New insights into the origin of the Indo-European languages
mpg.de
mpg.de
Hittite people created an empire centred on Hattusa, and also around northern Levant and Upper Mesopotamia [1].
[1]Hittite language:
In particular, laryngeal sounds tend to make vowels near them become more back, low, and round. So for example before a uvular q sound in Arabic, the sound /a/ which is usually something like English a in cat will become back and low, something more like au in caught. You can get a process like this, playing out over hundreds of years:
1. You start with a form like Hewis, where H is some laryngeal sound.
2. The laryngeal sound makes the following vowel low and back, yielding Hawis.
3. The laryngeal sound drops, leaving just awis.
In fact this is how we get the Indo-European root for "sheep" (reflected in English ewe, Latin ovis, etc.). The Hittite form is hawis.
I'd be curious to see some kind of (perhaps multi-dimensional?) characterization/ranking of all languages' conservatism and innovation, if anyone happens to have a pointer.
- Saussure reconstructed only two of the three consonants now called “laryngeals” and called them “coefficients sonantiques”. Saussureʼs two sounds would be h₂ and h₃ in modern notation. The Danish linguist Möller added the third (h₁) and suggested that they were laryngeals.
- In Hittite, not all of the laryngeals are preserved: the Hittite sound transcribed as “ḫ” is certainly not a reflex of h₁, which had no reflexes in Hittite, and it certainly is a reflex of h₂. Whether it can also be a reflex of h₃ is contested.
(Edit: Your explanation below about the coloring by laryngeals is also correct in principle; just the specific example is problematic: because of Latin “ovis”, Greek “ὄις” we know that the late PIE form was “Howis” with “o” not “a”, either from “h₃éwis” with “h₃e” → “o” or from “h₂ówis”. The Hittite word you quoted may be evidence for the latter: “h₂ówis” → Hittite “ḫawis” with uncontested “h₂” → “ḫ”.)
Another overlooked point is that it wasn't immediately obvious that the Hittite ḫ was related to Saussure/Möller's laryngeals, because the theory wasn't fully accepted at the time, and not everyone understood it. Even after the ḫ was identified in Hittite, it took a while for people to make the connection.
Do you know what Saussure's initial evidence for h2 and h3 was?
- There is e.g. a root meaning ‘carry’ having the full grade “bʰar” and a corresponding zero grade “bʰr̩” (within the regular ablaut system of Sanskrit).
- Then there is e.g. a root meaning ‘clean’ having the full grade “pavi” and a corresponding zero grade “pū”.
- So we have “bʰar” : “pavi” = “bʰr̩” : “pū” or, re-grouped, “bʰar” : “bʰr̩” = “pavi” : “pū”.
- We already know (since the times of the great Indian grammarians) that, in ablaut, “v” corresponds to “u” (samprasāraṇa). All synchronic observations, by the way, about these different kinds of roots were already made by the Indian grammarians in the first millennium BC, too; and they called the roots à la “bʰar” “aniṭ” ‘without i’ and the roots à la “pavi” “sēṭ” ‘with i’.
- “bʰar” : “bʰr̩” is the regular ablaut pattern understandable as: ‘the full grade has the short vowel (“a” in Sanskrit, “e” in PIE), the zero grade lacks it.’
- Saussures brilliant and simple idea was to trace back “pavi” : “pū” to this very same basic pattern.
- To make this work he assumed a sound in the ‘clean’-root that became “i” between consonants but vanished with compensatory lengthening after sonantic “u”. (Saussure denoted this sound here with the cover symbol “A” in small caps.) So the older, regular pattern can be reconstructed as (in more modern notation):
- “bʰar” : “bʰr̩” = “pavH̩” : “puH”, which yields:
- “bʰar” : “bʰr̩” = “pavi” : “pū” as attested.
This argumentation is fairly compelling IMHO because it complies with Occamʼs razor by assuming that a second complicated, seemingly irregular morphological pattern leads back to the simpler, regular pattern we have to assume anyways, and that this simpler pattern was complicated by sound change – which is the normal way of linguistic change.
But it got even better.
