What does genetics say about the origin of Germanic people?

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 , 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:
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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."
 
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.
 
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/Iranian Y-DNA/default.aspx?section=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".
 
The R-M417 individual in that FTDNA project is NOT only R-M417, he is https://www.yfull.com/tree/R-Z29137/, as you can see this branch is DOWNSTREAM of Z93, which again the oldest sample of which was found in Russia, NW of Kazakhstan. Z93 is considered the Central & South Asian branch. Specifically according to YFulls tree the individual from the FTDNA project is R-Z29137* which means he is so far negative for any known downstream SNPs of Z29137, others on this branch can be found with ancestry from Pakistan, Yemen, and India.
That linked molgen post is from 2012 and specific downstream testing hadn't been ordered by the kit-holders at FTDNA. In 2012 my own haplogroup wasn't labelled what it is now.


Just a heads up, we should be referring to haplogroups in their shorthand form for simplicity, so instead of the various letters and numbers we simply take the main part of the haplogroup like R and then attach the SNP in discussion or the terminal SNP. So instead of some giant term we get a simplistic term like R-Z29137, however you can modify this for clarity if need be to R1a-Z29137.
 
I think it is better that we focus on haplogroup R1b1a2a-L23 which has the highest frequency in the west of Iran, if you prove that it couldn't be related to the Germanic people then it can be said that Germanic people didn't migrate directly from the west of Iran to the north Europe.
 
Haak et. al. (2015) https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/013433v1.full

Eupedia: https://www.eupedia.com/genetics/yamna_culture.shtml#Y-DNA_mtDNA

We already have an ancient sample of L23 in the Samara region within Yamnaya dominated cultural area. Modern distribution does not necessarily line up with ancient information, example being R1b was not the earliest haplogroup in Europe, yet it is the most dominant, yet the earliest haplogroups within Europe are the least dominant. On top of that the downstream clade, Z2103 is also found in the same area within the same era, Z2103 is fairly prominent in Asian populations, however ancient samples of it place it in the Pontic-Caspian Steppe, again...
 
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", ...

Well, that can be easily explained considering that the only Northern European languages that might have been in close contact with Proto-Germanic and Pre-Proto-Germanic are perhaps Baltic languages (doubtful, because toponyms and genetics indicate that the present Balts might have come from further east in Belarus and Russia) and a few Finno-Ugric languages (and not for a very long time, because the Finno-Ugric languages seem to have spread to the Baltic/North Sea area only in the early Iron Age, replacing other arguably IE and non-IE languages; see the very recent paper on the spread of Siberian ancestry and N1c in Northeastern Europe). The other North European languages were simply superseded by Proto-Germanic and its Germanic descendants, so we will never know if and how much those languages had borrowed words from the Germanic group of languages. Celtic languages south of the North Sea also vanished without written attestation. It's actually pretty amazing that we still have so many clearly Proto-Germanic loanwords in Baltic Finno-Ugric languages and in Baltic IE languages.

Most of the supposedly certain borrowings from and to Proto-Germanic that you mention are entirely based on sound similarity, which is basically the most amateur and primitive way of doing historical linguistics. Sound-alikes and semantic connections between similar-sounding words is just not enough if you can't derive regular sound rules from them which would apply to several other suppposed borrowings in the same positions in the word. For example, how exactly Proto-Germanic *saiwiz (not *saiwa) derives from *sewa, what explains the appearance of an original diphthong /aj/ instead of a simple /e/ that of course existed as a phoneme in PGM? Why the *-iz ending instead of *-a? Why are you comparing Semitic Gad with the Proto-Germanic word for God, which was clearly different, *gudhan from earlier *guthóm? Will you claim a borrowing based on such vague and weak similarities?

