I recorded it today, now I need to sit down and edit it. Hopefully, it'll be ready in under a week. Also, it's highly likely I'll end up doing a part 3 - there's way too much material to squueze in to two videos.
When a language is called proto doesn't that indicate that it's the ancestor of the current forms? So how would one be a current speaker of proto indo uralic? Wouldn't you be a speaker of a uralic language, not proto uralic?
" Thus, many of these so-called Moscow-school Nostraticists have a negative attitude towards the recent achievements in Indo-European linguistics, such as the laryngeal theory. Even worse, as many of them simultaneously ignore all the post-Collinderian progress in Uralic linguistics, their reconstructed Proto-Nostratic is closer to modern Finnish than to Proto-Uralic according to modern scholarship. Hence, the Moscow school version of the Nostratic hypothesis is in serious need of updating (see also Campbell 1998). Conclusion While in theory it is most unlikely that Proto-Indo-European was a language isolate, in practice it is very hard to conclusively prove that it was anything else." - Kallio, P., & Koivulehto, J. (2018). More Remote Relationships of Proto-Indo-European. 1934-2014 🙏 " Summary Indo-European is a sister of Finno-Ugric and a daughter of Indo-Uralic, which is a sister of Samoyedic and a daughter of Uralo-Siberian, which is a sister of Altaic and a daughter of Eurasiatic. When the Mongols entered Manchuria, they were in the same position as the Indo-Europeans when they entered Central Europe. The crucial factor in linguistic expansion is mobility, both physical and social. " - The_dissolution_of_the_Eurasiatic_macrofamily, Kortlandt, F. 👆 " The man has been a perfectly competent Slavist-Indo-Europeanist, but are there any clues about EPS here? Emeritus professor syndrome: in retirement, people start to imagine themselves as experts in every field and construct wild hypotheses with little regard for credible scientific arguments." - 🇫🇮linguist who shall remain nameless
EPS is definitely a real thing. I'm actually dealing with it in my day job, most of my colleagues feel that the academic in question deserves their EPS episode having put so much in during their career. Not sure I agree but in terms of Kortlandt, I think he's harboured ideas with him for a while. Great post and thank you.
@@labasurasesacasiempre Emeritus professor syndrome, a form of the Dunning-Kruger effect, i.e., when someone either overestimates or underestimates their level of expertise in their field or another, not strictly related field of knowledge.
The main problem with the hypothesis is exactly what you've outlined multiple times in this video, which is that the correspondences are too few to draw any relation between the two proto languages past simple loaning and language contact. I'm very curious how Part 2 will touch on this and illustrate how this analysis doesn't apply to Indo-Uralic in the same way it does to other dubious groupings, such as Altaic.
Can’t wait for the video on proto-Afro-Indo-Altaic-Caucasian-Uralic-Sentinelese-Dené-macaronesian and how the closest extant language to it is the Canarian whistling language
4:01 As a Danish speaker I noticed that article mentions Uralic-Altaic. He says Uralic-Altaic is seen as being most likely true though it hasn't been proven yet. This is so based.
Some similar words between Ancient Greek and Hungarian (Ancient Greek words are in front and are written in Hungarian letters). According to linguists, they are not derived from ancient Greek. oszüté=ecet, szüszmatia=csizmadia, szüpö=cipő, pisztosz= biztos, szkoloph=cölöp pikrósz=pokróc cendesz=csendes, szegít=segít, moszt=most, meszél=mesél, eszik=esik, filesz=füles hász=ház baiosz=bájos, deüsz=dísz, édesz=édes, kádosz=kád, nagy korsó, kallimosz=kellemes, kopasz=kopasz, krikosz=karikás lébész=lábos, márgosz=mérges, megasz=magas, mogisz=mégis, meiligosz=meleg, mókosz=mókás mókészisz=mókázás, nearosz=nyers, noeszisz=nézés, pinosz=penész, piosz=piás, pioszisz=piálás, pürrosz=piros, risz=rés rütész=retesz, szürtosz=szurtos, teléeisz=teljes, ügiész=egész kithara=citera, kitharaz=citeráz oür=őr, oüriz=őriz
They may not have a direct common forebear but maybe one or two steps from each other when it comes to a proto-language. They did come from roughly the same areas, according to the theories and archaeological evidence. I say roughly, Eurasia is huge.
They also spread out at around the same time. While indo european could move with the steppes, uralic was stuck more north in the forests and spread slower and only to areas indo europeans hadnt reached yet.
ive been claiming this for years!so happy,that scholars have come up to study and compare the two language branches...cos they effected each other!its also important that turkic was included...thanks a lot for this info,im going to buy the mentioned books asap👍
That's exactly what I've been thinking! In Finnish, spoon is lusikka, in Russian loshka. Why do they say that the Finns borrowed it? Finns were there earlier.
@@pirkkojohnes8675 If it is a borrowing, then it would make more sense that it was borrowed from Finnish since /si/ is more likely to be palatalized to /ʃ/ rather than the reverse happening.
Very interesting! Another interesting hypothesis is John Colarusso's Pontic, in which he attempts to connect IE to Northwestern Caucasian. Both hypotheses seem to me to be pretty well substantiated, but it would be absurd to accept both!
They are both wrong. I believe both Uralic and NWC were influenced by IE languages during the formation of the protolanguages. That is how Uralic languages have verb endings which seem IE-like. Making Uralic daughter of PIE is closer to the actual truth. There may be more ancient relationships with other families too but both NWC and Uralic are newer families, not as old as PIE.
It is certainly a reasonable take that the MRCA of the living languages is younger in each case, as you say. But this notion doesn't have an immediate bearing on the rest of these ideas.
I had some recent email conversation regarding Nenets Language with Prof Tapani Salminen who is the son of V. Salminen mentioned in this video. What a brilliant gentleman he is!
The latest genetic studies comparing ancient remains and modern Basques (for example, published by Inigo Olade, 2019), although they cannot determine the language spoken 4000 years ago, seem to imply that the Basque language probably arrived with Neolithic farmers moving gradually into Iberia from the East (possibly originating from Asia Minor) - before (but not so very long before) the Celts, Phoenicians, Mauritanians and others. They seem to be genetically related to the Sardinians, who arrived on their island roughly around the same time, probably in the second millennium BCE (around 3500-4000) years ago. This lends a little more credence to the Proto-Indo-European-Euskarian theory.
Makes completelly sense. Both the uralic languages and the indo-european languages have co existed for thousands of years alongside with tribes and nations that have lived as neighbours. Homo Sapiens has been existing at least for 300 000 years and all these years they have had languages of some sort. All languages and language groups have certainly been mixmastered during these many millenia.
Interesting idea, but time and again we have learned that things in life are usually far more complex and complicated thant we have thought before. Just look at human evolution. We used to think it was so straightforward and simple but now we realize we had many cousin species and offshoots and anomalies like Homo Naledi for instance who look very archaic and modern at the same time. We used to think homo sapiens appeared in East Africa but then there's the jebel irhoud skull from Morocco and now it looks like it kind of happened all over Africa and over time these somewhat different populations came together and that mixture resulted in us modern humans. I think the same can be applied to languages as well. Even animals vocalize and communicate and members of the same species divided by great distances have small variations in their vocalizations. I think human language evolved gradually and the earliest proto-language that we could classify as one might even have started with homo erectus. I think there is a very good chance that there is no single proto-language that unites all or at least most human languages spoken today. At the same time we are all human and the way we can speak and the way we construct languages has a finite amount of possibilities. Indo-European and Uralic speakers were in relatively close proximity of one another for thousands of years. That should more than account for any similarities. In the absence of written records from the period I think it will probably remain forever unprovable what the earliest relationship between these two families looked like.
This reminds me of the arctic homeland theory presented by Tilak, back in the 1800s. Even though I disagree with most Aryan invasion/migration theories, I thank you for taking an interest in this topic and making a video on it.
I noticed some clear similarities between Hungarian and Sanskrit-Kannada in particular (as well as Hungarian and Basque, but we also got obvious loanwords from around the region like the word Bálna from Galizian Balea which isn't as basic), basic words mainly. One curious one is the word Ava on the Tartaria Tablets which is identical to the present day Hungarian word for father 'Apa' which is the same in Kannada. Magars living in India speak a very different language but interestingly enough came from Siberia according to their mythology-the interesting thing about this Hungarians call themselves Magyars to this day. We've been everywhere.
At a certain point back in history it becomes impossible to prove whether two related families are related due to having the same origin or due to borrowings and sprachbund features (similar grammar due to bilingualism). The question is whether this point in time is farther back in time than the proposed Indo-Uralic proto-language.
When two potentially related and similar languages are separated and isolated across large geographical areas, you can pretty safely assume the two languages have a common origin. Especially if there are many areas with speakers of unrelated languages in between. This indicates a large migration of speakers across long distances, rather than gradual linguistic sharing on the border of different nations. Linguistic sharing tends historically to only happen on border regions. Likewise a bilingual speaker would most likely speak the language of a neighbouring country, rather than the language of a country halfway across the world.
A Hungarian guy, can't remember his name, claims that early Cretan (as in Linear A) was a Uralic language. I couldn't quite follow his arguments, but he seems to have gained some scholarly support. Do you know anything about this hypothesis?
Probably not true. The southern pre-indo european languages(Basque, etruscan, linear A) are probably derived from the language spoken by early european farmers in anatolia.
Interestingly most contemporary discussions on the location of Proto-Uralic argue it was spoken quite far on the eastern side of the Urals. This seems quite sensible given the rather North Asian typology of Uralic but at this point there's no solid theory on it. However the Uralic homeland being in Siberia would suggest there was no Indo-Uralic proto language or even early contact between the two families. This doesn't sound very believable. I guess all I can do as an armchair linguist is wait for more studies on the subject. :)
There are many lexical and grammatical similarities between Finnish and Sami. Standard Finnish, kirjakieli, is a partially artificial language, that was composed in the 19th century out of a multitude of Finnish dialects.
This is certainly interesting, but ultimately, we're trying to reconstruct the parent language of two languages themselves which are reconstructed. We're trying to deduce based on things we don't know and can't know frankly, because there are no written records of these languages. It's probably an interesting academic exercise, but I'm not sure how much stock we could ever put into the conclusions here because the core evidence supporting these are necessarily weak. A good video, and certainly high-quality research featured here by the narrator. I don't want to discount the quality of his work just because the topic itself is so... ethereal.
Perhaps I was inattentive, perhaps you took no notice :) The personal markers in the Finnish present tense verb are suddenly reminiscent of those in Italian. Or in Baltic ones. Or in Slavic. And so on.
