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

@Sile:
It's the first time i hear of a 'th' (unvoiced dental fricative) in Italian (or Gallo-Italian) dialects! Is this an individual trait (it occurs in every country for /s/), or a very collective dialectal trait?
For what I understood from Mihaitzateo and what I red in Wiki and language learning books, the S and Z of Romanian are not dental but alveolar fricatives as in French and English S and Z, so not loke Albanian TH and DH;
I am not in accord with you concerning the qualification of "branch of Italo-Celtic" concerning Illyrian (which?) and Thracian; it seems to me a bit hazardous, no offense.
But yes, here we are a bit far from the Germanic and Indo-Iranian groups.
Good evening all the way.
 
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.

I2a-Din, in antiquity, were Bastarnae people (germanic people), which would become Slavicized. Nothing Thrachian in them.
 
I think a link between Celtic and Germanic people is offered by the R1B-M269 large group of paternal lines.
If you start with Austria,Germany,Netherlands,South Scandinavia (but not Finland) from the countries that are speaking a Germanic language and take the countries that are speaking Romance languages, but clearly have Celtic ancestry, which are Belgium,Italy,France,Iberia,UK and The Republic of Ireland, all have plenty of R1B-M269.
Sure, the clades are different, but you can find R1B-L21 in Germany at low percentages.
Another thing, is Switzerland, where are spoken both Germanic and Romance languages, but Switzerland name - Confederation Helvetica shows the fact they are also descending mostly from the Celtic tribes of Helveti.
Is same in Belgium, where both Romance and Germanic languages are spoken.
So I think this is another argument that supports the fact that Celtic and Germanic and Romance people had in the past a common language.
EDIT:
I excluded Romania from this thread, because anyway, we have Italy with even 75% R1B-M269 in some central areas of Italy, to make things clear, that the Latin speakers were also some R1B-M269.
As for the theories that R1B-M269 came from actual land that is ruled by Russia, yes, is very obvious, but when R1B-M269 was in Central Asia, Slavs were not in Central Asia, is not even know if Slavs existed in those times, as an ethnicity.
Central Asia land become a part of Russia in 1500 or so,so no,sorry, there is no early link between Celts and Slavs.
 
Last edited:
I2a-Din, in antiquity, were Bastarnae people (germanic people), which would become Slavicized. Nothing Thrachian in them.

I find your statement inaccurate. There is no way I2a people, my predecessors included, were Germanic. Germanic people are in majority steppe people, and I2a people were natives, meaning they spoke different language and calling themselves, something else rather than Germans. My point of view is I2a people were Germanized, Slavicized, Albanised, as others came in waves
 
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.
Are South Slavs really Slavic? What can and should be considered Slavic? East Germanic people are Baltid.
 
I find your statement inaccurate. There is no way I2a people, my predecessors included, were Germanic. Germanic people are in majority steppe people, and I2a people were natives, meaning they spoke different language and calling themselves, something else rather than Germans. My point of view is I2a people were Germanized, Slavicized, Albanised, as others came in waves
I2 came in Balkans via Megalithic Mesolithic waves. All over Balkans nothing to do with Albanians Serbians Croats Romans or others Megalithic culture is usually in artefacts in the Balkans
 
I2a-Din, in antiquity, were Bastarnae people (germanic people), which would become Slavicized. Nothing Thrachian in them.
Nothing Thracian/Dacian or Illyrian about being Dinaric those are a type of peoples ( not a sub race )
 
I think a link between Celtic and Germanic people is offered by the R1B-M269 large group of paternal lines.
If you start with Austria,Germany,Netherlands,South Scandinavia (but not Finland) from the countries that are speaking a Germanic language and take the countries that are speaking Romance languages, but clearly have Celtic ancestry, which are Belgium,Italy,France,Iberia,UK and The Republic of Ireland, all have plenty of R1B-M269.
Sure, the clades are different, but you can find R1B-L21 in Germany at low percentages.
Another thing, is Switzerland, where are spoken both Germanic and Romance languages, but Switzerland name - Confederation Helvetica shows the fact they are also descending mostly from the Celtic tribes of Helveti.
Is same in Belgium, where both Romance and Germanic languages are spoken.
So I think this is another argument that supports the fact that Celtic and Germanic and Romance people had in the past a common language.
EDIT:
I excluded Romania from this thread, because anyway, we have Italy with even 75% R1B-M269 in some central areas of Italy, to make things clear, that the Latin speakers were also some R1B-M269.
As for the theories that R1B-M269 came from actual land that is ruled by Russia, yes, is very obvious, but when R1B-M269 was in Central Asia, Slavs were not in Central Asia, is not even know if Slavs existed in those times, as an ethnicity.
Central Asia land become a part of Russia in 1500 or so,so no,sorry, there is no early link between Celts and Slavs.

Slavs - R1a-Z280 (mainly) + I2a and R1a-M458 (after separation from Balto-Slavic into proto-Slavic)
Balts (Letto-Lithuanians) - They were Z280 as well before they migrated from the forest zones of Russia toward Baltic Sea. When they migrated there, they adopted N1c.
Prussians - not still known. Althought they are some indicators that they were also rich with N1c and R1a.
 
