More Linguistics Related

"A Modest Proposal" (No, not that one) · Linguistic Related · More Linguistics Related

Q I

Was Proto-Indo-European a real language spoken by ordinary people or a theoretical language used only by experts or people interested in the topic today?
https://www.quora.com/Was-Proto-Indo-European-a-real-language-spoken-by-ordinary-people-or-a-theoretical-language-used-only-by-experts-or-people-interested-in-the-topic-today/answer/Hans-Georg-Lundahl-1

Hans-Georg Lundahl

amateur linguist

28.VII.2025

Proto-Indo-European is a reconstructed language.

It exists in several versions.

One sometimes speaks about “when they spoke Proto-Indo-European” and this actually means more like “when they spoke what our Proto-Indo-European is a stand in for” …

And presuming it was one language.

If ever it was one, it certainly had some differences from our reconstructions. These are made by a will to avoid filling in un-known details. Hence all the word stems ending in a hyphen. If such a word stem actually belonged to a single language of which both Danish and Bengali are descended, like in Danish and Bengali, it had endings. So, showing a stem followed by a hyphen with no ending is certainly not on the “real language spoken by ordinary people” side, it’s only the “experts today” side. Again, “fish” has one word in Latin with descendants, Irish and Germanic (while Welsh has borrowed from Latin, borrowings don’t count the same way). It has another word in Ancient Greek and Lithuanian and possibly some other language (was it Armenian?) and yet another word in Slavic. This could be explained by one of the sides borrowing from non-Indo-European, it could be explained from a variation within PIE (like Sweden has “hink” or “spann” for bucket, depending on region, or like English can call the same kind of drink “soda pop” or “fizzy drink” depending on region), or it could be that a language with the fish/piscis/iasc gloss and another language with the ichthys/zhuvis gloss were existing independently and borrowed other traits common to Indo-European (like personal endings of verbs) from each other.

I

Hans-Georg Lundahl

To compare. One source for Tolkien’s Quenya was the desire to fill in words in the languages of NW Europe and even to some extent NE Europe that are NOT supposed to come in PIE. Icelandic álft for swan “explained” by Sindarin possibly “alph” which corresponds to Quenya “alqua” … Balto-Slavic word for arm or hand, the Lithuania form is directly copied in Quenya, except the spelling difference “ranka” vs “ranca” (In Lithuanian the C would instead be pronounced TS, not what’s in the word).

But here, Tolkien was not just making a purely scientific reconstruction, he wanted a usable language, so, he filled in lots of uncertainties. In fact, digging for pre-Indo-European West of where Finno-Ugrians were would mostly result in uncertainties, not even enough to write poetry in, so Tolkien “filled in” artistically … PIE doesn’t.

II

28.VII.2025

Peter Park

Also, most actual languages spoken by ordinary people have clusters of near-synonyms with overlapping or only fuzzily distinct meanings. Thus,, in modern English, we have clusters like mountain-hill-peak-range, stone-rock-boulder-pebble, river-stream-creek-brook, woman-wife-lady-dame-girl-maiden, child-kid, teenager-adolescent, snake-serpent, bug-insect, urine-piss-pee, penis-cock-prick-willie-weewee, speak-talk-say-tell, bad-evil-wicked, etc. So, when a given language divides into increasingly different dialects that eventually become distinct separate languages, one daughter-language may prioritize one word of such a cluster while another daughter-language prioritizes another word from that cluster.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

That’s also one possible explanation.

Q II

Is it possible for a language that seems radically different today to have an ancient connection to Proto-Indo-European that we just haven't discovered yet?
https://www.quora.com/Is-it-possible-for-a-language-that-seems-radically-different-today-to-have-an-ancient-connection-to-Proto-Indo-European-that-we-just-havent-discovered-yet/answer/Hans-Georg-Lundahl-1

Hans-Georg Lundahl

amateur linguist

28.VII.2025

I don’t think I really understand what you mean by “radically different” … several “branches of Indo-European” are radically different from each other, and we have still “discovered” that they are Indo-European.

Danish and Bengali are different.
Dansk og bengali er forskellige.
ড্যানিশ এবং বাঙালি ভিন্ন।
(=Ḍyāniśa ēbaṁ bāṅāli bhinna.)

Give me a fish, I’m Gollum.
Giv mig en fisk, jeg er Gollum.
আমাকে একটা মাছ দাও, আমি গোলম।.
(=Āmākē ēkaṭā mācha dā'ō, āmi gōlama.)

So, by now, a connection to Indo-European very probably would be discovered. I’d rather ask the opposite question: do all languages thought to be Indo-European really descend from the supposed Proto-Indo-European, or are they more like different languages influencing each other without total or sufficient assimilation? Sufficient for immediate understanding between monolinguals of each, that is.

