Is PIE and the standard theory of european languages really needed to explain why most european languages are related to one another?
They're all related to latin and greek and we have no record of other indo-european languages from europe until well after the romans had extensive contact with and influence on all the people who speak them. The further you trace back those languages the more they start to sound like latin and greek.
Conversely, PIE is a completely hypothetical, constructed language and there's no evidence of its existence. Doesn't it make more sense to just conclude that germanic, celtic and slavic languages are all based on the interpretation and adoption of latin by the people in those different areas of europe with the influence of their own native languages? That seems like the obvious, straight forward and common sense conclusion to draw. Why is any other explanation necessary, let alone one that's so speculative, hypothetical and fanciful, and without any physical evidence? It seems to have come about circumstantially and under the influence of political motivations and romanticism.
A lot of european nationalities had fanciful narratives of their origins in the orient that were formulated in medieval times or the renaissance, like the Scoti tribe being ruled by an egyptian queen who migrated to ireland or the British being descended from the Israelites. The Germans had their own origin narrative of being descend from persians.
>>1155943
Celtic languages still exist and are clearly from PIE, likewise with Germanic languages.
>>1155948
but PIE is not an actual language that is known to have existed, its constructed and hypothetical. There's no record of its existence at all. So its circular reasoning to say that celtic and germanic languages must descend from a language which was invented out of celtic and germanic languages
>>1155943
>Is PIE and the standard theory of european languages really needed to explain why most european languages are related to one another?
Yes
>Doesn't it make more sense to just conclude that germanic, celtic and slavic languages are all based on the interpretation and adoption of latin by the people in those different areas of europe with the influence of their own native languages?
Explain Sanskrit and Hittite
>>1155961
>Explain Sanskrit and Hittite
I'm talking about european languages only
>>1155961
>Explain Sanskrit and Hittite
Goddammit, you stole my thunder!
Shit, now how am I gonna contribute.
Fuck.
Ok, this:
> and we have no record of other indo-european languages from europe until well after the romans had extensive contact with and influence on all the people who speak them
Explain Tocharian A and B. No evidence of extensive or even minimal Latin context.
And this:
> The further you trace back those languages the more they start to sound like latin and greek.
No. Look up the centum/satem distinction.
Also, learn a bit about how Germanic, Slavic, and other Indo-European languages are reconstructed. And how Proto-Indo-European are reconstructed. Most follow very different patterns from Ancient Greek and Latin, despite having common etymologies and original grammars.
t. former student of A. Greek, Latin, and Sanskrit
t. person obsessed with etymology
t. really cool dude
>>1155958
It's quite obvious they're all descended from a common source which archaeology points to as coming from southern Russia. PIE is just the name of the hypothetical common ancestor.
>Doesn't it make more sense to just conclude that germanic, celtic and slavic languages are all based on the interpretation and adoption of latin by the people in those different areas of europe with the influence of their own native languages?
Languages typically borrow vocabulary, not grammar. PIE languages all have extremely similar case systems, gender systems, verbal conjugations, etc.
>>1155969
>I'm talking about european languages only
Why? Because it allows you to ignore compelling evidence that contradicts your terrible theory?
>>1155969
No you're not, you're talking about the Proto-Indo-European language, which means you're talking about the languages that developed out of it.
What are the criterion you would use to determine whether or not they PIE hypothesis is "needed?"
>>1155948
>Celtic languages still exist and are clearly from PIE, likewise with Germanic languages.
>>1155961
>Yes
Why so many assertions without explanation or argument ITT?
>>1156000
Because europeans like celts and germanic people had extensive contact and exchange with the romans, and greeks to a lesser extent. Why is there a need for any other explanation for celtic and germanic languages being indo-european?
Hittite, Sanskirit, other eastern indo-european languages and Greek and Latin may descend from a PIE language. But why postulate that languages in the baltic and scandinavia originate from migrations of people from central or west asia who shared a common origin and cultural heritage with indians when there was contact with an indo-european much geographically closer, and more recent in time?
>>1155958
Why isn't logic a form of evidence? They have so much in common that its clear they originate from the same source.
Your alternate theory that they just borrow from Greek and Latin doesn't hold up to etymology
>>1155943
Oh, you even made your own thread.
>>1155943
Why do all European countries use the English alphabet?
