European languages before Indo-European

Discussion of natural languages, or language in general.
Richard W
Avisaru
Avisaru
Posts: 363
Joined: Sat Oct 16, 2010 8:28 pm

Re: European languages before Indo-European

Post by Richard W »

Matrix wrote:
Littman, Robert J., 2007 wrote:Archaeologists who agree with Renfrew must dismiss what linguists have been saying about PIE for the past 200 years. Most linguists would be loath to do so. On the other hand, most archaeologists have agreed with Renfrew. They see comparative linguistics as unreliable and based on incomplete premises in reconstructing historical situations. They argue that there is not one piece of archaeological material that can unequivocally be called Indo-European.
What is meant by 'Indo-European' here? I would have thought that Hittite tables counted as Indo-European! Or are they no longer 'archaeological material'?

Inspired by a stab at the intended meaning in the quote, do we actually know when Proto-Romance was spoken? I accept that we easily date it to within ±500 years.

User avatar
Salmoneus
Sanno
Sanno
Posts: 3197
Joined: Thu Jan 15, 2004 5:00 pm
Location: One of the dark places of the world

Re: European languages before Indo-European

Post by Salmoneus »

Terra wrote:I have a couple questions:
(1) Where does the term "Yamna(ya)" come from?
(2) Do we know what the Indo-Europeans called themselves? (Maybe *teuto ?)
(3) What do the genetics of the Basques look like, relative to those of Northern Europe, Southern Europe, and the Caucasus?
1) It's the slavic word for a pit, as in "Pit Culture" or "Pit Grave Culture". Because they were in Ukraine, and made pits.
2) I don't think we know. *teutéh2 is reconstructable as 'folk' in some Germanic, Celtic, Italic and Baltic languages - but it's not necessarily "OUR people", and the distribution and lack of obvious derivation lead people to think it might be a common substratum word in western IE, rather than a PIE word. Another root would be *h1leudh-, 'to grow, increase', which meanings like 'people' and 'nation' in Germanic, Balto-Slavic and Dardic - but that's not exactly a wide distribution either, and it seems semantically stretched - in many languages it means 'growth', and in Latin and Greek it gives words like 'free' and 'children'. So it may be that this did just mean "the children" (i.e. the growing ones) and it's come to mean "the people" in several different daughters. Other words are clearly derived from verbs relating to birth or to division. (eg 'nation' and 'genus' from 'birth', and 'demos' from 'to divide' - all probably specified clans or families and lineages rather than a nation as a whole). So no, there's no clear ethnonym.

3) See earlier in this thread. But to summarise, there is broadly a line ('cline') through europe, running from northeast to southwest, with the IE invasion strongest in the NE, and the Neolithic population strongest in the southwest [the neatness of the line is disturbed by a big drift in Med regions toward north africans and middle easterners (and vice versa on the other side of the Med]. The basques fit exactly where you'd expect them to be, exceptly that they are slightly but significantly pulled out of that line in the direction of the Mesolithic europeans.

So the Basques in no way represent a remnant mesolithic population. They do, however, look like a group who have somewhat more west-european mesolithic inheritance than most europeans have (though still less mesolithic inheritance in general than people to the east and north, because the Yamna were themselves 50% east-european mesolithic). It's the Sardinians who are the only real outlier population in modern europe, being more or less pure Neolithic farmers.
Blog: [url]http://vacuouswastrel.wordpress.com/[/url]

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!

User avatar
Terra
Avisaru
Avisaru
Posts: 571
Joined: Tue May 24, 2005 10:01 am

Re: European languages before Indo-European

Post by Terra »

Sal, can you give a brief timeline of when (in years before present) and how long the paleolithic, mesolithic, neolithic, bronze age, and stone age eras are?
So no, there's no clear ethnonym.
Hmm. That seems strange to me... Don't most people have a name for themselves?

User avatar
Matrix
Avisaru
Avisaru
Posts: 722
Joined: Mon Oct 22, 2012 3:15 pm

Re: European languages before Indo-European

Post by Matrix »

Richard W wrote:What is meant by 'Indo-European' here? I would have thought that Hittite tables counted as Indo-European! Or are they no longer 'archaeological material'?
Indo-European as in Proto-Indo-European.
Image

Adúljôžal ônal kol ví éža únah kex yaxlr gmlĥ hôga jô ônal kru ansu frú.
Ansu frú ônal savel zaš gmlĥ a vek Adúljôžal vé jaga čaþ kex.
Ônal zeh. Ônal zeh. Ônal zeh. Ônal zeh. Ônal zeh. Ônal zeh. Ônal zeh.

