Is PIE and the standard theory of european languages really needed to explain why most european languages are related...

Why isn't logic a form of evidence? They have so much in common that its clear they originate from the same source.

Your alternate theory that they just borrow from Greek and Latin doesn't hold up to etymology

Oh, you even made your own thread.

Why do all European countries use the English alphabet?

>retarded bait: the thread

>But why postulate that languages in the baltic and scandinavia originate from migrations of people from central or west asia who shared a common origin and cultural heritage with indians when there was contact with an indo-european much geographically closer, and more recent in time?
That's not how language families work.

You're just embarassing yourself OP. I would let this thread slowly die if I were you.

You are fucking stupid.

please at least read into the basics of a theory before you start rejecting it. it is obvious that you haven't even looked at any of the evidence and you clearly do not understand how language change and language contact works and how language families are established.

possible starting points:
- the comparative method
- sound correspondences
- tables comparing cognates in the different languages of a family/subfamily

So what is it exactly that you think you found that two generations of professional linguists and archaeologists missed?

or is it because you think that they're all cultural marxists who don't know shit about dick?

>cultural marxists
Ugh, if anything cultural marxists would be against it because muh racist undertones

Why are all threads on linguistics in Veeky Forums always started by complete fucking morons who deny the basics?

>complete fucking morons who deny the basics
>Veeky Forums

Seems legit.

>Hittite, Sanskirit, other eastern indo-european languages and Greek and Latin may descend from a PIE language. But why postulate that languages in the baltic and scandinavia originate from migrations of people from central or west asia who shared a common origin and cultural heritage with indians when there was contact with an indo-european much geographically closer, and more recent in time?

Because of the way those languages developed and still are moron. Comparative linguistics.

It's ridiculous to pretend that, say, Baltic languages are exclusively descended from Latin and have no relation to Sanskrit, when it's pretty fucking obvious they share a lot of features with the latter, including archaic ones that Latin had lost.

OP is a fucking retarded mongoloid.

That was a joke. "Cultural Marxist" is a right-wing dog whistle for "stupid ivory tower smarty pants with their factual evidence and peer reviewed process and stuff."

Usually when a lay person thinks they are going to turn several academic professions on their head with a radical new theory, it almost certainly has something to do with validating their social/political opinions (which are discredited by the current model) and not because they found a piece of tangible evidence to support their claim.

Unless OP discovered something while out on excavation in the Danube River valley?

All propaganda
>we all bruthaz

>But why postulate that languages in the baltic and scandinavia originate from migrations of people from central or west asia who shared a common origin and cultural heritage with indians when there was contact with an indo-european much geographically closer, and more recent in time?

Ok, you asked about Scandinavian languages. Look at the declension system of modern Lithuanian. It has two standard declensions that Latin and Ancient Greek lacked, but that Sanskrit and PIE had: locative and instrumental (Latin locative was only used in some cases for neuter nouns -- it was already on its way out).

>Hittite, Sanskirit, other eastern indo-european languages and Greek and Latin may descend from a PIE language. But why postulate that languages in the baltic and scandinavia originate from migrations of people...

Because it's retarded and arbitrary to think that for some reason the PIE culture spread in a wild blitzkrieg eastward far and wide, but went westward in a delicate line to the southwest and landed only in Italy, Greece, and Asia Minor.

why?
how do u know where it originated?

>why do we think certain languages are related?
regularity of sound change. it has nothing to do with how superficially similar the dictionaries look. if there are regular sound correspondences that can't be explained by borrowing or chance, then the languages must be descended from a common ancestor.

>how do u know where it originated?
well for one when you look at the reconstructed language you can figure out what they had words for. If you have a word for birch tree but not for fish and 9 different words for grass then the origin point likely had birch trees, no water, and a lot of grass.

Then you compare that with archaeological evidence and genetic evidence. There's a lot of both.

>genetic evidence

Back. To. /pol/.

Proto-Indo-European never existed. Ural-Altaic is just as compact as a language family as Indo-European is, the latter is just more accepted among academia due to IE linguists being biased as fuck.

