New insights into the origin of the Indo-European languages
1–10 of 157 posts
Re: New insights into the origin of the Indo-European languages
#2Seems a third theory, the other 2 existing theories are in the article
>Recent ancient DNA data suggest that the Anatolian branch of Indo-European did not emerge from the Steppe, but from further south, in or near the northern arc of the Fertile Crescent
Re: New insights into the origin of the Indo-European languages
#3Seems a third theory, the other 2 existing theories are in the article >Recent ancient DNA data suggest that the Anatolian branch of Indo-European did not emerge from the Steppe, but from further south, in or near the northern arc of the Fertile Crescent
I don't get it. DNA is about people, Indo-European is about language. DNA tells nothing about what language those people spoke thousands of years ago.
Re: New insights into the origin of the Indo-European languages
#4Seems a third theory, the other 2 existing theories are in the article >Recent ancient DNA data suggest that the Anatolian branch of Indo-European did not emerge from the Steppe, but from further south, in or near the northern arc of the Fertile Crescent
I don't get it. DNA is about people, Indo-European is about language. DNA tells nothing about what language those people spoke thousands of years ago.
DNA analysis allows to follow migrations and with it the migrations of languages.
Re: New insights into the origin of the Indo-European languages
#5Seems a third theory, the other 2 existing theories are in the article >Recent ancient DNA data suggest that the Anatolian branch of Indo-European did not emerge from the Steppe, but from further south, in or near the northern arc of the Fertile Crescent
I don't get it. DNA is about people, Indo-European is about language. DNA tells nothing about what language those people spoke thousands of years ago.
It helps to map migrations and thus spread of languages.
Re: New insights into the origin of the Indo-European languages
#6Seems a third theory, the other 2 existing theories are in the article >Recent ancient DNA data suggest that the Anatolian branch of Indo-European did not emerge from the Steppe, but from further south, in or near the northern arc of the Fertile Crescent
I don't get it. DNA is about people, Indo-European is about language. DNA tells nothing about what language those people spoke thousands of years ago.
People migrate -- they always bring their DNA with them and their language. No? The connections between these have been studied for a long time -- for example, this popular book was published 20 years ago: https://www.ucpress.edu/book/9780520228733/genes-peoples-and...
Re: New insights into the origin of the Indo-European languages
#7Earlier quoted context omitted.
I don't get it. DNA is about people, Indo-European is about language. DNA tells nothing about what language those people spoke thousands of years ago.
It helps to map migrations and thus spread of languages.
There is a saying I’ve seen: ‘genes don’t speak languages’. Languages can easily spread between population groupings, and conversely a single population can move from one language to another — and both processes happen with considerable regularity. (Consider what happened to Gaulish as Latin spread, or Hittite as Greek spread, or Ancient Egyptian as Arabic spread, or…)
Re: New insights into the origin of the Indo-European languages
#8Earlier quoted context omitted.
I don't get it. DNA is about people, Indo-European is about language. DNA tells nothing about what language those people spoke thousands of years ago.
People migrate -- they always bring their DNA with them and their language. No? The connections between these have been studied for a long time -- for example, this popular book was published 20 years ago: https://www.ucpress.edu/book/9780520228733/genes-peoples-and...
But, on the other hand, ‘While in most populations genetic and linguistic relations match, mismatches occur regularly as a result of language shift’: https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.2122084119
Re: New insights into the origin of the Indo-European languages
#9Earlier quoted context omitted.
I don't get it. DNA is about people, Indo-European is about language. DNA tells nothing about what language those people spoke thousands of years ago.
People migrate -- they always bring their DNA with them and their language. No? The connections between these have been studied for a long time -- for example, this popular book was published 20 years ago: https://www.ucpress.edu/book/9780520228733/genes-peoples-and...
People can change their language. Hungary and Turkey speak the languages of conquerors who have left very little genetic trace. (France is in a similar position!) Many Ethiopians speak a Semitic language (Amharic) for reasons unknown to us. Yiddish is a Germanic language spoken by a non-Germanic people. The Chinese of Thailand often cannot speak any Chinese (they speak Thai).
I assume the argument here is that if you see a huge linguistic expansion and a huge demographic expansion occurring at the same time, you can reasonably conclude that they are the same phenomenon and the expanding language is spoken by the expanding people. But the language and the people are not in general the same; people may voluntarily adopt a foreign language without moving (compare India and English) and they may fail to bring their language with them when they move. They cannot avoid bringing their DNA with them, but it will die out when they do, which their language may not.
Re: New insights into the origin of the Indo-European languages
#10Earlier quoted context omitted.
It helps to map migrations and thus spread of languages.
There is a saying I’ve seen: ‘genes don’t speak languages’. Languages can easily spread between population groupings, and conversely a single population can move from one language to another — and both processes happen with considerable regularity. (Consider what happened to Gaulish as Latin spread, or Hittite as Greek spread, or Ancient Egyptian as Arabic spread, or…)
> or Ancient Egyptian as Arabic spread
By that period in history, you'd usually call it Coptic, not (the much older) Ancient Egyptian.