Before Indo-European (The Indo-Uralic Hypothesis) Part TWO
Vložit
- čas přidán 28. 03. 2024
- Exploring the Origins of Language: Indo-European & Uralic Connection 📜
Welcome to part two of my video series on the Indo-Uralic hypothesis. It looks like there could well be a third installment as I haven’t had a chance to mention the potential impact of the Caucasian languages on Indo-European and how that plays with the Indo-Uralic hypothesis. Plus, I could definitely go more into some of the lexical similarities.
A few notes:
🔍Concerning the correspondences between the interrogative systems of Indo-European and Uralic, it’s not to say that the correspondences aren’t there, just that those correspondences extend into a wider complex of possibly related language families. It hints at a genetic relationship between Indo-European and Uralic but not necessarily that they formed their own branch as suggested in the introduction of the book ‘Precursors of Proto-Indo-European.’
🌍It's hard when talking about the Indo-Uralic hypothesis not to talk about wider macrofamily theories. These theories seem to have been a huge time sink for many great researchers (and increasingly even myself). Some question whether it is useful or worthwhile to pursue such investigations considering the time depth involved. I am not necessarily one of those people, but I do think caution is required. As many researchers have said, it is unlikely that Proto-Indo-European was a language isolate.
🗣️Regarding phonology, a number of researchers have suggested the involvement of plosives in early PIE - these are potentially important in the context of the Indo-Uralic hypothesis as it could explain the stark difference in phonological systems. Plus, there are examples in other languages of the world of implosives becoming nasals.
🎥I hope you enjoy the video! Let me know your thoughts on part two in the comments. And would you like to see a video on one of the macrofamilies? A Nostratic specific video perhaps?
📖Selected Sources:
✨Kloekhorst, A., & Pronk, Peyrot, T., Zhivlov, M.,Bauhaus,S.H., Kümmel, M.
J., Kroonen, G., (2019). "Chapter 1 Introduction: Reconstructing Proto-Indo-Anatolian and Proto-Indo-Uralic". In The Precursors of Proto-Indo-European. Leiden, The Netherlands: Brill.
Georg, S., & Vovin, A. (2004). From Mass Comparison to Mess Comparison: Greenberg’s Indo-European and its Closest Relatives. Diachronica, 20(2), 379-402.
Kortlandt, F. (01 Jan. 2010). Studies in Germanic, Indo-European and Indo-Uralic. Leiden, The Netherlands: Brill
Greenberg, J. H. (2000). Indo-European and Its Closest Relatives: The Eurasiatic Language Family. Volume 1, Grammar. Stanford: Stanford University Press.
✨Fortescue, M. (1998). Language relations across Bering Strait: Reappraising the archaeological and linguistic evidence. London-New York: Cassell.
Beekes, R. S. P. (2011). Comparative Indo-European Linguistics: An Introduction (2nd ed.). Revised and corrected by M. de Vaan. Amsterdam / Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company.
✨Holopainen, S. (2020). Fresh views on the early history of Indo-European and its relation to Uralic [Book review]. Finnisch-Ugrische Forschungen, 65, 155-171.
Pooth, R., Kerkhof, P. A., Kulikov, L., & Barđdal, J. (2019). The origin of non-canonical case marking of subjects in Proto-Indo-European. Indogermanische Forschungen, 124, 245-263.
Janhunen, J. (1981a). On the structure of Proto-Uralic. Finnisch-ugrische Forschungen, 44, 23-42. Helsinki: Société finno-ougrienne.
Weiss, M. (2009). The Cao Bang theory. Presentation given at the University of Iceland, Reykjavik.
✨Kümmel, M. J. (2012). Typology and reconstruction: The consonants and vowels of Proto-Indo-European. Copenhagen
Sammallahti, P. (1988). "Historical Phonology of the Uralic Languages: With Special Reference to Samoyed, Ugric, and Permic". In The Uralic Languages. Leiden, The Netherlands: Brill.