User avatar
Salmoneus
Sanno
Sanno
Posts: 3197
Joined: Thu Jan 15, 2004 5:00 pm
Location: One of the dark places of the world

Re: European languages before Indo-European

Post by Salmoneus »

Terra wrote:Sal, can you give a brief timeline of when (in years before present) and how long the paleolithic, mesolithic, neolithic, bronze age, and stone age eras are?
Annoyingly, it's unclear - depends on area (because it's technology-based) and definitions.

But in the European context, the Palaeolithic ends sometime around 12kya (end of the ice age, although it had been thawing rapidly for nearly 10k before that). The Neolithic then begins sometime between 9kya and 6kya: it starts in Greece and the Aegean, by 7kya the LBK and Cardial cultures are dominant, and by 6kya the Neolithic has reached all but the most remote parts of Europe.

The Mesolithic is the bit between the Palaeolithic and the Neolithic. So in Greece it doesn't last very long; in Britain or the Baltic it lasts a very long time.

The Bronze Age starts probably around 5kya in some areas (again, Greece, the Aegean, the lower Danube) but it takes until 3500kya to spread everywhere. It lasts until around 600kya, though again obviously it varies.

Conveniently, these eras also broadly define populations: the Palaeolithic and Mesolithic are the original hunter-gatherers, the Neolithic is the farmers from the Near East, and the Bronze Age are the IE invasions.

Unfortunately, the confusing bit is that although 'Bronze Age' and 'IE Invasions' go hand-in-hand, the Indo-Europeans did not bring bronze with them. At least, not into eastern and southern europe. The PIEs probably had primitive bronze, but they were technologically behind some of the areas that they invaded. This is why the Kurgan Hypothesis was initially unwelcome. It suggests that a huge influx of steppe barbarians would have had to overwhelm a technologically-superior continent, without bringing with them any easily-identifiable common culture in the process.

However, linguists have now shown that IE did exist: despite the lack of any clear Greek invasion of Greece, for instance, they must have come from somewhere, and they must have had a shared origin, at least linguistically, with Celts, Romans, etc. And geneticists have shown that there WAS a vast population movement from the steppe at exactly the time we want IE to have existed. The fact that the linguistic and genetic revolutions DON'T seem to coincide with a cultural revolution (like the introduction of Bronze) is therefore left as a rather inelegant irritation.
So no, there's no clear ethnonym.
Hmm. That seems strange to me... Don't most people have a name for themselves?
Do they? It was a long time before the advent of modern nationalism. Plus that community quickly fractured, and its successors may have named themselves differently. Even in historic times, steppe populations are hard to get a label on: they tended to name themselves as political confederacies (which could be multi-ethnic), so when the politics changed the name changed. There may just not have been a single enduring ethnic-racial-national ethnonym for the PIE as a people.
Blog: [url]http://vacuouswastrel.wordpress.com/[/url]

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!

User avatar
WeepingElf
Smeric
Smeric
Posts: 1630
Joined: Wed Mar 08, 2006 5:00 pm
Location: Braunschweig, Germany
Contact:

Re: European languages before Indo-European

Post by WeepingElf »

Salmoneus wrote:The Bronze Age starts probably around 5kya in some areas (again, Greece, the Aegean, the lower Danube) but it takes until 3500kya to spread everywhere. It lasts until around 600kya, though again obviously it varies.
Surely, it must be "1500 BC" instead of "3500kya" and "600 BC" instead of "600kya"?
...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

jmcd
Smeric
Smeric
Posts: 1034
Joined: Fri Mar 12, 2004 11:46 am
Location: Réunion
Contact:

Re: European languages before Indo-European

Post by jmcd »

I hypothesised at one point that PIE speakers expanded with the first horses. I can't quite remember on what it was based but it seems to be about the same time and place and the IE speakers sure seem to have liked their horses. Is there any more concrete evidence of this? That could be the technological advantage we are looking for.

User avatar
Salmoneus
Sanno
Sanno
Posts: 3197
Joined: Thu Jan 15, 2004 5:00 pm
Location: One of the dark places of the world

Re: European languages before Indo-European

Post by Salmoneus »

WeepingElf wrote:
Salmoneus wrote:The Bronze Age starts probably around 5kya in some areas (again, Greece, the Aegean, the lower Danube) but it takes until 3500kya to spread everywhere. It lasts until around 600kya, though again obviously it varies.
Surely, it must be "1500 BC" instead of "3500kya" and "600 BC" instead of "600kya"?
Yes, sorry, 3500ya and 2600ya.
Blog: [url]http://vacuouswastrel.wordpress.com/[/url]

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!