Besides, you're being extremely anachronistic when you compare Bronze Age Akkadian with reconstructed Proto-Germanic. Proto-Germanic represents a stage of the language evolution of the Germanic language group that was spoken around 2500-2000 years ago. It was of course not the same language (a pre-PGM one) that was spoken 3500 or 4000 years ago. If attributing words of a language to another language based on sound similarity alone is already problematic, let alone if you compare languages that are many centuries apart from each other, so that obviously the sound similarity may be much more deceiving than you think. Some of your reconstructed forms are also based on wishful thinking to make the word more similar to, and you neglect the very plausible (and also attested in other IE subgroups) PIE roots of some woerds, like *Ansuz, which is clearly based on the same root as Proto-Indo-European *nsura- and can be directly derived from the PIE root *h2ens- "spirit, vital force, spiritual energy", with no need for an "exotic borrowing".

Other implausible and even fanciful connections can be noticed. Who are those linguists you're basing yourself on? Why would Proto-Germanic *ertho come from Akkadian *eretu when the latter meant "underworld" and the former "earth, our world"? Would Germanic people think they live in the abode of the dead, that earth is the dreary underworld? Nonsense. It obviously makes much more sense that it comes from PIE *h1er- with a suffix attached, since *h1er- also meant "earth, ground, land"

The Akkadian-Germanic "connection" you assume on what refers to cardinal numbers makes no sense when you consider that all Semitic languages have those same numbers, and they can be reconstructed as *shb-, shab- and clearly connected with Egyptian *sfhw-, which is millennia apart from Proto-Semitic in the Afro-Asiatic tree. So, it's clearly a native word, and even if it weren't it has only a vague similarity to Proto-Germanic (an how do you know how PGM sebun sounded like when Proto-Semitic was still spoken? It didn't even exist, probably Late PIE dialects were still spoken). Why on earth would Akkadian shesh come from IA Proto-Germanic if that same word already existed in Proto-Semitic and PIE had *swek's/sek's, which is just a similar to shesh and *sehs. You're perhaps too personally invested in this one hypothesis you're clinging to. If anything it's a borrowing from PIE, not from Proto-Germanic, which would be ridiculous considering Proto-Semitic was spoken much before reconstructed PGM existed with all its peculiar phonetic features.

Honestly, if genetics don't make your case any stronger (and it definitely doesn't), your linguistic assertions are also very doubtful and in some cases fanciful.
 
Well, that can be easily explained considering that the only Northern European languages that might have been in close contact with Proto-Germanic and Pre-Proto-Germanic are perhaps Baltic languages (doubtful, because toponyms and genetics indicate that the present Balts might have come from further east in Belarus and Russia) and a few Finno-Ugric languages (and not for a very long time, because the Finno-Ugric languages seem to have spread to the Baltic/North Sea area only in the early Iron Age, replacing other arguably IE and non-IE languages; see the very recent paper on the spread of Siberian ancestry and N1c in Northeastern Europe). The other North European languages were simply superseded by Proto-Germanic and its Germanic descendants, so we will never know if and how much those languages had borrowed words from the Germanic group of languages. Celtic languages south of the North Sea also vanished without written attestation. It's actually pretty amazing that we still have so many clearly Proto-Germanic loanwords in Baltic Finno-Ugric languages and in Baltic IE languages.

Most of the supposedly certain borrowings from and to Proto-Germanic that you mention are entirely based on sound similarity, which is basically the most amateur and primitive way of doing historical linguistics. Sound-alikes and semantic connections between similar-sounding words is just not enough if you can't derive regular sound rules from them which would apply to several other suppposed borrowings in the same positions in the word. For example, how exactly Proto-Germanic *saiwiz (not *saiwa) derives from *sewa, what explains the appearance of an original diphthong /aj/ instead of a simple /e/ that of course existed as a phoneme in PGM? Why the *-iz ending instead of *-a? Why are you comparing Semitic Gad with the Proto-Germanic word for God, which was clearly different, *gudhan from earlier *guthóm? Will you claim a borrowing based on such vague and weak similarities?

