But things go sour quickly as two wrongs make an even wronger wrong. Check out Aurie's channel here: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCbwMMS-92JKOKxi8GAhayRA...
ABAlphaBeta has so much cool historical lingusitics content
I think I was confused by Iranian languages being in a sub-group, I suppose the question is why is it a sub group, or why did that particular sub group happen, or I guess what's the reason for there being seemingly an Indo half and a European half?
the pottery thing makes sense, but why is it called a culture? Is a cultural connection necessary for people to make the same kind of pots, could it be due to materials available in a given region (I assume they've thought of this & there's a good reason). Like we all make spoons in a similar shape because the shape works, but is that a cultural connection? Isn't it better described as a 'Pottery horizon'?
I can see how elements of religious thought can be transfered alongside or via language, but isn't it like looking at African Christians for example and then making conjectures about pre-Christian African religion? Further, ancient Chinese people worshipped the Sun, and so did ancient Europeans, without (seemingly) any linguistic or 'cultural' connection, how do they differentiate between thought independently coming about and that transfered by trade or migration etc?
Indian polytheism (and other theologies) spread all over Asia (like China, Indonesia etc), what's the theory as to why in the PIE example that apparantly came with big linguistic changes where it seemingly didn't in those places?
Doesn't PIE have to go back further than 5-6kya, given that we've found civilisation remains in the areas it's claimed to exist that go back much further? Like in Pakistan and Turkey for example.
Yeah I got most of what I do know about it from wikipedia, partly why I'm cautious about it. Maybe this is a bad summary, but it looks like the idea is that a group living around the Caspian Sea somehow expanded and conquered or migrated to a seemingly vast area of the world and replaced (or absorbed?) original languages (and cultures, religions?), and also acted as a germ for all these modern languages - it looks a lot like Aryanism with a kind of Conan the Cimmerian twist. Though I understand it's not that in academia.
Also, we have the written ancient Egyptian language, but afaik nobody has a clue how it was spoken, how do they go about reconstructing old languages like this?
Thanks for taking the time to answer, it's interesting stuff.
I suppose the question is why is it a sub group, or why did that particular sub group happen, or I guess what’s the reason for there being seemingly an Indo half and a European half?
Because the descendants of PIE split many times. One major, early split was the European group and the Indo-Aryan group (keep in mind here that the Nazis appropriated the term Aryan but it does refer to an actual group of people - the word Iran is literally the same thing). So, a simplified version is that one group of PIE speakers went West into Europe and one group went southeast into Iran and then India (but maybe Greek and Albanian are actually closer to the Indo-Aryan than the European branch? This is a debate). Each of those big groups continued to split many more times into other languages that eventually split again and on and on.
the pottery thing makes sense, but why is it called a culture? Is a cultural connection necessary for people to make the same kind of pots, could it be due to materials available in a given region (I assume they’ve thought of this & there’s a good reason). Like we all make spoons in a similar shape because the shape works, but is that a cultural connection? Isn’t it better described as a ‘Pottery horizon’?
It's not literally just pottery. Pottery is the most abundant artifact type in the archaeological record from that time though. What I think you're missing here is the detail and complexity of these early pottery technologies. They were doing way more than just shaping clay into bowls. There were precise techniques and shapes and artistic elements that show clear similarity to and connection with each other. We use the term culture because cultural elements don't exist in isolation and groups that shared pottery technology also likely shared other cultural elements as well. This is supported by what other archaeological evidence exists.
I can see how elements of religious thought can be transfered alongside or via language, but isn’t it like looking at African Christians for example and then making conjectures about pre-Christian African religion? Further, ancient Chinese people worshipped the Sun, and so did ancient Europeans, without (seemingly) any linguistic or ‘cultural’ connection, how do they differentiate between thought independently coming about and that transfered by trade or migration etc?
Not trying to put you down, but this paragraph shows how little you understand this stuff. You've got a pattern of underestimating how much we actually know about ancient people. We don't just know they worshipped the sun. We know the names of their gods, the stories they told about them, and the rituals they practiced (a small slice of that, at least, but still very specific). We can distinguish which mythological and linguistic elements appeared when and from whom, like which Greek gods were from PIE roots and which ones were from the inhabitants of Greece before the PIEs arrived.
