Germanic Substrate Theory is one of those things I really want to be true deep down in my heart. Not because of Nationalist reasons as I'm not from Northern Europe and I don't particularly care about Germanic history, but because I just think it'd be really neat for the languages to have mysterious words from TRB/Funnelbeakers (who are one of my favorite neolithic cultures)
I also find that it's feasible given the I haplotype's preservation there. I never took the Uralic substrate seriously, those guys didn't even get to Finland/Estonia until the Roman era. And they're the N haplotype.
They probably do anyhow, that or other Neolithic/Chalcolithic cultures of Vasconic language (and not Uralic, which should have influenced much more the Satem group languages rather, by adstrate rather than substrate, and also at the PIE genesis itself by substrate primarily). Venemman found many such words (and most were correct, although one was wrong) and I have stumbled on a few on my own (see my separate more recent comment for details).
@@LuisAldamiz The Vasconic theory is from what I can see controversial just like the Para-Semitic theories, Germanic was probably influenced by now extinct Paleo-Scandinavian languages that gave the word seal among others. How ever as said in the video, Greek seem to have had a stronger substrate influence.
@@jasminekaram880 - No, the Celto-Semitic conjecture is based only on one grammatical feature, which is not even exclusive of Semitic but found all accross the board from Morocco to the Caucasus (just not in most European languages however). The Vasconic substrate analysis is based on LOTS of actual vocabulary, much of which I've stumbled upon myself independently (kill, ill < (h)ill, cub < kume... for example) and only had one known error: claiming that "ganibet" was a Vasconic loan on Germanic, when it is the other way around. Venneman fell short however. I don't think he for example identified "land" as Vasconic buy my friend Prof. Roslyn Frank has argued (at least in private exchange, can't recall if she published anything on that) for "land" being very clearly derived from Basque "landa" (farming plot, field) and not the other way around. After all land has no IE etymology but landa comes lan = work in a very straightforward way understandable even in modern Basque: lan-da = worked. It also produces "landare" (plant) and "landatu" (to plant). Europe is full of Vasconic substrate stuff from "Gaia" (in Greek) to "landa" (in Germanic), from "-arius" (in Latin) to "gora" in Slavic. The etcetera is so long that would need not a book but a whole encyclopedia. Less arrogance, more research.
@Land is from Proto-Indo-European *lendʰ and is from what I know pretty uncontroversial with cognates outside Germanic. You should be more careful remember Basque like Sumerian gets linked with what so ever. The pre-IE linguistic landscape seem to have been diverse, so Germanic probably replaced more than one language it seems. For one the main substrate for Sami languages seem to be distinct from what was spoken more south where Germanic would supplant. That said I know some think that Basque and relatives was one of the languages that spread with agriculture. Maybe Basque was related to Paleo-Sardinian. Though I will say many of feature of insular Celtic are common in Afro-Asiatic as a whole and I would not be supposed if one branch of of AA reached Europe but I have no strong opinion and from what I know they do not have a lot of AA sounding substrate vocab in insular Celtic. The Canary Islands used to speak something close to Amazigh it seems. Part Moroccan myself.
The more you go into origin and reconstruction the deeper the way goes. Ancient Greek has khandáno (χανδάνω) for grabbing, cognate with hand. Great video, give more IPE material to the people🔥
I really appreciate how well written and appropriately produced your videos are. I also appreciate how well supported your arguments are. That said, I would really like to know who you are and what your credentials as a philologist are? Could you please post this information on your channel's homepage.
Very informative video, cool. 10:10 What is meant be "archaic pre-germanic word forms"? You mean place names that were apparently formed in the pre-proto-Germanic era?
4:14 Well, if I recall correctly, a pretty recent study (Steppe Ancestry in western Eurasia and the spread of the Germanic Languages, 2024) points to a demographic shift in Scandinavia suggesting that the Germanic language may rather have come from a maritime route via the Baltics. The so-called "slash and burn" that Kristiansen is talking about (not so recent idea by him in fact) is referenced once again in a pretty recent talk he did in the indo-european conference held in Pisa, Italy. In it if I recall correctly, he said they arrived from Bohemia. These corded-ware people came up to Jylland, changing the forested landscape to a pastoral one, like how it is even to this day. But the genetic evidence may be contrary to the idea these people were germanic speakers. It seems that a group of perhaps indo-european speakers came up to southern scandinavia, but weren't necessarily germanic speakers, then were replaced by germanic speakers coming from eastern scandinavia (read Mälardalen). Don't take my word for it though, do your own research and draw your own conclusions.
In any case I am not sure a language need to change much to have been forced on the locals by outsiders. Just look at the many Arabic speakers in north africa, all with different genetic backgrounds, but the variations in their Arabic isn't all that closely associated with the languages they spoke before Arabic. The main requirement for a local dialect to develop separately from the main language is cultural isolation.
I once read a claim that the alveolar past tense marker of Germanic weak verbs (like "walk-ed") is the influence of a non IE language. Is this claim also unfounded?
Works the same in Romances like Spanish ("camin-ado"), and this comes surely from Latin and thus Indoeuropean (or at least Western Indoeuropean). Italian would have it as -ato instead (which is probably closer to Latin, would have to investigate to be sure) and French loses the d/t element altogether into -é. It is however participle and not simple past, like in "have walked". So the shift here would be in participles becoming simple past, which is probably English-specific rather than Germanic, as hard Germanic verbs tend to have irregular past and participle forms instead ("saw", "caught", etc.)
armenian has 8 seperate outcome of the stop series depending on dialects some maintain breathy sounds(identical to the manner produced in indic languages) they all have the same outcome for t* in addition t vs th may be realised ť vs th depending on the dialect unrelated the distribution of the stop outcomes th d dh karin, sabastia th t dh yerevan th d d istanbul th d t kharberd, middle armenian th d th malatya, soutwest armenian th t d classical armenian, agulis, southeast armenian th t t van artsakh copied from the chart on wikipedia, copied a language encyclopedia from the 70s ive read papers that its likely referencing though, they strangly refer to the breathy sound as "laryngeal" in their titaling so they can be hard to find
A strata means that two languages influence each other through close contact; substrate is when the local language disappears in favour of the invading language. (Superstrate is the other way around). So the theory is that Germanic resulted from a non-Indo European language (probably Uralic) being displaced by an Indo-European one, but with the "new" language being heavily influenced by the "old" one
I don't know about the whole array of theories, some of which are mentioned by passing at the beginning of the video, but I'd look at (unmentioned) Vasconic substrate theory by Venneman, which is IMO quite sound.
This was very interesting and informative. And yet even some respected linguists hold to the germanic substrate theory. It’s a nice idea, albeit most likely false.
