Where did proto-IE language start?

[Voyager]

french oil dialects underwent a late 'satemization' process (interesting to look for underlying reasons) and latin 'word' *genuculum based upon 'genu(s) became *'genouil' (Poitou dialects: 'genoil', 'geneuil' /zhënol'//zhënoy//zhënöl'/) before being simplified into official french 'genou' /zhënoo//zh'noo/; look at verb 'agenouiller'. SO the today similarity in pronounciation is partly an hazard concerninng the end of the two words: the french has a suffix which was phonetically partly erased- latin 'genus' would have given *'gen' not 'genou'. Convergence (palatalization) for the word root, but NOT DIRECT derivation nor loan from indic! I never heard indic dialects knew an evolution /ol/ >> /ow/ >> /oo/ nor /ucul-/ >> -ouil ?

An interesting word is the English "Path" , .... in Sanskrit It's exactly "Patha" (पथ) pronouced "Pat"! certainly another coincidence. Tons of coincidence ... In other hand It looks realy laborious and courageous when some linguists try to link Wheel with the corresponding Sanskrit word Cakra (चक्र).
"dead end" is "aPatha" in Sanskrit, funny the use of the preposition "a", il fallait y penser.
Concerning the Word Wheel, I find intriguing the similarity with mechanical french word like ManiVelle (a rotating devive to screw a bolt), Volant (mechanical disk), even the word Bielle (a mechanical piece that transforms a rotating movment into a translation mov.), Bielle seems to be linked to the Latin word Bulla.

 

[Taranis]

An interesting word is the English "Path" , .... in Sanskrit It's exactly "Patha" (पथ) pronouced "Pat"! certainly another coincidence. Tons of coincidence ... In other hand It looks realy laborious and courageous when some linguists try to link Wheel with the corresponding Sanskrit word Cakra (चक्र).
"dead end" is "aPatha" in Sanskrit, funny the use of the preposition "a", il fallait y penser.
Concerning the Word Wheel, I find intriguing the similarity with mechanical french word like ManiVelle (a rotating devive to screw a bolt), Volant (mechanical disk), even the word Bielle (a mechanical piece that transforms a rotating movment into a translation mov.), Bielle seems to be linked to the Latin word Bulla.

Its not "laborious and curageous" as you claim it to be, this is well known for a long time. You have to consider the various sound laws (and in turn, regular sound correspondences) that are responsible for these. For English (a Germanic language), a key sound change is Grimm's Law, by which earlier *kw became *hw. For the Indo-Iranic languages, one key factor is that they have a merger of *l and *r. Another cognate (in Greek) is the word "kyklos" (κυκλος).

In any case, your comparisons of French and Sanskrit are moot/pointless because these are innovations of French that are not found in Latin.

I don't think I ever asserted that PIE was spoken in India. For the moment , I test the robustness of a theory like PIE from the Steppe. Obviously some words , I don't know how many and I don't know when, came directly from IE spoken people from India but this doesn't prove that PIE were talked in India as you said this could be wandering words.
And certainly the PIE from India theory has failures.
Concerning your question, Why is there any Dravidian loan words in the Western languages? I read that there is only a dozen words of Dravidian origin in the RigVeda, then it 's quite logical that the Dravidian is not visible.
Just a question, may be it's obvious for some of you but how do we presume that Steppe people were talking IE 4000 years ago because, as far as I know, we have no direct IE testimony among them like the Vedic corpus composed in India at least 3500 years ago? I am afraid in such Steppe theory is that we use the aim of the demonstration for proof.

I'm under the impression that if you say the "Indo-Aryan"migration 'did not happen' (more accurately, you claim "it happened around 1000 BC, which is impossible, therefor it did not happen"), therefore one must assume that Indic (aka 'Indo-Aryan') languages are autochthonous to the Indian subcontinent - which to me is a non-sequitur. My point is that there are no Dravidian/Munda loanwords in the other branches of IE (and not in the Iranic languages, either), which you would expect if Indic (or even Indo-Iranic) were autochthonous to the subcontinent. What we see is that Sanskrit had language contact with speakers of Dravidian languages, whereas the parent language (Proto-Indo-Iranic) did not. You do have common Indo-Iranic vocabulary that is not derived from PIE that must come from a different source (a substrate language of BMAC?).

 

[Garrick]

An interesting word is the English "Path" , .... in Sanskrit It's exactly "Patha" (पथ) pronouced "Pat"! certainly another coincidence. Tons of coincidence ...

Yes.

And it is logical, Indo-European languages are a family.

For example in Slavic languages:

path (English)

put (Serbian)
път (Bulgarian)
путь (Russian, Ukrainian)
...

You can find in other languages also, for example in Urdu: پاتھ (pat).

Probably Greek πάτι has same root. Etc.
...

Key question here is whether Arian hypothesis has grounds as Kurgan and Anatolian hypothesis. And you know what is evidence.

...
There are quality books about Aryan debate, one of them is:

The Quest for the Origins of Vedic Culture: The Indo-Aryan Migration Debate

Edwin Francis Bryant

https://books.google.rs/books/about..._Vedic_Cultu.html?id=-Grpz1tmcSMC&redir_esc=y

 

[Taranis]

Of course there are more hypotheses. Main hypotheses are Kurgan and Anatolian. I more prefer Anatolian hypothesis, but it can be link between both hypotheses, they do not absolutely exclude one another. Even Armenian hypothesis can have make sense. Even Paleolithic Continuity is interesting, although with much less probability and probably it is good for better understanding this very complex matter.

If I understand you speak about Indigenous Aryan hypothesis (please correct me if I'm wrong). Where the records of this hypothesis is based? Kurgan and Anatolian hypotheses are founded on scientific evidence.

