European languages before Indo-European

[alice]

I disagree. Although certainly we've got not much data, this isn't exactly the same thing as nothing. For example, Germanic languages have a noticeable non-IE substrate, but AFAIK very few linguists have afforded to study it. To me, it looks like substrate languages are the lumpenproletariat of historical linguistics.

Do you mean "there are many words in Germanic with no known cognates elsewhere in IE"? That doesn't necessarily imply "a noticeable non-IE substrate"; there are other explanations which are at least as plausible. And AFAIK this section of the lexicon has been studied about as well as is possible; there simply isn't much else you can say about it other than that it has no known cognates elsewhere in IE.

About the question of a language related to Semitic once spoken in Europe, I could say that PGmc *sibun '7' doesn't come from PIE *septºm- but from the masculine (unsuffixed) variant of PSem *sabʕ-(at-) '7', while the PIE comes from the femenine (suffixed) one.

You could indeed say that, but I doubt anyone would believe you...

[WeepingElf]

It looks like you reject the idea that non-IE languages were once spoken in Europe.

You shoud know that I don't. Of course there were plenty of non-IE languages spoken in Neolithic Europe, even if one counts Hesperic as IE. It is just that I am careful with my assumptions on what those non-IE languages have been. because there is so little we know about them.

[Octavià]

I disagree. Although certainly we've got not much data, this isn't exactly the same thing as nothing. For example, Germanic languages have a noticeable non-IE substrate, but AFAIK very few linguists have afforded to study it. To me, it looks like substrate languages are the lumpenproletariat of historical linguistics.

Do you mean "there are many words in Germanic with no known cognates elsewhere in IE"? That doesn't necessarily imply "a noticeable non-IE substrate"; there are other explanations which are at least as plausible.

Such as...? Perhaps you'd have the kindness to name them

And AFAIK this section of the lexicon has been studied about as well as is possible; there simply isn't much else you can say about it other than that it has no known cognates elsewhere in IE.

Unless of course it has cognates outside IE

About the question of a language related to Semitic once spoken in Europe, I could say that PGmc *sibun '7' doesn't come from PIE *septºm- but from the masculine (unsuffixed) variant of PSem *sabʕ-(at-) '7', while the PIE comes from the femenine (suffixed) one.

You could indeed say that, but I doubt anyone would believe you...

Well, I'm affraid yours is an ad hominem argument, because you don't actually address the issue.

Actually, I think the Germanic word might be a remnant of Jörg's "Hesperic". That is, while PIE borrowed the femenine form of the numeral, Hesperic might have borrowed the masculine one.

[Octavià]

It looks like you reject the idea that non-IE languages were once spoken in Europe.

You shoud know that I don't. Of course there were plenty of non-IE languages spoken in Neolithic Europe, even if one counts Hesperic as IE. It is just that I am careful with my assumptions on what those non-IE languages have been. because there is so little we know about them.

Just that IMHO we can actually learn more than you think from the available data. So to speak, it's a matter of using the brain instead of repeating preconceived ideas as they were a mantra: "there is so little we know about them".

[WeepingElf]

I disagree. Although certainly we've got not much data, this isn't exactly the same thing as nothing. For example, Germanic languages have a noticeable non-IE substrate, but AFAIK very few linguists have afforded to study it. To me, it looks like substrate languages are the lumpenproletariat of historical linguistics.

Do you mean "there are many words in Germanic with no known cognates elsewhere in IE"? That doesn't necessarily imply "a noticeable non-IE substrate"; there are other explanations which are at least as plausible.

Such as...? Perhaps you'd have the kindness to name them

Some words may have been inherited from PIE, but lost in all other branches. Admittedly, the chances of that are slim, and if there are hundreds of words without known cognates in other branches of Indo-European, it is indeed likely that most of them are borrowed from other languages, perhaps of several different families.

And AFAIK this section of the lexicon has been studied about as well as is possible; there simply isn't much else you can say about it other than that it has no known cognates elsewhere in IE.

Unless of course it has cognates outside IE

Claiming cognates outside IE is of course not illegitimate, but the burden of proof rests on who suggests such cognates.

