Is Germanic closer to Indo-Iranian or Italo-Celtic languages?

It is good mention that we see Germanic sound shifts in loanwords from other languages too but these are languages which were spoken in the Middle East, some examples from Semitic:

Semitic root q-n-b "hemp" > proto-Germanic *xanapiz (k>x & b>p) "hemp", compare Arabic qannab and Greek κάνναβις (kánnabos), probably from Sumerian kunibu "hemp".

Semitic root kʷ-l-b "dog, puppy" > Proto-Germanic *xʷelpaz "whelp, puppy" (kʷ>xʷ & b>p), compare Ethiopian kʷähila and Arabic kalb

Semitic root s-r/l-p "silver" > proto-Germanic *silubra "silver" (p>b (Verner's law)), compare Akkadian sarpu and Arabic sarif "silver". (p>f in Arabic)

Semitic root ṣ-b-r "sparrow" > proto-Germanic *sparwo "sparrow" (b>p), compare Akkadian ṣibaru "sparrow"

Semitic root g-l-d "clot" > proto-Germanic *klutto "clot" (g>k & d>t), compare Hebrew root ג ל ד (g-l-d) and Arabic root ج ل ط (j-l-t).

Semitic root k-r-y "hire" > proto-Germanic *xuriyo "hire" (k>x), compare Arabic kiraya "hire, rent"

Semitic root k-l-l "whole" > proto-Germanic *xailo "whole" (k>x), compare Akkadian kalu "whole"

Semitic root d-r-g "track" > proto-Germanic *trako "track" (d>t & g>k), compare Akkadian daraggu "path, track"

Semitic root p-r-q "fright" > proto-Germanic *furxtaz "fright" (p>f & k>x), compare Arabic fariqa "fright"

Semtic root p-r-h "happy" > proto-Germanic *frawaz "happy" (p>f), compare Arabic farah "glad, happy, merry" and German froh and English frolic
 
It is good mention that we see Germanic sound shifts in loanwords from other languages too but these are languages which were spoken in the Middle East, some examples from Semitic:

Semitic root q-n-b "hemp" > proto-Germanic *xanapiz (k>x & b>p) "hemp", compare Arabic qannab and Greek κάνναβις (kánnabos), probably from Sumerian kunibu "hemp".

Semitic root kʷ-l-b "dog, puppy" > Proto-Germanic *xʷelpaz "whelp, puppy" (kʷ>xʷ & b>p), compare Ethiopian kʷähila and Arabic kalb

Semitic root s-r/l-p "silver" > proto-Germanic *silubra "silver" (p>b (Verner's law)), compare Akkadian sarpu and Arabic sarif "silver". (p>f in Arabic)

Semitic root ṣ-b-r "sparrow" > proto-Germanic *sparwo "sparrow" (b>p), compare Akkadian ṣibaru "sparrow"

Semitic root g-l-d "clot" > proto-Germanic *klutto "clot" (g>k & d>t), compare Hebrew root ג ל ד (g-l-d) and Arabic root ج ل ط (j-l-t).

Semitic root k-r-y "hire" > proto-Germanic *xuriyo "hire" (k>x), compare Arabic kiraya "hire, rent"

Semitic root k-l-l "whole" > proto-Germanic *xailo "whole" (k>x), compare Akkadian kalu "whole"

Semitic root d-r-g "track" > proto-Germanic *trako "track" (d>t & g>k), compare Akkadian daraggu "path, track"

Semitic root p-r-q "fright" > proto-Germanic *furxtaz "fright" (p>f & k>x), compare Arabic fariqa "fright"

Semtic root p-r-h "happy" > proto-Germanic *frawaz "happy" (p>f), compare Arabic farah "glad, happy, merry" and German froh and English frolic

Yes, but to proclaim any relation with those languages would be false (perhaps, if there was really in ancient times it can not be proved). But, it might be just paralel word, accidentaly specific similarity in structure and root. Same as turkic name "Hakan" and Germanic "Hakon". But no one of the real scientist believes in relation between those 2 languages.
 
