point (which in my opinion is also a forceful argument against Renfew's Anatolian hypothesis), came from Melchert (2012) (http://www.linguistics.ucla.edu/people/Melchert/The%20Position%20of%20Anatolian.pdf), however: he rejects the idea that the Anatolian languages diverged significantly earlier from the rest of Indo-European (I'm ambiguous on the issue), but he brought up another counter-argument:

"I may add the further counterargument that, if the Anatolian Indo-European languages at the time of their attestation had been in situ for five thousand years, it is not remotely credible that they would show so few genuine loanwords from or into Sumerian, Hattic, or the nearby Semitic languages."


"I stress that I know of not a single compelling example for a pan-Anatolian loanword from any non-IE Near Eastern language."

In other words, if not even Proto-Anatolian was spoken in Anatolia, by what logic are we then to assume that PIE was spoken there? In my opinion, Indo-Hittite or not, PIE must have been spoken elsewhere. However, I would like to dwell with the Anatolian Hypothesis a while longer:

The main argument, from the linguistic perspective, for the traditional hypothesis is the vocabulary of PIE, namely common words for "horse" (*ek´wos), "wheel" (*kwekwelos) and "metal" (*Hejos). The combination of these three items, in my opinion, very much narrows down the context where and when PIE might have been spoken. (I must add though that "horse" and "metal" are by themselves weaker arguments: "horse" may not necessarily signifiy domesticated horses even if it seems likely, and "metal" may not necessarily signify knowledge of smelting/metallurgy.)

(I might also bring up warrior/military terminology, but I'm somewhat sceptical with this: how 'peaceful' were Neolithic societies really?)

The main counter-argument against the traditional reconstruction of PIE as a late Neolithic / Copper Age language would be that these could be wanderwörter (German for "wandering word"), the textbook example of which is the word "wine", found in the Indo-European, Kartvelic and Semitic languages.

A good example of another borrowed word, at a much later point, is the word "copper":

Greek "Kypros" (the island)
Italic/Romance: Latin "cuprum", French "cuivre", Spanish "cobre"
Germanic: English "copper", German "Kupfer", Swedish "koppar"
Celtic: Irish "copar", Welsh "copr"
Non-IE: Basque "kobrea", Finnish "kupari"

Note how when comparing Germanic vs. Romance, the word is ignorant of Grimm's Law (it obeys, however, to the Second Germanic Sound Shift exhibited by German), or how it's ignorant of the loss of *p in Celtic. And of course, the word is found in Non-Indo-European languages.

If Renfew's Anatolian hypothesis was correct, the earlier mentioned IE words (ie "horse", "wheel", "metal" would expected to have been invariably borrowed. But, how can a word be a 'wandering word' if it is attested at the geographically opposing ends (eg. Germanic vs. Greek vs. Indo-Aryan vs. Tocharian), and at the same time, be subject to the sound laws of the respective language branch? The consequence would be that an uniformous, unchanging form of IE was spoken over several thousand years from Northern Europe to the Tarim Basin, and I think that's a stretch of imagination.

With regard for Alinei's hypothesis (Mario Alinei), you have the same problems that exist with the Anatolian hypothesis, only multiplied by factor ten: we would have to explain why the Proto-Indo-Europeans had not only words for "wheel" and "metal", but also for "cow", "sheep", "plough" and "grain" if they had neither domesticated animals, nor agriculture.

There is, however, a reason for some clemency towards the Paleolithic Continuity hypothesis: I'm under the impression that Alinei mostly received attention based on the picture that genetics of the mid-2000s seemed to paint, namely that the genetic makeup of Europe had not changed significantly since the end of the last ice age... so why not argue the same for the linguistic makeup? However, the research results that were supposed to supported his hypothesis early on, are long-since outdated.

Which takes me back to the Anatolian Hypothesis: if we disregard items that were clearly only invented in the terminal Neolithic / early Bronze Age, Proto-Indo-European might be older... only, not in Anatolia.

Kentel
16-01-13, 12:19
I had written a very developped answer to Taranis but have lost everything when sending the post :( I will have to take it back from the beginning, sorry for delaying my answer...

Kentel
16-01-13, 17:21
Thank you Taranis for your very informative posts; it gives much to think about. I am not as comfortable with genetics as you are, thus some of my remarks may sound inappropriate, but I am really curious about the matter. Which does not exclude some pinches of provocation, indeed :)

Let's begin with the genetic issue : if I summarize the chronology in Europe, focusing on the areas with the highest frequencies:

1- Haplogroup I (map here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Haplogroup_I.png)
- M253 or I1 in Scandinavia, North-Western Poland, Cotentin Peninsula in France, South-East England
- M223 in the Danube Delta, Northern Germany and in Brittany
- M423 in the Balkans, the Danube Delta and in the whole Romania, Bulgaria and Ukraine.
- M26 in Sardinia

point of origin : the Balkans maybe ?
date : around 25 000 BC ?

2- Haplogroup G
- P303 (G2a3b1) in Europe, especially in Greece, Sardinia, Spain and Central France.

point of origin : the Near-East
date : around 10 000 BC ?

3a- Haplogroup R1a (M420)

- M17 or 198 → M458 in Poland, Russia and Ukraine

3b-Haplogroup R1b (M343)

- P25 → P297 → M269 → L23→ R1b1a2a in Western Europe
- P25 → P297 → M73 → R1b1b1 in Siberia
- P25 → V88→ R1b1a → in Africa M88

point of origin : disputed
date : around 20 000 BC (R1a/R1b)


Is it correct ? I'd rather wait for your comments before drawing any conclusion from this.

Yetos
16-01-13, 17:39
@ Kentel
R1a has quite enough diversity in Balkans,
it could be balkanic,
But until today that is considered as a sink phenomena, as area where R1a left marks due to invasions and devastations and not as primary homeland of R1a.

Kentel
16-01-13, 17:47
@ Kentel
R1a has quite enough diversity in Balkans,
it could be balkanic,
But until today that is considered as a sink phenomena, as area where R1a left marks due to invasions and devastations and not as primary homeland of R1a.

Yes, in fact these data draw a picture of the actual frequencies of these haplogroups. I don't know if we have data from prehistoric samples, and if we have, how much. However, I guess that an area with a peak of frequency indicatesa very old presence (?).

The goal of all this is to redraw the migration routes of these populations, and afterwards to infere if they could have been IE people or not. Well, I and G certainly were not.

sparkey
16-01-13, 19:07
I like these sorts of challenges. Very well structured, Kentel. My best crack at your enumerated points about genetics...


1- If I understand well R1a is mostly represented in Eastern Europe and R1b in Western Europe. We should thus have a linguistic split corresponding roughly to Slavic/Baltic/Hellenic/ on one side and Celtic on the other, with Italic and Germanic in the Middle. No linguistic branching agrees with such a split, as far as I know. It is even more problematic when we consider that this split between R1a and b occurred around 10 000 BC (Science 290) since it should have produced two clearly distinct linguistic branches at a very early date.

As Taranis points out, the type of R1b present in Europe is quite specific. European R1a is a bit older (actually it has quite high diversity in places like Russia) so it makes more sense to think of R1b as a more recent introduction. That doesn't mean that they both need to be certain branches of IE. A few patterns could explain modern distributions:


R1b was a minority clade within the IE population at the foundation of IE, and not all R1b made it into that initial population (evidence: R1a and R1b correspond very well to IE distribution worldwide, better than almost all haplogroups, with R1a the better correspondence between them... see Iranian populations in particular)
European R1b follows a founder effect pattern (possibly enhanced by cultural pressure)
Satemization spread within a high-R1a subset of IE peoples, meaning a rough correspondence but not a perfect match between Satem and high-R1a



2- The fact that R1b is found at very high frequencies along the Atlantic coasts of Europe, in Siberia and in Central Africa is confusing, to say the least.

Different subclades, and it's always possible for expanding populations to accidentally expand haplogroups picked up from previous contact populations.


3- The dating of the genetic mutations is very inaccurate : f.ex. the G haplogroup has been dated from 30 000 BC (National Geographic Society), 17 000 BC (Semino 2000) and 9500 BC (Cinnioglu 2004).

It has gotten better. Nordtvedt's and Klyosov's methodologies are some of the best out there for STR dating, and others are beginning to look closely into SNP dating. Incidentally, Klyosov 2011's STR dating and Robb 2012's SNP dating calibrated to CT=70kybp converge to G having a 12,500 YBP TMRCA.


4- 80% of the modern European genetic material dates back from the Palaeolithic according to Alinei.

There is no reason that I know of to trust Alinei here. He just says (http://www.continuitas.org/intro.html):


(A) the areal distribution of genetic markers largely corresponds to that of the world languages (Cavalli Sforza et al. 1988, 1994, Menozzi et al. 1978 etc.);

(B) language differentiation must have proceeded step by step with the dispersal of humans (probably Homo sapiens sapiens) (idem).

(C) Independent geneticists working on DNA have recently ascertained that that 80% of the genetic stock of Europeans goes back to Paleolithic (e.g. Sykes 2001, 2006).

(A) and (B) make sense, but (C) is just deferring to outdated Sykes conclusions. And interestingly, if we follow (A) and (B) but keep up with the latest conclusions relating to (C), we come to the opposite conclusion.


5- R1a is connected with the Kurgan Culture, hence with PIE speaking people. I have no objection to this but what about R1b in the meantime ?

Does this pattern work for you?: initial minority + amplification southward/eastward and diminishment northward/westward at first + minor drift into Eastern Europe after that + rapid founder expansion after that. That's one way I've thought of it, and it is probably one of many possibilities to explain modern patterns.

LeBrok
16-01-13, 19:08
Yes, in fact these data draw a picture of the actual frequencies of these haplogroups. I don't know if we have data from prehistoric samples, and if we have, how much. However, I guess that an area with a peak of frequency indicatesa very old presence (?).

For old presence and origin look more at diversity of HP clades than at frequency. The more diversity you see in a region the more time it took to mutate and diversify, therefore it must have lived here for longer than in places of low diversity, and places where usually the upstream/younger clades are present.

Don't use Internet Explorer with Win7 to post, it's known to "eat" posts on Eupedia. Use Google Chrome instead, or other browsers.

LeBrok
16-01-13, 19:55
Here is a quote from a text I read on the eupedia webpage devoted to genetics :


Linguistic :

Language variation is very slow, as far as we can observe it. There is f.ex. very little change between mycenean greek and modern greek (within a time span of 3500 years) or between old french and modern french (a time span of 1000 years), hence expecting a split of the PIE language families as late as the Chalcolithic seems unrealistic. In terms of language variation, the differenciation between hittite and latin would require much more than 1500 years.


I agree, languages evolve rather slowly without much of outside influence There are times though in history when this process is accelerated few folds, especially when one language is superimpose on other language substratum. Other words, language of conquerors over defeated population, or mixing peoples during big migrations, which we know happened few times in Europe.

We know fairly well what were the historical circumstance of Celtic Britannia evolving (Latin, Germanic, French) into English speaking Britain, both IE languages. The interesting thing is how grammar got simplified in the process Possibly due of locals learning a second language from minority of invaders, few times, butchering the grammar and pronunciation on the way. This is in span of 1,500 years.
Other example is how proper Latin evolved into pig Latin, and Roman Languages, when exposed as second language onto mostly celtic populations of European Mediterranean part, or just over other conquered Italian peninsula tribes.
If trend of grammar simplification is a rule of big mixing of peoples in the past, than we could use it to trace which EI populations didn't mix much preserving full or almost full grammar. It doesn't mean they didn't mix at all, but when they did, one language group was always overwhelming in numbers, which prevented grammar simplification.
It actually correlates nicely with Slavic expansion. The further they went south, the more grammar they lost. The simplest grammar in slavic languages is in Macedonian and Bulgarian, followed by Serbs I guess.

PS. I wonder if process is reversed when language is left alone for few thousand of years. Does grammar get complicated when tribe is insulated for that long? Why did EI get so complicated with 8 declensions, in first place?

Kentel
16-01-13, 23:46
I agree, languages evolve rather slowly without much of outside influence There are times though in history when this process is accelerated few folds, especially when one language is superimpose on other language substratum. Other words, language of conquerors over defeated population, or mixing peoples during big migrations, which we know happened few times in Europe.


Exactly. The substrata question is the key. I have been working on this issue during the past 4 years - and I must confess that my hope with the genetic analysis (and our current discussion) is to be able to locate the pre-IE migrations and settlements in order to compare non-IE syntactic and lexical features within the so-defined areas.

And my conclusion is the same as yours : languages evolve rapidly when they come into contact with substrata. French is a Latin badly spoken by Gauls, as well as English is Old Saxon badly spoken by Brittons. And the reason why Greek is so stable is because the Greeks have not encountered any substratum during 3500 years.

I have discussed a little bit the subject on this forum a few months ago - and mentioned among other things the reluctance of the Academia and of the supporters of the Invasionist Model to accept the idea of substratic influence.

But this is another topic, and I will gladly open a new thread to discuss this matter :)

Yetos
17-01-13, 01:10
@Kentel

what do you believe?
IE enter with R1b and R1a from steppe?
or existed in Balkans and minor Asia much before the R1b and R1a?


I mean considering that basquez is R1b population and Basquez language is Not IE, what do you believe? that Basquez is older or younger in Europe than IE?

could R1b or R1a learn IE language at the past outside steppe?? and then spread it?

LeBrok
17-01-13, 04:09
I have discussed a little bit the subject on this forum a few months ago - and mentioned among other things the reluctance of the Academia and of the supporters of the Invasionist Model to accept the idea of substratic influence.

)

Not being a linguist, I had no slightest idea that this issue is controversial.
Hearing how Italians or Indians pronounce English, one can get an idea how sound shifts/laws could happen. I don't mean this is the only way, but we have so many real life and current examples to built on.

LeBrok
17-01-13, 04:18
And the reason why Greek is so stable is because the Greeks have not encountered any substratum during 3500 years.


It makes sense, Greek was already a lingua franca before Rome expended to Greece. All educated Romans spoke Greek, so there was not much pressure to learn Latin. Later there was not much slavic incursion into Greece to influence any changes, except in Macedonia. And looks like Ottomans were quite tolerant and didn't force any community in europe to speak their language. Not many places like this in Europe.

Dianatomia
17-01-13, 05:13
It makes sense, Greek was already a lingua franca before Rome expended to Greece. All educated Romans spoke Greek, so there was not much pressure to learn Latin. Later there was not much slavic incursion into Greece to influence any changes, except in Macedonia. And looks like Ottomans were quite tolerant and didn't force any community in europe to speak their language. Not many places like this in Europe.

How do you account for the fact that most of Anatolia spoke Greek in medieval times? Yet, during the fall of the Ottoman empire most of Anatolia spoke Turkish. What is notable though is that, after the fall of the Ottoman empire, Greek in Anatolia was only spoken in places where it was spoken prior to the Hellenization of that region. Meaning, the Aegean coast of Asia minor and some regions along the black sea. Makes you wonder how Hellenized Anatolia actually was.

I know that this is a bit off topic. But it puzzles me. Perhaps someone can enlighten me.

kamani
17-01-13, 06:12
Language is notoriously bad at determining race or ethnicity. Entire populations can switch languages in a matter of a couple of centuries. For example, today there are close to 400 million people in south america, most of which speaks spanish. Based on how few spaniards actually moved to south america, most of these spanish speakers descend from something other than spain.
Sometimes there are even language revivals and resurections after the fall of empires.

LeBrok
17-01-13, 06:39
How do you account for the fact that most of Anatolia spoke Greek in medieval times? Yet, during the fall of the Ottoman empire most of Anatolia spoke Turkish. What is notable though is that, after the fall of the Ottoman empire, Greek in Anatolia was only spoken in places where it was spoken prior to the Hellenization of that region. Meaning, the Aegean coast of Asia minor and some regions along the black sea. Makes you wonder how Hellenized Anatolia actually was.

I know that this is a bit off topic. But it puzzles me. Perhaps someone can enlighten me.

