Eupedia Forums
Site NavigationEupedia Top > Eupedia Forum & Japan Forum

View Poll Results: Source of proto-Indo-European language

Voters
63. You may not vote on this poll
  • R1a

    19 30.16%
  • R1b

    21 33.33%
  • Cucuteni-Tripolye

    8 12.70%
  • Caucasus-Mykop

    15 23.81%
Page 3 of 16 FirstFirst 1234513 ... LastLast
Results 51 to 75 of 393

Thread: Where did proto-IE language start?

  1. #51
    Advisor Achievements:
    Three FriendsVeteran25000 Experience Points
    bicicleur's Avatar
    Join Date
    27-01-13
    Location
    Zwevegem, Belgium
    Posts
    5,334
    Points
    45,963
    Level
    66
    Points: 45,963, Level: 66
    Level completed: 30%, Points required for next Level: 987
    Overall activity: 45.0%


    Country: Belgium - Flanders





    Quote Originally Posted by Rethel View Post
    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.

  2. #52
    Advisor Achievements:
    Three FriendsVeteran25000 Experience Points
    bicicleur's Avatar
    Join Date
    27-01-13
    Location
    Zwevegem, Belgium
    Posts
    5,334
    Points
    45,963
    Level
    66
    Points: 45,963, Level: 66
    Level completed: 30%, Points required for next Level: 987
    Overall activity: 45.0%


    Country: Belgium - Flanders



    Quote Originally Posted by Angela View Post
    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/%28112%29jlr201...145-154%29.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.

  3. #53
    Regular Member Achievements:
    1000 Experience PointsVeteran

    Join Date
    18-04-14
    Posts
    697
    Points
    2,968
    Level
    15
    Points: 2,968, Level: 15
    Level completed: 73%, Points required for next Level: 82
    Overall activity: 6.0%


    Country: Poland



    Quote Originally Posted by bicicleur View Post
    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?

  4. #54
    Regular Member Achievements:
    VeteranThree Friends25000 Experience Points
    Sile's Avatar
    Join Date
    04-09-11
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    5,120
    Points
    29,699
    Level
    52
    Points: 29,699, Level: 52
    Level completed: 96%, Points required for next Level: 51
    Overall activity: 37.0%

    Y-DNA haplogroup
    T1a2 -Z19945..Jura
    MtDNA haplogroup
    H95a1 ..Pannoni

    Ethnic group
    North Alpine Italian
    Country: Australia



    Quote Originally Posted by arvistro View Post
    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.
    có che un pòpoło no 'l defende pi ła só łéngua el xe prónto par èser s'ciavo

    when a people no longer dares to defend its language it is ripe for slavery.

  5. #55
    Elite member Achievements:
    Veteran10000 Experience Points
    arvistro's Avatar
    Join Date
    06-08-14
    Posts
    1,004
    Points
    13,128
    Level
    34
    Points: 13,128, Level: 34
    Level completed: 69%, Points required for next Level: 222
    Overall activity: 7.0%


    Country: Latvia



    Quote Originally Posted by LeBrok View Post
    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).

  6. #56
    Advisor Achievements:
    Three FriendsVeteranTagger First Class50000 Experience PointsRecommendation First Class
    Awards:
    Discussion Ender
    LeBrok's Avatar
    Join Date
    18-11-09
    Location
    Calgary
    Posts
    10,329
    Points
    113,888
    Level
    100
    Points: 113,888, Level: 100
    Level completed: 0%, Points required for next Level: 0
    Overall activity: 0%

    Y-DNA haplogroup
    R1b Z2109
    MtDNA haplogroup
    H1c

    Ethnic group
    Citizen of the world
    Country: Canada-Alberta



    Quote Originally Posted by arvistro View Post
    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.
    Be wary of people who tend to glorify the past, underestimate the present, and demonize the future.

  7. #57
    Regular Member Achievements:
    1000 Experience PointsVeteran

    Join Date
    18-04-14
    Posts
    697
    Points
    2,968
    Level
    15
    Points: 2,968, Level: 15
    Level completed: 73%, Points required for next Level: 82
    Overall activity: 6.0%


    Country: Poland



    Quote Originally Posted by arvistro View Post
    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?

