Where did proto-IE language start?

[Korbyn]

I am sending this abuse of Moderator power to Maciamo.

I don't know Rethel. He is a billion kilometres (who knows how far) away from me in Poland.

 

[LeBrok]

I am sending this abuse of Moderator power to Maciamo.

Always a good idea.

I don't know Rethel. He is a billion kilometres (who knows how far) away from me in Poland.

It was more of a sarcastic insinuation. We know you don't know each other in person, however you think alike.

 

[Korbyn]

Always a good idea.


It was more of a sarcastic insinuation. We know you don't know each other in person, however you think alike.

So, you are accusing? What is with you and all these baseless accusations? And as I stated before; you are leading this topic astray and it's your own. So what on Earth are you talking about? I tried to clean up this dispute/quarrel and staying on-topic, but even as a Moderator you kept going at it.

How do you have any proof whatsoever that I am Rethel? I don't even know him, but only his Polish flag. But he is right in his observations of you trying to set people up for stating facts, history and proof and trying to give out infractions while doing so; as if you're holding a delusion or secret agenda of some kind.

And yes, let's see what Maciamo has to say about your abuse. Always a good idea, cause as far as I am concerned; I haven't done anything wrong. And none of the members here have seemed to have a problem either, I don't think even Moderators like Taranis or Angela, have complained about me. I told you very specifically and hinted for you to stop and keep on-topic, and to delete a post that I created. You refused to do that and kept on with the provocative comments and passive-aggression.

 

[Voyager]

You are misunderstanding me here: I do not think that PIE was "shaped in one day", but I'm saying that the parameters (in particular the invention of the wheel) put a constraint on when and where common PIE could have spoken before the language broke up into sub-branches. As for why that happened, it is in the nature of languages to change over time (look at the Romance language, look at the modern dialects of Arabic, look at the English of Beowulf versus modern English). As I have said before, the Proto-Indo-Europeans were iliterate people, it would have been impossible to keep a language homogenous over such a large area for iliterate people.

I don't understand your last sentence. do you mean "IF Proto Indo Europeans were illeterate people then it would have been impossible to keep a language homogenous over such a large area for iliterate people" ? To be clear, you are meaning that PIE people were a people located some where some time , became literate and then spread their language all over the world from West Europe to North India.
But a question pops up all at once: why do we find so many different alphabets, Sanskrit, Greek, Roman, Hittite etc ? It 's look like that PIE were spoken by iliterate peoples without any particular writting system when the PIE language spread otherwise we should have similar writting systems everywhere.
Other point, migration is not necessary for language spreading IMHO. A language is tightly linked to a type of civilization, itself linked to any kinds of craft etc... but civilization spread does'nt imply People migrations. It implies at least exchange of any kinds of craft, to say simple : Trade. Plenty of example in history.

 

[Taranis]

I don't understand your last sentence. do you mean "IF Proto Indo Europeans were illeterate people then it would have been impossible to keep a language homogenous over such a large area for iliterate people" ? To be clear, you are meaning that PIE people were a people located some where some time , became literate and then spread their language all over the world from West Europe to North India.

You have been misunderstanding me then. Here is how the sentence gets clearer: 'As I have said before, the Proto-Indo-Europeans were iliterate people, because it would have been impossible to keep a language homogenous over such a large area for iliterate people.' Which is precisely what we see: PIE expanded across a vast area and separated into different branches because there was no more (or limited) contact between the various sub-branches.

But a question pops up all at once: why do we find so many different alphabets, Sanskrit, Greek, Roman, Hittite etc ? It 's look like that PIE were spoken by iliterate peoples without any particular writting system when the PIE language spread otherwise we should have similar writting systems everywhere.

Here I agree absolutely. The Indo-European peoples had no original writing system. The first Indo-European-speaking people to become literate, I'm with Angela here, were the Hittites (using the cuneiform script of Mesopotamia), followed by the Mycenaean Greeks (using Linear B). This, obviously, was several millennia after Proto-Indo-European had split up.

Other point, migration is not necessary for language spreading IMHO. A language is tightly linked to a type of civilization, itself linked to any kinds of craft etc... but civilization spread does'nt imply People migrations. It implies at least exchange of any kinds of craft, to say simple : Trade. Plenty of example in history.

Let me ask you a different question then: can you think of one example - in historically attested times that is - where non-literate people spread a language without a migration? If it was as easy as you think, there should be plenty of examples.

 

[Voyager]

You have been misunderstanding me then. Here is how the sentence gets clearer: 'As I have said before, the Proto-Indo-Europeans were iliterate people, because it would have been impossible to keep a language homogenous over such a large area for iliterate people.' Which is precisely what we see: PIE expanded across a vast area and separated into different branches because there was no more (or limited) contact between the various sub-branches.



