>>18018856
It is proven that Germanic is a substrate, a very non-IE language. Irish has 1/3 unknown roots.
Schrijver discovered an interesting thing in 1997: the prefixing of "a" in European words. He noticed that in some cases, similar words had an initial "a" in one language but not in another. This led him to conclude that "a-" was a prefix from a pre-Indo-European language that was borrowed by other languages. A major discovery, more evidence for the Germanic substrate.
https://www.sgr.fi/sust/sust266/sust266_kroonen.pdf

>>18018856
>Celtic languages were influenced heavily by non-Indo-European languages.
Tell us what it is, or is this just a catchphrase?

>>18018867
For example, see
Examples of "a" prefixation:

- "amsala" (blackbird) vs. "merula"
- "alauda" (lark) vs. "lāwerce"
- "aruz" (ore) vs. "raudus"

>>18018867
I'm even happy to see "Indo-Europeans" being refuted, that makes me very happy for some reason, it's cool to see how irrelevant these losers were, who can't even keep their stinking languages legible in the "branches" the same with their barbaric fear of living off stinking cattle
>>18018856
Bell beakers don't spoke IE language, and i have good arguments

>>18018867
>It is proven that Germanic is a substrate, a very non-IE language.
SAAAAR

I wrote a paper on this theory a while back and I'm pretty sure the word for Scandinavia is from this substrate

PGB: skadd “herring”
ON: skadd-r “whitefish” > OE: sceadd /ʃæ͜ɑdd/ “shad” > (dialectal) Norwegian: skadd “a small whitefish”
PG: Skad(-in)(awjō) (Reconstructed term for Scandia, skad- aspect could be from NESL in some way with the -in or -Vn aspect being some sort of suffix or it could’ve been a part of the word (Likely could be an extension or related to -n which is a hypothesized animal forming seen in other NESL words). Possibly the skadd ~ skad root had survived with 2 suffixes, one being -(V)r and another being -in ~ -Vn (Which could be related to -n, an animal forming suffix seen in OI and PGB). Using this meaning it’s possible that skadd ~ skad could’ve had a meaning with something to do with water or with
fish in general, using this the potential meaning for Scandia could be something like fish island)
Middle NESL: /skadː(V)r/ “a type of fish” (Possibly the -(V)r aspect is some sort of suffix that lost its vowel in Old Norse and got lost entirely in PGB getting replaced with a native celtic suffix (-os). Assuming that -(V)r is a suffix, it’s possible that the PWG word klaibrā “clover” (which is noted as being from a substratum origin) could point to the original suffix being something like -rV instead of -(V)r or possibly it could be a case of metathesis in PWG though it’s noted that “Unknown; suggested to be from earlier *klaiwRā, in which the sequence *-wR- developed into *-bR-, syncopated from an original z-stem *klaiw ~ *klaiwiRi”)
Middle NESL: skad- ~ skadd- “Possibly a root relating to water”

(NESL = the substrate)

>>18018880
>>18018867
Germanoids BTFO'd

>>18018876
>I'm even happy to see "Indo-Europeans" being refuted,
Nothing has been refuted. Nobody has proven "Germanic is a substrate" or that it is a "very non-IE language".

>>18018882
Because of a supposed loanword for fish? Sub 80-IQ on full display here

>>18018867
There's that and also some sort of animal forming suffix found in Celtic languages

PG: laiw “lark”
Gaulish: a-law-d? “skylark”
Middle NESL: /lVw/ “lark, skylark”
PG: a-g(ō) “magpie” (ō is likely a PG case stem)
PG: a-ga-tt “magpie”
Middle NESL: /gV/ “A root for a bird, magpie”
Middle NESL: /agVtː/ “magpie” (From the a- and -tt suffixes?)
Middle NESL -tt ~ -d? “unknown suffix, could be related to the Gaulish form a-law-d meaning skylark”
Middle NESL: a- “Bird name suffix”


OI: partá-n “crab”
Late NESL: prata-n (Possible, Old Irish could’ve metatheized /CrV/ clusters into /CVr/ though there’s no concrete proof of this.)
PGB: bra-n “raven, crow”
PGB: kolig-n “puppy”
OI: lo-n “blackbird”
W: crage-n/croge-n “shell, fish gill”
W: cogwr-n “cone, spiral, haycock” (Apparently cognate to obscure term, Irish cogar-n. It is related to many similar terms relating to shells, clay and other underwater things. PGB term would probably be something like kogur-n but is probably not related to the suffix)
PG: wrand /ˈwrɑnd/ “wren” (Final -d is unknown, Removing the final d would yield wran which would match up with the -n animal forming suffix -n leaving the root wra-)
PGB: drīw “wren” (Self created reconstruction, From W dryw “wren” and OI dreä-n "wren". Probably likely a lost version of W possibly with the -n suffix drywn)
NESL: /CrV-n/ ~ /dwrV-n/ “wren”
NESL: -n “animal forming suffix from roots?”

>>18018877
I'm not Indian, in fact, I'm probably the "whitest" here. I'm Dutch. When the Indo-European dialect developed into Proto-Germanic, it likely incorporated indigenous terms for local plants and animals, geographic phenomena, and cultural practices. Guus Kronen, the main guy proposing the "agricultural substrate hypothesis," recognizes this.
Kroonen, Guus. "Non-Indo-European Root Nouns in Germanic: Evidence in Support of the Agricultural Substrate Hypothesis." A Linguistic Map of Prehistoric Northern Europe (2012): 239-260.

