speaking of indo-iranian languages being closest to balto-slavic languages, I was quite surprised learning Sanskrit and finding out how many words in this language are similar, or even identic to modern russian words. also some latin words are pretty similar, both in declension or conjugation and its pronunciation.
@@osasunaitorit's a late version but a well preserved late version what was basic names of regular plants or objects in IE in Sanskrit is already deified and sacralised like in Slavic Perun Piorun just means the thrusting one and subsequently a thunderbolt it's like with evolution of Gobekli tepe from random people without any deeper ideas to invention of own cult and religious ideas or like with Asur first just a city name next a name of a deity
@@szymonbaranowski8184 Correction : In the Early Rigvedic period, when there were fewer tribal clashes, we constantly find the addressing of Devas and “asuras”. Asura is almost used as another name for Deva, in the sense of “lively” or “spiritual”. (from asu = spirit) A whole sukta/poem in Rigveda has the refrain *“mahat devAnAm asura tvam ekam”*- *“Great is the single spiritual quality of devas”.* Thus, in the Early Rigvedic period where Deva and Asura words are used to describe the same mighty divinities, almost all the important deva concepts in Vedas like Agni, Indra, Varuna, Mitra, Ashvins are praised as Asuras in Vedas.
@@bvshenoy7259very true, in fact the chief Zoroastrian god is Ahura Mazda in Sanskrit it’s Asura Medha or a brilliant asura. Today if you call yourself an Asura people will be scared of you think you a potential cannibal. Bronze Age we had only open land to travel where we met other culture and civilisation. The onset of Iron Age we saw the Vedic people gradually during Epic Mahabharata entering the dense forest cutting them and clearing for agriculture needs. Here is when we encountered the asuras or cannibals. The most prominent one being Bakasura.
With respect to the point that Indo-Anatolians didn't have Steppe-related ancestry, it turns out that they actually had. A recent study from April this year called "the Genetic Origin of the Indo-Europeans" by the Indo-European expert Lazaridis et al. found Indo-Anatolian samples with Steppe-related ancestry. At this point, it has pretty much been proved that the Yamnaya/Stredny Stog were Proto-Indo-European speakers.
Correct. As it turns out, the entire Eastern Mediterranean has Indo-European dna. A paper came out recently saying the Levant (mostly Lebanon and Syria) has had Eurasian Steppe genetic influence since the early Iron Age. Interesting stuff.
@@annaclarafenyo8185 why fascist? It is my belief that the Indo-Anatolians came through the south, by the southern shore of the Caucasus. It split in the Caucasus, with the Anatolians remaining there, and moving west, and the Indo-Europeans crossing the Caucasus and settling on the steppes.
many years ago, ive seen versions explaining the anatolian discrepancy by simply having them split much earlier than the spread of the yamnayans. Which in hindsight is kinda strange but I thought it was interesting
Excellent! The “retention” of laryngeals in Anatolian further indicates the Anatolian hypothesis. I too daydream about Proto-Human. Best of luck with your ultimate tree!
Mongolians have a whole culture around milk and dairy products, even making alcoholic beverages out of horse milk, yet most of them are lactose-intolerant. This means that lactose-tolerance is not a vital ingredient for a dairy based culture, since most processed dairy products like cheese, yoghurt, butter etc. don't contain lactose anymore.
Your channel and your quest to find "your holy grail of languages" is very interesting, so I am subscribing to your channel. One suggestion: Gabby needs to be demoted for not keeping up to "Executive Assistant" standards. But that is entirely up to you, of course. ;-)
It depends. They adopted some things but others they shamelessly copied like the entire Greek mythology for example just altering the names in it Herakles to Hercules etc..
Indra is by no means the supreme god in Brahmanism / Hinduism - That would be Shiv or Wisnu, depending on who you ask, or maybe Durga. Indra is king of the Devas, or the lesser gods.
@@whats-ur-problem Leftist term to somehow portray the Brahmins as evil priests who subjugated the other Indians with their religion 😂. They have been trying to do this for last 200 years, haven't succeed beyond Leftist college campuses.
I look forward to the Language Family Tree you talked about at the end! I LOVE that kind of stuff and would make that myself if I knew how to make it with a computer. I'd love to help you with it somehow!
Those tables of cognate words … When you study them carefully you quite often manage to spot one or two false friends. For example the Swedish word for beaver, is a loanword (due to trade with beaver fur), and should therefore not be in the list. The vernacular word, that should be in the list, is (appearing in proper names like “beaver island”).
It's quite the same in the French version of that line, bièvre is REALLY old-timey. Now, we use mostly "castor", coming from Old Greek meaning "bright fur"
Indo-europianist luinguist bias: "we does not f-ing care if it's a loan word as long as it's in a IE language" (the same linguists who made-up the h1, h2, h3 system to make more cognates and then say "yeah they are not exists in any languages anymore but trust be bro they where there") And my favourite is that they would mark any word from a non-indo-european languages as a loan from an IE language just because they can find a related word in an IE language. My favourite example of this is Hugnarian "tarsoly" (note that "rs" sounds like "rsh" and "ly" is like y in yes) which linguists claim to be borrowed from german "Täschel", which in reality either a coincident or the germans borrowed it from Hungarian since the german word is more simplified phonetically than the Hungarian one and it makes more sense that the "r" was dropped when germans borrowed it and the "ly" was misunderstood as a kind of "L" by the germans than "r" randomly showing up in the word while being borrowed by Hungarian. So yeah, IE linguistics is just a big pile of bullcrap and bias.
@@tovarishchfeixiao Perhaps the term Indo-European should be altered. If these languages derive from Northern Mesopotamia, Anatolia or Armenia, then they are Asian. The term was coined by nineteenth-Century racists. I am not sure if bias is currently the issue amongst scholars. If these languages expanded outward from a point along "silk road" Steppe trade through Central Asia. scholars make assumptions based on the probability of such expansive trade networks influencing cognates, not some Europeans somewhere are the inventors of language.
@@jasoncuculo7035 The name itself obviously comes from the idea of the languages of the family being native to Europe and India. But my point was that they're very biased about what related to what and in what ways to the level wher ethey would create new non-existent sounds to make relation and falsely categorize some words from other families's languages. Not to mention how they discredited certain family theories with the same/similar things that they used as a proof for their indo-european family theory's validness.
One should be aware that linguistic and genetic identities do not necessarily coincide , and common people tend to misunderstand that important fact , not all Indo-european speakers are genetically Aryan , not every Turkic Speaker is genetically Turkic .....
But also, just because two countries might seem very different because they speak different languages, doesn't mean they don't have many similarities, given their historical relationship. Many people from West Asia (especially Turkey and the Levant) are very similar in culture to Europeans and vice-a-versa, and this has to do with their long history of back and forth migrations, settling and trading.
Go girl!! Keep posting amazing content... you're saving yours and our time... good luck with German... I'm on my way with Finnish and Italian right now...🎉🎉🎉🎉
@@jimbucket2996 Ah, beautiful. Thank you. This pertains to the research I’m doing on my end about language evolution in the Cognitive Linguistics framework, so I’m excited to see what developments are showing up in the IE community.
The extent of the *Indo-European spread* is a fascinating topic. What surprises many people is the recent find that *Levantines* (in addition to Anatolians/modern Turks) also have Indo-European DNA. According to a study by Haber et al from 2017, Lebanese people have up to 22% Steppe-related (Indo-European) ancestry. It may have been from the Sea Peoples, we don't really know. But it is interesting.
Great video!💥🔥❤️ I hope we find more about the roots of our languages soon. Perhaps it may make make the world in peace and unity somehow درود از ایران!💚🤍❤️
Seeing how recent written language is compared to spoken, it's an almost impossible task to go even further back.. The reconstructed Proto Indo European language itself relies on so many assumptions that's it's hard to use it as the basis to reconstruct even older languages.
Modern humans are about 70,000 years so. And the beginning of human civilization, which would require a more evolved language, are about 15,000 to 20,,000 years old. We have a very good understanding about the history of our species for only about 3,000 years in the past. Right now we're working on the history going back to about 7,000 to 10,000 years. But that still leaves a lot of history that we know nothing of, and may never know.
I think we should draw a parallel with human evolution. For a very long time people thought of human evolution as a tree, with branches thriving and others dying out. However, we know now that in fact branches did cross each other back and that the idea that there would be a «pure» human branch that would have led to us was wrong. We know that we mixed with Neanderthals in the past, but also with other archaic human form. The evolution was in a constant flux of mixing genes over long stretches of time and distance. Groups would marry with neighboring groups all around Africa, Europe and Asia... _De proche en proche_ . I guess languages are no exception. People travelled much more in the past that we give them credit for, and each would mix with larger groups, bringing their own languages, words or grammars that would influence to a certain degree the local group. I think of languages as a oil stain on a fabric that slowly spreads through out the whole of the textile. I'm not sure if the tree image is still the most valid one.
I'm very grateful that through your efforts I lean more and more about my personal and cultural and linguistical endless contexts, that nevertheless assigns a place to phenomenons that so far were "random" in my mind. This adds meaning to my life. Thanks a lot and please go on with the beautiful work!
I think all three of them are wrong. Earliest artifacts we could find don't mean at all those developments happened in that time rather they could happen much earlier. For example there are dog and human bones found together from around 6 to 10,000 years ago in Spain, Arabian peninsula and Altai mountain range. It suggest we were already domesticating animals in all over the world. So the theory Indo-Europeans were advanced so their culture could spread doesn't make sense. I think it wasn't uncommon there were wars and people getting displaced back then too. And Indo-Europeans were forcefully spread around. The oldest Turkic saga ever recorded tells that Turks were driven away by a superior force and a dire-wolf guided them into a safe valley in Altai mountains. They hid in there for decades if not centuries until they recovered back and raise an army to defeat their enemies. I think such wars and mass migration of people was very common, it also explains how exactly there is no connection between Turkic and Indo-European languages simply because Turks weren't living in central Asia back then. It also explains how exactly Japanese and Turkic languages have exactly same grammar but share so little vocabulary. Only God knows when Japanese branch was separated from the rest of family, it could be 5,000 years ago or even earlier..
