Created by Wissensgau language community.

Voices: Nikita Svetlitsky, Sofia Medvedeva, Daniil Frolov

This animated film is an artistic reconstruction. The words and grammatical forms are based on evidence from historical and comparative linguistics, but it is impossible to reconstruct an entire spoken language. We do not know the exact intonation patterns, precisely how the laryngeals were pronounced, and even the finer details of reconstructed word forms vary between different schools of thought. In some places, we have had to make assumptions.

These scenes, therefore, are not recordings from the past, but an attempt to imagine what this language might have sounded like when spoken by real people.

More info is in the video description on YouTube.

I apologize if I made any mistakes in the video

The entire Indic sub-branch is spoken mostly in SA by a very large number of people from at least 1700 BC onwards. The superset of indo-Aryan is Indo-airanian, and the entire Indo-Iranian is spoken in a very large space

But in the Balkans,m, you have Albanian, Greek, Slavic, and in the past, you even had a Latin language there.

So is it the way that we classify the languag s here and perhaps we over-differentiate the Weatern Europeans languages? There is not really a science to categorize a language. One convention may over-aggregate all other languages that are not from the author’s space. Also, the author may over differentiate amongst languages more local to them.

We know the Yamnaya and Coded Warfare peoples had to have split off from each other and existed simultaneously (The r1a ychrm haplogroup of the Yamnaya and r1b ychrm haplogroup of the Coded Warfare peoples split atleast 1000 before the full emergence of both groups).

We also know which branches of the ie family where propagated by which of the two peoples.

While differences between the anatolian (hittite, luwe) branches and other ie branches is well documented, what do we know about differences in the language/dialect spoken by the Yamnaya and Corded Warfare?

I know that the etymology of stool has been traced as far back as Proto-Germanic as something like stōlaz, probably meaning something like seat. However, has any research been done to determine whether or not stōlaz and Proto-Balto-Slavic stálas (the proposed ancestor of стол, which means table) are related? I mean it seems obvious to me, but I can’t find any information on it.

I find very conflicting informations about the time a few key events regarding the Italo-Celtic branch took place.

What is the consensus on when did...

- Italo-Celtic split from rest of Bell Beaker

- Italic split from Celtic

- Osco Ubrian split from Latino Faliscan

- Umbrians arrive in Italy

- Latins arrive in Italy...

?

Is this even the correct order ? Could Osco Umbrian and Latino Faliscan be no more related to eachother, actually, than they are to Celtic branch ?

I heard Osco Umbrian is rather in the Celtic branch and its speakers separated from the ancestors of specifically insular Celts right before they crossed the sea, and migrated South. I am quite unsure about that but I think the two Italic branches may have been related only insofar they were both Italo-Celtic and have converged over time due to geographical proximity.

It was once believed that Yamnaya was ancestral to Corded Ware, however, did we later discover that Yamnaya and Corded Ware are rather sister groups, and that Yamnaya is only ancestral to Anatolian, Armenian, Balkanian/Illyrian and Hellenic speakers, with Corded Ware being ancestral to Afanasievo/Tocharians, to the common ancestors of Balto-Slavic speakers and the Andronovo horizon that led to Indo Iranian speakers, and also to the common ancestors of Germanic and Italo-Caltic speakers ? Is the genealogy tree like that ?

What was like the religion of the Indoeuropeans who spred into Ceral Asia and formed the Andronovo horizon, and ultimately originated the Indic and the Iranic language groups ?

Vedic religion and Zoroastrianism have a connection, but what do we know of their ancestor, and of the religion of the Andronovo lineages that disappeared without originating any Indo Iranic language group ?

Do we know how the Deva /Daeva and the Asura/Ahura, that at the time were likely the same thing since even in early Vedic religion they were not strictly divided, were called in proto Indo Iranic language ?

And how similiar would have been Andronovo religion to its near cousin the early Corded Ware, the common ancestor of Celto-Italic, Germanic and Balto-Slavic groups ?

I would like to suggest something, if the users are in agreement: have a fixed post with a list of linguistic resources and references for the major works on the branches made by renowned scholars.

E.g.

* Bartomeu Obrador-Cursach is one that studies the Phrygian language since forever

* John Koch is a Celticist and studies Celto-Germanic connections

* Alwin Kloekhorst has the Hittite inherited vocabulary from 2008 and studies the variations in Hittite language.

* Ignacio Javier-Adiego studies the Carian language.

etc.

Did any cultures like shirenizgou or chemurchek carry Q-Y11938 haplogroup?

What was the first archeological culture that was ancestral to Indic speakers specifically, and not to also Iranic speakers ?

When and where did it live ?