Yes, but to proclaim any relation with those languages would be false (perhaps, if there was really in ancient times it can not be proved). But, it might be just paralel word, accidentaly specific similarity in structure and root. Same as turkic name "Hakan" and Germanic "Hakon". But no one of the real scientist believes in relation between those 2 languages.
I think most of linguists also believe in relation between the words that I mentioned but they have different theories about them, for example they say some of them are wanderwort (loanwords that have spread among remote languages) or they were spread by Scythians and other people who lived in Eurasia, ... But there can be better theories too, like what I said above.
 
Please explain, for example about phonology, why you say Germanic is closer to Italo-Celtic than Indo-Iranian?

Consonants which exist in Germanic and Iranian languages but not Celtic:

1. p (Voiceless bilabial stop)
2. β (Voiced bilabial fricative)
3. θ (Voiceless dental fricative)
4. ð (Voiced dental fricative)
5. ŋ (Velar nasal)
6. x (Voiceless velar fricative)
7. ɣ (Voiced velar fricative)
8. ŋʷ (Labiovelar nasal)
9. xʷ (Labiovelar fricative)

In fact about one half of proto-Germanic sounds don't exist in proto-Celtic.

a part of these sounds are known in modern Celtic languages in words of PIE origin (not loans) and we cannot rely completely on the orthograph of ancient texts. it seems by example que some times the same sound in Gaulish or Brittonic could be written -TT- or -SS-, and some scholars had proposed a phonetic /θ/ for this sound - Germanic "orthographs" that we know developped rather lately, so were surely more adapted to their phonology : Gothic: 4th Cy - (Norse about 200 AD, but a word only according to Wikipedia) - Gauls wrote with loaned graphies (Latin, Greek, even Etruscan), around 300 BC firstable, so we can suppose they had some difficulties to represent their precise phonology.
 
It is good mention that we see Germanic sound shifts in loanwords from other languages too but these are languages which were spoken in the Middle East, some examples from Semitic:

Semitic root q-n-b "hemp" > proto-Germanic *xanapiz (k>x & b>p) "hemp", compare Arabic qannab and Greek κάνναβις (kánnabos), probably from Sumerian kunibu "hemp".

Semitic root kʷ-l-b "dog, puppy" > Proto-Germanic *xʷelpaz "whelp, puppy" (kʷ>xʷ & b>p), compare Ethiopian kʷähila and Arabic kalb

Semitic root s-r/l-p "silver" > proto-Germanic *silubra "silver" (p>b (Verner's law)), compare Akkadian sarpu and Arabic sarif "silver". (p>f in Arabic)

Semitic root ṣ-b-r "sparrow" > proto-Germanic *sparwo "sparrow" (b>p), compare Akkadian ṣibaru "sparrow"

Semitic root g-l-d "clot" > proto-Germanic *klutto "clot" (g>k & d>t), compare Hebrew root ג ל ד (g-l-d) and Arabic root ج ل ط (j-l-t).

Semitic root k-r-y "hire" > proto-Germanic *xuriyo "hire" (k>x), compare Arabic kiraya "hire, rent"

Semitic root k-l-l "whole" > proto-Germanic *xailo "whole" (k>x), compare Akkadian kalu "whole"

Semitic root d-r-g "track" > proto-Germanic *trako "track" (d>t & g>k), compare Akkadian daraggu "path, track"

Semitic root p-r-q "fright" > proto-Germanic *furxtaz "fright" (p>f & k>x), compare Arabic fariqa "fright"