Richard W
Avisaru
Avisaru
Posts: 363
Joined: Sat Oct 16, 2010 8:28 pm

Re: European languages before Indo-European

Post by Richard W »

Salmoneus wrote:
WeepingElf wrote:
Salmoneus wrote:The Bronze Age starts probably around 5kya in some areas (again, Greece, the Aegean, the lower Danube) but it takes until 3500kya to spread everywhere. It lasts until around 600kya, though again obviously it varies.
Surely, it must be "1500 BC" instead of "3500kya" and "600 BC" instead of "600kya"?
Yes, sorry, 3500ya and 2600ya.
I suggest you mean 3500 BC to around 600 BC, i.e. 5·5 kya to 2·6 kya. The end starts around 1300 BC in Anatolia and spreads outwards especially as iron becomes superior to as well as cheaper than bronze.

User avatar
Terra
Avisaru
Avisaru
Posts: 571
Joined: Tue May 24, 2005 10:01 am

Re: European languages before Indo-European

Post by Terra »

However, linguists have now shown that IE did exist: despite the lack of any clear Greek invasion of Greece, for instance, they must have come from somewhere, and they must have had a shared origin, at least linguistically, with Celts, Romans, etc. And geneticists have shown that there WAS a vast population movement from the steppe at exactly the time we want IE to have existed. The fact that the linguistic and genetic revolutions DON'T seem to coincide with a cultural revolution (like the introduction of Bronze) is therefore left as a rather inelegant irritation.
Okay, this explains why the archeologists disagree. But, if they want superior technology, doesn't the horse and the wheel count? (The Indo-Europeans were one of the first peoples to tame the horse, right?)

User avatar
WeepingElf
Smeric
Smeric
Posts: 1630
Joined: Wed Mar 08, 2006 5:00 pm
Location: Braunschweig, Germany
Contact:

Re: European languages before Indo-European

Post by WeepingElf »

Terra wrote:
However, linguists have now shown that IE did exist: despite the lack of any clear Greek invasion of Greece, for instance, they must have come from somewhere, and they must have had a shared origin, at least linguistically, with Celts, Romans, etc. And geneticists have shown that there WAS a vast population movement from the steppe at exactly the time we want IE to have existed. The fact that the linguistic and genetic revolutions DON'T seem to coincide with a cultural revolution (like the introduction of Bronze) is therefore left as a rather inelegant irritation.
Okay, this explains why the archeologists disagree. But, if they want superior technology, doesn't the horse and the wheel count? (The Indo-Europeans were one of the first peoples to tame the horse, right?)
Surely, the horse and the wheel count. It seems as if the horse was domesticated on the Pontic steppe around 4000 BC, and AFAIK the oldest wheels were also found there. So it may have been the Proto-Indo-Europeans in both cases. Both innovations probably were connected, because for wagons and carts being actually useful, you need good draught animals, and horses are the best.
...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

Richard W
Avisaru
Avisaru
Posts: 363
Joined: Sat Oct 16, 2010 8:28 pm

Re: European languages before Indo-European

Post by Richard W »

Terra wrote:But, if they want superior technology, doesn't the horse and the wheel count?
The wheel spread very quickly. We don't whether it was invented in Sumer or on the steppe.

User avatar
Zaarin
Smeric
Smeric
Posts: 1136
Joined: Sun Aug 15, 2010 5:00 pm

Re: European languages before Indo-European

Post by Zaarin »

Richard W wrote:
Terra wrote:But, if they want superior technology, doesn't the horse and the wheel count?
The wheel spread very quickly. We don't whether it was invented in Sumer or on the steppe.
But unless the Hungarian nationalists are right, the Sumerians aren't suspected of having invaded Europe, so is it relevant if it came from Mesopotamia first?
"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?”

jmcd
Smeric
Smeric
Posts: 1034
Joined: Fri Mar 12, 2004 11:46 am
Location: Réunion
Contact:

Re: European languages before Indo-European

Post by jmcd »

But amybe the Indo-Europeans were the first of the steppe peoples to adopt the wheel from the Mesopatomians?