I often take the Finnish verbal endings for the persons to say that, while Finnish isn’t Indo-European, it could have been a marginal member of the kind of Sprachbund I have in mind. There is still a reason why Finnish isn’t Indo-European. All Indo-European words seem to be borrowed from Iranian and Germanic languages, perhaps Baltic too, recently Slavic as well. Current reconstructions of Proto-Indo-European and sound law hypotheses for Finnish do not allow for Finnish to have inherited these words or the verb endings from PIE, as far as I know.

Q III

What archaeological culture did the first Indo-Europeans in Scandinavia belong to?
https://www.quora.com/What-archaeological-culture-did-the-first-Indo-Europeans-in-Scandinavia-belong-to/answer/Hans-Georg-Lundahl-1

Answer requested by

Collin Moore

Hans-Georg Lundahl

amateur linguist

1.VIII.2025

By “Indo-European” I suppose you mean Yamnaya.

Some recent studies in Spain have suggested the Yamnaya were rather speakers of Basque, which would explain the similarities between Basque and some Caucasus based languages. For those saying “no, Basque was a relict among Hunter Gatherers driven out by Yamnaya …” two observations from that study,[1] or, since I didn’t read it, from a youtube channel[2] the first[3] four videos of which are related to the study:

• The admixture of WHG in Basques is comparable to the admixture of AAF in Corded ware.
• If we compare Basques, not with Yamnaya, but with Corded Ware, the Corded Ware genome in Basques is comparable to the Yamnaya genome i Corded Ware.
• The rest of Spain was not into WHG genome, but in pre-Roman times clearly spoke a language related to Basque, for which the only source possible is Yamnaya.

That was actually a third observation.

Now, to your question as reformulated. Yamnaya genes came to Scandinavia through the Corded Ware culture and therefore with that admixture of AAF. Here[4] is University of Gothenburg:

Then 5,000 years ago, the next population turnover occurred, when people of the Corded Ware culture, with their genetic background in Eastern Europe, entered the scene.

“Around 2800 BCE, people of the Corded Ware culture, also called the Single Grave culture, immigrated to Denmark,” says archaeologist Karl-Göran Sjögren.

Footnotes

[1] Origins and spread of Indo-European languages: an alternative view – Ancient DNA Era
[2] Yamokante
[3] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3J18e8jEMQU
[4] New study unearths our Scandinavian ancestors

Q IV

How did Latin's vowel system change in the move to the Romance languages, and why is it so tricky to reconstruct?
https://www.quora.com/How-did-Latins-vowel-system-change-in-the-move-to-the-Romance-languages-and-why-is-it-so-tricky-to-reconstruct/answer/Hans-Georg-Lundahl-1

Hans-Georg Lundahl

none/ apprx Masters in Latin (language) & Greek (language), Lund University

1.VIII.2025

Latin’s vowel system on the front of the Classical language is simply NOT tricky to reconstruct, we already know it from grammarians.

The vowel system changed indeed, in different ways depending on different parts of the Empire, but grammarians didn’t note this, back then, other than as faults to be corrected. So, reconstructions have to be done, but they are by and large already made, not very tricky any more at least.

Latin had, apart from diphthongs, ten vowels. A, E, I, O, U times LONG / SHORT. On the way to Romance in most places the distinction long / short was lost, but replaced by other distinctions. So, before we get to Italian, Spanish, French, we find seven vowels. A, I and U as in Latin, A from both long and short, I and U from long only. Short I and long E become closed E. Short U and long O become closed O. Short E and O become open E and O. This is a simplification, not taking into account diphthongs and unaccented vowels. Italian basically keeps this, Spanish diphthongises open E and O, French diphthongises both open and closed E and O, in different ways, unless the syllable ended in a consonant (if that was it) and this preserved the original vowel (“sol” from “solum”) or it was unaccented (“sol-” in “soleil” from “solículum”). Spanish also refrains from diphthongising unaccented vowels (tiempo / temporal).

Sardinian and East Romance (Romanian and Dalmatian) had different simplifications of the Latin vowel system.

Joseph Foster

Rumanian diphthongizes those “open” or long /e:/ and /o:/ too when they have the word stress. But the actual phonetic details are different, e.g. Latin nokte-, Rumanian noapte ‘night’, so they happened independently of each other.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

I think that’s when they were close … not open.

Joseph Foster

May be. I’m not fluent in the close / open distinction and need to review it. Unstressed /o/ became /u/ in Rumanian.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

I’m mostly concerned with the stressed vowels. In each, unstressed vowels is an even other chapter, so I left that alone, I think the front vowels from Latin go to Proto-Romance like in Italian, French and Spanish, the back vowels like Sardinian.

In English, “hair” has a more open E sound and “bed” a more close one.

It’s possible the rule I am discussing also only applies to vowels in open syllables, which puts noctem / noapte outside this dicussion.

Aud-i-tum (long i) > ouï (i is preserved)

S-i-tem, r-e-gem (short i, long e) > soif, roi (diphthongisation of close e).

p-e-dem (short e) > pied (diphthongisation of open e).

I recall sth from a Spanish historic grammar about open or closed syllable being more relevant … but forget the details.

