WeepingElf's Europic thread

[WeepingElf]

Now that everybody makes his own thread about his favourite historical linguistic theory, here's mine.

What is Europic?

Europic is a hypothetical language family, of which only one branch survives today. This surviving branch is Indo-European. Other Europic languages, so the hypothesis states, were once spoken in large parts of Europe before they were displaces by the expanding Indo-European family. It is possible but uncertain that Etruscan is one of these languages.

What evidence is there?

The main evidence for such a family (beyond Indo-European) comes from the 'Old European hydronymy' (OEH), a seemingly uniform network of river names (and other geographic names) spanning much odf Central and Western Europe. The OEH was discovered in the mid-20th century by German linguist Hans Krahe, who assumed these names to be Indo-European but not from any particular IE language. The Indo-Europeanness of these names has since been questioned. The names, while admitting interpretation by means of Indo-European, show some phonological peculiarities, most notably a vocalism centred on */a/ without clear evidence of Indo-European ablaut. The most plausible explanation for this is that the names are from a language related to Indo-European, but separating from the latter before the ablaut alternations characteristic for Indo-European developed. Because this highly characteristic property of Indo-European is yet not there, and the language presumably agglutinating rather than fusional, I prefer to use a different name for it - hence, "Europic". The language family of the OEH I call Hesperic, from Greek hesperos 'west', because it forms the western branch of Europic.

Where and when was Proto-Europic spoken?

The most likely candidate for Proto-Hesperic is the group of Central European Neolithic populations known to archaeologists as the "Linearbandkeramik" (LBK) culture, and its younger daughter cultures, the Bell Beaker and Funnel Beaker cultures. These people probably entered Central Europe from the southeast, and the time of their appearance closely matches that of the "Black Sea Flood", a rapid inundation of the Black Sea basin by the ocean that happened around 5500 BC (or perhaps a few hundred years earlier; the controversy still hasn't settled). Proto-Europic would have been spoken where now is the Bay of Odessa and then was a highly fertile plain affording a flourishing Neolithic culture. When the Black Sea basin was flooded, refugees travelled along the great rivers (probably by boat) north, where their language evolved into Proto-Indo-European, and west, where it evolved into Proto-Hesperic. The language of the Vinca culture in the northern Balkan peninsula, which has left objects inscribed with designs that could have been writing, would also be a Europic language.

What was Proto-Europic like?

The Proto-Europic language can in part be reconstructed by applying internal reconstruction to Proto-Indo-European. It is likely that it was an agglutinating language with only three vowels - */a/, */i/, */u/, of which */a/ was most frequent - and active/stative morphosyntactic alignment.

What other language families are related to Europic?

The most likely next-closest kin of Europic is Uralic, whose similarity to Indo-European has been noticed for decades, though a relationship is not yet proven, together with some other languages which probably are related to Uralic, such as Yukaghir, Chukotko-Kamchatkan and Eskimo-Aleut. Other possible kin are the Altaic and Kartvelian languages. Etruscan may be a Europic language, or a language related to Europic.

[Octaviano]

Europic is a hypothetical language family, of which only one branch survives today. This surviving branch is Indo-European.

I might agree on your "Europic" is more or less the same thing than Adrados' PIE I.

Other Europic languages, so the hypothesis states, were once spoken in large parts of Europe before they were displaces by the expanding Indo-European family.

What's the evidence for that?

The most likely candidate for Proto-Hesperic is the group of Central European Neolithic populations known to archaeologists as the "Linearbandkeramik" (LBK) culture, and its younger daughter cultures, the Bell Beaker and Funnel Beaker cultures.

What's the evidence "Proto-Hesperic" was actually the language of the LBK Neolithic farmers?

[WeepingElf]

Europic is a hypothetical language family, of which only one branch survives today. This surviving branch is Indo-European.

I might agree on your "Europic" is more or less the same thing than Adrados' PIE I.

Yes. Though I don't share Adrados's conclusions regarding the typology of the language. Adrados also attributes the OEH to what he calls "IE I".

