Eupedia Forums
Site NavigationEupedia Top > Eupedia Forum & Japan Forum
Page 4 of 5 FirstFirst ... 2345 LastLast
Results 76 to 100 of 104

Thread: My proposed tree of Indo-European languages

  1. #76
    Moderator Achievements:
    1 year registeredTagger Second ClassThree Friends25000 Experience Points
    Awards:
    Most Popular

    Join Date
    21-10-16
    Posts
    1,725
    Points
    26,601
    Level
    50
    Points: 26,601, Level: 50
    Level completed: 6%, Points required for next Level: 949
    Overall activity: 5.0%


    Ethnic group
    Multiracial Brazilian
    Country: Brazil





    Quote Originally Posted by A. Papadimitriou View Post
    Well, I believe the palatalization before e, i, j existed in all late PIE dialects, at least.
    People assume that in Attic Greek, for example, K was always pronounced as /k/.
    But what if it had an allophone /c/ or /kʲ/ in complementary distribution before front vowels? Most likely native speakers wouldn't even be able to notice the difference.
    It COULD have been this way, but I'd say that if it wasn't perceived as a distinctive phoneme by the native speakers themselves then it wasn't phonologically relevant, it was just an allophone under certain conditions. In the case of PIE I doubt that at least the first generations after this palatalization wouldn't have noticed the change, because PIE probably already had some distinction between two forms of stops (whether it was really through palatalization or not, because as you say there is the Kortlandt hypothesis, but nevertheless it still assumes that a certain distinction in stops, which eventually was generalized and resolved into just one common sound, existed originally).

    What happened in centum vs. satem is just that there was a generalization and merger after the native speakers, as you say, ceased to perceive that differentiation, probably first considering them as allophones of the same phoneme and later merging them altogether into the same consonant: "centum" dialects assumed that [k] and [k']/[kj] were the same and merged them into one [k]; "satem" dialects generalized the palatalizing/fricativizing trend to most positions and thus also started to merge [k] and [k']/[kj] into just one phonologically distinctive consonant. I personally think that pretty mainstream explanation makes sense.

    The specific ways that those trends and eventual mergers happened, with the simplification of the sound inventory in one direction or another, may explain the slight differences between IE families, and it is possible that some dialects, for some reason (later displacement, loss of contacts?), were influenced by only a small part of that process that spread in continuous waves of areal features, and that explains the so called "partial satemization" of some IE branches like Albanian.

  2. #77
    Moderator Achievements:
    1 year registeredTagger Second ClassThree Friends25000 Experience Points
    Awards:
    Most Popular

    Join Date
    21-10-16
    Posts
    1,725
    Points
    26,601
    Level
    50
    Points: 26,601, Level: 50
    Level completed: 6%, Points required for next Level: 949
    Overall activity: 5.0%


    Ethnic group
    Multiracial Brazilian
    Country: Brazil



    Quote Originally Posted by A. Papadimitriou View Post
    Therefore, I would be in favor of a reconstructed PIE without 'palatals' and 'labiovelars'. Basically I would consider the possibility that 'labiovelars' actually corresponded to some other type of stops or are just the product of a velar next to a /w/
    Why? I mean, I always thought that the existence of palatalized consonants in PIE, with their eventual generalization to other originally non-palatalized but similar consonants (k vs. kj; g vs. gj) in a late "satem" continuum of dialects, was a very neat explanation to the eventual development of "s", "sh" and "ch" consonants where we would expect a stop/velar sound if we take into account the cognates in the "centum" languages. Similar processes of sound change happened not only in IE languages later, but also in several other language families, and it in fact looks like one of the most "natural" developments during a language's phonetic evolution, thus avoiding the need to find much more complex explanations for what may have been triggered by a simple change. A split between a generalized palatalization vs. a generalized loss of palatalization explains and fits at the same time all the many correspondences betweeen [k] in centum branches and [sh] [ch] in satem branches. It's also such a recurring change in languages that it could explain why this "satem" areal feature spread so widely and easily.

