Пікірлер

• 
  @theosib8 күн бұрын

  Can you share more details?

• 
  @paxphonetica580018 күн бұрын

  So useful

• 
  @amj.composer20 күн бұрын

  I can finally communicate with yo mama

• 
  @TheSandkastenverbot22 күн бұрын

  I think some of the Latin declension forms got mixed up in the table at 14:10. Lup-e is vocative, Lup-um accusative and Lup-i genetive.

• 
  @albertusjung414524 күн бұрын

  I am native Lithuanian speaker.Your chart has the wrong Lithuanian case endings. Lithuanian does have the instrumental : vilkú. Plural: vilkais. In your chart several of the other case endings are wrong, such as the Lithuanian accusative, which ends in a nasalised "a" (fornerly -an), etc. Please adjust. If needs be, i can furnish the whole paradigm

• 
  @SonatonocturnoАй бұрын

  2:04 *vosotros amasteis.

• 
  @crusatyr1452Ай бұрын

  Delaware is an interesting case because that's named after Thomas West De La Warr, but the native americans living there ended up picking up the name for themselves because (as the story goes) the white people couldn't pronounce their real name correctly.

• 
  @erikcarlson9250Ай бұрын

  Thanks! I'll dig into this further. Your hedging ("as the story goes") is prudent: a name like this was more likely applied by Europeans than chosen by indigenous people. Idaho is another interesting case of a state with an "Indian" name: history.idaho.gov/wp-content/uploads/2018/09/howidahogotitsname.pdf

• 
  @crusatyr1452Ай бұрын

  @@erikcarlson9250 I agree! My telling of the story, for what it's worth, is from my memory of a statement on some official Delaware (as in the people) website. But I can't find it now for some reason. To give more detail, it was that after repeated attempts to get their name right, the white people misheard "Delaware" and went "Ohh, you guys are Delawares!" and the people they were talking to were like "sure, I guess you might as well call us the Delawares now" Which is a lot more begruding than I made is sound initially. Definitely look into it yourself and lmk if you can find the source that I read.

• 
  @Temujin216Ай бұрын

  "vosotros amastais"?? yo sólo conozco "vosotros amasteis". Gracias por su trabajo.

• 
  @radiozelazaАй бұрын

  sanskrit has a "pious mood", right? I once wondered how could we bring such a mood back to our modern languages. We could add a -o/o/o/ suffix to verbs and then do "ooooh" at the end of pronouncing such a verb. e.g. "I salute oooo-h thee!"

• 
  @erikcarlson9250Ай бұрын

  Interesting! I know very little about the specifics of Sanskrit. In some American communities, the use of "just" and "so," and possibly a few other words are part of displaying a pious disposition in public speech, especially public prayer. It's interesting to think of piety as a thing that can be expressed grammatically; of course, many languages use verb forms, like the formal plural, to express deference or recognize status, so why not? I've never thought about this before. Thanks!

• 
  @tom_demarcoАй бұрын

  How similar is this to classical latin?

• 
  @d.mcrossАй бұрын

  Half of the video is explaining about basic grammar concepts. Complete waste of time. If someone is interested in the PIE, shouldn't it be assumed that these people already have these concepts in the baggage?

• 
  @Uriel333Ай бұрын

  in 14:12 the first column (naming all the cases) is wrong/mixed up (also the same is true for the next slide)

• 
  @LuisAldamizАй бұрын

  2:10 - Minor Spanish verb corrections: · "(vosotros) amáis" (dyphthong, not hiatus, not "amaís", a single syllable "...áis" · "(vosotros) amasteis (stress is in the middle syllable, also typo and again last syllable is a dyphthong, one single syllable "...eis" and not a hiatus or two syllables "...e-ís") · "(vosotros) amabais (like the previous one, the stress is in the middle syllable and, per the orthographic rules, doesn't need a tilde ("´") when ending in -s or -n (the reverse is the rule for "acute" words, i.e. those that have the stress in the last syllable) · "(nosotros) amábamos" (all "esdrújula" words, i.e. those with stress in the third syllable counting from the end, carry tilde, the same applies to the rarer "sobresdrújulas", with stress in the fourth or so syllables, except those ending in "-mente" ("-ly" in English)

• 
  @Ateesh6782Ай бұрын

  *amastáis => amasteis; I know this is not the point, but YT is watched by native speakers of all the languages you pick examples for ;) (Hungarian speaker here, tho)

• 
  @erikcarlson9250Ай бұрын

  A wise man loves rebuke.

