Where did the Anatolian branch of Indo-European originate?

You never discuss the issue of the post but you are trying allways to expose my supposed failures, but as ever you even don't understand nothing, you don't know who is Renfrew even. You are trying to trollling me: go and have a life mosca collonera.

Berun, no, no, no.
Govan is most welcome here. All of those that are feeling lonely at EUROGENES, tired of it being a pure ECHOChamber, are most welcome here.
Lets just make sure there is no DAVIDSKI here to ban everyone that does affront the dominating view.
 
Last edited:
Angela your post #264 makes good points IMO; to put back facts in their places and proportions is a good thing;
more than one survey show an increase of 'Old Europe' in far Steppes (DNA, metrics and others) but it's in fact no more 'Old Europe' but the result of LN/BA first Steppes introgressions into western Europe and kind of a "rebound" .
 
Angela your post #264 makes good points IMO; to put back facts in their places and proportions is a good thing;
more than one survey show an increase of 'Old Europe' in far Steppes (DNA, metrics and others) but it's in fact no more 'Old Europe' but the result of LN/BA first Steppes introgressions into western Europe and kind of a "rebound" .


No this is an EEF+WHG in Yamnaya Samara.....at that time no steppe people had already entered in central western europe. This is before CWC and BBC which are 3th millennium.
 
Angela your post #264 makes good points IMO; to put back facts in their places and proportions is a good thing;
more than one survey show an increase of 'Old Europe' in far Steppes (DNA, metrics and others) but it's in fact no more 'Old Europe' but the result of LN/BA first Steppes introgressions into western Europe and kind of a "rebound" .

Exactly right. There is a tendency to forget the chronology of events and a conflation of several different time periods.

Yes, there was a small impact early on of people from Old Europe onto the steppe. The much higher percentages stem from later periods after the intrusion by steppe people west, absorption of "Old Europe" genetic material, and then a rebound to the east.

It's helpful when people date the admixtures and percentages by referring to specific samples with specific dates.
 
http://www.academia.edu/35556491/The..._to_Eneolithic

Quote:
We have fixed very important changes in the burial rites of the steppe population. Stretched Neolithic inhumations were replaced by flexed skeletons and some graves with groups of stones above them or burials in stone boxes. I. Manzura was right when he connected those changes with western infuence.The people of new Sredniy Stog culture,which was formed on the basis of the local Neolithic, could contrast new burial rites with old traditions (Manzura 1997). It is possible to assume that those radical changes in the burial rite, which was a part of conservative religious sphere, were connected with changes in cults. The most important innovation was the appearance of the metal working borrowed from the Balkan region. Metal working in the Prehistory was closed connected with the religious sphere of life and adoption of new technology in everyday life had to be accompanied by adoption of new cults. We can observe the consequences as changes in the burial rites. The time of formation of the Sredniy Stog culture was synchronous with the Hamangia culture and exactly its influence caused the transformation of the steppe burial rite, because flexed skeletons and using of stones were typical for this culture (Todorova 2002a, 35–




The transition from the Neolithic to Eneolithic in the Eastern European steppe was connected with the inten-sive contacts of people of the Azov-Dnieper, Low Don, Pricaspiy, Samara, Orlovka and Sredniy Stog cultures with the Balkan population and first with the Hamangia culture. The results of these contacts were some im
- ports: adornments from copper, cornelian, marine shells and pots in the steppe sites and plates from the bone
and nacre, pendants from teeth of red deer in the Hamangia graves. The Hamangia infuence in the burial rites
of the steppe population was very important and caused to use stone in graves and above them, pits with alcove,
new adornments of burial clothes.
The strongest impact we have fixed for the population in northern area of the
Sea of Azov, where the radical changes in the burial rite and the formation of a new Sredniy Stog culture took place. It was connected with the adoption of new religious element.

I think you're speculating too vaguely. Hamangia culture in Dobruja, near Ukraine, is not the same as "Megalithic Europe", let alone the megalithic cultures spreading from Atlantic Europe, which you apparently was referring to earlier. AFAIK the genetics of the eastern Balkans even in the Late Neolithic/Copper Age had a lot to do with elements from the Pontic-Caspian steppe (CHG/EHG), Anatolia (ANF) and the Eastern Anatolia/Caucasus (CHG). Unless you want to imply that most unlikely of hypotheses which is that all of Europe and Anatolia were still speaking the same language or similar dialects even after 2500-3000 years since the Neolithic colonization of the continent...

