@@Meow-ml5hv also Western Indo-European and Balto Slavic are the same thing so I think you should’ve group them both together for a little longer and count Balto Slavic as a northwestern Indo European language Group (which it actually is) fun fact: germanic actually is more related to Balto Slavic then Italo Celtic, The second thing is that I don’t believe that proto Greek counts as a Paleo balkan language (sure they did had Paleo Balkan influence but That doesn’t really change the fact that they kept on moking their languages because they didn’t even sound remotely close to Greek, also don’t forget how xenophobic the Greeks were towards other cultures because of how “alien” they were) The Proto Greek people were more likely related to the Cimmerians because they were actually the latest arrivals to the Balkans from modern-day south eastern Ukraine
@@scarymonster5541 Yes. The Slavic-dominated regions have historically been very farmable, flat, and have many rivers. This has not only allowed the population to prosper but also made conquest easy due to flat terrain.
@@ksjaia в чем проявляется моя обида, если она есть ? Я виноват, что малые народы приписывают себе нули к возрасту ? Я лишь говорю научные данные, которые не я получил, а люди с соответствующим образованием. Если ты какой нибудь там кавказец к примеру, который считает, что его народу миллиард лет, это лишь показывает современное бедное состояние культуры, у каких нибудь англичан или немцев таких проблем нет, потому что их культура процветает
"It is no nation we inhabit but a language. Make no mistake, our native tongue is our true fatherland" Romanian philosopher Emil Cioran first heard of in Metal Gera Solid V
Но Сербы и Хорваты говорят на одном языке, но разные, и даже взаимовраждебные народы. Румыны и Молдаване также разные народы (несмотря на общность не только языка, но и конфессии; разные у них только гаплогруппы).
@@Olga-de3ru народы (этносы) и разумеется нации (искусственный политический конструкт) не определяется гаплогруппами. Гаплогруппами определяются только огромные расселения людей. Что я имею ввиду: с помощью гаплогрупп можно отличить славянскую группу можно отличить от романской группы или немецкой. Поскольку у славян своя доминирующая в количественном смысле гаплогруппа, у других своя. И только при расмотрении с такой "высоты" можно увидеть различие одной группы от другой, но если "приблизится" и начать исследовать группу по этносам, то окажется, что внутри одного этноса, не смотря на одну общую гаплогруппу, есть так же огромнейшее количество примесей других гаплогрупп, представители которой не относятся к большенству, хотя это один этнос и люди идентифицируют себя такими же, как то большенство. Поэтому говорить, что у Румын и Молдаван разные гаплогруппы это и корректно и некорректно одновременно, потому что есть много примесей. И опять же, по гаплогруппам некорректно определять этнос, только огромную группу родственных люлей
One of my favourite map videos on TH-cam. The music choice is perfect, and this language/ethnic/cultural map is probably just as important as all the political border maps we see all the time. Sad that it has so few views, it really deserves more.
Only one mistake: Maghrebi Arabic for the Iberian Peninsula gradually gained its own features and by the year 900 or so it was already an independent dialect called Andalusian Arabic.
there is also a second error, there is no trace of the presence of the Romanian people between the 3rd and 13th centuries AD! no Latin-speaking people were mentioned after the flight of the Roman legions from the Goth and Hunnic invasions... no archaeological evidence, no historical testimony, no writings from a Latin-speaking people between the 3rd and 13th century... moreover, the word Romanian was only invented at the end of the 19th century in France by French historians to name all the various ethnic groups present in the regions of Wallachia Moldavia...
@@magyarhungarianchannel5555 "Moreover, the word Romanian was only invented at the end of the 19th century in France by French historians to name all the various ethnic groups present in the regions of Wallachia-Moldavia..." ??? The exonym for Romanians (term used by non-Romanians) was Vlach or Wallack, literally meaning 'foreign', or 'Roman' (compare with Welshman); While the endonym for Romanians (What Romanians call themselves) has always been 'Roman'. Wallachians and Moldavians are the exact same ethnic group... Moldavia was often called 'the other Wallachia' for a good reason.
@@icannotfinda they did saw themselves as Romans for a reason, because they called their land the Roman Land in fact, the reason why they were called Vlachs back then is the reason why we call the Eastern Romans byzantines. you see even before we called ourselves Romanians we always saw ourselves as Romans and our language started to form in 273 AD and would fully become the Common Romanian aka străromână, aka the Proto Romanian this process i would assume was complete somewhere around 6th century.
really excellent video! honestly my favorite language history video for sure. The only thing I have to add is that I wish it dropped below 50 years per slide at least since 1800
A few brief notes on Wallonia. The oldest surviving text written in a langue d'oïl, the Sequence of Saint Eulalia was likely written in or very near to what is now Wallonia around 880 AD. The language border (that now splits Belgium in the middle) began to crystallize between 700 under the reign of the Merovingians and Carolingians and around 1000 after the Ottonian Renaissance.
Also some info for Sardinia. Although the colonists and negotiatores (businessmen) of strictly Italic descent would later play a relevant role in introducing and spreading Latin to Sardinia, Romanisation proved slow to take hold among the Sardinian natives, whose proximity to the Carthaginian cultural influence was noted by Roman authors. Punic continued to be spoken well into the 3rd-4th century AD, as attested by votive inscriptions, and it is thought that the natives from the most interior areas, led by the tribal chief Hospito, joined their brethren in making the switch to Latin around the 7th century AD, through their conversion to Christianity. From the article on Sardinian language > History > Classical period (4 sources are listed for the cited paragraph) By the end of the Roman domination, Latin had gradually become however the speech of most of the island's inhabitants. - Casula, Francesco Cesare (1994). La Storia di Sardegna. Sassari, it: Carlo Delfino Editore.
A few notes on the Albanian language historical presence and location: Latin domination of the coastal and plain areas of the country, rather than evidence of the original environment in which the Albanian language was formed. For example, the word for 'fish' is borrowed from Latin, but not the word for 'gills' which is native. Indigenous are also the words for 'ship', 'raft', 'navigation', 'sea shelves' and a few names of fish kinds, but not the words for 'sail', 'row' and 'harbor'; objects pertaining to navigation itself and a large part of sea fauna. This rather shows that Proto-Albanians were pushed away from coastal areas in early times (probably after the Latin conquest of the region) and thus lost a large amount (or the majority) of their sea environment lexicon. A similar phenomenon could be observed with agricultural terms. While the words for 'arable land', 'corn', 'wheat', 'cereals', 'vineyard', 'yoke', 'harvesting', 'cattle breeding', etc. are native, the words for 'ploughing', 'farm' and 'farmer', agricultural practices, and some harvesting tools are foreign. Late antiquity Scodra was a Romanized city, which even relatively late in the Middle Ages had a native Dalmatian-speaking population which called it Skudra. Slavic Skadar is a borrowing from the Romance name. That Albanian possesses a rich and "elaborated" pastoral vocabulary which has been taken to suggest Albanian society in ancient times was pastoral, with widespread transhumance, and stock-breeding particularly of sheep and goats. They appear to have been cattle breeders given the vastness of preserved native vocabulary pertaining to cow breeding, milking and so forth, while words pertaining to dogs tend to be loaned. Many words concerning horses are preserved, but the word for horse itself is a Latin loan. All the words relating to seamanship appear to be loans. Wilkes holds that the Slavic loans in Albanian suggest that contacts between the two populations took place when Albanians dwelt in forests 600-900 metres above sea level. However, upon close scrutiny, Skopje, Štip, and Niš may have been Albanian-speaking prior to the Slavic settlement in these areas considering that they seem to have borrowed the form of these names from Albanian. Although not necessarily the whole corresponding regions considering it's said that they are lacking in Albanian toponyms.
Shkup is still inhabited by Albanians and Nish has been inhabited until the genocide of late 19th century. Many words pertaining to trade and transport are loaned because they had to interact with latins to participate in such activities, not because they disapeared and reapeared again.
Shkodra > shkon drini (alb) = où passe Drini (la fleuve Drin). Drin = Drite = Lumière. pareil avec les mots Lume (fleuve, riviere) > Lumen (lumière). etc. Grec ancien < Albanais > Latin. c'est la plus vielle langue de l'Europe. Europe = Evropa < E veriut (alb). ce qui se trouve au Nord, Veri = Nord. Veri = vjen era (d'où vient le vent). etc.
Everyone is gonna have at least something to quibble with, but this is still a masterful presentation of the evolution/division of European languages. It’s a tragedy that we have [almost] no idea what Old European (pre-Proto-Indo-European) tongues were like, lost forever to history.
@anttongudari1763 there're some traces of Etruscan in Italy and Tauri in Crimea, as well as pre-PIE languages of Cyprus and Crete. Many languages of Caucasus are preserved and very diverse, so I imagine the pre-PIE situation in Europe was similar to Caucasus, like in Dagestan where almost every tiny village has its own distinct language or dialect.
@@trymai_kavun "in Dagestan where almost every tiny village has its own distinct language or dialect." I hear this from so many people. You should travel more because this is the case with almost every country in the world.
That's by the way the main idea behind this project - to show how temporary everything is, even something as usual as your language. For many people it's just unimaginabe that some day Germans, Poles or Franch people will be as real as Gauls or Sumerians. That they will exist only in historical records, not in real world.
A few brief notes. Some data suggesting Galatian surviving for a longer period of time. In the 4th century St. Jerome (Hieronymus) wrote in a comment to Paul the Apostle's Epistle to the Galatians that "apart from the Greek language, which is spoken throughout the entire East, the Galatians have their own language, almost the same as the Treveri". The capital of the Treveri was Trier, where Jerome had settled briefly after studying in Rome. In the 6th century AD, Cyril of Scythopolis suggested that the language was still being spoken in his own day when he related a story that a monk from Galatia was temporarily possessed by Satan and unable to speak; when he recovered from the "possession", he could respond to the questioning of others only in his native Galatian tongue.
Continue: English: Hey, move aside!!! This is my land!!! 😡 Turkic: HUH?!!! Go away yourself, half-Saxon. This is my territory!!! 🤬 Russian: Are you nuts?! This land will be MINE!!! 😠 *aggressive sounds of fighting**
You can clearly see the ilyrian language going from being the biggest language in the balkans and then turning in to albanian in present day Kosovo and Albania.
It is scientifically proven that Albanian is not an evolution of the Illyrian language. Albanian comes from Dacian, which was a language spoken between the Carpathians and the Pannonian plain. The Illyrian language became extinct in the 5th century after Christ. The claim that Albanian comes from Illyrian is a myth.
I really like the fact that you divided "Lusitanian" from Celtiberian, since indeed there were 2 different Celtic languages in the Iberian Peninsula: Northwestern Hispano-Celtic (A Celtic language without an alphabet, which i will henceforth refer to as NHC) and Celtiberian (A Celtic language that uses the Iberian alphabet). Using Lusitanian as the name for NHC in the video is acceptable since Lusitanian was indeed a dialect derived from NHC. I especially like the fact that you took in consideration the divide of NHC between Lusitanian and Gallaecian in the 2nd century B.C. However, according to this video, Gallaecian is represented by the CeltIberian language, which is not correct since Gallaecian was still a NHC language not a Celtiberian one. I appreciate that the eventual diversion between Lusitanian and Gallaecian is present in the video, but having Gallaecian belong to the Celtiberian language was a minor flaw in an otherwise perfect portrayal of pre-Roman Iberia.
sami were in southern finland, north of them was the paleo-lakelandics and north of them were the paleo-laplandic. the sami only started going north when the finns came to southern finland from estonia
yes and no. sami people went north even before the arrival of balto finns. and based on Y-DNA evidence many of the sami who were in the south didn't migrate north at that point but instead stayed in the south with the finnic peoples and overtime started to speak their languages and customs, the same way how the Paleo-Laplandic speakers switched to sami and overtime those languages completely died out.
@@codyyh9421 ahh i didnt know that! thats super interesting. can you recommend any reading material? btw, adding to my first comment, the migration of finnics according to newer theory by valter lang, was likely much later than is traditionally thought. "läänemeresoome tulekud" is a great book
This should have billions of views. We need something like this for each continent. Globalization is great for a lot of things but also has a deadly effect on languages which receive an excessive influence of the "Big Two of the Western World": English and Spanish. I speak both and I like them both very much, though. Xenophobic, nationalistic and repressive government policies also kill languages. Every 14 days a language dies. By 2100, more than half of the more than 7,000 languages spoken on Earth (many of them not yet recorded) may disappear, taking with them a wealth of knowledge about history, culture, the natural environment, and the human brain.