Q V

What is the language that is closest to Basque according to phonetics only?
https://www.quora.com/What-is-the-language-that-is-closest-to-Basque-according-to-phonetics-only/answer/Hans-Georg-Lundahl-1

Answer requested by

U Un

Hans-Georg Lundahl

amateur linguist

1.VIII.2025

Not sure if it’s Gascon or Castilian.

Unlike Basque they are both Romance, but they have phonetic changes that Basque also has. Leading to phonetic configurations that Basque also has.

Q VI

When learning a new language, how can a deeper understanding of its historical sound changes or grammatical evolution practically help a learner overcome common pronunciation or grammar hurdles?
https://www.quora.com/When-learning-a-new-language-how-can-a-deeper-understanding-of-its-historical-sound-changes-or-grammatical-evolution-practically-help-a-learner-overcome-common-pronunciation-or-grammar-hurdles/answer/Hans-Georg-Lundahl-1

Hans-Georg Lundahl

amateur linguist

2.VIII.2025

If you know some Latin, this thing can be very helpful with Spanish.

Q VII

If we had all the written records of an ancient language like Latin or Ancient Greek from beginning to end (texts, books, everything), could we revive that language?
https://www.quora.com/If-we-had-all-the-written-records-of-an-ancient-language-like-Latin-or-Ancient-Greek-from-beginning-to-end-texts-books-everything-could-we-revive-that-language/answer/Hans-Georg-Lundahl-1

Hans-Georg Lundahl

none/ apprx Masters in Latin (language) & Greek (language), Lund University

2.VIII.2025

Latin and Ancient Greek are already spoken and written, they don’t need reviving.

If we speak of sth that hasn’t survived to our day, there is a separate question of reconstructing it. Sumerian is a case in point, while we have sufficient texts, there are still questions of how certain signes were pronounced. I have seen Aram-Sin spelled as Naram-Lin just a few years ago on wikipedia, that’s because questions still need to be resolved.

Q VIII

Why would someone go to the trouble of creating a complex artificial language for a text like the Rohonc Codex, and what are the leading theories?
https://www.quora.com/Why-would-someone-go-to-the-trouble-of-creating-a-complex-artificial-language-for-a-text-like-the-Rohonc-Codex-and-what-are-the-leading-theories/answer/Hans-Georg-Lundahl-1

Hans-Georg Lundahl

amateur linguist

1.VIII.2025

For the leading theories on the Codex Rohonczi I refer to the wikipedia.[1]

As to the motive for an artificial language, simple fun … I have lacked the leisure to create a language, as I have to learn the guitar and the tin whistle, but each of this would have been fun, if I had had more time and less stress. In some cases (that would depend on content and the kind of people transmitting it through the codex) secrecy could be an added motive.

As to the evidence, I suggest you ask someone who is both a con-langer and alerted to the Rohonc codex a bit more than I am. I had to look it up on wikipedia. I simply don’t know.

Footnotes

[1] Rohonc Codex - Wikipedia
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rohonc_Codex

Q IX

Why is Ancient Greek considered a Indo-European language?
https://www.quora.com/Why-is-Ancient-Greek-considered-a-Indo-European-language/answer/Hans-Georg-Lundahl-2

Hans-Georg Lundahl

amateur linguist

2 years ago

Modern Greek is that too. But here we are dealing first with Ancient.

You have verb forms like (with forms for I, thou, he/she, we, ye, they):

δίδωμι, δίδως, δίδωσι(ν), δίδομεν, δίδοτε, διδόασι(ν)

This involves a presumed set of Proto-Indo-European verb endings or endings common to early Indo-Europan groups like:

-mi, -si, -ti, -men/-mes, -te, -nti

that is also reflected in Latin:

su-m, e-s, es-t, su-mus, es-tis, su-nt

(final -i is lost, you have early -mos instead of -mes, and for -te, you add an -s).

The verb itself is pretty obviously cognate to Latin “do” (which has a more regular -o instead of -mi), Sanskrit “dadati” and Polish “dawać, dać” …

You have so much common vocabulary that English and Russian share 25 % of the vocabulary beween the groups (I am not sure how much it is between English and Greek or Russian and Greek). You have so much common grammar that the groups that have been better at preserving endings still have paradigms like

daję, dajesz, daje, dajemy, dajeście, dają (Polish)

or Modern Greek:
δίνω, δίνεις, δίνει, δίνουμε, δίνετε, δίνουν.

The only question is, are these commonalities and similar ones sufficient to prove common ancestry or could a Sprachbund be the explanation? Nikolai Sergeyevitch Trubetskoy thought and I think the latter could be the case. But whether Indo-European languages are a family or a Sprachbund, it is a group and Greek belongs to it, Ancient and Modern.

I

2 years ago

Bojan Stare

Word in Polish isn`t do, but give. Same in Sanskrit and Greek.

And when you have gaven example - verb,you can also give us dual in English and Greeks languages. And of course in Sanskrit. Could you answer me how many of them you will find it?