Besides, you're being extremely anachronistic when you compare Bronze Age Akkadian with reconstructed Proto-Germanic. Proto-Germanic represents a stage of the language evolution of the Germanic language group that was spoken around 2500-2000 years ago. It was of course not the same language (a pre-PGM one) that was spoken 3500 or 4000 years ago. If attributing words of a language to another language based on sound similarity alone is already problematic, let alone if you compare languages that are many centuries apart from each other, so that obviously the sound similarity may be much more deceiving than you think. Some of your reconstructed forms are also based on wishful thinking to make the word more similar to, and you neglect the very plausible (and also attested in other IE subgroups) PIE roots of some woerds, like *Ansuz, which is clearly based on the same root as Proto-Indo-European *nsura- and can be directly derived from the PIE root *h2ens- "spirit, vital force, spiritual energy", with no need for an "exotic borrowing".

Other implausible and even fanciful connections can be noticed. Who are those linguists you're basing yourself on? Why would Proto-Germanic *ertho come from Akkadian *eretu when the latter meant "underworld" and the former "earth, our world"? Would Germanic people think they live in the abode of the dead, that earth is the dreary underworld? Nonsense. It obviously makes much more sense that it comes from PIE *h1er- with a suffix attached, since *h1er- also meant "earth, ground, land"

The Akkadian-Germanic "connection" you assume on what refers to cardinal numbers makes no sense when you consider that all Semitic languages have those same numbers, and they can be reconstructed as *shb-, shab- and clearly connected with Egyptian *sfhw-, which is millennia apart from Proto-Semitic in the Afro-Asiatic tree. So, it's clearly a native word, and even if it weren't it has only a vague similarity to Proto-Germanic (an how do you know how PGM sebun sounded like when Proto-Semitic was still spoken? It didn't even exist, probably Late PIE dialects were still spoken). Why on earth would Akkadian shesh come from IA Proto-Germanic if that same word already existed in Proto-Semitic and PIE had *swek's/sek's, which is just a similar to shesh and *sehs. You're perhaps too personally invested in this one hypothesis you're clinging to. If anything it's a borrowing from PIE, not from Proto-Germanic, which would be ridiculous considering Proto-Semitic was spoken much before reconstructed PGM existed with all its peculiar phonetic features.

Honestly, if genetics don't make your case any stronger (and it definitely doesn't), your linguistic assertions are also very doubtful and in some cases fanciful.

I don't really see any difference between you and those who claim Iranian language originated in Iran, Turkish language originated in Turkey, ... All of you use the same logic, there are many Turkish words in Bulgarian, Greek, Croatian, Albanian, ... but we can't any word from those languages in Proto-Turkic, pan-Turks say it is clear because they didn't exist in this region when just proto-Turkic and Sumerian existed (as you probably know they believe Turkic and Sumerian have the same origin), and when I talk about several Iranian words in Turkic, they say this word has a different meaning, another one has a different vowel, so all of them are not from Iranian and just have Turkic origin, Turkish seems to have numerous prefixes and suffixes too, like what you said about the Germanic word for "earth", "er" means "ground" and we add a "th" then it means "earth", so it doesn't relate to Semitic words, like Hebrew erets or Arabic ardh with exact the same meaning of "earth".
 
I don't really see any difference between you and those who claim Iranian language originated in Iran, Turkish language originated in Turkey, ... All of you use the same logic, there are many Turkish words in Bulgarian, Greek, Croatian, Albanian, ... but we can't any word from those languages in Proto-Turkic, pan-Turks say it is clear because they didn't exist in this region when just proto-Turkic and Sumerian existed (as you probably know they believe Turkic and Sumerian have the same origin), and when I talk about several Iranian words in Turkic, they say this word has a different meaning, another one has a different vowel, so all of them are not from Iranian and just have Turkic origin, Turkish seems to have numerous prefixes and suffixes too, like what you said about the Germanic word for "earth", "er" means "ground" and we add a "th" then it means "earth", so it doesn't relate to Semitic words, like Hebrew erets or Arabic ardh with exact the same meaning of "earth".