Blažek, (2005). Indo-Iranian elements in Fenno-Ugric mythological lexicon. Indogermanische Forschungen, 110(1), 162-185.
Marcantonio, A. (2014). Uralic vs Indo-European contacts: borrowing vs local emergence vs chance resemblances. Eesti Ja Soome-Ugri Keeleteaduse Ajakiri. Journal of Estonian and Finno-Ugric Linguistics, 5(2), 29-50"
#protoindoeuropean #IndoUralic #Linguistics #LanguageFamilies #ProtoIndoEuropean #UralicLanguages #MacrofamilyTheories #Phonology #LanguageHistory #Nostratic #ComparativeLinguistics #Etymology #CulturalLinguistics - Zábava
I am not an expert but quoting (14:37) a Yukaghir form as being from Uralic seems misleading. Is Uralo-Yukaghir a widely accepted language family?
Sorry, that's my mistake. The slide should show the Hungarian dative -ra, re and Komi - kor (when) as Uralic examples (from Greenberg). Bauhaus mentions these two examples also.
The slide should then show examples from wider Eurasiatic and that would be the Yukaghir. There should be a Turkic example too.
I wanted to put the ' Eurasiatic' examples to show that as with interrogative M, you can find these lookalike morphemes elsewhere.
Probably, I messed up the editing.
But thanks for catching the mistake. I'm gonna pin your comment if that's ok?
@@LearnHittite Thank you for the clarification. Pinning is certainly fine by me.
Tocharian was discovered just out of nowhere, and completely uprooted the leading centum satem theories
It certainly did! Makes me excited to think what'll be the next discovery that upturns everything. I think the Anatolian-like names in the Ebla archives doesn't get enough attention.
Proto-Samoyedic influences on Tocharian A and B, or was that Tocharian influences on Proto-Samoyedic …there is a lot of odd stuff going on in Tocharian: lexical, morphology
One curious aspect of this is that the Uralic languages do have a Y-DNA haplogroup strongly correlated with their arrival in Europe, N-L 1026, which used to be called N1a, I believe. This arrival in the Bronze and Iron ages in Europe can be traced to the Seima-Turbino phenomena and other later migrations, from the Ob and Irtysh river basins of Central Siberia, considerably east of the Ural Mountain ranges. Indo-European developed, according to most specialists, on the Pontic steppes from a population ancestral to the Corded Ware, like Sredny Stog. (The Yamnaya may well have spoken a PIE-like language, but they don't really seem to be ancestral to anyone who later spoke a PIE language, with the exception of possibly some of the paleo-Balkan languages.) The Don and Dnieper rivers are pretty far from the Ob and Irtysh rivers, and it's hard to imagine a scenario in which their populations were once united prior to the expression of PIE and Proto-Uralic. I know that this isn't a linguistic point, but I feel like with these kinds of questions, in order to be truly convincing, the linguistic, archaeological and archaeogenetic lines of evidence need to all support the same conclusion, or at least not present contradictions.
This is an assumption more than anything. Geneticists have proved that the domination of N haplogroup in Finns is a result of a population bottleneck so if you exclude them you get a very different picture. Haplogroup R becomes much more visible! Not only that but the Slavic and Baltic population in Eastern Europe shows sometimes a higher proportion of N haplogroup than some Uralic nations. An alternative view could be that the Uralic were R1a to begin with, and were later swept by waves of Siberian migrations which brought their haplogroup N to the region, but were assimilated either to a Indo-European or a Uralic or even a Turkic people. If the Uralics were the northernmost and least densely populated of the bunch it would make sense that they would get the highest proportion of the migrating N population.
