Just a brit living abroad, talking about old stuff. Usually languages but not always.
Specific interests include Indo-European languages (in particular Hittite, Luwian and Old Irish), Bantu languages, the Cypro-Minoan syllabary, urns and burial mounds.
Пікірлер
Serbian nationalist arguments are pathetic, especially when considering the recent DNA studies that clearly show a local Balkan origin for the Albanians, vs the Slavs that nobody in academia doubts came into the Balkans for the first time in the 7th century.
Today, maybe without greek, all mediterranean languages have a determinative article with "l", but a proto-meditteranean doesn't exist
Crowns didn't exist during the time of PIE tho?
only Croats and Serbs are true Illyrians because the Albanians got information about their Illyrian origin only after the wars between the Serbs and them in order to have more rights to the territories
14:35 locative -r sounds like Iranian languages (Avestan,Sogdian, H.Saka , Kurdish ) in Avestan iθra/aθra : Here (from i/a + θra) Avaθra : There ( ava + θra) Kuθra : Where (Ku : where) Khotanese Saka Mara : Here (from *ima : this) Vara : There (from *awa ) Bactrian Language μαρο (məro? ) : Here οαρο (oəro? ) : There Sogdian Language Marθ : Here Ōrθ : There Kuθr : Where in Northern Kurdish (Kurmanji) Vir or Vira : Here * probably from ev "this" and -r/ra. Wir or Wira : There * probably from ew "that" and -r/ra. Kur : Where * probably from Kû "where" and -r . Çir : What * Probably from çi "what" and -r. in Laki dialect of Kurdish îre : here (î = this) ûre : there (û : that) kûre : where (kû : where) Central Kurdish (Soranî) Êre : Here * probably from em "this" + -r.
Great and informative video! My personal bone to pick with all the proposed "proto-world" languages, let's call them, is that it is in many ways an endeavor with no prospects. These theories aren't baseless. Bizarrely similar pronoun systems of IE, Uralic and Turkic languages alone imply the connection is far deeper than simple aerial proximity and resulting borrowings, and then there is that dental suffix that has something to do with past tense or perfect aspect that you regularly bump into, and that's just surface level observations However, consider this. Our PIE reconstructions are based largely around the written record. It supplies us not only with the oldest forms of languages of Europe, but also with languages long since dead to fill in the gaps in our understanding. When you remove that written record and look at modern Europe, all you have is a bunch of languages that share some interesting similarities that can't be coincidental, but also can't be connected in a way that is more or less straightforward. Language contact happened. Words were lost, replaced, borrowed, changed meaning, grammar eroded and replaced. Out of all the Celtic and Italic languages spoken throughout the entirety of Western Europe only Insular Celtic and Latin descendants remained. And then you have all those creoles spoken all around the world that have clear connection to Dutch, Spanish/Portuguese and French, but what that connection is and how they relate is unknown, both in real world and in our hypothetic scenario of forgotten history. At this point, does it really even make sense to try and reconstruct a proto-language?
Very informative greek language lessons, can we have more of the same?
honestly i think the idea that they could potentially detect an unattested language through similarities between two language groups is *way* cooler than those two groups just being directly related, but i’m pretty sure that the “cool factor” isn’t a huge component of academic discourse 🤔
Oh I dunno, I have a lot of time for the 'cool factor'
Well since the DNA science is now available there is going to be more work done in Albania and Kosova with old bones and new digs.
If history is somewhat a function of geography how come backward north Caucasus and the step below become cultural hotbed!? It seems that in modern history the region was a refuge of old culture, not creator of new patterns. Those high mountains were a barier to invaiders, but a wall to cultural influence? Than there is a question of the Sea trade as cultural fusion. Here East Med and the Agean North to the Black shores offer a better start point? Narrow teories no matter how well build must be cross referenced. Burials, DNA, pottery, gold, anything.
What is the Sumerian connection with PIE ? any direct connection or through intermediate languages ? Gamkrelidze and Ivanoν set PIE homeland on the basis of Semitic and Sumerian language near Armenia, what do you think that they have direct contact or it's indirect? - Another question is that those pro-Southern arc people also Suggest that Gutian language is connected with Tocharian to propose a out of Iran route into Tarim basin of tocharian movement, i found it very dubious , is there any general consensus among scholars how gutian language and Sumerian language connected with PIE / early PIE or Not ?????
