Where did proto-IE language start?

[Dinarid]

I will vote weakly in favor of R1a. I think the R1b-Basque connection may point to a second migration before Indo-European R1a expansion and after indigenous I expansion. I think the Cucuteni-Trypillian culture was definitely not Indo-European as they carried I2.

 

[Kristiina]

Do you think proto-Finns Ugric was also farmers language?

Edit: to not necessarily prolong discussion - No! All Proto-FU speakers have cognates only for hunter gatherer terms.
And yet Hungarians (whom you call farmers?) learned the hg derived language. Even more tought it to some Central Euro farmers.
Also I dont think having % of ENF genes is necessary to pass one's language. That is racist.

Arvistro, in his remarkable essay on Proto-Uralic (Kantauralin ajoitus ja paikannus: perustelut puntarissa, 2009), Jaakko Häkkinen concludes that differently from what has been claimed (for example Janhunen 2008), considering its quantity and quality, the proto-Uralic lexicon is not reflecting an early stage of development. Instead, the Aryan loanwords, name for mixed metal and agricultural lexicon show that in the beginning of the northern Bronze Age, around 2000 BC, proto-Uralic was still quite uniform language spoken in a restricted area.

Agricultural words reconstructed into Proto-Uralic are: *oxči sheep, *woxji butter, *šeŋti wheat/barley, *puśnV meal.

 

[arvistro]

OK, that makes sense.
I have also read since my post, that apparently IndoIranic loanwords are shared among all branches. So, yeah, before its spread proto-Uralic have learned agriculture from Indo-Iranians.
So, I was wrong. Uralic at time of its spread was no more HG language.

 

[Voyager]

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.

Sounds change law applied as a guide but exceptions exist. Lebedensky gives some examples for *kw IE sound transformed as "ch" in some areas where we still find word used with "*kw". Also the PIE construction is very speculative. You observe sound transformation from A sound to B sound, but it 's very uneasy to find a sound X that transform into A and into B.

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.

Since different peoples started to trade they need a common understanding for the product they exchanged,
then a common language must arise just to avoid missunderstanding whatever their level of literacy.
The basic purpose of a language used by different peoples is at least to have a common understanding of their environment
to be more sucessfull or powerfull together, it's true even among animals.
Also, we observe even nowadays that Objects, efficient words and successfull Cultural habits spread much quicker than peoples.

 

[LeBrok]

Since different peoples started to trade they need a common understanding for the product they exchanged,

I'm sure ancient salesman had some rudimentary language knowledge of populations he was selling to, traveling to. Hens local people didn't need to learn his. It is much easier to assume this than think that the whole village, even whole country, needs to speak languages of salesman from every country. Right?

Also, we observe even nowadays that Objects, efficient words and successfull Cultural habits spread much quicker than peoples.

New objects add words to vocabulary, they don't change languages. Unless you can present an example.

 

[MOESAN]

I'm sure ancient salesman had some rudimentary language knowledge of populations he was selling to, traveling to. Hens local people didn't need to learn his. It is much easier to assume this than think that the whole village, even whole country, needs to speak languages of salesman from every country. Right?

New objects add words to vocabulary, they don't change languages. Unless you can present an example.

Sensible answer Lebrok. We buy nowadays a lot of basic stuff to China, but most of us did not learn chinese language. Sure, ancient situation is not exactly the ame as today situation, but "troc" of goods does not need everytime too much words to succeed.

 

[Voyager]

Sensible answer Lebrok. We buy nowadays a lot of basic stuff to China, but most of us did not learn chinese language. Sure, ancient situation is not exactly the ame as today situation, but "troc" of goods does not need everytime too much words to succeed.

The Chinese sale us their products in English of course, with great expertise and sophistication. Chinese traders learned English, an IE language, with a great accointance. Why did this IE language become the common frame for trade for billions of people instead of Chinese? This is a good question. May be this IE language fits particulary well for trade activities. Why so well? May be it was the primary use of IE languages. Just a thinking.

 

[Taranis]

The Chinese sale us their products in English of course, with great expertise and sophistication. Chinese traders learned English, an IE language, with a great accointance. Why did this IE language become the common frame for trade for billions of people instead of Chinese? This is a good question. May be this IE language fits particulary well for trade activities. Why so well? May be it was the primary use of IE languages. Just a thinking.

You are assuming that languages could spread just as easily in a time before there was any literacy. Also, where is your archaeological evidence for such far-flung, continent-spanning trade networks in the Copper Age?