Other Europic languages, so the hypothesis states, were once spoken in large parts of Europe before they were displaces by the expanding Indo-European family.

What's the evidence for that?

The main piece of evidence are the river names and other geographical names. I admit that this is difficult, because in most cases we don't know the original meanings of the names. An exception is *hal-, which most likely means 'salt', as it is found in names of places where salt was produced. It appears to be a cognate of PIE *sh2al- 'salt'.

The most likely candidate for Proto-Hesperic is the group of Central European Neolithic populations known to archaeologists as the "Linearbandkeramik" (LBK) culture, and its younger daughter cultures, the Bell Beaker and Funnel Beaker cultures.

What's the evidence "Proto-Hesperic" was actually the language of the LBK Neolithic farmers?

That the OEH names are found in an area which was settled by LBK and their daughter cultures.

[Bryan]

NEver heard of this theory before. I quite like it! (...which is quite a different thign to "I agree with it", or whatever, but it's a nifty idea)

[Octaviano]

I might agree on your "Europic" is more or less the same thing than Adrados' PIE I.

Yes. Though I don't share Adrados's conclusions regarding the typology of the language. Adrados also attributes the OEH to what he calls "IE I".

I agree with Adrados on OEH being a descendent from PIE I.

Other Europic languages, so the hypothesis states, were once spoken in large parts of Europe before they were displaces by the expanding Indo-European family.

What's the evidence for that?

The main piece of evidence are the river names and other geographical names. I admit that this is difficult, because in most cases we don't know the original meanings of the names. An exception is *hal-, which most likely means 'salt', as it is found in names of places where salt was produced. It appears to be a cognate of PIE *sh2al- 'salt'.

The problem is there's no specific lexicon related to farming. Hence no actual link to LBK.

What's the evidence "Proto-Hesperic" was actually the language of the LBK Neolithic farmers?

That the OEH names are found in an area which was settled by LBK and their daughter cultures.

I'm affraid the area covered by OEH is actually larger than LBK. For example, it also includes the Iberian Peninsula.

My conclusion is that OEH is from Mesolithic, not Neolithic.

[WeepingElf]

NEver heard of this theory before. I quite like it! (...which is quite a different thign to "I agree with it", or whatever, but it's a nifty idea)

It is my own idea, which came to me when I explored the fascinating lost world of pre-IE European languages. Thank you for liking it.

[Octaviano]

An exception is *hal-, which most likely means 'salt', as it is found in names of places where salt was produced. It appears to be a cognate of PIE *sh2al- 'salt'.

This case is very illustrative of Paleo-Eurasian *H2- > PIE *s- in words like

*H2elA 'to dwell, live' > PIE *selo- 'dwelling, settlement'
*H2EmV 'warm' > PIE *sem- 'summer'

[WeepingElf]

I agree with Adrados on OEH being a descendent from PIE I.

So we agree on this point. But I may note that Adrados also associates, if I remember correctly, the OEH with the Neolithic. I think that farmers are more likely to come up with geonyms that stay than roaming hunter-gatherers.

The problem is there's no specific lexicon related to farming. Hence no actual link to LBK.

I admit that this is something which requires more investigation.

What's the evidence "Proto-Hesperic" was actually the language of the LBK Neolithic farmers?

That the OEH names are found in an area which was settled by LBK and their daughter cultures.

I'm affraid the area covered by OEH is actually larger than LBK. For example, it also includes the Iberian Peninsula.

I said "LBK and their daughter cultures". The Bell Beaker Culture is in my opinion a daughter culture of LBK, speaking a Hesperic language - and those people did settle in the Iberian Peninsula (as well as Italy and the British Isles).

My conclusion is that OEH is from Mesolithic, not Neolithic.

My opinion is that Mesolithic Europe was a patchwork of small language families, and the assumption of a single pre-Neolithic European language family as weakly founded as Greenberg's Amerind. How should such a landscape produce something like the OEH?

[WeepingElf]

An exception is *hal-, which most likely means 'salt', as it is found in names of places where salt was produced. It appears to be a cognate of PIE *sh2al- 'salt'.