It's hot air from the academic community. I ned mor information than this. Howvr, since th peopl who gave rise to theYamnaya did live north of the Caucasus Mountains and the Caspian Sea, and there was a hybrid group that was part Caucasian and part Yamnaya immediately north of and in the Caucasus Mountains, it would be strange if their descendants didn't speak a language with part Caucasian background.
6:35 My problem with that "borrowing" theory is that it is ALWAYS from Indo-European to Uralic, and NEVER the other way around
💣💥💨👏👏👏👏👏✊💪🤝
Thank you for your work.
And thank you for your support and kind words!
Tochari means descendants of arias. Tohol-descendant ari-arias.
You would think that the language should be called Indo European and the language that it came from would be the proto
very good compilation and informative on ancient languages is "The Cambridge Encyclopedia of the World's Ancient languages". I have 2004 edition ...
It's excellent! I don't have the encyclopedia but do have the handbook series which derived from it. Great stuff
Observations: 1. Bomhard premises are not incorrect but fail to account for Uralic substrate (and not just adstrate from the north) in the whole steppe region, which IMO is very clearly demonstrated by ancient DNA (notably the presence of East Asia derived mtDNA C and Siberian-admixed EHG autosomal DNA, all corresponding well to modern West Uralic peoples from Maris to Finns). It also fails to account for evidence of Caucasus or Zagros Neolithic populations moving northwards, which is again backed by ancient autosomal DNA: first the area especially at the Lower Volga basin was EHG (read: Uralic) and then it was a 50-50 mix of Caucasus (or Iran Neolithic, very similar) and EHG. My reading from this is that proto-PIE was one of many Neolithic West Asian languages and that it admixed in vocabulary with Uralic, as much as it did in terms of people/genetics, as these farmer/herders migrated northwards. They may have also been instrumental in spreading the concept of pottery southwards, as (counter-intutively) it was the Uralic peoples who first used potter in West Eurasia (a concept imported from China) and not the Neolithic farmers to their south. This results in Indoeuropeans carrying Caucasian genetics around in their conquests and migrations but also Uralic/EHG genetics (handy when you have to discern with other peoples such as Pelasgo-Tyrsenians or Elamo-Dravidians also carrying Caucasus-like genetics, but not EHG, around totally unrelatedly to Indoeuropean expansions). 2. If the PIE grammar strongly diverges from the proposed Nostratic/Eurasiatic superfamilies, then, in good logic it should be out of them, just as Brahui is still Dravidian even if most of its vocabulary is now Indoeuropean or just as English is still Germanic even if half of its vocabulary is French-derived (and to much lesser extent from Latin or other Romances). This again seems to support that the Uralic influence is as substrate/adstrate and not as a proper phylogenetic root. 3. Unsure if "Pontic is real" but at least it seems more plausible than Bomhardt's theory. My take is that proto-PIE was one of many Caucasus-Zagros or Eastern West Asian languages to spread, plausibly from a northern location in the West Asian of "Fertile Crescent" Neolithic, maybe in historical Armenia but that it was surrounded by other languages, some of which would be ancestral to the Caucasian families (incl. Hurrian and Hattic) but also to Sumerian, Tyrsenian (via Halafian culture) and (probably from a more southernly source) Elamo-Dravidian.
I like your presentation of the problematics ... Although, to be honest, I am a little bit sceptical about reconstruction of PIE language ... we all know that story about the sheep, horse and wool and how the language of the story was changed when they add to their consideration not only Latin, Greek and Sanskrit , but also Lithuanian and others... actually, reconstructed forms are not proved to exist in reality, it is only guessing ... so, it should be taken cum grano salis ... (my linguistic background :I have learned nine years German in school, and I still do remember some grammar, although I have serious lack of vocabulary and conversation practice in German; in high school I learned two years Latin; later at University I studied History and Polish language; I have never learned English in school nor I ever took any official lesson in English; I was watching tv (my ideal standard pronunciation of English is that of the character of Jean-Luc Picard (Patric Stewart) in series Star Trek, I saw all episodes of New Generation and of Voyager for 3 or 4 times, LOL ;) .. and I spent some time living in Canada... ) and start to read history books in English and later I have learn some grammar ... I also learned by myself some ancient Greek and also some modern, some mostly passive understanding of Spanish , Italian and very basics of Japanese ...staying at the level of Romaji with some hiragana .... my final thesis at history department was about origin of Etruscans, so I have done some research on ancient Etruscan language as well about ancient languages of Anatolia, and it seems that there is a "Sprachbund" based on shared phonology between IE Anatolian languages, Akkadian, nonIE Haatic and Etruscan and Lemnian, because Etruscan also didn't have voiced /b,d,g/ as well as Hittite and lacked vowel /o/ ) . Recently I have done analysis of the text of "Novilara stele" ... and my conclusion was: the language of Novilara stele or it is closely related to Greek and Latin or it is the forgery ... third possibility is less likely ..
