zompist bboard

a congress of convoluted conworldery
It is currently Thu Dec 14, 2017 5:22 am

All times are UTC - 6 hours [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 2004 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 77, 78, 79, 80, 81  Next
Author Message
PostPosted: Fri Dec 01, 2017 4:13 am 
Visanom
Visanom
User avatar

Joined: Tue Feb 06, 2007 12:03 am
Posts: 6364
Location: Netherlands
Howl wrote:
They did have boats in the stone age.

I'm aware of that, but those were no trading vessels that could hold a good quantity of women and food.


JAL


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Dec 03, 2017 5:42 am 
Lebom
Lebom
User avatar

Joined: Sun Aug 25, 2013 2:45 am
Posts: 200
Location: Australia
I'm just reading through Kloekhorst's etymological Hittite dictionary, and I can't find one mention of where the Anatolian -ni plural verb marker comes from; by which I'm referring to as in both the -mi and -Hi paradigms, such as in ʔés-:

Quote:
    *ʔés- {be}
    1sg *ʔésmi pl *ʔsmé-ni
    2sg *ʔési pl *ʔsté-ni
    3sg *ʔésti pl *ʔsénti

_________________
Native: English || Pretty decent: Ancient Greek || Alright: Ancient Hebrew || Eh: Welsh || Basic: Mandarin Chinese || Very basic: French, Latin, Gamilaraay, Syriac, Nisuese, Old Apsiska
Conlangs: Pofp'ash, Nisuese, Apsiska


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Dec 03, 2017 10:32 am 
Sanno
Sanno
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jan 15, 2004 5:00 pm
Posts: 16398
Location: One of the dark places of the world
Tropylium wrote:
That's only a problem for loaning between PIE proper and PS proper. But they both had ancestors that were likely spoken somewhere else.

Which would seem to make things worse - probability suggests the foremother of PIE was still in north eurasia, while the foremother of PS pretty clearly seems to have been in Africa. Moreover, we don't know that apparent similarities at PIE/PS level actually reflect similarities at foremother level, given that both families would have been experiencing their own linguistic changes. In fact, the further back you push any connexion, the more likely it is that PIE/PS similarities are TOO conveniently close to reflect actual descent...
Quote:
Which is not to suggest that we're dealing with Nostratic inheritance though — it may also be a loan from pre-PIE into pre-PS, or vice versa.

Or from a third party. What's the reason for assuming direct loaning, rather than loaning from a third family? The third family approach makes it much easier to get the parent languages in the right place, since we know both families were in positions that experience large-scale demic migration from the same sort of area.

Or, of course, the handful of not-that-surprising resemblances could just be coincidence.
Quote:
Salmoneus wrote:
To get them even vaguely close, you'd have to assume that PIE came to Ukraine through a mass migration of Georgian women, and Georgia and the Levant still aren't exactly next to one another.

I've always assumed that, at a deep enough time level, pre-PIE probably came counterclockwise around the Caspian Sea, from an ancestor spoken in NE Levant. An Anatolian route seems to be ruled out, and the Caucasus is just too difficult to go through at a time depth when it will have been already populated.

Oh, now that is an interesting idea.
So far as I'm aware, though, it's a very improbable one, since I don't think there's any trace - genetic or archeological - of that sort of Iranian influence on the steppe, so the language would have to be transmitted by some very small elite; and Iran was, like the Caucasus, a populous and expansive area, so it's less likely that there would have been a migration from the levant through Iran. Nor is there any archeological or genetic influence from the Levant (which before Semitic and the Caucasian expansion would have had a population cousin to that in Europe at the time) onto the steppe.

I suppose my reaction would be: that's a clever way to get people from the Levant to the Steppe. But on the one hand, it has to assume a string of improbable things; and, on the other, it doesn't seem to have any motivation, other than perhaps religious (I know a lot of people want the Indo-Europeans to be from the Holy Land one way or another). What shred of evidence is there for seeing PIE as the language of Levantine exiles? A couple of chance resemblances with Proto-Semitic? But those only look like loanwords if we assume the languages were once neighbours, so using that as evidence of them being neighbours seems like begging the question.
Quote:
For very long-ago routing, it will be a problem that Semitic is a part of Afrasian and only comes into the Levant well after agriculture etc. were in progress; but, if IE did come from the Levant long ago enough, there would likely have been now-extinct relatives left behind along the way, which could have retained a common word for 'horn'. So the loaning event could be relatively recent, while the divergence of the IE and Semitic words might still be older.