Since the discovery of the Indo-European language family, there has been a suspicion that Germanic mixed with a very different language, due to the phonology of Germanic being radically different from what is reconstructed for Proto-Indo-European. And even disgusting to the ears.

we know that the Germanics were not Indo-Europeans in almost anything
>>18018885
Its not only fish

>post about pre-celtic ireland
>derails into germanic shitflinging
Classic /his/

>>18018892
Sources? Besides your outdated authors?

>>18018892
I do not care what you are. The earlier statement,
>It is proven that Germanic is a substrate, a very non-IE language.
Only makes sense if garbled through ESL. Germanic may *have* a substrate. Germanic itself is not a substrate. (The statement is ESL gibberish. A language can only be a substrate within another language.) All languages have substrates because humans are social animals that talk to other humans. Modern linguists, including Kroonen, do not support the idea that Germanic is "very non-IE". Kroonen has investigated a non-IE substrate within Germanic but you won't find any support for your silly ideas from him.

>Irish has 1/3 unknown roots.
What is this even based on? I don't remember seeing anything like this in Matasović's dictionary. It's probably outdated nonsense or you made it up.

In short, your post is nothing but delusions, misunderstandings, and miscommunications.

File: 20250923_205411.png (509 KB, 653x710)

509 KB PNG

>>18018901
Time is not necessarily what determines whether a source is legitimate or not.
Guus Kroonen argues that there was a European agricultural substratum that contributed linguistic loanwords to some Indo-European branches as they left the steppes. Greek also appears to have a substratum, possibly related to Germanic. This raises further doubts about the hybrid hypothesis, which suggests a non-steppe origin for Greek, specifically through Anatolia, an ancient agricultural center, which makes sense. However, the Kirghiz consensus should be open to this. It's even questionable whether bell beakers spoke IE.
https://www.academia.edu/7041551/Non_Indo_European_root_nouns_in_Germanic_Evidence_in_support_of_the_Agricultural_Substrate_Hypothesis
>>18018895
The thread is about pre-IE substrate, isn't?
other than Peter Schrijver we don't have much evidence.

>>18018904
>Kirghiz
Kurganist

>>18018904
This thread is about the Pre-Goidelic substrate which could be a descendant of a Niger-Congo or Berber language apparently

>>18018903
See>>18018904
There's a significant substratum

up

>>18018911
The "significance" of this substrate is the entire issue. You won't find any current scholars who claim the substrate is so large that Germanic is "very non-IE". All languages have substrates.

>>18018909
yes, there is a non-marginal substrate, Proto-Basque is suggested as the easiest to omit among the Neolithic languages, while Old Western Indo-European could be eliminated if it were not sufficiently different from the Iron Age Old Celtic

File: Screenshot_20250923_21124(...).jpg (244 KB, 839x1205)

244 KB JPG

Its over

>>18018936
Please send me the link to this ASAP

https://www.snsbi.org.uk/Nomina_articles/Nomina_04_Adams.pdf
See OP

>>18018936
>>18018904
IE lost, again

File: firefox_0h2cnXMtPq.png (162 KB, 1403x1021)

162 KB PNG

>>18018936

>>18018936
The shared substrate between Basque and Celtic comes from the region in which Proto-Celtic emerged in the mainland and not from the British Isles.

Goidelic, though, borrowed extra words from the Neolithic folks of the Isles, which are not shared with continental languages

>>18018942
Some words from the Goidelic substrate share roots with Basque :

-Md. Irish Ainder =young woman, Gaulish anderon, Basque andere ='lady, woman'

-O. Irish eó 'salmon', Md. Welsh 'ehawc ', Gaulish *esoks , Basque izokin

- Old Irish adarc "horn", Basque adar 'horn'

More evidence for the substratum fact

>>18018950
There was probably multiple substrates
>>18018954
Doesn't explain all the weird Berber/Niger-Congo like features

>>18018936
This sort of metric doesn't mean anything. The lexicon has been analyzed systematically. Every word either has a known IE etymology or doesn't.

>>18018942
PIE did not have fixed word order because case markings allow one to rearrange sentences arbitrarily without obscuring the meaning. Case in point: open up the Septuagint translation of the Hebrew Bible and immediately you will see word orders that are atypical for Ancient Greek.

English is also thought to deviate from the usual word order of PIE but nobody suspects it's because of the influence of a substrate. Word order changes naturally for various reasons. The word order of PIE is also disputable since we don't have whole sentences preserved. If you look at the morphology of verbs, the case markings follow the verb. An argument can be made that this itself points to VSO in the prehistory of PIE but this isn't really a good way to shed light on the synchronic situation of PIE at the point of dissolution.

>>18018942
>>18018954
I'm Semitic. It's common knowledge that there are SEVERAL Semitic words in Celtic. We teach the Proto-Celts the same way we did the Greeks. We are your parents. At school, European girls would come up to me, like, we're naturally more patriarchal, the striking structural similarities between Insular Celtic and Hamito-Semitic cannot be coincidental. See the VSO order, marking of singular verbs with post-verbal lexical subjects in the plural, the "constructed state" with a dependent head Conjugated prepositions and oblique relatives with copies of pronouns are present in Arabic read Morris Jones

>>18018970
Low effort bait

>>18018960
As early as 1621, Davies noted that Welsh and Hebrew had some things in common. Later, John Rhŷs and others began exploring the idea that pre-Aryan languages may have influenced Insular Celtic languages. And Morris Jones went further, showing that Welsh and Egyptian had some very interesting similarities, such as that periphrastic conjugation with "to be" + preposition + verb.

>>18018973
It was supposed to be funny, my noble, but no joke, VSO order has not yet been explained

>>18018970
One of the mistakes here is believing Celtic is especially relatable to Semitic or Afro-Asiatic compared to other IE languages. You need to read Bomhard and realize linguists have been comparing PIE to Semitic and Afro-Asiatic for a long time. The Celtic stuff is usually not very compelling. Things like word order don't establish any special relationship with Semitic.