Only 4.5% pre-IE? Seems too low considering that most of what Venneman called Vasconic was hidden in Germanic (and that most of his words were correctly identified as such AFAIK). I mostly agree with what you say about Germanic prehistory but the substrate could have been incorporated prior to arrival to Northern Europe, after all Corded Ware people themselves show some 20-30% Vasconic admixture even in Poland (CW core) that East Yamna lacked and I do identify some Vasconic substrate/adstrate influence in Slavic ("gora" for "mountain" is extremely clear, "gore" for "up" in Serbocroat even more so). Some Germanic words that look Vasconic to me (not via Venneman but on my own or with ally help along the years), I found always via English (but later all them happen to derive from proto-Germanic and have no valid PIE root): · "kill" and "ill", compare Basque "(h)il" (to die or to kill) · "gate", compare Basque "ate" (door, gate, mountain port, maybe originally also seaport, now "portu" from Latin) · "cub", compare Basque "kume" ("cub" or any other kind of animal young) related to "ume" (child) I think that, beside substrate, which is dense not just in the aforementioned languages but also in Celto-Italic (most apparent to me in Latin words or elements such as -arius, which produces professional -er in Germanic and Romances but must be derived from something like Basque -ari, of same meaning but with a quite clear Vasconic etymology, as "ari(n)" also has other meanings related to "action"), we should consider the Bell Beaker adstrate, which would have influenced proto-Celto-Italic and proto-Germanic in ways that Vasconic substrate could not have influenced the more distant Balto-Slavic or Greco-Armenian (Vucedol culture) groups (Greek still gets its dose of Vasconic influence but surely from Adriatic or Peloponese substrate rather).
Modern scandinavians don't have a lot of genetic contribution from Scandinavian hunter gatherer cultures, like the pitted ware culture. This is probably to be expected, as the pitted ware culture and similar cultures likely had small populations and might have been assimilated without leaving a large genetic heritage. This situation is further muddled by the fact that Scandinavian hunter gatherer genetics derive from a combination of western Europeans hunter gatherer and east European hunter gatherer. This might camouflage their heritage in modern Scandinavians, since the genetics of the corded ware culture also contains a mix of western hunter gatherer (picked up while migrating through europe, particularly along the Atlantic coast) and easter hunter gatherer (since PIE steppe herder genetics derives from eastern hunter gatherers!). However, the Neolithic early european farmer cultures (deriving from anatolian genetics) had substantial population size in Scandinavia. The funnel beaker culture, from my understanding DID leave a substantial genetic heritage into modern Scandinavians (somewhere in the low double digit percentage range)! I'm a bit sad to hear they didn't leave a larger linguistic heritage, because that would have been interesting and awesome. But it is good to dispel myths, and some (maybe even most) of the germanic substrate theory does seem to be outdated and refuted.
the change to frictives in greek is very plausibly grafted from the aramaic six stop allophoney, since its attest in confused spelling earliest in the east in anatolia in the 2nd century bc, it also strangly applies no to the voicing or aspiration distinctions but to the not plain distinction which is very odd there are no attested africates as well given greek is a koine spoken by aramaic speakers its very plausibly a change by substitution not by gradation t ->þ is also an inately implosible change(at least by gradation) as it is necessarily produced as ts ->tsþ ->þ i would say that like koine greek this implies some amount substrate/adstrate influence actually consider this for sardian to with the change -ty/ky- -> -þ-, based on paleosardinian þ- and it conflating greek þ and ds in loans as depending on dialect þ,t,s,ts the same sound as the respect dialects outcome of þ- and -ty/ky-
RUclips instantly converts words between en dashes into crossouts. Like asterisks bold them and underline italicises them. -dash- *star* _italic_ ~test~
I have my own theory about how the Germanic languages emerged, The White Walker Theory. It suggests the White Walkers were influential in how the Germanic languages developed.
@@Carewolf do you have a source for that? as far as i know germanic archaeology has been found in that area all the way back since corded ware times, as evidenced by the distinctive boat-axe finds
@@Carewolf also, there were certainly a different paleoeuropean group that cohabited Scandinavia with the proto germanic people before the saami existed there, a people whose language was neither IE or Uralic, they were displaced by the saami
In old English it is noted that the word cyning seems to alter over time the oldest references seem to point to 'of the people', rather than head of state. This in my view could reflect the incoming christian influence. Older forms reflecting heathen concepts of a cyning being the personification of the folk, as opposed to christian thoughts where the king was imposed from above (given by god/divine right of kings etc). one might think of stories like the fisher-king where the king is very much of the body of his folk.
@@newprimitiveart Germanic Kings were also not hereditary aristocrats but chosen by the various tribes from important families. For example Sweden did not adopt hereditary monarchy until Gustav Vasa
@@tidsdjupet-mr5ud You are very very right, the Romans noted the war leader was selected from but not exclusively from leading families. It is also worth in passing noting how many leaders fighting Rome from the north (both Celtic and Germanic), had names which just meant warleader, as though the Romans did not even know the name of the leader they were fighting against, or never even bothered to find out.
@@tidsdjupet-mr5ud Thank you I did not know that, it makes so much sense. I think the Germanic ancients had a regimental system, and operated within a confederacy of states which may have overlapped. Much like The holy Roman Empire. or lands given to Norman lords in England which were separate and not all in one part of the country. It makes no sense that one tribe would all be night fighters and another all horsemen if they were opposed to each other, as the time of day would dictate who won a battle. We are often told Germanic tribes migrated, but it is impossible to see how such a tribe could deploy to fight a Roman Army and Germanic people to have so many victories. However regiments and armies are often named after the place they were mustered, so although the army may have come from a place it does not follow it was just of folk of that place, that tribe. This fits with archeology that where sampled bodies from even 'Viking' army graves in England do not all come from one place. There is much to be said on this subject, was the migration period that or Amies come to take back old lands the Romans once conquered? In the Anglo-Saxon chronicle several of the leaders of the 'Great Heathen army' have Anglo-Saxon names. Yet modern telling would have us believe all of that army was Scandinavian and only about looting, so why was it not called army of Northmen, but the Great heathen army at the time? It is also worth looking at 'the great conspiracy' which attempted to throw Romans out of Britain. I think that there were other reasons for the war than just a wish for loot. I find a lot of prejudice which seeks to play down or dismiss the abilities and sophistication of our ancestors.