>retarded bait: the thread
>>1156113
>But why postulate that languages in the baltic and scandinavia originate from migrations of people from central or west asia who shared a common origin and cultural heritage with indians when there was contact with an indo-european much geographically closer, and more recent in time?
That's not how language families work.
>>1155943
You're just embarassing yourself OP. I would let this thread slowly die if I were you.
>>1156113
You are fucking stupid.
>>1155943
>>1156113
please at least read into the basics of a theory before you start rejecting it. it is obvious that you haven't even looked at any of the evidence and you clearly do not understand how language change and language contact works and how language families are established.
possible starting points:
- the comparative method
- sound correspondences
- tables comparing cognates in the different languages of a family/subfamily
>>1155943
So what is it exactly that you think you found that two generations of professional linguists and archaeologists missed?
or is it because you think that they're all cultural marxists who don't know shit about dick?
>>1156257
>cultural marxists
Ugh, if anything cultural marxists would be against it because muh racist undertones
Why are all threads on linguistics in /his/ always started by complete fucking morons who deny the basics?
>>1156282
>complete fucking morons who deny the basics
>/his/
Seems legit.
>>1156113
>Hittite, Sanskirit, other eastern indo-european languages and Greek and Latin may descend from a PIE language. But why postulate that languages in the baltic and scandinavia originate from migrations of people from central or west asia who shared a common origin and cultural heritage with indians when there was contact with an indo-european much geographically closer, and more recent in time?
Because of the way those languages developed and still are moron. Comparative linguistics.
It's ridiculous to pretend that, say, Baltic languages are exclusively descended from Latin and have no relation to Sanskrit, when it's pretty fucking obvious they share a lot of features with the latter, including archaic ones that Latin had lost.
OP is a fucking retarded mongoloid.
>>1156275
That was a joke. "Cultural Marxist" is a right-wing dog whistle for "stupid ivory tower smarty pants with their factual evidence and peer reviewed process and stuff."
Usually when a lay person thinks they are going to turn several academic professions on their head with a radical new theory, it almost certainly has something to do with validating their social/political opinions (which are discredited by the current model) and not because they found a piece of tangible evidence to support their claim.
Unless OP discovered something while out on excavation in the Danube River valley?
>>1155943
All propaganda
>we all bruthaz
>>1156113
>But why postulate that languages in the baltic and scandinavia originate from migrations of people from central or west asia who shared a common origin and cultural heritage with indians when there was contact with an indo-european much geographically closer, and more recent in time?
Ok, you asked about Scandinavian languages. Look at the declension system of modern Lithuanian. It has two standard declensions that Latin and Ancient Greek lacked, but that Sanskrit and PIE had: locative and instrumental (Latin locative was only used in some cases for neuter nouns -- it was already on its way out).
>>1156113
>Hittite, Sanskirit, other eastern indo-european languages and Greek and Latin may descend from a PIE language. But why postulate that languages in the baltic and scandinavia originate from migrations of people...
Because it's retarded and arbitrary to think that for some reason the PIE culture spread in a wild blitzkrieg eastward far and wide, but went westward in a delicate line to the southwest and landed only in Italy, Greece, and Asia Minor.
>>1156431
why?
how do u know where it originated?
>>1155943
>why do we think certain languages are related?
regularity of sound change. it has nothing to do with how superficially similar the dictionaries look. if there are regular sound correspondences that can't be explained by borrowing or chance, then the languages must be descended from a common ancestor.
>>1156696
>how do u know where it originated?
well for one when you look at the reconstructed language you can figure out what they had words for. If you have a word for birch tree but not for fish and 9 different words for grass then the origin point likely had birch trees, no water, and a lot of grass.
Then you compare that with archaeological evidence and genetic evidence. There's a lot of both.
>>1156696
>genetic evidence
Back. To. /pol/.
>>1155943
Proto-Indo-European never existed. Ural-Altaic is just as compact as a language family as Indo-European is, the latter is just more accepted among academia due to IE linguists being biased as fuck.
>This ideological bias still influences Indo-European research: the so-called "Kurgan theory" of Indo-European origins developed by Marija Gimbutas is one of the more recent examples. This theory is still being misleadingly presented as a credible scientific theory despite its highly questionable interpretation of the facts, the lack of conclusive data supporting it, and the substantial contradicting evidence (Götz, 1994).