Zju
Lebom
Lebom
Posts: 243
Joined: Tue May 08, 2012 11:10 am

Re: European languages before Indo-European

Post by Zju »

The Sumerian word for wheel is perhaps relevant in this case, would help if anyone knows it. If it's not anything like the PIE word, then the technology may have not been directly transferred.

CatDoom
Avisaru
Avisaru
Posts: 739
Joined: Fri Sep 20, 2013 1:12 am

Re: European languages before Indo-European

Post by CatDoom »

According to the Pennsylvania Sumerian Dictionary, Sumerian had two attested words for wheel (as of the Ur III period, at least): humbum (possibly /xumpum/) and umbin (possibly /umpin/), which look like they could be related. However, Wiktionary (citing John Farndon's "The World's Greatest Idea") suggests that the PIE term likely came from the Sumerian gigir, which the PSD defines as "chariot," probably via Semitic.

User avatar
WeepingElf
Smeric
Smeric
Posts: 1630
Joined: Wed Mar 08, 2006 5:00 pm
Location: Braunschweig, Germany
Contact:

Re: European languages before Indo-European

Post by WeepingElf »

CatDoom wrote:However, Wiktionary (citing John Farndon's "The World's Greatest Idea") suggests that the PIE term likely came from the Sumerian gigir, which the PSD defines as "chariot," probably via Semitic.
Nope. PIE kwekwlos 'wheel' has a very good IE-internal etymology - it is from the root *kwel- 'to turn' and just can't be a loanword from another language.
...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

M Mira
Lebom
Lebom
Posts: 92
Joined: Thu Mar 05, 2015 8:21 pm
Location: Taipeium, Respublica Sinarum

Re: European languages before Indo-European

Post by M Mira »

CatDoom wrote: However, Wiktionary (citing John Farndon's "The World's Greatest Idea") suggests that the PIE term likely came from the Sumerian gigir, which the PSD defines as "chariot," probably via Semitic.
I'm also reading Wiktionary and it says the opposite to me, that the Sumerian word was possibly borrowed from PIE or an IE.

User avatar
WeepingElf
Smeric
Smeric
Posts: 1630
Joined: Wed Mar 08, 2006 5:00 pm
Location: Braunschweig, Germany
Contact:

Re: European languages before Indo-European

Post by WeepingElf »

M Mira wrote:
CatDoom wrote: However, Wiktionary (citing John Farndon's "The World's Greatest Idea") suggests that the PIE term likely came from the Sumerian gigir, which the PSD defines as "chariot," probably via Semitic.
I'm also reading Wiktionary and it says the opposite to me, that the Sumerian word was possibly borrowed from PIE or an IE.
We are probably dealing with a Wanderwort here, but the language of origin quite certainly is PIE.
...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

Richard W
Avisaru
Avisaru
Posts: 363
Joined: Sat Oct 16, 2010 8:28 pm

Re: European languages before Indo-European

Post by Richard W »

WeepingElf wrote:Nope. PIE kwekwlos 'wheel' has a very good IE-internal etymology - it is from the root *kwel- 'to turn' and just can't be a loanword from another language.
That is an extremely rare way of deriving a noun from a verb. This raises the prospects that it was an old word, or perhaps folk etymology. I could try suggesting that Indo-Iranians borrowed it as *kakros and then their Western neighbours applied to folk etymology, resulting in *kʷekʷlos. However, the Semitic (or whatever) reduplicated root *glgl 'to roll' argues against /r/ being borrowed into IE languages. When it was examined closely on this board, it was found that the reflexes of *kʷekʷlos were not actually regular. That sort of thing is supposed to be evidence of borrowing from one dialect to another!

User avatar
KathTheDragon
Smeric
Smeric
Posts: 2139
Joined: Thu Apr 25, 2013 4:48 am
Location: Brittania

Re: European languages before Indo-European

Post by KathTheDragon »

Richard W wrote:When it was examined closely on this board, it was found that the reflexes of *kʷekʷlos were not actually regular.
How so? I've just checked a list of reflexes, and they all look regular to me.

Richard W
Avisaru
Avisaru
Posts: 363
Joined: Sat Oct 16, 2010 8:28 pm

Re: European languages before Indo-European

Post by Richard W »

KathTheDragon wrote:
Richard W wrote:When it was examined closely on this board, it was found that the reflexes of *kʷekʷlos were not actually regular.
How so? I've just checked a list of reflexes, and they all look regular to me.
See pp6-7 of this thread. However, as an irrelevant starter, is /r/ definitely the regular Sanskrit reflex of PIE *l in this position?

