There's also two families in the Caucasus besides Kartvelian, creatively named Northeast Caucasian and Northwest Caucasian. These families include Chechen and Abkhaz, respectively.
Also it's surprisingly similar to Hungarian (Kannada too, the name Indo-European language family makes no sense when a non IE language is more similar than it is)if you check a lot of basic words and word structure. Sentence structure-wise it's probably different from any other language though.
@@thefrench8847 Plenty of those i.e. Korean but most in europe are extinct i.e. Etruscan and they lived in Italy before being exterminated by the romans
@@gabork5055Basque language has no relation with Hungarian language, although neither are Indo-European. Hungarian is an Uralic language. Basque language is a remnant of the paleolithic Europe before from time before the arrival of Uralic and IE languages into the continent.
I think the premise is a bit weird. Indoeuropean most likely originated within what we consider modern Europe (Black Sea steppe), but so did Uralic and, considering there's no evidence against it, Basque. The former is just considered the default due to its huge dominance. So the only ones that are actually "Imports" from further away are Arab/Maltese (Arabia) and any Turkic languages (Central Asia).
He's not saying these languages are necessarily imports; he's just saying they're not in the European language subfamily (within the broader Indo-European family)
Even the Turkish languages are originated from europe... Mainly, just like the Uralic speakers, they where here before IE peoples arrived from Anatolia, and push them to east. They are later just came back.
@@Idkpleasejustletmechangeit Etrusceans, Minoans, Hatti peoples. They were both speaked West ugric languages. Turkish speakers came from the ugrics mixed with Mongols.
@@Gucom290 so you class them by their origins? Indo-European languages are thought to have originated in some region around the Caspian Sea. If you count that as Europe, then Sanskrit, Hindi, and Punjabi are all European languages. If you don’t count it as Europe, then Swedish and Spanish are not European languages. Why not take the sensible approach and class them by where they are rather than where they come from?
All those languages developed and are spoken natively in Europe and thus European. You confuse Indo-European with European and IE languages are spoken natively in Asia as well.
@@LincolnDWard No, I mean maybe the branches of Europe descend from western dialects of proto-Indo-European which to various degrees influenced each other, the language family is not divided into a European super branch, the branches spoken in Europe like Germanic are treated like their own independent branches. At best some theories group Italic and Celtic into a Italo-Celtic group arguing that the two branches had a more recent common ancestor than Proto-Indo-European.
Yeah, but even the basque speakers had to come from somewhere. People don't just grow out of the ground, so asking where a language is native to is kind of a bad question...
@@modmaker7617 sure, but on the other hand you can also say that all the descendants of Indo-European are equally as native to Europe as basque because they did not come from outside of Europe. English is from England, Spanish from Spain, and so on, but the child is not their ancestor. You see what I mean? It's a poor question
Indo European languages are native to Europe just as old European languages. Simply because Indo European languages originated north of Black sea, north of Caucasus, in today's southern Russia and mainly west of the Urals.... It's called the Pontic-caspian steppe. Hence they litteraly are native to Europe, just not all of Europe. In an essence Basque is native to western Europe whilst Indo-European languages were native to eastern Europe. They started to dominate Europe around 2000-3000 years ago and they also managed to migrate towards India and middle east. Hence why Anatolia had largely Indo European speakers, as well as much of north and north western middle east including Persia and north-western India. The early Indo Europeans simply expanded the same way how Uralics, Mongolians, Turkic people and later Semetic people expanded through flatter open trains into and around middle east.
Because europe doesn't exist as something physical it comes from the indo European languages therefore finnish isnt europe. Europe refers to the cultural region of Eurasia
You are right. It is a European language. Along with the Sami, Hungaria, and Estonian. Uralic languages originated at the Western Side of the Ural Mountain, and that is still Europe. Fennoscandinavia was populated by Uralic speakers first, but then they later got assimilated. Only the Sami, Finn, and Estonian survives today. This is according to current research.
Hungarian, Estonian, Finnish and other Uralic languages are all European languages, as the overwhelming majority of linguists and archeologists place the birthplace of the languages west of the Ural mountains, in Eastern Europe. That makes these languages technically paleo-european languages just like basque. But everybody seems to forget about this. Just sayin.
Have fun with the research on the "how Uralic Languages Ended up in Europe" video. Im Hungarian myself and not even we can come to an agreement on where we come from and how we got here. Linguistically its very complicated. And it leaves people making wild guesses as to the origins of and migration route of Hungarians. For example, in the modern standardized Hungarian language, we definitely have "relative" words with Germanic, Slavic, Turkic, Latin, and Persian languages. But in what order we picked them up and when is heavily debated. Some will say we are actually a persian language originally, while others will say we are a long lost Indo European branch. I suggest you do your own research and be weary of people who write about the subject for political reasons. However, from doing my own research, I have reached my own vague conclusion: 1. The Proto Uralic people who's branch would eventually become the Hungarians lived in central/northern Siberia and are likely the relatives or originators of the Saami, Khanti, Innuit, Native Americans, etc. Possibly the Mongol, Korean, and Turkic people as well but its all very vague and fuzzy that far back in time. 2. Eventually during the Indo European migrations to India, the migrators must have had some form of connection or contact with these "proto uralic" people. As many of the most archaic terms for horse husbandry and nomadic life originate from Eastern Proto Indo European. And it is likely that here some Proto Uralics must have adopted the lifestyle where others didn't. Becoming distinct people over time. Enter the Proto Ugrics. 3. Next in our linguistic history, we have words for numbers (like hundred and thousand) as well as various agricultural terms including beer, being of Persian origin. How these fit into the story is anyone's guess but due to a few myths and legends of Hungarians being connected to Persia, I believe that at some point the Proto Ugrics must have migrated down into Persia. Where they must have stayed for a considerable amount of time. 4. Next we have Turkic and Slavic words appearing in our language. More modern words for more modern items. It is likely that this is when the Proto Ugrics, who may have branched into just the Magyar tribe, appeared in south western Siberia. And mixed heavily with the various Turkic tribes of the area. 5. Finally we reach recorded history and know that a coalition of 7 tribes led by the Magyar chief Almos (and later his son Arpad) migrated into Ukraine and finally into the Carpathian basin where Hungary exists today. What is not for certain is the background of the many tribes. It is likely that they were some mixture of Ugric, Turkic, and possibly Persian or Mongolic tribes. And the impact they had on the modern Hungarian language as a result is hard to quantify as a result. 6. German and Latin words for the most modern terms appear. And there is no question that Catholicism as well as the very close relationship the Kingdom of Hungary had with Austria and the HRE had a large impact on this. I hope you find this information useful, and I encourage you do a considerable amount of research and be careful of your sources. I wish I could list my own sources but I constructed this theory from years of sporadic research. Though if Im right your own research will confirm my understanding. If not, well then Im sorry for wasting time.
What are you doing here? You try to adapt the history of the Hungarians with the Indo-European languages, your hypotheses based on Hungarian legends, making them less credible by putting non-Indo-European languages as the basis of their formation. The Albanians, with the proximity of their language to the Etruscans, seem to me more credible than the Ugric and Turkic Basques. 😗
@@CocoSon-zj5ojread the last 3 lines and don't discourage the man, even though going from Siberia to Persia for no goddamn reason is a big ahh plot twist ngl
ur hypothesis is not wrong... ive been thinking the same... i go even further,and claim,that in europe once the uralic altaic languages were dominant,all having a protoorigin including chuvash and etruscan...the history of languages starts in the urals,altays,7000 years ago,and goes further to sumerian,mezopotamia 2000 years later...indo european languages formed later,and suppressed our regions... my newest theory😂
You forgot to mention that the Caucasus gave origin to not only one, but three completely independent language families: South Caucasian aka Kartvelian, Northwest Caucasian aka Abkhazo-Adyghean and Northeast Caucasian aka Nakh-Dagestanian. The latter of the three is by far the largest of them in number of languages and includes for example Chechen. Oh yeah, and then there's Kalmyk, a Mongolic language spoken in European Russian Kalmykia
Those are still by all means European languages (apart from Kalmyk). The guy who made this thinks that Indo-European languages are somehow more European than the rest, and that those two words mean the same thing. In what sense is Sinhalese "European" as opposed to Basque?