Thanks for your input. What is your theory on Etruscan? Do you see it as an Anatolian language like some linguists do?
@@LearnHittite When it goes about Etruscans, it is important to know what ancient Greek writers wrote about them. The older generation of Greek writers, those who were living in Greek classical times (5th and 4th century BC) as Herodotus (cca. 484-425) or Hellanikos from Lezbos/Mythilene (d. 399) and Thukydides (cca. 460-403), wrote about the groups of non-Hellenic, pre-Greek (in terms of language) populations that went to Italy and made colonies there. Hellanikos from Lesbos (whose work exists today only fragmentary in quotations in other writers) who was contemporary of Herodotos and of Thukydides, wrote that groups of Pelasgians went to Italy. Herodotos has brought to us the story (I book , chapter 94) how in ancient times in land of Lydia (west of Asia Minor) there was great famine which took place for many years and then the king of the land, named Attys, made a decision by throwing the dice, that his son Tyrsenos will take one half of people and they will go out of country across the sea, in search for new land and new life. Tyrsenos and his people went down to the city of Smyrna (today Izmir in Türkiye) and they have build ships there. After some time they came to the Umbrians in Italy (Herodotos writes: Ombrikoi) and settled their. Herodotus also provides a timeline for these events in other chapter about Lydia, where he placed king Attys and his sons Lydos and Tyrsenos in time before the reign of dynasty of Heraklides (cca. 1200-700 BC), that is, in 13th century BC. Also, what is important to point out, Herodotos, being a great traveller himself (he was born in city-state Halikarnassos in Asia Minor, travelled Egypt and to Crimea, maybe to Babilonia, and ended as one of the co-founders of Athenian colony Thurii in south-east Italy) wrote that he has heard the story about foundation of colonies in Tyrrhenia (Etruria) from Lydians, and not from Etruscans. ... What is also important to point out is that from work of Herodotos we can find out that in his lifetime there were living in wider Aegean area peoples named Pelasgoi (Pelasgians); Herodotos writes that his conclusion is that they speak in barbarian (non-Hellenic) language, judging by the language of Pelasgians which lived in his time in a few cities in Propontis region (Abdera, etc.) . Also, Herodotos said that the inhabitants of island Lemnos in north Aegean, before the Athenian conquest in 505 BC by general Militiades , were Pelasgians. (Athenians conquered the island were Pelasgians had two cities: Myrina in west and Hephaisteia in east, and took some land from Pelasgians and settled there Athenian colonists.) So, we are very much sure that Pelasgians existed still side a side by Greeks in 5th century BC. .... Thoukydides (Engl. Thucydides), historian from Athens, and for short time naval general in war, who wrote about events of his own lifetime (Peloponnesian war, between Athens and Sparta, 431-404 BC) in one section of his work inform that in northern Aegean in large peninsula known as Khalkidike (it has three big sub-peninsula, like three "fingers" protrude into Aegean sea) there are many small cities in which mostly are living Pelasgians among whom the most numerous are Tyrrhenians. So, from this, both from Herodotus and Thucydides, it is clear that in 5th century BC in Aegean region were still living some non-Greek populations named by Greeks as Pelasgians (Pelasgoi) and that the Tyrrhenians were part of Pelasgians. Differently from