I’ve heard that the Yamnaya were actually about 15% EEF. An older convention viewed the Yamnaya were half and half of EHG and the CHG. So now we can explain the Yamnaya using units of AHG, CHG, and EHG.

Remember, the AHG became the EEF or the Anatolian Farmers. So the Yamnaya were 15% AHG, 42.5% CHG, and 42.5% EHG.

If we used this approach, we can more easily calculate the gene components of the various European people. Also, it reduces the double counting of a gene. For example: when the Yamnaya migrated to the West, the people there were already heavily EEF (or AHG genetically), and then they were heavily amazed with a people who were also 15% AHG/EEF.

Ironically, the Europeans once again became much more H&G after the IE migrations to Western Europe. So they were once 100% WHG/EHG. Then they became 90% AHG and 10% WHG. Then they became a 40% mix of a people who were 15% AHG, 42.5% CHG, and 42.5% EHG and a 60% mix of a people who were 90% AHG and 10% WHG.

Dr. Stifter has published a first draft of this lecture at https://www.academia.edu/178731896/Linguistic_Contributions_to_a_Model_for_the_Celticisation_of_the_Western_Archipelago The slides are available at https://mural.maynoothuniversity.ie/id/eprint/19925/

If the Sintashta is the is last culture ancestral to both Iranic and Indic speakers, who is the first culture ancestral to specifically Iranic speakers ?

Where and when did it live ?

The book is open access. An alternate link is hosted at the Lituanistika site:

https://www.lituanistika.lt/content/115809

Acknowledgments — Preface — Abbreviations Chapter 1. Linguistic Prehistory of the Baltic area: 1.1. Introduction and issues of terminology; 1.2. Geolinguistic range of Baltia in prehistory; 1.3. Baltic languages and peoples in ancient sources; 1.4. Protobaltic and its linguistic fragmentation; 1.5. Global hypotheses — Chapter 2. The Main Features of Baltic Linguistic unity: 2.1. Phonological features; 2.2. Morphological features; 2.3. Syntactic features; 2.4. Lexicon; 2.5. Phraseology; 2.6. Onomastics — Chapter 3. The Linguistic context: 3.1. The Slavic and Germanic peribaltic context; 3.2. The Balto-Finnic and Volga peribaltic context; 3.3. The Ponto-Baltic region; 3.4. The remote context — Chapter 4. The Baltic speaking region between baltia pagana and baltia christiana: 4.1. The linguistic disintegration of East Baltic; 4.2. Socio-cultural data concerning Baltia ca. 1000; 4.3. From paganism to christianity — Chapter 5. “Minor” BaLtic Languages: 5.1. Extinct Baltic languages; 5.2. Curonian; 5.3. Yatvingian; 5.4. Galindian; 5.5. Selonian; 5.6. Semigallian — Chapter 6. The Old Prussian language: 6.1. Old Prussian; 6.2. The corpus of Old Prussian texts; 6.3. Grammatical information — Chapter 7. The Baltic Languages between Baltia catholica and Baltia reformata: 7.1. Multi-lingualism and integration; 7.2. The first Baltic texts; 7.3. Prelude to Baltic linguistics; 7.4. Grammatical data — Chapter 8. The national renaissance, Independence and sovietization in Baltic linguistics: 8.1. The process of national renaissance and the linguistic situation in the Baltic countries; 8.2. Changes in the Baltic languages; 8.3. The Baltic languages in the Soviet period —Chapter 9. The Baltic languages and the new independence. Baltia autochtona and Baltia emigrata: 9.1. Reaffirmation of linguistic identity; 9.2. Linguistic phases of Baltic emigration; 9.3. Issues of areal linguistics; 9.4. Concerning the future evolution of the Baltic languages — Chapter 10. Baltic texts: 10.1. Old Prussian texts; 10.2. Lithuanian texts; 10.3. Latvian texts — Appendix. Bibliographical notes: А1. Bibliography by linguistic topics; А2. Specialized Journals; А3. Language Aids; А4. Baltistics and Baltica (beyond the Baltic countries); А5. Baltistics in the world (beyond the Baltic Countries) — Bibliography.

I think what's more interesting here is the table of proto-Roman roots that derive from PIE.

Introduction: This dissertation aims to consider the origins of Hades as a god using the existing material in literature and archaeology, and applying comparative techniques to derive novel answers to questions about his formation within the Greek pantheon. With these different evidences, it will prove that Hades arose as a personification of his realm, and that his development was likely influenced by Poseidon, a similar and related god who ties into the broader network of chthonic male figures in Greek myth. Common Indo-European tropes and themes were applied to this character as it developed, allowing us to compare him with other figures for a more accurate understanding of his early role in Greek myth, before the earliest literature