Iberian Altaic language

That's such a tiny amount that it doesn't establish any strong link at all (and you're trying to say Iberians were Altaic, since they were not genocided we'd expect a larger genetic input), and it might even be "noise" in the ancestry test. Such a small ammount might actually and much more probably come as a minority ancestry in other completely different ethnicites, and not directly from "Altaic sources". Also, as I said above and repeat now, there is no such thing as "Altaic language". It's a widely debunked hypothesis in contemporary linguistics.

Your comparisons of Spanish dances with Caucasian ones also do not make sense, because "Altaic" peoples were Northeast Asian until the Late Antiquity, and not Caucasian ones at all. There is nothing "Altaic" about those comparisons. If anything it just proves my previous point that the Iberians were probably of Anatolian/EEF descent maybe with some Caucasian/Iranian input. That makes much more sense if you're trying to find similarities with Georgian dances and the like.
Ygorsc, how do you mean there is no Altaic language?
Regarding Chinese sourses there was a caukasian looking populasion in the Altai befor the Xiong Nu who themselves where a mix Caukasian/N-/E-Asian. There is much evidens of esrly colonisation of Europian populatins in the far east. Taking the language with them, which surely changed through the time. But it would be interesting to know more about these early settlers.
On the other hand the skytian/sarmatian/saka/hun people reigned over milenia from the black see to korea. So it can be a link to altaian people or language. At least imaginable.

To me the video sound also very Turkish. But maybee it is just the sound.
Also the inscription is interesting, similar to Hungarian/Etruscan/or Runik from the stepe.

Sent from my SM-N950F using Eupedia Forum mobile app
 
Sorry for the spelling, its from my mobile and from my bad english

Sent from my SM-N950F using Eupedia Forum mobile app
 
^^
To Ygorcs Regarding the topic of the Caucasus dances, I have gone to another topic in the same thread, it has nothing to do with my opinions about the possible Altaic origin of the Iberian. There are two themes: I have seen dance dances such as La Jota and sevillanas in the dances of the Caucaso and if you hurry me to flamenco. A part Altaico as a possible origin of the Iberian.


You will say what you want but I have the feeling that in all this linguistics there must be a monopoly where someone or a small group are the ones who direct and the rest are heretics, as I would say as a small mafia. Of course I have almost no idea of ​​linguistics or dances or almost anyone, but I want to continue almost like this to not be conditioned and see things from a primary point of a true ignorant in the field and see things being a virgin, And I like it or not, the popular Spanish dances come from the Caucaso in its base and the Iberian does not discover its origin because someone or some sector does not want it because in the dates that we are already had to be resolved the origin of the Iberian, as well that I intend to continue with my virginal techniques.
 
^^
2.47 of ancestral Altaic and less than 1% of Altaic tungus is it noisy? Here when it is interesting, it is noise and when it is of interest it is for the whole population, because it will tell me what ethnicity this has come to me.
 
^^
2.47 of ancestral Altaic and less than 1% of Altaic tungus is it noisy? Here when it is interesting, it is noise and when it is of interest it is for the whole population, because it will tell me what ethnicity this has come to me.

Which test is it? Do you have a getmach number? It could be a noisy. Example,some test says I have inuit(My Heritage), some says I am Thai (Dna.Land) but there are no these in FTdna.

Does it common in your region? Do you have any family member like that?

But it could be something also just in your case.
 
Ygorsc, how do you mean there is no Altaic language?
Regarding Chinese sourses there was a caukasian looking populasion in the Altai befor the Xiong Nu who themselves where a mix Caukasian/N-/E-Asian. There is much evidens of esrly colonisation of Europian populatins in the far east. Taking the language with them, which surely changed through the time. But it would be interesting to know more about these early settlers.
On the other hand the skytian/sarmatian/saka/hun people reigned over milenia from the black see to korea. So it can be a link to altaian people or language. At least imaginable.