Herodotus, Thucydides wrote that natives of Lemnos were Tyrrhenians (while Herodotus names them Pelasgians). Herodotus is using the form Tyrsenoi in Greek while in Athenian Attic Greek the form was: Tyrrhenoi ("y" in ancient Greek between consonants was pronounced similar as in German letter ü). So, we have non-Greek Tyrrhenians/Tyrsenians attested in 5th century BC in northern Aegean, and in the same time we have people named by Greeks in west-central Italy also "Tyrrhenoi"/Tyrsenoi/Tyrsanoi (in Doric dialect). Is this only an example of homonymia (names/words being formally the same but with different meaning?) Well, it seems that the discovery of stele in island Lemnos in 1880-ies and some other short fragments recently, written in a language similar in vocabulary and in grammar to the Etruscan, proved otherwise. Linguist Helmut Rix (+) wrote an article in Cambridge encyclopedia on Etruscan language, proposing Tyrsenian language family and proto-Tyrsenic as common ancestor for both Lemnian and Etruscan. Who knows, maybe in the future it will be some new discoveries from three fingered peninsula Khalkidike or from other locations. One of the problems with ancient stone inscriptions is that many pieces of stone, even with inscriptions, were later through centuries often re-used as building elements. and I have to mention here the later Greek writers as Strabo and Dionysius who were living during the 1st century BC, that is some 300 years after the classical period of Herodotus and Hellanikos and Thucydides. For Strabo, living in Roman times, it was difficult even to imagen that some people or group coming from the Greece does not speak in Greek. He was also repeating in his work what he has found in older writers about Pelasgians coming to Italy in many waves from Greece and Aegean, but he was convinced (as we can see from his work) that those groups were speaking some very archaic form of Greek, but still Greek. Strabo gives a funny story how Etruscan city in Roman times known as Caere [ read as: Kha-ee-rhe, or in later imperial Latin as: Khe-rhe], from what is derived later Italian name of modern town Cerveteri, some 25 km north-west of Rome (in meaning: Cere vetere, old Cere, pronounced Cerveteri as: Cher-ve-te-ri in English). Original Etruscan name of the city was written in Etrusco- Phoenician bilingual found in 1960-ies in site of Pyrgi (sea port of ancient Caere), as: Kisra. Linguist dealing with Etruscan and ancient Latin would expect that Etruscan form is: Kaisre, because of Latin Caere, and because of rothacism in old Latin language some time around 3rd century BC (name of the Roman merchant familiy in ancient time Papissius became : Papirius); rothacism did work here: Kisra: Caere, but from where is an /a/ in Latin form? It could be the consequence of sincopa in Etruscan language in the beginning of 5th century BC? However, Strabo wrote an "folk etymology" in meaning that the name of Etruscan city is connected to Greek word Khaire! (meaning a Hello!) , what is of course non sense. Other Greek writer of 1st century BC, Dionysius, born in Halikarnassos (as Herodotus 400 years earlier) and worked as teacher of Greek language and of rethorics in Rome in his work "Romaike arkhaiologia" (Roman Antiquities) wrote that Etrsucan language and customs are more closer to those of Pelasgians than to the Lydians. But his opinion on Etruscan origin was that Etruscans are natives/ autochtonous in Italy. Also, he mentioned some early Greek writers who mentioned that Tyrrhenians were travelling in oposite directions: from Italy to Aegean.