I imagine that the nominative -s originally was an agent marker and that the genders had an origin in an animate and inanimate classification. Inanimate objects, which later became neuter, couldn't be agents, and neuter words didn't invent a nom/acc distinction. Animate nouns were reinterpreted as masculine, and inanimate/neuter plural words to denote abstracts/generalisations contrasted with the singular concrete were reinterpreted as feminine (cf Latin opus vs. opera). And it seems to me that Hittite is preserving the animate/inanimate distinction rather than reinventing it. So if Hittite is to be considered a PIE language rather than a sister language, PIE didn't have genders and was ergative-absolutive. I haven't read any papers discussing this, but I think Hittite strongly suggests such an origin for the genders and the nominative/accusative distinction.
As a tip I would recommend not putting text in the bottom 10th of the slides, as it gets overlapped by the progress bar when paused (and there are good reasons to pause on your videos).
Good feedback, noted.
It's an unfortunate problem with CZcams (but not on most mobiles or TVs), I watch a lot of coding content so I know how to avoid this problem... You can just disable the overlay inside devloper tools or use an extension that will do it for you. These types of videos need that extra space! and once you learn how to do it you can do it on all videos that have the same problem.
Well, if we consider (if!) PIE as a language of yamnaya which puts it 8000 ybp between Volga and Don. Genetically these community built up of EHG (which are assosiated with modern uralic speakers alongside with ENEE which have connection with 'altaic' speakers and american native) + CHG (well diverse caucasian languages) + EEF (potentially all dead languages as sumerian and hurrian). Who of them were spoken the closest to PIE language and how it was formed is a question, maybe in principal unanswerable, maybe PIE used to be a pigeon. Basically the tree could have loops an partially merged brunch after all if we consider that all homo sapiens sapiens were able to speak and they were around 285k ybp and 80k of them outside of Africa.
Since you mention the Yamnaya, would you guys know which Yamnaya-related group might have been in the Levant at some point in the Bronze Age? I'm Lebanese, and it turns out we have Steppe Ancestry. According to Haber et al from a 2017 article called "Continuity and Admixture in the Last Five Millennia of Levantine History", the Lebanese people they tested had between 11% and 22% Steppe dna. They say the influx started in the Bronze Age. But it's hard to determine who we got it from, and the authors also acknowledge they don't know. I'm wondering if they might have been the Hittites, the Hurrians, or some other group/groups.
@@aag3752 you have a huge section: luwians, likians, hettites.
But because you are talking about the moder n community iron age could interesting as well, couldn't it? Medes-Parphians (persians in short) then Greeks, Armenians and then all the possible migrants from the Roman Empire, in roman legions were Romans/Italics, Celts, Greeks, Illirians, Germanics (e.g. Goths) in East Roman armies also slavs, Northman (Germanics).
@@alexeysaphonov232 Thanks for your thoughts on that. I'm looking up the Luwians now, interesting and mysterious group.
Not that I am advocating for Indo Uralic, but it has always struck me that describing PIE as having only 2 vowels (*e and *o) is overly simplistic. I think the consensus is that the semi-vowels would have acted as vowels (*i and *u respectively) in zero grade syllables. I am also suspicious of the reconstruction lacking a low vowel (*a). It seems to be automatically assumed that -a comes from *h2e. I wonder if it was really so neat. Looking forward to a part 3 and also your thoughts on the arguments for and against the Indo Euskarian hypothesis as proposed by Juliette Blevins.
Well done. Reminds me of smth. like "Prolegomena to the Boreal Hypothesis" by N. D. Andreev (ole, ole thangz, yeah). If only that old-school dude had the Internet and modern analysis methods...
Not a Part 3 request, but I'd love to see a bookshelf tour of all your language books.
To the first quote you mentioned at the beginning of the video I would add that not only it is unjustified to exclude a priori any genetic connection between two language families. It is contrary to the scientific method itself, which is the very foundation of linguistics like any other science.
That guy carrying a trampoline looks so surly. I'm guessing he left his ear buds at home.
Would you be interested in making a video on early Germanic-Finnic contact? There is a lot written about it and it also interesting to connect with the chronology of Pgmc sound changes. It is a subject I have been thinking about maybe making a video about.