What happens is that France finds it difficult to recognize Basque as a regional language, something that does not happen in Spain, where it is official in its autonomous community
@@Panambipyhare France is one of the few European countries that keeps not recognizing their population other languages. Both French Basque and Occitan have zero support from France as a country. It's sad this situation, and if it keeps going, we may lose an entire language a few dialects of another language in the long term
The premise that Indo-European languages are somehow inherently more European than the languages mentioned here is just completely false. They have originated much farther away from Europe than say, Finnish for example. The only reason they are considered more European is that the majority of the continent speaks one of them as their native tongue. And the majority always seems to be right.
Well, I'm not saying this makes any language more or less European but the Proto-Indo-european language was quite literally spoken in Europe, north of the Black and Caspian seas and between them. At least this is the most widely agreed upon theory. All of this while the Uralic languages can most likely be traced much further away in a much shorter timeframe. (A modern view places Oroto-Uralic east of the ural mountains with the spread of its western branches to europe after 2000 bc.)
@@netsong2239You're right bud, but you're about to trigger the zealots that try claiming """""P.I.E""""" was spread from Anatolia or India. There's a lot of them on UA-cam, and they're not good at debating without ad hominem and strawman.
@@anowarjibbaliyeah, it refers more to Turkic and Uralic languages. Basque and Georgian are natively European. In fact they're more native to their local region than the European languages surrounding them. Spanish came from the Italian peninsula. Spanish does trace it's origins north of the black sea, in Europe, so still European, but locally, the Basques are the natives and the Spanish are the migrants. But I mean they've been there for more than 2000 years. You can't scoff at that and you can't tell them to what? Go back to Rome? Go back to the black sea?
The Sami and Baltic-Finnic branches are the edge of what was once a vast language family Hungarian on the other hand belongs to an entirely different group that migrated all the way from the Ural Mountains, and were culturally very different from other Finnic-Uralic peoples and followed a form of shamanism similar to Turkic-Mongolian peoples and other horse nomads rather than the Finnish gods
Weeell, partially true. Finnic tribes didn't really have gods either before Scandinavian, European etc. influence. It was to a great degree an animistic and also probably shamanistic religious/spiritual belief system. Instead of Gods they believed in ancestral spirits and spirits that inhabit all living beings and even non-living things. Certain spirits later grew to sort of larger protective spirits and then gods of forest or the waters etc. There's a modern similarity to for instance Japanese spiritual beliefs (which imo partially explains the mutual interest of the people to eachothers culture). I don't think there is any common agreement whether there was a larger (finno-)ugric language area in Europe or if it was more of a long migration from the Uralic region. The latter is the commonly accepted theory though. This video ofcourse didn't mention the other very small finno-baltic or finno-ugric language pockets close to Finland and Estonia's borders and in Russia. Especially under the Russian and Soviet rule these have suffered greatly and many disappeared completely. Russian is also an Indo-European language that took over the modern area of Russia. So don't know about _Europe_, but in the areas of modern day Russia Ugric, Siperian etc. languages were certainly the main languages before "russification". Hungarians and the Magyar language is very interesting and complicated for sure. The people moved around and were bounced around a lot in the midst of a lot of fighting powers. The modern situation is that the people are no longer genetically Uralic but exactly like the other people around them, but they are culturally distinctive and the language survived.
@@Pippis78 Scandinavian influence on the Baltic Finnic belief systems and mythos is rather Baltic influence, which just so happens to be similar in many ways to their Scandinavian counterparts. Also the oldest deitic influences probably date to the Indo-Iranian contact. Certain motifs and deities with very similar functions that predate the Germanic and Baltic influences exist from the Baltic sea to the Volga region and beyond, one of them being "jumala", literally the Christian God when written as "Jumala" and then just any god as "jumala". This deity is believed to have been a general sky god, which explains why it specifically went on to be adopted as the name for the Christian God. "Jumala" also has counterparts among the Mordvins and Mari as "Jumishipas" and "Jumo" along with proposed connection to Mordvinic word for lightning "jondol". The word "ilma" now meaning "air" in Finnish (from which Ilmarinen comes from) and it's counterparts in many other Uralic languages going far east to the Urals also point to an old sky deity. Some also might think the deity Turso/Turrisas/Taara/Taarapita/Tiirmes found among Baltic Finns and the Sami is a borrowing from the Germanic Thor, but similarly named deities are also found among the Khanty and even Samoyeds. Although the similarities to Thor and even Odin are likely influence, the deities themselves are not and they are unlikely to be simply forms of "Thor".
bro the Uralic languages and Caucasus languages and Basque are European. this is like saying Japanese is not an Asian because its an isolate or of jul'hoan is not a real African language because its not bantu. i think every language that originated in Europe is European .
The Uralic languages started spreading from the Ural region both west and east. The ancestors of Finns, Estonians etc. eventually reached the eastern Baltic roughly between 2000 to 1000 BC depending on who is talking. While this was all happening, the ancestors of Hungarians largely remained in the east around the mid to southern Urals until around 800 BC, when they started migrating south and started picking up more influences from steppe groups like the Scythians. Hungarians remained northeast of the Caspian sea for some time until migrating further west between the Black and Caspian sea around the 400s AD. Then from there they migrated northwest of the Black Sea and into the Carpathian Basin between the 600s and 800s AD. Hungarians had a completely separate migration and one which saw them enter into their current area much later than the Finns and Estonians. The separation of the ancestors of Finns, Estonians and others in the Baltic region and those of Hungarians is roughly 5000 years old.
@@jokemon9547 Those theories already debunked by the DNA researches. Even the 1700 year old Hungarian samples were insignificant Uralic DNA. They connected to Bactria. They are themselves the Schythians.
@@xerxen100That's what the Hungarian-like words in the Tartaria Tablets would suggest. Or maybe the population that used to live here spoke a language very similar to Sanskrit which also 'coincidentally' used to share words with 'Finno-Ugric'.
Yiddish & Ladino feel worth a mention because they're technically Germanic and Romance respectively, but they're creolized with a Semitic language (Hebrew), so they have grammar structures you wouldn't generally associate with German or Spanish, and are written in Hebrew script
Writing systems and loanwords don't make a language. Yiddish is a Germanic language that has Afro Asiatic loanwords. German, English and Dutch also have plenty of Afro Asiatic/Hamito-Semitic words. The video was about languages in Europe that aren't Indo-European. Otherwise you could say Indonesian and Vietnamese are worth mentioning because they use the Roman alphabet and have a lot of IE loanwords. Yiddish and Ladino are European geographically and IE. Language family ≠ writing system After all, English has plenty of Romance features despite being Germanic
As a speaker of Spanish and learner of Yiddish, the grammar of Ladino is slightly different, but not too much that I as a Spanish speaker wouldn't expect and it does not hinder intelligibility. The main thing that would trip up a native Spanish speaker is the use of loanwords in Ladino, which I'm ok with the Hebrew ones since I already speak Hebrew as well and am learning some Arabic and Greek, but I'll have trouble with Turkish and Slavic loans loans. Yiddish grammar is also not too different from German and the differences are not too unexpected. I've spoken Yiddish with German speakers and we communicated just fine. The main issue was again the loanwords. Germans obviously won't understand many of the Hebrew and Slavic loans. However, the grammatical structures of both Ladino and Yiddish are undoubtedly Indo-European (Romance and Germanic respectively), even if sometimes the words may come from elsewhere. That would be like trying to say Persian is not Indo-European because it uses the Arabic script (at least for Farsi and Dari) and has many Arabic loanwords and influences
What do you mean non-European? Maybe you meant non-Indo-European. Hungarian for instance has been always European, it was form in Europe and Hungarians never lived outside of Europe.
Fact, Basque is the only European language the others can go back to ; the Manych plain (IE), Arabian desert (Maltese), Ural & Altai mountains (Uralic & Turkic)
@@laser8389 He either means some wack theory about "basque is the ancestor of all languages!!!!," or, more likely (I hope) that it's the only language that predates the other mentioned (only by name, old-old-basque of that time is VASTLY different to modern basque)
@@aarpftsz I had to read it twice, but I think he is saying that Basque is the only native european language and all the others can go back to wherever they came from.
@@003mohamudi also think thats what he wanted to say and i find it insanely amusing that he believes Basque has the right to own all of europe even though its possible that neolithic europe had dozens of languanges and that proto-basque was just one of them. Not to mention that most experts agree that PIE originated somewhere in Russo-Ukrainian border which would make it european in origin (same case for the Finnic Languages)
Whenever i see Turkey and Europe mentioned in the same sentence, some people jump into it, saying "Turkey isn't Europe. Turks aren't Europeans." etc. I get it, their president is awful. But could you please stop the negativity?
