Eupedia Forums
Site NavigationEupedia Top > Eupedia Forum & Japan Forum
Page 2 of 20 FirstFirst 123412 ... LastLast
Results 26 to 50 of 495

Thread: What does genetics say about the origin of Germanic people?

  1. #26
    Regular Member Achievements:
    Veteran5000 Experience PointsThree Friends
    spruithean's Avatar
    Join Date
    29-08-12
    Posts
    329
    Points
    8,910
    Level
    28
    Points: 8,910, Level: 28
    Level completed: 27%, Points required for next Level: 440
    Overall activity: 2.0%


    Country: Canada-Ontario



    Quote Originally Posted by Megalophias View Post
    That study doesn't have Z93 on the list of tested SNPs, and the wiki page for Lurs doesn't say that either.
    This. It isn't one of the tested SNPs, which could imply it wasn't even tested at all.

    Quote Originally Posted by Cyrus View Post
    As you read it says: "All the R1a Y chromosomes belong to the M198* paragroup with frequencies ranging from 0% to 25%. Indeed neither the “European” M458 nor the “Pakistani” M434 have been observed in our samples."
    So you're just going to ignore this little piece right here... "have been observed in our samples" That's their samples, that doesn't represent the entire population and we need to consider the rates at which Y-lines die off (which is actually quite high).

    Quote Originally Posted by Megalophias View Post
    What does that have to do with Z93?
    Not much.

    Quote Originally Posted by Cyrus View Post
    It says subclades of haplogroup R1a1a don't exist in Iran and R1a1a1b2 (Z93) is one of them, there is no reason that it mentions all subclades.
    It doesn't say "does not exist in Iran" it says "not observed" that's like saying I don't see Canadian lynx in Canada therefore they don't exist, when in reality I'm just too far south of their territory.

    Quote Originally Posted by Megalophias View Post
    You certainly cannot assume that a certain subclade is excluded. You have to look at the SNPs that were actually tested, and Z93 is not one of them.
    Precisely. If the SNP is not in the list of those that were tested it was not part of the testing process and assumptions should not be made about its presence or lack thereof.

  2. #27
    Banned Achievements:
    Tagger Second Class3 months registered1000 Experience Points

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


    Country: Iran



    Quote Originally Posted by Megalophias View Post
    You certainly cannot assume that a certain subclade is excluded. You have to look at the SNPs that were actually tested, and Z93 is not one of them.
    Let's suppose that R1a-Z93 was not really tested and the remaining two percent of haplogroups is just Z93, what does it prove?!

  3. #28
    Moderator Achievements:
    1 year registeredTagger Second ClassThree Friends25000 Experience Points
    Awards:
    Most Popular

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


    Ethnic group
    Multiracial Brazilian
    Country: Brazil



    2 out of 2 members found this post helpful.
    Quote Originally Posted by Cyrus View Post
    Proto-Germanic as a direct descendant of proto-Indo-European, certainly existed in the 6th millennium BC and even eralier, a haplogroup in the north of Europe which dates back to the Middle Bronze Age, couldn't be certainly the original Germanic one, especially because we can't find it in high frequency in the lands where Eastern Germanic people, like Goths and Vandals, lived.

    Let's begin from the basic, please answer this question: What was the main haplogroup of Germanic-speaking people (not the people of modern Germanic lands) in the 6th millennium BC?
    That's nothing but wishful thinking. "Certainly"? No way. Haploroups do not carry languages, males who have a certain haplogroup speak a language and may spread it. All languages of the entire world "exist since ever" because they all derive from earlier stages of the linguistic evolution of a given language branch, so that invalidates any claim that a haplogroup cannot be associated with a certain language's expansion because it's "too recent". You're not drawing scientifically plausible conclusions about linguistics from the genetic evidence, they're all based on false premises. Besides, most linguists estimate Proto-Indo-European, even Early PIE, at 5,000-6,000 years ago. Its descendants branches date, with almost absolute certainty, to the Bronze Age, because each of them has descendants sharing words that only make sense if they came from a language spoken in the technological and economical stage of a post-BA society. Besides, PIE languages are just not diverged enough to date from the early Neolithic. Proto-Germanic is not any older than 2500 years, even the first inscriptions in early Proto-Norse are still very close to Proto-Germanic, indicating a recent split. Even Pre-Pre-Pre-Proto-Germanic wouldn't have been much older than 4000 years.

    I won't answer a question that is based on a false premise that has absolutely no scientific support. Even PIE in the 6th millennium BC is a very controversial claim, let alone Proto-Germanic, which is so unlikely as to be impossible. You're basically setting what you wish to be true and then going after evidences that back it up while neglecting anything that people say (and people have said many things to you in this and other threads) that might contradict or maybe even negate some of your ad hoc hypothesis (for instance, you just decided that Germanic-speaking people should exist as early as the 6th millennium BC). You're hell bent on proving you're right, but the problem is that you want us to present evidences that negate your conclusions, but the fact is that even where you're coming from to draw conclusions is extremely fringe and very probably incorrect.

  4. #29
    Moderator Achievements:
    1 year registeredTagger Second ClassThree Friends25000 Experience Points
    Awards:
    Most Popular

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


    Ethnic group
    Multiracial Brazilian
    Country: Brazil



    2 out of 2 members found this post helpful.
    Quote Originally Posted by Cyrus View Post
    Haplogroups don't relate to languages, Germanic is a direct descendant of proto-Indo-European, it is impossible that the Germanic sound shifts from the Proto-Indo-European language happened after the 6th millennium BC because proto-IE became extinct before this date.
    Sorry, but what you wrote is utter nonsense. You're missing some basic knowledge about what PIE is. PIE didn't become "extinct". It evolved into its several daughter languages. There's no such a thing as an "older IE language" or a "more recent one", though some may have been attested earlier than others. If all of them came from the same common ancestor, they have by definition the same age, and some may have just been more innovative than others.