Where did you get 'every 14 days a language dies' from? The linguistic community is relatively large and is working hard to preserve every living language on earth. Although more work needs to be done to keep languages out of western reach like Nihali or Kusunda alive
*RuSian or Old East Slavic. It’s a common ancestor for both ruSSian and ruthenian, as shown here, latter of which then diverges into Ukrainian and Belarusian. I don’t know if you actually missed the distinction or just said it like that as a joke but perhaps a person, who did have this confusion will see this comment and it helps them
@@AndrewDobronos In my language (Spanish) we make no distinction between Russian and Rusian. It's all Rusia. That word appears in our dictionaries for over 1000 years, and it was used to describe at first the whole region you call "Rus", and now for the last 2-3 centuries it started being used to decribe the Imperio Ruso, and so on. Rusia today refers to the Federación Rusa. For the language, it seems that Wikipedia seems to make the Rusian-Russian distinction as "Ruso antiguo" and Ruso. "Antiguo" means old/ancient. This is the case for most of the other Roman languages, I believe. It has always been this way. English does make a Rusian/Russian distinction, but both words are pronounced exactly the same. This whole business seems useless. You're better off campaigning to rename the Russian Tongue into Muscovite, East Rusian or some such.
@@crusaderACR In Ukrainian language: Russian is Rosiyska (Russia named Rosiya) Ruthenian is Rusynska. So, Ukraine is Rus, and modern Russia - Rosiya. This is the reason why Rus' became called "Ukraine", because Muscovy called itself "Russia", and confusion arose.
Great video that deserves a lot more views! However it also needs to be said that many areas were heterogeneous even in the past so there was a lot of overlap. For instance, the land between the Van and Urmia lakes were a bit more complex and less Armenian-dominated than what's depicted here in pre-Islamic times. It seems that the northern half of the settled agricultural sector of the Hurro-Urartian society was Armenianized, whereas the southern half switched to Aramaic. In between these, you had mountainous pastoralists, engaging in transhumance , who were Iranicized(Kurdish) somewhere between the Median and Sassanid period.
I think he chose the region with its most popular language being spoken in that area, while of course through time there are a lot overlapping with people speaking other languages moving to that area.
We are not Greeks, we are of Anatolian origin. there is still a saying that many people in Turkey still say "We are children of Anatolia" but what is funny is that they also claim that they come from Central Asia :D Anyways people Turk only in name
@@maiorproposita9957 because we, Anatolian Turks are a mix of Anatolian Greeks and Oghuz Turks. Anatolian Greeks are just Hellenized Native Anatolians like Hittites and Phrygians and Hittites and Phrygians are just Indo-Europeanized Bronze Age Anatolian civilizations like Hattians and Hurrians. And Oghuz Turks are originally Central and East Asian native people with Eastern Iranian Saka (Central Asian Scythian) ancestors. Azerbaijanis, on the other hand, are a version of Oghuz Turks mixed with native Caucasian peoples such as Georgians and Western Iranian peoples such as Talysh people.
Regarding the Iberian peninsula, this dynamic map is actually pretty accurate. It's one of the best I've seen so far. So, congratulations. I can propose you some ways of improving it. 1. The first Indo-European men arrived in Iberia in the Copper Age, with the Bell Beaker culture, and actually replaced the former male lineages (coming from Turkey and Georgia) in a period of 500 hundred years. Their ancient IE dialect didn't survive, though. Maybe women had a stronger social role in Neolithic societies and that's why they all ended up talking Basque and the Iberian languages anyway. You should think of a graphic way of representing that first wave of early IE men that rampaged Western Europe. 2. I absolutely agree with Vasconic being the language of the Megalithic culture all through the Atlantic territories (and it being related to the languages of Georgia). Not sure about the name, though. This accounts for the Mediterranean features of a lot of Irish and Welsh people (and not the Armada survivors). 😂 3. I loved the fact that you considered Lusitanian as a IE language (still related to proto-Italo-Celtic) that existed way before Celtiberian. As a Galician man, I must complain about the initial name, though. Archaeologically, Northwestern Castro culture (Gallaecians and Asturians) are way more relevant than the small communities of Southern shepherds (Lusitanians and Vettones). I'd save "Lusitanian" for the final stage of the language (once the Celts have taken over Iberia almost entirely). Finally, some Spanish and British archaeologists think that Castro culture isn't limited to Northwestern Iberia. Gallaeco-Lusitanian must have been the language of the Atlantic Bronze culture all through Western Europe. Great job! Cheers!
Охохо, посмотри лучше на каток Британской империи. Русские не в пример лучше относились к коренными народам и их языкам, многие народы на карте существуют сегодня исключительно благодаря русским. Поляки, Болгары и Финны, например. Были бы они в британской империи, говорили бы на финском так же, как, например, шотландцы говорят на кельтском)
@@d-droll Русские не относились к покоренным народам лучше. Прочитай, чем занималась царская армия на Кавказе. И истреблять народы царская Россия не стеснялась. Не меньше сотни народов были полностью истреблены, а на из земле сейчас живут только русские. Другие же просто истребить не успели, из-за гражданской войны, а после уже не хватало сил для продолжения колониальной кампании, но факты попыток их геноцида есть.
I just noticed this. In 40 AD, the natives of Corsica did not reportedly speak Latin. The Roman exile, Seneca the Younger, reports that both coast and interior were occupied by natives whose language he was not able to understand. More specifically, Seneca claimed that the island's population was the result of the stratification of different ethnic groups, such as the Greeks, the Ligures (see the Ligurian hypothesis) and the Iberians, whose language had long since stopped being recognizable among the population due to the intermixing of the other two groups. - "Ad Helviam matrem de consolatione". The Latin Library., VII From the Wiki article of Corsican language > Origins
There are quite a few flaws with this. PIE had already intruded into the danube by 4500 BC (archeological), and was already in the samara area at around 4900 BC (genetic samples). Furthermore, indo-iranian languages didnt develop in the pontics but in the fatynanovo culture (archeological) of the eastern corded ware. Yamnaya also wasnt the spreader of Indo european, but corded ware, who was genetically seperate. (genetic and archeological) Yamnaya went into the balkans and became the paleo-balkan group and tocharian, but the pontic yamnaya languages were replaced by the corded ware indo iranian branch (archeological).
I can provide my sources for this, but this is commonly accepted by even the traditional kurgan wave model. Furthermore, David W anthony. Also dergachev.
@@Meow-ml5hv also i gotta say the colors you used for this are really pleasant to look at, from a aesthethic perspective this map is really great! I can provide some of my own maps on the spread of PIE if you want, i've made a few and am making a few more.
Pretty good video. I would just like to point out the old french was only spoken in paris, and that there were many regional languages in northern france. And walloon was spoken for longer than french in belgium
One of the things that saddens me the most is the slow death of Oguric Turkic languages. They used to be so predominant back in the Day, it was the language Attilla and his horde, later the Bulgars of Volga. Then the Khazars spoke. Nowadays what only remains of it is Chuvash. A fall from grace if i was to put it.
Scythian is even worse off, whom the Oghurs massacred. The last remaining bastion of Scythian is Ossetian, and many don't even want to speak it anymore.
I know you are from Turkey. You better sadden for the death of ancient cultures of Anatolian Greeks and Anatolian Armenians in the hands of un-civilized barbarian Turks!
@@iSyriuxI am a chuvash and most of the people here dont want to speak the language anymore, also Putin made new laws to reduce chuvash education in school. Its very sad.
They shouldn't be shown together, especially not as "Bulgarian". The languages are more distinct than Serbian and Croatian are, and they're not as easy to understand (from a Macedonian perspective at least) as people may think. It's wrong.
Yes only on the dram and video. J speak Macedonian and 90% not undurstand bulgarian lgw. Soo 🇲🇰 macedonian is different if like some peple or dont like 🇲🇰 🇲🇰 🇲🇰
Потому-что приходившие вырезали, кто жил на определенных местах, которые тоже в свое время убили других, чтоб занять их место. А так, все говорят на своих языках, просто завоевавшие эти места, поселили своих людей из своих родов. Но карта дико неточная.
Well Zionists created a whole new modern language based on Biblical Hebrew, and within one generation, an entire country was speaking it. So yes, nations can adapt, drop and change languages very quickly indeed. Same with ideologies and sometimes even religions.
So up until 2 years back, I have the urge to now go explore what kind of politics, tribalism disputes to ethnic divisions that lead to all kinds of wars and battles, that would eventually come to influence the cultures, lifestyles, diets, and all kinds of traditions and political disputes that are found around Europe today. Really interesting stuff here...
Crazy how the “other” language family is so far apart from each other, like basque from Georgia! (If you didn’t realize this is satire and I know that “other” isn’t a language family)
As far as i know Romanian people arrived in Moldova around the 12th century , cause they definetly weren't there when the Hungarians arrived in the 800s
@zarzavattzarzavatt9309 area was populated with Cucuteny-Trypillia culture, then Iranic tribes (Cimmerians, Scythians, Sarmatians, Alans), then Antes Slavic tribe union, then East Slavic tribes of Ulichi and Tivertsi under Rus rule, then Brodniki and Berladnici in time of Mongol invasion, then, Cumans (Polovtsi) and Nogai "Tatars" also contributed. That area was under colonization of Ukranian-speaking Galicia-Volhynia Kingdom and Romanian-speaking Moldova Hospodarhood (Principality). Now population of Moldova is mixed between Romanian speaking Moldovans, Ukranian and Russian speaking slavs, and Turkic speaking Gagauz.
@@trymai_kavun there are too many questions on each topic you mentioned, especially on those before moldova principality. the information is very sparse and unreliable. hence, a lot of room for speculations. each state's propaganda uses this to its advantage. even about today's mixed population topic are many remarks. 80% are romanian speaking, the gagauz mostly live in one region, etc.
@@zarzavattzarzavatt9309 no surprise that our knowledge on history of Dniester - Prut interfluve is limited, as long as through the history it didn't form a stable state, but rather been a frontier for different cultures. As a part of Pontic Steppe it was depopulated and repopulated many times, never completely thought. There's not really much room for propaganda, cause there's only 3 countries in that region, Romania, Moldova and Ukraine. I haven't heard any controversial narratives from any of these 3 countries propaganda, anything that goes against facts which I wrote in a previous comment. Let me know, maybe I just don't know something.
I didn't know much about the Phrygian language but there is one source suggesting a late survival. It states that: "The last mentions of the language date to the 5th century CE, and it was likely extinct by the 7th century CE." Swain, Simon; Adams, J. Maxwell; Janse, Mark (2002). Bilingualism in Ancient Society: Language Contact and the Written Word. Oxford [Oxfordshire]: Oxford University Press. pp. 246-266.
the Greek language is a mathematical and universal language and it did not spring up in a few decades. People with very high intelligence created this language. All European languages and not only, have linguistic loans from Greek.
Pseudo-Linguistics. no language is "mathematical" or "universal". they are all just different, none is better or worse at converying information according to modern linguistics.
@@bruh83483 Dude is Greek and spews out nationalist propaganda. Next time at least do it in a way that isn't hot nonsensical garbage however far you look at it.
Yes, of course. Old East Slavic disintegrated in Rusian (Ruthenian) and Old Russian. Rusian evolved in Ukrainian, Belarusian, Rusyn. Old Russian evolved in Modern Russian.
According to Crampton (1997) most Thracians were eventually Hellenized or Romanized, with the last remnants surviving in remote areas until the 5th century. According to Marinov the Thracians were likely completely Romanized and Hellenized after the last contemporary references to them of the 6th century. This theory holds the Christianization of the Roman Empire as the main factor of immediate assimilation. Illyrian proper went extinct between the 2nd and 6th centuries AD - according to some sources Fol, Aleksandŭr (2002). Thrace and the Aegean: Proceedings of the Eighth International Congress of Thracology, Sofia - Yambol, 25-29 September 2000. International Foundation Europa Antiqua. Eastern Michigan University Linguist List: The Illyrian Language. It has also been claimed that Illyrian was preserved and spoken in the countryside, as attested in the 4th-5th century testimonies of St. Jerome. Paeonian language went extinct probably in the 4th century CE according to Encyclopædia Britannica online.
The north of scandinavia sais saami in 2021. I am sure some people speak that language but the area is very much swedish or finnish. There is also Meänkieli spoken by a few people but the main language is swedish and finnish.
I'm curious about the Mysian language. If Strabo and Athenaeus of Naucratis mentioned it, maybe it was still spoken during their time? Cappadocian language appears to have survived in some locations until at least the 6th century CE. J. Eric Cooper, Michael J. Decker, Life and Society in Byzantine Cappadocia
Medes, fathers of Kurds and other western-iranic tribes. Their descendants still stand strong today even after they've been invaded over and over again. ⚡️☀️🦅 Really nice video, actually accurate as well.
