The more you go into origin and reconstruction the deeper the way goes. Ancient Greek has khandáno (χανδάνω) for grabbing, cognate with hand. Great video, give more IPE material to the people🔥
Germanic Substrate Theory is one of those things I really want to be true deep down in my heart. Not because of Nationalist reasons as I'm not from Northern Europe and I don't particularly care about Germanic history, but because I just think it'd be really neat for the languages to have mysterious words from TRB/Funnelbeakers (who are one of my favorite neolithic cultures)
4:14 Well, if I recall correctly, a pretty recent study (Steppe Ancestry in western Eurasia and the spread of the Germanic Languages, 2024) points to a demographic shift in Scandinavia suggesting that the Germanic language may rather have come from a maritime route via the Baltics. The so-called "slash and burn" that Kristiansen is talking about (not so recent idea by him in fact) is referenced once again in a pretty recent talk he did in the indo-european conference held in Pisa, Italy. In it if I recall correctly, he said they arrived from Bohemia. These corded-ware people came up to Jylland, changing the forested landscape to a pastoral one, like how it is even to this day. But the genetic evidence may be contrary to the idea these people were germanic speakers. It seems that a group of perhaps indo-european speakers came up to southern scandinavia, but weren't necessarily germanic speakers, then were replaced by germanic speakers coming from eastern scandinavia (read Mälardalen). Don't take my word for it though, do your own research and draw your own conclusions.
Very informative video, cool. 10:10 What is meant be "archaic pre-germanic word forms"? You mean place names that were apparently formed in the pre-proto-Germanic era?
I have my own theory about how the Germanic languages emerged, The White Walker Theory. It suggests the White Walkers were influential in how the Germanic languages developed.
armenian has 8 seperate outcome of the stop series depending on dialects some maintain breathy sounds(identical to the manner produced in indic languages) they all have the same outcome for t* in addition t vs th may be realised ť vs th depending on the dialect unrelated the distribution of the stop outcomes th d dh karin, sabastia th t dh yerevan th d d istanbul th d t kharberd, middle armenian th d th malatya, soutwest armenian th t d classical armenian, agulis, southeast armenian th t t van artsakh copied from the chart on wikipedia, copied a language encyclopedia from the 70s ive read papers that its likely referencing though, they strangly refer to the breathy sound as "laryngeal" in their titaling so they can be hard to find
A strata means that two languages influence each other through close contact; substrate is when the local language disappears in favour of the invading language. (Superstrate is the other way around). So the theory is that Germanic resulted from a non-Indo European language (probably Uralic) being displaced by an Indo-European one, but with the "new" language being heavily influenced by the "old" one
the change to frictives in greek is very plausibly grafted from the aramaic six stop allophoney, since its attest in confused spelling earliest in the east in anatolia in the 2nd century bc, it also strangly applies no to the voicing or aspiration distinctions but to the not plain distinction which is very odd there are no attested africates as well given greek is a koine spoken by aramaic speakers its very plausibly a change by substitution not by gradation t ->þ is also an inately implosible change(at least by gradation) as it is necessarily produced as ts ->tsþ ->þ i would say that like koine greek this implies some amount substrate/adstrate influence actually consider this for sardian to with the change -ty/ky- -> -þ-, based on paleosardinian þ- and it conflating greek þ and ds in loans as depending on dialect þ,t,s,ts the same sound as the respect dialects outcome of þ- and -ty/ky-
UA-cam instantly converts words between en dashes into crossouts. Like asterisks bold them and underline italicises them. -dash- *star* _italic_ ~test~
In old English it is noted that the word cyning seems to alter over time the oldest references seem to point to 'of the people', rather than head of state. This in my view could reflect the incoming christian influence. Older forms reflecting heathen concepts of a cyning being the personification of the folk, as opposed to christian thoughts where the king was imposed from above (given by god/divine right of kings etc). one might think of stories like the fisher-king where the king is very much of the body of his folk.
@@newprimitiveart Germanic Kings were also not hereditary aristocrats but chosen by the various tribes from important families. For example Sweden did not adopt hereditary monarchy until Gustav Vasa
@@tidsdjupet-mr5ud You are very very right, the Romans noted the war leader was selected from but not exclusively from leading families. It is also worth in passing noting how many leaders fighting Rome from the north (both Celtic and Germanic), had names which just meant warleader, as though the Romans did not even know the name of the leader they were fighting against, or never even bothered to find out.