The main accestor of porto indo european According to Gurkan's theory, it is ancient north eurosian , while the main ancestor of Urals has its roots in East Asia(Neo sibruabs) , so the possibility that these two languages are from the same root becomes less.
Earlier? Semitic and Indo-European due to adjacency and some similarities of words and a tendency toward vowel changes having significance. Both language families have long histories of written literature, and if any language families considered distinct are likely to have distinct features in common it is they. Also there were many cranky theories about such people as the English being the Lost Tribes of Israel.
@Learn Hittite, Dou you have any presentations on Soith European Pre-Indo-European Languages and Cultures, as this is something not extensivively covered
My hypothesis is that, some spaniards that'd speak a language in the family tree of basque arriving in the urals , while most finnish peoples ancestors were still in korea ,so who they actually meet are proto yenisei-like the kets ancestors. then they backtrack back to spain but aren't related to their cousins anymore By the time they get there. And also for some reason some of them were solutreans, but that doesn't mean what you want it to. Maybe the opposite even
The thing you have to remember... Humanity had existed a little over a thousand years before the deluge. When Noah's Ark landed in the Caucus's, literally as soon as you stepped out the Ark all you had to do to get to the center of the PIE homeland was simply walk north and follow the treeline to the Urals. There was a huge pasture on the right and a huge forest to the left even back then. There are a lot of nations and migration waves through this area throughout history, including two entirely separate peoples at two entirely separate times occupying the same region but both calling themselves Aryan despite one culture having Israelite origins... and in the same area, at an entirely separate time, when the Khazars migrated in to the area, they adopted Judaism as their religion! The first wave of Aryans proper migrated to Europe and India, then the second wave of Aryans proper, the Scythians, of Israelite heritage through their first king, Hercules(Samson), then the Khazars moved to the area later and I'm not sure if they also claim to be Aryan in any way... all it is, is a word meaning "noble" but yes to the first wave of Aryans, the original Aryans, yes that word has deeper meaning. Aryan = Western Steppe Herders with chariots. Just north of the Caucus's was a land called "Alania", which means "Aryan Land" and was so named by Scythians... AKA Lost Israelite's. It's where the Israelite's first found themselves expelled to by their conquerors, the Assyrians. Western Asia and Eastern Europe is a dark area for how far back the history goes and how complex it all is... it's a truly massive landscape.
@@rickrandom6734 Real science will tell you the genetic bottleneck is very real. Think what you want about what caused it. Did you know that if the Earth was perfectly level there would be no land above water?
Fascinating introduction! I hate to dislodge the discussion, but have you heard about the tablet discovered in May 2023 by Kimiyoshi Matsumura in Bülükale? It seems to have a lot of interesting linguistic material, albeit in Hurrian...
In part 5 of that list, all the above languages includes Turkic and Tungusic right? That combines the Altaic hypothesis which is interesting. Perhaps there is a sort of proto-out of Africa language family? I have heard people discuss ‘proto-world’ before.
More than likely there are still multiple waves of "out of Africa. It doesn't really combine Uralic with Altaic (Turkic and Mongolic) - but ... rather combining with Nostratic (which is fine seeing "Indo-Uralic" a step on how languages are developed). - "once upon a time there was Nostratic(or proto-eurasiatic) which developed into linguistic family. Languages in that linguistic family evolved into ancestors of the proto-languages of contemporary linguistic families." ... in this, it places Uralic and Indo-European closer to oneanother than either to Altaic - but doesn't deny earlier, or somewhat more distant, genealogical relationship to it and others either (with Uralic still closer than). One thing which makes proposing proofs so much harder is that, Uralic and Indo-European are "step-sisters" to eachother from being always neighboring oneanother - the question is: are the two also genealogically related (and if so, Nostratic fans are certainly happy over the finding - for it to serve as a sample that they are on the right track, and just more relationships are to be found).
I really like Fortescue's work on the subject, his 1998 paper is really worth a read on Uralo-Siberian. Yukaghir is an interesting group of languages too. And yeah, it is a West Midlands accent - good ear! 💪
@@LearnHittite yes, I've read parts of it before! Fascinating study. I came across it as I was interested in the Eurasiatic macrofamily hypothesis and a link between PIE and PU/U-S seemed the most likely out of all the included language families especially given the now rejected Altaic family theory. In particular I was looking for equivalents of the PIE laryngeal in PU/U-S languages as these had quickly been lost in the daughter languages which would indicate very early borrowing or possible cognates (if I recall I found a couple of possible matches). One problem I've found with many of the Eurasiatic languages studies I've read, Bomhard's work for instance, is there doesn't seem to be an established methodology for distinguishing between cognates and borrowings, especially if there was say a bulk of words borrowed at a period in the past prior to the reconstruction, it would not be easy to tell them apart. In Fortescue's 1998 paper one of the sets he proposes is *aja - push forward with reflexes in PU, PS, PYuk and PE. I immediately thought that this resembles the PIE root *h2eg- to lead/drive - and thought: does this provide evidence for a PIE/PU-S relationship?! Except that many of the examples for *aja cited by Fortescue show a closer resemblance to Proto Indo-Iranian e.g. Sanskrit 'ajati' - 'he drives', a not implausible borrowing from PII to the U-S languages considering the Proto Indo-Iranians movements across the steppe. Anyway, apologies for waffling and probably wandering away from my point, but I think U-S is a fascinating hypothesis and quite probably the next macrofamily to be generally accepted. Yes, I'm from Northfield so I recognised the accent!
Very interesting. Given how important paleo-genetics has been in confirming the Indo-European theory in the last decade, I wonder if ancient DNA could point to any common heritage in this case?
@@perforongo9078 Ah right, thanks. It certainly makes sense in terms of geographic spread that the Ancient North Eurasian population group could be a common ancestral population.
@@LearnHittite Iirc, the Proto-Indo-European speakers of the Pontic Steppe, who have been shown genetically to be ancestral to all known Indo-European speakers (with the exception of the Anatolian branch) were themselves descended from a mixture of four prior genetically distinct population groups: Ancient North Eurasians (ANE) - as mentioned by @perforongo above; Caucuses Hunter Gatherers (CHG); and I forget the other two. It has been fairly widely accepted that the genesis of the PIE language was with these Western Steppe Herders (WSH), i.e. the Yamnaya or closely related peoples. According to @perforongo above, the Uralic speaking peoples share Ancient North Eurasian ancestry with the PIE speakers. So perhaps a prior Indo-Uralic homeland in Siberia existed? That would seem a neat solution. However, an alternative theory to explain the lack of Steppe descent in the Anatolian IE speaker was proposed in a paper from the Reich lab at Harvard a year or so, called the Southern Arc Hypothesis (as a Hittite scholar and channel, I guess this might be of particular interest to you?). This suggests that perhaps the origin of PIE goes back to an earlier language - dubbed Indo-Anatolian (I think actually an older hypothesis in the field of linguistics, though you would know better than me) - spoken in the Caucuses by a population known to geneticists as Caucuses Hunter Gatherers (CHG), which was ancestral to both the Steppe and Anatolian populations. This would seem to conflict with a proposed ancient Indo-Uralic language stemming out of an Ancient North Eurasian population ancestral to Uralic and IE speakers. And possibly to conflict with the whole Indo-Uralic Hypothesis, unless it were shown that Uralic speakers also have Caucuses Hunter Gatherer heritage or something like that? That said, there are a lot of commentators far more qualified than I who don’t like the Southern Arc Hypothesis, and therefore the proposed Indo-Anatolian root of PIE, and who prefer the pre-existing theory of the Pontic-Steppe as the homeland of PIE, and suggest that that the reason that the Anatolian IE speakers did not have Steppe ancestry is not that they share a common ancestor with the Steppe Herders, who spoke a language ancestral to the PIE spoken on the Steppe, but because the IE language family spread to Anatolia from the Steppe through cultural transmission alone, with perhaps just a very small number of elite speakers, rather than with any large population movement. This theory suggests a likely route taken by IE to Anatolia from the Steppe north of the Black Sea, down through the Balkans, and into the west of Anatolia, as opposed to the Southern Arc Hypothesis, which suggests a route south of the Black Sea, from the caucuses into the east of Anatolia. The “northern” Steppe hypothesis of PIE origin would seem to potentially work with the Indo-Uralic Hypothesis, while the Southern Arc and Indo-Uralic hypotheses would seem at first glance to be likely mutually exclusive. I have to stress here that I may be misremembering and therefore misreporting information from the published record, and also that any tentative conclusions I made above about what this might mean for the Indo-Uralic Hypothesis are my own comment thread speculation, and not anything I have read from any qualified source. It is all very interesting though, and I would be fairly certain that the new field of ancient genetics will be a productive route for informing the investigation of the Indo-Uralic Hypothesis, along with further linguistic (and presumably archaeological) research. Anyway, thanks again for the video!
The section in that green book on possible relationship between Indo-European and Afro-asiatic is awful and misleading. For numbers it singles out the word for 7 as PIE possibly borrowing from Semitic as if there was something special about 7 when in fact all number names from 1 to 10 in PIE and Afro-asiatic languages appear to be related. One might not be able to see if one only looks at say English vs Arabic, but compare several IE languages (and PIE) with several Afro-asiatic languages and the similarities of all numbers become apparent.
@@lloydgush there have been reconstructions, but I would consider that it might be an incorrect grouping. Even grouping all the Berber languages as a family within Afro-Asiatic might be wrong - they probably all do go back to a common ancestor but look more closely related due to borrowing (sort of like grouping English with the Romance languages). Tyrsenian languages fit in somewhere as well, and if we were to look to number names (which are typically NOT borrowed), Etruscan is possibly closer to Semitic than Egyptian actually is.
You quote this Klemencic chap, as saying he “suspects” that you could come up with the same number of correspondences if you can compared PIE to any language group. So why hasn’t he or somebody else tried to do that? Why not try the same exercise with Cushitic, Sino-Tibetan and Athabaskan and see if the results are different to Uralic?
The hypothesis hasn't warranted attention enough to actually justify testing It would actually be on the party submitting their hypothesis to adjust for obvious issues like the one pointed out. Like they need to demonstrate that their model provides unique outcomes.
@simonaklemencic5845 Oh, I've only just noticed this. It's an absolute honour for me that you commented on one of my videos! I really value your chapter in "Precursors of Proto-Indo-European".
No way you can bring Proto-Uralic and Proto-Indo-European phonology to the common system in a regular way. Also Uralic and Indo-European are just two surviving samples from 100+ stone age language families of Northen Eurasia (see Papua or Australia - your mirror into the past). Deciding these two are closely related is just a survivorship bias :)
What if I gave you a heavy dose of NW Caucasian influence alongside a sprinkling of evidence showing uralic sonorants parallel PIE stops and we completely ignored vowels... would that motivate you to watch part two when it drops?