Also ,in the text they clearly talk only of a religious influence. Nobody denies that the steppes received western (and also southern) influence. Religions are much more abstract and fluid than languages and genes, they can be easily transmitted (did Christianization make Europeans Middle Eastern? Did the spread of the cult of Isis in Roman Italy make them Egyptian? Did the spread of Buddhism in China correlate with some considerable genetic andl linguistic Indian input?). We have no indication that that religious influence translated into a sizeable genetic contribution, much less into a new cultural and political elite in the Pontic-Caspian steppe, especially when the Steppe Y-DNA makeup is totally unlike that of the Neolithic EEF Europe, and EEF admixture is so minor in most of it (the only and very few Sredny Stog individuals with much - but still less than 1/3 - of EEF-related ancestry were those near the Dnieper, neighbors to Cucuteni-Tripolye).
 
I was not talking about the origin of Hamangia ( anatolian origin? just as likely as an autochthonous one).....just try to remind everybody of the deep cultural influence of Old europe on the steppe cultural ethnogenesis.....every time I posted quoting Manzura on various blogs that was often met with mockery and derision.
By the way you are aware that WHG had a deep impact in Anatolia to form the ANF?

You're mixing the chronology all over. "WHG", which was in fact a minor contribution from an UHG source closely related to WHG, contributed to form ANF maaaany thousands of yars before this supposed "Old Europe PIE" being transferred to the steppes. Even if it were "real WHG" contributing to ANF still in the Mesolithic, by the time we're talking about here (Copper Age/Early Bronze Age) that fact would have virtually no relevance to the linguistic question that is being discussed here. Even if somehow (very improbably) the WHG-like UHG had prevailed in Anatolia, you can be sure that the language family spoken by Late Neolithic ANF or EEF wouldn't be even recognizably related to that spoken by remnants of WHG in the same period.
 
No this is an EEF+WHG in Yamnaya Samara.....at that time no steppe people had already entered in central western europe. This is before CWC and BBC which are 3th millennium.

Incorrect. They had entered Old Europe since the Late Neolithic in the Balkans, especially its central/eastern area. Vinca Culture samples in the Balkans already show steppe-derived ancestry. The fact that there was EEF (as I already told you, WHG is absorbed by EEF already) in Yamnaya Samara doesn't mean there was no steppe genetic contribution in the Balkans, because if the steppe EHG/CHG ancestry got back to the steppes it would of course be simply added to the local steppe ancestry, only EEF becoming distinguishable. Besides, by the time of Yamnaya the incursions of steppe peoples into Southeastern Europe (with Yamnaya and even before it) had already started centuries earlier.
 
@Ygorcs

it is moesan that mentioned in his post that steppe had already entered western europe....he said clearly western europe now in your reply you mention southeastern europe....I did not mention that region. So it is off the mark. No steppe in western europe till BBC.
Also I did not confuse the megalith stuff with Hamangia. I was only talking of different stages of european farms influence on the steppe: the cultural one: religion , burial custom ( earlier) and the genetic input ( later ). The farmer component that we find in central and south central asia ( andronovo, sintashta, srubnaya, ) is a consequence of a back migration of corded ware from eastern central europe after another mixing with the farmers independently of the one that happened in south eastern europe before.

Also your example of diffusion of religion is a good one if you talk about historical times and relationship between strongly structured culture Rome, Egypt, China India. Of course in "historical" time religion and language often do not match ( with the notable exception of islam ) Here we are talking about prehistory and the formative stage of the cultural ethnogenesis of the steppe. We are not talking about the relationship between Israel and Rome. Different age, different dynamics. So the religious influence from the west at that time with the steppe in its formative age was more likely to have triggered a language shift.

For the WHG Anatolia stuff....your reaction is psycho-like. Again ......did I mention the IE problem? Did I say that WHG in Anatolia created a PIE? Did I say that?

The first farmers, with a focus on Anatolia on populationgenomics.blog

Quote:

When it came to actually looking at the ancestral breakdown of Anatolians, Lazaridis et al. (2016) came up with a very solid model where Anatolians were a mix of lineages related to Ganj Dareh, Levant Neolithic, and WHG, with mixture proportions of 0.387, 0.339, and 0.274, respectively.
 
...and the genetic input ( later ). The farmer component that we find in central and south central asia ( andronovo, sintashta, srubnaya, ) is a consequence of a back migration of corded ware from eastern central europe after another mixing with the farmers independently of the one that happened in south eastern europe before.

