Sorry, that's my mistake. The slide should show the Hungarian dative -ra, re and Komi - kor (when) as Uralic examples (from Greenberg). Bauhaus mentions these two examples also. The slide should then show examples from wider Eurasiatic and that would be the Yukaghir. There should be a Turkic example too. I wanted to put the ' Eurasiatic' examples to show that as with interrogative M, you can find these lookalike morphemes elsewhere. Probably, I messed up the editing. But thanks for catching the mistake. I'm gonna pin your comment if that's ok?
Od >> hot Odun >> wooden >> wood Oğuz kağan> oğuzhan > owodhan >wuothan> wõden > Odin Tuz = Salt >> sodium chloride CRYSTAL TH > T / D TH > TS > S / Ş / Z Thuith >Tuits > Tiss / Diş = tooth (dental) Thuıth > Thuıts > Tuıss / Dış = out ( outer) Thuss > - Suz = (- Less) >>without it / free from it / has got rid of it Tış-yer-i > Dışarı / Dış taraf = outside Dışsal = external Dışı = out of… / de- / dis- Suz > sız/siz & suz/süz = without / -less Kanat = Wing /Kanatsız = Wingless Su= water > Su-suz = water-less / anhydrous Suç =crime > Suçsuz=innocent (freed from blame) Şeker= Sugar > Şekersiz= without sugar / sugar free Kitap= book / Kitapsız = without books / free from books Ücret = fee / ücret dışı =out of fee / ücretsiz =~free - exempt from fee Gereksiz = needless / İhtiyaç dışı- lüzumsuzca =unnecessary Kanunsuz/hukuksuz = unlawful / Kanun dışı = outside the law Hukuk-yasa =law > Yasal =legal / Yasadışı = illegal Görüş = sight / görüş dışı = out of sight Sadık -vefalı-vefakar= loyal / sadakatsiz-vefasız= disloyal Beğeni = like / beğeni dışı= dislike Bağlantı = connect / bağlantı dışı=disconnect Evirmek= to make it to turn around itself or transform into another shape over time İç = inside > ÇE Çe-evir-mek =(içe evirmek) = çevirmek = (turn-into) / encircle / convert / slew round Dış =outside > DE De-evirmek =(dışa evirmek) = devirmek =(turn-outer) / overturn / overthrow De-monte=démonté= dis-assembled (LIĞ-LUĞ) (aluk=has got) LI- Li-Lu-Lü ekleri sahiplik ve dahiliyet ekleridir... (Have)(~With) (Dış- Thuıss) Siz-Sız-Suz-Süz ekleri “İçermemek” , "sahip olmamak" , “ondan azade olmak” veya "mahrumiyet" anlamına gelen bu ekler, bir şeyin dahilinde olmayışı ifade eder. (Have no)( ~without) (...less) O benim sevgi-li-m = (~s/he has my love)= s/he is my lover İki çocuk-lu kadın= (which) the woman has two children > woman with two children Çocuksuz adam = (which) the man has no child > childless man Şekerli =(it has sugar) = with sugar Şekersiz= (it has no sugar) = without sugar = ~sugar free= şekerden azade Tuzlu =it has salt =salty Tuzsuz= it has no salt = without salt = saltless Gitmelisin (get-mek-liğ-sen)= you have to go Gitmen gerekli (get-meg-in gerek-liğ) = you have need to go Gitmen gerekir (get-meg-in gerek-e-er) = you (getta) need to go
Ba Ba = Baba / Apa / eba / abu /爸爸= Papa ( Pater > Father) Na Na = Ana / Anne = 妈妈/ Ma Ma / Mom ( Mater > Mother) Ne Ne = Nene / Nine = 奶奶/ Nanny (Grandmother) Ta Ta = Ata / Dede =爷爷/ Grandfather / Bög baba = big father Ka Ga = Aga / Keke (~steerer /beak) 哥哥/ aga bög > ağabey = big brother Bir-ol-diger> Birader = (per-alter /pre-other > one other) =兄弟/ Brother Ba ba la =Baba-la /apa-la /abula > Abla = older sister ( ~with father) Ba ba chui = Bavoji > Bacı = younger sister ( ~loves father) Ba ba cha = Apa-ça /abuja > emijae > Emmi / Amca =舅舅/ paternal uncle (~fatherly) Tai U = Dayı = 叔叔/ maternal uncle ( nearest’s he ) Tai Thu =Taitsu> Teyze = maternal aunt / Dasy ( nearest’s that ) Çe Çe = Ece / Cece / 姐姐 / older sister Mi Mi = Ümmü / Mimi / 妹妹 / younger sister or young aunt Bi Bi = Bibi / Hala = 姑姑/ paternal aunt Pe Pe = Bebe / bebek =宝宝 / baby >>( sweetie > balak / bala ) Kayın ağacı = Beech tree >>>difficult pedigree = different family tree Kayın peder / Kayın baba / Kaynata = father-in-law /公公 Kayın valide / Kayın anne / Kaynana = mother-in-law /婆婆 Kayın / Kayınçı / Kayınço = brother in-law Baldız = sister-in-law /嫂子 ( honey- salt) wife's sister for men Görümce = sister-in-law (~observer) husband's sister for women Elti = Brother in-law's wife > just for women Gelin = bride / 新娘 (~newcomer) Yenge = Brother's wife (~came over marriage) Dünür= parents who are related to each other through their children's marriages (~ later relative) Güvey /Damat = groom /倌 / 马夫 Bacanak = sister-in-law's husband (each of the husbands of the sisters of your wife) just for men Enişte = sisters or aunts husbands
It certainly did! Makes me excited to think what'll be the next discovery that upturns everything. I think the Anatolian-like names in the Ebla archives doesn't get enough attention.
Proto-Samoyedic influences on Tocharian A and B, or was that Tocharian influences on Proto-Samoyedic …there is a lot of odd stuff going on in Tocharian: lexical, morphology
@LearnHittite why would this be surprising? Considering the distance to the Anatolian languages, it seems like it wouldn't be. Really asking by the way, I'm curious why this could upturn linguistics?
As a tip I would recommend not putting text in the bottom 10th of the slides, as it gets overlapped by the progress bar when paused (and there are good reasons to pause on your videos).
It's an unfortunate problem with RUclips (but not on most mobiles or TVs), I watch a lot of coding content so I know how to avoid this problem... You can just disable the overlay inside devloper tools or use an extension that will do it for you. These types of videos need that extra space! and once you learn how to do it you can do it on all videos that have the same problem.
Would you be interested in making a video on early Germanic-Finnic contact? There is a lot written about it and it also interesting to connect with the chronology of Pgmc sound changes. It is a subject I have been thinking about maybe making a video about.
I imagine that the nominative -s originally was an agent marker and that the genders had an origin in an animate and inanimate classification. Inanimate objects, which later became neuter, couldn't be agents, and neuter words didn't invent a nom/acc distinction. Animate nouns were reinterpreted as masculine, and inanimate/neuter plural words to denote abstracts/generalisations contrasted with the singular concrete were reinterpreted as feminine (cf Latin opus vs. opera). And it seems to me that Hittite is preserving the animate/inanimate distinction rather than reinventing it. So if Hittite is to be considered a PIE language rather than a sister language, PIE didn't have genders and was ergative-absolutive. I haven't read any papers discussing this, but I think Hittite strongly suggests such an origin for the genders and the nominative/accusative distinction.
It's been a while so I might be remembering incorrectly, but I think that pre-PIE (or at least some hypothesis of an early precursor) had no animacy, early PIE developed animacy with animate and inanimate, and late PIE developed masculine from animate (-s), neuter from inanimate (-m), and feminine from a collective neuter (-h2). I don't think you're that far off in terms of hypothesis by linguists invested in Indo-European, probably even in terms of agentive and ergative-absolutive. Again, it's been quite a few years since I last spent any considerable amount of time studying and discussing PIE and similarly old proto-language, so take it with a grain of salt, but I don't think you're too far off from established hypothesis floating around (more than just silly ideas).
Not that I am advocating for Indo Uralic, but it has always struck me that describing PIE as having only 2 vowels (*e and *o) is overly simplistic. I think the consensus is that the semi-vowels would have acted as vowels (*i and *u respectively) in zero grade syllables. I am also suspicious of the reconstruction lacking a low vowel (*a). It seems to be automatically assumed that -a comes from *h2e. I wonder if it was really so neat. Looking forward to a part 3 and also your thoughts on the arguments for and against the Indo Euskarian hypothesis as proposed by Juliette Blevins.
Vowels sounds ≠ phonemes. Abkhaz is known for having a very small vowel inventory, but those vowels will have quite a few allophones depending on the environment within a word. It's not inconceivable to assume that [a] appeared only as an allophone of *e before or after *h2. Besides, Kloekhorst suggests that the reconstructed *h2 and *h3 phonemes may have in fact been uvular stops as opposed to uvular fricatives as it is commonly believed. Lowering of vowels after uvular stops is not unheard of in modern languages, e.g. some Eskimo-Aleut languages do it.