>>18018976
>VSO order has not yet been explained
The fallacy is that it requires explanation. Word orders changed in other IE languages quite naturally. There is no reason to believe PIE had a fixed word order. Words were highly infected by marking nominative, accusative, dative, etc and verbs were distinct from nouns.

I think that some sort of language (Either a Niger-Congo language or Berber or some sort of creole between the two) or something with extremely similar features of the two was spoken throughout Ireland and some small parts of Scotland and influenced both Welsh and Irish and made Insular Celtic way different and later died out due to language replacement.

>>18018985
>Niger-Congo
What is the point of bait like this? The delivery isn't very good for a joke. Why would the Neolithic farmers have spoken Niger-Congo?

>>18018980
No, him
Vennemann lists 64 features that link Insular Celtic and Semitic languages. Pokorny,
on the other hand, presents many examples from various languages, including Semitic, Cushitic, Bantu, and others. He suggests that substrate influence may take time to appear in written language, especially in languages with a strong literary tradition, such as Irish. Throughout his life, Pokorny continued to write a more concise list of 20 features shared between Insular Celtic and Semitic languages.

>>18018856
Virtually all local branches of Indo-European have been influenced by preexistant substrates. In some cases, it seems like Indo-European replaced Indo-European as well.
For example, it would appear that Greek (pre Ottoman era) had three layers
>layer 1: local Paleo-European substrate (potentially related to Minoan)
>layer 2: "Pelasgian" substrate; some certain Indo-European language, possibly related to Anatolian, or Thracian
>layer 3: the rest of the "Greek language" proper, making up about half of all words, probably a result of the Dorian invasion

>>18018987
It's not a joke but since the homeland of Niger-Congo was probably somewhere in Atlantic Africa it wouldn't be surprising if they migrated up through Iberia, through Western Europe and then in the area we now know as the UK and Ireland. The similarities are too hard to dismiss though

>>18018856
>proto Indo-European
>Greek substrate
what did the illiterate mean by this?
Greek is Indo-European
Rhaetian, Etruscan, Basque etc I can see but Greek being separate makes 0 sense

>>18018867
germanic have semitic roots, the whole germanic society come from Phoenician colonies abandoned at the end of bronze age collapse

>>18018892
>I'm Dutch
aka swamp jew

>>18018990
Vennemann's work is problematic. It would be much better to discuss specific claims and then see if they have any value. Pokorny is a linguist of a bygone era. Being outdated is a big issue since a lot of advancements were made in understanding the history of Celtic since then. It is certain that some of Pokorny's etymologies are now obsolete. Pokorny's IEW didn't even incorporate laryngeal theory.

I don't understand why people who are interested in long range comparisons get so invested in old stuff when you could be looking toward Bomhard and Starstin.

>>18019016
*Starostin

>>18019016
>outdated
Wagner's main work on the question of Insular Celtic and Semitic (summarized by Gagnepain in 1961) dates from 1959, especially the third part, which discusses the linguistic geographic position of the Brythonic verb. He draws similarities between Celtic, Berber, Basque, English, and French as representatives of a North African and Western European linguistic stratum, focusing on verb structure. Wagner also compares the verbal systems of Berber and Semitic.

>>18019021
If you find any comparison with Celtic and Semitic compelling, why not just bring to our attention specific examples? Did you notice something that interested you in particular?

I will consider data that is brought to my attention. I am just tired of the stereotypical claims like VSO being especially significant in itself without a lot more supporting evidence.

>>18018856
Nobody knows what languages from 5000 years ago sounded like. It's literally all made up.

>>18018994
"substrate" = language that predates the current language and influences its vocabulary
"Greek substrate" implies that which predates Greek's arrival. "Goidelic" is also Indo-European. "Goidelic substrate" = predating/influencing the Goidelic languages.

File: 1758550773869187.png (644 KB, 2500x2000)

644 KB PNG

>>18018876
>Bell beakers don't spoke IE language, and i have good arguments

>>18018892
>I'm not Indian, in fact, I'm probably the "whitest" here
>I'm Dutch
AHMED! Can you point me towards the best Moroccoan falafel in Amsterdam?

>>18018892
>indigenous terms for local plants and animals
when you come to a place with flora and fauna you don't know where other people already live you tend to ask them what they call it and that will influence what you call it.
is the spanish conquest of the americas invalidated as a conquest and the spanish y haplo dna irrelevant because the yucatan is called yucatan?
did neither romans nor saxons nor normans *actually* conquer and rule England because rivers are called River Avon and a hill is called Torpenhow Hill?
Germanics have among the most and most similar dna to IEs which is contingent with migratory patterns and direct Yamnaya descent, yet somehow people like you would claim Chechens are more IE because they interbred with non-IE people who shared the IEs eastern descent while Germanics and other Europeans share more total dna, but a smaller CHG percentage. Newsflash: The Yamnaya were themselves mixed who only happened to interbreed with CHG because they were closest to where they lived and offered the best trade goods. The corded ware descendants did the same thing with the declining EEF cultures. Mal'ta would certainly be disappointed of his awful racemixing descendants I am sure.

Fucking midwit.

>>18018892
>And even disgusting to the ears.
>I'm Dutch
Bold of a dutchman to talk about digusting

>>18019045
then call it Pelasgian or something
give it a damn name

I respect Guus Kroonen but anyone above 120 IQ who will read through his Germanic etymological dictionary will immediately realize that Germanic etymology is such a fucking joke, the reasons being:

>There are too many root etymologies
Around 60% in my estimate. A proto-language whose vocabulary is 60% innovated while at the same time being only around 2300 years young at max is IMPOSSIBLE. There are no languages typologically comparably to Proto-Germanic if one really wants to insist Indo-european origin for most of their headwords.