Semtic root p-r-h "happy" > proto-Germanic *frawaz "happy" (p>f), compare Arabic farah "glad, happy, merry" and German froh and English frolic

my #24 post is a bit out of work, because what is of worth is the regularly reconstructed forms in front of supposed PIE. That said, all that is reconstruction is partly a guess and we are not sure the evolution of every family of IE has taken place directly from common PIE just after dispersion; in the case of Germanic, the Grimm law mutations occurred seemingly very late, when the language was already separated from the common trunk since a long time, with already a specific evolution.
I believe in the PIE existance. But some weird reconstructions are maybe due to the supposition that every family of language went its way directly from this common stock. It could have been very more complicated, and language shift have surely made their work.
in your example where you present Germanic "cognates" of Semitic words (some are dubtful), we cannot be sure some Semitic words are not themselves loans made by Semitic speakers, loans to a third language.
SO we have some words whose deep origin we don't know about, some words whose sure far origin cannot tell us through what way they arrived into Germanic and maybe some hazard results. It would be very hard to base the geographic origin of proto-Germanics on these words, loans or not.
What I think is true is that some tendancies can produce their effects more than a time, spite the opposition of structure to too fast drastic changes and spite some results of mutations become fixed. It's possible that some phonetical tendancies remained among pops of Central Europe, and that they imposed themselves by time upon some acquired IE dialects; ATW history of Germanic seems very complicated.
@others:
CWC could be the cause of links with Satem dialects of North (see the B. Sergent 's affirmation that the first dialects in NW Europe would have been "Indo-Iranian"like! This doesn't exclude later exchanges with Baltic), but doesn't seem to me the giver of proto-Germanic which I see as a Central Europe IE dialect close to Pan-Italic (which would have been spoken as far north as Belgium/The Netherlands), maybe tied later to subsequent Venetic language: it seems Italics are somewhat more close to Germanics than are Celtics...
here I think at loud voice: my mind is not definitely made, it 's so fuzzy.
&: add some salt and pepper, and a strong non-IE substratum of North (Y-I1?) -
 
Germanic is closer to Italo-Celtic than Indo-Iranian because Germanic and Italo-Celtic are both European whereas Indo-Iranian is originally Central Asian the geography doesn't lie
 
No sensible person living in this reality is ever going to accept your theory, Cyrus, that prehistoric aryans from Iran spoke proto-germanic, and migrated to northern europe to later become the vikings - or what ever it is that your fantasy is (nazi much?)

Why? because it's not corroberated by archeological, linguistic or genetic data - of cause, unless your wishfully distort it in a biased manner to always "proove" what you want to be true. Actually, genetics tells us about an opposite movement back to the steppes and ultimately to Iran. You can find and read the papers yourself.

Amateur linguistics doesn't prove anything. It's easy to find find false connections between all languages - even between languages that aren't related, like the indo-european languages obviously are.

I know I'm wasting my time, because you are not here to learn. You're obviously only here to push your agenda, and when people don't agree with your fabulous linguistic skills and crazy theories, you call them racist and biased for not buying into wild undfounded speculation.

Speculation is fine, but not when it's stubbornly pushed with an obvious agenda, and anything anybody says is just ignored.

Like all the other kids, you just want to be the center of a great and glorious past.
 
No sensible person living in this reality is ever going to accept your theory, Cyrus, that prehistoric aryans from Iran spoke proto-germanic, and migrated to northern europe to later become the vikings - or what ever it is that your fantasy is (nazi much?)

Why? because it's not corroberated by archeological, linguistic or genetic data - of cause, unless your wishfully distort it in a biased manner to always "proove" what you want to be true. Actually, genetics tells us about an opposite movement back to the steppes and ultimately to Iran. You can find and read the papers yourself.

Amateur linguistics doesn't prove anything. It's easy to find find false connections between all languages - even between languages that aren't related, like the indo-european languages obviously are.

I know I'm wasting my time, because you are not here to learn. You're obviously only here to push your agenda, and when people don't agree with your fabulous linguistic skills and crazy theories, you call them racist and biased for not buying into wild undfounded speculation.

Speculation is fine, but not when it's stubbornly pushed with an obvious agenda, and anything anybody says is just ignored.

Like all the other kids, you just want to be the center of a great and glorious past.