But on a more serious note, I think phonology is the biggest weakness of the Indo-Uralic hypothesis although I do believe they share a proto language at some point. Thanks for your comment!
@@LearnHittiteHonestly, there is something in it because genetically Indo-Europeans = Eastern Hunters-Gatherers (Uralic-like people?) + Caucasian Hunters-Gatherers (NW Caucasians?). But these are just non-linguistic speculations cause Indo-European is so much different from NW Caucasian in all aspects, it's hard to believe they were substrate/superstrate to Uralic-like pre-IE. And in case of a language contact, you expect words and grammar to be borrowed in a large quantity in order to acquire foreign phonemes. So NW Caucasian seems like a dead-end to me. Looking forward to the part 2 anyway :)
And then there’s the theory that Proto-Indo-Uralic shares a parent with the Altaic languages (including Mongolian, Turkish and the languages on Central Asia - and possibly Korean and Japanese) - which is sometimes called Proto-Eurasiatic. And this ancient hypothetical language might share a common parent with the Kartvelian language family of the Caucasus Mountains, the Afroasiatic language family of North Africa and Arabia, and possibly the Dravidian languages of Southern India (as well as many other extinct language groups) - which is known as the ‘Nostratic’ language, possibly spoken in the river valleys from the Nile to the Indus up to around 25,000 years ago. The more we understand human genetics, the more theories like this make sense.
The very little I know about the Finnish and Japanese languages, made me wonder ... I tried searching, but instead of Japanese, I found that a linguist, Julian Hadland, had made a connection between Korean and Finnish. He had written about similarities between Finnish, and both modern Korean, and a more conservative form of Korean, spoken in a community in the former USSR. He found quite some convincing similarities in both vocabulary and grammar, esp. with the more conservative Korean speakers. I have read that both Japanese and Korean have been connected with the Altaic family, but also that they must be some sort of hybrid (?) languages, so only partly Altaic. I am no linguist, and I know nothing about Korean, but what do you think about these similarities, in connection with this Indoeuropean-uralic hypothesis? It is starting to be complicated ... Personally, I think contacts between different language speakers, intermarriage, trades, etc, could come in on all levels of evolving of the language branches and families. But very fascinating!
"school grade" "kouluarvosana" Borrowed from Late Old Swedish (compare Swedish skola) 5 - Passable D− 0.7 (lowest passing grade) #kirjoitus + virhe #misspelling *kirjoittadak From the plural stem of *kirja, *kirjoi- + *-ttadak. *kirja Origin unknown. + virhe Unknown. arvo (“value”) + sana (“word”) From Proto-Finnic *arvo, borrowed from a (likely Iranian) descendant of Proto-Indo-Iranian *Hargʰás (compare Sanskrit अर्घ (argha, “worth, value”) *sana Unknown.
Anyhow, I find it much more plausible, that Japanese and Korean have had a mutual origin languagewise with the uralic family, than with the Indoeuropean family. And if so, the years and movements of the respective branches of language speakers, have mixed in lots of other language elements. Lots chinese vocabulary in both Japanese and Korean. Lots of Indoeuropean vocabulary in Finnish, and seemingly some grammar as well.
@@mariiris1403 why do you find it more plausible, when the geographical distance between IE and Uralic is much smaller (they were basically immediate neighbors for the 4000-4500 years) than the distance between Uralic and Japonic (who, as far as i know have never been bordering eachother)?
Everything is from the youtube audio library. The opening track is "ten inch spikes" by Jeremy Korpas. If you ever find any interesting music in the youtube audio library, please feel free to share it and I can use it in a video!
There is only one thing I can think of that support this idea that Hungarians made dna research and that was a suprice that they found neolitic Europen dna in the territory of Asia from where our ancestor said to start the migration. So they had neolitic european dna from before they started to move to the west.
Immediate subscribe not even halfway into the video. Love the premise and you’re a strong presenter. You don’t have to be so hesitant to use a little of that British humor from time to time. But definitely keep the overall professional presentation: love the graphs!
@@LearnHittite always love to see young and up and coming creators. I’ll send you around to my nerd friends who dig this stuff like I do. It’s not a huge group, but it’ll help the numbers all the same. I wish people were more generous with likes on small channels like yours, I know I always am. Best of luck growing your channel. I’m about to launch a history of everything channel and maybe we’ll throw something down when I break 100k, lofuckingl.
@@Thor-Oriondoes hitties called themselves aryan anywhere in their inscription? So stop calling them Aryans , Aryan indentity created in BMAC culture as par scholar
Ural-altay dil ailesine inanmıyoruz.En azından biraz bilgili olanlar.Cunku butun bu diller arasında benzerlik %10'dan bile az.Sadece mantık benziyor.Sondan eklemeli konuşuyoruz.Eğer doğru olsa bile bu kadar farklılaşması için aradan 15 bin sene gecmesi lazim.
@@Silajulian Milliyetçilerin kültürlü olanları inanmıyordur.. Ama milliyetçilerin %90'ı kültürlü değil malesef... Ural-Altay hipotezi yanlış olmayabilir. Sadece doğruluğu hakkında şu an için yeterli kanıt yok... Belki gelecekteki çalışmalar bu sil ailelerinin aynı kökten geldiğini ıspatlar... Ural Altay hipotezini geçelim, saf altay hipotezi bile yeterli kanıt olmaması yüzünden dağıldı. Dilbilimcilerin çoğu artık moğolcayla türkçenin akraba olduğuna inanmıyor...
Why are the sámi languages your favourite finno-ugric languages ? I'm currently learning northern Sámi and I don't succeed in u.derstanding why I prefer this language than other finno-ugric ones I used to study before
You need to differentiate when what Indo-European languages gained proto-Uralic features. Proto-Indo-European was young, and it would be remarkable if a number of peoples and languages did not feed into them. However, most modern Indo-European languages and peoples descend from the Corded Ware culture, which formed to the north of the Yamnaya and shared extensive DNA with them; the earlier of them ahd R1b that shared common ancestry with that which has so far been found among the Yamnaya. The Corded Ware people could have formed as a hybrid of Uralic speaking people, independently of the actual roots of proto-Indo-European. If that were true, the desendants of Corded Ware would have Uralic features not shared by descendants of the Yamnaya, nor by the Anatolian languages.
The Basque language is the last surviving Paleolithic Pre-Indo European language and predates the arrival of Indo-Europeans. The Basque share a common culture and genetic ancestry to the ancient Vascones and Aquitanians.
nice...but i do think turko tatar effected the uralic and indo european structure and vocablary...many words in hindu and hungarian exist that are turkish. persian and russian got turkic influences,there are lots of turkish words in the vocabulary...turkish should not analysized in the altay group,cos we have more words in common with hungarian and persian than we have with japanese or mongolian...agglutination was once widespread in all siberia and asia,later indian and persian got under semitic structure effect...please include turko tatar and turkic languages in comparing the vocabulary...it served a lot more than thought...
It is the case that theories are based on powers. The truth is censored by those people who are shaping our future. To make it simple: we hear what somebody wants us to hear or learn.
Interesting video, but similarities bwtween Turkic languages and Uralic languages are much deeper than these ones, and although I tend to think that Turkic is a Uralic language group rather than an Altaic one, unfortunately politics, racism, nationalism (on the Turkish side) play a big role in the linguistics field. But I will read these works in my spare time. When I tried to learn Finnish as a hobby, I realized a lot of gramatical similarities that do not exist in Classical Mongolian. And I know that there is a large shared vocabulary as well. But here the Turkic case is a difficult one, because a genetics and history study lately done in Canada shows that Turkic actually spread as a lingua franca rather than via large migrations as in the cases of Indo-European and Uralic languages. But the uncanny resemblance between Turkic and uralic languages is hard to miss nonetheless. One very obvious resemblence is tbe partitive cade which exists in both but not in other altaic languages or indoeuropean ones.
If you mean 'oldest' as in broke away from proto-indo-european earliest, then no, that award would go to the Anatolian branch followed by Tocharian. If you mean 'has the most conservative features' then some people say Lithuanian, Icelandic or Greek look the 'oldest'. But using terms like 'oldest' or 'youngest' is sort of incorrect, all languages have the same age - just stability and rates of change are not constant. If the Anatolian branch for example left the proto indo-european dialect continuum very early on. We could expect to see that it would maintain some very conservative features of PIE alongside perhaps showing more innovations than say another language branch simply because it has had more time to evolve independant of the PIE dialect zone. It's a simplification but I hope it makes sense.
such tenuous links. they want there to be a ubiquitous proto language but the fact is that there is no real evidence, if there were a link it's lost to time and will never be recovered. cosmopolitan daydreamers proposing stuff like this and altaic get in the way of historical linguistics.
Ultimately all languages probably descend from a singular ur-language. We can demonstrate this with logic: the only alternative to common descent is if language sprung up spontaneously multiple times. I.e. several populations on the planet first had only pre-language grunts and whatnot, and they independently refined these into language. Such a supposition requires some extraordinary assumptions. First of all, a more or less synchronous appearance of the invention of language all over the geographic range of homo sapiens seems like a significant coincidence. But at least it's possible if we assume homo sapiens was already cosmopolitan (lived in all corners of the globe) when this coincidentally roughly synchronous invention happened. But this global spread was only achieved a few 10k years ago. But language is older than that -- dating to when homo sapiens only lived in Africa. Which means such spontaneous invention events would have to be geographically closer together. But this opens the possibility for contact between such groups. Any introduction of one individual human from a "already-having-language" tribe to one tribe of "still-only-pre-language" would have disrupted this indigenous formation process. It seems to me not clear why the newly arrived already-language-haver would not quickly make full-language the dominant trait (partially because the pre-language people would adopt it, but mostly simply because his descendants would intermix and it'd spread that way, with them all bringing their fully formed language). The counter-tendency towards that dominance would be if the tribe consciously decided their old ways work best, and that they actively pushed back against the injection/spread of a fully formed language, somehow deciding that they "preferred it they could come up with a language at their own rate".
Maybe, maybe not. Time and again we have learned that things are far more complex as we thought. Since modern humans seem to have appeared virtually all over Africa, I really wouldn't be surprised if no such thing existed a singular ur-language. I think at least minor differences were there from the start.
Numerals 2 and 3 of Prof Europaeus's (r.i.p.) hypothesis will probably won't be liked by neo-Ottomanists addicted to the Erdogan's regime. 😂 But leaving the jokes aside, and with serious questions: Do you know the work of Alberto Porlan "Los Nombres de Europa" ('The Names of Europe')? Such work is regarding to the, not so apparent, coincidences that exist in the toponymy of the European continent, immersed among so many diverse linguistic systems.