>Too many verbal roots require the assumption of an idiosyncratic paradigm of extensions and infixes, most of them being athematic and unattested elsewhere in the other PIE languages

>The semantic matches between PIE etymons and their purported Germanic descendants are so tenuous that it is outright worthy of being laughed at

>>18018994
Read Pre-Greek by R.S.P. Beekes

I’m not the Dutch pajeet but
>>18018903
>Modern linguists, including Kroonen, do not support the idea that Germanic is "very non-IE". Kroonen has investigated a non-IE substrate within Germanic but you won't find any support for your silly ideas from him.
Of course he is likely to say so, because he is defending his life's work. But Germanic really is so peculiar, for many reasons
>consonantal length (a.k.a. geminates)
Too many headwords with geminates have very doubtful, if not, none at all, PIE etymologies. And don’t even get me started on Kluge’s law. What even does the -n- segment do, other than being an ad hoc explanation?
>prenasalized final consonants in roots
PIE does not have a lot of these roots
>the absurd amount of s- and x- (h-) initial head words
>weird consonant clusters like *gn-, *kn-, *xn-, *wl-, *wr-, *sl-, *sm-, *sn-, not to mention the abundance of *sk- sp- and *st- clusters which does not correspond statistically to the canon Indo-european lexicon

>Verner’s Law!
If PIE had a strict constraint against certain consonant combinations then why does voice liberally alternate in medial positions?
>Grimm’s Law!
Trust the science goy, Grimm’s Law isn’t mysterious by itself

Also
>>Irish has 1/3 unknown roots.
>What is this even based on? I don't remember seeing anything like this in Matasović's dictionary. It's probably outdated nonsense or you made it up.
That’s because Matasovic omitted a lot of the Irish and Breton lexicon. He is making an Indo european etymological dictionary of Celtic, after all, not a general etymological dictionary of Celtic. And Celtic is notoriously very difficult to reconstruct.

>>18018892
No Germanic language is disgusting except Dutch. Danish is simply weird. In fact Icelandic is the most most Germanic modern language and the most beautiful, especially in music.

They're all very clearly IE languages and whatever filter proto-Germanic came through had minimal pre-IE *linguistic* influences compared to say, Greek. It was mostly material culture and genetic changes from wherever or whatever the pre-IE cultures contributed.

btw you're brown

>>18019810
You didn't answer the question. What is the "1/3 unknown roots" based on?

Many of those sC consonant clusters are merely archaisms that other IE languages lost so I don't see your point.

The voice alternation of Verner's law seems odd but an innovation like that may make more sense if you consider that PIE stops originally may have been marked [±tense, ±aspirated] and not [±voiced, ±aspirated]
https://www.ceeol.com/search/article-detail?id=469580

>>18019810
Germanic substrate won again

Germanic is very "strange" aka very non-IE
.vocabulary is 60% innovated
. "a-" was a prefix from a pre-Indo-European language that was borrowed by other languages
.matches between PIE etymons and and Germanic descendants are so tenuou
.PIE does not have a lot of germanic roots

The similarities between these words and those in other languages could be due to borrowing rather than direct linguistic inheritance.

>>18020350
>You didn't answer the question. What is the "1/3 unknown roots" based on?
I just told you, I’m not the Dutch guy. Go ask him where he got that number. That isnt my burden to answer. But the fact still remains that there are lots of unetymologizable words in the Celtic lexicon, enough to be statistically significant.

>The voice alternation of Verner's law seems odd but an innovation like that may make more sense if you consider that PIE stops originally may have been marked [±tense, ±aspirated] and not [±voiced, ±aspirated]
If all voiced consonants were in fact tense, then whats the motivation for the loss of tenseness in Germanic? I already told you, consonantal length exists in Germanic, why does for example, any given PIE root with final -d- or -g- unable to yield a -tt- or -xx- reflex along with -t- and -k-?

>>18021825
>I just told you, I’m not the Dutch guy. Go ask him where he got that number. That isnt my burden to answer.
Then 1/3 is just made up bullshit.

>The voice alternation of Verner's law seems odd but an innovation like that may make more sense if you consider that PIE stops originally may have been marked [±tense, ±aspirated] and not [±voiced, ±aspirated]
>If all voiced consonants were in fact tense, then whats the motivation for the loss of tenseness in Germanic?
You're misunderstanding something. The idea is that PIE stops may not have been phonologically marked for voice, so they were actually able to alternate voice in certain situations. The alternative proposed in that paper is that stops were marked tense or lax. A tense stop cannot be voiced. A lax stop can be voiced or voiceless in it's realization, but the idea is that PIE did not consider a lax stop to be a different phoneme if the voicing changed. This idea is supported by data such as the voicing of final stops in Old Latin.

All IE languages eventually lost the tense:lax opposition of PIE, and IE languages vary considerably on whether a given PIE stop is reflected by a voiced or voiceless stop. Therefore Verner alternations do not present any particular challenges to the IE nature of Germanic languages.

>>18021850
>>18021825
>I already told you, consonantal length exists in Germanic, why does for example, any given PIE root with final -d- or -g- unable to yield a -tt- or -xx- reflex along with -t- and -k-?
Your question doesn't make sense. You'll have to explain what you mean better, but I understand you are talking about geminated consonants. Geminated consonants may not have been allowed in general in PIE but their appearance in descendant languages is not an issue since they are their own languages and not PIE. Germanic doesn't stand alone. Geminates were innovated elsewhere. But importantly, they weren't banned completely from PIE either. They were just banned from the adult speech register, so you still had words like *átta "Daddy".

