Proto-Indo-European

[Twilight]

Does anybody know how to speak PIE and any websites I could go to, Thanks ^_^

 

[Maciamo]

Linguists have reconstructed approximate words based on known Indo-European languages, but nobody knows what PIE was really like, what it sounded like, nor what was its syntax and grammar. I have a dictionary of PIE, but most entries in English have many possible PIE words, and they are often unpronounceable.

 

[Aberdeen]

Try doing an internet search - I know that PIE language stuff is out there. And I seem to remember a Youtube clip that had someone speaking PIE. Just how valid any of this speculation is may be another question.

 

[martiko]

Linguists have reconstructed approximate words based on known Indo-European languages, but nobody knows what PIE was really like, what it sounded like, nor what was its syntax and grammar. I have a dictionary of PIE, but most entries in English have many possible PIE words, and they are often unpronounceable.

nobody really knows how were pronounced PIE language such the iberian or aquitanian but the linguists know translation for the iberain with the Celtic and the Latin of this language and how, as for written languages Egypt, to decipher it.

 

[Taranis]

nobody really knows how were pronounced PIE language such the iberian or aquitanian but the linguists know translation for the iberain with the Celtic and the Latin of this language and how, as for written languages Egypt, to decipher it.

I'm sorry but Iberian and Aquitanian were not Indo-European languages. Aquitanian was the ancestor of modern Basque (otherwise an isolated language), while Iberian may or may not have been related with Aquitanian. It is probable though that both languages were 'relics' that preceded the introduction of the Indo-European languages into Western Europe.

As Maciamo said, we have a pretty good idea about Proto-Indo-European, but there is no agreement - even amongst the academics - what the language did sound like. For that matter, we don't even know what the Proto-Indo-Europeans called themselves.

 

[martiko]

I'm sorry but Iberian and Aquitanian were not Indo-European languages. Aquitanian was the ancestor of modern Basque (otherwise an isolated language), while Iberian may or may not have been related with Aquitanian. It is probable though that both languages were 'relics' that preceded the introduction of the Indo-European languages into Western Europe.

As Maciamo said, we have a pretty good idea about Proto-Indo-European, but there is no agreement - even amongst the academics - what the language did sound like. For that matter, we don't even know what the Proto-Indo-Europeans called themselves.

As regards the eushkara I prefer referring to Michalena or to Etchamendy.
Fact is that now that they found the writings of the iberian langague they note that it is a language completely different from Basque and for people who according to certain mix for centuries or millenniums of years (what is suspicious), it is not possible.

 

[Taranis]

As regards the eushkara I prefer referring to Michalena or to Etchamendy.
Fact is that now that they found the writings of the iberian langague they note that it is a language completely different from Basque and for people who according to certain mix for centuries or millenniums of years (what is suspicious), it is not possible.

Are you trying to say that you think that Iberian was an Indo-European language?!

If so, I would like to see your evidence, because to my knowledge, Iberian was clearly not an Indo-European language. And yes, Iberian inscriptions have been known for quite a while now (which is why I assumed it was the general consensus that the language was non-Indo-European).

 

[martiko]

Are you trying to say that you think that Iberian was an Indo-European language?!

If so, I would like to see your evidence, because to my knowledge, Iberian was clearly not an Indo-European language. And yes, Iberian inscriptions have been known for quite a while now (which is why I assumed it was the general consensus that the language was non-Indo-European).

I badly expressed myself and you definitely did not understand :

And in fact nobody knows what the Basque language was only 1300 years old behind when basques arrive on their actual country and nobody knows more about the language IE 5000 or even 3000 years behind. For these languages there are only imaginary reconstitutions but anything concrete so far behind, and Proto-IE is only a guess-work as much as the ancient vasgonde.