Nonsense again. If this situation were comparable to Turkic nationalists who claim Turkic has always been spoken in the Near East, we'd be claiming that Germanic's earlist language form (Proto-Indo-European) arose in Germanic countries, like some 19th century and early 20th century scholars from Germanic countries once asserted. We'd not be stating, based on loads of genetic, linguistic and archaeological evidences, that Germanic ultimately comes from the steppes between the Dniester and the Volga rivers, which are not Germanic at all. By the way, many of the Finno-Ugric loanwords are clearly from reconstructed PROTO-Germanic, not from later Germanic languages. Why do you think I, a Brazilian of Portuguese, African and Native American descent, would favor "Germanic nationalism"? Come on. Conversely, I think we all have our reasons to find something suspicious about the fact that you neglect by definition any evidence against your Germanic = Iran hypothesis and cling to it fiercely when you are actually Iranian. But it's not my intention to make things that personal as you're trying to do.
 
Last edited:
Cyrus, whenever you are proven wrong you resort to accusing people of nationalism, this is seen time and time again in various threads. The evidence for Germanic NOT originating in Iran is solid and stacked against your theory, what is so wrong with accepting the fact that modern genetic testing, archaeological evidence, professional work done by professional linguistics/comparative linguistics has consistently proven your theory wrong. It begins to look very suspect when you repeatedly ignore evidence presented to you that proves you are wrong. I don't understand this constant argument you have where you are trying to prove that Germanic is a subset of Indo-Iranian, it's fanciful...
 
Cyrus, whenever you are proven wrong you resort to accusing people of nationalism, this is seen time and time again in various threads. The evidence for Germanic NOT originating in Iran is solid and stacked against your theory, what is so wrong with accepting the fact that modern genetic testing, archaeological evidence, professional work done by professional linguistics/comparative linguistics has consistently proven your theory wrong. It begins to look very suspect when you repeatedly ignore evidence presented to you that proves you are wrong. I don't understand this constant argument you have where you are trying to prove that Germanic is a subset of Indo-Iranian, it's fanciful...

You even don't know what my theory is, there is absolutely no relation between Germanic (R1a-R1b hybrid) and Indo-Iranian (Z95), there is also no relation between Iran and Indo-Iranian, I say people who live in the west of Iran (also R1a-R1b hybrid an no Z95) relate to the Germanic people.
 
Nonsense again. If this situation were comparable to Turkic nationalists who claim Turkic has always been spoken in the Near East, we'd be claiming that Germanic's earlist language form (Proto-Indo-European) arose in Germanic countries, like some 19th century and early 20th century scholars from Germanic countries once asserted. We'd not be stating, based on loads of genetic, linguistic and archaeological evidences, that Germanic ultimately comes from the steppes between the Dniester and the Volga rivers, which are not Germanic at all. By the way, many of the Finno-Ugric loanwords are clearly from reconstructed PROTO-Germanic, not from later Germanic languages. Why do you think I, a Brazilian of Portuguese, African and Native American descent, would favor "Germanic nationalism"? Come on. Conversely, I think we all have our reasons to find something suspicious about the fact that you neglect by definition any evidence against your Germanic = Iran hypothesis and cling to it fiercely when you are actually Iranian. But it's not my intention to make things that personal as you're trying to do.

I also certainly believe that in 500 BC after Persian and Scythian conquests "Germanic came from the steppes between the Dniester and the Volga", Germanic people didn't fly from Iran to Scandinavia, we see some sound changes in Germanic, like x>h, in Europe too, but the problem is that you believe these people who lived near Dniester (a Scythian name which dates back to 500 BC) were proto-Indo-European (or had a language almost the same as PIE) and Germanic sound shifts in 500 BC were from this language!
 

This thread has been viewed 161388 times.

Back
Top