0:12 Proto-Indo-European and Proto-Uralic expanison 0:15 Proto-Semetic division into East and West Semetic 0:17 Berber occupies North Arica, making the Afro-Asiatic states control the south 0:17 A bunch of tiny states form in the southeast, not aligned with any language group 0:25 Anatolian is formed along with its own language group 0:28 North Indo-European gains independence forming its own language group
Ananias of Shirak, a 7th-century Armenian geographer described the "large country of Dacia" as inhabited by Slavs who formed "twenty-five tribes". I'm not precisely sure when the Vlachs appeared in Transylvania but the above source might mean that it wasn't in the 7th Century. That could leave us with a time frame between 685 and until the Hungarian conquest, when we do have some data indicating their presence. Maybe they arrived following the Bulgarian conquest of the eastern portion of the Avar Khaganate, linking these lands with the Balkan homelands of the Vlachs. It's also interesting to note that there were also some rebellions by Slavs against the Bulgars during this period and I suspect that might've weakened both to the benefit of the Vlachs being on the rise afterwards. It was also noted that "Gelou's subjects are portrayed as having "suffered many injuries from the Cumans and Pechenegs". Therefore, such raids might've also contributed to the rise of the Vlachs in Transylvania to the detriment of the Slavs; which was repeated later by Tatar, Turkish ravages that destroyed Hungarian populations and gave way to the Romanians. P.S. Please also read "Slavic migrations to the Balkans" for more details on that area and Greece also
The Vlachs are proven to appear only in the 11th-12th century in Transylvania. Even then, those were smaller groups, high in the mountains, usually wandering around. They start being a significant portion of the population after the Mongol invasion in the 13th century, when the Hungarian peopulation living in the river valleys was decimated.
There is no vlach presence in transylvania before the hungarian conquest. Gelou and Menmarot are non-existent historical figures, there's not way to prove that they're real. Also that chronicle was written in the 1200s
I recall that Palestine was Hellenized during Heraclius or otherwise during the last phases of Byzantine rule of the region in a demographic process involving a population shift. On an unrelated note, after 638 AD the Angles should be the population of the Edinburgh region.
Two insights on the Iberian Peninsula, 1st Gallaecian was a variant/related language of Lusitanian that got replaced by Latin, not by Celtic. 2nd is that while Arabic was prominent during the muslim times, it didn't replace the Latin-based language, called by historian Andalusi Romance, only the aristocracy spoke primarily in Arabic while most of the population spoke that Andalusi Romance (Andalusi Romance would then be absorbed into Spanish and some of its features probably gave rise to the Andalusian dialects of Spanish).
Serbian and Croatian were separate languages before the 19th century, and had much lower mutual intelligibility, but in the 19th century the serbian language was replaced with the herzegovinian speech, aka croatian language by the serbian linguist Vuk Karadžić.
Croato-Serbian or Serbo-Croatian didn't existed until 1918. and there are five criteterias which determines if language is polycentric or not. I left the first criteria at the end of commentary. Second criteria or common name: Croatian names throughout history: hrvatski, horvatski, harvatski, slovinski, ilirski and regional names: slavonski, bosanski, dalmatinski, dubrovački... Serbian names throughout history: srpski, serbski, slavjanski, slavjanoserbski, serboslavjanski, iliričeski and regional names: raški... Third criteria or literary heritage corpus: Croatian written corpus: Natpis kneza Branimira 9.c., Višeslavova krstilnica 9.c., Natpis biskupa Donata 9.c., Natpis kralja Držislava 10.c., Natpis kraljice Jelene 10.c., Plominski natpis 11.c., Krčki natpis 11.c., Valunska ploča 11.c., Senjska ploča 12.c., Bašćanska ploča 1100., Vinodolski zakonik 1288., Hrvojev misal 1404., Poljički statut 1440., Vatikanski hrvatski molitvenik 1380.-1400., Marko Marulić 1450.-1524., Marin Držić 1508.-1567., Faust Vrančić 1551.-1617., Bartol Kašić 1575.-1650., Ivan Gundulić 1589.-1638., Ivan Belostenec 1594.-1675., Juraj Habdelić 1609.-1678., Andrija Kačić Miošić 1704.-1760., Ivan Mažuranić 1814.-1890., August Šenoa 1838.-1881., Ante Kovačić 1854.-1889., Miroslav Krleža 1893.-1981....... Serbian written corpus: Sveti Sava 1169.-1236., Dušanov zakonik 1349., Stefan Lazarević 1377.-1427., Dositej Obradović 1739.-1811., Vuk Karadžić 1787.-1864., Laza Kostić 1841.-1910., Stojan Novaković 1842.-1915., Laza Lazarević 1851.-1891., Stevan Sremac 1855.-1906., Miloš Crnjanski 1893.-1977...... Fourth criteria or social political state: Croats and Serbs didn't lived in same social-political state-union until 1918. Croatian cultural-communication community: West European Roman system, aristocratic feudal (regional) system, Catholic community and Catholic literally tradition Serbian cultural-communication community: East European Byzantine system, aristocratic imperial (centralized) system, Orthodox community and Orthodox literally tradition Fifth criteria or standardization process: Croatian standardization process began with: Bartol Kašić's first grammar book of Croatian in 1604. his translation of Bible from 1622.-1630. and writing of liturgical book Ritual rimski 1640. which were all a continuation from period of Croatian medieval Old Slavic redactions. Serbian standardization process began with: Vuk Karadžić's first grammar book of Serbian in 1818. with help and assistance from Jernej Kopitar who gave him many Croatian poetry and grammar books. From this period stopped the continuation/tradition of Serbian medieval Old Slavic redactions, they were cut out. First criteria or mutual intelligibility: Both are 95% mutually intelligible in this moment of time. Nobody normal is denying this fact 👍. But here is the other 3 Slavic examples but there are hundred and hundred examples of other branches and world language families: Czechian-Slovakian 95% mutually intelligible Rusyn (not Russian)-Ukrainian-Belarussian 95% mutually intelligible Bulgarian-Macedonian 95% mutually intelligible They fulfill also the first criteria but also they (all three) fulfill the fourth criteria which is not fulfilled with Croatian and Serbian. Czechian-Slovakian: West European Roman system, aristocratic feudal (regional) system, Catholic community and Catholic literally tradition Rusyn-Ukrainian-Belarussian: East European Byzantine system, aristocratic imperial (centralized) system, Orthodox community and Orthodox literally tradition Bulgarian-Macedonian: East European Byzantine system, aristocratic imperial (centralized) system, Orthodox community and Orthodox literally tradition. One big thing also that is unfolding: In March of this year Law on Croatian language was issued. In September or October this year the Commision for language planning will be formed and in next two years the Croatian linguists will make a strategy for new direction, that is, to implement more of other dialects's vocabulary and grammatical features into the standard or literary language which will move it into it's own new direction... Peace ✌️😉
@@amormir8280 Sociolinguistics differentiates three criteria for whether a language is polycentric: • the ratio of similarities and differences • mutual intelligibility of the speakers • whether or not the supraregional (standard) language has the same dialectal basis The "name" of something makes no difference (e.g. "Tajik" as opposed to "Farsi" as opposed to "Dari"), neither does the idea of a shared state or when the "first" grammar book (which is in and of itself subjective) came out. I don't know where you listed that criteria from, but the one listed here is broadly agreed upon (Katičić, Matasović etc.) with the added caveat that "self-identity" plays a role in the endonyms used by governments when adsressing a language. Polycentric languages like "Persian", "Hindustani" and "Serbo-Croatian" are often falsely compared with languages that don't share the same dialectal basis, yet nonetheless have a great deal of mutual intelligibility, e.g. Czech and Slovak, Swedish and Norwegian, Bulgarian and Macedonian. There is no *Czechoslovak in sociolinguistics because there is no core dialectal basis being used, similarly there is no *Bulgaro-Macedonian. In fact, Slovakia and Macedonia went out of their way to choose idioms as far away from their neigbouring countries' standards (a western Slovak dialect and an eastern Macedonian dialect) so as to differentiate their national language from the one next door. That's not analogous to our situation. Shtokavian is the shared basis. It's the standard in Montenegro, the standard in Bosnia-Herzegovina, the standard in Serbia and the standard in Croatia. No amount of tweaking from professor Tadić or the "Commission for language planning" will fix that. It's a pro-forma branch of the Ministry of education and its linguistic impact will be null.
@@marin34 You than mean that all 4 are Croatian? 😉 Here are the autors who propose those 5 criterias or some of them: Sociolinguistic description of the Croatian language in relation to related languages, as found in the works of philologists, linguists, and Slavic scholars Krunoslav Krstić, Radoslav Katičić, Dalibor Brozović, Stjepan Babić, Josip Lisac, Dragica Malić, Branka Tafra, Dubravka Sesar, Mario Grčević, Leopold Auburger, and Barbara Oczkowa
I remember when I hiked the Camino de Santiago there was graffiti in Leonese on some roadsigns in Leon on the Camino, generally writing over the Spanish with the same information written in Leonese, along with the word "Leon" underlined several times in graffiti where the sign identified the autonomous community as Castilla y Leon. I will add though that Leonese and Asturian are two separate languages, and Asturian is spoken in Asturias, rather than Leonese. Similarly, Valencian is a separate language from Catalan and has been since medieval times, although like Leonese and Asturianese, the two are very closely related. There are a few similar issues in other countries (where is Aromanian? Where is Romansh? Where is Swiss-German?), but generally this is a great and informative map.
The distinction between Asturian and Leonese (as well as Valencian and Catalan) isn't universal at all. Most speakers of those languages consider their respective pairs to be part of the same language, and the idea that they are distinct is pretty recent (and not entirely driven by locals). If you read the Asturian Wikipedia, for example, the article for Leonese claims that it's a variety of Asturleonese, while the Article for Asturian claims that it's one of the Asturleonese languages, showing contradictions among locals. Similarly, the Valencian Normative Diccionary (DNV) defines the word "Valencià", among other usages, as "The language spoken in the Valencian comunity, as well as Catalonia, the Balearic Islands, etc". After all, the real distinction between languages is mostly political, and everyone has a different opinion on politics. It's easy to jump and correct with "absolute truths", but this topic is very hot and active nowadays. A sidenote about the controversy would probably be the best option, rather than changing it and triggering the other sector of the discussion.
@@quel2324 My information on Valencian/Catalan is mostly coming from a Valencian language teacher I studied with for years, who studied linguistics at the university and postgraduate level and was a professional translator before eventually looking for a slower-paced career as a teacher as she got older. She grew up and did her undergraduate studies in the city of Valencia. She can speak Valencian, Spanish, Standard Central Catalan, French, German, Italian and English. So according to her, Valencian and Catalan have had many large, standard and consistent differences in grammatical forms and conjugation, and Valencian has thousands of words of unique vocabulary which Catalan lacks, since the high Middle Ages. All of this has been true in the formal written forms of Valencian and of Catalan. She did a presentation once and gave many specific examples from the literature of the medieval period, because the class was curious about why she was adamant that her language Valencian was its own language and not a dialect of Catalan, as she said many Catalan nationalists incorrectly claimed. She had nothing against Catalonia, but she was very proud to be Valencian, and wanted her students to understand where she came from and the beautiful and unique culture, literary tradition and history of Valencia which she grew up with and cherished, and which she taught us a lot about. She was teaching us Spanish, and she was by far the best and most effective Spanish teacher I ever had, so I am very grateful to her. I ended up being able to study in Spain for a year, taking courses with just Spanish students, all taught entirely in Spanish, largely because of my experience with her. I can't thank her enough for that. She also taught us a bit of her beautiful Valencian, as well as a bit of Standard Catalan. So yeah, that's where I'm coming from here. I'm not trying to butt into somebody else's disagreement about language or dialect, but I do feel that whenever there is a very large, very passionate group of people who claim to have their own unique and separate language and can show written grammatical differences which are consistent, stable and large, going back hundreds of years and affecting how they conjugate every single sentence they say in everyday conversation, and which also cause all of the road signs where they live to have be printed totally differently, that group of people is probably correct. I don't think there is any case in the world where I would have a different opinion, so I don't think this is an arbitrary political distinction. I can see that some people might have other definitions for language and dialect, but I really think that if you are dealing with differences as big as the ones we are talking about in this example, trying to force people into a dialect box who don't want to be is a lot more political than not doing so, and even if people want to say they are speaking a dialect, it is still kind of a dubious claim. It might be more reasonable to say that these people simply want their language to be assimilated into a larger, broader umbrella cultural identity. If that's what some people want that's fine, but I do think that is a more likely account of what is happening. In other words, even in cases where people use various definitions and distinctions and there might not be an "absolute truth", some claims can nonetheless be a lot more reasonable than others. There are also big differences between Asturian and Leonese. For example, Asturian has three genders with an even more complex structure involving masculine neuter, feminine neuter and pure neuter nouns, in addition to pure masculine and pure feminine nouns, while Leonese just has two genders for nouns, like other modern western Romance languages. That's a pretty big difference, and very significant since Asturian is the only modern western Romance language with its gender structure, while Leonese is far more similar to Spanish in grammatical structure and vocabulary, while still being very distinct from Spanish as well. I don't think mutual intelligibility is very relevant to defining languages vs. dialects. Even with Spanish being my second language and knowing no Galician or Portuguese, I can still understand complex road directions in Galician just fine, and a native Spanish speaker certainly can even better, but that doesn't mean Galician is just a dialect of Spanish. I also can't help but wonder whether something comparable is at stake here for people on the two different sides of this argument, even though I don't think that consideration is even the decisive one here. Valencian, Catalan, Asturian and Leonese are all beautiful, standardized and distinct, they are all written languages with a long history of being written differently, with very different written grammatical structures, and why can't we just let them stay the way they are, in all of their beauty and distinction? Or, if the point of the argument isn't to change Valencian and Leonese and defund or stall efforts to preserve them in their current forms, then what is the point of the argument, other than to upset the native speakers who are deeply attached to them? That's a serious question.
