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

I imagine very much the same thing : a non-IE substratum + a CWC (probably satem) layer + a centum superstratum. The non-IE substratum could have something to do with the Scandinavian I1 haplogroup (?). CWC were 70.5% R1a (Maciamo's figures) - enough for a link with Balto-Slavic languages. The centum-speakers would have been R1b-U106 (probably not BB proper though).


R1b-U106 might have been coming from the Elp Culture. The one from the Netherlands from Tuithoorn, from Olalde's BB paper, was from the Hoogkarspel Culture, generally considered part of the Elp culture.

And Guus Kroonen considers *two* non-IE substrata in PGM: Farmer and a HG one. HG related cultures such as Vlaardingen and Blätterhöhle remained active until late in the Middle Neolithic, sometimes up until the onset of BB.
 
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?)
English have very present the sound they call schwa, as in a cup of tea.

The other two languages that have this sound very present are Romanian and Albanian.
What I am saying is that this schwa sound is a remnant sound from some old Keltic and other languages from the meta Keltic-Italic group.
And that Thracians and Dacians were also part of Celto-Italic group of people,a separate ethnicity in this very large group of languages and people.

Romanians score 7-20% Welsh/English (seems) Celtic admixture. Most people insist that Romanian is coming from Latin.
However, there is common sense that the group of Celto-Italic languages exist and also, the Celto-Italic people exist.
(Celts and Gauls are same group of ethnicities).
Is known that Dacians were neither Romans/Italic and neither part of Celtic people, but we can suppose that Thracians and Dacians were an ethnicity that was between Italic and Celtic ethnicities, as language.
We have few words that are close to old Celtic languages, most weird being how Romanians call a dog "cutzu".This is a folk word,quite old.
This is a clear cognate to ku/cu the protoKeltic word for dog.
Also we Romanians are calling big,great mare - this is more likely cognate to mor from Keltic languages, than with Latin magnum.
Another fun thing, I understand old French language was calling raven corb and Old Gaelic Scottish was corbie.
Romanians raven word is corb. Supposed to come from corvus, from Latin.

Another strange thing about Romanian language is that we have at least some words with the sound z which is same with the th from English.Italians, Slavs do not have such a sound in their languages, or they have but extremely rare.
Italians,Slavs and Germanics, except the English people, do not have schwa in their languages too often. Italians,at all,Germanics,do not have, Slavs have but is very rare. While in Romanian the schwa is very present.
Maybe is a remnant from old Dacian language,that was between Celtic languages and Italic languages?



Ethnicities were not defined by the paternal lines, but by their maternal language. Because Romanians do not have R1B-U152, R1B-L21 R1B-DF27 and other typical Celto-Italic paternal lines.
We have some R1B-S21, lol.

I think that if we take Old English,they barely had any Schwa in it.
Old French, which was the language that was spoken by Norman elite, that came to England, barely have any schwa also.
How is possible that English language have so much Schwa in it, if it is not from the native Welsh/so called English people?
(English people is a false name, from the tribe of Denmark that ruled the Saxon-Celtic people of England.
Old Saxons, that came in Romania, from Saxonia,in 1200 AD, are scoring almost identical to Republic of Ireland people on autosomal DNA testing.
These look to me as Germanized Kelts, not as Germans,the Saxons.)
No idea if the Breton Celts were very close to Welsh Celts, because it seems that the old Kelts from England land were very close if not identical to Welsh Celts.
I am supposing Breton Celts are rather more close Irish and Scottish Celts,but who knows.
 