This is also clever. But this also seems undermotivated. Why invent such a complex procedure to explain two vaguely similar phonemes in one lexical item? This is a literal violation of Ockham's Razor, supposing the existence of languages lying around the middle east, for which there is no other archeological, genetic or linguistic evidence, just so that they can lend a word or two to a later-arriving Semitic.

Here's an alternative solution: PIE k'er, "head", from which "horn" is derived, and Afroasiatic qar, "horn" (seen in Egyptian and Omotic as well as in Semitic), are simply two words in unrelated languages that simply happen to look somewhat alike if you squint.

_________________
Blog: http://vacuouswastrel.wordpress.com/

But the river tripped on her by and by, lapping
as though her heart was brook: Why, why, why! Weh, O weh
I'se so silly to be flowing but I no canna stay!


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Dec 03, 2017 12:14 pm 
Avisaru
Avisaru
User avatar

Joined: Tue Sep 14, 2004 5:51 pm
Posts: 414
Location: the Peyron Apartments
I remember a paper once that said milk tolerance was from nw Iran, and had spread into Europe from the east. I wouldn't call nw Iran the Levant but it provides a explanation for the roundabout passage around the Caspian sea.

https://www.nature.com/news/archaeology ... on-1.13471 <----------- this may have been what I saw

Genetic evidence is weak because the originally distinct founding population mixed with its neighbors over time. .... both the settlers in Europe and the ones who stayed behind in nw iran.

I still think Semitic itself is from Africa but Thats irr3levenat here.

I missed didnt know that the r9ot was attetzeted without the N but it's still just w2 consonants either way.w

_________________
[alternbatew account of Soap with slighty better ttyping skillsd
Image


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Dec 03, 2017 2:11 pm 
Avisaru
Avisaru
User avatar

Joined: Fri Mar 16, 2012 5:34 pm
Posts: 681
*ʔés- {be}

Present -------
For both of the following, between step one and two: (1) the stress fixes on the penultimate vowel , (2) the non-stressed vowel is elided – I use <ə> for these vowels
1sg -- *ʔes-məi̯ -> *ʔésmi -> e:smi
2sg -- *ʔes-(s)əi̯ ->*ʔés(s)i - > e:ssi
3sg -- *ʔes-(H2)əi̯ -> XX -> *ʔes+ti -> e:stsi

The verbal extension is a reduced form similar to the instrumental pronouns and various enclitic forms in *-i – “by X”. In the second phase, the reformed *t-/*-s form replaces the original *H2e- ending.
Alternatively, *-i is simply added to preserve syllable structure

pl -- *ʔVs-mé-n-ə -> *ʔsmén+i -> ??asweni (?not attested?)
pl -- *ʔVs-té-n-ə - *ʔstén+i -> ??asteni (?I see Wiki gives <e:steni> is that correct??)
pl -- *ʔVs-(H2)é-n-ə -> *ʔs(H2)én+ti -> asantsi

In the first step, *-n- is added as a plural marker. Perhaps additional material followed allowing the accent to be pulled back.
In the second step, mirroring the singulars, *-i is added, but the same reformed *-ti added to the 3sg is added to the 3pl.


Preterite -------
1sg -- *ʔés-Ø+H2e -> *ʔés-H2e+un -> e:sun (analogical addition via 1pl)
2sg -- *ʔés-t+H2e ->*ʔés-th2e > e:sta
3sg -- *ʔés-t+H2e -> *ʔés-th2e -> e:sta

In a broad reading of –H2e theory, it seems the preterite singular endings were formed by adding -*H2e- in the singular. In the earliest part of step one, perhaps it was treated as a separate word and the forms were /*ʔés-Hə H2e, *ʔés-tə H2e, *ʔés-tə H2e/.
Is the original pronominal material pulling off a fossilized nominative case?

pl -- *ʔVs-m-én-ə -> *ʔs-mén -> e:swen
pl -- *ʔVs-t-én-ə -> *ʔs-té(r/n) -> e:sten (-n is restored?)
pl -- *ʔVs-(H2)-én-ə -> *ʔs-(H2)ér -> eser

The plurals’ –n/-r variation probably part of a broader rule parallel to –n/-r stems.

