Behold, greatness has arrivedTo my knowledge, the shared features between Italic and Celtic languages could be explained by either a later divergence between them, or by arial effects between the two groups, which would have diverged earlier but remained more similar due to geographic proximity and continued cultural exchange between the groups of speakers, or i m missing something?
>>18481715It surprises me how Indo-Slavic is taken more seriously than Italo-Celtic for some reason, even though the former is much more nuanced than the latter. The question is: If IC is legitimate, which archaeological culture would represent it?
>>18481715I'm not sure. But I think similarities aren't usually attributed to archaisms, right? I mean, Bell Beaker was still a core group until the LBA.
>>18481715>>18481772Italo-Celtic Hypothesis is Supported.The Italian steppe ancestry, primarily BB-derived, aligns genetically with Western European Celtic-speaking populations.And Contrasts withYamnaya ancestryin Greek and Armenian groups.
>>18481772Both are BB-likeItaly’s EBAshows BB-related cultural elements, such astriangular daggers etc>>18481720Indo-slavic is actually more "possible" than Graeco-Armenian hypothesis
Celtic languages and Semitic languages share the same VSO word order.They also share the same mutation of initial consonants.Funny however how this never gets addressed seriously and everyone copes by claiming "it's just a coincidence bro".
>>18481827What do you mean? That there's actually a magical connection uniting the "Semites" and the Celts? Oh wait, who knows, Indo-Uralic-Afro-Asiatic
>>18481837>>18481827The Semites have been educating, teaching, and influencing the Indo-Europeans since the Early Indo-European period; many words are Semitic loanwords, so this is nothing new. The Phoenicians influenced the Celts and taught them the art of metallurgy.
>>18481827>>18481837>>18481840Off topic, retard
>>18481715Italo-Celtic is taken seriously by geneticists and linguists and has seen some new interest in the recent book "The reconstruction of Indo-European stop systems" where the stops of Italic and Celtic are reconstructed to a unified system and the result is seen as significant for "glottalic theory".Kloekhorst, A., & Pronk, T. (Eds.). (2026). The reconstruction of Indo-European stop systems: From the traditional model to glottalic theories (Leiden Studies in Indo-European, Vol. 29). Brill. https://doi.org/10.1163/9789004750449
>>18482185Thank you
>>18482185>pre-italo-celticBell beaker dialects??
>>18482489"Pre-Proto-Italo-Celtic" simply means before Proto-Italo-Celtic (PIC). In all likelihood, PIC would not be very divergent from a "Bell Beaker language" since the Bell Beaker genetic component is held in common between Italic and Celtic.The point of the book is to reconstruct the PIE stop system with a special emphasis on promoting glottalic theory. The chapter concludes that the PIC stop system implies a certain stop system preceded it, and the picture compares this Pre-PIC stop system to the traditional reconstruction of the PIE stop system in order to show they disagree. The traditional reconstruction must therefore be emended.
>>18481720Urnfield, and yes, they would have clustered with modern Spaniards
>>18482517No. Tumulus
>>18482516>The traditional reconstruction must therefore be emended.Why?
>>18482543Because there is no logical path where the traditional reconstruction of PIE stops naturally develops into the system of Pre-PIC
>>18482516Who has signed off on it outside of Leiden? Sorry
>>18482545What about the "PBS"? Could be the indo-slavic speakers from Fatyanovo culture??
>>18482546It is still a new book. I am not aware of much in the way of reception.>>18482552I do not know. Not my area of expertise.
>>18482589
>>18482589Ok
>>18481815Italic is not homogenous, there are tons of different tribes who shared common ancestry, but others definitely not so much, even the Roman themselves are more close to Etruscanas and Greeks than Celts, but since you are clearly comparing northern Italians in this case i let it pass
>>18481840The Greek and Latin alphabet itself have phoenician origins, but this is off topic btw
>>18482698What is the point of your post? Italic languages are the result of BB-derived Indo-Europeans, not Greeks, not Etruscans. All Italic languages, north to south.