@@LearnHittite Some Russian linguists proposed that Etruscan language is related to some languages of Caucasus. Important feature of Etruscan language is not only 4 vowels and the absence of voiced /b.d,g/ what connects Etruscan with the languages of Anatolia, but also it is suffixes based type of language, similar to Hurrian. Actually, I have found that number 3, in Etruscan "ci" [ki] has similarity with Hurrian number kiq , also three. Etruscans, by ancient Greeks called Tyrsenoi (Ionian form), Tyrrhenoi (Attic Greek), Tyrsanoi (Doric dialects) , were calling them selves as "Rasna" (after sincopa in 5th century BC), probably older form "Rasenna". There is possibility that Greek egzonym "Tyrsenoi" and "Tyrrhenoi" is some kind of calck or joined word, consisting of two words: tyr + rasenna = tyr: rhen-oi, where ancient Greek "tyr" [pronounced as: tür, with /ü/ sound like in German] comes from older or maybe foreign form "tur"; and this is confirmed in Latin forms: Etrusci and Tusci (from which English Tuscany and Italian Toscana is derived): E-trus-ci >* E-turs-ci ... Originally form probably was *Turs-ci, and because of rhotacism in Latin language in around of the 3rd century BC, Turs< Tus +ci ... In Greek language the general name for autocratic ruler was: tyrannos (English: tyrant)... Also, in Herodotus, in one place in Greece there was city named in Herodotus time "Tetrapolis" and Herodotus said that the former, older name of this city was "Hyttenia" ... this is interesting because number four (4) in Etruscan is: "huth" ... and as I wrote in my other answer, there was in Aegean region during the classical times (5th and 4th century BC) a non-Greek population named by Greeks as Pelasgians and Tyrrhenians (Tyrrhenians is same as Greek name for Etruscans in Italy). According to Thucydides, Tyrrhenians were part of wider Pelasgian nation and they were living in 5th century BC in northern Aegean island of Lemnos as well in parts of large peninsula of Khalkidike (with three fingers) in region where today city Thessaloniki is. According to Herodotus language of Pelasgians was non-Greek (he based his conclusion on the language of Pelasgoi which lived in his time in a few cities in Propontis: Kizikos, Plakia, Skilakos). And from the stele of island Lemnos, we know what was the language of Pelasgians/Tyrrhenians of Lemnos. I wrote more about this in other comment ... And as a conclusion: everything what we know from ancient Greek writers of 5th century BC about Pelasgians and Tyrrhenians in Aegean area, what we know about the language of stela of Lemnos and about Etruscan language, it seems that Etruscan is closely related with one of pre-Greek language or with group of languages which were spoken in Aegean islands and also in parts of continental Greece. As we can see from the testimony by Herodotus and Thucydides, as well from Lemnos stela, it survived till 5th century BC. Pelasgians before classical times were mentioned in Thessalia (Pelasgiotis), in Dodona in Epirus (mentioned by Hesiod) which is not so far from Thessalia, and in Odyssey are mentioned "divine Pelasgians" of Crete, next to Eteocretans. Herodotus' point of view was that Greeks (Hellenoi) of his time were made as a people by mixing with Pelasgians (especially the inhabitants on islands).
really interesting question in regards to the different areas/times where the substrate influence occurred, especially with the idea of a very anicent ~NEast Caucasian influence and later influence between PIE-NW Caucasian coming possibly from an intermediate language; but seems odd that they're not considering the idea that the influence could come from Early European Farmers speaking related Caucasian-like languages. I've seen the shared word for sheep between Germanic and NWC used as evidence for an EEF/LBK substrate on specifically Germanic or maybe broadly on the NW 'core' of Beaker-like IE languages
FAKE NEWS
The field of historical linguistics needs more research in several important areas. We need better theories and scientific principles to understand patterns in contact-induced syntactic typology and phonology. We also need a comprehensive theory of how contact affects morphological changes and their typological implications. The work by Kaufman and Thomason on contact-induced language change is foundational but needs further development. We should integrate more precise methods for identifying and analyzing these changes and explore the broader socio-historical contexts that enable them. This will help us understand better how languages evolve through contact. By addressing these key tasks, we can unravel with greater confidence how languages are interlinked by their communities of speakers and how these communities interact with other groups. This work can be enriched with archaeology, socio-economic and forensic evidence about relationships within and between communities, and archeogenetics by analyzing DNA. We can then understand how Basque has Egyptian loan words and how PIE interrelates with NW Caucasian, PU, PA, how to understand, for example "transeurasiatic", ablaut in P-Kartvelian and PIE, socio-historical processes that allow for Wanderworts: Seven, Wine, taxi. AI could also be useful for aggregating linguistic evidence into a theory that concords with that extensive body of evidence.
I'm going to revisit Kaufman and Thomason's work, but I agree completely that it is an intriguing area of future research. I tend to prefer seeing language contact as the reason behind similarities between languages instead of automatically lumping them into a language family-until the evidence proves otherwise, at least.
I'm wondering - the words you give from. Matosevic's are all agricultural style words, goat, wool, grain, flour, horse are these like Potato and Train, loan words that came with the innovation ?? .Also - Kurdish in an ergative Indo-European language, but it exists in the same geographical area as ergative non-IndoEuropean Hurrian. I'm wondering if ergativity isn't base Proto-IndoEuropean, but a Caucasian element to the cocktail, and some languages got more dollops of Caucasian at more times than others? And if you opt for the Anatolian pre-proto-IndoEuropean theory, could there have been a first period of two way influence very early in Anatolia, then a second in the Yamnaya era in the steppe??