• 
  @SideWalkAstronomyNetherlands2 ай бұрын

  Tocharian must be in North - West China actually

• 
  @williammurphy96415 күн бұрын

  Yes, and much later in time.

• 
  @dp60032 ай бұрын

  What are you talking about

• 
  @kastriotelaago71582 ай бұрын

  😂😂why people still saying indoeuropian come from Ukrain no no we albanians are autokton our ancestors are pelagic

• 
  @mickvonbornemann38242 ай бұрын

  I’m pretty sure I read somewhere the Hwicce were Frisian, while there was a small Frankish realm on the coast just south of Kent

• 
  @Saraswathiputra2 ай бұрын

  Instead of elaborely studying Sanskrit language and literature these people too much depend on their opinions and willful guesses! First of all, Why Indo-Europens and not Euro cacasians or Euro anatolians!! If Rigveda is not there, many of the present day people in Europe and other places would not have known that they are related to common ancestor!!This is the truth!! Again, Proto Indo European is another lie!! Rigvedic Sanskrit is the first purified proto Indo Euro[ean language, the Aryans had Rigveda even before 6000 years ago as per recent archeology!! Those European groups as per Rigveda migrated from ancient India after Dasa rajna or ten kings war when the dried Saraswathi river flowing as mighty roaring war which is as per Rigveda! As per Rigveda ,Ar definition is given in Rigveda as on who tills and cultivate land!! Aryans are founders of darming and cultivation and assumed this as their identity as such Aryans are founders of human civilization!!

• 
  @tiagorodrigues3730Ай бұрын

  Please explain which sound changes are necessary to get from Rigvedic Sanskrit to Welsh. Of course, if Sanskrit is the ancestor of Welsh, as you claim it is, then it must necessarily be possible to get from the former to the latter.

• 
  @amj.composer20 күн бұрын

  Not even close buddy

• 
  @crusatyr14522 ай бұрын

  I'm not in whatever class this is for, but I love your videos regardless! You got a subscriber out of me :)

• 
  @eyeofthasky2 ай бұрын

  why did u not simply use ᴅᴏᴍ| for the locative of latin, as this is a word where the old case is still present in a disctincive form. by the way, something that textbooks and non-historic scholars still dont get in 2024, the apex (´) is a neccessary part of latin orthography, like it is with the acute in spanish, omitting them is simply wrong. hence, ʟᴜᴘᴏ́ and ʟᴜᴘ|. just cuz in most weathered stone inscriptions they are barely visible does not mean that there is any where they did _not_ use them (or the long | in case of i)

• 
  @TheSandkastenverbot22 күн бұрын

  *Why *By *don't *Hence Using lowercase letters at the beginning of a sentence or omitting the apostrophe in "don't" is *simply wrong.* Also: My browser shows DOM| and LUP|.

• 
  @mlucasGrindstone2 ай бұрын

  Well if you look at the Proto people in Western Europe and Russia and with the paternal DNA, two cultures stand out. The yamaya and the corded where. Perhaps it was the corded where culture that softened these consonants

• 
  @parjanyashukla1762 ай бұрын

  Sanskrit contains 10 tenses and not four. This Indo-European theory is pure bunkum based on pre-determined conclusions, selective reading of lexical and archaeological evidence and racial propaganda.

• 
  @TheSandkastenverbot22 күн бұрын

  Here we go again, a right wing nationalist snowflake pulls out the "racial propaganda" weapon because he can't believe that some people are NOT nationalist idiots but just want to know what happened. First of all: have you understood the distinction between tense, mood and voice? I'm sure you haven't. Second: have you understood why virtually every linguist agrees that indoeuropean languages are indeed related and didn't just borrow words from each other? Third and most importantly: PROVE YOUR STATEMENT!!!

• 
  @MartinMMeiss-mj6li2 ай бұрын

  In biology there is a discipline called "numerical taxonomy" that decodes the relationships between different species of plants and animals by mathematical means. Basically, it constructs "family trees" of related organisms by calculating the smallest number of evolutionary changes needed to construct a tree that includes all species within a group. Is there some process analogous to this that is used to reconstruct extinct ancestral languages and to quantify the differences between related existing languages?

