Lazaridis summary of Europe population genetics

The influences on IE include the CAUCASIAN language family, so obviously there were people in the Caucasus and south of it who didn't speak IE or Proto-IE, so there's no reason that the CHG heavy but also ANF like people who went to Europe from Anatolia need have spoken IE languages, and in fact I highly doubt they did. See Bicicleur's post above.
 
Little question it seems to me that European IE languages came from the steppes. The only question is where/when Proto-Indo-European congealed - I suspect it was the fusing of mainly R1b and R1a steppe tribes into a common culture and language.

Just speculating, but was PIE formed from a merger of Proto-Uralic and Proto-Caucasian language strains? Not a single, but a double, source?

Languages rarely mix in that way, so extensive that they can hardly be identified to have one source, diluted though because of profound external influences. That usually happened in situations of colonization involving a lot of people who spoke very different languages, with no language clearly prevailing either in number or in prestige. I think the characteristics of the Neolithic/Bronze Age steppe weren't very adequate for such an appearance of a completely mixed or even creole language.

What I think is definitely very possible, even probable, considering the huge transformation during the Neolithization and later societal and technological developments in the steppes, is that a much more common phenomenon happened, that is, a substantial introgression of a foreign language's lexicon and even some of its grammar into an indigenous language. The direction could've been from CHG-heavy speakers to EHG-heavy speakers or vice-versa. I'm still not sure where PIE exactly came, but I'd definitely bet that there was substantial intermingling (not just genetic, but also cultural) between CHG and EHG to change the face of PIE in relation to its former pre-PIE stage.

However, I don't believe this pre-PIE was "Uralic" or a sister (or more specifically aunt) language to Proto-Uralic. The differences are too profound, extremely more profound than the similarities between IE and Uralic, and if we take the example of a heavily transformed language like Modern English you can still see that the basis of the language's vocabulary and especially grammar keeps living in the daughter language despite the extensive borrowing from foreign languages. The core of the language remains. So, any relationship PIE and Proto-Uralic could've had I'd place at least earlier in the Mesolithic era, not as late as the CHG/Iranian-related influx into the steppes by ~4500 BC.
 
if so, it were only the Anatolian or older languages, without wheel vocabulary, not Armenian and/or Greek

I agree with this observation. Also, Greek and Armenian are too close to Indo-Iranian and Balto-Slavic to have split apart as early as the 5th milennium BC. That's also, though a little less prominently, true for Celtic, Italic and Germanic, which, especially in their earlier attestations, still share a lot of common vocabulary and grammar that you would expect only if they diverged much later.

Or then those para-LPIE languages in Southeastern Europe did exist but were replaced by later Steppe IE languages. Hard to say. We can't also be sure that those immigrants to Southeastern Europe managed to not only preserve but spread their language. We can't simply assume that IE or in this case Early PIE or even Pre-PIE speakers got to impose their language onto others and absorb them every time they migrated, and not right the opposite. They actually could've even have shifted to another language or have already spoken another language even in the absence of any huge cultural shift. The case of the latest studies on the Bell Beaker phenomenon should have told us a lot.
 
The influences on IE include the CAUCASIAN language family, so obviously there were people in the Caucasus and south of it who didn't speak IE or Proto-IE, so there's no reason that the CHG heavy but also ANF like people who went to Europe from Anatolia need have spoken IE languages, and in fact I highly doubt they did. See Bicicleur's post above.

I always get confused by Caucasian language Argument. there is a line. above and bellow that line. For language too.
When we say PIE is above the line (4900bc). Not 1000 years later whatever was moving from south, or/and southeastern, that had moved from 6000bc known in part as Ubaid, Ubaid-to-halaf , Ubaid-to-Uruk and Uruk, Leilatepe... ending probably in Maykop, has nothing to do with the PIE people that originated earlier and were overtaken. The small amount of people that remained, and there is always those that flee to safe heavens and remain , still spoke an IE that later translated to Hittite, which in this case came from the east (caucasus armenia) and not west.

Its the problem of time that always bothers me. Above 4900bc a people and language. bellow that date another ones came.
 
I dont think wheel is a good word for what you want to transmite as word Car would not be aswell.
But do explain the wheel mantra again. I mean it, its always useful.
Someone here explained once that wheel come from the word snail because in northwestern Iran ('oh again) there are crude wheel (rods) from 6th mileniium bc. Those things should really be slow to push/pull. Have no idea. Who knows.
Anyway, i think linguistics is a bit like voodo or Nostradamus writings. Because written form is much later than population contacts over millennium in adjoining spaces.
So...lots of grains of salt.