>This is the so-called "family tree" theory which claims that the Indo-European languages and peoples originate from a single common ancestral language, people and homeland, based on Grimm's linguistic theory of sound change. So far all attempts at locating the presumed ancestral Indo-European homeland and to reconstruct the hypothetical ancestral Indo-European language have failed. The evidence suggests that there were no single Indo-European common ancestral language, people and homeland, but that the Indo-European languages and peoples evolved from a complex process of cultural and ethno-linguistic convergence and hybridization among various proto-Indo-European and non-Indo-European peoples, including Turanians. The failure of Indo-European linguistics is due to the fact that many words which are assumed to be of Indo-European origin are in fact of Sumerian origin, but Indo-European linguists simply continue to ignore this because of the erroneous belief that Sumerian was an "isolate" language (Götz, 1994).
>>1156431
>and landed only in Italy, Greece, and Asia Minor.
R1a1 peaks in Russia and Poland, with a significant enclave in Norway.
What's the point of this Thread? It's nothing but denialists throwing their absurd theories. I expect more from /his/
>>1157041
>I expect more from /his/
Seriously?
>>1157041
We can't make a denialist change their non-falsifiable opinions, we can't even really present facts because those slippery things are based on professional research and they wouldn't be denialists if they didn't start their theories with "now I know this doesn't mesh with the current research but all of the researchers are communists so we shouldn't be taking them seriously to begin with."
All we can do is poke holes in their arguments but all that's going to accomplish is that they'll accuse us of being lefty/pol/ for insisting on proper citations and for intolerance of arguments founded on ignorance.
>>1157064
/his/ is pretty awful desu
>>1158175
Would going after their intent be helpful?
>>1156967
Wew lad.
Yamnaya say hello.
>>1155943
>I have never heard of the Hethtites
Reminder, anyone who denies the Kurgan hypothesis is a Pajeet.
>>1160738
The Kurgan hypothesis also makes southern euros very angry for some reason
>>1160745
It really doesn't, I'm southern euro and I don't see why it should brother me.
>>1156114
Logic osnt sufficient evodence because you can have a totally fictional narrative thats logically consistent
>>1156415
Thats not proof of anything. Lithuanian is a different language to latin and its totally feasible and likely that some indo-european languages will have similarities to sanskirit by coincidence/chance alone and not neccesarily from direct descent from either sanskirit or a PIE language that may or may not exist. The fact that lithuanian is baltic and sanskirit is indian suggests this, because geographically the furthest indoeuropean language from sanskirit. A language that shares traits with sanskirit and not latin should be geogtaphically closer to sanskirit then latin or at least closer then the baltic is. Occams razor
>>1156958
> reconstructed language
Built on a mountain of a priori assumptions and speculations
>>1155943
I'll repost this since you didn't reply to it in the other thread
>We don't have any record of germanic, celtic or slavic languages until long after these people had extensive contact with the romans
That doesn't mean anything, and Gaulish is attested only 200 years after Latin and already distinct anyway.
But most importantly, Germanic and Celtic cannot be demonstrated to be descended from Latin, while they can be demonstrated to be descended from Proto-Indo-European
For example PIE initial *bÊ° and *dÊ° merge into [f] in Latin.
Compare English 'brother', 'bear' vs Latin 'frater', 'fero'
English 'door', 'do' vs Latin 'foris', 'facio'
An initial [f] splitting into and [d] with no other conditions is completely improbable and goes against all observed language change. The only conclusion that can be made is that English is not descended from Latin, the same goes for Celtic, which also keeps these consonants distinct.
>>1161139
Thats the only conclusion that you think can be made. Youre reading in to the noise of language change and variation through glasses shaded by bias and doctrine. Its speculation and imagination which occams razor makes unneccessary
>>1156282
Because /his/ is one of the easiest boards to bait, so it functions as sort of baitmaster's training ground where he trains himself before he can move to more difficult boards.
>>1161152
So what do you suggest? That it happened the other way round? Although this has never Bern observed anywhere?
Sounds way more implausible. Watch out that you don't cut yourself with that razor.
>>1161203
lithuanian is related to sanskirit through its descent from latin, because lithuanian and sanskirit share similarities that latin and sanskirit don't simply because lithuanian and sanskirit are both indo-european languages. The people who developed lithuanian simply used indo-european differently to italic people.
