Re: Indo-European family tree (was Re: Celtic and Afro-Asiatic?)

Hallo!

Andreas Johansson wrote:

> Quoting Jörg Rhiemeier <joerg_rhiemeier@...>:
>
> > > [Thomas Wier's pet theory on the origin of IE]
> >
> > Actually, my pet theory is essentially the same, though I place
> > the Urheimat of "Macro-IE" in what is now the Bay of Odessa.
> > IE proper resulted from the second wave while the first-wave
> > "Macro-IE" languages disappeared from the scene, though some may
> > still have been spoken in Roman times.  Old Albic is meant to
> > represent such a "Macro-IE" language.
>
> If the modern European IE languages all belong to such second wave, how does
> this scenario differ meaningfully from what may be called the traditional
> scenario of migrations from the steppes?
Indeed, it doesn't differ meaningfully from the traditional scenario
what regards the present-day Indo-European languages.  But apparently,
there seem to be traces of an earlier stratum of languages about which
exists uncertainty whether they were Indo-European or not, such as
the so-called Old European hydronymy.  These languages could be
"Macro-IE" without being IE proper.  I used to maintain the notion
for a while that Etruscan was a Macro-IE language, but I abandoned
that position again.

After the spread of Macro-IE, the linguistic landscape of Europe
probably was a patchwork of Macro-IE and surviving non-Macro-IE
languages, and in many places, the Macro-IE stratum was thin and
the Macro-IE languages strongly influenced by non-Macro-IE
substrata.

>        If some do not, why invoke a second
> wave at all? When the steppe peoples come into view, the IE languages they
> speak are, IIUC, all Indo-Iranian - a branch that did not gain a foothold in
> Europe (North Osssetia doesn't count!).
>
> I suppose one could argue that Balto-Slavic, as a Satem branch, belongs with I-I
> rather than with Germano-Italo-Celtic; would they represent the second wave?
Actually, I'd split the "second wave" into two.  "Wave 2A" expanded
from present-day Ukraine around 4000 BC; "Wave 2B" expanded from the
same location around 3200 BC.  Anatolian and Tocharian are Wave 2A,
the other IE languages Wave 2B.  I use the term "Core IE" for these.
Core IE IMHO consists of four groups:

 - West: Italic, Celtic, Venetic, Illyrian
 - North: Germanic, Baltic, Slavic
 - South: Greek, Albanian, Thracian, Phrygian, Armenian
 - East: Indo-Iranian

These four groups gradually took shape already before 3200 BC
and remained in contact long enough for some changes such as
"satemization" to propagate from one group to another.

The two waves correspond to two "little ice ages" during which
a colder and drier climate reduced the fertility of the soil and
forced a part of the PIE speakers to seek for greener pastures
elsewhere.

> Tangentially, if memory serves, Renfrew suggested that the Indus Culture was IE.
> What do you folks think of that suggestion?
I doubt it.  I'd rather guess that their language was Dravidian.
It is pretty clear that most of the area now covered by Indo-Aryan
languages was formerly Dravidian-speaking, as there are pockets of
Dravidian languages almost all over it, and certain features of
Indo_Aryan (such as the retroflex consonants) can be aptly explained
by assuming a Dravidian substratum.  It is apparently also evident
from Indo-Aryan mythology that the Indo-Aryans arrived in India
not before 2000 BC.  The degree of relationship between Indo-Aryan
and Iranian cooroborates this.  Their arrival seems to be
contemporaneous with the *downfall* of the Indus Culture.

>                                                  Andreas
>
> PS I hear that the latest Science has a cladistic study based on linguistic
> features (phonemic? morphological?) rather than on words. I'll be looking when
> I get to the uni library on Monday.
I'll keep my eyes open for it.  Thank you for this information!

Greetings,

Jörg.