    The Germanic sound shifts obviously did happen, by definition, after PIE split into several distinct dialect groups or distinct language subgroups. They couldn't have happened before, because then that language wouldn't be PIE, but already distinct languages derived from PIE. It's exactly the contrary: the sound shifts of Proto-Germanic can only have happened AFTER PIE diverged into several distinct proto-languages. When we say "PIE was spoken in this and that period", it refers to a common stage of that language before the start of the particular lexical, grammatical and sound shifts that characterize each of its descendant branches.

    Besides, you're incorrectly assuming that Proto-Germanic appeared from scratch suddenly, with all its characteristic sound shifts and other particularities in place, but what happened was clearly a continuous evolution that saw successive sound shifts changing the language more and more from its former Common PIE stage (as it happens with all languages of the world, or do you think Modern English's or Portuguese's sound laws happened all at once in just a few centuries, and they remained static, totally unchanged after that?). Proto-Germanic is an Iron Age language, and it's absolutely certain that it kept evolving, with a succession of changes, from the moment it branched off from an earlier PIE (remembe, PIE means last common stage of unified dialect continuum that gave birth to all IE subgroups) to the moment it was spoken. That meant millennia of sound shifts and lexical and grammatical changes.

    Germanic is no "direct descendant of PIE". At all. You're unquestionably wrong about that. It's not because we don't have any attestation of earlier stages of the linguistic evolution that gave birth to Proto-Germanic that it means that it arose directly from PIE in fully evolved form many millennia before the Common Era (and you push the PIE dating even further back than most linguists do nowadays. Do you still believe in the Renfrew hypothesis that he himself had to "refine" because the evidences were mounting against his cherished theory?).

  5. #30
    Regular Member Achievements:
    1000 Experience PointsVeteran

    Join Date
    30-09-16
    Posts
    174
    Points
    4,480
    Level
    19
    Points: 4,480, Level: 19
    Level completed: 58%, Points required for next Level: 170
    Overall activity: 0%


    Country: Canada



    1 out of 1 members found this post helpful.
    Quote Originally Posted by Cyrus View Post
    Let's suppose that R1a-Z93 was not really tested and the remaining two percent of haplogroups is just Z93, what does it prove?!
    I have no idea what you were trying to prove in the first place, but next time read the paper instead of jumping to conclusions. If they had tested Z93 they would have said so. This is a scientific paper, not Grandma's cookie recipe.

    Underhill et al 2014 did test for Z93 and subclades, and in their sample of Iranians 77% of R1a (n=259) was Z93, and 15% of total (n=1765) was R1a.

    In Myres et al sample of Iranians (n=150) they had 5% R1b-L23(xM412), which is bound to be R1b-Z2103, and 0% R1b-U106.

    I1 reaches a grand total of 0.2% in Grugni et al's sample (n=938).

  6. #31
    Banned Achievements:
    Tagger Second Class3 months registered1000 Experience Points

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


    Country: Iran



    0 out of 1 members found this post helpful.
    Quote Originally Posted by Ygorcs
    That's nothing but wishful thinking. "Certainly"? No way. Haploroups do not carry languages, males who have a certain haplogroup speak a language and may spread it. All languages of the entire world "exist since ever" because they all derive from earlier stages of the linguistic evolution of a given language branch, so that invalidates any claim that a haplogroup cannot be associated with a certain language's expansion because it's "too recent". You're not drawing scientifically plausible conclusions about linguistics from the genetic evidence, they're all based on false premises. Besides, most linguists estimate Proto-Indo-European, even Early PIE, at 5,000-6,000 years ago. Its descendants branches date, with almost absolute certainty, to the Bronze Age, because each of them has descendants sharing words that only make sense if they came from a language spoken in the technological and economical stage of a post-BA society. Besides, PIE languages are just not diverged enough to date from the early Neolithic. Proto-Germanic is not any older than 2500 years, even the first inscriptions in early Proto-Norse are still very close to Proto-Germanic, indicating a recent split. Even Pre-Pre-Pre-Proto-Germanic wouldn't have been much older than 4000 years.
    I won't answer a question that is based on a false premise that has absolutely no scientific support. Even PIE in the 6th millennium BC is a very controversial claim, let alone Proto-Germanic, which is so unlikely as to be impossible. You're basically setting what you wish to be true and then going after evidences that back it up while neglecting anything that people say (and people have said many things to you in this and other threads) that might contradict or maybe even negate some of your ad hoc hypothesis (for instance, you just decided that Germanic-speaking people should exist as early as the 6th millennium BC). You're hell bent on proving you're right, but the problem is that you want us to present evidences that negate your conclusions, but the fact is that even where you're coming from to draw conclusions is extremely fringe and very probably incorrect.
    Quote Originally Posted by Ygorcs
    Sorry, but what you wrote is utter nonsense. You're missing some basic knowledge about what PIE is. PIE didn't become "extinct". It evolved into its several daughter languages. There's no such a thing as an "older IE language" or a "more recent one", though some may have been attested earlier than others. If all of them came from the same common ancestor, they have by definition the same age, and some may have just been more innovative than others.
    The Germanic sound shifts obviously did happen, by definition, after PIE split into several distinct dialect groups or distinct language subgroups. They couldn't have happened before, because then that language wouldn't be PIE, but already distinct languages derived from PIE. It's exactly the contrary: the sound shifts of Proto-Germanic can only have happened AFTER PIE diverged into several distinct proto-languages. When we say "PIE was spoken in this and that period", it refers to a common stage of that language before the start of the particular lexical, grammatical and sound shifts that characterize each of its descendant branches.
    Besides, you're incorrectly assuming that Proto-Germanic appeared from scratch suddenly, with all its characteristic sound shifts and other particularities in place, but what happened was clearly a continuous evolution that saw successive sound shifts changing the language more and more from its former Common PIE stage (as it happens with all languages of the world, or do you think Modern English's or Portuguese's sound laws happened all at once in just a few centuries, and they remained static, totally unchanged after that?). Proto-Germanic is an Iron Age language, and it's absolutely certain that it kept evolving, with a succession of changes, from the moment it branched off from an earlier PIE (remembe, PIE means last common stage of unified dialect continuum that gave birth to all IE subgroups) to the moment it was spoken. That meant millennia of sound shifts and lexical and grammatical changes.
    Germanic is no "direct descendant of PIE". At all. You're unquestionably wrong about that. It's not because we don't have any attestation of earlier stages of the linguistic evolution that gave birth to Proto-Germanic that it means that it arose directly from PIE in fully evolved form many millennia before the Common Era (and you push the PIE dating even further back than most linguists do nowadays. Do you still believe in the Renfrew hypothesis that he himself had to "refine" because the evidences were mounting against his cherished theory?).
    I really can't understand this sentence: "Proto-Germanic is not any older than 2500 years", you yourself confirmed that PIE didn't exist some thousands years before this date but we see one of the most regular sound shifts (in fact chain shifts) from PIE among all IE languages in proto-Germanic:
    bʰ > b > p > ɸ
    dʰ > d > t > θ
    gʰ > g > k > x
    gʷʰ > gʷ > kʷ > xʷ
    About the Satem languages, it can be said that prot-IE [k], first changed to [kʲ] then [c], [tʃ], [ts], [ʃ], and finally [s], but proto-IE [k] could be changed to what other than [x] after spirantization?!
    As you probably know ancient Greek basis is cognate with English come, both of them are from proto-IE *gʷem-, the English word is from proto-Germanic kʷem (gʷ > kʷ) but it seems to be clear that the PIE word was not changed directly to ancient Greek basis.
    Is it possible that the direct ancestor of Proto-Germanic could be something other than proto-IE?
    Let's suppose that there was a common European language which even existed in 500 BC, for example Ancient Greek boûs, Latin bōs and Celtic bāus were from the same origin, how English cow could be related to them? Of course no one should talk about Old Armenian kow or Tocharian kewa!