@Mihaizateo
The schwa is not typical of only two or three languages it's frequent among the germanic languages, the most of celtic languages, even in Oil French and also in a few romance dialects. For the most it is linked to unstressed vowells. In some indian dialects it exists too, here I don't know if it's always linked to unstressed vowels, but seemingly at least to short vowels.
The sharing of some rare cognates of PIE in today remote languages does not prove the languages where we find them have had closer ties in past than others. It's ture someones are funny, as "father" > > tad in Brittonics and tat in Romanian, or "mother": mam in both groups. But I think these alternative words for "father" and "mother" have been common enough as 'tata', 'daddy' and 'mama', 'mum' give us to believe; the today lexicon of IE languages conceals a bit the more ancient lexical situation because some cognate words have been lost and replaced.
Concerning Dacian and Thracian, it seems they were already well satemized and with my current knowledge I don't see any reason to see evident close links with Celtic and Italic.
+
I was not aware Romanian had a 'th' sound! the today Z- (/z/?) in words, coming from D- are maybe ancient /dz/ < < /dj/ because they seem occurring before the vowel I only?
ATW the convergence of certain sounds in diverse families of languages are not the proof of direct genetical links (linguistically speaking) - and Old French had 'schwa' too as modern French has, I think, the orthograph does not give strict clues upon phonetic changes dates because it changes always later than pronounciation -
Celtic Breton is by far closer to Welsh than to Celtic irish or Gaelic.
So called "Saxons" of Romania were not from German Saxony but from more southern regions of Germany. (so in some way, they were really a mix of Celts and Germans, without speakng of predeccessors.
 
Well, in old Romanian,you were calling day dzi which written with English, was dthi.
Now, we put this as zi.
But we have words where Z does not comes before I, as for example, varza - write with the English way - vartha - the last a of varza is a schwa.
Varza is supposed to come from Dacian.
We also have barza - bartha - last a is also a schwa.
Barza is storck and is almost identical to Albanian word for white - bardh.
Albanians are pronouncing dh az the English th - Romanian Z.
For sure Dacians and Celts lived together, because there are plenty of archaeological discoveries with Celtic artefacts in Romania.
 
@mihaitzateo
I 'm not romanian speaking, only I have some booklets at hand, and my old brain.
Can you affirm me the written 'Z' in Romanian is pronounced in IPA as english 'th', voiced ('dh') or unvoiced? I was not aware of this, if true. It's true sometimes the palatalized 'ty' and 'dy' ([tch>ts]/[dj>dz]) can go until a 'th' and 'dh' on the model of english: look at castillan. But in Romanian?

for your 'barza' I found this:
[h=1]barză[/h]

Jump to navigationJump to search
[h=2]Contents[/h]​


[h=2]Romanian[edit][/h][h=3]Alternative forms[edit][/h]
[h=3]Etymology[edit][/h]Compare Aromanian bardzu (“white (of horses and mules)”): both it and the Romanian word may derive from Albanian bardhë (“white”), or are akin to it. Alternatively, the Romanian word may derive from a pre-Roman substrate of the Balkans, possibly from or via Dacian, from Proto-Indo-European *bhereg- (“white”).
Another theory, though somewhat unlikely, suggests that its origin is a Vulgar Latin root *gardea, from Latin ardea (compare Spanish garza (“heron”), Portuguese garça, also Frenchbarge (“godwit”)). The confusion of g and b is somewhat unusual, but may be explained as a Balkan influence. Other cases in Romanian include limbă, rug, negură, întreba (compare also Sardinian bula, from Latin gula) [1].
A third proposal is borrowing from a Dacian word meaning "stork", derived from a Proto-Indo-European root *sr̥ǵos, also reflected in e.g. English stork, Ancient Greek [FONT=&quot]πελαργός
(pelargós).[2]


[/FONT]
I prefer the first explanation, by very far: but not come directly from Albanian, in my opinion; rather born by 'bardza', from whom could derive and albanian 'bardh' and romanian 'barzä' ('ä' for your atone 'a'); I suppose a possible previous palatalized form in °°'bargja', without any solid ground it's true. According to Taranis the 'th' and 'dh' in Albanian came often from palatalized velar occlusives, if I don't mistake.
Celts in contact with Dacians or Thracians: yes. at late stage of prehistory, but it does not implies they were akin or close one together
 
answer to myself - I wrote:
>>@mihaitzateo
I 'm not romanian speaking, only I have some booklets at hand, and my old brain.
Can you affirm me the written 'Z' in Romanian is pronounced in IPA as english 'th', voiced ('dh') or unvoiced? I was not aware of this, if true. It's true sometimes the palatalized 'ty' and 'dy' ([tch>ts]/[dj>dz]) can go until a 'th' and 'dh' on the model of english: look at castillan. But in Romanian?