  3. #78
    Regular Member Achievements:
    Veteran5000 Experience Points

    Join Date
    17-03-16
    Posts
    526
    Points
    5,076
    Level
    21
    Points: 5,076, Level: 21
    Level completed: 6%, Points required for next Level: 474
    Overall activity: 30.0%


    Country: Greece



    Quote Originally Posted by Ygorcs View Post
    Why? I mean, I always thought that the existence of palatalized consonants in PIE, with their eventual generalization to other originally non-palatalized but similar consonants (k vs. kj; g vs. gj) in a late "satem" continuum of dialects, was a very neat explanation to the eventual development of "s", "sh" and "ch" consonants where we would expect a stop/velar sound if we take into account the cognates in the "centum" languages. Similar processes of sound change happened not only in IE languages later, but also in several other language families, and it in fact looks like one of the most "natural" developments during a language's phonetic evolution, thus avoiding the need to find much more complex explanations for what may have been triggered by a simple change. A split between a generalized palatalization vs. a generalized loss of palatalization explains and fits at the same time all the many correspondences betweeen [k] in centum branches and [sh] [ch] in satem branches. It's also such a recurring change in languages that it could explain why this "satem" areal feature spread so widely and easily.
    If there were 'palatovelars' in PIE the generalized loss of palatalization should have happened independently in Hittite and in centum languages?

    I'm thinking we can reconstruct a velar and something that triggers the palatalization. One of the triggers would be the vowel that follows.

    Now, I understand at least some of the problems with what I say.

    Leiden will publish at some point a 'new Pokorny'. When they do it, I will try to test some of the things I have thought.

    For now, it suffices to say that I consider likely that the stop system of Hittite represents something closer to the original state of affairs.

    If we take into account the Nostratic hypothesis, we see that traditional PIE *bʰ, *, *gʰ / *ǵʰ correspond to Hittite p, t, k and Uralic p, t, k (with fricatization between vowels)

    (and sorry to say it, you see how closer phonologically Modern Greek -with its voiceless fricatives- is to Uralic than to traditional PIE which has voiced murmured stops that don't exist anywhere in Europe and don't even exist in all Indo-Iranian languages)

  4. #79
    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 Ygorcs View Post
    What's your source? How can anyone possibly know, with the evidences we have as of now, if the east Balkans were "always" Thracian since 3200 BC and had no changes until the Roman era, especialy when in fact in 3200 BC Late PIE was probably still even an undivided language, and it would've been pretty much impossible that such a thing as a distinctive "Thracian" language and ethnicity already existed?
    I read it from
    An Early Bronze Age pile-dwelling settlement of discovered in Alepu lagoon (municipality of Sozopol, department of Burgas), Bulgaria
    and other web sites
    .
    If you want to call them Pelagsian, Greeks, Indians or black sea coastal villagers or whatever , so be it.
    .
    A new pile-dwelling settlement has been discovered during coring investigations on the shores of the Alepu lagoon (municipality of Sozopol, department of Burgas), on the western Black Sea coast, in Bulgaria. A multi-disciplinary methodology was applied to analyze the archaeological dataset, composed of wood piles, abundant charcoals and wood fragments, seeds, fish and shell remains, a few small bone fragments, some lithic fragments and potsherds. The piles were trimmed from oak trees and sunk into lagoonal muds, and currently lie 5.8 to 6.8 m below mean sea level. It highlights a wooden building at the edge of Alepu palaeo-lagoon. Charcoal remains confirm the use of oak tree as a dominant timber resource, consistent with pollen data for this period. Palaeo-botanic remains highlight gathering activities and the consumption of wild grapes, raspberries and figs. The herbaceous assemblage evokes deforestation activities. Exploitation of coastal resources is well attested by the great density of fish remains, dominated by anchovy (61%), highlighting possible preservation of fish products. Five radiocarbon dates constrain the age of the site to between 3350 and 3000 cal. BC.
    The Alepu piles-dwelling settlement sheds new light on the very beginning of the Early Bronze Age in coastal Bulgaria.

    .
    The area as noted by these studies are called Thracia Pontica
    .
    https://journals.openedition.org/med...8203/img-1.jpg
    where is is situated
    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. #80
    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 Ygorcs View Post
    Well, you can't really use a source that talks specifically about population movements of the Neolithic and Early Bronze Age into Italy to support a claim about late Iron Age languages that were spoken in the Balkans during the early Roman era. There's a huge time gap between one event and the other. In my opinion there are some sensible indications about Albanian being closely related to Thracian (actually, I think the most plausible hypothesis is the one that links it specifically to some form of Dacian or Moesian whatever was the original branch those languages came from, since the Romanian substrate looks surprisingly close to Albanian vocabulary), but certainly not more evidences than those linking it to Illyrian, and in fact it is probable that what we're seeing, in all its confusion, is just an evidence that Illyrian and Thracian were no uniform language, but more like two distinct branches of several similar languages, and that they in fact had a much closer mutual relationship (either through immediate common descent or through a centuries-long Sprachbund) than is sometimes assumed.
    link me a illyrian script and a thracian script

  6. #81
    Regular Member Achievements:
    Veteran10000 Experience Points

    Join Date
    14-12-10
    Posts
    1,603
    Points
    22,749
    Level
    46
    Points: 22,749, Level: 46
    Level completed: 20%, Points required for next Level: 801
    Overall activity: 9.0%


    Country: Serbia



    1 out of 1 members found this post helpful.
    Sile
    you introduced very important subject for understanding theme.