About the question of a language related to Semitic once spoken in Europe, I could say that PGmc *sibun '7' doesn't come from PIE *septºm- but from the masculine (unsuffixed) variant of PSem *sabʕ-(at-) '7', while the PIE comes from the femenine (suffixed) one.

You could indeed say that, but I doubt anyone would believe you...

Well, I'm affraid yours is an ad hominem argument, because you don't actually address the issue.

That's not really an ad hominem argument. Nancy Blackett's point is just that the evidence you adduce is insufficient.

Actually, I think the Germanic word might be a remnant of Jörg's "Hesperic". That is, while PIE borrowed the femenine form of the numeral, Hesperic might have borrowed the masculine one.

Maybe, but I don't have an opinion on that.

[WeepingElf]

It looks like you reject the idea that non-IE languages were once spoken in Europe.

You shoud know that I don't. Of course there were plenty of non-IE languages spoken in Neolithic Europe, even if one counts Hesperic as IE. It is just that I am careful with my assumptions on what those non-IE languages have been. because there is so little we know about them.

Just that IMHO we can actually learn more than you think from the available data. So to speak, it's a matter of using the brain instead of repeating preconceived ideas as they were a mantra: "there is so little we know about them".

Oh, I don't just sit back and say, "There is so little to know about them". I try to find out as much about those lost languages as I can - but I prefer to confront the matter with caution, and with as few untested hypotheses as I could. Actually, I do make statements about prehistoric European languages that go beyond the commonly accepted state of knowledge, for instance regarding the Hesperic languages. In such an uncharted territory, you need to be open-minded. Adhering to a kind of "dogma" and saying "we will never know" is one way to close your mind; but positing a wildly speculative hypothesis, buttressing it with circular arguments based on dictionary comparison, and accusing your critics of ad hominem attacks, is another.

[jal]

positing a wildly speculative hypothesis, buttressing it with circular arguments based on dictionary comparison, and accusing your critics of ad hominem attacks, is another.

Not to mention that while the cautious may say "I think it may be the case that [X comes from Y]", T. has the habit of just saying "[X comes from Y]", without reservations, like there's no doubt or room for discussion.


JAL

[Grigor]

No, no, you're doing it wrong.

If we don't come up with new hypotheses, how do we expect to advance our knowledge of the Pre-IE European language landscape? The standard Indo-European model is far too simplistic. Do you really think that PIE and early existed in a bubble, with no significant linguistic influences on it whatsoever? The sheer number of sound correspondences between certain words in some IE languages with no known cognates in other branches (!) and various Semitic or Vasco-Caucasian words is simply too great. Of course with enough hand waving you can dismiss any logical theory that adds to our current understanding of the early European landscape, or you could do what I'm prepared to do and accept that we need to move on, and modify the archaic and naive view that mainstream historical linguists have held for far too long.

[Legion]

Sigh…



"I think it's safe now, let's get out again."

[Jetboy]

The sheer number of sound correspondences between certain words in some IE languages with no known cognates in other branches (!) and various Semitic or Vasco-Caucasian words is simply too great.

Well, if there are so many of these cognate words, you should be able to give us at least 50 or so cognate pairs that demonstrate consistent and regular correspondences.

[Tropylium⁺]

The sheer number of sound correspondences between certain words in some IE languages with no known cognates in other branches (!) and various Semitic or Vasco-Caucasian words is simply too great.

Well, if there are so many of these cognate words, you should be able to give us at least 50 or so cognate pairs that demonstrate consistent and regular correspondences.

Yep, what we really need is a systematic treatment, not a word-by-word discussion. It rather seems like you're modelling your approach after that of adding new words to a known framework, but that doesn't work when you are trying to set up a whole new framework. For that I would expect to see tables, lists, statistics, and a focus on soundlaws in general rather than on individual words.

[WeepingElf]

No, no, you're doing it wrong.

