"Who Were the Indo-Europeans?"-Dr. Joseph Pentangelo
Вставка
- Опубліковано 14 сер 2022
- The invited speaker at the August 9, 2022 meeting of the Old Guard of Summit NJ was Dr. Joseph Pentangelo, linguist, folklorist, and adjunct assistant professor at CUNY. He is an alumnus of Macaulay Honors College and earned a Ph.D. in Linguistics and a graduate certificate in Medieval Studies from the Graduate Center, CUNY.
Dr. Pentangelo discussed how the Indo-European language family was discovered, what linguistic groups are part of it, and what we know of the Indo-Europeans themselves, the theorized ancestors of many of the peoples of Eurasia today.
Ref: www.summitoldguard.org
Ref: ua-cam.com/users/OldGuardSummit...
Ref: macaulay.cuny.edu/directory/j...
Recent genetic studies decisively proved that the Indo-Europeans came to Europe from the steppes *above* the Black Sea (*not* from Anatolia, below the Black Sea), 2000 years *after* the agricultural revolution. Moreover, Indo-Europeans more or less displaced all male Y-chromosome lines, which tells you that the conquest probably was pretty violent.
Which apparently left neolithic genes only in the lines of the females they abducted.
The first migrants from Anatolia start settling Europe in 6500 BC up until around 3000 BC, when a plague (Yersinia pestis) decimated Europe and cleared the way for the new steppes peoples from the north of the Black Sea to come and re-settle the land.
Circa 700 years separate the collapse of Early European Farmers from the new horse riding warriors from the Steppes.
There is no major signs of war, so maybe the Y-chromosome was just a natural selection for European women 🤷
@@RodrigoOliveira-tb7zf The more come to light about migrations to Europe the more hilariously somewhat accurate this old quote from William Sidis' "The Tribes and The States" becomes. Bear in mind this was written before much knowledge at all existed on the subject. I would argue it metaphorically covers the ANE -> PIE -> IE timeline haha.
"An immense inland sea was formed during the Ice Age between Europe and Asia, leaving on its eastern side a large region enclosed by sea, mountains, and ice, and isolated from the rest of the earth for many thousands of years. Here were isolated a few human beings and a number of animals. An albino type became the standard human race in this region; this type is found as an occasional freak in all races, but, under this peculiar isolation, it became a white race. And, this freak race being isolated together with certain varieties of animals resulted in their taming the animals, and incidentally infected the people with those animals' diseases and parasites. In the course of generations, the white race gradually acquired a certain amount of immunity to those diseases, which, however, they always carried with them and which proved to be their greatest weapon in their fight against other races. When the great ice sheet retreated on the north and on the mountains, and the inland sea was drained, this original white men's country became a desert, forcing both human beings and animals elsewhere, first south over the mountain passes (into India and Persia), then in a succession of waves westward into Europe, bringing a heavy crop of highly destructive diseases."
There is no such a thing like “ Anatolia” . It means East or West.
It was Armenian Mountains.or Highland.
In other words, they were destroyers and usurpers...
I love that a bunch of retired businessmen get together just to socialize and learn interesting stuff.
This man knows his stuff. Really enjoyed his lecture. Very good, indeed.
Excellent presentation. Thanks.
A very good program. Very knowledgeable. Thanks for sharing. 👍
Very interesting and well structured talk. To add something: we almost certainly know from ancient DNA studies and archelogical findings that there was an extremely violent conquest of basically the whole of Europe by a specific group of people who were very very likely the original speakers of proto-indo-european
Correct. The “pots, not people” interpretation of prehistory was always ideological (Socialist). There was never any evidence for it and tons of evidence against it. We are getting more and more evidence against it as our scientific tools become better and better.
@@peterfireflylund That's less an interpretation of history than a tool of archaeology. Pots are preserved in soil, but until the very recent advances in genetics, very little evidence of what people were actually like was available. In other words, the pots may or may not have been associated with a specific people, but before modern genetics, we had no reliable way to know whether that was or wasn't the case in any particular instance, only speculation.
@@peterfireflylund are you saying there isn’t much evidence for a major bloody confrontation as proposed?
@@brucetucker4847 actually, there were plenty of visible skeletal differences as well. They were well-known a hundred years ago… until the “pots, not people” faction took over and dismissed that knowledge as “racism”.
@@brucetucker4847
Except literally every early linguist so it was people and pots
This was excellent!
