History Community ~ All Empires Homepage


This is the Archive on WORLD Historia, the old original forum.

 You cannot post here - you can only read.

 

Here is the link to the new forum:

  FAQ FAQ  Forum Search   Events   Register Register  Login Login

Forum LockedProto Indo-European

 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <1234>
Author
Maju View Drop Down
Sultan
Sultan
Avatar

Joined: 14-Jul-2005
Status: Offline
Points: 6571
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Maju Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 20-Aug-2005 at 17:35
The pottery and general culture of Dimini, Vinca and other related cultures of Macedonia, Inner Albania and Bulgaria (Karanovo III-Veselinovo) are clearly related. The latter seems more mixed with the earlier cultural background of "Sesklian" type (Karanovo I/II). The question is that according to my source some Dimini culture settlements have an ash layer what some have interpretated as invasion (but others show continuity). The change of other iconography ("godesses") is also significative... but others, like Pahllanx, sustain that the black ware is just a local evloution and that no invasion took place at all.

Well, it's been great to contrast our archeological knowledge: it's not common to find people who knows so much about this interesting period of (pre) history, and much less that expalin their knowledge with such openness and wish to contrast. It's been really intersting. I hope I can eventually come across the most accurate and definitive C-14 dates, so I can make up my mind.


NO GOD, NO MASTER!
Back to Top
Sharrukin View Drop Down
Chieftain
Chieftain


Joined: 04-Aug-2004
Status: Offline
Points: 1134
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Sharrukin Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 21-Aug-2005 at 06:18

There are some interesting articles in Wikipedia which seem to be derived from the Encyclopedia of Indo-European Culture, by J. P. Mallory (Editor), and D. Q. Adams (editors) (1997).  They seem to support the higher chronology.   Have you read In Search of the Indo-Europeans, by JP Mallory.  He uses the highter chronology.

 

Back to Top
hansel View Drop Down
Immortal Guard
Immortal Guard


Joined: 19-Jul-2005
Status: Offline
Points: 0
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote hansel Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 21-Aug-2005 at 21:34

check this out about indo-eurios

though high speculative

 

http://indoeuro.bizland.com/index8.html

it's better to fight in the shades
Back to Top
Maju View Drop Down
Sultan
Sultan
Avatar

Joined: 14-Jul-2005
Status: Offline
Points: 6571
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Maju Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 22-Aug-2005 at 02:56
Take note of all. 

Edited by Maju

NO GOD, NO MASTER!
Back to Top
Phallanx View Drop Down
Suspended
Suspended
Avatar

Joined: 07-Feb-2005
Location: Greece
Status: Offline
Points: 1283
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Phallanx Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 22-Aug-2005 at 09:29
I still need someone to explain the lack of common agricultural, domesticated animal and marinal terms.

Now, from the link given above, among other 'papers' I noticed the one titled 'Pelasgian Problem' by Cyril Babaev. He too among a long list of others, selectively uses texts to jump to conclusions.

While Herodotus does mention what is quoted in 1.56, he conveniently neglects to mention that in 1.58 he clarly speaks of separation. How do you separate from a people you are not part of????

(Note that he uses the word "aposchisthen' that means spilt/detach/part)

My point is that once again these 'theories' are proved to be 'built' on an unsound basis. Selectively using info, in order to support their view of some unknown/invisible common origin.





Edited by Phallanx
To the gods we mortals are all ignorant.Those old traditions from our ancestors, the ones we've had as long as time itself, no argument will ever overthrow, in spite of subtleties sharp minds invent.
Back to Top
hugoestr View Drop Down
Immortal Guard
Immortal Guard
Avatar

Joined: 13-Aug-2004
Status: Offline
Points: 4003
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote hugoestr Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 22-Aug-2005 at 11:49
Originally posted by Phallanx Phallanx wrote:


I still need someone to explain the lack of common
agricultural, domesticated animal and marinal terms.

Now, from the link given above, among other 'papers' I noticed the one
titled 'Pelasgian Problem' by Cyril Babaev. He too among a long list of
others, selectively uses texts to jump to conclusions.