  7. #32
    Banned Achievements:
    Tagger Second Class3 months registered1000 Experience Points

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


    Country: Iran



    Quote Originally Posted by Megalophias View Post
    I have no idea what you were trying to prove in the first place, but next time read the paper instead of jumping to conclusions. If they had tested Z93 they would have said so. This is a scientific paper, not Grandma's cookie recipe.
    Underhill et al 2014 did test for Z93 and subclades, and in their sample of Iranians 77% of R1a (n=259) was Z93, and 15% of total (n=1765) was R1a.
    In Myres et al sample of Iranians (n=150) they had 5% R1b-L23(xM412), which is bound to be R1b-Z2103, and 0% R1b-U106.
    I1 reaches a grand total of 0.2% in Grugni et al's sample (n=938).
    Please mention your sources, who were these Iranians (more than 3 million Afghans live in Iran), where they lived?

  8. #33
    Regular Member Achievements:
    1 year registered5000 Experience Points
    hrvclv's Avatar
    Join Date
    14-03-17
    Location
    Auvergne, France
    Posts
    408
    Points
    9,237
    Level
    28
    Points: 9,237, Level: 28
    Level completed: 82%, Points required for next Level: 113
    Overall activity: 3.0%

    Y-DNA haplogroup
    R1b-U152-DF103
    MtDNA haplogroup
    H1bm

    Ethnic group
    Arvern
    Country: France



    1 out of 1 members found this post helpful.
    Quote Originally Posted by Cyrus View Post
    I really can't understand this sentence: "Proto-Germanic is not any older than 2500 years", you yourself confirmed that PIE didn't exist some thousands years before this date but we see one of the most regular sound shifts (in fact chain shifts) from PIE among all IE languages in proto-Germanic:
    bʰ > b > p > ɸ
    dʰ > d > t > θ
    gʰ > g > k > x
    gʷʰ > gʷ > kʷ > xʷ
    About the Satem languages, it can be said that prot-IE [k], first changed to [kʲ] then [c], [tʃ], [ts], [ʃ], and finally [s], but proto-IE [k] could be changed to what other than [x] after spirantization?!
    As you probably know ancient Greek basis is cognate with English come, both of them are from proto-IE *gʷem-, the English word is from proto-Germanic kʷem (gʷ > kʷ) but it seems to be clear that the PIE word was not changed directly to ancient Greek basis.
    Is it possible that the direct ancestor of Proto-Germanic could be something other than proto-IE?
    Let's suppose that there was a common European language which even existed in 500 BC, for example Ancient Greek boûs, Latin bōs and Celtic bāus were from the same origin, how English cow could be related to them? Of course no one should talk about Old Armenian kow or Tocharian kewa!
    You keep piling nonsense over nonsense !! Never seen such a compilation of absurdities.

    Read a few basic things about linguistics and genetics before you post here. Your theories are conceptual quagmires.

    You'd better give it up, buddy. You are ridiculing yourself.

    (By the way: Good luck, Ygorcs!! )
    It is therefore worth while to search out the bounds between opinion and knowledge; and examine by what measures, in things whereof we have no certain knowledge, we ought to regulate our assent and moderate our persuasion. (John Locke)

  9. #34
    Banned Achievements:
    Tagger Second Class3 months registered1000 Experience Points

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


    Country: Iran



    I found Underhill's work about Haplogroup R1a: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/art...C4266736/#sup1

    He says nothing about the high frequency of haplogroup R1a-Z93 in Iran, in fact he says the same things that Grugni says, it also supports Anatolian hypothesis of Proto-Indo-European origin: "Our phylogeographic data lead us to conclude that the initial episodes of R1a-M420 diversification occurred in the vicinity of Iran and Eastern Turkey, and we estimate that diversification downstream of M417/Page7 occurred ∼5800 years ago."

    Both Indo-European haplogroups of R1b1a2a and R1a1a1 have been found just in Iran and Eastern Turkey.