_________________
linguoboy wrote:
So that's what it looks like when the master satirist is moistened by his own moutarde.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Dec 03, 2017 4:17 pm 
Sumerul
Sumerul
User avatar

Joined: Thu Apr 25, 2013 4:48 am
Posts: 2924
Location: Brittania
@Znex: Someone (either Kloekhorst or Melchert I believe, though I don't recall exactly where I saw this) compares the -n(i) with the final -ν of the Greek 1pl -μεν. It's likely to be some particle with a meaning that made it possible to become fused to plural verbs.

@2+3: Unfortunately, much of that explanation is likely to be incorrect. Firstly, there's no reason to assume that *h₁es- ever inflected as a *h₂e-verb. While it is attractive to compare the *n extension found in Hittite and Greek with the *n in the 3pl (especially since it does look like the 3pl contains the 3sg) there's no real evidence to support it since the *n extension is widely not found. The preterite endings are again just the normal mi-endings, we don't need the assumption of original *h₂e-conjugation, and the 2/3sg are to be read as /est/ - the a is graphic. The syncretism is just a synchronic fact of Hittite. And then your understanding of *h₂e-conjugation theory is imperfect, that definitely is not how the preterite endings are formed. In fact, as usual, the preterite endings are the basic ones, and the present endings were derived from them by the same *i as in the *mi-conjugation endings. It is possible that the 2sg *-th₂e does contain the 1sg *-h₂e, but this is impossible to know without valid external comparisons. I should also point out that the 3pl preterite ending comes from PIE *-ḗr with a long vowel, which Jasanoff derives from *-érs by Szemerényi's law.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Dec 03, 2017 5:24 pm 
Avisaru
Avisaru

Joined: Tue May 08, 2012 11:10 am
Posts: 387
Salmoneus wrote:
Here's an alternative solution: PIE k'er, "head", from which "horn" is derived, and Afroasiatic qar, "horn" (seen in Egyptian and Omotic as well as in Semitic), are simply two words in unrelated languages that simply happen to look somewhat alike if you squint.

If there was no linguistic contact, how to explain the apparent PS wordshape of the PIE words for star, bull, seven and maybe six? Honest question.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Dec 03, 2017 6:07 pm 
Lebom
Lebom
User avatar

Joined: Sun Aug 25, 2013 2:45 am
Posts: 200
Location: Australia
KathTheDragon wrote:
@Znex: Someone (either Kloekhorst or Melchert I believe, though I don't recall exactly where I saw this) compares the -n(i) with the final -ν of the Greek 1pl -μεν. It's likely to be some particle with a meaning that made it possible to become fused to plural verbs.

Any significance in the dialectal alternation -μεν~-μες in Ancient Greek, other than -μες is like the forms found in Sanskrit and Latin? Is it feasible that -s is a similar verbal innovation (though from what I've read, Kloekhorst seems to think so)?

_________________
Native: English || Pretty decent: Ancient Greek || Alright: Ancient Hebrew || Eh: Welsh || Basic: Mandarin Chinese || Very basic: French, Latin, Gamilaraay, Syriac, Nisuese, Old Apsiska
Conlangs: Pofp'ash, Nisuese, Apsiska


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Dec 03, 2017 7:14 pm 
Osän
Osän
User avatar

Joined: Sun Feb 16, 2003 2:57 pm
Posts: 11273
Location: Lake Tašpa
Zju wrote:

If there was no linguistic contact, how to explain the apparent PS wordshape of the PIE words for star, bull, seven and maybe six? Honest question.

star: Im not sure what you mean. Wiktionary reconstructs the PIE as h1eh2ster, meaning it's a derivative of a verb stem meaning "to glow, burn". Speculative, for sure, but I dont see anything jumping out at me that makes me thinking it's a loan from Semitic even if Wiktioanry is wrong about the original form. I should add that I dont know what the Semitic root for "star" is, .... AHD suggests there existed a root /ʕṭtr/, appearing in some words associated with deities, but that cant be just a word for "star" if it has 4 consonants. My hunch is "coincidence" on this one.

taurus: Quite possible, i think, that this is a wanderwort, perhaps either a synonym of PIE's native word (assuming that gʷow- inflected for gender) or a word for originally a specific breed of cattle that later became applied more generally. It could be a coincidence, but this word seems to have no other known cognates in PIE, strengthening the case that it is indeed a loan .... PIE seems to usually favor large word families. there's also the fact that this word is commonly reconstructed with an /a/ in it, which many scholars believe did not exist in PIE as a phoneme, and was at best an allophone of /e/.

seven I've seen this one quoted a lot ,but the words dont really look that close to me. It's possible, but just that. The Semitic stem is s-b-ʕ, which means it oculd have supplied *half* of the PIE stem for seven, but if the word already meant "seven" by itself, why would PIE need to add to it? Not saying it's impossible, but just that Im not convinced.

six Likewise, same situation here. the possibility is strengthened if seven were known to be a loan, but standing on its own, the roots for six have just one consonant in common, and that one is believed by many not to have been part of the original PIE root anyway.