In my opinion, if we follow the Anatolian hypothesis (as originally layed out by Colin Renfrew) and tie the expansion of PIE into Europe with the expansion of agriculture (Renfrew's original postulate), in terms of Y-DNA, it becomes necessary to argue that the Proto-Indo-Europeans were G2a-bearing peoples (since samples of this haplogroup have been found consistently in Neolithic samples from Europe), not R1a/R1b. From the perspective of genetics, this raises the question for me who were then the R1a/R1b-bearing peoples who made the later incursion into Europe? In my opinion, the Anatolian hypothesis has to find an answer for this. Another aspect is the vocabulary of PIE, in particular common words for "horse" and "wheel". The invention of the wheel and the domestication of the horse are very specific events in terms of archaeology, and one of the main weaknesses of the Anatolian hypothesis is exactly this: if there's a common word for 'wheel', and if it is a 'wandering word' (which is a postulate of the Anatolian hypothesis) why is it shifted according to the sound laws of the respective daughter languages*? Finally, there's another aspect, namely concerning the Anatolian branch of Indo-European. Where was the Proto-Anatolian homeland? These are questions, in my opinion, that not to be addressed.

I might say, I personally am not ruling out that a variant of the "Indo-Hittite" scenario is correct (as I said, this is actually something that 'anatolianists' like Russel Gray and Quentin Atkinson, and 'kurganists' like David W. Anthony and Don Ringe agree on: the early split of the Anatolian languages): that you had a split between Proto-Anatolian and a "late" form of PIE from which the other IE branches derive. In my opinion, there are a lot of good reasons to place "late PIE" into the Pontic-Caspian steppe, but given the position of the Anatolian languages, I suspect that this is not the complete story.

*This is layed out in a good summary in "The Indo-European Homeland from Linguistic and Archaeological Perspectives" by David W. Anthony and Don Ringe (in Annual Review of Linguistics, from 2015)

 

[MOESAN]

Its not "laborious and curageous" as you claim it to be, this is well known for a long time. You have to consider the various sound laws (and in turn, regular sound correspondences) that are responsible for these. For English (a Germanic language), a key sound change is Grimm's Law, by which earlier *kw became *hw. For the Indo-Iranic languages, one key factor is that they have a merger of *l and *r. Another cognate (in Greek) is the word "kyklos" (κυκλος).

In any case, your comparisons of French and Sanskrit are moot/pointless because these are innovations of French that are not found in Latin.



I'm under the impression that if you say the "Indo-Aryan"migration 'did not happen' (more accurately, you claim "it happened around 1000 BC, which is impossible, therefor it did not happen"), therefore one must assume that Indic (aka 'Indo-Aryan') languages are autochthonous to the Indian subcontinent - which to me is a non-sequitur. My point is that there are no Dravidian/Munda loanwords in the other branches of IE (and not in the Iranic languages, either), which you would expect if Indic (or even Indo-Iranic) were autochthonous to the subcontinent. What we see is that Sanskrit had language contact with speakers of Dravidian languages, whereas the parent language (Proto-Indo-Iranic) did not. You do have common Indo-Iranic vocabulary that is not derived from PIE that must come from a different source (a substrate language of BMAC?).

Good answers Taranis. Voyager seems nice and very interested in languages, but I think he has a french dictionary at hand and tries every chance to find correspondances between french and sanskrit (I do the same with diverse languages and slavic ones, and it is a good play) but he also too to look at good etymology books of french and then he could see the french words ends are for the most very far from the primitive words tails whose they are an evolution.

 

[LeBrok]

@ Voyager
Here is just printed genetic proof of Bronze Age Steppe invasion into South Asia and India:

In South Asia, our dataset provides insight into the sources of Ancestral North Indians (ANI), a West Eurasian related population that no longer exists in unmixed form but contributes avariable amount of the ancestry of South Asians, (Supplementary Information, section 9) (Extended Data Fig. 4). We show that it is impossible to model the ANI as being derived from any single ancient population in our dataset. However, it can be modelled as a mix of ancestry related to both early farmers of western Iran and to people of the Bronze Age Eurasian steppe; all sampled South Asian groups are inferred to have significant amounts of both ancestral types. The demographic impact of steppe related populations on South Asia was substantial, as the Mala, a south Indian population with minimal ANI along the ‘IndianCline’ of such ancestry, is inferred to have ~18% steppe-related ancestry, while the Kalashof Pakistan are inferred to have ~50%, similar to present-day northern Europeans.

http://biorxiv.org/content/biorxiv/early/2016/06/16/059311.full.pdf

 

[Voyager]

Its not "laborious and curageous" as you claim it to be, this is well known for a long time. You have to consider the various sound laws (and in turn, regular sound correspondences) that are responsible for these. For English (a Germanic language), a key sound change is Grimm's Law, by which earlier *kw became *hw. For the Indo-Iranic languages, one key factor is that they have a merger of *l and *r. Another cognate (in Greek) is the word "kyklos" (κυκλος).

In any case, your comparisons of French and Sanskrit are moot/pointless because these are innovations of French that are not found in Latin.



I'm under the impression that if you say the "Indo-Aryan"migration 'did not happen' (more accurately, you claim "it happened around 1000 BC, which is impossible, therefor it did not happen"), therefore one must assume that Indic (aka 'Indo-Aryan') languages are autochthonous to the Indian subcontinent - which to me is a non-sequitur. My point is that there are no Dravidian/Munda loanwords in the other branches of IE (and not in the Iranic languages, either), which you would expect if Indic (or even Indo-Iranic) were autochthonous to the subcontinent. What we see is that Sanskrit had language contact with speakers of Dravidian languages, whereas the parent language (Proto-Indo-Iranic) did not. You do have common Indo-Iranic vocabulary that is not derived from PIE that must come from a different source (a substrate language of BMAC?).

I worked out a bit this link between Wheel and Bielle or ManiVelle in French or Welle a mechanical piece in German called VilleBrequin in French , all these Velle , Wheel ,Welle terms seem to be tracked down to Volvere (to Turn in Latin) itself linked to Valate in Sanskrtit (very closed to Volant circle mechanical piece in French Steering Whell in car ) of course we can always invent a PIE word like *Kwel that is a common root bewtween Valat IE word & Cakra IE word but it's not obvious, these two IE words could have just two separate origins since they looks very different.
I will add that it looks like that some German words could derive from the Anatolian language , like Kugel (small ball in German) looks cognate to Kugi , Circle in Hittite, may be Another coïncidence.