Keep in mind there are things like Kluge's law in Germanic.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kluge%27s_law

>>18021850
there are lots of words in the Celtic lexicon with unknown root to be statistically significant

>>18021956
It's a very handwavy claim without any quantification or specification regarding the portion of the lexicon which is affected. The core Celtic lexicon is IE by all accounts and I have no idea who is saying "a lot" of words have unknown roots.

>>18018867
lol no. Germanic is pretty IE

>>18018856
People generally overestimate the importance of substrates on modern languages.

Amerindian loans in English:
>raccoon (Powhatan)
>opossum (Powhatan)
>hickory (Powhatan)
>tomahawk (Powhatan)
>moose (Eastern Algonquian)
>skunk (Southern New England Algonquian)
>tomato (Classical Nahuatl)
>chocolate (Classical Nahuatl)
>coyote (Nahuan)
>cannibal (Taino)
>hurricane (Taino)
>potato (Taino)
>maize (Taino)
>cocaine (Quechua)
>kayak (Inuktitut)
>teepee (Lakota)

Would you say Amerindian languages have played a massive role in the development of the English language?

>>18021855
>Your question doesn't make sense. You'll have to explain what you mean better, but I understand you are talking about geminated consonants. Geminated consonants may not have been allowed in general in PIE but their appearance in descendant languages is not an issue since they are their own languages and not PIE. Germanic doesn't stand alone. Geminates were innovated elsewhere. But importantly, they weren't banned completely from PIE either. They were just banned from the adult speech register, so you still had words like *átta "Daddy".

Because tense consonants are typically transcribed as geminates? Look at how Old Korean tense consonants are handled in their writing system, for example. You are the one unable to follow the other here, not me. I’m actually quite aware of this pet theory of yours. Winter’s Law in Balto-Slavic and Lachmann’s Law in Latin are very good evidence for the existence of tense (and glottalized) consonants: the tense consonant lenits into the expected reflex of their voiced counterparts, but lengthens the vowel preceding it.

From this we can therefore posit thr development tense/glottalized consonant > long consonant > long vowel +short consonant, since the early European dialect of PIE still does not permit long consonants.

So, the question is, for the PIE voiced stops *d and *g, why is there no equivalent of Winter’s or Lachmann’s law in Proto-Germanic? You keep denying that Proto-Germanic distinguishes consonantal length, even though, apart from the million weak verbs that prove this distinction, there are also adjectives and nominals that show such variation. I’m away from my own notes atm, but the most prominent example I can think of right now is

>PG *manaɣa- (< quasiPIE *monVgh-)
vs.
>PC *menikki (<quasiPIE *menVkk-)

I raised this point earlier but it seems you glossed over it. What does the -n- conjugation in Kluge’s Law even mean?

>>18022450
(contd)
Nobody can answer this, because in reality, such a conjugation is grammatically empty, and therefore ad hoc. Not to mention that it does not have any parallel in European languages, only in a specific subbranch of Indic that has no written attestations of comparably ancient date as Old Norse. Therefore it may as well be dismissed as nothing more than a coincidental development that have nothing to do with each other (Sanskrit doesnt even have this.)

>>18021855
>They were just banned from the adult speech register, so you still had words like *átta "Daddy".
You are so wrong. In the Gothic Bible, aiþa is used alongside ( in fact it is more often used than) *fadr and its derivatives: why is that the case?

>>18022370
Bad strawman, American English does not even have a Native American substrate in the first place. You basically gave me a grocery list. A handful of borrowed words of commercial origin cannot be called a substrate. But when more than half of your primary verbs cannot even be reliably given a solid IE etymology, then that is definitely worth pondering about (I bet you dont even know what strong verbs are...)

>>18022450
>Because tense consonants are typically transcribed as geminates?
PIE was not written down. I do not see your point. As it happens, Hittite has fortis /CC/ and lenis /C/ consonants distinguished by doubling up the fortis consonants.

>You are the one unable to follow the other here, not me.
If I am failing to follow, it is only because the posts I am responding to are ESL which fail to fully elaborate on the point.

>I’m actually quite aware of this pet theory of yours.
My pet theory? I just referred you to a peer-reviewed paper, but even if the theory is not true, Verner's law has no bearing on the IE nature of Germanic. The descendant languages vary considerably in the voicing of stops. See for yourself:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indo-European_sound_laws#Consonants

>So, the question is, for the PIE voiced stops *d and *g, why is there no equivalent of Winter’s or Lachmann’s law in Proto-Germanic?
Why does there need to be? If this angle is an attempt to deny the IE status of Germanic, it is complete nonsense.

>You keep denying that Proto-Germanic distinguishes consonantal length,
I never denied this. I am sorry, but there is no discussion to be had here. You are simply ESL and the language barrier is too difficult for you to communicate effectively and to understand what I am actually saying.

>>18022480
>They were just banned from the adult speech register, so you still had words like *átta "Daddy".
>You are so wrong. In the Gothic Bible, aiþa is used alongside ( in fact it is more often used than) *fadr and its derivatives: why is that the case?
Again, you are failing to understand the post you have responded to. The claim was about PIE, not Germanic. PIE is said to have not allowed geminates in general, but that was mainly a prohibition for the adult speech register. PIE still had words like *átta "Daddy" and *kakka "poo-poo" which are considered Lallwörter or baby talk. The point is PIE speakers were not physically incapable of pronouncing geminates. (Why would they be anyway? The entire premise of geminates being an incomprehensible later innovation of a descendant branch like Germanic is just absurd. This line of thought leads nowhere and has no foundation in historical linguistics.)

https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Reconstruction:Proto-Indo-European/%C3%A1tta
https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Reconstruction:Proto-Indo-European/kakka-

>Bad strawman, American English does not even have a Native American substrate in the first place.
You're an idiot. He just proved there's a Native American substrate. That is what a substrate is by definition.