_________________
Image
Sunàqʷa the Sea Lamprey says: Please forgive my horrible typing, it's hard to press the keys with my tongue.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Dec 03, 2017 7:18 pm 
Sumerul
Sumerul
User avatar

Joined: Thu Apr 25, 2013 4:48 am
Posts: 2924
Location: Brittania
Znex wrote:
Is it feasible that -s is a similar verbal innovation (though from what I've read, Kloekhorst seems to think so)?

It's certainly possible, since it's lacking in the preterite reconstructed for PIE


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Dec 04, 2017 2:34 pm 
Sanci
Sanci
User avatar

Joined: Sat Oct 07, 2017 7:43 pm
Posts: 28
Location: Campinia
Znex wrote:
I'm just reading through Kloekhorst's etymological Hittite dictionary, and I can't find one mention of where the Anatolian -ni plural verb marker comes from; by which I'm referring to as in both the -mi and -Hi paradigms.

If you don't mind me bringing up the Indo-Uralic hypothesis, there is a very interesting paper about a similar -nV suffix in Uralic:
http://www.sgr.fi/sust/sust270/30_desmit.pdf


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Dec 05, 2017 2:50 am 
Visanom
Visanom
User avatar

Joined: Tue Feb 06, 2007 12:03 am
Posts: 6364
Location: Netherlands
Howl wrote:
If you don't mind me bringing up the Indo-Uralic hypothesis

Actually I do mind, there's already that other thread for that.


JAL


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Dec 05, 2017 2:58 pm 
Sumerul
Sumerul
User avatar

Joined: Wed Mar 08, 2006 5:00 pm
Posts: 4223
Location: Braunschweig, Germany
Howl wrote:
If you don't mind me bringing up the Indo-Uralic hypothesis, there is a very interesting paper about a similar -nV suffix in Uralic:
http://www.sgr.fi/sust/sust270/30_desmit.pdf


Indo-Uralic is of course unproven, which does not exclude the possibility that there is a connection between some element in one family and some element in another, but it makes the argument highly precarious.

And in this case, it escapes me what a Uralic individualizing suffix should have to do with an IE verbal plural marker.

_________________
...brought to you by the Weeping Elf
Tha cvastam émi cvastam santham amal phelsa. -- Friedrich Schiller
ESTAR-3SG:P human-OBJ only human-OBJ true-OBJ REL-LOC play-3SG:A


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Dec 05, 2017 4:00 pm 
Smeric
Smeric
User avatar

Joined: Sun Aug 07, 2005 1:13 pm
Posts: 1513
Location: Halfway to Hyperborea
Salmoneus wrote:
What's the reason for assuming direct loaning, rather than loaning from a third family?

'Horn' is a rarely loaned core vocabulary item, so other things being equal, it's better to assume only one loaning event rather than two.

Salmoneus wrote:
Quote:
I've always assumed that, at a deep enough time level, pre-PIE probably came counterclockwise around the Caspian Sea, from an ancestor spoken in NE Levant. An Anatolian route seems to be ruled out, and the Caucasus is just too difficult to go through at a time depth when it will have been already populated.

Oh, now that is an interesting idea.
So far as I'm aware, though, it's a very improbable one, since I don't think there's any trace - genetic or archeological - of that sort of Iranian influence on the steppe, so the language would have to be transmitted by some very small elite; and Iran was, like the Caucasus, a populous and expansive area, so it's less likely that there would have been a migration from the levant through Iran.

The primary relevant variable is traversability, not population or bare distance. The Caucasus is heavily mountaineous and has "always" been strictly an obstacle that nothing short of a Russian Empire goes over of. On the contrary, linguistic expansions that go right through Persia have been common enough. The first clear case is (1) Mitanni Aryan, followed by (2) Proto-Iranian dialects, then (3) Greek (mainly as a trade/administrative language), (4) Arabic (alongside Islam), (5) Persian proper (as a back-expansion to Central Asia, i.e. Tajik), and most recently (6) Turkic. So, six verifiable expansions over a period of about 3000 years. Even "tunnelling" effects are clearly possible, as in the case of Turkic: little effect on the Persian heartland, extensive new speaker areas established both to the west and to the north(east). Yet we know for certain they did go right through Persia, not by boat across the Caspian Sea, or by trekking over the Caucasus.