I was not clear: I meant 'th' and 'dh' pronounced as the english written 'th' - not to say that these sounds in English have the same origin (= palatalized 'ty' and 'dy') at all! In English they come from pure (P)IE 't' and 'd' -
 
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

I do not think that mass comparison by similarity, eventually finding a handful of similar words, is enough to make a hypothesis of close connection between the two language branches (geographical, I presume, because you certainly wouldn't assume Proto-Germanic was Semitic). The first problem is the method per se, because similarity is not enough to conclude the words are cognates, and in fact it is not rare the in fact too much similarity may be a clue that it's nothing but coincidence, because we'd expect two languages developing independently for 2,000 or 3,000 years to develop words in very different ways, and not remain very similar after millennia of phonetic and morphological developments (e.g. Portuguese igreja, Italian chiesa, Albanian kishë, Basque eliza - and that wanderwort dates to just ~1500 years ago). It's also a bit unlikely that all the loanwords would've kept exactly the same meaning for millennia, even when they refer to abstract concepts (and not culturally made objects) like "hire" or "fright".

Additionally, if Proto-Germanic really did borrow those words from a Semitic language, it wouldn't have borrowed the Semitic triconsonantal root, but the exact word as it was used in a given Semitic language. What language would that have been, and how would those words have sounded like in them when they were supposedly borrowed by Pre-Proto-Germanic (certainly not Proto-Germanic, since these words show sound changes that are assumed to have happened much earlier). Some of the sampled words, in my opinion, do not look very convincing, for example:
1) *xailo vs. kalu (where would the "i" have come from? Sounds like superficially similar words, but not exactly cognates);
2) *klutto x g-l-d (where would the geminated [t:] have come from? Again, no obvious explanation directly coming from the Semitic words);
3) *xuriyo vs. kiraya / k-r-y (the actual Proto-Germanic root I have found in etymological sources for "hire" was *hurjan, *hurja-, much less similar to kiraya);
4) *sparwo x sibaru (the actual Proto-Germanic was probably *sparwan and looks really similar to other *sper-/spor- names of birds in other Indo-European languages, indicating, according to some linguists, a kind of "small bird": spergoulos in Greek, frau in Cornish, spurglis in Baltic Prussian)
5) furxtaz vs. fariqa: not really similar beyond a superficial resemblance, unless the specific realization of the Semitic prq Pre-PGM took the word from was very different from the C-v-C-v-C-v used in Arabic. Besides, if *frawaz, *trako and *sparwo- are ineed an indication of the sound changes operated in the transfer from Semitic to Pre-PGM, then the unstressed first syllable was frequently dropped, so why woulda form similar to fariqa - penultimate stress - yield *furxtaz dropping the stressed second syllable and not something like frixaz or, if this intrusive [t] meant something like a suffix, frixtaz or whatever? All in all, the correspondences look really vague)

Of course, though, Proto-Semitic or Early Semitic languages' borrowings are not totally unexpected in Indo-European languages, because even PIE itself is assumed to have had some Semitic loanwords, and the Semitic-speaking "world" was very influential during the Bronze Age when IE primary branches were just starting to develop. But, still, I doubt all those eerily similar words are true borrowings, and if some of them are still proven to be cognates, that is still a pretty minor corpus of loanwords to support a very sweeping and mostly unsubstantiated claim (especially considering genetics, but also linguistics, unless we're expected to believe the pre-PGM population remained totally isolated from their Middle Eastern neighbors, and they would've adapted their language pretty soon to the cold temperate climate of Scandinavia, not to mention the huge non-IE substrate in Proto-Germanic that looks, at the face of it, nothing like Semitic, Elamite, Hurrian or other known languages of that region - though, of course, one could argue we know very little or nothing about most pre-Iranian languages of the Iranian Plateau).
 