This case is very illustrative of Paleo-Eurasian *H2- > PIE *s- in words like

*H2elA 'to dwell, live' > PIE *selo- 'dwelling, settlement'
*H2EmV 'warm' > PIE *sem- 'summer'

What is "Paleo-Eurasian"?? And once again the Gretchenfrage: are these "correspondences" regular, or made up ad hoc?

[TomHChappell]

Gretchenfrage

OK, I give up.
Why does dear little Margaret get credited with that question?

[Octaviano]

So we agree on this point. But I may note that Adrados also associates, if I remember correctly, the OEH with the Neolithic.

Could you be more precise? I mean book and page number.

I think that farmers are more likely to come up with geonyms that stay than roaming hunter-gatherers.

But hunter-gatherers used rivers so they did need to name them.

I'm affraid the area covered by OEH is actually larger than LBK. For example, it also includes the Iberian Peninsula.

I said "LBK and their daughter cultures". The Bell Beaker Culture is in my opinion a daughter culture of LBK, speaking a Hesperic language - and those people did settle in the Iberian Peninsula (as well as Italy and the British Isles).

I'm affraid your model has collapsed, because Bell Beaker is at least contemporary (if not more recent) than PIE III!!!!

My opinion is that Mesolithic Europe was a patchwork of small language families, and the assumption of a single pre-Neolithic European language family as weakly founded as Greenberg's Amerind. How should such a landscape produce something like the OEH?

You shoud ask yourself why your model has so many contradictions and untested hypothesis.

[Colzie]

An exception is *hal-, which most likely means 'salt', as it is found in names of places where salt was produced. It appears to be a cognate of PIE *sh2al- 'salt'.

This case is very illustrative of Paleo-Eurasian *H2- > PIE *s- in words like

*H2elA 'to dwell, live' > PIE *selo- 'dwelling, settlement'
*H2EmV 'warm' > PIE *sem- 'summer'

What is "Paleo-Eurasian"?? And once again the Gretchenfrage: are these "correspondences" regular, or made up ad hoc?

No idea, but it has at least 2 laryngeals, which are apparently not the laryngeals in PIE.

[Octaviano]

PIE *H2 (at least at word-initial) seems to be a voiceless uvular fricative χ.

[WeepingElf]

Gretchenfrage

OK, I give up.
Why does dear little Margaret get credited with that question?

A Gretchenfrage is a question that drills right into the heart of the problem and aims at exposing the addressee's designs. The word is from Goethe's Faust where a young lady named Gretchen asks Faust on his stance on religion.

[Octaviano]

What is "Paleo-Eurasian"??

My "Paleo-Eurasian" is more or less what other people call "Eurasiatic" or "Nostratic".

[Colzie]

@ WeepingElf: Do you have a list of these names, or a handy pointer as to where I could find one? Also how do you deal with the internal evolution of these names from their acquisition though to writing or language divergence?

[Nortaneous]

PIE *H2 (at least at word-initial) seems to be a voiceless uvular fricative χ.

why

[Octaviano]

PIE *H2 (at least at word-initial) seems to be a voiceless uvular fricative χ.

why?

AFAIK, this was first proposed by André Martinet. Rembember that *H2e > a, for example.

[WeepingElf]

So we agree on this point. But I may note that Adrados also associates, if I remember correctly, the OEH with the Neolithic.

Could you be more precise? I mean book and page number.

The only book of Adrados I have read is Historia de las lenguas de Europa, in German translation. You caught me: he doesn't speak of Neolithic, but (in Part I, Chapter 7) he dates PIE I to 5000 BC, and that is in the Neolithic. I know you date it much earlier, while I date it similarly to him. At any rate, though, Adrados is not really relevant to my hypothesis here. My hypothesis does not depend on Adrados being right.

I think that farmers are more likely to come up with geonyms that stay than roaming hunter-gatherers.

But hunter-gatherers used rivers so they did need to name them.

Sure. But I stand by my opinion that Mesolithic Europe was linguistically too heterogenous to afford such a homogenous hydronymy.