One curious aspect of this is that the Uralic languages do have a Y-DNA haplogroup strongly correlated with their arrival in Europe, N-L 1026, which used to be called N1a, I believe. This arrival in the Bronze and Iron ages in Europe can be traced to the Seima-Turbino phenomena and other later migrations, from the Ob and Irtysh river basins of Central Siberia, considerably east of the Ural Mountain ranges. Indo-European developed, according to most specialists, on the Pontic steppes from a population ancestral to the Corded Ware, like Sredny Stog. (The Yamnaya may well have spoken a PIE-like language, but they don't really seem to be ancestral to anyone who later spoke a PIE language, with the exception of possibly some of the paleo-Balkan languages.) The Don and Dnieper rivers are pretty far from the Ob and Irtysh rivers, and it's hard to imagine a scenario in which their populations were once united prior to the expression of PIE and Proto-Uralic. I know that this isn't a linguistic point, but I feel like with these kinds of questions, in order to be truly convincing, the linguistic, archaeological and archaeogenetic lines of evidence need to all support the same conclusion, or at least not present contradictions.
This is an assumption more than anything. Geneticists have proved that the domination of N haplogroup in Finns is a result of a population bottleneck so if you exclude them you get a very different picture. Haplogroup R becomes much more visible! Not only that but the Slavic and Baltic population in Eastern Europe shows sometimes a higher proportion of N haplogroup than some Uralic nations. An alternative view could be that the Uralic were R1a to begin with, and were later swept by waves of Siberian migrations which brought their haplogroup N to the region, but were assimilated either to a Indo-European or a Uralic or even a Turkic people. If the Uralics were the northernmost and least densely populated of the bunch it would make sense that they would get the highest proportion of the migrating N population.
Maybe pre-PIE speakers, the Eastern Hunter Gatherers originated in what is now Samara, Russia. But still it's 2000km distance between early Uralic speakers and pre-PIE speakers.
human genome is a little bit more complex than paternal haplogroups though. both populations which in the popular vocabulary are known as proto-indo-europeans and proto-uralics shared the same ancient north eurasian ancestry in big part, with different populations getting into the mix depending on the exact location. conquest era 9th-10th c magyar samples for example have barely any of the haplogroup which is most commonly associated with uralics, instead they have a lot more east siberian N clade and even more R1a and R1b. but without dragging this on forever: the genetics in fact could even support the PIU hypothesis, not disprove it.
@@Baso-sama I don't know how it could prove PIU if early PIE speakers all the way back to the Samara culture have no N haplogroup among their tribes, R1b mostly.
@@golwapangka as i just said, haplogroups are only a small part of the human genome and i even brought you an example of how a uralic speaking population does not carry the haplogroups which are believed to be unmistakeable markers of linguistic continuity by some. comparing autosomal results might be more fruitful than relying only on a tiny fraction of a marker which can only be found in the male population. and then we did not even talk about the issues of equating genetic kinship with linguistic kinship, but let's not open that can of worms. let's just presuppose genetics = linguistics. even like this, uralics and the ie mainly consist of very similar (ANE to pe precise) building blocks. :)
These were two very interesting videos and I’d welcome a part 3 if you’re up for it. So many thoughts on the subject that I’m not going to add to the excellent comments already left, but instead a plea for a short video explaining exactly what terms like allative and ergative mean. School Latin only takes one so far!
Thank you for this series. I always like to see how far back in history we can go when it comes to language. Its an itch in my mind that will never be fully scratched. There's still much uncertainty and I dont think we'll ever get definite answers of what IE actually was like, what came before it, how it came to be, etc. but stuff like this sure does help a ton.
I don't know much about Turkish, but it also has a question word that starts with m (mı/mi/mu/mü). From what I understand, which is again, not much, it is somewhat similar in function to the English "Do" in that it doesn't exactly have a meaning on its own. I don't know where the word comes from. Kim means who. How many is kaç. A lot of question words themselves start with "n", not "m".
Well, if we consider (if!) PIE as a language of yamnaya which puts it 8000 ybp between Volga and Don. Genetically these community built up of EHG (which are assosiated with modern uralic speakers alongside with ENEE which have connection with 'altaic' speakers and american native) + CHG (well diverse caucasian languages) + EEF (potentially all dead languages as sumerian and hurrian). Who of them were spoken the closest to PIE language and how it was formed is a question, maybe in principal unanswerable, maybe PIE used to be a pigeon. Basically the tree could have loops an partially merged brunch after all if we consider that all homo sapiens sapiens were able to speak and they were around 285k ybp and 80k of them outside of Africa.
Since you mention the Yamnaya, would you guys know which Yamnaya-related group might have been in the Levant at some point in the Bronze Age? I'm Lebanese, and it turns out we have Steppe Ancestry. According to Haber et al from a 2017 article called "Continuity and Admixture in the Last Five Millennia of Levantine History", the Lebanese people they tested had between 11% and 22% Steppe dna. They say the influx started in the Bronze Age. But it's hard to determine who we got it from, and the authors also acknowledge they don't know. I'm wondering if they might have been the Hittites, the Hurrians, or some other group/groups.
@@aag3752 you have a huge section: luwians, likians, hettites. But because you are talking about the moder n community iron age could interesting as well, couldn't it? Medes-Parphians (persians in short) then Greeks, Armenians and then all the possible migrants from the Roman Empire, in roman legions were Romans/Italics, Celts, Greeks, Illirians, Germanics (e.g. Goths) in East Roman armies also slavs, Northman (Germanics).
@@aag3752 There were some indo-aryan speakers, anatolians and even italic urnifield ware is found around those places (your country and the southern one).
To the first quote you mentioned at the beginning of the video I would add that not only it is unjustified to exclude a priori any genetic connection between two language families. It is contrary to the scientific method itself, which is the very foundation of linguistics like any other science.
I think that that you go back far enough in time every language will end up having a common ancestor with every other language, even if it was hundreds of thousands of years ago. So the question should be whether PIE and PU shared a common ancestor by rather how far back in time they shared an ancestor. Were they director descendants from PIU or where they farther removed with other branches in between. I know that genetics diversity cant be mapped one on one to language families since as populations mixed sometimes they would change their genetics while keeping their language and other times they would keep their genetics while changing their language but it still shouldn't be fully discounted and should be looked out when trying to figure out language relations.
It wouldn't surprise me if there indeed were older families consisting of currently reconstructed proto-languages and that most of the world's languages could be traced to a few events where language emerged. I'm not so sure it can be traced to just one Proto-Human language, but would argue that there was a pre-language era of emotive communication and a language era of our current mode of communication where language emerged I dependently in a few places. Indo-Uralic and Nostratic have been rather interesting to study, although I've never given it that much time since it's not relevant to my interests or goals, only time will tell if we're able to reconstruct such ancient proto-languages or if it all becomes lost in the statistical noise. One problem is that as you travel further back in human linguistic history the potential vocabulary shrinks dramatically making reconstruction harder and harder, maybe even to a point where word classes become close to meaningless and the vocabular consists primarily of morphemes that later become grammatical suffixes and particles. Who knows, but it can be a damn interesting "waste" of time!
Well done. Reminds me of smth. like "Prolegomena to the Boreal Hypothesis" by N. D. Andreev (ole, ole thangz, yeah). If only that old-school dude had the Internet and modern analysis methods...
As a finnish person born in sweden this intrest me alot on how close we are in europe. I think the idea that nordics are distant relatives even if the languages today are far distant. My question is also how the cultures where then?. Like the sami people they where more shamanistic while the indo europeans had more gods?. While the ancient uralics perhaps worshipped nature gods?. How was the belief of the ancient indo europeans? Did they change their god views?
Greensberg was probably right or at least somewhat correct re. Euroasiatic, at least it makes sense from the viewpoint of North Asian prehistory: that Uralic would be a distant relative of Altaic and even Inuit makes all sense. However the weak link is what everybody is obsessed about: Indoeuropean. Indoeuropean almost certainly is to Uralic (and thus to Euroasiatic) as English is to French, massively influenced but not its direct descendant. If you're going to find other more likely relatives of Indoeuropean (or at least the part of Indoeuropean that is not the Uralic substrate/adstrate), Prehistory and Genetics strongly suggest looking at the Neolithic Fertile Crescent, especially the Eastern part, the one producing Caucasus, Sumerian, Tyrsenian (!!!) and Elamo-Dravidian languages (they share lots of genetics, so they should also share some linguistics of one sort or another). There's also some ancient sprachbund with the precursor of Basque (on linguistic evidence alone but not really genetic or archaeological connection, just broadly close geographic roots in the Highland Neolithic around Göbekli Tepe). Greensberg was also probably right re. Amerind, after all they're a coherent First Peoples group originating in a single location (Beringia c. 20,000 years ago) and distinct from the secondary Native American inflows (Na-Denè and Inuit), arrived more recently from Asia (the Inuit are particularly recent). However a 20 Ka old family is surely impossible to confirm, you can still be reasonably certain by combining Linguistics with Prehistory but it's a very long time indeed. This may also be the case with the Uralic-Altaic connection: we know from Prehistory and Genetics that the Uralics stem from that area... but also some 20,000 years ago or almost so.