    Some interlocutors mention Vucedol culture as Illyrian.

    Serbian scientist Bogdan Brukner gave this hypotesis but today it is obsolete.

    Vucedol culture was in period 3000-2200 BC.

    Illyrians emerged 1000 BC, even proto-Illyrians didn't exist in time of Vucedol culture.

    Contemporary archeology established a relationship between Vucedol culture and Sitagroi Va culture in Greece.

    Archeologists link following cultures (in the picture):

    Cotofeni culture 3500-2500 BC (mid Danube area, today's Romania and Serbia)

    Vucedol culture 3000-2200 BC (area Eastern Slavonia and Srem, today's Serbia and Croatia)

    Ezero culture 3300-2700 BC (area central Bulgaria, today's Bulgaria)

    Sitagroi Va culture 3100-2300 BC (area Eastern Macedonia and Thrace in today's Greece)

    What we know about these cultures they can be linked with proto-Thracians.

    (also Tei-culture Muntenia, today's Romania; Bosaca culture today's Slovakia, Hungary; Kostolac culture Serbia and beyond; Yunatsite culture, Bulgaria

    even Troy! although this link is more problematic).

    Who were proto-Thracians?

    Wikipedia: Evidence of proto-Thracians or proto-Dacians in the prehistoric period depends on the remains of material culture. It is generally proposed that a proto-Dacian or proto-Thracian people developed from a mixture of indigenous people and Indo-Europeans from the time of Proto-Indo-European expansion in the Early Bronze Age (3,300–3,000 BC).

    Warriors who came in waves (from steppe along the Danube valley or across the Carpatian pass endangered the tribes who lived in south part of Pannonia) in big extent were carriers of R1b-Z2103 haplogroup and younger clades (of course they had other haplogroups too) but this fact is especially significant if we speak about IE language.

    From mix of these people and natives in Pannonia, Romania and Balkans were emerged Proto-Thracians.




  7. #82
    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 LATGAL View Post



    What they meant by "eastern Balkan region" was likely with reference to Italy, i.e. east of Italy. After all, it references Anatolia, the steppe and the Caucasus in respect to mtDNA.
    Really ! and you believe this?
    so someone in reference to switzerland will brand austrian Tyrol as east-Austria ! ( i.e east of switzerland)

  8. #83
    Regular Member Achievements:
    Veteran5000 Experience Points
    AdeoF's Avatar
    Join Date
    06-03-13
    Location
    London - England
    Posts
    251
    Points
    5,643
    Level
    22
    Points: 5,643, Level: 22
    Level completed: 19%, Points required for next Level: 407
    Overall activity: 0%

    Y-DNA haplogroup
    R-L21 (R-DF13)
    MtDNA haplogroup
    H1 (H1h1) or (H1e1)

    Ethnic group
    Spanish
    Country: UK - England



    Hmm im late but i would like to say that is a very interesting map. Funny according to the map i am Celtic even if that admixture is minor to me lol

  9. #84
    Moderator Achievements:
    1 year registeredTagger Second ClassThree Friends25000 Experience Points
    Awards:
    Most Popular

    Join Date
    21-10-16
    Posts
    1,725
    Points
    26,601
    Level
    50
    Points: 26,601, Level: 50
    Level completed: 6%, Points required for next Level: 949
    Overall activity: 5.0%


    Ethnic group
    Multiracial Brazilian
    Country: Brazil



    Quote Originally Posted by Sile View Post
    link me a illyrian script and a thracian script
    No, because that's irrelevant, mere diversionism. Languages exist independently of scripts and especially in ancient times predated them. Besides, whether Illyrian and Thracian scripts existed or not, and when, it has nothing to do with whether Albanian is Thracian, Illyrian or anything else - the language did not arise from a written script, and in fact that language (Albanian) was put down to written form very, veeeeery late. Ancient scripts have nothing to do with this issue. Also, it is you that needs to provide sources for speculations about the Eastern Balkans being "Thracian" since 3200 BC and self-assured correlations between genetics and linguistics (and in a very specific way, distinguishing not just different and broad language families, but specific branches like Thracian and Illyrian) when there is no way we can sort that out with the evidence that has been found until now.