While Herodotus does mention what is quoted in 1.56, he conveniently neglects to mention that in 1.58 he clarly speaks of <span style="font-weight: bold;">separation</span>.
How do you <span style="font-weight: bold;">separate</span> from a people you are not part of????

(Note that he uses the word "aposchisthen' that means spilt/detach/part)

My point is that once again these 'theories' are proved to be 'built'
on an unsound basis. Selectively using info, in order to support their
view of some unknown/invisible common origin.


<span ="smText"/span>


Phallanx,

Proto Indo-European explains the similarities between these languages, which not only share common word roots, but they also share grammatical, phonetical, and syntactical features.

Obviously the languages have changed through thousands of years. Since the regions where speakers of indo-European are quite diverse, it is not too much of a stretch of the imagination to see how the names of certain animals could have been forgotten--since they no longer had contact with them-- or that the migration of speakers would have adopted the native words for animal and agricultural names when they arrived to a new land. If this can happen within the same language, it is even more likely that it will happen with different, but related languages.

To show you how common this is, I will use examples in modern Spanish. Maju can add more.

Mexico uses the word "Guajolote" for turkey, the bird, but everyone else uses "Pavo." From the region where my father is from, the bird is also known as "cocono."

Grass exists practically in all the world, but many non-Mexicans don't understand me when I talk about "zacate." Most of them think of it as "pasto."

Do non-Mexican spanish speakers know what I am talking about when I say "ejote" or "elote"?

Also, remember that a lot of work on PIE is more speculative as we moved towards the past. PIE is a good "guess" using what we know about linguistics, modern, and dead languages.

Their techniques are not too different than from yours when you tried to tie "to eat" to "land," but with a wider number of languages and a more sophisticated knowledge of linguistics.
To judge the fatherless and the oppressed, that the man of the earth may no more oppress.


Back to Top
hugoestr View Drop Down
Immortal Guard
Immortal Guard
Avatar

Joined: 13-Aug-2004
Status: Offline
Points: 4003
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote hugoestr Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 22-Aug-2005 at 11:52
Originally posted by Phallanx Phallanx wrote:



My point is that once again these 'theories' are proved to be 'built'
on an unsound basis. Selectively using info, in order to support their
view of some unknown/invisible common origin.


<span ="smText"/span>


Your criticism seems to apply also to those who stated that Latin came from Greek.

I think that it is more of trying to find what is common within these languages; acknowledging that they are different is self-evident.
To judge the fatherless and the oppressed, that the man of the earth may no more oppress.


Back to Top
Phallanx View Drop Down
Suspended
Suspended
Avatar

Joined: 07-Feb-2005
Location: Greece
Status: Offline
Points: 1283
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Phallanx Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 22-Aug-2005 at 15:08
Nice to see you back in the 'saddle'.

I find it hard to believe that they would forget the 'imported terms' for domesticated animals and argriculture. Isn't this the very basis of the theory, that the IE after invading presented previously unknown 'technologies'??
Why 'forget' the terms that were allegedly taught to them by the invisible IE yet, 'remember' words for father, mother, numbers etc.??
Isn't it logical to adopt and 'remember' words you never had before and 'forget' terms you already have existing words of your own???

To be honest I really didn't understand your exaple, which are Spanish adopted words and which are 'native'?

Again the Latin Hellinic. I clearly remember saying strongly influenced, not 'came from', derives or anything similar.
To the gods we mortals are all ignorant.Those old traditions from our ancestors, the ones we've had as long as time itself, no argument will ever overthrow, in spite of subtleties sharp minds invent.
Back to Top
hugoestr View Drop Down
Immortal Guard
Immortal Guard
Avatar

Joined: 13-Aug-2004
Status: Offline
Points: 4003
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote hugoestr Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 22-Aug-2005 at 16:01
Phallanx,

The point of my examples is to show how likeley it is for IE languages to have "forgoten" words for related to farming and agriculture. Since this "forgetfulness" happens in modern languages, it expected that it will happen in ancient languages too. Most of the words that I gave are examples of staple foods used in Mexico that in my experience only Mexicans know what they are. Following your argument, Spanish has forgotten the names for these kinds of food in Spanish. This is a silly claim. The correct explanation is that Spanish adopted the native language words for these kinds of food.