If we don't come up with new hypotheses, how do we expect to advance our knowledge of the Pre-IE European language landscape? The standard Indo-European model is far too simplistic. Do you really think that PIE and early existed in a bubble, with no significant linguistic influences on it whatsoever? The sheer number of sound correspondences between certain words in some IE languages with no known cognates in other branches (!) and various Semitic or Vasco-Caucasian words is simply too great. Of course with enough hand waving you can dismiss any logical theory that adds to our current understanding of the early European landscape, or you could do what I'm prepared to do and accept that we need to move on, and modify the archaic and naive view that mainstream historical linguists have held for far too long.

You are accusing me of things that have nothing to do with my opinions or my methodology! I don't think that PIE and its early daughters existed "in a bubble"; in fact, they borrowed numerous words from languages that are now lost in time - and I am trying to find out as much as I can about those languages. Also, the early IE languages certainly borrowed words from each other - which is probably the best explanation for words that seem to be of PIE origin, but show "wrong" sound correspondences. We know, for instance, that Latin borrowed words from other Italic languages, as well as from Greek.

That there are dozens of PIE words that closely resemble certain Semitic words has been noticed by scholars way long ago, and led quite a few to the conclusion that Semitic was related to Indo-European. In my opinion, though, it is more likely that both families borrowed from a common source - namely the lost language of the first Neolithic farmers of the Near East. The fact that most of the words are farming terms hints at them being Wanderwörter which were borrowed from language to language together with the new economy that farming was in the Neolithic.

What you are doing wrong is, essentially, that you make apodictic statements about what "was the fact" about the unknown languages, rather than admitting that your hypotheses are just that - hypotheses, and get histrionic about those who point out problems with your hypotheses, and present alternative hypotheses.

[Morrígan]

No, no, you're doing it wrong.

If we don't come up with new hypotheses, how do we expect to advance our knowledge of the Pre-IE European language landscape? The standard Indo-European model is far too simplistic. Do you really think that PIE and early existed in a bubble, with no significant linguistic influences on it whatsoever? The sheer number of sound correspondences between certain words in some IE languages with no known cognates in other branches (!) and various Semitic or Vasco-Caucasian words is simply too great. Of course with enough hand waving you can dismiss any logical theory that adds to our current understanding of the early European landscape, or you could do what I'm prepared to do and accept that we need to move on, and modify the archaic and naive view that mainstream historical linguists have held for far too long.

You are accusing me of things that have nothing to do with my opinions or my methodology! I don't think that PIE and its early daughters existed "in a bubble"; in fact, they borrowed numerous words from languages that are now lost in time - and I am trying to find out as much as I can about those languages. Also, the early IE languages certainly borrowed words from each other - which is probably the best explanation for words that seem to be of PIE origin, but show "wrong" sound correspondences. We know, for instance, that Latin borrowed words from other Italic languages, as well as from Greek.

That there are dozens of PIE words that closely resemble certain Semitic words has been noticed by scholars way long ago, and led quite a few to the conclusion that Semitic was related to Indo-European. In my opinion, though, it is more likely that both families borrowed from a common source - namely the lost language of the first Neolithic farmers of the Near East. The fact that most of the words are farming terms hints at them being Wanderwörter which were borrowed from language to language together with the new economy that farming was in the Neolithic.

What you are doing wrong is, essentially, that you make apodictic statements about what "was the fact" about the unknown languages, rather than admitting that your hypotheses are just that - hypotheses, and get histrionic about those who point out problems with your hypotheses, and present alternative hypotheses.

No no, that's not the real Octaviano; this one is a hilarious troll impersonating him. Their ranks are different.

[WeepingElf]

No no, that's not the real Octaviano; this one is a hilarious troll impersonating him. Their ranks are different.

I have noticed that inconsistency; I don't know what to think of that. Whoever it is, though, he accused me of a position I never held; apparently, he likes to beat up strawmen.

[Grigor]

Ok, you've won me over. Looking at all the available evidence, I have to concede that not only have I been naive, I've also been blatantly wrong.

I think it's only fair that I issue an apology for wasting so much of your collective time, especially WeepingElf and Goatface. While there may have been prehistoric influence on PIE and early IE languages from Semitic, Caucasian or other sources, most of the cognates I've given have been shaky at best. All I've been doing is going round and round in circles, ignoring both archaeological and (scandalously!) linguistic evidence in order to defend my untenable position. I've been putting my hypothesis above the evidence that we have - and not only is it unscientific, it's plain stupid. I wish I could just delete all my posts on this thread because frankly, they're embarrassing.

