Sumerian and Indo-European

[Goga]

For example, would you bother addressing the arguments for/against the Anatolian hypothesis, or for/against the Glottalic theory?

I do agree on almost everything what Vyacheslav Vsevolodovich Ivanov is claiming. So, you should read his works.

 

[Taranis]

Call it whatever you want. But the language the Mitanni spoke is ancestral to Kurdish, Persian, Sanskrit etc.
The point is that Kurdish is still very close to the roots, while Indic languages mixed too much with Dravidian.

I'm not calling it "whatever I want". Indo-Iranic and Iranic is obviously not the same, and language classification does not work by randomly attaching labels to a language.

The language which was spoken by the Mitanni is closer to Iranic than to Indic.

Its definitely not. I'm going to repeat saying it here, the *s- > *h- sound shift, which is a key feature of the Iranic languages (thought to have been present in Proto-Iranic), is not found in Mitanni. And you don't want to address that issue.

That's why I do consider that language as Proto-Iranic.

And Kurdish is a NorthWest Iranic language (not Hurrian etc.), you like it or not.

Also, Kurdish IS very close to Avestan, what I do consider (Avestan) as almost proto-Iranic. Avestan was a very archaic Iranic language.

I don't disagree that Kurdish is a Northwest Iranic language, and I don't disagree that Avestan was a very archaic Iranic language, but my points remains (also, Kurdish clearly isn't that close to Avestan as you want it to be). You want the Mitanni to be the ancestors of the Kurds, therefore they must be. You do not care what the evidence is, you just proclaim what you believe to be the truth. That, no offense to you, is not science, that is dogmatism.

 

[Goga]

I'm not calling it "whatever I want". Indo-Iranic and Iranic is obviously not the same, and language classification does not work by randomly attaching labels to a language.



Its definitely not. I'm going to repeat saying it here, the *s- > *h- sound shift, which is a key feature of the Iranic languages (thought to have been present in Proto-Iranic), is not found in Mitanni. And you don't want to address that issue.



I don't disagree that Kurdish is a Northwest Iranic language, and I don't disagree that Avestan was a very archaic Iranic language, but my points remains (also, Kurdish clearly isn't that close to Avestan as you want it to be). You want the Mitanni to be the ancestors of the Kurds, therefore they must be. You do not care what the evidence is, you just proclaim what you believe to be the truth. That, no offense to you, is not science, that is dogmatism.

??

It's not about the *s- > *h- sound shift. What are you talking about? Indo-Iranian is ancestral to Iranic languages. FACT!!! Mitanni was Indo-Iranian (proto-Iranic) and therefore ancestral to Iranic languages and also ancetral to Sanskrit (Indic or INDO-Aryan).

For me Indo-Iranian is other name for proto-Iranic, it's the same.

Nowadays Indic is closer to Dravidian than to the ancient Sanskrit, lol. Sanskrit was proto-Indic..



Direct ancestors of the Kurds were Medes. Mitanni predate Medes by hundreds of years, Mitanni became Medes and Medes became Kurds.

There is nothing what I want, it is what it is. before Kurds, language of the Kurds was spoken by ancestors of the Kurds. Kurdish language didn't appear out of blue.


Of ALL modern languages on this planet, Kurdish is the CLOSEST language to Avestan, period. This is a fact and not a wishful thinking. Kurdish is the PUREST Iranic language nowadays..

 

[Yetos]

@ Goga

do you know the story of Medea queenn?

 

[Sile]

??

It's not about the *s- > *h- sound shift. What are you talking about? Indo-Iranian is ancestral to Iranic languages. FACT!!! Mitanni was Indo-Iranian (proto-Iranic) and therefore ancestral to Iranic languages and also ancetral to Sanskrit (Indic or INDO-Aryan).

For me Indo-Iranian is other name for proto-Iranic, it's the same.

Nowadays Indic is closer to Dravidian than to the ancient Sanskrit, lol. Sanskrit was proto-Indic..



Direct ancestors of the Kurds were Medes. Mitanni predate Medes by hundred of years, Mitanni became Medes and Medes became Kurds.

There is nothing what I want, it is what it is. before Kurds, language of the Kurds was spoken by ancestors of the Kurds. Kurdish language didn t appear out of blue.