In one sentence, IE people adopted the native words for agricultural artifacts as they migrated.

Let me comment on languages retaining certain words at the expense of others. The basic theory is that language will tend to retain the most primitive vocabulary, while at the same time adopt words from many other languages. They will also retain grammatical features for much longer than vocabulary.

So the names for mother, father, numbers, certain food, and basic verbs will stay in the language, while other words will change.

You can argue that IE already had perfectly good words to describe certain things. And you would be right. But sometimes people will prefer to use a new word over older ones to the point that the older words is forgotten. Why? I don't know. Maybe someone else here knows. I know that this happens, and it happens at a high speed in English.

Also, PIE is mainly a linguistic theory, and it makes the most sense as such. It is assumed that people who spoke the same language belonged to the same group. Once we move from linguistics to history and anthropology, the theory becomes more difficult to support, and many of your non-linguistic criticism weighs in stronger

The IE culture, as a people, is one of the most fascinating puzzles in history. The conclusions of different disciplines contradict one another.

In brief, linguistically PIE is more or less sound. Historically, the Indo-Europeans as people are on more shaky ground, with a lot of evidence against it, meaning that many of your criticisms for the people are valid.





To judge the fatherless and the oppressed, that the man of the earth may no more oppress.


Back to Top
Maju View Drop Down
Sultan
Sultan
Avatar

Joined: 14-Jul-2005
Status: Offline
Points: 6571
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Maju Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 23-Aug-2005 at 00:59
Quote Do non-Mexican spanish speakers know what I am talking about when I say "ejote" or "elote"?


No.

NO GOD, NO MASTER!
Back to Top
Maju View Drop Down
Sultan
Sultan
Avatar

Joined: 14-Jul-2005
Status: Offline
Points: 6571
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Maju Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 23-Aug-2005 at 01:09
On Phallanx, questions, it's quite evident that IEs, at least in Europe, got mixed with locals, who gave most of their blood to the new IE nations or proto-nations and also probably gave them much of their culture. I would disagree that IEs brought any tehcnological advance other then those related with horse riding/primitive chariot or war organization. They actually seem to me more primitive or (the most) equally advanced as Chalcolithic Europeans that they invaded. Trees, agricultural terms, foods, the sea and many other loans may have incorporated to their languages in their succesive migrations... this is just too common, as Hugoestr has pointed very well using those Mexican regionalisms as examples. It's obvious that Spanish has several words for grass (hierba) or pasture (pasto) that weren't incorporated to the Mexican dialect, which has influences from several native languages. The same happens in other Spanish speaking countries (for instance Argentina and Uruguay have plenty of Portugese and Italian loans, a diferent kind of evolutionary trend based not in a native influence but in a migrational/neighborhood one).


NO GOD, NO MASTER!
Back to Top
Phallanx View Drop Down
Suspended
Suspended
Avatar

Joined: 07-Feb-2005
Location: Greece
Status: Offline
Points: 1283
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Phallanx Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 23-Aug-2005 at 06:43
It all depends on when you believe the invasion took place if it ever did.
I am refering to the theory of a Neolithic dated invasion as supported by C.Renfrew among others lately. In this theory, the 'invasions' took place with the spread of agriculture. (since previous dates have obvious archeologic and genetic inconsistancies.
(No further comment)

So my question on agricultural terms has this simple logic, how can you have 'terms' for something you didn't know of prior to the 'invasions'?
So since you obviously had no knowledge of these 'items' you'd logically adopt the terms used by those that introduced the'items' to you'. Something we mysteriously do not see.

