Originally posted by Ardashir
Originally posted by Maju
Why?
I made it myself only a
few years ago based in the most modern and accurate archaeological
research I could find. I'm not expressing the opinions of others... nor
any fashion... but my own personal coclusions.
If you have
discrepances why don't you write about them? I will surely find them
interesting, specially if they are as sound and well researched as your
disqualification seems to imply.
Yet, bring your "ultimate" theories and the facts behind to the forum, please.
|
My links are enough and more than enough for rejection of your outdated theories. |
You make me do all the work, what isn't very fair.
Still your links, thought interesting up to a point, give limited evidence, not to say none at all.
One relies
heavily in the theory that IEs originally dwelt in the Nord-Pontic
region, and also on written remains, which is obviously not much
relevant, as I pointed out before. I must remind you that languages
are, before anything, spoken languages
and writing is only a possible accident that can happen to some
languges at some times. Though written texts can be of great value they
proof nothing but the latest possible date of arival of a given tongue
to a given region, nothing more.
So the probable way of Indo-Aryan expansion could took place from Pontic
steppes - via the Caucasus - to the Middle East - and then via Iran and
Punjab to India. Else, they could reach India going crossing Central Asia,
but in that case the Mitanni subgroup chose just another way from the Black
Sea - to Mesopotamia.
Or they simply could have originally sprang from Central Asia. Also
the Mitanni, could well be just a branch of the main Central Asia ->
Iran -> India expasion of Eastern IEs, as I suspect most likely.
The Other is a hypothetical chronology of IE expansion based on what? Let's see:
4000 BC - 3500 BC Proto-Indo-European
areal dialects
According to the comparative studies of all Indo-European languages,
their phonetic, morphological, lexical and syntactical similarities and
differences we can now judge about dialectal history within the community
which was only about to brake up.
The difference of certain languages in forming the medium voice of verbs
and the relative pronoun is considered to have marked the earliest division
of tongues within the Proto-Indo-European language. According to it, the
community was slowly breaking into two dialectal groups: one, including
future Venetic, Illyrian, Anatolian, Tocharic,
Italic and Celtic groups,
used the relative pronoun kwis (which) or its derivatives;
its medium voice markers were almost everywhere -r (Latin
datur, Hittite kittari, Irish tuigear).
The other group consisted of Indo-Iranian, Greek,
Baltic, Slavic, Germanic, Armenian and
Thraco-Phrygian languages,
which took up yos as a relative pronoun, and endings -oi
/ -moi as medium voice markers.
Well this just makes not much sense compared to what I know or think
I know. It seems quite clear for instance that the closer relative of
Latin is Germanic and vice versa.
I use the following tree, made up by the authors, based in the same
methods they used in Genetic studies (two different methods that gave
the same results, or so they say). Sorry but the text is in Spanish (I
think it won't be difficult to identify the English equivalents,
anyhow):
The only odd branches for my work-hypothesis (theory if you like)
are Albanian and Celtic. And, up to a point, the close relation between
Germanic and Latin. We must notice that, according to the info the
authors give, the possibility of mixture altering the apparent
chronology is not very likely (else each of the methods should had
given discordant results), so I guess there must be other explanations
and I have a couple of ideas about them. But I will let them for better
occasion.
But once again I ask you:
What's your explanation for existance of several common words between Proto-Indo-European and Proto-Semitic languages? |
What about the Nostratic hypothesis.
I must admit I don't have all the answers but the theory of the
Nostratic superfamily (gathereing not just Uralic, Altaic and IE, but
also Afroasian and Dravidic) could be your answer.
I like the idea of all those families migrating from Central Asia
(Iran largely included) one after the other, with Semitic and Dravidic
carriers marching first to the south (around 4000 BCE or maybe even
before) and IEs to the West mainly (around 3500 BCE), while Uralic and
Altaic groups would have remained behind by the moment.
I caress that hypothesis, specially liking the idea of Semitics
(Afroasiatics) coming first from Iran and not Arabia or Syria (where
evidence of any earlier Semitic tongue is just nul - and though
Egyptians did speak an Afroasiatic-Hamitic dialect already around 3500
BCE, we can't know what they spoke in earlier)... but I can't proof
anything and, thus, I only spoke because you asked.
Still, considering the cultural relationships between the
Paleolithic European and (partly) SW Asian cultures, I suspect that is
easier to believe these groups were somehow related linguistically
(though very losely) and therefore were not IE. As the Neolithic of the
Nord-Pontian area is ethnologically native (because archaelogy but also
because some genetic studies seem to confirm that too) and that
Neolithic (Dniepr-Don) lasts until 3500 BCE, I can't believe these were
the earlier IEs.
Its self-evident that Basque is the last Western European native Paleolithic tongue and I can think that Caucasic families are also the last Eastern European (and Anatolio-Mesopotamian) native Paleolithic ones, both being cornered against the mountains though only losely related among the two, if at all.
Meanwhile the evil Pathriarchal Nostratic tribes sprung from Central Asia, invading and assimilitaing gradually everyone else.
...
I know I'm ranting but it's your fault: you asked.
Anyhow, just several comon words aren't enough to proof a linguistic relationship: they could be loans and even coincidences.
Edited by Maju