Indian polytheism (and other theologies) spread all over Asia (like China, Indonesia etc), what’s the theory as to why in the PIE example that apparantly came with big linguistic changes where it seemingly didn’t in those places?
Because they spread at different times via different mechanisms. Just totally different situations.
Doesn’t PIE have to go back further than 5-6kya, given that we’ve found civilisation remains in the areas it’s claimed to exist that go back much further? Like in Pakistan and Turkey for example.
PIEs weren't the first people in these regions. They were predated by other inhabitants for many thousands of years.
Maybe this is a bad summary, but it looks like the idea is that a group living around the Caspian Sea somehow expanded and conquered or migrated to a seemingly vast area of the world and replaced (or absorbed?) original languages (and cultures, religions?), and also acted as a germ for all these modern languages - it looks a lot like Aryanism with a kind of Conan the Cimmerian twist. Though I understand it’s not that in academia.
I mean, that's basically correct. Again, your timeline of what influenced what is reversed. Conan was influenced by the academic understanding of the time. So were Nazis. These ideas have had cultural capital for a very long time.
The best bet for how it actually happened is that the PIE made a few key technological advancements related to horses - chariots and saddles, probably - that let them roll over a vast section of the world. Central Asian horse people would continue this for thousands and thousands of years, but the OG PIEs got the farthest because they were mostly going against people who had just started settling into cities and practicing agriculture, not the organized states of later millennia. They didn't just conquer either, and they often lost - they made no headway in Mesopotamia or the Levant, where there were established states with large scale military organisation.
It should be noted this wasn't some grand empire that ruled all of this land. Just a bunch of different people with an increasingly distant shared heritage spreading and retreating in different waves of conquest, trade, and migration.
Also, we have the written ancient Egyptian language, but afaik nobody has a clue how it was spoken, how do they go about reconstructing old languages like this?
We actually do know a lot about how it was spoken. We can read hieroglyphics phonetically. That's thanks to the Rosetta Stone. The fact that we can know how a language spoken in such antiquity worked phonetically and grammatically is one of the reasons we can reconstruct PAA to such a distant date. Plus, Coptic is still used today as a liturgical language and that's a direct descendant of ancient Egyptian.
So, we aren't reconstructing Egyptian. We know the language pretty well. Reconstruction is for languages that we don't have any direct records of. What we do is look at their descendants we do have records of (this can be as ancient as Egyptian or Assyrian or as modern as the English we're using to communicate right now). We use the sound correspondences I mentioned in my last post as the key mechanism. Basically, we can say, "500 years ago, language X could start words with /b/, but then that changed so all of those words start with /p/ now". We look at the related languages, figure out as many correspondences as possible, and work backwards to figure out what the ancestral language is. We know this works because we can use the methodology on languages with a well-attested ancestor and closely reconstruct that language - basically, use Spanish and Italian and Romanian and reconstruct "Latin" to get something very close to what we actually know about Latin.
It is possible but there's no way to trace that far back. Human language has existed in its current form for, bare minimum, 100 thousand years. Maybe much longer. The oldest we can construct right now is maybe 15kya. Even if we optimistically assume that can be stretched about 5-10 thousand years, which is a reach, that brings us nowhere close. This is a topic that gets a lot of discussion but the academic consensus is that we simply have no way to know.
"Because the descendants of PIE split many times..."
Like actual descendents, or not necessarily related? Is descendent being used in a 'linguistic family' sense here like not necessarily related people - or can we find out from DNA or similar?
With the pottery, I see how different designs would help, but can't even complex aesthetics be independently arrived - there's only so many ways you can decorate a pot using cords? I'm glad it's not just pot sherds, but I'm still caught on the whole spoon thing, spoons all look the same but we don't say 'spoon culture horizons'. I don't have an issue with technology sharing, it seems natural & makes sense, but when chinaware or even civil service exams spread to England for example we don't say Chinese and English culture are the same or even especially related. Maybe I'm using 'culture' in a less focused way, but what does it mean to call a group of peoples a culture if it's based on a few material artifacts?
"Not trying to put you down, but this paragraph shows how little you understand this stuff."
Oh sure, no worries, I understand very little it's why i'm asking questions.