@@tidsdjupet-mr5ud Thank you I did not know that, it makes so much sense. I think the Germanic ancients had a regimental system, and operated within a confederacy of states which may have overlapped. Much like The holy Roman Empire. or lands given to Norman lords in England which were separate and not all in one part of the country. It makes no sense that one tribe would all be night fighters and another all horsemen if they were opposed to each other, as the time of day would dictate who won a battle. We are often told Germanic tribes migrated, but it is impossible to see how such a tribe could deploy to fight a Roman Army and Germanic people to have so many victories. However regiments and armies are often named after the place they were mustered, so although the army may have come from a place it does not follow it was just of folk of that place, that tribe. This fits with archeology that where sampled bodies from even 'Viking' army graves in England do not all come from one place. There is much to be said on this subject, was the migration period that or Amies come to take back old lands the Romans once conquered? In the Anglo-Saxon chronicle several of the leaders of the 'Great Heathen army' have Anglo-Saxon names. Yet modern telling would have us believe all of that army was Scandinavian and only about looting, so why was it not called army of Northmen, but the Great heathen army at the time? It is also worth looking at 'the great conspiracy' which attempted to throw Romans out of Britain. I think that there were other reasons for the war than just a wish for loot. I find a lot of prejudice which seeks to play down or dismiss the abilities and sophistication of our ancestors.
Some things to think about: · There is a close parallel to Verner's Law in the Finnic languages: Proto-Finnic *p, *t, *k, *s became *b, *d, *g, *h after a completely unstressed syllable (acting in suffixes, since Finnic languages have initial stress). Then again, voicing of unstressed consonants isn't super rare, so it could've happened independently in Germanic and Finnic. · Germanic languages tend to have a lot of geminate consonants, though many of them arose in the daughter languages. If one believes Kluge's Law, some Proto-Germanic nouns might have had a system of consonantgradation. Though it seems that Kluge's Law is quite controversial. · Paul Kiparsky believes that Proto-Norse words had primary stress on the first syllable of the root, and every odd-numbered syllable after that was secondarily stressed. This stress system would eventually give rise to the Scandinavian pitch-accent system (e.g.: *ˈwármiˌðṓ 'I warmed', *ˈskóriˌnáz 'carved', *ˈhírðiˌjáz 'shepherd' yield Swedish värmde, skuren, herde). He gives new evidence for this reconstruction in this lecture. ua-cam.com/video/sAxB8xG12U8/v-deo.html If his reconstruction be correct, it looks very similar to the Finnic stress system, with primary initial stress and secondary stress on odd syllables. Although in Finnic, final syllables don't get secondary stress, so not a perfect match, and there are other peculiarities of Finnic stress.
Kluge's law is only controversial if you believe in made up woowoo like "expressive gemination", to date it's the most likely proposal from what I've seen, actually based on modern linguistic theory. Of course It doesn't have to be right, but the contenders are weak to say the least
Preferred by who? Some guy in an ivory tower who's feelings I'm unconcerned with? Or the dead people we can certainly ask about how they feel we refer to them as? If etymology is one of the keys to wisdom, why do you think they're trying to change the language all the time. Descriptivism prescribes anti prescriptive descriptions.
late latin is a form of written latin, they're not the same. the cambridge history of the romance languages uses "vulgar Latin" instead of "Vulgar Latin" so as to not imply that "Vulgar Latin" was one single language; we're referring to vulgar [i.e common] forms of Latin.
@@onethreeify Being less offensive doesn't impact getting anything done. Acknowledging the connotations of a word, and changing what we commonly say to something more neutral to make up for that isn't hurting anyone. The objectives of space agencies and markets aren't controlled by anyone who would care about that, they have no need, and it's not their job. Vulgar is one of many words used originally for commoners that became derogatory, it's like if we called all modern American dialects along with irish and scotts "mediocre English". It makes no practical sense and it alienates people.