There are many problems with that model. Proto-Germanic was far from a landlocked language, having a large and extensive naval/seafaring vocabulary shared by all descendants. Compare that with Proto-Celtic that David Stifter actually describes as an inland language. It seems that the central europe theory is mostly presented by German scholars like Jürgen Udolph and Wolfram Euler that haven't taken part of the more extensive studies into contact with Sami and Finnic that show long periods of contact even before the Germanic sound shifts. With proto-germanic influence on proto-finnic being comparable to french on middle english. I read his book (I even used his Pre-Pgmc forms) and that he is not aware of this is obvious. The idea behind that theory seems to be based on some place-names elements in lower Saxony that are deemed older than for example place names in Sweden, but a late Germanic migration to Scandinavia would be detectable yet we don't see this. It is actually west Germanic that has more difficult words with onset p- (nordwestblock) not the other way around. Lastly, there is the fact that Germanic developed in relative isolation, for example Proto-Slavic did not come into contact with Pgmc until the late iron age according to Fredrik Kortlandt. Making a continental Pgmc development nearby the slavic speech area very unlikely, there must have been some other IE-language (temematic) spoken in between to account for this. But then again when we are talking around 2000 BC, there was likely still a large IE-dialect continuum then, this is long long before Grimm's law and so on.
Jastorf culture rather (Netherlands and Low Germany). Unetice is rather related to the genesis of Celto-Italic but what role other lesser EBA cultures in Bavaria, Swabia, Austria or Rhineland played in that genesis is unclear, what is clear is that successor Tummuli and Urnfields culture were already Celto-Italic and that early Italics had a more eastern distribution (Veneto primarily, then southwards into central Italy) than Celtics (Lombardy but also along the western bank of the Rhône river into Languedoc and Catalonia producing later the Iberian Celts). For all we know it's possible that Unetice produced Italic or that it spoke a third branch of Celto-Italic that is now extinct).
You forget that there are clear archeological links between the Unetice culture and the Nordic Bronze age, leading to the hypothesis of a cultural transmission from modern Germany to Scandinavia, which as far as I know is also backed up by some genetic studies. Therefore I think that the place-names elements in lower Saxony are still very valuable as a proof of the origin of Pre-Germanic (Germanic parent language). I think that the Northern Unetice culture (around Lower Saxony) was the origin of Pre-Germanic, not only because of this evidence but also based on some Genetic evidence (i.e. the concentration and high variance of the Germanic haplogroup I2a2 in that region). Based on the theories of Euler/Badenheuer, I surmise that this dialect would spread to parts of the Nordwestblock (Elp culture), to Scandinavia (leading to the the Nordic Bronze Age) and even to the Lusatian culture (and the later Pomeranian and Przeworsk cultures), which arguably (according to a lot of German scholars) was Germanic from its beginning, based on the evidence that there is little archeological change in this area (Halstatt and La Tène influence excluded) even until Roman times, where this area is inhabited by (pre-Gothic) Germanic speakers. This might anger some of the West-Slavs, but I really don't think that the region of modern western Poland or even Poland in general was originally Slavic at all. The eastern border of the Pre- and later Proto-Germanic dialect continuum likely was the Vistula and its tributaries and the Carpathian mountains (found in the Tyrfing saga as "Harvaða fjöllum/Harvaðafjǫll", with a Proto-Germanic sound change). I don't think that a lack of loanwords in Proto-Balto-Slavic means anything, as Proto-Balto-Slavic originates (according to Anthony) from the middle Dniepr, rather far away from the Vistula. And yes, a substratum in between is very probable. Taking the coastline and the rivers of this region into account, I also don't think that naval/seafaring vocabulary is a strong argument against this theory. Regarding the Finnic connection: Yes, Germanic immigration to Scandinavia was Pre-Germanic. The Nordic Bronze Age lasted for a long time. I don't think that this is good counter argument because it is most probable that Pre-Germanic was in Scandinavia long before Proto-Finnic or Sami - and stayed there for up to 1500 years before becoming Proto-Germanic. The ancestors of the speakers of the dialect that we call North Sea Germanic today likely conquered Scandinavia, mixing with the people of the earlier Battle Axe Culture and starting the Nordic Bronze age (they reflect the Germanic haplogroup R1b in Scandinavia that entered with the Nordic Bronze Age). This is why there are so many similarities between Norse and North Sea Germanic languages, and why both peoples worship(ed) Ingvi as their ancestor (a more anthropological kind of argument). The Jastorf-Culture is a much later development. It may even reflect a "northward" expansion into North Sea Germanic territory by Elbe Germanic speakers, as they were closer to the Hallstatt culture and therefore had iron technology.
@Jon-mh9lk I think i mixed up the chronology a bit but that makes more sense as a timeline. And about the finnic connection, some have even suggested a pre-pgmc speaking coastal population in western Finland already present when the finnic and Sami languages expanded.
Some things to think about: · There is a close parallel to Verner's Law in the Finnic languages: Proto-Finnic *p, *t, *k, *s became *b, *d, *g, *h after a completely unstressed syllable (acting in suffixes, since Finnic languages have initial stress). Then again, voicing of unstressed consonants isn't super rare, so it could've happened independently in Germanic and Finnic. · Germanic languages tend to have a lot of geminate consonants, though many of them arose in the daughter languages. If one believes Kluge's Law, some Proto-Germanic nouns might have had a system of consonantgradation. Though it seems that Kluge's Law is quite controversial. · Paul Kiparsky believes that Proto-Norse words had primary stress on the first syllable of the root, and every odd-numbered syllable after that was secondarily stressed. This stress system would eventually give rise to the Scandinavian pitch-accent system (e.g.: *ˈwármiˌðṓ 'I warmed', *ˈskóriˌnáz 'carved', *ˈhírðiˌjáz 'shepherd' yield Swedish värmde, skuren, herde). He gives new evidence for this reconstruction in this lecture. ruclips.net/video/sAxB8xG12U8/видео.html If his reconstruction be correct, it looks very similar to the Finnic stress system, with primary initial stress and secondary stress on odd syllables. Although in Finnic, final syllables don't get secondary stress, so not a perfect match, and there are other peculiarities of Finnic stress.
Kluge's law is only controversial if you believe in made up woowoo like "expressive gemination", to date it's the most likely proposal from what I've seen, actually based on modern linguistic theory. Of course It doesn't have to be right, but the contenders are weak to say the least
If proto-Germanic coalesced in Lower Germania (from Netherlands to Mecklemburg approx. but not Denmark or Scandinavia) as is generally accepted (Jastorf culture as origin), then they should not have got any special contact with Uralics after Corded Ware diversification. They should have found a Vasconic substrate (dominant in Europe prior to IE expansion) and a Vasconic adstrate (Bell Beaker influence after Corded Ware) instead. Uralic had influence in PIE genesis (EHG = Western Uralics) and in the Eastern branches of diversified IE, most clearly Indo-Aryan (but I'd go for anything "satem"). Another substrate that the Indoeuropeans found in their expansion was surely an eastern variant of Paleouropean (Dniepr-Don to Pitted Ware), which is extinct and can't thus be easily researched. This should not have affected proto-Germanic specifically unless via founder effect (i.e. some more influenced population established themselves in the proto-Germanic area). It's worth mentioning that both Y-DNA I1 and R1a (western) may have been incorporated to the Indoeuropean genetic pool (dominated by R1b-Volga otherwise) by interactions with these Dniepr-Don Paleoeuropean peoples in the context of the Sredny-Stog complex (which is a mix of "kurgan" and pre-kurgan elements). In one Yamna-derived culture leading to historical Thracians (Ezero culture) we observe even Dniepr-Don like burials (extended posture, lots of ochre) instead of your typical kurgan (crouched position, no ochre, tumular obviously). This is something to be considered as well.