We often hear that the Indo-European peoples were the invaders of prehistoric Europe and would have spread their civilization by defeating and subjugating the previous local populations. But what is true in this idea? the recent discoveries of archeology and linguistics have profoundly modified this vision to give way to a much more complex and stratified reading of our prehistory, in which there are actually no peoples or a single Indo-European people but there were different cultures that adopted and they used Indo-European languages and hybridized with each other. 🇮🇹ruclips.net/user/live7awwwlkiI6I?si=_DQVrcm191RoDx--
4 месяца назад
If what you said was true the R1B and R1A Y haplogroups wouldn't have been so common today. Those haplogroups show that in alot of cases the males of those ancient Europeans were either cucked or killed.
7:02 it would be 'sun' in English rather than 'son'. Also, greek does have the word ύδωρ for water as well as νερό, nd ύδωρ is the same root as the others.
While the science in this video is accurate, when talking about this topic, it is important to explain the Germanic Indo-European mythology developed in the 19th century. Because Germanic people were not present at the dawn of civilization, Germanic supremacists decided that the Indo-European language family meant that ancient Germans conquered the whole world before the development of writing. They then decided to write themselves into all parts of ancient history by myth-making. This ridiculous story is still sometimes sold by far-right extremists all over Europe and the US.
@@mapache-ehcapam The Indo-European language family used to be called "Aryan", and was the source of the fascist mythology. It has nothing to do with the actual science of the language family itself, just with 19th century fantasy of some Germanic supremacists like Nietzsche and Vicheroy.
@@mapache-ehcapam The Proto-Indo-European language used to be called "Aryan", just FYI, and the speakers were called "Aryans" in the 19th century. It got a name-change after WWII.
@@mapache-ehcapam German supremacists in the 19th century, like Nietzche and Vicheroy imagined that Proto-Indo-European speakers were ancient blond-headed supermen, and said so. This is the origin of the fascist mythos.
@truegemuese I am not saying anyone in the video is making nonsense claims, but the fascist myth needs to be acknowledged and debunked, because it is still there, lurking underneath the surface if you poke a little. It's complete nonsense, but it needs to be talked about and exposed as nonsense.
Any migration from STEPPE or ANATOLIA would pass through MESOPOTAMIA . One must find a few words of SUMERIAN origin . There is NOT A SINGLE word in SANSKRIT from Sumerian . But , Ancient European languages had several such words . Words like Tablet , Table , Canal , Chanal are of Sumerian origin . The direction of migration was from the East to the West .
If the Anatolian theory is true, then the old Neolithics used already an Indo-European language. So, when Steppe-people came in, they didn't put their own Steppe-Indo-European language at all to the old Europeans (that's the Steppe-theory!) but maybe mixed it or took over the related local languages. That means that elder languages like Basque (or Etruscan) could be descendants of the original European hunter gatherers! Actually I'm still distrustfull about it. But history shows that most kingdom-languages didn't convert the people, like Visigoths in Spain, Langobards in Northern Italy, french-speaking Normans in Britain, Bulgarian Turks in Bulgary, Greek in any other Hellenic conquered country.
The most important factor governing whether conquerors kept their own language or switched within a generation to the language of the subjugated seems often to have been - did they bring women or did the find mates from among the locals? Children learn their first language more readily from mothers than form fathers.
Love your videos and deep linguistic travels, plus your ambition. How amazing would that be to have a language tree for all languages - the most unifying foundation for all humanity!
In nigerian yoruba a lot of basic vocabulary is the same as indo european. A lot of these words are much older than from central asian people. Also we have a sky god and pantheon of the same gods
@@TrueNativeScot in Northern Nigeria (north of Yoruba) the Hausa often carry have R1b y-haplogroup, which is very rare elsewhere in Africa incl. North Africa, but common in parts of Europe and Asia (different sub-clades), it's thought that same pastoralist from middle-east must have crossed the Sahara thousands of years ago and mix with the locals
@@pavelandel1538 That R1b did not come from Indo-Europeans but from a population of Western Hunter-Gatherers. A population which was completely genetically diluted with the exception of the yDNA. I'd be surprised if they left a single impact on anything cultural. In no way can it be used to suggest any relation with Indo-European culture to an african one, the gulf between the two is extremely vast
@@TrueNativeScotThe basal similarities stem from something; be it from shared contact or a thermodynamic predisposition for it. It's possible that most cultures have a myth about a great flood because sometimes it rains a lot... but it's also possible that the flood story is a shared memory of a singular time it rained a whole lot. For something less common than rain you might see evidence for shared history.
Oh Boy, the WHITE Supremacists are not gonna be happy when they find out how they are also related to the Indian Pajeets they make fun off. Btw, the world ARYAN is a Sanskrit word, Yes an Indian language. You will find kids named Aryan in India, it is a common household name.
I noticed that too and it's cringe AF. It's starting to piss me off. I learn a lot from Hindu history and teachings and seeing ppl try to steal from this culture that literally EVERYONE, including me at some point ruthlessly mocked. Most of them still do yet try to claim India Hinduism Sanskrit and so. Not to mention live anime of all things. If only weebs knew Naruto and Goku's daddies
Recently, an article called "GENETIC ORIGIN OF INDO EUROPEANS" was published which shows us that based on the new data, Steppe DNA and Kurgan were also found in Anatolia, and this further strengthens the Steppe theory.
The steppes are a long area at the same latitude, that increases the chances for PIE to develop there. Same reason why Africa was the destined place for the creation of Humans.
Please stop saying "Spain" in this context because you're ignoring Portugal, where Celtic languages were also spoken and much more than in the current country of Spain. It would be better and more accurate if you said "Iberian Peninsula".
India is the only country that preserves the original Indo European culture. Upper castes of India still look 70% like the Arya people who entered India and who were pretty close in looks to the Yamanaya. Olive to whitish skinned, brownish eyes and light black hair with a narrow docilophelic face structure and high lactose tolerance. Only Indians still consume milk inside coffee and tea. Yamanaya branch in Europe got corrupted a lot by the Siberian origin blue eyed and blonde haired people. These people are no way Indo European or Yamanaya in race. And since they were most dominating, the original Indo European and Yamanaya race in Europe got totally diminished thats why even Semitic religion like christianity is followed and the original pagan religion of the Indo Europeans totally destroyed. Only remnants of the Indo European language remain since these were adopted in Europe. While in India, the migrating Indo Iranian branch of the original Yamanaya were able to assert their cultural and religious and linguistic hegemony over the natives, the original Indo European polytheistic religion is still maintained despite lot of corruption by native Australoids.
@@don2006ka lmao 😂 Indo Europeans had tons of Siberian aka Ancient North Eurasian ancestry IEs were a mix of Caucasian/Iranian hunter gatherer + Eastern European Hunter gatherer = Yamnaya. Yamnaya had genes for blue eyes and blonde hair but in lower frequency. Indians are not much steppe cause of AASI.
@@BinitBhushanDas you must be a kalua to mention aasi. which afro gene found in Indian upper caste huh? There was no blonde and blue eyed characteristics at all in the Indo Iranians who are ancestors of the Indo Aryans. Stop being a colonial slave and believing racist europoid theories who can't bear the fact that great culture was formed in India by people who had nothing to do with Europe. Europeans are products of late bronze to iron age Siberians who migrated to North and Northwest Europe and adopted the highly developed Indo European languages when the settled down. Arya people had nothing to do with blonde and blue eyed and were brown eyed with light olive skin like majority upper caste people even today after 4000 years from when they first came to India.
@@don2006ka having blondism and light eyes don't have to do anything with European but being West Eurasian/Caucasoid. Many Mesolithic and Neolithic W.Eurasiam groups had genes for blondism and light eyes in lower frequency.
This is awesome! American Heritage Dictionary has a couple articles on Indo-European and a fascinating appendix of reconstructed I-E roots but I was hoping there was more current research. And here you are! Thank you!
Next episode, please describe about Arabic language. Arabs and European have interacted with each other for centuries but they speak different language families. So strange!
Oh Boy, the WHITE Supremacists are not gonna be happy when they find out how they are also related to the Indian Pajeets they make fun off. Btw, the world ARYAN is a Sanskrit word, Yes an Indian language. You will find kids named Aryan in India, it is a common household name.
Rather than saying Indo-European was invented and spread by the “Yamnaya culture” isn’t it clear from your maps that it was spread by the Silk Road and/or the Fertile Crescent - in other words by trade routes. The distinction is important as the former implies a single ancestral race, whereas the latter suggests Indo-European patterns just emerged from the efforts of multiple people to participate along those routes. “Indo European languages” therefore - today and yesterday - have features inherited from other ancestral languages as well. If all “Indo-European languages” had one ancestor there is no convincing way to explain why so many mutually unintelligible languages arose from it. But if you admit that all languages have *multiple ancestors* it is exactly what you would expect. Therefore, as I’ve said before, a single “proto IE language” from a single place or time has to be a myth. Your Yamnaya empire theory is unsound for similar reasons. Cultural similarities over a wide area are not evidence of a master race but of widespread trade and commerce. Of course it is associated with horses and carriages! They were needed by everyone travelling it. Lastly you speculate about the “first language” 40 thousand years ago - but by the same logic there never was a “first language”! All languages are worked out by people with initially different linguistic habits in their striving to understand each other. It constantly evolves and changes as new people encounter each other. It has never been static and therefore, again, there are NO “proto languages” only perpetual change.
"If all 'Indo-European languages' had one ancestor there is no convincing way to explain why so many mutually unintelligible languages arose from it" This is a false statement. Romanian and Portuguese are not mutually intelligible, and they both came from Latin, which is fairly recent. It is perfectly understandable how a single ancestor language spoken 6 millennia ago could split into multiple, mutually unintelligible descendants. This has nothing to do with a "master race", and your description of languages simply does not accord with how linguists have observed language evolution. It is definitely possible that there was never any single "first language", and it is roughly true that language has never been static, but a lot of other things in your comment are nonsensical.