  10. #85
    Moderator Achievements:
    1 year registeredTagger Second ClassThree Friends25000 Experience Points
    Awards:
    Most Popular

    Join Date
    21-10-16
    Posts
    1,725
    Points
    26,601
    Level
    50
    Points: 26,601, Level: 50
    Level completed: 6%, Points required for next Level: 949
    Overall activity: 5.0%


    Ethnic group
    Multiracial Brazilian
    Country: Brazil



    Quote Originally Posted by Sile View Post
    I read it from
    An Early Bronze Age pile-dwelling settlement of discovered in Alepu lagoon (municipality of Sozopol, department of Burgas), Bulgaria
    and other web sites
    .
    If you want to call them Pelagsian, Greeks, Indians or black sea coastal villagers or whatever , so be it.
    .
    A new pile-dwelling settlement has been discovered during coring investigations on the shores of the Alepu lagoon (municipality of Sozopol, department of Burgas), on the western Black Sea coast, in Bulgaria. A multi-disciplinary methodology was applied to analyze the archaeological dataset, composed of wood piles, abundant charcoals and wood fragments, seeds, fish and shell remains, a few small bone fragments, some lithic fragments and potsherds. The piles were trimmed from oak trees and sunk into lagoonal muds, and currently lie 5.8 to 6.8 m below mean sea level. It highlights a wooden building at the edge of Alepu palaeo-lagoon. Charcoal remains confirm the use of oak tree as a dominant timber resource, consistent with pollen data for this period. Palaeo-botanic remains highlight gathering activities and the consumption of wild grapes, raspberries and figs. The herbaceous assemblage evokes deforestation activities. Exploitation of coastal resources is well attested by the great density of fish remains, dominated by anchovy (61%), highlighting possible preservation of fish products. Five radiocarbon dates constrain the age of the site to between 3350 and 3000 cal. BC.
    The Alepu piles-dwelling settlement sheds new light on the very beginning of the Early Bronze Age in coastal Bulgaria.

    .
    The area as noted by these studies are called Thracia Pontica
    .
    https://journals.openedition.org/med...8203/img-1.jpg
    where is is situated
    So? How on earth did you deduce the specific linguistic identity of that place using this study? What kind of evidence can be used to affirm that those people spoke Thracian or Proto-Thracian (which, by the way, most definitely didn't even exist as a distinct IE branch as early as 3200 BC, and it certainly couldn't be much differentiated from the ancestors of Illyrian or Greek)? Because the area investigated in these studies is known, thousands of years later, as Thracia Pontica? So are we to simply assume that the linguistic and cultural identity of the area remained intact for some 3000 years until the Romans conquered the Balkans? And how on earth can we then extrapolate from this series of speculations to now speculate that Albanian derived from this eastern Thracian, without any possibility of language shift in thousands of years, especially with the attested Illyrian migration/expansion in the Western Balkans? Honestly, you mustn't be talking seriously...

  11. #86
    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 Ygorcs View Post
    So? How on earth did you deduce the specific linguistic identity of that place using this study? What kind of evidence can be used to affirm that those people spoke Thracian or Proto-Thracian (which, by the way, most definitely didn't even exist as a distinct IE branch as early as 3200 BC, and it certainly couldn't be much differentiated from the ancestors of Illyrian or Greek)? Because the area investigated in these studies is known, thousands of years later, as Thracia Pontica? So are we to simply assume that the linguistic and cultural identity of the area remained intact for some 3000 years until the Romans conquered the Balkans? And how on earth can we then extrapolate from this series of speculations to now speculate that Albanian derived from this eastern Thracian, without any possibility of language shift in thousands of years, especially with the attested Illyrian migration/expansion in the Western Balkans? Honestly, you mustn't be talking seriously...
    ok.............lets call these people .......people from Thracia or people from East-Balkans if you prefer. Whatever you prefer
    .

