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

Hallo!

Roger Mills wrote:

> Jörg Rhiemeier wrote:
>
> > Andreas Johansson wrote:
> >
> > > Quoting Jörg Rhiemeier <joerg_rhiemeier@...>:
> > >
> > > > Hallo!
> > > >
> > > > [...]
> > > >
> > > > Sorry, but I don't understand what you are aiming at.  As you say,
> > > > the climatological argument is against *nomads* carrying IE westward,
> > > > and not against *farmers* doing so.
>
> My thought here: W.Europe was heavily forested, no? That would totally
> flummox nomads.
Yes.  But as I said several times already, the Proto-Indo-European
speakers as I imagine them weren't nomads at all.  The nomad scenario
is contradicted by both archaeological (farming attested in Ukraine
as early as 5500 BC) and linguistic evidence (farming terminology
reconstructible with as much certainty as possible for PIE).
Andreas attacked a strawman here.

>       Farmers at least would figure out slash-and-burn, even if
> they didn't have the tools to cut down large numbers of trees.
Yes.  What I see is Indo-European farmers, under the leadership
of their warrior aristocracy (which evidently existed among the
Proto-Indo-Europeans, terms pertaining to it can be reconstructed
for PIE) slashing and burning into the western European forests,
at first settling in places where no Old European farmers are,
but later, the Indo-European warrior aristocracy establish
themselves as the elite over both their own kinsfolk and the
more egalitarian Old Europeans.  So we have three segments in the
society:

1. Indo-European-speaking warrior-nobles;

2. Indo-European-speaking farmers;

3. Old-European-speaking farmers.

In such a situation, it is merely a question of time when the latter
of the three adopt the language of the other two, even if they are
the most numerous group.

Only in the British Isles, Old European society remains intact for
longer, developing into a civilization of their own, that only
much later is conquered and assimilated by the Celts.  Memory of
this civilization remains in Germanic mythology as Elves, and
perhaps in Greek mythology as Hyperborea and Atlantis.
(ObConlang: These are the speakers of Old Albic.)

> > > > What allowed the Anglo-Saxons to replace Celtic and Latin in Britain?
>
> Sheer numbers? Constant in-migrations, thanks to the relative ease of
> getting there? As a result, not only a ruling elite, but lots of common folk
> too.
Yes.  The result is analogous to the Indo-European takeover scenario
above.  An aristocracy speaking Old English, ruling over common folk
part of which also speaks Old English, while other parts of the common
folk speak Latin, others British Celtic, and perhaps a few even Albic
or whatever.

> > True.  The Goths, Franks and Lombards failed to displace Romance,
> > while the Anglo-Saxons displaced Celtic and whatever kind of Romance
> > (or Vulgar Latin) may have existed in Roman Britain.
>
> As I proposed, numbers probably counted.
Yes.

>       What's surprising is that France
> did not become more germanified, though French is the most germanified of
> the Romance langs., Italian next. Spanish the least-- suggesting to me that
> there were fewer migrations into Spain. And IIRC, the Visigoths had some
> quaint laws or customs about not marrying with the locals (surely more
> honored in the breach, however)
>
> But you offered
> > an explanation by yourself above.  Thomas Wier says that it was
> > "more or less now accepted that the Anglo-Saxons exterminated most
> > of the Romano-Celtic population in Britain".  I am doubtful of that;
>
> Me too; given sufficient numbers, the A-S could simply marginalize the
> natives-- grabbing their lands, competing in the trades, etc.
Exactly.

I think it has become clear by now that the scenario of an Indo-
European takeover of central and western Europe *after* the first
Neolithic immigrant wave is plausible, once one discards the notion
of the PIE speakers being nomads.

Greetings,

Jörg.