That historic period (Andronovo, Srubnaya etc.) is way too late to account for the appearance and expansion of PIE. When PIE probably first started to expand as a still undifferentiated common language (Copper Age), the genetic movement was much more from the steppes to the Balkans, Central-North Europe and Central Asia than from elsewhere into it. We already know EEF is found in only tiny proportions in most of the steppes until well into the Bronze Age, and the Y-DNA of Old Europe farmers is virtually absent (what, a language shift by elite dominance with no significant male input from the foreign elite men? Very unlikely), and that CHG was already present in very high proportion in the steppes by the early Chalcolithic (circa 4300 BC). Again you seem to be mixing different chronologies upside down.

For the WHG Anatolia stuff....your reaction is psycho-like. Again ......did I mention the IE problem? Did I say that WHG in Anatolia created a PIE? Did I say that?

Psycho-like? What do you mean? No, never mind, I'll just say that you'd better avoid using offensive terms like that again except if you are strongly provoked. Otherwise next time you'll get an infraction. Keep calm and choose your words better.

You mentioned WHG-enriched EEF of Megalithic Europe could've been the source of PIE and the IEization of the steppes. You also mentioned WHG contributed to ANF. All of that is not demonstrated or factually wrong. Those are the facts until now. You seem to be getting too angered by the simple fact that your hypothesis lies on very thin and unstable ground and doesn't fit in well with what we all know from ancient DNA.
 
No this is an EEF+WHG in Yamnaya Samara.....at that time no steppe people had already entered in central western europe. This is before CWC and BBC which are 3th millennium.

Sincerely you 're intriguing me. Could you cite me the part of the scientific work where these " tastes" (or "huge dosis") of WHG+EEF, linked between them or not, appear? Because I'm not aware; it's true that I read less quickly than others.
By the way, it seems you ignore (?) that some thoeries speak of three intrusions of Steppic people in Europe, the first as soon as 4200 BCE, South Carpathians-Balkans, along Danube/Danau until Hungary, and North the Carpathians; introgression without too much demic input it's true; another around 3300 BCE, more important and which, supposedly, reached Germany, Poland, Central Europe-Balkans and Macedonia, with some incursions into Western Anatolia; it's true too that the demic input of these Steppic people can be discussed and debated... were they true IE speakers all of them? Could be debated too... but it seems they came from Steppes for a part.
 
it is moesan that mentioned in his post that steppe had already entered western europe....he said clearly western europe now in your reply you mention southeastern europe....I did not mention that region. So it is off the mark. No steppe in western europe till BBC.
Also I did not confuse the megalith stuff with Hamangia. I was only talking of different stages of european farms influence on the steppe: the cultural one: religion , burial custom ( earlier) and the genetic input ( later ). The farmer component that we find in central and south central asia ( andronovo, sintashta, srubnaya, ) is a consequence of a back migration of corded ware from eastern central europe after another mixing with the farmers independently of the one that happened in south eastern europe before.

I see, I missed the specific word "western" in Moesan's post, but in any case I wonder why you both - not just in these latter posts - made mentions to Western Europe or even Central Europe. If hypothetically PIE or IE culture came mostly from EEF people of Old Europe, it's almost certain that it would've come from Southeastern/Eastern Europe, not Megalithic Western Europe, Central Europe or whatever. If an EEF >> Steppe route must be found, it is there, not in Western or Central Europe. What's most probable, though, is that the "Steppe expansion" apparently started during the Late Neolithic (e.g. Vinca), and the bulk of its genetic makeup was more or less defined by the Copper Age. No big EEF input until then east of the Dniester.

Besides, the PIE vocabulary doesn't point to any heavily agricultural society, as Angela already pointed out. And despite all evidences of cultural influences on the steppe, the fact remains that there was a very clear cultural and genetic boundary separating EEF Old Europe from the mainly EHG+CHG cultures of the Pontic-Caspian steppe. Their Y-DNA and even much of their Mt-DNA makeup were not alike.

It's weird that people who supposedly adopted the same language and most of the same culture of their EEF neighbors to the west (Balkans/Carpathians) kept themselves very distinctive for thousands of years until they were the ones invading them, not the other way around.

What I found difficult to accept is that there was a lot of native and Caucasian elements in the Pontic-Caspian cultures of the historic period when PIE apparently expanded, and at least since the Copper Age one sees a lot of EHG (40-50%), a lot of CHG (40-50% too) everywhere... but then one finds a much smaller proportion of EEF here and there, most of it appearing only from the early Bronze Age onwards, and immediately cries "Eureka! Never mind the 40-50% for EHG and CHG, never mind the linguistic evidences of PIE and the probable ancient relations to Uralic and Caucasian language families: the EEF of Old Europe are the true source of PIE and its associated culture!" It sounds like there is some wishful thinking or bias in that position. It is not that it is impossible or totally implausible that EEF was the ultimate, first source of PIE, but it's way way down in the list of possibilities.
 