@@thetobyntr9540 what people are getting alienated by the term vulgar latin lmao language has been dead for a thousand years. It cannot possibly be offensive to anyone. What a silly idea to even waste time debating. Big snowflake energy
This sounds like a giant attempted rebuttal. Yes "Germanic" developed in a small, isolated community, recently, not anciently. And yes, the "Germanic" involvement in Scandinavia also came late, not early. Other Indo-European people's brought horses and herds there, and their DNA long before the "Germanic" speakers fled there as defeated military refugees (from wars with Romans and Celts). The popular fairy-tale of "Germania" is largely a myth of wishful, latter day thinking. The actual history is quite different than the fiction that "German" historians have imaginatively portrayed, and then back-projected.
The more you go into origin and reconstruction the deeper the way goes. Ancient Greek has khandáno (χανδάνω) for grabbing, cognate with hand. Great video, give more IPE material to the people🔥
I've been learning a bit of sanskrit and when you know a bit about the sound changes, the cognates stick out so clearly it's amazing
@@anastasiossioulas83 Greek kh- corresponds to Germanic g- not h-
@@tidsdjupet-mr5udyup it corresponds with english "get", not "hand"
@@swagmundfreud666agreed. I’ve only dabbled in a handful of IE languages, literally dabbling, and even then cognates almost jump out at me.
It's cognate with get.
Concise and to the point, which has earned you a subscriber. Keep up the good work!
thank you for making me realize I forgot to subscribe
@@celtofcanaanesurix2245 Lol I do my best
Latin shifted bʰ, dʰ, gʰ to fricatives much earlier than Greek even
Germanic Substrate Theory is one of those things I really want to be true deep down in my heart. Not because of Nationalist reasons as I'm not from Northern Europe and I don't particularly care about Germanic history, but because I just think it'd be really neat for the languages to have mysterious words from TRB/Funnelbeakers (who are one of my favorite neolithic cultures)
Very interesting well-informed video, love the provided sources :)
I LOVE THESE VIDEOS!! I LOVE PROTO GERMANIC
4:14 Well, if I recall correctly, a pretty recent study (Steppe Ancestry in western Eurasia and the spread of the Germanic Languages, 2024) points to a demographic shift in Scandinavia suggesting that the Germanic language may rather have come from a maritime route via the Baltics. The so-called "slash and burn" that Kristiansen is talking about (not so recent idea by him in fact) is referenced once again in a pretty recent talk he did in the indo-european conference held in Pisa, Italy. In it if I recall correctly, he said they arrived from Bohemia. These corded-ware people came up to Jylland, changing the forested landscape to a pastoral one, like how it is even to this day. But the genetic evidence may be contrary to the idea these people were germanic speakers.
It seems that a group of perhaps indo-european speakers came up to southern scandinavia, but weren't necessarily germanic speakers, then were replaced by germanic speakers coming from eastern scandinavia (read Mälardalen). Don't take my word for it though, do your own research and draw your own conclusions.
I mention and reference exactly that paper in the video at: 4:57
@@tidsdjupet-mr5ud My bad for not keep watching the video before making my comment... lol
As a Swede, I appreciate the heavy Swedish accent!
o ja :)
Jævla bra video, som alltid!
Another great video. thanks!
Very informative video, cool.
10:10 What is meant be "archaic pre-germanic word forms"? You mean place names that were apparently formed in the pre-proto-Germanic era?
@@JohnSmith-of2gu Yes
@@tidsdjupet-mr5ud Thanks, cool! What would be some examples of place names that old?
@@JohnSmith-of2gu lakes like "Vättern" with ablut and places ending with -und like "Bornholm" from older Borgundarholm.
Very interesting, although I have not that much understanding of the subject.
Thank you for this dispelling of myths.
I have my own theory about how the Germanic languages emerged, The White Walker Theory. It suggests the White Walkers were influential in how the Germanic languages developed.
Kommer kolla på alla videor som handlar om indoeuropeiska substrat
JAG ÄLSKAR
armenian has 8 seperate outcome of the stop series depending on dialects some maintain breathy sounds(identical to the manner produced in indic languages) they all have the same outcome for t*
in addition t vs th may be realised ť vs th depending on the dialect unrelated the distribution of the stop outcomes
th d dh karin, sabastia
th t dh yerevan
th d d istanbul
th d t kharberd, middle armenian
th d th malatya, soutwest armenian
th t d classical armenian, agulis, southeast armenian
th t t van artsakh
copied from the chart on wikipedia, copied a language encyclopedia from the 70s
ive read papers that its likely referencing though, they strangly refer to the breathy sound as "laryngeal" in their titaling so they can be hard to find
Well, I’m convinced.