>>18022943
>You're an idiot. He just proved there's a Native American substrate. That is what a substrate is by definition.
You’re retarded. Cultural borrowings is not interchangeable with a linguistic substratum. Just because cannibal, hurricane, potato, maize, etc comes from Taino doesn’t mean there is a Taino substrate in American English. I would like to reiterate how absolutely retarded you are for implying this. Same goes for the native languages of New England. The American settlers only borrowed A MERE HANDFUL of local fauna and flora names. The situation is incomparable to Proto-Germanic where the phonology has radically diverged and at least 25% of the lexicon is left with no etymology. American English still remains intelligible to the British English speakers because the American settlers did not mingle culturally and genetically with the Amerindians.

>>18022875
>PIE was not written down
But Proto-Germanic was! Old Norse, which barely digressed from Proto-Germanic, is also there.

>>So, the question is, for the PIE voiced stops *d and *g, why is there no equivalent of Winter’s or Lachmann’s law in Proto-Germanic?
>Why does there need to be? If this angle is an attempt to deny the IE status of Germanic, it is complete nonsense.
I’m not implying that Germanic is not IE, I am simply trying to refute the idea that Germanic is emphatically Indo-european, which is not, for reasons I have written above. You are quite free to backtrack all my posts and pinpoint where in my argument did it start to feel nebulous but you chose to BAWW at me and call me an ESL. Whatever. The fact still remains that there is no reliable evidence for the existence of tense consonants from a Germanic perspective, only indirect evidence from other branches. In fact, there is better evidence instead for glottalized consonants, which can explain Grimm’s Law much better while at the same time being compatible with the accent patterns of Balto-Slavic.

>>18022943
>>They were just banned from the adult speech register, so you still had words like *átta "Daddy".
>>You are so wrong. In the Gothic Bible, aiþa is used alongside ( in fact it is more often used than) *fadr and its derivatives: why is that the case?
>Again, you are failing to understand the post you have responded to. The claim was about PIE, not Germanic. PIE is said to have not allowed geminates in general, but that was mainly a prohibition for the adult speech register. PIE still had words like *átta "Daddy" and *kakka "poo-poo" which are considered Lallwörter or baby talk. The point is PIE speakers were not physically incapable of pronouncing geminates. (Why would they be anyway? The entire premise of geminates being an incomprehensible later innovation of a descendant branch like Germanic is just absurd. This line of thought leads nowhere and has no foundation in historical linguistics.)
You don’t understand my point. The point is, if PIE *atta is a Lallwort, then what is a Lallwort like aiþa doing in a scholarly work such as the Bible? Never mind the fact that it exceeds the more formal word fadr in the number of times it was used. This does not fit with your claim that Lallworts are banned from adult speech register. The only explanation is that PG *aiþaz (which is not a Lallwort at all), like many others, are substratal words and there is no need to reconstruct a PIE word *atta (nevermind the a-vocalism lol)

>>18023063
>The situation is incomparable to Proto-Germanic where the phonology has radically diverged
How is that different from any other descendant branch? Is your entire point just handwaved hyperbole?

>and at least 25% of the lexicon is left with no etymology.
Where is this number from?

>you chose to BAWW at me and call me an ESL.
You aren't making any sense which is why you were called ESL. You can probably overcome this if you make a concerted effort to write out complete thoughts and fully explain your thesis. As it stands your claims are incoherent and disorganized.

>Whatever. The fact still remains that there is no reliable evidence for the existence of tense consonants from a Germanic perspective,
I would be more concerned if there were contradictory evidence against the hypothesis, but it is worth mentioning that the conditional voicing of Verner's law is a process reminiscent of conditional lenition of obstruents in Hittite.

>>18023105
Supposing *átta is substrate and not a genuine PIE word is ad hoc considering its widespread distribution among IE branches. Words at the level of baby talk are free to behave according to a unique phonology. There is no reason to reject /a/-vocalism here other than dogma.

The special phonology of *átta is easily explained if it originally belonged to a different layer of speech than most of the lexicon. This could be a distinction between informal and formal speech, or baby talk and adult speech. Your point about the usage of of a word in Gothic is odd. That's not PIE.
One may wonder if strictly speaking it is provable that a word was baby talk in PIE, but sometimes we are just trying to formulate the best hypothesis since it is not acceptable to arbitrarily dismiss the word as foreign to the PIE lexicon. The fact remains however that the selection of words which allow gemination are exactly those we would expect from informal childish speech such as "mommy", "daddy", and "poo-poo".

>>18023105
Tard, its a Lallwort

>>18023217
>>The situation is incomparable to Proto-Germanic where the phonology has radically diverged
>How is that different from any other descendant branch? Is your entire point just handwaved hyperbole?
Are you aware of how rare a phenomenon like Grimm’s Law is in all of the world’s languages? Even in Armenian where there is a similar phonological evolution the change is only partial when compared to Germanic. This is not handwaving; a quick Google search can easily confirm this.

>>18023217
>>and at least 25% of the lexicon is left with no etymology.
>Where is this number from?
With the tools I have in my hand atm I can’t trace where it comes from but I have read papers from Lehmann and Hamp referencing such a number. Modern linguists like Venemann, and Beekes (who made the Proto Greek etym. dictionary) have even greater estimates. Even Schrijver and Kroonen themselves acknowledge this fact. 25% is an estimate commonly thrown in online discussions.