- Saussure then drew attention to the Sanskrit verb formations of the seventh and ninth class (again, already classified and extensively described by the Indian grammarians), which both had an infix, i.e. a morphological element inserted into the root (not prepended like a prefix or appended like a suffix):
- 7th, e.g. “yunakti” ‘yokes (up)’ (the English word is a cognate), built like “yu·na·k-ti” with zero grade “yug” (and “g” → “k” before voiceless “t”), “na”-infix and personal ending “ti”.
- 9th, e.g. “punāti” ‘cleans’ – our pavi/pū-root again. But now with a short “u”? And with an infix “nā” instead of “na” as in “yunakti”? So … “u” instead of “ū” and “nā” instead of “na” … and both is already explained by the coefficient, because then we have to reconstruct:
- “pu·na·H-ti”, because the na-infix had to be inserted before the last consonant of the root. And this formation “pu·na·H-ti” is, again, exactly the same pattern as:
- “yu·na·k-ti”, just with “H” : “k”.
So far this argument justifies to assume one “coefficient”, in the case of the “pavi”-root denoted as “A” (in small caps) by Saussure and “h₂” nowadays. Saussure assumed two – denoting the other as “O̬”, nowadays “h₃” – because he also already noticed the coloring effect you explained in your comment below: The compensatorily lengthened Sanskrit “ā” sometimes corresponds to e.g. Greek and Latin “ā”, sometimes to Greek and Latin “ō”; for the latter Saussure introduced the “O̬”. His argumentation here is more difficult and partly outdated, because he wrote his mémoire (published 1879) in a time when another major discovery was not yet fully taken into account: So far, Indo-Europeanists had assumed that Sanskrit “a” originated from Proto-Indo-European “a”. When Saussure wrote his mémoire, it had become clear that it was necessary to assume at least two diffent vowels here, which both became Indian “a”.
The paper hasn't made it to sci-hub yet (at least not the one I checked) but it seems like they're going to have a tough row to hoe.
I'd say dynamics of human history are really full of all sorts of variance and instances of punctuated equilibrium.
Still... it wouldn't surprise me to find surprises around the Anatolian languages and their age and origins. They do seem to fall outside the 'norm' of the mainstream of Indo-European languages and the age of their split from the origin of whatever variant of early Indo-European that Yamnaya spoke I suspect could be a lot further back then expected. And it wouldn't also surprise me to find back and forth flow for a period of time from Anatolia to/from the Pontic-Caspian Steppe.
As an aside: I looked for the origine of the English "wheel" and the German "Rad", and they seem to have been different IE roots: kʷe-kʷlh₁-ó-/rót-h₂-o-[1], but the word is nevertheless often given as a example for a common IE origine. So what does scholars make so sure that the original Indo-Europeans already had the wheel? Could these words not have been derived somewhat later independently from IE roots of a somewhat different meaning, or when the area occupied by Indo-Europeans was still small via techno-lingustic transfer?
[1] https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indogermanische_Ursprache#cite...
That would require that the independent languages maintained the exact same derivational process of reduplication + zero-grade ablaut in the root. We know from the attested history of IE language that derivational processes last only for a while before they die out. That independent languages maintained that particular derivational process (which is inseparable from historical-phonological developments, too) for thousands and thousands of years, is extremely unlikely, which is just one of the many pieces of evidence against the Anatolian hypothesis.
I am thinking of such cases as certain Anglicisms that were phonetically adapted when they were incorporated into German. For example the English term "password" is in the process to replace German "Kennwort", but its final consonant is adjusted to German "Wort" as "Passwort". So phonetically "Passwort" and "Wort" vs. "password" and "word" seem to share the very same derivational process, while their actual history of adaptation is quite distinct.
In German, "Rad" was originally a word that meant something like "rolling" and it generalized in meaning to encompass what was originally referred to using the cognate of English wheel, which then died out in German. It would have been something like *Wiel (Dutch still retains "wiel").