@@sparshjohri1109My first degree was in behavioural psychology including linguistics and from that perspective it is clear that the sensible way to study language evolution is to observe it directly in the present using objective techniques. That isn't where the notion of a "proto indo european" language came from - it arose from 19th and 20th century nationalism. The desire for there to be a pure ancestral language is just an echo of the desire for a pure ancestral Aryan race. In the real world of the present, people generally do not behave tribally, do not identify tribally and do not choose their language tribally. On the contrary, they are hungry for a common language through which to garner information, education, trade and opportunity. So another thing they do not do is to change their language for no good reason. Only when they encounter *others* do they start working out a new pidgin or dialect in order to communicate. We can easily observe this in both individual encounters and on the wider social level. The world being large (and the Silk Road long) variations creep in - but very little is because of Chinese Whispers or random vowel mutations. Instead language shifts largely reflect new social encounters. Instead of studying a wholly conjectural "proto indo european" just observe living languages directy; English for example has a grammar resembling Norse, phonetics resembling Celtic and a vocabulary that is predominantly French. It clearly has multiple ancestors not one. It is spoken by millions of people all over the world - so it is not tribal in any sense - you cannot tell anybody's ethnicity from the language they adopt. It belongs to no one. And last but not least - it is perpetually evolving. Nobody in England now speaks like the actors in movies from the 1950s. By extension - there never could have been a "golden age" when some racially pure ethnic group spoke an "original" pure "Indo European". There never have been any "original" languages (just as there are no original races) only unending language recombination.
@@kubhlaikhan2015 "It (English) clearly has multiple ancestors not one." Nope. English is descended from Proto-West-Germanic, with loanwords from Norse and French (and a lot of other languages, including some elements from Celtic languages, such as the special uses of the verb "do"). You clearly don't understand how ancestry works. There is a distinction between a language adopting loanwords from other languages and a language sharing a genetic relationship with an earlier form. Languages do adopt loanwords (Albanian has adopted a staggering amount). But again, so many of your claims are ludicrous that something must have gone wrong in your education if you believe these things about linguistics. Obviously English is perpetually evolving. Obviously, older languages are not "pure" or "original." Obviously language shift is not the same thing as ethnicity or genetic relatedness (as this video showed, people can switch to a different language for many reasons). Obviously pidgins have existed and turned into creoles. Obviously people don't change their languages for no reason. Obviously "there never could have been a "golden age" when some racially pure ethnic group spoke an 'original' pure 'Indo European.'" Duh! No linguist would dispute these things. These aren't controversial (or even novel) statements. No one is looking for the purity of older languages (unless they're cranks and/or fools). Old English is not better than modern English, and Proto-Indo-European is not "purer" than its descendants. Congratulations. Nobody worth listening to says these things now. But it is staggering that you can say in the same comment "variations creep in - but very little is because of Chinese Whispers or random vowel mutations" and "it is perpetually evolving. Nobody in England now speaks like the actors in movies from the 1950s"; these two things are literally contradictory. Denying the existence of phonological shifts and grammatical shifts is a wild take, and one that is clearly disproven by the fact that every single language in the world has undergone these changes (and is still undergoing these changing). Look at the way Latin and Sanskrit split into their respective descendant languages. Look at how English has changed from Old English to Modern English. Look at the predictable phonological changes that you can use to predict cognates in languages that share a historical ancestor. Middle English had about the same influence from French that we have now. Open up some Chaucer and then say that languages only change because of recombination. The assertion that languages only change because of loanwords and randomly combining elements of existing languages (which is the assertion that you have made in your comment, even if you haven't said it in so many words) is ridiculous. It's tantamount to saying "pidgins exist, and therefore every language is a pidgin," which is a ludicrous statement. "That isn't where the notion of a "proto indo european" language came from - it arose from 19th and 20th century nationalism." Ah yes. That's why modern scholars say that the Indo-European language family has stretched from the British Isles to the western borders of China. Because nationalism. It is definitely conducive to nationalist interests to say that the languages of India, Persia, Armenia, Russia, and Germany (to name a few disparate countries) share a common ancestor. Because that makes so much sense. That's why the Afro-Asiatic language family contains both Arabic and Hebrew (even though Jews and Muslims would consider themselves to be fairly distinct). That's why the Tai-Kadai languages and Mongolic languages are considered distinct from the Sino-Tibetan languages, even though they are all spoken in modern China. Because that makes so much sense. "In the real world of the present, people generally do not behave tribally, do not identify tribally and do not choose their language tribally." So this clearly means that humans have never (by and large) behaved tribally, identified tribally, or chosen their languages tribally. We should apply the same understanding to pre-historic humans that we have of modern humans in the age of the internet. Because that makes so much sense. As an aside, what are "Chinese whispers"? There is no phonological change with that name, so I am struggling to understand what you mean. We have lenition, assimilation, syncope, elision, etc. Those are real things. "Chinese whispers" are not. If you did study linguistics as part of your behavioral psychology degree, you clearly need to go back to university and try again (and maybe you should pay attention this time).
I am making a bold statement here Remember the name "Shrikant Talageri" his name will be famous in the field of linguistics especially in indoeuropean homeland case after approx 50yrs from now His out of india theory will be the most accepted theory as india becomes more prominent player in the world
Especially his book Avesta & Rigveda analysis which shows the relationships between rigvedic clans and iranian clans and their war for territory first in dasarajna war in harayana india and then varsagira battle in Afghanistan...
I love your videos so much! I would love a video about the Tamazight language from north Africa. Its script is so fascinating, yet people from this area themselves barely know anything about it!
There's another origin theory I hoped you'd touch upon. It's called the 'Out of India' theory. It suggests that Indo-Europeans originated from the Indian subcontinent. . Historically, the IE theory was taught to India by the British in the form of the racist Aryan Invasion Theory to diminish our achievements and tear us apart. It believed that Sanskrit, the basis of India's religion and philosophical knowledge and everybody who spoke it were light skinned invaders from outside. Implying that we were never capable of anything and always required the help of fair skinned Europeans. I think that's why the Out of India theory was born, and to it's credit, it has a good amount of evidence that backs it up. One of it biggest supports is that there is no archaeological evidence of an invasion or mass migration into the subcontinent from outside.
Proto-Indo-Europeans are not the same as Europeans. And not the same as light skinned Europeans either. India already had an advanced civilization (Indus Valley Civilization) before the arrival of Indo-Aryans. In fact the Indus Valley Civilization was more urban than the Vedic civilization. The but Vedic civilization was more philosophical.
I like how you apply critical analysis. However another perspective: Out-of-India theory. Some empirical reasons: -Hittite language invoking Indian gods during a truce with Egypt -Grammar begins in India where nouns, vocabulary, verbs, adverbs etc are all defined for first time through systematic rules via written works of Ashtadhyayi and Tolkappiyam -The systematic grammatic rules are still very relevant today as they form the backbone of all computer languages and natural language processing (NLPs) via the panini-backus form and generative grammar invented by Chomsky which is inspired by rules in Ashtadhyayi -Horses have been found in cave paintings in India like 20000 years ago vis-à-vis Bimbetka caves, along with horse burials in Sinauli, an IVC remmant -Indian culture have always venerated the cow and consumed its milk for various purposes. Cows are treated like pets in a house dogs are nowadays in the west. -Indians value the oral tradition and was extremely revered. People sent their kids for a lifetime to properly learn sanskrit and its enunciations. Thats why Sanskrit is still used ritualistically in the thousands of temples of India. Therefore not much is written down and when it was it was written down much later. -Also since India was colonized for so long, its native traditions were outlawed. Only in recent years indigenous research is being given importance and therefore its language history is quite under-researched. Just some "morphemes" for thought.
Nationalism is a hell of a drug, but this theory is not credible linguistically. And most of your points don't speak to the question at all. The Indian gods you mention -- yes, the Mitanni language shows evidence of an upper class that was heavily involved with horses and spoke a language of the Indic branch. That doesn't mean it came from India, it means all the other speakers of that branch moved to India. Where the study of grammar started has nothing to do with where one language family originated. The spread of cholera was first systematically studied in London, that doesn't mean it's the origin of the germ. Context-free grammars are used for most computer languages and other formulas for structuring information because the breadth of ways they can structure information is vast relative to the smarts it takes to parse them. They are a natural sweet spot that has been discovered over and over. Panini's grammar is one of the places they are used. But this has even less relevance to the IE language family than the study of grammar point did. And on and on. The Vedic recitation tradition that you mention actually works against the out-of-India concept. Vedic recitation shows patterns of accent that are a sibling of the patterns of accent in Greek and in Balto-Slavic, all derived from a shared ancestor. It does not show patterns of accent that you can derive the Greek and Balto-Slavic patterns from, unless you theorize that the Hellenic and Balto-Slavic branches stayed one language in their accentuation system for much longer than they stayed one language in the rest of their phonology and vocabulary. It isn't happening.
@@eritain Sure. Nice dismissal and bringing in 'nationalism' to shoot down all arguments. Please show me where its even possible via academia to relate the study of diseases with study of languages? Greeks have dialectical theory of 800 years of research before their practice of logic spread out to before Alexander's conquests. Its easy to say Panini this or that and "nothing to do with it" without really understanding nuances 2500 years later. Indians have had language research since antiquity and Sanskrit means 'perfected'. Not saying it started from there but saying all that evidence needs to be taken into account like in proper research. The same way decimal numbers spread from India to china and rest of the world while North Americans/europeans call it arabic numericals, Indians do not take credit nor they go around enforcing it. Research needs to account for that. Pattern of accents is sounds that can vary immensely even within a small island where those words are mutually unintelligible among its inhabitants. Sounds is not same as words and their history. Thats why certain places you get laryngeal and other tonal effects.
@@eritain "Nationalism is a hell of a drug, but this theory is not credible linguistically. And most of your points don't speak to the question at all." There is no point in discussion when you begin by with ad hominem labels and complete dismissal of an indigenous perspective. Its comforting to believe a fictitious language with absolutely 0 literary evidence just because the Victors tell the story; I get it, its a nice fairy tale. No time for this kabuki.