 

[Garrick]

In my opinion, if we follow the Anatolian hypothesis (as originally layed out by Colin Renfrew) and tie the expansion of PIE into Europe with the expansion of agriculture (Renfrew's original postulate), in terms of Y-DNA, it becomes necessary to argue that the Proto-Indo-Europeans were G2a-bearing peoples (since samples of this haplogroup have been found consistently in Neolithic samples from Europe), not R1a/R1b. From the perspective of genetics, this raises the question for me who were then the R1a/R1b-bearing peoples who made the later incursion into Europe? In my opinion, the Anatolian hypothesis has to find an answer for this. Another aspect is the vocabulary of PIE, in particular common words for "horse" and "wheel". The invention of the wheel and the domestication of the horse are very specific events in terms of archaeology, and one of the main weaknesses of the Anatolian hypothesis is exactly this: if there's a common word for 'wheel', and if it is a 'wandering word' (which is a postulate of the Anatolian hypothesis) why is it shifted according to the sound laws of the respective daughter languages*? Finally, there's another aspect, namely concerning the Anatolian branch of Indo-European. Where was the Proto-Anatolian homeland? These are questions, in my opinion, that not to be addressed.

I might say, I personally am not ruling out that a variant of the "Indo-Hittite" scenario is correct (as I said, this is actually something that 'anatolianists' like Russel Gray and Quentin Atkinson, and 'kurganists' like David W. Anthony and Don Ringe agree on: the early split of the Anatolian languages): that you had a split between Proto-Anatolian and a "late" form of PIE from which the other IE branches derive. In my opinion, there are a lot of good reasons to place "late PIE" into the Pontic-Caspian steppe, but given the position of the Anatolian languages, I suspect that this is not the complete story.

*This is layed out in a good summary in "The Indo-European Homeland from Linguistic and Archaeological Perspectives" by David W. Anthony and Don Ringe (in Annual Review of Linguistics, from 2015)

Thread is very complex and I will just briefly.

There are more hypotheses for Starcevo culture, Linear Pottery Culture etc. According Anatolian proponents these cultures were Indo-European and originated in Anatolia. According Kurgan proponents these cultures were non Indo-European and they were destroyed by people who came from Caspian Pontiac Steppe (members of Kurgan culture).

After Colin Refrenw's Anatolian hypothesis 1987 there was revisions this theory. According today's knowledge it means there could be several branches of Indo-European: Northwestern Indo-European, Balkan Proto Indo-European, Steppe Proto Indo-European. From first branch could emerge today's Western European languages, from second branch: Greek, Armenian, and Balto-Slavic., from third branch: Tocharian.

If we see evolution of knowledge we can see some convergence Kurgan and Anatolian hypothesis. They are not mutualy exclusive. Of course there a plenty different views and disagreement, both Anatolian and Kurgan hypotheses have strengths and weaknesses.

There are interesting things we should keep in mind when we speak about expansion of languages or family of languages. Spreading of language sometimes can happen very quickly and in a short time new language can replace old, in other cases it takes a lot more time. Languages don't go always with haplogroups, expansion of any language may not be caused by mass migration of newcomers, it can be only language expansion where local people of different origin adopt 'lingua franca' and their native languages dissapear. Also, people (elite) who conquer any territory not always impose their language on local population. Massive migrations or conquering any territory are not necessary preconditions for language expansion, language can be spread in different ways.

 

[LeBrok]

This is interesting from recent Lazaridis paper:

Nonetheless, the fact that we canreject West Eurasian population sources from Anatolia, mainland Europe, and the Levant diminishesthe likelihood that these areas were sources of Indo-European (or other) languages in South Asia.While the Early/Middle Bronze Age ‘Yamnaya’-related group (Steppe_EMBA) is a good geneticmatch (together with Neolithic Iran) for ANI, the later Middle/Late Bronze Age steppe population(Steppe_MLBA) is not. Steppe_MLBA includes Sintashta and Andronovo populations who have beenproposed as identical to or related to ancestral Indo-Iranians9,19, as well as the Srubnaya from easternEurope which are related to South Asians by their possession of Y-chromosome haplogroupR1a1a1b2-Z935. A useful direction of future research is a more comprehensive sampling of ancientDNA from steppe populations, as well as populations of central Asia (east of Iran and south of thesteppe), which may reveal more proximate sources of the ANI than the ones considered here, and ofSouth Asia to determine the trajectory of population change in the area directly

http://biorxiv.org/content/biorxiv/suppl/2016/06/16/059311.DC1/059311-1.pdf
ANI-Ancestral North Indian
According to them Early Middle Bronze Age Steppe communities better match the Steppe IE who ended up in India, better than MLBA cultures like Sintashta and Andronovo.

 

[A. Papadimitriou]

Yes.

And it is logical, Indo-European languages are a family.

For example in Slavic languages:

path (English)

put (Serbian)
път (Bulgarian)
путь (Russian, Ukrainian)
...

You can find in other languages also, for example in Urdu: پاتھ (pat).

Probably Greek πάτι has same root. Etc.
...

Key question here is whether Arian hypothesis has grounds as Kurgan and Anatolian hypothesis. And you know what is evidence.

...
There are quality books about Aryan debate, one of them is:

The Quest for the Origins of Vedic Culture: The Indo-Aryan Migration Debate

Edwin Francis Bryant

https://books.google.rs/books/about..._Vedic_Cultu.html?id=-Grpz1tmcSMC&redir_esc=y

In ancient greek there was the word pa'teō, pa'tō with the meaning walk, march. The word still exists in modern Greek as pa'tao, pa'to.
There is a medieval Greek word mona'pati(on), modern Greek mona'pati which meant and means 'path'. 'Mono-' meant: single, lone, alone etc

 

[A. Papadimitriou]

In my opinion, if we follow the Anatolian hypothesis (as originally layed out by Colin Renfrew) and tie the expansion of PIE into Europe with the expansion of agriculture (Renfrew's original postulate), in terms of Y-DNA, it becomes necessary to argue that the Proto-Indo-Europeans were G2a-bearing peoples (since samples of this haplogroup have been found consistently in Neolithic samples from Europe), not R1a/R1b. From the perspective of genetics, this raises the question for me who were then the R1a/R1b-bearing peoples who made the later incursion into Europe? In my opinion, the Anatolian hypothesis has to find an answer for this. Another aspect is the vocabulary of PIE, in particular common words for "horse" and "wheel". The invention of the wheel and the domestication of the horse are very specific events in terms of archaeology, and one of the main weaknesses of the Anatolian hypothesis is exactly this: if there's a common word for 'wheel', and if it is a 'wandering word' (which is a postulate of the Anatolian hypothesis) why is it shifted according to the sound laws of the respective daughter languages*? Finally, there's another aspect, namely concerning the Anatolian branch of Indo-European. Where was the Proto-Anatolian homeland? These are questions, in my opinion, that not to be addressed.