Hans-Georg Lundahl

I never said any of above means English “do.”

I mentioned Latin “do” which means - give.

I will look up in Pokorny. Here is their article:

dō- : də-, auch dō-u- : dəu- : du-

English meaning to give

German meaning `geben'

Grammatical comments (perfektiv) Aoristwurzel mit sekundärem Präsens di-dō-mi.

General comments

Derivatives Nominalbildungen: dō-no-m, dō-ro-m, dō-ti-s, də-ti-s `Gabe', dō-tēr- `Geber', Partiz. dō-to-s, də-to-s, -d-to-s, Infinitiv dō-men-ai, dō-u̯en-ai

Material Ai. dá-dā-ti (Aor. á-dā-m, Opt. dēyām, Fut. dāsyáti, Aor. Med. ádita = gr. ἔδοτο, Inf. dámanē : gr. δόμεναι, vgl. lat. daminī, falls ursprüngl. Infinitiv) `gibt' (pāli dinna zu einem Präs. *di-dā-ti), av. dadāiti ds., apers. Imp. dadātuv `er soll geben'; Wurzelnomen ai. dā́[s] ástu `dator estu'; Infin. dā́tum (: lat. Supin. datum); Partiz. ditá-ḥ (unbelegt), sekundär dattá-ḥ, schwundstuf. in ā-t-tá-ḥ, prá-t-ta-ḥ `hingegeben', ablaut. in tvā́-dāta-ḥ `von dir gegeben', av. dāta-; zum Fut. ai. dāsyāmi (: lit. dúosiu) s. Schwyzer Gr. Gr. I 78811;

arm. ta-m `dō', ta-mk` `damus' (*də-i̯e-mi), Aor. etu (= á-dā-m, idg. *e-dō-m);

gr. δί-δω-μι `gebe', Aor. ἔδωκα, Opt. δοίην (*doii̯ēm). Fut. δώσω, Aor. Med. ἐδοτο, Partiz. δοτός, Infin. hom. δόμεναι und hom. thess. usw. δόμεν (suffixloser Lokativ);

ven. zoto `dedit' = gr. ἔδοτο; zonasto `dōnāvit' vielleicht aus *dōnā-s-to von einem denom. *dōnāi̯ō (*dōno-m : lat. dōnum); mess. pi-do (*dō-t : ai. a-dāt);

alb. da-shë Aor. `ich gab' (*də-sm̥);

lat. dō, dās, dat, dămus (*də-mós), dătis, dănt (sekundär fur *dent aus *(di)-dṇ-ti), alat. danunt; dedī, dătum, dăre `gebe, gewähre', refl. `begebe mich' (dās mit ā nach stā- für *dō = lit. duõ, dúo-k [Specht KZ. 55, 182], gr. hom. δί-δω-θι);

vest. di-de-t `dat', päl. di-da `det', umbr. dirsa, dersa, teřa `det' (*didāt), teřtu, dirstu, titu `dato' (*di-de-tōd), teřte `datur' (*di-da-ter), a-teřa-fust `circumtulerit' (*am-de-da-fos-t); osk. da[da]d `dedat' (*dād(-di)-dād), dadid `dederit' (*dād(-de)-dīd), di-de-st `dabit', dedet, umbr. dede `dedit' (= lat. dĕ-d-ĭt, alt dedet), umbr. teřust, dirsust `dederit' (*dedust), usw.; fal. porded `porrexit' (*por(-de)-ded);

redupl. Präsens ital. *di-dō(?) in lat. reddō (reddidī, redditum, reddere) `gebe zurück' aus *re-d(i)-dō (?) ist angeblich themat. Umgestaltung von *di-dō-mi; andere Komposita sind dē-dō, dī-dō, ē-dō, prō-dō, trā-dō und *ven-dō;

Partiz. lat. dătus `gegeben' = falisk. datu `datum', vest. data `data', päl. datas `datas' (: gr. δοτός); Supin. datum (: ai. Infin. dā́tum);

hierher vielleicht trotz WH. I 193 lat. ce-dō `gib her!' Pl. cette aus *ce-dəte (: gr. δότε);

lit. dúomi (heute sekundär dúodu, lett. duôdu, neugebildet zum alit. Ipv. duodi aus *dō-dhi-, ostlit. dúomu), 2. Sg. dúosi, 3. Sg. dúost(i) `gibt', apr. dāst ds., beruhen nach Kořínek Listy filol. 65, 445 und Szemerényi Et. Slav. Roum. 1, 7 ff. (vgl. E. Fraenkel Balt. Sprachw. 11 f.) nicht auf alter Reduplikation (angebl. *dō-də-mi, bsl. *dōdmi, 3. Sg. *dō-də-ti, bsl. *dōdti > *dōsti), sondern auf unreduplizierter athemat. Flexion (*dōmi, Pl. *dəmós); lit. dúosti, abg. dastъ sind Nachahmungen von lit. ė́sti `ißt' usw., die neben lit. *ė́(d)mi, abg. jamь (aus *ēd-m-) liegen, wo das d der Wurzel als suffixal empfunden wurde; zum Fut. lit. dúosiu s. oben S. 223.