@@eritainVedic recitation match with balto slavic and or Greeks how does it reject out of India theory ? From both puranic ( post Vedic) and Vedic scriptures itself their is Various historical memory of Indian travelling near Russia and Eastern Europe
@@eritainavesta mentioned verethragna( Aryan hero ) conquered lands such the danus (related ancient race and land of danu river) Conquered the turria And conquer the khvastra Rigveda mentioned vrithana destroyed the 99 settlement of Danava ( the race of danu) and established the Aryan power in land of Danava (with the help Maruts / army warband ) Turria ( in iranic history is eastern Caspian all the Turan plain of now and may be much bigger that avesta mentioned) Danus and Danava in rigveda ( definitely eastern Europe , the Danube) Because rigveda mentioned vala as godhead of Danava ( vala is veles earliest worshipped in Danube balto slavic region or where corded ware culture located)
Indo-European is a LANGUAGE family group, and NOT a race. The languages spoken in northern India belonged to this group but Indians are brown skinned people with DNA different from most Europeans, while Hungarian and Finish languages are NOT Indo-European, but their people are 99% white skinned , with almost same DNA as other Europeans. Same as the Jews, Turks, and some Arabs, most of them have lighter skin than south Asians, but their languages are NOT Indo-European.
When the Indo-European languages first spread, there was a lot of mixing between various groups, call them tribes/ethnicity. So back then it was a mixed ethnic group. Your argument that white skinned Europeans share the same DNA is wrong. Large-scale study of skin pigmentation demonstrates that humans with both light and dark skin pigmentation have co-existed for hundreds of thousands of years. As humans migrated out of Africa, it was believed that mutations led to lighter skin that can supposedly regulate vitamin D production in lower sunlight levels. But the new study, published in the journal Science, shows that the evolution of skin color is much more complex. So not all white people share the same DNA, that could also be said about black or brown people. So while Indo European language spread, started as a tribe but today it's just a language group.
@@carvakalokayata1530 “dark skin pigmentation have co-existed for hundreds of thousands of years” ???? Modern human only arrived in Europe only about 40 thousands years ago, and it took more than 30,000 to adapt to the cold climate in the steppes (southern Russia,Ukraine) before spread westward, so that these people were became lighter skinned less than 10,000 years ago (not hundreds of thousands years)
@@Namoari941 Homo sapiens, evolved around 300,000 years ago. If you want to call them modern humans it's still a long time ago, Your math is definitely wrong. Are you a scientist?
I am Indian, I am brown, part of the Indo-European language family. The word ARYAN which a certain race claims to justify some mythical superiority happens to be a fairly common Sanskrit word. It is also a very common name in India.
@@shrutitomar ok, to draw it for you, you look like a person from the hypothetical Indo-European tribe that lived in Russian steppes long ago and who unified all the later developed Indo-European nations. Clear now😊?
Noah's Ark is said to have landed in Mt. Ararat in Armenia. Perhaps one of the sons or grandsons was the founder of the Indo-European peoples. It would fit the Indo-Armenia theory.
Daghang salamat kanimo, Julija! Thank you very much! It's good to see that maybe the best explanation for the origin of Indo-European languages is a combination of the three theories. In respect of the genetics of modern horses, while it only goes back to around 2000 BCE, it's very likely that wild horses on the Steppe were being corralled and used for milk and meat by a culture that predated the Yamnaya. There is a RUclips video by Dan Davis about this. What is interesting is that this was five to six thousand years ago, and there is clear evidence of the culture being based around horses. When you consider how hard it is to control wild horses, it makes you think that it's likely that the people had in fact learned how to breed, train, and ride horses, or the massive amount of horse remains in the region of the Steppe where they lived could not be explained. Their language is unknown, and genetics shows that they have no living descendants. Perhaps they were overrun or assimilated by the Yamnaya.
The reality is that Indo-European languages came from Indus valley civilization, which was literally the biggest and most advanced civilization during the ancient world. It had more people than all of the rest of the bronze's civilization around the world combined. Once that civilization ended because of the climate change, the people spread in all directions spreading the indo European languages.
Absolutely false. The language spoken by the indus valley people is still not yet deciphered. Whatever we know till date suggests thay Indus valley language is more related to Brahui, Kurux, etc which are Dravidian languages, not indo European.
Once again, very well done video! As a Lebanese Canadian, I have been doing deep dives on language similarities for years and I have noticed a lot of words within Semitic that are found in Celtic and Germanic. And I know they arent borrowed because these words have been used for thousands of years. The Mesopotamian hypothesis for Euro-Anatolian (my own term for proto-proto-indo-euro) is very sound considering that the Semites also have a storm god and serpent myth. Sure it can have been borrowed, but religious myths have concrete roots within a peoples' culture. And Im positive that even though the Yamnaya came from the Steppes, their ancestors most likely came from North Mesopotamia. We know forna fact that a huge influx of Caucasian peoples migrated to the Levant during the Neolithic, so it's not thwt farfetch'd Ps. Sorry for the long rant, I love your videos and you're so personable, im always looking forward to your videos
Excited for your language tree. Please consider both the celtic substrate theories about the English language and why it is so different from other Germanic languages, and also the theory that antipodean dialects of English (Australia and New Zealand) are heavily influenced by Scots and could even be considered a creole of English and Scots.
![Jack Harlow - Hello Miss Johnson [Official Music Video]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/Q86_nlRoIGw/mqdefault.jpg)
speaking of indo-iranian languages being closest to balto-slavic languages, I was quite surprised learning Sanskrit and finding out how many words in this language are similar, or even identic to modern russian words. also some latin words are pretty similar, both in declension or conjugation and its pronunciation.
Sanskrit is like the Rosetta stone of Indo-European languages. It holds the key to so many discoveries!
@@osasunaitorit's a late version but a well preserved late version
what was basic names of regular plants or objects in IE in Sanskrit is already deified and sacralised
like in Slavic Perun Piorun just means the thrusting one and subsequently a thunderbolt
it's like with evolution of Gobekli tepe
from random people without any deeper ideas to invention of own cult and religious ideas
or like with Asur first just a city name next a name of a deity
@@szymonbaranowski8184 Correction : In the Early Rigvedic period, when there were fewer tribal clashes, we constantly find the addressing of Devas and “asuras”. Asura is almost used as another name for Deva, in the sense of “lively” or “spiritual”. (from asu = spirit) A whole sukta/poem in Rigveda has the refrain *“mahat devAnAm asura tvam ekam”*- *“Great is the single spiritual quality of devas”.* Thus, in the Early Rigvedic period where Deva and Asura words are used to describe the same mighty divinities, almost all the important deva concepts in Vedas like Agni, Indra, Varuna, Mitra, Ashvins are praised as Asuras in Vedas.
@@bvshenoy7259very true, in fact the chief Zoroastrian god is Ahura Mazda in Sanskrit it’s Asura Medha or a brilliant asura.
Today if you call yourself an Asura people will be scared of you think you a potential cannibal.
Bronze Age we had only open land to travel where we met other culture and civilisation. The onset of Iron Age we saw the Vedic people gradually during Epic Mahabharata entering the dense forest cutting them and clearing for agriculture needs. Here is when we encountered the asuras or cannibals. The most prominent one being Bakasura.
Asuras are demons not people@@nachiketavajasrava5
This is super fascinating, and I really enjoyed the co-host making an appearance!
Where is she from?
@@juandiegovalverde1982 Latvia
@@juandiegovalverde1982 I think Latvia?
@@Miggy19779 so she´s Baltic.
@juandiegovalverde1982 not necessarily, more likely Slavic
There is SO MUCH CONTENT to these essays. I feel like I need to take this video in a couple passes. Amazing work, Jul.
Julie, I watch all of your videos. Keep up the good work! And thank you all the way from Bärn, Schweiz!
Where is she from?
@@juandiegovalverde1982 it says UK on her channel but her accent tells a different story...
@@cg_pizzaShe's def not a native speaker, her accent sounds like turkish to me🤔
@@յիլմազ_սազակ or maybe a little greek🤔
@cg_pizza In one of her older videos, she says she's from one of the Baltic states, I forot which one.
This has always been my favorite branch of linguistics by far. Thank you for making this video and I hope to see more like this.
With respect to the point that Indo-Anatolians didn't have Steppe-related ancestry, it turns out that they actually had. A recent study from April this year called "the Genetic Origin of the Indo-Europeans" by the Indo-European expert Lazaridis et al. found Indo-Anatolian samples with Steppe-related ancestry. At this point, it has pretty much been proved that the Yamnaya/Stredny Stog were Proto-Indo-European speakers.
Correct. As it turns out, the entire Eastern Mediterranean has Indo-European dna. A paper came out recently saying the Levant (mostly Lebanon and Syria) has had Eurasian Steppe genetic influence since the early Iron Age. Interesting stuff.
This is nonsense, it is simply the fascist story modernized. The Anatolians were the original speaks of a PIE language, not anyone else.
@@annaclarafenyo8185 why fascist?
It is my belief that the Indo-Anatolians came through the south, by the southern shore of the Caucasus. It split in the Caucasus, with the Anatolians remaining there, and moving west, and the Indo-Europeans crossing the Caucasus and settling on the steppes.
All bogus...There was never a PIE ...white racists are pulling out PIE from their rears with sole agenda to appropriate Indian Sanskrit
many years ago, ive seen versions explaining the anatolian discrepancy by simply having them split much earlier than the spread of the yamnayans. Which in hindsight is kinda strange but I thought it was interesting
You’re doing a much needed work for the field. I wish you the best. You go girl 🎉
Excellent! The “retention” of laryngeals in Anatolian further indicates the Anatolian hypothesis. I too daydream about Proto-Human. Best of luck with your ultimate tree!
Diolch o rannu JuLingo! Cariad a gefnogi fawr o Gymru!
Great video, Julie, Please keep making these. Cant wait to see your language Tree! ❤
Your passion for language has inspired me to keep this hobby up, and keep learning. Thank you for all you do!
Awesome! Thank you!
Mongolians have a whole culture around milk and dairy products, even making alcoholic beverages out of horse milk, yet most of them are lactose-intolerant.
This means that lactose-tolerance is not a vital ingredient for a dairy based culture, since most processed dairy products like cheese, yoghurt, butter etc. don't contain lactose anymore.
Well, obviously, when people first started dairy farming, there was no lactose tolerance, because until then there was no selection pressure for it.
I'm slowly developing lactose intolerance as I age (or at least an near allergic response).
The order seems to be milk > yogurt > butter > cheese.
because mongolians have 10% yamnaya ancestry
Perhaps it was more difficult in ancient times to ferment milk and convert the lactase?