It does indeed appear to be a Caucasian cocktail ingredient and I would also say that it is highly likely that different IE dialects gathered differing amounts of Caucasian substrate influence. If I understand some of the recent genetic evidence, it appears Anatolian may have first entered Anatolia from the east (so south Caucasus) which actually makes sense because despite what many linguists say, there is good evidence that the first Anatolian people names are recorded in the east (Ebla to be precise). Kloekhorst wrote a paper a while back identifying Indo-Uralic traits still preserved in Hittite but lost in other IE branches. I know Indo-Uralic is still hotly debated but I'd like to see research output analysing (north) Caucasian traits in Hittite. We've seen papers of the ergative alignment in Hittite but what else is there?
Ergativity in transitive past verbs in Iranic languages like Kurdish, Middle Persian, Pashto, Taleshi, etc. can be safely seen to arise from an innovative 'passive-agential' construction which makes use of the Old Iranic past participle.This past participle is then (typically) reanalysed as a perfective/preterite stem. In other words, ergativity in this branch is not an inherited feature from either Proto-(Indo-)Iranic or PIE, but rather a later, branch-internal development. The same can be said for Indic, which too develops entirely independently its own ergative construction. Moreover, Hurrian was last spoken in a time and place wherein we have no solid grounds for assuming the presence of an identifiably 'Kurdish' people, let alone on the presence of a language which could be said on comparativistic grounds to belong to the same clade which is conventionally termed Kurdish today. Even if there were some contact between an urkurdisches Volk and the Hurrians, there is simply no need for a substrate/adstrate to explain the emergence of ergativity as mentioned above.
@@jacksonpowers yeah but there is also the idea that early OIA had some form of ergativity which was lost and this is independent of the later system evolving from MIA. Stronski and Dahl go over it in their book; 'Indo-Aryan Ergativity in Typological and Diachronic Perspective'. Journal 'The New Scholar" also had some evidence from 2023 that Indo-Aryan ergative arose from Caucasian contacts. I can't remember the detail. If I find it I can link it later
As a student of Kartvel and Adyghe, as well as Basque, Arabic and a handful of IE tongues, I know that loanwords do not require direct contact, even taking centuries to be transmitted. Eg, Persian Khane, room, is found ftom the Balkans through to the Malay Archipelago. ( balcony, han, &c) Fascinating stuff, i have been so for two thirds of a century
Fascinating indeed! and an interesting collection of languages of which you are a student, I salute you! Greetings.
@@LearnHittite many thanks
Of course, neighbours
I thought I remembered a hypothetical intermediate population having been surprisingly detected in the new genetic papers. Seems like a lot of the pieces of the puzzle from different lines of evidence are fitting.
Also, if I remember correctly, the Maikop culture eventually developed Kurgan-like burials. I don’t remember if they pre or post-date the first IE kurgans but it’s safe to say that the elites of both cultures were part of a dynamic cultural zone with likely exchanges in both directions.