Aryans from Iran?!! It is similar to saying "Turks from Turkey who spoke proto-Turkic migrated to Central Asia!"
Please look this thread: https://www.eupedia.com/forum/threads/37399-Himmerland-(Denmark)-the-Cradle-of-Persian-Civilization
 
Did you know that soap was invented by the Germanic people in 2800 BC?
https://www.etymonline.com/word/soap#etymonline_v_23803
Old English sape "soap, salve" (originally a reddish hair dye used by Germanic warriors to give a frightening appearance), from Proto-Germanic *saipon "dripping thing, resin"
Akkadian words for "to bath" and "dyer" had the same origin, there are similar words in Arabic, Hebrew and other Semitic languages too.
soap.jpg
 
Did you know that up to 120 years ago they made soap from Whale's blubber?
 
The story is set in Armenia. Bee (Bijan) and Wolf (Gorgin), two heroes of the Gutians, come to the aid of Hratchia, the king of the Armenians, whose mead hall in Ararat has been under attack by boars. ... (Hratchia was the grandson of Skayordi, the first king of Armenia: https://gw.geneanet.org/foullon?lang=en&n=d+armenie&oc=0&p=skayordi+king+of+ancient+armenia)

Now, please answer this question:
https://www.enotes.com/homework-help/boars-head-helmet-beowulf-his-men-stood-something-364516

In Beowulf, the boar's head on the helmet of Beowulf and his men stood for what?
 
Germanic is closer to Italo-Celtic than Indo-Iranian because Germanic and Italo-Celtic are both European whereas Indo-Iranian is originally Central Asian the geography doesn't lie

and so, Russian language is closer to Altaic languages than to other European languages? Or western Russian is very different from eastern Russian language? Or Romanian is closer to Greek or Bulgarian than to Italian?
 
Did you know that soap was invented by the Germanic people in 2800 BC?
https://www.etymonline.com/word/soap#etymonline_v_23803
Old English sape "soap, salve" (originally a reddish hair dye used by Germanic warriors to give a frightening appearance), from Proto-Germanic *saipon "dripping thing, resin"
Akkadian words for "to bath" and "dyer" had the same origin, there are similar words in Arabic, Hebrew and other Semitic languages too.
soap.jpg
This etymology is maybe good, I don't know. It has been said that Latin loaned the word from Celtic (Gaulish).
For I red, it was Gauls who dyed their head hair or rather bleashed it with this mixture, and to make a sort of hair gel to "custom" their hair, not the Germanics. I suppose a proto-Germanic with *saip- would have given something in **saif-; it seems to me it was a loan by Germanics from Celtic people, but who knows?
 
This etymology is maybe good, I don't know. It has been said that Latin loaned the word from Celtic (Gaulish).
For I red, it was Gauls who dyed their head hair or rather bleashed it with this mixture, and to make a sort of hair gel to "custom" their hair, not the Germanics. I suppose a proto-Germanic with *saip- would have given something in **saif-; it seems to me it was a loan by Germanics from Celtic people, but who knows?

Of course this path is also possible: Germanic > Akkadian > Phoenician > Gaulish > Latin

http://www.stcyril.com/jrhigh/CianaG/soapyhistory.html

  • The earliest known records of soap are from 600 BC, when, according to Pliny the Elder, Phoenicians made it from goat's tallow and wood ashes. They sometimes also used soap as an article to trade and barter with the Gauls.
  • In the Roman Empire, soap was very popular. However, it is unknown whether the Romans learned how to make soap from the Mediterranean peoples or from the Celts (from Britannia)

You probably know that Phoenicia means "land of the red dye merchants" in Greek.

Phoenician_red.jpg
 
Beowulf = Bee (Bijan) and Wolf (Gorgin), Gutian generals of Kei Chosro (Cyaxares) in Shahnameh.

Scyld (Skjǫld) = Skayordi, king of Armenia (629-615 BC)
Hrothgar = Hratchia, king of Armenia (590 -585 BC)

But who was Kei Chosro (Cyaxares), king of Media (625-585 BC)?

He was Amleth (Hamlet): https://theodora.com/encyclopedia/h/hamlet.html "Dr. O. L. Jiriczek first pointed out the striking similarities existing between the story of Amleth in Saxo and the other northern versions, and that of Kei Chosro in the Shahnameh (Book of the King) of the Persian poet Firdausi. The comparison was carried farther by R. Zenker (Boeve Amlethus, pp. 207-268, Berlin and Leipzig, 1904), who even concluded that the northern saga rested on an earlier version of Firdausi's story, in which indeed nearly all the individual elements of the various northern versions areto be found."