The Basque language evolved in the European world entirely IE all around. I am not surprised that they find similarities but Basque appears of quite other origin that PreIE (IBERIAN) and IE (Latin).
The basque is an Eurasian language of similar ouralic type as IE but this language very differs from Caucasian languages with which comparison was made pr Michalena and so many others.
Therefore nothing is excluded on the origin of Basque.

conclusion possible :
Either R1b spoke a language close to the actual Basque and IE came from populations in place influenced by R1a, or culture Yamna acquired IE by a contact followed with their stringed neighbours and centum difference / satem comes from the fact that the new speakers introduced a corrupted pronunciation. This last approach which seems the most probable. Even if the detail is not controlled they lead to a rather consistent description of the linguistics, genetics.

 

[Taranis]

I badly expressed myself and you definitely did not understand :

And in fact nobody knows what the Basque language was only 1300 years old behind when basques arrive on their actual country

Actually, that is - somewhat - a common misconception, to think of the Basques associated with the modern Basque country. The language boundary in Antiquity was a very different one, but it seems that Aquitanian (or 'Old Basque', if you will) was spoken in (in modern areas) Navarre, northern Aragon (on the Spanish side) as well as in Aquitania (south of the Garonne river). This is very clear from Aquitanian personal names and place names.

It is true that the area of the modern Basque Country (Euskadi / Pais Vasco) was Celtic in the time of the Romans, but that does not mean that the Basques were recent immigrants in Western Europe.

and nobody knows more about the language IE 5000 or even 3000 years behind. For these languages there are only imaginary reconstitutions but anything concrete so far behind, and Proto-IE is only a guess-work as much as the ancient vasgonde.

That I agree on (I also find it doubtful that Basque was originally a language of hunter-gatherers), which takes me to the next point (see below)...

The Basque language evolved in the European world entirely IE all around.

This is wrong. Yes, in the Antiquity, the Basques were bordered to the north (Gauls) and Celtiberians (west), both obviously Celtic (and obviously Indo-European, by extension). But in the east, Old Basque speakers very clearly bordered onto speakers of Iberian, and likewise very clearly, there was a common lexicon of Iberian and Aquitanian (an often cited example is Iberian 'ili-' and Basque 'hiri', meaning 'town'). Wether that means that (Old) Basque and Iberian are related, or merely an evidence of contact.

I am not surprised that they find similarities but Basque appears of quite other origin that PreIE (IBERIAN) and IE (Latin).
The basque is an Eurasian language of similar ouralic type as IE but this language very differs from Caucasian languages with which comparison was made pr Michalena and so many others.
Therefore nothing is excluded on the origin of Basque.

The fact that there is no language or language family (besides Iberian, perhaps) that appears to be related with it should tell you something: that it has developed independently for a very long time. For me, that is an indicator that Basque indeed developed in western Europe - that would explain how it is not related with the Uralic or the Caucasian language families.

conclusion possible :
Either R1b spoke a language close to the actual Basque and IE came from populations in place influenced by R1a, or culture Yamna acquired IE by a contact followed with their stringed neighbours and centum difference / satem comes from the fact that the new speakers introduced a corrupted pronunciation. This last approach which seems the most probable. Even if the detail is not controlled they lead to a rather consistent description of the linguistics, genetics.

I actually think that the conception R1b <> Basques has lead to a lot of very major misconceptions in the past (see: Iberian Glacial refuge).

 

[Sile]

Actually, that is - somewhat - a common misconception, to think of the Basques associated with the modern Basque country. The language boundary in Antiquity was a very different one, but it seems that Aquitanian (or 'Old Basque', if you will) was spoken in (in modern areas) Navarre, northern Aragon (on the Spanish side) as well as in Aquitania (south of the Garonne river). This is very clear from Aquitanian personal names and place names.

It is true that the area of the modern Basque Country (Euskadi / Pais Vasco) was Celtic in the time of the Romans, but that does not mean that the Basques were recent immigrants in Western Europe.



That I agree on (I also find it doubtful that Basque was originally a language of hunter-gatherers), which takes me to the next point (see below)...