Unlike a lot of people out there, I don't see any offensive in "non-European". My second foreign language is Japanese, it's very obviously not European, and I love it. If somebody says "But it's not European!", I just shrug it off.
But Turkey has never been a European country - either geographically or culturally. It is an integral part of the Islamic civilisation. It is no more European than Egypt or Iran.
I believe that Russia or Greece are not European either. Our culture is based on Orthodox Christianity which is fundamentally different from Roman Catholicism or Protestantism. Turkey, of course, even less European. But we shouldn't develop an inferiority complex about that. We are what we are and we should be happy with that. Europeans are merely human, just like everyone else. Let us not.worship them like some pagan gods.
There is a theory that Uralic languages are related to indo-european. Wetti being water in proto uralic vs something like woder in in proto-indo-european has both a w sound and a sound like t or d which is only differenced by voicing in the same areas as each other in the word bacically.
Indo-European languages are prevalent in Europe and parts of Asia. Non indo-european languages spoken in Europe also belong to european continent and culture. Calling only indo-european languages european is uneducated. Basque, georgian, estonian, hungarian, maltese, finnish, gagauz, tatar, nenet, sami and others... are not indo-european languages but are languages primarely spoken on european continent and claiming they are not european is downright offensive. The video is actually about non indo-european languages spoken in Europe but it's done poorly.
In short, it is hard to think of any other ethnolinguistic entity in history that conquered so vast a territory and founded so many empires and states, also contributing to world civilizations. The history of the Turkic peoples was an important factor in world history for more than a millennium until the emergence of Europe as the world's dominant power. What happened in the Turkic world often affected the history of China, Central Asia, the Middle East, South Asia, and Europe. One may also argue that world history began with the "Turko-Mongol" empire created by Chinggis Khan. In the contemporary world, Turkic-speaking nations form six states (Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Uzbekistan, Turkmenistan, Azerbaijan, and Turkey/Türkiye) and several "autonomous" units in Russia (the republics of Chuvash, Tatarstan, Bashkortostan, Altai, Khakassia, Tuva, and Sakha) and China (the Xinjiang Uyghur Autonomous Region). Turkic peoples also reside as minority groups in several other countries, including Mongolia and Iran, among others. It would therefore be difficult to acquire a comprehensive understanding of world history as well as our present world without studying the history of the Turkic peoples.
Also There are Northeastern Caucasian (or Nakh-Dagestani or North Caspian) and Northwestern Caucasian (or Abkhazo-Circassian or North Pontic) language families are spoken in Norhern Caucasia the European part of Russia.
>European Languages That Aren't European Basque is literally the oldest language in Europe. And Uralic languages are as native to europe as indoeuropean. To conflate traditionally european languages like basque and finnish with turkish is either misleading or downright dumb.
IE is only the largest by number of speakers-there are 3 other language families, being atlantic-congo, austronesian, and sino-tibetan that all have more languages in them
Majority of currently living Uralic speakers inhabit Europe. The majorities in Asian countries speak languages from entirely different language families. The Uralic languages originated to the west from Urals making its origin place European no matter how one looks at it.
As warriors, the Huns inspired almost unparalleled fear throughout Europe. They were amazingly accurate mounted archers, and their complete command of horsemanship, their ferocious charges and unpredictable retreats, and the speed of their strategical movements brought them overwhelming victories. For half a century after the overthrow of the Visigoths, the Huns extended their power over many of the Germanic peoples of central Europe and fought for the Romans. By 432 the leadership of the various groups of Huns had been centralized under a single king, Rua, or Rugila. When Rua died in 434 he was succeeded by his two nephews, Bleda and Attila. The joint rulers negotiated a peace treaty at Margus (now Požarevac, Serbia) with the Eastern Roman Empire, by which the Romans agreed to double the subsidies they had been paying the Huns. The Romans apparently did not pay the sums stipulated in the treaty, and in 441 Attila launched a heavy assault on the Roman Danubian frontier, advancing almost to Constantinople. (BRITANNICA)
I consider Afrikaans to be a native Language of the western cape, while Haitian (a french creole) to be a lingua franca whilst the native language of the island is Taino
Maltese reflects the history of the islands - bonju (French) aijruplan, skola, universita', familja, kompjuter, president, politikant, avukat, kumpanija, student, klassi, sptar... plus hundreds of more words that come from French, Italian, Spanish, Catalan and English besides of course Aramaic and Arabic
Recently, they discovered that the closest modern spoken language to basque si Armenian, so probably basque came to the Iberian peninsula during the migration era, just after Rome fell
Basque is older than proto latin, question is if armenian, georgian and basque originated in their current lands or if they came from another group lost to us after the indo european came and only the most mountanious survived, also pre roman iberia had much more pre indoeuropean peoples but at the time the celts where pushing them back, also iberians had similar ways to call numbers as basques which is another theiry that basques are the remaining iberians
How does that make sense when Aquitanian, considered ancestral to Basque, has writings dated to the 100s-300s AD already in the region as well as inscriptions on artifacts from the 1st century BC, that are considered to have been "proto-Basque".
Holy pooo people way to not watch the video and get that its just a premise forbthe video not that hes saying all these languages are actually not European but "non Indo European languages spoken in Europe" isnt a catchy title
The name kartvelian comes from an ancient Georgian mythology, Kartlos was believed to be the father of all Georgians. The same way eastern Province of the Georgia is named Kartli (former Iberia)
It makes absolutely no sense to me that countries as far to the southeast as Armenia and Azerbaijan (south of the Caucasus) are considered by some to be partially or wholly European. It almost seems like a surrender of the concept of geographically objective boundaries.
your fallacy is your modern concept of what Europe is, or rather, western Europe. Armenia has been intertwined into Europe historically a lot longer than many western European nations have.
@@massey81 I understand the idea of historical ties, but couldn't you make the same argument for any other region that was conquered by Alexander the Great and subsequently Hellenized (Turkey, Lebanon, even Egypt)...? I don't see anyone arguing those are in Europe, aside from the bit of Turkey on the European side of the Bosporus - indicating that the distinction is meant to be primarily geographic, not historical.
@LincolnDWard The deal is that both geography and culture are at play here. for example, the majority of people dont believe turkey and azerbaijan should be deemed a part of europe as they are seen as an invasive entity from very far away. Im one of those, however, i would be accepting of an anatolian nation that were the true heir of the byzantine empire as they would be more culturally linked with europe. also lets not forget that the armenia of today is vastly smaller than what it was in previous iterations (look up greater armenia for context). by that premise, if we remove turkey and azerbaijan we would have the roman empire, kingdom of armenia, goergian kingdoms and russian empire all linked as the eastern arm of europe. Also, the concept of a Europe came about by the greeks as if you truly look at it geographically, what is europe but the western half of asia which is a large peninsula?
@@massey81 Hm, not sure what to make of this. Western Europe can hardly be anything else but European as it is completely embedded within the geographical concept of Europe. Ancient Armenia was located south of the Caucasus (eastern Anatolia, later also Cilicia) and its history was more intertwined with that of the Middle East.
You're right about cross continental language if European Asia different country and they're not by definition of continent an age you are wanting continent plus Africa
This was another improvement in your videos, Patrick and although there are some here questioning your characterisation of the languages covered as not 'European', generally I can see where you're coming from. It came as a surprise to me when you said that Azerbaijan was only partly in Europe, when I think of it as entirely therein.
Aryan is a term specifically used by the Indo-Iranian half of the family whilst the other half is referred to as Yamnaya, Corded Ware, bell breaker etc
Indo-European languages => Originated in modern day Ukraine and Western Russia Kartvelian languages => Originated in the Caucasus mountains Northeast Caucasian languages => Originated in the Caucasus mountains Northwest Caucasian languages => Originated in the Caucasus mountains Basque => Originated in the Iberian peninsula Uralic languages => Likely originated east of the Ural Mountains in Northern Asia Turkic languages => Originated in modern day Mongolia Afroasiatic languages => Likely originated in the Levant
Change the "Leave a super thanks" video from "Americans Shouldn’t Be Called American" to "How did the Countries of South America Get Their Names?" at the timestamp 9:36.
i find that there is no point in bringing up turkish as turkey and turkish people and seen as Europeans. sure on the map they are included as "europe" but that doesn't mean they are European. ask any europien person and they will say they arent. not because we dislike them or anything but rather because their culture is not alike ours and thus they are not one of us
Intentions were great, but even the name of the video is misleading and offensive. If these languages are spoken in Europe, then they are European. Indo-European languages are named Indo-European becasue their speakers now live in India and Europe. So what is the difference then? Just because these language families dont have "Europe" in their name does not mean they are any less European. Please dont gatekeep being European from cultures and languages which have been spoken in Europe for hundreds of years.
