Did Proto-Indo-European really exist or do all languages actually descend from Sanskrit?

But the theory is that there was an "original" Indo-European language that was formed at some point in the Neolithic era and was subsequently spread everywhere by migrations. Wouldn't it be more reasonable to think that Indo-European languages are similar because they had so much contact with each other and not because they have one common ancestor?

butthurt poo detected

OP is a fucking idiot

Dis nigga

Trust the linguists on this one kid.

> Neolithic
Nope.

> everywhere
Nope.

> similar languages due to contact, not a common ancestor
Both. That's how most languages develop.

Is there any extant or original literature in PIE? Like hymns and poetry and shit. Also I'd love to see a version of the Lord's Prayer and possibly some psalms in PIE.

Google schleicher fable

In fact if anyone of you memesters is able to produce a song lyric in PIE I'll set it to music.

Thanks bruv

It's all cross referencing and working back in time. No known texts as far as I perdonally know.

All languages come from Greek

>bruv
Or should I say bʰréh2tēr

@2595556
Don't take the bait.

Make it yourself. PIE is just like a regular language, excepting a few letters we don't know how to pronounce.

If you've studied Greek, it's quite familiar in its grammar.

Unfortunately I haven't studied Greek. Greek and Sanskrit would be quite a challenge for me in themselves, let alone PIE. I also lack literary talent.

I'm no language expert, but from what I understand the IE languages share certain awkward complex features in common which it is easy to learn as a kid, tougher as an adult. Which supports the theory of expansion from a central source. But of course, pretty much nothing in the field of language origins is known with any great definitiveness.

But then where does Greek come from?

Heaven

Nevermind cuckskrit, what about sumerian? It's supposedly a language isolate. Does this mean ayylmaos were involved?

Fuck off retard, All languages come from English

I think you mean American. English is some kind of noise made by things that aren't American.

>because they had so much contact with each other
thats the thing, many don't. English and Sanskrit for instance are very far removed

Indo-european is a meme. They mixed with the indigenous people where they settled, which is why neither europeans or central/south asians are aryan

WE WUZ ORIGINAL WHITE NORDIC ARYANS N SHIT

t. poopskin pajeet

If we had any written PIE material it wouldn't be a proto-language.

not really, despite sandhi rules and the contexts in which classical sanskrit was written, it only has about 3000 base words and doesn't use much expressive vocabulary and structures as do modern indic languages. the whole point of the language was that if you can read it, then you can understand it

At least read the Wikipedia article before you say stuff like this.

Indo-europeans

No such thing
Also every reconstruction is laughable and done by supremacists with obvious bias

>Also every reconstruction is laughable and done by supremacists with obvious bias
this

Are you retarded? Stop pretending to be smart. The last common ancestor of all IE languages was indeed in the later Neolithic.

This

Sanskrit is just a dravidian dialect, while Avestan directly developed in the homeland of the Aryans and thus didn't get too much influenced by non-Aryan influences.

>homeland of the Aryans

...Ukraine? Southern Russia? Kazakhstan?

> I don't know anything about Sanskrit.
The Sanskrit lexicon is massive, using many words for a single object/concept.

The grammar is full of exceptions and irregularities, much more so than Greek.

> if you can read it, you can understand it
Simply not the case with Sanskrit.

I'd recommemd Müller's grammar for a full run-down.

You're confusing 'Aryans' with the supposed 'Indo-European people'. The Aryan languages are one of the earlier offshoots from PIE.

Nope they are not among the earliest. They share more with Greek and Balto-Slavic because they stayed in Europe longer than Tocharians and Hittitites.

Aryans raped and raised their way through the world and children always stick to the language of their mother and not the warlord that used their mother as a fuck sock how does the PIE theory reconcile this?

Indo-Europeans didn't enter Europe because Europe was their homeland and they were already part of a homogenized 'European' phenotype.

Proto-Aryans, a branch of the IEs, began their trek out of the Samara-bend / Ural homeland and entered the Indian sub-continent in much the same way that the Turks entered Anatolia. They added an additional layer to the genetics and phenotype of the natives they absorbed, but were not numerous enough to change them too drastically.

Because the women they took for breeding purposes were always a minority in every generation and may have been the only people speaking their native languages in their mobile or sedentary homes.

That why Gauls and Spaniards switched to Latin?

Why Britons switched to English?

Why Irish switched to English?

Why Anatolians switched to Turkish?

Why Balkanites switched to Slavic?

Indo-Aryan languages are the third oldest, attested branch, after Anatolian and Greek.

>attested

Who gives a shit? The internal phylogeny doesn't rely on that.
Indo-Iranians came from Europe after Tocharians, so say all the linguists. Tocharian and Anatolian are the earliest splits.

>fourth

The Latin Branch is older

the migrating of people, the same fucking model used for the distribution of practically every other language discribed

Indigenous Europeans were crogmanon/neanderthal hybrids who were highly autistic and borderline mute with almost no language

>just call them proto-indo-europeans
>and call them all Indo despite the fact they didn't originate in the Indian sub-continent, but rather because a single offshoot settled there

Italo-Celtic isn't that old.

Being attested early doesn't have any relation to their age.

