Where did proto-IE language start?

Source of proto-Indo-European language

  • R1a

    Votes: 23 31.9%
  • R1b

    Votes: 22 30.6%
  • Cucuteni-Tripolye

    Votes: 10 13.9%
  • Caucasus-Mykop

    Votes: 17 23.6%

  • Total voters
    72
Instead Basques-Caucasian links are sought for. If so, it does make sense to mark those as Neolithic Farmers - derived (at least for non-pro and Baltic biased like me). Because what else would such unity represent?
I was looking for LeBrok's question of common IE terms, but found smthg that backs up my speculation (from wiki on PIE language):
Proposed areal connections
The existence of certain PIE typological features in Northwest Caucasian languages may hint at an early Sprachbund[9] or substratum that reached geographically to the PIE homelands.[10] This same type of languages, featuring complex verbs of which the current Northwest Caucasian languages might have been the sole survivors, was cited by Peter Schrijver to indicate a local lexical and typological reminiscence in western Europe pointing to a possible Neolithic substratum.[11]
 
I don't know what you mean, Rethel ?

They puted the earliest stop-stage of Indoeropeans in Ararat.
Pre-Urartu (long before Urartu) of course, before they spread.
Thery called it North Babylonia. It was in some apocrypha.
Probably it was based on interpretaion of Genesis.
 
Rethel The age of R1 is 19000 years Do You think that IE is so old? Is it possible?

Now 19! :petrified:

This datations are so quicky changeable, that it is simply silly :)
I treat this only as a time-landmark and common ground for discussion.
When I was testing long long ago, they claimed, that R1a is maximum
10.000 years old. So, this guessing datations doesn't bother me at all... :)

They need 4-6 thousands of years for only 2 mutations!
And for this thousands of years what was? Only primogeniture line or what?
They probably have no idea how it is long 1000 years, so they're ceating
this thousands of years as ancient chroniclers in Egypt, Sumer or India.
No one can check this so, there is no boudaries for their fantasy :)
Fortunately at leat they are more strictly, when they're talking about historical era.
Then, the "laws of nature" are usually totally different...:LOL:
 
Rethel
Excuse me I made an error. The age is formed 27700 ybp, TMRCA 22200 ybp
I mean the Yfull site.
 
The age is formed 27700 ybp, TMRCA 22200 ybp

So it is even worse :LOL:

I was watching on R1a according to your date 19k.
But it doesn't change anything :)

In a few years it will be 50.000 or maybe 5.000... who knows... :innocent:

Ten years ago my ancestor was living 10.000 years ago.
Know he lived 22k - maybe he has time machine?:)
Pre-ancestor (R1) was more ancient - but I don't remember.

They probably don't even realize how many things can be done
through 12 or 18.000 years and how many generations lived.
But the number is nice - the bigger, the better - this is probably the method. :)
 
Come one Hungarian language comes from proto-FU. That is science.
I'v e pretty much agreed with that, didn't I?

Proto-FU was originally HG, that is also science.
I agreed with this possibility too.

Modern Hungarians are farmers. That is a fact.
Of course they are. I thought you were talking about the times of language change.

Hence farmers do speak language derived from proto-HG language. Just like Estonian and Finnish farmers do.
We all speak languages derived from HG. There were only HGs in Paleolithic and further in time. We are talking about a language change. This takes place in certain period in time. We need to concentrate only on this period in time to understand the process, or to be able to analyze it. Otherwise we all speak HG language, are Africans and belong to haplogroup A.

So, PIE COULD come from pre-PIE that was HG, learn few words from farmers and create PIE.
Have it your way, but I believe it was other way around.
 
I was looking for LeBrok's question of common IE terms, but found smthg that backs up my speculation (from wiki on PIE language):
Proposed areal connections
The existence of certain PIE typological features in Northwest Caucasian languages may hint at an early Sprachbund[9] or substratum that reached geographically to the PIE homelands.[10] This same type of languages, featuring complex verbs of which the current Northwest Caucasian languages might have been the sole survivors, was cited by Peter Schrijver to indicate a local lexical and typological reminiscence in western Europe pointing to a possible Neolithic substratum.[11]
Doesn't Neolithic substratum mean farmer substratum, or they just meant Neolithic as description of time?
 
yes, this is possible
but then it seems Renfrew has taken over the steppe hypothesis
and now he's allready speculating what happend pré-PIE

Such a proposal has its appeal in terms of the culture from what we know of the archaeology, and it may turn out that the genetics would support it, but I'm not aware of anything published by a linguist that fleshes it out.

The Anatolian languages staying in Anatolia would explain the problems that the Anatolian languages present. I know you're aware of all of the following, but for those who aren't:

From Mallory: "Twenty-first century clouds over the Indo-European homelands."
http://jolr.ru/files/(112)jlr2013-9(145-154).pdf

"The essetial argument as it is normally presented is that Anatolian lacks a considerable number of features that would characterize Brugmanian Proto-Indo-European (aorist, perfect, subjective, optative, etc.; Fortsom 2004, 155) and, therefore, its links with an earlier continuum must have been severed before Proto-Indo-European (or the rest of the Indo-Europen languages) developed in common. This can essentially be explained in one of two ways:

l. The ancestors of the Anatolian languages migrated from the homeland of the proto language before it developed common Indo-European features. In this model Anatolian would have preserved an archaic structure while the ancestors of the other Indo-European still remained together and evolved later stages of Indo-European.

