Paleo-European languages

[bradrn]

AFAIK, the borrowing of the 'horse' word was first proposed by Sergei Starostin in an old Russian article. He also proposed other Caucasian-IE correspondences, although I'm not sure of them.

I can't say anything about that article because I don't master Russian, and I know nothing about North Caucasian lexicology, but IE loanwords in NWC(or NWC loanwords in PIE) seem likely to me. Proto-NWC probably was the language of the Maykop culture, which was strongly influenced by the Yamnaya culture (or vice versa), so one would expect some loanword exchange between both languages.

If Wikipedia is to believed (which it might not be, considering the IPA table in that article), there seem to be a couple of loanwords between Kartvelian and PIE: e.g. K *mḳerd- / PIE *ḱerd-, K *ṭep- / PIE *tep-.

[Talskubilos]

I can't say anything about that article because I don't master Russian, and I know nothing about North Caucasian lexicology, but IE loanwords in NWC(or NWC loanwords in PIE) seem likely to me.

The IE numeral '2' was borrowed from West Caucasian.

Notice: The term "North Caucasian" is redundant because "South Caucasian" = Kartvelian, so NWC = WC and NEC = EC.

If Wikipedia is to believed (which it might not be, considering the IPA table in that article), there seem to be a couple of loanwords between Kartvelian and PIE: e.g. K *mḳerd- / PIE *ḱerd-, K *ṭep- / PIE *tep-.

Actually, there's quite a lot of them. For example, IE *dhǵh-o-m 'earth' > Kartvelian *diɣom- 'humus', but Kartvelian *diq- 'clay, earth' ~ IE *dheiǵh- 'to knead clay' (edit: I'm not sure this was a loanword).

[bradrn]

If Wikipedia is to believed (which it might not be, considering the IPA table in that article), there seem to be a couple of loanwords between Kartvelian and PIE: e.g. K *mḳerd- / PIE *ḱerd-, K *ṭep- / PIE *tep-.

Actually, there's quite a lot of them. For example, IE *dhǵh-o-m 'earth' > Kartvelian *diɣom- 'humus', but Kartvelian *diq- 'clay, earth' > IE *dheiǵh- 'to knead clay'.

I thought PIE didn’t exist again? You seem to support its existence in some form, despite your insistence that it never actually existed as a single language.

[Talskubilos]

I thought PIE didn’t exist again? You seem to support its existence in some form, despite your insistence that it never actually existed as a single language.

Please notice I use "IE" instead of "PIE", because (although it may seem contradictory) my use of reconstructed protoforms doesn't imply I support the existence of a monolithic PIE language. I think instead the IE lexicon is made up of several layers.

[keenir]

I thought PIE didn’t exist again? You seem to support its existence in some form, despite your insistence that it never actually existed as a single language.

Please notice I use "IE" instead of "PIE", because (although it may seem contradictory, my use of reconstructed protoforms doesn't imply I support the existence of a monolithic PIE language. I think instead the IE lexicon is made up of several layers.

Whether it exists or they exist, the very act of existing means there is a predecessor - an ancestor.....or are you suggesting that the many IEs are pidgins formed from non-IE ancestors?

(not being sarcastic or facetious - i'm trying to make sure we're on the same page)

[Talskubilos]

Whether it exists or they exist, the very act of existing means there is a predecessor - an ancestor.....or are you suggesting that the many IEs are pidgins formed from non-IE ancestors?

Mmm. Possibly it was something "in between", namely a superposition of related languages which sucessively replaced each other over several millenia. But more research is still needed before reaching to some definite conclusion.

[keenir]

Whether it exists or they exist, the very act of existing means there is a predecessor - an ancestor.....or are you suggesting that the many IEs are pidgins formed from non-IE ancestors?

Mmm. Possibly it was something "in between", namely a superposition of related languages which sucessively replaced each other over several millenia. But more research is still needed before reaching to some definite conclusion.

but even related languages have a common ancestor.

to argue otherwise is like saying the Romance Languages exist but Latin never did.

[Richard W]

Notice: The term "North Caucasian" is redundant because "South Caucasian" = Kartvelian, so NWC = WC and NEC = EC.
...

If Wikipedia is to believed (which it might not be, considering the IPA table in that article), there seem to be a couple of loanwords between Kartvelian and PIE: e.g. K *mḳerd- / PIE *ḱerd-, K *ṭep- / PIE *tep-.

Actually, there's quite a lot of them. For example, IE *dhǵh-o-m 'earth' > Kartvelian *diɣom- 'humus', but Kartvelian *diq- 'clay, earth' ~ IE *dheiǵh- 'to knead clay' (edit: I'm not sure this was a loanword).

There's a sufficient commonality that Kartvelian is included in less extensive forms of Nostratic.

Proto-North-Caucasian is Starostin's conlang uniting NEC and NWC.

There are also quite a few words shared between NEC and IE. NEC has a word for 'eye' and 'wheel' that looks very like (P)IE *kʷelkʷos.