>>1156431
The most likely scenario is that indo-european languages originated east and spread west
>>1161225
We've been over this. Lithuanian cant be descended from Latin because it has features that were long gone in Latin by its first attestation.
>>1161225
How the fuck do you explain words that for example are found in Balto-Slavic languages and Indo-Iranian languages, but are not found in Italic languages (your beloved latin)? How do you explain words which are found in Celtic and Slavic, but not in Italic (your beloved latin)?
>>1161238
why couldn't they develop those features without getting them from latin, sanskirit or PIE?
>>1157041
It's so fucking tiresome how every against-the-mainstream idea here comes out of ethno-nationalist wishful thinking. At least this one wasn't quite as retarded Hungarians pushing the Ugric-Altaic theory.
>>1161284
> Ugric-Altaic theory
At least that one had some academic support, decades ago.
>>1161266
extremely improbable
>>1161292
it's also extremely improbable that an arctic language is more related to an indian language then latin or that it didn't descend from latin
>>1161298
and yet that's what the evidence shows
>>1161266
There are too many sound and grammatical correspondences for them to be unrelated developments. The sheer amount of them make it being a coincidence impossible.
>>1161313
NO. No its fucking not you absolute turbo faggot.
>>1161352
yes it is. the evidence points to this and you are denying it because hurr they are closer to Rome
>>1161225
>lithuanian is related to sanskirit through its descent from latin,
I'm Lithuanian and I can tell you that you're a retard.
>>1156167
They don't. Greek doesn't, Russian doesn't. Plus it's not the English alphabet, it's the Latin one.
>>1161356
>the evidence points to this and you are denying it because hurr they are closer to Rome
no, you're denying several generations of linguists and archaeologists because it doesn't fit whatever neo-nazi fantasy history you've invented. You're welcome to provide evidence but you have none besides pure amateur conjecture. Go back to /pol/ you absolute fucking fag.
>>1161417
How is PIE a neo-nazi fantasy?
>>1156967
Wait so is that quote claiming that all indo-European languages are descended from Sumerian or that they just borrow heavily from it?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yamna_culture#Westwards_migration_to_Europe
>>1161417
Thread confirmed bait.
Just let it die guys.
>>1161421
I replied to the wrong person 2 replies ago. Whoops.
>>1155943
>They're all related to latin and greek and we have no record of other indo-european languages from europe until well after the romans had extensive contact with and influence on all the people who speak them.
Not strictly true. The Celts in Spain and Ireland had a writing system that may date back to 2nd century BC. Certainly you can argue limited Romano Greek contact in many areas while the areas still had Indo European languages
>>1161456
Personal incredulity is a poor reason to reject a leading theory
>>1161422
Borrowed heavily from it, with Sumerian being a Turanian language.
>>1161417
> archealogical evidence
Theres no archealogical evidence for PIE or the orthodox indoeuropean hypothesis
>>1160518
Are you fucking retarded?
>>1160518
Some Iranian steppedwelling sandniggers don't debunk anything he said, m80
>>1161477
>>1161487
hurr
>>1161464
How is arctic and indian languages being more related then indian and mediterranean languages not an extraordinary claim? A prehistoric tale about a mythical race spreading from india to lithuania or vice versa, with no historical records, no primary or secondary evidence and no archealogical evidence is an extraordinary claim. Linguistics and philology arent sciences and some imaginary speculation and mental masturbation is not extraordinary evidence.
>>1161491
>Uralics
>Indo-European
wew
>These data imply that Uralic-speakers too would have been part of the Yamnaya > Corded Ware movement, which was thus not exclusively Indo-European in any case. And as well as the genetics, the geography, chronology and language contact evidence also all fit with a Yamnaya > Corded Ware movement including Uralic as well as Balto-Slavic.
>Both papers fail to address properly the question of the Uralic languages. And this despite — or because? — the only Uralic speakers they report rank so high among modern populations with Yamnaya ancestry. Their linguistic ancestors also have a good claim to have been involved in the Corded Ware and Yamnaya cultures, and of course the other members of the Uralic family are scattered across European Russia up to the Urals.
Aryanist history morphers BTFO
>>1161491
Prove yamnya has anything to do with PIE
>>1161491
Early neolithic farmers were already mixed with European hunter gatherers
>>1161516
You're just sticking your head in the sand now.