  8. #58
    Advisor Achievements:
    Three FriendsVeteran25000 Experience Points
    bicicleur's Avatar
    Join Date
    27-01-13
    Location
    Zwevegem, Belgium
    Posts
    5,334
    Points
    45,963
    Level
    66
    Points: 45,963, Level: 66
    Level completed: 30%, Points required for next Level: 987
    Overall activity: 45.0%


    Country: Belgium - Flanders



    Quote Originally Posted by Rethel View Post
    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.

  9. #59
    Elite member Achievements:
    Veteran10000 Experience Points
    arvistro's Avatar
    Join Date
    06-08-14
    Posts
    1,004
    Points
    13,128
    Level
    34
    Points: 13,128, Level: 34
    Level completed: 69%, Points required for next Level: 222
    Overall activity: 7.0%


    Country: Latvia



    Quote Originally Posted by LeBrok View Post
    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.

  10. #60
    Regular Member Achievements:
    Veteran10000 Experience Points

    Join Date
    13-01-12
    Location
    Bucharest
    Posts
    916
    Points
    12,728
    Level
    34
    Points: 12,728, Level: 34
    Level completed: 12%, Points required for next Level: 622
    Overall activity: 4.0%

    Y-DNA haplogroup
    proly R1B

    Ethnic group
    Romanian
    Country: Romania



    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.

  11. #61
    Regular Member Achievements:
    1000 Experience PointsVeteran

    Join Date
    18-04-14
    Posts
    697
    Points
    2,968
    Level
    15
    Points: 2,968, Level: 15
    Level completed: 73%, Points required for next Level: 82
    Overall activity: 6.0%


    Country: Poland



    Quote Originally Posted by bicicleur View Post
    But that is not sure : Jews wrote about their world, not allways the real world.
    But they could conected Aryans, Anatolians, Armenians, Greeks, Romans, Illirians,
    Celts and later Germans and Slavs in one group, as descendants of the one man.
    We called him R1, they called him Jafet. They even predicted, that Indoeuropeans
    will conquerd the world - not Jews actually, as it supposed to be.

  12. #62
    Regular Member Achievements:
    Veteran10000 Experience Points

    Join Date
    13-01-12
    Location
    Bucharest
    Posts
    916
    Points
    12,728
    Level
    34
    Points: 12,728, Level: 34
    Level completed: 12%, Points required for next Level: 622
    Overall activity: 4.0%

    Y-DNA haplogroup
    proly R1B

    Ethnic group
    Romanian
    Country: Romania



    Another thing,R1A clusters very well but not entirely with Satem IE Speakers,while R1B clusters with Centum IE speakers.
    However,as almost all readers here knows,there is the Norse R1A branch,which is quite often in Norway,which are Centum IE Speakers and there are also Albanians which barely have any R1A but are Satem IE speakers.Albanians on the other hand have a significant percentage of R1B.
    EDIT:
    These things,told above,make it hard to suppose that only R1A people brought Satem IE languages,if it would be like that,how you can explain the fact that Albanians are speaking Satem IE,while they barely have any R1A?
    Also,I forgot to mention that Armenians are also speaking a Satem IE language,but they barely have any R1A.
    Ok,now Albanians are carrying about 9% R1A while Armenians are carrying about 8% R1A,but they have in common R1B-Ht35 in larger percentages.
    So I think the poll is too simplistic.
    EDIT 2:
    Let me elaborate:
    So I think Albanian language was brought by R1B-Ht35 people,Armenian,by same R1B-HT35 people. I think that Slavic and Balto-Slavic,were brought initially by R1A people.
    And I think North Germanic was brought by R1A-Norse and R1B-U106 people,
    While Celto-Italic was not brought only by R1B people,but R1B and other HGs.
    So what I think is that people who spoke initially IE were not having only one major paternal Hg,like they were not only R1B but they had more HGs.

  13. #63
    Elite member Achievements:
    Veteran10000 Experience Points
    arvistro's Avatar
    Join Date
    06-08-14
    Posts
    1,004
    Points
    13,128
    Level
    34
    Points: 13,128, Level: 34
    Level completed: 69%, Points required for next Level: 222
    Overall activity: 7.0%


    Country: Latvia



    Quote Originally Posted by Rethel View Post
    Arvistro,
    can Latvian understand Lithuanian?
    Not without additional training. In Lithuania we are using English or Russian to communicate, which is sad.