Muito bom, really like the presentation.
If there’s ever a movie character based on this guy it should be played by Adam Driver
Al Aho! For those who don’t know: he won the Turing Award a couple of years ago.
His question was either very naive and dumb or a really good and hard question, depending on how one chooses to look at it.
I know Al very well from Bell Labs and Bellcore (as well as Old Guard) and I assure you this was a very thoughtful and insightful question, as are all of Al's questions -- not dumb at all!
If there isn't any pre-existing etymology linking cultural pantheon's, what criteria allows for speculative reconstruction?
50:03 As Joseph noted, English developed from a North Sea coastal Germanic pidgin, as spoken by Celts. English has two clear gramatical suvivors of this: we use the auxillary verb "to be" with the present participle, e.g. "it is raining" rather than "it rains" as other germanic languages mostly do, and we use the aux. verb "to do" in places such as "do you drink?" and "I don't [drink]." whereas other germanic languages would say "drinks you?" and "I drink not."
Both of these are present in extant celtic languages like Welsh and were most probably present in Brythonic. Their survival into modern English atests to the inflexibility of grammar to adapt when a native population adopts a foreign language.
Not quite. There are problems with the assumption that Celtic was the source of these peculiarities. Do-support, for example, stems from the Late Middle English/Early Modern English period, and shows a marked explosion by the 1500s. There’s no reliable attestation before then in England or Lowland Scotland. So, it could be an Anglic peculiarity. However, do-support is stereotyped to not be present in other Germanic languages, when there are actually examples of it as I’ve seen many Dutch speakers claim about their own language. Likewise, for the use of “to be” + “-ing” for the present progressive, there, too, appear to be examples of analogous constructions in other West Germanic languages that have not been standardized.
Mother is slightly more difficult. This is because ma is used more broadly, for example, Korean (Hangul) and Mandarin Chinese (Putonghua), which are neither related nor borrowed.
Pastural people who first domesticated horses, and then created carts and mobility spread ...a kind of common culture accompanied them and associated language...Native American so-called horse people, such as the Sioux, Nez Peirce, Utes, etc. Had only just acquired horses, due to their introduction into the environment by the Spanish and other Europeans...in short order they were transformed l, riding beats walking...life becomes blessed.
SO many thousands of years ago SOME young punk jumped on the back of a horse (used for food, substance till then) rode it, jumped made turns (yea no helmet laws back then) felt the breeze in his hair and spread that culture more so than anyone else.
You need a wider audience.
Stranglly, he skipped Slavic languages.
The finnich language has borrowed the word Perkwunos, which is 1 of the proto-germanic gods, and turned it into a curse word :) Perkele, which means hell, or to hell with you...
It's rather from Balto-Slavic...the god Perkuns or Perkunas, or Perun
That's Perun
@@erichamilton3373 That is correct, my bad 👍🙏
Indo-European people is just an oversimplified term to contract a wide spectrum of characteristics not exclusively connected but often present, i.e. language, culture, diet, knowledge, etc.
A bit like the term used for the Sea People's.
It's not like they are one homogeneous people with a common goal, but the fact that they, as a whole, impacted history in such a way we now need a term that can sum up that event.
They were extremely homogenous
Please stop referring to a theory as fact without supporting evidence/data.
@leonis, *The Western historians and linguistic researchers need to find out the common origin of European languages.They claim most of the Indo-European languages have their source base in Steppe (Kurgan hypothesis), Central Asia Yamnaya or Anatolia, but in all of that one thing is common i.e there is no Indian/Aryan in any of the Indo European, be it language, philosophy, culture or other source base. I am wondering why they use the prefix 'Indo', why can't they call anything concerned with European history to Steppe, Central Asia Yamnaya or Anatolia etc, etc etc.....*.
*Further, on one hand they don't want to admit the source base of European languages is in India i.e Sanskrit since that is our ancestral and the present 'storehouse' of Vedic Aryan lore, but at any given opportunity call everything Indo-European.*
@@bvshenoy7259
It is not from India
What we call Iran today, means Land of Aryans
and they have a bloodline with fair white skin, blonde or red hear, blue, green or grey eyes and some very large people.
*BCE
Not a word about huge Slavic family, the closest language family to Sanskrit. Linguistically, genetically and archeologically, sorry to disappoint somebody, urheimat is in Russia. It's so anglo-saxonic to mute inconvenient facts.