[Talskubilos]

but even related languages have a common ancestor. to argue otherwise is like saying the Romance Languages exist but Latin never did.

That's right. The problem here is we're dealing with ancient unattested languages which left traces in its descendants. There have been several attempts to reconstruct the common ancestor of several language families (including IE), namely "Nostratic" or "Euroasiatic", but unfortunately they're plagued with the same defects than traditional PIE.

[keenir]

but even related languages have a common ancestor. to argue otherwise is like saying the Romance Languages exist but Latin never did.

That's right. The problem here is we're dealing with ancient unattested languages which left traces in its descendants.

so you do recognize that PIE existed, then?

There have been several attempts to reconstruct the common ancestor of several language families (including IE), namely "Nostratic" or "Euroasiatic", but unfortunately they're plagued with the same defects than traditional PIE.

wait...am i understanding you correctly here? You refuse to accept that PIE exists, but you accept that IE langs and Nostratic/Euroasiatic exist.....isn't that like saying you only recognize the existence of Kingdom and Species, but not the other phylogenetic ranks? (basically, either its an Animal or a Tiger, it can't be a Cat or a Mammal or a Chordate)

[Zju]

From what I gather, he thinks that PIE is more or less synonymous with Nostratic, if Nostratic existed at all... which is a really tough to defend position.

[keenir]

From what I gather, he thinks that PIE is more or less synonymous with Nostratic, if Nostratic existed at all... which is a really tough to defend position.

so...PIE=~=Nostratic ? (my keyboard doesn't do the double ~s, so, *shrugs* )

EDIT: I always thought Nostratic was...bigger than PIE was supposed to encompass.

[Zju]

From what I gather, he thinks that PIE is more or less synonymous with Nostratic, if Nostratic existed at all... which is a really tough to defend position.

so...PIE=~=Nostratic ? (my keyboard doesn't do the double ~s, so, *shrugs* )

EDIT: I always thought Nostratic was...bigger than PIE was supposed to encompass.

At least that's what I understood he means.

[Talskubilos]

so...PIE=~=Nostratic ? (my keyboard doesn't do the double ~s, so, *shrugs* ) EDIT: I always thought Nostratic was...bigger than PIE was supposed to encompass.

Yes, the "real" PIE would look like a kind of "imploded" Nostratic, but it wouldn't be a classical geneaological tree.

[keenir]

so...PIE=~=Nostratic ? (my keyboard doesn't do the double ~s, so, *shrugs* ) EDIT: I always thought Nostratic was...bigger than PIE was supposed to encompass.

Yes, the "real" PIE would look like a kind of "imploded" Nostratic,

???

but it wouldn't be a classical geneaological tree.

if its not part of a tree, how can it have descendants?

(and what do you mean "a classical" geneaological tree? as opposed to Shroedinger's Cat?)

[Richard W]

... but it wouldn't be a classical geneaological tree.

if its not part of a tree, how can it have descendants?

(and what do you mean "a classical" geneaological tree? as opposed to Shroedinger's Cat?)

I'm pretty sure Tavi is thinking of it as a "phylogenetic network". It can be a sort of tree.

[bradrn]

so...PIE=~=Nostratic ? (my keyboard doesn't do the double ~s, so, *shrugs* ) EDIT: I always thought Nostratic was...bigger than PIE was supposed to encompass.

Yes, the "real" PIE would look like a kind of "imploded" Nostratic, but it wouldn't be a classical geneaological tree.

What exactly do you mean by “imploded” in this context?

Actually, let me ask a more specific question as well: do you believe that IE is a valid clade? Or is it a paraphyletic or polyphyletic grouping?

if its not part of a tree, how can it have descendants?

(and what do you mean "a classical" geneaological tree? as opposed to Shroedinger's Cat?)

I assume he’s talking about the wave model, as opposed to the tree model.

[Talskubilos]

I'm pretty sure Tavi is thinking of it as a "phylogenetic network". It can be a sort of tree.

That's right.

[WeepingElf]

I assume he’s talking about the wave model, as opposed to the tree model.

Not even that. The wave model is increasingly accepted by historical linguists, and still acknowledges the existence of a common ancestor language, just like the family tree model Talskubilos so vitriolically rejects. The only difference is that innovations spread laterally through the dialect continuum. The languages resulting from this process still show regular sound correspondences. So even in the wave model, PIE once existed, having spread from a centre into a large area where then various innovations created ever more dialectal divisions until the dialect continuum eventually cracked and shattered. Talskubilos, it seems to me, rejects PIE wholesale and assumes that all resemblances between IE languages are due to diffusion across language boundaries. That is not the wave model as accepted by many historical linguists (and also by me, BTW), but merely a caricature thereof.

[Talskubilos]

Talskubilos, it seems to me, rejects PIE wholesale and assumes that all resemblances between IE languages are due to diffusion across language boundaries.

As I said before, I think the IE family is the result of a series of expansions and replacements over several millenia instead of a single linguistic event. Therefore, the classical genealogical tree model would be at best an oversimplification of what actually happened.