@@andreahoehmann1939not really, it getting fermented is kinda inevitable if you just let it sit around too long.
I am always happy when there is a new video!!
Very interesting. High quality content. Succes with learning German.
Your channel and your quest to find "your holy grail of languages" is very interesting, so I am subscribing to your channel. One suggestion: Gabby needs to be demoted for not keeping up to "Executive Assistant" standards. But that is entirely up to you, of course. ;-)
A truly brilliant video. You take a potentially dry subject and make it interesting and compelling. Thank you!
Indo-European Gypsy
Your cat is so pretty. I'd love to see her more in future videos whenever possible!
Where is she from?
You wanted to say pussy didn't you?
Bengal Tiger Cat descended From Asian Leopard Cat
The cat is not the only pretty part about the video🤪
Ancient Roman writers used to believe that Latin was an Aeolian Greek dialect. This ancient theory was called Aeolianism.
It is because they believed they came from the Trojans.
I mean, they stole almost everything else from Greece, so why not? JK JK 😂
and they were wrong, because Latin is clearly not an Aeolian Greek dialect or any other Greek dialect.
@@rasoirwolfits not stealing its called adopting.
It depends. They adopted some things but others they shamelessly copied like the entire Greek mythology for example just altering the names in it Herakles to Hercules etc..
Loved this video. I was pleasantly surprised to discover that my high school Latin came in handy as I tried to learn Dari in Afghanistan.
Fabulous work Julie. So much info and beautifully put together. Thank you ❤❤❤❤
Indra is by no means the supreme god in Brahmanism / Hinduism - That would be Shiv or Wisnu, depending on who you ask, or maybe Durga. Indra is king of the Devas, or the lesser gods.
Tyr/Tiw is the Germanic god whose name is cognate with Zeus and Jove (Jupiter's other name)
Why call brahmanism ?.
Shiva is the main God in Hinduism and Indra is the God of rain and thunder. I believe Hinduism is a combination of multiple monotheistic faith
@@whats-ur-problem Leftist term to somehow portray the Brahmins as evil priests who subjugated the other Indians with their religion 😂.
They have been trying to do this for last 200 years, haven't succeed beyond Leftist college campuses.
Indra is our demi god and Vishnu is our supreme god
Well done and fascinating summary of the prevailing theories and hybrids! Love the kitty too.
Hello Julie,
Great to see a video from you! :)♥
I look forward to the Language Family Tree you talked about at the end! I LOVE that kind of stuff and would make that myself if I knew how to make it with a computer. I'd love to help you with it somehow!
Those tables of cognate words … When you study them carefully you quite often manage to spot one or two false friends. For example the Swedish word for beaver, is a loanword (due to trade with beaver fur), and should therefore not be in the list. The vernacular word, that should be in the list, is (appearing in proper names like “beaver island”).
It's quite the same in the French version of that line, bièvre is REALLY old-timey. Now, we use mostly "castor", coming from Old Greek meaning "bright fur"
@@paulbarbat1926 Being old-timey does not matter for cognates.
Indo-europianist luinguist bias: "we does not f-ing care if it's a loan word as long as it's in a IE language" (the same linguists who made-up the h1, h2, h3 system to make more cognates and then say "yeah they are not exists in any languages anymore but trust be bro they where there")
And my favourite is that they would mark any word from a non-indo-european languages as a loan from an IE language just because they can find a related word in an IE language. My favourite example of this is Hugnarian "tarsoly" (note that "rs" sounds like "rsh" and "ly" is like y in yes) which linguists claim to be borrowed from german "Täschel", which in reality either a coincident or the germans borrowed it from Hungarian since the german word is more simplified phonetically than the Hungarian one and it makes more sense that the "r" was dropped when germans borrowed it and the "ly" was misunderstood as a kind of "L" by the germans than "r" randomly showing up in the word while being borrowed by Hungarian.
So yeah, IE linguistics is just a big pile of bullcrap and bias.
@@tovarishchfeixiao Perhaps the term Indo-European should be altered. If these languages derive from Northern Mesopotamia, Anatolia or Armenia, then they are Asian. The term was coined by nineteenth-Century racists. I am not sure if bias is currently the issue amongst scholars. If these languages expanded outward from a point along "silk road" Steppe trade through Central Asia. scholars make assumptions based on the probability of such expansive trade networks influencing cognates, not some Europeans somewhere are the inventors of language.
@@jasoncuculo7035 The name itself obviously comes from the idea of the languages of the family being native to Europe and India.
But my point was that they're very biased about what related to what and in what ways to the level wher ethey would create new non-existent sounds to make relation and falsely categorize some words from other families's languages.
Not to mention how they discredited certain family theories with the same/similar things that they used as a proof for their indo-european family theory's validness.
Going for the big fish I see 🤩
Love the idea of the language tree! Perhaps a future collaboration with UsefulCharts?
Everytime you release i get really excited juli, i know it will be well researched and your passion always comes through..i love seeing it
Awesome work, very informative. Thank you ❤❤❤❤
One should be aware that linguistic and genetic identities do not necessarily coincide , and common people tend to misunderstand that important fact , not all Indo-european speakers are genetically Aryan , not every Turkic Speaker is genetically Turkic .....
Yes! But simultaneously it can be very telling about relationships and historical duration.
@@alicemeliksetian7981 I agree with you .
But also, just because two countries might seem very different because they speak different languages, doesn't mean they don't have many similarities, given their historical relationship. Many people from West Asia (especially Turkey and the Levant) are very similar in culture to Europeans and vice-a-versa, and this has to do with their long history of back and forth migrations, settling and trading.
@@aag3752 Yes indeed.
And most Turkish speakers aren't Turkic lol
Go girl!! Keep posting amazing content... you're saving yours and our time... good luck with German... I'm on my way with Finnish and Italian right now...🎉🎉🎉🎉
Linguistics postgrad here. Can you cite the papers for the graphs of the IE origins?
Ask Gemini or Copilot for references. Otherwise you will stuck in the rabbit hole or worst, you will loose your credibility as a scientist.
I see everything listed in the description .
@@jimbucket2996 Ah, beautiful. Thank you. This pertains to the research I’m doing on my end about language evolution in the Cognitive Linguistics framework, so I’m excited to see what developments are showing up in the IE community.
Great video, very well explained! Greetings from a fellow linguist (and native speaker of the special one)
Faleminderit! Glad you enjoyed it!
The extent of the *Indo-European spread* is a fascinating topic. What surprises many people is the recent find that *Levantines* (in addition to Anatolians/modern Turks) also have Indo-European DNA. According to a study by Haber et al from 2017, Lebanese people have up to 22% Steppe-related (Indo-European) ancestry. It may have been from the Sea Peoples, we don't really know. But it is interesting.
Lebanese people are semetic arab not indo european
Excellent video. Thank you for all the hard work. It was definitely worth it, your English is also very clear and well spoken.
Great video!💥🔥❤️
I hope we find more about the roots of our languages soon. Perhaps it may make make the world in peace and unity somehow
درود از ایران!💚🤍❤️
Good luck with your language tree project! You're off to a good start.
Our species is about 250.000 years old, so you would have to go much far back in time to see what languages our earliest ancestors spoke.
Seeing how recent written language is compared to spoken, it's an almost impossible task to go even further back.. The reconstructed Proto Indo European language itself relies on so many assumptions that's it's hard to use it as the basis to reconstruct even older languages.
Some are already attempting to
@@canchero724Exactly, you shall have to travel in a time machine to find anything out.
Modern humans are about 70,000 years so. And the beginning of human civilization, which would require a more evolved language, are about 15,000 to 20,,000 years old. We have a very good understanding about the history of our species for only about 3,000 years in the past. Right now we're working on the history going back to about 7,000 to 10,000 years. But that still leaves a lot of history that we know nothing of, and may never know.
@@00x0xx Where exactly did you _dream_ you found all those numbers??? They are *all* dead wrong.
Thank you so much for the vid! I've long loved I-E research but hadn't kept up with recent work :)
I think we should draw a parallel with human evolution. For a very long time people thought of human evolution as a tree, with branches thriving and others dying out. However, we know now that in fact branches did cross each other back and that the idea that there would be a «pure» human branch that would have led to us was wrong. We know that we mixed with Neanderthals in the past, but also with other archaic human form. The evolution was in a constant flux of mixing genes over long stretches of time and distance. Groups would marry with neighboring groups all around Africa, Europe and Asia... _De proche en proche_ . I guess languages are no exception. People travelled much more in the past that we give them credit for, and each would mix with larger groups, bringing their own languages, words or grammars that would influence to a certain degree the local group. I think of languages as a oil stain on a fabric that slowly spreads through out the whole of the textile. I'm not sure if the tree image is still the most valid one.
I'm very grateful that through your efforts I lean more and more about my personal and cultural and linguistical endless contexts, that nevertheless assigns a place to phenomenons that so far were "random" in my mind. This adds meaning to my life. Thanks a lot and please go on with the beautiful work!
Thank you so much!
I think all three of them are wrong. Earliest artifacts we could find don't mean at all those developments happened in that time rather they could happen much earlier. For example there are dog and human bones found together from around 6 to 10,000 years ago in Spain, Arabian peninsula and Altai mountain range. It suggest we were already domesticating animals in all over the world. So the theory Indo-Europeans were advanced so their culture could spread doesn't make sense. I think it wasn't uncommon there were wars and people getting displaced back then too. And Indo-Europeans were forcefully spread around. The oldest Turkic saga ever recorded tells that Turks were driven away by a superior force and a dire-wolf guided them into a safe valley in Altai mountains. They hid in there for decades if not centuries until they recovered back and raise an army to defeat their enemies. I think such wars and mass migration of people was very common, it also explains how exactly there is no connection between Turkic and Indo-European languages simply because Turks weren't living in central Asia back then. It also explains how exactly Japanese and Turkic languages have exactly same grammar but share so little vocabulary. Only God knows when Japanese branch was separated from the rest of family, it could be 5,000 years ago or even earlier..
I'm so pleased you're still repping Cymraeg on your channel.