"You’ve got a pattern of underestimating how much we actually know about ancient people... Greek Gods"
Yeah probably. But aren't Greek gods comparatively easy, we've got written records - this isn't true of much of europe and steppe asia, though, especially prior to greeks writing about them. And they can call a sun god a different name or sex but it's the same thing being worshipped, so how do we differentiate cultures and peoples from that, where it's a comonality of the natural world that pretty much everyone worships in some way? Couldn't any similar name look like a connection, even if it were happenstance? Or is that seen as unlikely?
"Because they spread at different times via different mechanisms. Just totally different situations."
Sure, I was wondering what the different situations were. But I think you indicate it's to do with horse domestication?
"PIEs weren’t the first people in these regions. They were predated by other inhabitants for many thousands of years."
This makes sense, can we reconstruct those older languages from PIE in this case?
"The best bet for how it actually happened is that the PIE made a few key technological advancements related to horses - chariots and saddles, probably - that let them roll over a vast section of the world. Central Asian horse people would continue this for thousands and thousands of years, but the OG PIEs got the farthest because they were mostly going against people who had just started settling into cities and practicing agriculture, not the organized states of later millennia. They didn’t just conquer either, and they often lost - they made no headway in Mesopotamia or the Levant, where there were established states with large scale military organisation. It should be noted this wasn’t some grand empire that ruled all of this land. Just a bunch of different people with an increasingly distant shared heritage spreading and retreating in different waves of conquest, trade, and migration."
That makes a level of sense. But ultimately, is the perspective that their culture and ways of life replaced those of the previous inhabitants? Except where they encountered more organised states I guess? Do we have records from Egypt/mesopotamia of encountering these early PIE peoples like loan words or technology or religious changes?
"We actually do know a lot about how it was spoken. We can read hieroglyphics phonetically."
Really? That's impressive, how do we know how they said the squiggly water one? How does the rosetta stone (isn't it greek/persian/egyptian?) let you do that if it's just writing - does it give grammar/prononciation advice or are there accent symbols that help?
"So, we aren’t reconstructing Egyptian. We know the language pretty well. Reconstruction is for languages that we don’t have any direct records of. What we do is look at their descendants we do have records of (this can be as ancient as Egyptian or Assyrian or as modern as the English we’re using to communicate right now). We use the sound correspondences I mentioned in my last post as the key mechanism. Basically, we can say, “500 years ago, language X could start words with /b/, but then that changed so all of those words start with /p/ now”. We look at the related languages, figure out as many correspondences as possible, and work backwards to figure out what the ancestral language is. We know this works because we can use the methodology on languages with a well-attested ancestor and closely reconstruct that language - basically, use Spanish and Italian and Romanian and reconstruct “Latin” to get something very close to what we actually know about Latin."
this makes sense, thanks. I get the p/b thing, but how do we tell how they pronounced the p or b sound? Translation to greek/persian words? Just because spanish pronounces some letters differently right, even though they're the same. And hebrew has a weird ch sound that's different from other k or c or cz sounds.
Thanks for your patience & explainations! Feel free to tell me to just go read a book and stop bothering you (not wikipedia tho please)
Edit:
Sorry this is too long already, but to lay my cards on the table so to speak, my worry going into this was that for european academics 'culture' has replaced 'race', there's still a 'homeland' for us to conquer, the cultural-lingustic map looks very similar to other maps. By analogy, while i'm sure it's well supported, big bang cosmology looks to me a lot like judeo-christian-greek cosmology - creation from nothing, light first etc. I'm pretty uneducated of course, it's just what it looks like to me, I'm probably wrong but there's also the worry that to the ancient greeks ex-nihilo & then logos seemed very reasonable and well supported too.
I suppose the question is why is it a sub group, or why did that particular sub group happen, or I guess what’s the reason for there being seemingly an Indo half and a European half?
To add on to what u/jack said, I think that in modern research the idea that the indo-european languages can be split into “indo” and “european” branches is no longer accepted. The Indo-Iranian (persian and indian) languages are still well supported as a branch, but the other languages are no longer considered to fit cleanly into a single branch. I think the (now-extinct) Tocharian languages in particular have features of both “indo” and “european” languages.