>This ideological bias still influences Indo-European research: the so-called "Kurgan theory" of Indo-European origins developed by Marija Gimbutas is one of the more recent examples. This theory is still being misleadingly presented as a credible scientific theory despite its highly questionable interpretation of the facts, the lack of conclusive data supporting it, and the substantial contradicting evidence (Götz, 1994).
>This is the so-called "family tree" theory which claims that the Indo-European languages and peoples originate from a single common ancestral language, people and homeland, based on Grimm's linguistic theory of sound change. So far all attempts at locating the presumed ancestral Indo-European homeland and to reconstruct the hypothetical ancestral Indo-European language have failed. The evidence suggests that there were no single Indo-European common ancestral language, people and homeland, but that the Indo-European languages and peoples evolved from a complex process of cultural and ethno-linguistic convergence and hybridization among various proto-Indo-European and non-Indo-European peoples, including Turanians. The failure of Indo-European linguistics is due to the fact that many words which are assumed to be of Indo-European origin are in fact of Sumerian origin, but Indo-European linguists simply continue to ignore this because of the erroneous belief that Sumerian was an "isolate" language (Götz, 1994).

>and landed only in Italy, Greece, and Asia Minor.
R1a1 peaks in Russia and Poland, with a significant enclave in Norway.

What's the point of this Thread? It's nothing but denialists throwing their absurd theories. I expect more from Veeky Forums

>I expect more from Veeky Forums

Seriously?

We can't make a denialist change their non-falsifiable opinions, we can't even really present facts because those slippery things are based on professional research and they wouldn't be denialists if they didn't start their theories with "now I know this doesn't mesh with the current research but all of the researchers are communists so we shouldn't be taking them seriously to begin with."

All we can do is poke holes in their arguments but all that's going to accomplish is that they'll accuse us of being lefty/pol/ for insisting on proper citations and for intolerance of arguments founded on ignorance.

Veeky Forums is pretty awful desu

Would going after their intent be helpful?

Wew lad.
Yamnaya say hello.

>I have never heard of the Hethtites

Reminder, anyone who denies the Kurgan hypothesis is a Pajeet.

The Kurgan hypothesis also makes southern euros very angry for some reason

It really doesn't, I'm southern euro and I don't see why it should brother me.

Logic osnt sufficient evodence because you can have a totally fictional narrative thats logically consistent

Thats not proof of anything. Lithuanian is a different language to latin and its totally feasible and likely that some indo-european languages will have similarities to sanskirit by coincidence/chance alone and not neccesarily from direct descent from either sanskirit or a PIE language that may or may not exist. The fact that lithuanian is baltic and sanskirit is indian suggests this, because geographically the furthest indoeuropean language from sanskirit. A language that shares traits with sanskirit and not latin should be geogtaphically closer to sanskirit then latin or at least closer then the baltic is. Occams razor

> reconstructed language

Built on a mountain of a priori assumptions and speculations

I'll repost this since you didn't reply to it in the other thread

>We don't have any record of germanic, celtic or slavic languages until long after these people had extensive contact with the romans
That doesn't mean anything, and Gaulish is attested only 200 years after Latin and already distinct anyway.

But most importantly, Germanic and Celtic cannot be demonstrated to be descended from Latin, while they can be demonstrated to be descended from Proto-Indo-European

For example PIE initial *bʰ and *dʰ merge into [f] in Latin.

Compare English 'brother', 'bear' vs Latin 'frater', 'fero'
English 'door', 'do' vs Latin 'foris', 'facio'

An initial [f] splitting into and [d] with no other conditions is completely improbable and goes against all observed language change. The only conclusion that can be made is that English is not descended from Latin, the same goes for Celtic, which also keeps these consonants distinct.

Thats the only conclusion that you think can be made. Youre reading in to the noise of language change and variation through glasses shaded by bias and doctrine. Its speculation and imagination which occams razor makes unneccessary

Because Veeky Forums is one of the easiest boards to bait, so it functions as sort of baitmaster's training ground where he trains himself before he can move to more difficult boards.

So what do you suggest? That it happened the other way round? Although this has never Bern observed anywhere?
Sounds way more implausible. Watch out that you don't cut yourself with that razor.

lithuanian is related to sanskirit through its descent from latin, because lithuanian and sanskirit share similarities that latin and sanskirit don't simply because lithuanian and sanskirit are both indo-european languages. The people who developed lithuanian simply used indo-european differently to italic people.