Similar to the Spanish-Mexican example. As Hugo stated grass is known all over the world. So why should all the 60 or so languages in Mexico adopt a 'term' for something they already know of. The way I see it, it would be quite easier to adopt a term for something you've never seen or heard of before.
To the gods we mortals are all ignorant.Those old traditions from our ancestors, the ones we've had as long as time itself, no argument will ever overthrow, in spite of subtleties sharp minds invent.
Back to Top
Kuu-ukko View Drop Down
Chieftain
Chieftain
Avatar

Joined: 02-Dec-2004
Location: Finland
Status: Offline
Points: 204
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Kuu-ukko Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 23-Aug-2005 at 08:13
I think Wikipedia says something about this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proto-Indo-European

May I ask, what is this argument proto-IE didn't have words for agriculture? Aren't there reconstructed roots for horse and cow(/bull), as I've understood?
Back to Top
Maju View Drop Down
Sultan
Sultan
Avatar

Joined: 14-Jul-2005
Status: Offline
Points: 6571
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Maju Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 23-Aug-2005 at 08:51
Originally posted by Kuu-ukko Kuu-ukko wrote:


May I ask, what is this argument proto-IE didn't have words for agriculture? Aren't there reconstructed roots for horse and cow(/bull), as I've understood?


In another topic where somebody claimed, defending Renfrew's theory of IE springing from Anatolia and spreading with Neolithic, that some plant names  had a common root or something, I made the excercise of translating a series of typical Neolithic crops and cattle words in 2 Romanic languages, 2 Germanic ones, Russian and Greek with Babel Fish Translator... and truly most of them wasn't coincident at all. Only the words for "lentils" and "beans" could show some relationship  but at least the first seemed an obvious Latin loan. The other words I tried with (wheat, barley, rye, sheep, goat, cow and pig) showed no pan-IE connection though some loans from Latin or Greek were evident in isolated cases.

Anyhow, a linguist will say better.


NO GOD, NO MASTER!
Back to Top
hugoestr View Drop Down
Immortal Guard
Immortal Guard
Avatar

Joined: 13-Aug-2004
Status: Offline
Points: 4003
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote hugoestr Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 23-Aug-2005 at 09:48
Originally posted by Maju Maju wrote:

Quote Do non-Mexican spanish speakers know what I am talking about when I say "ejote" or "elote"?


No.



Ejote= tender unriped beans with their casing
Elote = tender corn--maize
To judge the fatherless and the oppressed, that the man of the earth may no more oppress.


Back to Top
Maju View Drop Down
Sultan
Sultan
Avatar

Joined: 14-Jul-2005
Status: Offline
Points: 6571
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Maju Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 23-Aug-2005 at 10:54
Originally posted by hugoestr hugoestr wrote:


Ejote= tender unriped beans with their casing


Vainas or judas verdes.

Quote Elote = tender corn--maize


Maz tierno. Uncommon, we grow it but we don't eat much maize: it was very typical in the Basque country in form of talo (a kind of bread or tortilla) but nowadays nobody makes it anymore.

Tortilla is another word that I recall as very different in European Spanish and Mexican Spanish: for us it is an omelette made up of eggs with or without something else, for your it is kind of a maize pancake.

NO GOD, NO MASTER!
Back to Top
Kuu-ukko View Drop Down
Chieftain
Chieftain
Avatar

Joined: 02-Dec-2004
Location: Finland
Status: Offline
Points: 204
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Kuu-ukko Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 23-Aug-2005 at 14:18
@ Maju

I looked up the words you did from Chambers Dictionary of Etymology, and found these:

Barley: Old English brlic (the word meant "of barley", but became a noun in Middle English), (bar- root form of bere barley + līc -ly, adjective suffix), OE bere comes from proto-IE *bhares-/bhars-, cognates in Germanic are Old Icelandic barr and Gothic barizeins. Outside Germanic is Latin far.

Cow: Old English , cognate with Old Frisian , Old Saxon , Middle Dutch coe (Modern Dutch koe), Old High German kuo (modern German Kuh) and Old Icelandic kr (Morwegian ku, Danish and Swedish ko), from proto-Germanic *kwon, earlier *kwom. Cognates outside Germanic are Old Irish , Middle Welsh buw, Latin bōs (ox/bull/cow), Greek bos, Latvian govs cow, Armenian kov, Sanskrit gā-s ox/bull/cow, Avestan gāu and Tocharian A ko cow (plural kowi), Tocharian B kau, all from proto-IE *gwōu-s, accusative *gwōm.