I would say that I agree with LeBrok: when you have a new item for which there is no word in a language, it is more likely that the word gets borrowed from the language that has the word, rather than the latter language getting borrowed wholesale. As an example, the word for "wine" in all language families of northern Europe (Insular Celtic, Germanic, Baltic, Slavic and Finnic-Uralic) is derived from Latin "vinum". That does not make Welsh, English, German, Polish or Estonian for that matter into Latin.

Finally, I would like to quote Anthony and Ringe (2015) on the matter, who engage in a very interesting criticism of the idea posited by adherents of the Anatolian school that the word for wheel was coined 'independently' in various IE branches (note especially the bold part):

Gray & Atkinson (2005) suggested that it was a “natural” choice to select the verbal root *kwel-, ‘turn’ or ‘revolve,’ as the root for *kwékwlos, ‘wheel, thing that turns’ (for example); but there are at least four different verb roots that are reconstructible for PIE with the meaning ‘turn’ or ‘revolve’ (*kwel-, *h2werg-, *wert-, *wel-),1 so the motivation for the specific sharing of a ‘wheel’ word based on *kwel- was not natural but cultural. Moreover, the two words for ‘wheel,’ at least, are analyzable derivatives of verb roots; so to make this explanation work, they would have to have survived with little enough phonological change to make identical derivations feasible, and the old derivational patterns would have to have been used—not once, but in each daughter branch in which the words survive—some three millennia after the languages had split, when wheeled vehicles and axles finally were invented. In addition, those constraints must have affected only the words that would later be used for the wheel vocabulary: Other innovations that occurred after the IE dispersal, things like spoke, iron, tin, chicken, and glass, were named dif- ferently in the dispersed daughter languages. One of the basic postulates of linguistics is that the relation between word and thing is cultural and arbitrary, as the diverse lexemes for the same referent show in this short list of things invented after the IE dispersal. But Gray & Atkinson’s (2005) solution implies that we should accept multiple parallel choices of the same roots and even the same derivatives for utterly new things in a continent-wide coincidence—but only for words that would later be employed for wheels and wagons.The scenario just sketched is already obviously improbable; the formation of the word 0kwékwlos ‘wheel’ makes it more improbable still. Like many PIE nouns, this one was derived from a verb root by adding a suffix and altering the shape of the root. In this noun, the suffix is the thematic vowel *-e-∼*-o- (*-e- in a few forms but *-o- in most), which is immediately followed by the case-and-number endings. Also, the root *kwel- has been reduplicated—that is, its initial consonant has been doubled and the copy is followed by the vowel *e. Finally, the root is in the “zero grade”—that is, its internal vowel has been dropped. Thus, the structure of the citation form given above, *kwé-kwl-o-s, is (reduplication + zero-grade root + thematic vowel + nominative singular ending). That specific formation was very unusual for nouns derived from verbs in the PIE period.
In short, the formation of *kwékwlos is virtually unique in PIE. Fortson (2010, p. 130) suggests that *kwékwlos was “an expressive neologism for a new gadget,” which is a reasonable speculation. The proposal that a noun was formed from a verb in this highly unusual manner numerous times, independently, is practically impossible.

 

[Korbyn]

I personally believe that Indo-Europeans inhabited as far south as Iraq and as far North as Armenia. The Kurgan hypothesis has some merit to it; but doesn't really add up, to me. Especially if you take ancient history. (and the consequence of R1b being in Sub-Saharan Africa.)

I voted R1a. I am thinking that Indo-European was predominantly an R1a language - yeah, I have no idea why it would be R1b. R1a is where it's at. The Middle East, Central Asia, India and even Siberia are notorious in history as an ancient R1a nomadic "Aryan" playground. But I really believe that Indo-European may be (exclusively) an R1 language group. (R1a and R1b simultaneously.) But R1a peoples were the first to build it up.

Afro-Asiatic may be related to Indo-European, as well. Some anthropologists I know, have theorized that there may have been Afro-Asiatic languages that were spoken in Europe, and that proto-Afro-Asiatic may have originated there, and had a back migration into Africa. cool

 

[Korbyn]

I would say the Caucasoid languages, the Afro-Asiatic languages, Kartvelian, Vasconic and especially Indo-European; have some type of relation to them. Burushaski as well.

But Indo-European was the one that was chosen the most, among Caucasoid individuals. (maybe it was seen as a noble language group. Which may explain the expansion of Indo-Europeans from the East to the West. Trying to get rid of all the indigenous Vasconic speaking "savages".)