The most likely scenario is that indo-european languages originated east and spread west

We've been over this. Lithuanian cant be descended from Latin because it has features that were long gone in Latin by its first attestation.

How the fuck do you explain words that for example are found in Balto-Slavic languages and Indo-Iranian languages, but are not found in Italic languages (your beloved latin)? How do you explain words which are found in Celtic and Slavic, but not in Italic (your beloved latin)?

why couldn't they develop those features without getting them from latin, sanskirit or PIE?

It's so fucking tiresome how every against-the-mainstream idea here comes out of ethno-nationalist wishful thinking. At least this one wasn't quite as retarded Hungarians pushing the Ugric-Altaic theory.

> Ugric-Altaic theory
At least that one had some academic support, decades ago.

extremely improbable

it's also extremely improbable that an arctic language is more related to an indian language then latin or that it didn't descend from latin

and yet that's what the evidence shows

There are too many sound and grammatical correspondences for them to be unrelated developments. The sheer amount of them make it being a coincidence impossible.

NO. No its fucking not you absolute turbo faggot.

yes it is. the evidence points to this and you are denying it because hurr they are closer to Rome

>lithuanian is related to sanskirit through its descent from latin,

I'm Lithuanian and I can tell you that you're a retard.

They don't. Greek doesn't, Russian doesn't. Plus it's not the English alphabet, it's the Latin one.

>the evidence points to this and you are denying it because hurr they are closer to Rome
no, you're denying several generations of linguists and archaeologists because it doesn't fit whatever neo-nazi fantasy history you've invented. You're welcome to provide evidence but you have none besides pure amateur conjecture. Go back to /pol/ you absolute fucking fag.

How is PIE a neo-nazi fantasy?

Wait so is that quote claiming that all indo-European languages are descended from Sumerian or that they just borrow heavily from it?

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yamna_culture#Westwards_migration_to_Europe

Thread confirmed bait.
Just let it die guys.

I replied to the wrong person 2 replies ago. Whoops.

my bad, see

>They're all related to latin and greek and we have no record of other indo-european languages from europe until well after the romans had extensive contact with and influence on all the people who speak them.
Not strictly true. The Celts in Spain and Ireland had a writing system that may date back to 2nd century BC. Certainly you can argue limited Romano Greek contact in many areas while the areas still had Indo European languages

Lithuanian is also derived from a native preindoeuropean language

extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, so far non has been provided in this thread

Personal incredulity is a poor reason to reject a leading theory

Borrowed heavily from it, with Sumerian being a Turanian language.

> archealogical evidence

Theres no archealogical evidence for PIE or the orthodox indoeuropean hypothesis

Are you fucking retarded?

Some Iranian steppedwelling sandniggers don't debunk anything he said, m80

hurr

How is arctic and indian languages being more related then indian and mediterranean languages not an extraordinary claim? A prehistoric tale about a mythical race spreading from india to lithuania or vice versa, with no historical records, no primary or secondary evidence and no archealogical evidence is an extraordinary claim. Linguistics and philology arent sciences and some imaginary speculation and mental masturbation is not extraordinary evidence.

>Uralics
>Indo-European
wew

>These data imply that Uralic-speakers too would have been part of the Yamnaya > Corded Ware movement, which was thus not exclusively Indo-European in any case. And as well as the genetics, the geography, chronology and language contact evidence also all fit with a Yamnaya > Corded Ware movement including Uralic as well as Balto-Slavic.
>Both papers fail to address properly the question of the Uralic languages. And this despite — or because? — the only Uralic speakers they report rank so high among modern populations with Yamnaya ancestry. Their linguistic ancestors also have a good claim to have been involved in the Corded Ware and Yamnaya cultures, and of course the other members of the Uralic family are scattered across European Russia up to the Urals.

Aryanist history morphers BTFO

Prove yamnya has anything to do with PIE

That doesn't still prove shit, on the contrary.

Early neolithic farmers were already mixed with European hunter gatherers

You're just sticking your head in the sand now.

Archaelogy shows migrations from the steppe to Europe, and Iran/India at exactly the right time to match the material culture of the reconstructed Indo-Europeans. Genetics also confirms it. Indo-European languages are proven to be of common descent for 100% of everyone who has the slightest idea about linguistics.