It's not just a wild speculation. The thing is that, yes, languages borrow words, especially Wanderworts related to new technological devices (e.g. "computer", "smartphone"). But the difference between a widespread borrowing and a native word is that when it's a later loanword it comes together with all the sound rules expected for that source language where it came from. They borrow the word as it's spoken by foreigners, not as they would pronounce it if that word had already existed in their language since the beginning. Speakers don't borrow it and remember to apply all the sound rules that determined the phonetic evolution of their own language for centuries and even milennia before they adopted that word. So, you almost always can distinguish quite well if a word is a later loanword or a native language that underwent a regualr phonetic evolution during the history of the language. It's not just a baseless assumption.
 
It's not just a wild speculation. The thing is that, yes, languages borrow words, especially Wanderworts related to new technological devices (e.g. "computer", "smartphone"). But the difference between a widespread borrowing and a native word is that when it's a later loanword it comes together with all the sound rules expected for that source language where it came from. They borrow the word as it's spoken by foreigners, not as they would pronounce it if that word had already existed in their language since the beginning. Speakers don't borrow it and remember to apply all the sound rules that determined the phonetic evolution of their own language for centuries and even milennia before they adopted that word. So, you almost always can distinguish quite well if a word is a later loanword or a native language that underwent a regualr phonetic evolution during the history of the language. It's not just a baseless assumption.
I think there is an exception.
The french borrow words related to technical devices but they pronounce it as if it were a proper french word.
Just like many things seem to have been invented twice - once inside France and once elsewhere in the world.
Still, I guess a trained linguist could detect what the french try to conceal with a lot of hocus-pocus.
 
You'd have to assume that PIE was spoken exclusively by an R1b population that carried it into the steppes, where it was adopted by a previously proto-Uralic-speaking R1a population. If both significantly contributed to what became the IE language family, however, which was earlier or later is irrelevant, it seems to me, at least as far as PIE is concerned. The Cucuteni language probably also contributed. Was PIE originally a trading language, a pidgin?

Pidgins aren't as complex and irregular as PIE, so no chance, unless it had been a pidgin thousands of years before it diverged into its daughter branches. Also, I'm not sure that that hypothesis can only work if the R1a steppe peoples were speaking Proto-Uralic (which anyway is dated to around the same time of Late PIE, not much earlier than that, even before the CHG influx the steppes). I think a "traditional" explanation about an intense border interaction between steppe PIE populations and Uralic forest or even mountain (Urals) populations could've accounted for that influence (that if Proto-Uralic is really that ancient in the European side of the Urals, because we can't even be sure of that if Uralic was not indigenous to the region, but was instead brought by N1c males only from circa 3000 BC onwards, as far as the samples have demonstrated until now).
 
I think there is an exception.
The french borrow words related to technical devices but they pronounce it as if it were a proper french word.
Just like many things seem to have been invented twice - once inside France and once elsewhere in the world.
Still, I guess a trained linguist could detect what the french try to conceal with a lot of hocus-pocus.

IMO that isn't an exception. They pronounce the word according to their phonetics as most people in the world sooner or later do, but they still base their pronunciation on the way the word is written and pronounced in the source language. They don't simply go back to the origins of the word thousands of years ago and apply the rules of phonetic evolution that were particular to French. For example, they won't pronounce "computer" as "chomputer" or even "chompter", "chonter" or something like that, as it would've become had it been a native word of French for thousands of years. They will just apply their usual phonetics to the loanword exactly as it came to them. It's a really different phenomenon.
 
Ok so why are we avoid the " admixture related to siberian HG " 15'000 kya ?

Isn't that just a reference to the birth of EHG, i.e. something related to WHG + something very ANE?
 