Oh man. Sometimes listen to music from Siberian or other eastern regions and the Pan-Turkic nuts come out of the woodwork suggesting they should all come together in a great Pan-Turkic nation.
@@Anadolu.lu_Mertkan Hi there, Mr Panturkic. Not offended, just highly amused. You think the Mongolians etc. have any interest in getting together with Turkey? And being dominated by Turkey and the likes of Erdogan? They have enough troubles of their own without adding to them. And really, they and the Turks have been separated by hundreds, if not thousands of years in very different parts of the world with different histories and now cultures.. Even if they were all Turks 1000 years ago [which may not be true] what have they got in common any more?
@@Anadolu.lu_Mertkan English is the lingua franca of the world and the internet, you not knowing it, is embarrassing, me not not knowing Turkish, a language spoken by 1% of the world and barely of any use outside of Turkey is not. I'm not gonna learn a language I have no use for.
@7:15 that sounds like a bad faith dishonest argument. If that is true then he or she should prove it by creating a fake proto language as a counter argument.
This is pure speculation! It doesn't even merit to be considered a hypothesis! Hypotheses derive from theories and theories are based on hard evidence and facts. And you have not produced any.
@Forester2547 who said people in the palaiolothic and neolithic epochs forgot their languages? They lived in widely separated areas in Europe and Asia and Africa and they developed different languages.
@Forester2547 I don't think there is much relationship between say ancient Greek, which is a highly inflected language with say Chinese, which is not. There's no relationship in terms of vocabulary either. The Greek alphabet is entirely different from the Chinese ideograms. The only similarity I can think of among languages is that they all have pronouns to indicate actors, verbs to indicate action, nouns to indicate objects, things and notions and adverbs to indicate time, mode, place. But all these elements of speech have to do with how language itself has developed by humans acting and coordinating their activities in hunting, gathering and later farming, raising cattle and engaging in craftsmanship, making all sorts of imlpements of labour, and trade as well as eating, drinking, sleeping, and loving and engaging in war.
Hypothesis literally means under-thesis. You come up with the hypothesis before the thesis. A hypothesis is an idea to be tested, in this case "I think Indo-European and Uralic languages are related because of xyz similarities"
@Forester2547bro the fact you actually used the word facetious makes me immediately not beleive about anything u say no matter how beleivable or well researched. Stop using big ass words just to sound smarter it makes u come across annoying as hell
The "é" is from "eszik", and the "t" is a nominaliser. The fact that they look like the common West Germanic verb "eat/eten/essen/&c." is a coincidence.
The historical record shows that everyone spread out from Mesopotamia. Ancient history is essential for everyone to know, especially the sixteen original civilizations… from the sixteen grandsons of Noah. 1. The first inhabitants of Italy (K) Tubal 2. Thracians (L) Tiras 3. Siberians (N) Meshek 4. East Asians (O) Magog 5. Medes (PQ) Madai 6.. Western Europeans (R) Gomer 7. Mediterranean Greek sea people (T) Javan 8. Hebrews and Arabic (IJ) Arphaxad 9. Elamites (H) Elam 10. Assyrians (G) Asshur 11. Arameans (F1) Aram 12. Lydians (F2) Lud 13. Cushites (AB, C) Cush 14. Egyptians (E3) Mitzrayim 15. Canaanites (E2, D) Canaan 16. Original North African Phoenicians (E1) Phut The D haplogroup descendants of Canaan migrated east through Tibet all the way to Japan. The C haplogroup descendants of Nimrod migrated to South Asia, the Pacific, Mongolia and all the way to the Americas along with Q haplogroup descendants of Madai ancestor of the Medes. The A maternal mtDNA haplogroup belonging to the N lineage accompanied the Q paternal haplogroup in the Americas. The C&D maternal haplogroups belong to the M lineage. The B maternal haplogroup seems to have crossed the Pacific Ocean. The Mediterranean paternal R1b and the maternal X2a also found in Galilee represent an Atlantic crossing of the Phoenicians in the days of King Solomon considering also the Mediterranean paternal haplogroups of T, G, I1, I2, J1, J2, E and B in addition to the R1b in Native American Populations. J1 and J2 is Arabs and Jews. (I1 is Dan, I2 is Asher) Of course there is the Cohen modal haplotype of J1 P58 which identifies the IJ lineage of Hebrews and Arabs that are descended from Arphaxad. J2 M172 is the descendants of the House of David and Solomon. I have some old historical evidence and some new genetic evidence that no one can arguing with. The Q paternal haplogroup is the descendants of the Medes. Madai ancestor of the Medes asked to marry the daughter of Shem so the Semitic A maternal haplogroup followed the Q haplogroup to America while the X and W mtDNA followed the Medes into Europe. The Semitic B maternal haplogroup most likely arrived in America by crossing the Pacific Ocean. The C and D maternal haplogroups are Eurasian. The Semitic X2a maternal haplogroup is a European branch from the Semitic A maternal haplogroup which probably arrived in America with the R1b paternal haplogroup in the days of the Phoenicians mining the ancient copper mines of the Great Lakes. The big elephant in the room is the R1b in America as well as the X mtDNA. Besides the R1b there is also E B I1 I2 J1 J2 G and T Mediterranean paternal haplogroups as well as the X2a maternal haplogroup in America *AND* Galilee as well as the Q paternal hg which also make up the signature of the Phoenicians and Jews in the days of King Solomon and today. The C paternal haplogroup is the descendants of Nimrod the first and Hamitic king of Mesopotamia along with his sons who became the House of Nimrod. Their descendants went as far as the Americas. It’s the reason that the Olmecs C3 y-hg appear similar to Polynesians C2 y-hg since they share the same common ancestor, Nimrod the son of Cush the father of Cushite Africans. The C3 haplogroup of Nimrod is still there in the Americas such as the Kechuas Wayuu and Waorani …and now you know the rest of the story.
There are so many flaws with this analysis I don’t know where to begin, but I feel you are aware of them and posted this simply to annoy some people. But I do find something ironic about claiming people need to learn ancient history and then… quoting the grandsons of Noah. I agree, I think you do need to learn ancient history. It takes a certain unabashed boldness to try and claim the Japanese descended from canaanites with a straight face.
@@JungleJargon I’m not trying to be a jerk, but no, no it isn’t, and I really think you know this. I feel like you know you aren’t convincing anyone who doesn’t already agree with your biblical view of the world.
@@JungleJargon ok now I’m being a jerk, Hamitic haplo group, my sides. I can’t stop laughing. I can’t believe you said that unironically. Yea man, you definitely convinced me with that…
cool but i still believe more in pie - northwestern caucasian connection: yamna and maykop cultures seem closer, phenotypocally pie and modern abkhazians seem to be much closer than modern finnic ppl.
Some linguists suggest that the reason why PIE and PU are so different is down to NW caucasian influence. I wanted to bring it up in the second part of this video (which I am editing together now) but just didn't have time. Will probably do a standalone video on it.
![SAFEPLANET - ดาวเคราะห์ [ THE PLANET ]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/4X1XL3I_k3c/mqdefault.jpg)
When is part 2 coming out?
I recorded it today, now I need to sit down and edit it. Hopefully, it'll be ready in under a week. Also, it's highly likely I'll end up doing a part 3 - there's way too much material to squueze in to two videos.
@@LearnHittite Subscribed and waiting for the notification!
Thanks for your support, really appreciated!
@@LearnHittite subb'ed
As a native speaker of proto indo-uralic, I applaud you for bringing attention to our language.
as someone learning proto indo-uralic i just wanna say that your language is so beautiful
@@spawel1What are you talking about?! Their grammar is worse than German grammar! I'm even thinking of switching to Proto-Toki-Esperanto.
@@fukpoeslaw3613proto toki-esperanto has horrible grammar, barely any features.
@@lloydgush at least you can grasp it in a day
When a language is called proto doesn't that indicate that it's the ancestor of the current forms? So how would one be a current speaker of proto indo uralic? Wouldn't you be a speaker of a uralic language, not proto uralic?
"
Thus, many of these so-called Moscow-school Nostraticists have a negative attitude towards the recent achievements in Indo-European linguistics, such as the laryngeal theory. Even worse, as many of them simultaneously ignore all the post-Collinderian progress in Uralic linguistics, their reconstructed Proto-Nostratic is closer to modern Finnish than to Proto-Uralic according to modern scholarship. Hence, the Moscow school version of the Nostratic hypothesis is in serious need of updating (see also Campbell 1998).
Conclusion
While in theory it is most unlikely that Proto-Indo-European was a language isolate, in practice it is very hard to conclusively prove that it was anything else."
- Kallio, P., & Koivulehto, J. (2018). More Remote Relationships of Proto-Indo-European.
1934-2014 🙏
" Summary
Indo-European is a sister of Finno-Ugric and a daughter of Indo-Uralic, which is a sister of Samoyedic and a daughter of Uralo-Siberian, which is a sister of Altaic and a daughter of Eurasiatic. When the Mongols entered Manchuria, they were in the same position as the Indo-Europeans when they entered Central Europe. The crucial factor in linguistic expansion is mobility, both physical and social. "
- The_dissolution_of_the_Eurasiatic_macrofamily, Kortlandt, F.
👆
" The man has been a perfectly competent Slavist-Indo-Europeanist, but are there any clues about EPS here? Emeritus professor syndrome: in retirement, people start to imagine themselves as experts in every field and construct wild hypotheses with little regard for credible scientific arguments."
- 🇫🇮linguist who shall remain nameless
EPS is definitely a real thing. I'm actually dealing with it in my day job, most of my colleagues feel that the academic in question deserves their EPS episode having put so much in during their career. Not sure I agree but in terms of Kortlandt, I think he's harboured ideas with him for a while. Great post and thank you.
What is EPS?
@@labasurasesacasiempre Emeritus professor syndrome, a form of the Dunning-Kruger effect, i.e., when someone either overestimates or underestimates their level of expertise in their field or another, not strictly related field of knowledge.
Kortlandt, F. doesn't even use any arguments ever.
I love a well-written insightful youtube comment
Nice introduction, can't wait for more details.
Please please please teach us more about pre proto languages. Be it Paleo European, Semitic, Altaic, Uralic or IndoEuropean.
Looking forward to part 2.
The main problem with the hypothesis is exactly what you've outlined multiple times in this video, which is that the correspondences are too few to draw any relation between the two proto languages past simple loaning and language contact.
I'm very curious how Part 2 will touch on this and illustrate how this analysis doesn't apply to Indo-Uralic in the same way it does to other dubious groupings, such as Altaic.
Can’t wait for the video on proto-Afro-Indo-Altaic-Caucasian-Uralic-Sentinelese-Dené-macaronesian and how the closest extant language to it is the Canarian whistling language
Great idea! I'll start the research for it next week
Isn't that just Nostratic?