Modern youtube "educational helpful" content as it finest. According to which criteria languages are devided into European and non-European, if most of these linguistic families existed in both Europe and Asia for hundreds of years. All theories about proto-languages and their homelands are just theories and speculations. If we go by what actually is historically recorded, we see that earliest Indo-European language was attested in Asia Minor. On other hand, no Finnic language was recorded in Asia, all of them be it Estonian, Udmurt, Erzya or Sami were speaken in Europe (georgraphically) at least within last several millenias.
technically small parts of georgia are north of the drainage divide line of the caucasus mountains. one example is the town of Stepantsminda and the surrounding areas.
I always wondered how did Hungarians end up having the same genes as their Indo-European neighbors while their language trace's it's ancestry from the Urals
Genetical research showed supricing results. They found neolitic European dna acent uralic area. Results showed that DNA went there about 5000 years ago.
That's because when the Hungarians migrated back to Europe, the people living here not only spoke similar languages, but were genetically similar also; Avars, Schytians, ect. The Uralic language was present in Europe by at least 1 ethnic group that we know of; the Sami an indigenous European ethnic group who also speak a Uralic language.
Well, Europe's part of Asia so... Putting that aside, to put is simply, conquest mixed with other peoples ability to defend themselves, combined with the attitude of the attacker (do you want to occupy the lands? Do you want to slowly convert the people you've conquered into yours? Or do you want to kill them instead?), geography (Europe's smaller), and most importantly: purely just random luck, made it so that Europe doesn't really enjoy greater diversity regarding (meta-)language families (there's still a lot of families, but most of them just fall under the IE branch)
BULGARIAN CIVILIZATION 1ST and EUROPE VINCI TRACIAN BULGARIAN CIVILIZATION
9 місяців тому
Cyprus isn't in Europe. If Indo-European originated south of the Caucasus rather than north of it it also isn't from Europe. Basque is the only language left in western Europe from the original European languages from before Indo-European spread. Maltese is Arabic with lots of Italian and other words. You accidently called it Indo-European in the end. You mentioned the Kartvelian family which is mostly south of the Caucasus and therefor not in Europe but didn't mention the Pontic (or Northwest Caucasian) and Caspian (Northeast Caucasian) families that are north of the Caucasus and are in Europe. It's tricky to say that migration make languages spread. It's usually very little migration of some elite that and mostly the local population that shifts to their language
Any language that originated geographically in Europe is European by definition. Period. That also means that Turkish isn't a european language as it's origin predates the Turkish conquest of the Balkans.
Hungary has a Uralic language because them Huns, Atilla etc. The Huns had a huge spread, they attacked into India in the 6th century ("Sveta Huns" or White Huns), and mixed their DNA into Rajasthan.
Holy hejus!!! It's a long long time Google put something something so logigacally rotten on my "feed" You, Sir, are very challenged, yet you try! good for you! Indo-European has word european it it, yes, you can read, good for your. However, unfortunately, it does not mean that languages are more european than others. Jeesus krist. You literally in following sentence, your self. Describe how that language family was expanding from ASIA. those languages literally came along with middle-eastern immigrants. Middle east is not in Europe, you dingus As far as I know Finnish is still tracked more or less somewhere along Volga, which actually is in Europe. No one knows about Basks, so European as far as anyone can tell, as well. And so on...
Also dude, you did "research" on it!!! Lolo. Kiddo, adults, call thar READING. research actually produceses some new information, knowlodge etc. And onestly you just watched some youtube videos, that you robbed. Now did you not! Where's the button, never show channel again, + dislike. There you go...
Do you speak any of these non-European European languages?
havent watched yet but have you mentioned Romani? i am gypsy and have some knowledge of the language, although very limited
oh nevermind you mean Indo-European, not originating from Europe. i am dumb
Yes, I am a native Turkish speaker.
Bakalım biliyor musun hiç?
I'm a native Finnish speaker.
@@Roope00 I'm a native Finnish speaker too. Torilla tavataan! :)
Not to forget Kalmyk, a Mongolic language spoken in the Western coast of the Caspian Sea
There's also two families in the Caucasus besides Kartvelian, creatively named Northeast Caucasian and Northwest Caucasian. These families include Chechen and Abkhaz, respectively.
Kalmyk, interesting.
Its also interesting that the turkic kumyks and mongolic kalmyks have similar names.
I like that there’s an actual republic in Russia called Kalmykia
Basque is also traditionally spoken in parts of south-western France (not just in Spain as mentioned in the video).
Basque is a Language Isolate.
Where outside of the circum Pyrenees area?
Also it's surprisingly similar to Hungarian (Kannada too, the name Indo-European language family makes no sense when a non IE language is more similar than it is)if you check a lot of basic words and word structure.
Sentence structure-wise it's probably different from any other language though.
@@thefrench8847 Plenty of those i.e. Korean but most in europe are extinct i.e. Etruscan and they lived in Italy before being exterminated by the romans
@@gabork5055Basque language has no relation with Hungarian language, although neither are Indo-European. Hungarian is an Uralic language. Basque language is a remnant of the paleolithic Europe before from time before the arrival of Uralic and IE languages into the continent.
I literally screamed when you mentioned Sana (Cypriot Arabic), it's crazy to see ppl even be aware of it, let alone mention it
I think the premise is a bit weird. Indoeuropean most likely originated within what we consider modern Europe (Black Sea steppe), but so did Uralic and, considering there's no evidence against it, Basque. The former is just considered the default due to its huge dominance. So the only ones that are actually "Imports" from further away are Arab/Maltese (Arabia) and any Turkic languages (Central Asia).
He's not saying these languages are necessarily imports; he's just saying they're not in the European language subfamily (within the broader Indo-European family)
Even the Turkish languages are originated from europe... Mainly, just like the Uralic speakers, they where here before IE peoples arrived from Anatolia, and push them to east. They are later just came back.
Also that one Mongolic language in the European part of Russia (Kalmyk).
@@xerxen100 got a source for that claim?
@@Idkpleasejustletmechangeit Etrusceans, Minoans, Hatti peoples. They were both speaked West ugric languages. Turkish speakers came from the ugrics mixed with Mongols.
I’m happy to see so many people saying that it is nonsense to say those European languages are not European just because they aren’t Indo-European.
Its a very poor statement to make, yes. I suspect its deliberately controversial to generate views
No he is right, Uralic and Turkic are not European
@@Gucom290 What do you mean by “not European”?
@@robinharwood5044 It Doesn't Have Origines from Europe, Both come from Asia
@@Gucom290 so you class them by their origins? Indo-European languages are thought to have originated in some region around the Caspian Sea. If you count that as Europe, then Sanskrit, Hindi, and Punjabi are all European languages. If you don’t count it as Europe, then Swedish and Spanish are not European languages.
Why not take the sensible approach and class them by where they are rather than where they come from?
All those languages developed and are spoken natively in Europe and thus European.
You confuse Indo-European with European and IE languages are spoken natively in Asia as well.
European is a subfamily of Indo-European (the other being Indo-Iranian)
@@LincolnDWard No, I mean maybe the branches of Europe descend from western dialects of proto-Indo-European which to various degrees influenced each other, the language family is not divided into a European super branch, the branches spoken in Europe like Germanic are treated like their own independent branches.
At best some theories group Italic and Celtic into a Italo-Celtic group arguing that the two branches had a more recent common ancestor than Proto-Indo-European.
he used "european" as a simplification, he explained it in the beginning of the video
Indo-European languages aren't natively European. The only single still living native European language is Basque.
Yeah, but even the basque speakers had to come from somewhere. People don't just grow out of the ground, so asking where a language is native to is kind of a bad question...
@@lotgc
So by that logic all languages are natively African as we humans originate from Africa.
@@modmaker7617 sure, but on the other hand you can also say that all the descendants of Indo-European are equally as native to Europe as basque because they did not come from outside of Europe. English is from England, Spanish from Spain, and so on, but the child is not their ancestor. You see what I mean? It's a poor question
What about Albanian?
Indo European languages are native to Europe just as old European languages.
Simply because Indo European languages originated north of Black sea, north of Caucasus, in today's southern Russia and mainly west of the Urals....
It's called the Pontic-caspian steppe.
Hence they litteraly are native to Europe, just not all of Europe.