I was only referring to Europe in regards to Turks. I'm not too familiar with Anatolian situation much. It's probably safe to say that Anatolia was mainly Hellenized on sea shores, but not much in interior. It also might mean that Turks mainly settled in interior, and minorities of Greeks and Armenians survived fairly intact in their main centers by the sea. Well, at least till late phase when Turks became very nationalistic at end of 19th and beginning of 20th century.

LeBrok
17-01-13, 06:58
Language is notoriously bad at determining race or ethnicity. Entire populations can switch languages in a matter of a couple of centuries. For example, today there are close to 400 million people in south america, most of which speaks spanish. Based on how few spaniards actually moved to south america, most of these spanish speakers descend from something other than spain.
Sometimes there are even language revivals and resurections after the fall of empires.

With minority invaders, the language shift happens much faster in their main centers like cities, ports and economic centers. Places where you need to know language of invaders to do business, politics or get job in general.
The situation of Argentina, Uruguay, Brazil, or Caribean islands, where Europeans were in majority is simple to explain. For the rest of South America Spanish was probably in minority and spoken in big centers mostly. In these countries, most of villages were speaking original language till 20th century till the times of public education, some still do. The further from economic centers the easier for original language to survive. Maybe learning of new language is about jobs mostly? Most likely it was exactly the case how Romans spread Latin language, by economy and jobs. Same with British Empire.
Also in may situations conquered countries consisted of many tribes speaking different languages. It was also useful for them to learn the main language, the conqueror's, to communicate with other tribes. Exactly why we all learn English these days, the lingua franca of modern world.


PS. All this writing gave me an idea that if IE came to Europe with strong economic advantage like wagons and bronze smelting abilities that gave them an edge in creating strong economic centers and influence IE language learning among locals, through out all Europe. It means that they didn't need to kill and terrorize all of them to learn IE.

PS2. Thanks to above PS my post is no longer off topic, hehe, at least somewhat.

nordicwarrior
17-01-13, 09:08
"PS. All this writing gave me an idea that if IE came to Europe with strong economic advantage like wagons and bronze smelting abilities that gave them an edge in creating strong economic centers and influence IE language learning among locals, through out all Europe. It means that they didn't need to kill and terrorize all of them to learn IE."

Excellent point. This scenerio would also explain the y-haplogroup ratios we see throughout much of Europe today.

Yetos
17-01-13, 10:42
It makes sense, Greek was already a lingua franca before Rome expended to Greece. All educated Romans spoke Greek, so there was not much pressure to learn Latin. Later there was not much slavic incursion into Greece to influence any changes, except in Macedonia. And looks like Ottomans were quite tolerant and didn't force any community in europe to speak their language. Not many places like this in Europe.

Both Roman and Slavic influence to Greek language is Heavy,
especially in Greece, and Magna Grecia Italy.
but is less in Smyrna (old Ionia and Pergamos and Ephessus) and almost zero in Pontus (Trebizond empire)
while Cyprus is tottaly out of Slavic but heavily influenced from Syrria and British
that is why Tsakonika and Pontic Greek kept sound and forms closest to ancient Greek.
as you see Greek is not the language of Greece, but a language that still is spoken from Italy to almost Georgia and Ucraine and from cyprus to Marselle
Crimean Greek is the most Slavicized Greek dialect, but strangely Ahtopol Greek (Thrace) is not so much.

But Ottomans is another case,
you see by laws Greek were forbiden in areas,
one of the most relatives of Greek language that we see the influence is Brygian-Phrygian.
Yet Phrygia pass to Ottomans before Con/polis. means that Greek were forbiden,
if you search laws there was a law by Mohamed that all areas conquered before Con/polis were forbiden to speak Greek, except Thessaloniki city (a honor to Βαγιαζιτ) due to the their sacred city Giannitsa, which was forced to blood taxation (Yenicaries).
on the other hand Le brok, how much Turkic exists in North?
lets see, does the word Kara in Balto-slavic means also soldier? captain? we say that word Tsar (Car) is after ceasar, but is it?
Yenicaries means new army, new soldiers (Yeni+car) could that word kara or car in Slavic be from Turkic origin Lebrok?

in fact Le Brok in Galatia and Phrygia if you spoke Greek you were hung by Ottomans.
the law all over pre-Mohamed Ottoman empire (except Giannitsa) was to change either Language either religion,
that is why in Europe we have Gagavuz people

Yetos
17-01-13, 10:54
"PS. All this writing gave me an idea that if IE came to Europe with strong economic advantage like wagons and bronze smelting abilities that gave them an edge in creating strong economic centers and influence IE language learning among locals, through out all Europe. It means that they didn't need to kill and terrorize all of them to learn IE."

Excellent point. This scenerio would also explain the y-haplogroup ratios we see throughout much of Europe today.


that is the point,

that Balkans were strong enough both in economy and mettalurgy and cities,
Balkans had Vinca, Rudna glava, etc which are indicators of a strong, well fortified and show that knew the art of war. except arsenic Bronze, the only could make the difference is arsenic Bronze.
it can be enough to change ballance the arsenic bronze knowledge, or were also some other factors?

Besides we like to say that IE language came from steppe.
BUT DID EVER ONE NOTICE THE GOLD METTALURGY?
GOLD AND KURGANS MOVED FROM BALKANS TO MINOR ASIA TO STEPPE
So why not spread IE to steppe by Gold mettalurgy?

besides except W Europe in the rest of the world all hunters-gatherers societies do no speak IE.
SO IE COULD NOT BE A HUNTERS GATHERERS LANGUAGE, but pass to steppe much before arsenic bronze,

Dianatomia
17-01-13, 19:05
I was only referring to Europe in regards to Turks. I'm not too familiar with Anatolian situation much. It's probably safe to say that Anatolia was mainly Hellenized on sea shores, but not much in interior. It also might mean that Turks mainly settled in interior, and minorities of Greeks and Armenians survived fairly intact in their main centers by the sea. Well, at least till late phase when Turks became very nationalistic at end of 19th and beginning of 20th century.

The case of Anatolia is not the only example. We can see the same scenario in the Balkans. Before the Slavs arrived, regions north of the Ancient Greek cultural sphere like Paeonia, Dardania and Thrace (Jiricek line) were said to have been Hellenized. A proces which started after the conquests of Alexander and continued well into the era of emperor Justinian.

However, when the Slavs arrived and settled in the area, the hellenization had ended and the Hellenized people south of the Jiricek line had been sclavinized. Like the Turks in Anatolia, the Slavs were very much a minority relative to the indigenous Hellenized Illyrian and Thracian people of the Balkans. Nevertheless, Hellenism had lost to the new Slavic invaders. The point of resistance became Macedonia. The classical border-line of Hellenism. The north became largely sclaninized and the South retained its Greek character.

Even though the proces of Hellenization in Anatolia took centuries more than in the Balkans, it was regardless Islamized and Turcofied when the Ottomans arrived. Yetos, made a point, that the Ottomans did exert a lot of pressure to the Anatolians, but why did they fail to do that in relation to Greeks and Armenians?

It is likely that Greeks and Armenians had a form of medieval ethnic consciousness with deeper historical roots. The Hellenized Anatolians, like the Hellenized Balkanians perhaps did not have this ethnic consciousness. Just like the Spanish speaking people in the Americas don't really feel Spanish, the (inland) Anatolians and Balkanians didn't feel Greek (or Armenian in case of Anatolia). So it was easy for them to embrace a new identity.

A somewhat identical comparison can be seen in Bosnia. Bosnia-Herzegovina lies on top of the Jiricek line. It is the frontier of Orthodoxy and Catholicism. The people in Bosnia could not cling on one religion and in some cases believed in Christian sects like Bogomilism. This is why the people Bosnia were probably very liberal believers, so when the Ottomans arrived it was not hard for them to convert to Islam. Just as it was not hard for the Hellenized Anatolians to be Turcofied. Regardless of the pressure the Turks put on the Anatolians (it is true that most Turks settled in Anatolia), the Anatolians were an easier target to convert than the Greek centers in the west and the Armenians in the east.

LeBrok
17-01-13, 19:24
Both Roman and Slavic influence to Greek language is Heavy,
especially in Greece, and Magna Grecia Italy.
but is less in Smyrna (old Ionia and Pergamos and Ephessus) and almost zero in Pontus (Trebizond empire)
while Cyprus is tottaly out of Slavic but heavily influenced from Syrria and British
that is why Tsakonika and Pontic Greek kept sound and forms closest to ancient Greek.
as you see Greek is not the language of Greece, but a language that still is spoken from Italy to almost Georgia and Ucraine and from cyprus to Marselle
Crimean Greek is the most Slavicized Greek dialect, but strangely Ahtopol Greek (Thrace) is not so much.
I found this very interesting, thanks.



lets see, does the word Kara in Balto-slavic means also soldier? captain? we say that word Tsar (Car) is after ceasar, but is it?
Yenicaries means new army, new soldiers (Yeni+car) could that word kara or car in Slavic be from Turkic origin Lebrok?

This actually have so much guessing on your part that is hard to start somewhere.
I'm not sure where you always get Slavic vocabulary from, but it is wrong again. "kara" doesn't mean anything in Balto-Slavic, but perhaps something in Bulgarian slavic, which was exposed heavily to Turkic.
Car (polish), Tsar (sound C is pronounced Ts, that's why it is written Tsar in English) IIRC, was used first in Bulgaria around 800 CE (AD), therefor way before Ottoman occupation. Then has spread with Orthodox church to Russia and Serbia. Car in old slavic it was Czar (pronounced Char - english), is also used in slavic word Czarodiej (miracle maker) meaning a wizard in english (which in turn comes form arabic Vesir, which was probably picked up in India from Indian scholars by Arabs, together with "arabic" numbers. Vesir has IE roots, Vis - to see in IE.
So it looks like Tsar is a slavic title, used to denote pegen religious leader, shaman. Later used in title as leader of Orthodox church in Bulgaria and Russia, where king was both, head of state and head of church, like in England.
In Catholic Slavic countries like Poland, there was never Tsar, only kings who were never church leaders, Pope was.

LeBrok
17-01-13, 19:39
It is likely that Greeks and Armenians had a form of medieval ethnic consciousness with deeper historical roots. The Hellenized Anatolians, like the Hellenized Balkanians perhaps did not have this ethnic consciousness. Just like the Spanish speaking people in the Americas don't really feel Spanish, the (inland) Anatolians and Balkanians didn't feel Greek (or Armenian in case of Anatolia). So it was easy for them to embrace a new identity.
.
It makes total sense to me.
I think in case of Slavs, Turks or Germanics, they were warrior farmers. When they conquered, they took best agrarian lands over from locals. There main economy was food production. This forced first local villages to learn slavic, to be able to work fields for new masters. Also having both slavic or turkic in Anatolia and local villages, side by side, sped up the mixing and learning process. I'm sure the cities, in this case, with predominantly Greeks and Armenians, survived the longest.

MOESAN
17-01-13, 20:48
With minority invaders, the language shift happens much faster in their main centers like cities, ports and economic centers. Places where you need to know language of invaders to do business, politics or get job in general.
The situation of Argentina, Uruguay, Brazil, or Caribean islands, where Europeans were in majority is simple to explain. For the rest of South America Spanish was probably in minority and spoken in big centers mostly. In these countries, most of villages were speaking original language till 20th century till the times of public education, some still do. The further from economic centers the easier for original language to survive. Maybe learning of new language is about jobs mostly? Most likely it was exactly the case how Romans spread Latin language, by economy and jobs. Same with British Empire.
Also in may situations conquered countries consisted of many tribes speaking different languages. It was also useful for them to learn the main language, the conqueror's, to communicate with other tribes. Exactly why we all learn English these days, the lingua franca of modern world.


PS. All this writing gave me an idea that if IE came to Europe with strong economic advantage like wagons and bronze smelting abilities that gave them an edge in creating strong economic centers and influence IE language learning among locals, through out all Europe. It means that they didn't need to kill and terrorize all of them to learn IE.

PS2. Thanks to above PS my post is no longer off topic, hehe, at least somewhat.

I'm "weak" concerning the problem or hellenic language and Anatolia - But for common sense I agree that languages changes need always some conditions - militar force, apparently, has less impact than economic (& trade) power - and towns adopt faster the language of foreign power , a sa rule - concerning greek colonies in the anatolian-Black Sea area, Greeks keep on with their tradition of rather maritime traders, for I know, so shores "comptpoirs" - Maybe am I wrong?

Dianatomia
17-01-13, 21:55
I'm "weak" concerning the problem or hellenic language and Anatolia - But for common sense I agree that languages changes need always some conditions - militar force, apparently, has less impact than economic (& trade) power - and towns adopt faster the language of foreign power , a sa rule - concerning greek colonies in the anatolian-Black Sea area, Greeks keep on with their tradition of rather maritime traders, for I know, so shores "comptpoirs" - Maybe am I wrong?

You made a good point. The Greeks situated around the coast were a maritime nation. The Slavs and Turks were not. As a maritime nation you have certain advantages like trade, more wealth, cross-cultural communication and probably a higher literacy rate. Ofcourse this all has an impact on the ethnic consciousness of the people. It is no surprise that Byzantine control of the interior of the Balkans and Anatolia was lost many times to foreign invaders, prior to the Slavs and Turks.

And it is one thing for warrior farmers to assimilate indigenous farmers, while it is another thing for warrior farmers to assimilate seafares and traders.
Yet, we should also note that the Turks did not assimilate the Slavs who were mostly farmers and not a maritime nation. So ethnic consciousness also plays an important role. Not just religion. Apparently, the Slavs like the Greeks from the coastal areas of Asia minor had a strong sense of identity. Something the Hellenized (Christian) Anatolians or the Hellenized Balkanians (prior to the arrival of the Slavs) lacked.

Yetos
18-01-13, 00:16
I think its time again to express my point of View,

fact 1
the Arsenic bronze road is until today something that we can not pass.
But Arsenic bronze is what time? 2800-3500 BC
when Balkans were already fortified Vinca, cities build, gold discovered, and something that we must remark, Irrigation in agriculture.

Yet Myceneans in Greece if we compare Vatin, Vucedol, etc seems to be in 1900-2300, almost same time that Bronze enter the British Islands, so from Serbia to Greece and minor Asia they made same time as from Serbia to Britain???

fact 2
no matter I gave Summerian connectivity with IE and everyone observe it with his personal view, (that is good, means many opignions)
Nobody ever seen how much Summerian exist in IE, that means that early agricultural- farming was already in Europe and probably spoke a minor Asian language a close to Summerian? or an IE?

Fact 3
Sachs Achaians Saxons etc, if Gaul is after Summerian Gallu and also means the same, means that these tribes were warriors.

Fact 4
except NW Europe all hunters-gatherers do not speak IE, that means IE were not from North neither Hunters gatherers,
so what were they? from so much expansion we don't believe that warriors travel deserts and lived in tents or mud in winter just to kill or take the women from India to steppe, they kill each other and have the women, so something else push them,
if they were not Anatolian like farmers then?
the only answer to roaming like tribes is Breeders- Shepherds, Shepherds had tribes and were trained as warriors to protect their families and floaks,
that cognates also with Αιγαιον Aegean = goats Getae = goat people maybe Goths?
same way we see that Uralian reindeer farmers occupy and spread at far North Europe.
so we must search on early sheperds,
minor Asia mountains (Zagros, Pontus Mountains, Kragos), Romania-Serbia-Bulgaria mountains, Armenia and Caucasus are good points, since in mountains irrigation and farming is poor so breeders is a good ecomnomical solution.

Fact 5
from Varna we see
i) Gold Mettalurgy started in Balkans and went to minor Asia to steppes
ii) Kurgans and burry the dead with weapons is not a steppe culture, but a Balkanic one, which went to minor Asia and from there to steppe with gold mettalurgy,
Steppe people they did not burry their dead, as we see from Altaic mountains to India
so since gold and Kurgans moved to steppe before arsenic bronze, why not Steppe got IEsed?
we see Tocharians Building burial chumbers that moder Kings and presidents would Envy, how come they did so if they were not Rulers at that lands? we say that IE at 3000 Bc about and spread IE via force.
I ASK HOW TOCHARIANS BUILD THESE HUGE CHAMBERS WITH OUT BEING RULERS OR STRONGER THAN STEPPE PEOPLE?

so the ones who had Arsenic bronze manage to pass a steppe language to Varna Vinca etc people and minor Asia-middle East Iran India Europe, but the ones who ruled before the steppe people did not manage to change their language?