2.The ancestors of the Indo-European languages migrated from the homeland of the proto-language. Here it is proto-Indo European that moves off to innovate, while presumably Anatolian was left in the homelans to preserve its archaisms."

Number 1 is the Baltic route model to which Anthony and Ringe adhere. I'm not sure they're right. I've combed through "The Horse, The Wheel and Language" and his claim is based on the archaeologically attested movement of what he claims were Indo-European people very early down along the narrow, western coastal strip of the Black Sea. I couldn't find any place where he shows further movement into Anatolia.

Number 2 is close to the model that Renfrew now seems to be floating? If he believes that, retired emeritus professor or not, I wish he, or someone else for that matter would publish a paper fleshing it out. Otherwise it's difficult to give it much weight. I tried to read Grigoriev's tome on the archeology, but I have to confess that I stopped after awhile. The length was daunting, and turgid doesn't begin to describe it, although perhaps it's the fault of his translators. Can a more informed person explain his archaeological evidence for such a movement of people? Does he propose a movement directly north through the Caucasus, or is it around the Caspian on the east and then onto the steppe?

Whatever the precise route, I could see it for the "precursor" language, but given the ties to Uralic, I don't think the Indo-European languages themselves could have spread in this fashion, particularly not if Indo-Iranian is held to have peeled off first. Also, the Gramkelidze Ivanov model suffers from the fact that a movement of "Anatolian" to the Balkans, leaving the rest of the language speakers to develop the language in eastern Anatolia before their counter-clockwise movement around the Caspian and then a movement of Anatolian back to Anatolia is, as Mallory points out, way too convoluted without any evidence to support it.

Also, in order to go this route, wouldn't it have to be the case that people living 'cheek by jowl', i.e. in very close proximity to one another in eastern Anatolia would have to have been speaking very different languages, given that there were Urrartians, Hurrians in the area speaking very different languages, languages that are neither Semitic nor Indo-European. Unless, perhaps, these languages were later arrivals?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Urartian_language

Anyway, this has nothing to do with the "Armenian" language, which Anthony and a lot of linguists believe entered Anatolia later and through the Balkans. Well, Ivanov et al leave open the possibility it, and Greek made a run along the north shore of the Black Sea, yes? This where some more ancient genomes will help as well.
 
They puted the earliest stop-stage of Indoeropeans in Ararat.
Pre-Urartu (long before Urartu) of course, before they spread.
Thery called it North Babylonia. It was in some apocrypha.
Probably it was based on interpretaion of Genesis.

I wouldn't rely to much on such sources.
But I guess, some people do.
 
Such a proposal has its appeal in terms of the culture from what we know of the archaeology, and it may turn out that the genetics would support it, but I'm not aware of anything published by a linguist that fleshes it out.

The Anatolian languages staying in Anatolia would explain the problems that the Anatolian languages present. I know you're aware of all of the following, but for those who aren't:

From Mallory: "Twenty-first century clouds over the Indo-European homelands."
http://jolr.ru/files/(112)jlr2013-9(145-154).pdf

"The essetial argument as it is normally presented is that Anatolian lacks a considerable number of features that would characterize Brugmanian Proto-Indo-European (aorist, perfect, subjective, optative, etc.; Fortsom 2004, 155) and, therefore, its links with an earlier continuum must have been severed before Proto-Indo-European (or the rest of the Indo-Europen languages) developed in common. This can essentially be explained in one of two ways:

l. The ancestors of the Anatolian languages migrated from the homeland of the proto language before it developed common Indo-European features. In this model Anatolian would have preserved an archaic structure while the ancestors of the other Indo-European still remained together and evolved later stages of Indo-European.

2.The ancestors of the Indo-European languages migrated from the homeland of the proto-language. Here it is proto-Indo European that moves off to innovate, while presumably Anatolian was left in the homelans to preserve its archaisms."

Number 1 is the Baltic route model to which Anthony and Ringe adhere. I'm not sure they're right. I've combed through "The Horse, The Wheel and Language" and his claim is based on the archaeologically attested movement of what he claims were Indo-European people very early down along the narrow, western coastal strip of the Black Sea. I couldn't find any place where he shows further movement into Anatolia.

Number 2 is close to the model that Renfrew now seems to be floating? If he believes that, retired emeritus professor or not, I wish he, or someone else for that matter would publish a paper fleshing it out. Otherwise it's difficult to give it much weight. I tried to read Grigoriev's tome on the archeology, but I have to confess that I stopped after awhile. The length was daunting, and turgid doesn't begin to describe it, although perhaps it's the fault of his translators. Can a more informed person explain his archaeological evidence for such a movement of people? Does he propose a movement directly north through the Caucasus, or is it around the Caspian on the east and then onto the steppe?