 

[Korbyn]

Uralic and Turkic seem related. I believe these are actually Mongoloid language groups that were adopted by Europeans.

Uralic seems to me to be a creole language group. More-so than Turkic. It would explain why Hungarian, Estonian and Finnish are branched off of it; but Hungarian has words that are over 30% Indo-European in origin. And about 10% Turkic. Even though it branches off from Uralic, Magyar sounds almost nothing similar to the other Uralic languages, which is odd.

 

[Korbyn]

I will vote weakly in favor of R1a. I think the R1b-Basque connection may point to a second migration before Indo-European R1a expansion and after indigenous I expansion. I think the Cucuteni-Trypillian culture was definitely not Indo-European as they carried I2.

This is invalid logic. In a natural state (Anarchy); men become more savage and domineering. And Occam's razor would lead you to expect this:

How did the Basques become R1b


http://www.eupedia.com/forum/threads/28386-How-did-the-Basques-become-R1b

He is basically saying the indigenous Vasconic speakers (I2 and G2a) were wiped away by R1b Celts. Hahahaha

Edit: Nevermind. I apologize. I'm not sure if I read your entry correctly. But, I think Maciamo's theory is pretty spot-on.

 

[Korbyn]

The Chinese sale us their products in English of course, with great expertise and sophistication. Chinese traders learned English, an IE language, with a great accointance. Why did this IE language become the common frame for trade for billions of people instead of Chinese? This is a good question. May be this IE language fits particulary well for trade activities. Why so well? May be it was the primary use of IE languages. Just a thinking.

Because English is a language that is constructed to sound posh, sophisticated, and business-oriented. Hence why it's grammar and consonants make no sense. (think: enough should be enouph.)

No offense, but English was chosen over French because of the "to-the-point" German grammar. Although, it has all the pretty, fancy words of French. (But pronounced incorrectly...) lol

Example of English with French grammar:

Tu me fais peur (French)
You-me make (making) fear. (English equivalent to: You scare me/You're scaring me.)

 

[Korbyn]

Arvistro, in his remarkable essay on Proto-Uralic (Kantauralin ajoitus ja paikannus: perustelut puntarissa, 2009), Jaakko Häkkinen concludes that differently from what has been claimed (for example Janhunen 2008), considering its quantity and quality, the proto-Uralic lexicon is not reflecting an early stage of development. Instead, the Aryan loanwords, name for mixed metal and agricultural lexicon show that in the beginning of the northern Bronze Age, around 2000 BC, proto-Uralic was still quite uniform language spoken in a restricted area.

Agricultural words reconstructed into Proto-Uralic are: *oxči sheep, *woxji butter, *šeŋti wheat/barley, *puśnV meal.

I am thinking Uralic is a fairly recent linguistic adoption for Europeans as a language group. Uralic seems to be correlated with the Altaic (Mongoloid) macro language group. Possibly spoken by a few Mongol individuals who later became friended with Indo-Iranians and especially Scythians. See: Herodotus (greek writer) and his documentation of the Scythian/Persian wars, for more information/insight/idea.

 

[Voyager]

You are assuming that languages could spread just as easily in a time before there was any literacy. Also, where is your archaeological evidence for such far-flung, continent-spanning trade networks in the Copper Age?

I would say that I agree with LeBrok: when you have a new item for which there is no word in a language, it is more likely that the word gets borrowed from the language that has the word, rather than the latter language getting borrowed wholesale. As an example, the word for "wine" in all language families of northern Europe (Insular Celtic, Germanic, Baltic, Slavic and Finnic-Uralic) is derived from Latin "vinum". That does not make Welsh, English, German, Polish or Estonian for that matter into Latin.

Finally, I would like to quote Anthony and Ringe (2015) on the matter, who engage in a very interesting criticism of the idea posited by adherents of the Anatolian school that the word for wheel was coined 'independently' in various IE branches (note especially the bold part):

I think there is a misunderstanding here. You are thinking that the IE language were shaped in one day. Obviously, exchanges between different Peoples are the basic engine of the slow language formation. Language purpose is first to have a commun understanding of our environment between different humans. Nothing new here! Trade is a form of exchange. I don't see why IE would be an exception. I wonder how do you think langages were formed?

 

[Korbyn]

I think there is a misunderstanding here. You are thinking that the IE language were shaped in one day. Obviously, exchanges between different Peoples are the basic engine of the slow language formation. Language purpose is first to have a commun understanding of our environment between different humans. Nothing new here! Trade is a form of exchange. I don't see why IE would be an exception. I wonder how do you think langages were formed?