Preferred by who? Some guy in an ivory tower who's feelings I'm unconcerned with? Or the dead people we can certainly ask about how they feel we refer to them as? If etymology is one of the keys to wisdom, why do you think they're trying to change the language all the time. Descriptivism prescribes anti prescriptive descriptions.
late latin is a form of written latin, they're not the same. the cambridge history of the romance languages uses "vulgar Latin" instead of "Vulgar Latin" so as to not imply that "Vulgar Latin" was one single language; we're referring to vulgar [i.e common] forms of Latin.
@@onethreeify Being less offensive doesn't impact getting anything done. Acknowledging the connotations of a word, and changing what we commonly say to something more neutral to make up for that isn't hurting anyone. The objectives of space agencies and markets aren't controlled by anyone who would care about that, they have no need, and it's not their job. Vulgar is one of many words used originally for commoners that became derogatory, it's like if we called all modern American dialects along with irish and scotts "mediocre English". It makes no practical sense and it alienates people.
@@thetobyntr9540 what people are getting alienated by the term vulgar latin lmao language has been dead for a thousand years. It cannot possibly be offensive to anyone. What a silly idea to even waste time debating. Big snowflake energy
Celtic is Indoeuropean, so that could not be. West of the Vistula and Dniepr, with some Balcanic exceptions, what the Indoeuropean encountered was definitely Vasconic languages. However the replacement was quite radical, maybe because of the associated plague, and Corded Ware people only seem to have lesser (20%?) amounts of Vasconic genetics. Nevertheless the Bell Beaker phenomenon originated in Southwestern Europe and must have brought some Vasconic influence after Corded Ware to the western parts of Central Europe and to Denmark as well (this is also apparent in some genetic influence in Germany and the Northern Alps but not in Moravia, where Corded Ware genetic continuity is quite strict all the way into the Bronze Age). Celts coalesced probably in historical Swabia, maybe Rhineland too, expanded first along with Italics (and maybe other extinct linguistic families) with Urnfields culture (to Italy but also to the Languedoc-Catalonia area, and some Celto-Italics of unclear sub-affiliation also expanded towards Poland, where they may have clashed with proto-Germanics at the Tollense battle, Mecklemburg-Pommern). Later they would expand with Hallstatt culture into central Iberia (but then lost Catalonia-Languedoc to the Iberians, becoming isolated) and absorbing their relatives of Central Europe, and then their main expansion was barely proto-historical with La Tène culture, when they experienced massive expansion (most of historical Gaul and into the islands, also along the Danube into the Balcans, secondary flows into north-central Italy as well, famously looting Rome). I'm persuaded that they should be called Gauls rather than Celts, as in most cases they call themselves that way (incl. modern Gael) and because I believe Greek "keltos" (surely coined in Marseilles or its sub-colonies) is Vasconic (Iberian?) in origin and somewhat of a slur (keldo = "vagabond" in modern Basque, other kel- root words are also despective).
This sounds like a giant attempted rebuttal. Yes "Germanic" developed in a small, isolated community, recently, not anciently. And yes, the "Germanic" involvement in Scandinavia also came late, not early. Other Indo-European people's brought horses and herds there, and their DNA long before the "Germanic" speakers fled there as defeated military refugees (from wars with Romans and Celts). The popular fairy-tale of "Germania" is largely a myth of wishful, latter day thinking. The actual history is quite different than the fiction that "German" historians have imaginatively portrayed, and then back-projected.
Wrong, Germanic devoloped in Nordic Bronze Age long before it began expanding south. So you are spreading BS: Germanic had deep lomg contacts with order Northen European languages including early Sami, so you did not watch the video and spread disinformation.
@@jasminekaram880 Video is garbage, asserting wishful thinking and blatant ignorance. "German" is a creole, and the people are a very mixed bag, genetically. Mongrels. Get used to it, Adolf.
Latin shifted bʰ, dʰ, gʰ to fricatives much earlier than Greek even
Concise and to the point, which has earned you a subscriber. Keep up the good work!
thank you for making me realize I forgot to subscribe
@@celtofcanaanesurix2245 Lol I do my best
Germanic Substrate Theory is one of those things I really want to be true deep down in my heart. Not because of Nationalist reasons as I'm not from Northern Europe and I don't particularly care about Germanic history, but because I just think it'd be really neat for the languages to have mysterious words from TRB/Funnelbeakers (who are one of my favorite neolithic cultures)
I also find that it's feasible given the I haplotype's preservation there.
I never took the Uralic substrate seriously, those guys didn't even get to Finland/Estonia until the Roman era. And they're the N haplotype.
They probably do anyhow, that or other Neolithic/Chalcolithic cultures of Vasconic language (and not Uralic, which should have influenced much more the Satem group languages rather, by adstrate rather than substrate, and also at the PIE genesis itself by substrate primarily). Venemman found many such words (and most were correct, although one was wrong) and I have stumbled on a few on my own (see my separate more recent comment for details).
@@LuisAldamiz The Vasconic theory is from what I can see controversial just like the Para-Semitic theories, Germanic was probably influenced by now extinct Paleo-Scandinavian languages that gave the word seal among others. How ever as said in the video, Greek seem to have had a stronger substrate influence.
@@jasminekaram880 - No, the Celto-Semitic conjecture is based only on one grammatical feature, which is not even exclusive of Semitic but found all accross the board from Morocco to the Caucasus (just not in most European languages however). The Vasconic substrate analysis is based on LOTS of actual vocabulary, much of which I've stumbled upon myself independently (kill, ill < (h)ill, cub < kume... for example) and only had one known error: claiming that "ganibet" was a Vasconic loan on Germanic, when it is the other way around.
Venneman fell short however. I don't think he for example identified "land" as Vasconic buy my friend Prof. Roslyn Frank has argued (at least in private exchange, can't recall if she published anything on that) for "land" being very clearly derived from Basque "landa" (farming plot, field) and not the other way around. After all land has no IE etymology but landa comes lan = work in a very straightforward way understandable even in modern Basque: lan-da = worked. It also produces "landare" (plant) and "landatu" (to plant).