Here I agree absolutely. The Indo-European peoples had no original writing system. The first Indo-European-speaking people to become literate, I'm with Angela here, were the Hittites (using the cuneiform script of Mesopotamia), followed by the Mycenaean Greeks (using Linear B). This, obviously, was several millennia after Proto-Indo-European had split up.

Then we agree on one point: 1st a language PIE grew at least oraly (by speaking) and then different Peoples adapt their own writting system.

Let me ask you a different question then: can you think of one example - in historically attested times that is - where non-literate people spread a language without a migration? If it was as easy as you think, there should be plenty of examples.

Sure, it's not easy to have attested examples concerning history of illiterate Peoples for the good reason that they left no written documents.
But let 's see a better known case of the Celt peoples in Gaul or Spain under the Roman "domination" the first centuries BC, for example. Most of these Celt People were illiterate nethertheless they got to talk Vulgar Latin that had evolved later to Roman type languages like French. These illiterate Celt Peoples used a Roman type Language with no kind of literacy. Their languages were shaped necessary by oraly means. Writting had nothing to do with that and we cannot talk of Roman People migration into Gaul, either.
Then, after you, why these true illiterate Celts got to use a foreign language as Vulgar Latin? we all know that Gaul and Spain had intensive trades of numerous kind of goods with the Roman civilization and boosted the trade and craft everywhere in Gaul. May be Vulgar Latin was also used as a commun undertsanding frame beween different local Celt tribes exactly as we use English right know. Another explanations?

 

[Taranis]

Then we agree on one point: 1st a language PIE grew at least oraly (by speaking) and then different Peoples adapt their own writting system.

I disagree: Indo-European did not grow 'by oral transmission'.

Sure, it's not easy to have attested examples concerning history of illiterate Peoples for the good reason that they left no written documents.

I can think of a number of cases where migration - in historic times - clearly spread a certain language family:

- Hungarian (an Uralic language) in the Pannonian basin. Hungarian is an Uralic language, but its most closely related with the Uralic languages spoken in the Urals region (Khanty and Mansy), which arrived there in the 9th century.
- The introduction of Turkish (a Turkic language) into Anatolia in the 1000s.
- The introduction of Kalmyk (a Mongolic language) in southern Russia, who arrived at their present location in the 17th century.
- The introduction of Malagasy in Madagascar. Malagasy is an Austronesian language, notably related with Indonesian and the Taiwanese aboriginal languages.
- The introduction Old Norse / Icelandic (a North Germanic language) in Iceland. Iceland was previously uninhabited.
- Cherokee (an Iroquoian language) in modern-day Oklahoma, originally distributed closer to the Atlantic Ocean. The Cherokee were forced to resettle on the territory of Oklahoma during the early 19th century.
- The Polynesian colonization of the Pacific (including New Zealand and Hawai'i).

But let 's see a better known case of the Celt peoples in Gaul or Spain under the Roman "domination" the first centuries BC, for example. Most of these Celt People were illiterate nethertheless they got to talk Vulgar Latin that had evolved later to Roman type languages like French. These illiterate Celt Peoples used a Roman type Language with no kind of literacy. Their languages were shaped necessary by oraly means. Writting had nothing to do with that and we cannot talk of Roman People migration into Gaul, either.
Then, after you, why these true illiterate Celts got to use a foreign language as Vulgar Latin? we all know that Gaul and Spain had intensive trades of numerous kind of goods with the Roman civilization and boosted the trade and craft everywhere in Gaul. May be Vulgar Latin was also used as a commun undertsanding frame beween different local Celt tribes exactly as we use English right know. Another explanations?

You're overlooking a simple historic fact: Latin was spread to Iberia and to Gaul through military conquest by the Romans. It was the official, administrative language of an expansionist empire, and the conquered population of these territories was gradually romanized - first in the major population centers - later in the rural areas.

 

[Voyager]

I disagree: Indo-European did not grow 'by oral transmission'.

then how? if it's not by writting means.

You're overlooking a simple historic fact: Latin was spread to Iberia and to Gaul through military conquest by the Romans. It was the official, administrative language of an expansionist empire, and the conquered population of these territories was gradually romanized - first in the major population centers - later in the rural areas.

Of course, language could follow massive migration but It's not always so simple. You agree that the Celt case is the example where illiterate peoples got to used a foreign language without any migration.
Also don't forget that Vulgar Latin (Popular Latin) was first used by the Celts and Vulgar Latin is the language used by commoners not the Administration. Here , you might oversize the role of administration. The basic goal of these Roman invasions was first to control the trade of goods with the rich provinces of Gaul. Administration, tax collection etc came much later and had little impact on language. The administration in England until the XVth cent. were ruled by French, the elite in England at this time were French speaking and do we all with the English talk French? I think the lasting language talked by People is the Language they use finaly. And what is the main goal of people work It's merchandizing. Then the lasting language is the merchandizing language nothing else.

 

[LeBrok]

If I may.

then how? if it's not by writting means.

He meant that language has spread together with migrating people. They came, they conquered, they thought locals their language. No alphabet needed for this.