Dasselbe würde gelten von aksl. damь `ich werde geben', 3. Pl. dadętь (nach jadętь usw.); aksl. dažda `Gabe' ist Analogiebildung nach *ědja `Essen', wo das d wiederum als Formans betrachtet wurde.

Infin. lit. dúoti, lett. duôt, apr. dāt (*dō-ti-) = aksl. dati, serb. dȁti, russ. datь.

Zum Prät. lit. daviaũ, lett. devu `gab' s. unten.

Partiz. *dō-na- in aksl. prě-danъ, serb. dân, čech. dán, klr. dányj `gegeben'; *dō-ta- ds. in apr. dāts, lit. dúotas, lett. duôts; einzelsprachl. Neuerungen sind serb. dial. dât, čech. dátý; dazu lit. duotina `mannbar', russ.-ksl. podatьnъ, russ. podátnyj `freigebig'; Supin. *dōtun `zu geben' in apr. daton (Infin.); lit. dúotų, aksl. otъdatъ, sloven. dat; vgl. slav. *datъ-kъ in sloven. dodâtɛk, poln. dodatek, russ. dodátok `Zugabe';

hitt. dā- `nehmen', 1. Sg. da-aḫ-ḫi (daḫḫi), 3. Sg. da-a-i (dāi), wird von Pedersen (Muršilis 68) und Kretschmer (Glotta 19, 207) hierher gestellt (`geben' - `für sich geben'- `nehmen'); dagegen Couvreur Ḫ 206 ff.

Nominalbildungen: ai. dā́tar-, dātár- `Geber', gr. δώτωρ, δωτήρ ds., schwachstufig δοτήρ, δότειρα, lat. dător, datrīx. - Ai. dātrá-, av. dāϑra- n. `Geschenk'.

*dō-tel- in aksl. dateljь (*dō-tel-i̯u-) `Geber', čech. udatel `Angeber', russ. dátelь `Geber'.

Ai. *dāti- `Schenkung, Gabe' in dā́ti-vāra- `gern verteilend, freigebig', havya-dāti- `die Opfergabe besorgend, das Darbringen des Opfers', av. dāiti- `Geben, Schenken, Gewährung', gr. δῶτις Hes. (und kons. St. *dō-t- in δώς) `Gabe', Δωσί-θεος, -φρων, lat. dōs, -tis `Mitgift', lit. Inf. dúoti: slav. *datь `Gabe' (z. B. in aksl. blagodatь `χάρις', russ. pódatь `Steuer'), Inf. dati; schwachstufig ai. díti-ḥ, gr. δόσις `Gabe', lat. dati-ō, -tiōnis (alt *-tīnes) `das Schenken' (Suffix wie in gr. δωτί̄νη `Gabe'); mit Vokalschwund in Enklise ai. bhága-tti- `Glücksgabe'.

Ai. dā́na- n. `Geschenk' (substantiviertes -no-Partiz.) = lat. dōnum, osk. usw. dunum ds. (duunated `dōnāvit'); cymr. dawn ds., air. dān m. `donum, ars, ingenium (Begabung)', vgl. slav. *danъ-kъ in serb. dának `Abgabe, Steuer' usw. und den -ni-St. aksl. danь `Abgabe, Zoll', lit. duõnis `Gabe'; schwachstufig alb. dhënë `gegeben', f. `Gabe, Abgabe', geg. dhânë;

gr. δῶρον `Geschenk' (-ro- in pass. Geltung, vgl. z. B. clā-ru-s), aksl. darъ `Gabe' (m. wie *danъkъ), arm. tur ds.;

ai. dāyá- `gebend', dāyá- m. `Geschenk', apreuß. dāian Akk. `Gabe', serb. prȍ-daja `Verkauf' (usw., Berneker 176).

Als 2. Kompositionsglied ai. -dā- z. B. in aśvadā́- `Rosse schenkend', slav. mit Überführung in die o-Dekl., z. B. russ. dial. pó-dy Pl. `Abgaben, Steuern', serb. prî-d `Draufgabe beim Tausch'; lit. priẽdas `Zugabe, Zulage'.