@mihaitzateo
I 'm not romanian speaking, only I have some booklets at hand, and my old brain.
Can you affirm me the written 'Z' in Romanian is pronounced in IPA as english 'th', voiced ('dh') or unvoiced? I was not aware of this, if true. It's true sometimes the palatalized 'ty' and 'dy' ([tch>ts]/[dj>dz]) can go until a 'th' and 'dh' on the model of english: look at castillan. But in Romanian?
for your 'barza' I found this:
[h=1]barză[/h]
Jump to navigationJump to search
[h=2]Contents[/h]​
[h=2]Romanian[edit][/h][h=3]Alternative forms[edit][/h]
[h=3]Etymology[edit][/h]Compare Aromanian bardzu (“white (of horses and mules)”): both it and the Romanian word may derive from Albanian bardhë (“white”), or are akin to it. Alternatively, the Romanian word may derive from a pre-Roman substrate of the Balkans, possibly from or via Dacian, from Proto-Indo-European *bhereg- (“white”).
Another theory, though somewhat unlikely, suggests that its origin is a Vulgar Latin root *gardea, from Latin ardea (compare Spanish garza (“heron”), Portuguese garça, also Frenchbarge (“godwit”)). The confusion of g and b is somewhat unusual, but may be explained as a Balkan influence. Other cases in Romanian include limbă, rug, negură, întreba (compare also Sardinian bula, from Latin gula) [1].
A third proposal is borrowing from a Dacian word meaning "stork", derived from a Proto-Indo-European root *sr̥ǵos, also reflected in e.g. English stork, Ancient Greek [FONT=&quot]πελαργός
(pelargós).[2]
[/FONT]
I prefer the first explanation, by very far: but not come directly from Albanian, in my opinion; rather born by 'bardza', from whom could derive and albanian 'bardh' and romanian 'barzä' ('ä' for your atone 'a'); I suppose a possible previous palatalized form in °°'bargja', without any solid ground it's true. According to Taranis the 'th' and 'dh' in Albanian came often from palatalized velar occlusives, if I don't mistake.
Celts in contact with Dacians or Thracians: yes. at late stage of prehistory, but it does not implies they were akin or close one together
Romanian ...pre Latin was/has origins of a Illyrian-thracian mix ( a branch of Italo-celtic ) ............that dh also appears in current and old venetian
https://www.omniglot.com/writing/venetian.htm
.
so dh is prounced as th ..............my mum origins, is western Veneto and for the number 5 she says thinque , spelt dhinque
my father origins in central veneto for the number 5 says Sinque ( same spelling ) ( s at start of word is prounced as s , an s in the middle of a word is a zed sound )
 
Romanian ...pre Latin was/has origins of a Illyrian-thracian mix ( a branch of Italo-celtic ) ............that dh also appears in current and old venetian
https://www.omniglot.com/writing/venetian.htm
.
so dh is prounced as th ..............my mum origins, is western Veneto and for the number 5 she says thinque , spelt dhinque
my father origins in central veneto for the number 5 says Sinque ( same spelling ) ( s at start of word is prounced as s , an s in the middle of a word is a zed sound )
What's the connection for Romania when it comes to Illyrians/Thracians?
 
What's the connection for Romania when it comes to Illyrians/Thracians?