• 
  @parjanyashukla1762 ай бұрын

  It's nonsense anyway, because languages don't have "genetic" 😮 relationships. Makes no sense whatsoever.

• 
  @erikcarlson92502 ай бұрын

  There is a theory of glottochronology that does this by beginning with phonetic changes, and there is a hearty dialogue between the fields of evolutionary biology and historical linguistics in certain areas, all based on the analogy you imply. There are some facts of human behavior that complicate mathematically modeling language change in analogy to genetic evolution, though. Immigration, genocide, media, and forced assimilation change languages very quickly; also, nothing prevents languages from borrowing from non-related languages or from exchanging material and influences with languages from which they have diverged, so English has borrowed related words from different languages (Engl. foot, Latin ped-estrian, French pawn (foot soldier), Greek, pod-iatrist), while birds and lizards can't easily exchange and re-exchange genes. So yes and no, and because language is a human behavior, nothing makes linguistic divergence inherently permanent.

• 
  @MartinMMeiss-mj6li2 ай бұрын

  @@parjanyashukla176I'm not sure what you mean by "genetic relationships," but languages are not static; they change over time and thus diverge from each other. The English of today is not the same as the English of Shakespeare. Dialects spoken in different regions of a land are not identical, and can become more different over time. For instance, the Spanish and Portuguese of today are more dissimilar from each other than ancestral Spanish and ancestral Portuguese of eight hundred years ago. This is what allows us to speak of languages being more or less closely related to each other, and in turn lets linguists construct trees showing these relationships. Is there something about this that you disagree with?

• 
  @MartinMMeiss-mj6li2 ай бұрын

  @@erikcarlson9250Yes, although biological species have some limited ability to get genes from non-ancestral populations (so-called "jumping genes," mediated perhaps by viruses), languages have much fluidity for swapping influences. I was just wondering if this has kept researchers from modeling mathematically the processes of linguistic evolution. Is there a computer program where one could in principle use modern Indo-european languages as inputs and have the program spit out Proto-indoeuropean as an output?

• 
  @erikcarlson92502 ай бұрын

  Such a program could be devised, but criticism at every step in light of comparative, archeological, and very fuzzy semantic data is important. As far as sound changes go, though, we already have a basic set of algorithms--consider Grimm's Law (of course, conditioned by Verner's Law, and obscured at times by borrowing or other circumstances). @@MartinMMeiss-mj6li

• 
  @graydenhormes58292 ай бұрын

  I love the concept of a video about PIE grammar, as it is hard just to get academics to speculate on it, let alone explore it this way. I would have liked a bigger exploration of actual PIE grammar for a video called PIE grammar.

• 
  @Gubbe512 ай бұрын

  The description of the Accusative is wrong! The primary usage of the accusative in all inflected languages is being a subject of an action, such as being accused (!), taken, given, stolen, seen, destroyed, possessed, painted, washed, and so on. None of these actions involves a preposition in English. Accusative may also have additional usage in some languages, which translated to English requires prepositions.

• 
  @DemetriosKongas2 ай бұрын

  You are wrong. The primary usage of the accusative is to indicate the object of the action. E.g. I throw the ball (in Greek ριπτω την σφαίραν - sphairan is the accusative of the noun sphaira/σφαίρα) (sphere).

• 
  @Ateesh6782Ай бұрын

  In the sentence “I accuse her”, the subject is “I”, which is the nominative; “her” is the object (accusative).

• 
  @davidaxelos4678Ай бұрын

  You mean object, not subject of an action, e.g. accusation.

• 
  @Gubbe51Ай бұрын

  @@davidaxelos4678 Yes, you are right.

• 
  @user-bq3si3qg1e2 ай бұрын

  Your Sanskrit declension for Vrka (Wolf) is incorrect.

• 
  @erikcarlson92502 ай бұрын

  I plan to replace this video with a corrected version (and correct the Lithuanian as well) soon.

• 
  @parjanyashukla1762 ай бұрын

  ​@@erikcarlson9250 There is no need to do so, because your "Indo-European" linguistics is basically an agenda-driven, pseudoscientific field.

• 
  @Ouitzde2 ай бұрын

  @@erikcarlson9250 The main error is in the order of the cases in English; it should have been 'Nom, Voc, Acc, Gen, Abl, Dat, Instr. and Loc.' Then it matches with the four languages.