Of ALL modern languages on this planet, Kurdish is the CLOSEST language to Avestan, period. This is a fact and not a wishful thinking. Kurdish is the PUREST Iranic language nowadays..

you cannot argue with this

 

[Goga]

@ Goga

do you know the story of Medea queenn?

Do you mean: queen from Georgia (Colchis), the daughter of King Aetes and the granddaughter of Helios, the SUN God, who killed in revenge her two sons?

If you mean her I know her story, but there're many stories about her, bro. Which story do you prefer?


Great Italian moviemaker Pier Paolo Pasolini made a movie about her.


According to some versions she killed a Persian king, and therefore those who called themselves Aryans gave themselves the name of the Medes and their homeland Media.



There's a relation between the Kurds (Medes), Georgians and the Greeks. I think that hg. J2a was a main haplogroup of the Medes (Kurds), ancient Greeks and ancient Colchis (Georgians).

 

[MOESAN]

I'm still confused about PIE cradle:
we have to take in consideration:
What languages appeared in first writings in Near-East? Hittites and others cousin languages appeared very lately, it seems (Anatolian IE seems a bit strange, a medley?).
Between what ancient languages or proto-languages can we put the PIE, geographically and linguistically?
How can so much languages be born in the same restricted area (I know mountains can create isolats but...) - a proto-language to create "novation" (phonetical and grammatical separation and cristallization in a new very different form) needs strong isolation and a bit of time too, even if isolation can fasten things. PIE would have been a very structured language, of its own.
How can a zinc region receiving from all parts, men and words, and Y-ligneages (G,J,R1a, R1b, why not E,T,H? could produce a lot of tribes of almost only R1a, R1b, in a so short time, with this kind of language? I've doubts, even if I cannot be sure of anything.
Gutians, Sumerians: I don't know how many words and sentances we have of them but I find weird we can consider them as PIE only based upon a few unsure links, when we can suppose the very strong unity of reconstructed PIE. Northeastern Near-Eastern could be the cradle of IE but then at an old proto-proto-IE, not PIE stage: the true birthplace of OUR PIE would elsewhere, more Northeastern yet, I think (South-Central Asia, East the Caspian?)
That said, the today satem statut of Indo-Iranic languages could be linked to reintroduction from North-East at the late Steppic stages after a period in Steppes, Eastern European ones included <> I 've the impression ingredients for satemization were stronger in Eastern Europe than everywhere else. So, possibility for proto-centum dialects soon enough in Eastern Caspian regions before indoeuropeanization of Europe-West Asia with a third stage in East-Europe/West Asia giving way to satem languages?
only questioning and speculations.

 

[MOESAN]

I believe East Caspian have been a stronghold of previous Y-R1b before shift made by Turkic East-Asians or eastasianized Y ligneages and the today Y-R1b linked to Europe (V88 ancestors aside) and found into Caucasus came rather from North and not the opposite way; but believings are believings... Catacombs show archeological links with ancient "Iranian" culture according to some Russian scholars but is the "material" cultural stream direction the same as the linguistic stream direction which gave way to satemization? It would be interesting knowing whan satem took place of centum in Steppes??? "Tokharians" did not arrive from Western Europe or from stars...

 

[Twilight]

That is a lot of questions to answer in one day, but I don't suppose that I can break them up into sections

I'm still confused about PIE cradle:
we have to take in consideration:
What languages appeared in first writings in Near-East? Hittites and others cousin languages appeared very lately, it seems (Anatolian IE seems a bit strange, a medley?).
Between what ancient languages or proto-languages can we put the PIE, geographically and linguistically?

Linguistics is a concept that was started in the 18th century by Sir William Jones (1746-1794) whom was a; quote on quote "The Puisine Judge of the Supreme Court of Judicature at Fort William of Bengal

". It is said while he was looking at languages, Mr.Jones discovered the Indo-European language by reading Sanskirt, Greek and Latin languages. It seems that Sir Williams Jones was on to something because R1a and R1b seem to have spread into Europe and India according to the Genetic Kurgan Hypothesis. But even before then, European travelers to India have been commenting on how similar Sanskirt was to their own.Sources:Narendranath B. Patil. The Variegated Plumage: Encounters with Indian Philosophy : a Commemoration Volume in Honour of Pandit Jankinath Kaul "Kamal". Motilal Banarsidass Publications. p. 249.
Roger Blench Archaeology and Language: methods and issues. In: A Companion To Archaeology. J. Bintliff ed. 52–74. Oxford: Basil Blackwell, 2004.