I have seen the film "Illyricum" . And I have privilege to know prof. Ranko Matasović from days when I was a student of History and Slavistics at University of Zagreb. Also, I have a copy of book "Ancient languages of the Balkans" by prof. Radoslav Katičić. My final thesis at the History department was about origin of Etruscans. About Illyrian language.... Roman writers were making distinctions between "Illyrii propriae dicti" and other nations of "Illyricum" in wider sense, placing "Illyrii propriae dicti" in area of mostly modern Montenegro (Crna Gora = Black Mountain) and to the southernmost part of modern Croatia, making the river Neretva as most northern border of their influence; and to the south only small part of north of modern Albania. Why was that so, and why Romans didn't consider entire area of modern Albania as "Illyricum in sensu stricto", I dont know. It could be that Romans named as "Illyricum propriae dicti" exclusively only that area where specific "Illyrian kingdom" as dynastic tribal state was developed. Romans have entered into conflict with Illyrian kingdom during the 3rd and 2nd century BC, especially because of Illyrian piracy on Adriatic. Namely, illyrians were attacking and plundering ships belonging to the Greek colonies as, for example, those of Issa (modern day island Vis). An arrogant answer received from Illyrian queen Teuta and especially the killing of official Roman envoys were the cause of the war in 229/228 BC. Not only that: after the initial defeat by Romans, Illyrian kingdom started to making anti-Roman alliance with Macedonians during the Second Punic war (218-201), when Hannibal of Carthage had his campaign in Italy (Hannibal ante portas!). This was the cause of final destruction of "Illyrian kingdom"; Ardieii, the leading tribe was resettled from coast and forced to interior. Although, Greeks were using name Illyris for area of modern Albania. It was tribal region with: Penestai living in north (to the east of Penestae nation), and the Taulanti were inhabitants closer to the sea coast, where Greek Doric colonies Epidamnos (Dyrrhachium, modern Albanian city Durres, in Slavic: Drač) and Apollonia were established; to the south of Taulanti were Parauaei and Chaones, already nations belonging to the ancient Epirus, although today in southern Albania.In Greek writers we can read the story how Illyrians attacked city Phoenice in territory of Chaones (in vicinity of island Corcyra /Corfu). In Greek mythology hero Kadmos and his wife Harmonia settled among Chaones. However, we dont know nothing about language of Dalmatae, who were the strongest nation in area to the north of river Neretva; they fought many wars against Romans from 2nd century BC till the last, Batonic war in years 6 to 9 AD.The province of Dalmatia was named after them. And Roman colonia Salonae (at location of modern town Solin) near city Split, was the capital of province Dalmatia. From the river Krka, the northern neighbours of Dalmatae were nation of Liburni in area where today is city Zadar (in antiquity known as Iadera and Diadora). Liburnians also hold all the islands between Zadar and peninsula of Istria. In ancient times, before 6th century BC, Liburni were known to Greeks as a skilful seamen. The only word known from Liburnian language is "Anzotica", the name of Venus/Aphrodita . In film Illyricum that name is mentioned. It is possible that words in Croatian and Serbian language: kiša (rain) and vatra (fire) have pre-Slavic origin, because other Slavic languages for "fire" have "ogień" , ogon, ogan and similar (in Croatian language also exists word "oganj" (archaic), in Kaikavian dialect: ogenj; and rain (in Croatian: kiša) in other Slavic languages is mostly as in Polish: "deszcz" (dešč/dežđ also in Kaikavian and in Slovenian) or archaism "dažd" in shtokavian ... Some linguists consider word "vatra" as derivation from Latin "atrium" with typical prothetic Slavic voice /v/; that word is attested also in Albanian and in Romanian language and what is especially interesting in language of people Lemki (Ruthenians, subdivision of Ukrainians, historical inhabitants of Carpathian mountain region on todays border between Poland and Ukraina); so called "Lemkivske vatri" manifestation (search in internet) ... As it seems, word "vatra" in Romanian has meaning not of fire as it is, but of "fireplace". Intriguing is that in ancient Iranian language of Avesta exists word "athar"; with typical Slavic prothesis /v/ + athar, this could be also source for word "vatra". Also interesting is that in Albanian language is word "mir" meaning "good"; in South Slavic and in Ukrainian "mir" means "peace", and in Russian can also have meaning "world". It would be good thing to compare the lexic (vocabulary) of Slavic languages and of Albanian language and to see all possible borrowed words.
Is there a side-by-side comparison of the proposals tying Indo-European and/or Indo-Uralic with Euskarian, pre-Greek, Northwest Caucasian, Northeast Caucasian, Burushaski, Turkic, Mongolic, etc.? Also, since you are familiar with ittite and the other Anatolian languages, do you have an opinion of the various theories identifying Etruscan as an Anatolian or other Indo-European language?
The closest you will find is Greenberg's work on Eurasiatic or output from Nostraticists. Euskarian would be more difficult, as it is not often considered to be related to PIE (Blevins being the exception, of course). As far as I am aware, no meta-analysis reviews all the proposals you mentioned. 'The Handbook of Comparative and Historical Indo-European Linguistics' dedicates a few paragraphs to it, but most proposals are just brushed away. 'Language Classification' by Campbell and Poser (2008) briefly looks at some of the macrofamily proposals. Maybe something exists out there, but I am unaware of it. Regarding Etruscan as an Anatolian language, it is difficult to say. Some of the evidence is intriguing (similar case endings, if I remember correctly), but it is hard to determine if any of these features are ancient. Kloekhorst, one of the biggest names in Anatolian studies, published a paper a while back where he suggested Troy was Etruscan-speaking (see "The Language of Troy," Kloekhorst, 2012). I don't agree with everything Kloekhorst says, but he's one of the best in Anatolian studies, so his connection shouldn't be ignored.