In an essence Basque is native to western Europe whilst Indo-European languages were native to eastern Europe.
They started to dominate Europe around 2000-3000 years ago and they also managed to migrate towards India and middle east.
Hence why Anatolia had largely Indo European speakers, as well as much of north and north western middle east including Persia and north-western India.
The early Indo Europeans simply expanded the same way how Uralics, Mongolians, Turkic people and later Semetic people expanded through flatter open trains into and around middle east.
How isnt for example finnish "not european" language if it has been in europe before "indo-europeans"
Because europe doesn't exist as something physical it comes from the indo European languages therefore finnish isnt europe. Europe refers to the cultural region of Eurasia
Uralic doesn't have European Origins
No is it not from Siberia or by the ural mountains
@@Gucom290 wrong. Uralic languages are all stem from Europe.
You are right. It is a European language. Along with the Sami, Hungaria, and Estonian. Uralic languages originated at the Western Side of the Ural Mountain, and that is still Europe. Fennoscandinavia was populated by Uralic speakers first, but then they later got assimilated. Only the Sami, Finn, and Estonian survives today. This is according to current research.
Hungarian, Estonian, Finnish and other Uralic languages are all European languages, as the overwhelming majority of linguists and archeologists place the birthplace of the languages west of the Ural mountains, in Eastern Europe.
That makes these languages technically paleo-european languages just like basque.
But everybody seems to forget about this.
Just sayin.
Also, add to this list the Sami, a native group indigenous to European that still speak their original Uralic language.
You forgot the 2 million Hungarian speakers in what today is west central Romania.....And also in S. Slovakia, N. Serbia and W. Ukraine
Have fun with the research on the "how Uralic Languages Ended up in Europe" video. Im Hungarian myself and not even we can come to an agreement on where we come from and how we got here. Linguistically its very complicated. And it leaves people making wild guesses as to the origins of and migration route of Hungarians.
For example, in the modern standardized Hungarian language, we definitely have "relative" words with Germanic, Slavic, Turkic, Latin, and Persian languages. But in what order we picked them up and when is heavily debated. Some will say we are actually a persian language originally, while others will say we are a long lost Indo European branch. I suggest you do your own research and be weary of people who write about the subject for political reasons.
However, from doing my own research, I have reached my own vague conclusion:
1. The Proto Uralic people who's branch would eventually become the Hungarians lived in central/northern Siberia and are likely the relatives or originators of the Saami, Khanti, Innuit, Native Americans, etc. Possibly the Mongol, Korean, and Turkic people as well but its all very vague and fuzzy that far back in time.
2. Eventually during the Indo European migrations to India, the migrators must have had some form of connection or contact with these "proto uralic" people. As many of the most archaic terms for horse husbandry and nomadic life originate from Eastern Proto Indo European. And it is likely that here some Proto Uralics must have adopted the lifestyle where others didn't. Becoming distinct people over time. Enter the Proto Ugrics.
3. Next in our linguistic history, we have words for numbers (like hundred and thousand) as well as various agricultural terms including beer, being of Persian origin. How these fit into the story is anyone's guess but due to a few myths and legends of Hungarians being connected to Persia, I believe that at some point the Proto Ugrics must have migrated down into Persia. Where they must have stayed for a considerable amount of time.
4. Next we have Turkic and Slavic words appearing in our language. More modern words for more modern items. It is likely that this is when the Proto Ugrics, who may have branched into just the Magyar tribe, appeared in south western Siberia. And mixed heavily with the various Turkic tribes of the area.
5. Finally we reach recorded history and know that a coalition of 7 tribes led by the Magyar chief Almos (and later his son Arpad) migrated into Ukraine and finally into the Carpathian basin where Hungary exists today. What is not for certain is the background of the many tribes. It is likely that they were some mixture of Ugric, Turkic, and possibly Persian or Mongolic tribes. And the impact they had on the modern Hungarian language as a result is hard to quantify as a result.
6. German and Latin words for the most modern terms appear. And there is no question that Catholicism as well as the very close relationship the Kingdom of Hungary had with Austria and the HRE had a large impact on this.
I hope you find this information useful, and I encourage you do a considerable amount of research and be careful of your sources. I wish I could list my own sources but I constructed this theory from years of sporadic research. Though if Im right your own research will confirm my understanding. If not, well then Im sorry for wasting time.
What are you doing here? You try to adapt the history of the Hungarians with the Indo-European languages, your hypotheses based on Hungarian legends, making them less credible by putting non-Indo-European languages as the basis of their formation. The Albanians, with the proximity of their language to the Etruscans, seem to me more credible than the Ugric and Turkic Basques.
😗
@@CocoSon-zj5ojread the last 3 lines and don't discourage the man, even though going from Siberia to Persia for no goddamn reason is a big ahh plot twist ngl
ur hypothesis is not wrong... ive been thinking the same... i go even further,and claim,that in europe once the uralic altaic languages were dominant,all having a protoorigin including chuvash and etruscan...the history of languages starts in the urals,altays,7000 years ago,and goes further to sumerian,mezopotamia 2000 years later...indo european languages formed later,and suppressed our regions... my newest theory😂
@@nukhetyavuz Its a really cool idea and I would like it to be true I just dont know of any evidence that could confirm or deny it :(
I believe that among non-IE languages Uralic is the closest related
You forgot to mention that the Caucasus gave origin to not only one, but three completely independent language families: South Caucasian aka Kartvelian, Northwest Caucasian aka Abkhazo-Adyghean and Northeast Caucasian aka Nakh-Dagestanian. The latter of the three is by far the largest of them in number of languages and includes for example Chechen. Oh yeah, and then there's Kalmyk, a Mongolic language spoken in European Russian Kalmykia
Yeah, he forgot the Northwest Caucasian and Northeast Caucasian families, which are spoken in areas that are definitely within Europe.
Those are still by all means European languages (apart from Kalmyk). The guy who made this thinks that Indo-European languages are somehow more European than the rest, and that those two words mean the same thing. In what sense is Sinhalese "European" as opposed to Basque?
@@danieliassenfgh618 I think by European he means Indo-European
@@brillitheworldbuilder I'm guessing that too, but then he should have said "indo-european", cuz those are two very different things.
Stalin🇬🇪😂😂😂
7:50 Basque is also in France, not only in Spain. But I still enjoyed this video
The French government doesn't recognise it and it will probably soon die due to lack of use in France anyway.
What happens is that France finds it difficult to recognize Basque as a regional language, something that does not happen in Spain, where it is official in its autonomous community
LOL, beat me to post this by 9 hours!
@@Panambipyhare France is one of the few European countries that keeps not recognizing their population other languages. Both French Basque and Occitan have zero support from France as a country. It's sad this situation, and if it keeps going, we may lose an entire language a few dialects of another language in the long term
@@ericshimizukarbstein6885i feel like for the common good this was a better thing to do
I would have liked to hear mention of Kalmyk, a Mongolic language spoken in the Kalmykia republic of Russia, north of the Caucuses.
The premise that Indo-European languages are somehow inherently more European than the languages mentioned here is just completely false. They have originated much farther away from Europe than say, Finnish for example. The only reason they are considered more European is that the majority of the continent speaks one of them as their native tongue. And the majority always seems to be right.
Came here to say this. These languages are European, because their native speakers are Europeans. They’re just not INDO-European.
Well, I'm not saying this makes any language more or less European but the Proto-Indo-european language was quite literally spoken in Europe, north of the Black and Caspian seas and between them. At least this is the most widely agreed upon theory. All of this while the Uralic languages can most likely be traced much further away in a much shorter timeframe.
(A modern view places Oroto-Uralic east of the ural mountains with the spread of its western branches to europe after 2000 bc.)
@@netsong2239 Well, Basque and Georgian also developed in Europe
@@netsong2239You're right bud, but you're about to trigger the zealots that try claiming """""P.I.E""""" was spread from Anatolia or India. There's a lot of them on UA-cam, and they're not good at debating without ad hominem and strawman.
@@anowarjibbaliyeah, it refers more to Turkic and Uralic languages. Basque and Georgian are natively European. In fact they're more native to their local region than the European languages surrounding them. Spanish came from the Italian peninsula. Spanish does trace it's origins north of the black sea, in Europe, so still European, but locally, the Basques are the natives and the Spanish are the migrants. But I mean they've been there for more than 2000 years. You can't scoff at that and you can't tell them to what? Go back to Rome? Go back to the black sea?