The evidence for a shared root for wheel goes much much farther back than the split between English and German. The Proto-Indo-Euopean root was something like *kwekwlos, which gives Germanic *hwel (> English wheel), Greek kyklos/cycle, Sanskrit cakra, all according to regular sound changes. So it goes back all the way to the split between these languages.
And if you go back and read Old English and Middle English texts you can actually see this happen! From https://ahdictionary.com/word/search.html?q=deer
> In Middle English texts one finds a fish, an ant, or a fox called a der, the Middle English ancestor of our word deer. In its Old English form dēor, the word referred to any animal, including members of the deer family, and continued to do so in Middle English, although it also acquired the specific sense "a deer." By the end of the Middle English period, around 1500, the general sense had all but disappeared.
Can someone with a background in this area speak to why the DNA data is taken to be a strong signal about the origin of language families? Like, clearly when people move around they generally take their language with them, but trade, war/political power, cultural exchange etc also move languages around.
This was much less common in the pre-modern era. One of the largest learnings of the latter 20th century in this field is that when language and culture are moving, it typically means a previous population was displaced, not merely that the same people adopted a new culture.
My comment was perhaps overgeneralizing specifically from the early neolithic transition in Europe more broadly than I should have been. One example of the work I am discussing is the work of Cavalli-Sforza (ie https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.94.15.7719). My understanding of the history of academic work on this subject was the prior to the 1970s or 80s or so, it was largely thought the spread of agriculture did not imply genetic population replacement and subsequent genetic research has since proven that is false.
I don't think the article you've linked actually disagrees with me. Excerpting briefly
> Essentially, in the Pueblo Southwest, language became partially decoupled from genes and culture, probably because language is a stronger convention (Young 1966) than are the other two, and can therefore better withstand the blending forces discussed below. A second force for creating zones of cultural similarity, more applicable to the case of phylogenetically distinct groups considered here, is through mixture of groups via movement of people (“demic” diffusion) that also entrained sharing of culture. To the extent that this describes the Pueblo case, once again, such mixing could not to have been so extreme as to undermine the linguistic differences that still survive. Recent research (e.g., Kandler 2009) provides some guidance as to the factors determining which language will prevail when linguistically different groups come into contact. The relative sizes of the populations, their relative status, and the duration of the flow are all relevant. To the extent that emigrating populations were relatively low in status, small in number, and arriving sporadically, it is more likely that they would adopt, rather than displace, the language of any group they were entering. Of course cultural similarities among groups can also emerge without population movement by copying neighboring groups, a process that anthropologists once simply called diffusion (e.g., Sahlins 1960). In the terms used by Collard et al. (2006), both movement of people among groups and this horizontal cultural transmission among groups are blending processes, as opposed to the branching processes discussed in the previous paragraph.
To me, this article seems to be attempting to explain the cultural similarity between (at least originally) disparate linguistic Pueblo groups (that largely, afaict from the article, share common genetics). In the paragraph above, you can see that the author is describing population migration and displacement as one of the key ways for cultural/linguistic transfer (especially when the populations moving are large) that 'can also' emerge without displacement, but I understand the article to be describing this as a minoritarian current - an exception to the broader pattern of pre-modern linguistic & cultural spread through displacement.
As an aside, Cavalli-Sforza was a legendary figure, but a lot of this stuff has benefited from powerful new tools like eDNA and effective aDNA that he never had much of a chance to speak on.
For Kohler's paper, I'd point to the summary as a better example of what I was trying to communicate:
Evidently, though, powerful blending forces were also at work. These included local exogamy, which, on the borders of linguistic groups, led to blending, movement of traders among increasingly sedentary groups, movements forced on populations increasingly reliant on agriculture by changing climates, and movements forced on increasingly large and sedentary groups by anthropogenic depression of local resources. One of my goals in this article has been to add convergent evolution to this list. This would have been driven by adaptive considerations, possibly bootstrapped by additional blending processes such as indirectly biased cultural transmission across groups (Mesoudi and O’Brien 2008). Together, these blending forces created the Pueblo culture area and Sprachbund.