>You aren't making any sense which is why you were called ESL. You can probably overcome this if you make a concerted effort to write out complete thoughts and fully explain your thesis. As it stands your claims are incoherent and disorganized.
Your bawwing gives the impression of avoidant behavior, rather than an earnest interlocutor. To be fair to you, I am having great difficulty expressing my thoughts clearly within the limits of 4chan’s 2000 character limit and the lack of proper sleep, all while transcribing it on my phone barely the size of my hand. I actually am invested in this topic, in fact I have a working thesis on the Proto-Germanic substrate, one that is radically different from everything that has been proposed in the past. I just can’t divulge information prematurely because my work is incomplete and needs to be peer reviewed. I’m not yet confident on many aspects of the proto language, e.g. the strong verbs, why 9 different ablaut classes have to exist all at the same time, etc.

>>18023217
>Supposing *átta is substrate and not a genuine PIE word is ad hoc considering its widespread distribution among IE branches. Words at the level of baby talk are free to behave according to a unique phonology. There is no reason to reject /a/-vocalism here other than dogma.
>The special phonology of *átta is easily explained if it originally belonged to a different layer of speech than most of the lexicon. This could be a distinction between informal and formal speech, or baby talk and adult speech. Your point about the usage of of a word in Gothic is odd. That's not PIE.
>One may wonder if strictly speaking it is provable that a word was baby talk in PIE, but sometimes we are just trying to formulate the best hypothesis since it is not acceptable to arbitrarily dismiss the word as foreign to the PIE lexicon. The fact remains however that the selection of words which allow gemination are exactly those we would expect from informal childish speech such as "mommy", "daddy", and "poo-poo".
I just told you, its unexpected for a scholarly work such as a Bible translation to use a Lallwort as a main term for the concept of a father instead of a more formal and a more widespread word. To reiterate, one plausible explanation is that *atta (not aiþa, which is the Gothic word for mother, sorry about that!) is not a Lallwort at all, but a substrate word. The rationale for *atta being reconstructed is the existence of a Hittite reflex (atta.) But, what if Hitt. atta is itself a substrate word, amongst many other words of its lexicon, and that the Proto-Germanic substrate and the Hittite substrate is actually genetically related? Compare PG *atta- ‘father’ and *aiþa- ‘mother’, Hittite atta with Proto-East-Caucasian *ādā(jV) / *āṯā(jV) ‘father, mother’. Here you go, a glimpse of my life’s work.

>>18024340
I can't agree that Kroonen would corroborate your 25% figure. I could be wrong, but what I have found contradicts 25%. In this 12 year old vid at ~5:25 Kroonen has a slide which states 85% IE, 15% origin unclear.
https://youtu.be/0asQ4IrwUIg

There was a link to an old slideshow (the same one in the video?) which is now broken which apparently stated something like
>15% without a clear IE etymology, 4-5% non-Indo-European (Kroonen 2013)
https://www.quora.com/In-rough-estimates-how-much-of-the-Proto-Germanic-lexicon-can-be-described-as-probably-non-Indo-European-and-part-of-an-older-European-substrate

My suspicion is a fair chunk of that remaining 10-11% is IE because I myself have encountered orphaned words where I could come up with an etymology that previously didn't exist.

Anyway, I don't think the actual percentage of non-IE words is that important to further discussion, but 25% percent made me skeptical because I was pretty sure Kroonen never said anything like that. You can consider me interested if you have any unique perspectives on Germanic and its sound changes including any attributions you would like to make to non-IE influence.

>>18024359
>To reiterate, one plausible explanation is that *atta (not aiþa, which is the Gothic word for mother, sorry about that!) is not a Lallwort at all, but a substrate word. The rationale for *atta being reconstructed is the existence of a Hittite reflex (atta.)
I thought the rational for PIE reconstruction was its attestation in many branches?

>But, what if Hitt. atta is itself a substrate word, amongst many other words of its lexicon, and that the Proto-Germanic substrate and the Hittite substrate is actually genetically related? Compare PG *atta- ‘father’ and *aiþa- ‘mother’, Hittite atta with Proto-East-Caucasian *ādā(jV) / *āṯā(jV) ‘father, mother’. Here you go, a glimpse of my life’s work.
I definitely see the resemblance and it is reasonable to suppose some sort of relationship with the Caucasian word, but as far as I can tell *átta must have been present in PIE. If it is substrate, then it is substrate within pre-PIE. Offhand I do not know why the Caucasian comparison would be more appealing than Uralic. See: Proto-Turkic *ata, Proto-Uralic *attɜ, Proto-Eskimo *ata-ata

Now somewhat in your favor I do see Proto-Germanic *attô with its long vowel and seemingly random transformation to an n-stem. Other than that I'm not sure where you're going with this.
https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Reconstruction:Proto-Indo-European/%C3%A1tta

>>18018856
>It is proven that Germanic is a substrate
>It is proven that Germanic IS a substrate
poeple like this post here. the sink wants to come in.