But this story doesn't exist in Shahnameh: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amleth "Amleth arrived in time for a funeral feast, held to celebrate his supposed death. During the feast he plied the courtiers with wine, and executed his vengeance during their drunken sleep by fastening down over them the woolen hangings of the hall with pegs he had sharpened during his feigned madness, and then setting fire to the palace. He slew Feng with his own sword."

Herodotus says it: http://www.livius.org/articles/person/cyaxares/: "At last Cyaxares and the Medes invited the greater number of the Scythians to a banquet, at which they made them drunk and murdered them, and in this way recovered their former power and dominion."
 
I have searched, just for curiosity, on inet, a course of Scottish Gaelic:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/alba/foghlam/beag_air_bheag/units/unit_01/
My simple opinion, that did not had too much research behind it, is that Scottish Gaelic is between pure Romance languages and Germanic languages.
The pure Romance languages is Italian :) .
French is Galo-Romance, Romanian got some Slavic influence and also words from German (1.5% of the words of Romanian are of West German origins) and Spanish got also Germanic influence.
So, I think Germanic is close to Gaelic languages like Scottish Gaelic. This being the answer to OP question.
And Gaelic Scottish seems to be between Romance and German, as an IE language.
 
"Phoenicia" meaning? Yes I knew.
concerning 'sap-'* I have no certainty, of course.
a Germanic >> Akkadian >> Phoenician journey for this root seems to me very far fetched...
But concerning hue or colour, I think the result of the use of this kind of soap was rather a greyish or dirty blondish colour, not red, for I know.
 
Ask Taranis to come here and he will further explain you about the relation between German and Celtic languages.
Indo Iranian languages should be closer to Slavic and Balto-Slavic languages.
I think that from the current European languages, Latvian or Lithuanian is most close to IndoIranian languages.
So from my point of view, Germanic languages are closer to Celtic languages, than to IndoIranian languages.
 
to weight the proximity/distance of languages is not so easy, it depends on what you position first: lexicon, structure/syntax, morphology and so on... I found what I consider as evident traces of neo-Celtic syntax in English as well as in Portuguese, spite they are "Germanic" and "Romance". For lexicon, we find everytime a mix of IE cognates and more or less recent so more or less evolved loanwords. Even syntax can be mixed. Anciently close languages can exchange during some time still after separation at the colloquial level, so not only isolated words. This explains the difficulty to elaborate a reliable glottochronology. We can suppose either a proto-satem dialect converging strongly with centum dialect or a proto-satem dialect substratum overrun by a centum one (born by Y-R1b-U106 clans?).
But I prefer the substratum hypothesis to the convergence one.
well achieved Germanic was of course closer to Celtic and Italic than to Indo-Iranic; this doen't exclude an ancient layer of satemic traits.
Taranis could give us his thoughts? (Maybe he got tired by these discussions?)
 
I am studying and researching linguistics about 10 year, I created this chart some years ago:

SatemCentum.jpg


What do you think about it?

I want to say something about Greek, not necessarily important for what you are trying to say. The sounds ph, th, kh do not survive in any modern Greek dialect. If they were supposedly 'murmured stops', we are talking about sounds uncommon in Europe and even Iran. That reconstruction is based on misinterpreting Greek sources.

That 'zd', written as Z, results from d+j, see Zeus from Djeus. It was likely pronounced /z/ already in Attic (Aristotle says it wasn't a real double consonant), originally probably close to /dz/.

The sounds that underwent spirantization as you call it can be reconstructed as p:, t:, k:, those could have been pronounced like English aspirated stops

while the 'voiced aspirates' were simple stops p, t, k. In Latin there was the tendency to shift to fricatives f, θ, x which could become voiced intervocalically.

That's what happened in Greek too (shift to f, θ, x), there were no 'aspirates' or 'murmured stops'. That is an innovation of the Indic branch.
 

This thread has been viewed 29053 times.

Back
Top