Archaelogy shows migrations from the steppe to Europe, and Iran/India at exactly the right time to match the material culture of the reconstructed Indo-Europeans. Genetics also confirms it. Indo-European languages are proven to be of common descent for 100% of everyone who has the slightest idea about linguistics.
>>1161499
You think PIE people simply invaded and replaced everyone or are you fucking retarded or something? Some Indo-Europeans just assimilated with general population and the native populations adopted language of culturally and technologically more advanced Indo-Europeans. Like for example Northern Germanics/Germans have plenty of haplogroup I1 which is native to Scandinavia/Jutland and the haplogroups itself is never found in ancient remain testings of steppe cultures. Yet there exists unkown substratum in Germanic languages which show pre Indo-European influence.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Germanic_substrate_hypothesis
Also I like how you ignore specifically Yamnya or Sredny Stog culture, which shows domestication of horse and genetic evidence and input into modern European populations.
>>1161515
You stupid fuck look what area Corded Ware culture compromised, the culture itself is a direct continuation of Yamnaya culture, besides Hungarians are virtually genetically indistinguishable from their neighbors they just merely speak Uralic languages which they adopted from some horse niggers, about Estonians who do you think are their closest genetic relatives?
>About 75% of the DNA of late Neolithic Corded Ware skeletons found in Germany were the same as the Yamnaya DNA
>A newly published University of Tartu doctoral thesis has concluded that Estonians and Finns, despite having similar languages, are genetically less related than Estonians are to Latvians, Lithuanians, Poles and northwestern Russians.
What a twist! Fucking Indo-Europeans!
>>1160518
The Kurgan hypothesis is bullshit, lad.
http://paleoglot.blogspot.fi/2007/05/kurgan-hypothesis-is-hypothetical.html
>>1161566
Some random blog post from 2007 proves wrong general archaeologist consensus.
>The Kurgan hypothesis (also known as the Kurgan theory or Kurgan model) is the most widely accepted proposal of several solutions to explain the origins and spread of the Indo-European languages
Totally legit.
>>1161491
This is more explecative.
blue: Western/European hunter gatherer
aqua green: Caucasian hunter gatherer
Orange: Anatolian farmer
https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B9o3EYTdM8lQbXpWbFV2WHl4bEE/view?pref=2&pli=1
>>1155943
You sound like a complete tool
>constructed language
It's closer to call it a reconstructed language.
>>1161674
Why?
>>1155958
we can speculate its existence because we can monitor how current languages change/have changed over short periods of time and apply those rules of change backward
it's not a perfect reconstruction but it's probably pretty close
>>1161123
It's not that simple. Linguists would be out of jobs if the changes in languages over time occurred in such a uniform manner.
Baltimore is closer to England than Los Angeles, so geographically it must be more like British English. Occams razor
>>1161152
>If I just say occams razor over and over I'll prove my Roman-centric neurosis is true
>>1161787
Sounds highly tenuous and I think you know that
Again, the evidence for language relatedness does NOT come from shared vocabulary. Languages in contact can have a ton of shared vocabulary despite not being closely related. For instance, Finnish has a lot of words borrowed from Swedish for example. Modern Nahuatl borrowed heavily from Spanish. Many Chinese words have been borrowed by Korean and Japanese. Arabic has borrowed a lot of French words. That does not mean those languages are related. What you're looking for when saying two languages are related is REGULAR SOUND CORRESPONDENCES. If two languages have many regular sound correspondences, then they must be descended from a common ancestor, because regular sound correspondences can't be accounted for by chance or by borrowing. Look up Grimm's Law as an example.
>>1161918
>Baltimore is closer to England than Los Angeles, so geographically it must be more like British English. Occams razor
Except that there's an ocean between England and Baltimore so occams razor doesn't apply at all and even using this as an example demonstrates how very stupid you are.
>>1156113
>Because europeans like celts and germanic people had extensive contact and exchange with the romans, and greeks to a lesser extent.
'No'
Celtic folk in the northern part of the British Isles and Germanic folk overall were not under significant influence by Rome. In Celtic areas under Roman influence by these two, except maybe by the Breton folk, you Dodd see the adoption of Latin language. You overestimate the extensivness of sprachbund. You'll more likely see a language dominate than influence, abd if you want that you need to have the natives by the cultural balls for a long time
>Why is there a need for any other explanation for celtic and germanic languages being indo-european?