Also, in regards to some of your other questions, I think it’s worth mentioning that there have been tons of proposed language families that have since been abandoned due to lack of evidence, even ones, like the Altaic languages, that group together very similar languages spoken by culturally similar peoples, but Indo-European is not one of them. It’s not just “a similar sound to mean a similar thing” and as u/jack pointed out, they often aren’t similar and often don’t mean the same thing. Instead it’s more about “reverse engineering” and working backwards from attested languages to find evidence of a common ancestor language how it changed into the other languages.
So it’s more just a few common threads between otherwise possibly very different cultures or languages or peoples?
Yes and no. The languages themselves may be quite divergent, like english vs bengali or mandarin vs burmese, but the key thing is that they used to be the same; just like how latin diverged and evolved into the modern romance languages, the idea is that PIE (and the proto languages of other language families like sino-tibetan and afro-asiatic) diverged and evolved into other languages, which themselves diverged and evolved into further languages, in a process that is still continuing today. Sometimes with quite different results!
I think I was confused by Iranian languages being in a sub-group, I suppose the question is why is it a sub group, or why did that particular sub group happen, or I guess what's the reason for there being seemingly an Indo half and a European half?
the pottery thing makes sense, but why is it called a culture? Is a cultural connection necessary for people to make the same kind of pots, could it be due to materials available in a given region (I assume they've thought of this & there's a good reason). Like we all make spoons in a similar shape because the shape works, but is that a cultural connection? Isn't it better described as a 'Pottery horizon'?
I can see how elements of religious thought can be transfered alongside or via language, but isn't it like looking at African Christians for example and then making conjectures about pre-Christian African religion? Further, ancient Chinese people worshipped the Sun, and so did ancient Europeans, without (seemingly) any linguistic or 'cultural' connection, how do they differentiate between thought independently coming about and that transfered by trade or migration etc?
Indian polytheism (and other theologies) spread all over Asia (like China, Indonesia etc), what's the theory as to why in the PIE example that apparantly came with big linguistic changes where it seemingly didn't in those places?
Doesn't PIE have to go back further than 5-6kya, given that we've found civilisation remains in the areas it's claimed to exist that go back much further? Like in Pakistan and Turkey for example.
Yeah I got most of what I do know about it from wikipedia, partly why I'm cautious about it. Maybe this is a bad summary, but it looks like the idea is that a group living around the Caspian Sea somehow expanded and conquered or migrated to a seemingly vast area of the world and replaced (or absorbed?) original languages (and cultures, religions?), and also acted as a germ for all these modern languages - it looks a lot like Aryanism with a kind of Conan the Cimmerian twist. Though I understand it's not that in academia.
Also, we have the written ancient Egyptian language, but afaik nobody has a clue how it was spoken, how do they go about reconstructing old languages like this?
Thanks for taking the time to answer, it's interesting stuff.
Because the descendants of PIE split many times. One major, early split was the European group and the Indo-Aryan group (keep in mind here that the Nazis appropriated the term Aryan but it does refer to an actual group of people - the word Iran is literally the same thing). So, a simplified version is that one group of PIE speakers went West into Europe and one group went southeast into Iran and then India (but maybe Greek and Albanian are actually closer to the Indo-Aryan than the European branch? This is a debate). Each of those big groups continued to split many more times into other languages that eventually split again and on and on.
It's not literally just pottery. Pottery is the most abundant artifact type in the archaeological record from that time though. What I think you're missing here is the detail and complexity of these early pottery technologies. They were doing way more than just shaping clay into bowls. There were precise techniques and shapes and artistic elements that show clear similarity to and connection with each other. We use the term culture because cultural elements don't exist in isolation and groups that shared pottery technology also likely shared other cultural elements as well. This is supported by what other archaeological evidence exists.
Not trying to put you down, but this paragraph shows how little you understand this stuff. You've got a pattern of underestimating how much we actually know about ancient people. We don't just know they worshipped the sun. We know the names of their gods, the stories they told about them, and the rituals they practiced (a small slice of that, at least, but still very specific). We can distinguish which mythological and linguistic elements appeared when and from whom, like which Greek gods were from PIE roots and which ones were from the inhabitants of Greece before the PIEs arrived.
Because they spread at different times via different mechanisms. Just totally different situations.