  14. #64
    Regular Member Achievements:
    1000 Experience PointsVeteran

    Join Date
    18-04-14
    Posts
    697
    Points
    2,968
    Level
    15
    Points: 2,968, Level: 15
    Level completed: 73%, Points required for next Level: 82
    Overall activity: 6.0%


    Country: Poland



    Quote Originally Posted by arvistro View Post
    Not without additional training. In Lithuania we are using English or Russian to communicate, which is sad.
    Even in basic level, as shopping or something like that?

  15. #65
    Advisor Achievements:
    Three FriendsVeteranTagger First Class50000 Experience PointsRecommendation First Class
    Awards:
    Discussion Ender
    LeBrok's Avatar
    Join Date
    18-11-09
    Location
    Calgary
    Posts
    10,329
    Points
    113,888
    Level
    100
    Points: 113,888, Level: 100
    Level completed: 0%, Points required for next Level: 0
    Overall activity: 0%

    Y-DNA haplogroup
    R1b Z2109
    MtDNA haplogroup
    H1c

    Ethnic group
    Citizen of the world
    Country: Canada-Alberta



    Quote Originally Posted by arvistro View Post
    Not without additional training. In Lithuania we are using English or Russian to communicate, which is sad.
    It is very common among Slavic countries too. Though I don't consider it sad or happy. It is a normal thing for languages to evolve. Heck, it is hare to understand first Polish texts from 500 years ago with additional training, so you put it.

  16. #66
    Advisor Achievements:
    Three FriendsVeteranTagger First Class50000 Experience PointsRecommendation First Class
    Awards:
    Discussion Ender
    LeBrok's Avatar
    Join Date
    18-11-09
    Location
    Calgary
    Posts
    10,329
    Points
    113,888
    Level
    100
    Points: 113,888, Level: 100
    Level completed: 0%, Points required for next Level: 0
    Overall activity: 0%

    Y-DNA haplogroup
    R1b Z2109
    MtDNA haplogroup
    H1c

    Ethnic group
    Citizen of the world
    Country: Canada-Alberta



    Quote Originally Posted by mihaitzateo View Post
    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.
    Here is a laungage map of native north americans.


    They were almost all hunter gatherers, same as R1a and R1b people. This proves that hunter gatherers of a same continent can speak tens of different languages, if not hundreds. Why would you expect that all hunter gatherers in Europe had one language?
    I would agree, that there was a chance, that they could have had one language if we found them mixed together. The thing is that whenever we find R1a and R1b in context of hunter gatherers, they are unmixed. We either find a group with only R1b or only R1a haplogroups. This means that they had split and never mixed for a long long time, thousands of years ago. For that reason they couldn't have spoken the same language, even if they started with the same one 10 or 20 thousands years ago. This is long enough time for one language to evolve separately in entirely two or more new and different languages.
    If language didn't evolve we all would still speak Adam and Eve language, or African language, depending what you believe. Instead we have hundreds of languages and thousands of dialects. And this points to rather fast evolution of languages.

  17. #67
    Regular Member Achievements:
    1000 Experience PointsVeteran

    Join Date
    18-04-14
    Posts
    697
    Points
    2,968
    Level
    15
    Points: 2,968, Level: 15
    Level completed: 73%, Points required for next Level: 82
    Overall activity: 6.0%


    Country: Poland



    Quote Originally Posted by LeBrok View Post
    It is very common among Slavic countries too.
    But without any other halpful you can talk in simple situations, and uderstand basic texts.
    Knowing two slavic languages you can read more complicated texts in other languages.
    I know polish and russian - and sometimes I'm easy using czech, bulgarian, ukrainian or
    kroatic wikipedia, if something is not availble in languages which I know. I read also church
    slavonic - no problem, really.

    Knowing German it is possible to uderstand many scandinavian and netherlandish inscriptions.
    I don't know german as well as english, but I can recognize words or frazes in TV or on in public
    inscriptions in other germanic languages - so probably natives could much much better.

    Even knowing english it is possible understand basics in romanic languages, so...?

    Heck, it is hare to understand first Polish texts from 500 years ago with additional training, so you put it.
    Are you really specialist in old polish language or what?