To me the video sound also very Turkish. But maybee it is just the sound.
Also the inscription is interesting, similar to Hungarian/Etruscan/or Runik from the stepe.

Sent from my SM-N950F using Eupedia Forum mobile app

I mean what most modern linguists say: that the proposed Altaic hypothesis, which posited a common Altaic language family, is now heavily discredited, and in fact the vast majority of mainstream scholars now consider that the Altaic languages are actually a huge Sprachbund of several unrelated language families (or if they're related the connection is so old that it cannot be traced back by comparative linguistics methods anymore). Those unrelated languages were in strong mutual contacts and perhaps also admixture with each other for millennia, so they started to share some words and grammatical features, as it also happened in the Balkan Sprachbund and others. Altaic has been strongly debunked as a real language family with a common proto-language with one only source common to them all.

There was a Caucasian population in the Altai before the Xiongnu and later the Huns, who also absorbed many West Eurasian populations especially as they expanded westwards to Central Asia and Europe. However, there are too many indications that that Caucasoid movement was associated with the same spread of BA Pontic-Caspian steppe ancestry that also expanded into most of Europe, parts of the Transcaucasian region and into South-Central Asia, a movement clearly associated with the historical or modern presence of Indo-European languages. Just south of the Altai there was a very archaic and very "non-Indo-Iranian" branch of PIE-derived languages (Tocharian, which was actually two highly divergent languages, Tocharian A and Tocharian B) as late as the Early Middle Ages, which was long after the expansion of more East Asian-like populations in that region (Xiongnu, Huns, Turks, Mongols and so on). Old Chinese is also full of clearly ancient Indo-European loanwords, which also indicate that Indo-European languages must've been brought to the vicinity of the early Chinese civilization in the BA and/or IA.

In any case, there was no single population bringing "Proto-Altaic" language to anywhere, because that language most probably never existed. The so-called Altaic peoples owe their ancestry and language to diferente ancient populations.
 
^^
To Ygorcs Regarding the topic of the Caucasus dances, I have gone to another topic in the same thread, it has nothing to do with my opinions about the possible Altaic origin of the Iberian. There are two themes: I have seen dance dances such as La Jota and sevillanas in the dances of the Caucaso and if you hurry me to flamenco. A part Altaico as a possible origin of the Iberian.


You will say what you want but I have the feeling that in all this linguistics there must be a monopoly where someone or a small group are the ones who direct and the rest are heretics, as I would say as a small mafia. Of course I have almost no idea of ​​linguistics or dances or almost anyone, but I want to continue almost like this to not be conditioned and see things from a primary point of a true ignorant in the field and see things being a virgin, And I like it or not, the popular Spanish dances come from the Caucaso in its base and the Iberian does not discover its origin because someone or some sector does not want it because in the dates that we are already had to be resolved the origin of the Iberian, as well that I intend to continue with my virginal techniques.

Well, that's your right, but then if that's what you really wish you shouldn't have started a thread asking to be informed of opinions and knowledge on the topic you're speculating about, because any new information about these matters will taint the "purity" of your ignorance, isn't that so? ;)
 
^^
Believe it or not, I do not ask about what the patriarchs think that they should handle all this and that they have the Iberian on stand back, I want to know their opinion, not others by their mouths.
 
Well, then I'm out. Thanks for explaining. I'm not fond of opinions that are based on mere feeling/intuition, unsubstantiated speculation or "I think so because, well, because I just think so" (that's what we call achismo and not opinião in Portuguese). It seems like a nice fantasy is better than some hard facts and scientific knowledge (which, falsifiable though it is, is much better than personal guesses) for some. Fine enough.
 
@Ygorcs about Altaic

I know that there is no Ural-Altai Language family believer much,now. Even my cousion put names his some Ural and Altay. In addtion, Korean-Japanese brach is seperated as Northeast Asiatic Languages from extended Altai Family.