Fact 6
The chariot,
chariot is a good transport for people and merchants and farmers, it can carry the crop of the day as also the goods of a merchant
chariot is a good weapon at battle but where and what time?
I mean do you believe that charriot was invended for war first? or for farming and merchant reasons?
do you know how many battles were lost due to mud? why to use a charriot as a weapon in the muds of european steppe?
even today steppe people use the horse without chariot many times, Scythians had Chariots?

To finalize
I might agree that early Neolithic farming could not spoke IE but another Anatolian language, closer to Summerian since there is not other connectivity from Summerian to Europe.
but what about another farming boom with irrigation later?
I agree that IE had something like warriors-rulers class but they did not spread IE, it is most wise to me to say that IE were roaming Breeders, warriors at 3000 BC would not travel from La-tene to Britain for women, or to build cities with huge stones

but for the rest let me keep my doubts,
which become stronger when I looked Varna's tombs


PS
playing devils advocate is hard.
Cooper Κυπρος was discovered much before steppe people entered Europe, I wonder who had the advantage that time?
Alternative in Greek is chalkos the root chall or Hall is also found in many metalls and also in many toponymes and also in many IE tribes

Yetos
18-01-13, 00:29
It makes total sense to me.
I think in case of Slaves, Turks or Germanics, they were warrior farmers. When they conquered, they took best agrarian lands over from locals. There main economy was food production. This forced first local villages to learn slavic, to be able to work fields for new masters. Also having both slavic or turkic in Anatolia and local villages, side by side, sped up the mixing and learning process. I'm sure the cities, in this case, with predominantly Greeks and Armenians, survived the longest.

Not exactly,
it seems they took a tax of products in order to protect them from invaders,
that is a clear warrior class rulling system, compare Sparta warriors and eilotes

Possesion of land even in after Roman Greeks was not a good Idea,
it mainly has to Roman Villas and later Christianity,

Taranis
18-01-13, 21:22
I would like to pick up some earlier ideas here:


PS. All this writing gave me an idea that if IE came to Europe with strong economic advantage like wagons and bronze smelting abilities that gave them an edge in creating strong economic centers and influence IE language learning among locals, through out all Europe. It means that they didn't need to kill and terrorize all of them to learn IE.


Here is a quote from a text I read on the eupedia webpage devoted to genetics :

The Indo-Europeans' bronze weapons and horses would have given them a tremendous advantage over the autochthonous inhabitants of Europe, namely the native haplogroup I (descendant of Cro-Magnon), and the early Neolithic herders and farmers (G2a, J2, E-V13 and T)

The theory according to which superior and patriarcal IE horsemen (Dumézil's mannerbund) arrived in Europe and subjected a population of inoffensive matriarcal pre-IE peasants whose languages they eradicated, has been supported from the very beginning of the IE studies, mostly on ideological grounds (see f.ex. Demoulehttp://www.anti-rev.org/textes/Demoule99a/ andhttp://mapageweb.umontreal.ca/tuitekj/cours/DeMouleMytheSurMesure.html).

This so-called invasionist model has moreover many flaws :

Archaeologic:

The debates are always been very vivid between linguists and archaeologists around the PIE question since archaeologists cannot really afford clear evidences to the conjectures of the linguists.

1- There is no objective archaeological attestation of a massive migration in Europe during the Bronze Age, that is : no archaeological culture spreading from the Black Sea to Western Europe at this date. The only continuous cultural horizon which can be connected with a migration in Europe is the dispersal of farming which predates the Chalcolithic (see Renfrew). Kossina's, Childe's and Gimbuta's theories are purely speculative since they rest upon jumps from a culture to another (eg. from Kurgan I,II,III to Yamna to Baden + Globular Amphora to Corded Ware II + Bell-Beaker to Unetice to Tumulus to Urnfield + Halstatt etc.)

One issue I have noticed with both Renfew and Alinei is that they seem to be harshly opposed to the Kurgan hypothesis on the grounds of it's implication of (pre-)historic violence. Furthermore, they all seem to be all too much inclined to make a connection between the Kurgan hypothesis and the "Aryan master race" bogus of the Nazis. Alinei finds quite obvious words there:


The philosophy behind this theory is thus that the Proto-Indo-Europeans, far from being warriors who invaded and conquered Europe by sheer military force, are instead the inventors of farming, who conquered Europe by cultural and intellectual superiority. A philosophy which remains, in essence, eurocentric, even though the Proto-Indo-Europeans are now seen as the peaceful inventors of farming, instead of the warlike supermen of the traditional theory.


Renfrew's book has unleashed a very lively international debate, which has been constantly growing, at the same time shifting its focus in response to growing objections. His theory, which owing to its focus on the Neolithic discontinuity can be called the Neolithic Discontinuity Theory (NDT), is undoubtedly superior to the traditional Invasion Theory, as far as it does eliminate the myth of the PIE Blitzkrieg against the peaceful Old Europeans. ( ... )

The one strength, on the other hand, of the traditional hypothesis is that it functions with the traditional reconstruction of PIE in terms of its vocabulary. Which does not automatically mean that it's right, but it certainly avoids the intrinsic flaws that both the Neolithic and Paleolithic Continuity hypotheses have.

So based on this, I would like to go back to what LeBrok said. If we stick with the approximate timeframe of the traditional model (that is, terminal Neolithic to Chalcolithic), we would be entitled to look for another mechanism to explain the expansion of the language family. And of course, connected with this is the question where the Proto-Indo-European was spoken before the language began to split up.

Another big uncertainty, by the way, that we do not know in the genetics department is Haplogroup J2: we often assume it to be Neolithic in age (perhaps as a 'fellow traveller' of G2a, just like J1 and T), but as a matter of fact, we have not a single sample of J2 from any of the Neolithic sites. If J2 was anywhere in Europe in the Neolithic, it at the least couldn't have been anywhere outside the Balkans. I do not think that we can wholly dismiss the hypothesis entirely that J2 arrived in Europe only after the Neolithic, even though that would make it only more mysterious.

Yetos
19-01-13, 00:09
I wonder, after Varna Necropolis, and Leyla Teppe discoveries, how much worth Kurgan hypothesis?
and why we connect kurgans with steppe, same time that, if IE, steppe people did not even burry the dead in the road to India (Ptolemy)
I think Kurgan hypothesis just pass in History, it worked and was good indeed, but I don't think describes new archaiological discoveries.

LeBrok
19-01-13, 07:34
Another big uncertainty, by the way, that we do not know in the genetics department is Haplogroup J2: we often assume it to be Neolithic in age (perhaps as a 'fellow traveller' of G2a, just like J1 and T), but as a matter of fact, we have not a single sample of J2 from any of the Neolithic sites. If J2 was anywhere in Europe in the Neolithic, it at the least couldn't have been anywhere outside the Balkans. I do not think that we can wholly dismiss the hypothesis entirely that J2 arrived in Europe only after the Neolithic, even though that would make it only more mysterious.

I still think that J2 entered Europe in Neolithic as farmers. Looking at the J2 map it really shows early farmers spread mainly in South Europe. The reason is that their crops originated in Fertile Crescent and were not adapted to Norther European climate, or even Central. Also if their crops where more successful they would have had a big surplus of food, building strong civilizations in Europe, and first cities, and by this powers, spreading their J2 North. Looks like they were and remained to end of Neolithic, village farmers. I think that's the problem that we can't find their DNA yet.

Neolithic was quite long, at least 6 thousand years. There might have been two or more separate waves of farmers from Fertile Crescent. Most likely they've spoke different languages therefore didn't mix well, living side by side. J2 will be found in different locations than G2a. Who knows, maybe they didn't buried their dead, making finding DNA more difficult.

Looking at maps of the G2a, J1, J2 and T, they all look as they came in different waves, and didn't mix well for a very long time. Possible till Chalcolithic, or even bronze and iron age when people starting mixing on big scale in big cities, the first multicultural centers.

Kardu
19-01-13, 13:53
How about the cremation practice affecting the aDNA finds?

Kentel
22-01-13, 01:17
One issue I have noticed with both Renfew and Alinei is that they seem to be harshly opposed to the Kurgan hypothesis on the grounds of it's implication of (pre-)historic violence. Furthermore, they all seem to be all too much inclined to make a connection between the Kurgan hypothesis and the "Aryan master race" bogus of the Nazis.
The one strength, on the other hand, of the traditional hypothesis is that it functions with the traditional reconstruction of PIE in terms of its vocabulary. Which does not automatically mean that it's right, but it certainly avoids the intrinsic flaws that both the Neolithic and Paleolithic Continuity hypotheses have.


You're right, but the Aryan bogus is based upon the Invasionist Model in itself. Grimm admitted that he was doing nationalist linguistics, and the considerations of Kossinna are typically racist - in fact they inspired the nazis. In a now out of print book published at the Presses Universitaires de France (and prefaced by Dumézil himself, by the way) in the 90's, Jean Haudry quoted Hans Gunther, a nazi raciolog, to support ideas such as IE's desire for conquest and need for wider spaces. And many guys like that whose mind went totally out of the track.

On the contrary Renfrew is very factual : he asks, and I think that it is a pretty good question : why did the PIE urvolk was so eager to leave it's homeland ? The fantasmatic vision of "warlike supermen" (as Alinei called them) coming on horseback to fullfill their desire for conquest is obviously a complete delirium, hence the answer lies somewhere else.

He suggested the spread with farming, but it does not work very well. But Renfrew's point of view seems very representative of the point of view of the archaeologs as a rule : they have the feeling that linguists want them to find facts which coincidate with their Invasionist theory, and they don't find them. So something goes wrong in the Aryan warriors story.

Well, you have the notable exception of Gimbutas, but she locates the PIE urheimat approximately in the same area as the Baltic urheimat. She was Lituanian, by the way : certainly a coincidence. Curiously enough, you find many coincidences of that sort (Gamkrelidze & Ivanov locates the urheimat in the Caucasus, Kossinna put it in Germany, etc, there's a full list in Renfrew's).

My feeling, and it is apparently the feeling of the archaeologs, is that none of these spread models is correct, and that the story is much more complicated than that. Renfrew's book (The Puzzle of IE Origins) is great, not for its own hypothesis, but because he discards very efficiently the Invasionist model.

I have no idea how things happened. I am only convinced of one thing : the substrata played a great role in the story, and this fact is considered by none of the three academic hypothesis.

Kentel
22-01-13, 01:24
Here are some maps which draw the possible migrations routes of the R1 people. I havn't checked them yet but it looks quite interesting :

5805
http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-LN22s5ZNmws/TVegEsUakmI/AAAAAAAAAn8/Z2y7hi0K_bU/s1600/R1+verspreiding.jpg

http://z3.ifrm.com/67/29/0/p380664/R1b_Migrations.jpg

5806
http://freepages.genealogy.rootsweb.ancestry.com/~villandra/McKinstry/I2b1/Haplogroup%20R1/MiddleEasternR1b1b2.jpg

nordicwarrior
22-01-13, 02:34
Interesting. The third map has R1b smack over the top of Gobekli Tepe 12,000 years ago. I joked in earlier threads this would soon be the case...

LeBrok
22-01-13, 02:41
My feeling, and it is apparently the feeling of the archaeologs, is that none of these spread models is correct, and that the story is much more complicated than that. Renfrew's book (The Puzzle of IE Origins) is great, not for its own hypothesis, but because he discards very efficiently the Invasionist model.

I have no idea how things happened. I am only convinced of one thing : the substrata played a great role in the story, and this fact is considered by none of the three academic hypothesis.

The cold and dry weather, the little ice ages, played a real havoc on Steppes or north populations in general. At least from recent history and temperature recreation we started noticing a big correlation between big population movements and cooling trends, even collapse of civilizations.

5807

The fall of Roman empire and "squeezing" people out off the Steppe into Europe, coincides with cooling period. Even first attacks of Vikings happened during cooling trend of 800s. When population is big and food scarce, you round up a band of brothers and raid your neighbors to get their resources. When it gets really bad, you pack and lead your nation to better lands. It is helped by other tribes pushing on you from east and north, because they are hungry too.
This fairly recent scenario might have been repetition of times when IE invaded Europe in huge numbers, when steppes were getting drier and drier between 3000 to 2000 BCE. Having bronze weapons and horses made their moves and invasions so much easier.

To successfully implement this scenario, they had to bee already living in the Steppe (between Ukraine and central Asia) 5k year ago, to feel effect of cooling the most.

5808

Kentel
22-01-13, 11:17
The cold and dry weather, the little ice ages, played a real havoc on Steppes or north populations in general. At least from recent history and temperature recreation we started noticing a big correlation between big population movements and cooling trends, even collapse of civilizations.

Yes indeed; weather conditions is another forgotten aspect of the IE spread models, that's very true. Thanks for the file, it is very informative !




This fairly recent scenario might have been repetition of times when IE invaded Europe in huge numbers, when steppes were getting drier and drier between 3000 to 2000 BCE. Having bronze weapons and horses made their moves and invasions so much easier.

To successfully implement this scenario, they had to bee already living in the Steppe (between Ukraine and central Asia) 5k year ago, to feel effect of cooling the most.


About Gimbutas Model :

That's Gimbutas theory (the connection with the Yamna Culture) but the horseriders' story is probably a myth based upon a misinterpretation of the Rig-Veda : Renfrew demonstrated on the basis of archaeologic finds that Kurgan people were not horsemen. At the best they used horses to bring material but they didn't ride them ; among other things, no stirrups nor snaffle bits have been found in the graves nor anywhere else. And these two pieces are a condition sine qua non for horseriding.

horses :

And I would had an argument : contrary to Taranis, I state that the word for "horse" is generally different in the IE languages. The *ekwos etymon doesn't work in many languages : English "horse" is "of unknown origins", Spanish "caballo" (= French "cheval, = Irish "capall", = Welsh "cefyll"), Danish "heste", Breton "marc'h" (= Welsh "march") as well. I am not sure but the Albanian kalë would not fit in *ekwos without dramatic manipulations. It tends to indicate that the PIE urvolk did not have a specific horse culture.

dating :

The date of 3000 BC for the migration start is purely arbitrary, there is nothing to support it. Thus the whole story is biased right from the beginning. It goes the same way for the horseriders : why should they have been horseriders by the way ?

Hence, to me Gimbutas model does not hold. It has been so popular because it was the only model which coincidated with the theories of the linguists (Kosssina's Corded Ware spread did not fit with the horserider story).

urvolk :

To be a bit provocative (as I like to be and as Sparkey rightly stated :) ), I would also add : are we sure that a PIE urvolk ever existed ? We have clear linguistic convergences (although many of them are based upon heavily distorted interpretations), is it sufficient to declare that you had an urvolk and an urheimat and horses and bronze swords and conquest and the like ? Well, I don't think so. I don't discard the hypothesis of a PIE urvolk, I am just wondering, this is after all only a hypothesis.

Kentel
22-01-13, 11:25
(I might also bring up warrior/military terminology, but I'm somewhat sceptical with this: how 'peaceful' were Neolithic societies really?)


Very good question. I think that you put the finger on a critical issue here.

Kardu
22-01-13, 12:36
urvolk :

To be a bit provocative (as I like to be and as Sparkey rightly stated :) ), I would also add : are we sure that a PIE urvolk ever existed ? We have clear linguistic convergences (although many of them are based upon heavily distorted interpretations), is it sufficient to declare that you had an urvolk and an urheimat and horses and bronze swords and conquest and the like ? Well, I don't think so. I don't discard the hypothesis of a PIE urvolk, I am just wondering, this is after all only a hypothesis.

I have similar doubts about all those proto-peoples as well, theories about existence of which are based on linguistic reconstructions. Based solely on language data one could argue that 'urvolk' of Latin Americans are Romans etc...

Kentel
22-01-13, 13:13
I have similar doubts about all those proto-peoples as well, theories about existence of which are based on linguistic reconstructions. Based solely on language data one could argue that 'urvolk' of Latin Americans are Romans etc...