PIEs weren't the first people in these regions. They were predated by other inhabitants for many thousands of years.
I mean, that's basically correct. Again, your timeline of what influenced what is reversed. Conan was influenced by the academic understanding of the time. So were Nazis. These ideas have had cultural capital for a very long time.
The best bet for how it actually happened is that the PIE made a few key technological advancements related to horses - chariots and saddles, probably - that let them roll over a vast section of the world. Central Asian horse people would continue this for thousands and thousands of years, but the OG PIEs got the farthest because they were mostly going against people who had just started settling into cities and practicing agriculture, not the organized states of later millennia. They didn't just conquer either, and they often lost - they made no headway in Mesopotamia or the Levant, where there were established states with large scale military organisation.
It should be noted this wasn't some grand empire that ruled all of this land. Just a bunch of different people with an increasingly distant shared heritage spreading and retreating in different waves of conquest, trade, and migration.
We actually do know a lot about how it was spoken. We can read hieroglyphics phonetically. That's thanks to the Rosetta Stone. The fact that we can know how a language spoken in such antiquity worked phonetically and grammatically is one of the reasons we can reconstruct PAA to such a distant date. Plus, Coptic is still used today as a liturgical language and that's a direct descendant of ancient Egyptian.
So, we aren't reconstructing Egyptian. We know the language pretty well. Reconstruction is for languages that we don't have any direct records of. What we do is look at their descendants we do have records of (this can be as ancient as Egyptian or Assyrian or as modern as the English we're using to communicate right now). We use the sound correspondences I mentioned in my last post as the key mechanism. Basically, we can say, "500 years ago, language X could start words with /b/, but then that changed so all of those words start with /p/ now". We look at the related languages, figure out as many correspondences as possible, and work backwards to figure out what the ancestral language is. We know this works because we can use the methodology on languages with a well-attested ancestor and closely reconstruct that language - basically, use Spanish and Italian and Romanian and reconstruct "Latin" to get something very close to what we actually know about Latin.
Is it possible their is one original spoken language that all language are based on if we can trace everything far back enough?
It is possible but there's no way to trace that far back. Human language has existed in its current form for, bare minimum, 100 thousand years. Maybe much longer. The oldest we can construct right now is maybe 15kya. Even if we optimistically assume that can be stretched about 5-10 thousand years, which is a reach, that brings us nowhere close. This is a topic that gets a lot of discussion but the academic consensus is that we simply have no way to know.
"Because the descendants of PIE split many times..."
Like actual descendents, or not necessarily related? Is descendent being used in a 'linguistic family' sense here like not necessarily related people - or can we find out from DNA or similar?
With the pottery, I see how different designs would help, but can't even complex aesthetics be independently arrived - there's only so many ways you can decorate a pot using cords? I'm glad it's not just pot sherds, but I'm still caught on the whole spoon thing, spoons all look the same but we don't say 'spoon culture horizons'. I don't have an issue with technology sharing, it seems natural & makes sense, but when chinaware or even civil service exams spread to England for example we don't say Chinese and English culture are the same or even especially related. Maybe I'm using 'culture' in a less focused way, but what does it mean to call a group of peoples a culture if it's based on a few material artifacts?
"Not trying to put you down, but this paragraph shows how little you understand this stuff."
Oh sure, no worries, I understand very little it's why i'm asking questions.
"You’ve got a pattern of underestimating how much we actually know about ancient people... Greek Gods"
Yeah probably. But aren't Greek gods comparatively easy, we've got written records - this isn't true of much of europe and steppe asia, though, especially prior to greeks writing about them. And they can call a sun god a different name or sex but it's the same thing being worshipped, so how do we differentiate cultures and peoples from that, where it's a comonality of the natural world that pretty much everyone worships in some way? Couldn't any similar name look like a connection, even if it were happenstance? Or is that seen as unlikely?
"Because they spread at different times via different mechanisms. Just totally different situations."
Sure, I was wondering what the different situations were. But I think you indicate it's to do with horse domestication?
"PIEs weren’t the first people in these regions. They were predated by other inhabitants for many thousands of years."
This makes sense, can we reconstruct those older languages from PIE in this case?