Yeap, it would be something I could look into
I don't know much about Turkish, but it also has a question word that starts with m (mı/mi/mu/mü). From what I understand, which is again, not much, it is somewhat similar in function to the English "Do" in that it doesn't exactly have a meaning on its own. I don't know where the word comes from. Kim means who. How many is kaç. A lot of question words themselves start with "n", not "m".
Thank you for this series. I always like to see how far back in history we can go when it comes to language. Its an itch in my mind that will never be fully scratched. There's still much uncertainty and I dont think we'll ever get definite answers of what IE actually was like, what came before it, how it came to be, etc. but stuff like this sure does help a ton.
The cherkesh word for city is derived from Hittite ( qale-)
Recent developments in archeogenetics point away from this hypothesis in my opinion.
Lack of Northern genes (the Eastern European hunter /Siberian/Ane cline) in Hittites is difficult to reconcile with the indouralic hypothesis.
I tend to think there was clearly contact between early Uralic peoples and PIE speakers before they mixed with EHG to form yamnaya and that this happened somewhere around lake baikal.
It is the lack of is evidence of migration from the north of the Caucasus into Anatolia, that destroys this hypothesis
These were two very interesting videos and I’d welcome a part 3 if you’re up for it.
So many thoughts on the subject that I’m not going to add to the excellent comments already left, but instead a plea for a short video explaining exactly what terms like allative and ergative mean. School Latin only takes one so far!
Was looking forward to this 2nd part :)
Thanks for the support!
Thank you so much for making this video.
Thank you very much for your kind words!
great channel, I've subscribed immidiately!
Thank you for your kind words!
Greensberg was probably right or at least somewhat correct re. Euroasiatic, at least it makes sense from the viewpoint of North Asian prehistory: that Uralic would be a distant relative of Altaic and even Inuit makes all sense. However the weak link is what everybody is obsessed about: Indoeuropean. Indoeuropean almost certainly is to Uralic (and thus to Euroasiatic) as English is to French, massively influenced but not its direct descendant. If you're going to find other more likely relatives of Indoeuropean (or at least the part of Indoeuropean that is not the Uralic substrate/adstrate), Prehistory and Genetics strongly suggest looking at the Neolithic Fertile Crescent, especially the Eastern part, the one producing Caucasus, Sumerian, Tyrsenian (!!!) and Elamo-Dravidian languages (they share lots of genetics, so they should also share some linguistics of one sort or another). There's also some ancient sprachbund with the precursor of Basque (on linguistic evidence alone but not really genetic or archaeological connection, just broadly close geographic roots in the Highland Neolithic around Göbekli Tepe).
Greensberg was also probably right re. Amerind, after all they're a coherent First Peoples group originating in a single location (Beringia c. 20,000 years ago) and distinct from the secondary Native American inflows (Na-Denè and Inuit), arrived more recently from Asia (the Inuit are particularly recent). However a 20 Ka old family is surely impossible to confirm, you can still be reasonably certain by combining Linguistics with Prehistory but it's a very long time indeed. This may also be the case with the Uralic-Altaic connection: we know from Prehistory and Genetics that the Uralics stem from that area... but also some 20,000 years ago or almost so.
PS - While rewatching (live watch was a bit of a mess) I noticed the PIE *ié(g) = ice. Oddly enough this is one of the words that I think is of Vasconic roots. Wikitionary doesn't make that term the precursor of "ice" but *h₁eyH- and gives it descendants only in a few subfamilies: Armenian, Slavic, Iranic and Germanic, notice the missing intermediate nodes (Greco-Armenian, Balto-Slavic and Western Indoeuropean, as well as Indo-Iranic), each one with a different meaning in the descendant words and only the Germanic form (*īsą) actually meaning "ice".
