Notice: This is the official website of the All Empires History Community (Reg. 10 Feb 2002)

  FAQ FAQ  Forum Search   Register Register  Login Login

Is Germanic a subgroup of the Iranian languages?

 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <1 707172
Author
Cyrus Shahmiri View Drop Down
Administrator
Administrator
Avatar
King of Kings

Joined: 07-Aug-2004
Location: Iran
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 6217
  Quote Cyrus Shahmiri Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Topic: Is Germanic a subgroup of the Iranian languages?
    Posted: 19-Dec-2013 at 09:22
Originally posted by beorna

Originally posted by Cyrus Shahmiri


The most important thing is that the answer is not simply no as we thought before, of course it is also difficult to say which one is a subgroup of another one, but the relation between Iranian and Germanic languages is much more than a similarity because their common Indo-European origin.

Cyrus, neither the one nor the other is a sub-group of the other one. The origins of the later iranian people lay inside the Andronowo-culture, while the origins of the later germanic lay inside the corded ware. The Andronowo culture is based on older cultures, e.g. the yamna culture. That means, that the differentiation between the later germanics and iranians is older than 5000 years. But before e.g. evolved as own family, it lasted again several thousand years and the Corded ware people differentiated as well into branches, like Balto-Slavic.


About 5000 years ago all Indo-Europeans spoke a single language named the Proto-Indo-European language, these people migrated to different directions and those cultures that you mentioned were formed in different periods.

But the Proto-Germanic language didn't exist before 500 BC, it is exactly the same time Iranian-speaking people (Scythians) invaded northern Europe and destroyed the Lusatian culture.

Back to Top
beorna View Drop Down
General
General
Avatar

Joined: 03-Dec-2007
Location: Germany
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 925
  Quote beorna Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 19-Dec-2013 at 15:13
Originally posted by Cyrus Shahmiri



About 5000 years ago all Indo-Europeans spoke a single language named the Proto-Indo-European language, these people migrated to different directions and those cultures that you mentioned were formed in different periods.

But the Proto-Germanic language didn't exist before 500 BC, it is exactly the same time Iranian-speaking people (Scythians) invaded northern Europe and destroyed the Lusatian culture.


How do you know, that they all spoke a single language? The Kurgan I and II, which is mainly associated with the PIE reached already from Moldovia till the Ural mountains. Here an PIE language originated already 6500 years BP. But that doesn't mean, that there was just one language in these area, but that there were close related languages. From the kurgan I and II area the language moved west and east. Later all the today know languages evolved, among those of the west germanic, among those in the east Iranic languages.

Scythians did not invade northern Europe. There were some raids into Middle Europe, there are some arrow heads, some scythian artefacts, but nothing, that would indicate a population change, even not an migration in smaller scale. And in those days the area which was in contact with the scythians was those of the Lusatian culture. Cultures that were associated with the Germanics were further to the west. One of these cultures, the jastorf culture evolved around 600 BC and it evolved in northern germany and Jutland and expanded to the south and later to west and east. Would be really interesting, why those Scythians moved to the sea and then south again!

A scythian culture, which was a steppe culture, would as well be very different to the surrounding cultures, if germanics would really be scythians. But that is not the fact.

If I remember correct some of your evidence is, that saxons were saka and that Kermana is the same as Germani. Well, I once wrote, that such equitation is nonsense and nothing has changed.


Edited by beorna - 19-Dec-2013 at 15:14
Back to Top
PakistaniShield View Drop Down
Shogun
Shogun
Avatar

Joined: 26-Dec-2008
Location: North America
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 240
  Quote PakistaniShield Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 19-Dec-2013 at 17:38
Originally posted by Cyrus Shahmiri



The most important thing is that the answer is not simply no as we thought before, of course it is also difficult to say which one is a subgroup of another one, but the relation between Iranian and Germanic languages is much more than a similarity because their common Indo-European origin.


That simply cannot be true. Germanic is not even a Satem language family. The languages closest to the Iranic languages are the Nuristani languages and the Indo-Aryan languages, which descend from Sanskrit.

Slavic and Indo-Aryan languages also share many preserved terminology and grammar that other language families lost, it means nothing.

As I wrote before distantly related languages can preserve terminologies and grammar while their closer relatives on both sides have lost it. This can be due to enviorenmental conditions, especially if the languages are isolated from other languages.

The idea of Germanic being a sub-grouping of Iranic is simply absurd.
Back to Top
beorna View Drop Down
General
General
Avatar

Joined: 03-Dec-2007
Location: Germany
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 925
  Quote beorna Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 20-Dec-2013 at 01:58
Well, theoretically two very close related languages could belong to the satem and the kentum group. But in Cyrus' case, Germanics shall be descend from Scythians. At that time we indeed should expect an satemisation for Germanic, like we have it for Slavic. But there is no satemisation as PakistaniShield said it correct.
Back to Top
Cyrus Shahmiri View Drop Down
Administrator
Administrator
Avatar
King of Kings

Joined: 07-Aug-2004
Location: Iran
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 6217
  Quote Cyrus Shahmiri Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 20-Dec-2013 at 03:00
Germanic is neither a centum nor a satem language, "k" sound was changed to "s" sound in the old times but in the first millennium bc we see in the Iranian languages "s" sound was gradually changed to "h" sound, of course we can again discuss about it, someone said here they were the Germanic people who firstly used "hindu" for Sanskrit "sindhu"! 
Back to Top
beorna View Drop Down
General
General
Avatar

