/lit/ - Literature

>>22459752
That chart is pretty stupid, almost as if they know it's wrong so they just draw a bunch of blurred scratch marks before the actual lines they put on the chart.

>>22459752
I think someone managed a poem or something. It was mentioned early on in Horse, Wheel, Language. I have class soon, no time to find it.
>>22459760
looks accurate to me

>>22459785
>looks accurate to me
That's because you're a fucking retard.

>Celtic-Germanic split 3000BC
one of the best jokes in the "paper"

There are also severe limitations to reconstructions because not all consonants follow such strict rules to form changes. Although I'm going off information from 2007, there may have been advancements. Eurasiatic for one is getting more evidence and support.

>>22459791
Listen fuckhead, roving hunter-gatherers had very loose language similarities across the Urals and Steppes. There was likely a lot of guesswork involved and the exact existence of proto-indo-european is still a debated in a range of several thousand years. Each of those lines could be a very real tracing of a linguistic quirk. I would like to know where the picture is from myself.

The term Indo-European is stupid. It's languages are not any more Indian than they are European. The term Sanskrit-Celtic group might be more appropriate, if it wasn't for the fact that scientists have long doubted about wether Celtic is a Indo-European language or not, for how disfigurated it has become with time.
The Indo-European nations have never formed a united bulk. The Mahabharata relates two Vedian tribes fighting each other to oblivion. The wars of the Middle Ages was nothing but Germanic feudal lords killing each other. Today, the Ukraine conflict shows us two Slavic nation who swore hate upon each other. Their bloodiest conflicts, their greatest glories, their most disastrous defeats, happened only between themselves. It is non-sequitur that the divisions of Slav, Germanic, Celt, Vedian, Iranian, Goth, Sauromatian, are nothing but sub-groups of the old Indo-European group who split because they hated each other, they turned their backs to each other and went different directions without looking back. The most Indo-European nations changed their language and their physical appearance to become less similar to their cousins who they hated too much.

>>22459837
Don't conflate violence with hatred or resentment, you retarded herbivore. Also what kind of logic is that, if my brother and I fight, are we no longer genetically related? Fuck you.

>>22459837
Archaic languages have no logic in the naming convention. There is no actual standard for calling something a "proto" language. Sanskrit and Iranian are related to European classification, good enough. Also, languages don't care so much about ethnic boundaries as you seem to imply. They do often follow political trends, or at least influential trends.
The people that first domesticated horses didn't systematically slaughter everyone else in mainland Europe, but the rest of mainland Europe (excluding enclaves like the Basque) did adopt the horse-people's language.
It makes sense to me, the Conquistadors showed to up to the Americas with fucking guns and not many people bothered to keep speaking native languages after that.

>>22459760
>That chart is pretty stupid
In what way? It calculates the divergence date of the various languages and sub-families and includes standard deviations.

>>22459809
That's pre-proto-Germanic splits from Italo-Celtic. 3000BC looks pretty sensible, what issue do you have with it?

>>22459837
that's a common pattern found across virtually all cultures. what you're saying is that IE speakers are humans instead of aliens

>>22459818
>Listen fuckhead, roving hunter-gatherers
You're a fucking retard.

>>22459862
>In what way?
It's obviously made by historically ignorant dimwits who've never read an accurate history book.
>It calculates
... a chart doesn't calculate anything. FFS, this board is fucking retarded.

>>22459863
nigger

>>22459837
Just call it the aryan language group. That's what it used to be called before the marxist stepped in.

>>22459875
What does any history book have to do with linguistic, moron?
>... a chart doesn't calculate anything
Fucking retarded nigger look at the bottom of the chart, or just go read the study yourself. Heggarty et al 2023

>>22459878
that only to indo-iranian though. nobody else used "aryan" as a self-designation

>long ago, they spoke potato bro your opinion
yeah it could use a sleeker name

>>22459882
linguistics*

>>22459887
What does the word noble mean to you? What is the German word of Ehre? What is the still so honoured virtue among the South Germans of being EHRLICH! Change one letter and you get the word AHRLICH. Also what was the great migration other than Aryan peoples invading Latin Europe. That the Germanics were Aryan, this fact is indisputable.