I might say, I personally am not ruling out that a variant of the "Indo-Hittite" scenario is correct (as I said, this is actually something that 'anatolianists' like Russel Gray and Quentin Atkinson, and 'kurganists' like David W. Anthony and Don Ringe agree on: the early split of the Anatolian languages): that you had a split between Proto-Anatolian and a "late" form of PIE from which the other IE branches derive. In my opinion, there are a lot of good reasons to place "late PIE" into the Pontic-Caspian steppe, but given the position of the Anatolian languages, I suspect that this is not the complete story.

*This is layed out in a good summary in "The Indo-European Homeland from Linguistic and Archaeological Perspectives" by David W. Anthony and Don Ringe (in Annual Review of Linguistics, from 2015)

It was 'kuklos in Classical Greek basically. It is said that it became 'kyklos in Koine. And it is 'kiklos today. It means exclusively circle today. We use the words tro'xos and 'roða in modern Greek. Τhe word tro'kʰos was used in classical Greek too. The other one has Latin/Venetian origin.

'Kuklos primarily meant 'circle' in Ancient Greek too and it could be applied to any circular body, even to a 'place of assembly'. For me personally it means that the Greeks could have inherited from PIE a word which just meant circle.

κύκλος , ὁ (Dor. ἁ, v. infr. 11.11), also with heterocl. pl.A.“κύκλα” Il., etc., v. infr.11.1, 3,9, 111.1:—ring, circle, ὅπποτέ μιν δόλιον περὶ κύκλον ἄγωσιν, of the circle which hunters draw round their game,; κ. δέκα χάλκεοι (concentric) circles of brass on a round shield, Il.11.33, cf. 20.280; but ἀσπίδος κύκλον λέγω the round shield itself, A.Th.489, cf. 496,591.

2. Adverbial usages, κύκλῳ in a circle or ring, round about, “κ. ἁπάντῃ” Od.8.278; “κ. πάντῃ”X.An.3.1.2; “πανταχῇ” D.4.9; “τὸ κ. πέδον” Pi.O.10(11).46; “κ. περιάγειν” Hdt.4.180; “λίμνη . .ἐργασμένη εὖ κ.” Id.2.170; “τρέχειν κ.” Ar.Th.662; “περιέπλεον αὐτοὺς κ.” Th.2.84; “οἱ κ.βασιλεῖς” X.Cyr.7.2.23; ἡ κ. περιφορά, κίνησις, Pl.Lg.747a, Alex. Aphr.in Top.218.3: freq. with περίor words compounded there with, round about, “κ. πέριξ” A.Pers.368, 418; “περιστῆναι κ.”Hdt.1.43; “βωμὸν κ. περιστῆναι” A.Fr.379; “ἀμφιχανὼν κ.” S.Ant.118 (lyr.); “περιστεφῆ κ.”Id.El.895; “περισταδὸν κ.” E.Andr.1137; “κ. περιϊέναι” Pl.Phd.72b, etc.; “τοῦ φλοιοῦπεριαιρεθέντος κ.” Thphr.HP4.15.1; so κ. περὶ αὐτήν round about it, Hdt.1.185; “περὶ τὰ δώματα κ.”Id.2.62; also κύκλῳ c. acc., without “περί, ἐπιστήσαντες κ. σῆμα” Id.4.72; “πάντα τὸν τόποντοῦτον κ.” D.4.4: c.gen., “κ. τοῦ στρατοπέδου” X.Cyr.4.5.5; “τὰ κ. τῆς Ἀττικῆς” D.18.96, cf. PFay.110.7 (i A.D.), etc.: metaph., around or from all sides, S.Ant.241, etc.; κεντουμένη κύκλῳ ἡ ψυχή all over, Pl.Phdr. 251d; τὰ κ. the circumstances, Arist.Rh.1367b29, EN1117b2; ἡ κ. ἀπόδειξις, of arguing in a circle, Id.APo.72b17, cf. APr.57b18: with Preps., “ἐν κ.” S.Aj.723, Ph.356, E.Ba.653,Ar.V.432, etc.; “ἅπαντες ἐν κ.” Id.Eq.170, Pl.679: c. gen., E.HF926, Th.3.74; “κατὰ κύκλον”Emp.17.13.​

II. any circular body:​

1. wheel, Il.23.340; in which sense the heterocl. pl. κύκλα is mostly used, 5.722, 18.375; τοὺς λίθουςἀνατιθεῖσι ἐπὶ τὰ κύκλα on the janker, IG12.350.47.​

2. trencher, SIG57.32 (Milet., v B.C.), Abh.Berl.Akad.1928(6).29 (Cos), Poll.6.84.​