The Sami and Baltic-Finnic branches are the edge of what was once a vast language family
Hungarian on the other hand belongs to an entirely different group that migrated all the way from the Ural Mountains, and were culturally very different from other Finnic-Uralic peoples and followed a form of shamanism similar to Turkic-Mongolian peoples and other horse nomads rather than the Finnish gods
Weeell, partially true. Finnic tribes didn't really have gods either before Scandinavian, European etc. influence. It was to a great degree an animistic and also probably shamanistic religious/spiritual belief system. Instead of Gods they believed in ancestral spirits and spirits that inhabit all living beings and even non-living things. Certain spirits later grew to sort of larger protective spirits and then gods of forest or the waters etc.
There's a modern similarity to for instance Japanese spiritual beliefs (which imo partially explains the mutual interest of the people to eachothers culture).
I don't think there is any common agreement whether there was a larger (finno-)ugric language area in Europe or if it was more of a long migration from the Uralic region. The latter is the commonly accepted theory though.
This video ofcourse didn't mention the other very small finno-baltic or finno-ugric language pockets close to Finland and Estonia's borders and in Russia. Especially under the Russian and Soviet rule these have suffered greatly and many disappeared completely. Russian is also an Indo-European language that took over the modern area of Russia. So don't know about _Europe_, but in the areas of modern day Russia Ugric, Siperian etc. languages were certainly the main languages before "russification".
Hungarians and the Magyar language is very interesting and complicated for sure.
The people moved around and were bounced around a lot in the midst of a lot of fighting powers. The modern situation is that the people are no longer genetically Uralic but exactly like the other people around them, but they are culturally distinctive and the language survived.
@@Pippis78 Scandinavian influence on the Baltic Finnic belief systems and mythos is rather Baltic influence, which just so happens to be similar in many ways to their Scandinavian counterparts. Also the oldest deitic influences probably date to the Indo-Iranian contact. Certain motifs and deities with very similar functions that predate the Germanic and Baltic influences exist from the Baltic sea to the Volga region and beyond, one of them being "jumala", literally the Christian God when written as "Jumala" and then just any god as "jumala". This deity is believed to have been a general sky god, which explains why it specifically went on to be adopted as the name for the Christian God. "Jumala" also has counterparts among the Mordvins and Mari as "Jumishipas" and "Jumo" along with proposed connection to Mordvinic word for lightning "jondol". The word "ilma" now meaning "air" in Finnish (from which Ilmarinen comes from) and it's counterparts in many other Uralic languages going far east to the Urals also point to an old sky deity. Some also might think the deity Turso/Turrisas/Taara/Taarapita/Tiirmes found among Baltic Finns and the Sami is a borrowing from the Germanic Thor, but similarly named deities are also found among the Khanty and even Samoyeds. Although the similarities to Thor and even Odin are likely influence, the deities themselves are not and they are unlikely to be simply forms of "Thor".
bro the Uralic languages and Caucasus languages and Basque are European. this is like saying Japanese is not an Asian because its an isolate or of jul'hoan is not a real African language because its not bantu. i think every language that originated in Europe is European .
Basque is the only truly european language, it exists and existed way before indo-europeans,uralics and so on
Not really. The Sami is an indigenous European ethnic group and speak a Uralic language. So Uralic has been present in Europe.
@TheCatsMeoooow its present, not prior or more indigenous than the iberians, basques and so on
All of those languages did influence some Indo European Languages and recieved influence from Indo European languages, good example being Turkish
How did Hungarian get so isolated? Magyars. Finnish and estonians went north, Magyars went south.
Or Finnish went north, Magyars dont went to anywhere, just stayed in their place.
The Uralic languages started spreading from the Ural region both west and east. The ancestors of Finns, Estonians etc. eventually reached the eastern Baltic roughly between 2000 to 1000 BC depending on who is talking. While this was all happening, the ancestors of Hungarians largely remained in the east around the mid to southern Urals until around 800 BC, when they started migrating south and started picking up more influences from steppe groups like the Scythians. Hungarians remained northeast of the Caspian sea for some time until migrating further west between the Black and Caspian sea around the 400s AD. Then from there they migrated northwest of the Black Sea and into the Carpathian Basin between the 600s and 800s AD. Hungarians had a completely separate migration and one which saw them enter into their current area much later than the Finns and Estonians. The separation of the ancestors of Finns, Estonians and others in the Baltic region and those of Hungarians is roughly 5000 years old.
@@jokemon9547 Those theories already debunked by the DNA researches. Even the 1700 year old Hungarian samples were insignificant Uralic DNA. They connected to Bactria. They are themselves the Schythians.
@@xerxen100That's what the Hungarian-like words in the Tartaria Tablets would suggest.
Or maybe the population that used to live here spoke a language very similar to Sanskrit which also 'coincidentally' used to share words with 'Finno-Ugric'.
ua-cam.com/video/jWi1vgG8-sI/v-deo.html
Yiddish & Ladino feel worth a mention because they're technically Germanic and Romance respectively, but they're creolized with a Semitic language (Hebrew), so they have grammar structures you wouldn't generally associate with German or Spanish, and are written in Hebrew script
Writing systems and loanwords don't make a language.
Yiddish is a Germanic language that has Afro Asiatic loanwords. German, English and Dutch also have plenty of Afro Asiatic/Hamito-Semitic words.
The video was about languages in Europe that aren't Indo-European. Otherwise you could say Indonesian and Vietnamese are worth mentioning because they use the Roman alphabet and have a lot of IE loanwords.
Yiddish and Ladino are European geographically and IE.
Language family ≠ writing system
After all, English has plenty of Romance features despite being Germanic
As a speaker of Spanish and learner of Yiddish, the grammar of Ladino is slightly different, but not too much that I as a Spanish speaker wouldn't expect and it does not hinder intelligibility. The main thing that would trip up a native Spanish speaker is the use of loanwords in Ladino, which I'm ok with the Hebrew ones since I already speak Hebrew as well and am learning some Arabic and Greek, but I'll have trouble with Turkish and Slavic loans loans. Yiddish grammar is also not too different from German and the differences are not too unexpected. I've spoken Yiddish with German speakers and we communicated just fine. The main issue was again the loanwords. Germans obviously won't understand many of the Hebrew and Slavic loans. However, the grammatical structures of both Ladino and Yiddish are undoubtedly Indo-European (Romance and Germanic respectively), even if sometimes the words may come from elsewhere. That would be like trying to say Persian is not Indo-European because it uses the Arabic script (at least for Farsi and Dari) and has many Arabic loanwords and influences
What do you mean non-European? Maybe you meant non-Indo-European. Hungarian for instance has been always European, it was form in Europe and Hungarians never lived outside of Europe.
Fact, Basque is the only European language the others can go back to ; the Manych plain (IE), Arabian desert (Maltese), Ural & Altai mountains (Uralic & Turkic)
What do you mean "the others can go back to"?
He's mean others are coming from outside europe but basque is originally europe but does'nt have any similarity other european languages @@laser8389
@@laser8389 He either means some wack theory about "basque is the ancestor of all languages!!!!," or, more likely (I hope) that it's the only language that predates the other mentioned (only by name, old-old-basque of that time is VASTLY different to modern basque)
@@aarpftsz I had to read it twice, but I think he is saying that Basque is the only native european language and all the others can go back to wherever they came from.
@@003mohamudi also think thats what he wanted to say and i find it insanely amusing that he believes Basque has the right to own all of europe even though its possible that neolithic europe had dozens of languanges and that proto-basque was just one of them.
Not to mention that most experts agree that PIE originated somewhere in Russo-Ukrainian border which would make it european in origin (same case for the Finnic Languages)
Whenever i see Turkey and Europe mentioned in the same sentence, some people jump into it, saying "Turkey isn't Europe. Turks aren't Europeans." etc.
I get it, their president is awful. But could you please stop the negativity?
Unlike a lot of people out there, I don't see any offensive in "non-European". My second foreign language is Japanese, it's very obviously not European, and I love it. If somebody says "But it's not European!", I just shrug it off.
But Turkey has never been a European country - either geographically or culturally. It is an integral part of the Islamic civilisation. It is no more European than Egypt or Iran.
I believe that Russia or Greece are not European either. Our culture is based on Orthodox Christianity which is fundamentally different from Roman Catholicism or Protestantism. Turkey, of course, even less European. But we shouldn't develop an inferiority complex about that. We are what we are and we should be happy with that. Europeans are merely human, just like everyone else. Let us not.worship them like some pagan gods.