There is no "need", there is only reality
Since we know OPs claim is bullshit and probably charged by a wanting to have something be that is not, what's his angle?
Does he wasn't Rome to have greater impact than it has?
Wanting to discredit Germanic and Celtic culture somehow?
Any ideas?
>>1162401
maybe he's a creationist, and since the tower of babel would have been more recent than PIE possibly could have, he can't accept its existence.
>>1162401
He's either a neo-nazi trying to support some revisionist history, one of the fundie christians (the only other people on the board who regularly make claims this stupid), or literally retarded. Maybe all 3?
Some anon told me that current occupants of Europe wouldn't be there if not for the horse, because they domesticated the horse and used it to replace or dominate the older natives of Europe. That if the horse never existed there would be a completely different people living in Europe.
Is any of that true? What would Europe look like without horses?
>>1162707
your picture basically answers the question.
He's probably neither a neo-nazi nor a fundie Christian, probably just a right-wing hipster who thinks he's figured something out that the professional academic community missed.
>>1161123
that's not how you apply occam's razor you fucking troglodyte
>>1162707
I don't know how he could a neo-Nazi while watering down Germanic culture, nor would extreme Latin sprachbund make any sense in the tower of Babel either.
>>1162518
How would Babel even then make sense? We know that Latin and Greek have origins and such. His claim, if this were his cause, would still not make sense.
>>1161918
That is the stupidest thing I've ever heard. You are on par with people who say dinosaurs aren't real; I hope you're proud.
>>1160738
>>1160745
Kurgan is a terrible theory because there can be no concrete identification of archaeological evidence to linguistic theory.
But terrible or not, it does try to explain something we don't understand, and does so no better or worse than other competing theories.
One of my linguistics professors was a staunch advocate for the Anatolian Hypothesis, another was Kurgan all the way, some wouldn't take a stance.
East-ward migratory evidence for Indo-Iranian is a lot sounder than any west-ward migratory evidence that I've seen and it does suggest a Kurgan origin though.
>>1164190
>One of my linguistics professors was a staunch advocate for the Anatolian Hypothesis
Really? How did he justify that?
All the foremost Indo-European experts support the Kurgan hypothesis, Ringe, Fortson, Beekes, Sihler, Mallory, I actually cant name a single linguist that does support the Anatolian hypothesis.
>>1164203
Atkinson and Gray support the Anatolian hypothesis based on methods borrowed from Biology.
>"Language-tree divergence times support the Anatolian theory of Indo-European origin"
>Nature 426, 435-439 (November 2003)
and
>"Curious Parallels and Curious Connections: Phylogenetic Thinking in Biology and Historical Linguistics"
>Systematic Biology 54(4), 513-526 (August 2005)
>>1165098
>Atkinson and Gray
Oh boy...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d864bwyCAoA&t=4m40s
>>1155943
This thread had the potential to be goddamned interesting, but it's plastered with human feces.
Abandon.
>>1165505
Just wait until next week.
>>1155943
>The Germans had their own origin narrative of being descended from Persians.
Wasn't this by Nazi propaganda of the Germanics being related or descended from the "Germanii" (actually Kermanni Persian tribe) in the early 20th century?
>>1165505
all "linguistics" threads on here and /lit/ are like this. the interesting ones are on /sci/
>>1162290
>Celtic folk in the northern part of the British Isles and Germanic folk overall were not under significant influence by Rome.
Germanic people were
>>1162742
the domestication horse, wheel, chariot were all critical PIE inventions that led to their expansion into Europe and remote parts of Asia (India).
if it was not for their superior technology, europe would be populated not by IE, but by upper paleolithic peoples such as cro-magnids and some neolithic farmers akin to nuragics
>>1166218
Elaborate please? There were a couple border-region imperial regions of the Roman empire that had done mixed Celtic and German people, but as I understand it Germanics kept their culture and land largely out of Rome's grasp.
>>1166935
>but by upper paleolithic peoples such as cro-magnids
No, it was almost entirely populated by neolithic farmers
>>1165147
Nice video but what a fucking stereotypically dorky ass voice.