>>18024426
>I thought the rational for PIE reconstruction was its attestation in many branches?
Besides Hittite, “PIE” *atta is purely European in distribution. If it were also attested at least in Sanskrit, I wouldn’t cast a shadow of a doubt on its IE pedigree

>but as far as I can tell *átta must have been present in PIE. If it is substrate, then it is substrate within pre-PIE. Offhand I do not know why the Caucasian comparison would be more appealing than Uralic. See: Proto-Turkic *ata, Proto-Uralic *attɜ, Proto-Eskimo *ata-ata
That is definitely a good point. In fact, all these words are likely to be related to each other at a very deep level (perhaps beyond 10,000 years.) However, my argument is, in addition to what I have said above, (1) geminate -tt- is unexpected in PIE, (2) PG *atta and *aiþa seem to be reflexes of a protoform pre-Grimm’s law PG *aḏa-. After said law took effect, geminate (or tense) *-ḏ- became geminate *-tt- and became *atta ‘father’, while a divergent process, likely induced by grammatical stress patterns, yielded the word *aiþa ‘mother’ and even *eđđa- ‘grandmother’. Both maternal words come from a protoform *aṯa-. With the latter, the tense consonant *ṯ became PG -đđ- through Verner’s law, while with the former the consonantal length was shifted to the initial vowel, yielding the dipthong *ai-, with the now shortened *-t- leniting into the fricative -þ-.

But then again, Lallworts like *atta make for poor evidence, because of their inherent nature.

>>18024400
I actually read Kroonen’s dictionary cover to cover, (as well as Orel’s), and I disagree with a lot of his proposed etymologies. The amount of root etymologies he posits is too generous. This is problematic because Proto-Germanic is a very young language, being only 2300 years old, so it is absurd to insist that the earliest word-forming paradigms in PIE remain unchanged for thousands of years.

>>18024400
Another problem is the dubious and unconvincing quality of the semantic matches. I say, unconvincing, because these semantic matches have the quality of folk etymology. That is to say, these are based instead on lookalikes and soundalikes, instead of rigorous etymological processes. For example *xabran- ‘oats’ should have nothing to do with *xabra- ‘goat’ at all, because even though both are agricultural items, concpetually, they are so different from each other. Another entry I find dubious is *finþan- ‘to find, feel’, connected to PIE *pent- ‘way’. Why should the act of finding be connected with the concept of a road? If that is supposedly the case, then why is there no inherited PG noun *fenþ/đ- which specifically means way or road? And how does one reconcile this concept with the sense ‘to feel’? In many entries of his dictionary (too many to mention), Kroonen actually uses mental gymnastics frequently. In fact these egregious discussions occupy the greater bulk of his dictionary, which could have been dedicated instead to collecting more headwords especially from the continental languages like High German dialects. He doesn’t even have an entry for the quintessentially Germanic *erlaz, because he is focused on words that he can affect to have an Indo-european etymology. Then again, creating an etymological dictionary is no small undertaking. i still respect him for his work, and in fact, has recently focused his study on the Germanic substrate. (He edited a book on the substrate of European languages and published it last year.)

>>18024749
>Besides Hittite, “PIE” *atta is purely European in distribution. If it were also attested at least in Sanskrit, I wouldn’t cast a shadow of a doubt on its IE pedigree
Then what do you make of the Indo-Iranian terms listed on Wiktionary?

>That is definitely a good point. In fact, all these words are likely to be related to each other at a very deep level (perhaps beyond 10,000 years.) However, my argument is, in addition to what I have said above, (1) geminate -tt- is unexpected in PIE,
To some extent I wonder if this expectation reflects preconceived notions about PIE stops. For example, fortis stops are written double in Hittite. What if -tt- here is just an old fortis stop that escaped common sound changes? Baby talk is the first language a person learns. Everyday speech is the second language. There is a small degree of separation between PIE proper and the very first words of an infant's vocabulary.

>(2) PG *atta and *aiþa seem to be reflexes of a protoform pre-Grimm’s law PG *aḏa-.
Is there a PG *atta? I thought it was *attô. Kroonen gives *attan- (the same n-stem).
*aiþį̄ "mother" on the other hand really does seem that it could be from a non-IE substrate Because of Basque aita. On the other hand there are Indo-Aryan words with an āi dipthong. A word for "mommy" being non-IE *does* make sense considering IEs took non-IE wives.

>>18025163
>Is there a PG *atta? I thought it was *attô. Kroonen gives *attan- (the same n-stem).
I’m only concerned with the segment *att-. In typing that word I always meant to put a hyphen next time, but forgot to do out of exhaustion. So yeah, that word is (most likely) an n-stem.

>Then what do you make of the Indo-Iranian terms listed on Wiktionary?
Is that true? The PIE etym dictionary I have only lists Hittite as the extra-European cognate. I will look at it later.

>To some extent I wonder if this expectation reflects preconceived notions about PIE stops. For example, fortis stops are written double in Hittite. What if -tt- here is just an old fortis stop that escaped common sound changes? Baby talk is the first language a person learns. Everyday speech is the second language. There is a small degree of separation between PIE proper and the very first words of an infant's vocabulary.
When we speak, or write, of our fathers in formal speech and scripture, aren’t we unlikely to refer to them in the names we call them in our infancy, like baba or dada, and instead, use mature words suited to the formal nature of the medium, like father? The fact that atta occurs more frequently than fadr in the Gothic Bible (in fact, God is referred to as Atta in The Lord’s Prayer, no less) is telling that PG *atta was itself a formal word for “father” and not mere baby talk. I would like to assume that such was also the case for Hittite, since writing in the Bronze Age was gatekept by a highly educated class. Surely, baby talk can easily trickle into everyday conversation, just as you said, but there was an insurmountable cultural barrier that filtered plebeian speech out of formal scripture.

>>18026423
Yeah, there's some Indo-Iranian terms on Wiktionary.

I think the only thing that has to be considered on whether or not the idea that *átta could be a phonological archaism is plausible is whether or not *átta seems like it could be one of the first words learned by an infant. I don't think its usage in the Gothic Bible or whether or not people would use the word into adulthood has any bearing on the issue. It *looks like* and sounds like it is suitable for being one of the first words taught to an infant. In which case there is reason to believe it's allowed to be phonologically exceptional compared to the rest of the language.