Until the middle of the second millennium BC, the Proto-Italo-Celto-Illyro-Thraco-Dacian was a single language. After that some phonological change appeared in different dialects of this proto-language. Namely in the dialect from the middle of this group from which evolved the Continental Celtic and the Oscan and Umbrian, the labiovelar (kʷ, gʷ) turned into bi-labials (p, b). The innovations affects all these languages (one should remember that the forefathers of Oscans and Umbrians migrated from the upper Danube valley into the Italian peninsula)
 
What's the connection for Romania when it comes to Illyrians/Thracians?


Romanians were Dinaric type until recently, they still are,but they granted asylum to the Balkanic Nordoids of Germanic type ,most notably Serbs and Albanians.


If ,for Vlad the Impaler ,a southerner remained a southerner,meaning,regardless of his religion, he would still fight for the Turks, things had changed during Michael the Brave,he was a Basarab,from his father and Seytanoglu's nephew, from his mother.



The Brave was an atipical Wallachian leader,he didn't had that Old Romanian keenness, didn't liked to play 1 against 10,as the men encharged before him,but he had alot of money and more important, a plan,a big one.



His courage was again uncommonly blindly,he charged Basta's troops without too many preparations, still,the overall achievements were impressive.



From the records,in 159something, he colonized 15000 Albanians and Bulgarians each to Wallachia and the Serbian hajduks leaded by the revengeful toothless Baba Novac(Starina Novak),in the papers they all looked good,"faithful Christians".



But the figures are not impressive, a century earlier, Targoviste had more than 40000 people and the very most of citizens lived in the country.



https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Igli_Tare
 
Until the middle of the second millennium BC, the Proto-Italo-Celto-Illyro-Thraco-Dacian was a single language. After that some phonological change appeared in different dialects of this proto-language. Namely in the dialect from the middle of this group from which evolved the Continental Celtic and the Oscan and Umbrian, the labiovelar (kʷ, gʷ) turned into bi-labials (p, b). The innovations affects all these languages (one should remember that the forefathers of Oscans and Umbrians migrated from the upper Danube valley into the Italian peninsula)
Thank you for some reason I clustered in South Romania quite a bit also on my autosomal plotting map
 
Romanians were Dinaric type until recently, they still are,but they granted asylum to the Balkanic Nordoids of Germanic type ,most notably Serbs and Albanians.
If ,for Vlad the Impaler ,a southerner remained a southerner,meaning,regardless of his religion, he would still fight for the Turks, things had changed during Michael the Brave,he was a Basarab,from his father and Seytanoglu's nephew, from his mother.

The Brave was an atipical Wallachian leader,he didn't had that Old Romanian keenness, didn't liked to play 1 against 10,as the men encharged before him,but he had alot of money and more important, a plan,a big one.

His courage was again uncommon blindly,he charged Basta's troops without too many preparations, still,the overall achievements were impressive.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Igli_Tare
I saw this video on Youtube recently about them. I don't trust a lot of the things this guy says on his other videos but on this one he's pretty on point.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6WoDnwYzBQw
 
Romanian ...pre Latin was/has origins of a Illyrian-thracian mix ( a branch of Italo-celtic ) ............that dh also appears in current and old venetian
https://www.omniglot.com/writing/venetian.htm
.
so dh is prounced as th ..............my mum origins, is western Veneto and for the number 5 she says thinque , spelt dhinque
my father origins in central veneto for the number 5 says Sinque ( same spelling ) ( s at start of word is prounced as s , an s in the middle of a word is a zed sound )

Honestly where do you get these ideas from? Pre-Latin was an Illyrian-Thracian mix and the latter were a branch of Italo-Celtic? I think those are all very fringe hypotheses strongly rejected by most professional linguists. What is the basis for that claim, that is, apart from the presence of a certain similar phoneme? The /th/ and /s/ in Venetian "cinque", considering that Venetian comes from Vulgar Latin and not from a certain Illyrian-Thracian "Pre-Latin", is much more easily explained by the same phonetic development that happened after the Middle Ages in Castillian dialects of Spain: some turned [ts] (ce, ci, z) into , some others into [th].
 