Anatolian branched off earliest by a long shot, followed by Tocharian, then Italo-Celtic some time later. These are the peripheral dialects of PIE. Germanic, Balto-Slavic, Indo-Iranian, Greek, and Armenian are the central dialects. The last 3 are especially close and probably represent the last stage of unity within PIE.

PIE were essentially indigenous Europeans since their genetic components had been in Eastern Europe since way before the Younger Dryas.

> who gives a shit about evidence
Cool board.

I dunno good question. Why won't you tell me?

Because children do adopt the language of their warlord father that used their mother as a fuck suck, obviously.

Linguists don't rely on bullshit like that. It's like saying that Germanic languages branched off from Celtic when the runic era started.

But all those examples imply long term governance and gradual integration of the conquered peoples, indo European invasions were a bit different weren't they?

The fuck? Tocharian is attested (has evidence for) only 6th to 8th century *AD*. Any 'phyogenetic' extrapolations are just wishful thinking.

I dunno, I'd image the Anglo-Saxon, Slavic and Turkic invasions were a lot like the IE invasions at least.

David W. Anthony also wrote about similar situations of tribal expansion and language shift in Africa and South Asia in The Horse the Wheel, and Language.

Linguists can only, and regularly do, rely on evidence just like that. They are a science, and rely as much on evidence as a physicist.

It's not 'like saying Germanic branched from Celtic' at all: there is evidence against it.

>I don't know anything about what I'm talking about but I feel like I'm smarter than every single linguist on the planet

Tocharian is the earliest split, deal with it.
This is amazingly consistent with archaeology as Indo-Europeans were at the border of China before they were in Poland.

>I am very smart and just redefined a well established field of academic study

The Anglo-Saxon invasion is a strange one: there are almost no Celtic loans in English, implying a huge, genocidal invasion; yet there is no evidence for such an invasion.

It's almost like the Britons saw the Germanic languages and thought, en masse, 'fuck Celtic'.

The Britons also got cucked pretty hard.

...

There is no evidence for this. Tocharian is not the oldest branch. Sorry, kid.

But that's the point: they didn't.

The language however was dropped pretty fucking quickly.

There is no such thing as Germanic DNA

Germanic are mongrels

Again this a problem, Germanic warrior rape Celtic women by the truckload and the language that goes on to develop has no Celtic contamination? Did the fathers make sure their mothers spoke no Celtic whatsoever to their rape babies? How?

>I am very smart and people should just believe me when I talk about Tocharian because I am very, very smart and can instantly decipher facts not obvious to less intelligent people like linguists

nigga, Prof. Wolfstein asserts that Tocharians are the Afanasevo culture of eastern Siberia (c. 3500 – 2500 BC),

Lost the argument? And reverting to name-calling?

Where's the evidence that the Tocharian language is an older PIE offshot?

I'll wait.

> he thinks a people and a language are the same thing

Nice try, son. This doesn't wash.

Hmm no sweetie :^), anglosaxons raped your ass brutally

All linguists acknowledge it is one of the oldest with only Anatolian seen as competitor to it for the title of earliest split.

But the burden of proof is strictly on you because you made the false claim here

> All linguists acknowledge it is one of the oldest
No, they do not. There is evidence for the language only in the first centuries AD. You can see this in the first sentences of any page on Tocharian.

> you made the false claim here
There are no false claims there: the Aryan languages are the third oldest (with current evidence) offshoot after Anatolian and Greek.

> anglosaxons raped your ass brutally
Literally no evidence.

Where's the proof? In your head?

No one thinks that Tocharian split off before Anatolian.

It is generally seen as the second to split off though.

It's complex as Anatolian had a local substrate whereas Tocharian was divergent due to extensive isolation(at least relative to Anatolian).

But yes, one of them is the oldest and most likely Anatolian but still we need proof of early IE migration to Anatolia to confirm it.

Almost all Australian languages belong to the same branch (Pama-Nyungan) with the only exceptions by the north coast, so one theory is that Pama-Nyungan speakers had some advantage such as more versatile tools or domesticated dogs that allowed them to expand and displace existing languages.

>fourth
The oldest Latin inscriptions are from 7-8th century BC,

And Celtic itself is FAR more conservative than Indo-Aryan languages since both are heavily influenced by semitic-dravidian.

Italo-Celtic dates back to about 2500 BC and is most closely related to Germanic out of extant branches.
Way too fresh stuff to be considered an old branch and it would share that title with Germanic anyhow.

Try to understand how the phylogeny works.

Germanic(see Germanic substrate "hypothesis") is a mongrel language, Italo-Celtic isn't related to it.

"Germanic substrate" isn't anything unusual. Almost every language has substratic influence from something.

>Almost every language

Not Gaulish, meanwhile, Germanic languages are EXTREMELY INFLUENCED by Old Euroopean languages.

Gaulish has been extinct for over 1000 years.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Germanic_substrate_hypothesis#Controversy

The remnants show us that it was a conservative language pure from any non-IE filths, unlike Germanic.

Well modern French has Etruscan influence as a Romance language so I guess you're polluted.
Might as well jump off the Eiffel tower.

What are the branches that split off from PIE from the oldest to the youngest?

It gets fuzzy after Tocharian and Anatolian but basically there's a loose west-east split relating to satemization.

>t. stupidly stereotypical leftist "academic"