These precedents in hand, we already ought to assume that there have been also various earlier linguistic expansions that go through Persia in one direction or the other.

By similar argument, with the Caucasus being a residual zone, also the most likely explanation for genetic links in mtDNA towards Europe actually doesn't involve those genes coming from the Caucasus, but instead from a common source elsewhere:
1) A spread wave comes in from the steppes, re-populating Europe and the Caucasus with common mtDNA lineages (at this time also Y-DNA lineages);
2) Another spread wave (e.g. PIE) comes in, takes over the steppes first and Europe later, and replaces the old Y-DNA lineages with new, unrelated ones.

Salmoneus wrote:
What shred of evidence is there for seeing PIE as the language of Levantine exiles?

None that I know of, and I suggested no such thing. I'm operating with a timescale of a couple millennia — the idea is PIE speakers as fairly distant linguistic descendants of once Levantines or neighbors, kind of like how modern-day speakers of Californian English are distant linguistic descendants of Proto-Germanic speakers from southern Scandinavia. Getting the language from Scandinavia to California was not some kind of a single long-distance wormhole jump, it went through multiple separate expansions several centuries apart (Proto-West Germanic down the North Sea coast; Anglians and Saxons across the canal to Britain; assorted Brits to colonies on the Atlantic coast of North America; homesteading Americans westward across the continent).

Salmoneus wrote:
Why invent such a complex procedure to explain two vaguely similar phonemes in one lexical item?


It's not "one" lexical item. If you look into the works of Nostraticists who include Afroasiatic (Bomhard, Dolgopolsky), you can get together a triple-digit-number of PIE-PS lexical comparisons.
PIE *bʰeh₂- ~ PS *b-h-r, *b-h-w, *b-h-q 'to shine'
PIE *bʰeg- ~ PS *b-q-ʕ, *b-q-r- 'to break, split'
PIE *bʰars ~ PS *barr 'grain'
PIE *bʰerH- ~ PS *b-r(-z) 'to bore'
etc.
Probably some percentage is accidental similarity, but I don't think there's much of a chance literally every bit of this data is.

Before getting all Nostratic with things though, we still ought to be looking over possible loaning scenarios. Some cases like 'grain' could work as long-distance Wanderwörter; but connecting most cases, like 'horn' or 'to shine', seems to require a bit closer contacts between the PS lineage and PIE lineage.

Salmoneus wrote:
This is a literal violation of Ockham's Razor, supposing the existence of languages lying around the middle east, for which there is no other archeological, genetic or linguistic evidence, just so that they can lend a word or two to a later-arriving Semitic.

I'm not sure what you mean. We have plenty of archeological evidence that the Middle East has been populated for tens of thousands of years, and this implies some sort of languages being spoken in there as well. Most of them going extinct without leaving direct descendants is also only to be expected (cf. Sumerian, Akkadian, Elamite, Hittite, Hurrian, Phoenician…). So is most of them leaving a couple substrate lexical items around regardless.

_________________
[ˌʔaɪsəˈpʰɻ̊ʷoʊpɪɫ ˈʔæɫkəɦɔɫ]


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Dec 05, 2017 6:21 pm 
Sanci
Sanci
User avatar

Joined: Sat Oct 07, 2017 7:43 pm
Posts: 28
Location: Campinia
We know that some Eurasian people went back to Africa. We know people in the stone age had primitive boats. There was probably some trading going on across the Black Sea and Mediterranean. So why would we be surprised that we find similar words in Semitic and IE?

WeepingElf wrote:
Howl wrote:
If you don't mind me bringing up the Indo-Uralic hypothesis, there is a very interesting paper about a similar -nV suffix in Uralic:
http://www.sgr.fi/sust/sust270/30_desmit.pdf


Indo-Uralic is of course unproven, which does not exclude the possibility that there is a connection between some element in one family and some element in another, but it makes the argument highly precarious.

And in this case, it escapes me what a Uralic individualizing suffix should have to do with an IE verbal plural marker.


