Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
Always a good idea.I am sending this abuse of Moderator power to Maciamo.
It was more of a sarcastic insinuation. We know you don't know each other in person, however you think alike.I don't know Rethel. He is a billion kilometres (who knows how far) away from me in Poland.
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.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.
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 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.
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.
Sure, it's not easy to have attested examples concerning history of illiterate Peoples for the good reason that they left no written documents.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.
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.
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?
then how? if it's not by writting means.I disagree: Indo-European did not grow 'by oral transmission'.
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.
He meant that language has spread together with migrating people. They came, they conquered, they thought locals their language. No alphabet needed for this.then how? if it's not by writting means.
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
Ok, nice percentages, but what's the point?
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.
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
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
In the same way, the patrilineal gene pool revealed the presence of different haplogroups (
Q1a2a1-L54, R1a1a1b2-Z93 and C)
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
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
This thread has been viewed 184399 times.