3. place of assembly, of the “ἀγορά, ἱερὸς κ.” Il.18.504; “ὁ κ. τοῦ Ζηνὸς τὠγοραίου” Schwyzer 701 B6(Erythrae, v B.C.); ἀγορᾶς κ. (cf. κυκλόεις) E.Or.919; of the amphitheatre, D.C.72.19.​

b. crowd of people standing round, ring or circle of people, “κ. τυραννικός” S.Aj.749; κύκλαχαλκέων ὅπλων, i.e. of armed men, dub. in Id.Fr.210.9, cf. X. Cyr.7.5.41: abs.,E.Andr.1089, X.An.5.7.2 (both pl.), Diph.55.3.​

c. place in the ἀγορά where domestic utensils were sold, Alex.99.​

4. vault of the sky, “ὁ κ. τοῦ οὐρανοῦ” Hdt.1.131, LXX 1 Es.4.34; “πυραυγέα κ. αἰθέρος”h.Hom.8.6, cf. E.Ion1147; “ὁ ἄνω κ.” S.Ph.815; “ἐς βάθος κύκλου” Ar.Av.1715; “νυκτὸς αἰανὴςκ.” S.Aj.672; γαλαξίας κ. the milky way, Placit.2.7.1, al., Poll.4.159; also “ὁ τοῦ γάλακτος κ.” Arist.Mete.345a25; “πολιοῖο γάλακτος κ.” Arat.511.​

b. μέγιστος κ. great circle, Autol.Sph.2, al.; “μ. κ. τῶν ἐν τῇ σφαίρᾳ” Archim.Sph.Cyl.1.30, cf.Gem.5.70; κ. ἰσημερινός, θερινός, etc., Ph.1.27; “χειμερινός” Gem.5.7, Cleom.1.2; ἀρκτικός,ἀνταρκτικός, Gem.5.2,9; “ὁ κ. ὁ τῶν ζῳδίων” Arist. Mete.343a24; ὁ ὁρίζων κ. the horizon,Id.Cael.297b34; παράλληλοι κ., of parallels of latitude, Autol.Sph.1: in pl., the zones,Stoic.2.196.​

5. orb, disk of the sun and moon, “ἡλίου κ.” A.Pr.91, Pers.504, S.Ant.416; “πανσέληνος κ.” E.Ion1155; μὴ οὐ πλήρεος ἐόντος τοῦ κύκλου (sc. τῆς σελήνης) Hdt.6.106: in pl., the heavenly bodies,IG14.2012A9 (Sulp. Max.).​

6. circle or wall round a city, esp. round Athens, “ὁ Ἀθηνέων κ.” Hdt.1.98, cf. Th.2.13, etc.; “οὐχὶ τὸνκ. τοῦ Πειραιῶς, οὐδὲ τοῦ ἄστεως” D.18.300.​

b. circular fort, Th.6.99, al.​

7. round shield, v. sub init.​

8. in pl., eye-balls, eyes, S.OT1270, Ph.1354; “ὀμμάτων κ.” Id.Ant.974 (lyr.): rarely in sg., eye, “ὁαἰὲν ὁρῶν κ. Διός” Id.OC704 (lyr.).​

9. οἱ κ. τοῦ προσώπου cheeks, Hp.Morb.2.50; “κύκλα παρειῆς” Nonn.D.33.190, 37.412; but κύκλοςμαζοῦ, poet. for μαζός, is f.l. in Tryph.34.​

10. κ. ἐλαίης an olive wreath, Orph.A.325 (pl.).​

11. cycle or collection of legends or poems, “κύκλον ἱστορημέναν ὑπὲρ Κρήτας” GDI5187.9 (Crete); esp. of the Epic cycle, “ὁ ἐπικὸς κ.” Ath. 7.277e, Procl. ap. Phot.Bibl.p.319 B., cf. Arist.Rh.1417a15; of the corpus of legends compiled by Dionysius Scytobrachion, Ath.11.481e, cf. Sch. Od.2.120; κ.ἐπιγραμμάτων Suid.s.v. Ἀγαθίας; cf. “κυκλικός” 11.​

III. circular motion, orbit of the heavenly bodies, “κύκλον ἰέναι” Pl.Ti.38d; “οὐρανὸς . . μιᾷ περιαγωγῇ καὶκύκλῳ συναναχορεύει τούτοις” Arist.Mu.391b18; revolution of the seasons, “ἐνιαυτοῦ κ.” E.Or. 1645,Ph.477; τὸν ἐνιαύσιον κ. the yearly cycle, ib.544; “ἑπτὰ . . ἐτῶν κ.” Id.Hel.112; μυρία κύκλα ζώειν, i.e.years, AP7.575 (Leont.): hence κ. τῶν ἀνθρωπηΐων ἐστὶ πρηγμάτων human affairs revolve in cycles,Hdt.1.207; “φασὶ . . κύκλον εἶναι τὰ ἀνθρώπινα πράγματα” Arist.Ph.223b24, al.; “κ. κακῶν” D.C.44.29;κύκλου ἐξέπταν, i.e. from the cycle of rebirths, Orph.Fr.32c.6.​

b. ἐν τοῖς κ. εἶναι to be in train, of an affair, PEleph.14.24 (iii B.C.).​

2. circular dance (cf. κύκλιος）“, χωρεῖτε νῦν ἱερὸν ἀνὰ κ.” Ar.Ra.445, cf. Simon.148.9, E.Alc.449(lyr.).​

3. in Rhet., a rounded period, “περιόδου κύκλος” D.H.Comp.19, cf. 22, 23.​

b. period which begins and ends with the same word, Hermog.Inv.4.8.​

4. in Metre, a kind of anapaest, v.l. for κυκλικός in D.H.Comp.17.​

IV. sphere, globe, Pl.Lg.898a. [υ^ by nature, S.Ant.416, Aj.672, etc., but freq. long by position in Hom. and Trag.]
​

http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper...9.04.0057:alphabetic+letter=*a:entry+group=16

 

[Voyager]

It was 'kuklos in Classical Greek basically. It is said that it became 'kyklos in Koine. And it is 'kiklos today. It means exclusively circle today. We use the words tro'xos and 'roða in modern Greek. Τhe word tro'kʰos was used in classical Greek too. The other one has Latin/Venetian origin.