• 
  @themanne2342 ай бұрын

  ​@@parjanyashukla176Want to explain? Ive never heard about it being agenda driven but im really curious! Its very counter intuitive that a language tree would be so spread out with so much space but ive never heard of it being wrong?

• 
  @jeremias-serusАй бұрын

  @@parjanyashukla176 hindutva moment

• 
  @TomasJknOnYT2 ай бұрын

  @14:10 as a native Lithuanian speaker I see errors in your column for Vilkas; endings seem to be shifted/mixed between the cases. Here are the correct forms: Nominative: Vilk-as Genitive: Vilk-o Dative: Vilk-ui Accusative: Vilk-ą (note the ogonek diacritic on a, indicating long a en.wikipedia.org/wiki/%C4%84) Instrumental:Vilk-u Vocative:Vilk-e Locative:Vilk-e (stress is different from Vocative - it goes on the end e, while in vocative it goes on the front i)

• 
  @pawel198812Ай бұрын

  The Latin case forms are mixed up as well

• 
  @eugeniakatsafadou331Күн бұрын

  and the greek ones too! I think that armenian and latin and greek are all shifted the same though, so what is marked as genitive is actually accusative in all three languages.

• 
  @obedotto44652 ай бұрын

  Congrats to this guy for going back 5000 years and learning the language

• 
  @DemetriosKongas2 ай бұрын

  In the declension of the Greek noun λύκος- lykos , you have committed some errors. Nominative lykos, genitive lykou, dative lyko, (λυκω), accusative lykon, vocative lyke. That is how it is declined in the singular.

• 
  @standingbear9982 ай бұрын

  people were certainly not making pottery before they could speak? the first person to speak did not put it on pottery that day. so speaking is far older than pottery therefore this assumption that this is the first record is nonsense. maybe the oldest we have found that's all, don't make baseless declarations.

• 
  @samuelleandro22752 ай бұрын

  Speaking is different from writing.

• 
  @mezameku2 ай бұрын

  i love this channel, thank you for your work Erik. Instant subscription from me:)

• 
  @Saraswathiputra2 ай бұрын

  I dont know why those western liars even having no authentic records blabbing and spreading lies on history of Aryans! The U mark which ancient Pyramid builders wore on their forehead tell something! Is any of those Western liuars have any idea on that? Instead those so called Western experts tried to erase it from their forehead! It refers only those ancient Vedic Sanadhan followers only wore it! They are from ancient India! Nobody wore or use it in the entire middle east or Europe else they are from ancient India aka Bharat! It is still followed in India aka Bharat only! Vedic cultural systems are most anceint and unchanged!

• 
  @Saraswathiputra2 ай бұрын

  Aryans are in Arya Vartham which is Northern India, continuously living atlest 10,000 years or more which is damn damn sure as per all very recent archeological discoveries! The age of Rigvedic texs and elaborate details confirm the migration of Aryans from ancient Bharat aka India/ As saraswathi river discovery pushed age of Rigveda more than 6000 years ago! All root word meaning for Aryans exist only in Rigveda! If Rigvedic text was not there, Europeans would not have known that they desceneded from ancient Aryans! The root word AR in the Aryan word meaning, onw who ploughs the land for irrigation! Aryans are founders of farming and cultivation and as such founders of Human civilization! Those western liars still try their best to fool the world that ccivilization and cultivation was from middle east desert!

• 
  @BurnBird12 ай бұрын

  The outright horrendous quality of Indian education wouldn't be that scary if there weren't 1 billion of you.

• 
  @Saraswathiputra2 ай бұрын

  Eric Carlsen should improve your knowledge to tell the true history! Dont five last century opinions and guesses!1 Instead try to give true history! Below I have given very authentic very anceint excavation site of of Aryans as told in Rigveda and approved site professional archeologist ! Improve!Now India has very anceint more 4000 years ago Rathas or chariots and other materials besides all utensils which are highly sophisticated! kzread.info/dash/bejne/pmymx6WjqqXRlrw.html

• 
  @Saraswathiputra2 ай бұрын

  Vedic people have very anceint writing system but by Shruthi method they could maintain the originality of pronunciation! Shruthi means not just by mouth but unchanged pronunciation! By this method they can produce so many conventional script according to needs! India has many languages with many scripts but in those languages Sanskrit can be written without any change of proninciation! You idiots never study! That is your nature! Indo Aryan or Indo=European classification never happened without Rigvedic Sanskrit! Before present day script Grantha libi is used for writing Sanskrit! Before that Harappan libi those conventions lost in time!