I have to appeal to the Vasconic substrate model here (not sure if Venneman proposed this particular word but to me it is striking): iz- is a well known Basque fossil segment meaning clearly "water", examples: *izaso = sea ("water ancestor" loosely, modernly itsaso), izurde = dolphin ("water boar") and critically izotz = ice (cold water). The segment is also present in many river names in Western Europe of the type Ysère and such, which must be relics from the times when Vasconic was much more extended. Furthermore there is "heze" (or "eze") meaning "wet", "humid", which is one of many apparent cognates I stumbled upon when comparing Basque and Nubian (which produce a shockingly large number of likely cognates, as many as 25%, compare with merely 15% in the Basque-PIE comparison I used for control and 10% suggested to be the "noise" threshhold). So IMHO "ice" is not even PIE and, in Germanic, it is a Vasconic substrate word (there are others, incl. "kill" = Basque "hil", read Venneman for many more).
On a completely different note, do you know the origins of the PIE or Uralic verb conjugation system? I don't understand why the pronoun marker (mi, te, etc.) is after the verb stem rather than before it? Also why didn't these languages develop poly personal agreement? Is it because they stopped building the verbal alignment system in favor of ad-position system?
@@Adam-jr4lx - No, sorry. I know nearly to nothing of Uralic (I just trust wiser people than me on this matter) and I'm very uncertain which was the verbal conjugation of Proto-Indoeuropean. I'm just an amateur, with a strong focus of decades on Prehistory and Population Genetics but my incursions into linguistics are very limited: word list comparisons here and there: disproving "Sino-Basque", alias Sino-Na-Denè-Caucasic, "proving" Vasco-Nubian (much to my own amazement) and exploring possible PIE and Basque connections within West Eurasian (and Indian) languages (very tentatively but my results were that Basque is closer to PIE than NE Caucasian, which I believe is related to Hurrian and Sumerian, and that Tamil, which I used as reference for "Elamo-Dravidian" seems much more distant, even if it shouldn't).
That's all I've done, plus some independent tracking of likely Vasconic loanwords here and there (mostly in Germanic via English hints, in Latin and Spanish, in Greek and a few obvious ones in Slavic) and also likely Vasconic toponimy of the Iber- (river or river bank) and stuff like that. I also contributed with an appendix on population genetics / prehistory to Juan Martin Elexpuru's great book on Sardinian Basque-like toponimy and vocabulary "Euskararen Aztarnak Sardinian?" ("the tracks of Basque language in Sardinia?") and I enjoyed for years discussions on these matters with US linguist Roslyn Frank (but in the end we disagree on fundamentals of how languages spread: she favors fuzzy linguistics too much, I'm more orthodox and favor a phylogenetic core instead).
Some of this stuff you can find in my old blog "For what they were... we are" (at Blogspot), incl. at least one entry by Roz Frank.
"Basque is closer to PIE than NE Caucasian" I think so too. When I looked at the grammar, it looked similar to Uralic or Turkic. @@LuisAldamiz
Have to strongly agree. Of all language families proposed to have eurasian links, Indo-European is the only one that is impossible to model as either fully or partially derived from northern east asian ancestry. If the similarities bleed into highly east asian groups such as mongolians, tungusics, turks etc, it is less likely that IE and Uralic inherited Eastern HG languages' traits but rather that Uralic is a key link that transmitted the similarities to PIE. Ultimately, Eurasiatic is probably the approximate proto-language of the ancient northeast asian expansion.
But who knows! Perhaps early IE migrants left some linguistic mark with little genetic evidence when they brought pastoralism to mongolia.
Have you heard about the recent evidence from Lazaridis though? That Anatolian spread could potentially be modelled as CHG ancestry without any EHG component? On the other hand, David Anthony proposes that IE language was spoken and transmitted by EHG men. Interesting then that Anatolian branches especially apparently show these eurasian affinities, implying they were not a separate Caucasian only origin apart from core IE. There's still a lot of threads that are hard to tie together.
I also agree and think that unfortunately, language has a "mutation rate" that simply moves so quick that even related languages might ultimately retain no recognizable common traits after relatively little time (millenia). Creolization also probably plays a larger role than we can currently see.