Goat: Old English gāt she-goat, cognate with Old Saxon gēt she-goat, Middle Dutch gheet (modern Dutch geit), Old High German geiz (modern German Geiss), Old Icelandic geit (Norwegian geit, Swedish get, Danish ged) and Gothic gaits goat/she-goat from proto-Germanic *зaitaz, cognate with Latin haedus, kid, from proto-IE *ghaidos.

Rye: Old English ryge, cognate with Old Icelandic rugr rye (Swedish rg, Danish and Norwegian rug), Old Frisian rogga, Old Saxon roggo, Middle Dutch and modern Dutch rogge, and Old High German rocko (modern German Roggen). Outside Germanic cognates are Lithuanian rugs rye grain, Old Slavic rŭĭ rye grass and Russian rozh', from proto-IE *wrughyo-.

These are the words with proto-IE etymologies. The others are definitely not: Old English bēan (bean) has cognates in Old High German bōna (modern German Bohne) and Old Icelandic baun. Wheat is thought to be a derivative from the word "white", so there isn't an etymology for it in itself. "Sheep" has no cognates in Gothic or Scandinavian, or for that matter anywhere outside West Germanic (proto-WG *skpan). Pig has no cognates outside Old English *picga or *pigga, the reconstructed words themselves being questionable.

I'll just mention that there is  proto-IE word for horse (*ekwo-), but its Old English form eoh didn't survive to modern times. So basically we can presume pretty safely, that proto-IE people were practicing husbandry, mainly cow and horse, and some farming. Eh ?
Back to Top
Maju View Drop Down
Sultan
Sultan
Avatar

Joined: 14-Jul-2005
Status: Offline
Points: 6571
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Maju Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 23-Aug-2005 at 19:38
I take the cow and horse thing (in fact I did expect a horse cognate). But Latin-German coincidence is not evidence for any pan-IE common root, specially considering that Latin/Italic and Germanic are closest among IE subfamilies. This applies to goat and barley.

Most of the same reasoning can be applied to rye, as it is coincident only among groups of the Baltic basin: Germans, Slavs and Baltics proper. Slav and Baltic groups are also most closely related and the loan could have gone in either direction Germanic<->Balto-Slavic.

For evidence in those proposed IE roots you would need Iranian or Indo-Aryan (or Hittite or Tocharian or Greek or Albanian) cognate words. Something in languages more distant either geographically or in the linguistic tree. To find cognates between Latin-Germanic or Baltic-Slav is no evidence of anything upper in the tree.

It is actually very significative that neither sheep nor pig, two of the most common catlle in early Neolithic, nor (for what matters) any of the other animals or plants (with the exception of cow and horse - or so it seems) are found among IEs. Horse wasn't herded by Neolithic tribes and, while cow was, it was also probably very important for steppary seminomadic IEs, as much as horses. So, 99% sure that IEs weren't the Neolithic farmers that sprang from the Eastern Mediterranean regions.



NO GOD, NO MASTER!
Back to Top
Sharrukin View Drop Down
Chieftain
Chieftain


Joined: 04-Aug-2004
Status: Offline
Points: 1134
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Sharrukin Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 24-Aug-2005 at 01:53

The pig is actually traceable to two PIE terms:

from the root *su- we get English, swine, Latin, sus, Indic, su-.  The term may have been used in the generic sense.  In Indo-Iranian languages the term is used for the wild pig, but is used for the domesticated variety in Europe. 

from the root *porko- we get European terms for the domesticated pig but this root still exists as a reflex in Indo-Iranian, but not as a whole word. 

Going back to the question of a lack of IE terms for agriculture, the archaeology of the late Neolithic Balkans does show a pattern of agricultural societies being succeeded by pastoral cultures.  In a pastoral economy, expecially one on the move, words for agriculture were not important.  They may retain a memory of such terms:  We do find PIE terms for cattle-raising including among other things, cow, ox, steer, butter, cheese, meat, marrow, herd, yoke, sheep, wool, weaving, goat (in some degree), horse (of course), and dog.  Terms relating specifically to agriculture included a term for an unspecified grain, terms for "to sow", a term for a grinding instrument, plough, and sickle.  Other agricultural terms from an PIE root are restricted to European languages, such as ploughshare, seed, grain, mill, furrow, barley and millet. 