>>1167105
depends what period we're talking about, remember we have no attestation or record of germanic languages until very late and germans ended up pretty much taking over and running the west roman empire.
But as for the time period you're referring to, germania did get conquered but it didn't get colonised. Lots of roman-german hybrid settlements in the south. Lots of germans got employment as roman mercenaries and in military service.
Cheiftans and kings sent their sons to be educated in rome, arminius being the most famous example. Not just in politics, military arts and statesmenship but philosophy and other academic subjects. Lots of amber trading between germania and rome. Roman engineers going to survey the land and settlements etc
There was much more interaction and exchange then the popular interpretation of the relationship between the two cultures makes it seem like
>>1155943
Sanskrit is older than both Latin and Greek. By your logic, all European languages trace themselves to Sanskrit.
What I've gathered from this thread is that OP has a very basic knowledge of linguistics and probably going through the Dunning-Krueger effect
>>1167577
Sanskrit is younger than both Latin and Greek...
Indo-Iranian and Balto-Slavic were the last two groups to separate from PIE.
The PIE homeland was an Indo-Iranian occupied territory, obviously implying it was the 'final' stage of PIE.
Sanskrits happening of the PIE/Hittite/Greek laryngeals (H1, H2, H3) implies it was the last or near to last branch. Ie: all three laryngeals in Sanskrit become 'a' in all situations, whereas Greek for instance maintains one (h1 I think?) and the other two produce different vowels depending on the preceding/proceeding sound.
What kind of retard thinks Sanskrit is the oldest IE language? It was a valid opinion in like 1920 I guess, but we've moved on.
>>1155985
this
>>1161244
>How the fuck do you explain words that for example are found in Balto-Slavic languages and Indo-Iranian languages, but are not found in Italic
Slavs and Iranians (Scythians) had close contacts.
>How do you explain words which are found in Celtic and Slavic, but not in Italic (your beloved latin)?
Celts and Slavs had close contacts
>>1167756
When Celts and Slavs had any extensive contact, Rome was not an influential entity.
>>1157023
I think R1b is more likely to be the lineage that brought IE language to Europe, and is also present in those areas. R1a stops mid-continent and doesn't seem to explain celtic IE languages.
>>1162290
They don't have to be directly ruled to have trade and cultural exchange. Also, southern UK was directly ruled by Rome for many years.
My theory:
Massive, ancient great unknown civilizations existed in modern day black sea, Mediterranean, and/or caspian seas. Possibly neighbors and competitors, destroyed each other with nuclear bombs or equally devastating weaponry, and created the holes in the earth that became the modern seas. Remains haven't been found because they're at the bottom of great bodies of water, where archaeologists rarely travel. Dismiss this as atlantean if you must.
This is where PIE came from, as well as the seeds for civilization that took place in the fertile crescent and initiated our current chain of civilization. This is also where the many stories of the great flood came from. If we do extensive surveys of the bottoms of these seas I believe we'll find significant archaeological data.
Every language is an evolving, hard to define thing. Of course PIE changed and adapted to regions they spread past. Lots of language smashing occurs where words get mixed, and then change over generations. This happens in every region, of which there are many in the current IE region. Why did IE become so dominant? Probably because these cultures had advantages over native ones so those invading speakers were able to take over easily, peacefully or not peacefully.
Also, many cultures have multiple possible origins, as most Europeans are mixes of multiple invading populations. It's much more complex than we give it credit for. Also, cultural and genetic components don't always overlap, any genetic person can have any other culture.
>>1168253
Your theory is wrong.
Flood myths all come from the fact that early civilisations were built around rivers that would (wait for it) flood and destroy what was on their banks. Nothing more, nothing less.
>>1169316
It's more likely that flood myths originate from oral traditions that passed down stories of the last water level rise following the last major glacial melt.
Would have occurred around 10,000 BC. And yeah, it probably stuck in the collective human consciousness because most human population were centred on coastal plains, deltas, or river beds.
Worse-than-expected annual floods probably helped keep the story alive as a warning or cautionary tale.
>>1160738
But what about the Anatolian hypothesis?
>>1169517
Flies in the face of all linguistic evidence
>>1169526
How so?