Europe is full of Vasconic substrate stuff from "Gaia" (in Greek) to "landa" (in Germanic), from "-arius" (in Latin) to "gora" in Slavic. The etcetera is so long that would need not a book but a whole encyclopedia.
Less arrogance, more research.
@Land is from Proto-Indo-European *lendʰ and is from what I know pretty uncontroversial with cognates outside Germanic.
You should be more careful remember Basque like Sumerian gets linked with what so ever.
The pre-IE linguistic landscape seem to have been diverse, so Germanic probably replaced more than one language it seems. For one the main substrate for Sami languages seem to be distinct from what was spoken more south where Germanic would supplant.
That said I know some think that Basque and relatives was one of the languages that spread with agriculture.
Maybe Basque was related to Paleo-Sardinian.
Though I will say many of feature of insular Celtic are common in Afro-Asiatic as a whole and I would not be supposed if one branch of of AA reached Europe but I have no strong opinion and from what I know they do not have a lot of AA sounding substrate vocab in insular Celtic.
The Canary Islands used to speak something close to Amazigh it seems.
Part Moroccan myself.
The more you go into origin and reconstruction the deeper the way goes. Ancient Greek has khandáno (χανδάνω) for grabbing, cognate with hand. Great video, give more IPE material to the people🔥
I've been learning a bit of sanskrit and when you know a bit about the sound changes, the cognates stick out so clearly it's amazing
@@anastasiossioulas83 Greek kh- corresponds to Germanic g- not h-
@@tidsdjupet-mr5udyup it corresponds with english "get", not "hand"
@@swagmundfreud666agreed. I’ve only dabbled in a handful of IE languages, literally dabbling, and even then cognates almost jump out at me.
It's cognate with get.
it soothes my soul that someone actually remembered that thte singular millenium exists
As a Swede, I appreciate the heavy Swedish accent!
o ja :)
Wouldn't quite call it heavy: the j's and ch's are stellar :D
I really appreciate how well written and appropriately produced your videos are. I also appreciate how well supported your arguments are. That said, I would really like to know who you are and what your credentials as a philologist are? Could you please post this information on your channel's homepage.
I don't have any degree in linguistics. But I have had it as a hobby for the last 10 years.
My degree and work is in agriculture.
@@tidsdjupet-mr5udthank you for your answer and your consistently good investigations.
Very informative video, cool.
10:10 What is meant be "archaic pre-germanic word forms"? You mean place names that were apparently formed in the pre-proto-Germanic era?
@@JohnSmith-of2gu Yes
@@tidsdjupet-mr5ud Thanks, cool! What would be some examples of place names that old?
@@JohnSmith-of2gu lakes like "Vättern" with ablut and places ending with -und like "Bornholm" from older Borgundarholm.
Very interesting well-informed video, love the provided sources :)
4:14 Well, if I recall correctly, a pretty recent study (Steppe Ancestry in western Eurasia and the spread of the Germanic Languages, 2024) points to a demographic shift in Scandinavia suggesting that the Germanic language may rather have come from a maritime route via the Baltics. The so-called "slash and burn" that Kristiansen is talking about (not so recent idea by him in fact) is referenced once again in a pretty recent talk he did in the indo-european conference held in Pisa, Italy. In it if I recall correctly, he said they arrived from Bohemia. These corded-ware people came up to Jylland, changing the forested landscape to a pastoral one, like how it is even to this day. But the genetic evidence may be contrary to the idea these people were germanic speakers.
It seems that a group of perhaps indo-european speakers came up to southern scandinavia, but weren't necessarily germanic speakers, then were replaced by germanic speakers coming from eastern scandinavia (read Mälardalen). Don't take my word for it though, do your own research and draw your own conclusions.
I mention and reference exactly that paper in the video at: 4:57
@@tidsdjupet-mr5ud My bad for not keep watching the video before making my comment... lol
I LOVE THESE VIDEOS!! I LOVE PROTO GERMANIC
Another great video. thanks!
In any case I am not sure a language need to change much to have been forced on the locals by outsiders. Just look at the many Arabic speakers in north africa, all with different genetic backgrounds, but the variations in their Arabic isn't all that closely associated with the languages they spoke before Arabic. The main requirement for a local dialect to develop separately from the main language is cultural isolation.
Maghrebi Arabic like Morrocan Darija has a huuge Amazigh substrate, Egyptian Arabic has a clear Coptic substrate.
Thank you for this dispelling of myths.
The early debuccalization and the layers of developments makes it pretty odd. “wolf” for example.
Very interesting, although I have not that much understanding of the subject.
I once read a claim that the alveolar past tense marker of Germanic weak verbs (like "walk-ed") is the influence of a non IE language. Is this claim also unfounded?
Works the same in Romances like Spanish ("camin-ado"), and this comes surely from Latin and thus Indoeuropean (or at least Western Indoeuropean). Italian would have it as -ato instead (which is probably closer to Latin, would have to investigate to be sure) and French loses the d/t element altogether into -é. It is however participle and not simple past, like in "have walked". So the shift here would be in participles becoming simple past, which is probably English-specific rather than Germanic, as hard Germanic verbs tend to have irregular past and participle forms instead ("saw", "caught", etc.)
Jævla bra video, som alltid!
I missed the for me typical Germanic change of central vowels to change meaning or category. I come I came, Goose Geese, to Bind a Bond.
That's ablaut. He mentioned it. It is an IE trait.
Ablaut WAS mentioned!
armenian has 8 seperate outcome of the stop series depending on dialects some maintain breathy sounds(identical to the manner produced in indic languages) they all have the same outcome for t*
in addition t vs th may be realised ť vs th depending on the dialect unrelated the distribution of the stop outcomes
th d dh karin, sabastia
th t dh yerevan
th d d istanbul
th d t kharberd, middle armenian
th d th malatya, soutwest armenian
th t d classical armenian, agulis, southeast armenian
th t t van artsakh
copied from the chart on wikipedia, copied a language encyclopedia from the 70s
ive read papers that its likely referencing though, they strangly refer to the breathy sound as "laryngeal" in their titaling so they can be hard to find
What is substrate theory? Clicking on this video I thought there might be an explanation.
A strata means that two languages influence each other through close contact; substrate is when the local language disappears in favour of the invading language. (Superstrate is the other way around). So the theory is that Germanic resulted from a non-Indo European language (probably Uralic) being displaced by an Indo-European one, but with the "new" language being heavily influenced by the "old" one
I don't know about the whole array of theories, some of which are mentioned by passing at the beginning of the video, but I'd look at (unmentioned) Vasconic substrate theory by Venneman, which is IMO quite sound.
@@thermn8rone stratum, two strata. It just means layer.
@@peterfireflylund yep, I should have said stratum instead of the plural haha
Well, I’m convinced.