Anyway, the thing about this new research is that it'll depend on whether people accept this methodology or not. It's not clear to me that people will form a consensus on that any time soon because historically methodology is a central part of why people disagree about this in the first place. In fact, as another commenter below mentions, this methodology assumes an identification of genes and language-speakers which has been explicitly and heavily criticized in this area before and I think the consensus is that that is invalid.
* It doesn't surprise me. The positive arguments in this book are very weak.
Which is funny when modern feminists try to glorify Gimbutienė and those societies. While doing exactly opposite to what those societies were doing.
I just read a book by a feminist, Karin Bojs, who concludes basically* what you just said but I don't think she'd appreciate your overheneralized jab at feminists.
* Her thesis is that those societies valued women's work which included pottery and textiles in addition to maternity while the later IE societies were overtly patriarchical. Personally I don't think there's enough evidence for anyone's position on this and I'm fine not knowing for now.
I’m not so sure about not valuing women work though. Home goods and arts (fairytales, singing etc) etc were valued for a loooong time. And virtually all IE cultures looove nice items. Heirloom traditions and alll that jazz. I’d argue only industrial revolution changed that. Although more war-oriented man-first cultures popped up all the time. It looks like ultimately they’d conquer Gimbutienė’s Old Europe. But maternal tradition would survive to big extent. Raiding warriors ain’t raising kids. And they have damn hard time controlling how women back home raise the next generation. It’s on women to form and propagate the culture.
Well, till recent era. When women are out there raiding the job market and men spend unbelievable amount of time with their offsprings. On the other hand, women have upper hand in public education system which is #1 by time spent with the next generation.
> 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 — as the earliest source of the Indo-European family. Our language family tree topology, and our lineage split dates, point to other early branches that may also have spread directly from there, not through the Steppe.”
My guess is they assumed it came through the steppe i.e. from the north, not their region the south/Caucasus. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kurgan_hypothesis
The Anatolian languages are all extinct, and Armenian has its origins out of the Yamnaya migration out of the steppe just like the rest of living Indo-European languages.
Armenian is Armenian, not related to Hittite, Luwian, etc. of the Bronze age in any way except as extremely distant cousins.
By the way, this is unrelated to the GP post which was about hominids walking out of Africa, more than 1M years before entering America.
As an aside, the white sands footprints aren't "proof". They're interesting and highly suggestive, but significant concerns remain about the quality of the dating, let alone transbering crossings in the LGM without implicating things like the sketchy refugia hypothesis. It'll be a few years before all that shakes out and we have anything approaching consensus on the matter.
Perhaps there was more pushback in archeology?
Really hard for early artefacts to survive being under the ocean for 10k years.
Nonetheless, I think its fair to say now that we can at least push back the timeline for early civilized settlements to at least the time of Gobekli Tepe (~10k years).
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_first_human_settleme...
Regarding the older finds of Sapiens, when we find DNA traces and compare them to modern DNA, we are not able to find any modern population that is descended from any of this Sapien DNA, outside of Africa, that is older than even 25k.
It is well known that Sapiens arrived in Spain 40k years ago and that they demonstrated modern behavior: arts, music, advanced hunting tools, but DNA analysis suggests this group disappeared entirely, no trace of their DNA is found in existing European populations. The picture then is that 75k ago Eurasia was covered with humans, of at least 3 or 4 different species, and all of them died, and then Eurasia was repopulated by a burst of homo sapiens that radiated out from Africa.
Of course, this picture would change if we ever found some old DNA, outside of Africa, that could also be matched to DNA in a surviving group of humans.
How does that comport with modern humans still having some admixture from them?
Modern Humans can be an admixture of several species if the ancestors to modern humans either migrated south to Africa or continued to survive in some place like Arabia, but perhaps we just haven't found the right fossil yet. Assuming Sapiens and Neanderthals mixed together in the Levant then they either survived in the Levant or they moved south into Africa and then later expanded out of Africa.
This is fascinating and new to me, can you provide any articles or podcasts that discuss it?
I thought the news from Morocco was now well known, see here:
https://www.nature.com/articles/nature.2017.22114
Homo sapiens and some other form of human were living in the Levant 200,000 years ago:
https://www.earth.com/news/new-type-of-prehistoric-human-fou...