So Basque?
4:01 As a Danish speaker I noticed that article mentions Uralic-Altaic. He says Uralic-Altaic is seen as being most likely true though it hasn't been proven yet.
This is so based.
Some similar words between Ancient Greek and Hungarian (Ancient Greek words are in front and are written in Hungarian letters). According to linguists, they are not derived from ancient Greek.
oszüté=ecet,
szüszmatia=csizmadia,
szüpö=cipő,
pisztosz= biztos,
szkoloph=cölöp
pikrósz=pokróc
cendesz=csendes,
szegít=segít,
moszt=most,
meszél=mesél,
eszik=esik,
filesz=füles
hász=ház
baiosz=bájos,
deüsz=dísz,
édesz=édes,
kádosz=kád, nagy korsó,
kallimosz=kellemes,
kopasz=kopasz,
krikosz=karikás
lébész=lábos,
márgosz=mérges,
megasz=magas,
mogisz=mégis,
meiligosz=meleg,
mókosz=mókás
mókészisz=mókázás,
nearosz=nyers,
noeszisz=nézés,
pinosz=penész,
piosz=piás,
pioszisz=piálás,
pürrosz=piros,
risz=rés
rütész=retesz,
szürtosz=szurtos,
teléeisz=teljes,
ügiész=egész
kithara=citera,
kitharaz=citeráz
oür=őr,
oüriz=őriz
They may not have a direct common forebear but maybe one or two steps from each other when it comes to a proto-language. They did come from roughly the same areas, according to the theories and archaeological evidence. I say roughly, Eurasia is huge.
Yeap, this seems like a resonable conclusion.
They also spread out at around the same time. While indo european could move with the steppes, uralic was stuck more north in the forests and spread slower and only to areas indo europeans hadnt reached yet.
ive been claiming this for years!so happy,that scholars have come up to study and compare the two language branches...cos they effected each other!its also important that turkic was included...thanks a lot for this info,im going to buy the mentioned books asap👍
And makes sense, given migrations.
6:35 My problem with that "borrowing" theory is that it is ALWAYS from Indo-European to Uralic, and NEVER the other way around
That's exactly what I've been thinking! In Finnish, spoon is lusikka, in Russian loshka. Why do they say that the Finns borrowed it? Finns were there earlier.
@@pirkkojohnes8675 If it is a borrowing, then it would make more sense that it was borrowed from Finnish since /si/ is more likely to be palatalized to /ʃ/ rather than the reverse happening.
you should check out juliette blevins' proto-indo-european-euskarian hypothesis
Thanks for a great series of interesting episodes. I am waiting for more.
Thanks 😊
Very interesting! Another interesting hypothesis is John Colarusso's Pontic, in which he attempts to connect IE to Northwestern Caucasian. Both hypotheses seem to me to be pretty well substantiated, but it would be absurd to accept both!
it could be that PIE is descended from NWC languages but had extensive contact with Uralic to account for vocabulary transfer
"pretty well substantiated" well no they aren't lol
Oh I mean pretty well substantiated as hypotheses; I don't mean pretty well substantiated as strong evidence of genetic relation.
They are both wrong. I believe both Uralic and NWC were influenced by IE languages during the formation of the protolanguages.
That is how Uralic languages have verb endings which seem IE-like. Making Uralic daughter of PIE is closer to the actual truth.
There may be more ancient relationships with other families too but both NWC and Uralic are newer families, not as old as PIE.
It is certainly a reasonable take that the MRCA of the living languages is younger in each case, as you say. But this notion doesn't have an immediate bearing on the rest of these ideas.
Can't wait for part 2
I love that when I turn to your channel that you are going to present solid research and the scientific consensus.
Thanks! I try my best.
Well spoken, intresting and clearly properly cited, I really appreciate this video!
Its interesting that most of the big language families have crossed paths in the siberia/soviet union regions
Великая степь. От Украины до Китая. Мир кочевых народов
@@Alexadron2 what
I had some recent email conversation regarding Nenets Language with Prof Tapani Salminen who is the son of V. Salminen mentioned in this video. What a brilliant gentleman he is!
Any recent developments in Blevins' Proto-Indo-European-Euskarian Hypothesis? Do you have an opinion on it?
I enjoy her work very much and found her 2018 book to be very interesting indeed.
The latest genetic studies comparing ancient remains and modern Basques (for example, published by Inigo Olade, 2019), although they cannot determine the language spoken 4000 years ago, seem to imply that the Basque language probably arrived with Neolithic farmers moving gradually into Iberia from the East (possibly originating from Asia Minor) - before (but not so very long before) the Celts, Phoenicians, Mauritanians and others. They seem to be genetically related to the Sardinians, who arrived on their island roughly around the same time, probably in the second millennium BCE (around 3500-4000) years ago. This lends a little more credence to the Proto-Indo-European-Euskarian theory.
Makes completelly sense. Both the uralic languages and the indo-european languages have co existed for thousands of years alongside with tribes and nations that have lived as neighbours. Homo Sapiens has been existing at least for 300 000 years and all these years they have had languages of some sort. All languages and language groups have certainly been mixmastered during these many millenia.
Interesting idea, but time and again we have learned that things in life are usually far more complex and complicated thant we have thought before. Just look at human evolution. We used to think it was so straightforward and simple but now we realize we had many cousin species and offshoots and anomalies like Homo Naledi for instance who look very archaic and modern at the same time. We used to think homo sapiens appeared in East Africa but then there's the jebel irhoud skull from Morocco and now it looks like it kind of happened all over Africa and over time these somewhat different populations came together and that mixture resulted in us modern humans.
I think the same can be applied to languages as well. Even animals vocalize and communicate and members of the same species divided by great distances have small variations in their vocalizations. I think human language evolved gradually and the earliest proto-language that we could classify as one might even have started with homo erectus. I think there is a very good chance that there is no single proto-language that unites all or at least most human languages spoken today. At the same time we are all human and the way we can speak and the way we construct languages has a finite amount of possibilities. Indo-European and Uralic speakers were in relatively close proximity of one another for thousands of years. That should more than account for any similarities. In the absence of written records from the period I think it will probably remain forever unprovable what the earliest relationship between these two families looked like.
Havent heard of this before, looking forward to pt ii
As an irrelevant point. Do language family trees tend to have a fibinachi sequence in their structure?
I'm not sure how the fibonacci sequence could apply to language.
Amazing did not know of this before, thanks for sharing.
Thanks for watching!
This reminds me of the arctic homeland theory presented by Tilak, back in the 1800s. Even though I disagree with most Aryan invasion/migration theories, I thank you for taking an interest in this topic and making a video on it.
Why?
I noticed some clear similarities between Hungarian and Sanskrit-Kannada in particular (as well as Hungarian and Basque, but we also got obvious loanwords from around the region like the word Bálna from Galizian Balea which isn't as basic), basic words mainly.
One curious one is the word Ava on the Tartaria Tablets which is identical to the present day Hungarian word for father 'Apa' which is the same in Kannada.
Magars living in India speak a very different language but interestingly enough came from Siberia according to their mythology-the interesting thing about this Hungarians call themselves Magyars to this day.
We've been everywhere.
Mother and father sound similar in most languages because babies make that sound, so that's not really all that striking
@@WebDream But not in Hungarian.
@@nikocat2008 anya and apu, no M sound for mother but very similar still
At a certain point back in history it becomes impossible to prove whether two related families are related due to having the same origin or due to borrowings and sprachbund features (similar grammar due to bilingualism). The question is whether this point in time is farther back in time than the proposed Indo-Uralic proto-language.
When two potentially related and similar languages are separated and isolated across large geographical areas, you can pretty safely assume the two languages have a common origin. Especially if there are many areas with speakers of unrelated languages in between. This indicates a large migration of speakers across long distances, rather than gradual linguistic sharing on the border of different nations.
Linguistic sharing tends historically to only happen on border regions. Likewise a bilingual speaker would most likely speak the language of a neighbouring country, rather than the language of a country halfway across the world.
@@user-qr6eb4jg9nsounds like it wouldn't be relevant to the topic at hand
Great video. Thank you!
Thank you for the kind words!
A Hungarian guy, can't remember his name, claims that early Cretan (as in Linear A) was a Uralic language. I couldn't quite follow his arguments, but he seems to have gained some scholarly support. Do you know anything about this hypothesis?
Probably not true. The southern pre-indo european languages(Basque, etruscan, linear A) are probably derived from the language spoken by early european farmers in anatolia.
Prof. Revesz is his name I believe, he's certainly passionate about his ideas but I remain far from convinced.
I watched his video lectures a few years back. His methods are pure numerology applied to incorrect and incomplete data.
Interestingly most contemporary discussions on the location of Proto-Uralic argue it was spoken quite far on the eastern side of the Urals. This seems quite sensible given the rather North Asian typology of Uralic but at this point there's no solid theory on it.
However the Uralic homeland being in Siberia would suggest there was no Indo-Uralic proto language or even early contact between the two families. This doesn't sound very believable.
I guess all I can do as an armchair linguist is wait for more studies on the subject. :)
Given the fact that Helsinki has been settled by Estonian merchants I think it can be assumed that Finish is a dialect of Estonian.
There are many lexical and grammatical similarities between Finnish and Sami. Standard Finnish, kirjakieli, is a partially artificial language, that was composed in the 19th century out of a multitude of Finnish dialects.
@@derkboonstra5637 Like most modern languages.
Interesting, I would like to see a series on the connection between Austronesian and Tai-Kadai.
I think Tolkien tried to reconstruct the language and called it quenya.
This is certainly interesting, but ultimately, we're trying to reconstruct the parent language of two languages themselves which are reconstructed. We're trying to deduce based on things we don't know and can't know frankly, because there are no written records of these languages. It's probably an interesting academic exercise, but I'm not sure how much stock we could ever put into the conclusions here because the core evidence supporting these are necessarily weak. A good video, and certainly high-quality research featured here by the narrator. I don't want to discount the quality of his work just because the topic itself is so... ethereal.
Perhaps I was inattentive, perhaps you took no notice :)
The personal markers in the Finnish present tense verb are suddenly reminiscent of those in Italian. Or in Baltic ones. Or in Slavic. And so on.
The main accestor of porto indo european According to Gurkan's theory, it is ancient north eurosian , while the main ancestor of Urals has its roots in East Asia(Neo sibruabs) , so the possibility that these two languages are from the same root becomes less.
Earlier? Semitic and Indo-European due to adjacency and some similarities of words and a tendency toward vowel changes having significance. Both language families have long histories of written literature, and if any language families considered distinct are likely to have distinct features in common it is they. Also there were many cranky theories about such people as the English being the Lost Tribes of Israel.