  10. #35
    Regular Member Achievements:
    Veteran5000 Experience PointsThree Friends
    spruithean's Avatar
    Join Date
    29-08-12
    Posts
    329
    Points
    8,910
    Level
    28
    Points: 8,910, Level: 28
    Level completed: 27%, Points required for next Level: 440
    Overall activity: 2.0%


    Country: Canada-Ontario



    Oldest examples of R-Z93 found in Yamnaya territory range (Indo-European)...
    http://eurogenes.blogspot.com/2017/0...roups.html?m=1

    Ancient samples of haplogroups are far more important than the modern samples. They are far more telling.

  11. #36
    Regular Member Achievements:
    1000 Experience PointsVeteran

    Join Date
    30-09-16
    Posts
    174
    Points
    4,480
    Level
    19
    Points: 4,480, Level: 19
    Level completed: 58%, Points required for next Level: 170
    Overall activity: 0%


    Country: Canada



    Quote Originally Posted by Cyrus View Post
    Please mention your sources, who were these Iranians (more than 3 million Afghans live in Iran), where they lived?
    Myres et al (2011), "A major Y chromosome haplogroup R1b founder effect in Central and Western Europe". The Iranian samples are from Regueiro et al (2006), "Iran: tricontinental nexus for Y-chromosome driven migration".

  12. #37
    Banned Achievements:
    Tagger Second Class3 months registered1000 Experience Points

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


    Country: Iran



    Quote Originally Posted by spruithean View Post
    Oldest examples of R-Z93 found in Yamnaya territory range (Indo-European)...
    http://eurogenes.blogspot.com/2017/0...roups.html?m=1

    Ancient samples of haplogroups are far more important than the modern samples. They are far more telling.
    You yourself say Z93, not M417, so it couldn't be related to Indo-European but Indo-Iranian.

  13. #38
    Regular Member Achievements:
    Veteran5000 Experience PointsThree Friends
    spruithean's Avatar
    Join Date
    29-08-12
    Posts
    329
    Points
    8,910
    Level
    28
    Points: 8,910, Level: 28
    Level completed: 27%, Points required for next Level: 440
    Overall activity: 2.0%


    Country: Canada-Ontario



    1 out of 1 members found this post helpful.
    I just said it was found in the Steppes, I'm not debating the possibility that it is Indo-Iranian (which is an offshoot of PIE anyway). R-M417 IS the ancestor of Z93, oldest sample of M417 is found in the Pontic Steppe, again supporting an origin in territory where Indo-European people originated.

  14. #39
    Banned Achievements:
    Tagger Second Class3 months registered1000 Experience Points

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


    Country: Iran



    Quote Originally Posted by spruithean View Post
    I just said it was found in the Steppes, I'm not debating the possibility that it is Indo-Iranian (which is an offshoot of PIE anyway). R-M417 IS the ancestor of Z93, oldest sample of M417 is found in the Pontic Steppe, again supporting an origin in territory where Indo-European people originated.
    Please mention your source about M417, Underhill says M417 has been found just in Iran and Caucasus: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4266736/

  15. #40
    Regular Member Achievements:
    Veteran5000 Experience PointsThree Friends
    spruithean's Avatar
    Join Date
    29-08-12
    Posts
    329
    Points
    8,910
    Level
    28
    Points: 8,910, Level: 28
    Level completed: 27%, Points required for next Level: 440
    Overall activity: 2.0%


    Country: Canada-Ontario



    Mathieson et. al. (2017)
    http://eurogenes.blogspot.com/2017/0...stern.html?m=1

    Author of Eurogenes blog provides data table of ALL samples of this study, if a study focuses primarily on autosomal DNA raw data files of the DNA can be analysed to acquire information on uniparental haplogroups.

    Here is the sample in question:
    Analysis: Ukraine_Eneolithic
    Culture: Ukraine_Eneolithic
    ID: I6561
    Y-DNA: R1a1a1 (M417)
    mtDNA: H2a1a
    Avg date: 6200 BCE
    Date: 5000-3500 BCE
    Location: Alexandria
    Country: Ukraine
    Gender: M
    Coverage: 1.422
    SNPs: 738661

    By the way, Underhill et. al. (2014/2015) had highlighted two branches of R-M417, an Eastern European group and a Central South Asian group (Z93) this is congruent with the ancient sample of Z93 being more to the east of the Steppes, which fits with a migration to central Asia and beyond.
    Last edited by spruithean; 15-05-19 at 23:48.

  16. #41
    Moderator Achievements:
    1 year registeredTagger Second ClassThree Friends25000 Experience Points
    Awards:
    Most Popular

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


    Ethnic group
    Multiracial Brazilian
    Country: Brazil



    1 out of 1 members found this post helpful.
    Quote Originally Posted by Cyrus View Post
    I really can't understand this sentence: "Proto-Germanic is not any older than 2500 years", you yourself confirmed that PIE didn't exist some thousands years before this date but we see one of the most regular sound shifts (in fact chain shifts) from PIE among all IE languages in proto-Germanic:
    bʰ > b > p > ɸ
    dʰ > d > t > θ
    gʰ > g > k > x
    gʷʰ > gʷ > kʷ > xʷ
    About the Satem languages, it can be said that prot-IE [k], first changed to [kʲ] then [c], [tʃ], [ts], [ʃ], and finally [s], but proto-IE [k] could be changed to what other than [x] after spirantization?!
    As you probably know ancient Greek basis is cognate with English come, both of them are from proto-IE *gʷem-, the English word is from proto-Germanic kʷem (gʷ > kʷ) but it seems to be clear that the PIE word was not changed directly to ancient Greek basis.
    Is it possible that the direct ancestor of Proto-Germanic could be something other than proto-IE?
    Let's suppose that there was a common European language which even existed in 500 BC, for example Ancient Greek boûs, Latin bōs and Celtic bāus were from the same origin, how English cow could be related to them? Of course no one should talk about Old Armenian kow or Tocharian kewa!
    It's very clear to me that you just didn't understand anything I wrote, because your rebuttal makes no sense in relation to what I said in my comment. You sound confused in your concepts of linguistics, maybe you should first learn basic things about historical linguistics, learn what professional linguists have already studied and published and then try to devise your own hypothesis about PIE and other topics of historical linguistics. It's humbler and wiser, because you're saying a load of nonsense as anyone who understands a modicum of historical linguistis has noticed.

