File: 1716905993275544.png (82 KB, 992x420)

82 KB PNG

>>17413224
>Does anyone know what college route I should take if I want to eventually study the reconstructed Proto-Indo-European language?
Fanfic?

>>17413224
Not a real language anon.

>>17413224
Linguistics with a focus on Indo European studies

>>17413224
>if I want to eventually study the reconstructed Proto-Indo-European language?
What do you mean "eventually"? You could be studying it right now if it interests you. If you like the classics, interest in PIE is not a given. You need to know more about what you like and what stimulates you.

PIE studies is historical linguistics. Do you have a general interest in linguistics? Do you like studying how a language works analytically? You might like PIE. Do you like studying or researching etymology or the history of words? You might like PIE.

Do you just like PIE culture but have no prior interest in linguistics or etymology? You might prefer archaeology instead.

If you aren't sure, try this Coursera course:
https://www.coursera.org/learn/comparative-indo-european-linguistics

I know that this subject is interesting for me because I kept looking up the etymologies of words and this led to me asking more questions and looking up papers and books on the subject. If you aren't already doing that, I am somewhat skeptical you would find it interesting unless you are bad at or unfamiliar with the process of researching. Google Scholar, Sci-Hub, and Library Genesis are something you should know about. I also had prior casual familiarity with linguistics and the IPA.

Be warned that if you go into such a field as more than a hobby, a lot of work has been done, so contributing to the discourse usually means focusing on something highly specific and technical or critically reviewing prior work.

>>17413224
Linguistics

Classics could be an in, but it's more of a focus on literature than linguistics per se, at least in Anglo-American countries.

File: iearchaeolingtree.jpg (167 KB, 825x1280)

167 KB JPG

Ling PhD student here.

I got into ling for historical-comparative stuff, mostly Indigenous languages of the Americas. There are relatively few comparative IE-centered programs these days. Unfortunately there's a lot of woke bullshit floating around instead. Some UC Berkeley (?) idiot did a dissertation on the way people talk to their cats.

It's really dismaying to see what's happened to our field. There are so many endangered languages that need descriptive work, and so much good historical work to do.

I can't give you much advice as I'm not an IE-ist. Maybe some old classic East Coast school, or better yet an old university in Europe.

Either way you won't be working closely with PIE until your postgrad.

>>17413343
>Ling PhD student here
Cope

>>17413295
I have a very strong interest in the linguistics aspects of the Classics, so I feel that PIE would be interesting as it is the ancient version of these classical languages.

>you could be studying it right now
I dont think studying it right now would be possible for me, as the etymological and morphological basis of the reconstructed linguistics relies on languages that I don't currently know, so that's where I feel college would be important.

>bad or unfamiliar with researching
I tend to obsess over details way too much when researching anything

>>17413343
>old classic East Coast school
Didn't get into any

>>17413361
or at my chances are low

>>17413271
Why?

>>17413346
>I have a very strong interest in the linguistics aspects of the Classics,
This is a good sign.

>I dont think studying it right now would be possible for me, as the etymological and morphological basis of the reconstructed linguistics relies on languages that I don't currently know, so that's where I feel college would be important.
It may come as a surprise that you don't really need to know any of those languages to study PIE and contribute to it, but studying any second language is probably an important experience just so you know more about languages in general. You can still obtain an edge in PIE studies if you learn Sanskrit, Greek, or Latin in that PIE has many features found in these languages, but what you need to learn from the descendant languages is most often a broad overview of regular sound changes and morphological changes. Studying an inflectional paradigm analytically is very different from becoming fluent enough to read a language.

What has made you interested in PIE? Are there specific questions you've asked that you want answers to? If there are, you have a motivation and finding the answers is a concrete goal. Motivating questions can create a cycle of autodidacticism.

>>17413376
The Proto-Indo-European language presents ""strange"" phonological characteristics. Two of them deserve to be highlighted.
The distinction between voiceless, voiced and aspirated stops is unique. Although this feature inspired glottal theory, its functionality is unclear. and each linguistic has its personal interpretation. It's a mess of subjectivism.

and the Vowel System.
The vowel system is restricted, with only /e/, /ē/, /o/ and /ō/ as basic vowels. The vowels /i/ and /u/ follow nasal and liquid patterns, while /a/ and /ā/ derive from /eh2/ or /h2e/. This simplicity is remarkable.
Other Features
Other phonological proposals are also questionable.
the fucking uncommon fricative inventory /s/, /ɣʷ/, /χ/ and /h/.
and Phonetic value of laryngeal proposals such as /s/, /ʕ/ and /ʕʷ/ are debatable

/h2/ is syllabic, but /s/ is not....