"The best bet for how it actually happened is that the PIE made a few key technological advancements related to horses - chariots and saddles, probably - that let them roll over a vast section of the world. Central Asian horse people would continue this for thousands and thousands of years, but the OG PIEs got the farthest because they were mostly going against people who had just started settling into cities and practicing agriculture, not the organized states of later millennia. They didn’t just conquer either, and they often lost - they made no headway in Mesopotamia or the Levant, where there were established states with large scale military organisation. It should be noted this wasn’t some grand empire that ruled all of this land. Just a bunch of different people with an increasingly distant shared heritage spreading and retreating in different waves of conquest, trade, and migration."
That makes a level of sense. But ultimately, is the perspective that their culture and ways of life replaced those of the previous inhabitants? Except where they encountered more organised states I guess? Do we have records from Egypt/mesopotamia of encountering these early PIE peoples like loan words or technology or religious changes?
"We actually do know a lot about how it was spoken. We can read hieroglyphics phonetically."
Really? That's impressive, how do we know how they said the squiggly water one? How does the rosetta stone (isn't it greek/persian/egyptian?) let you do that if it's just writing - does it give grammar/prononciation advice or are there accent symbols that help?
"So, we aren’t reconstructing Egyptian. We know the language pretty well. Reconstruction is for languages that we don’t have any direct records of. What we do is look at their descendants we do have records of (this can be as ancient as Egyptian or Assyrian or as modern as the English we’re using to communicate right now). We use the sound correspondences I mentioned in my last post as the key mechanism. Basically, we can say, “500 years ago, language X could start words with /b/, but then that changed so all of those words start with /p/ now”. We look at the related languages, figure out as many correspondences as possible, and work backwards to figure out what the ancestral language is. We know this works because we can use the methodology on languages with a well-attested ancestor and closely reconstruct that language - basically, use Spanish and Italian and Romanian and reconstruct “Latin” to get something very close to what we actually know about Latin."
this makes sense, thanks. I get the p/b thing, but how do we tell how they pronounced the p or b sound? Translation to greek/persian words? Just because spanish pronounces some letters differently right, even though they're the same. And hebrew has a weird ch sound that's different from other k or c or cz sounds.
Thanks for your patience & explainations! Feel free to tell me to just go read a book and stop bothering you (not wikipedia tho please)
Edit:
Sorry this is too long already, but to lay my cards on the table so to speak, my worry going into this was that for european academics 'culture' has replaced 'race', there's still a 'homeland' for us to conquer, the cultural-lingustic map looks very similar to other maps. By analogy, while i'm sure it's well supported, big bang cosmology looks to me a lot like judeo-christian-greek cosmology - creation from nothing, light first etc. I'm pretty uneducated of course, it's just what it looks like to me, I'm probably wrong but there's also the worry that to the ancient greeks ex-nihilo & then logos seemed very reasonable and well supported too.
To add on to what u/jack said, I think that in modern research the idea that the indo-european languages can be split into “indo” and “european” branches is no longer accepted. The Indo-Iranian (persian and indian) languages are still well supported as a branch, but the other languages are no longer considered to fit cleanly into a single branch. I think the (now-extinct) Tocharian languages in particular have features of both “indo” and “european” languages.
Also, in regards to some of your other questions, I think it’s worth mentioning that there have been tons of proposed language families that have since been abandoned due to lack of evidence, even ones, like the Altaic languages, that group together very similar languages spoken by culturally similar peoples, but Indo-European is not one of them. It’s not just “a similar sound to mean a similar thing” and as u/jack pointed out, they often aren’t similar and often don’t mean the same thing. Instead it’s more about “reverse engineering” and working backwards from attested languages to find evidence of a common ancestor language how it changed into the other languages.
Ah ok thanks, it makes sense that it's an uncertain field with lots of revision, I suppose we've still got a lot to dig up.
So it's more just a few common threads between otherwise possibly very different cultures or languages or peoples?
Yes and no. The languages themselves may be quite divergent, like english vs bengali or mandarin vs burmese, but the key thing is that they used to be the same; just like how latin diverged and evolved into the modern romance languages, the idea is that PIE (and the proto languages of other language families like sino-tibetan and afro-asiatic) diverged and evolved into other languages, which themselves diverged and evolved into further languages, in a process that is still continuing today. Sometimes with quite different results!