Why would you even bring up such a idiotic concept as brithish Israelites
Mario Alinei az " Etrusco: Una forma arcaica di ungherese" ( Il Mulino Bologna, 2003 )
@Learn Hittite,
Dou you have any presentations on Soith European Pre-Indo-European Languages and Cultures, as this is something not extensivively covered
My hypothesis is that, some spaniards that'd speak a language in the family tree of basque arriving in the urals , while most finnish peoples ancestors were still in korea ,so who they actually meet are proto yenisei-like the kets ancestors.
then they backtrack back to spain but aren't related to their cousins anymore
By the time they get there.
And also for some reason some of them were solutreans, but that doesn't mean what you want it to. Maybe the opposite even
Wonderful insight ❤
Thank you for your kind words
The thing you have to remember... Humanity had existed a little over a thousand years before the deluge. When Noah's Ark landed in the Caucus's, literally as soon as you stepped out the Ark all you had to do to get to the center of the PIE homeland was simply walk north and follow the treeline to the Urals. There was a huge pasture on the right and a huge forest to the left even back then. There are a lot of nations and migration waves through this area throughout history, including two entirely separate peoples at two entirely separate times occupying the same region but both calling themselves Aryan despite one culture having Israelite origins... and in the same area, at an entirely separate time, when the Khazars migrated in to the area, they adopted Judaism as their religion! The first wave of Aryans proper migrated to Europe and India, then the second wave of Aryans proper, the Scythians, of Israelite heritage through their first king, Hercules(Samson), then the Khazars moved to the area later and I'm not sure if they also claim to be Aryan in any way... all it is, is a word meaning "noble" but yes to the first wave of Aryans, the original Aryans, yes that word has deeper meaning. Aryan = Western Steppe Herders with chariots. Just north of the Caucus's was a land called "Alania", which means "Aryan Land" and was so named by Scythians... AKA Lost Israelite's. It's where the Israelite's first found themselves expelled to by their conquerors, the Assyrians. Western Asia and Eastern Europe is a dark area for how far back the history goes and how complex it all is... it's a truly massive landscape.
Sorry. Thats just a fairy tale.
According to real science, no.
@@rickrandom6734 Real science will tell you the genetic bottleneck is very real. Think what you want about what caused it. Did you know that if the Earth was perfectly level there would be no land above water?
ladies and gentlemen, this is a prime example of advanced stage christbrain
@@Baso-sama The genetic bottleneck has been proven and every ancient culture has a flood myth.
Fascinating introduction! I hate to dislodge the discussion, but have you heard about the tablet discovered in May 2023 by Kimiyoshi Matsumura in Bülükale? It seems to have a lot of interesting linguistic material, albeit in Hurrian...
Honestly, I hadn't, but I'll be sure to check it out now. Thanks for the heads up
Thank you, I really believe in this theory
In part 5 of that list, all the above languages includes Turkic and Tungusic right? That combines the Altaic hypothesis which is interesting. Perhaps there is a sort of proto-out of Africa language family? I have heard people discuss ‘proto-world’ before.
More than likely there are still multiple waves of "out of Africa.
It doesn't really combine Uralic with Altaic (Turkic and Mongolic) - but ... rather combining with Nostratic (which is fine seeing "Indo-Uralic" a step on how languages are developed).
- "once upon a time there was Nostratic(or proto-eurasiatic) which developed into linguistic family. Languages in that linguistic family evolved into ancestors of the proto-languages of contemporary linguistic families."
... in this, it places Uralic and Indo-European closer to oneanother than either to Altaic - but doesn't deny earlier, or somewhat more distant, genealogical relationship to it and others either (with Uralic still closer than).
One thing which makes proposing proofs so much harder is that, Uralic and Indo-European are "step-sisters" to eachother from being always neighboring oneanother - the question is: are the two also genealogically related (and if so, Nostratic fans are certainly happy over the finding - for it to serve as a sample that they are on the right track, and just more relationships are to be found).
Proto-World things tend to be pure bogus though...
3:22 Who decided Finnish (and Livvi and Ludic and ?) should be the same color as the ocean?
That would be my mistake, I'm new to the video editing game.
Maybe all language is actually very very very distantly related?
If we think that half of the old PIE where EHG...
That already explains too much
Excellent video. I'm not a linguist but I think there may be more evidence for Uralo Siberian. Is that a West Midlands accent btw?
Should have watched the second video before commenting lol
I really like Fortescue's work on the subject, his 1998 paper is really worth a read on Uralo-Siberian. Yukaghir is an interesting group of languages too. And yeah, it is a West Midlands accent - good ear! 💪
@@LearnHittite yes, I've read parts of it before! Fascinating study. I came across it as I was interested in the Eurasiatic macrofamily hypothesis and a link between PIE and PU/U-S seemed the most likely out of all the included language families especially given the now rejected Altaic family theory.
In particular I was looking for equivalents of the PIE laryngeal in PU/U-S languages as these had quickly been lost in the daughter languages which would indicate very early borrowing or possible cognates (if I recall I found a couple of possible matches).
One problem I've found with many of the Eurasiatic languages studies I've read, Bomhard's work for instance, is there doesn't seem to be an established methodology for distinguishing between cognates and borrowings, especially if there was say a bulk of words borrowed at a period in the past prior to the reconstruction, it would not be easy to tell them apart.
In Fortescue's 1998 paper one of the sets he proposes is *aja - push forward with reflexes in PU, PS, PYuk and PE. I immediately thought that this resembles the PIE root *h2eg- to lead/drive - and thought: does this provide evidence for a PIE/PU-S relationship?! Except that many of the examples for *aja cited by Fortescue show a closer resemblance to Proto Indo-Iranian e.g. Sanskrit 'ajati' - 'he drives', a not implausible borrowing from PII to the U-S languages considering the Proto Indo-Iranians movements across the steppe.
Anyway, apologies for waffling and probably wandering away from my point, but I think U-S is a fascinating hypothesis and quite probably the next macrofamily to be generally accepted. Yes, I'm from Northfield so I recognised the accent!
Are the arm and the sword related?
Very interesting. Given how important paleo-genetics has been in confirming the Indo-European theory in the last decade, I wonder if ancient DNA could point to any common heritage in this case?
It sure would be useful. I'm not particularly up to date with ancient DNA findings so I'd need to look into it.
Both the Uralic people and Indo-Europeans have Ancient North Eaurasian ancestry from Siberia.
@@perforongo9078 Ah right, thanks. It certainly makes sense in terms of geographic spread that the Ancient North Eurasian population group could be a common ancestral population.
@@LearnHittite Iirc, the Proto-Indo-European speakers of the Pontic Steppe, who have been shown genetically to be ancestral to all known Indo-European speakers (with the exception of the Anatolian branch) were themselves descended from a mixture of four prior genetically distinct population groups: Ancient North Eurasians (ANE) - as mentioned by @perforongo above; Caucuses Hunter Gatherers (CHG); and I forget the other two. It has been fairly widely accepted that the genesis of the PIE language was with these Western Steppe Herders (WSH), i.e. the Yamnaya or closely related peoples. According to @perforongo above, the Uralic speaking peoples share Ancient North Eurasian ancestry with the PIE speakers. So perhaps a prior Indo-Uralic homeland in Siberia existed? That would seem a neat solution.
However, an alternative theory to explain the lack of Steppe descent in the Anatolian IE speaker was proposed in a paper from the Reich lab at Harvard a year or so, called the Southern Arc Hypothesis (as a Hittite scholar and channel, I guess this might be of particular interest to you?). This suggests that perhaps the origin of PIE goes back to an earlier language - dubbed Indo-Anatolian (I think actually an older hypothesis in the field of linguistics, though you would know better than me) - spoken in the Caucuses by a population known to geneticists as Caucuses Hunter Gatherers (CHG), which was ancestral to both the Steppe and Anatolian populations. This would seem to conflict with a proposed ancient Indo-Uralic language stemming out of an Ancient North Eurasian population ancestral to Uralic and IE speakers. And possibly to conflict with the whole Indo-Uralic Hypothesis, unless it were shown that Uralic speakers also have Caucuses Hunter Gatherer heritage or something like that?
That said, there are a lot of commentators far more qualified than I who don’t like the Southern Arc Hypothesis, and therefore the proposed Indo-Anatolian root of PIE, and who prefer the pre-existing theory of the Pontic-Steppe as the homeland of PIE, and suggest that that the reason that the Anatolian IE speakers did not have Steppe ancestry is not that they share a common ancestor with the Steppe Herders, who spoke a language ancestral to the PIE spoken on the Steppe, but because the IE language family spread to Anatolia from the Steppe through cultural transmission alone, with perhaps just a very small number of elite speakers, rather than with any large population movement. This theory suggests a likely route taken by IE to Anatolia from the Steppe north of the Black Sea, down through the Balkans, and into the west of Anatolia, as opposed to the Southern Arc Hypothesis, which suggests a route south of the Black Sea, from the caucuses into the east of Anatolia. The “northern” Steppe hypothesis of PIE origin would seem to potentially work with the Indo-Uralic Hypothesis, while the Southern Arc and Indo-Uralic hypotheses would seem at first glance to be likely mutually exclusive.
I have to stress here that I may be misremembering and therefore misreporting information from the published record, and also that any tentative conclusions I made above about what this might mean for the Indo-Uralic Hypothesis are my own comment thread speculation, and not anything I have read from any qualified source. It is all very interesting though, and I would be fairly certain that the new field of ancient genetics will be a productive route for informing the investigation of the Indo-Uralic Hypothesis, along with further linguistic (and presumably archaeological) research. Anyway, thanks again for the video!
Thank you for noting how fantastic we are 😊
It is hard not to notice.
The section in that green book on possible relationship between Indo-European and Afro-asiatic is awful and misleading. For numbers it singles out the word for 7 as PIE possibly borrowing from Semitic as if there was something special about 7 when in fact all number names from 1 to 10 in PIE and Afro-asiatic languages appear to be related. One might not be able to see if one only looks at say English vs Arabic, but compare several IE languages (and PIE) with several Afro-asiatic languages and the similarities of all numbers become apparent.
So, another grouping?
Is PAA even reconstructed yet?
Makes sense, given migration.
@@lloydgush there have been reconstructions, but I would consider that it might be an incorrect grouping. Even grouping all the Berber languages as a family within Afro-Asiatic might be wrong - they probably all do go back to a common ancestor but look more closely related due to borrowing (sort of like grouping English with the Romance languages). Tyrsenian languages fit in somewhere as well, and if we were to look to number names (which are typically NOT borrowed), Etruscan is possibly closer to Semitic than Egyptian actually is.
