Indo-european languages

>hi nice tea what do you call them
>we call them "chai"
>oh what does it mean?
>it's just the name
>oh ok we'll call it chai too
How is sociolinguistic a respected (((field))) of (((study))) again?

>Macedonian is a little lump that doesn't quite separate from Bulgarian
kek

arigatou (japanese) - Thank you
obrigado (portugal) - Thank you

namae (japanese) - name

ba (japanese) - mid/old woman, grandmother
babushka (russian) - old woman, grandmother
ba (russian, familiarity) - grandmother

onna (japanese) - woman
ona (russian) - she

Arent all words referring to mother, start with an M sound in almost all languages?

baba is an old hag in both Japanese and Russian.
futari (not gay) means two people in Japanese and is read exactly the same way as vtori in Russian, also means 2 (people).

It's all just a bunch of coincidences considering it can and has been traced on both sides far, far before any contact between those languages took place.

Tea/Cha/Chai are all incorrect.

They all arrive from the ancient "tu" which was used during Zhou dynasty. Bronce age (1000 BCE).

Cha came afterwards during the Han dynasty.

Well if you want to be technical, Cha is Chinese (after Qin). Tu/te is prot-Chinese Zhou.

Sanskrit Mathra and English Mother
Sanskrit Brathr to English Brother
Varuna the old vedic Deity and Ouranus in Greek Myth

Also Lituanian has a ton of similarity with Sanskrit as in Essos and Ushas

Obrigado and Arigato sound nothing alike.
The root meanings are different as well.

Obrigado translates literally to "much obliged", while Arigato translates to "it is precious".

Completely different expressions to say thank you. You are grasping at straws user, and finding similarites where there are none.

>Essos and Ushas
Eos i mean

>splitting Indo-European into Indian and European

Is there a linguistic reason for that or just cultural?

cultural probably

I would guess it's because of Europe being the western end of the language family and India being the eastern end. It used to be called Indo-Germanic, but as you can see that's not in common use anymore.

It's a meme user

Because that was the original split. Same reason the European branch later splits to Romance, Germanic, Celtic, and Slavic

The branches separated for literally thousands of years, with no contact, influenced by totally different non-IE languages inbetween. But no I'm sure it's just a racist micro-aggression to split them, #NotAllMlechcas

Terrible chart, completely ignorant of interconnections.
English is Celtic and Germanic with Romantic vocabulary.

>'ba' - grandmother and 'ba' - grandmother
>no similarities

Required viewing.

Linguistics: youtube.com/watch?v=SqK7XXvfiXs

History: youtube.com/watch?v=C4JPMYHTZis

Look up the Altaic hypothesis. Mongolian (the guys that invaded Russia), Korean and Japanese are theorized to be from the same language family.

Proto-Hellenic seems to resemble the reconstructed language more.
academiaprisca.org/indoeuropean/indo-european-schleicher-fable.pdf

Numbers are related across all branches except for 11-19 which developed separately.
zompist.com/euro.htm
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_numbers_in_various_languages#Indo-European_languages
en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Category:Proto-Indo-European_language

Most European languages have plenty of Latin and Greek loans too.

Words are found to be similar due to their suggested etymological roots which are traced backed to the proto language. Words have also developed in different and unique ways.

no, it should be categorized by centum-satem not this bullshit

slavic langauges have much more in common with Iranic langauges than they do german or celtic

I can kind of see where these people are coming from but I agree with the Japanese (and considering the hateboner for them, Koreans as well). The way Japanese developed was a madhouse of epic proportions. The modern Japanese has a billion ways to be purely logically inclined to have a ton of occurrences like this (like their extremely limiting phonetic expression) and looking solely on modern Japanese and citing deep cultural connections way into the past is simply extremely deep bullshit. Modern Japanese developed so damn recently and the stuff they had going for them even two hundred years back is so extremely different to that you can't really even begin to imagine a connection existing there.
That's all before considering the Russian part of the story and how much they share this stuff with just about all Slavs there are (like 'baba', that works just as well in Czech as it does in Russian) and when the Mongolian invasions happened, the Siberian conquests and a whole lot of other stuff.

It is a statistically provable coincidence and not much else. At least in my, honest, opinion.