Now I learnt that
Mongolian and Turkic are seperated families in some researchers' opinion. Even Northeast Asiatics are too; Korean and Japanese seperated families too

How mess it is...
 
@Ygorcs about Altaic

I know that there is no Ural-Altai Language family believer much,now. Even my cousion put names his some Ural and Altay. In addtion, Korean-Japanese brach is seperated as Northeast Asiatic Languages from extended Altai Family.

Now I learnt that
Mongolian and Turkic are seperated families in some researchers' opinion. Even Northeast Asiatics are too; Korean and Japanese seperated families too

How mess it is...

Probably some of those families have totally separate origins and only shared some features because of long mutual contact in Northeast Asia, but maybe some others (maybe some pairs like Japanese-Korean or Turkic-Mongolian) have extremely old connections and diverged so long ago, maybe even during Upper Paleolithic times, that their relationship cannot be established for certain anymore. I think it's not that surprising that the "Altaic" regions might in fact harbor several distinct language families. It's a huge area with a very complex ancient genetic history as the recent papers on Siberia have demonstrated. The "Altaic" term probably lumped together several languages and language families that were just not well studied and understood enough for their "incompatibilities" to become clear enough. When they were better studied, the hypothesis fell. I also think the same "understudy bias" happens even today with the African languages, all of them lumped together in just a few language families even though some of the supposed branches within each of those language families are extremely unlike each other and only share a few common features like phonological or typological similarities that may well be a result of prolonged contact, stratum influences or even chance, and not a common linguistic origin that could be unambiguously traced by linguists.
 
I mean what most modern linguists say: that the proposed Altaic hypothesis, which posited a common Altaic language family, is now heavily discredited, and in fact the vast majority of mainstream scholars now consider that the Altaic languages are actually a huge Sprachbund of several unrelated language families (or if they're related the connection is so old that it cannot be traced back by comparative linguistics methods anymore). Those unrelated languages were in strong mutual contacts and perhaps also admixture with each other for millennia, so they started to share some words and grammatical features, as it also happened in the Balkan Sprachbund and others. Altaic has been strongly debunked as a real language family with a common proto-language with one only source common to them all.

There was a Caucasian population in the Altai before the Xiongnu and later the Huns, who also absorbed many West Eurasian populations especially as they expanded westwards to Central Asia and Europe. However, there are too many indications that that Caucasoid movement was associated with the same spread of BA Pontic-Caspian steppe ancestry that also expanded into most of Europe, parts of the Transcaucasian region and into South-Central Asia, a movement clearly associated with the historical or modern presence of Indo-European languages. Just south of the Altai there was a very archaic and very "non-Indo-Iranian" branch of PIE-derived languages (Tocharian, which was actually two highly divergent languages, Tocharian A and Tocharian B) as late as the Early Middle Ages, which was long after the expansion of more East Asian-like populations in that region (Xiongnu, Huns, Turks, Mongols and so on). Old Chinese is also full of clearly ancient Indo-European loanwords, which also indicate that Indo-European languages must've been brought to the vicinity of the early Chinese civilization in the BA and/or IA.

In any case, there was no single population bringing "Proto-Altaic" language to anywhere, because that language most probably never existed. The so-called Altaic peoples owe their ancestry and language to diferente ancient populations.
Ygorcs: thank you for your reply. Do you have any online source for the altaic language issue? I would be interested, how they prove it.
I am on the same opinion in most what you wrote, but I doubt the IE language of the first W-eurasian settlers in the altai region. There is no proof they spoke IE language. It is possible(?) IE language and ural-altaic languages have a very ancient common root. That would explain the similarities too. Also there is no proof the Skytians spoke IE language.
I must admit I have the same feeling as Carlos, that in linguistics and archeology there is a strong tendency to prove, "everything" is IE origin. Which in most cases is not proved just hypothesis, but spread, as if it were proved. So what I mean is the tendencies today are not really scientific. In science there is still too much politics and to little struggle for truth. Everybody should accept if something is proved without a doubt but if it's just a hypothesis or theory, it should be seen as such and investigate all alternative theories to get a good picture of the whole. Still I'm very interested in the "no altaic language family" issu. If you have any links please let me know.