More!
Look forward to Part 3. A request - would it be possible to link the putative genealogy of these macro-families with the record of population movements around the likely relevant timelines? E.g. does the putative common ancestor of PIE and Proto-Uralic correspond to the late Mesolithic on the East European plane? etc.
I think that that you go back far enough in time every language will end up having a common ancestor with every other language, even if it was hundreds of thousands of years ago. So the question should be whether PIE and PU shared a common ancestor by rather how far back in time they shared an ancestor. Were they director descendants from PIU or where they farther removed with other branches in between.
I know that genetics diversity cant be mapped one on one to language families since as populations mixed sometimes they would change their genetics while keeping their language and other times they would keep their genetics while changing their language but it still shouldn't be fully discounted and should be looked out when trying to figure out language relations.
17:20 I find myself wondering if this interplay between stop and nasal might be something like the prenasalized stop series in Hmongic
Oh no. There goes the next four days of my life reading about Hmongic phonology.
Watching this gave me more evidence for my Indo-Austronesian hypothesis. Interrogatives PIE *kʷ- and *m- are also found as *kua and *ma in AN languages, although sporadically.
Agentive/erg nom-acc PIE *-s is similar in function to nom PAN *si which can be used fluidly, agentive, ergative, etc., in the Austronesian typology.
Oh wow yeah, I need to look into this!
@@LearnHittite Unfortunately, I don't find a lot of literature connecting these two families. Here are just some strong comparisons I found:
*bʰh₂r(s) ‘grass, barley’ / *beRas 'rice', other grasses: *biRasu, *balizi
*bʰrs 'bristle; tip, point', *pilo 'hair' / *bukeS 'hair', *bulu 'hair, feather, plant floss'
*bʰruh / *bara 'log, beam'
*bʰlǵ '/ *bilak 'shine, glitter'
*bʰrh₁g / *baŋqeR ‘rotting smell’
*bʰreg / *belaq 'break, split'
*bʰelǵʰ / *baReq 'swell'
*dnǵʰ, *dlgʰ / *dilaq 'to lick, tongue'
*demh₂ ‘to build; domesticate’ / *Rumaq 'house'
*gr̥d / *garut ‘scratch, scrape’
*gʰr̥n / *giliŋ 'grind'
*ḱlewh₃ / kiŋeR 'to hear'
*ḱomt / *kamut, *kamet 'hand'
*kes / *keskes 'scrape'
*ponkʷ, *prk, *plh / *peNuq 'full, to fill'
*h₂rew / *qajaw 'sun'
*h₁rs, *h₁rd / *qaRus, *qañud 'to flow'
*h₂enh₁ / *Seŋah 'breath; breathe'
*h₂e(n)gʷʰ, *sneyg / *SulaR 'snake'
*h₁engʷ / *sunuR 'fire, burn'
*smh, *sm / *sama 'alike, same'
*smer / *simaR 'grease,'
*srobʰ / *siRup, *SiRup 'sip'
*sneygʷʰ, *srih₃g / *SuReNa 'snow'
*weh₁r / *wahiR 'water'
*wrtʰ / *wirit 'to twist'
It's definitely interesting, and I will take a look at what you've presented here. If you find any literature worth sharing, please do!
The accusative still has an allative meaning.
It makes me wonder if we will ever get to the bottom of this: the "Proto-Human Language" (different monkey sounds)
I bet we could use AI to analyze facial expressions and the scream pitches of different ape species to find out if the screams have different meanings
There's a PIE word represented by Greek ταυρος which is suspected of being somehow related to the Proto-Semitic origin of Hebrew שור. Which way do you think did it go: from PIE to PS, from PS to PIE, or from some other language to both?