These characteristics raise doubts about the accuracy of these reconstructions.

>>17413391
Why do you need to mess all PIE threads?
You personal hate? Or maybe troll?

>>17413394
Now we cannot argue against your precious language?!
Calm down r1a chad, I'm almost sure you didn't even understand my arguments and implications, did you?
Let me help you;
Is there any linguistic explanation for the peculiarities of the Proto-Indo-European language? Have scholars of Indo-European languages or typologists proposed theories to justify these characteristics? Or am I underestimating linguistic diversity?
If you can answer me and stop crying like a woman, I would appreciate it.
I don't "hate" nothing lmao

>>17413391
>>17413267
Just a set of words. Its basically all.
The reconstructed grammar letting us speak in Common Proto-European? Definitely no.

If there's no reconstructed grammar, or not enough, does a conlang exist trying to mimic it? Time machines?
Meaning that it keeps the vocabulary, and invent a grammar like reddit schizos

>>17413224
>>17413267

PIE was invented by nazis.
Stick to IE.

>>17413224
Crazy how there will never be even enough evidence that this language existed.

We know how ancient Egyptian sounded and that was 5000+ years ago, yknow why? Because they actually wrote shit down

>>17413404
as the other anons mentioned, it's a fanfic the PIE did not have writing and we do not know what their language was like. and even if they had, we couldn't know much more than the Mesopotamian languages and they had civilization! different from PIEs. but for some reason, we have thousands of articles about this and we treat it as fact. It is the evolution of these species of kek linguistics

>>17413404
>>17413391
IEs lost, again :)

>>17413410
they always lost. They never won anything, they never accomplished anything and they probably drank pee
>>17413409
We can observe that the PIE people existed. Genetically it is proven, even.
This says nothing about culture or religion or language of which we have nothing that is not reconstructed. absolutely nothing

>>17413391
>The vowel system is restricted, with only /e/, /ē/, /o/ and /ō/ as basic vowels.
The inclusion of */ə/ is quite common as a suggestion since various consonant combinations are not valid clusters and a true zero-grade is not possible. Because of this, the schwa *[ə] can be said to be an allophone of [O] (zero).

>The vowels /i/ and /u/ follow nasal and liquid patterns,
What do you mean by this?

>Other Features
Did you write this with the help of ChatGPT?

>Other phonological proposals are also questionable.
>the fucking uncommon fricative inventory /s/, /ɣʷ/, /χ/ and /h/.
>and Phonetic value of laryngeal proposals such as /s/, /ʕ/ and /ʕʷ/ are debatable
/s/ is not a laryngeal. Yeah, you probably used ChatGPT. Why are you like this?

>/h2/ is syllabic, but /s/ is not....
Although */h̥2/ can be treated abstractly as if it were syllabic, this doesn't make good phonological sense as soon as we imagine it as something concrete like /ħ/, in which case we need to think of it as /ħə/ or /əħ/. For anyone reading this, I recommend
Byrd, A. (2015). The Indo-European Syllable (Vol. 15). Brill. (Available on Library Genesis)
since he espouses this position in his book.

>>17413419
>Byrd, A. (2015). The Indo-European Syllable (Vol. 15). Brill.
Zamn...the level of autism exerted for the sake of literal fantasy conlangs.

>>17413416
>they probably drank pee
Based if loli pee
Cringe if camel piss

>>17413419
>we imagine
>imagine

>>17413391
>The tree is a consensus tree derived from the posterior samples of trees in the Bayesian analyses reported by Gray & Atkinson
>>17413419
No written, recorded or extant language evidence for the existence of PIE language.

>>17413419
>/s/ is not a laryngeal
Not hum but literally is

>>17413431
how tf is the voiceless alveolar fricative gonna be a laryngeal? L

>>17413431
No, learn the most basic thing about a language before you copy and paste ChatGPT ramblings

>>17413419
>an allophone of [O] (zero).
It changed the unicode symbol I posted.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zero_(linguistics)

>>17413420
>>17413427
>>17413429
You're all cranks and nobody cares about your 80 IQ opinions.

>>17413452
Listen, I got nothing against people who study real, recorded languages like Ancient Sumerian or Classical Mayan, but I think reconstructed languages are frankly just a waste of time, and I think people should seriously stop trying to pretend PIE or any other reconstructed proto-language is any more of a real language than Toki Pona or High Valyrian.