User avatar
KathTheDragon
Smeric
Smeric
Posts: 2139
Joined: Thu Apr 25, 2013 4:48 am
Location: Brittania

Re: European languages before Indo-European

Post by KathTheDragon »

Richard W wrote:
KathTheDragon wrote:
Richard W wrote:When it was examined closely on this board, it was found that the reflexes of *kʷekʷlos were not actually regular.
How so? I've just checked a list of reflexes, and they all look regular to me.
See pp6-7 of this thread. However, as an irrelevant starter, is /r/ definitely the regular Sanskrit reflex of PIE *l in this position?
Yes. It's pretty well-established that Indo-Iranian merged *r and *l across the board, with later l being lexically conditioned.

Pre-empting your next question, compare kúklos "circle" < *kʷékʷlo- with gunḗ "woman" < *gʷénh₂- ~ gʷnéh₂-. It is probable that there is a regular phonetic development underlying these two cases of *Kʷ(e)C > KuC. It's possible that *kʷékʷlo- was not originally thematic, which would imply that its collective *kʷekʷléh₂- might have had a zero-grade in the reduplication syllable. The Greek development would then have an epenthetic schwa inserted in place of the zero-grade, which is then coloured to *u by the labiovelar, and then in turn delabialises the labiovelar. For a parallel scenario (an originally ablauting athematic noun being thematised everywhere in post-Anatolian IE, and all but Greek showing full grade, with Greek showing zero-grade) compare traditional *h₁éḱwo-, which must in fact have been *h₁éḱu- ~ h₁ḱw- on the testimony of Anatolian's u-stem. The familiar *h₁éḱwo- is then a pan-IE thematisation, but Greek actually continues the zero-grade instead, the i of híppos being due to regular epenthesis in the cluster *h₁ḱw- (generally, *CCC- > *CiCC-).

User avatar
Pole, the
Smeric
Smeric
Posts: 1606
Joined: Sat Feb 11, 2012 9:50 am

Re: European languages before Indo-European

Post by Pole, the »

Richard W wrote:
WeepingElf wrote:Nope. PIE kwekwlos 'wheel' has a very good IE-internal etymology - it is from the root *kwel- 'to turn' and just can't be a loanword from another language.
That is an extremely rare way of deriving a noun from a verb. This raises the prospects that it was an old word, or perhaps folk etymology. I could try suggesting that Indo-Iranians borrowed it as *kakros and then their Western neighbours applied to folk etymology, resulting in *kʷekʷlos. However, the Semitic (or whatever) reduplicated root *glgl 'to roll' argues against /r/ being borrowed into IE languages. When it was examined closely on this board, it was found that the reflexes of *kʷekʷlos were not actually regular. That sort of thing is supposed to be evidence of borrowing from one dialect to another!
Then you have the Slavic word, kolo, that appears to be derived from the o-grade of *kʷel-.
The conlanger formerly known as “the conlanger formerly known as Pole, the”.

If we don't study the mistakes of the future we're doomed to repeat them for the first time.

User avatar
KathTheDragon
Smeric
Smeric
Posts: 2139
Joined: Thu Apr 25, 2013 4:48 am
Location: Brittania

Re: European languages before Indo-European

Post by KathTheDragon »

Pole, the wrote:
Richard W wrote:
WeepingElf wrote:Nope. PIE kwekwlos 'wheel' has a very good IE-internal etymology - it is from the root *kwel- 'to turn' and just can't be a loanword from another language.
That is an extremely rare way of deriving a noun from a verb. This raises the prospects that it was an old word, or perhaps folk etymology. I could try suggesting that Indo-Iranians borrowed it as *kakros and then their Western neighbours applied to folk etymology, resulting in *kʷekʷlos. However, the Semitic (or whatever) reduplicated root *glgl 'to roll' argues against /r/ being borrowed into IE languages. When it was examined closely on this board, it was found that the reflexes of *kʷekʷlos were not actually regular. That sort of thing is supposed to be evidence of borrowing from one dialect to another!
Then you have the Slavic word, kolo, that appears to be derived from the o-grade of *kʷel-.
Also Greek pólos "axis, pivot", which is similarly from the o-grade of *kʷel(h₁)-, but note that the Slavic word is an s-stem. More interesting is Latvian kakls "neck, throat" < *kʷo-kʷl-o-.

Post Reply