  12. #87
    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 Ygorcs View Post
    No, because that's irrelevant, mere diversionism. Languages exist independently of scripts and especially in ancient times predated them. Besides, whether Illyrian and Thracian scripts existed or not, and when, it has nothing to do with whether Albanian is Thracian, Illyrian or anything else - the language did not arise from a written script, and in fact that language (Albanian) was put down to written form very, veeeeery late. Ancient scripts have nothing to do with this issue. Also, it is you that needs to provide sources for speculations about the Eastern Balkans being "Thracian" since 3200 BC and self-assured correlations between genetics and linguistics (and in a very specific way, distinguishing not just different and broad language families, but specific branches like Thracian and Illyrian) when there is no way we can sort that out with the evidence that has been found until now.
    There is none and you know there is none, so any script are assumptions by linguistics in the past are found to be untrue................we even have now that we cannot really/fully separate centrum from Satem linguistic neighbours

  13. #88
    Moderator Achievements:
    1 year registeredTagger Second ClassThree Friends25000 Experience Points
    Awards:
    Most Popular

    Join Date
    21-10-16
    Posts
    1,725
    Points
    26,601
    Level
    50
    Points: 26,601, Level: 50
    Level completed: 6%, Points required for next Level: 949
    Overall activity: 5.0%


    Ethnic group
    Multiracial Brazilian
    Country: Brazil



    Quote Originally Posted by Sile View Post
    ok.............lets call these people .......people from Thracia or people from East-Balkans if you prefer. Whatever you prefer
    .
    That's much better, at least you're not implying that a certain ethnic and linguistic identity was surely the same in Early Bronze Age and in the early Roman Era, and thus incorrectly assuming that, because of that information about Copper Age/Early Bronze Age population movements into Italy, we can now safely say that Albanians, whose language was attested in the Middle Ages milennia later, were Thracians (such a huge leap of reasoning!).

  14. #89
    Regular Member Achievements:
    1 year registered1000 Experience Points
    ToBeOrNotToBe's Avatar
    Join Date
    31-12-16
    Posts
    1,116


    Country: United Kingdom



    1 out of 1 members found this post helpful.
    Just keep waiting for (real) Steppe L51 - it isn’t going to come...

    Tomenable’s Beaker+Corded theory is extremely plausible to me. We’ll see what happens in the end, but if I were a betting man, I’d say it’s 80% odds in favour of it against Yamnaya.

    It’s just by deduction - it’s now become very clear L51 wasn’t on the Steppes, nor in the Balkans. It can’t have come across the Northern European plain without leaving an archaeological trace, so the only remaining option is literally just Beaker.

  15. #90
    Moderator Achievements:
    1 year registeredTagger Second ClassThree Friends25000 Experience Points
    Awards:
    Most Popular

    Join Date
    21-10-16
    Posts
    1,725
    Points
    26,601
    Level
    50
    Points: 26,601, Level: 50
    Level completed: 6%, Points required for next Level: 949
    Overall activity: 5.0%


    Ethnic group
    Multiracial Brazilian
    Country: Brazil



    Quote Originally Posted by ToBeOrNotToBe View Post
    Just keep waiting for (real) Steppe L51 - it isn’t going to come...

    Tomenable’s Beaker+Corded theory is extremely plausible to me. We’ll see what happens in the end, but if I were a betting man, I’d say it’s 80% odds in favour of it against Yamnaya.

    It’s just by deduction - it’s now become very clear L51 wasn’t on the Steppes, nor in the Balkans. It can’t have come across the Northern European plain without leaving an archaeological trace, so the only remaining option is literally just Beaker.
    So wasn't it Indo-European and it became IEized in their interaction and intermarrying with CWC women? I understand that this hypothesis is very enticing and plausible because it explains so many of the holes in the narrative until now, but I find this fact really unlikely: women of a less prominent culture - as we're talking about the period of widespread expansion and prestige of BB material culture - making men of the more expansive culture shift their language and much of their culture, since the supposed BB-derived IE cultures were decidedly Indo-European in many cultural aspects, not just in language.

  16. #91
    Regular Member Achievements:
    1000 Experience PointsVeteran

    Join Date
    24-02-15
    Posts
    243
    Points
    2,727
    Level
    14
    Points: 2,727, Level: 14
    Level completed: 93%, Points required for next Level: 23
    Overall activity: 11.0%


    Country: United States



    Quote Originally Posted by ToBeOrNotToBe View Post
    It’s just by deduction - it’s now become very clear L51 wasn’t on the Steppes, nor in the Balkans. It can’t have come across the Northern European plain without leaving an archaeological trace, so the only remaining option is literally just Beaker.
    Beakers first showing up in Iberia pretty much guarantees they came from North Africa, almost no ancient DNA from that region though.