Joined: 03-Dec-2007
Location: Germany
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 925
  Quote beorna Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 20-Dec-2013 at 03:18



Centum–satem compared to other general isoglosses in Indo-European daughter languages at about 500 BC.
Blue: Centum languages
Red-orange: Satem languages
Orange: Languages exhibiting augment
Green: Languages exhibiting PIE *-tt- > -ss-
Tan: Languages exhibiting PIE *-tt- > -st-
Pink: Languages in which the instrumental, dative, and ablative plurals, as well as certain singulars and duals, exhibit endings beginning in -m-, rather than the usual *-bh-.
Back to Top
Cyrus Shahmiri View Drop Down
Administrator
Administrator
Avatar
King of Kings

Joined: 07-Aug-2004
Location: Iran
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 6217
  Quote Cyrus Shahmiri Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 20-Dec-2013 at 03:41
Instead of Centum & Satem (100), I prefer to use Decem, Dasam & Dahan (10), so we can say Italic, Greek, Celtic and Tokharian languages are decem, Indian, East Iranian, Armenian, Baltic and Slavic languages are dasam, and west Iranian and Germanic languages are dahan.
Back to Top
beorna View Drop Down
General
General
Avatar

Joined: 03-Dec-2007
Location: Germany
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 925
  Quote beorna Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 20-Dec-2013 at 04:16
Kentum and satem stand for a general phenomenon. You can't pick a single word, just because you think you can prove your theory with it.

The id.europ. word for hundred was *kṃtó, for ten *dekṃ. In Germanic it changed to  *χunđa and *teχun and later to mainly hund and  tehan/zehan which became a modern english ten and modern german zehn. So there is no different development for hundred and for ten!
Back to Top
Cyrus Shahmiri View Drop Down
Administrator
Administrator
Avatar
King of Kings

Joined: 07-Aug-2004
Location: Iran
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 6217
  Quote Cyrus Shahmiri Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 20-Dec-2013 at 06:31
In the first post in this thread I have talked about all sound shifts in the Germanic languages (Grimm's law) and then I showed that all of them firstly happened in the Iranian languages.

I certainly don't talk about a few words or even some hundreds words but most of words in these languages, as you correctly mentioned "k" sound was originally changed to x (kh sound) in the Germanic languages, I can mention hundreds Iranian words that we see this thing firstly happened in the Iranian language.

You can yourself search about it, for example about the English word "hood" or Old High German "huot" (helmet, hat), it relates to Latin "cudo" which means the same: http://www.latin-dictionary.net/definition/15030/cudo-cudonis the proto-Germanic word is khauda (helmet), what are the Old Persian and Avestan words? sudo?!!
Back to Top
beorna View Drop Down
General
General
Avatar

Joined: 03-Dec-2007
Location: Germany
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 925
  Quote beorna Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 20-Dec-2013 at 10:07
Originally posted by Cyrus Shahmiri

In the first post in this thread I have talked about all sound shifts in the Germanic languages (Grimm's law) and then I showed that all of them firstly happened in the Iranian languages.

I certainly don't talk about a few words or even some hundreds words but most of words in these languages, as you correctly mentioned "k" sound was originally changed to x (kh sound) in the Germanic languages, I can mention hundreds Iranian words that we see this thing firstly happened in the Iranian language.

You can yourself search about it, for example about the English word "hood" or Old High German "huot" (helmet, hat), it relates to Latin "cudo" which means the same: http://www.latin-dictionary.net/definition/15030/cudo-cudonis the proto-Germanic word is khauda (helmet), what are the Old Persian and Avestan words? sudo?!!

And already in the next postings by styrbjorn, he had written that you are wrong.
Back to Top
opuslola View Drop Down
Tsar
Tsar
Avatar
suspended

Joined: 23-Sep-2009
Location: Long Beach, MS,
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 4621
  Quote opuslola Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 28-Jan-2014 at 21:02
Originally posted by Slayertplsko

Thank you.I see that 'hurva' means swift, but this is the meaning found in English (almost the same meaning), not in other languages and it's not the original meaning (lively, living).


How about the word "slap?" in Asia Minor? I was told it was close to the same meaning?

Ron
http://www.quotationspage.com/subjects/history/
Back to Top
PakistaniShield View Drop Down
Shogun
Shogun
Avatar

Joined: 26-Dec-2008
Location: North America
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 240
  Quote PakistaniShield Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 28-Jan-2014 at 22:24
Originally posted by Cyrus Shahmiri

Instead of Centum & Satem (100), I prefer to use Decem, Dasam & Dahan (10), so we can say Italic, Greek, Celtic and Tokharian languages are decem, Indian, East Iranian, Armenian, Baltic and Slavic languages are dasam, and west Iranian and Germanic languages are dahan.


So wait east and west Iranic languages actually cluster in closer with other subfamilies than they actually do with each other?

That makes absolutely no sense unless you wish to imply iranic languages to be based on geographic and not genetic
Back to Top
 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <1 707172

Forum Jump Forum Permissions View Drop Down

Bulletin Board Software by Web Wiz Forums® version 9.56a [Free Express Edition]
Copyright ©2001-2009 Web Wiz

This page was generated in 0.188 seconds.