This could be the greatest discovery in the filed. Knowing what made the PIE the way it sounded and was like.
I think those cognates look very good and I'm intrigued by the barley word. There are so many unanswered questions about IE agricultural words and their distribution.
It caught my eye too!
Indo Uralic is pure fantasy imo. Not only Uralic languages are grammatically extremely different they don't even originate in Europe. They originated in Siberia.
Well, Germanic languages originate in Europe, and Indic languages originate in India.
@@Langwigcfijul Proto Uralic sample from Siberia has 0% European ancestry. If Uralic went from west to east to then to west that would've been tracable with DNA but that's not the case.
@@merttuncer1788 But that's not what you said. You used the argument of the distance between the places the different language families originated.
@@merttuncer1788This seems to be the problem for me as well. Indo-Uralic makes sense if both fundamentally derive from ANE populations. But now genetics point to Uralic potentially fundamentally closer to Northeast Asian languages?? In that sense then maybe any similarity is simply contact derived just like Caucasian, and that only IE is genetically ANE derived.
@@Langwigcfijul Otiginated? Developed
A different reconstruction of the stop system would change the reconstruction between for example greek and germanic to PIE considerably.
But how so? the correspondances would be the same.
@@sylvien2599 I meant "how much" each languages changed from the common proto-language.
4:01 As a Danish speaker I noticed that article mentions Uralic-Altaic. He says Uralic-Altaic is seen as being most likely true though it hasn't been proven yet. This is so based.
My vote goes to "Caucated" instead of Caucasianized
Like it, far easier to say!
Cauced
It’s true, I’m Caucasion, Ingush, Galgha
Welcome!
Was beatin bout the bushes in that chat on the top right... so, now gotta watch it again from its very beginning. Thanks for the topic of today!
Thanks for your valuable input in the chat and as always, thanks for your support
Thank you for your bold scientific efforts, Braj! :)
Lovely!
Thanks as always for your support!
wool<>woolens ~ yok<>yakwe? I tried swapping the first two in the example in another of your videos. My mind goes to 'data' (vs clunky 'datum') Good luck! And Thanks! (for now)
Thanks for your support!
It wouldn't surprise me if there indeed were older families consisting of currently reconstructed proto-languages and that most of the world's languages could be traced to a few events where language emerged. I'm not so sure it can be traced to just one Proto-Human language, but would argue that there was a pre-language era of emotive communication and a language era of our current mode of communication where language emerged I dependently in a few places. Indo-Uralic and Nostratic have been rather interesting to study, although I've never given it that much time since it's not relevant to my interests or goals, only time will tell if we're able to reconstruct such ancient proto-languages or if it all becomes lost in the statistical noise. One problem is that as you travel further back in human linguistic history the potential vocabulary shrinks dramatically making reconstruction harder and harder, maybe even to a point where word classes become close to meaningless and the vocabular consists primarily of morphemes that later become grammatical suffixes and particles. Who knows, but it can be a damn interesting "waste" of time!
It's actually a really good point about the shrinking vocabulary the further you go back in time. Thanks for your comment!
Babe wake up new language just dropped.
Croats, Montenegrians, Bosnians and Serbs are Ilirian descendants.
such tenuous links. they want there to be a ubiquitous proto language but the fact is that there is no real evidence, if there were a link it's lost to time and will never be recovered. cosmopolitan daydreamers proposing stuff like this and altaic get in the way of historical linguistics.
As in Ŋan? ( Ngan) I love it when exoerts can't wrap their tongues around foreign orthographies. Hitz, word, hitz egin, speak. Northern Basque has ph, th, kh, aspirated stops. I would be more interested in comparing PIE with PNWC, its close neighbour
If you'd like to check it out, I've done a video on proto-pontic and in the next few days a part two will be released on the Caucasian substrate hypothesis.
In kurdish karš meaninin cutting Wood or moods
Kurdish kaš or kat cut English
Fascinating
I subscribed.
Thanks for your support