Actually that is a good perspective. I wonder if there was no such thing as an "original" or "official" Proto-Indo-European. Just a sequence of proto-languages that built the Indo-European substratum. (Possibly unintelligible words/dialects of a proposed Macrolanguage.) The cognates may have evolved as well, due to isolation or perhaps contact with non-IE languages.

It would explain why a language like German or proto-Germanic with it's cognates sounds almost nothing like Celtic or proto-Celtic. Romance and proto-Italic and so-on; even though these languages are supposedly neighbors and are Indo-European. And their grammar is often very different; with little evidence of relation, despite being Indo-European.

I am thinking that some forms of Indo-European language groups (in example: maybe Baltic or Slavic) branched off from something like Indo-Iranian or Indo-Aryan - and they became so isolated that they turned into their own language group; instead of being a dialect of Indo-Iranian. (get my point? like Slavic for example could have been Indo-Iranian that evolved into it's own Indo-European language group -- which is why it is hard to detect the similarities. Just like German and such - That's what I am suggesting.)

Also, we already have proof of a Romance language taking cognates and words from an apparent non-Indo-European language. Like the extinct Raetic, related to Etruscan. (which became Swiss Romansh.)

Edit: Also, this hypothetical/proposed European Macrolanguage may have produced not only Indo-European; but Vasconic as well as possibly Afro-Asiatic. (where possibly Celtic got it's grammar from? VSO?)

 

[Voyager]

I think the idea that displease some of us is that IE language could have emerged slowly and gradualy from exchanges between diverse different Peoples from different areas, and then IE could not be associated with one particular People from a particular area at a particular time. The other alternative idea is that an already well achieved IE language (arrived from nowhere) was spread by migrations of particular civilized Peoples from a particular area like Steppes , imposed to the local indigeneous Peoples from Western Europe to Northern India, at a particular time , let 's say 3500 to 4000 years ago. I think the 2nd idea doesn't work.
Here an interesting example "nehmen" in German meaning "to take" is cognate with the Greek word "nemétai" meaning the opposite "to allot". Why 's that? because in a transaction the act to give or to take refer to the same action depending on what side you are.

 

[Korbyn]

I think the idea that displease some of us is that IE language could have emerged slowly and gradualy from exchanges between diverse different Peoples from different areas, and then IE could not be associated with one particular People from a particular area at a particular time. The other alternative idea is that an already well achieved IE language (arrived from nowhere) was spread by migrations of particular civilized Peoples from a particular area like Steppes , imposed to the local indigeneous Peoples from Western Europe to Northern India, at a particular time , let 's say 3500 to 4000 years ago. I think the 2nd idea doesn't work.
Here an interesting example "nehmen" in German meaning "to take" is cognate with the Greek word "nemétai" meaning the opposite "to allot". Why 's that? because in a transaction the act to give or to take refer to the same action depending on what side you are.

Funny thing is, you have people trying to discredit the Altaic Macrolanguage group when there is substantial evidence that it is true. Most of those people are those Babylonian Lizard people, we all want to avoid.

 

[Taranis]

I think there is a misunderstanding here. You are thinking that the IE language were shaped in one day. Obviously, exchanges between different Peoples are the basic engine of the slow language formation. Language purpose is first to have a commun understanding of our environment between different humans. Nothing new here! Trade is a form of exchange. I don't see why IE would be an exception. I wonder how do you think langages were formed?

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.

 

[Korbyn]

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.

You've got it all wrong, once again. If Indo-European evolved out of a supposed European macrolanguage group; then that means the spread of it may have been adopted or used by loads of people; because they were LITERATE. It could be that these languages were easier to put into Alphabet. Remember the Indo-Europeans saw themselves as "refined" or "sacred" people. If there was in invasion; they probably looked down upon the non-IE speaking "savages" and took their women.

It's just like the Romance languages evolving from Roman into French and Romanian... That's how German and Celtic are so different..only they are more distinct groups of Indo-European, and not just a subgroup like French or Romanian are to Latin (romance)...

Also, Vincha culture records these old forms of Proto-Writing or possibly the earliest forms of Alphabet circa 7,000-8,000 years ago:



Vinča culture:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vinča_culture


Tell me if you can find some Vasconic scripts (other than Punic...or Greco-Phoenician...) for Basque. That's right, you can't find any.

And Berberids and Guanches (among other Afro-Asiatic speakers) used Punic scripts..

(Funny thing is, if you look closely in that Vincha culture script, you can find a Swastika among the symbols. Interesting, that.)