I think PIE ablaut is evidence of very early contact between PIE and Semitic. I actually think that PIE and PS are closer than PIE and Uralic
Could it be that the Hittite *m- is probably related to the greek *p- (greek interrogatives tend to start with π). Perhaps in proto-helleno-anatolian (if such a language ever existed) it was *p- , but the labial got nasalized in proto-anatolian. Just my two cent.
PIE *kʷ regularly shifts into Greek π (Compare for example PIE *kʷoynéh₂ "payment" which became ποινή "fine"). So the greek π- interrogatives come from the PIE *kʷe- *kʷo- *kʷi- interrogatives.
Thanks! I'd be interested in hearing your take on Dr Juliette Blevins' proposed connections between Proto-Basque and PIE. Jackson Crawford & a couple of other linguists discussed it over here: czcams.com/video/iycm8bg-WVk/video.htmlsi=VruyYBoqR9kCniTA and at least to my very amateur ears it's really interesting. How does the evidence there connect with or conflict with the correspondences between Indo-European and Uralic language families?
That is a great suggestion. It may well be the topic of my next video!
This stuff here is way beyond my intellect.. For what it's worth, I suspect that languages do constantly split and that the longer the subsequent isolation, the greater the diverence.. Vague, very vague, similarities would be likely to exist even that the languages are as extremely dissimilar.. Aparrently, Europeans and Asians were onece the same people out of Africa and then split... That would have been different to Nethandrals whose language may have evolved independently without contact to homo sapiens...
Cognates?
Do you know why in many Indo-European languages there is no difference in the nominative and accusative cases in the neurer gender? Because the neuter gender referred to objects that cannot act as subjects, only as objects acted upon.
Maybe this similarity is a remnant of a proto-human tongue.
What about chronological considerations? If proto uralic is much older than proto-european (see czcams.com/video/jWi1vgG8-sI/video.html) then would that not argue against a proto-indo-uralic?
It's covered in the introduction to the Kloekhorst and Pronk book.
In terms of those of us who have to cope with dealing with lots of languages in our life, it doesn´t matter so much why there are differences or similarities between different languages, it matters working out common patterns and important differences to use the different languages effectively. Having said that, Adam and Eve must have spoken the same language to communicate with each other, and their descendants must have drifted gradually apart. The Indo-European and Uralic languages do tend to border each other geographically, in terms of their origins, and so it would be most surprising if they had nothing at all in common in terms of their origins and development through to the languages of today. Very much looking forward to a part 3, and maybe even more parts beyond that. Eventually the ancestral language of all should be constructed, perhaps we can call it Edenic after Adam and Eve´s garden....
Adam and Eve doing the heavy lifting here
And yet Vovin was the one to attack the Uralo-altaic (despite being first in favor of it) and even the Altaic family to be genetically related. Now he seems to have taken another term once again.In any case it seems Uralo-altaic and Indo-European had some common roots after all
Sanskrit is PIE!! The Indian homeland was initially the most favored homeland for PIE in the 1800s. Then the leftists usurped academia. The flora and fauna of reconstructed PIE lexicon all seem to point to India (elephants, lion, etc.); syntactically, Sanskrit is the closest to PIE having retained all eight cases, three genders and three numbers, and the original PIE culture only is preserved by India. However, phonetically, PIE is very distant from a Vedic language, mainly because it sounds like a Centum language. So it seems syntactically it is near identical to Vedic Sanskrit, and phonetically it is very different from Vedic Sanskrit, yet still retains archaic forms, like aspirated plosive sounds, such as Bha, lost everywhere else.
However, they say it still not possible that PIE originated in India, but why couldn't the Centum branches have left early and then PIE changed into Vedic Sanskrit at home? The Vedas say the Druyu went north. Considering that Balto-Slavic is a Satam language and it originated where they say PIE use to be spoken, cannot the same apply to India? Even the study of Linguistics originated in India. Europeans 'discovered' what Indian grammarians had written about language. Linguistics as a western discipline has its roots in ancient India, in the study and preservation of sacred texts. The grammarian Panini wrote a description of Sanskrit in about 1500 B.C. There are quite a few linguists that support Sanskrit as PIE but they have been marginalized and censored.