    I have not said PIE "didn't exist some thousands years before this date". I said mainstream linguistics, since decades ago, and with increasing confirmation by archaeological and genetic evidences, postulates 5000-6000 years ago as the dating for PIE. Do you know what PIE means? PIE means "the last stage of linguistic evolution in which all the earliest forms of the known IE subgroups are supposed to have been so similar that they were just very close dialects of the same language". There's a "subtle" chronological difference between ~2500 and ~5000 years ago.

    Proto-Germanic is NOT proto-IE because it's comparable to Latin, not to the earliest proto-languages that stemmed directly from Late PIE. You talk as if we had written attestation of all IE languages and all stages of their linguistic evolution that have ever existed. That's a huge mistake. Just like Latin became the sole survivor of the Italic language family, but that obviously does not mean that Latin derives directly from PIE and never had sister languages, as well as that all the sound shifts and other characteristics that set Latin apart from other IE subfamilies happened right after its earliest Pre-Proto-Italic (or maybe a Proto-Northwest-Indo-European) language. Ditto for Proto-Germanic. Proto-Germanic means just, like any proto-language, "the earliest common stage of the linguistic evolution of all extant Germanic languages in which they are supposed to have been just very similar dialects of the same language". That's it. It happened between 2000 and 2500 years ago, not any further back than that, because we actually have inscriptions in early North Germanic (and a sole but fascinating inscription in a Slovenian helmet in an early Germanic/late Proto-Germanic dialect) that are very similar to reconstructed Proto-Germanic. It's obvious that Proto-Germanic wouldn't have evolved suddenly from PIE, let alone in the 6th millennium B.C., and it would then remained untouched by any later changes for almost 5000 years. Utter nonsense and lack of understanding of historical linguistics. As for sound shifts, Germanic is not defined solely by that chain of regular sound shifts (you probably know that already, or you should at least), and in fact you and nobody has any evidence AT ALL that that chain of sound shifts happened right after the earliest pre-Proto-Germanic split off from PIE (it's actually probable that pre-PGM split off not from PIE, but from an intermediary daughter language of PIE that was actually its immediate descendant). We just don't know. Proto-Germanic is defined by a series of sound shifts that happened successively and cumulatively from the period PIE was spoken as a common dialect continuum (circa 3500 B.C.) to the period Proto-Germanic was spoken as a reasonably homogeneous dialect continuum (circa 500 B.C.). That's a lot of time, and those changes may have happened at any time, though they probably happened pretty early.
    Last edited by Ygorcs; 15-05-19 at 23:25.

  17. #42
    Moderator Achievements:
    1 year registeredTagger Second ClassThree Friends25000 Experience Points
    Awards:
    Most Popular

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


    Ethnic group
    Multiracial Brazilian
    Country: Brazil



    1 out of 1 members found this post helpful.
    Quote Originally Posted by Cyrus View Post
    You yourself say Z93, not M417, so it couldn't be related to Indo-European but Indo-Iranian.
    The oldest M417 in the ancient DNA record is also found in the Pontic-Caspian steppe (Ukraine) and not long after in the CWC culture of North Europe. The origins of R1a are irrelevant to the PIE question. PIE is the last common stage of a language before it started to split into different languages, some 5000-6000 years ago. The first R1a, which is more than 20,000 years old, has nothing to with that history. R1a-M417 may be associated with its spread, but everything about it points to Northeastern Europe, not to the Iranian plateau.

  18. #43
    Moderator Achievements:
    1 year registeredTagger Second ClassThree Friends25000 Experience Points
    Awards:
    Most Popular

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


    Ethnic group
    Multiracial Brazilian
    Country: Brazil



    1 out of 1 members found this post helpful.
    Quote Originally Posted by Cyrus View Post
    Please mention your source about M417, Underhill says M417 has been found just in Iran and Caucasus: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4266736/

    No, the study does not say M417 has been found just in Iran and Caucasus. It says the rarest branches of R1a - i.e. not M417, which accounts for ~99% of people with R1a haplogroup living now - are found in Iran. Besides, this study is entirely about MODERN samples. What does that say about the Y-DNA makeup of people 5000 or 6000 years ago? Nothing. More than Mt-DNA and autosomal admixtures, Y-DNA haploroups are extremely subject to profound changes (founder events, social/sexual selection, genetic drift as a whole etc.). No wonder R1a-M417 is found there, we know that Iran and the Caucasus have steppe ancestry. By the way, Z93 IS M417 (and other clades, too, obviously).

    The authors of this study say M417 is estimated to have been born ~5800 years ago. About ~5500 years ago it was already found in the Pontic-Caspian steppe north of the Black Sea, but nowhere in the ancient DNA record of the Iranian Plateau or West Asia as a whole. Honestly one's got to be hell bent on proving one's hypothesis to not see the patterns here.

  19. #44
    Regular Member Achievements:
    Veteran5000 Experience PointsThree Friends
    spruithean's Avatar
    Join Date
    29-08-12
    Posts
    329
    Points
    8,910
    Level
    28
    Points: 8,910, Level: 28
    Level completed: 27%, Points required for next Level: 440
    Overall activity: 2.0%


    Country: Canada-Ontario



    Quote Originally Posted by Ygorcs View Post
    No, the study does not say M417 has been found just in Iran and Caucasus. It says the rarest branches of R1a - i.e. not M417, which accounts for ~99% of people with R1a haplogroup living now - are found in Iran. Besides, this study is entirely about MODERN samples. What does that say about the Y-DNA makeup of people 5000 or 6000 years ago? Nothing. More than Mt-DNA and autosomal admixtures, Y-DNA haploroups are extremely subject to profound changes (founder events, social/sexual selection, genetic drift as a whole etc.). No wonder R1a-M417 is found there, we know that Iran and the Caucasus have steppe ancestry. By the way, Z93 IS M417 (and other clades, too, obviously).