Sent from my SM-N950F using Eupedia Forum mobile app
 
WE ARE NOT COMING FROM LATIN - Carme Jiménez Huertas

Ever since I met Carme Jiménez, I have not stopped wondering how it is possible that until now I have not heard of the theory that questions the fact that Latin is the mother of Romance languages. Listening to her is suddenly bumping into common sense.

Although Carme, is not the only linguist who defends that our language does not come from Latin. There are authors who defend this theory for less than a century! But apparently, there is a systematic deafness of the academic world to this "seemingly rare" theory. No wonder, to recognize something like this would highlight our entire linguistic system and the centennial belief in an initial postulate (that Latin is the mother tongue) that has never been objectively revised. Were the inhabitants of the Iberian Peninsula mute before the arrival of the Romans ...?

We hide with something similar to the deceptive Darwin and the supposed evolution of the species. Here we also still lack the "missing link". They have always told us that our language is the result of a "degeneration" of the Latin language in the vulgar language; on the other hand, a term clearly derogatory. But there is already too much evidence to show that vulgar Latin did not exist. If it had existed, we should have found many more "intermediate links" written between that "degenerate" Latin and the Romance languages. However, it is not like that. This should make us reflect ... do not you think?

Carmen Jiménez is a writer and philologist specializing in linguistics, and also a Latin teacher! He knows very well what he is talking about. He has faced the academicist cast of historical grammar for maintaining this theory, as well as for his research on the Iberian language, published in ibers.cat. But he has not given up on the effort and has just published his research in the book We do not come from Latin, in which he tells us a somewhat different grammatical story ...
His next dream now is to create a multidisciplinary team to definitively decipher the Iberian language (which already preexisted here since the seventh century BC long before the arrival of the Romans) and with it, the key to the entire linguistic framework. I recommend not only the interview, but also your book, which has fascinated me.

Subsequent updates
Both the criticisms and the praise that Carmen J. Huertas has received after the publication of this video and her book are unmentionable. It does not deserve too much to entertain in answering criticism, especially if they have no substance, but I add here one of the writings in response to a fierce criticism from the University of the Basque Country, and probably well paid, because the minions do not sharpen knives unless let the gold shine. Here Carmen's response to the comment by Ander Ros Cubas.
After the impact caused by the first edition of the book "We do not come from Latin", Carme J. Huertas published in March 2016 a second edition, revised and expanded, which presents new research hypotheses. In addition to an in-depth review of the contents, three chapters on lexicology, etymology and toponymy are added. Another important change has been the incorporation of the Romanian language in the study. The hypothesis of a mother tongue prior to the so-called romanization acquires much more solidity and consistency. In this book a new research hypothesis is presented that defends that the Romance languages ​​share a linguistic typology that refers us to a common mother tongue of agglutinating character much older than Latin. Recent research shows that linguistic change at the level of morphosyntactic structures is a very slow process. Cognitive linguistics assumes a symbolic basis for grammatical constructs, expressed through compositional formantes that have survived in the lexicon of current romances. The evidence is more and more conclusive: this process does not pass through Latin. In this edition the Romanian language has been incorporated. The romanization agents that we find in the rest of the countries where Romance languages ​​are spoken, did not occur in Romania, so the hypothesis that Romance languages ​​do not come from Latin acquires greater solidity and consistency.

https://timefortruth.es/2013/10/10/no-venimos-del-latin-carme-jimenez-huertas/

(Includes video)

Do the sister languages resemble each other but do not resemble the mother?

In Spain there is currently no chair on the Iberian. - It asks: How is it possible?
 