 

[Rethel]

And still no R1 option.

This is previously preparated poll, to make people to
make a choice without alowing to make the sane one.
Something like asking: do you love mommy or daddy,
but you cant say: both. Insane.

 

[bicicleur 2]

And still no R1 option.

This is previously preparated poll, to make people to
make a choice without alowing to make the sane one.
Something like asking: do you love mommy or daddy,
but you cant say: both. Insane.

mesolithic EHG were R1a and R1b
they took some WHG wives and became 86 % EHG, 7 % WHG

during Khvalynsk thes people mixed with R1b newcomers with 71%EHG/22%CHG

Yamna and Afanasievo were 81%EHG/16%CHG

 

[Rethel]

mesolithic EHG were R1a and R1b
they took some WHG wives and became 86 % EHG, 7 % WHG

during Khvalynsk thes people mixed with R1b newcomers with 71%EHG/22%CHG

Yamna and Afanasievo were 81%EHG/16%CHG

Ok, nice percentages, but what's the point?

 

[bicicleur 2]

Ok, nice percentages, but what's the point?

both were R1, but EHG and Yamna/Afanasievo were not the same

 

[bicicleur 2]

the same switch happened when the Poltavka outlier arrived

the Sintashta are not the same as the Yamna

Sintashta were 8% WHG, 61 % EHG, 25 % EEF
Poltavka outlier had similar profile

but again it was a R1 tribe

 

[Rethel]

both were R1, but EHG and Yamna/Afanasievo were not the same

the same switch happened when the Poltavka outlier arrived

the Sintashta are not the same as the Yamna

Sintashta were 8% WHG, 61 % EHG, 25 % EEF
Poltavka outlier had similar profile

but again it was a R1 tribe

Ok, but what it has to do with language of R1
They could multiply with whomever they wanted.
Tribe was still the same, only concubines were
interchanging - thats all. No big deal.

 

[bicicleur 2]

Ok, but what it has to do with language of R1
They could multiply with whomever they wanted.
Tribe was still the same, only concubines were
interchanging - thats all. No big deal.

the question here is, where did those newcomers in Khvalynsk came from?
and did they speak a different language?
if so, who's language did they speak afterwards?

whatever, it was a language spoken by one of the R1 tribes

 

[bicicleur 2]

by the way,

before Khvalynsk mtDNA with EHG was C (Siberian) or U2/4/5 (WHG)
Khvalinsk newcomer had H2a1

also Dnjepr-Donets had C, U2/4/5 and some H2a

H2a is also in Areni Cave Armenian CA, together with CHG admixture

 

[johen]

the question here is, where did those newcomers in Khvalynsk came from?
and did they speak a different language?
if so, who's language did they speak afterwards?

whatever, it was a language spoken by one of the R1 tribes

Those are always my questions:
http://www.eupedia.com/forum/threads/33037-ANE-Karitiana-and-Baltics

R1a1 and Q1a2 were always together from neolithic to bronze in East. Also even in Khvalynsk culture in West.
And Iron age R1a1 was scythian, who spoke Indo-European. but the scthian looks like Altai natives.
And they had Q1a2 culture also. Moreover, looks like Q1a2 entered china(shang dynasty, 1,600bc) with horse. chariot and Indoeuropean language.
http://www.eupedia.com/forum/threads/32890-2500-year-old-remains-with-severed-heads-found-in-Siberia?p=491304#post491304

So were the r1a1 people in neolithic, bronze, iron age of altai the same people or not?

Individuals from Lokomotiv and Shamanka II were found to possess haplogroups K,

R1a1 and C3, and individuals from Ust’-Ida and Kurma XI were found to belong to haplogroups Q, K and unidentified SNP (L914). For those individuals belonging to haplogroup Q, further experimentation to examine sub-haplogroups of Q revealed that these individuals belong to sub-haplogroup Q1a3

Hollard et al., Strong genetic admixture in the Altai at the Middle Bronze Age

In the same way, the patrilineal gene pool revealed the presence of different haplogroups (

Q1a2a1-L54, R1a1a1b2-Z93 and C)

 

[Rethel]

the question here is, where did those newcomers in Khvalynsk came from?
and did they speak a different language?
if so, who's language did they speak afterwards?

whatever, it was a language spoken by one of the R1 tribes

Even if they came (what I deeply doubt) they didn't
come coincidently to closest related people from nowhere.

They spoke the same language, becasue IE language is
the language of R1 people from the very beginning. The
only problem is, if he is also a language of R2 or not.

 

[Rethel]

by the way,

before Khvalynsk mtDNA with EHG was C (Siberian) or U2/4/5 (WHG)
Khvalinsk newcomer had H2a1

also Dnjepr-Donets had C, U2/4/5 and some H2a

H2a is also in Areni Cave Armenian CA, together with CHG admixture

So as you see, the only difference is, that they buyed
some new women, when they visited "Armenian Urheimt"