Ygorcs
Active member
- Messages
- 2,259
- Reaction score
- 812
- Points
- 0
- Ethnic group
- Multiracial Brazilian
As you people must have realized by now, my "bible" for the time being is that Homeland Timeline, which I abundantly referred to upthread. For most samples, what is given is not a definite dating, but a date bracket. Most of the time : 2500 to 2000 BC. If we take into account that margin of uncertainty, then Markod's timings for the successive language splits fit in rather nicely.
We could posit some still-undifferentiated IE language in the Hungarian plains some time around 2500 BC for the L51 group. At some point in time during the next two to three centuries, those people would have moved north of the Carpathians. U106 tribes went their own way, steered north - northeast, conquered and/or mixed with CW people, and over another two to three centuries (ie by 2000 BC) developed some form of pre-Proto-Germanic ; while P312 veered west into BB territory and developed Proto-Italo-Celtic. Italic and Celtic gradually separating from 1700 BC onwards would then turn out to be a pretty coherent estimate.
So that the earliest people to arrive in, eg, the British Isles, would have spoken a language still close to NWIE but already on its way to becoming some form of Celtic, while the NWIE in Iberia would have been some sort of pre-Lusitanian (that riddle language standing somewhere in between Italic and Celtic).
From Wiki : "Prósper, in her Lusitanian etymologies (2002; 2008), demonstrates that not only does Lusitanian not agree closely with the usual Celtic reflexes but that it is closer to Ligurian Italic. This suggests there may have been two well-differentiated branches of Indo-European in the Iberian Peninsula before the Romans, with Lusitanian belonging to the non-Celtic branch. Villar and Pedrero (2001) connect Lusitanian with ancient Ligurian. They base their finding on parallels in the names of deities and some lexical items (e.g., the similarity of Umbrian gomia and Lusitanian comaiam), and some grammatical elements.[2] This once again, raises more questions about the relation of the Lusitanian language with Celtic, because the ancient Ligurian language, in many ways like Lusitanian; is considered Celtic[7] by some and non-Celtic by others. Adding to lack of evidence and its geographical location, it has not been yet determined whether Lusitanian was part of the Ligurian language sub-group, Celtic or Celticised, or an even older Indo-European language. Prósper also sees Lusitanian as predating the introduction of Celtic and shows that it retains elements of Old European, making its origins possibly even older."
Thanks, that's precisely the scenario I envision as most plausible and simple for the relationship between BB, CWC and the 3 "Western European" IE branches (Germanic, Italic, Celtic). Even the later dates are no big trouble if you consider that languages do not start to split again immediately after they were born, they differentiate slowly and only split for good generations later. The uncertain linguistic position of the Ligurians, referred by Romans as distinct from the Celts in culture and language, and assume by some to have been "Para-Celtic", is also another possible remnant of other smaller splits from NWIE without the same tremendous success of Celtic, Italic and later Germanic overriding the smaller sisters.