It's not just a wild speculation. The thing is that, yes, languages borrow words, especially Wanderworts related to new technological devices (e.g. "computer", "smartphone"). But the difference between a widespread borrowing and a native word is that when it's a later loanword it comes together with all the sound rules expected for that source language where it came from. They borrow the word as it's spoken by foreigners, not as they would pronounce it if that word had already existed in their language since the beginning. Speakers don't borrow it and remember to apply all the sound rules that determined the phonetic evolution of their own language for centuries and even milennia before they adopted that word. So, you almost always can distinguish quite well if a word is a later loanword or a native language that underwent a regualr phonetic evolution during the history of the language. It's not just a baseless assumption.

just a point
I understand your reasoning, it functions well concerning this very question - but in fact - to split hairs - even new borrowed words can undergo some phonetic adaptation (immediatly) and show later some evolution proper to the borrower pop - but YES the distance from the original word pronunciation is very far shorter than if the word was an old cognate word -
no true desaccord - BTW your posts are very well argumented -
 
That is to say that phonetics are much more conservative than vocabulary, for this reason Basque sounds like Castilian although nothing is understood and I believe that the same thing happens with Greek, Italian and Spanish have similarities in phonetics and words that make it partially understood for a Spanish, French being a language very close to Spanish already have a phonetics that starts to be different.
 
just a point
I understand your reasoning, it functions well concerning this very question - but in fact - to split hairs - even new borrowed words can undergo some phonetic adaptation (immediatly) and show later some evolution proper to the borrower pop - but YES the distance from the original word pronunciation is very far shorter than if the word was an old cognate word -
no true desaccord - BTW your posts are very well argumented -

Thank you, Moesan! Yes, you're totally right that the loanword may undergo contemporary and later phonetic changes, it isn't just a foreign fossil. But it will still be distinguishable from the core ancient vocabulary because it will almost invariably have had a different phonetic shape from the form it would have if it had undergone all the former phonetic changes that happened until that stage of the development of the language. It won't just change less significantly, but also in a different way.

For example, if a contemporary sound rule determines that a "che" derived from a former "ke" turns into a "she", if the loanword comes with a "ke" syllable it most probably won't suffer any change because of that new trend in the language's phonetic evolution, because its "k" won't simply change into "ch" to not "miss" that train. The "k" will remain there, because only the "k" that existed in earlier words, having turned into an intermediary form "ch", will ultimately fix into a "sh". In that case, this simple "interruption" of a normal development in that language's evolution will cry out to us: "this word is not native, it is a loanword brought into the language right in the middle of its development".
 
if so, it were only the Anatolian or older languages, without wheel vocabulary, not Armenian and/or Greek
So according to the wiki of Indo-European Vocabulary, Hittite had a word " Kugullas " meaning " Donut " ( dont know what they understand as donut for that historical context ) that looks pretty similar to the indo-european word for the wheel.
 
The problem with anatolian languages, is that ( well i'm not linguist of course ) it not looks so much as an archaic language for me, typically, the word for horse " asuwa / ashuwa " looks like a borrowing from iranian languages, maybe the Mitanni and not so much as an archaism. Others words have direct link with the centum languages and also direct metaphoric link like " taru " the tree, wich seems to be the term for the tree but also the god of thunder " tarhunt " that relate to the lithuanian and slavic " Perkunas and Perun ", both meaning a sort of tree but also the god of thunder. Anatolian languages, hittite looks like a centum language that have been intensively influenced by a non-indo-european language, maybe related to Hurrian language.
 
So according to the wiki of Indo-European Vocabulary, Hittite had a word " Kugullas " meaning " Donut " ( dont know what they understand as donut for that historical context ) that looks pretty similar to the indo-european word for the wheel.

I don't think the first wheels were donuts, they were full circles.
 
IMO that isn't an exception. They pronounce the word according to their phonetics as most people in the world sooner or later do, but they still base their pronunciation on the way the word is written and pronounced in the source language. They don't simply go back to the origins of the word thousands of years ago and apply the rules of phonetic evolution that were particular to French. For example, they won't pronounce "computer" as "chomputer" or even "chompter", "chonter" or something like that, as it would've become had it been a native word of French for thousands of years. They will just apply their usual phonetics to the loanword exactly as it came to them. It's a really different phenomenon.

actualy, they made up their own word for computer, it is 'ordinateur'
but so many new words are formed in IT, the french can't keep up any more inventing their own words
 
So according to the wiki of Indo-European Vocabulary, Hittite had a word " Kugullas " meaning " Donut " ( dont know what they understand as donut for that historical context ) that looks pretty similar to the indo-european word for the wheel.

In Albanian the word "sillë" (pronounced like the english word "seal") means both "to spin" as well as "to bring/transport".
 

This thread has been viewed 40810 times.

Back
Top