Within the context of PIE, I don't think there is much more to say about the -ni/-n suffix. It was there, and we can speculate all we want about what it meant. I don't think the -ni/-n suffix was originally a plural marker, just like the Uralic -nV suffix was not a singular marker. But the reasons why I think so, don't come from PIE proper.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Dec 05, 2017 6:30 pm 
Sanno
Sanno
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jan 15, 2004 5:00 pm
Posts: 16398
Location: One of the dark places of the world
Tropylium wrote:
Salmoneus wrote:
What's the reason for assuming direct loaning, rather than loaning from a third family?

'Horn' is a rarely loaned core vocabulary item, so other things being equal, it's better to assume only one loaning event rather than two.

Is it that rarely loaned? It's a trade good, after all.
[although since it seems to be independently derived in both families, the question's rather moot]
Quote:
The primary relevant variable is traversability, not population or bare distance. The Caucasus is heavily mountaineous and has "always" been strictly an obstacle that nothing short of a Russian Empire goes over of.

I'm sorry, but that's not true. Plenty of people have crossed the caucasus. [for a start, all three caucasian language families are spoken on both sides of the watershed, and their range to the north was one considerably large - circassians used to live as far north as the sea of Azov. The Armenians, also, had a large diaspora north of the mountains, as far north even as the crimea. Nor is there any trouble moving large numbers of horsemen across the mountains - the Mongols and their successors managed it repeatedly with no difficulty (most famously in the campaign leading to the Battle of the Kalka River, in which the Mongols invaded Ukraine via Georgia). ]

Most obviously, if you look at Yamnaya... who's that right on their southern border? Right, yes, Maykop, which extended from the Taman to the Kura, right straddling the Caucasus! It seems most likely their ancestors were from south of the caucasus, but migration from the north of the caucasus is also a widely-held view. The caucasus aren't much of a barrier - you can follow the coasts, or you can just follow the river.

Incidentally, Maykop shares the Yamnaya fondness for kurgans - there seems to have been considerable cultural as well as genetic contact across the caucasus at this point in time.


Quote:
These precedents in hand, we already ought to assume that there have been also various earlier linguistic expansions that go through Persia in one direction or the other.

No offence, but it's a silly argument to say that just because some people have crossed Persia, therefore PIE must have done so.
Quote:
By similar argument, with the Caucasus being a residual zone, also the most likely explanation for genetic links in mtDNA towards Europe actually doesn't involve those genes coming from the Caucasus, but instead from a common source elsewhere:
1) A spread wave comes in from the steppes, re-populating Europe and the Caucasus with common mtDNA lineages (at this time also Y-DNA lineages);
2) Another spread wave (e.g. PIE) comes in, takes over the steppes first and Europe later, and replaces the old Y-DNA lineages with new, unrelated ones.

But we know that neither of those things happened in reality. The Caucasian influence in the later steppe populations goes back to hunter-gatherer times in the caucasus.
Quote:
Salmoneus wrote:
What shred of evidence is there for seeing PIE as the language of Levantine exiles?

None that I know of, and I suggested no such thing. I'm operating with a timescale of a couple millennia — the idea is PIE speakers as fairly distant linguistic descendants of once Levantines or neighbors, kind of like how modern-day speakers of Californian English are distant linguistic descendants of Proto-Germanic speakers from southern Scandinavia. Getting the language from Scandinavia to California was not some kind of a single long-distance wormhole jump, it went through multiple separate expansions several centuries apart (Proto-West Germanic down the North Sea coast; Anglians and Saxons across the canal to Britain; assorted Brits to colonies on the Atlantic coast of North America; homesteading Americans westward across the continent).

That's what I meant; I didn't specific 'first generation exiles'! But the fact remains, there is no evidence for any of this.
Quote:
Salmoneus wrote:
Why invent such a complex procedure to explain two vaguely similar phonemes in one lexical item?


It's not "one" lexical item. If you look into the works of Nostraticists who include Afroasiatic (Bomhard, Dolgopolsky), you can get together a triple-digit-number of PIE-PS lexical comparisons.
PIE *bʰeh₂- ~ PS *b-h-r, *b-h-w, *b-h-q 'to shine'
PIE *bʰeg- ~ PS *b-q-ʕ, *b-q-r- 'to break, split'
PIE *bʰars ~ PS *barr 'grain'
PIE *bʰerH- ~ PS *b-r(-z) 'to bore'
etc.
Probably some percentage is accidental similarity, but I don't think there's much of a chance literally every bit of this data is.

And the same sort of vague resemblances can be found for any other pair of language families you look at.

