What is the academic consensus on these possible subgroups? It seems the Italo-Celtic subgroup is gaining more considerable appeal among linguists, but the Greco-Armenian subgroup remains quite obscure. What are the chances of these subgroups being legitimate? The Indo-Slavic subgroup is more controversial and makes some people quite worried personally, but from what I understand, it is being taken more and more seriously there was even an entire article about it by Palmer, but I haven't read it yet.
>>18530461Linguist here. When I was graduating, I was led to believe that the reconstruction of PIE was something well-accepted and established by linguists, but it's a mess and infested with conflicting opinions.The biggest problems I found in these stories are Data Limitations. There is a scarcity of high-quality databases for Indo-European languages needed for accurate simulations. In addition to Relative Chronology, for which we still don't have high-quality articles. There is a lack of monographs that present the complete and relative chronology of sound changes necessary for replication.From the point of view of the chronology of phonetic changes, nothing besides the Indo-Iranian and Balto-Slavic subgroups seem to be real entities. The rest is like Lord of the Rings: fantasy. The relative chronology of changes usually postulated for Ancient Greek and Armenian does not seem to support a Greco-Armenian subgroup, and basically only lexical items favor this grouping. But that's not enough. It is also the weakest in decent cladistic analysis. There is almost no complete hypothesis on the reconstruction of Proto-Italo-Celtic or even a balanced account of Proto-Italic.
>>18530461>The Indo-Slavic subgroup is more controversial and makes some people quite worried personally,It's because the "Graeco-Aryan" hypothesis was popular for a long time. Essentially, this is due to a particular bias in the data that was present since the beginning of Indo-European studies. There were two large textual corpuses that were subject to frequent comparison:Ancient Greek literaturethe RgvedaIt's also because we are only recently coming to see that the Satem languages only have Indo-Iranian and Balto-Slavic as true members."Graeco-Aryan" was popular because there are many commonalities to be found between Ancient Greek and Indo-Iranian, but in reality this just betrays that Yamnaya and Corded Ware were culturally and linguistically continuous, not that Greek and Indo-Iranian once constituted a proper dialect or subclade. I don't think linguists were using the correct tool to determine division into dialects and subclades. That is best achieved by comparison of individual phoneme to phoneme sound correspondences. In that light, Balto-Slavic and Indo-Iranian are most similar. There is no doubt, but you may not realize this until you have the benefit of hindsight.
>>18530461I am most convinced of an Armenian Urheimat for PIE. This does not mean Yamnaya were not responsible for propagating it thoughever. Hittite/Anatolian come directly from the Armenian Urheimat. Outside of that, the Indo-European migrations from the steppe are responsible for all other branches.
>>18530478>>18530478>Hittite/Anatolian come directly from the Armenian Urheimat.The genetics don't work out.Armenians have Yamnaya admixture.Anatolians have CLV.Both are from the steppe. You would need Indo-Europeans in Armenia without steppe admixture, but none exist.
>>18530475>Graeco-Aryan" was popular because there are many commonalities to be found between Ancient Greek and Indo-Iranian, but in reality this just betrays that Yamnaya and Corded Ware were culturally and linguistically continuousThis.
>>18530478No genetic, archeological nor linguistic evidence for your biased claims.
>>18530475>Essentially, this is due to a particular bias in the data that was present since the beginning of Indo-European studiesThis bias is still present. Vedic is used as a benchmark for everything while other families are disregarded.
>>18530495Back-settling. Especially that of PERSIANS.
The madness and reconstruction of "Proto-Indo-European" are so intense that, for centuries, there has been no consensus on almost anything. Everyone says what they want when they want. This clearly stems from their delayed search for more objective bases to support the traditional arguments of historical linguistics, which are subjective, since they largely depend on the assumptions of the scholars who conducted the research. It is not serious study. Besides the fact that some forms do not correspond to those attested because they are not included in the morphological changes, we will find problems with the reconstruction of the protoform, since different scholars propose competing forms
>>18530469>The rest is like Lord of the Rings: fantasy.wronglotr is more real than this
>>18530520>The madness and reconstruction of "Proto-Indo-European" are so intense that, for centuries, there has been no consensus on almost anything.That simply isn't true. The misconception of a lack of consensus is due to the fact that there are so many questions that have to be answered. It is an endless rabbit hole. There is consensus on basic things, like whether or not Proto-Indo-European existed. The consensus is that existed, but there is still debate on the detailed division into subclades.
>>18530543No. Ask any "scholar" to explain the word for "foot" to you. nom.sg. *pṓds, gen.sg. *pedés or nom.sg. There are also problems with the presumed sound changes for the view that *póds evolved into *póss and the Greek *pṓs
>>18530583What exactly is the problem that you see?Have you tried reading any literature about this word and other root nouns?There isn't any problem with *-ds > *-ss. Can you state your problem more clearly?
>>18530469Proto-Indo-European btfo
>>18530631Always lol
>>18530469>Linguist here. When I was graduating, I was led to believe that the reconstruction of PIE was something well-accepted and established by linguistsIt is well-accepted and established by linguists, but I don't think that's what you meant. You have to be careful with how you say things here. If you sound like you are doubting Proto-Indo-European as a whole there are many posters who will latch onto that and think you are supporting their fringe views.I read your post in good faith and assumed you were bemoaning the fact that subclades aren't well established.
>>18530469>From the point of view of the chronology of phonetic changes, nothing besides the Indo-Iranian and Balto-Slavic subgroups seem to be real entities. The rest is like Lord of the Rings: fantasy.Not true. Italo-Celtic is actually widely accepted
>>18530461>but the Greco-Armenian subgroup remains quite obscure
>>18530520Nigga, linguists theorized imaginary laryngelas to explain sound changes and they were proven correct when Hittite was discovered.Historical linguistics is an actual science
>>18530932You're talking to Indians who are coping.
tl;dr>I'm Indian and I don't like this <scientific thing>>therefore it is fakeLmao, why do all Indo-European threads devolve into this?The threads can't hurt you if you don't enter them. Fucking crybabies.
