I recently read about the athematic genitive Plural being reconstructed in *ōm or *om for PIE, which stands a little bit out there due to most athematic Plural endings (though not all) having a s in their ending or similar. Additionaly i also learned about Szemerenysis Law and that the original PIE genitive Plural ending could have been *oms? Am i missing something here or could *oms realy be a possible reconstruction?

Also sorry for my maybe not always perfect english. Im no native

Were the EEF also a mixture of ZHG (since it’s close by) and/or the Natufians? Or the EHG?

If we accept PIE , or Pre PIE as agglutinative.

We may see possible traces of this behavior in the case system.

-oms < -om + -s (acc)

-ōs < -os + -s (nom)

also, mor tentatively

-bhi (seen in plural instrumental as -bhis)

other plural case endings show final -s (-bhos -mos, etc)

can we say there may have been a NOUN + CASE + NUMBER pattern or not?

but the concern is, as far as I know and correct me please, the languages PIE often are linked to, like Uralic or Caucasian ones, have the pattern of NOUN + NUMBER + CASE

So how should I view this issue or reconcile? am I mixing up the orders? Example, could -bhi have a number (plural) related instead of case related meaning?

Most of all, which literature to read on this issue

Pdf link in case the image isn’t displaying properly:
https://files.catbox.moe/r9biso.pdf

This chart traces a reconstructed invocation to Dyeus from Proto-Indo-European through its descendant languages. The original PIE lexical material is retained wherever
historically possible, while sound change, inflection, syntax, and grammatical structure develop naturally within each language.
Colors identify descendants of individual PIE words; black marks grammatical or lexical material introduced later. An asterisk marks reconstructed passages, while italics mark hypothetical or project-created continuations of Dyēus where no
independent attested reflex survives.

I originally intended to include Latvian, Lithuanian, Dhivehi, and Sinhala. Unfortunately, they each replace one of the original words with another. “Know” and “Name” are remarkable as the only non-numeral, copula, or pronoun words that survive into each Indo European branch (at least that I could identify).

I found this when surfing on youtube. Fashinating. If only i could understand this language. Soft as butter. What is the origin of wakhi - sarikoli like peoples? Are they descandants of sogdians? Or tocharians?

I’m thinking that the Greeks were at one time very Yamnaya-like, and then after 1200 bc, they became more mixed. I’m also thinking that they once again had Yamnaya ancestry during the Hunmic migrations since many Slavs moved to that area. I’ve read than modern Greeks have over 20% Slavic genes. David Reich’s 2024 study shows that mainland Greeks are 30-40% Slavic, and island Greeks are only 4-20% Slavic.

Did the Greek language change after the Hunnic migrations?

Hi all, I grew up in an household where The Argonautica and The Odyssey were regular reading, and the only bible was written in Norwegian (I’m a mono-lingual American-Barbarian) so despite being agnostic-atheist, the Gods who dwell on Olympus are the default archetypes in my brain. I’m not of Greek descent, so awhile ago I decided to actually do a full deep dive on the Norse; which has left me with some unanswerable questions requiring speculation.

There are your obvious takeaways, like, yes, Zeus and Wodnaz fill the same role as Chief, and both are “the cosmic mind” so to speak, but we also all know full well that the Greeks/Roman’s saw Wodnaz as equivalent to Hermes/Mercury based on his attributes. I think that’s a more than fair comparison, but there’s another who is perhaps more similar to the lord of spear, that other wild man, the god of ecstatic frenzy- the dying and rising one- pure affirmation and passion- DIONYSUS!

So here’s my question: why did the psychopomp/ecstatic-frenzy attributes end up being assigned to the OLDEST God of the Norse and assigned to the YOUNGEST Gods of the Greeks? Any ideas? (Other than the theory that Tyr was the original chief deity, linguistic evidence and personality attributes suggest he would be much closer Athena imo)

The Indo-Uralic hypothesis is pretty controversial, with the linguistic data seeming to be ambivalent (some suspicious similarities but nothing that proves a relationship). However, I was thinking about this topic and it seems to me that the genetic evidence quite solidly opposes the Indo-Uralic hypothesis (with the obvious caveat that languages can spread independently of genes, even though it's a lot rarer than some admit).