>>17413456
>I'm an idiot who doesn't know what he's talking about
I'm glad we cleared that up

>>17413466
It doesn't take an expert on pseudoscientific fields like astrology, transgender studies, and angelology to call bullshit on something.

>>17413446
I m not him, you useless sack of shit
>>17413440

>>17413224
>reconstructed
It never existed however and relies on you to believe that somehow all of Europe spoke a single language and then suddenly changed the language massively for no understandable reason

Proof this is wrong is seen through how similar french and Spanish are, English in the UK and America and the Slavic languages

>>17413862
>relies on you to believe that somehow all of Europe spoke a single language
Terrible bait

>>17413887
Read the rest... Mr chuddy

>>17413456
>immediately dismisses centuries of scholarship because personal opinion
The /his/trionics on this board are almost unbearable

>>17414124
We have 1500 years of religious scholarship...
Scholarship doesn't mean what you think it means.
It's got nothing to do with something being right or wrong.

>>17414139
>It's got nothing to do with something being right or wrong.
No shit sherlock. But it would be a false equivalency to compare linguistics to christcuckery. If someone states that PIE is wrong they should at least bring up evidence to refute the many well agreed upon linguistic correspondences between the language families

>>17414351
>No shit sherlock. But it would be a false equivalency to compare linguistics to christcuckery.
No it would be true equivalence
We're comparing a completely fictitious unproven theory of an imaginary language that was never written down with Christians for example insisting that the Shroud of Turin is Christ.
Both groups only fund people who agree with them and only have legitimacy because they are copying others. Not because their claims or ideas are supported by any convincing evidence.

>>17414359
How do you explain the similarity of the Latin and Greek declensions for example then? You can cant deny the existence of phonological and morphological similarities and parallels, but you can prove that it isn’t Jesus’ ball sweat on some painted cloth.

>>17414377
>Latin and Greek declensions for example then?
Oh jeez, you're trying your utter best to give the illusion of intelligence.
Yes, Latin and Greek are obviously related and are very well attested to in historical writing.
Notice how that doesn't prove the existence of PIE?
>You can cant deny the existence of phonological and morphological similarities and parallels
That's broad to the point of meaninglessness.
The problem with PIE theory is it doesn't have any evidence of even existing. There's no written evidence for a PIE language. It's just as fictitious as someone claiming a carbon-dated medieval cloth ( shroud of turin ) is a 2000 year old burial cloth.
You're not very smart anon.

>>17414404
How are Latin and Greek related if you think the proto-language never existed?

>>17414447
It doesn't require a proto-language idiot lol.
Latin and Greek being related can be from independent origins and later cross pollination or one language descending as an offshoot from the other. Neither of those options suddenly mean 50+ languages must magically come from an imaginary proto language that has no evidence of even existing.
If I invent a wheel for a cart and some guy on the other side of the world independently invents a potters wheel that doesn't magically mean, there was a proto-wheel.

>PIE
It's Palaeolithic European hence the massive differences between certain languages and similarities between others

This is seen through similar cultural features surviving across Europe which would have disappeared with this theorised invasion from the Ukraine

>>17414351
>they should at least bring up evidence to refute the many well agreed upon linguistic
Yes, Spanish and French exist.

>>17414469
Greek and Latin didn’t just ‘cross pollinate’ each other dipshit. Yes the Greeks had colonies and a presence in the Italian peninsula, but that was only certain areas. Their interaction wasn’t so magical that somehow they ‘pollinated each other’ and now have the same core vocabulary eg ‘ego’. Why do many italic languages including Latin have ego as a pronoun even though they were far away from the southern coastal Greek territories? How did the Greeks and Greek dialects far far away from Latin and Italy magically get pollinated. Yeah Latin would borrow a lot of Greek vocabulary but they still have basic words that were not borrowed that still correspond somehow. Just because Finnish and the Northern Germanic languages have interacted for a very long time does not mean that any ‘pollination’ has led to the adoption of core vocabulary and morphology.

>>17414404
I can smell the jeet cope from here lmfao.

>>17415211
>Greek and Latin didn’t just ‘cross pollinate’ each other dipshit.
They literally did.
Ancient Greek has a huge vocabulary in comparison to Latin and Romans at the time admitted this. Incorporating new Greek into Latin even towards the end of the western roman empire. Early Hebrew had a microscopic vocabulary which is why early synagogues have Greek writing on their walls and why the dead sea scrolls contain Greek. Some people have even hypothesized that Hebrew is just an offshoot of ancient Greek.
>ego
Predictably appears in Greek before Latin.
>Yeah Latin would borrow a lot of Greek vocabulary
Lol, out comes the truth.
>>17415224
>I can smell the jeet cope from here lmfao.
Jeets believe in your stupid pie theory too, just they think the original PIE language was proto-sanskrit or something.