This is wrong. Yes, in the Antiquity, the Basques were bordered to the north (Gauls) and Celtiberians (west), both obviously Celtic (and obviously Indo-European, by extension). But in the east, Old Basque speakers very clearly bordered onto speakers of Iberian, and likewise very clearly, there was a common lexicon of Iberian and Aquitanian (an often cited example is Iberian 'ili-' and Basque 'hiri', meaning 'town'). Wether that means that (Old) Basque and Iberian are related, or merely an evidence of contact.



The fact that there is no language or language family (besides Iberian, perhaps) that appears to be related with it should tell you something: that it has developed independently for a very long time. For me, that is an indicator that Basque indeed developed in western Europe - that would explain how it is not related with the Uralic or the Caucasian language families.



I actually think that the conception R1b <> Basques has lead to a lot of very major misconceptions in the past (see: Iberian Glacial refuge).

Aquitania , "french basques" to some degree, became the Gascon tongue which is associated with the Occitan language, which is related to catalan and provenzal ( south east france) and others.

Iberian - you are referring to "true" ancient term of iberian in that only the catalan, navaresse, aragon areas I presume. Not the whole peninsula as it it called today.

 

[martiko]

The fact that there is no language or language family (besides Iberian, perhaps) that appears to be related with it should tell you something: that it has developed independently for a very long time. For me, that is an indicator that Basque indeed developed in western Europe - that would explain how it is not related with the Uralic or the Caucasian language families.



I actually think that the conception R1b <> Basques has lead to a lot of very major misconceptions in the past (see: Iberian Glacial refuge).

I did not mean that Basque and Indo-European are uralic but of similar forme; very ergatives and declinable; therefore having a form ressemblante.
Basques arrive very after in Spain late, they occupied the Novempulanie before and therefore the vascon was probably spoken north of Garonne and to in the region of the Atlantic loire.
On topic we do not have true divergences.

 

[Taranis]

I did not mean that Basque and Indo-European are uralic but of similar forme; very ergatives and declinable; therefore having a form ressemblante.

Neither Proto-Uralic nor (Proto-)Indo-European were ergative languages. Ergativity can also be found in all of the Caucasian language families, ie Northeast Caucasian (Chechen), Northwest Caucasian (Abkhazian, Ubykh), Karvelic (Georgian) and the extinct Hurro-Urartian languages.

Basques arrive very after in Spain late, they occupied the Novempulanie before and therefore the vascon was probably spoken north of Garonne and to in the region of the Atlantic loire.
On topic we do not have true divergences.

As I said, this is wrong. There is evidence for Basque presence in Navarre (notably, coinage with the name 'Baskones' on them) and northern Aragon, but not the modern Basque Country.

I would also like to know what evidence you do have of a Vasconic presence between the rivers Garonne and Loire.

 

[martiko]

Neither Proto-Uralic nor (Proto-)Indo-European were ergative languages. Ergativity can also be found in all of the Caucasian language families, ie Northeast Caucasian (Chechen), Northwest Caucasian (Abkhazian, Ubykh), Karvelic (Georgian) and the extinct Hurro-Urartian languages.



As I said, this is wrong. There is evidence for Basque presence in Navarre (notably, coinage with the name 'Baskones' on them) and northern Aragon, but not the modern Basque Country.

I would also like to know what evidence you do have of a Vasconic presence between the rivers Garonne and Loire.

basques or vasgondes tribes were first forced back by the Roman of Novempulainie (which in epoch stretches of the south of the Loire to the south of the Aquitaine) in mountains north of Spain and south of France; with the weakening of Rome then basques go back up to the north and come back in conflict with the wisigoths which they dispel of vascoinie or novempulanie; pronounced gasconie or gascoin by the French