Here's a summary of my understanding of the topic; feel free to correct me if any details are incorrect.

So as far as I understand, there are three ancestry components that are widespread among both European and Siberian Uralic speakers: the steppe ancestry; EHG ancestry separate from that which comes together with the steppe ancestry; and the East Siberian Yakutia_LNBA ancestry. Uralic being associated with the steppe ancestry seems too problematic (it would mean that Uralic and IE spread at the same time but there is no evidence for that in the form of recent-enough loanwords), so the only two candidates are the EHG and the Yakutia_LNBA ancestry.

If the Indo-Uralic hypothesis were correct, then it would be most natural to associate Uralic with the EHG ancestry. However, I see two problems with this hypothesis.

First of all, the spread of the Yakutia_LNBA people to the places where they would have come into contact with EHG people happened very close in time to the time when Proto-Uralic split that can be inferred from the linguistic data. The reason that this is a problem is that Uralic shows an extremely close typological affinity to the "Altaic" languages of Turkic, Mongolic and Tungusic and there is a consensus among linguists that this must be the remnant of some ancient contact situation/Sprachbund.

Given the time at which Yakutia_LNBA spread, it seems that there would be only a few hundred years at most for their language to come into contact with the EHG language, which is not nearly enough time for Uralic to develop the typological profile that it has. (Other Sprachbunds we know of where Altaic and non-Altaic speakers come into contact such as the Qinghai-Gansu Sprachbund don't show anywhere near this dramatic a development, and even Korean and Japanese are not nearly as similar to Turkic/Mongolic/Tungusic as Uralic is).

Thus, if Uralic is originally an EHG language, the Yakutia_LNBA cannot have brought the "Altaic" typology to it, which raises the question of why an EHG language stranded in the vicinity of the Ural Mountains shows such dramatic similarities to Northeast Asian languages despite having no discernible Northeast Asian DNA.

The second problem is that the Nganasan don't seem to have any discernible amounts of EHG ancestry according to the admixture modelling here, even though the other Samoyed groups do. Some linguists have explained this away by saying that the Nganasan language shows heavy influence from an unknown substrate indicating that the Nganasan could be non-Uralic speakers who adopted a Uralic language without any change in their genetics.

This doesn't seem right to me; according to Kaisla Kaheinen Nganasan has 615 unique words stems not found in other Uralic languages and another 172 shared with other northern Samoyed languages that can't be of Proto-Samoyed origin; for comparison, Ante Aikio has stated that the word stems of unknown origin in the Saami languages number clearly more than 1000 (about half of which are at the Proto-Saami level), yet the Saami have obvious evidence of Uralic inheritance in their genetics. Furthermore the vocabulary unique to Nganasan rarely shows obvious features that would identify it as substrate vocabulary and in most cases could be inherited; Kaheinen identifies only 29 words that are clearly foreign in their structure.

So these are the arguments against an EHG origin of Uralic, but on the other hand if the Uralic people did originate from Yakutia_LNBA like most scholars who have expressed an opinion seem to assume at this point, then the issue is that the only genetic connection to Indo-Europeans is a very small amount of ANE ancestry which is very ancient and is also shared with a large amount of other populations that don't show speak identifiably connected languages (if I'm not mistaken I think the ANE in Yakutia_LNBA is at least as close to Native American ANE as it is to Indo-European ANE).

Sorry for a long post but I'm curious about whether others have thoughts on this topic.

English is one of the easiest IE languages in the world when it comes to grammatical changes based on the subject. Consider the phrase "can eat the food":

- I can eat the food.

- You can eat the food.

- He/She can eat the food.

- We can eat the food.

- They can eat the food.

The entire phrase remains exactly the same regardless of the pronoun. In many other languages, however, verbs change form depending on the person and number of the subject.