We often hear that the Indo-European peoples were the invaders of prehistoric Europe and would have spread their civilization by defeating and subjugating the previous local populations. But what is true in this idea? the recent discoveries of archeology and linguistics have profoundly modified this vision to give way to a much more complex and stratified reading of our prehistory, in which there are actually no peoples or a single Indo-European people but there were different cultures that adopted and they used Indo-European languages and hybridized with each other.
🇮🇹ruclips.net/user/live7awwwlkiI6I?si=_DQVrcm191RoDx--
If what you said was true the R1B and R1A Y haplogroups wouldn't have been so common today. Those haplogroups show that in alot of cases the males of those ancient Europeans were either cucked or killed.
awesome video. viel erfolg beim deutsch lernen!
7:02 it would be 'sun' in English rather than 'son'. Also, greek does have the word ύδωρ for water as well as νερό, nd ύδωρ is the same root as the others.
This video we can't miss. ❤
Amazing Channel! Chears and many thanks from Brazil!
While the science in this video is accurate, when talking about this topic, it is important to explain the Germanic Indo-European mythology developed in the 19th century. Because Germanic people were not present at the dawn of civilization, Germanic supremacists decided that the Indo-European language family meant that ancient Germans conquered the whole world before the development of writing. They then decided to write themselves into all parts of ancient history by myth-making. This ridiculous story is still sometimes sold by far-right extremists all over Europe and the US.
@@mapache-ehcapam The Indo-European language family used to be called "Aryan", and was the source of the fascist mythology. It has nothing to do with the actual science of the language family itself, just with 19th century fantasy of some Germanic supremacists like Nietzsche and Vicheroy.
@@mapache-ehcapam The Proto-Indo-European language used to be called "Aryan", just FYI, and the speakers were called "Aryans" in the 19th century. It got a name-change after WWII.
@@mapache-ehcapam German supremacists in the 19th century, like Nietzche and Vicheroy imagined that Proto-Indo-European speakers were ancient blond-headed supermen, and said so. This is the origin of the fascist mythos.
True now this theory even expanding that anatolians was indo europeans which is nonsense
@truegemuese I am not saying anyone in the video is making nonsense claims, but the fascist myth needs to be acknowledged and debunked, because it is still there, lurking underneath the surface if you poke a little. It's complete nonsense, but it needs to be talked about and exposed as nonsense.
Great content, we have to keep an open mind about IE origins, this is exciting stuff 🎉
Am I missing something here? The Vedas in Sanskrit were written much much before
No, most historical evidence shows that they were written in the Vedic period ie., after 1500 BC
Loved it! As an Indo-European language family enthusiast I enjoyed hearing something new!
its indo iranian not indo european
Any migration from STEPPE or ANATOLIA would pass through MESOPOTAMIA . One must find a few words of SUMERIAN origin . There is NOT A SINGLE word in SANSKRIT from Sumerian .
But , Ancient European languages had several such words . Words like Tablet , Table , Canal , Chanal are of Sumerian origin . The direction of migration was from the East to the West .
Very interesting 👍 I just discovered this channel, by this video. I’m from the Fareo Islands 🇫🇴 and I’m endlesly interested in languages
If the Anatolian theory is true, then the old Neolithics used already an Indo-European language. So, when Steppe-people came in, they didn't put their own Steppe-Indo-European language at all to the old Europeans (that's the Steppe-theory!) but maybe mixed it or took over the related local languages. That means that elder languages like Basque (or Etruscan) could be descendants of the original European hunter gatherers! Actually I'm still distrustfull about it. But history shows that most kingdom-languages didn't convert the people, like Visigoths in Spain, Langobards in Northern Italy, french-speaking Normans in Britain, Bulgarian Turks in Bulgary, Greek in any other Hellenic conquered country.
The most important factor governing whether conquerors kept their own language or switched within a generation to the language of the subjugated seems often to have been - did they bring women or did the find mates from among the locals? Children learn their first language more readily from mothers than form fathers.
Visigoths were minority
Indo-Europeans came with people and spread genes like wildfire
Love your videos and deep linguistic travels, plus your ambition. How amazing would that be to have a language tree for all languages - the most unifying foundation for all humanity!
In nigerian yoruba a lot of basic vocabulary is the same as indo european. A lot of these words are much older than from central asian people. Also we have a sky god and pantheon of the same gods
Nigeria is a very cool place, I'd love to visit someday 🇺🇸🇳🇬
Not the same gods, Indo-European religions have zero connection to anything african
@@TrueNativeScot in Northern Nigeria (north of Yoruba) the Hausa often carry have R1b y-haplogroup, which is very rare elsewhere in Africa incl. North Africa, but common in parts of Europe and Asia (different sub-clades), it's thought that same pastoralist from middle-east must have crossed the Sahara thousands of years ago and mix with the locals
@@pavelandel1538 That R1b did not come from Indo-Europeans but from a population of Western Hunter-Gatherers. A population which was completely genetically diluted with the exception of the yDNA. I'd be surprised if they left a single impact on anything cultural. In no way can it be used to suggest any relation with Indo-European culture to an african one, the gulf between the two is extremely vast
@@TrueNativeScotThe basal similarities stem from something; be it from shared contact or a thermodynamic predisposition for it. It's possible that most cultures have a myth about a great flood because sometimes it rains a lot... but it's also possible that the flood story is a shared memory of a singular time it rained a whole lot. For something less common than rain you might see evidence for shared history.
So nice, you & your co-host! :D... Most regards, Thomas!
Anything worthwhile from India becomes "Indo-European" and not so worthwhile is merely "Indian"
There are a LOT of colonial influences in the vast majority of these studies. Take everything with a massive grain of salt.
Oh Boy, the WHITE Supremacists are not gonna be happy when they find out how they are also related to the Indian Pajeets they make fun off.
Btw, the world ARYAN is a Sanskrit word, Yes an Indian language. You will find kids named Aryan in India, it is a common household name.
I noticed that too and it's cringe AF. It's starting to piss me off. I learn a lot from Hindu history and teachings and seeing ppl try to steal from this culture that literally EVERYONE, including me at some point ruthlessly mocked. Most of them still do yet try to claim India Hinduism Sanskrit and so. Not to mention live anime of all things. If only weebs knew Naruto and Goku's daddies
Yep it's cultural appropriation and insecurity which is funny bc most of these ppl still ridicule Hinduism and Sanskrit Hindi so on
@@rockysalvatore435 colonial attitude 😒
Dziękuję bardzo! And all the best with Your future endevours! :) Pozdrawiam!
Recently, an article called "GENETIC ORIGIN OF INDO EUROPEANS" was published
which shows us that based on the new data, Steppe DNA and Kurgan were also found in Anatolia, and this further strengthens the Steppe theory.
no they were just conspiricies
The steppes are a long area at the same latitude, that increases the chances for PIE to develop there.
Same reason why Africa was the destined place for the creation of Humans.
The steppe theory is the most convincing. There are no arguments against it. And Anatolia is only one of the stages of migration
@@GyanTvAmit chup kar ja bhai faltu gyan mat de
Loved this video! Mind blowing stuff, even if we don't really know yet what happened. Please more.
Please stop saying "Spain" in this context because you're ignoring Portugal, where Celtic languages were also spoken and much more than in the current country of Spain. It would be better and more accurate if you said "Iberian Peninsula".
Yes! Even the word Portugal sounds the same in Irish and it means Gaelic fort (an phortaingéil)
the tree of all languages! amazing insights, thank you Julie!
Milking WILD horses... yeah, that seems reasonable 😂😂😂😂
Amazing work Hermana! ❤
if the Sundaland superior race intermarries with the Doggerland superior race then slowly Attala Lemurian reunited
No thanks
take your mess
Fantastic video! Thank you. I look forward to more.
India is the only country that preserves the original Indo European culture.
Upper castes of India still look 70% like the Arya people who entered India and who were pretty close in looks to the Yamanaya. Olive to whitish skinned, brownish eyes and light black hair with a narrow docilophelic face structure and high lactose tolerance. Only Indians still consume milk inside coffee and tea.
Yamanaya branch in Europe got corrupted a lot by the Siberian origin blue eyed and blonde haired people. These people are no way Indo European or Yamanaya in race. And since they were most dominating, the original Indo European and Yamanaya race in Europe got totally diminished thats why even Semitic religion like christianity is followed and the original pagan religion of the Indo Europeans totally destroyed. Only remnants of the Indo European language remain since these were adopted in Europe.
While in India, the migrating Indo Iranian branch of the original Yamanaya were able to assert their cultural and religious and linguistic hegemony over the natives, the original Indo European polytheistic religion is still maintained despite lot of corruption by native Australoids.
@@don2006ka lmao 😂 Indo Europeans had tons of Siberian aka Ancient North Eurasian ancestry IEs were a mix of Caucasian/Iranian hunter gatherer + Eastern European Hunter gatherer = Yamnaya. Yamnaya had genes for blue eyes and blonde hair but in lower frequency. Indians are not much steppe cause of AASI.
@@BinitBhushanDas you must be a kalua to mention aasi. which afro gene found in Indian upper caste huh? There was no blonde and blue eyed characteristics at all in the Indo Iranians who are ancestors of the Indo Aryans. Stop being a colonial slave and believing racist europoid theories who can't bear the fact that great culture was formed in India by people who had nothing to do with Europe. Europeans are products of late bronze to iron age Siberians who migrated to North and Northwest Europe and adopted the highly developed Indo European languages when the settled down. Arya people had nothing to do with blonde and blue eyed and were brown eyed with light olive skin like majority upper caste people even today after 4000 years from when they first came to India.
@@BinitBhushanDas they were definitely not blonde and blue eyed. Stop believing racist European theories you fool
@@don2006ka having blondism and light eyes don't have to do anything with European but being West Eurasian/Caucasoid. Many Mesolithic and Neolithic W.Eurasiam groups had genes for blondism and light eyes in lower frequency.
@@don2006ka the so called Siberian people (Ancient North Eurasians) have tons of indirect influence in genome of South Asian population.
This is awesome! American Heritage Dictionary has a couple articles on Indo-European and a fascinating appendix of reconstructed I-E roots but I was hoping there was more current research. And here you are! Thank you!
Next episode, please describe about Arabic language. Arabs and European have interacted with each other for centuries but they speak different language families. So strange!
What is strange?
Semitic languages are a common root between both. Celtic derived from the Phoenician language and it is more similar to arabic.