>>17415359
>Jeets believe in your stupid pie theory too
then why have you being streetshitting this thread with your out of india nonsense?

>>17415364
>then why have you being streetshitting this thread with your out of india nonsense?
Because I've never promoted than idiot anon...
I'm against PIE theory.
You're just mentioning another PIE theory.
You're the Indian promoting PIE.
I don't think there's any relationship between European languages and Sanskrit. You do...
You're the Indian...
You have no argument.
You are mentally disabled.
Sad...

>>17415359
Reading comprehension of a retard.
Your first paragraph is based on a strawman. I did say that there was borrowing, however you conveniently ignored the part about core vocabulary that is highly likely to have NOT been borrowed and then spread to every single distant corner of these languages.

>ego was Greek first
Citation? or did you just make this up.

>Hebrew is Greek
Yeah there are definitely borrowings but their entire grammar systems are so fucking different there is no way Hebrew is an offshoot of Greek. Hebrew essentially has tri-consonantal roots which have vowels added in to create the different words. Greek has roots with vowels to which endings are added.

File: 1719801782466858.png (699 KB, 900x642)

699 KB PNG

>>17413267
the correct answer is linguistics
(my ancestor on the left)

>>17415497
>I did say that there was borrowing, however you conveniently ignored the part about core vocabulary that is highly likely to have NOT been borrowed
"ego" first appears in Greek anon...

>Citation? or did you just make this up.
ἐγώ appears in Oedipus at Colonus, The Iliad and the histories by Heroditus.
https://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus:text:1999.04.0057:entry=w(s

That predates the two old Latin writers Plautus and Terence by hundreds of years at least.

>Yeah there are definitely borrowings but their entire grammar systems are so fucking different there is no way Hebrew is an offshoot of Greek.
It's almost certainly an offshoot of Greek -
https://archive.org/details/Hebrew.is.Greek
Key thing to remember is that Hebrew was an artificially created priestly script Jews created for themselves. It wasn't a natural language.

>>17415611
There are more words than ego which bear resemblance you should know…

>Plautus and Terrence
There are older Latin and italic inscriptions than those writers.

>muh Greeks invented every language
Again, how do you explain the similarities of Hebrew to Arabic? Is Arabic and the other Semitic languages as old as Greek somehow descended from a completely different grammar system???

>>17415611
>Hebrew is Greek
That book is literal nonsense. The author makes a racial argument rather than a linguistic one, thinking that Jews have to have come from the purest Greeks or some shit… He does not actually write in any way that can be described as serious linguistics or that follows ANY linguistic rules.

>>17415649
>There are older Latin and italic inscriptions than those writers.
No shit anon, just that's the oldest latin I could confirm to have an "ego".
>There are more words than ego which bear resemblance you should know…
So you were wrong and now you're going to ask another question lol.
>>muh Greeks invented every language
Hebrew isn't every language. I merely think Latin was heavily influenced by Greek.
>the similarities of Hebrew to Arabic
Hebrew did borrow Arabic words way later in its history. Just as Spanish did.

>>17415666
>That book is literal nonsense.
It's not anon.

>The author makes a racial argument rather than a linguistic one
But that's basic PIE theory anon...
You guys have debated for decades about who the true PIE people were who spread their language through war...

>He does not actually write in any way that can be described as serious linguistics or that follows ANY linguistic rules.
You're not a linguist anon. You're an autistic moron.

>>17415675
>Basic PIE theory
That is a strawman again. OP wrote this about the linguistics aspect, nowhere was race part of this discussion.

>>17415688
PIE by definition is an ethno-linguistic theory. It's impossible for that to be a "strawman". You probably don't even know what that word means.

"According to the prevailing Kurgan hypothesis, the original homeland of the Proto-Indo-Europeans may have been in the Pontic–Caspian steppe of eastern Europe."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proto-Indo-European_language

>>17415688
"The Indo-European migrations are hypothesized migrations of peoples who spoke Proto-Indo-European (PIE) and the derived Indo-European languages, which took place from around 4000 to 1000 BCE"

"Archaeology traces the spread of artifacts, habitations, and burial sites presumed to be created by speakers of Proto-Indo-European in several stages, from their hypothesized Proto-Indo-European homeland to their diaspora throughout Western Europe, Central Asian, and South Asia, with incursions into East Asia.[1][2] Recent genetic research, including paleogenetics, has increasingly delineated the kinship groups involved in this movement."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indo-European_migrations

>>17415688
>OP wrote this about the linguistics aspect, nowhere was race part of this discussion.