  18. #68
    Regular Member Achievements:
    1000 Experience PointsVeteran

    Join Date
    18-04-14
    Posts
    697
    Points
    2,968
    Level
    15
    Points: 2,968, Level: 15
    Level completed: 73%, Points required for next Level: 82
    Overall activity: 6.0%


    Country: Poland



    Quote Originally Posted by LeBrok View Post
    They were almost all hunter gatherers, same as R1a and R1b people. This proves that hunter gatherers of a same continent can speak tens of different languages, if not hundreds. Why would you expect that all hunter gatherers in Europe had one language?
    I would agree, that there was a chance, that they could have had one language if we found them mixed together. The thing is that whenever we find R1a and R1b in context of hunter gatherers, they are unmixed. We either find a group with only R1b or only R1a haplogroups. This means that they had split and never mixed for a long long time, thousands of years ago. For that reason they couldn't have spoken the same language, even if they started with the same one 10 or 20 thousands years ago. This is long enough time for one language to evolve separately in entirely two or more new and different languages.
    If language didn't evolve we all would still speak Adam and Eve language, or African language, depending what you believe. Instead we have hundreds of languages and thousands of dialects. And this points to rather fast evolution of languages.
    But not every languages evolved in the same speed.
    You have Islandic which is almost the same as was 1000 years ago,
    and you have english who has so crazy phonetics, that no one even know why?

    Youe have also semitic languages, among which the diffreces are very small.
    If you know the roots of words you can decode aramaic, hebrew and arabic in basic level.

    Slavic roots are very similar too.
    The same romanic.

    In your view (scientific) Indoeuropeans started 5500-9000 years ago. And you still are
    talking about them as about one group of people. So, if in the time when R1a and R1b
    were together agian (PIE period) were similar period of time of common history (plus c.
    twice as that time from anatolian/yamna PIE to R1) so why do you don't give them the
    same credit? Potencial different dialects doesn't make them a total strangers?

    I gave you several examples - which you pretend to not uderstand.
    Why?

  19. #69
    Advisor Achievements:
    Three FriendsVeteranTagger First Class50000 Experience PointsRecommendation First Class
    Awards:
    Discussion Ender
    LeBrok's Avatar
    Join Date
    18-11-09
    Location
    Calgary
    Posts
    10,329
    Points
    113,888
    Level
    100
    Points: 113,888, Level: 100
    Level completed: 0%, Points required for next Level: 0
    Overall activity: 0%

    Y-DNA haplogroup
    R1b Z2109
    MtDNA haplogroup
    H1c

    Ethnic group
    Citizen of the world
    Country: Canada-Alberta



    Quote Originally Posted by Rethel View Post
    But not every languages evolved in the same speed.
    You have Islandic which is almost the same as was 1000 years ago,
    and you have english who has so crazy phonetics, that no one even know why?

    Youe have also semitic languages, among which the diffreces are very small.
    If you know the roots of words you can decode aramaic, hebrew and arabic in basic level.

    Slavic roots are very similar too.
    The same romanic.
    Slower evolution of hebrew and arabic (though I'm not familiar with them) can be explained by everyone memorizing their holy books from almost day one. Furthermore these are examples from agricultural societies, which we shouldn't use in context of Hunter-Gatherers. Let's compare HGs to HGs. They don't have books, schools, TV programs, centralized government, etc, the tools which consolidate and control language for a big territory, a country. For that reason, for the best understanding of language situation in Mesolithic Europe, is using known analogies of other hunter gatherers, like American Natives. Let's compare apples to apples.

    If you believe that human race is 10,000 years old, I assume you believe that there was one original language 10k years ago, which first people spoke. Right?
    You also believe in very slow evolution of languages. In this case how can you explain existence of few completely different language families, hundreds of languages, and thousands of dialects? All in scale of 10k years.