PS - While rewatching (live watch was a bit of a mess) I noticed the PIE *ié(g) = ice. Oddly enough this is one of the words that I think is of Vasconic roots. Wikitionary doesn't make that term the precursor of "ice" but *h₁eyH- and gives it descendants only in a few subfamilies: Armenian, Slavic, Iranic and Germanic, notice the missing intermediate nodes (Greco-Armenian, Balto-Slavic and Western Indoeuropean, as well as Indo-Iranic), each one with a different meaning in the descendant words and only the Germanic form (*īsą) actually meaning "ice". I have to appeal to the Vasconic substrate model here (not sure if Venneman proposed this particular word but to me it is striking): iz- is a well known Basque fossil segment meaning clearly "water", examples: *izaso = sea ("water ancestor" loosely, modernly itsaso), izurde = dolphin ("water boar") and critically izotz = ice (cold water). The segment is also present in many river names in Western Europe of the type Ysère and such, which must be relics from the times when Vasconic was much more extended. Furthermore there is "heze" (or "eze") meaning "wet", "humid", which is one of many apparent cognates I stumbled upon when comparing Basque and Nubian (which produce a shockingly large number of likely cognates, as many as 25%, compare with merely 15% in the Basque-PIE comparison I used for control and 10% suggested to be the "noise" threshhold). So IMHO "ice" is not even PIE and, in Germanic, it is a Vasconic substrate word (there are others, incl. "kill" = Basque "hil", read Venneman for many more).
On a completely different note, do you know the origins of the PIE or Uralic verb conjugation system? I don't understand why the pronoun marker (mi, te, etc.) is after the verb stem rather than before it? Also why didn't these languages develop poly personal agreement? Is it because they stopped building the verbal alignment system in favor of ad-position system?
@@Adam-jr4lx - No, sorry. I know nearly to nothing of Uralic (I just trust wiser people than me on this matter) and I'm very uncertain which was the verbal conjugation of Proto-Indoeuropean. I'm just an amateur, with a strong focus of decades on Prehistory and Population Genetics but my incursions into linguistics are very limited: word list comparisons here and there: disproving "Sino-Basque", alias Sino-Na-Denè-Caucasic, "proving" Vasco-Nubian (much to my own amazement) and exploring possible PIE and Basque connections within West Eurasian (and Indian) languages (very tentatively but my results were that Basque is closer to PIE than NE Caucasian, which I believe is related to Hurrian and Sumerian, and that Tamil, which I used as reference for "Elamo-Dravidian" seems much more distant, even if it shouldn't). That's all I've done, plus some independent tracking of likely Vasconic loanwords here and there (mostly in Germanic via English hints, in Latin and Spanish, in Greek and a few obvious ones in Slavic) and also likely Vasconic toponimy of the Iber- (river or river bank) and stuff like that. I also contributed with an appendix on population genetics / prehistory to Juan Martin Elexpuru's great book on Sardinian Basque-like toponimy and vocabulary "Euskararen Aztarnak Sardinian?" ("the tracks of Basque language in Sardinia?") and I enjoyed for years discussions on these matters with US linguist Roslyn Frank (but in the end we disagree on fundamentals of how languages spread: she favors fuzzy linguistics too much, I'm more orthodox and favor a phylogenetic core instead). Some of this stuff you can find in my old blog "For what they were... we are" (at Blogspot), incl. at least one entry by Roz Frank.
Have to strongly agree. Of all language families proposed to have eurasian links, Indo-European is the only one that is impossible to model as either fully or partially derived from northern east asian ancestry. If the similarities bleed into highly east asian groups such as mongolians, tungusics, turks etc, it is less likely that IE and Uralic inherited Eastern HG languages' traits but rather that Uralic is a key link that transmitted the similarities to PIE. Ultimately, Eurasiatic is probably the approximate proto-language of the ancient northeast asian expansion. But who knows! Perhaps early IE migrants left some linguistic mark with little genetic evidence when they brought pastoralism to mongolia. Have you heard about the recent evidence from Lazaridis though? That Anatolian spread could potentially be modelled as CHG ancestry without any EHG component? On the other hand, David Anthony proposes that IE language was spoken and transmitted by EHG men. Interesting then that Anatolian branches especially apparently show these eurasian affinities, implying they were not a separate Caucasian only origin apart from core IE. There's still a lot of threads that are hard to tie together. I also agree and think that unfortunately, language has a "mutation rate" that simply moves so quick that even related languages might ultimately retain no recognizable common traits after relatively little time (millenia). Creolization also probably plays a larger role than we can currently see.
There's a PIE word represented by Greek ταυρος which is suspected of being somehow related to the Proto-Semitic origin of Hebrew שור. Which way do you think did it go: from PIE to PS, from PS to PIE, or from some other language to both?
Look forward to Part 3. A request - would it be possible to link the putative genealogy of these macro-families with the record of population movements around the likely relevant timelines? E.g. does the putative common ancestor of PIE and Proto-Uralic correspond to the late Mesolithic on the East European plane? etc.
Could it be that the Hittite *m- is probably related to the greek *p- (greek interrogatives tend to start with π). Perhaps in proto-helleno-anatolian (if such a language ever existed) it was *p- , but the labial got nasalized in proto-anatolian. Just my two cent.
PIE *kʷ regularly shifts into Greek π (Compare for example PIE *kʷoynéh₂ "payment" which became ποινή "fine"). So the greek π- interrogatives come from the PIE *kʷe- *kʷo- *kʷi- interrogatives.
I suppose the video on the Caucasian substrate hypothesis is kind of part 3! I'm sure to revisit Indo-Uralic again at some point since there is lot's more to dive into. For the moment, next up is Dene-caucasian! 👍
@@LearnHittite I have watched your whole video library already and several editions of yours more than five times or so, they are densely informative and the whole scope of what you convey needs more than one attempt to really sink in. Keep it up!
@@LearnHittite Anytime! I love your balance of not being too reserved when it comes to the scientific facts, but not being edgy in any way either, there is no substantial point of critique that can be made, other than your recording equipment, but that's not really important anyway. The content matters, and in that regard you find just the sweet spot which other RUclipsrs drive past all the time XD
Some similar words between Ancient Greek and Hungarian (Ancient Greek words are in front and are written in Hungarian letters). According to linguists, they are not derived from ancient Greek. oszüté=ecet, szüszmatia=csizmadia, szüpö=cipő, pisztosz= biztos, szkoloph=cölöp pikrósz=pokróc cendesz=csendes, szegít=segít, moszt=most, meszél=mesél, eszik=esik, filesz=füles hász=ház baiosz=bájos, deüsz=dísz, édesz=édes, kádosz=kád, nagy korsó, kallimosz=kellemes, kopasz=kopasz, krikosz=karikás lébész=lábos, márgosz=mérges, megasz=magas, mogisz=mégis, meiligosz=meleg, mókosz=mókás mókészisz=mókázás, nearosz=nyers, noeszisz=nézés, pinosz=penész, piosz=piás, pioszisz=piálás, pürrosz=piros, risz=rés rütész=retesz, szürtosz=szurtos, teléeisz=teljes, ügiész=egész kithara=citera, kitharaz=citeráz oür=őr, oüriz=őriz
These supposed correspondences make me think that with the time depth in question it's possible languages that were originally related have simply changed so much that we can no longer see anything in common other than what you could call 'ghost markers'. It also makes me wonder if these proto languages could have borrowed some grammatical features from each other at a very early point. All of this could also be explained by the ancestors of Indo-European and Uralic speakers living in close geographic proximity. If we go back even further in time, there were only so many place humans could survive during the ice age. We're going so far back in linguistic history we'll probably never know.
Recent developments in archeogenetics point away from this hypothesis in my opinion. Lack of Northern genes (the Eastern European hunter /Siberian/Ane cline) in Hittites is difficult to reconcile with the indouralic hypothesis. I tend to think there was clearly contact between early Uralic peoples and PIE speakers before they mixed with EHG to form yamnaya and that this happened somewhere around lake baikal. It is the lack of is evidence of migration from the north of the Caucasus into Anatolia, that destroys this hypothesis
Do you know why in many Indo-European languages there is no difference in the nominative and accusative cases in the neurer gender? Because the neuter gender referred to objects that cannot act as subjects, only as objects acted upon.
14:35 locative -r sounds like Iranian languages (Avestan,Sogdian, H.Saka , Kurdish ) in Avestan iθra/aθra : Here (from i/a + θra) Avaθra : There ( ava + θra) Kuθra : Where (Ku : where) Khotanese Saka Mara : Here (from *ima : this) Vara : There (from *awa ) Bactrian Language μαρο (məro? ) : Here οαρο (oəro? ) : There Sogdian Language Marθ : Here Ōrθ : There Kuθr : Where in Northern Kurdish (Kurmanji) Vir or Vira : Here * probably from ev "this" and -r/ra. Wir or Wira : There * probably from ew "that" and -r/ra. Kur : Where * probably from Kû "where" and -r . Çir : What * Probably from çi "what" and -r. in Laki dialect of Kurdish îre : here (î = this) ûre : there (û : that) kûre : where (kû : where) Central Kurdish (Soranî) Êre : Here * probably from em "this" + -r.
Thanks! I'd be interested in hearing your take on Dr Juliette Blevins' proposed connections between Proto-Basque and PIE. Jackson Crawford & a couple of other linguists discussed it over here: ruclips.net/video/iycm8bg-WVk/видео.htmlsi=VruyYBoqR9kCniTA and at least to my very amateur ears it's really interesting. How does the evidence there connect with or conflict with the correspondences between Indo-European and Uralic language families?
@@deadheat1635 if you're reading undergrad level textbooks then yeah - read Glottalic theory or Weiss' Cao Bang theory. Haider was the first to propose PIE implosives and that was in 85
Watching this gave me more evidence for my Indo-Austronesian hypothesis. Interrogatives PIE *kʷ- and *m- are also found as *kua and *ma in AN languages, although sporadically. Agentive/erg nom-acc PIE *-s is similar in function to nom PAN *si which can be used fluidly, agentive, ergative, etc., in the Austronesian typology.