    The authors of this study say M417 is estimated to have been born ~5800 years ago. About ~5500 years ago it was already found in the Pontic-Caspian steppe north of the Black Sea, but nowhere in the ancient DNA record of the Iranian Plateau or West Asia as a whole. Honestly one's got to be hell bent on proving one's hypothesis to not see the patterns here.
    Thank you! I can't echo this enough. The evidence for Pontic-Steppe origin is quite strong, denying this in order to prove some other theory is just wild.

  20. #45
    Banned Achievements:
    Tagger Second Class3 months registered1000 Experience Points

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


    Country: Iran



    0 out of 2 members found this post helpful.
    Quote Originally Posted by Ygorcs View Post
    It's very clear to me that you just didn't understand anything I wrote, because your rebuttal makes no sense in relation to what I said in my comment. You sound confused in your concepts of linguistics, maybe you should first learn basic things about historical linguistics, learn what professional linguists have already studied and published and then try to devise your own hypothesis about PIE and other topics of historical linguistics. It's humbler and wiser, because you're saying a load of nonsense as anyone who understands a modicum of historical linguistis has noticed.

    I have not said PIE "didn't exist some thousands years before this date". I said mainstream linguistics, since decades ago, and with increasing confirmation by archaeological and genetic evidences, postulates 5000-6000 years ago as the dating for PIE. Do you know what PIE means? PIE means "the last stage of linguistic evolution in which all the earliest forms of the known IE subgroups are supposed to have been so similar that they were just very close dialects of the same language". There's a "subtle" chronological difference between ~2500 and ~5000 years ago.

    Proto-Germanic is NOT proto-IE because it's comparable to Latin, not to the earliest proto-languages that stemmed directly from Late PIE. You talk as if we had written attestation of all IE languages and all stages of their linguistic evolution that have ever existed. That's a huge mistake. Just like Latin became the sole survivor of the Italic language family, but that obviously does not mean that Latin derives directly from PIE and never had sister languages, as well as that all the sound shifts and other characteristics that set Latin apart from other IE subfamilies happened right after its earliest Pre-Proto-Italic (or maybe a Proto-Northwest-Indo-European) language. Ditto for Proto-Germanic. Proto-Germanic means just, like any proto-language, "the earliest common stage of the linguistic evolution of all extant Germanic languages in which they are supposed to have been just very similar dialects of the same language". That's it. It happened between 2000 and 2500 years ago, not any further back than that, because we actually have inscriptions in early North Germanic (and a sole but fascinating inscription in a Slovenian helmet in an early Germanic/late Proto-Germanic dialect) that are very similar to reconstructed Proto-Germanic. It's obvious that Proto-Germanic wouldn't have evolved suddenly from PIE, let alone in the 6th millennium B.C., and it would then remained untouched by any later changes for almost 5000 years. Utter nonsense and lack of understanding of historical linguistics. As for sound shifts, Germanic is not defined solely by that chain of regular sound shifts (you probably know that already, or you should at least), and in fact you and nobody has any evidence AT ALL that that chain of sound shifts happened right after the earliest pre-Proto-Germanic split off from PIE (it's actually probable that pre-PGM split off not from PIE, but from an intermediary daughter language of PIE that was actually its immediate descendant). We just don't know. Proto-Germanic is defined by a series of sound shifts that happened successively and cumulatively from the period PIE was spoken as a common dialect continuum (circa 3500 B.C.) to the period Proto-Germanic was spoken as a reasonably homogeneous dialect continuum (circa 500 B.C.). That's a lot of time, and those changes may have happened at any time, though they probably happened pretty early.
    I think you yourself don't know what you want to say, you just know "We just don't know"!!!
    Talking about the existence of proto-IE in 500 is absolute nonsense, in 500 BC or even hundreds years earlier Persians needed to use translators for talking with other southwestern-Iraninan-speaking people, and you say an ancestral language, not southwestern Iranian, not western Iranian, not even proto-Iranian, and not even proto-Indo-Iranian but proto-Indo-European was still spoken in the north of Europe, in 500 BC Persians had conquered some parts of Europe, it seems to be possible that Proto-Indo-Europeans borrowed some words from Persian, by this logic it is also possible that proto-Germanic borrowed some words from English!
    The only thing that we know is that Germanic didn't exist in the north of Europe before 500 BC or earlier, in fact there is no evidence that an Indo-European language was spoken there, so an Indo-European people, even if you consider them as proto-Indo-Europeans, migrated there, I believe they were from Iran.
    Parents of both Germanic R1a and R1b haplogroups have been found in the west of Iran, so it is certainly possible that they migrated from this land.

  21. #46
    Moderator Achievements:
    1 year registeredTagger Second ClassThree Friends25000 Experience Points
    Awards:
    Most Popular

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


    Ethnic group
    Multiracial Brazilian
    Country: Brazil



    1 out of 1 members found this post helpful.
    Quote Originally Posted by Cyrus View Post
    I think you yourself don't know what you want to say, you just know "We just don't know"!!!
    Talking about the existence of proto-IE in 500 is absolute nonsense, in 500 BC or even hundreds years earlier Persians needed to use translators for talking with other southwestern-Iraninan-speaking people, and you say an ancestral language, not southwestern Iranian, not western Iranian, not even proto-Iranian, and not even proto-Indo-Iranian but proto-Indo-European was still spoken in the north of Europe, in 500 BC Persians had conquered some parts of Europe, it seems to be possible that Proto-Indo-Europeans borrowed some words from Persian, by this logic it is also possible that proto-Germanic borrowed some words from English!
    The only thing that we know is that Germanic didn't exist in the north of Europe before 500 BC or earlier, in fact there is no evidence that an Indo-European language was spoken there, so an Indo-European people, even if you consider them as proto-Indo-Europeans, migrated there, I believe they were from Iran.
    Parents of both Germanic R1a and R1b haplogroups have been found in the west of Iran, so it is certainly possible that they migrated from this land.
    Haha oh my God, you still understood nothing. Honestly, I give up. Some day you will get it and understand the nonsense of believing that because Proto-Germanic was certainly spoken around 500 B.C. then PIE would've been spoken right before that date, because the IE subgroups that exist do not necessarily derive from a common language that branched off directly from PIE (perhaps you think Latin always existed since PIE split in many languages, because all Italic languages that exist now are Romance languages derived from Latin dialects spoken around 100 B.C., right? lol. Think again, my dear. Do you really think we know all languages that were spoken in the continuous evolution from PIE to Latin or from PIE to Proto-Germanic? The answer is so obvious). What you're arguing against is basic understanding of linguistics, which you still seem to lack, but one day you will notice what bunch of nonsense you're insisting on due to the excessive confidence that ignorance encourages.