@@M.athematech interesting.
Etruscam closer to semitic than egyptian.
What happens when we merge this hypothesis and the hypothesis of PIE coming from the proto afro asiatic language?
You quote this Klemencic chap, as saying he “suspects” that you could come up with the same number of correspondences if you can compared PIE to any language group. So why hasn’t he or somebody else tried to do that? Why not try the same exercise with Cushitic, Sino-Tibetan and Athabaskan and see if the results are different to Uralic?
Chap is a lady.
The hypothesis hasn't warranted attention enough to actually justify testing
It would actually be on the party submitting their hypothesis to adjust for obvious issues like the one pointed out. Like they need to demonstrate that their model provides unique outcomes.
@simonaklemencic5845 Oh, I've only just noticed this. It's an absolute honour for me that you commented on one of my videos! I really value your chapter in "Precursors of Proto-Indo-European".
No way you can bring Proto-Uralic and Proto-Indo-European phonology to the common system in a regular way. Also Uralic and Indo-European are just two surviving samples from 100+ stone age language families of Northen Eurasia (see Papua or Australia - your mirror into the past). Deciding these two are closely related is just a survivorship bias :)
What if I gave you a heavy dose of NW Caucasian influence alongside a sprinkling of evidence showing uralic sonorants parallel PIE stops and we completely ignored vowels... would that motivate you to watch part two when it drops?
But on a more serious note, I think phonology is the biggest weakness of the Indo-Uralic hypothesis although I do believe they share a proto language at some point. Thanks for your comment!
@@LearnHittiteHonestly, there is something in it because genetically Indo-Europeans = Eastern Hunters-Gatherers (Uralic-like people?) + Caucasian Hunters-Gatherers (NW Caucasians?). But these are just non-linguistic speculations cause Indo-European is so much different from NW Caucasian in all aspects, it's hard to believe they were substrate/superstrate to Uralic-like pre-IE. And in case of a language contact, you expect words and grammar to be borrowed in a large quantity in order to acquire foreign phonemes. So NW Caucasian seems like a dead-end to me.
Looking forward to the part 2 anyway :)
And then there’s the theory that Proto-Indo-Uralic shares a parent with the Altaic languages (including Mongolian, Turkish and the languages on Central Asia - and possibly Korean and Japanese) - which is sometimes called Proto-Eurasiatic. And this ancient hypothetical language might share a common parent with the Kartvelian language family of the Caucasus Mountains, the Afroasiatic language family of North Africa and Arabia, and possibly the Dravidian languages of Southern India (as well as many other extinct language groups) - which is known as the ‘Nostratic’ language, possibly spoken in the river valleys from the Nile to the Indus up to around 25,000 years ago. The more we understand human genetics, the more theories like this make sense.
Nice👍
Thanks for the kind words!
The very little I know about the Finnish and Japanese languages, made me wonder ... I tried searching, but instead of Japanese, I found that a linguist, Julian Hadland, had made a connection between Korean and Finnish. He had written about similarities between Finnish, and both modern Korean, and a more conservative form of Korean, spoken in a community in the former USSR. He found quite some convincing similarities in both vocabulary and grammar, esp. with the more conservative Korean speakers.
I have read that both Japanese and Korean have been connected with the Altaic family, but also that they must be some sort of hybrid (?) languages, so only partly Altaic.
I am no linguist, and I know nothing about Korean, but what do you think about these similarities, in connection with this Indoeuropean-uralic hypothesis?
It is starting to be complicated ...
Personally, I think contacts between different language speakers, intermarriage, trades, etc, could come in on all levels of evolving of the language branches and families. But very fascinating!
"school grade"
"kouluarvosana" Borrowed from Late Old Swedish (compare Swedish skola)
5 - Passable
D− 0.7 (lowest passing grade)
#kirjoitus + virhe
#misspelling
*kirjoittadak From the plural stem of *kirja, *kirjoi- + *-ttadak.
*kirja Origin unknown. + virhe Unknown.
arvo (“value”) + sana (“word”)
From Proto-Finnic *arvo, borrowed from a (likely Iranian) descendant of Proto-Indo-Iranian *Hargʰás (compare Sanskrit अर्घ (argha, “worth, value”)
*sana Unknown.
Clearly you need to read up about the Finno-Korean Hyper War of 8,000 BCE.
Oh well, you lost me there.@@DataBeingCollected
Anyhow, I find it much more plausible, that Japanese and Korean have had a mutual origin languagewise with the uralic family, than with the Indoeuropean family. And if so, the years and movements of the respective branches of language speakers, have mixed in lots of other language elements.
Lots chinese vocabulary in both Japanese and Korean.
Lots of Indoeuropean vocabulary in Finnish, and seemingly some grammar as well.
@@mariiris1403 why do you find it more plausible, when the geographical distance between IE and Uralic is much smaller (they were basically immediate neighbors for the 4000-4500 years) than the distance between Uralic and Japonic (who, as far as i know have never been bordering eachother)?
Where did you get that music?
Everything is from the youtube audio library. The opening track is "ten inch spikes" by Jeremy Korpas. If you ever find any interesting music in the youtube audio library, please feel free to share it and I can use it in a video!
There is only one thing I can think of that support this idea that Hungarians made dna research and that was a suprice that they found neolitic Europen dna in the territory of Asia from where our ancestor said to start the migration. So they had neolitic european dna from before they started to move to the west.
Finally a Hittite channel. Clearly an early Aryan offshoot, the Anatolian land is the birthplace of humanity
Immediate subscribe not even halfway into the video. Love the premise and you’re a strong presenter. You don’t have to be so hesitant to use a little of that British humor from time to time. But definitely keep the overall professional presentation: love the graphs!
Thanks for your support!
@@LearnHittite always love to see young and up and coming creators. I’ll send you around to my nerd friends who dig this stuff like I do. It’s not a huge group, but it’ll help the numbers all the same. I wish people were more generous with likes on small channels like yours, I know I always am. Best of luck growing your channel. I’m about to launch a history of everything channel and maybe we’ll throw something down when I break 100k, lofuckingl.
That would be great! I'll be sure to check out your content too - I've already subscribed 👍
@@Thor-Oriondoes hitties called themselves aryan anywhere in their inscription?
So stop calling them Aryans ,
Aryan indentity created in BMAC culture as par scholar
There is also the famous ural-altaic hypothesis, which al turkish nationalists seem to believe...
Ural-altay dil ailesine inanmıyoruz.En azından biraz bilgili olanlar.Cunku butun bu diller arasında benzerlik %10'dan bile az.Sadece mantık benziyor.Sondan eklemeli konuşuyoruz.Eğer doğru olsa bile bu kadar farklılaşması için aradan 15 bin sene gecmesi lazim.
@@Silajulian
Milliyetçilerin kültürlü olanları inanmıyordur.. Ama milliyetçilerin %90'ı kültürlü değil malesef...
Ural-Altay hipotezi yanlış olmayabilir. Sadece doğruluğu hakkında şu an için yeterli kanıt yok... Belki gelecekteki çalışmalar bu sil ailelerinin aynı kökten geldiğini ıspatlar...
Ural Altay hipotezini geçelim, saf altay hipotezi bile yeterli kanıt olmaması yüzünden dağıldı. Dilbilimcilerin çoğu artık moğolcayla türkçenin akraba olduğuna inanmıyor...
Why are the sámi languages your favourite finno-ugric languages ? I'm currently learning northern Sámi and I don't succeed in u.derstanding why I prefer this language than other finno-ugric ones I used to study before
No idea, someone got me a book about the languages and the interest stuck.
Any linguists in here can u confirm if this has merit or not?
You need to differentiate when what Indo-European languages gained proto-Uralic features.
Proto-Indo-European was young, and it would be remarkable if a number of peoples and languages did not feed into them.
However, most modern Indo-European languages and peoples descend from the Corded Ware culture, which formed to the north of the Yamnaya and shared extensive DNA with them; the earlier of them ahd R1b that shared common ancestry with that which has so far been found among the Yamnaya. The Corded Ware people could have formed as a hybrid of Uralic speaking people, independently of the actual roots of proto-Indo-European. If that were true, the desendants of Corded Ware would have Uralic features not shared by descendants of the Yamnaya, nor by the Anatolian languages.
The Basque language is the last surviving Paleolithic Pre-Indo European language and predates the arrival of Indo-Europeans. The Basque share a common culture and genetic ancestry to the ancient Vascones and Aquitanians.
Likely not paleolithic but rather neolithic...while Indo-European spread in the copper/bronze ages.
nice...but i do think turko tatar effected the uralic and indo european structure and vocablary...many words in hindu and hungarian exist that are turkish. persian and russian got turkic influences,there are lots of turkish words in the vocabulary...turkish should not analysized in the altay group,cos we have more words in common with hungarian and persian than we have with japanese or mongolian...agglutination was once widespread in all siberia and asia,later indian and persian got under semitic structure effect...please include turko tatar and turkic languages in comparing the vocabulary...it served a lot more than thought...
He literally has 'legend' printed on his shirt
This is exactly the type of shit that fans the flames of my curiosity. Gonna get a bit stoned and watch this video. Thank you
As a pajeet, thanks for the sanskrit opening 😂❤
Germanic languages have ket languages influence or hunter and gatherer population of south scandinavia spoke ket languages.
Proto-IE dodn't appear from void.
It is the case that theories are based on powers. The truth is censored by those people who are shaping our future.
To make it simple: we hear what somebody wants us to hear or learn.
Actually i can prove proto-indo-uralic exists
I was there
Interesting video, but similarities bwtween Turkic languages and Uralic languages are much deeper than these ones, and although I tend to think that Turkic is a Uralic language group rather than an Altaic one, unfortunately politics, racism, nationalism (on the Turkish side) play a big role in the linguistics field. But I will read these works in my spare time. When I tried to learn Finnish as a hobby, I realized a lot of gramatical similarities that do not exist in Classical Mongolian. And I know that there is a large shared vocabulary as well. But here the Turkic case is a difficult one, because a genetics and history study lately done in Canada shows that Turkic actually spread as a lingua franca rather than via large migrations as in the cases of Indo-European and Uralic languages. But the uncanny resemblance between Turkic and uralic languages is hard to miss nonetheless. One very obvious resemblence is tbe partitive cade which exists in both but not in other altaic languages or indoeuropean ones.
There are stunning similarities between Finnish and Korean, which can reasonably only be attributed to historical affinity.
I didnt know that the samis uralians compared or thougt as semitic..very very open aspect...!!!
Proto Indo-European is just the new and fancy way of Protoindogermanic, right??
>new
I'm pretty sure it's being around for at least 30 years
You forgot Latvian, I understand it is one of the oldest Indo-European languages or not?