Indian nationalists are so tiresome.
you copied and pasted a large portion of your comment from a 3 year old stackoverflow question lmao. the accepted answer to the question was a thorough debunking of this nationalist pseudo-academic nonsense, so i’ll repeat some of the main points here.
if india truly was the urheimat of PIE, why are there only borrowings from the surrounding non-IE languages in sanskrit? surely if the language moved out from india we would see a visible influence of, say, burushaski on european languages. likewise, dravidian only has borrowings from indo-aryan as opposed to PIE, showing there was no meaningful contact between the two.
furthermore, why did the language only really expand westward? it’s more likely that a language would radiate outwards in all directions, no?
ultimately, reducing a complex set of factors in the development and spread of a language to “this one is the most conservative of old features, so this is the homeland” misses any sort of nuance, and completely ignores any of the evidence gathered in the huge multidisciplinary effort taken to determine the urheimat of PIE.
to finish off, i would like to say that none of us really know for sure and all we have is indirect evidence anyways. but, for the love of all that is holy, please do some meaningful research before you blindly copy and paste this bollocks from the first result on google for everyone to see. 🙃
@@KeinsingtonCisco you didn’t even try to respond to any of my arguments so it’s obviously useless trying to convince you. at least i don’t copy and paste other people’s talking points like you.
@@KeinsingtonCisco not to mention the source you copied and pasted from is one of the first things that comes up if you type in “india PIE urheimat”. you didn’t even make the effort to find a unique source. you are a pseudo intellectual and an embarrassment to yourself.
Sounds like nationalist half-truths to me. I don't know what you're trying to achieve here. As you can read in the comments, people here are very well educated, intelligent and not intoxicated by nationalism. We just want to know how our languages evolved.
Indo-Europeans (Aryans) are just Turks, that came to Europe and mingled with Native Europeans.
Nonsense!
@@tuikupp9750 Another mistake I made in my investigations was my concentration on the “forest” called India and not enough on its “trees,” such as the Greeks, Turks, Armenians, and the sub-continent Hindus themselves. I also fell into a trap that some Hindu activists set for me. They claim that the so-called “Aryan invasion” was a concoction of white racists. They insist that the Aryans were lily-white. But later on, I found out that the Aryans were of all races. I finally had to conclude that the Turks (Kurus or Aryans) were the most numerous and influential of the “trees” in giving India and Greece mankind’s first fully developed civilizations and religions. Hitler tried to make the world think the Germans, not the Turks, were the true Aryans. Fortunately, he failed to convince the world. But that is not to say that the Germans are not Turks. In truth, we all are! 🐺🤟🏽😛😛
- Gene D. Matlock - What Strange Mystery Unites the Turkish Nations, India, Catholicism, and Mexico?
@@tuikupp9750 Read Genesis 12:3,
God blesses the Oğuz Turks from Kanturah and the Hacer Sons of Ishmael. Not the Turks of the Tevrat from Sara. They were not even born haha. They came to earth in existence when Hz. İbrahim (100% Turk) when he was 100, Sara 90. Notice his age, 75 years.
Read Rabbah 61:4 + 61:5,
God blesses the Oğuz Turks from Kanturah above all families on earth, not jews!
Jews are religion followers of their own rewritten hebrew thora.
Not the Tevrat in cuneiform of Turks.
Your world is upside down now isn't it? Haha.
I know. Yudas is smart. They fooled you all. The anti-Christ followers.
Jesus called them ; The Children of Satan.
@@Atilla963 only Indo-Iranians my boi, Turks are friend with East Asians
@@5YasaYana We are not East-Asian, but worldwide. The Kanturah Sons ruled all nations.
Propogandaaa
ɗ ɓ / dh bh / ť p'
Endless possibilities
Thank you!! I'd love a part III!