The reference to the skulls found on an island Greece, I'll need time to track that one down.
Very neat, turns a lot of previous evidence on its head.
Anyone to whom this is complete news? How did they manage this all without wheels?
Walking, and at least for the people in North America probably canoes.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Early_European_modern_humans
This population in Belgium and Spain seems to have died out:
"Earlier EEMH (10 tested in total), on the other hand, did not seem to be ancestral to any present-day population, nor did they form any cohesive group in and of themselves, each representing either completely distinct genetic lineages, admixture between major lineages, or have highly divergent ancestry. Because of these, the study also concluded that, beginning roughly 37,000 years ago, EEMH descended from a single founder population and were reproductively isolated from the rest of the world. The study reported that an Aurignacian individual from Grottes de Goyet, Belgium, has more genetic affinities to the Magdalenian inhabitants of Cueva de El Mirón, Spain, than to more or less contemporaneous Eastern European Gravettians.[15]"
The population in Spain apparently had music, as this flute is dated to 40k years ago:
Hasn’t this been debunked by the discovery of Neanderthal and I think Denisovan DNA in contemporary human populations?
Until diseases spread back and forth enough that Sapiens had enough immunity to non-Sapien diseases, but not vice versa (due to lower population density or less diverse fauna outside Africa) which wiped out the non-Sapiens populations outside Africa.
https://www.razibkhan.com/p/out-of-africas-midlife-crisis
Humans didn’t “stay in Africa” and early Homo sapiens certainly didn’t wait until 10k years ago to spread across the planet. Going off memory here but pretty sure the current theory is early Homo sapiens started to spread out of Africa about ~70-60k years ago. 10k years ago is around when agriculture and “civilization” began.
Also other hominids, arguably a kind of human, like Neanderthals and homo erectus had left Africa well before 100k years ago - considering they were probably more adapted to their environment in many cases it’s not that far fetched to think their presence generally made it harder for early Homo sapiens to displace them or coexist with them, given they’d occupy similar ecological niches.
>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
By that period in history, you'd usually call it Coptic, not (the much older) Ancient Egyptian.
(And really, as it evolved so dramatically over 3000 years, ‘Ancient Egyptian’ can’t easily be called a single language to start with. I tend to think of Coptic as simply the latest stage of Ancient Egyptian.)
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.
That's a lot to assume, though. One possible counterexample is contemporary North America. The English-speaking population spread across the continent in a linked process, the same phenomenon, but the majority contribution genetically, is not from England. There are communities in North America where almost no one is of English ancestry, yet they are English-speaking.
The same sort of social/demographic upheavals and changes that can create large language spread, are also the same kind that can create homogenization towards a single language despite people speaking many languages.
> The Chinese of Thailand often cannot speak any Chinese (they speak Thai)
That was because of forced assimilation in the 1930s-50s by their proto-Fascist dictator.
> Yiddish is a Germanic language spoken by a non-Germanic people
Because there was plenty of intermarriage and the community was in Central Europe since Roman times
Amharic isn't the only Semitic language spoken in Ethiopia. We have other Semitic languages spoken both in Ethiopia and Eritrea. It is just the Red Sea that divides these two countries from the other Semitic speaking countries. Yemen, across the sea has other Semitic languages other than Arabic. Also, just like Indo-European is a large grouping of languages, the Semitic languages are ordinarily grouped under Afro-Asiatic languages. Thus, besides some of the Semitic languages spoken in Ethiopia and Eritrea, we also have two other subgroups of Afro-Asiatic namely, Cushitic and Omotic languages that are also spoken in Ethiopia. Amharic thus is well contextualised for Ethiopia.
Edit: also, if you look at pictures of Ethiopians and Eritreans and of Yemenites you’ll see they’re way more similar in appearance than Ethiopians and, say, Nigerians.
In the horn of Africa they've always spoken Semitic languages as far as we know, and actually it's possible the entire language family originated in Africa, not in West Asia as I guess you assume. This hasn't been proven one way or another, both theories exist.
The link is very strong for the obvious reason that everyone learns to speak to their parents.