@@sechernbiw3321 I was merely pointing out how this topic is very active and controversial, even among locals and speakers of these languages, and thus it's hard to make easily understable educational content like this. I wanted to add a certain nuance to your comment, as I understood that it was showing the situation as a settled debate. In either case, my point wasn't to discredit either language/dialect or to point out a "correct" version of it. Every level of organized speech is deserving of being recorded, respected and protected in case of danger.
@@sechernbiw3321 Catalan and Valencian are the same language and only a fringe and highly politicized group claims otherwise. Catalan, like Spanish, is a highly unified language and its regional differences tend to zero, that's what makes these anti-scientific claims so fringe and ridiculous. Especially when you look at languages like german or italian, where regional differences are huge to the point of mutual unintelligibility in some cases, however nobody challenge their unity. So there is no real debate in this area despite these "flat- earthers like" movements. I'm so sorry you met some of these guys.
@@sauliusvitkauskas8741 It's usually called Old East Slavic but I decided to use alternative name Rusian with one s because that was the language of Kievan Rus. Im not sure if that was a good decision because some stupid people still think it's Russian
Even in the west of Brittany hardly anyone speaks Breton today (let alone as a first language) ; some are even *appallingly* unaware of its sheer existence.
2:14 Интересно видеть как сохранились языки аборигенов на Кавказе , хотя находились в эпицентре распространения других языков . Единственный подобный язык сохранился у басков в северо-востоке Испании , юго-западе Франции.
I imagine it would be much harder, as Asia is so much more linguistically diverse. Like Europe just has Indo-Europeans and Urals, while Asia has Sino-Tibetans, Indo-Europeans, Turks, Mongols, Afro-Asiatics, Austro-Asiatics, Austronesians, Kra-Das, and many more that I haven't mentioned.
What you mean 7000 years. Back then thoese languages didnt even exist, when the video only starts from six thousand years ago, when indo-europeans languages started to spread around Europe.
@@United.States.of.Europe that isnt true at all. Proto-Indo-European didnt even exist 7000 years ago, how could Albanian then? its like saying you are older than your Grandad.
@@United.States.of.Europe No reliable study say that, stop linking your wishful thinking to a study that doesn't exist or at best is from an unreliable source.
Bulgarian would've been the language spoken in Belgrade (or a dialect of it) until the Ottoman conquest when its original population was ravaged and deported to Eastern Thrace. The town was called Alba Bulgarica by Medieval Latin sources. And when Crusaders passed through these lands they noted their Bulgarian character.
Dude, there are a lot of pieces missing from your puzzle, but that obviously doesn't stop you from being so aggressively pretentious about drawing the wrong conclusions. After all, you are not the only one who has such an approach and tries similar things, as is said in an old proverb
Man, this video is a masterpiece!! my compliments did you really manage to do such an accurate job?! for example having specified how Sicily was divided between Sicels which were italic and Sicans which were to be marked in gray my most sincere congratulations👏🏻👏🏻👏🏻
Today there is only 200 000 people who speak Breton in the historic Britany (Bretagne + Pays de Loire : 4.8 millions persons). The average age of the speakers is 70...
I hope you won't delete the video or your channel gets deleted. Because I'm gonna come back and rewatch this well made video of yours! Thanks man. Unbelievable how good the video is.
Gaulish was actually the main language in most of present-day France when the Franks conquered it. Latin would've been concentrated more in the southeast, urban areas, and, of course, used by the Catholic church, which is why it was adopted by the Franks after their baptism. Frankish remained widely spoken in much of Northern France until the end of the Early Middle Ages.
@@Meow-ml5hv I hope I could help. They're mostly listed in the Wikipedia article of Gaulish language > History subsection. There are many sources provided there, both ancient and modern. I'll post a separate comment regarding British Latin. As for Frankish, for several centuries, northern Gaul was a bilingual territory (Vulgar Latin and Franconian). This source is from the Wiki article on Frankish; "At that time a large part of the north of France was bilingual Germanic/Romance, and for a couple of centuries Germanic held its own. But in the seventh century a wave of romanisation began anew and because of the merging of the two peoples the name for the Franks was used for the Romance speakers north of the Loire. ..." de Vries, Jan W., Roland Willemyns and Peter Burger, Het verhaal van een taal, Amsterdam: Prometheus, 2003, pp. 12, 21-27. On page 25 --- Personally, I would like to know more details about the precise borders of this bilingual zone. It's a shame that it's not better understood in popular science. But considering that the Franks certainly left a large genetic impact on the Northeast of France, including Île-de-France, I have no doubt that the language border was significantly impacted by them during this period in question. PS French, German, Dutch, etc. versions of the article might be useful to gather more data In the article about Old French, Cerquiglini is also of the opinion that various parts of Northern France remained bilingual between Latin and Germanic for some time Bernard Cerquiglini, La naissance du français, Presses Universitaires de France, 2nd edn., chap. 3, 1993, p. 53. While the German version of the article on Frankish language has a source and map indicating a Somme-Aisne line, north of which Germanic place names dominate.
@@NovemberTheHacker I've read about that bilingual period but I can't figured out how that romanisation could happend in Belgium, Lorraine and other areas that were for tousand years under German-dominated Holy Roman Empire so I assumed that frankish was used as a second language in those areas but the romance language was the dominant. There is generally a lot of assuming in this video.
@@Meow-ml5hv these 3 articles provide good understanding of how Francs were romanised, and how the border between French and Flemish emerged. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terminology_of_the_Low_Countries?wprov=sfla1 en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Salian_Franks?wprov=sfla1 the Name of Dutch language en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dutch_language?wprov=sfla1
Astures --- Incorporated into the Roman province of Hispania Tarraconensis, the assimilation of the Asturian region into the Roman world was a slow and hazardous process, with its partially romanized people retaining the Celtic language, religion and much of their ancient culture throughout the Roman Imperial period. - CIL XI 395, from Ariminum; cf: B. Dobson, Die Primipilares (Beihefte der Bonner Jahrbücher XXXVII), Köln 1978, pp. 198-200.
That's very true. We Kurds are descendants of the Gutians 💔 and our language has changed over time into an Indo-European language ❤ Medes Kurdish still contains some non-Indo-European words 🖤
It's remastered re-upload
You should spell it 'Kazakh' not 'Khazakh'. Otherwise great work
@@gplastic Shit, I was watching this million times searching for any mistake and I didn't remarked this one 😒
But thanks anyway 🙂
@@Meow-ml5hv also Western Indo-European and Balto Slavic are the same thing so I think you should’ve group them both together for a little longer and count Balto Slavic as a northwestern Indo European language Group (which it actually is) fun fact: germanic actually is more related to Balto Slavic then Italo Celtic, The second thing is that I don’t believe that proto Greek counts as a Paleo balkan language (sure they did had Paleo Balkan influence but That doesn’t really change the fact that they kept on moking their languages because they didn’t even sound remotely close to Greek, also don’t forget how xenophobic the Greeks were towards other cultures because of how “alien” they were) The Proto Greek people were more likely related to the Cimmerians because they were actually the latest arrivals to the Balkans from modern-day south eastern Ukraine
@@mrlunatic4816 phrygian is actually greek's closest relative 😬
Can you do Asia?
1500 BC-400 AD Slavic language afk.
500 AD - Slavic language returns to keyboard and breaks the meta.
700 AD - 1400 AD: Slavic languages multitask and don’t do great.
1500 AD - Onwards: Slavic languages become sweats.
Fascinating that the slavic people make a great civilization
@@scarymonster5541 I think it’s due to geography
@@L0KUST1 really?
@@scarymonster5541 Yes. The Slavic-dominated regions have historically been very farmable, flat, and have many rivers. This has not only allowed the population to prosper but also made conquest easy due to flat terrain.
Nakh/chechen people just chilling in the same place for 5000 years and still being there as a small distinct language is honesty crazy
Chechens formed in the 14th century
Chechens formed in the 14th century
@@Илья-щ9щ5л кто тя обидел, ваня?
@@ksjaia в чем проявляется моя обида, если она есть ? Я виноват, что малые народы приписывают себе нули к возрасту ? Я лишь говорю научные данные, которые не я получил, а люди с соответствующим образованием. Если ты какой нибудь там кавказец к примеру, который считает, что его народу миллиард лет, это лишь показывает современное бедное состояние культуры, у каких нибудь англичан или немцев таких проблем нет, потому что их культура процветает
@@Илья-щ9щ5л Человек просто не знает, что такое этногенез и не верит в переменчивость любых культур.
"It is no nation we inhabit but a language. Make no mistake, our native tongue is our true fatherland" Romanian philosopher Emil Cioran first heard of in Metal Gera Solid V
Но Сербы и Хорваты говорят на одном языке, но разные, и даже взаимовраждебные народы. Румыны и Молдаване также разные народы (несмотря на общность не только языка, но и конфессии; разные у них только гаплогруппы).
@@Olga-de3ruа разве молдаване в большинстве не считают молдавский народ просто частью румынского?
@@Olga-de3ru
🤥🤥🤥
@@Olga-de3ru народы (этносы) и разумеется нации (искусственный политический конструкт) не определяется гаплогруппами. Гаплогруппами определяются только огромные расселения людей.
Что я имею ввиду: с помощью гаплогрупп можно отличить славянскую группу можно отличить от романской группы или немецкой. Поскольку у славян своя доминирующая в количественном смысле гаплогруппа, у других своя.
И только при расмотрении с такой "высоты" можно увидеть различие одной группы от другой, но если "приблизится" и начать исследовать группу по этносам, то окажется, что внутри одного этноса, не смотря на одну общую гаплогруппу, есть так же огромнейшее количество примесей других гаплогрупп, представители которой не относятся к большенству, хотя это один этнос и люди идентифицируют себя такими же, как то большенство.
Поэтому говорить, что у Румын и Молдаван разные гаплогруппы это и корректно и некорректно одновременно, потому что есть много примесей. И опять же, по гаплогруппам некорректно определять этнос, только огромную группу родственных люлей
@@Olga-de3ruA może Serbowie i Chorwaci są tym samym narodem tylko skłóconym? Czyż Sparta nie była z tego samego chleba upieczona co Ateny?
One of my favourite map videos on TH-cam. The music choice is perfect, and this language/ethnic/cultural map is probably just as important as all the political border maps we see all the time. Sad that it has so few views, it really deserves more.
He forgot to add Macedonian though
Funny fact: “Russian” and “Ruthenian” meant the same thing, “of the Rus”.
But the first word comes from Greek, the second from Latin.
Вроде как их так назвали чисто что бы не путать
@@Bonk-Bonk-Bonkкак правильно говорить то?русинский или рутенский?
@@hrangukt9985 Если на русском , то русинский
Funny fact: fino-ugric muscovy is NOT a slavic Rus'!!! But muscovites think they are slavic from the third Rome😂😂😂
@@Походеньки Open your browser and find "Genetic map of Europe"
Massively underrated. Great video
Not really, it's inaccurate as fuck
Only one mistake: Maghrebi Arabic for the Iberian Peninsula gradually gained its own features and by the year 900 or so it was already an independent dialect called Andalusian Arabic.
there is also a second error, there is no trace of the presence of the Romanian people between the 3rd and 13th centuries AD!
no Latin-speaking people were mentioned after the flight of the Roman legions from the Goth and Hunnic invasions...
no archaeological evidence, no historical testimony, no writings from a Latin-speaking people between the 3rd and 13th century...
moreover, the word Romanian was only invented at the end of the 19th century in France by French historians to name all the various ethnic groups present in the regions of Wallachia Moldavia...
@@magyarhungarianchannel5555 Then where did they come from?
@@magyarhungarianchannel5555 "Moreover, the word Romanian was only invented at the end of the 19th century in France by French historians to name all the various ethnic groups present in the regions of Wallachia-Moldavia..." ???
The exonym for Romanians (term used by non-Romanians) was Vlach or Wallack, literally meaning 'foreign', or 'Roman' (compare with Welshman); While the endonym for Romanians (What Romanians call themselves) has always been 'Roman'. Wallachians and Moldavians are the exact same ethnic group... Moldavia was often called 'the other Wallachia' for a good reason.
@@icannotfinda the truth is that they called their land Țeara Rumânească or something like that
aka the Roman land
@@icannotfinda they did saw themselves as Romans for a reason, because they called their land the Roman Land in fact, the reason why they were called Vlachs back then is the reason why we call the Eastern Romans byzantines.
you see even before we called ourselves Romanians we always saw ourselves as Romans and our language started to form in 273 AD and would fully become the Common Romanian aka străromână, aka the Proto Romanian this process i would assume was complete somewhere around 6th century.
really excellent video! honestly my favorite language history video for sure. The only thing I have to add is that I wish it dropped below 50 years per slide at least since 1800
A few brief notes on Wallonia.
The oldest surviving text written in a langue d'oïl, the Sequence of Saint Eulalia was likely written in or very near to what is now Wallonia around 880 AD.
The language border (that now splits Belgium in the middle) began to crystallize between 700 under the reign of the Merovingians and Carolingians and around 1000 after the Ottonian Renaissance.
Language is the most fascinating thing about humans.
@@avivastudios2311 Agree, also religion
Also some info for Sardinia.
Although the colonists and negotiatores (businessmen) of strictly Italic descent would later play a relevant role in introducing and spreading Latin to Sardinia, Romanisation proved slow to take hold among the Sardinian natives, whose proximity to the Carthaginian cultural influence was noted by Roman authors. Punic continued to be spoken well into the 3rd-4th century AD, as attested by votive inscriptions, and it is thought that the natives from the most interior areas, led by the tribal chief Hospito, joined their brethren in making the switch to Latin around the 7th century AD, through their conversion to Christianity.
From the article on Sardinian language > History > Classical period (4 sources are listed for the cited paragraph)
By the end of the Roman domination, Latin had gradually become however the speech of most of the island's inhabitants.
- Casula, Francesco Cesare (1994). La Storia di Sardegna. Sassari, it: Carlo Delfino Editore.
The great mistake is you think that if a teritory was occupied the people speak the language of the opressor!
A few notes on the Albanian language historical presence and location:
Latin domination of the coastal and plain areas of the country, rather than evidence of the original environment in which the Albanian language was formed. For example, the word for 'fish' is borrowed from Latin, but not the word for 'gills' which is native. Indigenous are also the words for 'ship', 'raft', 'navigation', 'sea shelves' and a few names of fish kinds, but not the words for 'sail', 'row' and 'harbor'; objects pertaining to navigation itself and a large part of sea fauna. This rather shows that Proto-Albanians were pushed away from coastal areas in early times (probably after the Latin conquest of the region) and thus lost a large amount (or the majority) of their sea environment lexicon. A similar phenomenon could be observed with agricultural terms. While the words for 'arable land', 'corn', 'wheat', 'cereals', 'vineyard', 'yoke', 'harvesting', 'cattle breeding', etc. are native, the words for 'ploughing', 'farm' and 'farmer', agricultural practices, and some harvesting tools are foreign.
Late antiquity Scodra was a Romanized city, which even relatively late in the Middle Ages had a native Dalmatian-speaking population which called it Skudra. Slavic Skadar is a borrowing from the Romance name.
That Albanian possesses a rich and "elaborated" pastoral vocabulary which has been taken to suggest Albanian society in ancient times was pastoral, with widespread transhumance, and stock-breeding particularly of sheep and goats.
They appear to have been cattle breeders given the vastness of preserved native vocabulary pertaining to cow breeding, milking and so forth, while words pertaining to dogs tend to be loaned. Many words concerning horses are preserved, but the word for horse itself is a Latin loan.
All the words relating to seamanship appear to be loans.
Wilkes holds that the Slavic loans in Albanian suggest that contacts between the two populations took place when Albanians dwelt in forests 600-900 metres above sea level.
However, upon close scrutiny, Skopje, Štip, and Niš may have been Albanian-speaking prior to the Slavic settlement in these areas considering that they seem to have borrowed the form of these names from Albanian. Although not necessarily the whole corresponding regions considering it's said that they are lacking in Albanian toponyms.
Fascinating!
You are not Illyrians you are part Turk part goat
Shkup is still inhabited by Albanians and Nish has been inhabited until the genocide of late 19th century. Many words pertaining to trade and transport are loaned because they had to interact with latins to participate in such activities, not because they disapeared and reapeared again.
Shkodra > shkon drini (alb) = où passe Drini (la fleuve Drin). Drin = Drite = Lumière. pareil avec les mots Lume (fleuve, riviere) > Lumen (lumière). etc. Grec ancien < Albanais > Latin. c'est la plus vielle langue de l'Europe. Europe = Evropa < E veriut (alb). ce qui se trouve au Nord, Veri = Nord. Veri = vjen era (d'où vient le vent). etc.
@@ForumKVкакой же это бред
Everyone is gonna have at least something to quibble with, but this is still a masterful presentation of the evolution/division of European languages. It’s a tragedy that we have [almost] no idea what Old European (pre-Proto-Indo-European) tongues were like, lost forever to history.
Only one remains: Basque
@anttongudari1763 there're some traces of Etruscan in Italy and Tauri in Crimea, as well as pre-PIE languages of Cyprus and Crete. Many languages of Caucasus are preserved and very diverse, so I imagine the pre-PIE situation in Europe was similar to Caucasus, like in Dagestan where almost every tiny village has its own distinct language or dialect.
@@trymai_kavun "in Dagestan where almost every tiny village has its own distinct language or dialect."
I hear this from so many people. You should travel more because this is the case with almost every country in the world.
@@anttongudari1763basque is not indo-European
Its so weird how fast languages changes, like in every frame of this video its only about 2 generations apart.
That's by the way the main idea behind this project - to show how temporary everything is, even something as usual as your language. For many people it's just unimaginabe that some day Germans, Poles or Franch people will be as real as Gauls or Sumerians. That they will exist only in historical records, not in real world.
@@Meow-ml5hv Well so far they have existed for 1000 years.
@@skullmaster6888the sumerians lasted for 3k, the gauls at least like 600. There is nothing that won’t end.
A few brief notes. Some data suggesting Galatian surviving for a longer period of time.
In the 4th century St. Jerome (Hieronymus) wrote in a comment to Paul the Apostle's Epistle to the Galatians that "apart from the Greek language, which is spoken throughout the entire East, the Galatians have their own language, almost the same as the Treveri". The capital of the Treveri was Trier, where Jerome had settled briefly after studying in Rome.
In the 6th century AD, Cyril of Scythopolis suggested that the language was still being spoken in his own day when he related a story that a monk from Galatia was temporarily possessed by Satan and unable to speak; when he recovered from the "possession", he could respond to the questioning of others only in his native Galatian tongue.
Surrounding European languages:
*exist*
English, Turkish and Russian:
is this for me?🥺👉👈
Continue:
English: Hey, move aside!!! This is my land!!! 😡
Turkic: HUH?!!! Go away yourself, half-Saxon. This is my territory!!! 🤬
Russian: Are you nuts?! This land will be MINE!!! 😠
*aggressive sounds of fighting**
You can clearly see the ilyrian language going from being the biggest language in the balkans and then turning in to albanian in present day Kosovo and Albania.
It is scientifically proven that Albanian is not an evolution of the Illyrian language. Albanian comes from Dacian, which was a language spoken between the Carpathians and the Pannonian plain.
The Illyrian language became extinct in the 5th century after Christ.
The claim that Albanian comes from Illyrian is a myth.
@MarkieLiebe its not a myth
i hate the existance of kosovo but he is right Albanian Came from Illyrian language family
@adosgamesk i think the same way, why an independent kosovo when it can be apart of albania! 👍🇦🇱
I really like the fact that you divided "Lusitanian" from Celtiberian, since indeed there were 2 different Celtic languages in the Iberian Peninsula: Northwestern Hispano-Celtic (A Celtic language without an alphabet, which i will henceforth refer to as NHC) and Celtiberian (A Celtic language that uses the Iberian alphabet).
Using Lusitanian as the name for NHC in the video is acceptable since Lusitanian was indeed a dialect derived from NHC.
I especially like the fact that you took in consideration the divide of NHC between Lusitanian and Gallaecian in the 2nd century B.C.
However, according to this video, Gallaecian is represented by the CeltIberian language, which is not correct since Gallaecian was still a NHC language not a Celtiberian one.
I appreciate that the eventual diversion between Lusitanian and Gallaecian is present in the video, but having Gallaecian belong to the Celtiberian language was a minor flaw in an otherwise perfect portrayal of pre-Roman Iberia.
This is one of the best things I've seen in my life! Love you for doing that! Thank you so much!
Points of disagreement here and there but overall a very commendable work!
You can point it out, I appriciate good criticism, maybe there will be better version later
amazing job mannnn
sami were in southern finland, north of them was the paleo-lakelandics and north of them were the paleo-laplandic. the sami only started going north when the finns came to southern finland from estonia
yes and no. sami people went north even before the arrival of balto finns. and based on Y-DNA evidence many of the sami who were in the south didn't migrate north at that point but instead stayed in the south with the finnic peoples and overtime started to speak their languages and customs, the same way how the Paleo-Laplandic speakers switched to sami and overtime those languages completely died out.
@@codyyh9421 ahh i didnt know that! thats super interesting. can you recommend any reading material?
btw, adding to my first comment, the migration of finnics according to newer theory by valter lang, was likely much later than is traditionally thought. "läänemeresoome tulekud" is a great book
The language in the north of France wasn’t French until maybe the 19th century, there were still a lot of dialects known as langues d’oïl back then.
Paris was not French before the 19th century😂
@@You-zo3inFrance is not Paris.
This should have billions of views. We need something like this for each continent. Globalization is great for a lot of things but also has a deadly effect on languages which receive an excessive influence of the "Big Two of the Western World": English and Spanish. I speak both and I like them both very much, though. Xenophobic, nationalistic and repressive government policies also kill languages. Every 14 days a language dies. By 2100, more than half of the more than 7,000 languages spoken on Earth (many of them not yet recorded) may disappear, taking with them a wealth of knowledge about history, culture, the natural environment, and the human brain.
Where did you get 'every 14 days a language dies' from? The linguistic community is relatively large and is working hard to preserve every living language on earth. Although more work needs to be done to keep languages out of western reach like Nihali or Kusunda alive
Before the massive influence of English and Spanish you had Turks and Mongols.
1200 AD
"it's time for you to start learning Russian."
*RuSian or Old East Slavic. It’s a common ancestor for both ruSSian and ruthenian, as shown here, latter of which then diverges into Ukrainian and Belarusian. I don’t know if you actually missed the distinction or just said it like that as a joke but perhaps a person, who did have this confusion will see this comment and it helps them
Hohol detected@@AndrewDobronos
@@AndrewDobronos In my language (Spanish) we make no distinction between Russian and Rusian. It's all Rusia. That word appears in our dictionaries for over 1000 years, and it was used to describe at first the whole region you call "Rus", and now for the last 2-3 centuries it started being used to decribe the Imperio Ruso, and so on. Rusia today refers to the Federación Rusa.
For the language, it seems that Wikipedia seems to make the Rusian-Russian distinction as "Ruso antiguo" and Ruso.
"Antiguo" means old/ancient.
This is the case for most of the other Roman languages, I believe.
It has always been this way.
English does make a Rusian/Russian distinction, but both words are pronounced exactly the same.
This whole business seems useless. You're better off campaigning to rename the Russian Tongue into Muscovite, East Rusian or some such.
@@crusaderACR In Ukrainian language: Russian is Rosiyska (Russia named Rosiya) Ruthenian is Rusynska. So, Ukraine is Rus, and modern Russia - Rosiya. This is the reason why Rus' became called "Ukraine", because Muscovy called itself "Russia", and confusion arose.
@@crusaderACR The modern term is Old East Slavic (antiguo eslavo oriental in Spanish).
Great video that deserves a lot more views!
However it also needs to be said that many areas were heterogeneous even in the past so there was a lot of overlap.
For instance, the land between the Van and Urmia lakes were a bit more complex and less Armenian-dominated than what's depicted here in pre-Islamic times.
It seems that the northern half of the settled agricultural sector of the Hurro-Urartian society was Armenianized, whereas the southern half switched to Aramaic.
In between these, you had mountainous pastoralists, engaging in transhumance , who were Iranicized(Kurdish) somewhere between the Median and Sassanid period.
The difference between Iran and Kurdistan is like the difference between California and the United States
I think he chose the region with its most popular language being spoken in that area, while of course through time there are a lot overlapping with people speaking other languages moving to that area.
@@alimahdikaizer6114
California and United States speak the same language, so thats why they seem more same and the two others you mentioned.
Kurdish language is one of Iranian languages, if you don't believe it, search in Indo-European languages@@jout738
So sad to see Greek slowly dissapear in anatolia
We are not Greeks, we are of Anatolian origin.
there is still a saying that many people in Turkey still say "We are children of Anatolia"
but what is funny is that they also claim that they come from Central Asia :D
Anyways people Turk only in name
Greeks are Anatolian we Anatolian farmers colonized Greece
@@maiorproposita9957 because we, Anatolian Turks are a mix of Anatolian Greeks and Oghuz Turks. Anatolian Greeks are just Hellenized Native Anatolians like Hittites and Phrygians and Hittites and Phrygians are just Indo-Europeanized Bronze Age Anatolian civilizations like Hattians and Hurrians. And Oghuz Turks are originally Central and East Asian native people with Eastern Iranian Saka (Central Asian Scythian) ancestors. Azerbaijanis, on the other hand, are a version of Oghuz Turks mixed with native Caucasian peoples such as Georgians and Western Iranian peoples such as Talysh people.
It is a symptom of western civilization recedind.
So sad to see Turkic languages suddenly disappear in crimea, ukraine, balkans and volga river surroundings...
Awesome work
WOOOW!! It's masterpiece mate! Thank you for uploading. I learned so much stuff.
Regarding the Iberian peninsula, this dynamic map is actually pretty accurate. It's one of the best I've seen so far. So, congratulations.
I can propose you some ways of improving it.
1. The first Indo-European men arrived in Iberia in the Copper Age, with the Bell Beaker culture, and actually replaced the former male lineages (coming from Turkey and Georgia) in a period of 500 hundred years. Their ancient IE dialect didn't survive, though.
Maybe women had a stronger social role in Neolithic societies and that's why they all ended up talking Basque and the Iberian languages anyway.
You should think of a graphic way of representing that first wave of early IE men that rampaged Western Europe.
2. I absolutely agree with Vasconic being the language of the Megalithic culture all through the Atlantic territories (and it being related to the languages of Georgia). Not sure about the name, though.
This accounts for the Mediterranean features of a lot of Irish and Welsh people (and not the Armada survivors). 😂
3. I loved the fact that you considered Lusitanian as a IE language (still related to proto-Italo-Celtic) that existed way before Celtiberian.
As a Galician man, I must complain about the initial name, though. Archaeologically, Northwestern Castro culture (Gallaecians and Asturians) are way more relevant than the small communities of Southern shepherds (Lusitanians and Vettones).
I'd save "Lusitanian" for the final stage of the language (once the Celts have taken over Iberia almost entirely).
Finally, some Spanish and British archaeologists think that Castro culture isn't limited to Northwestern Iberia. Gallaeco-Lusitanian must have been the language of the Atlantic Bronze culture all through Western Europe.
Great job! Cheers!
Thank you so much for your advices 🙂
650 AD looks beautiful
It makes me sad that non-Russian languages in Russia are disappearing. 😔
Почему?
@@kirillmoiseenkov all cultures and languages are valuable. And if your language was dissapearing wouldnt you be sad too?
Охохо, посмотри лучше на каток Британской империи. Русские не в пример лучше относились к коренными народам и их языкам, многие народы на карте существуют сегодня исключительно благодаря русским. Поляки, Болгары и Финны, например. Были бы они в британской империи, говорили бы на финском так же, как, например, шотландцы говорят на кельтском)
@@d-droll Русские не относились к покоренным народам лучше. Прочитай, чем занималась царская армия на Кавказе. И истреблять народы царская Россия не стеснялась. Не меньше сотни народов были полностью истреблены, а на из земле сейчас живут только русские. Другие же просто истребить не успели, из-за гражданской войны, а после уже не хватало сил для продолжения колониальной кампании, но факты попыток их геноцида есть.
@@d-droll ruslar atalarım olan çerkeslere soykırım uyguladı. rusya hiç bir zaman tebaasına iyi davranmadı
I just noticed this. In 40 AD, the natives of Corsica did not reportedly speak Latin. The Roman exile, Seneca the Younger, reports that both coast and interior were occupied by natives whose language he was not able to understand. More specifically, Seneca claimed that the island's population was the result of the stratification of different ethnic groups, such as the Greeks, the Ligures (see the Ligurian hypothesis) and the Iberians, whose language had long since stopped being recognizable among the population due to the intermixing of the other two groups.
- "Ad Helviam matrem de consolatione". The Latin Library., VII
From the Wiki article of Corsican language
> Origins
Thank you for info 😉
Corsican lenguage , maybe corsicans hate italy but corsican are more italian that sicilian or calabreses
There are quite a few flaws with this. PIE had already intruded into the danube by 4500 BC (archeological), and was already in the samara area at around 4900 BC (genetic samples). Furthermore, indo-iranian languages didnt develop in the pontics but in the fatynanovo culture (archeological) of the eastern corded ware. Yamnaya also wasnt the spreader of Indo european, but corded ware, who was genetically seperate. (genetic and archeological) Yamnaya went into the balkans and became the paleo-balkan group and tocharian, but the pontic yamnaya languages were replaced by the corded ware indo iranian branch (archeological).
I can provide my sources for this, but this is commonly accepted by even the traditional kurgan wave model. Furthermore, David W anthony. Also dergachev.
Wow thanks, I didn't knew this theory before. I mostly rely on Wikipedia
@@Meow-ml5hv also i gotta say the colors you used for this are really pleasant to look at, from a aesthethic perspective this map is really great! I can provide some of my own maps on the spread of PIE if you want, i've made a few and am making a few more.
@@baumus8278 Sure, I would like to see them
Pretty good video. I would just like to point out the old french was only spoken in paris, and that there were many regional languages in northern france. And walloon was spoken for longer than french in belgium
One of the things that saddens me the most is the slow death of Oguric Turkic languages.
They used to be so predominant back in the Day, it was the language Attilla and his horde, later the Bulgars of Volga. Then the Khazars spoke.
Nowadays what only remains of it is Chuvash. A fall from grace if i was to put it.
Scythian is even worse off, whom the Oghurs massacred. The last remaining bastion of Scythian is Ossetian, and many don't even want to speak it anymore.
I know you are from Turkey. You better sadden for the death of ancient cultures of Anatolian Greeks and Anatolian Armenians in the hands of un-civilized barbarian Turks!
@@iSyriuxI am a chuvash and most of the people here dont want to speak the language anymore, also Putin made new laws to reduce chuvash education in school. Its very sad.
Bro what are you saying you Turks colonized Scythian Land.
While it is a minoritary language occitan definitively isn't dead
This was really good
Chad Basque survives everything 🗿
Chad chechens did too
Massive respect for grouping together bulgarian and Macedonians 🔥🔥🔥
Yes and hello!
They shouldn't be shown together, especially not as "Bulgarian".
The languages are more distinct than Serbian and Croatian are, and they're not as easy to understand (from a Macedonian perspective at least) as people may think. It's wrong.
Yes only on the dram and video. J speak Macedonian and 90% not undurstand bulgarian lgw. Soo 🇲🇰 macedonian is different if like some peple or dont like 🇲🇰 🇲🇰 🇲🇰
NGL in my experience talking to macedonians, i am talking to a bulgarian who is forced to use some serbian words and has an accent
@@NRubikk stop being ignorant
Thank you. Can you make the history of Middle Eastern languages ?
The never-ending pattern of language expansion and divergence is fascinating.
Це відео наочно нам показує, як легко насправді мови можуть зникати з ужитку та як швидко може змінюватися мова на тих чи інших землях...
Тебе может показалось быстро хотя на самом деле проходили столетия
@@_DarkSvid_ имхо столетия небольшой срок для нашего вида
Потому-что приходившие вырезали, кто жил на определенных местах, которые тоже в свое время убили других, чтоб занять их место. А так, все говорят на своих языках, просто завоевавшие эти места, поселили своих людей из своих родов. Но карта дико неточная.
Well Zionists created a whole new modern language based on Biblical Hebrew, and within one generation, an entire country was speaking it.
So yes, nations can adapt, drop and change languages very quickly indeed. Same with ideologies and sometimes even religions.
Так, чомусь вони пропустили Русиньску мову.
A very nice transition was made towards the Kurds, the grandchildren of the Medes. As a Kurd from the heart of the Middle East, I thank you❤
Anyone notice that the Caspian sea lack a part of its water untill the 1450?😅
Congratulations! An interactive map of the languages spoken on the European territory well documented and presented.
didnt know, there was no language spoken in europe before 3000BC
it's a joke?
"Other" was the world language at the time. It was spoken in Australia, most of Africa, Asia and Europe, and the Americas.
So up until 2 years back, I have the urge to now go explore what kind of politics, tribalism disputes to ethnic divisions that lead to all kinds of wars and battles, that would eventually come to influence the cultures, lifestyles, diets, and all kinds of traditions and political disputes that are found around Europe today. Really interesting stuff here...
I wonder if cimmerians spoke the last iteration of PIE?
Anatolian is Indo-European. They’re quite literally the earliest branch of Indo-European to split off.
Thank you for not writing Russian with two s in the beginning. Because it was a different language
True, Russian is also allowed, but Russian just took the word from Rus', just like BelaRUS. Old East Slavic ≠ Russian
LOL
Rus is not Russia but Ukraine 😂👍
@@YASN0SL0V how?
@@DCCrisisclips It was sarcasm.
@@YASN0SL0Vта ні, лапоть , нарешті правду кажеш 😂
Crazy how the “other” language family is so far apart from each other, like basque from Georgia!
(If you didn’t realize this is satire and I know that “other” isn’t a language family)
As far as i know Romanian people arrived in Moldova around the 12th century , cause they definetly weren't there when the Hungarians arrived in the 800s
Their Migrated in Moldowa in 14th Century
nobody knows what exactly happened there :)
@zarzavattzarzavatt9309 area was populated with Cucuteny-Trypillia culture, then Iranic tribes (Cimmerians, Scythians, Sarmatians, Alans), then Antes Slavic tribe union, then East Slavic tribes of Ulichi and Tivertsi under Rus rule, then Brodniki and Berladnici in time of Mongol invasion, then, Cumans (Polovtsi) and Nogai "Tatars" also contributed. That area was under colonization of Ukranian-speaking Galicia-Volhynia Kingdom and Romanian-speaking Moldova Hospodarhood (Principality). Now population of Moldova is mixed between Romanian speaking Moldovans, Ukranian and Russian speaking slavs, and Turkic speaking Gagauz.
@@trymai_kavun there are too many questions on each topic you mentioned, especially on those before moldova principality. the information is very sparse and unreliable. hence, a lot of room for speculations. each state's propaganda uses this to its advantage. even about today's mixed population topic are many remarks. 80% are romanian speaking, the gagauz mostly live in one region, etc.
@@zarzavattzarzavatt9309 no surprise that our knowledge on history of Dniester - Prut interfluve is limited, as long as through the history it didn't form a stable state, but rather been a frontier for different cultures. As a part of Pontic Steppe it was depopulated and repopulated many times, never completely thought. There's not really much room for propaganda, cause there's only 3 countries in that region, Romania, Moldova and Ukraine. I haven't heard any controversial narratives from any of these 3 countries propaganda, anything that goes against facts which I wrote in a previous comment. Let me know, maybe I just don't know something.
I didn't know much about the Phrygian language but there is one source suggesting a late survival. It states that:
"The last mentions of the language date to the 5th century CE, and it was likely extinct by the 7th century CE."
Swain, Simon; Adams, J. Maxwell; Janse, Mark (2002). Bilingualism in Ancient Society: Language Contact and the Written Word. Oxford [Oxfordshire]: Oxford University Press. pp. 246-266.
the Greek language is a mathematical and universal language and it did not spring up in a few decades. People with very high intelligence created this language. All European languages and not only, have linguistic loans from Greek.
Huh did Greek not develop over time
Pseudo-Linguistics. no language is "mathematical" or "universal". they are all just different, none is better or worse at converying information according to modern linguistics.
@@bruh83483 Dude is Greek and spews out nationalist propaganda. Next time at least do it in a way that isn't hot nonsensical garbage however far you look at it.
Thank you, very good! You deserve way more views!
Your map excellent. Can you make other regions for example Near East, Central Asia ?
Maybe whole Asia.
@@Meow-ml5hv 👍👍👍
@@Meow-ml5hv Any updates?
I like how the old English equivalent for Russian is just the same word but missing an S.
I love the fact that Illirian became albanian when Antiquity end at 500 AD
People need to realize Rusian is completely different then Russian. Rusian is much more similar to modern day Belarusian and Ukrainian than russian
Yes, of course.
Old East Slavic disintegrated in Rusian (Ruthenian) and Old Russian.
Rusian evolved in Ukrainian, Belarusian, Rusyn.
Old Russian evolved in Modern Russian.
According to Crampton (1997) most Thracians were eventually Hellenized or Romanized, with the last remnants surviving in remote areas until the 5th century.
According to Marinov the Thracians were likely completely Romanized and Hellenized after the last contemporary references to them of the 6th century. This theory holds the Christianization of the Roman Empire as the main factor of immediate assimilation.
Illyrian proper went extinct between the 2nd and 6th centuries AD - according to some sources
Fol, Aleksandŭr (2002). Thrace and the Aegean: Proceedings of the Eighth International Congress of Thracology, Sofia - Yambol, 25-29 September 2000. International Foundation Europa Antiqua.
Eastern Michigan University Linguist List: The Illyrian Language.
It has also been claimed that Illyrian was preserved and spoken in the countryside, as attested in the 4th-5th century testimonies of St. Jerome.
Paeonian language went extinct probably in the 4th century CE according to Encyclopædia Britannica online.
People in grey zones without language be like:
oooo II o II o - o o II o - o o II - - -
Bəyəndim bu videonu ən obyektif video
The north of scandinavia sais saami in 2021. I am sure some people speak that language but the area is very much swedish or finnish. There is also Meänkieli spoken by a few people but the main language is swedish and finnish.
I'm curious about the Mysian language. If Strabo and Athenaeus of Naucratis mentioned it, maybe it was still spoken during their time?
Cappadocian language appears to have survived in some locations until at least the 6th century CE.
J. Eric Cooper, Michael J. Decker, Life and Society in Byzantine Cappadocia
Whole languages are born, die out, and are revived. Others migrate; others assimilate. All that happens while Georgians are just vibin in the Caucasus
Medes, fathers of Kurds and other western-iranic tribes. Their descendants still stand strong today even after they've been invaded over and over again. ⚡️☀️🦅
Really nice video, actually accurate as well.
Ülkesi olan kazanır 💪💪
@@Qwerka I dare you to comment this under the most recent Middle East War.
@@user-jg4fc8zi4r Both sides have a country
Very exact explained, well done.
0:12 Proto-Indo-European and Proto-Uralic expanison
0:15 Proto-Semetic division into East and West Semetic
0:17 Berber occupies North Arica, making the Afro-Asiatic states control the south
0:17 A bunch of tiny states form in the southeast, not aligned with any language group
0:25 Anatolian is formed along with its own language group
0:28 North Indo-European gains independence forming its own language group
Ananias of Shirak, a 7th-century Armenian geographer described the "large country of Dacia" as inhabited by Slavs who formed "twenty-five tribes".
I'm not precisely sure when the Vlachs appeared in Transylvania but the above source might mean that it wasn't in the 7th Century.
That could leave us with a time frame between 685 and until the Hungarian conquest, when we do have some data indicating their presence.
Maybe they arrived following the Bulgarian conquest of the eastern portion of the Avar Khaganate, linking these lands with the Balkan homelands of the Vlachs.
It's also interesting to note that there were also some rebellions by Slavs against the Bulgars during this period and I suspect that might've weakened both to the benefit of the Vlachs being on the rise afterwards.
It was also noted that "Gelou's subjects are portrayed as having "suffered many injuries from the Cumans and Pechenegs". Therefore, such raids might've also contributed to the rise of the Vlachs in Transylvania to the detriment of the Slavs; which was repeated later by Tatar, Turkish ravages that destroyed Hungarian populations and gave way to the Romanians.
P.S. Please also read "Slavic migrations to the Balkans" for more details on that area and Greece also
The Vlachs are proven to appear only in the 11th-12th century in Transylvania. Even then, those were smaller groups, high in the mountains, usually wandering around. They start being a significant portion of the population after the Mongol invasion in the 13th century, when the Hungarian peopulation living in the river valleys was decimated.
There is no vlach presence in transylvania before the hungarian conquest. Gelou and Menmarot are non-existent historical figures, there's not way to prove that they're real. Also that chronicle was written in the 1200s
Hungarians agreeing on their delusions 🤣🤣 how sweet.
Why is Poland only represented in. 1000? It’s old seperation started in the late 700’s when the duchy formed.
I recall that Palestine was Hellenized during Heraclius or otherwise during the last phases of Byzantine rule of the region in a demographic process involving a population shift.
On an unrelated note, after 638 AD the Angles should be the population of the Edinburgh region.
Two insights on the Iberian Peninsula, 1st Gallaecian was a variant/related language of Lusitanian that got replaced by Latin, not by Celtic. 2nd is that while Arabic was prominent during the muslim times, it didn't replace the Latin-based language, called by historian Andalusi Romance, only the aristocracy spoke primarily in Arabic while most of the population spoke that Andalusi Romance (Andalusi Romance would then be absorbed into Spanish and some of its features probably gave rise to the Andalusian dialects of Spanish).
Serbian and Croatian were separate languages before the 19th century, and had much lower mutual intelligibility, but in the 19th century the serbian language was replaced with the herzegovinian speech, aka croatian language by the serbian linguist Vuk Karadžić.
Croato-Serbian or Serbo-Croatian didn't existed until 1918. and there are five criteterias which determines if language is polycentric or not. I left the first criteria at the end of commentary.
Second criteria or common name:
Croatian names throughout history:
hrvatski, horvatski, harvatski, slovinski, ilirski and regional names:
slavonski, bosanski, dalmatinski, dubrovački...
Serbian names throughout history:
srpski, serbski, slavjanski, slavjanoserbski, serboslavjanski, iliričeski and regional names:
raški...
Third criteria or literary heritage corpus:
Croatian written corpus:
Natpis kneza Branimira 9.c., Višeslavova krstilnica 9.c., Natpis biskupa Donata 9.c., Natpis kralja Držislava 10.c., Natpis kraljice Jelene 10.c., Plominski natpis 11.c., Krčki natpis 11.c., Valunska ploča 11.c., Senjska ploča 12.c., Bašćanska ploča 1100., Vinodolski zakonik 1288., Hrvojev misal 1404., Poljički statut 1440., Vatikanski hrvatski molitvenik 1380.-1400., Marko Marulić 1450.-1524., Marin Držić 1508.-1567., Faust Vrančić 1551.-1617., Bartol Kašić 1575.-1650., Ivan Gundulić 1589.-1638., Ivan Belostenec 1594.-1675., Juraj Habdelić 1609.-1678., Andrija Kačić Miošić 1704.-1760., Ivan Mažuranić 1814.-1890., August Šenoa 1838.-1881., Ante Kovačić 1854.-1889., Miroslav Krleža 1893.-1981.......
Serbian written corpus:
Sveti Sava 1169.-1236., Dušanov zakonik 1349., Stefan Lazarević 1377.-1427., Dositej Obradović 1739.-1811., Vuk Karadžić 1787.-1864., Laza Kostić 1841.-1910., Stojan Novaković 1842.-1915., Laza Lazarević 1851.-1891., Stevan Sremac 1855.-1906., Miloš Crnjanski 1893.-1977......
Fourth criteria or social political state:
Croats and Serbs didn't lived in same social-political state-union until 1918.
Croatian cultural-communication community:
West European Roman system, aristocratic feudal (regional) system, Catholic community and Catholic literally tradition
Serbian cultural-communication community:
East European Byzantine system, aristocratic imperial (centralized) system, Orthodox community and Orthodox literally tradition
Fifth criteria or standardization process:
Croatian standardization process began with:
Bartol Kašić's first grammar book of Croatian in 1604. his translation of Bible from 1622.-1630. and writing of liturgical book Ritual rimski 1640. which were all a continuation from period of Croatian medieval Old Slavic redactions.
Serbian standardization process began with:
Vuk Karadžić's first grammar book of Serbian in 1818. with help and assistance from Jernej Kopitar who gave him many Croatian poetry and grammar books. From this period stopped the continuation/tradition of Serbian medieval Old Slavic redactions, they were cut out.
First criteria or mutual intelligibility:
Both are 95% mutually intelligible in this moment of time. Nobody normal is denying this fact 👍.
But here is the other 3 Slavic examples but there are hundred and hundred examples of other branches and world language families: Czechian-Slovakian 95% mutually intelligible Rusyn (not Russian)-Ukrainian-Belarussian 95% mutually intelligible Bulgarian-Macedonian 95% mutually intelligible They fulfill also the first criteria but also they (all three) fulfill the fourth criteria which is not fulfilled with Croatian and Serbian. Czechian-Slovakian: West European Roman system, aristocratic feudal (regional) system, Catholic community and Catholic literally tradition Rusyn-Ukrainian-Belarussian: East European Byzantine system, aristocratic imperial (centralized) system, Orthodox community and Orthodox literally tradition Bulgarian-Macedonian: East European Byzantine system, aristocratic imperial (centralized) system, Orthodox community and Orthodox literally tradition.
One big thing also that is unfolding: In March of this year Law on Croatian language was issued. In September or October this year the Commision for language planning will be formed and in next two years the Croatian linguists will make a strategy for new direction, that is, to implement more of other dialects's vocabulary and grammatical features into the standard or literary language which will move it into it's own new direction... Peace ✌️😉
@@amormir8280 Sociolinguistics differentiates three criteria for whether a language is polycentric:
• the ratio of similarities and differences
• mutual intelligibility of the speakers
• whether or not the supraregional (standard) language has the same dialectal basis
The "name" of something makes no difference (e.g. "Tajik" as opposed to "Farsi" as opposed to "Dari"), neither does the idea of a shared state or when the "first" grammar book (which is in and of itself subjective) came out.
I don't know where you listed that criteria from, but the one listed here is broadly agreed upon (Katičić, Matasović etc.) with the added caveat that "self-identity" plays a role in the endonyms used by governments when adsressing a language.
Polycentric languages like "Persian", "Hindustani" and "Serbo-Croatian" are often falsely compared with languages that don't share the same dialectal basis, yet nonetheless have a great deal of mutual intelligibility, e.g. Czech and Slovak, Swedish and Norwegian, Bulgarian and Macedonian. There is no *Czechoslovak in sociolinguistics because there is no core dialectal basis being used, similarly there is no *Bulgaro-Macedonian. In fact, Slovakia and Macedonia went out of their way to choose idioms as far away from their neigbouring countries' standards (a western Slovak dialect and an eastern Macedonian dialect) so as to differentiate their national language from the one next door.
That's not analogous to our situation. Shtokavian is the shared basis. It's the standard in Montenegro, the standard in Bosnia-Herzegovina, the standard in Serbia and the standard in Croatia. No amount of tweaking from professor Tadić or the "Commission for language planning" will fix that. It's a pro-forma branch of the Ministry of education and its linguistic impact will be null.
@@marin34 You than mean that all 4 are Croatian? 😉
Here are the autors who propose those 5 criterias or some of them:
Sociolinguistic description of the Croatian language in relation to related languages, as found in the works of philologists, linguists, and Slavic scholars Krunoslav Krstić, Radoslav Katičić, Dalibor Brozović, Stjepan Babić, Josip Lisac, Dragica Malić, Branka Tafra, Dubravka Sesar, Mario Grčević, Leopold Auburger, and Barbara Oczkowa
The first thirty seconds I think is how agriculture came to Europe
I remember when I hiked the Camino de Santiago there was graffiti in Leonese on some roadsigns in Leon on the Camino, generally writing over the Spanish with the same information written in Leonese, along with the word "Leon" underlined several times in graffiti where the sign identified the autonomous community as Castilla y Leon. I will add though that Leonese and Asturian are two separate languages, and Asturian is spoken in Asturias, rather than Leonese. Similarly, Valencian is a separate language from Catalan and has been since medieval times, although like Leonese and Asturianese, the two are very closely related. There are a few similar issues in other countries (where is Aromanian? Where is Romansh? Where is Swiss-German?), but generally this is a great and informative map.
The distinction between Asturian and Leonese (as well as Valencian and Catalan) isn't universal at all. Most speakers of those languages consider their respective pairs to be part of the same language, and the idea that they are distinct is pretty recent (and not entirely driven by locals). If you read the Asturian Wikipedia, for example, the article for Leonese claims that it's a variety of Asturleonese, while the Article for Asturian claims that it's one of the Asturleonese languages, showing contradictions among locals. Similarly, the Valencian Normative Diccionary (DNV) defines the word "Valencià", among other usages, as "The language spoken in the Valencian comunity, as well as Catalonia, the Balearic Islands, etc". After all, the real distinction between languages is mostly political, and everyone has a different opinion on politics.
It's easy to jump and correct with "absolute truths", but this topic is very hot and active nowadays. A sidenote about the controversy would probably be the best option, rather than changing it and triggering the other sector of the discussion.
@@quel2324 My information on Valencian/Catalan is mostly coming from a Valencian language teacher I studied with for years, who studied linguistics at the university and postgraduate level and was a professional translator before eventually looking for a slower-paced career as a teacher as she got older. She grew up and did her undergraduate studies in the city of Valencia. She can speak Valencian, Spanish, Standard Central Catalan, French, German, Italian and English. So according to her, Valencian and Catalan have had many large, standard and consistent differences in grammatical forms and conjugation, and Valencian has thousands of words of unique vocabulary which Catalan lacks, since the high Middle Ages. All of this has been true in the formal written forms of Valencian and of Catalan. She did a presentation once and gave many specific examples from the literature of the medieval period, because the class was curious about why she was adamant that her language Valencian was its own language and not a dialect of Catalan, as she said many Catalan nationalists incorrectly claimed. She had nothing against Catalonia, but she was very proud to be Valencian, and wanted her students to understand where she came from and the beautiful and unique culture, literary tradition and history of Valencia which she grew up with and cherished, and which she taught us a lot about. She was teaching us Spanish, and she was by far the best and most effective Spanish teacher I ever had, so I am very grateful to her. I ended up being able to study in Spain for a year, taking courses with just Spanish students, all taught entirely in Spanish, largely because of my experience with her. I can't thank her enough for that. She also taught us a bit of her beautiful Valencian, as well as a bit of Standard Catalan.
So yeah, that's where I'm coming from here. I'm not trying to butt into somebody else's disagreement about language or dialect, but I do feel that whenever there is a very large, very passionate group of people who claim to have their own unique and separate language and can show written grammatical differences which are consistent, stable and large, going back hundreds of years and affecting how they conjugate every single sentence they say in everyday conversation, and which also cause all of the road signs where they live to have be printed totally differently, that group of people is probably correct. I don't think there is any case in the world where I would have a different opinion, so I don't think this is an arbitrary political distinction. I can see that some people might have other definitions for language and dialect, but I really think that if you are dealing with differences as big as the ones we are talking about in this example, trying to force people into a dialect box who don't want to be is a lot more political than not doing so, and even if people want to say they are speaking a dialect, it is still kind of a dubious claim. It might be more reasonable to say that these people simply want their language to be assimilated into a larger, broader umbrella cultural identity. If that's what some people want that's fine, but I do think that is a more likely account of what is happening.
In other words, even in cases where people use various definitions and distinctions and there might not be an "absolute truth", some claims can nonetheless be a lot more reasonable than others.
There are also big differences between Asturian and Leonese. For example, Asturian has three genders with an even more complex structure involving masculine neuter, feminine neuter and pure neuter nouns, in addition to pure masculine and pure feminine nouns, while Leonese just has two genders for nouns, like other modern western Romance languages. That's a pretty big difference, and very significant since Asturian is the only modern western Romance language with its gender structure, while Leonese is far more similar to Spanish in grammatical structure and vocabulary, while still being very distinct from Spanish as well.
I don't think mutual intelligibility is very relevant to defining languages vs. dialects. Even with Spanish being my second language and knowing no Galician or Portuguese, I can still understand complex road directions in Galician just fine, and a native Spanish speaker certainly can even better, but that doesn't mean Galician is just a dialect of Spanish.
I also can't help but wonder whether something comparable is at stake here for people on the two different sides of this argument, even though I don't think that consideration is even the decisive one here. Valencian, Catalan, Asturian and Leonese are all beautiful, standardized and distinct, they are all written languages with a long history of being written differently, with very different written grammatical structures, and why can't we just let them stay the way they are, in all of their beauty and distinction? Or, if the point of the argument isn't to change Valencian and Leonese and defund or stall efforts to preserve them in their current forms, then what is the point of the argument, other than to upset the native speakers who are deeply attached to them? That's a serious question.
@@sechernbiw3321 I was merely pointing out how this topic is very active and controversial, even among locals and speakers of these languages, and thus it's hard to make easily understable educational content like this. I wanted to add a certain nuance to your comment, as I understood that it was showing the situation as a settled debate.
In either case, my point wasn't to discredit either language/dialect or to point out a "correct" version of it. Every level of organized speech is deserving of being recorded, respected and protected in case of danger.
@@sechernbiw3321 Valencian is Catalan, your teacher is stupid.
@@sechernbiw3321 Catalan and Valencian are the same language and only a fringe and highly politicized group claims otherwise. Catalan, like Spanish, is a highly unified language and its regional differences tend to zero, that's what makes these anti-scientific claims so fringe and ridiculous. Especially when you look at languages like german or italian, where regional differences are huge to the point of mutual unintelligibility in some cases, however nobody challenge their unity. So there is no real debate in this area despite these "flat- earthers like" movements. I'm so sorry you met some of these guys.
Great work!
Question: What were the high germans doing near kazakhstan in russia from 1800-1950
Google Volga Germans
@@Meow-ml5hv also after some watching is rusian a language or is it just misspelled russian
@@sauliusvitkauskas8741 It's usually called Old East Slavic but I decided to use alternative name Rusian with one s because that was the language of Kievan Rus. Im not sure if that was a good decision because some stupid people still think it's Russian
@@Meow-ml5hv oh i get it
@@Meow-ml5hv Это древнерусский язык.
You should do more videos like this on afro asiatic, indo iranian and southeast asian languages
Great work. Caspian languages could have been mentioned on the south coast of the Caspian sea. (I'm aware of the color code)
Even in the west of Brittany hardly anyone speaks Breton today (let alone as a first language) ; some are even *appallingly* unaware of its sheer existence.
2:14 Интересно видеть как сохранились языки аборигенов на Кавказе , хотя находились в эпицентре распространения других языков . Единственный подобный язык сохранился у басков в северо-востоке Испании , юго-западе Франции.
Горы, горы и еще раз горы.
Горские народы в принципе крайне живучие, в силу защищенной географии и бедности земель, на которых они проживают.
@@skaor8036 в Швейцарии тоже горы, но там говорят на немецком, французском и итальянском
Good video, but if I am not wrong proto-Baltic splitted to west and east Baltic branches at 500-300BC
Amazing love from Albania
It is amazing how little impact the Golden Horde seemed to make on this. I guess the Turkic peoples had always been there since the time of the Huns.
Кочевники были малочисленными.
Золотая орда это не государство в современном понимании. Это кочевники, которые собирали дань с покоренных стран и народов.
Would it be possible for you to do a version like this of Asia?
Yes, it's possible
I imagine it would be much harder, as Asia is so much more linguistically diverse. Like Europe just has Indo-Europeans and Urals, while Asia has Sino-Tibetans, Indo-Europeans, Turks, Mongols, Afro-Asiatics, Austro-Asiatics, Austronesians, Kra-Das, and many more that I haven't mentioned.
@@Smitology There are also Turkic languages in Europe.
@@scythianturk2526 Yes, and Basques as an isolate group too.
Do you know that in the early days ppl spoke an indoeuropian language in Finland.
In the early days ppl spoke an indoeuropian language in Finland.
ALBANIAN - GREEK - ARMENIAN LANGUAGE = 7000 YEARS
What you mean 7000 years. Back then thoese languages didnt even exist, when the video only starts from six thousand years ago, when indo-europeans languages started to spread around Europe.
@@jout738 i mean that there are recent studies that Say that greek Albanian and Armenia languages have 7000 years that are spoken
@@United.States.of.Europe that isnt true at all. Proto-Indo-European didnt even exist 7000 years ago, how could Albanian then? its like saying you are older than your Grandad.
@@Fummy007 Well done, with this short comment you saved me a lot of time trying to answer this kind of nonsense.
@@United.States.of.Europe No reliable study say that, stop linking your wishful thinking to a study that doesn't exist or at best is from an unreliable source.
Nice video! I'm subscribing!
Bulgarian would've been the language spoken in Belgrade (or a dialect of it) until the Ottoman conquest when its original population was ravaged and deported to Eastern Thrace.
The town was called Alba Bulgarica by Medieval Latin sources. And when Crusaders passed through these lands they noted their Bulgarian character.
Dude, there are a lot of pieces missing from your puzzle, but that obviously doesn't stop you from being so aggressively pretentious about drawing the wrong conclusions. After all, you are not the only one who has such an approach and tries similar things, as is said in an old proverb
Altaic is a controversial proposed language family
Man, this video is a masterpiece!!
my compliments did you really manage to do such an accurate job?!
for example having specified how Sicily was divided between Sicels which were italic and Sicans which were to be marked in gray
my most sincere congratulations👏🏻👏🏻👏🏻
Thank you. There are still some mistakes but I'm too lazy to correct them now
@@Meow-ml5hv I know almost nothing about this subject but I don't think there are important errors
Today there is only 200 000 people who speak Breton in the historic Britany (Bretagne + Pays de Loire : 4.8 millions persons). The average age of the speakers is 70...
The Germanic expansion to most of Germany and Netherlands was before 500 bc,around 800bc
I hope you won't delete the video or your channel gets deleted. Because I'm gonna come back and rewatch this well made video of yours! Thanks man. Unbelievable how good the video is.
Gaulish was actually the main language in most of present-day France when the Franks conquered it.
Latin would've been concentrated more in the southeast, urban areas, and, of course, used by the Catholic church, which is why it was adopted by the Franks after their baptism.
Frankish remained widely spoken in much of Northern France until the end of the Early Middle Ages.
Thanks for info, would you send me some source?
@@Meow-ml5hv I hope I could help. They're mostly listed in the Wikipedia article of Gaulish language > History subsection. There are many sources provided there, both ancient and modern.
I'll post a separate comment regarding British Latin.
As for Frankish, for several centuries, northern Gaul was a bilingual territory (Vulgar Latin and Franconian). This source is from the Wiki article on Frankish;
"At that time a large part of the north of France was bilingual Germanic/Romance, and for a couple of centuries Germanic held its own. But in the seventh century a wave of romanisation began anew and because of the merging of the two peoples the name for the Franks was used for the Romance speakers north of the Loire. ..."
de Vries, Jan W., Roland Willemyns and Peter Burger, Het verhaal van een taal, Amsterdam: Prometheus, 2003, pp. 12, 21-27. On page 25
--- Personally, I would like to know more details about the precise borders of this bilingual zone. It's a shame that it's not better understood in popular science.
But considering that the Franks certainly left a large genetic impact on the Northeast of France, including Île-de-France, I have no doubt that the language border was significantly impacted by them during this period in question.
PS French, German, Dutch, etc. versions of the article might be useful to gather more data
In the article about Old French, Cerquiglini is also of the opinion that various parts of Northern France remained bilingual between Latin and Germanic for some time
Bernard Cerquiglini, La naissance du français, Presses Universitaires de France, 2nd edn., chap. 3, 1993, p. 53.
While the German version of the article on Frankish language has a source and map indicating a Somme-Aisne line, north of which Germanic place names dominate.
@@NovemberTheHacker I've read about that bilingual period but I can't figured out how that romanisation could happend in Belgium, Lorraine and other areas that were for tousand years under German-dominated Holy Roman Empire so I assumed that frankish was used as a second language in those areas but the romance language was the dominant. There is generally a lot of assuming in this video.
@@Meow-ml5hv these 3 articles provide good understanding of how Francs were romanised, and how the border between French and Flemish emerged.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terminology_of_the_Low_Countries?wprov=sfla1
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Salian_Franks?wprov=sfla1
the Name of Dutch language
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dutch_language?wprov=sfla1
Astures --- Incorporated into the Roman province of Hispania Tarraconensis, the assimilation of the Asturian region into the Roman world was a slow and hazardous process, with its partially romanized people retaining the Celtic language, religion and much of their ancient culture throughout the Roman Imperial period.
- CIL XI 395, from Ariminum; cf: B. Dobson, Die Primipilares (Beihefte der Bonner Jahrbücher XXXVII), Köln 1978, pp. 198-200.
That's very true. We Kurds are descendants of the Gutians 💔 and our language has changed over time into an Indo-European language ❤ Medes
Kurdish still contains some non-Indo-European words 🖤
We ARE Indo-Europeans, Medes. Only some tribes still have majority ancestry of the Gutians. But they're still our ancestors judt not the main ones.