It makes me wonder if we will ever get to the bottom of this: the "Proto-Human Language" (different monkey sounds) I bet we could use AI to analyze facial expressions and the scream pitches of different ape species to find out if the screams have different meanings
What about chronological considerations? If proto uralic is much older than proto-european (see ruclips.net/video/jWi1vgG8-sI/видео.html) then would that not argue against a proto-indo-uralic?
In terms of those of us who have to cope with dealing with lots of languages in our life, it doesn´t matter so much why there are differences or similarities between different languages, it matters working out common patterns and important differences to use the different languages effectively. Having said that, Adam and Eve must have spoken the same language to communicate with each other, and their descendants must have drifted gradually apart. The Indo-European and Uralic languages do tend to border each other geographically, in terms of their origins, and so it would be most surprising if they had nothing at all in common in terms of their origins and development through to the languages of today. Very much looking forward to a part 3, and maybe even more parts beyond that. Eventually the ancestral language of all should be constructed, perhaps we can call it Edenic after Adam and Eve´s garden....
This stuff here is way beyond my intellect.. For what it's worth, I suspect that languages do constantly split and that the longer the subsequent isolation, the greater the diverence.. Vague, very vague, similarities would be likely to exist even that the languages are as extremely dissimilar.. Aparrently, Europeans and Asians were onece the same people out of Africa and then split... That would have been different to Nethandrals whose language may have evolved independently without contact to homo sapiens...
And yet Vovin was the one to attack the Uralo-altaic (despite being first in favor of it) and even the Altaic family to be genetically related. Now he seems to have taken another term once again.In any case it seems Uralo-altaic and Indo-European had some common roots after all
Sanskrit is PIE!! The Indian homeland was initially the most favored homeland for PIE in the 1800s. Then the leftists usurped academia. The flora and fauna of reconstructed PIE lexicon all seem to point to India (elephants, lion, etc.); syntactically, Sanskrit is the closest to PIE having retained all eight cases, three genders and three numbers, and the original PIE culture only is preserved by India. However, phonetically, PIE is very distant from a Vedic language, mainly because it sounds like a Centum language. So it seems syntactically it is near identical to Vedic Sanskrit, and phonetically it is very different from Vedic Sanskrit, yet still retains archaic forms, like aspirated plosive sounds, such as Bha, lost everywhere else. However, they say it still not possible that PIE originated in India, but why couldn't the Centum branches have left early and then PIE changed into Vedic Sanskrit at home? The Vedas say the Druyu went north. Considering that Balto-Slavic is a Satam language and it originated where they say PIE use to be spoken, cannot the same apply to India? Even the study of Linguistics originated in India. Europeans 'discovered' what Indian grammarians had written about language. Linguistics as a western discipline has its roots in ancient India, in the study and preservation of sacred texts. The grammarian Panini wrote a description of Sanskrit in about 1500 B.C. There are quite a few linguists that support Sanskrit as PIE but they have been marginalized and censored.
you copied and pasted a large portion of your comment from a 3 year old stackoverflow question lmao. the accepted answer to the question was a thorough debunking of this nationalist pseudo-academic nonsense, so i’ll repeat some of the main points here. if india truly was the urheimat of PIE, why are there only borrowings from the surrounding non-IE languages in sanskrit? surely if the language moved out from india we would see a visible influence of, say, burushaski on european languages. likewise, dravidian only has borrowings from indo-aryan as opposed to PIE, showing there was no meaningful contact between the two. furthermore, why did the language only really expand westward? it’s more likely that a language would radiate outwards in all directions, no? ultimately, reducing a complex set of factors in the development and spread of a language to “this one is the most conservative of old features, so this is the homeland” misses any sort of nuance, and completely ignores any of the evidence gathered in the huge multidisciplinary effort taken to determine the urheimat of PIE. to finish off, i would like to say that none of us really know for sure and all we have is indirect evidence anyways. but, for the love of all that is holy, please do some meaningful research before you blindly copy and paste this bollocks from the first result on google for everyone to see. 🙃
@@KeinsingtonCisco you didn’t even try to respond to any of my arguments so it’s obviously useless trying to convince you. at least i don’t copy and paste other people’s talking points like you.
@@KeinsingtonCisco not to mention the source you copied and pasted from is one of the first things that comes up if you type in “india PIE urheimat”. you didn’t even make the effort to find a unique source. you are a pseudo intellectual and an embarrassment to yourself.
Sounds like nationalist half-truths to me. I don't know what you're trying to achieve here. As you can read in the comments, people here are very well educated, intelligent and not intoxicated by nationalism. We just want to know how our languages evolved.
@@tuikupp9750 Another mistake I made in my investigations was my concentration on the “forest” called India and not enough on its “trees,” such as the Greeks, Turks, Armenians, and the sub-continent Hindus themselves. I also fell into a trap that some Hindu activists set for me. They claim that the so-called “Aryan invasion” was a concoction of white racists. They insist that the Aryans were lily-white. But later on, I found out that the Aryans were of all races. I finally had to conclude that the Turks (Kurus or Aryans) were the most numerous and influential of the “trees” in giving India and Greece mankind’s first fully developed civilizations and religions. Hitler tried to make the world think the Germans, not the Turks, were the true Aryans. Fortunately, he failed to convince the world. But that is not to say that the Germans are not Turks. In truth, we all are! 🐺🤟🏽😛😛 - Gene D. Matlock - What Strange Mystery Unites the Turkish Nations, India, Catholicism, and Mexico?
@@tuikupp9750 Read Genesis 12:3, God blesses the Oğuz Turks from Kanturah and the Hacer Sons of Ishmael. Not the Turks of the Tevrat from Sara. They were not even born haha. They came to earth in existence when Hz. İbrahim (100% Turk) when he was 100, Sara 90. Notice his age, 75 years. Read Rabbah 61:4 + 61:5, God blesses the Oğuz Turks from Kanturah above all families on earth, not jews! Jews are religion followers of their own rewritten hebrew thora. Not the Tevrat in cuneiform of Turks. Your world is upside down now isn't it? Haha. I know. Yudas is smart. They fooled you all. The anti-Christ followers. Jesus called them ; The Children of Satan.
I am not an expert but quoting (14:37) a Yukaghir form as being from Uralic seems misleading. Is Uralo-Yukaghir a widely accepted language family?
Sorry, that's my mistake. The slide should show the Hungarian dative -ra, re and Komi - kor (when) as Uralic examples (from Greenberg). Bauhaus mentions these two examples also.
The slide should then show examples from wider Eurasiatic and that would be the Yukaghir. There should be a Turkic example too.
I wanted to put the ' Eurasiatic' examples to show that as with interrogative M, you can find these lookalike morphemes elsewhere.
Probably, I messed up the editing.
But thanks for catching the mistake. I'm gonna pin your comment if that's ok?
@@LearnHittite Thank you for the clarification. Pinning is certainly fine by me.
Od >> hot
Odun >> wooden >> wood
Oğuz kağan> oğuzhan > owodhan >wuothan> wõden > Odin
Tuz = Salt >> sodium chloride CRYSTAL
TH > T / D
TH > TS > S / Ş / Z
Thuith >Tuits > Tiss / Diş = tooth (dental)
Thuıth > Thuıts > Tuıss / Dış = out ( outer)
Thuss > - Suz = (- Less) >>without it / free from it / has got rid of it
Tış-yer-i > Dışarı / Dış taraf = outside
Dışsal = external
Dışı = out of… / de- / dis-
Suz > sız/siz & suz/süz = without / -less
Kanat = Wing /Kanatsız = Wingless
Su= water > Su-suz = water-less / anhydrous
Suç =crime > Suçsuz=innocent (freed from blame)
Şeker= Sugar > Şekersiz= without sugar / sugar free
Kitap= book / Kitapsız = without books / free from books
Ücret = fee / ücret dışı =out of fee / ücretsiz =~free - exempt from fee
Gereksiz = needless / İhtiyaç dışı- lüzumsuzca =unnecessary
Kanunsuz/hukuksuz = unlawful / Kanun dışı = outside the law
Hukuk-yasa =law > Yasal =legal / Yasadışı = illegal
Görüş = sight / görüş dışı = out of sight
Sadık -vefalı-vefakar= loyal / sadakatsiz-vefasız= disloyal
Beğeni = like / beğeni dışı= dislike
Bağlantı = connect / bağlantı dışı=disconnect
Evirmek= to make it to turn around itself or transform into another shape over time
İç = inside > ÇE
Çe-evir-mek =(içe evirmek) = çevirmek = (turn-into) / encircle / convert / slew round
Dış =outside > DE
De-evirmek =(dışa evirmek) = devirmek =(turn-outer) / overturn / overthrow
De-monte=démonté= dis-assembled
(LIĞ-LUĞ) (aluk=has got)
LI- Li-Lu-Lü ekleri sahiplik ve dahiliyet ekleridir...
(Have)(~With)
(Dış- Thuıss) Siz-Sız-Suz-Süz ekleri
“İçermemek” , "sahip olmamak" , “ondan azade olmak” veya "mahrumiyet" anlamına gelen bu ekler, bir şeyin dahilinde olmayışı ifade eder.