And if you reconstruct proto-Romance on the basis of the Romance languages, you don't find Latin but something very different.

Moreover, a significant amount of convergences is uncertain : here are a few objections as far as the lexicon is concerned :

1-How much etymons have been heavily distorted, both semantically and phonetically (not talking about the supposed "echoic" and "taboo" words), in order to make them coincidate with their alleged reflexes ? At a glance, I would say more than 50%, maybe 70 or 80, it would be worth counting.

2- How much regular evolutions are shared with OTHER language families (*do, to give, found in Ancient Egyptian, *h2ter, father, found in Inuit, etc)

3- How much etymons are really shared by all the IE languages ? Very few, I think no more than 20 or 30.

4- How much of these common roots were in fact wandering words ?

If you take all these objections into consideration (and the Academia has never done it), you reduce dramatically the volume of the PIE lexicon. As for the grammar, there are obvious convergences...and huge discrepancies. See f.ex. the verb paradigm wich cannot really be reconstructed, and so many other issues of that kind.

There are indeed a lot of convergences between the IE languages, this is not an hallucination. It cannot be coincidences, something happened, no doubt about that, but what ?

Yetos
22-01-13, 15:09
@ Kentel

Gibutas model was working good until new discoveries.

After Leyla teppe and Varna Necropolis archaological discoveries, only Arsenic bronze road from North Iran to Maykop to central Balkans is valid, since kurgans seems to be balkanic or minor Asia custom,
but DID anyone ever notice the Gold mettalurgy road?
DID anyones notice the burry with weapons culture road?
these 2 are enough to reject kurgans as steppe culture

now I said about Summerian and Akkadian in IE but was called a magician of words,
but in my post in offtopic simmilar thread i give a good example on how Summerian and Uralian and IE have something strange,

Post #62
http://www.eupedia.com/forum/threads/28301-OFFTOPIC-from-quot-Are-R1a-and-R1b-really-Indo-Europeans-quot?p=402943&viewfull=1#post402943

that is a qood linguistic question,

as also tthis. since Hettits were IE how come they had deity Illuwanka after Akkadian Semitic Illu (Greek Απολλων can be also from Akkadian-Semitic Illu?)
finaly word Illum is IE or Phaun Φαεθων Φως or Sol Selios etc?

LeBrok
22-01-13, 20:18
I have similar doubts about all those proto-peoples as well, theories about existence of which are based on linguistic reconstructions. Based solely on language data one could argue that 'urvolk' of Latin Americans are Romans etc...

Actually the American model, how IE spread over the whole America, is a great and well documented example how language, culture and DNA can take over a whole continent, and in scale of 500 years. We can even see the local differences, like different IE languages in geographical areas, coming in different waves and from different regions of Europe; English and French in North, Spanish and Portuguese in South. Still some local languages surviving in secluded areas. We see almost complete native population replacement in US, Canada, Argentina, Urugway. Still, majority of native people in many South american countries, but minority of IE's in power, politics and business, and slowly blending and mixing.
How hard is it to imagine that this was a possible and valid scenario in Europe sometime in the past?


That's Gimbutas theory (the connection with the Yamna Culture) but the horseriders' story is probably a myth based upon a misinterpretation of the Rig-Veda : Renfrew demonstrated on the basis of archaeologic finds that Kurgan people were not horsemen. At the best they used horses to bring material but they didn't ride them ; among other things, no stirrups nor snaffle bits have been found in the graves nor anywhere else. And these two pieces are a condition sine qua non for horseriding. That's true, and it probably doesn't matter much who invented what. The real advantage of inventions goes to the people who can improve it to the point of popularizing and mass use inventions on "industrial scale", either horses, wagons and bronze weapons. There is much better documented IE's move south to Middle East and India around 2,000 BC. Therefor there is no doubt that they were able to move West if chosen so.

Kentel
22-01-13, 20:21
@Kentel
I mean considering that basquez is R1b population and Basquez language is Not IE, what do you believe? that Basquez is older or younger in Europe than IE?

could R1b or R1a learn IE language at the past outside steppe?? and then spread it?

That's an interesting question. Basque is undoubtedly not and IE language, it is undoubtedly indigeneous, and is massively R1b. Moreover I and G frequencies are very low in the area.

Then, logically R1b is not IE, unless you find a bias to explain it.

I think we should open a thread about Basque.

Kardu
22-01-13, 20:31
Actually the American model, how IE spread over the whole America, is a great and well documented example how language, culture and DNA can take whole over a continent, and in scale of 500 years. We can even see the local differences, like different IE languages in geographical areas, coming in different waves and from different regions of Europe; English and French in North, Spanish and Portuguese in South. Still some local languages surviving in secluded areas. We see almost complete native population replacement in US, Canada, Argentina, Urugway. Still, majority of native people in many South american countries, but minority of IE's in power, politics and business, and slowly blending and mixing.
How hard is it to imagine that this was a possible and valid scenario in Europe sometime in the past?


But those Europeans who took over Americas were not themselves genetically uniform, not even Englishmen, Spaniards or French taken apart were/are genetically homogenous and in case of proto-IE speakers people usually imply closely-tied community living on a restricted territory.

LeBrok
22-01-13, 20:37
Then, logically R1b is not IE, unless you find a bias to explain it.

.

Globally R1b is partially IE. R1b entered Europe in few waves through couple of millenia, possibly not all IE.

LeBrok
22-01-13, 20:47
But those Europeans who took over Americas were not themselves genetically uniform, not even Englishmen, Spaniards or French taken apart were/are genetically homogenous and in case of proto-IE speakers people usually imply closely-tied community living on a restricted territory.
Don't you think that people in past were mixed on lesser scale than today? The big mixing and big movements started with steady growth of population of farmers and herders and really accelerated through chalcolithinc, bronze and iron ages till present, where people from Africa can travel to Australia in 24 hours and start mixing. This is a clear evidence that with rise of civilizations that bring inventions, people travel more, more people travel, faster, further, mixing and mixing. One can follow this curve and end up with conclusion that in about a thousand years all world will be nicely mixed together.

Kardu
22-01-13, 21:56
Don't you think that people in past were mixed on lesser scale than today? The big mixing and big movements started with steady growth of population of farmers and herders and really accelerated through chalcolithinc, bronze and iron ages till present, where people from Africa can travel to Australia in 24 hours and start mixing. This is a clear evidence that with rise of civilizations that bring inventions, people travel more, more people travel, faster, further, mixing and mixing. One can follow this curve and end up with conclusion that in about a thousand years all world will be nicely mixed together.

Mixing is a fact of historical process (in the past peaceful mixing was rare btw) and by itself neutral, seeing it as nice or not is a matter of taste. But this is not the point. What I mean is that proto-IE, if it existed as such was just a lingua franca not a strictrly tribal/ethnic language...

LeBrok
22-01-13, 22:11
What I mean is that proto-IE, if it existed as such was just a lingua franca not a strictrly tribal/ethnic language...
I don't see a problem with this. What we have to remember is that lingua franca when used intensively for few hundreds of years becomes a new tribal/ethnic language. Look at Latin turning into Spanish/French/Romanian. English and Spanish in America. English in Singapore and India. Colonial languages in Africa. Some examples are done deal, some showing ongoing process.
Of course it is not simple and pure transformation. There is always a twist on lingua franca from local substratum, changes in grammar, pronunciation, melody, etc.

Kardu
22-01-13, 22:16
I don't see a problem with this. What we have to remember is that lingua franca when used intensively for few hundreds of years becomes a new tribal/ethnic language. Look at Latin turning into Spanish/French/Romanian. English and Spanish in America. English in Singapore and India. Colonial languages in Africa. Some examples are done deal, some showing ongoing process.
Of course it is not simple and pure transformation. There is always a twist on lingua franca from local substratum, changes in grammar, pronunciation, melody, etc.

On this we agree

Kentel
22-01-13, 22:18
Globally R1b is partially IE. R1b entered Europe in few waves through couple of millenia, possibly not all IE.

Interesting ! Do we know which subclade is suspected to be pre-IE ? The highest frequency in the Basque country seem to be L176.2 and M153, but maybe you are referring to previous waves ?

By the way, a very good link for those who got lost in the R haplogroup (like me) : http://www.isogg.org/tree/ISOGG_HapgrpR.html

Taranis
22-01-13, 22:22
So many very interesting, and again, thought-provoking ideas, I am not sure where to start.

First of all this, because the two are related:


And if you reconstruct proto-Romance on the basis of the Romance languages, you don't find Latin but something very different.

I agree on this. In particular, going from the modern Romance languages (French "cheval", Italian "cavallo", Portuguese "cavalo", Spanish "caballo"), you'd reconstruct *kaballo- as the Proto-Romance word for "horse".


And I would had an argument : contrary to Taranis, I state that the word for "horse" is generally different in the IE languages. The *ekwos etymon doesn't work in many languages : English "horse" is "of unknown origins", Spanish "caballo" (= French "cheval, = Irish "capall", = Welsh "cefyll"), Danish "heste", Breton "marc'h" (= Welsh "march") as well. I am not sure but the Albanian kalë would not fit in *ekwos without dramatic manipulations. It tends to indicate that the PIE urvolk did not have a specific horse culture.

This is very clever from the examples that you have chosen! :grin:

With regard for *ek´wos though, it should be pointed out that Old Irish had "ech", and Scottish Gaelic and Manx have "each" and "eagh" respectively. In a similar fashion, Welsh and Breton have "ebol" and "ebeul" respectively (which mean "foal", rather than "horse") as derivatives. In the same fashion, Anglo-Saxon had "eoh". The point is, of course, that the original word fell out of usage.


Moreover, a significant amount of convergences is uncertain : here are a few objections as far as the lexicon is concerned :

1-How much etymons have been heavily distorted, both semantically and phonetically (not talking about the supposed "echoic" and "taboo" words), in order to make them coincidate with their alleged reflexes ? At a glance, I would say more than 50%, maybe 70 or 80, it would be worth counting.

2- How much regular evolutions are shared with OTHER language families (*do, to give, found in Ancient Egyptian, *h2ter, father, found in Inuit, etc)

3- How much etymons are really shared by all the IE languages ? Very few, I think no more than 20 or 30.

4- How much of these common roots were in fact wandering words ?

If you take all these objections into consideration (and the Academia has never done it), you reduce dramatically the volume of the PIE lexicon. As for the grammar, there are obvious convergences...and huge discrepancies. See f.ex. the verb paradigm wich cannot really be reconstructed, and so many other issues of that kind.

There are indeed a lot of convergences between the IE languages, this is not an hallucination. It cannot be coincidences, something happened, no doubt about that, but what ?

Well, I'm personally objecting the idea to wholly discard a word as reconstructable for the proto-language if it's not attested in every language, but I would put it this way. There are 12 main branches of Indo-European (Albanian, Anatolian, Armenian, Baltic, Celtic, Germanic, Greek, Indic, Iranic, Italic, Slavic, Tocharian), which if one accepts the two most undisputed higher-order groupings, can be conflated to 10 branches (Albanian, Anatolian, Armenian, Balto-Slavic, Celtic, Germanic, Greek, Indo-Iranic, Italic, Tocharian), but this is mainly a cosmetic effect. I would argue that if a word is attested in the majority of branches (or lacking that, branches are located at geographically opposing ends - because that makes it unlikely for it to have travelled from one end to the other), and can be derived from a common proto-form via the "native" sound laws of the respective branch, then the probably that this word was in the proto-language should be regarded as high. For me, the word *ek´wos fulfills this condition because it is attested in 9 out of the 12 branches (Anatolian, Armenian, Baltic, Celtic, Germanic, Greek, Indic, Iranic, Italic and Tocharian).

This method, of course, is not bullet-proof, but in my opinion it's a nudge into the right direction, because:


I have no idea how things happened. I am only convinced of one thing : the substrata played a great role in the story, and this fact is considered by none of the three academic hypothesis.


I very much agree with the importance of substrata. Because the exact reversal from the above holds true: if a word is only found amongst a hand full of branches in one region, the likelihood that the word should be reconstructed for the proto-language must be regarded as low. The examples you gave earlier, *kaballo- and *marko- for instance fall into that direction.


Very good question. I think that you put the finger on a critical issue here.

The flip side of the "warrior supermen" is the perception that Neolithic societies were particularly peaceful. I'm not really convinced, and if the argument is really a weak one, then the "warrior" or "military" terminology could be easily older. Or, the word acquired the 'warlike' meaning only later:

To pick a provocative example (you're coloring off here :laughing: ), Old Irish "cuire", Gothic "harjiz", German "Heer" all mean "troop" or "army". There is also, certainly related, Latvian "karš", Lithuanian "karas" which mean "war", and ancient Greek "koiranos" - meaning 'ruler' or 'leader'. But what if the original meaning wasn't "army" or "troop", but "herd"? And that this meaning is preserved in the Finnish borrowing "karja" (which certainly looks like a cognate), but means 'cattle' or 'livestock' instead.

Kentel
22-01-13, 23:29
To pick a provocative example (you're coloring off here :laughing: ), Old Irish "cuire", Gothic "harjiz", German "Heer" all mean "troop" or "army". There is also, certainly related, Latvian "karš", Lithuanian "karas" which mean "war", and ancient Greek "koiranos" - meaning 'ruler' or 'leader'. But what if the original meaning wasn't "army" or "troop", but "herd"? And that this meaning is preserved in the Finnish borrowing "karja" (which certainly looks like a cognate), but means 'cattle' or 'livestock' instead.

Thank you for this mind-challenging answer :smile: I will go within the details later, just one remark regarding the "war" question : I am currently within the process of reading through Trask's Etymological Dictionary of Basque and I bumped into an interesting "akar" meaning "quarell, dispute", apparently not a loanword. I reproduce the notice hereunder :

ahakar (L), akar (HN S), ãkar (R), aaka (Múg.) n. ‘quarrel, dispute’. 1643.
The R form leads M. (**** BAP 6: {1950b:}499) to propose *anakar, OUO, by P1. But
AT (s.v.) prefer a derivative of aho ‘mouth’, and see the R nasalization as secondary;
they cite in support an adverbial ahakan ‘arguing’ from S.P. See aharra.
ahakartu (old L), ahakatu (S.P.) v. [diathesis unrecorded] ‘dispute, argue’. + -tu VFS.

Yetos
22-01-13, 23:51
Actually the American model, how IE spread over the whole America, is a great and well documented example how language, culture and DNA can take over a whole continent, and in scale of 500 years. We can even see the local differences, like different IE languages in geographical areas, coming in different waves and from different regions of Europe; English and French in North, Spanish and Portuguese in South. Still some local languages surviving in secluded areas. We see almost complete native population replacement in US, Canada, Argentina, Urugway. Still, majority of native people in many South american countries, but minority of IE's in power, politics and business, and slowly blending and mixing.
How hard is it to imagine that this was a possible and valid scenario in Europe sometime in the past?

That's true, and it probably doesn't matter much who invented what. The real advantage of inventions goes to the people who can improve it to the point of popularizing and mass use inventions on "industrial scale", either horses, wagons and bronze weapons. There is much better documented IE's move south to Middle East and India around 2,000 BC. Therefor there is no doubt that they were able to move West if chosen so.


le brok why we don't use the American model in case of Tocharians and steppe people?

Yetos
22-01-13, 23:59
I don't see a problem with this. What we have to remember is that lingua franca when used intensively for few hundreds of years becomes a new tribal/ethnic language. Look at Latin turning into Spanish/French/Romanian. English and Spanish in America. English in Singapore and India. Colonial languages in Africa. Some examples are done deal, some showing ongoing process.
Of course it is not simple and pure transformation. There is always a twist on lingua franca from local substratum, changes in grammar, pronunciation, melody, etc.

But what comes to Latin in Poland and Germany?
latin was also lingua franca of Germanic and in some Slavic countries like Poland,
religion, state Codex, advocats, notorius, science, medicine doctors etc did change polish People to Latin speakers?
did it change byzantine? did it change Germanic speaking,
NO

then we must search other reasons, why Romanians accept Latin and not the rest Byzantines,
why Poland and Germanic denied Latin while Spain accept it.