Centumization and satemization happened independently in various daughter branches after the breakup of Proto-Indo-European.

Balto-Slavic is generally closest to Germanic. Hellenic (a "centum" branch) and Armenian are the closest to Indo-Iranian.

>than they do german
That's where you're wrong. Early Germanics used to speak something satem. They just shifted.

> Early Germanics used to speak something satem.
No they didn't.

Yes, they did. Germanic is a hybrid language. Of both satem and centum.

Stop using terms you don't understand. There isn't a single instance of a PIE palatovelar becoming a sibilant in Germanic.

Centum and Satem are meaningless anyway in IE phylogeny.

>It has been suggested that Proto-Germanic arose as a hybrid of two Indo-European dialects, from the centum and the satem types respectively.

>As this map of Indo-European isoglosses shows, Germanic languages are classified as centum languages (blue border) but also share phonological properties with the Balto-Slavic languages (pink border), which are satem languages.
The hypothesis may help to explain difficulties in the classification of Germanic languages. They are classified as centum languages because of sound correspondences, exemplified in the formations: *hund- ("hundred" is centum with a velar fricative according to Grimm's law) and *hwis("who", ~ Latin quis), rather than !sund and !his respectively. However, the Germanic languages, in common with the Balto-Slavic languages, which are satem languages, are more likely to feature -m- (as opposed to *-bh-) in instrumental, dative, and ablative plurals as well as certain singulars and duals (see the map of Indo-European isoglosses, right).

>However, the above features may just as easily be explained by a non-Indo-European substrate that is common to Proto-Germanic and Proto-Balto-Slavic.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Germanic_substrate_hypothesis

>The Corded Ware R1a people would have mixed with the pre-Germanic I1 and I2 aborigines, which resulted in the first Indo-European culture in Germany and Scandinavia, although that culture could not be considered Proto-Germanic - it was simply Proto-Indo-European at that stage, or perhaps or Proto-Balto-Slavic.

>This is supported by the fact that Germanic people are a R1a-R1b hybrid, that these two haplogroups came via separate routes at different times, and that Proto-Germanic language is closest to Proto-Italo-Celtic, but also shares similarities with Proto-Slavic.

It seems like you don't understand anything.

forgot map

Here's a quickly found example of what I'm talking about.
It's older forms of Japanese (from about 50 seconds in):
youtube.com/watch?v=7kz59Wvfjf0

You can clearly see just how extremely different it used to be and that this doesn't have even the slightest bit of anything in common with anything even remotely found in Russian.
Likewise, Japanese used to have 8 vowels and there's not a chance in hell Indo-Europeans would ever wrap their head around that sort of shit when the four tones of modern Mandarin make people throw up.

Dravidian languages have more in common with European languages than Sanskrit

WE

Nice try Hardik Singh

Chai/tea is from chinese origin, not a native PIE word

jagganathan tenali please.

>agni - "fire" in Sanskrit
ignite, ignis, etc

>For example the word "chai(tea)" is same in India and some slavic countries
Guess where tea comes from! I'm Brazilian, and we call it Chá. Turkish and some Middle Easterners call oranges Portokalli or something similar because Portuguese trades used to provide them with those iirc

.

>For example the word "chai(tea)" is same in India and some slavic countries.

That's not a cognate, it's a loanword from Chinese. I thought this was common knowledge.

>For example the word "chai(tea)" is same in India and some slavic countries.
pfft haha christ

Some Chinese languages still call it "teh". This is actually the older pronunciation of the beverage.

Tea wasn't a thing in China until Aryan Bodhidharma arrived in China and cut his eye lids off to the ground and sprouted tea.

/thread

Mother/father=modar/padar in Dari

>Japanese used to have 8 vowels and there's not a chance in hell Indo-Europeans would ever wrap their head around that sort of shit
Try French or German sometime :)

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proto-Indo-European_phonology#Vowels

I'll add to the Sanskrit party:

> dyāus pitr
> sky father
Became Latin
> Jupiter

This is bullshit. Sanskrit is quite clearly Indo-European, but it does have some Dravidian influences, like some vocab and the aspirated consonants.