• 
  @patmorris96923 ай бұрын

  Oldest language still spoken continuously without interruption by its native speakers is Greek. All other « old » languages with documented history are dead. Latin: dead. Sanskrit: dead. Hebrew: dead but artificially revived. Egyptian: dead. As far as other old languages still spoken, their documented histories are dwarfed by that of Greek.

• 
  @y11971alex2 ай бұрын

  Wikipedia says Sanskrit has first language speakers 😅

• 
  @greaterbharat41752 ай бұрын

  Sanskrit is not dead its minority language now Still their is active news paper, news media of sankrit Village known as mattur all people in their speak sankrit

• 
  @BurnBird12 ай бұрын

  Latin isn't dead, it just diverged into multiple different languages. Had only a single branch survived, it would have still been called Latin.

• 
  @manh91053 ай бұрын

  There is. no common Indo-European language. The Indo European is a myth created by Europeans. There is one Indian language Sanskrit which is the mother of languages in India and regions around it. Whatever commonality people see is due to people using sanskrit as lingua franka in olden days.

• 
  @faithlesshound56212 ай бұрын

  Another imperialising myth, this time for those North Indians who lay claim to the whole of India. Sanskrit was not the "mother" of the Dravidian or the Munda languages which the indigenous people of the subcontinent speak, let alone those of the "regions around it." At most it was their wicked step-mother.

• 
  @jzsfvss3 ай бұрын

  Quite uninteresting without quotes from their translations. Plus, who is the presenter? Background / profession / motive?

• 
  @seeingimages3 ай бұрын

  Horrible sound quality. Get some decent equipment. Learn how to use it correctly. The volume is much too low. And please stop mumbling.

• 
  @whukriede2 ай бұрын

  Huch, the audio is excellent! You may want to check your equipment?

• 
  @vladimirkulikov44273 ай бұрын

  The Latin case forms in the single table (10 min) do not match the Latin case forms in the bigger table (12 min)

• 
  @felixarquer77323 ай бұрын

  Wiktionary (not sure it's the most reliable source for PIE etymology; could you recommend any others?) gives PIE etymologies for both sea and ship.

• 
  @erikcarlson92502 ай бұрын

  The Indo-European Lexicon at UT-Austin is one of the more reliable sources that is easily accessible. lrc.la.utexas.edu/lex Bear in mind that this is a contested field, and that context is important. If a PIE etymon is reconstructed for a word that only appears in Germanic languages, or if a Germanic word is included in a family of cognates from which it differs starkly in meaning and must be excused by special argumentation about semantics, then reasonable disagreements will emerge.

• 
  @felixarquer77322 ай бұрын

  @@erikcarlson9250 Useful reply, thanks.

• 
  @kimberlyperrotis89623 ай бұрын

  Written Greek is attested long before Latin is - Mycenean/Minoan Linear B. Yes, it uses a a non-Greek script, but the language written in it is the oldest known form of Greek, ca 1400BCE. Ancient Greek is an extremely important language and shouldn’t be ignored. Even in today’s English, we use as much of Greek in our vocabulary as we do Germanic (Anglo-Saxon), as do many other languages.

• 
  @someinteresting3 ай бұрын

  The quality of the video is rather low, indeed.

• 
  @kanaka2282 ай бұрын

  Greeks learnt from the Phoenix Ian's. They were the panic of India who left India went across the world. Made many monuments never could they find a home of their own. Very wicked. In india they were called asuras.

• 
  @MultiSpeedMetalАй бұрын

  @@kanaka228 Greeks weren't anymore wicked than anyone else. The Greek philosophers were unparalleled in their time.

• 
  @FutureHH25 күн бұрын

  isn't minoan pre-greek?

• 
  @MultiSpeedMetal25 күн бұрын

  @@FutureHH Linear B as far as I know was used by early Greeks using a modified Linear A script that was used by the Minoans. The Minoans influenced early Greek civilization. Minoan is indeed pre-Greek and pre-indo-european.