Kentel
23-01-13, 00:07
But what comes to Latin in Poland and Germany?
latin was also lingua franca of Germanic and in some Slavic countries like Poland,
religion, state Codex, advocats, notorius, science, medicine doctors etc did change polish People to Latin speakers?
did it change byzantine? did it change Germanic speaking,
NO

then we must search other reasons, why Romanians accept Latin and not the rest Byzantines,
why Poland and Germanic denied Latin while Spain accept it.

Hispania and Dacia were administrated directly by Rome as parts of the empire, which was not the case for the Germanic and Slavic speaking areas. I guess it explains the poor impact of Latin in these regions.

LeBrok
23-01-13, 00:29
Hispania and Dacia were administrated directly by Rome as parts of the empire, which was not the case for the Germanic and Slavic speaking areas. I guess it explains the poor impact of Latin in these regions.
That's right, plus latin was used by all trades people, roads and building builders, merchants financial transactions, by soldiers in roman armies. You wanted a good job, you had to speak latin. Again it wasn't the case in Poland or Germany.

Similar situation in America for native peoples. You want a job, you have to learn Spanish or English.
Change of language through economic forcing.

Yetos
23-01-13, 02:10
That's right, plus latin was used by all trades people, roads and building builders, merchants financial transactions, by soldiers in roman armies. You wanted a good job, you had to speak latin. Again it wasn't the case in Poland or Germany.

Similar situation in America for native peoples. You want a job, you have to learn Spanish or English.
Change of language through economic forcing.

so through economic force Dacia and Spain change language,
but East Roman empire Germanic states Poland did not,

so why IE expand all over Europe but did not had phenomena like Poland or germany or Greece?

simply by sword?
did people need a job that time?
wasn't life outside in country?
did arsenic bronze change economy of agricultural people? I think no.

on the other hand by watching catalan quards and Varrangian guards in recent history in Byzantine and in Russia we see that warlords change their language and not the language of people,

LeBrok
23-01-13, 02:37
so why IE expand all over Europe but did not had phenomena like Poland or germany or Greece?
,
Poland and Germany didn't even exist during Roman Empire.
You are "lucky" Greece was a developed region (by era standards), and Greek was a second lingua franca or Roman Empire (all educated Romans, and their bureaucracy in Greece spoke Greek), otherwise you would have been speaking Roman language by now. If not Arabs and their conquest in Africa you would see some North African countries speaking some form of Latin too.

Also there is a possibility that it was much easier for Celts/Italics to switch to pig latin, because of closeness in language family. For some other nations it would have been more difficult. Having said that, in general, it might have not been the case, as we see on Latin America example. They all speak Spanish and Portuguese (except secluded villages) after exactly 500 years. Comparable time length to Roman Empire.

Yetos
23-01-13, 07:41
Poland and Germany didn't even exist during Roman Empire.
You are "lucky" Greece was a developed region (by era standards), and Greek was a second lingua franca or Roman Empire (all educated Romans, and their bureaucracy in Greece spoke Greek), otherwise you would have been speaking Roman language by now. If not Arabs and their conquest in Africa you would see some North African countries speaking some form of Latin too.

Also there is a possibility that it was much easier for Celts/Italics to switch to pig latin, because of closeness in language family. For some other nations it would have been more difficult. Having said that, in general, it might have not been the case, as we see on Latin America example. They all speak Spanish and Portuguese (except secluded villages) after exactly 500 years. Comparable time length to Roman Empire.

I agree,
But in Latin america still people resist in their own way,

what I mean we can not compare modern times with beuraucracy and tv with ancient times.
only television is enough in modern times,.

yet we must see some other cases like the will of people,

For example after Alexander we see that some areas had not problem with bilingual while others had,
for example the people of Tyros, Kαρδουχοι (possibly Kurds) and Mακαβαιοι (possibly Macambi Jews) never accepted Greek.

So I don't think is a rule that Bronze change all Europe's languages, Yes it could change a lot of Europe but not all, Especially in times with no tv, no beuraucracy, and jobs were mainly outside cities, and rebels could take the mountains,
Yet except Basquez we see no other European Language except IE family ones, Etruscan were not European origin, and Pelasgians also in borders with Asia,

MOESAN
23-01-13, 18:28
YETOS,
I am not too often in accord with you about etymologies (I am not the only one in this case)
but here I fully agree with you concerning hasardous comparisons between ancient and modern times, about new languages adoption.
so long, fight against you again...

Kardu
23-01-13, 20:05
I don't see a problem with this. What we have to remember is that lingua franca when used intensively for few hundreds of years becomes a new tribal/ethnic language. Look at Latin turning into Spanish/French/Romanian. English and Spanish in America. English in Singapore and India. Colonial languages in Africa. Some examples are done deal, some showing ongoing process.
Of course it is not simple and pure transformation. There is always a twist on lingua franca from local substratum, changes in grammar, pronunciation, melody, etc.

So in this case without written sources where would a search for proto-English and its urheim bring us?? :)

LeBrok
23-01-13, 20:22
I agree,
But in Latin america still people resist in their own way,

what I mean we can not compare modern times with beuraucracy and tv with ancient times.
only television is enough in modern times,

Yes modern times, especially 20th century brings something new to equation, like public education and mass media, that helps in unifying the main language of the country. What it does is it speeds up learning process of dominant language, but it doesn't change much, it just accelerates it.



yet we must see some other cases like the will of people,

For example after Alexander we see that some areas had not problem with bilingual while others had,
for example the people of Tyros, Kαρδουχοι (possibly Kurds) and Mακαβαιοι (possibly Macambi Jews) never accepted Greek.
Yes, every group protects its culture, and language is part of it, so it's get protected too. It gets easier to retain own language if a group feels separate and special from mainstream culture like Jews and Gypsies in Europe. Actually they all were bi-lingual, just to be able to interact with locals, and to make money/business in local economies. To the point of developing their own dialects of main language. Yiddish, is an example of German/Hebrew mix, there was also a dialect of Polish spoken by Jewish communities before WWII, a simplified grammar and (funny to Poles) accent. In many Jewish communities local language became dominant, and Hebrew was only used in liturgy (if a person decided to stick to their religion). Look at Jews in America, they are fluent in English, and some only know Hebrew from Torah classes, if religious. Actually firs Israel's parliament sessions were in Polish, at least part of it, till most re-learned Hebrew.

On top of it we only know about these Jews who survived in their culture in Europe and returned to Israel. We don't know about the ones who got assimilated, switching to local culture and language, and vanished as minority. Looking at the paternal DNA flow in Europe and in surviving Jews, possibly majority were assimilated. On top of it European Jews look more European than Jews from middle east. On genetic level, one can say that European Jews, by 20th century, are more like Europeans who accepted Hebrew tradition, and only feel like Jews.

Summarizing, the influence of local languages on Jews were huge, we also see birth of Jewish dialects of local languages in some European countries. By 20th century, Hebrew becomes only liturgical language, spoken fluently by not many, if fluently at all, and barely survives. Of course it varies in parts of Europe, and jewish communities.






So I don't think is a rule that Bronze change all Europe's languages, Yes it could change a lot of Europe but not all, Especially in times with no tv, no beuraucracy, and jobs were mainly outside cities, and rebels could take the mountains,
Yet except Basquez we see no other European Language except IE family ones, Etruscan were not European origin, and Pelasgians also in borders with Asia,
Of course the process was long. Nobody says that IEs arrived and said to locals: "From tomorrow everybody speaks IE language, ok?". There were locals who switched faster than others, many survived longer, some even till recent times. But few exceptions, are just that, exceptions who needed more time to switch. Perhaps thanks to insulation of some sort like Basque. Some of exceptions might have been a late comers. Tribes that showed up in Europe after IEs. Etruscans?
The fact is that vast majority of continent switched to IE by first millennium BC, maybe even earlier.


and jobs were mainly outside cities
If invaders are mostly farmers-warriors (like Slavs), the language change actually starts from farms and villages, and not from cities and trade centers. Villages are the economic centers for farmer-warrior. Slavic expansion, and language change in Balkans, are great example how it works.

Keep in mind that I neither like it or not, I don't keep sides what language will win. I'm not writing anything against you or others, or just in spite. For me understanding processes engaged in language shift is the exciting thing. Nothing more, nothing less.

LeBrok
23-01-13, 21:23
So in this case without written sources where would a search for proto-English and its urheim bring us?? :)
We would be in same predicament with English, as we are with IE. With English, we would know that it came from invaders operating across the whole world (boat people). We would know that in Africa and Asia they were in minorities, as ruling class, leaving English as lingua franca, some religion and infrastructure, that are still used by locals. We would know that in USA, Canada, Australia and England, by preservation of language, by ubiquitous use of it, the English speaking invaders were in majority to local population, or that English speaking population grew faster than indigenous one, because of stronger economy/food production technology.
It would be hard to quickly say what was the homeland of English invaders of these 4 countries. Later by analyzing relation of vocabulary to each of them we would perhaps conclude that England was their homeland. Not mentioning the fact that it is still called England, and some provinces on other continent are called New England. Then by archaeology (no written records) we would find out that big ship building industry was first in England then in the rest of the English speaking world, denoting starting point of spread of English.
Too bad that English grammar is already simplified to minimum, we would have seen additional changes in grammar, pointing to proportions of invaders to locals, and direction English language spread.

The most difficult situation would be if England lost WWI, and was German speaking by now. Thus without written records, making our quest for English homeland, almost impossible to succeed. Probably genetics would solve this problem well at the end.

This last scenario is probably the one that makes deciphering IE starting point extremely difficult to pinpoint. Because of big time scale and large people movement over Eurasia, the original homeland of IE is not there anymore, linguistically speaking. People and languages moved too much to trace it at all. Hopefully one day genetics, with connection to archaeology and linguistics, can solve this mystery.

Kardu
23-01-13, 21:31
Would we be able to reconstruct the 'proto-English' and assume that there was a genetically uniform proto-English tribe/community? And would that be right in the light of what we actually know?

LeBrok
23-01-13, 22:05
Would we be able to reconstruct the 'proto-English' and assume that there was a genetically uniform proto-English tribe/community? And would that be right in the light of what we actually know?
Yes, all you have to do is to analyze vocabulary of Canadian, Australian and England English, and it will show you that most commonalities are between Canada-England and Australia-England, and least connection between Canada-Australia in English language.
This automatically tells us that Canadians didn't go directly to Australia, and vice versa. Simply, statistics and math points to England is intermediary or the actual source of English. Now, archaeological tells us that Canada and Australia was settled by new culture from Europe (existing in Europe for long time), at roughly same time in both. This would be the final proof that England was the source of new culture and English language. Farther works in the rest of English speaking countries, would confirm same findings, connecting new cultural shifts (ship building and architecture in style, like rulers palaces, found in England) to English language found in only in these areas.
Simply by statistics, math and pattern recognition. Exactly how science works.

Yetos
23-01-13, 23:38
@ LE Brok

so simple?

but what about if in England's archaiological DNA we find modern English DNA, especially from London?

we would find Much E much J etc HG,

I mean what England did in 18-19th Century works opposite in 20 and 21rst century,

I mean after 3000 years someone who excavate London of today what HG will find?

I mean we are gathering ancient DNA and yet we find so many HG in England of Past, what about England had the male composition that has today? Then?
How many ex-colonists live in today England? from India China Africa Caribean?

and what we will find in Jamaica of today?, if we do a search after 2000 years? we will find enough African DNA,
and we will say what Le brok? that Jamaica was invaded by Africans and spoke African? or English was Spoken in Africa of today? (today we know the case of Slave merchants, but if we did not and make a search today what will we say?)


with more simple words because i read many times that I can not express good in English,

England colonise Jamaica and part of Africa (lets say Sierra Leone), so sends R1b there,
Slave merchants Bring E from Africa to Jamaica, so E exists in Jamaica,
Ex-colonists from Africa and Jamaica move to England (that is happening today) to work or merchandise, and slowly they create their small societies, and mix.
a Nature disaster buries all 3 lands,
after 3000 years an archaiologists and a gennetists finds London cemetery, Kingston and Freetown, some written in English in all 3, and nothing else.
what results about religion, language possible invasions or slave people, a scientist of future will say?

we see English Hg colonising and rule Americas but we dont see African Dna colonising America, and especially we do not see american and African DNA colonizing England,

a future scientist image will include all 3 Hg, same language to all 3, so what he will guess?
He also finds guns and people killed in a sugarcane revolt.
he could say
1) guns so invasion, so Africans invade Jamaica !!!!
2) or Jamaica spoke African before British !!!!
3) or
even diversity law can be different, since Balkans have enough R1 diversity, but we consider it due to sink.
so England of future might have bigger diversity in E Hg for example than each African country alone due to Sink phenomena and make more mistakes and say that E Hg was English one!!!!

same is with IE, since historical data limit is milleniums after, and genetical data are limited and not clear, so we suggest the diversity law of modern people as possible homeland etc,
But is the DNA time-photo of past correct?

IT is not so easy as we describe it.
only one excavation in leyla teppe, sends IE from georgia to North Iran and can harm theories and works of decades.

Kardu
23-01-13, 23:50
Yes, all you have to do is to analyze vocabulary of Canadian, Australian and England English, and it will show you that most commonalities are between Canada-England and Australia-England, and least connection between Canada-Australia in English language.
This automatically tells us that Canadians didn't go directly to Australia, and vice versa. Simply, statistics and math points to England is intermediary or the actual source of English. Now, archaeological tells us that Canada and Australia was settled by new culture from Europe (existing in Europe for long time), at roughly same time in both. This would be the final proof that England was the source of new culture and English language. Farther works in the rest of English speaking countries, would confirm same findings, connecting new cultural shifts (ship building and architecture in style, like rulers palaces, found in England) to English language found in only in these areas.
Simply by statistics, math and pattern recognition. Exactly how science works.
But this would not tell us that English came from Anglo-Saxons would it? And how about the genetic composition of 'proto-Englishmen'? :) I think that we face similar problems in the case of IE..

LeBrok
24-01-13, 00:25
But this would not tell us that English came from Anglo-Saxons would it? And how about the genetic composition of 'proto-Englishmen'? :) I think that we face similar problems in the case of IE..

Still unhappy Kardu?

No exactly, English didn't come only from Anglo-Saxon. English is a new language made of Germanic (mostly Anglo-Saxon), French, Latin, and local Celtic, therefore many IE parts. We know exactly its evolution, that's why it helps us to understand how new languages are created and shift in time.

And yes, as long as French, German, Celtic languages exist we would have found connection of English to these, even without written records.


And how about the genetic composition of 'proto-Englishmen'?
For god sake, that's why we don't use only linguistics, but all the other tools to connect dots together, like archaeology and modern DNA tools, plus more to come in the future.


I think that we face similar problems in the case of IE
We face much greater problems, because of huge time scale.

How about stopping being contrarian only, and bringing something creative and positive to the thread?

LeBrok
24-01-13, 00:57
@ LE Brok
I mean after 3000 years someone who excavate London of today what HG will find?

I mean we are gathering ancient DNA and yet we find so many HG in England of Past, what about England had the male composition that has today? Then?
How many ex-colonists live in today England? from India China Africa Caribean?

and what we will find in Jamaica of today?, if we do a search after 2000 years? we will find enough African DNA,
and we will say what Le brok? that Jamaica was invaded by Africans and spoke African? or English was Spoken in Africa of today? (today we know the case of Slave merchants, but if we did not and make a search today what will we say?)


with more simple words because i read many times that I can not express good in English,

England colonise Jamaica and part of Africa (lets say Sierra Leone), so sends R1b there,
Slave merchants Bring E from Africa to Jamaica, so E exists in Jamaica,
Ex-colonists from Africa and Jamaica move to England (that is happening today) to work or merchandise, and slowly they create their small societies, and mix.
a Nature disaster buries all 3 lands,
after 3000 years an archaiologists and a gennetists finds London cemetery, Kingston and Freetown, some written in English in all 3, and nothing else.
what results about religion, language possible invasions or slave people, a scientist of future will say?