Sure, some of these will be wanderwoerter. The word for barley/grain, for instance, may well be borrowed from a third language family, since neither PIE nor Semitic represents the early agricultural population of the area.
Quote:
Salmoneus wrote:
This is a literal violation of Ockham's Razor, supposing the existence of languages lying around the middle east, for which there is no other archeological, genetic or linguistic evidence, just so that they can lend a word or two to a later-arriving Semitic.

I'm not sure what you mean. We have plenty of archeological evidence that the Middle East has been populated for tens of thousands of years, and this implies some sort of languages being spoken in there as well. Most of them going extinct without leaving direct descendants is also only to be expected (cf. Sumerian, Akkadian, Elamite, Hittite, Hurrian, Phoenician…). So is most of them leaving a couple substrate lexical items around regardless.

Yes, there were people, but there's no reason to think they were Indo-European people! You're literally fixing a hole in your theory by postulating a new population - new genetics, new language family, new archeological culture - for which we have absolutely zero evidence, and who are effectively an unfalsifiable hypothesis existing only to make the theory work. Are they possible? Sure, that's the advantage of unfalsifiable lost populations. But that's no reason to go around believing in them.

_________________
Blog: http://vacuouswastrel.wordpress.com/

But the river tripped on her by and by, lapping
as though her heart was brook: Why, why, why! Weh, O weh
I'se so silly to be flowing but I no canna stay!


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Dec 06, 2017 5:55 am 
Visanom
Visanom
User avatar

Joined: Tue Feb 06, 2007 12:03 am
Posts: 6364
Location: Netherlands
Howl wrote:
We know people in the stone age had primitive boats. There was probably some trading going on across the Black Sea and Mediterranean.

"probably" as in "I have read reliable scientific sources hypothesizing this", in which case please supply some references or "probably" as in "I personally think it's likely, since stone age people had boats, traders have boats, therefore stone age people were traders"?

A quick Google on neolithic boats seem to suggest they were mostly dugout canoes, unsuitable for transportation across large swaths of water. The closest to crossing dangerous waters is the colonization of various islands (e.g. Orkney), but that's a far stretch from steady long-distance see-faring trade.


JAL


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Dec 06, 2017 11:52 am 
Smeric
Smeric
User avatar

Joined: Sun Aug 15, 2010 5:00 pm
Posts: 1350
jal wrote:
Howl wrote:
We know people in the stone age had primitive boats. There was probably some trading going on across the Black Sea and Mediterranean.

"probably" as in "I have read reliable scientific sources hypothesizing this", in which case please supply some references or "probably" as in "I personally think it's likely, since stone age people had boats, traders have boats, therefore stone age people were traders"?

A quick Google on neolithic boats seem to suggest they were mostly dugout canoes, unsuitable for transportation across large swaths of water. The closest to crossing dangerous waters is the colonization of various islands (e.g. Orkney), but that's a far stretch from steady long-distance see-faring trade.


JAL

The Haida conducted long-distance seafaring trade in canoes, from southern Alaska as far south as California. However, I'm unaware of anything like a Haida canoe in the Old World.

_________________
"But if of ships I now should sing, what ship would come to me,
What ship would bear me ever back across so wide a Sea?”


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Dec 07, 2017 7:05 am 
Visanom
Visanom
User avatar

Joined: Tue Feb 06, 2007 12:03 am
Posts: 6364
Location: Netherlands
Zaarin wrote:
The Haida conducted long-distance seafaring trade in canoes, from southern Alaska as far south as California. However, I'm unaware of anything like a Haida canoe in the Old World.

Apart from that, it's dangerous (scientifically) to equate non-Old World cultures without extensive metallurgy with stone-age cultures in the Old World. There's little use in trying to draw parallels, I think.


JAL


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Dec 07, 2017 6:56 pm 
Smeric
Smeric
User avatar

Joined: Sun Aug 15, 2010 5:00 pm
Posts: 1350
jal wrote:
Zaarin wrote:
The Haida conducted long-distance seafaring trade in canoes, from southern Alaska as far south as California. However, I'm unaware of anything like a Haida canoe in the Old World.

Apart from that, it's dangerous (scientifically) to equate non-Old World cultures without extensive metallurgy with stone-age cultures in the Old World. There's little use in trying to draw parallels, I think.


JAL

I agree.

_________________
"But if of ships I now should sing, what ship would come to me,
What ship would bear me ever back across so wide a Sea?”