'Kuklos primarily meant 'circle' in Ancient Greek too and it could be applied to any circular body, even to a 'place of assembly'. For me personally it means that the Greeks could have inherited from PIE a word which just meant circle.



http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper...9.04.0057:alphabetic+letter=*a:entry+group=16

In Sanskrit, It 's look like that "Kuc" preposition is related to words related to Curve, like Kuti is Curve, Kuncana is curviligne, Kuncati is to bend etc etc this looks very different to the other kind of sanskrit words like Valate (To turn) that is related to Volvere (Latin), Welle (Ger), Wheel (Engl).
add.: Anka in Sanskrit means Curved, Hook probably the root of Anker (Ger.) Anchor (Engl.) , Ancora (Latin)ἄγκυρα in Ancient Greek , still a maritime object used every day by wandering people in carriage in the Steppes.:innocent:

 

[arvistro]

Vel-t/vel-ties in Latvian.
Strange thing is Balts dont have kwekwelos for wheel, instead we have kakls (cognate) for neck.

 

[MOESAN]

In Sanskrit, It 's look like that "Kuc" preposition is related to words related to Curve, like Kuti is Curve, Kuncana is curviligne, Kuncati is to bend etc etc this looks very different to the other kind of sanskrit words like Valate (To turn) that is related to Volvere (Latin), Welle (Ger), Wheel (Engl).
add.: Anka in Sanskrit means Curved, Hook probably the root of Anker (Ger.) Anchor (Engl.) , Ancora (Latin)ἄγκυρα in Ancient Greek , still a maritime object used every day by wandering people in carriage in the Steppes.:innocent:

interesting concerning sanskrit.
But just a remark: latin 'volvere' is surely from another root than germanique *kwel (or something close: wheel, welle, wiel, slavic kol-) spite an ancient basal meaning surely very close; the *w(e)l- root of 'volvere' is surely not far from a supposed (by me) **w(e)r- root of close meaning ("turn") : look at numerous english words in 'wr-', slavic in 'vr-', breton 'gwar' 2: even a word like 'worm', lat. 'verm-' is surely remotely related

 

[Voyager]

interesting concerning sanskrit.
But just a remark: latin 'volvere' is surely from another root than germanique *kwel (or something close: wheel, welle, wiel, slavic kol-) spite an ancient basal meaning surely very close; the *w(e)l- root of 'volvere' is surely not far from a supposed (by me) **w(e)r- root of close meaning ("turn") : look at numerous english words in 'wr-', slavic in 'vr-', breton 'gwar' 2: even a word like 'worm', lat. 'verm-' is surely remotely related

My theory is that the German word Welle and Wheel in English are cognate. These 2 words were similar and even the pronouciation is the same. One possible scenario coulbe as following: theses 2 words could point to the same things as a kind of rotating shaft or axes and Wheel had another specific term like " Rad" in German. When the Anglo-Saxon crossed the Channel the words Welle pronouced as Wheel extended its signification to the Wheel actual definition and replace the " Rad" type word. In French "Bielle" or "Vielle" are probably cognate to Welle and the definition is the same. The actual mechanical definition of "Bielle" is a shaft that transforms a circular movement into a linear movement. The continental people kept similar words for wheel , "Roue" in Fench, "Rad" in German, "Rota" in Latin all cognate with the Sankrit word "Ratha" (carriage). Then where do these words, Welle, Vielle, Bielle, come from? according to "etymologisches wörterbuch der deutschen sprache" Friedrich Kluge 1889, "Welle" derives from "Volvere" in latin for example Wälzen" meaning cylinder, barrel, Wälze : to roll, we have the dancing Waltz (Valse in French) etc, etc... All these spining terms derive probably from Sanskrit Valate (to turn).

 

[MOESAN]

My theory is that the German word Welle and Wheel in English are cognate. These 2 words were similar and even the pronouciation is the same. One possible scenario coulbe as following: theses 2 words could point to the same things as a kind of rotating shaft or axes and Wheel had another specific term like " Rad" in German. When the Anglo-Saxon crossed the Channel the words Welle pronouced as Wheel extended its signification to the Wheel actual definition and replace the " Rad" type word. In French "Bielle" or "Vielle" are probably cognate to Welle and the definition is the same. The actual mechanical definition of "Bielle" is a shaft that transforms a circular movement into a linear movement. The continental people kept similar words for wheel , "Roue" in Fench, "Rad" in German, "Rota" in Latin all cognate with the Sankrit word "Ratha" (carriage). Then where do these words, Welle, Vielle, Bielle, come from? according to "etymologisches wörterbuch der deutschen sprache" Friedrich Kluge 1889, "Welle" derives from "Volvere" in latin for example Wälzen" meaning cylinder, barrel, Wälze : to roll, we have the dancing Waltz (Valse in French) etc, etc... All these spining terms derive probably from Sanskrit Valate (to turn).

OK for Welle, wheel (wiel in dutch language) but you make a mistake when you link them to latin volvere - wheel was hwêol in anglo-saxon, is hjôl in icelandic, was huil in old danish and refer to slavic woRDS kolo, kola as I wrote -
the sadness in I-Eans and linguistic questions is that words change meaning over time, even IF THERE IS ALWAYS A SEMANTIC STRONG OR TINY LINK shared by the derived meanings of cognates like that. ex: welsh "trout" is breton "mackerel", celtic "oak" is slavic "tree" or "timber", germanic "tree" or "timber", welsh "poor" is breton "meager", english "harvest" is other germanics "autumn", english "august" is breton "harvest" and so on. So we can imagine that in past the same things occurred: it has its weight when speaking about fauna/flora of PIE "urheimat"; for technics too: new foreign objects are named after the provider's foreign word OR can be named with a native word, by analogy of aspect: we have french rond (round) << latin rotund-us << rota (cogn- celtic) = wheel - same for kuklos : hard to tell hen from egg here? celt-britt- has cylch/kelc'h for circle: ? << *kikl ??? in front of a newly discovered OR loaned technic a pre-existing word can be applied ("circle" for "wheel"). So a common PIE word for an object is not the absolute proof that this object was invented by PIE people at first.
What remains is the conjunction of several technics (wheel, charriot, horse taming...) named with common PIE words which COULD help to prove something... I 'm steel puzzled.