And that's pretty much (only change names) story how Greece was created. That's why we have such hard times figuring out who came when and bring what, and who was the first Greek. The point is that we know much more and better clarity than Greeks new about their origin 200 years ago. This is a good progress, more to come, and you should be happy about this.

The rest I can't answer, I don't really get what you meant and what is the reason behind all this fantasy about future. We have enough interesting cases from past to keep us busy. Let's talk positive, constructive, progressive. We have enough questions already, now we need answers.

Taranis
24-01-13, 01:12
I would like to pick up the ideas about lingua francas and 'imperial' languages from earlier:

Literacy, in my opinion, creates a huge difference with respect for how languages spread, and how they are distributed, and I would argue it makes a big difference wether we are talking about before or after literacy:

- Sumerian was the first language to be written down, and that status allowed the language to survive considerably past it's extinction as a spoken language. Sumerian was, however, gradually replaced by Akkadian.

- Akkadian was eventually eclipsed by Aramaic as the lingua franca in the Near East (Aramaic was also important throughout the Hellenistic and Roman periods), and Aramaic actually retained an important status well into the Islamic period.

- Alexander's conquests established Greek as the lingua franca amongst the Hellenistic successor states.

- conquests of Ashoka in India, and spread of Buddhism (Sanskrit and it's vernacular counterparts into Southeast Asia).

- The Roman Republic (and later empire) established the use of Latin within it's domain.

- it was elegant for the Romans to continue the use of Greek, as it was already. As a result, Greek became the lingua franca of the eastern Mediterranean whereas the western Mediterranean would adopt Latin (and this status would quite outlive the Roman Empire, and be continued by the Byzantines).

- the Islamic conquests established Arabic as the language of the Islamic world.

What can also posture here also that language adoption seems easier if the language is more similar:
- the replacement of Akkadian by Aramaic because both are Semitic languages.
- the replacement of the various Celtic and Italic languages in western Europe by Latin.
- the replacement of various Semitic (Punic, Aramaic, various South Semitic dialects) and otherwise Afroasiatic languages (Berber, Coptic) by Arabic during the Abassid period.

There is outliers in the above, of course but I do not want to enumerate them right now. The point is that with the spread of literacy, languages are possible to spread without large-scale demic movements (which does not mean large-scale demic movements don't happen anymore), and this effect is greatly amplified by the spread of scripture-based religions (eg. Buddhism, Christianity, Islam). If we look at the Migration period in Europe, we can see this:
- the migration period brought Germanic into Britain and the Alpine region, and Slavic languages across a large patch of Central Europe and the Balkans. On the other hand, the Germanic warlords who had sized various parts of the former western Roman Empire (eg. Franks in Gaul, Visigoths in Spain, Vandals in North Africa) were unable to press their language upon the population of these areas, rather the opposite.

The question is, thus, how did language expansion happen in the wholesale preliterate period? Was this wholesale through demic movement? Archaeologists are fundamentally unhappy with that idea, because evidence for large-scale demic movements is so inconclusive at large in the archaeological record...

Kardu
24-01-13, 01:25
How about stopping being contrarian only, and bringing something creative and positive to the thread?

This thread is about if R1a and R1b are IndoeEuropean. But how can we answer this question if we don't define clearly what we mean under something/someone being IndoEuropean. Hence my "apophathic" approach :)

LeBrok
24-01-13, 04:12
If we look at the Migration period in Europe, we can see this:
- the migration period brought Germanic into Britain and the Alpine region, and Slavic languages across a large patch of Central Europe and the Balkans. On the other hand, the Germanic warlords who had sized various parts of the former western Roman Empire (eg. Franks in Gaul, Visigoths in Spain, Vandals in North Africa) were unable to press their language upon the population of these areas, rather the opposite.

The question is, thus, how did language expansion happen in the wholesale preliterate period? Was this wholesale through demic movement? Archaeologists are fundamentally unhappy with that idea, because evidence for large-scale demic movements is so inconclusive at large in the archaeological record...

I must say it has baffled me for some time now. How come two expansions, Slavic and Germanic, though both consisted of farmer/warrior gave at the end so different outcomes? Slavic culminating in changing east and central Europe, and Balkans into large Slavic speaking region (with only 4 exceptions) Germanic on other hand, though taking over whole western and southern Europe, only managed to implement heavily modified version of Germanic language in Britten, small Holland and over some Alps.


Let's start from similarities.
They were both mostly farmers, who doubled as warriors when time came. They had small ruling elites. Both elites rather uneducated compared to Roman and Greek standards. We know that Goths and few other germanics had started writing their stories, but this is a far cry from having educated, not only elite, but trades people that build cities, run commerce collect taxes, produce things, etc. Yes, they had conquered Rome and lands of empire, but they were unable to carry over the educational, technological organizational achievements of Roman Empire. To the point of great collapse of European culture into abyss of Dark Ages, shortly after taking over.
They were both lacking, as Taranis mentioned, literacy advantage to implement their language over conquered nations.

The question is what worked for Slavs and didn't for Germanics?

The simple answer might be in their numbers. The ratio of invaders to local population.
From archaeology and historical records we know that central Europe got very depopulated, and I mean depopulated. By some estimates population density could have shrunk to only 10% in late fifth century. Hunic wars, hunger, plague, and many tribes like Goths, Vandals, Swabians leaving this area. I don't think Slavs were particularly strong in numbers, but in this case they didn't need to be. The land was very empty. Therefore wherever they settled they might have become instant majority. This obviously pushed chances of locals learning Slavic on their side, especially in rural areas where they took land from locals, and forced locals working with them on fields. The numbers, the proximity of villages, Slavic and locals, and working together farming and herding, pushed original inhabitants into learning Slavic.

Germanic tribes, on other hand, didn't have easy task swaying language on their side. The South and West of Europe didn't see too many wars before Germanic expansion. The population numbers where much larger than invaders. Locals were also more literate than invaders. It has culminated in invaders learning Latin faster than locals their tongue.
At least if invaders came with some technological advances in food production, or building strong economic centers, that would have given them some edge. But it wasn't the case.
What surprises me the most is that even powerful Francs didn't managed to turn East-North Gaul into German speaking region, except little Netherlands. I'm suspecting that they left their strong pronunciation and guttural R in North France, which actually can mean that they had managed to turn locals into German speaking, but this process was reversed later by strong French speaking input, possibly same one, which add French vocabulary to English language. But this is too much speculation already. :grin:

LeBrok
24-01-13, 04:13
This thread is about if R1a and R1b are IndoeEuropean. But how can we answer this question if we don't define clearly what we mean under something/someone being IndoEuropean. Hence my "apophathic" approach :)

Why don't you start. :)

zanipolo
24-01-13, 10:57
I would like to pick up the ideas about lingua francas and 'imperial' languages from earlier:

Literacy, in my opinion, creates a huge difference with respect for how languages spread, and how they are distributed, and I would argue it makes a big difference wether we are talking about before or after literacy:

- Sumerian was the first language to be written down, and that status allowed the language to survive considerably past it's extinction as a spoken language. Sumerian was, however, gradually replaced by Akkadian.

- Akkadian was eventually eclipsed by Aramaic as the lingua franca in the Near East (Aramaic was also important throughout the Hellenistic and Roman periods), and Aramaic actually retained an important status well into the Islamic period.

- Alexander's conquests established Greek as the lingua franca amongst the Hellenistic successor states.

- conquests of Ashoka in India, and spread of Buddhism (Sanskrit and it's vernacular counterparts into Southeast Asia).

- The Roman Republic (and later empire) established the use of Latin within it's domain.

- it was elegant for the Romans to continue the use of Greek, as it was already. As a result, Greek became the lingua franca of the eastern Mediterranean whereas the western Mediterranean would adopt Latin (and this status would quite outlive the Roman Empire, and be continued by the Byzantines).

- the Islamic conquests established Arabic as the language of the Islamic world.

What can also posture here also that language adoption seems easier if the language is more similar:
- the replacement of Akkadian by Aramaic because both are Semitic languages.
- the replacement of the various Celtic and Italic languages in western Europe by Latin.
- the replacement of various Semitic (Punic, Aramaic, various South Semitic dialects) and otherwise Afroasiatic languages (Berber, Coptic) by Arabic during the Abassid period.

There is outliers in the above, of course but I do not want to enumerate them right now. The point is that with the spread of literacy, languages are possible to spread without large-scale demic movements (which does not mean large-scale demic movements don't happen anymore), and this effect is greatly amplified by the spread of scripture-based religions (eg. Buddhism, Christianity, Islam). If we look at the Migration period in Europe, we can see this:
- the migration period brought Germanic into Britain and the Alpine region, and Slavic languages across a large patch of Central Europe and the Balkans. On the other hand, the Germanic warlords who had sized various parts of the former western Roman Empire (eg. Franks in Gaul, Visigoths in Spain, Vandals in North Africa) were unable to press their language upon the population of these areas, rather the opposite.

The question is, thus, how did language expansion happen in the wholesale preliterate period? Was this wholesale through demic movement? Archaeologists are fundamentally unhappy with that idea, because evidence for large-scale demic movements is so inconclusive at large in the archaeological record...

you left out the important Mediterranean one which lasted 800 years

The Mediterranean Lingua Franca or Sabir ("know") was a pidgin (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pidgin) language used as a lingua franca (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lingua_franca) in the Mediterranean Basin (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mediterranean_Basin) from the 11th to the 19th century.[1] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mediterranean_Lingua_Franca#cite_note-1)

The name "lingua franca" in Italian literally means "Frankish language",[2] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mediterranean_Lingua_Franca#cite_note-2) came to mean any language used by speakers of different languages to communicate with one another. The other name of the language, Sabir, comes from the Italian word "sapere" for "to know", of Romance origin.[3] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mediterranean_Lingua_Franca#cite_note-3)
Based mostly on Northern Italian languages (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Northern_Italian_languages) and Occitano-Romance languages (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occitano-Romance_languages) in the eastern Mediterranean at first, it later came to have more Spanish (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spanish_language) and Portuguese (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Portuguese_language) elements, especially on the Barbary coast (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barbary_coast) (today referred to as the Maghreb (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maghreb)). It also borrowed from Turkish (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turkish_language), French (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/French_language), Greek (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greek_language) and Arabic (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arabic_language). This mixed language was used for communication throughout the medieval and early modern Middle East (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Middle_East) as a commercial and diplomatic language. It was also the language used among slaves of the bagnio (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bagnio), Barbary pirates (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barbary_pirates) and European renegades (http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/renegades) in pre-colonial Algiers (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Algiers). Historically the first to use this language were the descendants of the Genoese and Venetian colonies (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Italian_Levantine) in the eastern Mediterranean, in their commerce trade with Middle Eastern populations after the year AD 1000.

zanipolo
24-01-13, 11:01
in regards to English, unless the BBC was wrong its its program the adventures of English, the English came from old-Germanic from friesland

Old Frisian (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Old_Frisian),[6] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frisian_languages#cite_note-6) however, was very similar to Old English (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Old_English_language). Historically, both English and Frisian are marked by the loss of the Germanic nasal in word like us (ús; uns in German), soft (sêft; sanft) or goose (goes; Gans): see Anglo-Frisian nasal spirant law (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anglo-Frisian_nasal_spirant_law). Also, when followed by some vowels, the Germanic k softened to a ch sound; for example, the Frisian for cheese and church is tsiis and tsjerke, whereas in Dutch (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dutch_language) it is kaas and kerk, and in High German the respective words are Käse and Kirche. Contrarily, this did not happen for chin and choose, which are kin and kieze.[7] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frisian_languages#cite_note-7)

Kentel
25-01-13, 14:13
some thoughts of mine:
We have to be cautious about presence or absence of cognates words in languages

1- old words can have disappeared (and recently enough sometimes)
2- the litteral meaning of old words can evolve, even if giving birth to new meanings close enough or still related to old meanings (see the exchanges between meanings like «horse», «stallion», «mare», «foal» or «colt», «filly» ...)
3- on another side, without shift of meaning, by instance, in a population where horses are common and well used for different purposes, a lot of names can exist for them


I agree with that, such evolutions are indeed a reality and I don't deny it. The problem is rhetorical: we have a PIE etymon A and its reflexes in the attested IE languages (let's call them A1,A2,A3 etc). We have thus three possible situations:

1- The meaning of the reflexe A1 is the same as the meaning of the etymon A : A = A1 (and possibly A2, A3, etc). Ex: ekwos = equus + hippos (horse = horse) or *ghe → go, gå (to quit → to go)

2- The meaning of the reflexe A1 is not the same as the meaning of the etymon A BUT you can observe similar distorsions in other IE languages' reflexes (A2,A3, etc). A → A1,A2,... . Ex: PIE *bhreus (to blow up) → Gaulish brunnio (breast) ↔ PGmc *brustiz (eng. "breast", dan. "bryst" etc.)

3- The meaning of the reflexe A1 is not the same as the meaning of the etymon A AND you CANNOT observe any similar distorsions outside the language considered : A → A1. Ex: *dhereg (to hold) → Danish dreng (=boy).

To put it simply : In 1 the PIE etymon is clearly reliable, in 2 its likelihood is acceptable although not certain (it can be a borrowing, a wandering word, or a non-IE etymon) and in 3 is speculatory. Unfortunately, most PIE etymons belongs to the last category.

You have two schools, as in the reading of the Bible : the "maximalists" who think that, since all the attestable historical events of the Bible are true (eg the exile to Babylon) then all the non-attested historical events should be true as well, and the "minimalists" who think that only the attested events are true.

In historical linguistics, you have the same dichotomy : people who believe that since processes of semantic distorsions are "attested" and true, non-attested semantic distorsions should be true as well. And people who believe only in what is attested. From this perspective I am clearly a minimalist : I agree with 1, sometimes with 2, never with 3.

Your example is at the very edge of 2 and 3. As long as we are talking about horses, I agree with the connection horse/stallion, not with horse/mare. As for myself, and for most of us I suspect, I couldn't make the difference between a horse and a mare and I wouldn't care riding either of them (if I could ride a horse). But for people from the Neolithic, the probability that they could have mixed the two seems very unlikely.

You have such alleged evolutions in French with Vulgar Latin, as f.ex. with *pulla (offspring - of an animal) → poule (hen) , poulain (colt), poutre (beam). Maybe it is true, but to me it is pure guesswork.

Moreover, I don't believe at least in two semantic distorsion processses which are :

- Echoism
- Taboo words

If you discard the situation3, echoism and taboo words, the remaining lexical stock is rather small. I agree with you and Taranis about the existence of *ekwos reflexes in Celtic. But "cabalos" or "marc'h" are obviously not IE, which shows that the PIE horse culture is not specific.

We should have a thread devoted to this horse question, since it is in fact so critical within IE studies.

Yetos
25-01-13, 17:17
I agree with that, such evolutions are indeed a reality and I don't deny it. The problem is rhetorical: we have a PIE etymon A and its reflexes in the attested IE languages (let's call them A1,A2,A3 etc). We have thus three possible situations:

1- The meaning of the reflexe A1 is the same as the meaning of the etymon A : A = A1 (and possibly A2, A3, etc). Ex: ekwos = equus + hippos (horse = horse) or *ghe → go, gå (to quit → to go)

2- The meaning of the reflexe A1 is not the same as the meaning of the etymon A BUT you can observe similar distorsions in other IE languages' reflexes (A2,A3, etc). A → A1,A2,... . Ex: PIE *bhreus (to blow up) → Gaulish brunnio (breast) ↔ PGmc *brustiz (eng. "breast", dan. "bryst" etc.)

3- The meaning of the reflexe A1 is not the same as the meaning of the etymon A AND you CANNOT observe any similar distorsions outside the language considered : A → A1. Ex: *dhereg (to hold) → Danish dreng (=boy).

To put it simply : In 1 the PIE etymon is clearly reliable, in 2 its likelihood is acceptable although not certain (it can be a borrowing, a wandering word, or a non-IE etymon) and in 3 is speculatory. Unfortunately, most PIE etymons belongs to the last category.

You have two schools, as in the reading of the Bible : the "maximalists" who think that, since all the attestable historical events of the Bible are true (eg the exile to Babylon) then all the non-attested historical events should be true as well, and the "minimalists" who think that only the attested events are true.

