Theiling Online    Sitemap    Conlang Mailing List HQ   

OT: IE relations & non-relations (was: Celtic/Germnanic)

From:R A Brown <ray@...>
Date:Saturday, May 20, 2006, 16:57
Michael Adams wrote:

> Well, closer to each other than to the other Indo-Europeans, > such as the Germanic and Slavic.
Er?(Scratches head) What is closer to each other than to the other IE langs?
> And then you have like Albanian.
Yes - there is Albanian. But what is its relevance here? I don't understand.
> Hittites/Hurrians/Iranians and Hindi and Urdu (Sanskrit) all > Indo-Iranian or Indo-Aryan.
Hittite (aka Nesite, Nesian) is Indo-European, but _not_ Indo-Iranian or Indo_Aryan. As for Hurrian, it is not even Indo-European! It is related to Urartian. The Hurro-Urartian langs are agglutinative and not related either to Semitic or to Indo-European. Some scholars think they are related to the Northeast Caucasian langs, but this is not certain. It is likely that _some_ of the later (1st millennium BCE) non-IE langs of Asian Minor such as Pontic, Paphlagonian, Mariandynian, Cappadocian and Cataonian are descended from this group. But the situation is made more confusing in that another non-IE & non-Semitic group of langs were spoken in the 3rd millennium BCE in Asia Minor, namely Kasko-Hattic. It is more than likely that at least some of the 1st millennium BCE langs listed above derive from this group - the surviving evidence is not enough to make sure identification. -- Ray ================================== ================================== "A mind which thinks at its own expense will always interfere with language." J.G. Hamann, 1760