What is substrate theory? Clicking on this video I thought there might be an explanation.
A strata means that two languages influence each other through close contact; substrate is when the local language disappears in favour of the invading language. (Superstrate is the other way around). So the theory is that Germanic resulted from a non-Indo European language (probably Uralic) being displaced by an Indo-European one, but with the "new" language being heavily influenced by the "old" one
the change to frictives in greek is very plausibly grafted from the aramaic six stop allophoney, since its attest in confused spelling earliest in the east in anatolia in the 2nd century bc, it also strangly applies no to the voicing or aspiration distinctions but to the not plain distinction which is very odd
there are no attested africates as well
given greek is a koine spoken by aramaic speakers its very plausibly a change by substitution not by gradation
t ->þ is also an inately implosible change(at least by gradation) as it is necessarily produced as ts ->tsþ ->þ
i would say that like koine greek this implies some amount substrate/adstrate influence
actually consider this for sardian to with the change -ty/ky- -> -þ-, based on paleosardinian þ- and it conflating greek þ and ds in loans as depending on dialect þ,t,s,ts the same sound as the respect dialects outcome of þ- and -ty/ky-
-ty/ky- is medial idk why youtube does tha crossbar thing
UA-cam instantly converts words between en dashes into crossouts. Like asterisks bold them and underline italicises them.
-dash-
*star*
_italic_
~test~
@nealjroberts4050
😩
ill try the japanese keyboard
‐ty-
-ty-
-ty-
-ty-
‐ty‐
In old English it is noted that the word cyning seems to alter over time the oldest references seem to point to 'of the people', rather than head of state. This in my view could reflect the incoming christian influence. Older forms reflecting heathen concepts of a cyning being the personification of the folk, as opposed to christian thoughts where the king was imposed from above (given by god/divine right of kings etc).
one might think of stories like the fisher-king where the king is very much of the body of his folk.
@@newprimitiveart Germanic Kings were also not hereditary aristocrats but chosen by the various tribes from important families. For example Sweden did not adopt hereditary monarchy until Gustav Vasa
@@tidsdjupet-mr5ud You are very very right, the Romans noted the war leader was selected from but not exclusively from leading families.
It is also worth in passing noting how many leaders fighting Rome from the north (both Celtic and Germanic), had names which just meant warleader, as though the Romans did not even know the name of the leader they were fighting against, or never even bothered to find out.
@@newprimitiveart harii = army. Marcomanni = bordermen
@@tidsdjupet-mr5ud Thank you I did not know that, it makes so much sense.
I think the Germanic ancients had a regimental system, and operated within a confederacy of states which may have overlapped. Much like The holy Roman Empire. or lands given to Norman lords in England which were separate and not all in one part of the country.
It makes no sense that one tribe would all be night fighters and another all horsemen if they were opposed to each other, as the time of day would dictate who won a battle.
We are often told Germanic tribes migrated, but it is impossible to see how such a tribe could deploy to fight a Roman Army and Germanic people to have so many victories.
However regiments and armies are often named after the place they were mustered, so although the army may have come from a place it does not follow it was just of folk of that place, that tribe.
This fits with archeology that where sampled bodies from even 'Viking' army graves in England do not all come from one place.
There is much to be said on this subject, was the migration period that or Amies come to take back old lands the Romans once conquered?
In the Anglo-Saxon chronicle several of the leaders of the 'Great Heathen army' have Anglo-Saxon names. Yet modern telling would have us believe all of that army was Scandinavian and only about looting, so why was it not called army of Northmen, but the Great heathen army at the time?
It is also worth looking at 'the great conspiracy' which attempted to throw Romans out of Britain.
I think that there were other reasons for the war than just a wish for loot.
I find a lot of prejudice which seeks to play down or dismiss the abilities and sophistication of our ancestors.