This was very interesting and informative. And yet even some respected linguists hold to the germanic substrate theory. It’s a nice idea, albeit most likely false.
It's a shame because I really want to believe this *hypothesis*... because it is so mysterious and cool
Kommer kolla på alla videor som handlar om indoeuropeiska substrat
JAG ÄLSKAR
jätte bra :)
I find the idea from the germanic religion more convincing. In that it contains literal evidence of a war of pantheons that were merged.
Only 4.5% pre-IE? Seems too low considering that most of what Venneman called Vasconic was hidden in Germanic (and that most of his words were correctly identified as such AFAIK). I mostly agree with what you say about Germanic prehistory but the substrate could have been incorporated prior to arrival to Northern Europe, after all Corded Ware people themselves show some 20-30% Vasconic admixture even in Poland (CW core) that East Yamna lacked and I do identify some Vasconic substrate/adstrate influence in Slavic ("gora" for "mountain" is extremely clear, "gore" for "up" in Serbocroat even more so).
Some Germanic words that look Vasconic to me (not via Venneman but on my own or with ally help along the years), I found always via English (but later all them happen to derive from proto-Germanic and have no valid PIE root):
· "kill" and "ill", compare Basque "(h)il" (to die or to kill)
· "gate", compare Basque "ate" (door, gate, mountain port, maybe originally also seaport, now "portu" from Latin)
· "cub", compare Basque "kume" ("cub" or any other kind of animal young) related to "ume" (child)
I think that, beside substrate, which is dense not just in the aforementioned languages but also in Celto-Italic (most apparent to me in Latin words or elements such as -arius, which produces professional -er in Germanic and Romances but must be derived from something like Basque -ari, of same meaning but with a quite clear Vasconic etymology, as "ari(n)" also has other meanings related to "action"), we should consider the Bell Beaker adstrate, which would have influenced proto-Celto-Italic and proto-Germanic in ways that Vasconic substrate could not have influenced the more distant Balto-Slavic or Greco-Armenian (Vucedol culture) groups (Greek still gets its dose of Vasconic influence but surely from Adriatic or Peloponese substrate rather).
The Vasconic theory with respect to Germanic is considered crack pot theories.
@@jasminekaram880 - Is considered by whom? It is extremely respectable AFAIK.
Modern scandinavians don't have a lot of genetic contribution from Scandinavian hunter gatherer cultures, like the pitted ware culture. This is probably to be expected, as the pitted ware culture and similar cultures likely had small populations and might have been assimilated without leaving a large genetic heritage. This situation is further muddled by the fact that Scandinavian hunter gatherer genetics derive from a combination of western Europeans hunter gatherer and east European hunter gatherer. This might camouflage their heritage in modern Scandinavians, since the genetics of the corded ware culture also contains a mix of western hunter gatherer (picked up while migrating through europe, particularly along the Atlantic coast) and easter hunter gatherer (since PIE steppe herder genetics derives from eastern hunter gatherers!).
However, the Neolithic early european farmer cultures (deriving from anatolian genetics) had substantial population size in Scandinavia. The funnel beaker culture, from my understanding DID leave a substantial genetic heritage into modern Scandinavians (somewhere in the low double digit percentage range)!
I'm a bit sad to hear they didn't leave a larger linguistic heritage, because that would have been interesting and awesome. But it is good to dispel myths, and some (maybe even most) of the germanic substrate theory does seem to be outdated and refuted.
the change to frictives in greek is very plausibly grafted from the aramaic six stop allophoney, since its attest in confused spelling earliest in the east in anatolia in the 2nd century bc, it also strangly applies no to the voicing or aspiration distinctions but to the not plain distinction which is very odd
there are no attested africates as well
given greek is a koine spoken by aramaic speakers its very plausibly a change by substitution not by gradation
t ->þ is also an inately implosible change(at least by gradation) as it is necessarily produced as ts ->tsþ ->þ
i would say that like koine greek this implies some amount substrate/adstrate influence
actually consider this for sardian to with the change -ty/ky- -> -þ-, based on paleosardinian þ- and it conflating greek þ and ds in loans as depending on dialect þ,t,s,ts the same sound as the respect dialects outcome of þ- and -ty/ky-
-ty/ky- is medial idk why youtube does tha crossbar thing
RUclips instantly converts words between en dashes into crossouts. Like asterisks bold them and underline italicises them.
-dash-
*star*
_italic_
~test~
@nealjroberts4050
😩
ill try the japanese keyboard
‐ty-
-ty-
-ty-
-ty-
‐ty‐
I have my own theory about how the Germanic languages emerged, The White Walker Theory. It suggests the White Walkers were influential in how the Germanic languages developed.
IE existed in Scandinavia before Uralic, not by very long but nonetheless.
Well, in southern now more heavily populated Scandinavia anyway. The Uralic speakers were as far south as modern day Stockholm though.
@@Carewolf do you have a source for that? as far as i know germanic archaeology has been found in that area all the way back since corded ware times, as evidenced by the distinctive boat-axe finds
@@Carewolf also, there were certainly a different paleoeuropean group that cohabited Scandinavia with the proto germanic people before the saami existed there, a people whose language was neither IE or Uralic, they were displaced by the saami
In old English it is noted that the word cyning seems to alter over time the oldest references seem to point to 'of the people', rather than head of state. This in my view could reflect the incoming christian influence. Older forms reflecting heathen concepts of a cyning being the personification of the folk, as opposed to christian thoughts where the king was imposed from above (given by god/divine right of kings etc).
one might think of stories like the fisher-king where the king is very much of the body of his folk.
@@newprimitiveart Germanic Kings were also not hereditary aristocrats but chosen by the various tribes from important families. For example Sweden did not adopt hereditary monarchy until Gustav Vasa
@@tidsdjupet-mr5ud You are very very right, the Romans noted the war leader was selected from but not exclusively from leading families.
It is also worth in passing noting how many leaders fighting Rome from the north (both Celtic and Germanic), had names which just meant warleader, as though the Romans did not even know the name of the leader they were fighting against, or never even bothered to find out.
@@newprimitiveart harii = army. Marcomanni = bordermen
@@tidsdjupet-mr5ud Thank you I did not know that, it makes so much sense.
I think the Germanic ancients had a regimental system, and operated within a confederacy of states which may have overlapped. Much like The holy Roman Empire. or lands given to Norman lords in England which were separate and not all in one part of the country.
It makes no sense that one tribe would all be night fighters and another all horsemen if they were opposed to each other, as the time of day would dictate who won a battle.
We are often told Germanic tribes migrated, but it is impossible to see how such a tribe could deploy to fight a Roman Army and Germanic people to have so many victories.
However regiments and armies are often named after the place they were mustered, so although the army may have come from a place it does not follow it was just of folk of that place, that tribe.