@Carlos
What are your arguments here? A conspiracy of academics?
When I look at romances languages and Latin I see immediatly the common origin. If you rely on today structures of languages compared to ancient ones, you are stroke by the differences, but the community of primary lexicon are very evident taken in account the phonetic evolutionS (local). The question of structure is linked I think to western substrata very different from the first PIE pop's. At first sight, roughly said, the eastern pops of the IE dispersion kept more ancient structures spite local evolutions; here we deal with languages shifts for a part; from another parts, languages during their life can internally change for diverse reasons without question of substratum; more adequation sometimes.
Some confusion arises among people when we speak of "classical" written languages:
- these written languages are everytime more conservative than the spoken tongue, and concerning strcutures, very often (not always, sure, in the cas of Greek and Latin) they are frozen forms (epitaphs) or very free and stylistic poetic forms.
- basic folks latin language was very soon different enough I think from the classical written latin.
- the basic tongue WAS NOT WRITTEN, so you cannot evaluate it so easily.
- but even with these cautions, some ancient texts show already some evolution from Latin, when Roman Empire falled definitely down.
We see already last latin incorporating a lot of Celtic and maybe fewer Germanic words without speaking of other languages words; but this doesn't change the fact that the basis of Romance languages is Latin;
With these reasonings, we can also say that Breton and Welsh and Gaelic aren't Celtic languages!
Even farther, I could say French dialects of the 1900's were not dialects of true French, based AND on Old French AND to modern school teached French.
The true question is: is a language ONE language or SEVERAL social koînes ???
Iberia "Latin" is the result of diverse ethnic substrata and some compartimenting and isolation by distance (The most of them gave birth in northern mountainous regions when mozarabic was definitely erased.
Have you heard popular today french compared to academic upper classes French? The SAME WITH ENGLISH

Just my point.
 
"gave birth": "got birth"
 
@Carlos
What are your arguments here? A conspiracy of academics?
When I look at romances languages and Latin I see immediatly the common origin. If you rely on today structures of languages compared to ancient ones, you are stroke by the differences, but the community of primary lexicon are very evident taken in account the phonetic evolutionS (local). The question of structure is linked I think to western substrata very different from the first PIE pop's. At first sight, roughly said, the eastern pops of the IE dispersion kept more ancient structures spite local evolutions; here we deal with languages shifts for a part; from another parts, languages during their life can internally change for diverse reasons without question of substratum; more adequation sometimes.
Some confusion arises among people when we speak of "classical" written languages:
- these written languages are everytime more conservative than the spoken tongue, and concerning strcutures, very often (not always, sure, in the cas of Greek and Latin) they are frozen forms (epitaphs) or very free and stylistic poetic forms.
- basic folks latin language was very soon different enough I think from the classical written latin.
- the basic tongue WAS NOT WRITTEN, so you cannot evaluate it so easily.
- but even with these cautions, some ancient texts show already some evolution from Latin, when Roman Empire falled definitely down.
We see already last latin incorporating a lot of Celtic and maybe fewer Germanic words without speaking of other languages words; but this doesn't change the fact that the basis of Romance languages is Latin;
With these reasonings, we can also say that Breton and Welsh and Gaelic aren't Celtic languages!
Even farther, I could say French dialects of the 1900's were not dialects of true French, based AND on Old French AND to modern school teached French.
The true question is: is a language ONE language or SEVERAL social koînes ???
Iberia "Latin" is the result of diverse ethnic substrata and some compartimenting and isolation by distance (The most of them gave birth in northern mountainous regions when mozarabic was definitely erased.
Have you heard popular today french compared to academic upper classes French? The SAME WITH ENGLISH

Just my point.

Common origin and direct descent are not the same thing. Carlos is right to some extent...
For all we know proto-Latin an proto-Iberian could have been related Millenia earlier than the mainstream rhetoric suggests, when the term "Latin" was not even a thing(the term, not Proto-Latin as a language per se). Hence, the commonplace misconception that all romance languages must derived from Latin, rather than Romance languages and Latin being connected at a stem level, before a posteriori differentiation.