The langage European-indo is ergative on the contrary some of the languages that you named are certain is not much her as regards wikipedia and if the majority of the Caucasian languages are ergatives to it are it in another way.
It is difficult to allocate the survival of the ergative to the factor of isolation, as for Icelandic, because the geographical aerie of the euskera is an aerie of passage of people always;
and it is the same case as for strong proportion of O rhesus which are for this two there, the most well brought up of the humanity while they were normally at the source of the group B, fact that isolation is not inevitably geographical while being real, could give a lane on the possible evolution of languages; The Basque country being a major way of passage while Iceland is very insulated; but results are similar for different motivations
http://www.euroskara.com/ETXAMENDI_Partie_2_Morpho2_B.htm

French and English are little ergatives and Russian more

 

[toyomotor]

Try doing an internet search - I know that PIE language stuff is out there. And I seem to remember a Youtube clip that had someone speaking PIE. Just how valid any of this speculation is may be another question.

To have heard some one speaking a PIE language in modern day is impossible.

Linguists have not completed a lexicon of PIE, and as you've just read, it is simply unpronounceable.

 

[Aberdeen]

To have heard some one speaking a PIE language in modern day is impossible.

Linguists have not completed a lexicon of PIE, and as you've just read, it is simply unpronounceable.

That point of view is quite mistaken, IMO. Linguistic departments of various universities have created fairly massive lexicons of proto-IE, and although there are scholarly arguments, there's also a fair bit of agreement in many areas. One of the best sources for information about proto-IE is the linguistics research centre of the University of Texas. Here's a link to material about the proto-IE lexicon.

www.utexas.edu/cola/centers/lrc/ielex/

And proto-IE isn't unpronounceable in the sense that speakers of modern IE languages wouldn't be able to wrap their tongues around it - any of the attempts to speak it that you can find on Youtube don't actually sound that strange. It's only unpronounceable in the sense that there's no way to know anything about accent or inflection, but the linguists do know a fair bit about the probable structure of proto-IE words, and it is possible to "talk in proto-IE", although the real thing could have sounded quite different simply because accent and inflection are very important in terms of verbal comprehension.

 

[martiko]

That point of view is quite mistaken, IMO. Linguistic departments of various universities have created fairly massive lexicons of proto-IE, and although there are scholarly arguments, there's also a fair bit of agreement in many areas. One of the best sources for information about proto-IE is the linguistics research centre of the University of Texas. Here's a link to material about the proto-IE lexicon.

www.utexas.edu/cola/centers/lrc/ielex/

And proto-IE isn't unpronounceable in the sense that speakers of modern IE languages wouldn't be able to wrap their tongues around it - any of the attempts to speak it that you can find on Youtube don't actually sound that strange. It's only unpronounceable in the sense that there's no way to know anything about accent or inflection, but the linguists do know a fair bit about the probable structure of proto-IE words, and it is possible to "talk in proto-IE", although the real thing could have sounded quite different simply because accent and inflection are very important in terms of verbal comprehension.

I think that it is more a hope for future than reality, because before them should more logically before finding structures of the most ancient languages and it is not another full and certain result.
You anticipate far too much and speculate about future as certain in the stock exchange quotations

 

[Aberdeen]

I think that it is more a hope for future than reality, because before them should more logically before finding structures of the most ancient languages and it is not another full and certain result.
You anticipate far too much and speculate about future as certain in the stock exchange quotations

The University of Texas research does rely on the work of Julius Pokomy, and some people consider his work to be outdated, I think primarily because he ignored the so-called Laryngneal Theory. Is that why you don't seem to think much of the lexicon developed by University of Texas researchers, or do you have some other technical reason for disagreeing with their conclusions?

 

[martiko]

Let us hope that it succeed! but it is very complex and parameters are as much physical as lingistiques or cultural and vary persistently according to time, epochs and not always regularly.

 

[Aberdeen]

Let us hope that it succeed! but it is very complex and parameters are as much physical as lingistiques or cultural and vary persistently according to time, epochs and not always regularly.

Your comment, as usual, does not make any sense to me, but perhaps it's a language issue.

 

[toyomotor]

Thank you.