R.S. Wells et al, The Eurasian Heartland: A continental perspective on Y-chromosome diversity, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, vol. 98 no.18 (2001), pp. 10244–10249.

​

How can so much languages be born in the same restricted area (I know mountains can create isolats but...) - a proto-language to create "novation" (phonetical and grammatical separation and cristallization in a new very different form) needs strong isolation and a bit of time too, even if isolation can fasten things. PIE would have been a very structured language, of its own.
How can a zinc region receiving from all parts, men and words, and Y-ligneages (G,J,R1a, R1b, why not E,T,H? could produce a lot of tribes of almost only R1a, R1b, in a so short time, with this kind of language? I've doubts, even if I cannot be sure of anything.

I seriously doubt that PIE could have come from haplogroup R1 alone. As this thread has stated, there could be some other cultures whom have been involved in diversifying the PIE languages; I have the South Caucasus languages, Afro-Asiatic and Cro-Magnon in mind.

I'd also like to quote Maciamo via this link http://www.eupedia.com/europe/Haplogroup_R1b_Y-DNA.shtml#S28-U152

One common linguistic trait between Italic and Gaulish/Brythonic Celtic languages linked to the Hallstatt expansion is that they shifted the original IE *k^w sound into *p. They are known to linguists as the P-Celtic branch (as opposed to Q-Celtic). It is thought that this change occured due to the inability to pronounce the *k^w sound by the pre-Indo-European population of Central Europe, Gaul and Italy, who were speakers of Afro-Asiatic dialects that had evolved from Near-Eastern languages inherited from the Neolithic. The Etruscans, although later incomers from the eastern Mediterranean, also fit in this category. It has recently been acknowledged that Celtic languages borrowed part of their grammar from Afro-Asiatic languages. This shift could have happened when the Proto-Italo-Celtic speakers moved from the steppes to the Danube basin and mixed with the population of Near-Eastern farmers belonging to haplogroups E1b1b, G2a, J and T. However, such an early shift would not explain why Q-Celtic and Germanic languages did not undergo the same linguistic mutation. It is therefore more plausible that the shift happened after the Proto-Italo-Celts and Proto-Germanics had first expanded across all western and northern Europe. The S28/U152 connection to P-Celtic (and Italic) suggests that the shift took place around the Alps after 1800 BCE, but before the invasion of Italy by the Italic tribes circa 1200 BCE.

Maciamo has brought up a good point and it really hits me in the childhood in a way. I don't know if there is a name for this phenomenon but I can tell you the details as an example if asked; because it's gets really personal but I'll tell you one thing, it only take one spouce from a different culture to change your child's dialect.

Gutians, Sumerians: I don't know how many words and sentances we have of them but I find weird we can consider them as PIE only based upon a few unsure links, when we can suppose the very strong unity of reconstructed PIE. Northeastern Near-Eastern could be the cradle of IE but then at an old proto-proto-IE, not PIE stage: the true birthplace of OUR PIE would elsewhere, more Northeastern yet, I think (South-Central Asia, East the Caspian?)
That said, the today satem statut of Indo-Iranic languages could be linked to reintroduction from North-East at the late Steppic stages after a period in Steppes, Eastern European ones included <> I 've the impression ingredients for satemization were stronger in Eastern Europe than everywhere else. So, possibility for proto-centum dialects soon enough in Eastern Caspian regions before indoeuropeanization of Europe-West Asia with a third stage in East-Europe/West Asia giving way to satem languages?
only questioning and speculations.

 

[MOESAN]

That is a lot of questions to answer in one day, but I don't suppose that I can break them up into sections

A: erased by me: thanks nevertheless for your long introduction about linguistics A

I seriously doubt that PIE could have come from haplogroup R1 alone. As this thread has stated, there could be some other cultures whom have been involved in diversifying the PIE languages; I have the South Caucasus languages, Afro-Asiatic and Cro-Magnon in mind. B

I'd also like to quote Maciamo via this link http://www.eupedia.com/europe/Haplogroup_R1b_Y-DNA.shtml#S28-U152



Maciamo has brought up a good point and it really hits me in the childhood in a way. I don't know if there is a name for this phenomenon but I can tell you the details as an example if asked; because it's gets really personal but I'll tell you one thing, it only take one spouce from a different culture to change your child's dialect. C