In historical linguistics, you have the same dichotomy : people who believe that since processes of semantic distorsions are "attested" and true, non-attested semantic distorsions should be true as well. And people who believe only in what is attested. From this perspective I am clearly a minimalist : I agree with 1, sometimes with 2, never with 3.

Your example is at the very edge of 2 and 3. As long as we are talking about horses, I agree with the connection horse/stallion, not with horse/mare. As for myself, and for most of us I suspect, I couldn't make the difference between a horse and a mare and I wouldn't care riding either of them (if I could ride a horse). But for people from the Neolithic, the probability that they could have mixed the two seems very unlikely.

You have such alleged evolutions in French with Vulgar Latin, as f.ex. with *pulla (offspring - of an animal) → poule (hen) , poulain (colt), poutre (beam). Maybe it is true, but to me it is pure guesswork.

Moreover, I don't believe at least in two semantic distorsion processses which are :

- Echoism
- Taboo words

If you discard the situation3, echoism and taboo words, the remaining lexical stock is rather small. I agree with you and Taranis about the existence of *ekwos reflexes in Celtic. But "cabalos" or "marc'h" are obviously not IE, which shows that the PIE horse culture is not specific.

We should have a thread devoted to this horse question, since it is in fact so critical within IE studies.

when cross and compare enters?

I mean Mycanean Ικκος ancient Greek Ιππος in general and Φορβας the female (horse farm = ιπποφορβειον) Modern Greek Alogo, Φοραδα
but in modern Greek we see καπουλια = the behind back of the horse, (the area where second rider stands, above back legs, sometimes means the muscles from feet to ass. καβαλα = riding, above, and καβαλος in trousers is the up near genital organs area
so what loses its meaning in one language can be in another,
for example female horse φορβας-φοραδα cognates with Germanic Phard,
and possibly male horse could be Cavallo, since the word επιβητωρ or after πωλος πουλαρι= young horse seems to after synthesis, a component word that has επι+Βητωρ.

Marc and Ars can be same like gods Mars and Ar(e)s, War horses.

all the above unatested, but if true then you can have another clear vision,

so Horse Ikkos Marc Phard can mean also the same but transited with different meaning and stand with different meaning

so in the begin could be different words
like
Ikkos = horse general meaning
Phard = female horse
Caballo etc = the male horse or small horse
Marc Ars = a horse trained for war, soldiers horses, and ended as they are today,

so they could be as above and developed different.
or they can be from different languages,
or they can be from same language but transmited different (waves, pre horse IE, after horse IE)

Taranis
25-01-13, 19:08
I agree with that, such evolutions are indeed a reality and I don't deny it. The problem is rhetorical: we have a PIE etymon A and its reflexes in the attested IE languages (let's call them A1,A2,A3 etc). We have thus three possible situations:

1- The meaning of the reflexe A1 is the same as the meaning of the etymon A : A = A1 (and possibly A2, A3, etc). Ex: ekwos = equus + hippos (horse = horse) or *ghe → go, gå (to quit → to go)

2- The meaning of the reflexe A1 is not the same as the meaning of the etymon A BUT you can observe similar distorsions in other IE languages' reflexes (A2,A3, etc). A → A1,A2,... . Ex: PIE *bhreus (to blow up) → Gaulish brunnio (breast) ↔ PGmc *brustiz (eng. "breast", dan. "bryst" etc.)

3- The meaning of the reflexe A1 is not the same as the meaning of the etymon A AND you CANNOT observe any similar distorsions outside the language considered : A → A1. Ex: *dhereg (to hold) → Danish dreng (=boy).

To put it simply : In 1 the PIE etymon is clearly reliable, in 2 its likelihood is acceptable although not certain (it can be a borrowing, a wandering word, or a non-IE etymon) and in 3 is speculatory. Unfortunately, most PIE etymons belongs to the last category.

You have two schools, as in the reading of the Bible : the "maximalists" who think that, since all the attestable historical events of the Bible are true (eg the exile to Babylon) then all the non-attested historical events should be true as well, and the "minimalists" who think that only the attested events are true.

In historical linguistics, you have the same dichotomy : people who believe that since processes of semantic distorsions are "attested" and true, non-attested semantic distorsions should be true as well. And people who believe only in what is attested. From this perspective I am clearly a minimalist : I agree with 1, sometimes with 2, never with 3.

Your example is at the very edge of 2 and 3. As long as we are talking about horses, I agree with the connection horse/stallion, not with horse/mare. As for myself, and for most of us I suspect, I couldn't make the difference between a horse and a mare and I wouldn't care riding either of them (if I could ride a horse). But for people from the Neolithic, the probability that they could have mixed the two seems very unlikely

I see your reasoning, and I generally agree. I wouldn't put the word *ek´wos between 1 and 2, based on the fact that it is so widespread in IE. But based on your criteria, one would have to exclude Armenian "esh" (էշ), meaning donkey from this list though. I do agree that it certainly pokes a hole into the theory that PIE had a 'special' horse culture. If we are minimalistic here, the only thing that we can say is that the Proto-Indo-Europeans knew horses.



You have such alleged evolutions in French with Vulgar Latin, as f.ex. with *pulla (offspring - of an animal) → poule (hen) , poulain (colt), poutre (beam). Maybe it is true, but to me it is pure guesswork.

I have to say, I find that etymology quite hair-raising as well.


Moreover, I don't believe at least in two semantic distorsion processses which are :

- Echoism
- Taboo words

If you discard the situation3, echoism and taboo words, the remaining lexical stock is rather small. I agree with you and Taranis about the existence of *ekwos reflexes in Celtic. But "cabalos" or "marc'h" are obviously not IE, which shows that the PIE horse culture is not specific.

I agree on your assessments with *kaballo- and *markos: the two words are probably not originally IE.

With regard for the so-called "taboo words", I agree that the idea makes no sense. It's especially striking that the textbook example for a taboo word, bear, happened thrice in IE: Germanic (eg. "bear" - brown one), Proto-Slavic (eg. "medved" - honey eater) and Goidelic ("mathgamain" - good calf). And, I do think the latter deserves more explanation: unlike Alinei, who claims that it's "Celtic": mathgamain is found only in Goidelic, while there are Old Irish "art", Welsh "arth", Breton "arzh", and Gaulish *arto-, which can be very much linked with Latin "ursus", Greek "arktos", etc.

As opposed to taboo words, I would suggest a completely different interpretation: calques (loan translations).



We should have a thread devoted to this horse question, since it is in fact so critical within IE studies.

You're free to start a new thread about this if you like. It would be warmly welcomed. :smile:

LeBrok
26-01-13, 20:18
Pre IE language discussion moved here:
http://www.eupedia.com/forum/threads/28354-Pre-Indo-European-languages-in-Europe

Horse thread
http://www.eupedia.com/forum/threads/28355-Horse-Linguistic-History-and-more

MOESAN
27-01-13, 18:53
Yes indeed; weather conditions is another forgotten aspect of the IE spread models, that's very true. Thanks for the file, it is very informative !




About Gimbutas Model :

That's Gimbutas theory (the connection with the Yamna Culture) but the horseriders' story is probably a myth based upon a misinterpretation of the Rig-Veda : Renfrew demonstrated on the basis of archaeologic finds that Kurgan people were not horsemen. At the best they used horses to bring material but they didn't ride them ; among other things, no stirrups nor snaffle bits have been found in the graves nor anywhere else. And these two pieces are a condition sine qua non for horseriding.

sure enough someones did this kind of work yet and could produce huge sets of words and meaning proving that –


horses :

And I would had an argument : contrary to Taranis, I state that the word for "horse" is generally different in the IE languages. The *ekwos etymon doesn't work in many languages : English "horse" is "of unknown origins", Spanish "caballo" (= French "cheval, = Irish "capall", = Welsh "cefyll"), Danish "heste", Breton "marc'h" (= Welsh "march") as well. I am not sure but the Albanian kalë would not fit in *ekwos without dramatic manipulations. It tends to indicate that the PIE urvolk did not have a specific horse culture.

dating :

The date of 3000 BC for the migration start is purely arbitrary, there is nothing to support it. Thus the whole story is biased right from the beginning. It goes the same way for the horseriders : why should they have been horseriders by the way ?

Hence, to me Gimbutas model does not hold. It has been so popular because it was the only model which coincidated with the theories of the linguists (Kosssina's Corded Ware spread did not fit with the horserider story).

urvolk :

To be a bit provocative (as I like to be and as Sparkey rightly stated :) ), I would also add : are we sure that a PIE urvolk ever existed ? We have clear linguistic convergences (although many of them are based upon heavily distorted interpretations), is it sufficient to declare that you had an urvolk and an urheimat and horses and bronze swords and conquest and the like ? Well, I don't think so. I don't discard the hypothesis of a PIE urvolk, I am just wondering, this is after all only a hypothesis.



I came back again to the discussion about I-E etymologies and crossed opinions about credibility for some cognates words families -
surely when meanings of words are very far one from another and that even the forms of words are remote enough from the supposed 'model' we can have some doubt – but I 'm going to strike again on the nail for some cases, to show the alleged common origins of words roots are not always fancy of P-I-E irreductible supporters:
the contested latin root 'pull-us' («young offspring of animals») is supposed by someones having given french 'poule' (+ 'poulet') in place of 'géline' << gallina and also 'poulain' («colt») and 'poutre' («wooden beam») - amazing at first sight but is it so? In breton we have 'polog' («young offspring of birds» and every kind of very young and small offsprings, grec 'pouli' «bird») -
maybe we have here the confusion of two roots? One for the birds and one for horses? Not sure?
'poulain' could be compared to 'foal', 'fohlen', 'veulen', 'föl', 'faale', 'fyl' + 'filly' (germanic) and I see no obstacle to a comparison with 'poulain' <> 'poutre' (see 'puletro', 'poldro', 'potro' (latin: ital-span-port-) = «colt», «foal»): in french 'chevalet' («small horse») as 'chevron' («big goat») are used to name 'V'shape supports fort table or roof... in swedish and dutch 'bock'/'bok' («he-goat», see 'buck') are used for «cheval d'arçon» (gymnastic), kind of support with a «back» supported by «four paws»! French 'grue' («crane») could came from a bird name (pop-lat- *'grua' << 'grũs' – this word is translated by 'gavr' in modern breton («goat» again) – so, same picturing words in different languages, or if different, often use of an animal name for a machine -


We have not to be astonished in front of very far drifts in the meanings of words in living languages: it is observable in every language, between standard and dialects but too in the very standard – in french, «bouquet», «crevette» (dialectal normand «chevrette», small goat) are used for crustaceans – always folks made funny comparisons and replace original words by others of previous different meaning – welsh and breton are separated by only 1000 years break -

welsh 'tlawd' («poor») ><breton 'treud' («meagre», = 'trist' too + «sad»)
welsh 'gwag' («empty») >< breton 'gwag' («flabby», «sluggish») <<see lat- 'vacu-um'
welsh lost 'ysgyfarn' («ear» : 'clust' << 'clywed' = br- 'klewed' «to hear», look greek 'cleos', germ- *'hlôd': 'loud', 'laut', 'luid') and it has not the breton word 'gad' («hare»)) but it has 'ysgyfarnog' for «hare» (long eared!) - this present day difference of namings in welsh and breton doesn' t prove they were different languages spoken by people of different origins of of the same origin but having loaned different words from different autochtonous populations BECAUSE SUPPOSEDLY THEY DID NOT KNOW THE HARE? Believe me, helas, the deformations of meanings are not always the proof of a not well understood language newly adopted – it would be even the opposite (when, as for «wine», a same 'cognate' kept the very same meaning in every place, here I think we can have a new enough loan word...) - in breton dialects, 'blas' means «taste» here and «smell» there, 'safariñ' means «to make a lot of noise» here and only «to speak» there! In W-I-E languages, «hart» is associated with «centre» («heart» 'cardia', 'heart', 'herz', 'hart', 'hjert', 'serdce' + 'cor'/'cuor' >> 'corazón', 'coração', 'crî'/'cridhe' but = «centre» in welsh and breton('craidd', 'kreis', see czech 'sred' = «centre» too) – 'tree', 'trä', 'drvo', 'dorovo', 'derw' mean according to languages: «tree», «wooden stuff», «oak», it's to say: precise or imprecise (that an example the heart(or head?)-breaking problem of scientists trying to localize the P-I-E place origin on the basis of 'faune' and 'flore') -
sure enough someones did this kind of work yet and could produce huge sets of words and meanings proving that – every language has more than a word for the same basic thing, sometimes words sending more precisions, more often exchanges of words without any need, only confusions or «pictural words» (sorry for my very personal english!) -
to close: old peoples of Europe and near places were not too «macho» concerning females because almost every well known domestic beast had distinct names for 'father', 'mother', even for 'son' and 'daughter'! Very often too there was a 'collective' (specie) name whatever age or sex -
concerning 'horse' the debate could be very interesting in a new thread because someones here seam very well informed on languages (I 'll learn increase my knowledge) –
sure enough someones did this kind of work yet and could produce huge sts of words and meaning proving that –

LeBrok
27-01-13, 20:37
'cardia', 'heart', 'herz', 'hart', 'hjert', 'serdce' + 'cor'/'cuor' >> 'corazón', 'coração', 'crî'/'cridhe' but = «centre» in welsh and('craidd', 'kreis', see czech 'sred' = «centre» too) – 'tree', 'trä', 'drvo', 'dorovo', 'derw' mean according to languages: «tree», «wooden stuff», «oak», it's to say: precise or imprecise (that an example the heart(or head?)-breaking problem of scientists trying to localize the P-I-E place origin on the basis of 'faune' and 'flore') -
I was musing about it, that "serdce" denotes center. "cor", "cred" versus "sred" is a great example of centum/satem too. We have platora of simple words (personal, body parts, numerals) to undeniably create one big IE language family.

I have a strong feeling, judging by vocabulary and (pronunciation) that Slavic, Latin/Celtic show stronger relation, than Slavic and Germanic. That Slavic/Celtic shows less substratum influences, and points stronger to common origin of IE. Common grammar points to the strongest relation too.
Germanic on other hand (again by pronunciation, vocabulary and grammar) points to stronger retention of original I1 substratum, under two IE waves. One R1a Corded Ware (5k ago), other R1b/celtic (4-3 k ago).




(sorry for my very personal english!) -
I definitely see the progress you made through last year. So much easier to read and understand your writing now.



sure enough someones did this kind of work yet and could produce huge sts of words and meaning proving that –


I wish someone thrown all known vocabularies, and other knowledge of languages, in super computer. Cranked the numbers and showed us all the statistical relations between languages. It would be interesting to see what is confirm and what we missed.
Often correlation by one word is misleading. Could be borrowed, original or accidental with same probability. Correlation by hundreds or thousand of words denotes a strong connection to the source or even common origin.

zanipolo
27-01-13, 21:36
[/I]I was musing about it, that "serdce" denotes center. "cor", "cred" versus "sred" is a great example of centum/satem too. We have platora of simple words (personal, body parts, numerals) to undeniably create one big IE language family.

I have a strong feeling, judging by vocabulary and (pronunciation) that Slavic, Latin/Celtic show stronger relation, than Slavic and Germanic. That Slavic/Celtic shows less substratum influences, and points stronger to common origin of IE. Common grammar points to the strongest relation too.
Germanic on other hand (again by pronunciation, vocabulary and grammar) points to stronger retention of original I1 substratum, under two IE waves. One R1a Corded Ware (5k ago), other R1b/celtic (4-3 k ago).




I definitely see the progress you made through last year. So much easier to read and understand your writing now.