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Dec 08, 2017 4:26 am 
Sanci
Sanci
User avatar

Joined: Sat Oct 07, 2017 7:43 pm
Posts: 28
Location: Campinia
jal wrote:
A quick Google on neolithic boats seem to suggest they were mostly dugout canoes, unsuitable for transportation across large swaths of water. The closest to crossing dangerous waters is the colonization of various islands (e.g. Orkney), but that's a far stretch from steady long-distance see-faring trade.


Two things.
1. In our modern age, people have constructed these primitive boats and used them to cross long distances over sea.
2. The archeological record actually confirms that there was sea-faring trade around the Aegean during the neolithic.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Dec 08, 2017 2:47 pm 
Sumerul
Sumerul
User avatar

Joined: Wed Mar 08, 2006 5:00 pm
Posts: 4223
Location: Braunschweig, Germany
I have a new, possibly wacky, idea about what could have effected the phonological "Kartvelization" of PIE (the phonological similarities between PIE and Kartvelian) which Gamkrelidze and Ivanov used as an argument for a Transcaucasian homeland of PIE). The idea is a para-Karrvelian language in western Ukraine spoken by the Proto-Indo-Europeans' western neighbours, the Cucuteni-Trypillia people. What? The Cucuteni-Trypillia culture emerged from the eastern recesses of the Linearbandkeramik (LBK), who were genetically similar to modern Georgians and may have spoken a language related to Kartvelian. Their language may have formed a Sprachbund with pre-PIE.

Of course, this is so far nothing but idle speculation, and perhaps utter bottocks. I am not sure of this at all (the phonological resemblances between PIE and Proto-Kartvelian aren't really all that great), and I should perhaps better forget about it. It is just something I came up with when thinking about "Tommian", my latest lostlang project concerning the language of the LBK culture.

_________________
...brought to you by the Weeping Elf
Tha cvastam émi cvastam santham amal phelsa. -- Friedrich Schiller
ESTAR-3SG:P human-OBJ only human-OBJ true-OBJ REL-LOC play-3SG:A


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Dec 09, 2017 1:06 am 
Avisaru
Avisaru
User avatar

Joined: Mon Aug 05, 2013 10:01 pm
Posts: 435
From what I can tell, the LBK samples only show similarity to modern Georgians in mitochondrial DNA, and not at all in Y chromasomal DNA, which just brings us back to the same problem as Caucasian mtDNA in Indo-Europeans. Since they lived nearby, this might even be a single data point caused by the same migration of DNA.

https://www.eupedia.com/genetics/linear ... ture.shtml
https://www.eupedia.com/europe/european ... ency.shtml
https://www.eupedia.com/europe/european ... oups.shtml

_________________
"I'm sorry, when you have all As in every class in every semester, it's not easy to treat the idea that your views are fundamentally incoherent as a serious proposition."


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Dec 09, 2017 8:38 am 
Smeric
Smeric
User avatar

Joined: Mon Feb 29, 2016 6:34 am
Posts: 1051
Location: The North
Just to change the subject but what is it about the PIE mediopassive that means it's lost in so many of the daughter languages? And further to that, if we didn't have access to the historical written languages would we still have grounds for reconstructing it?

_________________
https://frislander.tumblr.com/

First known on here as Karero


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Dec 09, 2017 11:23 am 
Sumerul
Sumerul
User avatar

Joined: Wed Mar 08, 2006 5:00 pm
Posts: 4223
Location: Braunschweig, Germany
I have abandoned the idea I posted yesterday again. There really isn't all that much reason to assume that the LBK language was related to Kartvelian (though it is of course a possibility); the similarities between Kartvelian and IE aren't that great (Kartvelian ablaut is not as similar to IE ablaut as people like Gamkrelidze said, etc.), and there is no reason to assume that the common ancestor of LBK and Kartvelian, at least 8000 years ago if it ever existed, already had these features in place. Kartvelian ablaut probably is not much older than IE ablaut, and the two ablaut systems may just have evolved independently from each other.

_________________
...brought to you by the Weeping Elf
Tha cvastam émi cvastam santham amal phelsa. -- Friedrich Schiller
ESTAR-3SG:P human-OBJ only human-OBJ true-OBJ REL-LOC play-3SG:A


Last edited by WeepingElf on Sun Dec 10, 2017 3:55 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 2004 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 77, 78, 79, 80, 81  Next

All times are UTC - 6 hours [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 4 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group