I mean, don't get me wrong, I would have called Medieval French "Vulgar Latin" too if I was the Pope, and wrote a bunch of books.

How old is Rome? How old is "Latin" ?, for how long have people been living and speaking in Iberia?


IMO Carlos indignation is warranted. We are not talking about facts anymore, but rather interpretations of the facts, namely opinions. So people better quit this holier than thou rhetorics.
 
A database recently completed and carried out by four universities and the Ministry of Economy allows interpretation of more than 3,000 Iberian, Celtiberian and Tartessian texts

If Javier Velaza, professor of Latin and dean of the Faculty of Philology of the University of Barcelona, had climbed in 219 before Christ to the walls of Sagunto during his siege by the Carthaginians, he could have gone in the correct Iberian its besieged inhabitants. These -who would have understood his words- could have responded by throwing an arrow at him or, exalted by his speech, turn him into the warrior that would lead them to victory. Velaza is one of the few experts in the world who is able to pronounce the Iberian (as he does with the Celtiberian or the Tartessian), but he does not understand anything of what he says. Or almost.

Now, a powerful database (hesperia.ucm.es) puts at the disposal of those interested everything that linguists have unraveled from the Tartessian, Celtiberian, Iberian and Proto-Basque languages (known as Paleohispanic languages). This computer translator is about to be finished after 20 years of work (started by the recently deceased Javier de la Hoz), and will allow closer to the interpretation of the more than 3,000 existing texts. Includes photographs of the inscriptions and the coordinates of their location. Also, at the end of February, the book Paleohispania Languages and Epigraphies (Oxford University Press) will open these investigations to the English speakers. The Ministry of Economy and the specialists of four universities (Basque Country, Complutense of Madrid, Barcelona and Zaragoza) have made this possible.

To this surprising situation has come -part of the works of the historian Manuel Gómez Moreno or the linguist Jürgen Untermann- for the discovery in 1992, during the dredging of the port of Huelva, of six small pieces of pottery written in an unknown language, in addition of the discovery in Sagunto of a rudimentary Rosetta stone. However, experts do not like this term because they do not know if the words in Latin and Iberian correspond.


In any case, what is certain is that an element linked to the languages ​​that were spoken in the Iberian Peninsula between the 8th and 2nd centuries BC: all used related writing systems even if they did not understand each other. It was not properly an alphabet, but a system that specialists call semisilabarios. Broadly speaking, it would be a mixture of alphabet (with vowels and consonants), as well as a list of labial, dental and velar occlusive syllables. That is, a hypothetical Iberian scholar trying to memorize it - and if he had the same sequence as the Latino, who did not have it - would have to repeat something like: a, ba, be, bi, bo, bu, da, de, di , do, du ...

The history of this writing starts in the eighth century BC in what is now Huelva. Afterwards, they borrowed from neighboring towns, such as those who inhabited the Algarve or the Tartessians to record a hundred funeral steles.


Almost three centuries later, in the coastal strip that extends from the French Roussillon to Almeria, began to write a completely different language: the Iberian, but curiously also used almost the same signs. These facts mislead the experts, because it is contrasted that some words in Iberian ended in d, a sound that does not exist in the signatory (da, de, di, do ...). So the conclusion is that they copied the Huelva system and adapted it to their needs: they invented the final d, for example.

Some 2,300 inscriptions have been found, including in 1923 the so-called Arquitrabe de Sagunto, a parallelepiped block broken by its center and incomplete. It has two lines, the first in Latin and the bottom in Iberian.


In the peninsular center another language was spoken: the Celtiberian language, whose translation is more advanced since it is an Indo-European language and easily comparable with other more known ones (such as the Celtic, the Welsh, the Germanic ...). More than 800 entries have been discovered. This town wrote on bronze and the most famous text of those that have survived is included in the so-called Bronzes de Botorrita. There are four plates, three of them in Celtiberian and one in Latin that are related to a judicial process.