So humans didn't speak PIE language? It was aliens from out of space?
Did the green aliens give PIE language to humans as a gift anon?
Are you mentally disabled anon?

>>17415696
I never said PIE wasn’t an enthnolinguistic theory; however, the OP specifically asked about the linguistic part… did you even read the original post.

>>17415706
>I never said PIE wasn’t an enthnolinguistic theory
You did actually...
>>17415688
>OP wrote this about the linguistics aspect, nowhere was race part of this discussion.
>>17415706
>however, the OP specifically asked about the linguistic part
No he didn't anon...
>>17413224
>Does anyone know what college route I should take if I want to eventually study the reconstructed Proto-Indo-European language?
>I'm currently applying to college to be a Classics major and am a sperg about Latin. I know I will need to study a lot of linguistics and other languages though as well.
>No one I've talked to really seems aware of how anyone ends up studying PIE, and I'm not really sure if this would be feasible at any of the colleges around that I can get into.
>Do any of you anons have advice about this?

>>17415706
Are you going to study statistics with the mathematic part anon?
Are you going to drink vodka without ingesting ethanol anon?
Are you going to explain how PIE language was given to humans by green aliens anon?

>>17415715
So the PIE people migrated across the European continent, but you claim their language doesn’t exist?

>>17415722
That's YOUR theory anon. That's PIE theory.

By the way, Joseph Yahuda doesn’t exist.

>>17415740
https://id.loc.gov/authorities/names/n82213439.html
https://entities.oclc.org/worldcat/entity/E39PBJrRkmvHVXfdTBTX7FhT73.html
https://wikidumper.blogspot.com/2006/11/book-of-spells-of-serpents.html
https://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_E._Yahuda

>>17415759
https://www.geni.com/people/Yoseph-Yahuda/6000000002363523682

>>17415766
Are there any photographs of this man? Or will you just trust sources that only can state that he existed and died?

>>17415777
>50% of minor book authors don't exist according to anon...

>>17415804
If an entire language can be invented, then one man can be invented

>>17415734
>That's YOUR theory anon
That's the DNA's theory, jeet.

>>17415836
>>17415810
You're such a fucking dumbass lol.

>>17415845
Different posters

>>17413224
Linguistics, particularly historical linguistics.

>>17413404
>>17413409
The evidence is the descendant languages. The odds of those sorts of regular sound correspondences occurring by coincidence would be literally astronomical.

>>17413456
The point of PIE is not to study it as a language (the texts in reconstructed PIE are mostly a neat party trick) but as a tool to analyze the historical changes and correspondences of the IE family.

>>17413862
>relies on you to believe that somehow all of Europe spoke a single language
It was spoken in a smaller region and spread out displacing other languages.
>and then suddenly changed the language massively for no understandable reason
It wasn't sudden, it was millennia of gradual language drift.
>Proof this is wrong is seen through how similar french and Spanish are, English in the UK and America and the Slavic languages
...what? How?

>>17415890
>It was spoken in a smaller region and spread out displacing other languages
Yes hence they all spoke one language...
>wasn't sudden, it was millennia of gradual language drift.
Compared to all other known language change this was extremely sudden and realistically according to the theory happened in no more than 1000 years
>what? How?
English in America and England still share all their vocabulary despite 400 years of development in America
With 2000 years of Latin being spoken in Gaul the language of French today is still easily seen as being related to Spanish and Romanian
According to the development of Indo-European these languages should be wholly unrecognisable
And further most the construction of Indo-European relies on invented languages like Sanskrit and Old High German

>>17415883
>The evidence is the descendant languages.
That's circular logic idiot...
That's like a Christian pointing at a tree and saying - "See! That's evidence of God existing".
>The odds of those sorts of regular sound correspondences occurring by coincidence would be literally astronomical.
"Oh! all those life forms are so complex and well put together. They must have been created by God".
>>17415887
>The point of PIE is not to study it as a language (the texts in reconstructed PIE are mostly a neat party trick)
So it's complete bullshit then lol.
>but as a tool to analyze the historical changes and correspondences of the IE family.
"Yeah, we can imagine the Earth as a flat square for analytical purposes only you see".
>>17415890
>>17416425
That isn't evidence anon. You don't know what the word means. You're a moron.

>>17416515
You deny all of these things but fail to present any alternative explanations to the strong correlations between languages across the entirety of Europe, much of India, and much of the Iranian plateau. Your crackhead linguistic theories haven’t convinced anyone or refuted the commonly and logically accepted scholarly consensus.