@ygorcs

Did I say that Andronovo, Sintashta, Srubnaya were PIE. Did I say that? I simply divided two different type of mixing between steppe and old europe farmers one old: the first contact in south east europe where the steppe people were more on the receiving side on a cultural level. The second is the big demic impact that steppe people had with the farmers in the BBC CWC during the third millennium. I NEVER mentioned the PIE problem. Anyway I stand with my opinion of a possible neolithic origin of IE languages among the european farmers ( in europe because I'm not a fan of Renefrew too). Genetics as for now do not support much this theory but we'll see what happens. We need more data from Anatolia ( hittites) and southern europe.

@moesan

I never heard ( even by the most extremist "steppist") that there were incursions from the steppe deep into europe before CWC and BBC. There was the theory of Gimabutas of many "kurgan waves" but genetics ruled them out. GAC and Funnelbeaker and Baden and Remedello were all genetically european farmers.
 
@ygorcs

Did I say that Andronovo, Sintashta, Srubnaya were PIE. Did I say that? I simply divided two different type of mixing between steppe and old europe farmers one old: the first contact in south east europe where the steppe people were more on the receiving side on a cultural level. The second is the big demic impact that steppe people had with the farmers in the BBC CWC during the third millennium.


I got your point now. You're right on that. ;)

I NEVER mentioned the PIE problem. Anyway I stand with my opinion of a possible neolithic origin of IE languages among the european farmers ( in europe because I'm not a fan of Renefrew too). Genetics as for now do not support much this theory but we'll see what happens. We need more data from Anatolia ( hittites) and southern europe.

Well, I'm not sure I understood what you really meant, since it seems to me that not only did you comment on the "PIE problem" before, but you also did it again now, right after you denied it. But I agree with you that everything is possible (possible, not probable), so EEF could be associated with the earliest PIE speakers... however there are very few (if any) solid evidences to back it up, whereas there are solid reasons to support other scenarios.
 
I got your point now. You're right on that. ;)



Well, I'm not sure I understood what you really meant, since it seems to me that not only did you comment on the "PIE problem" before, but you also did it again now, right after you denied it. But I agree with you that everything is possible (possible, not probable), so EEF could be associated with the earliest PIE speakers... however there are very few (if any) solid evidences to back it up, whereas there are solid reasons to support other scenarios.

All in all I think you are right that the big problem for an old europe theory is the lack of a big farming vocabulary.....that is even more problematic than genetic and archeology.....but what is your take on the IE homeland issue. At first you didn't seem steppist....
 
@Ygorcs

it is moesan that mentioned in his post that steppe had already entered western europe....he said clearly western europe now in your reply you mention southeastern europe....I did not mention that region. So it is off the mark. No steppe in western europe till BBC.
Also I did not confuse the megalith stuff with Hamangia. I was only talking of different stages of european farms influence on the steppe: the cultural one: religion , burial custom ( earlier) and the genetic input ( later ). The farmer component that we find in central and south central asia ( andronovo, sintashta, srubnaya, ) is a consequence of a back migration of corded ware from eastern central europe after another mixing with the farmers independently of the one that happened in south eastern europe before.

Also your example of diffusion of religion is a good one if you talk about historical times and relationship between strongly structured culture Rome, Egypt, China India. Of course in "historical" time religion and language often do not match ( with the notable exception of islam ) Here we are talking about prehistory and the formative stage of the cultural ethnogenesis of the steppe. We are not talking about the relationship between Israel and Rome. Different age, different dynamics. So the religious influence from the west at that time with the steppe in its formative age was more likely to have triggered a language shift.

For the WHG Anatolia stuff....your reaction is psycho-like. Again ......did I mention the IE problem? Did I say that WHG in Anatolia created a PIE? Did I say that?

The first farmers, with a focus on Anatolia on populationgenomics.blog

Quote:

When it came to actually looking at the ancestral breakdown of Anatolians, Lazaridis et al. (2016) came up with a very solid model where Anatolians were a mix of lineages related to Ganj Dareh, Levant Neolithic, and WHG, with mixture proportions of 0.387, 0.339, and 0.274, respectively.