(Have no)( ~without) (...less)
O benim sevgi-li-m = (~s/he has my love)= s/he is my lover
İki çocuk-lu kadın= (which) the woman has two children > woman with two children
Çocuksuz adam = (which) the man has no child > childless man
Şekerli =(it has sugar) = with sugar
Şekersiz= (it has no sugar) = without sugar = ~sugar free= şekerden azade
Tuzlu =it has salt =salty
Tuzsuz= it has no salt = without salt = saltless
Gitmelisin (get-mek-liğ-sen)= you have to go
Gitmen gerekli (get-meg-in gerek-liğ) = you have need to go
Gitmen gerekir (get-meg-in gerek-e-er) = you (getta) need to go
Ba Ba = Baba / Apa / eba / abu /爸爸= Papa ( Pater > Father)
Na Na = Ana / Anne = 妈妈/ Ma Ma / Mom ( Mater > Mother)
Ne Ne = Nene / Nine = 奶奶/ Nanny (Grandmother)
Ta Ta = Ata / Dede =爷爷/ Grandfather / Bög baba = big father
Ka Ga = Aga / Keke (~steerer /beak) 哥哥/ aga bög > ağabey = big brother
Bir-ol-diger> Birader = (per-alter /pre-other > one other) =兄弟/ Brother
Ba ba la =Baba-la /apa-la /abula > Abla = older sister ( ~with father)
Ba ba chui = Bavoji > Bacı = younger sister ( ~loves father)
Ba ba cha = Apa-ça /abuja > emijae > Emmi / Amca =舅舅/ paternal uncle (~fatherly)
Tai U = Dayı = 叔叔/ maternal uncle ( nearest’s he )
Tai Thu =Taitsu> Teyze = maternal aunt / Dasy ( nearest’s that )
Çe Çe = Ece / Cece / 姐姐 / older sister
Mi Mi = Ümmü / Mimi / 妹妹 / younger sister or young aunt
Bi Bi = Bibi / Hala = 姑姑/ paternal aunt
Pe Pe = Bebe / bebek =宝宝 / baby >>( sweetie > balak / bala )
Kayın ağacı = Beech tree >>>difficult pedigree = different family tree
Kayın peder / Kayın baba / Kaynata = father-in-law /公公
Kayın valide / Kayın anne / Kaynana = mother-in-law /婆婆
Kayın / Kayınçı / Kayınço = brother in-law
Baldız = sister-in-law /嫂子 ( honey- salt) wife's sister for men
Görümce = sister-in-law (~observer) husband's sister for women
Elti = Brother in-law's wife > just for women
Gelin = bride / 新娘 (~newcomer)
Yenge = Brother's wife (~came over marriage)
Dünür= parents who are related to each other through their children's marriages (~ later relative)
Güvey /Damat = groom /倌 / 马夫
Bacanak = sister-in-law's husband (each of the husbands of the sisters of your wife) just for men
Enişte = sisters or aunts husbands
Numbers
Count your fingers from right to left …
1 > Bir (ber) = ~per / ~pre / ~pro /~ pri > first
2 > Iki (ekki) = ~add-itional / ~extra
3 > Üç (uch) = ~up / ~top point
4 > Dört (thuert) = ~thrust / ~ poke > …..by (forefinger)
5 > Beş (pesh) = ~face / ~front / ~ahead / visible side > (thumb)
6 > Altı (alter) >(başaltı)= under (underhead) > (anti-thumb)
7 > Yedi (jetty) = ~eated / ~enough / ~ended up / ~lost
8 > Sekiz (sahgis)= ~coerces / ~stuckes / ~gives difficulties
9 > Dokuz (towgess)= ~satiateds / ~fullests / ~peaks
10 > On (aun) = ~main / ~base / ~origin /~ root level
0 > Sıfır (sfur) = ~pitch (dark)
11 > Onbir = eleven
12 > Oniki = twelve
13 > Onüç = thirteen
20 > Yirmi (Jigirmae)
30 > Otuz ( autuss)
40 > Kırk (Quareq)
50 > Elli (Alley)
60 > Altmış (altmesh)
70 > Yetmiş (jetmesh)
80 > Seksen (sahegsan)
90 > Doksan (towegsan)
100 > Yüz (juse)= ~surface / ~face / ~page
1000 > Bin (ming) = ~mount / ~ride on / ~got on
Tocharian was discovered just out of nowhere, and completely uprooted the leading centum satem theories
It certainly did! Makes me excited to think what'll be the next discovery that upturns everything. I think the Anatolian-like names in the Ebla archives doesn't get enough attention.
Proto-Samoyedic influences on Tocharian A and B, or was that Tocharian influences on Proto-Samoyedic …there is a lot of odd stuff going on in Tocharian: lexical, morphology
@LearnHittite why would this be surprising? Considering the distance to the Anatolian languages, it seems like it wouldn't be. Really asking by the way, I'm curious why this could upturn linguistics?
As a tip I would recommend not putting text in the bottom 10th of the slides, as it gets overlapped by the progress bar when paused (and there are good reasons to pause on your videos).
Good feedback, noted.
It's an unfortunate problem with RUclips (but not on most mobiles or TVs), I watch a lot of coding content so I know how to avoid this problem... You can just disable the overlay inside devloper tools or use an extension that will do it for you. These types of videos need that extra space! and once you learn how to do it you can do it on all videos that have the same problem.
Would you be interested in making a video on early Germanic-Finnic contact? There is a lot written about it and it also interesting to connect with the chronology of Pgmc sound changes. It is a subject I have been thinking about maybe making a video about.
Yeap, it would be something I could look into
I imagine that the nominative -s originally was an agent marker and that the genders had an origin in an animate and inanimate classification. Inanimate objects, which later became neuter, couldn't be agents, and neuter words didn't invent a nom/acc distinction. Animate nouns were reinterpreted as masculine, and inanimate/neuter plural words to denote abstracts/generalisations contrasted with the singular concrete were reinterpreted as feminine (cf Latin opus vs. opera). And it seems to me that Hittite is preserving the animate/inanimate distinction rather than reinventing it. So if Hittite is to be considered a PIE language rather than a sister language, PIE didn't have genders and was ergative-absolutive. I haven't read any papers discussing this, but I think Hittite strongly suggests such an origin for the genders and the nominative/accusative distinction.
It's been a while so I might be remembering incorrectly, but I think that pre-PIE (or at least some hypothesis of an early precursor) had no animacy, early PIE developed animacy with animate and inanimate, and late PIE developed masculine from animate (-s), neuter from inanimate (-m), and feminine from a collective neuter (-h2). I don't think you're that far off in terms of hypothesis by linguists invested in Indo-European, probably even in terms of agentive and ergative-absolutive.
Again, it's been quite a few years since I last spent any considerable amount of time studying and discussing PIE and similarly old proto-language, so take it with a grain of salt, but I don't think you're too far off from established hypothesis floating around (more than just silly ideas).
Not a Part 3 request, but I'd love to see a bookshelf tour of all your language books.
Not that I am advocating for Indo Uralic, but it has always struck me that describing PIE as having only 2 vowels (*e and *o) is overly simplistic. I think the consensus is that the semi-vowels would have acted as vowels (*i and *u respectively) in zero grade syllables. I am also suspicious of the reconstruction lacking a low vowel (*a). It seems to be automatically assumed that -a comes from *h2e. I wonder if it was really so neat. Looking forward to a part 3 and also your thoughts on the arguments for and against the Indo Euskarian hypothesis as proposed by Juliette Blevins.
Vowels sounds ≠ phonemes. Abkhaz is known for having a very small vowel inventory, but those vowels will have quite a few allophones depending on the environment within a word. It's not inconceivable to assume that [a] appeared only as an allophone of *e before or after *h2.
Besides, Kloekhorst suggests that the reconstructed *h2 and *h3 phonemes may have in fact been uvular stops as opposed to uvular fricatives as it is commonly believed. Lowering of vowels after uvular stops is not unheard of in modern languages, e.g. some Eskimo-Aleut languages do it.
One curious aspect of this is that the Uralic languages do have a Y-DNA haplogroup strongly correlated with their arrival in Europe, N-L 1026, which used to be called N1a, I believe. This arrival in the Bronze and Iron ages in Europe can be traced to the Seima-Turbino phenomena and other later migrations, from the Ob and Irtysh river basins of Central Siberia, considerably east of the Ural Mountain ranges. Indo-European developed, according to most specialists, on the Pontic steppes from a population ancestral to the Corded Ware, like Sredny Stog. (The Yamnaya may well have spoken a PIE-like language, but they don't really seem to be ancestral to anyone who later spoke a PIE language, with the exception of possibly some of the paleo-Balkan languages.) The Don and Dnieper rivers are pretty far from the Ob and Irtysh rivers, and it's hard to imagine a scenario in which their populations were once united prior to the expression of PIE and Proto-Uralic. I know that this isn't a linguistic point, but I feel like with these kinds of questions, in order to be truly convincing, the linguistic, archaeological and archaeogenetic lines of evidence need to all support the same conclusion, or at least not present contradictions.
This is an assumption more than anything. Geneticists have proved that the domination of N haplogroup in Finns is a result of a population bottleneck so if you exclude them you get a very different picture. Haplogroup R becomes much more visible! Not only that but the Slavic and Baltic population in Eastern Europe shows sometimes a higher proportion of N haplogroup than some Uralic nations. An alternative view could be that the Uralic were R1a to begin with, and were later swept by waves of Siberian migrations which brought their haplogroup N to the region, but were assimilated either to a Indo-European or a Uralic or even a Turkic people. If the Uralics were the northernmost and least densely populated of the bunch it would make sense that they would get the highest proportion of the migrating N population.