>>17416945
>you're denying the existence of my imaginary god that has never proof of existing!!!

>You must believe in my God by my God created everything and everything exists!!!

>Wow, I'm such an intelligent PIE moron. I've totally convinced everyone that PIE isn't crackpot bullshit.

>>17416945
Ah yes, you see only an intelligent creator could have created life because there are three quarks inside protons and Neutrons. It must represent the Holy trinity!!!
Oh, water molecules contain three atoms. See!! It's the Holy trinity.
Yaweh obviously created the universe.

>>17416945
THERE MUST BE A PROTO-HUMAN LANGUAGE THAT ALL HUMANS SPOKE BEFORE SPLITTING OFF INTO PIE AND THE OTHER IMAGINARY PROGENITOR LANGUAGE FAMILIES!!!
OMG!!!
IT HAPPENED. I TRAVELLED BACK IN TIME USING MY TIME MACHINE AND HEARD PEOPLE TALKING IN PROTO-HUMAN!!!
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proto-Human_language
OMG!!!

>>17416973
>>17416997
>>17417016
No one even mentioned a proto-human language.

References to religion aren’t even an argument, and you haven’t refuted anything still.

Calm down sperg, some of us just want to enjoy grammar.

>>17416515
Yes it is evidence since the entire idea relies on ignoring those basic facts even reconstructions of Latin based off french found they had less than 2/3 accuracy for words

>>17417050
>No one even mentioned a proto-human language.
It's literally PIE theory for all language.
>References to religion aren’t even an argument
Exactly because repeating PIE theory isn't an argument. It's an analogy moron anon.
>Calm down sperg, some of us just want to enjoy grammar.
You are an autistic moron. No, you're pushing bullshit. Once again. You are a moron.
>>17417056
>we have no way of knowing the accuracy of our reconstructions but we know they are accurate because PIE theory says it's accurate. The bible proves that god exists because it clearly says god exists.

>>17417107
You don't really seem to understand the situation

Based off our current empirical knowledge of languages descending from older ones it must be concluded that the so called Indo-European languages are at the very least much older than claimed. Realistically by reduction the languages in Europe are simply descendants of the original one language 75,000 years ago

>>17417122
And the written evidence for that is...
ZERO.
The archeological evidence for that is...
ZERO

Go back to reading Harry Potter books anon.

>>17417132
>And the written evidence for that is...
>ZERO.
>The archeological evidence for that is...
>ZERO
Yes that is what the Indo-Europeanists or IndoGermanicists have

>>17417134
Where's the ancient PIE inscription anon?

>>17417137
What? I have specifically said that the Indo-European theory is not valid.

>>17417141
Repeat after me. "PIE theory is a complete fabrication."

>>17417151
You still haven’t provided an alternative theory

>>17417213
Repeat after me. "PIE theory is a complete fabrication."
Come on, you can do it.
This is a simple memory exercise.

>>17417213
The alternative is the more understandable Paleolithic Theory where most Europeans descend from the first Paleolithic settlers in their local area and so do their languages outside of France, Spain and Romania.

This is supported by the Indo-German theory not having any support itself, many geneticists agree that people generally descend from the original settlers, surviving cultural elements spread from Europe to the plains of America and the difficulty in supporting the large differences in European languages which would have emerged during the Indo-German invasions.

The American languages diversity was previously used as evidence against the Paleolithic idea but more recent archaeology keeps showing that the population of America is getting accepted as older and older.

The same likely applies to the "Bantu" languages of Africa.

>>17417279
That doesn’t explain the similarities between the PIE languages. Why don’t the Northern Germanic languages and Uralic languages like Finnish have the same kind of deep similarities that other languages like Latin and Greek do. Both pairs have been in contact for a very long time, but only one pair (Latin and Greek) are theorized to be related. Why do languages that haven’t been in contact, like old English and Sanskrit have strong similarities? The only way that all of these languages can statistically have the similarities that they do is if they have descended from the same language thousands of year ago. The onus of proof is still on you to explain the linguistics of your ‘theory’

>>17417509
>Both pairs have been in contact for a very long time, but
Not really proven and Gaelic and English have been in contact in Scotland for 800 years with little influence on each other
>Why do languages that haven’t been in contact, like old English and Sanskrit have strong similarities? Th
These to examples do not have evidence supporting them ever being spoken languages. Anglo-Saxon was likely a Frankish pagan language used by the religious elites like Old Irish and Gothic were.
>The only way that all of these languages can statistically have the similarities that they do is if they have descended from the same language thousands of year ago.
They are invented languages in regards to the written ones based off a tradition which likely started at least by 7000BC