  20. #70
    Advisor Achievements:
    Three FriendsVeteranTagger First Class50000 Experience PointsRecommendation First Class
    Awards:
    Discussion Ender
    LeBrok's Avatar
    Join Date
    18-11-09
    Location
    Calgary
    Posts
    10,329
    Points
    113,888
    Level
    100
    Points: 113,888, Level: 100
    Level completed: 0%, Points required for next Level: 0
    Overall activity: 0%

    Y-DNA haplogroup
    R1b Z2109
    MtDNA haplogroup
    H1c

    Ethnic group
    Citizen of the world
    Country: Canada-Alberta



    I'm surprised that there is only one vote for R1a. There is not much R1a located outside IE populations of modern world. R1a correlates strongly with IE languages, and only. On other hand there is quite a bit none IE R1b around the globe in not IE context. Yet, R1b has the highest number of votes. Probably due to Yamnaya samples being exclusively R1b so far. Will West Yanaya be the same?

    I'm surprised also for lack of votes for Mykop, but just one. It will be interesting to see change in voting pattern when we get new genetic data in the future.

  21. #71
    Regular Member Achievements:
    1000 Experience PointsVeteran

    Join Date
    18-04-14
    Posts
    697
    Points
    2,968
    Level
    15
    Points: 2,968, Level: 15
    Level completed: 73%, Points required for next Level: 82
    Overall activity: 6.0%


    Country: Poland



    Quote Originally Posted by LeBrok View Post
    For that reason, for the best understanding of language situation in Mesolithic Europe, is using known analogies of other hunter gatherers, like American Natives. Let's compare apples to apples.
    It cannot be done, because this are totally different kind of languages.
    Evey tipe of languages are evolving different.
    Btw, indian languages are still possible to grouping. Many of them
    are probably only on a level of dialects, which are called languages.

    According to you - they couldn't be recognizable after... 3000 years?

    btw 2 - in XV century, in whole Americas were only about 156 tribes,
    which were separated by your point of view from 12 or 40.000 years!




    Since the times R1-tribe to R1a+R1b-tribe were much less time.
    By old datings it was 1000-3000 years. By new less than time
    from PIE to us - less, because R1, divided on two haplotypes
    must at the beginning coegsist by some time. Of course, after
    that could exist different dialects, I didn't deny that, but finally
    they were replaced by one of them.

    And now read agian this exaples which I gave you, maybe now you get it.

    If you believe that human race is 10,000 years old, I assume you believe that there was one original language 10k years ago, which first people spoke. Right?
    You also believe in very slow evolution of languages. In this case how can you explain existence of few completely different language families, hundreds of languages, and thousands of dialects? All in scale of 10k years.
    It depends on point of view. From the christian (or rather biblical) point of view, there wasn't one language.
    At the begining were many totaly different languages which every one belong to only one patriarchal group.
    I would say there was about 20-40 of them, becasue more or less like this we can recreate language families,
    anthropological types and haplogroups. From this point, every language family can be explain by science and
    natural evolution of languages. Even if you don't belive in christian book, you must admit, that in this case,
    this book was right. Scientists were beliving through many many decades, that this is nonsens, because
    people are mixing, there was no paternal superfathers combined which pralanguages - this was a myth.
    Some of them are still beliving, that there was no one common language, because every language family
    was evolving separetly - so, you do not have reliable source on that case.

    And this is the reason, why Y's are so helpfull to recreate history and aspecially ancient tribes, and mt's are not.

  22. #72
    Advisor Achievements:
    Three FriendsVeteranTagger First Class50000 Experience PointsRecommendation First Class
    Awards:
    Discussion Ender
    LeBrok's Avatar
    Join Date
    18-11-09
    Location
    Calgary
    Posts
    10,329
    Points
    113,888
    Level
    100
    Points: 113,888, Level: 100
    Level completed: 0%, Points required for next Level: 0
    Overall activity: 0%

    Y-DNA haplogroup
    R1b Z2109
    MtDNA haplogroup
    H1c

    Ethnic group
    Citizen of the world
    Country: Canada-Alberta



    Quote Originally Posted by Rethel View Post
    It cannot be done, because this are totally different kind of languages.
    Evey tipe of languages are evolving different.
    Btw, indian languages are still possible to grouping. Many of them
    are probably only on a level of dialects, which are called languages.

    According to you - they couldn't be recognizable after... 3000 years?

    btw 2 - in XV century, in whole Americas were only about 156 tribes,
    which were separated by your point of view from 12 or 40.000 years!




    Since the times R1-tribe to R1a+R1b-tribe were much less time.
    By old datings it was 1000-3000 years. By new less than time
    from PIE to us - less, because R1 must at the beginning coegsist
    by some time. Of course, after that could exist different dialects,
    I didn't deny that, but finally they were replaced by one of them.