Maybe pre-PIE speakers, the Eastern Hunter Gatherers originated in what is now Samara, Russia. But still it's 2000km distance between early Uralic speakers and pre-PIE speakers.
human genome is a little bit more complex than paternal haplogroups though. both populations which in the popular vocabulary are known as proto-indo-europeans and proto-uralics shared the same ancient north eurasian ancestry in big part, with different populations getting into the mix depending on the exact location. conquest era 9th-10th c magyar samples for example have barely any of the haplogroup which is most commonly associated with uralics, instead they have a lot more east siberian N clade and even more R1a and R1b. but without dragging this on forever: the genetics in fact could even support the PIU hypothesis, not disprove it.
@@Baso-sama I don't know how it could prove PIU if early PIE speakers all the way back to the Samara culture have no N haplogroup among their tribes, R1b mostly.
@@golwapangka as i just said, haplogroups are only a small part of the human genome and i even brought you an example of how a uralic speaking population does not carry the haplogroups which are believed to be unmistakeable markers of linguistic continuity by some. comparing autosomal results might be more fruitful than relying only on a tiny fraction of a marker which can only be found in the male population. and then we did not even talk about the issues of equating genetic kinship with linguistic kinship, but let's not open that can of worms. let's just presuppose genetics = linguistics. even like this, uralics and the ie mainly consist of very similar (ANE to pe precise) building blocks. :)
These were two very interesting videos and I’d welcome a part 3 if you’re up for it.
So many thoughts on the subject that I’m not going to add to the excellent comments already left, but instead a plea for a short video explaining exactly what terms like allative and ergative mean. School Latin only takes one so far!
Was looking forward to this 2nd part :)
Thanks for the support!
Thank you for this series. I always like to see how far back in history we can go when it comes to language. Its an itch in my mind that will never be fully scratched. There's still much uncertainty and I dont think we'll ever get definite answers of what IE actually was like, what came before it, how it came to be, etc. but stuff like this sure does help a ton.
The cherkesh word for city is derived from Hittite ( qale-)
great channel, I've subscribed immidiately!
Thank you for your kind words!
I don't know much about Turkish, but it also has a question word that starts with m (mı/mi/mu/mü). From what I understand, which is again, not much, it is somewhat similar in function to the English "Do" in that it doesn't exactly have a meaning on its own. I don't know where the word comes from. Kim means who. How many is kaç. A lot of question words themselves start with "n", not "m".
I believe these words were used a lot in trade back then.
Thank you so much for making this video.
Thank you very much for your kind words!
Well, if we consider (if!) PIE as a language of yamnaya which puts it 8000 ybp between Volga and Don. Genetically these community built up of EHG (which are assosiated with modern uralic speakers alongside with ENEE which have connection with 'altaic' speakers and american native) + CHG (well diverse caucasian languages) + EEF (potentially all dead languages as sumerian and hurrian). Who of them were spoken the closest to PIE language and how it was formed is a question, maybe in principal unanswerable, maybe PIE used to be a pigeon. Basically the tree could have loops an partially merged brunch after all if we consider that all homo sapiens sapiens were able to speak and they were around 285k ybp and 80k of them outside of Africa.
Since you mention the Yamnaya, would you guys know which Yamnaya-related group might have been in the Levant at some point in the Bronze Age? I'm Lebanese, and it turns out we have Steppe Ancestry. According to Haber et al from a 2017 article called "Continuity and Admixture in the Last Five Millennia of Levantine History", the Lebanese people they tested had between 11% and 22% Steppe dna. They say the influx started in the Bronze Age. But it's hard to determine who we got it from, and the authors also acknowledge they don't know. I'm wondering if they might have been the Hittites, the Hurrians, or some other group/groups.
@@aag3752 you have a huge section: luwians, likians, hettites.
But because you are talking about the moder n community iron age could interesting as well, couldn't it? Medes-Parphians (persians in short) then Greeks, Armenians and then all the possible migrants from the Roman Empire, in roman legions were Romans/Italics, Celts, Greeks, Illirians, Germanics (e.g. Goths) in East Roman armies also slavs, Northman (Germanics).
@@alexeysaphonov232 Thanks for your thoughts on that. I'm looking up the Luwians now, interesting and mysterious group.
There's a city named scythopolis in Levant during the hellenistic period.
@@aag3752 There were some indo-aryan speakers, anatolians and even italic urnifield ware is found around those places (your country and the southern one).
To the first quote you mentioned at the beginning of the video I would add that not only it is unjustified to exclude a priori any genetic connection between two language families. It is contrary to the scientific method itself, which is the very foundation of linguistics like any other science.
17:20 I find myself wondering if this interplay between stop and nasal might be something like the prenasalized stop series in Hmongic
Oh no. There goes the next four days of my life reading about Hmongic phonology.
I think that that you go back far enough in time every language will end up having a common ancestor with every other language, even if it was hundreds of thousands of years ago. So the question should be whether PIE and PU shared a common ancestor by rather how far back in time they shared an ancestor. Were they director descendants from PIU or where they farther removed with other branches in between.
I know that genetics diversity cant be mapped one on one to language families since as populations mixed sometimes they would change their genetics while keeping their language and other times they would keep their genetics while changing their language but it still shouldn't be fully discounted and should be looked out when trying to figure out language relations.
It wouldn't surprise me if there indeed were older families consisting of currently reconstructed proto-languages and that most of the world's languages could be traced to a few events where language emerged. I'm not so sure it can be traced to just one Proto-Human language, but would argue that there was a pre-language era of emotive communication and a language era of our current mode of communication where language emerged I dependently in a few places.
Indo-Uralic and Nostratic have been rather interesting to study, although I've never given it that much time since it's not relevant to my interests or goals, only time will tell if we're able to reconstruct such ancient proto-languages or if it all becomes lost in the statistical noise.
One problem is that as you travel further back in human linguistic history the potential vocabulary shrinks dramatically making reconstruction harder and harder, maybe even to a point where word classes become close to meaningless and the vocabular consists primarily of morphemes that later become grammatical suffixes and particles.
Who knows, but it can be a damn interesting "waste" of time!
It's actually a really good point about the shrinking vocabulary the further you go back in time. Thanks for your comment!
Can you do a video about Peter Revesz and his 20 year effort of pushing that hungarian descends from minoan and hattic?
I may well do, I've got the next two videos already lined up but after that it could be a possibility
Well done. Reminds me of smth. like "Prolegomena to the Boreal Hypothesis" by N. D. Andreev (ole, ole thangz, yeah). If only that old-school dude had the Internet and modern analysis methods...
As a finnish person born in sweden this intrest me alot on how close we are in europe. I think the idea that nordics are distant relatives even if the languages today are far distant. My question is also how the cultures where then?. Like the sami people they where more shamanistic while the indo europeans had more gods?. While the ancient uralics perhaps worshipped nature gods?. How was the belief of the ancient indo europeans? Did they change their god views?
That guy carrying a trampoline looks so surly. I'm guessing he left his ear buds at home.
Greensberg was probably right or at least somewhat correct re. Euroasiatic, at least it makes sense from the viewpoint of North Asian prehistory: that Uralic would be a distant relative of Altaic and even Inuit makes all sense. However the weak link is what everybody is obsessed about: Indoeuropean. Indoeuropean almost certainly is to Uralic (and thus to Euroasiatic) as English is to French, massively influenced but not its direct descendant. If you're going to find other more likely relatives of Indoeuropean (or at least the part of Indoeuropean that is not the Uralic substrate/adstrate), Prehistory and Genetics strongly suggest looking at the Neolithic Fertile Crescent, especially the Eastern part, the one producing Caucasus, Sumerian, Tyrsenian (!!!) and Elamo-Dravidian languages (they share lots of genetics, so they should also share some linguistics of one sort or another). There's also some ancient sprachbund with the precursor of Basque (on linguistic evidence alone but not really genetic or archaeological connection, just broadly close geographic roots in the Highland Neolithic around Göbekli Tepe).
Greensberg was also probably right re. Amerind, after all they're a coherent First Peoples group originating in a single location (Beringia c. 20,000 years ago) and distinct from the secondary Native American inflows (Na-Denè and Inuit), arrived more recently from Asia (the Inuit are particularly recent). However a 20 Ka old family is surely impossible to confirm, you can still be reasonably certain by combining Linguistics with Prehistory but it's a very long time indeed. This may also be the case with the Uralic-Altaic connection: we know from Prehistory and Genetics that the Uralics stem from that area... but also some 20,000 years ago or almost so.
PS - While rewatching (live watch was a bit of a mess) I noticed the PIE *ié(g) = ice. Oddly enough this is one of the words that I think is of Vasconic roots. Wikitionary doesn't make that term the precursor of "ice" but *h₁eyH- and gives it descendants only in a few subfamilies: Armenian, Slavic, Iranic and Germanic, notice the missing intermediate nodes (Greco-Armenian, Balto-Slavic and Western Indoeuropean, as well as Indo-Iranic), each one with a different meaning in the descendant words and only the Germanic form (*īsą) actually meaning "ice".