dō̆-u- liegt vor in ai. dāvánē `zu geben' (auch Perf. dadáu `habe gegeben'), av. dāvōi `zu geben', kypr. δυϝάνοι `er möge geben', Inf. δοϝεναι (über ark. Partiz. ἀπυ-δόας s. Schwyzer Gr. Gr. I 745 f.), kontrahiert hom.-att. δοῦναι;

lat. duim, duīs usw. `dem, dēs', Fut. II -duō, enthalten einen Aorist-stamm *du- aus *dou̯-; duim ist aus Optat. *-dou̯īm in den Kompositis entstanden (prō-duint aus *prō-dou̯int, usw.), dann auch bei Kompositis von *dhē- : per-duim, usw. Zum ital. Optativ *dou̯īm trat wohlerst sekundär im Umbr. und Fal. ein Präsens *dou̯iō in fal. doviad `möge gewähren' (es scheint daher lat. duam usw. in Kompositis geschwächtes *doviām zu sein), umbr. pur-dovitu, pur-tuvitu, -tuetu `porricito', purtuvies `porricies', umbr. purditom (*-d(o)u̯itom) `porrectum', purtiius (*d(o)u̯īus) `porrexeris', purtifile `*porricibilem', aus synkopiertem *por-d[o]u̯ī́- mit Wandel von du̯ zu d; in purdovitu Imper. wurde die Synkope durch den Indik. *pór-dovīt gehindert;

lit. daviaũ `ich gab', dovanà f. `Gabe', lett. dâvana f. `Gabe', Iterativ dãvât, dāvinât `anbieten, schenken', aksl. -davati `verteilen' (eine der Musterformen für die Iterative auf-vati).

Über as. twīthōn `gewähren' usw. s. unter deu-2 `freundlich gewähren'.

Here is the site, it will not link to each article, you need to toggle at a menu bar on the left to get to first the right letter then the right article:

J. Pokorny's Indo-European Etymological Dictionary [dead link]
https://indo-european.info/pokorny-etymological-dictionary/whnjs.htm

Hans-Georg Lundahl

“Could you answer me how many of them you will find it?”

After looking at what I just copied, for this one Germanic and Celtic are absent.

II

5.VIII.2025

Christopher Bader

The Indo-European languages are absolutely not a Sprachbund, that is a group of unrelated or distantly related languages that have converged in certain respects due to geographical proximity and population contact. Ancient Greek and Vedic Sanskrit were spoken thousands of miles apart, yet they are so similar that they must be genetically related.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Both the theory of a common ancestral language and the theory of convergence by geographic proximity (less so the theory of convergence by trade proximity, like there was trade between Villanova culture with Mycenaean clear influx and Denmark), both suppose that the geographic distance is secondary.

As to your specific example:

Mitanni[1] (c. 1550–1260 BC),[a] earlier called Ḫabigalbat in old Babylonian texts, c. 1600 BC;[1] Hanigalbat or Hani-Rabbat in Assyrian records,[b] or Naharin in Egyptian texts, was a Hurrian-speaking state in northern Syria and southeast Anatolia (modern-day Turkey)[2] with Indo-Aryan linguistic and political influences.

I suppose you are aware that the Aryan element in Mitanni is older than Vedic Sanskrit, and that East Anatolia is way closer to Greece than India is.

Footnotes

[1] Mitanni - Wikipedia
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mitanni

Q X

Do we have any written evidence of Indo-European languages before Sanskrit?
https://www.quora.com/Do-we-have-any-written-evidence-of-Indo-European-languages-before-Sanskrit/answer/Hans-Georg-Lundahl-1

Hans-Georg Lundahl

amateur linguist

2 years ago

Hittite, Mycenaean Greek, I am not sure what the language of the Mitanni is called (Hurrite or Mitanni?) but that one too. Luwian, Lydian. And in small inscriptions even Italic and Venetic.

Written evidence of Sanskrit only comes after Ashoka’s edict with its written evidence for Prakrit, a daughter language of Sanskrit or dialects contemporary to it.

4.VIII.2025

Stefan Speck

Hurrite is not Indo-European.

6.VIII.2025

[Cannot answer, he disabled the answer button, but he's correct, the Mitanni ruled over speakers of Hurrian, but their élite were speaking an Indo-European language, actually related to Vedic and Sanscrit, but older.]

Q XI

What makes Icelandic so conservative in keeping old letters like 'þ' and 'ð', compared to other Scandinavian languages?
https://www.quora.com/What-makes-Icelandic-so-conservative-in-keeping-old-letters-like-%C3%BE-and-%C3%B0-compared-to-other-Scandinavian-languages/answer/Hans-Georg-Lundahl-2

Hans-Georg Lundahl

amateur linguist

6.VIII.2025

Icelandic was from a certain point in the Middle Ages on not used as official language of an independent state. The official language from a certain point on was Danish. Icelandic was cultivated as a hobby.

Norwegian from a certain point on was in a similar position, except that only parts of Norway retained the original Norwegian close to Icelandic, other parts took over Danish with a changed pronunciation.

Danish and Swedish however hit the printing press as official languages of two kingdoms (one comprising also modern Finland, that’s Sweden, the other also Norway and Iceland, that’s Denmark). Printing was not at its absolute peak of sophistication, so Þ (thorn) got replaced with th, Ð (Eth) or mostly lower case ð got replaced with dh, and for good measure, g got replaced with gh in positions analogous to dh.

Since then Danish and Swedish both lost the sound of th, replacing the digraph with t (except in some pronouns where it was pronounced dh often enough and got replaced with d), while Icelandic didn’t. Once Icelandic became an interest for people with printing press, the letters Þ (thorn) and Ð (Eth) were by now easy to reproduce in print, and printers did.