>>17417267
Repeat after me "the BNWO will win" it's a simple exercise

>>17417599
>These to examples do not have evidence supporting them ever being spoken languages
As per the usual, you don’t present any proof towards these claims

>>17417622
Yes the indogerman theory has no proof
Yes I have proof which you have, as a according to the definition of the word, autistically ignored repeatedly. I cannot sincerely repeat myself so won't outside of these final minutes

.there is no archaeology which definitively proves Indogermans existed
.no genetic study proves they existed
. language cannot prove they existed due to the differences between European languages requiring much longer to occur as seen by the few differences between Spanish and Romanian
.culture which should have been destroyed by an indogerman invasion survived across Europe showing they did not conquer at all which includes the Scottish turf teepees, European bagpipes, and extremely peculiar deer hunting of Scotland also preserved in Siberia and Lapland

You may now submit and utterly beg

>>17416515
Atheicuck, Why mention God and Christianity? the same argument can be used for evolution (which is another fanfic)

>>17417634
>fanfic
It's actually based of Darwins views of economics

>>17417621
>>17417634
Can the weird brown mentally disabled cuck fetish ancient Jew worshippers stay quiet please?
Thanks!

>>17417622
You've been going around in circles like a dementia-ridden senior citizen for ages.
You are not intelligent ok?

>>17417632
>no archeology
Kurgan mounds

>few differences between Spanish and Romanian
They are separate mutually incomprehensible languages. One has cases (or enclitic articles) and the other doesn’t. You conveniently left out French which barely looks like Latin anymore

>muh Scottish tradition
One semi-isolated island means nothing compared to the heavily PIE influenced continental Europe

>>17417820
>ad hominem because you don’t actually have anything else to support your argument with.

>>17417836
>Kurgan mounds
Yes, your point is?
Do you want me to mention another older or younger human made feature in the same area or a different area?
>>17417836
>You conveniently left out French which barely looks like Latin anymore
He's mentioned that already you idiot.
>>17413862
And that suggests once again that PIE is a myth.
You're repeating yourself again like a moron.
>>17417836
>One semi-isolated island means nothing
It has to mean something because your mental illness dictates that everything came from a PIE people, language and culture.
So obviously your theory is wrong.
>to the heavily PIE influenced continental Europe
Explain how it's PIE influenced anon. You're just saying that. You can call me Jerry, but my name isn't Jerry, and I'm not related to anyone called Jerry.
>>17417841
>>ad hominem because you don’t actually have anything else to support your argument with.
No, it's not an "ad hominem". You are objectively mentally retarded with severe memory issues.
No normal sane person repeats their already answered questions a million times like a robot.
It's probably time that you accept that you are not intelligent, and nobody will ever call you intelligent because you aren't.

>>17417936
PIE existed, keep seething that your unsubstantiated claims convince no-one

>>17418041
>Flying elephants existed, keep seething that your unsubstantiated claims convince no-one..

>>17417836
>Kurgan mounds
What le fuck? These mounds had written Indo-German inscriptions? Oh... they didn't
>They are separate mutually incomprehensible languages. One has cases (or enclitic articles) and the other doesn’t. You conveniently left out French which barely looks like Latin anymore
French is very clearly related to Latin with words descending from the Latin one.
Meanwhile very few words can be traced between the Indo-German languages. The absolute peak of this relation is between Latin and the Celtic, apparently relegated to certain dialects of Gaul, which peaks at 30% vocabulary relation.
>One semi-isolated island means nothing compared to the heavily PIE influenced continental Europe
Bagpipes are not isolated and known across Europe for no reason any man can conjure other than it being a Paleolithic construction
The hunting techniques in Scotland being IDENTICAL to the Siberian ones is undeniable and this forces the Indo-German theory to utterly collapse