• 
  @kimberlyperrotis89623 ай бұрын

  The volume is way too low, even on max volume on my loudspeaker, and your voice sounds muffled, like you’re speaking through a piece of cloth. If you have one of those buffering things on your microphone, maybe try removing it for future videos, and speak much closer to the mic, too. Good content, just can’t hear you very well.

• 
  @schubi422 ай бұрын

  can't confirm, sounds fine to me

• 
  @levilivengood45223 ай бұрын

  what about the negau helmet inscriptions?

• 
  @mukan93 ай бұрын

  There is a probability that first indo-european inscription was written by West Anatolian Luwian speaking Arzawa state. Because Luwians came to Anatolia before Hitites around 2.300 BC. They would probably communicated with Minoans and Egyptians with clay tablets. Arzawa tablet archieve still couldn’t found.

• 
  @marcusathome3 ай бұрын

  As a native German speaker it is natural for me to understand the case system, but I know that for learners of the German language, this is particularly tough. "Der Mann gibt dem Hund den Knochen, welchen er beim Fleischer gekauft hatte." Look at Afrikaans, the latest outlier of the Germanic languages, in contrast: highly simplified and analytic, yet still intelligible to most German speakers.

• 
  @fukpoeslaw36132 ай бұрын

  Afrikaans is zelfs begrijpelijk voor de meeste Duitsers ? Alleen wanneer je 't leest dan zeker, ik als Nederlander zelfs versta gesproken Afrikaans nauwelijks (kaum) Afrikaans lesen aber ist ganz einfach für mi(ch/r?)

• 
  @user-gs2wb2lp1v3 ай бұрын

  Carlson my advice for you is: start from Albanien language who is the root of the tree of Indo-European languages. I assure you that you will be satisfied

• 
  @neilmcbride713 ай бұрын

  My advice is don't let people with a nationalist agenda near historical linguistics. Start with the comparative method and don't forget that extra-ordinary claims need extra-ordinary evidence.

• 
  @user-gs2wb2lp1v3 ай бұрын

  @@neilmcbride71 or suspicious human I am not focused to nationality but to the name of the language used today. Anyway is not worth to spend time with you who reaches the conclusion as in love stories with “amore a prima vista” or love at first sight.

• 
  @neilmcbride713 ай бұрын

  @@user-gs2wb2lp1v anonymous person, I have been into historical linguistics since my Linguistics degree which I completed in 1995 - almost 30 years of love. Can you point me to a serious scholar of Proto Indo-European who claims that Albanian is at the root of the Indo-European languages (whatever that means)? Those who are genuinely interested in the science behind the reconstruction of Proto Indo-European and the development if the daughter languages should read 'Indo European Language and Culture' by Benjamin W. Forsten - a serious textbook used in serious Universities. It will walk you through the Comparative method and Internal reconstruction. BTW Albanian is a daughter language of Proto Indo-European and it's a very interesting one that has undergone some unusual sound changes from its parent (especially with the *s sibilant).

• 
  @faithlesshound56212 ай бұрын

  There are several groups like this on KZread: it all started from Albanian; Sanskrit came first: or Tamil was the root of everything, according to taste. Some of the last group claim that Tamil is 200,000 years old, which suggests that the original Tamilians lived in trees and had fur and a tail.

• 
  @Vaidelotelis2 ай бұрын

  Albanian is nowhere near the root of the tree of Indo-European languages. The only ones who spout this nonsense are Albanian non linguists who have heard this from other Albanians who don't know what they're talking about

• 
  @neilmcbride713 ай бұрын

  While most ancient Indo-European languages had 3 genders (Masculine, Feminine and Neuter) in their nouns, interestingly, the oldest recorded ancient Indo-European language, Hittite, did not. Instead, it had 2 genders: animate and inanimate. It is possible that this was the situation in early Proto Indo-European and the 3 gender system evolved from an animate/inanimate system later.

• 
  @fukpoeslaw36132 ай бұрын

  Is animate/inanimate like the Dutch system, de = masculine or feminine; het = neuter, so de = animate and het = inanimate? Although there are a lot of animals with het: het paard (the horse), het schaap (the sheep).