If you mean 'oldest' as in broke away from proto-indo-european earliest, then no, that award would go to the Anatolian branch followed by Tocharian. If you mean 'has the most conservative features' then some people say Lithuanian, Icelandic or Greek look the 'oldest'. But using terms like 'oldest' or 'youngest' is sort of incorrect, all languages have the same age - just stability and rates of change are not constant.
If the Anatolian branch for example left the proto indo-european dialect continuum very early on. We could expect to see that it would maintain some very conservative features of PIE alongside perhaps showing more innovations than say another language branch simply because it has had more time to evolve independant of the PIE dialect zone.
It's a simplification but I hope it makes sense.
OK.But before the Indo-Uralic?
Ungabunga
such tenuous links. they want there to be a ubiquitous proto language but the fact is that there is no real evidence, if there were a link it's lost to time and will never be recovered. cosmopolitan daydreamers proposing stuff like this and altaic get in the way of historical linguistics.
Ultimately all languages probably descend from a singular ur-language. We can demonstrate this with logic: the only alternative to common descent is if language sprung up spontaneously multiple times. I.e. several populations on the planet first had only pre-language grunts and whatnot, and they independently refined these into language. Such a supposition requires some extraordinary assumptions. First of all, a more or less synchronous appearance of the invention of language all over the geographic range of homo sapiens seems like a significant coincidence. But at least it's possible if we assume homo sapiens was already cosmopolitan (lived in all corners of the globe) when this coincidentally roughly synchronous invention happened. But this global spread was only achieved a few 10k years ago. But language is older than that -- dating to when homo sapiens only lived in Africa. Which means such spontaneous invention events would have to be geographically closer together. But this opens the possibility for contact between such groups.
Any introduction of one individual human from a "already-having-language" tribe to one tribe of "still-only-pre-language" would have disrupted this indigenous formation process.
It seems to me not clear why the newly arrived already-language-haver would not quickly make full-language the dominant trait (partially because the pre-language people would adopt it, but mostly simply because his descendants would intermix and it'd spread that way, with them all bringing their fully formed language). The counter-tendency towards that dominance would be if the tribe consciously decided their old ways work best, and that they actively pushed back against the injection/spread of a fully formed language, somehow deciding that they "preferred it they could come up with a language at their own rate".
Thanks for putting my shower thoughts into words.
Maybe, maybe not. Time and again we have learned that things are far more complex as we thought. Since modern humans seem to have appeared virtually all over Africa, I really wouldn't be surprised if no such thing existed a singular ur-language. I think at least minor differences were there from the start.
Numerals 2 and 3 of Prof Europaeus's (r.i.p.) hypothesis will probably won't be liked by neo-Ottomanists addicted to the Erdogan's regime. 😂
But leaving the jokes aside, and with serious questions: Do you know the work of Alberto Porlan "Los Nombres de Europa" ('The Names of Europe')? Such work is regarding to the, not so apparent, coincidences that exist in the toponymy of the European continent, immersed among so many diverse linguistic systems.
indo-ural-altaic when?
Possibly end of April 👌
Oh this is gonna make Pan-Turks and Turanists and their obsession with Uralic people being "Turkic" really mad. 😂
@@Anadolu.lu_Mertkan Type in English
Oh man. Sometimes listen to music from Siberian or other eastern regions and the Pan-Turkic nuts come out of the woodwork suggesting they should all come together in a great Pan-Turkic nation.
@@Anadolu.lu_Mertkan Hi there, Mr Panturkic.
Not offended, just highly amused. You think the Mongolians etc. have any interest in getting together with Turkey?
And being dominated by Turkey and the likes of Erdogan? They have enough troubles of their own without adding to them.
And really, they and the Turks have been separated by hundreds, if not thousands of years in very different parts of the world with different histories and now cultures..
Even if they were all Turks 1000 years ago [which may not be true] what have they got in common any more?
@@Anadolu.lu_Mertkan English is the lingua franca of the world and the internet, you not knowing it, is embarrassing, me not not knowing Turkish, a language spoken by 1% of the world and barely of any use outside of Turkey is not.
I'm not gonna learn a language I have no use for.
@7:15 that sounds like a bad faith dishonest argument. If that is true then he or she should prove it by creating a fake proto language as a counter argument.
"
'
"Hyperborean"? Sounds better than "Proto Indo-Uralic".
This is pure speculation! It doesn't even merit to be considered a hypothesis! Hypotheses derive from theories and theories are based on hard evidence and facts. And you have not produced any.
@Forester2547 who said people in the palaiolothic and neolithic epochs forgot their languages? They lived in widely separated areas in Europe and Asia and Africa and they developed different languages.
@Forester2547 I don't think there is much relationship between say ancient Greek, which is a highly inflected language with say Chinese, which is not. There's no relationship in terms of vocabulary either. The Greek alphabet is entirely different from the Chinese ideograms. The only similarity I can think of among languages is that they all have pronouns to indicate actors, verbs to indicate action, nouns to indicate objects, things and notions and adverbs to indicate time, mode, place. But all these elements of speech have to do with how language itself has developed by humans acting and coordinating their activities in hunting, gathering and later farming, raising cattle and engaging in craftsmanship, making all sorts of imlpements of labour, and trade as well as eating, drinking, sleeping, and loving and engaging in war.
Hypothesis literally means under-thesis. You come up with the hypothesis before the thesis. A hypothesis is an idea to be tested, in this case "I think Indo-European and Uralic languages are related because of xyz similarities"
@Forester2547bro the fact you actually used the word facetious makes me immediately not beleive about anything u say no matter how beleivable or well researched. Stop using big ass words just to sound smarter it makes u come across annoying as hell
Hypotheses don’t derive from theories, actually.
Eetzaal (Dutch) - étkező (hungarian). Étel. Eet - ét-?
The "é" is from "eszik", and the "t" is a nominaliser. The fact that they look like the common West Germanic verb "eat/eten/essen/&c." is a coincidence.
The historical record shows that everyone spread out from Mesopotamia. Ancient history is essential for everyone to know, especially the sixteen original civilizations… from the sixteen grandsons of Noah.
1. The first inhabitants of Italy (K) Tubal
2. Thracians (L) Tiras
3. Siberians (N) Meshek
4. East Asians (O) Magog
5. Medes (PQ) Madai
6.. Western Europeans (R) Gomer
7. Mediterranean Greek sea people (T) Javan
8. Hebrews and Arabic (IJ) Arphaxad
9. Elamites (H) Elam
10. Assyrians (G) Asshur
11. Arameans (F1) Aram
12. Lydians (F2) Lud
13. Cushites (AB, C) Cush
14. Egyptians (E3) Mitzrayim
15. Canaanites (E2, D) Canaan
16. Original North African Phoenicians (E1) Phut
The D haplogroup descendants of Canaan migrated east through Tibet all the way to Japan. The C haplogroup descendants of Nimrod migrated to South Asia, the Pacific, Mongolia and all the way to the Americas along with Q haplogroup descendants of Madai ancestor of the Medes.
The A maternal mtDNA haplogroup belonging to the N lineage accompanied the Q paternal haplogroup in the Americas. The C&D maternal haplogroups belong to the M lineage. The B maternal haplogroup seems to have crossed the Pacific Ocean.
The Mediterranean paternal R1b and the maternal X2a also found in Galilee represent an Atlantic crossing of the Phoenicians in the days of King Solomon considering also the Mediterranean paternal haplogroups of T, G, I1, I2, J1, J2, E and B in addition to the R1b in Native American Populations. J1 and J2 is Arabs and Jews. (I1 is Dan, I2 is Asher)
Of course there is the Cohen modal haplotype of J1 P58 which identifies the IJ lineage of Hebrews and Arabs that are descended from Arphaxad. J2 M172 is the descendants of the House of David and Solomon.
I have some old historical evidence and some new genetic evidence that no one can arguing with. The Q paternal haplogroup is the descendants of the Medes. Madai ancestor of the Medes asked to marry the daughter of Shem so the Semitic A maternal haplogroup followed the Q haplogroup to America while the X and W mtDNA followed the Medes into Europe. The Semitic B maternal haplogroup most likely arrived in America by crossing the Pacific Ocean. The C and D maternal haplogroups are Eurasian.
The Semitic X2a maternal haplogroup is a European branch from the Semitic A maternal haplogroup which probably arrived in America with the R1b paternal haplogroup in the days of the Phoenicians mining the ancient copper mines of the Great Lakes. The big elephant in the room is the R1b in America as well as the X mtDNA. Besides the R1b there is also E B I1 I2 J1 J2 G and T Mediterranean paternal haplogroups as well as the X2a maternal haplogroup in America *AND* Galilee as well as the Q paternal hg which also make up the signature of the Phoenicians and Jews in the days of King Solomon and today.
The C paternal haplogroup is the descendants of Nimrod the first and Hamitic king of Mesopotamia along with his sons who became the House of Nimrod. Their descendants went as far as the Americas. It’s the reason that the Olmecs C3 y-hg appear similar to Polynesians C2 y-hg since they share the same common ancestor, Nimrod the son of Cush the father of Cushite Africans. The C3 haplogroup of Nimrod is still there in the Americas such as the Kechuas Wayuu and Waorani …and now you know the rest of the story.
There are so many flaws with this analysis I don’t know where to begin, but I feel you are aware of them and posted this simply to annoy some people. But I do find something ironic about claiming people need to learn ancient history and then… quoting the grandsons of Noah. I agree, I think you do need to learn ancient history.
It takes a certain unabashed boldness to try and claim the Japanese descended from canaanites with a straight face.
@@bradenculver7457 It’s a fact that Ainu Japanese are directly descended from Sin the son of Canaan. They have his Hamitic haplogroup, silly.
@@JungleJargon I’m not trying to be a jerk, but no, no it isn’t, and I really think you know this. I feel like you know you aren’t convincing anyone who doesn’t already agree with your biblical view of the world.
@@JungleJargon ok now I’m being a jerk, Hamitic haplo group, my sides. I can’t stop laughing. I can’t believe you said that unironically. Yea man, you definitely convinced me with that…
@@bradenculver7457 You don't know genetic haplogroups to say anything about them. Do you know what the Cohen modal haplotype is?
Indo Europeans came out from north of Syria , from Eden
hahahaha uralik
cool but i still believe more in pie - northwestern caucasian connection: yamna and maykop cultures seem closer, phenotypocally pie and modern abkhazians seem to be much closer than modern finnic ppl.
Some linguists suggest that the reason why PIE and PU are so different is down to NW caucasian influence. I wanted to bring it up in the second part of this video (which I am editing together now) but just didn't have time. Will probably do a standalone video on it.
cool; subscribed