@@vitordelima prove it
@@rnnelvll2 This is so well known that you can find videos from popular RUclips channels about it.
Nothing strange about that at all considering Arab Empires touched towards European borders.
thank you for your lovely presentations
Wheels existed 20-50 thousand years ago in India. Fact.
No.
@@ChristopherTanne-se3pz, yes, Indian are not Europeans, europeans are Indians. Indian civilization spread to Europe thats what called Indo European.
@@sahasransusbarik thanks for the early morning laugh 🤣
@@anonymousanonym450 , glad you got happiness through your laugh. 😂🤣😂
@@sahasransusbarik they we're blond stepp people that conquard India. If you Like or Not bro
Waiting for videos of all the other language families as well ❤
Indo-European language family✅
Indo-European Race ❌
Oh Boy, the WHITE Supremacists are not gonna be happy when they find out how they are also related to the Indian Pajeets they make fun off.
Btw, the world ARYAN is a Sanskrit word, Yes an Indian language. You will find kids named Aryan in India, it is a common household name.
Excellent, JuLingo! Thanks
Rather than saying Indo-European was invented and spread by the “Yamnaya culture” isn’t it clear from your maps that it was spread by the Silk Road and/or the Fertile Crescent - in other words by trade routes. The distinction is important as the former implies a single ancestral race, whereas the latter suggests Indo-European patterns just emerged from the efforts of multiple people to participate along those routes. “Indo European languages” therefore - today and yesterday - have features inherited from other ancestral languages as well. If all “Indo-European languages” had one ancestor there is no convincing way to explain why so many mutually unintelligible languages arose from it. But if you admit that all languages have *multiple ancestors* it is exactly what you would expect. Therefore, as I’ve said before, a single “proto IE language” from a single place or time has to be a myth.
Your Yamnaya empire theory is unsound for similar reasons. Cultural similarities over a wide area are not evidence of a master race but of widespread trade and commerce. Of course it is associated with horses and carriages! They were needed by everyone travelling it.
Lastly you speculate about the “first language” 40 thousand years ago - but by the same logic there never was a “first language”! All languages are worked out by people with initially different linguistic habits in their striving to understand each other. It constantly evolves and changes as new people encounter each other. It has never been static and therefore, again, there are NO “proto languages” only perpetual change.
"If all 'Indo-European languages' had one ancestor there is no convincing way to explain why so many mutually unintelligible languages arose from it"
This is a false statement. Romanian and Portuguese are not mutually intelligible, and they both came from Latin, which is fairly recent. It is perfectly understandable how a single ancestor language spoken 6 millennia ago could split into multiple, mutually unintelligible descendants. This has nothing to do with a "master race", and your description of languages simply does not accord with how linguists have observed language evolution.
It is definitely possible that there was never any single "first language", and it is roughly true that language has never been static, but a lot of other things in your comment are nonsensical.
@@sparshjohri1109My first degree was in behavioural psychology including linguistics and from that perspective it is clear that the sensible way to study language evolution is to observe it directly in the present using objective techniques. That isn't where the notion of a "proto indo european" language came from - it arose from 19th and 20th century nationalism. The desire for there to be a pure ancestral language is just an echo of the desire for a pure ancestral Aryan race. In the real world of the present, people generally do not behave tribally, do not identify tribally and do not choose their language tribally. On the contrary, they are hungry for a common language through which to garner information, education, trade and opportunity. So another thing they do not do is to change their language for no good reason. Only when they encounter *others* do they start working out a new pidgin or dialect in order to communicate. We can easily observe this in both individual encounters and on the wider social level. The world being large (and the Silk Road long) variations creep in - but very little is because of Chinese Whispers or random vowel mutations. Instead language shifts largely reflect new social encounters.
Instead of studying a wholly conjectural "proto indo european" just observe living languages directy; English for example has a grammar resembling Norse, phonetics resembling Celtic and a vocabulary that is predominantly French. It clearly has multiple ancestors not one. It is spoken by millions of people all over the world - so it is not tribal in any sense - you cannot tell anybody's ethnicity from the language they adopt. It belongs to no one. And last but not least - it is perpetually evolving. Nobody in England now speaks like the actors in movies from the 1950s. By extension - there never could have been a "golden age" when some racially pure ethnic group spoke an "original" pure "Indo European". There never have been any "original" languages (just as there are no original races) only unending language recombination.
@@kubhlaikhan2015 "It (English) clearly has multiple ancestors not one."
Nope. English is descended from Proto-West-Germanic, with loanwords from Norse and French (and a lot of other languages, including some elements from Celtic languages, such as the special uses of the verb "do"). You clearly don't understand how ancestry works.
There is a distinction between a language adopting loanwords from other languages and a language sharing a genetic relationship with an earlier form. Languages do adopt loanwords (Albanian has adopted a staggering amount). But again, so many of your claims are ludicrous that something must have gone wrong in your education if you believe these things about linguistics.
Obviously English is perpetually evolving. Obviously, older languages are not "pure" or "original." Obviously language shift is not the same thing as ethnicity or genetic relatedness (as this video showed, people can switch to a different language for many reasons). Obviously pidgins have existed and turned into creoles. Obviously people don't change their languages for no reason. Obviously "there never could have been a "golden age" when some racially pure ethnic group spoke an 'original' pure 'Indo European.'" Duh! No linguist would dispute these things. These aren't controversial (or even novel) statements. No one is looking for the purity of older languages (unless they're cranks and/or fools). Old English is not better than modern English, and Proto-Indo-European is not "purer" than its descendants. Congratulations. Nobody worth listening to says these things now.
But it is staggering that you can say in the same comment "variations creep in - but very little is because of Chinese Whispers or random vowel mutations" and "it is perpetually evolving. Nobody in England now speaks like the actors in movies from the 1950s"; these two things are literally contradictory. Denying the existence of phonological shifts and grammatical shifts is a wild take, and one that is clearly disproven by the fact that every single language in the world has undergone these changes (and is still undergoing these changing). Look at the way Latin and Sanskrit split into their respective descendant languages. Look at how English has changed from Old English to Modern English. Look at the predictable phonological changes that you can use to predict cognates in languages that share a historical ancestor. Middle English had about the same influence from French that we have now. Open up some Chaucer and then say that languages only change because of recombination.
The assertion that languages only change because of loanwords and randomly combining elements of existing languages (which is the assertion that you have made in your comment, even if you haven't said it in so many words) is ridiculous. It's tantamount to saying "pidgins exist, and therefore every language is a pidgin," which is a ludicrous statement.
"That isn't where the notion of a "proto indo european" language came from - it arose from 19th and 20th century nationalism." Ah yes. That's why modern scholars say that the Indo-European language family has stretched from the British Isles to the western borders of China. Because nationalism. It is definitely conducive to nationalist interests to say that the languages of India, Persia, Armenia, Russia, and Germany (to name a few disparate countries) share a common ancestor. Because that makes so much sense.
That's why the Afro-Asiatic language family contains both Arabic and Hebrew (even though Jews and Muslims would consider themselves to be fairly distinct). That's why the Tai-Kadai languages and Mongolic languages are considered distinct from the Sino-Tibetan languages, even though they are all spoken in modern China. Because that makes so much sense.
"In the real world of the present, people generally do not behave tribally, do not identify tribally and do not choose their language tribally." So this clearly means that humans have never (by and large) behaved tribally, identified tribally, or chosen their languages tribally. We should apply the same understanding to pre-historic humans that we have of modern humans in the age of the internet. Because that makes so much sense.
As an aside, what are "Chinese whispers"? There is no phonological change with that name, so I am struggling to understand what you mean. We have lenition, assimilation, syncope, elision, etc. Those are real things. "Chinese whispers" are not.
If you did study linguistics as part of your behavioral psychology degree, you clearly need to go back to university and try again (and maybe you should pay attention this time).
You don't have an idea of what period of time you're talking do you
Good work, Julie
33% of all germanic stem-words are of a non-Indo European origin
Yes, I heard that. More than a half of those words were borrowed from the African click language. Fascinating stuff
@@mnemonicpie cope
Great video. Love your co-host.
I am making a bold statement here Remember the name "Shrikant Talageri" his name will be famous in the field of linguistics especially in indoeuropean homeland case after approx 50yrs from now His out of india theory will be the most accepted theory as india becomes more prominent player in the world
Especially his book Avesta & Rigveda analysis which shows the relationships between rigvedic clans and iranian clans and their war for territory first in dasarajna war in harayana india and then varsagira battle in Afghanistan...
How do you know this?
@@jackm.1628 nothing, the guy he mentioned isn’t even that well known in India and I’m Indian with a passing interest in linguistics
@@duckpotat9818 Thanks.
@@jackm.1628know what bro? Dasarajna and Varsagira are true
I love your videos so much! I would love a video about the Tamazight language from north Africa. Its script is so fascinating, yet people from this area themselves barely know anything about it!
step 1: drink milk
step 2: ????
step 3: world domination
Beautiful video as always
There's another origin theory I hoped you'd touch upon. It's called the 'Out of India' theory. It suggests that Indo-Europeans originated from the Indian subcontinent. .
Historically, the IE theory was taught to India by the British in the form of the racist Aryan Invasion Theory to diminish our achievements and tear us apart. It believed that Sanskrit, the basis of India's religion and philosophical knowledge and everybody who spoke it were light skinned invaders from outside. Implying that we were never capable of anything and always required the help of fair skinned Europeans.
I think that's why the Out of India theory was born, and to it's credit, it has a good amount of evidence that backs it up. One of it biggest supports is that there is no archaeological evidence of an invasion or mass migration into the subcontinent from outside.
Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.
@@carvakalokayata1530 moron
Proto-Indo-Europeans are not the same as Europeans. And not the same as light skinned Europeans either. India already had an advanced civilization (Indus Valley Civilization) before the arrival of Indo-Aryans. In fact the Indus Valley Civilization was more urban than the Vedic civilization. The but Vedic civilization was more philosophical.
@@carvakalokayata1530genetic scientist (niraj rai) had published a whole research paper supporting out of india theory..You can search for it.
@@carvakalokayata1530 I agree
A very ambitious project. Here is to hoping that you can accomplish the definitive study of language origin, fission, and fusion.
