Do we know anything about the languages that were spoken in Europe before they were replaced by Indo-European ones...

Yes we know quite a bit about many substrate languages. I'd suggest learning about whatever language you're interested in and the substrates that supplied its foundation.

If you asked me to name a language that is simultaneously spoken by many people and not remotely ancient, I would have guessed Russian. If you're just trolling pls go.

I know very little about finno-ugrics, except that their language is nothing like their neighbor's. can somebody give me a quick run-down?

How did Basques retained their language while being cucked to the max by Indo-Europeans though? 85% of them are R1b, the highest frequency in all of Europe. It just doesn't make sense: eupedia.com/europe/european_y-dna_haplogroups.shtml

The main lienages of Finns (N and l1) are pre-Indo-European, so it makes sense for them to keep their language since they weren't cucked like Basques.

Read the Song of Roland.

Just because you procreate with someone doesn't mean you necessarily learn their language/forget your own.

Kurds have been under arabs/turks for centuries, yet kurdish still exists.

Croats had been cucked by Hungary for almost a thousand years yet they kept their language as well.

It's got nothin' to do with cucking.

>implying there was only one wave of R1b migrations

They came after the Indo-Europeans so they don't count as pre-IE.

Basque is alive, but that's about it. I think there's been efforts to reconstruct Etruscan and Iberian, but as far as I know they're pretty much lost forever unless new archeological pieces are found.

OP asked for pre-Indo-European languages and you're suggesting an Indo-European language.

It should be noted that Basque also had major influences in Spanish, particularly when it comes to phonology.

>The main lienages of Finns (N and l1) are pre-Indo-European
They're not, they're just not Indo-European.

>no one is actually answering OP's question

this is all nice and well but do we KNOW anything about pre-IE languages?

I had always wondered about that.
When hearing a Basque person speak. and without knowing any Spanish, you would think they sound just like a Spaniard.
What are the details on who influenced who in what ways?

I'm not an expert and it seems there's no consensus anyway, but as far as I remember, Basque is usually credited for Spanish losing all voiced stridents /v, z, ʒ, dʒ/ and all nasalized sounds which exist in most other west romance languages, and gaining intervocalic voiced fricatives /β, ð, and ɣ/ that don't exist in most other romance languages.

what a silly map

What does the OP want to know? As mentioned, aside from Basque we don't know much about other languages before the spread of PIE or Proto-Uralic and their descendants.

As far as Basque, the most obvious difference between it and the Indo-European family is its alignment.

Where all the IE languages (barring a few in India which I think show split-ergativity in some cases, don't quote me on that) follow a nominative-accusative alignment (i.e. both intransitive and transitive subjects pattern together, with direct objects being different), Basque follows an ergative-absolutive alignment (transitive subject and direct object pattern together; intransitive subject is different).

Pic related might help illustrate the difference. This ergative-absolutive alignment is by no means unique worldwide, but it is certainly unique in the European continent, and a rather clear sign that the Basque lineage is far removed from that of other European languages.

>Basque follows an ergative-absolutive alignment (transitive subject and direct object pattern together; intransitive subject is different).

*intransitive subject and direct object pattern together, transitive subject is different

There are written passages of Etruscan and Pelasgian but most of our evidence comes from placenames and from regional sound shifts.

i understand the difference in the first bit, but the second part exactly resembles english, how is it different?

Pay attention to the coloured words.

On the left is English: all of the subjects, whether intransitive (as in I ran) or transitive (i.e. taking a direct object, as in I pusher her) are the same: I, she. The direct objects are on their own and different, though: me, her.

On the right is an alignment like Basque. Note that the different subjects do NOT pattern together: the intransitive subjects are the same as direct objects (me, her). Transitive subjects are on their own.

I don't know if applying the logic to English is the best way to explain it, as it just leads to dumb sounding sentences like "Me ran".

"Me ran" is barely a sentence, I think a much longer example is needed to understand it.

All it is is how the language "groups" the arguments (parts) of a sentence.

A = agent (transitive subject)
S = subject (intransitive subject)
P = patient (direct object)

In IE languages like English or Spanish, the alignment is like the top group of bubbles: agents and subjects are together; objects are different.

So in English we use "I" as the 1st person subject no matter if the sentence is intransitive (I run) or transitive (I see her). These are called "nominative" forms.

Objects are treated differently, and we use a different form of the word, "me", as in "You see ME", not "You see I". These are called "accusative" forms.

Basque is like the bottom group of bubbles: subject and patient are together using the same form, while the agent/intransitive subject is treated differently. Basque examples from Wiki:

1. Martin [ettori da]
Martin [has arrived]
"Martin has arrived."

2. Martin-ek Diego [ikusi du]
Martin-ERG Diego [saw]
"Martin saw Diego."

ERG = ergative marker, indiciating that this is a transitive subject. Note how in (2), the direct object/patient 'Diego' is unmarked (no special morpheme), and in (1) 'Martin', as an intransitive subject is also unmarked. Looking at the bubbles again, these unmarked arguments are in absolutive case, and pattern together.

I really don't know if writing it out like this works. Maybe this video will be better:

youtube.com/watch?v=B-SxSX1i5Ms

"I ran" is a complete sentence, and "me ran" is a perfect example of how ergative languages work.

It makes no sense in English because it's not ergative-absolutive, obviously, but the point is that in Basque, the [direct object] of a {transitive verb} takes the same form as the [subject] of an {intransitive verb} while the [subject] of a {transitive verb} is different, while in nominative-accusative languages, [subjects] are always the same regardless of trasitivity of the verb and the [direct object] of {transitive verbs} is the one that changes.

And transitive verb is a verb that allows a direct object.

This might help en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ergative–absolutive_language

Also, relevant to the thread:
youtube.com/watch?v=S1l9oDiSiEQ

Sadly, the Romans did a very good job of BTFO their subjects, so most other languages died (even celtic, a fellow Indo-European language family, is almost dying nowadays thanks to them). Basques got around pretty well because they were surrounded by mountains (and thus also survived even the post-nationalism Spanish and French, for the most part).