I have to appeal to the Vasconic substrate model here (not sure if Venneman proposed this particular word but to me it is striking): iz- is a well known Basque fossil segment meaning clearly "water", examples: *izaso = sea ("water ancestor" loosely, modernly itsaso), izurde = dolphin ("water boar") and critically izotz = ice (cold water). The segment is also present in many river names in Western Europe of the type Ysère and such, which must be relics from the times when Vasconic was much more extended. Furthermore there is "heze" (or "eze") meaning "wet", "humid", which is one of many apparent cognates I stumbled upon when comparing Basque and Nubian (which produce a shockingly large number of likely cognates, as many as 25%, compare with merely 15% in the Basque-PIE comparison I used for control and 10% suggested to be the "noise" threshhold). So IMHO "ice" is not even PIE and, in Germanic, it is a Vasconic substrate word (there are others, incl. "kill" = Basque "hil", read Venneman for many more).
On a completely different note, do you know the origins of the PIE or Uralic verb conjugation system? I don't understand why the pronoun marker (mi, te, etc.) is after the verb stem rather than before it? Also why didn't these languages develop poly personal agreement? Is it because they stopped building the verbal alignment system in favor of ad-position system?
@@Adam-jr4lx - No, sorry. I know nearly to nothing of Uralic (I just trust wiser people than me on this matter) and I'm very uncertain which was the verbal conjugation of Proto-Indoeuropean. I'm just an amateur, with a strong focus of decades on Prehistory and Population Genetics but my incursions into linguistics are very limited: word list comparisons here and there: disproving "Sino-Basque", alias Sino-Na-Denè-Caucasic, "proving" Vasco-Nubian (much to my own amazement) and exploring possible PIE and Basque connections within West Eurasian (and Indian) languages (very tentatively but my results were that Basque is closer to PIE than NE Caucasian, which I believe is related to Hurrian and Sumerian, and that Tamil, which I used as reference for "Elamo-Dravidian" seems much more distant, even if it shouldn't).
That's all I've done, plus some independent tracking of likely Vasconic loanwords here and there (mostly in Germanic via English hints, in Latin and Spanish, in Greek and a few obvious ones in Slavic) and also likely Vasconic toponimy of the Iber- (river or river bank) and stuff like that. I also contributed with an appendix on population genetics / prehistory to Juan Martin Elexpuru's great book on Sardinian Basque-like toponimy and vocabulary "Euskararen Aztarnak Sardinian?" ("the tracks of Basque language in Sardinia?") and I enjoyed for years discussions on these matters with US linguist Roslyn Frank (but in the end we disagree on fundamentals of how languages spread: she favors fuzzy linguistics too much, I'm more orthodox and favor a phylogenetic core instead).
Some of this stuff you can find in my old blog "For what they were... we are" (at Blogspot), incl. at least one entry by Roz Frank.
"Basque is closer to PIE than NE Caucasian" I think so too. When I looked at the grammar, it looked similar to Uralic or Turkic. @@LuisAldamiz
Have to strongly agree. Of all language families proposed to have eurasian links, Indo-European is the only one that is impossible to model as either fully or partially derived from northern east asian ancestry. If the similarities bleed into highly east asian groups such as mongolians, tungusics, turks etc, it is less likely that IE and Uralic inherited Eastern HG languages' traits but rather that Uralic is a key link that transmitted the similarities to PIE. Ultimately, Eurasiatic is probably the approximate proto-language of the ancient northeast asian expansion.
But who knows! Perhaps early IE migrants left some linguistic mark with little genetic evidence when they brought pastoralism to mongolia.
Have you heard about the recent evidence from Lazaridis though? That Anatolian spread could potentially be modelled as CHG ancestry without any EHG component? On the other hand, David Anthony proposes that IE language was spoken and transmitted by EHG men. Interesting then that Anatolian branches especially apparently show these eurasian affinities, implying they were not a separate Caucasian only origin apart from core IE. There's still a lot of threads that are hard to tie together.
I also agree and think that unfortunately, language has a "mutation rate" that simply moves so quick that even related languages might ultimately retain no recognizable common traits after relatively little time (millenia). Creolization also probably plays a larger role than we can currently see.
There's a PIE word represented by Greek ταυρος which is suspected of being somehow related to the Proto-Semitic origin of Hebrew שור. Which way do you think did it go: from PIE to PS, from PS to PIE, or from some other language to both?
I think PIE ablaut is evidence of very early contact between PIE and Semitic. I actually think that PIE and PS are closer than PIE and Uralic
Look forward to Part 3. A request - would it be possible to link the putative genealogy of these macro-families with the record of population movements around the likely relevant timelines? E.g. does the putative common ancestor of PIE and Proto-Uralic correspond to the late Mesolithic on the East European plane? etc.
Could it be that the Hittite *m- is probably related to the greek *p- (greek interrogatives tend to start with π). Perhaps in proto-helleno-anatolian (if such a language ever existed) it was *p- , but the labial got nasalized in proto-anatolian. Just my two cent.
PIE *kʷ regularly shifts into Greek π (Compare for example PIE *kʷoynéh₂ "payment" which became ποινή "fine"). So the greek π- interrogatives come from the PIE *kʷe- *kʷo- *kʷi- interrogatives.
Is part 3 on its way???? :O
I suppose the video on the Caucasian substrate hypothesis is kind of part 3! I'm sure to revisit Indo-Uralic again at some point since there is lot's more to dive into. For the moment, next up is Dene-caucasian! 👍
@@LearnHittite I have watched your whole video library already and several editions of yours more than five times or so, they are densely informative and the whole scope of what you convey needs more than one attempt to really sink in. Keep it up!
Thank you very much for your support and kind words 👍
@@LearnHittite Anytime!
I love your balance of not being too reserved when it comes to the scientific facts, but not being edgy in any way either, there is no substantial point of critique that can be made, other than your recording equipment, but that's not really important anyway.
The content matters, and in that regard you find just the sweet spot which other RUclipsrs drive past all the time XD
Some similar words between Ancient Greek and Hungarian (Ancient Greek words are in front and are written in Hungarian letters). According to linguists, they are not derived from ancient Greek.
oszüté=ecet,
szüszmatia=csizmadia,
szüpö=cipő,
pisztosz= biztos,
szkoloph=cölöp
pikrósz=pokróc
cendesz=csendes,
szegít=segít,
moszt=most,
meszél=mesél,
eszik=esik,
filesz=füles
hász=ház
baiosz=bájos,
deüsz=dísz,
édesz=édes,
kádosz=kád, nagy korsó,
kallimosz=kellemes,
kopasz=kopasz,
krikosz=karikás
lébész=lábos,
márgosz=mérges,
megasz=magas,
mogisz=mégis,
meiligosz=meleg,
mókosz=mókás
mókészisz=mókázás,
nearosz=nyers,
noeszisz=nézés,
pinosz=penész,
piosz=piás,
pioszisz=piálás,
pürrosz=piros,
risz=rés
rütész=retesz,
szürtosz=szurtos,
teléeisz=teljes,
ügiész=egész
kithara=citera,
kitharaz=citeráz
oür=őr,
oüriz=őriz
These supposed correspondences make me think that with the time depth in question it's possible languages that were originally related have simply changed so much that we can no longer see anything in common other than what you could call 'ghost markers'. It also makes me wonder if these proto languages could have borrowed some grammatical features from each other at a very early point. All of this could also be explained by the ancestors of Indo-European and Uralic speakers living in close geographic proximity. If we go back even further in time, there were only so many place humans could survive during the ice age. We're going so far back in linguistic history we'll probably never know.
Recent developments in archeogenetics point away from this hypothesis in my opinion.
Lack of Northern genes (the Eastern European hunter /Siberian/Ane cline) in Hittites is difficult to reconcile with the indouralic hypothesis.
I tend to think there was clearly contact between early Uralic peoples and PIE speakers before they mixed with EHG to form yamnaya and that this happened somewhere around lake baikal.
It is the lack of is evidence of migration from the north of the Caucasus into Anatolia, that destroys this hypothesis
Do you know why in many Indo-European languages there is no difference in the nominative and accusative cases in the neurer gender? Because the neuter gender referred to objects that cannot act as subjects, only as objects acted upon.
14:35 locative -r sounds like Iranian languages (Avestan,Sogdian, H.Saka , Kurdish )
in Avestan
iθra/aθra : Here (from i/a + θra)
Avaθra : There ( ava + θra)
Kuθra : Where (Ku : where)
Khotanese Saka
Mara : Here (from *ima : this)
Vara : There (from *awa )
Bactrian Language
μαρο (məro? ) : Here
οαρο (oəro? ) : There
Sogdian Language
Marθ : Here
Ōrθ : There
Kuθr : Where
in Northern Kurdish (Kurmanji)
Vir or Vira : Here
* probably from ev "this" and -r/ra.
Wir or Wira : There
* probably from ew "that" and -r/ra.
Kur : Where
* probably from Kû "where" and -r .
Çir : What
* Probably from çi "what" and -r.
in Laki dialect of Kurdish
îre : here (î = this)
ûre : there (û : that)
kûre : where (kû : where)
Central Kurdish (Soranî)
Êre : Here
* probably from em "this" + -r.
Great information! Thanks for your input
More!
Thanks! I'd be interested in hearing your take on Dr Juliette Blevins' proposed connections between Proto-Basque and PIE. Jackson Crawford & a couple of other linguists discussed it over here: ruclips.net/video/iycm8bg-WVk/видео.htmlsi=VruyYBoqR9kCniTA and at least to my very amateur ears it's really interesting. How does the evidence there connect with or conflict with the correspondences between Indo-European and Uralic language families?
That is a great suggestion. It may well be the topic of my next video!
huh, ive never heard about PIE having implosives
How else would you explain the stop system without implosives?