This fits with archeology that where sampled bodies from even 'Viking' army graves in England do not all come from one place.
There is much to be said on this subject, was the migration period that or Amies come to take back old lands the Romans once conquered?
In the Anglo-Saxon chronicle several of the leaders of the 'Great Heathen army' have Anglo-Saxon names. Yet modern telling would have us believe all of that army was Scandinavian and only about looting, so why was it not called army of Northmen, but the Great heathen army at the time?
It is also worth looking at 'the great conspiracy' which attempted to throw Romans out of Britain.
I think that there were other reasons for the war than just a wish for loot.
I find a lot of prejudice which seeks to play down or dismiss the abilities and sophistication of our ancestors.
@@newprimitiveart en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hundred_(county_division)
The Germanic people came from the south, from the Unetice culture.
There are many problems with that model.
Proto-Germanic was far from a landlocked language, having a large and extensive naval/seafaring vocabulary shared by all descendants. Compare that with Proto-Celtic that David Stifter actually describes as an inland language.
It seems that the central europe theory is mostly presented by German scholars like Jürgen Udolph and Wolfram Euler that haven't taken part of the more extensive studies into contact with Sami and Finnic that show long periods of contact even before the Germanic sound shifts. With proto-germanic influence on proto-finnic being comparable to french on middle english.
I read his book (I even used his Pre-Pgmc forms) and that he is not aware of this is obvious.
The idea behind that theory seems to be based on some place-names elements in lower Saxony that are deemed older than for example place names in Sweden, but a late Germanic migration to Scandinavia would be detectable yet we don't see this. It is actually west Germanic that has more difficult words with onset p- (nordwestblock) not the other way around.
Lastly, there is the fact that Germanic developed in relative isolation, for example Proto-Slavic did not come into contact with Pgmc until the late iron age according to Fredrik Kortlandt. Making a continental Pgmc development nearby the slavic speech area very unlikely, there must have been some other IE-language (temematic) spoken in between to account for this.
But then again when we are talking around 2000 BC, there was likely still a large IE-dialect continuum then, this is long long before Grimm's law and so on.
Jastorf culture rather (Netherlands and Low Germany). Unetice is rather related to the genesis of Celto-Italic but what role other lesser EBA cultures in Bavaria, Swabia, Austria or Rhineland played in that genesis is unclear, what is clear is that successor Tummuli and Urnfields culture were already Celto-Italic and that early Italics had a more eastern distribution (Veneto primarily, then southwards into central Italy) than Celtics (Lombardy but also along the western bank of the Rhône river into Languedoc and Catalonia producing later the Iberian Celts). For all we know it's possible that Unetice produced Italic or that it spoke a third branch of Celto-Italic that is now extinct).
You forget that there are clear archeological links between the Unetice culture and the Nordic Bronze age, leading to the hypothesis of a cultural transmission from modern Germany to Scandinavia, which as far as I know is also backed up by some genetic studies.
Therefore I think that the place-names elements in lower Saxony are still very valuable as a proof of the origin of Pre-Germanic (Germanic parent language).
I think that the Northern Unetice culture (around Lower Saxony) was the origin of Pre-Germanic, not only because of this evidence but also based on some Genetic evidence (i.e. the concentration and high variance of the Germanic haplogroup I2a2 in that region).
Based on the theories of Euler/Badenheuer, I surmise that this dialect would spread to parts of the Nordwestblock (Elp culture), to Scandinavia (leading to the the Nordic Bronze Age) and even to the Lusatian culture (and the later Pomeranian and Przeworsk cultures), which arguably (according to a lot of German scholars) was Germanic from its beginning, based on the evidence that there is little archeological change in this area (Halstatt and La Tène influence excluded) even until Roman times, where this area is inhabited by (pre-Gothic) Germanic speakers. This might anger some of the West-Slavs, but I really don't think that the region of modern western Poland or even Poland in general was originally Slavic at all. The eastern border of the Pre- and later Proto-Germanic dialect continuum likely was the Vistula and its tributaries and the Carpathian mountains (found in the Tyrfing saga as "Harvaða fjöllum/Harvaðafjǫll", with a Proto-Germanic sound change).
I don't think that a lack of loanwords in Proto-Balto-Slavic means anything, as Proto-Balto-Slavic originates (according to Anthony) from the middle Dniepr, rather far away from the Vistula. And yes, a substratum in between is very probable.
Taking the coastline and the rivers of this region into account, I also don't think that naval/seafaring vocabulary is a strong argument against this theory.
Regarding the Finnic connection: Yes, Germanic immigration to Scandinavia was Pre-Germanic. The Nordic Bronze Age lasted for a long time.
I don't think that this is good counter argument because it is most probable that Pre-Germanic was in Scandinavia long before Proto-Finnic or Sami - and stayed there for up to 1500 years before becoming Proto-Germanic.
The ancestors of the speakers of the dialect that we call North Sea Germanic today likely conquered Scandinavia, mixing with the people of the earlier Battle Axe Culture and starting the Nordic Bronze age (they reflect the Germanic haplogroup R1b in Scandinavia that entered with the Nordic Bronze Age).
This is why there are so many similarities between Norse and North Sea Germanic languages, and why both peoples worship(ed) Ingvi as their ancestor (a more anthropological kind of argument).
The Jastorf-Culture is a much later development. It may even reflect a "northward" expansion into North Sea Germanic territory by Elbe Germanic speakers, as they were closer to the Hallstatt culture and therefore had iron technology.
@Jon-mh9lk I think i mixed up the chronology a bit but that makes more sense as a timeline. And about the finnic connection, some have even suggested a pre-pgmc speaking coastal population in western Finland already present when the finnic and Sami languages expanded.
I also have one correction. It's Saxony-Anhalt, not Lower Saxony...
you sound unusually european
I think he sounds Swedish
@@Tom_Quixote that would make a lot of sense
Ὑπερβόρεα...
Some things to think about:
· There is a close parallel to Verner's Law in the Finnic languages: Proto-Finnic *p, *t, *k, *s became *b, *d, *g, *h after a completely unstressed syllable (acting in suffixes, since Finnic languages have initial stress). Then again, voicing of unstressed consonants isn't super rare, so it could've happened independently in Germanic and Finnic.
· Germanic languages tend to have a lot of geminate consonants, though many of them arose in the daughter languages. If one believes Kluge's Law, some Proto-Germanic nouns might have had a system of consonantgradation. Though it seems that Kluge's Law is quite controversial.