A) OK but?
B) OK other languages families diversifying PIE: so after PIE; my point was the place of the diversifying GIVING BIRTH TO PIE: it's not the same - concerning Y-R1b (y paternal ligneage) I've no prejudice: what strikes me is the overwhelming prevalence of this Haplo in European IE regions (West); spite the fact that I can figure out some Y-R1b speaking not-IE languages, I'm obliged to consider SOME OF THEM took part in PIE creation or were VERY soonly indoeuropeanized - I find strange too a male elite from Near-East rich for Y haplos like J or G, E or/and others, gave the hand to "culturally inferior" R1b males (and elsewhere? R1a?) people; or we would have to consider PIE as a lingua franca transmitted to R1b people without fusion, but I sincerely doubt it - and the most of the regions where IE became spoken among apparently numerous people are not regions where an administrative hyerarchic and well structured power seems established in ancient time, which could have imposed a language to foreign elite, as it was the case in Gaul with Roma.

C: it's a bit off topic here: Maciamo himself avows the Kw-/P- shift is recent enough (me??? Iron or just before it: Urnfields?) and it undermines the explanation by only previous afro-asiatic languages I'm sure they had their part in modifying RECENT grammar of some languages in Western Europe (because old celtic grammar is IE and nothing else, for I red, TARANIS could correct me if I'm wrong); by yhe way basquic, arabic have no genuine P, only B- (I don't know the far origin of them in these languages) - I think these pronunciation was the one of an new elite in central Europe and was possibly adopted among Italics and Celts (and Greeks too) by a kidf of snobism(?: I don't put a penny on it but it's an hypotehsis). All the way it put us very far from PIE; at the contray P- seems very natural in Western Finnic languages and in reconstructed PIE.
One of my questions was about the fact we had seemingly not identified an early IE languages among the dominant ethnies or cultures of Near-East / South Caucasus before the Hittite period about 2300/2200 BC...

 

[Twilight]

A) OK but?
B) OK other languages families diversifying PIE: so after PIE; my point was the place of the diversifying GIVING BIRTH TO PIE: it's not the same - concerning Y-R1b (y paternal ligneage) I've no prejudice: what strikes me is the overwhelming prevalence of this Haplo in European IE regions (West); spite the fact that I can figure out some Y-R1b speaking not-IE languages, I'm obliged to consider SOME OF THEM took part in PIE creation or were VERY soonly indoeuropeanized - I find strange too a male elite from Near-East rich for Y haplos like J or G, E or/and others, gave the hand to "culturally inferior" R1b males (and elsewhere? R1a?) people; or we would have to consider PIE as a lingua franca transmitted to R1b people without fusion, but I sincerely doubt it - and the most of the regions where IE became spoken among apparently numerous people are not regions where an administrative hyerarchic and well structured power seems established in ancient time, which could have imposed a language to foreign elite, as it was the case in Gaul with Roma.

C: it's a bit off topic here: Maciamo himself avows the Kw-/P- shift is recent enough (me??? Iron or just before it: Urnfields?) and it undermines the explanation by only previous afro-asiatic languages I'm sure they had their part in modifying RECENT grammar of some languages in Western Europe (because old celtic grammar is IE and nothing else, for I red, TARANIS could correct me if I'm wrong); by yhe way basquic, arabic have no genuine P, only B- (I don't know the far origin of them in these languages) - I think these pronunciation was the one of an new elite in central Europe and was possibly adopted among Italics and Celts (and Greeks too) by a kidf of snobism(?: I don't put a penny on it but it's an hypotehsis). All the way it put us very far from PIE; at the contray P- seems very natural in Western Finnic languages and in reconstructed PIE.
One of my questions was about the fact we had seemingly not identified an early IE languages among the dominant ethnies or cultures of Near-East / South Caucasus before the Hittite period about 2300/2200 BC...

yeah, the PIE language was contructed by looking at common themes to related languages as a general rule. So we may never really know what PIE actually sounded like.