My point is that things happen to break the link, not that the link can break for no reason.
And going back further there is evidence of genetic continuity with pre-Indo-European European populations too.
Prior to that it’s more likely that the invaders killed and/or subjugated most of the mean and put themselves at the top of local hierarchy meaning that they and their descendants were more likely to have successful offspring.
Based on genetics that seems to have been the case in Europe.
It should also be noted marginally that haplogroups are, for similar reasons, a recent focus in history.
* originator of the Anatolian hypothesis
If true, I'm sure there is some linguistic explanation as to why but I'm not aware of it.
It would seem counterintuitive to me that a language would start out complex and simplify over time, but I'm sure simplicity is - for me as a native English speaker - defined as a non-gendered and mostly positional language.
PIE languages are currently in the process of losing cases and we can statistically expect some of them to start gaining cases again sometime in the next few millennias.
I'd like to recommend a video https://youtu.be/evJ_E7k1pvY
Is it because it would be a career ending move for a linguist to conduct research that assumes that PIE did not exist? We have seen this before in history where researchers are punished for researching topics that go against the leading voices in the field.
Details of PIE are subject to revision based on new evidence. Its existence is not in question.
The open question is whether this common ancestral language is the imagined / reconstructed extinct language called Proto-Indo-European that does not currently have any supporting physical evidence (cave paintings, stone carvings, Papyrus manuscripts, tablets, and whatnot) proving its existence, or is it one of the many surviving languages still spoken today?
I don't think we know the answer to that question.
It is hard to understand what you think is the difference between the ancestral language and PIE. PIE was almost certainly not a written language, so carvings or manuscripts can exist only in fantasies. We have enormous evidence of the existence of non-written languages.
While of course no PIE writings have been ever found, it's interesting that we have also not found references to PIE anywhere in writings in any other languages, from the times of the Sumerian Script all the way until William Jones showed up (or until slightly before his time). Please correct me if I am wrong.
William Jones was a sharp cookie to theorize PIE, no doubt. But for us to believe in the existence of PIE, we have to believe that there was no other cookie sharp enough elsewhere in the world, between 3400 BC (Sumerian Script) and 1786 AD (William Jones) who could have looked at Latin, Greek, Hebrew, Arabic, Sanskrit, and Persian, like Jones did, and derived a theory similar to PIE, and written about it.
One possible explanation could be that people who came before us considered this idea, and discarded it due to lack of sufficient merit, and we are simply reinventing that wheel.
On another note, all the old assertions regarding the death and follow on artificial revival of Sanskrit have been invalidated. Sanskrit, as a language, has stayed very much alive since ancient times. References:
- Hatcher, Brian A. (2016). "Sanskrit and the morning after". The Indian Economic & Social History Review. 44 (3): 333–361. doi:10.1177/001946460704400303. ISSN 0019-4646. S2CID 144219653
- Hanneder, J. (2009), "Modernes Sanskrit: eine vergessene Literatur", in Straube, Martin; Steiner, Roland; Soni, Jayandra; Hahn, Michael; Demoto, Mitsuyo (eds.), Pāsādikadānaṃ: Festschrift für Bhikkhu Pāsādika, Indica et Tibetica Verlag, pp. 205–228
- Seth, Sanjay (2007). Subject Lessons: The Western education of colonial India. Durham, NC: Duke University Press. pp. 172–176. ISBN 978-0-8223-4105-5.
Since I got downvoted and accused of "pointless contrarianism" elsewhere in this thread, I would like to say that I am not trying to offend anyone, nor waste anyone's time with my questions/thoughts/explanations. I am bringing up an issue that I think deserves discussion. I don't see what the problem is. If you don't like what I have to say, scroll past my comment. If you like what I have to say, I am happy to engage.
You already admitted that an ancestor to the PIE-family languages existed. Are you objecting to linguists calling that ancestral language PIE? Maybe you have some other name to propose, and would like to persuade the entire population of modern linguists to switch to using your proposed name that you have not revealed to us yet?
You were downvoted for reasons you could learn from. Maybe read the posting guidelines?