    And now read agian this exaples which I gave you, maybe now you get it.
    There is no farther discussion till you catch up with information presented by modern science, or start understanding it.


    It depends on point of view. From the christian (or rather biblical) point of view, there wasn't one language.
    At the begining were many totaly different languages which every one belong to only one patriarchal group.
    I would say there was about 20-40 of them, becasue more or less like this we can recreate language families,
    anthropological types and haplogroups.
    Either you didn't read the bible or you are a heretic.
    Bible says that God created Adam and Eve first. I assume that God didn't do trick on them and gave them one language. Two people, not 40 tribes!
    Furthermore, after the flood, there was one family of Noah left alive from all the people. Again, one family one language, not 40 tribes. How long ago Noah lived?

    Could you cite the bible where it says, that at the beginning of humankind there were 20-40 tirbes? I must have missed this Sunday class.

  23. #73
    Regular Member Achievements:
    1000 Experience PointsVeteran

    Join Date
    18-04-14
    Posts
    697
    Points
    2,968
    Level
    15
    Points: 2,968, Level: 15
    Level completed: 73%, Points required for next Level: 82
    Overall activity: 6.0%


    Country: Poland



    Quote Originally Posted by LeBrok View Post
    There is no farther discussion till you catch up with information presented by modern science, or start understanding it.
    So, please, tell me, what I wrote unscientific in this part?

    Either you didn't read the bible or you are a heretic.
    Bible says that God created Adam and Eve first. I assume that God didn't do trick on them and gave them one language. Two people, not 40 tribes!
    Furthermore, after the flood, there was one family of Noah left alive from all the people. Again, one family one language, not 40 tribes. How long ago Noah lived?
    I see, that you rather sow this book only by covers...

    Could you cite the bible where it says, that at the beginning of humankind there were 20-40 tirbes? I must have missed this Sunday class.
    Did I wrote, that this was exactly wrote, or that I am sayng that
    basing on knowledge of anthropologic, linguistic and genetic?

  24. #74
    Advisor Achievements:
    Three FriendsVeteranTagger First Class50000 Experience PointsRecommendation First Class
    Awards:
    Discussion Ender
    LeBrok's Avatar
    Join Date
    18-11-09
    Location
    Calgary
    Posts
    10,329
    Points
    113,888
    Level
    100
    Points: 113,888, Level: 100
    Level completed: 0%, Points required for next Level: 0
    Overall activity: 0%

    Y-DNA haplogroup
    R1b Z2109
    MtDNA haplogroup
    H1c

    Ethnic group
    Citizen of the world
    Country: Canada-Alberta



    Quote Originally Posted by Rethel View Post
    So, please, tell me, what I wrote unscientific in this part?
    I wrote what science says many times just to hear your fantasies again and again. I won't do it anymore.



    I see, that you rather sow this book only by covers...
    Does bible say that only Noah and his family survived after the flood?



    Did I wrote, that this was exactly wrote, or that I am sayng that
    basing on knowledge of anthropologic, linguistic and genetic?
    You exactly wrote this:
    From the christian (or rather biblical) point of view, there wasn't one language. I would say there was about 20-40 of them, becasue more or less like this we can recreate language families,
    anthropological types and haplogroups.
    Cite bible (biblical script) saying that there wasn't one language at the beginning, and many tribes.
    You said exactly that you based your knowledge on biblical point of view! But now you saying that you base your views on anthropology, linguistic and genetics! Are you lying straight faced again?

  25. #75
    Regular Member Achievements:
    Veteran5000 Experience Points
    Arame's Avatar
    Join Date
    21-03-15
    Posts
    182
    Points
    5,963
    Level
    22
    Points: 5,963, Level: 22
    Level completed: 83%, Points required for next Level: 87
    Overall activity: 0%


    Country: Armenia



    Rethel
    The Baltic group splited quite early from other Slavics, that is why their languages are so difficult to understand.
    I know Russian and I can understand some words in other Slavic languages like Polish, Czech, Serbian. But it is almost impossible for me to understand the Lithuanian and Latvian words.


Page 3 of 16 FirstFirst 1234513 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •