Why are indo-europeans so understudied...

Why are indo-europeans so understudied? They literally founded every single worthwhile civilization with the exception of Egypt and China.

Other urls found in this thread:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indo-European_studies
en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Category:Irish_terms_inherited_from_Proto-Celtic
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ariosophy
utexas.edu/cola/centers/lrc/eieol/engol-6-X.html
twitter.com/NSFWRedditGif

OP as a Ukrainian history enthusiast I'm still astounded by the stupidity of your post

Not OP, but can you explain why it's stupid?

>Ukrainian history
Is there such a thing?

>I'm still astounded by the stupidity of your post.
For reasons such as?

Meant to quote

>understudied

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indo-European_studies

The PIE didn't found the IVC, Elamite, Minoan, Etruscan, Mesopotamian, or Hurrian civilizations

Their daughter tribes blended into the regions over time

PIE influence was ultimately limited to horses and the overreaching frame of mythology

Riveting argument.

They aren't understudied at all

Their discovery pretty much kicked off the modern field of linguistics

>The PIE didn't found the IVC, Elamite, Minoan, Etruscan, Mesopotamian, or Hurrian civilizations
Firstly, IVC and Elamite are (probably the same). There are too little vestiges of their civilization to assess accurately their level of development, which is why I didn't include them.

I should've cited Mesopotamia.

>Minoan, Estruscan, Hurrian
Seriously nigger?

I'm talking about their history, not linguistics.

>le ebin cultulel supeliolity

Are you so profoundly moronic that you cannot assess the relative worth of different cultures?

>There are too little vestiges of their civilization to assess accurately their level of development
Development of what?

Civilizational development. I thought it was obvious...

>Civilizational development. I thought it was obvious...
In what context though because there is a lot of stuff they have come across with the IVC

The only metric. Sophistication. In the arts, philosophy, trade, architecture, etc..

The problem with the elamo-IVC is that we barely know anything about them. Any statement about their civilization is bound to be very speculative (compared to say, a statement about ancient egypt)

>moronic
>relative

the only moron here is you, polshitter

You'd be more convincing if you could master basic grammar and punctuation. Your sub 60 IQ probably explains your inability to draw comparisons.

KYS.

>whaaa you made a typo
>therefore I am smart
>you are stupid

Take your iq scores and drool over the bell curve in /pol. That's the ghetto where you should stay.

dont give a shit about your mongrel language
the point is you are an uneducated moron memeing about cultures and IQs when you are some inbred uneducated redneck who never opened a book yet you think you are so smart

>Another guy who thinks that cause he is clueless about something it must be cause its a neglected field

But a lot of evidence of their trade and scripts are available, though their writing is yet to be deciphered many of their seals and their intentions including atleast one diety, the Pashupati is not really as speculative as expected.

Oh, they aren't because Germans didn't manage to steal them for themselves.

Heck, in german they even call them "Indo-Germanen".

Germans are the most patethic creatures to ever roam the earth. All germanics = German
all blacks = German
all asians = German

Irrelevant fucks.

They call it Indo-Germanic because Germanic is the western-most branch and Indic the easternmost branch.

>because Germanic is the western-most branch
Celtic is.

>what is Icelandic

They are overstudied if compared to some other cultures of the same time period.
We barely know anything about Uralic peoples movement and history, because nobody except 1 Finn, 1 Russian and 0.5 Hungarian care enough.

Tripolye culture in Ukraine had cities larger than Sumerian, yet we don't know enough/really care because PIE people raided the fuck out of it, destroying largest "urban" civilization in the world, not just Europe.

>in Ukraine
Ukraine is 2000 years old now?

Stop.

>the amount of hate in this thread
Yet Veeky Forums will fawn over some spear chucking nigger """civilization""".

I see that this is basically a reddit outpost. Disgusting.

Ukraine is a region, what is your problem?
You want to say modern Ukraine region was a sea 4000 years ago or something?

>Ukraine
>a religion

>Gaelic
>a Celtic language

The ancients never referred to british islanders as celtic and every gaelic word is derived from an english or latin word, its just a different way of spelling/pronouncing it

>and every gaelic word is derived from an english or latin word, its just a different way of spelling/pronouncing it
No.

Russia pls

show me the etymology of one gaelic word that is derived from a latin or english word, just one

You mean that isn't?

>
>show me the etymology of one gaelic word that is derived from a latin or english word, just one

*that is NOT derived from a latin or english word

yes

en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Category:Irish_terms_inherited_from_Proto-Celtic

Are you implyng that ancient did not use modern English terms? OUTRAGEOUS!

There's no evidence that they were celtic (whatever that means) in any sense of the word

>proto-celtic

prove that existed and that celtic languages aren't just derived from latin. Funny that reconstructed ancient british language sounds exaclty like latin/a romance language

>>Funny that reconstructed ancient british language sounds exaclty like latin/a romance language
>what is Proto-Indo-European

>what is Proto-Indo-European

Made up, completely hypothetical and constructed. The further you trace back a non-latin "indo-european" language, ie the older it gets, the more it sounds like latin, because they're all just variations of latin

*non-latin, non-greek "indo-european" language from europe

Nice false flag.

Because there history is minimal, what we have is theories and estimates instead of actual literature and buildings

>Founded
You act as if PIE is some sort of monolithic identity.

>theories
>estimates

its made up. You can find commonalities between any two languages, the reasons why PIE was made up in the last few hundred years were political. Funny that greeks and romans encountered pretty much every other people that supposedly spoke indo-european languages yet never noticed they were related

>exception of Egypt and China
Implying

WE

>>>They literally founded every single worthwhile civilization with the exception of Egypt and China.


Minoans, Sumerians Akkadians, Assyrians, Phoenicians, Hebews just to name a few

>its made up. You can find commonalities between any two languages
Nowhere near as much as between related languages.

>Heck, in german they even call them "Indo-Germanen".
Not in the last eighty years m8.
>Germans are the most patethic creatures to ever roam the earth. All germanics = German
>all blacks = German
>all asians = German
dude what

>understudied
give me another group of people that is more studied than them
also "indo-european" is an extremely superfical way to group people.
btw Akkadian civilization isnt worthwhile to you?
what about Sumerians? Etruscans? Minoans? Urartians? Elamite? Olmecs? Incas? Aztecs?

I know i am talking to a wall because you opened this thread just to stroke your ethnocentrist ego.

english is derived from latin

The context of the sentence does not really require the use of the word 'literally', its use for emphasis is mostly employed by high school female vernacular.
It is implicit enough, using literally here is distasteful and clumsy.

Proofs?

nigga the only reason we know they existed is because of linguistics, there aint alot we can know about them since there aint alot of shit left to study, and even if we do find things to study there is no way of knowing it belonged to PIE

>because they're all just variations of latin
This might be the most ignorant post I've read on this board all week, and that's saying something.

english is germanic in structure, it just has a lot of vocab from french. if you'd learned a romance language you'd know how different english is in terms of grammar

to be fair we don't know what language minoans spoke and we probably won't for a while

though i guess that doesn't help op's case either

well duh obviously they spoke minoan

>When discussing history, please reference credible source material, and provide as much supporting information as possible in your posts.
>trolling will not be tolerated
>a high level of discourse is expected

Three strikes and you're out, my man.

The PIE didn't found many societies, they just imposed their upon existing tribal peoples

germanic languages are derived from latin as well

There's no reason to think otherwise. It's not like we have any record of germanic or celtic languages until well after the romans had extensive contact with and influence on them. The alternative is a bunch of made up speculation

Do not feed this troll.

Look at English "brother", Greek "phrā́tēr", Latin "frater"
English "door", Greek "thúra", Latin "foris".

Notice how English, like Greek has different consonants while Latin has "f" for both. How do you suppose the distinction would arise if English was descended from Latin?

your graph doesn't really prove much.

Aryans are the greatest of the earthly races. These kids are all idiots.

Read this, OP
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ariosophy

why is it always germans who come up with this shit?

English uses French word order, man.

bait nice

Mongolic seems to be completly different from the others.

>bait
>English due to the influence of French from the Norman conquest uses subject-verb-object word order

Old English used SVO.

>There's no evidence that they were celtic (whatever that means) in any sense of the word

Indeed, they were the famous annunaki people.

Derived well not in this universe, influenced by you bet your ass they where

Not talking about Old English. Also according to the source I see, there was no consistency, it could be VSO as well.

Germans come up with a lot of stuff.

Are you implying that Minoans weren't a civilization or that they were Indo-European? Both would be incorrect statements.

Word order was freer in but the norm was SVO.

utexas.edu/cola/centers/lrc/eieol/engol-6-X.html

It got stricter with the collapse of the case system.

It collapsed because of the Norman conquest and got rigidly replaced by a pure SVO syntax. Not really unknown but a definite influence from the French-Normans. Remember French was so widespread in England that it was commonly used along side English until it got replaced with "New" English.

>It collapsed because of the Norman conquest
No, it was caused by phonological changes. Merging of final /m/ and /n/, post-tonic vowels to the schwa, and deletion of the final schwa. This basically left us with what we have today, genitive singular and nominative plural. You can see this process happening in writing from ~900 to ~1500.

most of the proposed hypotheses for the language of the minoans are actually indo-european though.

"No."

French was heavily used, dude. It was also pretty acceptable and widespread, this is pretty much written in stone here.

>greek, luwian, indo-iranian, distinct indo-european branch vs. phoenician, tyrrhenian
"Yes."

No it isn't lol, in every linguistics book I've ever read they said it was caused by changes in phonology.

Mmmmm, do you retard realize that Greek and Minoan aren't the same thing?

Myceneans are the ones who spoke proto Greek and developed after the Minoans and also conquered them.

Minoan spoke an obscure isolated language and are PIE.

>isolated language
>PIE

Pick one

You sound like you have no fucking clue what you're talking about.

If these are your metrics PIE culture is shit, they either settled among civilizations, or were civilized by other cultures.

Pre Indo European

Underrated comment.

How the fuck is PIE understudied?

What you really mean is "I'm ignorant, and it's someone else's fault (probably liberals!)"

England = aboriginal australia, culturally? Kill yourself

And you think French had nothing to do with the decline of Old English? Okay.

To an extent he's right
>the draught of marche hath pearced to the roote
Etc

Morality is indeed relative, but culture sure as hell isn't
>dude abos are the same as the romans and the chinese don't be racist

Mycenaeans didn't speak 'proto-Greek', they spoke Greek. Mycenaean is a Greek dialect, and the others (Doric, Ionic, Aeolic) must have existed along side it or in different regions. Mycenaean is just the only one that was recorded, because of the highly centralized nature of Mycenaean society.

The Minoans could very well have used a form of Greek or a related language. We have no idea one way or another.

Theories include:
Luwian
Phoenician
Tyrrhenian
Greek
Unknown Semetic
Unknown Anatolian dialect
Pre-IE Paleo Balkan language

Just because Linear A hasn't been deciphered as Greek doesn't mean it can't be or isn't related. The truth is we have no idea, at all, what they spoke.