I'm affraid the area covered by OEH is actually larger than LBK. For example, it also includes the Iberian Peninsula.

I said "LBK and their daughter cultures". The Bell Beaker Culture is in my opinion a daughter culture of LBK, speaking a Hesperic language - and those people did settle in the Iberian Peninsula (as well as Italy and the British Isles).

I'm affraid your model has collapsed, because Bell Beaker is at least contemporary (if not more recent) than PIE III!!!!

But Bell Beaker is not in the same location as PIE! Bell Beaker starts about 3000 BC, in the northwestern corner of the LBK area (approximately modern Netherlands), at the same time when PIE began to gnaw away on Europic in the east. It took some time before Indo-European reached the area in question. Where is the problem with that?

My opinion is that Mesolithic Europe was a patchwork of small language families, and the assumption of a single pre-Neolithic European language family as weakly founded as Greenberg's Amerind. How should such a landscape produce something like the OEH?

You shoud ask yourself why your model has so many contradictions and untested hypothesis.

Where are the contradictions? Why cannot, for instance, a language family expand in the west while losing ground in the east? Why should Mesolithic Europe be linguistically more homogenous than, for instance, pre-colonial North America? I am aware that my hypothesis is just a hypothesis that requires further investigation.

[WeepingElf]

@ WeepingElf: Do you have a list of these names, or a handy pointer as to where I could find one? Also how do you deal with the internal evolution of these names from their acquisition though to writing or language divergence?

I don't know of a list that is available online, but Krahe's article Die Struktur der alteuropäischen Hydronymie (1963) contains a list of river names, with the reconstructed forms.

[Colzie]

@ WeepingElf: Do you have a list of these names, or a handy pointer as to where I could find one? Also how do you deal with the internal evolution of these names from their acquisition though to writing or language divergence?

I don't know of a list that is available online, but Krahe's article Die Struktur der alteuropäischen Hydronymie (1963) contains a list of river names, with the reconstructed forms.

Excellent, my library has a copy. I'll check it out and get back to this.

[Bryan]

I'm finding all these threads fascinating and delightful reading. But I must say I'm getting a sense of getting lost in whirlwinds of crankiness.

I refer everyone to our very own Mark "The Zomp" Rosenfelder's page where he talks about proto-world etc. And in that, he's quite right: spending the odd hour making your own proto-world or whatever is fun, but we can see it's all pretty much garbage beyond a certain point.

[Octaviano]

Sure. But I stand by my opinion that Mesolithic Europe was linguistically too heterogenous to afford such a homogenous hydronymy.

Even admitting there were many different Mesolithic groups speaking so many different languages, a single group could get across Europe from East to West carrying with them the OEH language.

The spread of the the Y-chromosome haplogroup could be correlated with a such a group: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haplogroup_R1b_(Y-DNA)

I'm affraid your model has collapsed, because Bell Beaker is at least contemporary (if not more recent) than PIE III!!!!

But Bell Beaker is not in the same location as PIE! Bell Beaker starts about 3000 BC, in the northwestern corner of the LBK area (approximately modern Netherlands), at the same time when PIE began to gnaw away on Europic in the east. It took some time before Indo-European reached the area in question. Where is the problem with that?

I'm affraid your chronology is too low to allow for PIE III daughters to reach Western Europe. IMHO, Bell Beaker people spoke a language ancestor to Celtic.

[Nortaneous]

PIE *H2 (at least at word-initial) seems to be a voiceless uvular fricative χ.

why?

AFAIK, this was first proposed by André Martinet. Rembember that *H2e > a, for example.

Why isn't it velar?
Why isn't it pharyngeal?
Why isn't it epiglottal?

[Octaviano]

In his book Des steppes aux océans, Martinet gives 4 possible allophones for PIE *H2:

Voiceless: uvular fricative [χ] or pharyngeal fricative [ħ]
Voiced: uvular fricative [ʁ] or pharyngeal fricative [ʕ]

*H3 is the same than *H2 but labialized.
*H1 is either a glottal stop [ʔ] or a voiceless glottal fricative [h].