I like how you apply critical analysis. However another perspective: Out-of-India theory.
Some empirical reasons:
-Hittite language invoking Indian gods during a truce with Egypt
-Grammar begins in India where nouns, vocabulary, verbs, adverbs etc are all defined for first time through systematic rules via written works of Ashtadhyayi and Tolkappiyam
-The systematic grammatic rules are still very relevant today as they form the backbone of all computer languages and natural language processing (NLPs) via the panini-backus form and generative grammar invented by Chomsky which is inspired by rules in Ashtadhyayi
-Horses have been found in cave paintings in India like 20000 years ago vis-à-vis Bimbetka caves, along with horse burials in Sinauli, an IVC remmant
-Indian culture have always venerated the cow and consumed its milk for various purposes. Cows are treated like pets in a house dogs are nowadays in the west.
-Indians value the oral tradition and was extremely revered. People sent their kids for a lifetime to properly learn sanskrit and its enunciations. Thats why Sanskrit is still used ritualistically in the thousands of temples of India. Therefore not much is written down and when it was it was written down much later.
-Also since India was colonized for so long, its native traditions were outlawed. Only in recent years indigenous research is being given importance and therefore its language history is quite under-researched.
Just some "morphemes" for thought.
Nationalism is a hell of a drug, but this theory is not credible linguistically. And most of your points don't speak to the question at all.
The Indian gods you mention -- yes, the Mitanni language shows evidence of an upper class that was heavily involved with horses and spoke a language of the Indic branch. That doesn't mean it came from India, it means all the other speakers of that branch moved to India.
Where the study of grammar started has nothing to do with where one language family originated. The spread of cholera was first systematically studied in London, that doesn't mean it's the origin of the germ.
Context-free grammars are used for most computer languages and other formulas for structuring information because the breadth of ways they can structure information is vast relative to the smarts it takes to parse them. They are a natural sweet spot that has been discovered over and over. Panini's grammar is one of the places they are used. But this has even less relevance to the IE language family than the study of grammar point did.
And on and on. The Vedic recitation tradition that you mention actually works against the out-of-India concept. Vedic recitation shows patterns of accent that are a sibling of the patterns of accent in Greek and in Balto-Slavic, all derived from a shared ancestor. It does not show patterns of accent that you can derive the Greek and Balto-Slavic patterns from, unless you theorize that the Hellenic and Balto-Slavic branches stayed one language in their accentuation system for much longer than they stayed one language in the rest of their phonology and vocabulary. It isn't happening.
@@eritain Sure. Nice dismissal and bringing in 'nationalism' to shoot down all arguments.
Please show me where its even possible via academia to relate the study of diseases with study of languages?
Greeks have dialectical theory of 800 years of research before their practice of logic spread out to before Alexander's conquests. Its easy to say Panini this or that and "nothing to do with it" without really understanding nuances 2500 years later. Indians have had language research since antiquity and Sanskrit means 'perfected'. Not saying it started from there but saying all that evidence needs to be taken into account like in proper research. The same way decimal numbers spread from India to china and rest of the world while North Americans/europeans call it arabic numericals, Indians do not take credit nor they go around enforcing it. Research needs to account for that.
Pattern of accents is sounds that can vary immensely even within a small island where those words are mutually unintelligible among its inhabitants. Sounds is not same as words and their history. Thats why certain places you get laryngeal and other tonal effects.
@@eritain "Nationalism is a hell of a drug, but this theory is not credible linguistically. And most of your points don't speak to the question at all." There is no point in discussion when you begin by with ad hominem labels and complete dismissal of an indigenous perspective.
Its comforting to believe a fictitious language with absolutely 0 literary evidence just because the Victors tell the story; I get it, its a nice fairy tale. No time for this kabuki.
@@eritainVedic recitation match with balto slavic and or Greeks how does it reject out of India theory ?
From both puranic ( post Vedic) and Vedic scriptures itself their is Various historical memory of Indian travelling near Russia and Eastern Europe
@@eritainavesta mentioned verethragna( Aryan hero ) conquered lands such the danus (related ancient race and land of danu river)
Conquered the turria
And conquer the khvastra
Rigveda mentioned vrithana destroyed the 99 settlement of Danava ( the race of danu) and established the Aryan power in land of Danava (with the help Maruts / army warband )
Turria ( in iranic history is eastern Caspian all the Turan plain of now and may be much bigger that avesta mentioned)
Danus and Danava in rigveda ( definitely eastern Europe , the Danube)
Because rigveda mentioned vala as godhead of Danava ( vala is veles earliest worshipped in Danube balto slavic region or where corded ware culture located)
10:18 Your cat loves you so much! He is happily greeting you, so cute!
Не лезь в вопросы, в которых не шаришь. Простой же принцип.
Это украинка. Она всячески избегает упоминать Россию.
@@Truffle_Young_Jr Not Ukrainian.
Way to go! you can totally do it!
Indo-European is a LANGUAGE family group, and NOT a race. The languages spoken in northern India belonged to this group but Indians are brown skinned people with DNA different from most Europeans, while Hungarian and Finish languages are NOT Indo-European, but their people are 99% white skinned , with almost same DNA as other Europeans. Same as the Jews, Turks, and some Arabs, most of them have lighter skin than south Asians, but their languages are NOT Indo-European.
When the Indo-European languages first spread, there was a lot of mixing between various groups, call them tribes/ethnicity. So back then it was a mixed ethnic group. Your argument that white skinned Europeans share the same DNA is wrong.
Large-scale study of skin pigmentation demonstrates that humans with both light and dark skin pigmentation have co-existed for hundreds of thousands of years.
As humans migrated out of Africa, it was believed that mutations led to lighter skin that can supposedly regulate vitamin D production in lower sunlight levels. But the new study, published in the journal Science, shows that the evolution of skin color is much more complex. So not all white people share the same DNA, that could also be said about black or brown people.
So while Indo European language spread, started as a tribe but today it's just a language group.
@@carvakalokayata1530 “dark skin pigmentation have co-existed for hundreds of thousands of years” ???? Modern human only arrived in Europe only about 40 thousands years ago, and it took more than 30,000 to adapt to the cold climate in the steppes (southern Russia,Ukraine) before spread westward, so that these people were became lighter skinned less than 10,000 years ago (not hundreds of thousands years)
@@Namoari941 Homo sapiens, evolved around 300,000 years ago. If you want to call them modern humans it's still a long time ago, Your math is definitely wrong. Are you a scientist?
So is it possible that Proto-Indo-Europeans weren't white. And that they got their 'whiteness' by mixing with the pre-IE locals in Europe??
Thank you for your beautiful, special and valuable programs. We would be very happy if you make a program about the Kurdish language.
Your look is typical Indo-European 😊
I am Indian, I am brown, part of the Indo-European language family. The word ARYAN which a certain race claims to justify some mythical superiority happens to be a fairly common Sanskrit word. It is also a very common name in India.
@@rohitsawant5805 yes we invaded europe and civilized them
Indo European is a linguistic term, not racial or ethnic. How can someone look like a language?
@@shrutitomar ok, to draw it for you, you look like a person from the hypothetical Indo-European tribe that lived in Russian steppes long ago and who unified all the later developed Indo-European nations. Clear now😊?
@@gordonpi8674 i don't need to clear anything. You need to stop assuming random made up stuff.
so glad somebody put it together
Noah's Ark is said to have landed in Mt. Ararat in Armenia. Perhaps one of the sons or grandsons was the founder of the Indo-European peoples. It would fit the Indo-Armenia theory.
Semitic fairytales, these city dwellers loved making up stories
Daghang salamat kanimo, Julija! Thank you very much! It's good to see that maybe the best explanation for the origin of Indo-European languages is a combination of the three theories. In respect of the genetics of modern horses, while it only goes back to around 2000 BCE, it's very likely that wild horses on the Steppe were being corralled and used for milk and meat by a culture that predated the Yamnaya. There is a RUclips video by Dan Davis about this. What is interesting is that this was five to six thousand years ago, and there is clear evidence of the culture being based around horses. When you consider how hard it is to control wild horses, it makes you think that it's likely that the people had in fact learned how to breed, train, and ride horses, or the massive amount of horse remains in the region of the Steppe where they lived could not be explained. Their language is unknown, and genetics shows that they have no living descendants. Perhaps they were overrun or assimilated by the Yamnaya.
The reality is that Indo-European languages came from Indus valley civilization, which was literally the biggest and most advanced civilization during the ancient world.
It had more people than all of the rest of the bronze's civilization around the world combined.
Once that civilization ended because of the climate change, the people spread in all directions spreading the indo European languages.
Your name fits
@@Ayam-jw That's the only place which was a proper civilization without any known language.
The gloves fit.
But white, racist will never admit it.
Yes absolutely correct. Fun fact :- The ancestor haplogroup of R is Haplogroup F which originated in India 70-80k years ago.
Absolutely false.
The language spoken by the indus valley people is still not yet deciphered.
Whatever we know till date suggests thay Indus valley language is more related to Brahui, Kurux, etc which are Dravidian languages, not indo European.
@@Barraskewda7814 cope and seethe. Indus valley ain't dravidian.
Great history of PIE in a concise and informative package! 👍
Once again, very well done video! As a Lebanese Canadian, I have been doing deep dives on language similarities for years and I have noticed a lot of words within Semitic that are found in Celtic and Germanic. And I know they arent borrowed because these words have been used for thousands of years. The Mesopotamian hypothesis for Euro-Anatolian (my own term for proto-proto-indo-euro) is very sound considering that the Semites also have a storm god and serpent myth. Sure it can have been borrowed, but religious myths have concrete roots within a peoples' culture. And Im positive that even though the Yamnaya came from the Steppes, their ancestors most likely came from North Mesopotamia.
We know forna fact that a huge influx of Caucasian peoples migrated to the Levant during the Neolithic, so it's not thwt farfetch'd
Ps. Sorry for the long rant, I love your videos and you're so personable, im always looking forward to your videos
Excited for your language tree. Please consider both the celtic substrate theories about the English language and why it is so different from other Germanic languages, and also the theory that antipodean dialects of English (Australia and New Zealand) are heavily influenced by Scots and could even be considered a creole of English and Scots.