I wish someone thrown all known vocabularies, and other knowledge of languages, in super computer. Cranked the numbers and showed us all the statistical relations between languages. It would be interesting to see what is confirm and what we missed.
Often correlation by one word is misleading. Could be borrowed, original or accidental with same probability. Correlation by hundreds or thousand of words denotes a strong connection to the source or even common origin.

this Slavic/Celtic is only based on the fact that the celts migrated to the euxine sea via the danube/ister river as well as the upper vistula river area, but its not from an R1a source , as scandinavian R1a as from 2004 documents states that it came from central-asia and not germanic or polish areas. the I1 'Germanic" could only have been taught in scandinavia for the british isles. DOES IT HAVE SLAVIC INFLUENCES OR BALTIC INFLUENCES, ?
the slavic/celtic as stated is only visible in moldovia and slovakia areas.......the balkan area is non existent ( maybe Latin got in the way in the balkans)

LeBrok
28-01-13, 00:28
this Slavic/Celtic is only based on the fact that the celts migrated to the euxine sea via the danube/ister river as well as the upper vistula river area, but its not from an R1a source , as scandinavian R1a as from 2004 documents states that it came from central-asia and not germanic or polish areas. the I1 'Germanic" could only have been taught in scandinavia for the british isles. DOES IT HAVE SLAVIC INFLUENCES OR BALTIC INFLUENCES, ?
the slavic/celtic as stated is only visible in moldovia and slovakia areas.......the balkan area is non existent ( maybe Latin got in the way in the balkans)

Zanipolo, you're jumping through time mixing epochs again.
At the time of Corded Ware there was no Slavic or Baltic, not even proto, same imply to Germanic. I'm talking about possible first influence of IE language over local I1 (in future mostly found in Germanic people) people in central/north Europe, through mixing with R1a people of Corded Ware.


R1a source , as scandinavian R1a as from 2004 documents states that it came from central-asia
Sure, most likely R1a evolved and spent most of it's time in central Asia. Possibly for good 10k years (very long long time) before becoming IE. At the time it became IE I would say, it moved closer to West Asia by Caspian Sea, and even to Eastern Europe of Black Sea are.
In times of Corded Ware, some IE R1a expended further West into future Slavic area, some even further to Scandinavia.
At the same time in West Asia, (5k ago) R1a overrun some R1b groups, changing them into IE. When most R1b entered Europe one thousand years later, they were already IE speaking.

There is also a possibility that R1a and R1b spend a long time close to each other as small hunter gatherers groups, both keeping their original pre-split language sheltered and intact, plus influencing each other languages because of close distances. The big R1a and R1b expansions and separation happened after they became successful herders and farmers in central Asia about 7-6k years ago. This would be the time of splinting some of IE languages, with Slavic/Celtic split not later than 5k.

We know that some celtic (maybe Italics) groups spent some time close to Slavic people around Carpathian Mountains area, influencing each other language again. Possibly that R1b folks took the Ukraine route to get to Middle of Europe from Asia. If their journey was slow (one thousand years) they've could have leaned IE from local tribes of East and Central Europe 5-3k ago. The last leg of their trip was to push from Balkans to Western Europe.
If R1b "trip" was faster to the West they didn't learn IE, like Basques.

Kentel
28-01-13, 10:47
[/I]
I have a strong feeling, judging by vocabulary and (pronunciation) that Slavic, Latin/Celtic show stronger relation, than Slavic and Germanic. That Slavic/Celtic shows less substratum influences, and points stronger to common origin of IE.


I have the opposite feeling, for the following reasons :

- being a speaker of both Breton and Polish, I can see very few convergences between the two : Polish is much closer to PIE than Breton is.
- the number of non-IE words in Breton is huge, and of non-IE features in Celtic syntax as well (declinable prepositions, mutations, systematic use of non-conjugated verbs - as in Basque - and so on).
- On the contrary, many exclusive lexical convergences between Celtic and Germanic can be found, and they are not IE (maybe connected with the Nordwestblock substratum ?).

We're off topic once again :disappointed:

LeBrok
28-01-13, 11:12
I have the opposite feeling, for the following reasons :

- being a speaker of both Breton and Polish, I can see very few convergences between the two : Polish is much closer to PIE than Breton is.
- the number of non-IE words in Breton is huge, and of non-IE features in Celtic syntax as well (declinable prepositions, mutations, systematic use of non-conjugated verbs - as in Basque - and so on).
- On the contrary, many exclusive lexical convergences between Celtic and Germanic can be found, and they are not IE (maybe connected with the Nordwestblock substratum ?).

:disappointed:

I shouldn't have used "Celtic" term, or perhaps strong regional substratum changed it too much in Britten. I should have stuck to just Italic/Slavic correlation.


We're off topic once again Still talking about R1a and R1b people, right? ;)

Kentel
28-01-13, 11:30
the contested latin root 'pull-us' («young offspring of animals») is supposed by someones having given french 'poule' (+ 'poulet') in place of 'géline' << gallina and also'poulain' («colt») and 'poutre' («wooden beam») - amazing at first sight but is it so? In breton we have 'polog' («young offspring of birds» and every kind of very young and small offsprings, grec 'pouli' «bird») -

Thank you for "polog", I didn't know that word. It sounds like a borrowing from French "poule" or "poussin", don't you think ? This is just a guess, it sounds like a celticisation of something else.



maybe we have here the confusion of two roots? One for the birds and one for horses? Not sure?
'poulain' could be compared to 'foal', 'fohlen', 'veulen', 'föl', 'faale', 'fyl' + 'filly' (germanic) and I see no obstacle to a comparison with 'poulain' <> 'poutre' (see 'puletro', 'poldro', 'potro' (latin: ital-span-port-) = «colt», «foal»): in french 'chevalet' («small horse») as 'chevron' («big goat») are used to name 'V'shape supports fort table or roof... in swedish and dutch 'bock'/'bok' («he-goat», see 'buck') are used for «cheval d'arçon» (gymnastic), kind of support with a «back» supported by «four paws»!

You get the point for "poutre". I agree with you : semantic evolutions do exist, I don't deny the fact. But it is not enough to assume that, because two words are phonetically similar (like poule/poulain (hen/colt)) they have automatically the same root. And this bias is systematic in the reconstruction of the PIE lexicon, and in etymology in general. By doing that, you can connect almost every word from a IE to a PIE root, every French word to a Latin root, etc. That's what is done actually. And that's why I am so suspicious. Maybe too much, I confess.

But hen/colt : do you think it is realistic that people who were 90% farmers or more, could use the same word for both animals ? Moreover, if "colt" is the offspring (*pullus) of a horse, a hen is the offspring of nothing. It doesn't match the meaning of the root.


'tree', 'trä', 'drvo', 'dorovo', 'derw' mean according to languages: «tree», «wooden stuff», «oak», it's to say: precise or imprecise (that an example the heart(or head?)-breaking problem of scientists trying to localize the P-I-E place origin on the basis of 'faune' and 'flore') -

Yes, but here the situation is different because :

1- the evolution is attested in many different languages
2- there's no real meaning distorsion, all these meanings are tightly connected.

Kardu
28-01-13, 17:21
Why don't you start. :)

First we must define the term Indo-European, because it seems different people here assign different meanings to it.

Secondly we should reformulate the question of the thread: "Are R1a and R1b really Indo-Europeans ?" Because R1a and R1b people are certainly among those who speak today what we call IE languages, but if the author of the thread means whether or not IE was the original language of R1a and R1b then that's a totally different story.

Yetos
28-01-13, 18:39
Continuing to spread more ideas that can be crup or usefull to Linguisτ


Q-Greek P-Greek Modern Greek Rest IE Meaning in English
Iκκος Ιππος Ippos Αλογο Alogo-alowo equus Horse
????? Φορβας Phorbas Φοραδα Phard Female horse
????? επιβητωρ επιβητορας male horse for reproduction
????? Πωλος (Polos-Pulos) Πουλαρι young horse
????? ?????? Καποuλια (plural) the back of the horse, the body above back legs
???? ????? Kαβαλα riding ( horse bike etc) above of something
Σκελη Σκελη Σκελη or Καβαλος τhe upper area of feet near genital organs, area that body stands when rides
????? ?????? Ατι war Horse

the case of equus and hepphew as Ikkos and ippos reminds me the Q-P Celtic and Greek
has anyone thought if could happened to some other languages?
or cavallo is something like επιβητωρ (=επι +βητωρ)
a composite word of IE? (ca+vallo = equus +????) for example equus+phalus,
just spreading ideas that can be usefull or crup.

Kentel
28-01-13, 20:41
First we must define the term Indo-European, because it seems different people here assign different meanings to it.

Secondly we should reformulate the question of the thread: "Are R1a and R1b really Indo-Europeans ?" Because R1a and R1b people are certainly among those who speak today what we call IE languages, but if the author of the thread means whether or not IE was the original language of R1a and R1b then that's a totally different story.

That's exactly what I meant :)

kamani
28-01-13, 21:16
why do you guys want to challenge the status quo of things :) ? You're making a whole bunch of people in western europe less proud of their heritage.

Kentel
28-01-13, 22:05
Continuing to spread more ideas that can be crup or usefull to Linguisτ


????? Φορβας Phorbas Φοραδα Phard Female horse

This one sounds pretty close to "horse", unfortunately the Greek ph is a reflexe of PIE *bh while Germanic h is a reflexe op PIE *k (or *k'). So it does not work.



????? Πωλος (Polos-Pulos) Πουλαρι young horse

I like this one much more than the Vulgar Latin *pullus for the French "poulain" (colt). Do you have an etymology ?


or cavallo is something like επιβητωρ (=επι +βητωρ)
a composite word of IE? (ca+vallo = equus +????) for example equus+phalus)
just spreading ideas that can be usefull or crup.

But *ekwo cannot yield ka- nor ca-, thus it doesn't work.

Kardu
28-01-13, 23:09
That's exactly what I meant :)

Then we don't even need to start digging into linguistics and IE vocabulary.
Considering the age of those haplogroups and the approximate time of their split it's impossible that proto-IE (even if it existed) was their initial language.

Kentel
29-01-13, 16:02
Then we don't even need to start digging into linguistics and IE vocabulary.
Considering the age of those haplogroups and the approximate time of their split it's impossible that proto-IE (even if it existed) was their initial language.

Simple and true : it is impossible to connect R1a and R1b with the IE. I see at least two main reasons :

1- The one you mention :the dating goes far beyond the expected departure of the PIE from their homeland, wherever it was. We have to remember that each dating of an haplogroup is the date when it splits, not the date of its emergence, so R1 splitted in R1a and R1b around 20 000 - 10 000 BC.

2- The phylogenetic model : if we assume that R1a and R1b where IE, then we assume that R1 was IE already, which is impossible as we've seen in 1. Moreover: what shall we do with the guys in Africa and the others in Siberia, who obviously do not speak an IE language ?

Now let's be logical : genetics allows us to see all the migration routes throughout Europe. Hence, one of the Y-DNA mutations should be related with the arrival of the IE. There's no other possibility. We are thus left with two possibilities :

A - The IE migration corresponds to a subclade of R1a or R1b.
B- The IE urvolk never existed.

If we rely on A, we have to deal with two problems :

1- if the IE migration is related to, say, a subclade of R1b, what shall we do with the R1a people in Eastern Europe (or the contrary) ?
2- No R1a or b subclade is connected with a penetration of people into the whole European continent. This is actually the same problem which we have with the archaeologic cultures.

Now I'm waiting for counter-arguments (which will certainly come :) )

Kardu
29-01-13, 16:55
Very good points, I wanna hear counter-arguments too :)

sparkey
29-01-13, 18:13
1- The one you mention :the dating goes far beyond the expected departure of the PIE from their homeland, wherever it was. We have to remember that each dating of an haplogroup is the date when it splits, not the date of its emergence, so R1 splitted in R1a and R1b around 20 000 - 10 000 BC.

Is anybody making the case that proto-IE must have existed at the splitting event? I thought it was apparent that proto-IE peoples probably carried some subclades of R1, but not necessarily all of them, and it's also not necessary that the earliest R1* spoke proto-IE for this to hold.

It's much more useful, of course, to look at subclade dating. I personally quite like the tree at the R1a Project (http://www.familytreedna.com/public/R1a/).


2- The phylogenetic model : if we assume that R1a and R1b where IE, then we assume that R1 was IE already, which is impossible as we've seen in 1. Moreover: what shall we do with the guys in Africa and the others in Siberia, who obviously do not speak an IE language ?

I'm not making this case, but theoretically, an argument could be made that at one point all extant R1a and R1b subclades belonged to IE speakers, with non-IE brother branches having gone extinct... hence it's not true that "if we assume that R1a and R1b where IE, then we assume that R1 was IE already."


Now let's be logical : genetics allows us to see all the migration routes throughout Europe. Hence, one of the Y-DNA mutations should be related with the arrival of the IE. There's no other possibility. We are thus left with two possibilities :

A - The IE migration corresponds to a subclade of R1a or R1b.
B- The IE urvolk never existed.

How about C the IE migration corresponds best to a subclade of J2 or G2. Or D the IE migration expanded subclades that it picked up along the way at the expense of ones it began with. (Although I currently favor A.)


1- if the IE migration is related to, say, a subclade of R1b, what shall we do with the R1a people in Eastern Europe (or the contrary) ?

What about them? They have R1b as well, just in lower concentrations. Why are we looking for a subclade anyway as opposed to a collection of subclades, which had their relative percentages in different populations change over time?


2- No R1a or b subclade is connected with a penetration of people into the whole European continent. This is actually the same problem which we have with the archaeologic cultures.

R1a1a1b Z645+ with possible initial minorities of R1b1a2a L23+, J2b, and G2a1c2a P303+? Combined, these fit some patterns nicely.

Kardu
29-01-13, 18:42
But how come that all those various haplogroups and/or subgroups started to talk Proto-IE? When? Where?

Still the question remains: was pre-protoIE ethnic language of some tribe/subhaplogroup which managed to spread it around, or it was a lingua franca like let's say Swahili...

kamani
29-01-13, 18:55
the fact that r1b became redhead and r1a became blonde shows that they were apart for a few thousand years to acheive that kind of phenotype dichotomy.

Taranis
29-01-13, 19:07
the fact that r1b became redhead and r1a became blonde shows that they were apart for a few thousand years to acheive that kind of phenotype dichotomy.

The Y-haplogroups R1a/R1b certainly didn't become either. The genes determining hair color are not located on the Y-chromosome. If that was the case, only men could have red or blond hair... :wink:

kamani
29-01-13, 20:41
The genes determining hair color are not located on the Y-chromosome. If that was the case, only men could have red or blond hair... :wink:

haha, correct. But the phenotype-yDna association still exists for these groups, at least in a european context, so they become representatives of a bigger dna package.

Yetos
29-01-13, 20:46
But how come that all those various haplogroups and/or subgroups started to talk Proto-IE? When? Where?

Still the question remains: was pre-protoIE ethnic language of some tribe/subhaplogroup which managed to spread it around, or it was a lingua franca like let's say Swahili...


that is the big problem,
From arcaiology we can not hear what people spoke that time,
Even cultures with written speech we can not find what they are telling us, (example Mycenean Minoan Linear A and B, One can not be read yet)

so by Agriculture expand, or arsenic bronze expand, or horses and chariots, or iirigation, or Gold or Copper expand, even architectural simmilarities we are trying to guess where and when,
Also Exist the linguistic methods which to a very good point give good results but always solve part of problem,

Most academic show Eurasian steppe or minor Asia - North Middle East or South west Caucas,
yet Caucasian and Gedrosian component also in theories.


PS
Personally I am starting to think searching about Europe and Varna, but no gennetical yet,

kamani
30-01-13, 03:50
This has probably been mentioned before, but I noticed a strange overlap of G and R1b in europe and west asia. Coincidentally, etruscans are believed to have been G and most neolithic european dna is G. The countries with highest hg G speak caucasian languages.

MOESAN
31-01-13, 20:24
overlap: all these Y DNA overlap on upon another in some proportion - I think the opposite: R1b & G have very few in common history, for me

tiami
04-02-17, 00:38
R1b and I brother haplgroups, true mediterranian and european!!! VENETO ROMAN!!!
J is semitic, not related to them.

Ricardo Canedo
07-08-17, 20:59
The most likely explanation for the Basques being R1b even though they are not Indo European speaker is that in some moment an Indo European Speaker Tribe invaded and conquered the Basque Country and having brought no women with them married local women and then the women raised their children in the their culture instead of the one of their fathers. This makes sense since the Basques's mtdna haplogroups are not the ones of the Indo Europeans.

JajarBingan
08-08-17, 22:00
Thus far, it would seem so.