@@newprimitiveart en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hundred_(county_division)
Huge tip: try not to read word-for-word off of text shown on the screen. it's highly redundant.
It's very useful when watching at high speeds IMO.
I personally disagree and fully appreciate the narration
Terrible advice, a big portion of people just listen to slide show style videos and don’t look at the screen the whole time.
I'm always listening more than watching so its useful
1
The Gemanic vowel system is starkly different from other language groups.
@@hollunderjohn the medieval daughter languages maybe, but proto-Germanic itself had very similar vowels to for example Proto-balto-slavic.
Some things to think about:
· There is a close parallel to Verner's Law in the Finnic languages: Proto-Finnic *p, *t, *k, *s became *b, *d, *g, *h after a completely unstressed syllable (acting in suffixes, since Finnic languages have initial stress). Then again, voicing of unstressed consonants isn't super rare, so it could've happened independently in Germanic and Finnic.
· Germanic languages tend to have a lot of geminate consonants, though many of them arose in the daughter languages. If one believes Kluge's Law, some Proto-Germanic nouns might have had a system of consonantgradation. Though it seems that Kluge's Law is quite controversial.
· Paul Kiparsky believes that Proto-Norse words had primary stress on the first syllable of the root, and every odd-numbered syllable after that was secondarily stressed. This stress system would eventually give rise to the Scandinavian pitch-accent system (e.g.: *ˈwármiˌðṓ 'I warmed', *ˈskóriˌnáz 'carved', *ˈhírðiˌjáz 'shepherd' yield Swedish värmde, skuren, herde). He gives new evidence for this reconstruction in this lecture. ua-cam.com/video/sAxB8xG12U8/v-deo.html If his reconstruction be correct, it looks very similar to the Finnic stress system, with primary initial stress and secondary stress on odd syllables. Although in Finnic, final syllables don't get secondary stress, so not a perfect match, and there are other peculiarities of Finnic stress.
@@innsj6369 it is well known that Pgmc developed for a long time neighbouring Finnic.
Kluge's law is only controversial if you believe in made up woowoo like "expressive gemination", to date it's the most likely proposal from what I've seen, actually based on modern linguistic theory. Of course It doesn't have to be right, but the contenders are weak to say the least
8:27 vulgar latin is no longer the accepted term afaik, the preferred term is late latin
maybe if we spent more time on research and less on letting left-wing liberals decide what words are accepted or not we'd be back on the moon already
Preferred by who? Some guy in an ivory tower who's feelings I'm unconcerned with? Or the dead people we can certainly ask about how they feel we refer to them as?
If etymology is one of the keys to wisdom, why do you think they're trying to change the language all the time.
Descriptivism prescribes anti prescriptive descriptions.
late latin is a form of written latin, they're not the same.
the cambridge history of the romance languages uses "vulgar Latin" instead of "Vulgar Latin" so as to not imply that "Vulgar Latin" was one single language; we're referring to vulgar [i.e common] forms of Latin.
@@onethreeify
Being less offensive doesn't impact getting anything done. Acknowledging the connotations of a word, and changing what we commonly say to something more neutral to make up for that isn't hurting anyone.
The objectives of space agencies and markets aren't controlled by anyone who would care about that, they have no need, and it's not their job.
Vulgar is one of many words used originally for commoners that became derogatory, it's like if we called all modern American dialects along with irish and scotts "mediocre English". It makes no practical sense and it alienates people.
@@thetobyntr9540 what people are getting alienated by the term vulgar latin lmao language has been dead for a thousand years. It cannot possibly be offensive to anyone. What a silly idea to even waste time debating. Big snowflake energy
This sounds like a giant attempted rebuttal. Yes "Germanic" developed in a small, isolated community, recently, not anciently. And yes, the "Germanic" involvement in Scandinavia also came late, not early. Other Indo-European people's brought horses and herds there, and their DNA long before the "Germanic" speakers fled there as defeated military refugees (from wars with Romans and Celts). The popular fairy-tale of "Germania" is largely a myth of wishful, latter day thinking. The actual history is quite different than the fiction that "German" historians have imaginatively portrayed, and then back-projected.
Sources?
Sounds like you're trying to rebut something the video creator hasn't said.