I2 came in Balkans via Megalithic Mesolithic waves. All over Balkans nothing to do with Albanians Serbians Croats Romans or others Megalithic culture is usually in artefacts in the Balkans
I agree with you! The person I was debating thought some were Germanic's( some I2a people) and become slavisized
 
I find your statement inaccurate. There is no way I2a people, my predecessors included, were Germanic. Germanic people are in majority steppe people, and I2a people were natives, meaning they spoke different language and calling themselves, something else rather than Germans. My point of view is I2a people were Germanized, Slavicized, Albanised, as others came in waves

The man was clearly talking about ethnicities from historic times (say, the last 2000 years), roughly contemporaneous with the Proto-Slavic people, and not about the ultimate origin of these haplogroups (whose carriers by the way were certainly autosomally very different 1500 years ago than they were 10,000 years ago, but Y-DNA haplogroups alone won't show you that change). Also, I2a-Din is more recent than the Indo-Europeanization of most of Central & Northern Europe, so its first carriers, those who carried that specific subclade, were probably already Indo-Europeanized people coming from natives who lived millennia earlier and had already mixed heavily with Anatolian farmers and later mixed again with steppe people. By the time Germanic, Slavic, Albanian and other languages existed in any recognizable form, I2a people were certainly not natives speaking indigenous Mesolithic European languages anymore. You certainly know that ethnic identities, cultures and ancestral DNA makeups come and go, change and change again, but Y-DNA haplogroups may still be the same (especially if you only consider their upstream classification, like I2a).
 
Slavs - R1a-Z280 (mainly) + I2a and R1a-M458 (after separation from Balto-Slavic into proto-Slavic)
Balts (Letto-Lithuanians) - They were Z280 as well before they migrated from the forest zones of Russia toward Baltic Sea. When they migrated there, they adopted N1c.
Prussians - not still known. Althought they are some indicators that they were also rich with N1c and R1a.
Proto-Celto-Italic-Germanic people did not live in the forests of current land of Russia, they were living in the steppes of Russia.
It seems they were herding cows and sheep, as traditional occupations for making a living.
You cannot herd sheep and cows in the woods,but you can herd sheep and cows very well in the steppes.
 
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.

what are you chewing here? Y-I2 is very ancient, and even splitted in subclades , it's very widely spred in complicated ways and it doesn't give us any evident clue concerning important migrations and origins of mdern languages, IMO.
 
I think pre-proto-Germanic was very close at first to Celto-Italic; (global structure and centum aspect) but I suspect ttat at the proto-Germanic stage it had already been in contact with proto-Balto-Slavic languages and even another earlier satem one (Corded?), what influenced maybe more its lexicon than it structure. All amateur bets, for now.
 
Rapid radiation of the Inner Indo-European languages: an advanced approach to IndoEuropean lexicostatistics

Alexei S. Kassian,1,2 † Mikhail Zhivlov,3,4 George Starostin,3,4,5 Artem A. Trofimov,2 Petr A. Kocharov,6,7 Anna Kuritsyna,3 Mikhail N. Saenko 8 1

Two methods produce dated trees: StarlingNJ (strict dates) and Bayesian MCMC (95% highest probability density for the divergence times and the mean dates of divergence). The difference is summarized in Table 2. For the Bayesian method we refer to the tree based on the proper IE dataset (its dates differ only slightly from those of the IE-Samoyed tree).

Table 2. Discrepancies in dates obtained for the Stage-2 derivational drift-free dataset (wind ≠ veter, agni = ignis). 95% HPD and mean for Bayesian MCMC, strict dates for StarlingNJ. See Fig. 1 for the tree representation. Bayesian MCMC (Fig. S2c) StarlingNJ (Fig. S1c–d) Anatolian split-off (root) 4314–3450 BC (mean 3747 BC) 5080 BC Tocharian split-off 3821–2099 BC (mean 2974 BC) 4700 BC Inner IE break-up 3572–2145 BC (mean 2802 BC) 4100 BC Greek-Armenian break-up 2747–1264 BC (mean 1986 BC) 3460 BC Italic-Germanic-Celtic break-up 2825–1443 BC (mean 2128 BC) 3500 BC Insular Celtic break-up 605 BC – 138 AD (mean 217 BC) 1500 BC Balto-Slavic–Indo-Iranian break-up 2933–1847 BC (mean 2366 BC) 3570 BC

This study tries to set that Celtic-Italic-Germanic were in the same "boat" and separated between around 2128 BC (mean) and 3500 BC according to the method choosen.

I have not read the entire paper but I 'll try to do it.
 
It seems the system which gives the older dates would be more reliable. ATW whatever the choosen method, beginning of Celtic individualisation is older than affirmed by some people. It confirms rather my thought that it and Italic evolved around the BB phenomenon period, surely in Western places, and the language at least - not all the later cultural artefacts linked to the culture - has not been introduced by post Seyma-Turbino steppic tribes. No absolute proof, it's true, because we know that the places were a language stays are not by force the place where it did its genesis. But if we put anDNA modif's, archeoL and linguistics together...
 

This thread has been viewed 29054 times.

Back
Top