  17. #92
    Regular Member Achievements:
    1000 Experience Points1 year registered

    Join Date
    17-06-17
    Posts
    127
    Points
    2,943
    Level
    15
    Points: 2,943, Level: 15
    Level completed: 65%, Points required for next Level: 107
    Overall activity: 11.0%


    Country: United States



    What about R2? Isn't that Neolithic Iranian?

  18. #93
    Advisor Achievements:
    Three FriendsTagger Second ClassOverdriveVeteran25000 Experience Points

    Join Date
    07-11-12
    Location
    Germany
    Posts
    2,383
    Points
    27,727
    Level
    51
    Points: 27,727, Level: 51
    Level completed: 17%, Points required for next Level: 923
    Overall activity: 3.0%

    Y-DNA haplogroup
    R1b1b2a* (inferred)

    Country: Germany



    Quote Originally Posted by Maciamo View Post
    Johane Derite posted a list of different phylogenetic trees of IE languages proposed by various linguists in another thread. I thought it would be an ideal opportunity for me to post my proposed phylogenetic tree, which I have not only based on linguistic evidence, but also on archaeological and especially genetic evidence (using Y-chromosomal phylogeny). It differs radically from all the trees proposed by professional linguists, but mine is the only one that makes sense based on Y-DNA phylogeny and the known patterns of migrations combining archaeology and ancient DNA.

    I have kept it simple and schematic, but I felt it was necessary to add the associated haplogroups to show that language evolve through population hybridisation, which tends to affect pronunciation and involves the absorption of loan words.
    Good work! Your tree is heavily genetics-based (in particular based off Y-DNA phylogeny), and there's some points where one would disagree on linguistic grounds. My main example there would be putting P-Celtic as closer to Italic than Goidelic. However, as you said, you can explain it that way that they intermingled more heavily (I should also add the remember that there's a parallel development too in the Osco-Umbrian languages, which, just like the p-Celtic languages, shifted the *kw (Q) sound to *p). One could make the case that Tocharian is closer with the Centum languages of Western Europe, but that isn't really necessary (you can explain this through archaicisms just as well). With Armenian, I'd like to add that you had heavy language contact with speakers of Iranian languages.

    My conclusion is that even though your tree is heavily DNA based, the end product is reasonably close to what I'd say is general agreement.

  19. #94
    Regular Member Achievements:
    Three FriendsTagger Second ClassVeteran10000 Experience Points
    Twilight's Avatar
    Join Date
    29-06-12
    Location
    Seattle, Washington
    Age
    25
    Posts
    881
    Points
    12,103
    Level
    33
    Points: 12,103, Level: 33
    Level completed: 22%, Points required for next Level: 547
    Overall activity: 1.0%

    Y-DNA haplogroup
    R1b-U152-Z56-BY3957
    MtDNA haplogroup
    J1c7a

    Ethnic group
    15/32 British, 5/32 German, 9/64 Irish, 1/8 Scots Gaelic, 5/64 French, 1/32 Welsh
    Country: USA - Washington



    Nice work on the Language tree :)
    Btw Marciamo, there is a language in Ireland called the Goidelic Substrate Language. I’m curious to see how the Goidelic Substrate Language would compare against Germanic Substrate.

    Some Goidelic Sudstrate words
    bréife: Ring or Loop
    partán: Crab
    Pattu: Hare
    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Goid...ate_hypothesis

  20. #95
    Regular Member Achievements:
    1000 Experience PointsVeteran
    Zeus10's Avatar
    Join Date
    13-07-12
    Posts
    227
    Points
    4,963
    Level
    20
    Points: 4,963, Level: 20
    Level completed: 79%, Points required for next Level: 87
    Overall activity: 5.0%


    Country: Canada



    1 out of 4 members found this post helpful.
    Quote Originally Posted by Maciamo View Post
    Johane Derite posted a list of different phylogenetic trees of IE languages proposed by various linguists in another thread. I thought it would be an ideal opportunity for me to post my proposed phylogenetic tree, which I have not only based on linguistic evidence, but also on archaeological and especially genetic evidence (using Y-chromosomal phylogeny). It differs radically from all the trees proposed by professional linguists, but mine is the only one that makes sense based on Y-DNA phylogeny and the known patterns of migrations combining archaeology and ancient DNA.

    I have kept it simple and schematic, but I felt it was necessary to add the associated haplogroups to show that language evolve through population hybridisation, which tends to affect pronunciation and involves the absorption of loan words.