>>22459923

>>22459923
There is no IE language that used "arya/aria" as a self-designation in an ethnic aspect, besides Indo-Iranian which is not basal to IE languages
and the germans are slavic rapebabies lmao.

>>22459940
The Allemannics still spell it in the old fashion, AEHRE = ARYAN, HOUNOURABLE. What were the the FRANKS?!! This ethnonym is literally synonymous with ARYAN.

>>22459785
> I think someone managed a poem or something.
Schleicher's fable?

>>22459953
>This ethnonym is literally synonymous with ARYAN.
what ethnonym, schizo?

>>22459760
>>22459785
>>22459791
There are certain things you can understand and present with language reconstruction. You can present sound changes and cultural exchange of language. You may also APPROXIMATE when those changes happened. However, the way OP presents things here in the chart with the blurred lines there aint no fucking way you can assess that type of nuance and depth in language emergence. There's a reason why we stick to the straight lines of breakage. It's largely hypothetical.
Also as someone who has read alot of these types of charts another thing you're losing is the ACTUAL FUCKING LEGIBILITY!

>>22459967
FRANK = HONEST = HONOURABLE = EHRE = AEHRE = ARYAN
Also I went through the number of English words that preserved the presuffix of AR- and it's considerably small (Latin/Celt influence). German does not show the same relationship. While German proper changed the spelling of the pre-suffix to ER the Allemannics still use the older, same meaning pre-suffix AER- whenever they want to denote a higher meaning to whatever verb they attach this INDO-ARYAN presuffix to.

>>22459991
>"frank" is cognate with "aryan"
sure thing schizo. no languages outside of indoiranian used it as an ethnonym. they used to denote something noble, great etc but never a specific ethnos except when referring to iranians and indians

>>22460006
That's precisely the point. When the Germanics entered Europe they were more related with the Persians and with the Vedians than the Celts and Romanics they have conquered. What German has of Celt or Latin was only acquired afterwards. The Vedian texts have a list of tribes expelled from the Hindu territory for disobeying the sacred religious laws, "WETHER THEY SPEAK MLECCHA OR ARYAS". Among them, a tribe "SAKKA" is named. These are veridically Germanics, founders of Skandinavia, LAND OF THE SAKASUNAS, THE SONS OF THE SAKKAS. There much more evidence about the Germanics one having had their residence far more in the East than was previously thought.

>>22459961
yeah that's it
>schleicher, august, pg 21
>the sheep and the horses
>>22459980
half of academia is making your findings obtuse to anyone outside your field of expertise

>>22459752
>Posterior
>earlier than Prior
explain this tomfoolery

>>22459760
The reason that you are incapable of conceptualizing population vs individuals is because your IQ is below 90.

>>22459837
Language families are named based on the geographic extent that they inhabit. At the time, Tocharian was not known to exist at the time the term was coined, so the extent of the Indo-European languages was India to Europe. It has nothing to do with characteristics or qualities. For example, Afro-Asiatic is called so because the languages are found in Africa and Asia; Sino-Tibetan is called, well, Sino-Tibetan despite the fact that a handful of Sinic languages have hundreds of millions more speakers than the Tibetic languages.

>>22460064
Germanics are genetically, linguistically, and culturally closer to Celts and Italics than they are Indo-Iranics. Having said that, all four are quite close.

>>22459940
All Indo-European languages use some derivative of *h2eryos as an ethnic identifier.

>>22459875
So smug yet so dumb.

>>22460701
Latin does not.
I don't think any germanic tribes call themselves Aryans. I know jackshit about Slavs.
Celts don't call themselves any variant of Aryan, either.
I don't think the Greeks or Armenians do.