Another question is why Icelandic was so phonetically conservative as to preserve thorn. Linguists have sometimes spoken of insular conservatism. While this has been invoked for English conserving thorn and w, Tolkien however pointed to the vicinity of Welsh, which also has both sounds. Ultimately a sound changing or remaining in a language is mysterious.

Q XII

How do you attempt to change the language in Vietnam?
https://www.quora.com/How-do-you-attempt-to-change-the-language-in-Vietnam/answer/Hans-Georg-Lundahl-2

Hans-Georg Lundahl

amateur linguist

6.VIII.2025

Why would I attempt it?

Ask “why” before “if” in some cases, and ask “if” before “how.”

I have neither occasion nor interest in changing the language of Vietnam, in fact I spell my Swedish differently precisely in order to refuse the changes imposed partly by élites and partly by the Government … my spelling and conjugation is basically early 19th C.

Q XIII

What historical events led to Switzerland's diverse linguistic landscape with German, French, Italian, and Romansh?
https://www.quora.com/What-historical-events-led-to-Switzerlands-diverse-linguistic-landscape-with-German-French-Italian-and-Romansh/answer/Hans-Georg-Lundahl-2

Hans-Georg Lundahl

amateur linguist

13.VIII.2025

• Switzerland started out as different micro-states that were not fully independent, in a region of Charlemagne’s Empire, at the linguistic border between French, German and Italian. Romansch is basically a South French to North Italian dialect. The position was similar in Lotharingia.
• They happened to coalesce around originally a few German cantons which, while in this Lotharingian middle were vassals under a Habsburg (whose ancestors came from there)[1] who lived several hundred km to the East, in Austria.
• Their de facto independence was not recognised at first, other than as banditry. In some places these bandits conquered (Ticino), in other places some city had a reason to prefer bandits over the own feudal liege lord (Geneva). The situation changed when the Westphalian Peace Treaty of 1648 recognised the Confederatio Helvetica. Obviously Popes (up to modern Antipopes) and French Kings employing Swiss guards did not consider the Swiss as all of them automatically bandits. Vorarlberg is more likely to recall the bad old days that way. Isn’t that so, Bregenz?[2] [3]
• In German, the main inspiration was rural independence, and so the main German is Swiss German. In French, the Genevans dominated and attempted linguistic perfection, which of course involved aligning more closely with Paris. In Italian, I would say “Italian” is parallel to the French and due to Swiss guards of Rome, while the Swiss Guards of Royal Paris contributed to the standard French nature of Swiss French, and I would say the more native form is more like Romansch. I could be wrong on that one.

Footnotes

[1] Habsburg Castle - Wikipedia
[2] DIE STADTRETTERIN GUTA
[3] SAGEN.at - Frau Guta

Q XIV

How do linguists determine the common roots of words across different Indo-European languages when phonetic and semantic changes have occurred?
https://www.quora.com/How-do-linguists-determine-the-common-roots-of-words-across-different-Indo-European-languages-when-phonetic-and-semantic-changes-have-occurred/answer/Hans-Georg-Lundahl-2

Hans-Georg Lundahl

amateur linguist

13.VIII.2025

If too many changes in semantics and phonetics have occurred, they don’t.

If a few of each have occurred since nearest example without them and they make sense, they do.

Make sense in the case of semantic changes: a salmon word turns into a general fish word, a sparrow word into a general bird word, a jump word into a salmon word (Latin saltare — salmo, whence English salmon). Salmons are fish, and the word that became “fish” in Tocharic is not “salmon” but “laks-” … Sparrows are birds, so Latin “passer” = sparrow has become Spanish “pajaro” = bird.

Make sense in the case of phonetics: basically having a more or less consistent reconstructed form and follow the sounds laws from the reconstructed (or sometimes documented) ancestor to the diverse languages.

Note, in many cases straight phonetic change is not all there is to it. In Latin, “solum” means soil and “solem” means sun. In Spanish “suelo” and “sol”, no problem. In French, straightforward phonetic change would make “sol” of both, but “sol” only means “soil” … “soleil” is from Latin (if it went that far back) *soliculum which would literally mean “little sun” … the sun is a smaller part of the visual field of the sky than the soil of the visual field on earth, so “sol” = “soil” and “sol-eil” (little “sol”) = “sun”.

Whatever happened to “piscis” (Latin) “iasc” (Irish) and “fish” it’s not just phonetic change from a same original word, since recostructing “pisc-is” makes it an I-stem, while “iasc” had to go back on an O-stem and “fish” seems to go back on a Consonant Stem.

It makes sense to assume that Lithuanian “vapsva” and Germanic “wasp / Wespe” have the same origin. According to Linguists, so has Polish “osa” … initial w woud disappear, sw woulc become s, and short A on the stem would become O, just as Lithuanian Algirdas is in Polish Olgerd. The P? Why not **opsa? Well, a consonant of the P, T, K, B, D, G, S types and some other types disappears in the Slavic languages at the end of a syllable. So, “vapsva” would become “osa” no problem. The actual problem is, given the amount of change, can we be sure that “osa” has no other origin?