    I believe that the Italo-Celtic branch intermingled more extensively with Neolithic European farmers than the Goidelic branch. This is obvious from the relatively high percentages of G2a-L497 and E-V13 among Hallstatt-derived Celts and Italics. I believe that this EEF mixture came originally from the Cucuteni-Trypillian culture, although indirectly. The R1b-L51 branch expanded along the Danube to Central Europe while the R1a/R1b-Z2103 branch of the Corded Ware spread along the North European Plain. The latter would probably have been the ones who mixed with the scattered and by now nomadic tribes who abandoned the Trypillian cities in Western Ukraine. Corded Ware tribes met R1b-L51 tribes in Germany, Czechia and western Poland. But by that time some R1b-L21 and R1b-DF27 adventurers had already permeated the Bell Beaker trade network all the way to the Atlantic coast, before they got the chance to mix with Corded Ware people - hence the absence of E-V13 and G2a-L497 from these Atlantic Celts (Q-Celtic speakers). The Neolithic influence on language eventually led to the Q to P shift in Hallstatt and La Tène Celtic tongues, soon after the split with the Italic tribes.

    Proto-Germanic R1b-U106 also mixed with the Corded Ware people and with the earlier inhabitants of the Netherlands, northern Germany and Denmark, who were probably heavier on Mesolithic ancestry and would have carried haplogroups I1 and I2-L801. I believe that a small but noteworthy non-IE pre-Germanic substratum exists in Germanic languages, although many linguists seem to be confused by the fact that some of these loan words eventually found their way in other IE languages because of the Germanic migrations. Germanic loan words infiltrated not only Romance, but also Slavic, Baltic, Albanian and possibly also Greek languages. Germanic languages also seem to have some Balto-Slavic influence, perhaps by the absorption of predominantly R1a Corded Ware tribes.

    The complicated part that really get most linguists confused is the Eastern branch. This is because it is in fact two branches: the original East Yamna (R1b-Z2103) and the extension of that Yamna branch into the forest-steppe, which in my opinion is when the satem shift took place. The southern tribes of the Late Yamna and Catacomb (2800–2200 BCE) cultures (both R1b-Z2103) were ousted from the Pontic Steppe by the expansion of the Srubna culture (R1a with some R1b-Z2103) to the north, and the R1b-Z2103 migrated to the Balkans, where they became the Illyrians (incl. Proto-Albanian), Mycenaean Greeks, Phrygians and Proto-Armenians. The latter two eventually migrated from the Balkans to Anatolia around the time of the Bronze Age collapse c. 1200 BCE. Later influence from Iranian tribes in Armenia caused a partial satemisation of Armenian language. The same thing might have happened for Albanian and Greek due to the migrations of other Iranian tribes (Bulgars) and Slavs to the region. This is why Albanian and Armenian in particular cannot be definitely classified as centum or satem.

    The Tocharian branch is in all likelihood descended from the Afanasievo culture (3300-2500 BCE), a Steppe culture in the Altai region that is contemporary to Yamna (3500-2500 BCE), but started a few centuries later.

    I have wracked my brain about the Anatolian branch, bu IMO the most likely explanation remains that it was an early offshoot from the Pontic Steppe to the Balkans dating from 4200 to 3700 BCE. These people would have stayed a while in the Balkans then, like the Phrygians and Armenians much later, would have moved east to Anatolia. The oldest archaeological site associated with Anatolian IE speakers might be Troy, a city that was founded c. 3000 BCE to control the trade between the Aegean and the Black Sea region, including the Pontic Steppe. It makes sense that Steppe people should have wanted to control trade with their homeland. The language likely to have been prevalent in the historical city of Troy is Luwian, an Anatolian IE language.
    I believe the idea which finds the tribal movement/s in the basis of language/race/s creation is wrong. Most of the aforementioned "races" are not even such, but cultures. For example, the Slavic people are just a linguistic group. They were never a race, but local religious communities established by local patriarchs of the same religion in a long but relatively recent process. It's not the paleo IE tribal migration, which created the Eastern-Western linguistic division, but the Eastern-Western religious dominion. Being such, most of the aforementioned languages, are NOT a modern development of an ethnic vernacular local IE split, but a modern development of a cultivated language developed by the religion.
    The language itself is a cultural phenomenon and only relatively recently has developed a symbiosis with the ethnicity, thus with the genetics we subjectively associate with it.