I do admit, Basque language is quite was a lingua Franca. I'm really sorry for being off subject, I must be confused on the question . Is it okay if I can get sources to your question?

as far as Arabic goes, the earliest mention of the language was in the 8th century BC as a Semetic offshoot So the Sumerians were long disestablished by the time the Arabic language came to the scenes

 

[Taranis]

C: it's a bit off topic here: Maciamo himself avows the Kw-/P- shift is recent enough (me??? Iron or just before it: Urnfields?) and it undermines the explanation by only previous afro-asiatic languages I'm sure they had their part in modifying RECENT grammar of some languages in Western Europe (because old celtic grammar is IE and nothing else, for I red, TARANIS could correct me if I'm wrong); by yhe way basquic, arabic have no genuine P, only B- (I don't know the far origin of them in these languages) - I think these pronunciation was the one of an new elite in central Europe and was possibly adopted among Italics and Celts (and Greeks too) by a kidf of snobism(?: I don't put a penny on it but it's an hypotehsis). All the way it put us very far from PIE; at the contray P- seems very natural in Western Finnic languages and in reconstructed PIE.
One of my questions was about the fact we had seemingly not identified an early IE languages among the dominant ethnies or cultures of Near-East / South Caucasus before the Hittite period about 2300/2200 BC...

I wanted to comment on this, even though I concede that its probably worthwhile to do an independent thread about the Afroasiatic substrate hypothesis. In my opinion such a substrate hypothesis can only possibly hold true for Insular Celtic (Goidelic plus Brythonic), not for the Continental Celtic languages, and hence not for Proto-Celtic. In turn, the Continental Celtic languages had a grammar structure more similar to Greek, Latin and Sanskrit. As concerns the absence of /p/, that holds true for both Arabic and for the Ethiosemitic languages (which prehistorically shifted Proto-Semitic *p to *f). However, both /b/ and /p/ were present in Proto-Semitic (the same, I should add, applies for ancient Egyptian).

 

[Sile]

I'm still confused about PIE cradle:
we have to take in consideration:
What languages appeared in first writings in Near-East? Hittites and others cousin languages appeared very lately, it seems (Anatolian IE seems a bit strange, a medley?).
Between what ancient languages or proto-languages can we put the PIE, geographically and linguistically?
How can so much languages be born in the same restricted area (I know mountains can create isolats but...) - a proto-language to create "novation" (phonetical and grammatical separation and cristallization in a new very different form) needs strong isolation and a bit of time too, even if isolation can fasten things. PIE would have been a very structured language, of its own.
How can a zinc region receiving from all parts, men and words, and Y-ligneages (G,J,R1a, R1b, why not E,T,H? could produce a lot of tribes of almost only R1a, R1b, in a so short time, with this kind of language? I've doubts, even if I cannot be sure of anything.
Gutians, Sumerians: I don't know how many words and sentances we have of them but I find weird we can consider them as PIE only based upon a few unsure links, when we can suppose the very strong unity of reconstructed PIE. Northeastern Near-Eastern could be the cradle of IE but then at an old proto-proto-IE, not PIE stage: the true birthplace of OUR PIE would elsewhere, more Northeastern yet, I think (South-Central Asia, East the Caspian?)
That said, the today satem statut of Indo-Iranic languages could be linked to reintroduction from North-East at the late Steppic stages after a period in Steppes, Eastern European ones included <> I 've the impression ingredients for satemization were stronger in Eastern Europe than everywhere else. So, possibility for proto-centum dialects soon enough in Eastern Caspian regions before indoeuropeanization of Europe-West Asia with a third stage in East-Europe/West Asia giving way to satem languages?
only questioning and speculations.

The chances of R1 group having anything to do with creation of indo-iranic languages is very remote..........the marker is the youngest of the haplogroups, you need to ask yourself what did the other markers between F and R speak.
IMO, with the latest Roma paper finding in majority I and J markers in south-asia and also the knowledge that IJ was once in union, brings me to the logical point that around the indus river ( pakistan-India ) with these IJ and I and J markers seems to have created the indo-iranian language..
The language was initially carried by I and J and by the time R was created it , it was R "job" by extreme numbers to ensure that the language covered modern Europe and steppes etc

 

[Yetos]

Do you mean: queen from Georgia (Colchis), the daughter of King Aetes and the granddaughter of Helios, the SUN God, who killed in revenge her two sons?

If you mean her I know her story, but there're many stories about her, bro. Which story do you prefer?


Great Italian moviemaker Pier Paolo Pasolini made a movie about her.


According to some versions she killed a Persian king, and therefore those who called themselves Aryans gave themselves the name of the Medes and their homeland Media.