>>1169478
My timing (10,000 BC) is wrong but here are (possible) examples of extreme flooding since then:
>Black Sea c. 5600 BC
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_Sea_deluge_hypothesis
>Britain/Europe c. 6500 BC
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doggerland
I doubt that cultures would continue to pass along stories of a single flood, when they are witness to the same phenomenon annually at the same time. It isn't like the Sumerians and Egyptians, for instance, were retarded, and had their homes swept away every year.
They knew about seasons and the wet/dry cycles of their rivers.
The foundation of the flood myths had to have been something wide-spread and significant, out of the ordinary.
>>1169540
>It isn't like the Sumerians and Egyptians, for instance, were retarded, and had their homes swept away every year.
but when you have the river rise unusually high during one season or if the river changes course they could be devastated by a flood. I mean we still have major issues with river flooding. why do you assume the Sumerians and Egyptians were better able to deal with the flooding than we are today?
>>1169534
PIE has a bronze age vocabulary, and lacks words for southern plants and animals, like donkeys and cypress.
>>1169556
Then your best bet is a very severe flood of Mesopotamia and the transmission of the story ala Gilgamesh, and that no other flood contributed to the myth.
The Greek flood myths share very little with the Babylonian ones except for the bird and the angry god, so while I think it's conceivable the Greek myths are a product of cultural exchange, it is more likely they had their own story and simply incorporated eastern aspects (as with Herakles)
>>1169578
it's totally plausible that those words have all been phased out.
>>1169636
>Then your best bet is a very severe flood of Mesopotamia and the transmission of the story ala Gilgamesh, and that no other flood contributed to the myth.
Why is it necessary that no other flood contributed to the myth? that is exactly what I am arguing against, that flood myths require some dramatic pre-historical ice age cataclysm
>>1167629
i think that guy was talking about earliest written records as anyone with basic reading comprehension could infer
>>1168253
Nice, have you got any proofs for this?
>>1168193
>They don't have to be directly ruled to have trade and cultural exchange.
For something as massive as language shift, you somewhat do. Swedes aren't going to have their language changed because some Franks were trading with Romans.
>Also, southern UK was directly ruled by Rome for many years.
That's why I said northern Britain. That is, beyond Hadrian's Wall.
>>1170944
Uniformly, in every proposed language. What a wonderful coincidence.
>>1172321
no no, only in greek and latin. thats why they dont exist in their daughter languages like slavic and frence.
>>1172426
Still being retarded OP?
>>1172426
French is indeed a daughter language of Latin, but Slavic has pretty much nothing to do with Greek and Latin, save for being Indo-European. Slavic languages are said to be closely related to Baltic languages (Latvian, Lithuanian, etc.), and we know the Baltic region was devoid of significant Greek and Latin influence.
>>1172321
it makes sense that a language originating in anatolia might have that kind of vocabulary, but it isn't enough to rule out the anatolian hypothesis. languages' vocabularies change all the time at different rates, which is why glottochronology and swadesh lists are no longer accepted methodologies.
>>1174362
>languages' vocabularies change all the time at different rates
But it's unlikely that every daughter language would phase out southern vocabulary. Most northern plants and animals on the other hand can be securely resconstructed.
The biggest problem though with the Anatolian hypothesis is the dating. All Indo-European languages have inherited words for wagon technology, which only appears in the late Neolithic/early bronze age. The horse, too which was domesticated ~3500 BC on the steppe is attested in every Indo-European branch.
You can see why the Anatolian hypothesis generates such backlash from linguists >>1165147 was talking about at 4:40
>>1170944
No it isn't. The genetic evidence has also BTFO of the Anatolian hypothesis.
>>1174673
>>1174426
it makes sense that PIE would have that kind of vocabulary, but the fact that you don't find those words in descendant languages isn't nearly enough to exclude the anatolian hypothesis. I don't personally think the anatolian hypothesis is right, but the kind of vocabulary you find in descendant languages isn't enough evidence to exclude it as a possibility.
>>1167435
UP was majority
neolithic farmers came as Asiatics (IE, semites etc)
http://theapricity.com/snpa/rg-brunn.htm
http://theapricity.com/snpa/rg-tronder.htm
>>1162742
pic related is what europeans would have looked like
typical upper-paleos
>>1174831
The evidence against the Anatolian hypothesis couldn't be stronger than it is. You're asking for an impossible standard of proof.
>>1175818
No, they would have looked like neolithic farmers, aka Sardinians, pic related.
