tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6245381193993153721.post6885072683901908818..comments2024-03-28T17:08:15.784-07:00Comments on Social Democracy for the 21st Century: A Realist Alternative to the Modern Left: Recent Work on the Genetic History of EuropeansLord Keyneshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06556863604205200159noreply@blogger.comBlogger4125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6245381193993153721.post-50966055299818056852016-06-16T13:36:02.467-07:002016-06-16T13:36:02.467-07:00Interesting stuff here.
1) Etruscan is an Aggluti...Interesting stuff here.<br /><br />1) Etruscan is an Agglutinative language, like Sumerian, Georgian, or what we believe to be Hattic. This suggests that there might be some similarity and connection between these different languages, perhaps suggesting that the Sumerian-based people were the kinds of people behind the Anatolian-Aegean migration. It would be interesting if some more work were done on possible connections between Hattic, Georgian/Kartvelian, Sumerian and Etruscan. Of course, Etruscan, like any other language at the time, probably had a lot of intermixing between newer waves of Indo-European migration, whether that came from the Gauls, the ancestors of the Italic Indo-Europeans (and possibly the Luwians), the Greeks and also of course the Semitic Phoenicians.<br /><br />2) True, it certainly seems that way, and without a doubt the survivors of a Trojan exodus could not have been very numerous (certainly less than 10,000). And of course it's likely that they would have largely blended in to the existing language at the time (think: Bulgars --> Slavic or Franks --> Vulgar Latin) rather than overtaking it wholesale and establishing lingual hegemony (think: Hungarian). Still, it raises some questions about the Italic languages we're aware of: Why did Etruscan survive, while the rest of Central Italy speak Italic Indo-European? What was this Italic Indo-European based off of: Greek Colonists or other migration patterns? And what were the main differences between Latino-Faliscan languages and the rest of the Italic IE languages (and why - which is where that Luwian hypothesis could enter)?<br /><br />3) Definitely, and that should also include further work on Etruscan languages as well (and probably Phonecian too). If only there were more public and private funding for these kinds of endeavours - perhaps these are the kinds of things humans will be paid to do to maintain full employment after robotization displaces more manufacturing and services!<br /><br />By the way, I once thought of trying to learn Sumerian/Akkadian. Is it a rewarding intellectual endeavour, or just lost time?Kainhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09841689865415250256noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6245381193993153721.post-27283016850959167122016-06-16T11:36:51.793-07:002016-06-16T11:36:51.793-07:00Thanks for the comment, by the way. I am surprised...Thanks for the comment, by the way. I am surprised you have such knowledge of the subject!Lord Keyneshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06556863604205200159noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6245381193993153721.post-41002543267246655372016-06-16T11:35:34.369-07:002016-06-16T11:35:34.369-07:00(1) As far as I know the Tyrsenian languages (e.g....(1) As far as I know the Tyrsenian languages (e.g., Raetic and Etruscan) are clearly not Indo-European. H. Rix (<i>Rätisch und Etruskisch</i>, 1998) shows Raetic is definitely related in some way to Etruscan, and in turn Lemnian (spoken on the Aegean island of Lemnos before 500 BC) is a cognate language and all probably stem from a proto-Tyrrhenian language of the Bronze age, probably from Anatolia.<br /><br />Speculative research (often dismissed by modern linguists) suggests that the Vasconic languages (Aquitanian, Iberians, etc.) are a branch of some larger ancient Anatolian/Near Eastern language family called the T Group Dene Caucasian:<br /><br />https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Den%C3%A9%E2%80%93Caucasian_languages<br /><br />http://grzegorj.private.pl/images/deneasiatic.gif<br /><br />This T Group Dene Caucasian is supposed to include the Hattic, Hurro-Urartian, and Northeast Caucasian languages of the Near East.<br /><br />Is this the ancient language of the Neolithic Anatolian farmers? <br /><br />Does Hurro-Urartian (also part of this family) have some relationship to Sumerian? (which we know is another mysterious language isolate):<br /><br />http://cdli.ucla.edu/pubs/cdlj/2014/cdlj2014_004.html<br /><br />(2) as for Trojan migration to Rome, maybe something like this happened, but Latin is clearly Italic Indo-European, not Luwian-derived. <br /><br />(3) it amazes me there isn't more work on the Vasconian languages and the non-Indo European substrate language, since these must be derived from very, very ancient Near Eastern languages.<br />Lord Keyneshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06556863604205200159noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6245381193993153721.post-10627945445567047662016-06-16T11:01:53.050-07:002016-06-16T11:01:53.050-07:00Very interesting stuff here. Although, I thought i...Very interesting stuff here. Although, I thought it was undetermined if the Tyrsenian languages were completely unrelated to Indo-European or may have more distant connections (such as to Georgian or other Caucasian or Anatolian languages).<br /><br />That also makes me wonder whether or not the Trojan myths surrounding the foundation of Rome are true or not. As you know, the Hittite language is the oldest Indo-European and one of the better documented languages at that. The Hittites were "In the land of Hatti", and while a lot of names and places were in the old Hattian tongue, the Hittites displaced Hattian, and they are considered to be very different. Either way, in the Western portions of the Hittite Empire, there is also another decently well-documented language of Luwian, also Indo-European and closely related to Mycenean Greek and Hittite, and they believe Troy to have been speaking a dialect of Luwian (who was an ally of the Hittite Empire).<br /><br />So perhaps the Indo-European roots of Rome and the surrounding environment actually did come from a Trojan exodus after the destruction of Troy by the Greeks.<br /><br />Although who knows, as the Greeks had already heavily populated the Southern boot of Italy and Sicily by that point; and the Umbrian language family in Central, North-Central and South-Central was said to have been Indo-European as well - it could've come from Greek origins as well.<br /><br />Then again, the Lithuanian language has more similarities to Latin than it does with Greek (not to mention Sanskrit, which suggests the Yamnaya migration patterns west and east), so perhaps the migration did not effect Etruscan settlements (or bipassed them altogether, migrating via Dalmatia or Albania).<br /><br />Anyways, interesting stuff there. Also interesting that Celtic languages existed in Northwestern Spain, Gaul, and the British Isles, with Aquitainian, Iberian, and Vasconian languages separating Spain and Gaul Celts.Kainhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09841689865415250256noreply@blogger.com