    P.S.: Oh there are plenty of evidences of very early PGM or even pre-PGM borrowings in Finno-Ugric languages of Northeastern Europe, so you're wrong about that too.

  22. #47
    Banned Achievements:
    Tagger Second Class3 months registered1000 Experience Points

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


    Country: Iran



    0 out of 1 members found this post helpful.
    Quote Originally Posted by Ygorcs View Post
    Haha oh my God, you still understood nothing. Honestly, I give up. Some day you will get it and understand the nonsense of believing that because Proto-Germanic was certainly spoken around 500 B.C. then PIE would've been spoken right before that date, because the IE subgroups that exist do not necessarily derive from a common language that branched off directly from PIE (perhaps you think Latin always existed since PIE split in many languages, because all Italic languages that exist now are Romance languages derived from Latin dialects spoken around 100 B.C., right? lol. Think again, my dear. Do you really think we know all languages that were spoken in the continuous evolution from PIE to Latin or from PIE to Proto-Germanic? The answer is so obvious). What you're arguing against is basic understanding of linguistics, which you still seem to lack, but one day you will notice what bunch of nonsense you're insisting on due to the excessive confidence that ignorance encourages.

    P.S.: Oh there are plenty of evidences of very early PGM or even pre-PGM borrowings in Finno-Ugric languages of Northeastern Europe, so you're wrong about that too.
    Don't play with words, the direct ancestor of Germanic language which was spoken in the north of Europe, was spoken in the west of Iran, whether you want to call it proto-Germanic or proto-Indo-European or anything else, if you believe that proto-Germanic originated in the north of Europe, even as early as 500 BC, you should find loanwords from other northern European languages in proto-Germanic with Germanic sound shifts, it is clear that some early Germanic words can be found in Finno-Ugric languages, however most of early Finno-Ugric loanwords are from Iranian but is certainly doesn't mean proto-Iranian originated in the north of Europe.

    It is clear you just don't want to believe the facts, you say "No, the study does not say M417 has been found just in Iran and Caucasus. It says the rarest branches of R1a - i.e. not M417, which accounts for ~99% of people with R1a haplogroup living now - are found in Iran." but we read "five of the six observed M417 chromosomes were from Iran, with the sixth occurring in a Kabardin individual from the Caucasus."

  23. #48
    Regular Member Achievements:
    1 year registered5000 Experience Points
    hrvclv's Avatar
    Join Date
    14-03-17
    Location
    Auvergne, France
    Posts
    408
    Points
    9,237
    Level
    28
    Points: 9,237, Level: 28
    Level completed: 82%, Points required for next Level: 113
    Overall activity: 3.0%

    Y-DNA haplogroup
    R1b-U152-DF103
    MtDNA haplogroup
    H1bm

    Ethnic group
    Arvern
    Country: France



    Iranian languages come FROM what is now Germanic land (but wasn't yet when the proto-Iranian languages departed from it). Not the other way round.

    Read this : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corded_Ware_culture

    and this : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sintashta_culture

    and this : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andronovo_culture

    Then, maybe, you'll have a faint idea what you are talking about. Maybe...

  24. #49
    Moderator Achievements:
    1 year registeredTagger Second ClassThree Friends25000 Experience Points
    Awards:
    Most Popular

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


    Ethnic group
    Multiracial Brazilian
    Country: Brazil



    Quote Originally Posted by Cyrus View Post
    Don't play with words, the direct ancestor of Germanic language which was spoken in the north of Europe, was spoken in the west of Iran, whether you want to call it proto-Germanic or proto-Indo-European or anything else, if you believe that proto-Germanic originated in the north of Europe, even as early as 500 BC, you should find loanwords from other northern European languages in proto-Germanic with Germanic sound shifts, it is clear that some early Germanic words can be found in Finno-Ugric languages, however most of early Finno-Ugric loanwords are from Iranian but is certainly doesn't mean proto-Iranian originated in the north of Europe.

    It is clear you just don't want to believe the facts, you say "No, the study does not say M417 has been found just in Iran and Caucasus. It says the rarest branches of R1a - i.e. not M417, which accounts for ~99% of people with R1a haplogroup living now - are found in Iran." but we read "five of the six observed M417 chromosomes were from Iran, with the sixth occurring in a Kabardin individual from the Caucasus."
    Oh, mate, you're really lost in this hobby, aren't you? The study says textually: "Similarly, five of the six observed R1a1-SRY10831.2*(xM417/Page7) chromosomes were also from Iran, with the sixth occurring in a Kabardin individual from the Caucasus."
    Are you sure you have enough understanding of the basic stuff to understand these genetic and linguistic studies? Or do you think they're all irrelevant "playing with words", too? When a study writes haplogroup (xSubclade), it is referring to all subclades of that haplogroup EXCEPT the one marked with an "x". That's the terminology used by geneticists. R1b-M269 (xL51,Z2103) means all males with R1b-M269 except those who belong to L51 and Z2103 subclades. In other words, the study is clearly referring to the rare branches of R1a, not including the much more common M417, which are found now mostly in MODERN Iran and Caucasus, but are far removed from R1a-M417, which is about 5800 years old, was found in aDNA of the Pontic-Caspian steppe more than 5500 years ago and is the only subclade of R1a associated with the spread of IE languages. Why do you think the authors of the study say, right after that statement, "Owing to the prevalence of basal lineages and the high levels of haplogroup diversities in the region, we find a compelling case for the Middle East, possibly near present-day Iran, as the geographic origin of hg R1a"? It's obvious: because they're referring to rare basal lineages, not to M417.