Etrusco, please, give back to Caesar what pertains to him and to Moesan what pertains to him (what an honour to be in so good a company). Where did you read I wrote "Western Europe", clearly? I spoke of Western Anatolia! I cited rather mainstream theories and in them there was question of Central Europe, Germany, Italy (mergins) and others, so western Europe in someway, not Atlantic Europe. The dates concerning this very more occidental supposed moves (re-read my post) are around 3300 and so roughly contemporary with Yamna;in fact we can suppose there is question here among others of the CWC concerning Germany, reached around the 2900 BCE (3300 is a travel beginning date) -
It's not my theory, it is not so absurd yet. I mentioned this but above all the 4400 BCE moves into S-E and C-Europe because you seemed unaware of the earliest introgressions of Steppic people there.
No personal theory. BTW you seem too having misunderstood the Ygorcs answer which came in contradiction to your post #267. Late Neolithic is a bit before Yamna full development, even if all these periods overlap one over another.
to date I don't believe in a EEF famers IE hypothesis. My posts to you had as aim to temperate your bold affirmations about a non-negligible demic input of EEF+CHG among Yamna people.
TO date, I'm almost sure the most of early post-PIE languages have been spred around and far by Steppic people: we have an/auDNA? an-haplo's Y+mt and archeology. For first PIE I 'm still in expectation, because PIE doesn't seem to me a pidgin or creole, so I would be thinking in a well evolved culture rather classical, but it seems in recent works it keeps on showing links with Finno-Ugric languages; so haplo's and other things seem putting the Sth-Caucasus theory in doubt.
I have no answer. Maybe the first Finno-Ugric languages reached region more southern that we think? I think in the progressive (or not) introgression(s) of SW-Siberian auDNA in Central Asia; ... links??? Here precise dates of first presence could help. It could attract us again towards N and NE Caspian? the famous 'gedrosia' question?
As I already said, a grammaticaly evolved language can flourish among warlike barbarian societies with professional bards and so on. Poetry exist among them too. Only spirit rambling of mine.
 
All in all I think you are right that the big problem for an old europe theory is the lack of a big farming vocabulary.....that is even more problematic than genetic and archeology.....but what is your take on the IE homeland issue. At first you didn't seem steppist....

I have no horse in this race. LOL I mean, I just go along with the best and most numerous evidences I find, but as far as I have read and learned I don't feel it's already safe to bet on just one hypothesis as clearly better than any other.

In my opinion, though, we have enough evidence to establish a (evidently falsifiable, as everything in science) concensus that it is most likely that the overwhelming bulk of IE families came from the expansion of a Late PIE spoken natively in the Pontic-Caspian steppe, and that the ultimate source of that steppe language may have been either indigenous (related to the heavy EHG component in CA/EMBA steppe people) or brought to them much earlier (Neolithic) from a CHG-rich source near the Caucasus.

I don't have any strong preference for one over the other (some evidences point to EHG, e.g. the noticeably closer and chronologically deep connections to North Eurasian Uralic, and some to CHG)... But I think both of them are clearly much more probable than any other guessed "background of PIE" (e.g. EEF in Old Europe, EHG/SHG in North Europe, Levantine/Mesopotamiian origin).

Despite that controversy about the earlier roots of PIE, I think what we have now is more than enough to at least be very confident that the IE expansion really came virtually entirely from the Pontic-Caspian steppe and, when it didn't, it came directly (and probably indirectly from the Pontic-Caspian too) from its offshoots in immediately adjacent areas (Eastern Balkans, Caucasus, north Central Asia, Northeastern European forest-steppe). At least one thing is undeniable except for fringe ultra-nationalists and other people with a strong ideological agenda: the split and expansion of PIE has everything to do with that region between the Carpathians and the Caspian.
 
If EEF's are involved in PIE formation, it does not mean all ancient EEF's from ANF were speaking the same language or that one the languages they spoke was the only ancestor of PIE; this does not discard some of the most eastern ones as one possible element in the formation of PIE. That said, It's not my favourite hypothesis because I suppose the first introgressions of EEF rich people in the very Steppes is rather late. That said too (a verbal tic of mine), what if the non-Uralic element in the language genesis had been carried by a pop rich in Y-R1b + some I2a2 having been themselves in a long contact with Y-G2a early "masters" in Central-Eastern Europe? The lost of agriculture terms could have been lost later, when the new language served for the most to Steppic herders. Just to say a genesis can be complicated sometimes, and the latest percentages between different components of the Steppic people can mistake us concerning origins of language. At this stage we even don't know how far West the Uralic languages could have pushed. Where could have been the contact zone? I would prefer a North Caspian region, but how to be sure?
&: The evident CTC males introgression in Sredny Stog is maybe not without sense? Have they passed a linguistic element of importance to more eastern pops? All that is rather elements of reasoning than true hypothesis. Sorry if I'm boring sometimes.
 