· Paul Kiparsky believes that Proto-Norse words had primary stress on the first syllable of the root, and every odd-numbered syllable after that was secondarily stressed. This stress system would eventually give rise to the Scandinavian pitch-accent system (e.g.: *ˈwármiˌðṓ 'I warmed', *ˈskóriˌnáz 'carved', *ˈhírðiˌjáz 'shepherd' yield Swedish värmde, skuren, herde). He gives new evidence for this reconstruction in this lecture. ruclips.net/video/sAxB8xG12U8/видео.html If his reconstruction be correct, it looks very similar to the Finnic stress system, with primary initial stress and secondary stress on odd syllables. Although in Finnic, final syllables don't get secondary stress, so not a perfect match, and there are other peculiarities of Finnic stress.
@@innsj6369 it is well known that Pgmc developed for a long time neighbouring Finnic.
Kluge's law is only controversial if you believe in made up woowoo like "expressive gemination", to date it's the most likely proposal from what I've seen, actually based on modern linguistic theory. Of course It doesn't have to be right, but the contenders are weak to say the least
If proto-Germanic coalesced in Lower Germania (from Netherlands to Mecklemburg approx. but not Denmark or Scandinavia) as is generally accepted (Jastorf culture as origin), then they should not have got any special contact with Uralics after Corded Ware diversification. They should have found a Vasconic substrate (dominant in Europe prior to IE expansion) and a Vasconic adstrate (Bell Beaker influence after Corded Ware) instead.
Uralic had influence in PIE genesis (EHG = Western Uralics) and in the Eastern branches of diversified IE, most clearly Indo-Aryan (but I'd go for anything "satem").
Another substrate that the Indoeuropeans found in their expansion was surely an eastern variant of Paleouropean (Dniepr-Don to Pitted Ware), which is extinct and can't thus be easily researched. This should not have affected proto-Germanic specifically unless via founder effect (i.e. some more influenced population established themselves in the proto-Germanic area). It's worth mentioning that both Y-DNA I1 and R1a (western) may have been incorporated to the Indoeuropean genetic pool (dominated by R1b-Volga otherwise) by interactions with these Dniepr-Don Paleoeuropean peoples in the context of the Sredny-Stog complex (which is a mix of "kurgan" and pre-kurgan elements). In one Yamna-derived culture leading to historical Thracians (Ezero culture) we observe even Dniepr-Don like burials (extended posture, lots of ochre) instead of your typical kurgan (crouched position, no ochre, tumular obviously). This is something to be considered as well.
8:27 vulgar latin is no longer the accepted term afaik, the preferred term is late latin
maybe if we spent more time on research and less on letting left-wing liberals decide what words are accepted or not we'd be back on the moon already
Preferred by who? Some guy in an ivory tower who's feelings I'm unconcerned with? Or the dead people we can certainly ask about how they feel we refer to them as?
If etymology is one of the keys to wisdom, why do you think they're trying to change the language all the time.
Descriptivism prescribes anti prescriptive descriptions.
late latin is a form of written latin, they're not the same.
the cambridge history of the romance languages uses "vulgar Latin" instead of "Vulgar Latin" so as to not imply that "Vulgar Latin" was one single language; we're referring to vulgar [i.e common] forms of Latin.
@@onethreeify
Being less offensive doesn't impact getting anything done. Acknowledging the connotations of a word, and changing what we commonly say to something more neutral to make up for that isn't hurting anyone.
The objectives of space agencies and markets aren't controlled by anyone who would care about that, they have no need, and it's not their job.
Vulgar is one of many words used originally for commoners that became derogatory, it's like if we called all modern American dialects along with irish and scotts "mediocre English". It makes no practical sense and it alienates people.
@@thetobyntr9540 what people are getting alienated by the term vulgar latin lmao language has been dead for a thousand years. It cannot possibly be offensive to anyone. What a silly idea to even waste time debating. Big snowflake energy
Pre IE groups were mostly celtic I presume eventhough there are no celtic placenames in Scandinavia or northern Germany.
Celts were an IE group though
@@Toddoss5875 You are right. They must have been the first wave of IE settlers
Celtic is Indoeuropean, so that could not be. West of the Vistula and Dniepr, with some Balcanic exceptions, what the Indoeuropean encountered was definitely Vasconic languages. However the replacement was quite radical, maybe because of the associated plague, and Corded Ware people only seem to have lesser (20%?) amounts of Vasconic genetics. Nevertheless the Bell Beaker phenomenon originated in Southwestern Europe and must have brought some Vasconic influence after Corded Ware to the western parts of Central Europe and to Denmark as well (this is also apparent in some genetic influence in Germany and the Northern Alps but not in Moravia, where Corded Ware genetic continuity is quite strict all the way into the Bronze Age).
Celts coalesced probably in historical Swabia, maybe Rhineland too, expanded first along with Italics (and maybe other extinct linguistic families) with Urnfields culture (to Italy but also to the Languedoc-Catalonia area, and some Celto-Italics of unclear sub-affiliation also expanded towards Poland, where they may have clashed with proto-Germanics at the Tollense battle, Mecklemburg-Pommern). Later they would expand with Hallstatt culture into central Iberia (but then lost Catalonia-Languedoc to the Iberians, becoming isolated) and absorbing their relatives of Central Europe, and then their main expansion was barely proto-historical with La Tène culture, when they experienced massive expansion (most of historical Gaul and into the islands, also along the Danube into the Balcans, secondary flows into north-central Italy as well, famously looting Rome).
I'm persuaded that they should be called Gauls rather than Celts, as in most cases they call themselves that way (incl. modern Gael) and because I believe Greek "keltos" (surely coined in Marseilles or its sub-colonies) is Vasconic (Iberian?) in origin and somewhat of a slur (keldo = "vagabond" in modern Basque, other kel- root words are also despective).
The Gemanic vowel system is starkly different from other language groups.
@@hollunderjohn the medieval daughter languages maybe, but proto-Germanic itself had very similar vowels to for example Proto-balto-slavic.
Huge tip: try not to read word-for-word off of text shown on the screen. it's highly redundant.
1
This sounds like a giant attempted rebuttal. Yes "Germanic" developed in a small, isolated community, recently, not anciently. And yes, the "Germanic" involvement in Scandinavia also came late, not early. Other Indo-European people's brought horses and herds there, and their DNA long before the "Germanic" speakers fled there as defeated military refugees (from wars with Romans and Celts). The popular fairy-tale of "Germania" is largely a myth of wishful, latter day thinking. The actual history is quite different than the fiction that "German" historians have imaginatively portrayed, and then back-projected.
Sources?
Sounds like you're trying to rebut something the video creator hasn't said.
Wrong, Germanic devoloped in Nordic Bronze Age long before it began expanding south. So you are spreading BS: Germanic had deep lomg contacts with order Northen European languages including early Sami, so you did not watch the video and spread disinformation.
@@jasminekaram880 Video is garbage, asserting wishful thinking and blatant ignorance. "German" is a creole, and the people are a very mixed bag, genetically. Mongrels. Get used to it, Adolf.