 

[Voyager]

OK for Welle, wheel (wiel in dutch language) but you make a mistake when you link them to latin volvere - wheel was hwêol in anglo-saxon, is hjôl in icelandic, was huil in old danish and refer to slavic woRDS kolo, kola as I wrote -
the sadness in I-Eans and linguistic questions is that words change meaning over time, even IF THERE IS ALWAYS A SEMANTIC STRONG OR TINY LINK shared by the derived meanings of cognates like that. ex: welsh "trout" is breton "mackerel", celtic "oak" is slavic "tree" or "timber", germanic "tree" or "timber", welsh "poor" is breton "meager", english "harvest" is other germanics "autumn", english "august" is breton "harvest" and so on. So we can imagine that in past the same things occurred: it has its weight when speaking about fauna/flora of PIE "urheimat"; for technics too: new foreign objects are named after the provider's foreign word OR can be named with a native word, by analogy of aspect: we have french rond (round) << latin rotund-us << rota (cogn- celtic) = wheel - same for kuklos : hard to tell hen from egg here? celt-britt- has cylch/kelc'h for circle: ? << *kikl ??? in front of a newly discovered OR loaned technic a pre-existing word can be applied ("circle" for "wheel"). So a common PIE word for an object is not the absolute proof that this object was invented by PIE people at first.
What remains is the conjunction of several technics (wheel, charriot, horse taming...) named with common PIE words which COULD help to prove something... I 'm steel puzzled.

I made a round on this subject. I read the book of Lebedynsky "Les Indo-Européens". The book is interesting but it try to sell again the Kurgan theory with not much conviction. I think that the IE language spread as a common frame language between different peoples, different cultures for trade or for many other reasons, pretty much like the English language nowadays. Then it's unreal to link the IE language to any particular peoples and even less to any specific genetic haplogroups.It 's still possible to find a IE craddle somewhere linked to a particular peoples but uneasy but I think the final expansion had been cultural not associated to invaders and so on. Pretty much like the English language in fact nowadays. For historians in few thousands years , they will be puzzled to find English testimonies found all around the world written by so many different peoples.

 

[LeBrok]

I made a round on this subject. I read the book of Lebedynsky "Les Indo-Européens". The book is interesting but it try to sell again the Kurgan theory with not much conviction. I think that the IE language spread as a common frame language between different peoples, different cultures for trade or for many other reasons, pretty much like the English language nowadays. Then it's unreal to link the IE language to any particular peoples and even less to any specific genetic haplogroups.It 's still possible to find a IE craddle somewhere linked to a particular peoples but uneasy but I think the final expansion had been cultural not associated to invaders and so on. Pretty much like the English language in fact nowadays. For historians in few thousands years , they will be puzzled to find English testimonies found all around the world written by so many different peoples.

Could you post a list of english speaking countries with majority english emigrants (at the beginning) and known conquest of territory, and second list of english speaking countries which speak english by "other" means. Let's see how valid your hypothesis is.
Let's do it for spanish speaking countries too.

 

[MOESAN]

I made a round on this subject. I read the book of Lebedynsky "Les Indo-Européens". The book is interesting but it try to sell again the Kurgan theory with not much conviction. I think that the IE language spread as a common frame language between different peoples, different cultures for trade or for many other reasons, pretty much like the English language nowadays. Then it's unreal to link the IE language to any particular peoples and even less to any specific genetic haplogroups.It 's still possible to find a IE craddle somewhere linked to a particular peoples but uneasy but I think the final expansion had been cultural not associated to invaders and so on. Pretty much like the English language in fact nowadays. For historians in few thousands years , they will be puzzled to find English testimonies found all around the world written by so many different peoples.