Hm, the thing is, i feel they dont give enough vulgarization into their calculators. Exemple: in middle-eastern neolithic we have 3 different genetic groups. 1) Anatolian Neolithic, related with Levantine Neolithic and WHG. 2) Neolithic Levantine, related with Natufian and a little of WHG. 3) Iranian Neolithic not related with the too previous but related with CHG and ANE. Now, CHG is modeled as a mix between something WHG and something related with later Iranian Farmers ( we obviously miss some pops here ). So, how, Iranian Farmers are not related with Anatolian and Levantine Farmers? The only answer is, Iranian Farmers doesn't have the WHG that is in CHG, therefore Iranian Farmers > CHG and not CHG > Iranian Farmers. So Iranian Farmers were ANE + a population with an ultimate source related to CHG but not CHG because CHG have WHG related. It means both caucasus hunter gatherer and iranian farmers are related but not with CHG proper but an ancestral component that was part of the creation of CHG. Now, prehistoric Pontic Steppe have CHG but not Iranian Farmers, so Iranian Farmers only make it in the Indian sub-con and Transcaucasia. But, recent papers shows that Transcaucasia neolithic was Anatolian Farmers / Iranian Farmers up to Maikop. Question is, in that equation what is the place of CHG? I explain myself, in Transcaucasia neolithic you have Anatolian and Iranian Farmers ancestry, Iranian Farmers having CHG, how do you separate what should be " Proper CHG " with " Iranian Farmers CHG "? How do you know if Iranian Farmers ancestry didn't pushed Proper CHG into the North in Mesolithic/Neolithic transition? How do you know for exemple that the CHG population of Pontic Steppe is not EHG/Iranian Farmers looking like Satsurblia-CHG because of the related ancestry? How a calculator can separate all those populations only by using modern genetic datas?
 
@Halftap your #282 (to make short)
I agree all that is complicated and often enough we see studies which don't analyse the same pops the same way. We cannot compare them accurately. IBD would be one of the pertinent replies.
 
If EEF's are involved in PIE formation, it does not mean all ancient EEF's from ANF were speaking the same language or that one the languages they spoke was the only ancestor of PIE; this does not discard some of the most eastern ones as one possible element in the formation of PIE. That said, It's not my favourite hypothesis because I suppose the first introgressions of EEF rich people in the very Steppes is rather late. That said too (a verbal tic of mine), what if the non-Uralic element in the language genesis had been carried by a pop rich in Y-R1b + some I2a2 having been themselves in a long contact with Y-G2a early "masters" in Central-Eastern Europe? The lost of agriculture terms could have been lost later, when the new language served for the most to Steppic herders. Just to say a genesis can be complicated sometimes, and the latest percentages between different components of the Steppic people can mistake us concerning origins of language. At this stage we even don't know how far West the Uralic languages could have pushed. Where could have been the contact zone? I would prefer a North Caspian region, but how to be sure?
&: The evident CTC males introgression in Sredny Stog is maybe not without sense? Have they passed a linguistic element of importance to more eastern pops? All that is rather elements of reasoning than true hypothesis. Sorry if I'm boring sometimes.

The main quibble I have with this is not even that it is kind of based on too many "ifs", but that languages rarely do indeed "become mixed". When we talk about the earliest origins of PIE, we're assuming the source of the fundamentals that made PIE different from other language groups. Japanese didn't stop being Japonic, English didn't stop being Germanic just because they literally absorbed more than half of their language from other language groups. The roots, the vast majority of the core vocabulary, the way the syntax and morphology functions, all of them is much more resilient against foreign influences and linguistic borrowings, despite the existence of Sprachbund, areal features and all of that. The "core" usually remains and distinguishes it from other language families, so we would still be able to point out the origin of the language despite all later superstrates. I doubt PIE was a sort of total "hybrid" (that's really a rare phenomenon in linguistics), but I think it's very likely that it was a bit like Japanese or Vietnamese absorbing a huge amount of vocabulary from the more advanced cultures nearby, especially if it was originally a hunter-gatherer language that managed to survive because its people shifted early enough to more intensive food production (agriculture/animal husbandry)
 

This thread has been viewed 156417 times.

Back
Top