  21. #96
    Regular Member Achievements:
    1000 Experience Points1 year registered
    Joey37's Avatar
    Join Date
    11-06-18
    Location
    Coventry, Rhode Island
    Posts
    313
    Points
    3,782
    Level
    17
    Points: 3,782, Level: 17
    Level completed: 83%, Points required for next Level: 68
    Overall activity: 22.0%

    Y-DNA haplogroup
    R1a-YP445
    MtDNA haplogroup
    J1c2b

    Ethnic group
    Celto-Germanic
    Country: USA - Rhode Island



    1 out of 1 members found this post helpful.
    The haplogroup correlations look suspiciously like those promulgated by the quack Carlos Quiles, where nearly all of the branches of the Indo-European family are in fact bastardized creoles and there was no united family. And also comes up with the absurd idea that R1a-M417 spoke Uralic, despite the fact that no majority R1a people speak a Uralic language today (and spare me the Hungarians, they are assimilated Slavs). My belief is that Proto-Indo-European was a creole of sort, but not its descendants. The parent dialects are a Northwest Caucasian language spoken by the R1b-L23 people coming up from Maykop and the, for lack of a better term, Aryan dialect spoken by the R1a-M417 people already in the Pontic forest-steppe. There was also some minor Uralic contact from the N1c Uralic speakers just to the north of the R1a tribes.

  22. #97
    Regular Member Achievements:
    3 months registered10000 Experience Points

    Join Date
    07-08-18
    Posts
    842
    Points
    10,677
    Level
    31
    Points: 10,677, Level: 31
    Level completed: 19%, Points required for next Level: 573
    Overall activity: 76.0%


    Country: Germany



    Quote Originally Posted by Joey37 View Post
    My belief is that Proto-Indo-European was a creole of sort,
    Impossible, PIE has none of the typological features of a creole.

  23. #98
    Banned Achievements:
    Tagger Second Class3 months registered1000 Experience Points

    Join Date
    09-10-18
    Posts
    545
    Points
    1,481
    Level
    10
    Points: 1,481, Level: 10
    Level completed: 66%, Points required for next Level: 69
    Overall activity: 99.0%


    Country: Iran



    What do you mean by "Celto-Germanic" and "Italo-Celtic"?!

  24. #99
    Regular Member Achievements:
    1000 Experience Points1 year registered
    Joey37's Avatar
    Join Date
    11-06-18
    Location
    Coventry, Rhode Island
    Posts
    313
    Points
    3,782
    Level
    17
    Points: 3,782, Level: 17
    Level completed: 83%, Points required for next Level: 68
    Overall activity: 22.0%

    Y-DNA haplogroup
    R1a-YP445
    MtDNA haplogroup
    J1c2b

    Ethnic group
    Celto-Germanic
    Country: USA - Rhode Island



    0 out of 1 members found this post helpful.
    I only associate the Z2103 tribes with the first stages of the expansion of proto-Indo-European. L51 is Bell Beaker and broadly Vasconic; their L23 ancestors went through Anatolia and into Europe while Z2103 headed through the Caucasus and into the Steppe, where they met the pre-Proto-Indo-European R1a-M417 and adopted their language, later taking it into Europe and Indo-Europeanizing their L51 cousins. The oldest R1b-Z2103 is from 5500 BC, a long enough time frame to allow this. This connects the Basque language to the Caucasian tongues and also allows a great deal of Basque survival, as their main clade, R1b-DF27, is descended from L51.

  25. #100
    Regular Member Achievements:
    1000 Experience Points1 year registered
    Joey37's Avatar
    Join Date
    11-06-18
    Location
    Coventry, Rhode Island
    Posts
    313
    Points
    3,782
    Level
    17
    Points: 3,782, Level: 17
    Level completed: 83%, Points required for next Level: 68
    Overall activity: 22.0%

    Y-DNA haplogroup
    R1a-YP445
    MtDNA haplogroup
    J1c2b

    Ethnic group
    Celto-Germanic
    Country: USA - Rhode Island



    With this I have divided the Indo-European languages into three groups; the Indo-Europeanized L51 group (Germanic, Italo-Celtic); the Southern group, derived from R1b-Z2103 (Illyrian, Greek, Armenian); and Balto-Aryan, the R1a-M417 group (Balto-Slavic, Indo-Iranian). Tocharian is very likely Southern, but very far-flung, and Daco-Thracian is an enigma, being extinct, located in the R1b-Z2103 area, yet sharing traits with the Baltic languages.

Page 4 of 5 FirstFirst ... 2345 LastLast

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

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