[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Tahoma, Calibri, Geneva, sans-serif]Iwrote "I'm [/FONT][FONT=Verdana, Arial, Tahoma, Calibri, Geneva, sans-serif]steel[/FONT] [FONT=Verdana, Arial, Tahoma, Calibri, Geneva, sans-serif]puzzled"!>> 'still'!!! But I think people understood...[/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Tahoma, Calibri, Geneva, sans-serif]Alearned trade language [/FONT][FONT=Verdana, Arial, Tahoma, Calibri, Geneva, sans-serif](koine)[/FONT][FONT=Verdana, Arial, Tahoma, Calibri, Geneva, sans-serif]only?Possible but not evident. [/FONT][FONT=Verdana, Arial, Tahoma, Calibri, Geneva, sans-serif]Eventhis[/FONT][FONT=Verdana, Arial, Tahoma, Calibri, Geneva, sans-serif]needs a former speaking well established pop. [/FONT][FONT=Verdana, Arial, Tahoma, Calibri, Geneva, sans-serif]Thiskind of transmission of language for almost only trade exchangesleaves a very basic and poor enough language. [/FONT][FONT=Verdana, Arial, Tahoma, Calibri, Geneva, sans-serif]Aso complicated grammar [/FONT][FONT=Verdana, Arial, Tahoma, Calibri, Geneva, sans-serif]apparentlystayed homogenous enough for centuries[/FONT][FONT=Verdana, Arial, Tahoma, Calibri, Geneva, sans-serif].And let's not forget a strong introgression of new DNA (autosome[/FONT][FONT=Verdana, Arial, Tahoma, Calibri, Geneva, sans-serif]s[/FONT][FONT=Verdana, Arial, Tahoma, Calibri, Geneva, sans-serif],mt and Y haplos) between the 3000 and the 1500 BC, the most between3000 and 2[/FONT][FONT=Verdana, Arial, Tahoma, Calibri, Geneva, sans-serif]0[/FONT][FONT=Verdana, Arial, Tahoma, Calibri, Geneva, sans-serif]00BC I think. Surely [/FONT][FONT=Verdana, Arial, Tahoma, Calibri, Geneva, sans-serif]10[/FONT][FONT=Verdana, Arial, Tahoma, Calibri, Geneva, sans-serif]00years it's long and can mask progressive emigration [/FONT][FONT=Verdana, Arial, Tahoma, Calibri, Geneva, sans-serif]+language learning [/FONT][FONT=Verdana, Arial, Tahoma, Calibri, Geneva, sans-serif]but...And modern Europe in North and East shows the [/FONT][FONT=Verdana, Arial, Tahoma, Calibri, Geneva, sans-serif]genetic[/FONT][FONT=Verdana, Arial, Tahoma, Calibri, Geneva, sans-serif]results,not being an only warriors elite phenomenon [/FONT][FONT=Verdana, Arial, Tahoma, Calibri, Geneva, sans-serif](weknow warrior elites have some hard work to pass their languages tomore numerous populations ruled by them)[/FONT][FONT=Verdana, Arial, Tahoma, Calibri, Geneva, sans-serif].[/FONT][FONT=Verdana, Arial, Tahoma, Calibri, Geneva, sans-serif]Europegenetics changed almost at 50 % between Neolithic and Iron. [/FONT][FONT=Verdana, Arial, Tahoma, Calibri, Geneva, sans-serif]Nolater migrations had ever changed W-, N- and C-Europe in such aproportion. [/FONT][FONT=Verdana, Arial, Tahoma, Calibri, Geneva, sans-serif]Andit seems the languages replacements of other languages have beenstrongest in North where the eastern imput has been stronger (the nonI-E languages seem having lasted l[/FONT][FONT=Verdana, Arial, Tahoma, Calibri, Geneva, sans-serif]ong[/FONT][FONT=Verdana, Arial, Tahoma, Calibri, Geneva, sans-serif]erin South or being reintroduced later, [/FONT][FONT=Verdana, Arial, Tahoma, Calibri, Geneva, sans-serif]atfirst sight[/FONT][FONT=Verdana, Arial, Tahoma, Calibri, Geneva, sans-serif]).[/FONT][FONT=Verdana, Arial, Tahoma, Calibri, Geneva, sans-serif]It'strue the syntax changed maybe more in Western Europe, but even untilnowadays, the traces of ancient I-E grammar are very strong ; [/FONT][FONT=Verdana, Arial, Tahoma, Calibri, Geneva, sans-serif]bythe way it seems in S-East modern iranians languages have alsosuffered serious grammatical changes[/FONT][FONT=Verdana, Arial, Tahoma, Calibri, Geneva, sans-serif].[/FONT][FONT=Verdana, Arial, Tahoma, Calibri, Geneva, sans-serif]Thesemergins partial losts in I-Ean grammar don't contradict its globalfirst unity. It could just discard Iran-CSW-Asia and W-Central Europeas centers for assumed PIE.[/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Tahoma, Calibri, Geneva, sans-serif]T[/FONT][FONT=Verdana, Arial, Tahoma, Calibri, Geneva, sans-serif]akenin its globality, [/FONT][FONT=Verdana, Arial, Tahoma, Calibri, Geneva, sans-serif]Icannot see [/FONT][FONT=Verdana, Arial, Tahoma, Calibri, Geneva, sans-serif]ancientI-Ean language[/FONT][FONT=Verdana, Arial, Tahoma, Calibri, Geneva, sans-serif]s[/FONT][FONT=Verdana, Arial, Tahoma, Calibri, Geneva, sans-serif]as[/FONT][FONT=Verdana, Arial, Tahoma, Calibri, Geneva, sans-serif]language[/FONT][FONT=Verdana, Arial, Tahoma, Calibri, Geneva, sans-serif]s[/FONT][FONT=Verdana, Arial, Tahoma, Calibri, Geneva, sans-serif]learned only by neighbour [/FONT][FONT=Verdana, Arial, Tahoma, Calibri, Geneva, sans-serif]from[/FONT][FONT=Verdana, Arial, Tahoma, Calibri, Geneva, sans-serif]neighbour [/FONT][FONT=Verdana, Arial, Tahoma, Calibri, Geneva, sans-serif]orin steppes markets [/FONT][FONT=Verdana, Arial, Tahoma, Calibri, Geneva, sans-serif]withoutdemic imput, [/FONT][FONT=Verdana, Arial, Tahoma, Calibri, Geneva, sans-serif]ina non-centralized space[/FONT][FONT=Verdana, Arial, Tahoma, Calibri, Geneva, sans-serif].[/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Tahoma, Calibri, Geneva, sans-serif]I'mobliged to think I-Eans first speakers were numerous enough becausetheir culture had not the level of the Mesopotamia cultures wherevery sophisticated and centralized societies saw the surviving ofdifferent languages side by side without any could at first replacethe others. Semites won the match because their language had a demicsupport.[/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Tahoma, Calibri, Geneva, sans-serif]Tofinish, I think comparing modern world and its media andcommunications means to ancient world is not too scientific whenspeaking of languages.[/FONT]

 

[Taranis]

I made a round on this subject. I read the book of Lebedynsky "Les Indo-Européens". The book is interesting but it try to sell again the Kurgan theory with not much conviction. I think that the IE language spread as a common frame language between different peoples, different cultures for trade or for many other reasons, pretty much like the English language nowadays. Then it's unreal to link the IE language to any particular peoples and even less to any specific genetic haplogroups.It 's still possible to find a IE craddle somewhere linked to a particular peoples but uneasy but I think the final expansion had been cultural not associated to invaders and so on. Pretty much like the English language in fact nowadays. For historians in few thousands years , they will be puzzled to find English testimonies found all around the world written by so many different peoples.

The question that I have to you is: do you doubt the methodology of linguistics as a whole, because I get that impression. Especially your doubt about the validity of cognates between distant branches of Indo-European (e.g. English versus Sanskrit). But you have to consider this: the concepts of linguistics are universal and apply to all languages (the same rules apply, for example, to the Semitic languages, the Uralic languages, or the Polynesian languages). The same universality applies to sound changes that govern the evolution of languages - they are always regular, which is why they're refered to as sound laws. I will give you a term to look up and read about: the Neogrammarian hypothesis, i.e. that sound changes have no exceptions. If they seemingly have, they are either conditioned by their own sets of rules - or they are evidence of a clear borrowing.

The problem why a comparison with the spread of English today breaks down is because we're talking about it being spread by a literate society / empire. The Proto-Indo-Europeans were no doubt iliterate peoples. How do you spread a language when there is no literacy? It is impossible without moving peoples, and then you very quickly get to the point where a migration (or invasion) becomes not justa possibility, but a necessary condition.