Therefore agriculture was not entirely alien to the early Indo-Europeans, it just was not culturally emphasised.  In the archaeological sense, this makes sense for a people on the border of true agricultural society which indeed reached the Pontic Steppe.  The very region where we can trace the first waves of invasion into the Balkans was a region of some limited agriculture.   The societies which appeared after those invasions, were decidedly pastoral.   

Back to Top
Phallanx View Drop Down
Suspended
Suspended
Avatar

Joined: 07-Feb-2005
Location: Greece
Status: Offline
Points: 1283
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Phallanx Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 26-Aug-2005 at 11:27
Maju

If you recall my comment on the language tree you have posted in a previous post here is the article I was refering to.

"

The theory of Indo-European origins in Southeast Europe from an earlier Anatolian source has received additional confirmation recently. Using a methodology similar to that used in evolutionary biology, Gray and Atkinson [�Language-tree divergence times support the Anatolian theory of Indo-European origin,� Nature 426, 435-439] compared 95 present and past languages of the Indo-European family based on a list of 200 basic terms for each.

The main idea of this innovative work is that languages that diverge from a common source initially tend to have similar vocabularies, but as time progresses, new terms replace older ones, and thus the intersection between the vocabularies of the languages is reduced. This principle can be used to determine the �branching pattern� of the language family, as well as to time the various splits in the tree. The authors were able to vary many parameters of the input automatically, thus taking into account the many uncertainties of this difficult problem in a systematic manner.

The results of all analyses, irrespective of the initial assumptions were very robust:

We test two theories of Indo-European origin: the 'Kurgan expansion' and the 'Anatolian farming' hypotheses. The Kurgan theory centres on possible archaeological evidence for an expansion into Europe and the Near East by Kurgan horsemen beginning in the sixth millennium BP7, 8. In contrast, the Anatolian theory claims that Indo-European languages expanded with the spread of agriculture from Anatolia around 8,000�9,500 years BP9. In striking agreement with the Anatolian hypothesis, our analysis of a matrix of 87 languages with 2,449 lexical items produced an estimated age range for the initial Indo-European divergence of between 7,800 and 9,800 years BP. These results were robust to changes in coding procedures, calibration points, rooting of the trees and priors in the bayesian analysis.

The branching pattern is also in agreement with an independent linguistic analysis of Indo-European languages [Rexova, K., Frynta, D. & Zrzavy, J. �Cladistic analysis of languages: Indo-European classification based on lexicostatistical data.� Cladistics 19, 120�127 (2003)].

The estimated times strikingly confirm the Neolithic dispersal theory, showing a divergence of Indo-European languages from Anatolian ones, with an independent branching of the mysterious Tocharian language which spread eastwards, and the descent of all other languages from what is almost certain to be a Balkan homeland:

Consensus tree and divergence-time estimates. a, Majority-rule consensus tree based on the MCMC sample of 1,000 trees; b, initial assumption set using all cognate information and most stringent constraints; c, conservative cognate coding with doubtful cognates excluded; d, all cognate sets with minimum topological constraints; e, missing data coding with minimum topological constraints and all cognate sets. Shaded bars represent the implied age ranges under the two competing theories of Indo-European origin: blue, Kurgan hypothesis; green, Anatolian farming hypothesis. The relationship between the main language groups in the consensus tree for each analysis is also shown, along with posterior probability values. [Click on the Picture for a larger version.]

To the gods we mortals are all ignorant.Those old traditions from our ancestors, the ones we've had as long as time itself, no argument will ever overthrow, in spite of subtleties sharp minds invent.
Back to Top
 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <1234>
  Share Topic   

Forum Jump Forum Permissions View Drop Down

Forum Software by Web Wiz Forums® version 11.10
Copyright ©2001-2017 Web Wiz Ltd.

This page was generated in 0.094 seconds.