Of course, this is not to say that IE probably was influenced by other language families, whose ancient representatives were the sources of many 'mystery words' and Wanderwörter, but I do need to seriously rethink my dubious etymologies.

I offer the olive branch and hope you accept it.

Is Comparative Indo-European Linguistics worth a read?

[Octavià]

No no, that's not the real Octaviano; this one is a hilarious troll impersonating him. Their ranks are different.

That's right, somebody has cloned my account and is impersonating me. You can still differentiate us by the post count.

[Grigor]

This is my real name.

[Octavià]

This is my real name.

This was the troll. I beg the Forum's moderators/administrators to ban him.

[Legion]

Ban all the Octaviani, just to be sure.

[Octavià]

That there are dozens of PIE words that closely resemble certain Semitic words has been noticed by scholars way long ago, and led quite a few to the conclusion that Semitic was related to Indo-European. In my opinion, though, it is more likely that both families borrowed from a common source - namely the lost language of the first Neolithic farmers of the Near East. The fact that most of the words are farming terms hints at them being Wanderwörter which were borrowed from language to language together with the new economy that farming was in the Neolithic.

My PoV is somewhat different. I agree with Cavalli-Sforza and Renfrew that the Neolithic expansion was essentially a demic one, at least in the Danube-Balkan area and the Mediterranean basin. This means there was also a language expansion, not merely a transport of "Wanderwörter". IMHO, these languages were mostly Vasco-Caucasian, although there're some could be related to Semitic.

What you are doing wrong is, essentially, that you make apodictic statements about what "was the fact" about the unknown languages, rather than admitting that your hypotheses are just that - hypotheses, and get histrionic about those who point out problems with your hypotheses, and present alternative hypotheses.

I'm affraid this could also be applied to your PoV, as you can't refute the existence of substrate languages and present the alternatve hypothesis of "massive Wanderwörter".

[Jetboy]

Even though I seem to have quoted the troll earlier, it would still be absolutely wonderful if you could give us a list of at least 50 examples.

[Octavià]

Some words may have been inherited from PIE, but lost in all other branches. Admittedly, the chances of that are slim, and if there are hundreds of words without known cognates in other branches of Indo-European, it is indeed likely that most of them are borrowed from other languages, perhaps of several different families.

This is more or less the situation we're facing. Plenty of lexicon borrowed from extinct substrate languages (notice that being extinct doesn't automatically imply these languages didn't have known relatives).

Claiming cognates outside IE is of course not illegitimate, but the burden of proof rests on who suggests such cognates.

I've always provided it. But Nancy seems to implictly think IE languages "are in a bubble" so to speak (to use my clon's expression).

BTW, English crab is a loanword from ultimate Semitic origin: *ʔa-k’rab 'scorpion'. Crabs and scorpions are similar animals.

[Count Iblis]

BTW, English crab is a loanword from ultimate Semitic origin: *ʔa-qarab 'scorpion'. Crabs and scorpions are similar animals. In fact, I could tell you something about the way two sexual partners born under Cancer (the Latin word for 'crab') and Scorpio zodiac signs can get along.

English crab comes from PIE *gerbh/grebh "to scratch, claw". I can't find any good cognates outside of PIE and may be onomatopoeic in origin.

[Octavià]

English crab comes from PIE *gerbh/grebh "to scratch, claw"

This is what the Oxford Etymological Dictionary (OED) says, but IMHO this is etymology is untenable.

I can't find any good cognates outside of PIE and may be onomatopoeic in origin.

I disagree. The Semitic word is an exact match

[TomHChappell]

English crab comes from PIE *gerbh/grebh "to scratch, claw"

This is what the Oxford Etymological Dictionary (OED) says, but IMHO this is etymology is untenable.

I can't find any good cognates outside of PIE and may be onomatopoeic in origin.

I disagree.

Did you consider "scarab"? Not that I know of any reason it might be plausible.