    Think twice before correcting someone for something you don't even understand clearly to be really sure of it. You just wrote more nonsense, but this time it's worse, because it reveals you're deriving conclusions from misinterpretations of the scientific evidences caused by lack of basic knowledge on the subject. Nobody can reach right conclusions if they're confused about the premises even. You're - once again - completely wrong, even clueless, and showing how confident and even arrogant those who don't know they just don't know enough can be.

    P.S.: Of course most Finno-Ugric loanwords are from Proto-Indo-Iranian, not (Pre-)Proto-Germanic. The reason? One you will probably refuse to accept, too, but is most logical: Finno-Ugric, like Proto-Uralic, probably expanded from somewhere in the Lower Volga-Oka region, adjacent to the probable homeland of Proto-Indo-Iranian in the Sintashta culture, by its turn profoundly influenced by the Abashevo, which neighbored the Uralic/Finno-Ugric homeland. The proto-language Pre-Proto-Germanic seems to have derived from was most probably spoken much to the west of that region near the Urals, given that all Germanic populations seem to have much more Bell Beaker genetic impact.

  25. #50
    Banned Achievements:
    Tagger Second Class3 months registered1000 Experience Points

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


    Country: Iran



    Quote Originally Posted by Ygorcs View Post
    Oh, mate, you're really lost in this hobby, aren't you? The study says textually: "Similarly, five of the six observed R1a1-SRY10831.2*(xM417/Page7) chromosomes were also from Iran, with the sixth occurring in a Kabardin individual from the Caucasus."
    Are you sure you have enough understanding of the basic stuff to understand these genetic and linguistic studies? Or do you think they're all irrelevant "playing with words", too? When a study writes haplogroup (xSubclade), it is referring to all subclades of that haplogroup EXCEPT the one marked with an "x". That's the terminology used by geneticists. R1b-M269 (xL51,Z2103) means all males with R1b-M269 except those who belong to L51 and Z2103 subclades. In other words, the study is clearly referring to the rare branches of R1a, not including the much more common M417, which are found now mostly in MODERN Iran and Caucasus, but are far removed from R1a-M417, which is about 5800 years old, was found in aDNA of the Pontic-Caspian steppe more than 5500 years ago and is the only subclade of R1a associated with the spread of IE languages. Why do you think the authors of the study say, right after that statement, "Owing to the prevalence of basal lineages and the high levels of haplogroup diversities in the region, we find a compelling case for the Middle East, possibly near present-day Iran, as the geographic origin of hg R1a"? It's obvious: because they're referring to rare basal lineages, not to M417.

    Think twice before correcting someone for something you don't even understand clearly to be really sure of it. You just wrote more nonsense, but this time it's worse, because it reveals you're deriving conclusions from misinterpretations of the scientific evidences caused by lack of basic knowledge on the subject. Nobody can reach right conclusions if they're confused about the premises even. You're - once again - completely wrong, even clueless, and showing how confident and even arrogant those who don't know they just don't know enough can be.

    P.S.: Of course most Finno-Ugric loanwords are from Proto-Indo-Iranian, not (Pre-)Proto-Germanic. The reason? One you will probably refuse to accept, too, but is most logical: Finno-Ugric, like Proto-Uralic, probably expanded from somewhere in the Lower Volga-Oka region, adjacent to the probable homeland of Proto-Indo-Iranian in the Sintashta culture, by its turn profoundly influenced by the Abashevo, which neighbored the Uralic/Finno-Ugric homeland. The proto-language Pre-Proto-Germanic seems to have derived from was most probably spoken much to the west of that region near the Urals, given that all Germanic populations seem to have much more Bell Beaker genetic impact.
    I am really newbie in genetics and for this reason I'm here, as you read here : "The Iranian DNA Project has 3 ethnically Persian R1a1a1, 2 from Iran and 1 from Kuwait": http://www.familytreedna.com/public/...ction=yresults What does it mean?

    But about linguistics, you have actually nothing to say, you can't find even one word from a northern European language with Germanic sound shift in proto-Germanic, as I mentioned in another thread, linguists talk about thousands Germanic loanwords with Germanic sound shifts from Akkadian language, such as proto-Germanic *hanap- "hemp" from Akkadian kanabu "hemp", proto-Germanic ertho "earth" from Akkadian eretu "earth", proto-Germanic *silubra "silver" from Akkadian salapu "silver", ...

    There are also many Akkadian loanwords from Proto-Germanic, Julius Pokorny in "Proto-Indo-European Etymological Dictionary" says that the Semitic words for cardinal numbers "six" and "seven" are from an early Indo-European langauge, compare Akkadian šeš "six" and proto-Germanic *sehs "six" and Akkadian sebe "seven" and proto-Germanic *sebun "seven". We see Akkadian chief god Anšur "Ashur" is also from proto-Germanic *Ansuz "Aesir" (proto-Germanic apical z is almost the same r), the proto-Germanic word for God and Semitic Gad (god of fortune) probably relate to each other too.

    We also see many Germanic loanwords from Hurro-Urartian, for example Proto-Germanic *saiwa "sea" is from Hurro-Urartian sewa "sea, lake", the name of Sevan, the largest body of water in Armenia and the Caucasus region, is from this Hurro-Urartian word, the Armenian word for sea is also from the same origin.

    And also Germanic loanwords from Hittite, Elamite, ... proto-Germanic *ulpanduz "camel" (Gothic ulbandus, Old Saxon olbundeo, Old Norse úlfaldi, ...) is from Hittite hulpant "humpback, camel".

Page 2 of 20 FirstFirst 123412 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

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