Whatever the precise route, I could see it for the "precursor" language, but given the ties to Uralic, I don't think the Indo-European languages themselves could have spread in this fashion, particularly not if Indo-Iranian is held to have peeled off first. Also, the Gramkelidze Ivanov model suffers from the fact that a movement of "Anatolian" to the Balkans, leaving the rest of the language speakers to develop the language in eastern Anatolia before their counter-clockwise movement around the Caspian and then a movement of Anatolian back to Anatolia is, as Mallory points out, way too convoluted without any evidence to support it.

Also, in order to go this route, wouldn't it have to be the case that people living 'cheek by jowl', i.e. in very close proximity to one another in eastern Anatolia would have to have been speaking very different languages, given that there were Urrartians, Hurrians in the area speaking very different languages, languages that are neither Semitic nor Indo-European. Unless, perhaps, these languages were later arrivals?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Urartian_language

Anyway, this has nothing to do with the "Armenian" language, which Anthony and a lot of linguists believe entered Anatolia later and through the Balkans. Well, Ivanov et al leave open the possibility it, and Greek made a run along the north shore of the Black Sea, yes? This where some more ancient genomes will help as well.

The Anatolian branch is indeed the biggest mystery left. It is the oldest branch, but it is only know from writings in the 2nd mill. BC.
I have little doubt that some people from the steppe entered the Balkans around 4300-3800 BC. And probably these people spoke IE. But it may have been a branch that left no linguistic trace.
IMO it is possible that the Anatolian branch never entered the Pontic steppe, that they split before crossing the Caucasus.
On the other hand, doesn't IE, the Anatolian branch also have loanwords from Uralic ? I doubt that Uralic ever crossed the Caucasus.
 
I wouldn't rely to much on such sources.
But I guess, some people do.

Did I tell something about relying on them - specially on this one?

But actually Jews knew about Indoeuropeans more than 3000 years earlier, than holy scientists do.
So - as it is showing - they were right from the begining. Didn't they?
 
Come one Hungarian language comes from proto-FU. That is science.
Proto-FU was originally HG, that is also science.
Modern Hungarians are farmers. That is a fact.
Hence farmers do speak language derived from proto-HG language. Just like Estonian and Finnish farmers do.

So, PIE COULD come from pre-PIE that was HG, learn few words from farmers and create PIE.

I do not know what you mean, but this Hungary term for ancient markers found in Hungary by Haak and this recent paper are not from hungarians. The hungarians and their magyar language did not enter hungary until after (circa) 400AD.
 
Doesn't Neolithic substratum mean farmer substratum, or they just meant Neolithic as description of time?
Substratum is substratum. Livonian FU is substratum to Latvian IE. Influencing our phonetics, accents and adding (mostly) sea related loanwords. Yet apparently those were Balts who brought the Latvian (proto Latvian).
 
Substratum is substratum. Livonian FU is substratum to Latvian IE. Influencing our phonetics, accents and adding (mostly) sea related loanwords. Yet apparently those were Balts who brought the Latvian (proto Latvian).
I was asking what they meant by Neolithic not what substratum means? Researchers usually use term Neolithic as a cultural phenomena describing first farmers culture. For example Neolithic in Southern Europe started around 8,000 BC in Northern around 5,000BC. There are places in North Euraisa, which never experienced Neolithic and went straight to bronze, iron or modern age. On other hand some people use Neolithic as a time period from 10,000 to 3,000 BC.

The existence of certain PIE typological features in Northwest Caucasian languages may hint at an early Sprachbund[9] or substratum that reached geographically to the PIE homelands.[10] This same type of languages, featuring complex verbs of which the current Northwest Caucasian languages might have been the sole survivors, was cited by Peter Schrijver to indicate a local lexical and typological reminiscence in western Europe pointing to a possible Neolithic substratum.[11]
In this case, if Neolithic is used in cultural sense, it would mean that farmer substratum.
 
Substratum is substratum. Livonian FU is substratum to Latvian IE. Influencing our phonetics, accents and adding (mostly) sea related loanwords. Yet apparently those were Balts who brought the Latvian (proto Latvian).

Arvistro,
can Latvian understand Lithuanian?
 
Did I tell something about relying on them - specially on this one?

But actually Jews knew about Indoeuropeans more than 3000 years earlier, than holy scientists do.
So - as it is showing - they were right from the begining. Didn't they?

No, when I say some people, I don't mean you.

And yes, maybe Jews did know.
Uruk world was conquered by Semitic tribes 3rd mill BC.
After Sumerians fell, it looks only 2 big blocks were left in W Asia : Semitic and IE block (with Kartvelian and some other in the middle)

But that is not sure : Jews wrote about their world, not allways the real world.
 
In this case, if Neolithic is used in cultural sense, it would mean that farmer substratum.
That is correct. Apparently Cucuteni or NW Caucasus was substratum to PIE according to that idea.
Additionally West Euros would get more of farmer's languages substrates, when expanding into Europe.
 
Well why we should suppose that initially IE languages either started from R1B people or from R1A people?
Maybe both R1A and R1B people were proto-IE speakers.
 

This thread has been viewed 181626 times.

Back
Top