You think PIE people simply invaded and replaced everyone or are you fucking retarded or something? Some Indo-Europeans just assimilated with general population and the native populations adopted language of culturally and technologically more advanced Indo-Europeans. Like for example Northern Germanics/Germans have plenty of haplogroup I1 which is native to Scandinavia/Jutland and the haplogroups itself is never found in ancient remain testings of steppe cultures. Yet there exists unkown substratum in Germanic languages which show pre Indo-European influence.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Germanic_substrate_hypothesis

Also I like how you ignore specifically Yamnya or Sredny Stog culture, which shows domestication of horse and genetic evidence and input into modern European populations.

You stupid fuck look what area Corded Ware culture compromised, the culture itself is a direct continuation of Yamnaya culture, besides Hungarians are virtually genetically indistinguishable from their neighbors they just merely speak Uralic languages which they adopted from some horse niggers, about Estonians who do you think are their closest genetic relatives?

>About 75% of the DNA of late Neolithic Corded Ware skeletons found in Germany were the same as the Yamnaya DNA

>A newly published University of Tartu doctoral thesis has concluded that Estonians and Finns, despite having similar languages, are genetically less related than Estonians are to Latvians, Lithuanians, Poles and northwestern Russians.

What a twist! Fucking Indo-Europeans!

The Kurgan hypothesis is bullshit, lad.

paleoglot.blogspot.fi/2007/05/kurgan-hypothesis-is-hypothetical.html

Some random blog post from 2007 proves wrong general archaeologist consensus.

>The Kurgan hypothesis (also known as the Kurgan theory or Kurgan model) is the most widely accepted proposal of several solutions to explain the origins and spread of the Indo-European languages

Totally legit.

This is more explecative.

blue: Western/European hunter gatherer
aqua green: Caucasian hunter gatherer
Orange: Anatolian farmer

drive.google.com/file/d/0B9o3EYTdM8lQbXpWbFV2WHl4bEE/view?pref=2&pli=1

You sound like a complete tool

>constructed language

It's closer to call it a reconstructed language.

Why?

we can speculate its existence because we can monitor how current languages change/have changed over short periods of time and apply those rules of change backward

it's not a perfect reconstruction but it's probably pretty close

It's not that simple. Linguists would be out of jobs if the changes in languages over time occurred in such a uniform manner.

Baltimore is closer to England than Los Angeles, so geographically it must be more like British English. Occams razor

>If I just say occams razor over and over I'll prove my Roman-centric neurosis is true

Sounds highly tenuous and I think you know that

Again, the evidence for language relatedness does NOT come from shared vocabulary. Languages in contact can have a ton of shared vocabulary despite not being closely related. For instance, Finnish has a lot of words borrowed from Swedish for example. Modern Nahuatl borrowed heavily from Spanish. Many Chinese words have been borrowed by Korean and Japanese. Arabic has borrowed a lot of French words. That does not mean those languages are related. What you're looking for when saying two languages are related is REGULAR SOUND CORRESPONDENCES. If two languages have many regular sound correspondences, then they must be descended from a common ancestor, because regular sound correspondences can't be accounted for by chance or by borrowing. Look up Grimm's Law as an example.

>Baltimore is closer to England than Los Angeles, so geographically it must be more like British English. Occams razor
Except that there's an ocean between England and Baltimore so occams razor doesn't apply at all and even using this as an example demonstrates how very stupid you are.

>Because europeans like celts and germanic people had extensive contact and exchange with the romans, and greeks to a lesser extent.
'No'
Celtic folk in the northern part of the British Isles and Germanic folk overall were not under significant influence by Rome. In Celtic areas under Roman influence by these two, except maybe by the Breton folk, you Dodd see the adoption of Latin language. You overestimate the extensivness of sprachbund. You'll more likely see a language dominate than influence, abd if you want that you need to have the natives by the cultural balls for a long time
>Why is there a need for any other explanation for celtic and germanic languages being indo-european?
There is no "need", there is only reality

Since we know OPs claim is bullshit and probably charged by a wanting to have something be that is not, what's his angle?
Does he wasn't Rome to have greater impact than it has?
Wanting to discredit Germanic and Celtic culture somehow?

Any ideas?