Until the middle of the second millennium BC, the Proto-Italo-Celto-Illyro-Thraco-Dacian was a single language. After that some phonological change appeared in different dialects of this proto-language. Namely in the dialect from the middle of this group from which evolved the Continental Celtic and the Oscan and Umbrian, the labiovelar (kʷ, gʷ) turned into bi-labials (p, b). The innovations affects all these languages (one should remember that the forefathers of Oscans and Umbrians migrated from the upper Danube valley into the Italian peninsula)

Considering that P-Celtic is much closer to Q-Celtic ("Continental Celtic" is misleading here, because Brittonic is Insular Celtic, but P-Celtic nonetheless), and and that Osco-Umbrian (*p- is much closer to Latino-Faliscan (*kw-), it's a lot more reasonable to assume that the kw > p change (a very unsurprising and "easy" change, to be honest; it also happened in later IE languages, like Romanian, and earlier in Greek, too) occurred independently after Proto-Celtic and Proto-Italic split into different dialects/languages, probably as late as the Iron Age (the fact that Celtic languages with "insular" characteristics vary between "/p/ and /kw/ also suggest that).

Besides, AFAIK there is virtually no linguistic evidence at all that Italic, Celtic, Illyrian and Thracian were ever part of the same language. Of course early IE languages formed a dialect continuuum without clear-cut boundaries between one and the other, but I have never read any renowned linguist claiming that Thracian or Illyrian bear a much stronger phylogenetic relationship with Italo-Celtic, in fact there are even some linguists who claim the Italo-Celtic branch is a stretch and that an Italo-Celtic language never existed, rather they could've been related languages spoken close to each other and forming a Sprachbund. What are the sources or linguistic evidences you have read presenting the likelihood of a Italo-Celto-Illyro-Thraco-Dacian language? Not even genetically (Y-DNA haplogroup distributions, e.g.), that common language seems to make sense in my opinion.
 
I2 is the link between Germanic,Celtic and Thracian people.
I2-din is not actually Slavic, are assimilated Thracians and East Germanic people, by the Slavs.
Please search and see that I2 branches that are found only in the British Isles.
 
Considering that P-Celtic is much closer to Q-Celtic ("Continental Celtic" is misleading here, because Brittonic is Insular Celtic, but P-Celtic nonetheless), and and that Osco-Umbrian (*p- is much closer to Latino-Faliscan (*kw-), it's a lot more reasonable to assume that the kw > p change (a very unsurprising and "easy" change, to be honest; it also happened in later IE languages, like Romanian, and earlier in Greek, too) occurred independently after Proto-Celtic and Proto-Italic split into different dialects/languages, probably as late as the Iron Age (the fact that Celtic languages with "insular" characteristics vary between "/p/ and /kw/ also suggest that).
Besides, AFAIK there is virtually no linguistic evidence at all that Italic, Celtic, Illyrian and Thracian were ever part of the same language. Of course early IE languages formed a dialect continuuum without clear-cut boundaries between one and the other, but I have never read any renowned linguist claiming that Thracian or Illyrian bear a much stronger phylogenetic relationship with Italo-Celtic, in fact there are even some linguists who claim the Italo-Celtic branch is a stretch and that an Italo-Celtic language never existed, rather they could've been related languages spoken close to each other and forming a Sprachbund. What are the sources or linguistic evidences you have read presenting the likelihood of a Italo-Celto-Illyro-Thraco-Dacian language? Not even genetically (Y-DNA haplogroup distributions, e.g.), that common language seems to make sense in my opinion.
These comments of "some linguists claim italo-celtic never existed etc etc" is purely based on people who want to justify their own agenda , which is also delving into "fantasy" land and should be treated equally as suspect .............because they have no proof either
If Linguists cannot even find PIE
cannot even recognised that a centum -satem is of little value, as in, "these people cannot be related because one spoke centum and the other satem" .......then what do we place on these linguists
 

This thread has been viewed 29056 times.

Back
Top