Where did proto-IE language start?

[Rethel]

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.

 

[mihaitzateo]

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.

 

[arvistro]

Arvistro,
can Latvian understand Lithuanian?

Not without additional training. In Lithuania we are using English or Russian to communicate, which is sad.

 

[Rethel]

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?

 

[LeBrok]

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.

 

[LeBrok]

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.

 

[Rethel]

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?

 

[Rethel]

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?

 

[LeBrok]

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.

 

[LeBrok]

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.

 

[Rethel]

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.

 

[LeBrok]

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.

 

[Rethel]

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?

 

[LeBrok]

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?

 

[Arame]

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.

 

[bicicleur 2]

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.

when did they predict that? the oldest Jewish writings are 3000 years old
that was after IE expansion
8th cent BC some Jewish king ordered some 'historians' to wirte the Jewish history
at that time Jews were at war with each other and also with the Filistines
the Filistines were IE and they had settled at the Gaza coast after fighting the Egyptians as part of the Sea People (1200 BC)

some of the written story is true, it came from oral tradition
but the purpose of the story was to unite the Jewish people under this Jewish king :
the story tells they were chosen and guided by God to a promised land
together they should fight the Filistines, who do not have right to that land

we are now 2800 years later and the Zionist fraction is still doing that

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Origins_of_Judaism

 

[Yetos]

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.

ok there is a division in 3 majors according sons of Noeh,
but missing the 4rth, the sea peoples,
why?
cause even the story of Japheth was nothing more than the story of Iapetos,
and we know Jews and Greeks met at Avaris Αβαρις city in Egypt,
but we see nothing for sea peoples in Bible,
strange isn't it?
they knew Germans, but Sardinians?
also Jew origin from Abraamic heritage is from Ur of Chaldians,
do you see any detailed inscription about Indo-Aryan or Indians?
they know more about Greek islands and Black sea, than Chaldean or Italy,
strange isn't it?
probably their knowledge were from merchants in Egypt or Phoenicia or Palestine, maybe 'inspired' by God

 

[Rethel]

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 yourself do not know what you want,
and I doubt if somebody listen yet to your demagogy.

Does bible say that only Noah and his family survived after the flood?

Yea, but you really don't know basic basics!
You never head about Babel. I'm shocking!
And you want to be a specialist in everything...
About Bible and faith too...

Cite bible (biblical script) saying that there wasn't one language at the beginning, and many tribes.

Yes, but you underlined not this part, which you should.
This is very interesting, becasue its showing, how are you reading others.
You're rather looking for words on which you can build your imagine critique,
than listining other person and trying to understand what this person really
want to say...

I wrote: I would say there was about20-40 of them, becasue more or less
like this we can recreate language families, anthropological types and haplogroups.

Now you get it?

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?

You are really blind - even you blinded yourself on purpose. Tragicly. Your problem, not mine.

 

[Rethel]

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.

Yes, of course. I don't understand Balts at all - maybe some words are looking similar,
but it is imposiblle to understand when some body is talking. Rather you can uderstand
borrowing words from other languages than this

 

[Rethel]

when did they predict that? the oldest Jewish writings are 3000 years old
that was after IE expansion

Lets say 3500 - and that part about I am talking is based on even older tradition.
Genealogical oral traditions in ancient peoples were generally correct and faithful.

8th cent BC some Jewish king ordered some 'historians' to wirte the Jewish history
at that time Jews were at war with each other and also with the Filistines
the Filistines were IE and they had settled at the Gaza coast after fighting the Egyptians as part of the Sea People (1200 BC)

Maybe elite was, and if it was that, it was couple of people.
Unfortunatly, Jews couted Philistines as Hamites, not Indoeuropeans.
I am sorry...

some of the written story is true, it came from oral tradition
but the purpose of the story was to unite the Jewish people under this Jewish king :
the story tells they were chosen and guided by God to a promised land
together they should fight the Filistines, who do not have right to that land

But as I said, they predicted, that Indoeuropeans will take the vast land, not Jews!
If this is the base of your theory, that means, that the writer was a "Philistine"
Even he has some glass sphere in which he predict this correctly... wow

we are now 2800 years later and the Zionist fraction is still doing that
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Origins_of_Judaism

\

They are still supporting Indoeuropeans?!
Wonderfull!