There's a relation between the Kurds (Medes), Georgians and the Greeks. I think that hg. J2a was a main haplogroup of the Medes (Kurds), ancient Greeks and ancient Colchis (Georgians).

Well the name medians was given to them by Medea, Medea after Jason and Greece moved East and met the Aryans (Αρειοι) wich means the shooters archers Αορ αορτη who spoke same like Colchians and accept her as Anahitta (Medean-Aryan word which in Greek is Anakissa/anakitta means queen)
anyway Axeinos pontus is Colchian-iranian word meaning black sea,
I doupt about Indo-Iranian origin of Medeans, rather Georgian/Caucasian origin, the Kαυκωνες.

εκαλέοντο δε πάλαι προς πάντων "Αριοι άπικομένης δε Μηδείας της Κολχίδος
Ξενοφων xenophon Κυρου αναβασις

Medes inner name Aryans and were not Persians but under Persian command of Achamainides (compare Agamemnon)
medes belong to the wider Aryan Iranian but not Indo-Iranian, but rather Caucasian

 

[Taranis]

Well the name medians was given to them by Medea, Medea after Jason and Greece moved East and met the Aryans (Αρειοι) wich means the shooters archers Αορ αορτη who spoke same like Colchians and accept her as Anahitta (Medean-Aryan word which in Greek is Anakissa/anakitta means queen)
anyway Axeinos pontus is Colchian-iranian word meaning black sea,
I doupt about Indo-Iranian origin of Medeans, rather Georgian/Caucasian origin, the Kαυκωνες.

εκαλέοντο δε πάλαι προς πάντων "Αριοι άπικομένης δε Μηδείας της Κολχίδος
Ξενοφων xenophon Κυρου αναβασις

Medes inner name Aryans and were not Persians but under Persian command of Achamainides (compare Agamemnon)
medes belong to the wider Aryan Iranian but not Indo-Iranian, but rather Caucasian

Do you really think that an ethnic group in Iran was named by a figure that was most likely not even historical? The story of Jason and Medea is a Greek one, and there are many oddieties in the story like there is no language barrier (a feature that is typical of the stories from that time frame).

 

[MOESAN]

The chances of R1 group having anything to do with creation of indo-iranic languages is very remote..........the marker is the youngest of the haplogroups, you need to ask yourself what did the other markers between F and R speak.
IMO, with the latest Roma paper finding in majority I and J markers in south-asia and also the knowledge that IJ was once in union, brings me to the logical point that around the indus river ( pakistan-India ) with these IJ and I and J markers seems to have created the indo-iranian language..
The language was initially carried by I and J and by the time R was created it , it was R "job" by extreme numbers to ensure that the language covered modern Europe and steppes etc

Yes Y-R1a/b and subgroups are recent enough; so many SNPs, a lot of them considered as very very recent, are illustrating a demographic "boom", and mark a finally great number of bearers - but this recent enough birth of Y-R1b doesn't exclude its bearers could be launchers of PIE, or even proto-proto-IE because PIE is recent enough too; I was not telling R1b >> Indo-Iranic, I suppose possible that Indo-Iranic forms are recent and PERHAPS a re-introducyion (return) in South of a modified form of I-E- after a stage in Steppes; do note it is only a proposition, not religion of mine; the R1b (hypothesis always) could have born a proto-centum IE carried to Western Europe (and maybe Tarim Basin) and passed it too to Y-R1a bearers of Eastern and Northern Steppes who turned it into Satem before a come back to S-E Caspian and a spreading to other places...
my thought is that we are not obliged to think the first Y-R1b IE speakers passed South the Caspian: genetics don't contradict me at this stage of knowledge.
I'm just trying to put my brain to work, I don't say I get it... I can very well mistake, as can others do.

 

[Twilight]

The chances of R1 group having anything to do with creation of indo-iranic languages is very remote..........the marker is the youngest of the haplogroups, you need to ask yourself what did the other markers between F and R speak.

That sounds like centuries of work trying to reconstruct language and teasing out loan words. However I can totally see our decendants reconstructing languages such as R (Between Pre-PIE and Malta Culture language) and Q (Paleo-American language) for example.

Has there been any study on the Paleo-Native American language. I'd be curious to see how the PIE stories compare in Paleo Native. How about the sheep and the horse for example.

https://youtube.com/watch?v=SU5qI1MCzss

IMO, with the latest Roma paper finding in majority I and J markers in south-asia and also the knowledge that IJ was once in union, brings me to the logical point that around the indus river ( pakistan-India ) with these IJ and I and J markers seems to have created the indo-iranian language..
The language was initially carried by I and J and by the time R was created it , it was R "job" by extreme numbers to ensure that the language covered modern Europe and steppes etc

Do you have any words to compare Afro-Asiatic with Proto-Indo-Iranian?

 

[Mmiikkii]

I noticed some indirect relationship between the IndoEuropeans and the First Civilizations in Mesopotamia, after reading the R1b article of this site. And I want to give some coincidences that could give us clues about possible links between both peoples.
For example:

R1b Haplogroup people were the first that domesticated cattle, around 8000BC in the Fertile Crescen/South of the Caucasus. At same time and place of the development of Agriculture.

Then, around 4600BC, horses were domesticated at the other side of the Caucasus, in the Pontiac Caspian Steppe by R1a Haplogroup people and an older branch of R1b. Just when Sumer, the first ever civilization, appeared.
As the later IndoEuropean expansions show, Horses were a major civilizational advance that created bigger, and for sure, more complex societies. And there appearance, marked the expansion of the R1b branch from which Western European people descend.

But there's more evidence that this was a major evolution. As we saw R1 Haplogroups had been crossing the Caucasus. Well, around 1000 years after the horse was domesticated, the Maykop culture appeared North of the Caucasus. That is, South of the Russian Ukrainian steppes where the horse was domesticated. Where at the same time, also appeared the famous Yamna culture(3500-2500BC), from where IndoEuropeans expanded.
Maykop gave us the first known sword, and was one of the first to practice metalworking with bronze and using wagons. Both Yamna and Maykop shared the same cultural elements, suggesting a major cultural advance and some form of trade and cultural links. Thus, reinforcing the possibility of links with Sumer the 1st civilization, because there was mobility through the Caucasus and in both places seem to happen great cultural advances at the same time.

 

[Hawk]

I noticed some indirect relationship between the IndoEuropeans and the First Civilizations in Mesopotamia, after reading the R1b article of this site. And I want to give some coincidences that could give us clues about possible links between both peoples.
For example:
R1b Haplogroup people were the first that domesticated cattle, around 8000BC in the Fertile Crescen/South of the Caucasus. At same time and place of the development of Agriculture.
Then, around 4600BC, horses were domesticated at the other side of the Caucasus, in the Pontiac Caspian Steppe by R1a Haplogroup people and an older branch of R1b. Just when Sumer, the first ever civilization, appeared.
As the later IndoEuropean expansions show, Horses were a major civilizational advance that created bigger, and for sure, more complex societies. And there appearance, marked the expansion of the R1b branch from which Western European people descend.
But there's more evidence that this was a major evolution. As we saw R1 Haplogroups had been crossing the Caucasus. Well, around 1000 years after the horse was domesticated, the Maykop culture appeared North of the Caucasus. That is, South of the Russian Ukrainian steppes where the horse was domesticated. Where at the same time, also appeared the famous Yamna culture(3500-2500BC), from where IndoEuropeans expanded.
Maykop gave us the first known sword, and was one of the first to practice metalworking with bronze and using wagons. Both Yamna and Maykop shared the same cultural elements, suggesting a major cultural advance and some form of trade and cultural links. Thus, reinforcing the possibility of links with Sumer the 1st civilization, because there was mobility through the Caucasus and in both places seem to happen great cultural advances at the same time.

So, to put it shortly, it's highly unlikely Sumerians were R1b carriers.

Sumerians either came from deeper South as they claimed themselves or from further North, Samarra Culture descended from Levant PPNB + Iran-Zagrosi descended.

This incoming population from the North who might have been descended from Iran-Zagrousi-related people packed with Y-DNA J1, J2, G1, (I have no clue, just statistical guess) mixed with native Ubaidians (E-M35, T, H, G) to form the historical Sumerians.

R1b along with R1a was inclined in North Eurasia, although they were pioneers in metal-working and extremelly warlike they were totally unable to form a civilization of the level of Sumerians.

 

[kingjohn]

I think from reading somewhere that this year there is going to be a paper:
On ancient mesopotamian dna

Altınışık N. Ezgi et al. First Genomic Insights into Pre-pottery Neolithic of Upper Mesopotamia

( while it is not sumerians it should be interesting either way