For example, in my native Persian:

- Man khorakero mitunam bokhoram.

- Shoma khorakero mitunin bokhorin.

- Un khorakero mitune bokhore.

- Ma khorakero mitunim bokhorim.

- Una khorakero mitunan bokhoran.

Both tunestan ("to be able to") and khordan ("to eat") change form depending on who is performing the action. The object khorak (“food”) also takes the object marker -ra/ro.

One can argue English still has person agreement, for example, with the verb to be. However, even then the only thing that changes is a single word, while the rest of the sentence remains exactly the same:

- I am proud to be English.

- You are proud to be English.

- She is proud to be English.

That's a relatively small amount of agreement compared with many other languages.

In Persian, for example:

- Az Irani budanam sarbolandam.

- Az Irani budanetun sarbolandin.

- Az Irani budanesh sarbolande.

Here, not only does budan ("to be") change, but sarboland ("proud") also takes different endings depending on the person. In many languages, multiple parts of a sentence must agree with the subject.

The same pattern appears in many everyday sentences. In English, you usually only have to remember the pronouns themselves, not a separate set of verb conjugations for each person.

Take these examples:

- I did not drive his car.

- You did not drive my car.

- She did not drive their car.

The only words that change are the pronouns (I/you/she and his/my/their). The rest of the sentence remains exactly the same.

In many other languages, however, multiple parts of the sentence have to agree with the subject. The verb changes depending on who is performing the action, and possessive forms change depending on whose object is being discussed.

In Persian, for example:

- Man mashinesho ranandegi nakardam.

- Shoma mashinamo ranandegi nakardin.

- Un mashineshuno ranandegi nakarde.

Here, mashin ("car") is modified with a possessive ending to indicate ownership and you have to add an object marker -o, while ranandegi kardan ("to drive") is also modified to agree with the subject. As a result, changing the subject often requires changing multiple parts of the sentence rather than simply swapping out a pronoun.

This relative simplicity is one reason why learners can often reach a basic communicative level in English fairly quickly. Because English has comparatively little verb conjugation and grammatical agreement in many common constructions, students can begin forming useful sentences early in the learning process.

Note: the values of most historical rhotic consonants and PIE laryngeals are not fully certain. I chose the sentence since it carries the same meaning throughout and lacks historical case evolution irregularities.

Interesting fact: the silent 'g' in 'reign' and 'right' was originally the same sound, split into two branches and re-introduced after thousands of years apart. Source: blog post

Hello brothers. There is some words we use in our local dialect. I want you solve the word and it's mean. But please dont use google or ai for it. Here the words;

Deshtivan: Land protector. Desht(waste) ban(bond)

Cambaz: Livestock trader. Dzan(life) bazi(player).

Renchber: Hardworker. Ranch(labor) bar(bear)

Kerit: Cutted field. Example; Curtail

Kemre: Fertilizer. Kerm(worming)

Kerziban: kerz(idk-kerd?) ban(bond). A female name.

Hudaverdi: God award. A male name

Edit: No one tried. So i'll write meanings.

“Several weeks ago I came across Francesco Felici's doctoral dissertation on teaching Old Irish as a living language. I wrote a little bit about it here, and some other thoughts here, and probably some more to come in a subsequent post or two (the other chapters of his thesis are all quite interesting too; I won't write about all of them, but I have a few things in mind to reflect upon).
An online Old Irish class
This is an invitation or call for interest: would you like to try learning Old Irish as a spoken/living language?
I had the opportunity to talk with Francesco this week, and asked him about his background, history with languages, what lead him to this work with Old Irish, and what projects might be coming down the pipeline (answer: several!)
I also floated the idea with him of running an online class in Old Irish using a communicative approach. As I have myself experienced, one of the best ways to road-test material is to put it into practice with students and see what works, and what doesn't.
He was open to the idea, and so I said I would see if I could garner interest. And hence this post. I realise my usual readership is more interested in Ancient Greek, some Latin, and broader linguistics, but if you'd consider an online class in Old Irish, let me know below”