The turks aren’t European they are asian😂
There is a theory that Uralic languages are related to indo-european. Wetti being water in proto uralic vs something like woder in in proto-indo-european has both a w sound and a sound like t or d which is only differenced by voicing in the same areas as each other in the word bacically.
what about Kalmyk, a mongolic language spoken in Russian europe near Kazakhstan?
In various parts of the world-uh
Indo-European languages are prevalent in Europe and parts of Asia.
Non indo-european languages spoken in Europe also belong to european continent and culture.
Calling only indo-european languages european is uneducated.
Basque, georgian, estonian, hungarian, maltese, finnish, gagauz, tatar, nenet, sami and others... are not indo-european languages but are languages primarely spoken on european continent and claiming they are not european is downright offensive.
The video is actually about non indo-european languages spoken in Europe but it's done poorly.
In short, it is hard to think of any other ethnolinguistic entity in history that conquered so vast a territory and founded so many empires and states, also contributing to world civilizations. The history of the Turkic peoples was an important factor in world history for more than a millennium until the emergence of Europe as the world's dominant power. What happened in the Turkic world often affected the history of China, Central Asia, the Middle East, South Asia, and Europe. One may also argue that world history began with the "Turko-Mongol" empire created by Chinggis Khan. In the contemporary world, Turkic-speaking nations form six states (Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Uzbekistan, Turkmenistan, Azerbaijan, and Turkey/Türkiye) and several "autonomous" units in Russia (the republics of Chuvash, Tatarstan, Bashkortostan, Altai, Khakassia, Tuva, and Sakha) and China (the Xinjiang Uyghur Autonomous Region). Turkic peoples also reside as minority groups in several other countries, including Mongolia and Iran, among others. It would therefore be difficult to acquire a comprehensive understanding of world history as well as our present world without studying the history of the Turkic peoples.
turkey is arab
You could probably also count Ashkenazi Hebrew; though technically a dialect of Hebrew, it has a substantial presence in Europe.
Also There are Northeastern Caucasian (or Nakh-Dagestani or North Caspian) and Northwestern Caucasian (or Abkhazo-Circassian or North Pontic) language families are spoken in Norhern Caucasia the European part of Russia.
>European Languages That Aren't European
Basque is literally the oldest language in Europe. And Uralic languages are as native to europe as indoeuropean.
To conflate traditionally european languages like basque and finnish with turkish is either misleading or downright dumb.
IE is only the largest by number of speakers-there are 3 other language families, being atlantic-congo, austronesian, and sino-tibetan that all have more languages in them
Majority of currently living Uralic speakers inhabit Europe. The majorities in Asian countries speak languages from entirely different language families.
The Uralic languages originated to the west from Urals making its origin place European no matter how one looks at it.
As warriors, the Huns inspired almost unparalleled fear throughout Europe. They were amazingly accurate mounted archers, and their complete command of horsemanship, their ferocious charges and unpredictable retreats, and the speed of their strategical movements brought them overwhelming victories.
For half a century after the overthrow of the Visigoths, the Huns extended their power over many of the Germanic peoples of central Europe and fought for the Romans. By 432 the leadership of the various groups of Huns had been centralized under a single king, Rua, or Rugila. When Rua died in 434 he was succeeded by his two nephews, Bleda and Attila. The joint rulers negotiated a peace treaty at Margus (now Požarevac, Serbia) with the Eastern Roman Empire, by which the Romans agreed to double the subsidies they had been paying the Huns. The Romans apparently did not pay the sums stipulated in the treaty, and in 441 Attila launched a heavy assault on the Roman Danubian frontier, advancing almost to Constantinople.
(BRITANNICA)
You should do a video on all the Indo European languages that are not native to Europe like Haitian, Afrikaans and the Indo-Iranian languages.
I consider Afrikaans to be a native Language of the western cape, while Haitian (a french creole) to be a lingua franca whilst the native language of the island is Taino
Azerbaijani is. basically the same language as Turkish with some differences in dialect .
Not really , Azerbaijani is mostly influenced by Persian while Turkish is under influence of Greek,Arabic and French
The two are mutually intelligible and. Azerbaijanis always say they speak Turkish ,not Azerbaijani . @@e.v3832
@@e.v3832 They not influenced by Persian, they are Persians, who heavily influenced by Turkish :)
You have not mentioned Chuvash - the most original Turkic language. It spoken mostly on the Volga.
Respect from Georgia 💝
The country or the state in usa?
Indo Uralic could be an ancestor of proto Indo European and proto Uralic languages
At 8:30 ish, you claimed that Maltese was PIE.
Maltese is based on Arabic
@@soupdragon151The whole video is non-PIE European languages.
Maltese reflects the history of the islands - bonju (French) aijruplan, skola, universita', familja, kompjuter, president, politikant, avukat, kumpanija, student, klassi, sptar... plus hundreds of more words that come from French, Italian, Spanish, Catalan and English besides of course Aramaic and Arabic
Recently, they discovered that the closest modern spoken language to basque si Armenian, so probably basque came to the Iberian peninsula during the migration era, just after Rome fell
Its very unlikely. Maybe the Huns settled them there, just like the Portugeese peoples.
Basque is older than proto latin, question is if armenian, georgian and basque originated in their current lands or if they came from another group lost to us after the indo european came and only the most mountanious survived, also pre roman iberia had much more pre indoeuropean peoples but at the time the celts where pushing them back, also iberians had similar ways to call numbers as basques which is another theiry that basques are the remaining iberians
How does that make sense when Aquitanian, considered ancestral to Basque, has writings dated to the 100s-300s AD already in the region as well as inscriptions on artifacts from the 1st century BC, that are considered to have been "proto-Basque".
I've made a mistake, basque was there before the romans
Turkey ok some small territory in the european continent if you may include it to Europe but Georgia in europe?🤔
Holy pooo people way to not watch the video and get that its just a premise forbthe video not that hes saying all these languages are actually not European but "non Indo European languages spoken in Europe" isnt a catchy title
The name kartvelian comes from an ancient Georgian mythology, Kartlos was believed to be the father of all Georgians. The same way eastern Province of the Georgia is named Kartli (former Iberia)
It makes absolutely no sense to me that countries as far to the southeast as Armenia and Azerbaijan (south of the Caucasus) are considered by some to be partially or wholly European. It almost seems like a surrender of the concept of geographically objective boundaries.
your fallacy is your modern concept of what Europe is, or rather, western Europe. Armenia has been intertwined into Europe historically a lot longer than many western European nations have.
@@massey81 I understand the idea of historical ties, but couldn't you make the same argument for any other region that was conquered by Alexander the Great and subsequently Hellenized (Turkey, Lebanon, even Egypt)...? I don't see anyone arguing those are in Europe, aside from the bit of Turkey on the European side of the Bosporus - indicating that the distinction is meant to be primarily geographic, not historical.
@LincolnDWard The deal is that both geography and culture are at play here. for example, the majority of people dont believe turkey and azerbaijan should be deemed a part of europe as they are seen as an invasive entity from very far away. Im one of those, however, i would be accepting of an anatolian nation that were the true heir of the byzantine empire as they would be more culturally linked with europe.
also lets not forget that the armenia of today is vastly smaller than what it was in previous iterations (look up greater armenia for context). by that premise, if we remove turkey and azerbaijan we would have the roman empire, kingdom of armenia, goergian kingdoms and russian empire all linked as the eastern arm of europe.
Also, the concept of a Europe came about by the greeks as if you truly look at it geographically, what is europe but the western half of asia which is a large peninsula?
@@massey81 Hm, not sure what to make of this. Western Europe can hardly be anything else but European as it is completely embedded within the geographical concept of Europe. Ancient Armenia was located south of the Caucasus (eastern Anatolia, later also Cilicia) and its history was more intertwined with that of the Middle East.
Okay , Turkey has a little piece in Europe, but Georgia, is definitly not in Europe, but in Asia.
Uralic languages originated in Europe whereas Indo-European languages originated in Asia...
You're right about cross continental language if European Asia different country and they're not by definition of continent an age you are wanting continent plus Africa
This was another improvement in your videos, Patrick and although there are some here questioning your characterisation of the languages covered as not 'European', generally I can see where you're coming from. It came as a surprise to me when you said that Azerbaijan was only partly in Europe, when I think of it as entirely therein.
Fun fact. The Sami is an indigenous European ethnic group and speak a Uralic language. So Uralic has been present in Europe.
Great Aryan race spreaded indo european language in Europe.