• 
  @neilmcbride712 ай бұрын

  @@fukpoeslaw3613 I don't think I would describe the Dutch system as animate/inanimate for 2 reasons. 1) as you have pointed out, there are animate nouns in the neuter gender (het paard, het schaap and even het meisje (although here, it's the diminutive suffix that makes the noun neuter) and inanimate nouns in the common gender (de tafel, de mand, de computer, esv.), and 2) within the context of Indo-European linguistics, the Dutch system developed out of an older 3-way gender distinction - ie Dutch used to have 3 genders. TBH I don't know much about the Hittite and the Anatolian languages, but, interestingly, I understand that the only difference between animate and inanimate nouns was in the nominative case. In all other cases the declension was the same. This kind of makes sense, as inanimate nouns are unlikely to be the subject of a transitive verb (eg the woman can read the book, but the book cannot read the woman)

• 
  @v0r0byov2 ай бұрын

  Then why is night feminine in many Indo-European languages if there was not the feminine gender? For example in Russian, German, Spanish

• 
  @neilmcbride712 ай бұрын

  @@v0r0byovThe feminine gender evolved after the ancestors of the Anatolian languages left. The mechanism by which this happened is debated, but one theory is that a suffix *-eh2 which was added to verbs to make abstract nouns later became grammaticalised as a feminine ending. Once the feminine category was born, other words with a feminine reference were added. (Over time, the *-eh2 ending changed to -a which is still a feminine marker in many indo-european languages.)

• 
  @parjanyashukla1762 ай бұрын

  "Proto-Indo-European language" actually likely never existed at the first place. It's a senseless model of linguistic evolution that runs counter to even the basic commonsense of sociolinguistics - languages don't evolve like trees do.

• 
  @olelarsen76883 ай бұрын

  Proto indo-european is just the language of the white race during the ice age. 4/5 of the indo-european language branches is in Europe. That is where the language is oldest.

• 
  @erikcarlson92503 ай бұрын

  There are many Indo-European languages in Europe and the language family may have arisen in southeastern Europe. Race is an irrelevant category. Conflating linguistic history and genetics is dangerous business. My commute follows parts of the Trail of Tears, a daily reminder that ethnicity and language are not the same thing, and that the violence of racism is real and has enduring consequences. The unfounded notion that Proto-Indo-European represents some kind of special European identity has no currency in the field of historical linguistics: the immense damage this idea has done must never be forgotten, and we all have a duty to reject this claim whenever we encounter it.

• 
  @brianarotten29623 ай бұрын

  @@erikcarlson9250 Well said Sir. 👏👏👏👏👏👏👏👏

• 
  @olelarsen76883 ай бұрын

  If you go back in time greater parts of the land spoke the same language. In the viking age all scandinavians spoke the same language, in the bronce age all north west europeans spoke the same language (Don't know how I know, but I do). At some time all of Europe spoke the same language. It must have been really long ago because the differences in european languages are very big.@@thomasnoaotearoa

• 
  @Nutsferatu3 ай бұрын

  ​@@thomasnoaotearoaUralics are in no way pre Indo European.

• 
  @Nutsferatu3 ай бұрын

  @@thomasnoaotearoa Uralic is not indigenous to Northern Europe at all. My understanding is the timeline goes like this. The first inhabitants were Scandinavian hunter gatherers. Who were a mixture of western hunter gatherers from the south and eastern hunter gatherers from the north. They were not Uralic people's at all as they lacked the Uralic identified N1c haplogroup and had no Asian autosomal DNA. Then the Anatolian farmers (Not Uralic) show up in southern Scandinavia and coexist with the hunter gatherers to their north. Soon after Indo Europeans of the corded ware culture show up probably speaking a form of pre proto Germanic. They spread throughout the whole of Scandinavia including the areas of Finland and over time gradually assimilate the hunter gatherers and farmer's. Then a Sami like reindeer herders migrate into northern Scandinavia by way of Siberia and coexist with Indo European peoples and probably assimilate some of these Indo European DNA into their very much wholly Asian genetic profile. Finally Finnic speaking people's show up not too long after. They arrived very much genetically European like after absorbing Indo Iranian and Balto Slavic people's on their long migration from Siberia. The Finnic people's then proceed to assimilate the remaining Indo Europeans (most probably Germanic) in Finland and consolidate into modern day Finnish people. They are genetically very much European, but with low single digit Asian dna. The Finnish are typified by their majority (N1c) Asian male originated haplogroup that came from China. If Indo European is not indigenous to Scandinavia, then Uralic is DEFINITELY not.