@@TGIFSecretagent Everything ive read has never mentioned it once
@@deadheat1635 if you're reading undergrad level textbooks then yeah - read Glottalic theory or Weiss' Cao Bang theory. Haider was the first to propose PIE implosives and that was in 85
there is a hypothesis called Proto-Pontic. What is this?
I've done a video all about proto-pontic so you can check it out!
The accusative still has an allative meaning.
Watching this gave me more evidence for my Indo-Austronesian hypothesis. Interrogatives PIE *kʷ- and *m- are also found as *kua and *ma in AN languages, although sporadically.
Agentive/erg nom-acc PIE *-s is similar in function to nom PAN *si which can be used fluidly, agentive, ergative, etc., in the Austronesian typology.
Oh wow yeah, I need to look into this!
@@LearnHittite Unfortunately, I don't find a lot of literature connecting these two families. Here are just some strong comparisons I found:
*bʰh₂r(s) ‘grass, barley’ / *beRas 'rice', other grasses: *biRasu, *balizi
*bʰrs 'bristle; tip, point', *pilo 'hair' / *bukeS 'hair', *bulu 'hair, feather, plant floss'
*bʰruh / *bara 'log, beam'
*bʰlǵ '/ *bilak 'shine, glitter'
*bʰrh₁g / *baŋqeR ‘rotting smell’
*bʰreg / *belaq 'break, split'
*bʰelǵʰ / *baReq 'swell'
*dnǵʰ, *dlgʰ / *dilaq 'to lick, tongue'
*demh₂ ‘to build; domesticate’ / *Rumaq 'house'
*gr̥d / *garut ‘scratch, scrape’
*gʰr̥n / *giliŋ 'grind'
*ḱlewh₃ / kiŋeR 'to hear'
*ḱomt / *kamut, *kamet 'hand'
*kes / *keskes 'scrape'
*ponkʷ, *prk, *plh / *peNuq 'full, to fill'
*h₂rew / *qajaw 'sun'
*h₁rs, *h₁rd / *qaRus, *qañud 'to flow'
*h₂enh₁ / *Seŋah 'breath; breathe'
*h₂e(n)gʷʰ, *sneyg / *SulaR 'snake'
*h₁engʷ / *sunuR 'fire, burn'
*smh, *sm / *sama 'alike, same'
*smer / *simaR 'grease,'
*srobʰ / *siRup, *SiRup 'sip'
*sneygʷʰ, *srih₃g / *SuReNa 'snow'
*weh₁r / *wahiR 'water'
*wrtʰ / *wirit 'to twist'
It's definitely interesting, and I will take a look at what you've presented here. If you find any literature worth sharing, please do!
"mi?" is actually the most universal interrogative word i know of in hungarian. the english know this word as "huh?"
It makes me wonder if we will ever get to the bottom of this: the "Proto-Human Language" (different monkey sounds)
I bet we could use AI to analyze facial expressions and the scream pitches of different ape species to find out if the screams have different meanings
What about chronological considerations? If proto uralic is much older than proto-european (see ruclips.net/video/jWi1vgG8-sI/видео.html) then would that not argue against a proto-indo-uralic?
It's covered in the introduction to the Kloekhorst and Pronk book.
In terms of those of us who have to cope with dealing with lots of languages in our life, it doesn´t matter so much why there are differences or similarities between different languages, it matters working out common patterns and important differences to use the different languages effectively. Having said that, Adam and Eve must have spoken the same language to communicate with each other, and their descendants must have drifted gradually apart. The Indo-European and Uralic languages do tend to border each other geographically, in terms of their origins, and so it would be most surprising if they had nothing at all in common in terms of their origins and development through to the languages of today. Very much looking forward to a part 3, and maybe even more parts beyond that. Eventually the ancestral language of all should be constructed, perhaps we can call it Edenic after Adam and Eve´s garden....
Adam and Eve doing the heavy lifting here
Cognates?
This stuff here is way beyond my intellect.. For what it's worth, I suspect that languages do constantly split and that the longer the subsequent isolation, the greater the diverence.. Vague, very vague, similarities would be likely to exist even that the languages are as extremely dissimilar.. Aparrently, Europeans and Asians were onece the same people out of Africa and then split... That would have been different to Nethandrals whose language may have evolved independently without contact to homo sapiens...
Maybe this similarity is a remnant of a proto-human tongue.
And yet Vovin was the one to attack the Uralo-altaic (despite being first in favor of it) and even the Altaic family to be genetically related. Now he seems to have taken another term once again.In any case it seems Uralo-altaic and Indo-European had some common roots after all
Sanskrit is PIE!! The Indian homeland was initially the most favored homeland for PIE in the 1800s. Then the leftists usurped academia. The flora and fauna of reconstructed PIE lexicon all seem to point to India (elephants, lion, etc.); syntactically, Sanskrit is the closest to PIE having retained all eight cases, three genders and three numbers, and the original PIE culture only is preserved by India. However, phonetically, PIE is very distant from a Vedic language, mainly because it sounds like a Centum language. So it seems syntactically it is near identical to Vedic Sanskrit, and phonetically it is very different from Vedic Sanskrit, yet still retains archaic forms, like aspirated plosive sounds, such as Bha, lost everywhere else.
However, they say it still not possible that PIE originated in India, but why couldn't the Centum branches have left early and then PIE changed into Vedic Sanskrit at home? The Vedas say the Druyu went north. Considering that Balto-Slavic is a Satam language and it originated where they say PIE use to be spoken, cannot the same apply to India? Even the study of Linguistics originated in India. Europeans 'discovered' what Indian grammarians had written about language. Linguistics as a western discipline has its roots in ancient India, in the study and preservation of sacred texts. The grammarian Panini wrote a description of Sanskrit in about 1500 B.C. There are quite a few linguists that support Sanskrit as PIE but they have been marginalized and censored.
Indian nationalists are so tiresome.
you copied and pasted a large portion of your comment from a 3 year old stackoverflow question lmao. the accepted answer to the question was a thorough debunking of this nationalist pseudo-academic nonsense, so i’ll repeat some of the main points here.
if india truly was the urheimat of PIE, why are there only borrowings from the surrounding non-IE languages in sanskrit? surely if the language moved out from india we would see a visible influence of, say, burushaski on european languages. likewise, dravidian only has borrowings from indo-aryan as opposed to PIE, showing there was no meaningful contact between the two.
furthermore, why did the language only really expand westward? it’s more likely that a language would radiate outwards in all directions, no?
ultimately, reducing a complex set of factors in the development and spread of a language to “this one is the most conservative of old features, so this is the homeland” misses any sort of nuance, and completely ignores any of the evidence gathered in the huge multidisciplinary effort taken to determine the urheimat of PIE.
to finish off, i would like to say that none of us really know for sure and all we have is indirect evidence anyways. but, for the love of all that is holy, please do some meaningful research before you blindly copy and paste this bollocks from the first result on google for everyone to see. 🙃
@@KeinsingtonCisco you didn’t even try to respond to any of my arguments so it’s obviously useless trying to convince you. at least i don’t copy and paste other people’s talking points like you.
@@KeinsingtonCisco not to mention the source you copied and pasted from is one of the first things that comes up if you type in “india PIE urheimat”. you didn’t even make the effort to find a unique source. you are a pseudo intellectual and an embarrassment to yourself.
Sounds like nationalist half-truths to me. I don't know what you're trying to achieve here. As you can read in the comments, people here are very well educated, intelligent and not intoxicated by nationalism. We just want to know how our languages evolved.
Propogandaaa
Indo-Europeans (Aryans) are just Turks, that came to Europe and mingled with Native Europeans.
Nonsense!
@@tuikupp9750 Another mistake I made in my investigations was my concentration on the “forest” called India and not enough on its “trees,” such as the Greeks, Turks, Armenians, and the sub-continent Hindus themselves. I also fell into a trap that some Hindu activists set for me. They claim that the so-called “Aryan invasion” was a concoction of white racists. They insist that the Aryans were lily-white. But later on, I found out that the Aryans were of all races. I finally had to conclude that the Turks (Kurus or Aryans) were the most numerous and influential of the “trees” in giving India and Greece mankind’s first fully developed civilizations and religions. Hitler tried to make the world think the Germans, not the Turks, were the true Aryans. Fortunately, he failed to convince the world. But that is not to say that the Germans are not Turks. In truth, we all are! 🐺🤟🏽😛😛
- Gene D. Matlock - What Strange Mystery Unites the Turkish Nations, India, Catholicism, and Mexico?
@@tuikupp9750 Read Genesis 12:3,
God blesses the Oğuz Turks from Kanturah and the Hacer Sons of Ishmael. Not the Turks of the Tevrat from Sara. They were not even born haha. They came to earth in existence when Hz. İbrahim (100% Turk) when he was 100, Sara 90. Notice his age, 75 years.
Read Rabbah 61:4 + 61:5,
God blesses the Oğuz Turks from Kanturah above all families on earth, not jews!
Jews are religion followers of their own rewritten hebrew thora.
Not the Tevrat in cuneiform of Turks.
Your world is upside down now isn't it? Haha.
I know. Yudas is smart. They fooled you all. The anti-Christ followers.
Jesus called them ; The Children of Satan.
@@Atilla963 only Indo-Iranians my boi, Turks are friend with East Asians
@@Yasa5na We are not East-Asian, but worldwide. The Kanturah Sons ruled all nations.
ɗ ɓ / dh bh / ť p'
Endless possibilities