Aryan is a term specifically used by the Indo-Iranian half of the family whilst the other half is referred to as Yamnaya, Corded Ware, bell breaker etc
@@davidmccarroll2280 be thankful to Aryans .They civiled your Neolithic european farmers
The only actual Aryans in Europe are Gypsies. Ironically, they're also the most disliked and discriminated ethnic group in Europe.
Aryan in finnish means slave
@@dio8628 cry 🤪🤪
Basque is spoken natively in France also.
0:35 Whole of India or even whole of North India is not hindi, only a large part of Northern India is.
6:29 That Proto-Turkic speech bubble seems to be coming from Manchuria rather than modern day Mongolia
Indo-European languages => Originated in modern day Ukraine and Western Russia
Kartvelian languages => Originated in the Caucasus mountains
Northeast Caucasian languages => Originated in the Caucasus mountains
Northwest Caucasian languages => Originated in the Caucasus mountains
Basque => Originated in the Iberian peninsula
Uralic languages => Likely originated east of the Ural Mountains in Northern Asia
Turkic languages => Originated in modern day Mongolia
Afroasiatic languages => Likely originated in the Levant
Just 1 correction. Uralic languages originated West of the Ural mountains.
1:33 Good to know that Hungarian is spoken in Bulgaria and Estonian is spoken in Russia.
Change the "Leave a super thanks" video from "Americans Shouldn’t Be Called American" to "How did the Countries of South America Get Their Names?" at the timestamp 9:36.
Is Cypress actually physically in Europe or actually Asia?!?!?!?
Cyprus is in europe...
It's an island so it definitely can
Would yiddish be considered another native European language?
Yes, it's descended from German...
yep, one of the only (if not the only) indo-european languages written with the hebrew script
Yes; though it uses a Semitic abjad script, it is descended from old High German, and is therefore an Indo-European Language of the Germanic branch.
its a creole
Every end of a word be like :
European Languages that aren't European.. Rrrrrrrrr
Finnish language is spoken much bigger area on Europe than Italian. Finnish is more European.
And yes. We are white.
i find that there is no point in bringing up turkish as turkey and turkish people and seen as Europeans. sure on the map they are included as "europe" but that doesn't mean they are European. ask any europien person and they will say they arent. not because we dislike them or anything but rather because their culture is not alike ours and thus they are not one of us
Turkey wasn't historically part of europe it was Asia Minor, "little asia"
Turks are part of Muslim Asia.
Man, the wording in this video is horrendous 😂😂😂😂😂 it's so bad that ut actually becomes misinformative
Pretty awful overall
Intentions were great, but even the name of the video is misleading and offensive. If these languages are spoken in Europe, then they are European. Indo-European languages are named Indo-European becasue their speakers now live in India and Europe. So what is the difference then? Just because these language families dont have "Europe" in their name does not mean they are any less European. Please dont gatekeep being European from cultures and languages which have been spoken in Europe for hundreds of years.
Agreed! But more like thousands of years, than hundreds.
Modern youtube "educational helpful" content as it finest. According to which criteria languages are devided into European and non-European, if most of these linguistic families existed in both Europe and Asia for hundreds of years.
All theories about proto-languages and their homelands are just theories and speculations. If we go by what actually is historically recorded, we see that earliest Indo-European language was attested in Asia Minor. On other hand, no Finnic language was recorded in Asia, all of them be it Estonian, Udmurt, Erzya or Sami were speaken in Europe (georgraphically) at least within last several millenias.
Buddy really thinks "Indo-European" is synonymous with "European"
Georgia is in Europe? That's news to me.
technically small parts of georgia are north of the drainage divide line of the caucasus mountains. one example is the town of Stepantsminda and the surrounding areas.
Is an Asian Country,like Armenia,Cyprus,Turkey Kazakhstan and Azerbaijan
They all want to be part of Europe. 😅
Latin didn’t migrate, it conquered, and then the various new languages arose when those regions were conquered by different barbarians
im sorry, i know this has no relevance. but what is drake doing as a Patrion member?
Great video!
Forgot dobrujan tatar😢
Tatar is a turkic language is it not?
@@soupdragon151 yes
I always wondered how did Hungarians end up having the same genes as their Indo-European neighbors while their language trace's it's ancestry from the Urals
Genetical research showed supricing results. They found neolitic European dna acent uralic area. Results showed that DNA went there about 5000 years ago.
That's because when the Hungarians migrated back to Europe, the people living here not only spoke similar languages, but were genetically similar also; Avars, Schytians, ect. The Uralic language was present in Europe by at least 1 ethnic group that we know of; the Sami an indigenous European ethnic group who also speak a Uralic language.
Suggestion: why are there more language families in asia than in europe?
Size more than anything
Well, Europe's part of Asia so... Putting that aside, to put is simply, conquest mixed with other peoples ability to defend themselves, combined with the attitude of the attacker (do you want to occupy the lands? Do you want to slowly convert the people you've conquered into yours? Or do you want to kill them instead?), geography (Europe's smaller), and most importantly: purely just random luck, made it so that Europe doesn't really enjoy greater diversity regarding (meta-)language families (there's still a lot of families, but most of them just fall under the IE branch)
Isn't that logical? Just look at the landmass and the population.
BULGARIAN CIVILIZATION 1ST and EUROPE
VINCI TRACIAN BULGARIAN CIVILIZATION
Cyprus isn't in Europe. If Indo-European originated south of the Caucasus rather than north of it it also isn't from Europe. Basque is the only language left in western Europe from the original European languages from before Indo-European spread. Maltese is Arabic with lots of Italian and other words. You accidently called it Indo-European in the end. You mentioned the Kartvelian family which is mostly south of the Caucasus and therefor not in Europe but didn't mention the Pontic (or Northwest Caucasian) and Caspian (Northeast Caucasian) families that are north of the Caucasus and are in Europe. It's tricky to say that migration make languages spread. It's usually very little migration of some elite that and mostly the local population that shifts to their language
>Cyprus isn't in Europe.
well that's a new one
Half the population speak greek, its name is from greek...
@@soupdragon151so
Also the Sami. Another indigenous group that speak an Uralic language.
Any language that originated geographically in Europe is European by definition. Period. That also means that Turkish isn't a european language as it's origin predates the Turkish conquest of the Balkans.
My friend Latin him never migrate to This Land Is come by Force
GEORGIA MENTIONED RAAAAAAAAAAHHHHHHHHHHHHHH
I speak a little Albanian 🙂
The sound you end nearly every sentence with are highly irritating to me.
@vpvnsf Supercool.
And what’s about Albanese???
What about yiddish
What about Finnish, Estonian, Basque etc.
There are some links between Basque and Georgian I've read
cyprus is not always considered europe
By who? Turks?
@@soupdragon151 wtf does that have to do with anything? When in doubt just insult Turks for no reason...
Hungary has a Uralic language because them Huns, Atilla etc. The Huns had a huge spread, they attacked into India in the 6th century ("Sveta Huns" or White Huns), and mixed their DNA into Rajasthan.
You forgot the Kalmyk people in European Russia, the Iranic languges in southern Russia by Azerbaijan
>Georgia
>European
Turkish, Hungarian and Georgian are better!
This just shows how Europe & Asia aren't continents
Cypris isn't in europa
Why do you speak like that eeee
Europe ends at France. Everything west of there is Asia :)
"Europe" is hellenic word, you dirty gaul xD
Like the Atlantic and the Americas.
I think you mean east...
Technically Indo-European also originates with migration of a people from the Eurasian Steppe.
Yeah, the Eurasian Steppe is really underrated.
Holy hejus!!! It's a long long time Google put something something so logigacally rotten on my "feed" You, Sir, are very challenged, yet you try! good for you! Indo-European has word european it it, yes, you can read, good for your. However, unfortunately, it does not mean that languages are more european than others. Jeesus krist. You literally in following sentence, your self. Describe how that language family was expanding from ASIA. those languages literally came along with middle-eastern immigrants. Middle east is not in Europe, you dingus As far as I know Finnish is still tracked more or less somewhere along Volga, which actually is in Europe. No one knows about Basks, so European as far as anyone can tell, as well. And so on...
Also dude, you did "research" on it!!! Lolo. Kiddo, adults, call thar READING. research actually produceses some new information, knowlodge etc. And onestly you just watched some youtube videos, that you robbed. Now did you not! Where's the button, never show channel again, + dislike. There you go...
BULGARIAN and Armenia
VOLGA BULGARIAN
DUNAV BULGARIAN
1ST BULGARIAN