I've won

>>17416425
>Yes hence they all spoke one language...
No, they spoke different languages and PIE gradually spread out and evolved as it went.
>Compared to all other known language change this was extremely sudden and realistically according to the theory happened in no more than 1000 years
Says who? Most linguists place PIE at somewhere in the range of 6000 years ago.
>English in America and England still share all their vocabulary despite 400 years of development in America
And continuous contact, including via radio and TV in the past century.
>With 2000 years of Latin being spoken in Gaul the language of French today is still easily seen as being related to Spanish and Romanian
If none of them had conservative etymological spelling or a bunch of learned borrowings from Latin, it might not be quite so obvious to the layman, but yes,
>According to the development of Indo-European these languages should be wholly unrecognisable
How do you figure? PIE was spoken about 6000 years ago by most estimates.
>And further most the construction of Indo-European relies on invented languages like Sanskrit and Old High German
Sanskrit and Old High German are not "invented". Codified, sure, but codified on the basis of natural speech varieties.
>>17416515
>That's circular logic idiot...
No, I'm saying how do you explain the REGULAR sound correspondences in CORE vocabulary (e.g. numbers, pronouns) and MORPHOLOGY without appeal to a common ancestor language?
>"Oh! all those life forms are so complex and well put together. They must have been created by God".
This isn't just a statement about the individual Indo-European languages taken on their own, but about their relation to each other. If anything it's much more analogous to the argument for evolution and common descent of life.

>>17418076
>Meanwhile very few words can be traced between the Indo-German languages.
Not correct, sorry jeet.

>>17416973
How do you explain the fact that laryngeals were first hypothesized based on the distributions of vowels in nuclear IE languages and then observed in almost all the same places in actual Hittite texts?
>>17417016
Proto-Human probably existed, but if it did it's too far back in time to reconstruct.
>>17417056
The common ancestor of the Romance languages isn't Classical Latin, it's Vulgar Latin, which we have some written attestation of in graffiti.

>>17418124
>>17418126
>>17418130
You're repeating yourself idiot.
You know you're completely wrong.

>>17418137
Again, explain the laryngeals being hypothesized and then actually showing up in Hittite texts. Explain Grimm's Law and why it applies even to things like pronouns, numbers, and conjugations.

>>17418144
>repeats the same shit again that's already been answered lol. Like clockwork.

>>17418162
Please, direct towards your answer…

>>17418162
You have not answered it.

>>17418144
Don't keep talking to him. He's just wasting your time and energy. If you go back to the thread's topic, sane people will have something to talk about again.

>>17418304
>>17418325
>>17418416
Samefagging retard still repeating themself.
>>17418416
>He's just wasting your time
No, you're wasting everyone else's time.
What a projecting piece of stupid shit.

>>17418469
For someone who thinks themself to be such the armchair linguist, you used the wrong number in addressing the multiple anons who have refuted you. Learn basic English grammar before talking linguistics, retardissime.

>>17418511
>He's still samefagging and wants to be taken seriously lol...

>>17418524
Retardissime, only part of these responses to you are mine. Keep denying another truth if you must.

Care to answer as to your sought rebuttal to laryngeal theory or will you continue distracting from the discussion at hand?

>>17418541
>He's found an ancient pottery shard with PIE on it guys! Wow, he keeps on mentioning laryngeals guys. He doesn't know how it proves PIE, but he sure does love mentioning laryngeals!!!

>>17418550
Not an answer… Keep trying and you might get the question right eventually, retardissime.

>>17413224
OP, you will need to take a lot of linguistics courses to understand the theories about reconstructed PIE. Normal undergraduate classics programmes don't tend to have focuses on linguistics that would get you there, so if you really wanted to study it, Classics isn't the best major. However, Latin and Greek knowledge will be rather helpful.

>>17418555
>OMG, anon loves mentioning laryngeals despite having no idea how or why they prove his imaginary PIE theory!
>>17418572
You aren't helping him. He's just going to waste his life unemployed with college debt and no children.

>>17418584
Still not an answer…

This might help you to answer the question. It’s ok anon, many people have the same reading struggles as you and there ways to still learn.
https://aefla.ed.gov/

We await your answer once you understand our question.

>>17418599
>Anon, can't explain how laryngeals prove PIE theory lol. Sad...

>>17418610
>Anon can't disprove laryngeal theory.
We know you feel self conscious about your ignorance, please touch grass and let the adults talk.

>>17418623
>Anon can't even demonstrate or explain laryngeals and demands that everyone else disproves it.

>I can't prove or even provide a picture of flying elephants but you must disprove them...

What drugs are you on anon?

>>17418654

>>17418137
>Again, explain the laryngeals being hypothesized and then actually showing up in Hittite texts. Explain Grimm's Law and why it applies even to things like pronouns, numbers, and
>>17418144
>repeats the same shit again that's already been answered lol. Like clockwork
*claims its already been answered*

So can you or can't you disprove flying elephants. You said you answered this... But you haven't shown where or how you answered it, so you backtrack and claim answering it is impossible, you silly child. No-one takes you seriously.

>>17418679
No, YOU need to prove to me that flying elephants aren't real.
This is YOUR logic anon.
YOUR stupid logic.