It’s in Ukraine so ya basically Russia
I think your audience already knows what Indo-Europeans are. You act like you're talking to people who have never heard the term. Dumbing this down is a big mistake. I wanted to hear about admixtures of Yamnaya with other peoples. Show us the cognates between distant members of the language group and show us what geography that implies.
You misunderstand the context of this talk. Dr Pentangelo was not lecturing to a class of his graduate students at CUNY. Rather, he graciously agreed to prepare and deliver this talk to an audience of about 100 retired businesspeople and professionals who are members of the Summit-Area Old Guard and meet weekly. The audience is smart and well educated, but on average had only a passing knowledge of the term "Indo-European" going into the lecture. The level of Dr Pentangelo's presentation was perfectly suited to this group. These presentations are posted online as a public service, and perhaps to promote awareness of the Summit Old Guard, but we have no particular audience in mind. If you found this lecture to be informative, then you are by definition part of our intended online audience 🙂. We are grateful to Dr. Pentangelo for his fine presentation. We're also pleased to see that his remarks to us are generating some interesting discussion. Keep it up!
If you keep looking and reading, you are sure to find information that fits your erudite academic interest. So off you go and Apply your research skills. From my lay person's point of view, I found the presentation great, confirmed some understanding of facts and explanations and I would like to thank the Businessmen's organisarion and the Professor for making this available to the general public.
@@kerrinorourke5914 So this must be your son making this video.
Joe, a couple of observations here: the Eurocentric limitations of this presentation were brought into stark relief when you stopped short of making any mention of the INDIAN family of INDO-European languages, except of course for Sanskrit. Interestingly, the largest number of Indo-European languages are to be found within the Indian subcontinent.
Also, a scholarly Linguistic presentation such as yours holds itself up to an exemplary calibre of Pronunciation. Noteworthy here is that your pronunciation of just 2 Non-European words, as an illustration, evince a colonially denigrating attitude, albeit unintentionally: IRAN became “AYE-ran” only upon American imperial conquest. Similarly Tamil, for all the pride this remarkably ancient language lays claim to with just cause, is much closer to Thum-ul.
Hopefully, with the passage of time, these areas of need have been addressed.
isnt indouropean a hypothetical language with absolutly no hard evidencen
By the contrary! It's a fact with ample evidence. We just don't know why or how (yet)
Immense amount of evidence
Ignorance of 25 years of paleo genetics is appalling
This was a talk about (paleo) etymology, not paleo genetics.
@@summit269
Him saying it was not an ethnic group is flat wrong and genetics proves this
3 out of 10
10 out of 10 for reaching the widest audience possible. If you found it too light weight, keep up your personal research (and focus on evidence before devising an opinion, as I used to tell my students). But don't denigrate an engaging and informative presentation because it doesnt align closely enough with your opinions
There is no IE people, language, alphabet. artifacts, or anything of that sort. If there is, please point me to it. IE is a theory that is all
The wheel, the horse and language?
@@RodrigoOliveira-tb7zf the book by David Anthony? (I heard him say a new book on the same topic is soon coming out.)
I'm baffled by talk of "Indo-Europeans". New languages are invented by people who LACK a common language with their neighbours so need to create one. That means that language ancestry is 'sexual' not asexual - they have at least 2 ancestors in each iteration and often more. That means, tracking language ancestry as if it were the inalienable feature of an underlying racial dispersion is fanciful. It harks back to 19th century race theories that should have been left in the 19th century. It leads to serious historical misinterpretations (eg. the "anglo saxon invasion" of Britain or "the celtic fringe") and we really shouldn't be adding to it.
The dispersion of the Indo European language is backed by modern genetic studies. But I can imagine you wish the theory was left in the 19th century but still the dispersal would have popped up again through those genetics facts
@kublai: Are you aware of any such an event of "marrying languages" in written history? And if it happened before written history emerged, why did this suddenly stop as as soon as written language had evolved?
I hope you don’t teach and I really hope that you don’t have a degree in history.
@@Maysens He may be thinking of the emergence of trade pidgin languages, such as Swahili.
Entirely new languages are much rarer than languages that diverge by evolution. Often that evolution is strongly influenced by local environment but as the speaker notes, usually the core of the language remains relatively intact. You see that in the Romance languages - Spanish has a fair amount of Arabic-derived vocabulary, and French a little less Celtic- and German-derived vocabulary, but the core vocabulary and most of the grammar is Vulgar Latin that evolved in slightly different directions.