Likewise, two other languages ​​have been detected with the same alphabet in the Peninsula: the Lusitanian language, with only six inscriptions on rock, and the proto-words, to which perhaps a few texts written in a variant of the Iberian sign correspond. Almost everything can be pronounced, but little translated. Velaza highlights, however, the important advances that have been made in the last ten years. "Computer science will help us, although it is not enough. But the future is exciting, "he concludes. In fact, the professor already pronounces it.

https://elpais.com/cultura/2019/02/...71zR9Q9ECi3ocZ54A1diaE4_ouBOvbEi0x695vVKMXYy0
 
http://hesperia.ucm.es/

Map of Paleohispanic coins and inscriptions, classified according to epigraphic and linguistic zones.

zonas_hesperia.jpg
 
Carlos, you need to decide what you want: if Iberian was Altaic (whatever that is, because Altaic was never proven to have a common proto-language well accepted by the academia), then it cannot be a language directly related to Latin; and if it was related to Latin (no proof of that at all, we know some numerals in Iberian - completely unlike those of Latin or any IE language), then it cannot have been Iberian. It can't be the new panacea, a one-size-fits-all language. ;)

As for the other points, I think Moesan already addressed them very well. All the trends of Romance languages were already seen in some Latin inscriptions written in less formal sociolects, and in any case the formalized written Classical Latin was a form of Latin that reflected how the language was spoken around 200-150 B.C. And even in that time it was the sociolect of the elite, which in most societies is more conservative than the sociolect of the ordinary poor people. By the time of the Late Roman Empire there had been centuries of linguistic evolution. It's a total fallacy to claim that morphosyntactic changes need a lot of time to happen. That's not true, languages can have fast and strong pulses of change followed by relative stasis and vice-versa, there isn't a definite rule for that, and we have the textually documented transition from early Middle English to Modern English and from Old Norse to modern Scandinavian languages to prove that large syntactic and morphological changes can happen within some centuries if they're given a "stimulus" (like a phonetic change that in turn destabilizes a certain morphological pattern and ultimately renders it unreliable or even useless, as it happened in Old English and also in Vulgar Latin).
 
Ygorcs: thank you for your reply. Do you have any online source for the altaic language issue? I would be interested, how they prove it.
I am on the same opinion in most what you wrote, but I doubt the IE language of the first W-eurasian settlers in the altai region. There is no proof they spoke IE language. It is possible(?) IE language and ural-altaic languages have a very ancient common root. That would explain the similarities too. Also there is no proof the Skytians spoke IE language.
I must admit I have the same feeling as Carlos, that in linguistics and archeology there is a strong tendency to prove, "everything" is IE origin. Which in most cases is not proved just hypothesis, but spread, as if it were proved. So what I mean is the tendencies today are not really scientific. In science there is still too much politics and to little struggle for truth. Everybody should accept if something is proved without a doubt but if it's just a hypothesis or theory, it should be seen as such and investigate all alternative theories to get a good picture of the whole. Still I'm very interested in the "no altaic language family" issu. If you have any links please let me know.

Sent from my SM-N950F using Eupedia Forum mobile app

Sorry, I read about that subject a long time ago, now I just won't remember the links and the titles of the articles I read. But it should be very hard to find studies on the Altaic language hypothesis (or debunking it) on the internet, that's how I found good sources about it, too.

I think there is quite a lot of scientific evidences to back the hypothesis of IE as the language of Afanasievo and also the language of Scytho-Sarmatians, especially now that we have ancient DNA and we know that there is a direct and close relationship between those later cultures and the earlier Pontic-Caspian populations that also seem to have participated strongly in the diffusion of IE languages (besides, we actually do have ancient texts written in Iranic Central Asian languages in áreas that were named "Scythian" or related terms by other peoples). It's of course just a matter of probability, not certainty, but probable is better than nothing.
 

This thread has been viewed 32387 times.

Back
Top