Tajik and Dari are not separate from Persian, those are just regional accents of the same language. There's more separating Arabic between Egypt and Iraq or Arabi then there is Persian spoken in Iran and Tajikistan.

Even English has anywhere from fourteen to twenty-one vowels, going by sounds rather than letters. It just seems like we have fewer because our writing system is based on a language (Latin) that doesn't have many vowels.

Vedic: Dyauṣ Pitā
Greek: Zeus Patir
Roman: Jupiter
Portuguese: Deus Padre
Spanish: Dios Padre
German: Tiwaz/Tyr

Do you speak a Dravidian language or are you being a pretentious Eurocentric faggot?

Yeah sure

>muh Wikipedia

Spotted the brainlet

>The Dravidian family has defied all of the attempts to show a connection with other languages, including Indo-European, Hurrian, Basque, Sumerian, Korean and Japanese.

Please fuck off

Those words hardly have anything in common with each other. Whoever thought of this must've been autistic.

Source?

I think that the words for moon and sun are relatively similar across the info-European languages.

0/10

Not an argument

Ah, so you are being a pretentious Eurocentric faggot

Nah, it's straight Germanic.

This thread was to discuss the Indo-European languages. Dravidian isn't one of them. Feel free to start your own thread about what I'm sure is a very interesting language, that plenty of people will want to discuss.

>Regular
>Sound
>Correspondence

>This thread was to discuss the Indo-European languages.

Then why include Sanskrit in the discussion?

Sanskrit is a Indo-European language dummy

Not so fast Eurocentric cuck

Iranians are not Indo-Europeans what the fuck

These eurocentric cucks think the world revolves around them

Right, they're arab-turk mongrels, but the ancient persians were aryan.

What's your definition of Aryan?

...

Do you even know why people consider two languages to be related? It's not just looking at some words and going, "huh, those seem similar enough. Let's say these are related."

Then explain this autistic chart

Look at the words. In Latin, you see f. In Sanskrit, you see bh. There is a preponderance of examples where in Latin you see f and in Sanskrit you see bh. This is a regular correspondence. Why do you think that is? Is it a coincidence?

I'll just go ahead and fill you in. There are three reasons why two words in a language might sound similar
1. borrowing - we can rule this out for obvious reasons
2. random chance - the more words you find exhibiting the same correspondence, the less likely it is to be random chance. In this case, there are so many regular correspondences that it's pretty much impossible to be an accident
3. genetic relationship - the words are descended from a common ancestor.

>It's not just looking at some words and going, "huh, those seem similar enough. Let's say these are related."

Btfo by your own argument

>why two words in a language might sound similar
I mean why the words of two languages might sound similar

>3. genetic relationship - the words are descended from a common ancestor.

WE

They were a nordic nomadic people who migrated/invaded all over Eurasia around 3000 B.C.

How is that just looking that the words and saying they seem similar? There is a REGULAR SOUND CORRESPONDENCE. Such correspondences are indicative of genetic relationship.

Care to explain the regular sound correspondence?

F is not bh, so I don't know where you're getting the idea that they are somehow related.

Trading between ancient civilizations. People had to communicate with each other. Words were borrowed and made into local linguistic dialect.

I was the one who originally posted The point was not to show that words were similar but the grammar. It's already very rare for two neighboring languages to borrow a few pieces of morphology so how can you explain a full set of personal endings halfway across the globe? Not to mention also cases, word formation, and derivation.

The regular correspondence is that where you find an f in Latin you find a bh in Sanskrit. Explain to me why that would be the case. I've explained to you that it can't be random chance because there is a preponderance of examples.

You think Latin speakers communicated with Sanskrit speakers closely enough to heavily borrow vocabulary? You think they exchanged the words for nearly all their essential vocabulary, including the word for "to be" with all its inflections, as in ? That's interesting reasoning for sure.

I guess the word is "carry," but the point still stands

>brazilian ape being this retarded
Less than surprised

It's like you're a mental retard who can't read

>> dyāus pitr
>> sky father
>Became Latin
>> Jupiter
I hope that you're not implying that Latin is derived from Sanskrit, like so many wewuzing Indians seem to claim.

No one thinks this? They both developed independently from Proto-Indo-European.