Q XV

Could Neanderthals have developed complex language and problem-solving like modern humans, or was that impossible for them?
https://www.quora.com/Could-Neanderthals-have-developed-complex-language-and-problem-solving-like-modern-humans-or-was-that-impossible-for-them

Answers

Answer I

Hans-Georg Lundahl: Could Neanderthals have developed complex language and problem-solving like modern humans, or was that impossible for them?
https://www.quora.com/Could-Neanderthals-have-developed-complex-language-and-problem-solving-like-modern-humans-or-was-that-impossible-for-them/answer/Hans-Georg-Lundahl-1

Hans-Georg Lundahl

none/ apprx Masters in Latin (language) & Greek (language), Lund University

12.VIII.2025

No human could “develop complex language” and Neanderthals arguably spoke Hebrew like other pre-Flood people.

“Developing complex language” is an impossible task, it’s a task of invention, but you can’t start inventing until you have “complex” language.

They certainly did problem solving, like when finding out how to make glue or burn marrow fat with wicks.

Answer II

Steve Martin: Could Neanderthals have developed complex language and problem-solving like modern humans, or was that impossible for them?
https://www.quora.com/Could-Neanderthals-have-developed-complex-language-and-problem-solving-like-modern-humans-or-was-that-impossible-for-them/answer/Steve-Martin-325

Steve Martin

Former geophysicist, Christian & creationist

12.VIII.2025

Neanderthals were just ancient humans. They were not plagued by the decay & harmful mutations that we suffer, so could have done surprising things.

12.VIII.2025

Hans-Georg Lundahl

They were plagued by some harmful mutations, though.

Dispositions to diabetes and substance addiction are genes found in Neanderthals.

13.VIII.2025

Steve Martin

Really? As they lived far in the past they would have been closer to their creation & so in a better genetic state. Perhaps these nasty effects started at an early state.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Different lines degraded at different times.

For the line from Adam to Noah, only ten generations, intermingling with some Neanderthals involved part of the genetic misadaption showing in the post-Flood era. The Neanderthals in the days of Noah could have been many generations further away from Adam than Noah or even have some Nephelim admixture.

Steve Martin

For the line from Adam to Noah, only ten generations, intermingling with some Neanderthals

Where did these Neanderthals come from?

involved part of the genetic misadaption showing in the post-Flood era. The Neanderthals in the days of Noah could have been many generations further away from Adam

They would have to be Adam’s offspring.

than Noah or even have some Nephelim admixture.

We know the lineage to Noah.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

“Where did these Neanderthals come from?”

From Adam.

“They would have to be Adam’s offspring.”

I’m not objecting. But Noah was TEN generations off. What if a Neanderthal was TWENTY–FORTY generations off?

That would be an “age at birth of son” medium of 56 years, which is possible, for the number 40.

“We know the lineage to Noah.”

Yes, and he was of the Cro-Magnon race; not the Neanderthal race. However one or more of his three daughters in law was Neanderthal.

Steve Martin

I’m not objecting. But Noah was TEN generations off. What if a Neanderthal was TWENTY–FORTY generations off?

Then he would have been the 24th generation from Adam.

14.VIII.2025

Hans-Georg Lundahl

I didn’t say twenty-fortH. I said twenty-fortY.

So, 20th to 40th generation from Adam, further off from Adam than Noah was, precisely as I said. And therefore more mutations.

Steve Martin

Ok.

Q XVI

How do linguists use sound correspondences to track the evolution and splits of ancient languages over time?
https://www.quora.com/How-do-linguists-use-sound-correspondences-to-track-the-evolution-and-splits-of-ancient-languages-over-time/answer/Hans-Georg-Lundahl-2

Hans-Georg Lundahl

amateur linguist

16.VIII.2025

Let’s take a Germanic word.

• Fish in English and Fisch in German sound the same.
• Vis in Dutch has simply S instead of SH sound.
• Fisk in Swedish, Danish and Norwegian has two sounds, S and K.
• Fiskr / Fisk in Old Icelandic, Fiskur / Fisk in Modern Icelandic has an R / UR after the K in Nominative, while the Accusative exactly matches Swedish, Danish and Norwegian.

From this we could guess that first West Germanic split from North Germanic by turning SK into SH. Then German and English kept the SH sound while Dutch made it S. In North Germanic, the majority dropped an old Nominative, precisely as all West Germanic ones did while Icelandic kept a separate nominative.

So, Germanic splits into WG and NG, WG splits into Dutch and English-German, WG influences three NG languages, while Icelandic is more conservative.

Is this correct? Not quite. The split in WG is actually between German-Dutch and English-Frisian (I’ve left out Frisian, which I don’t know even how to read and more or less write). The SK to SH is a common development of German and English, after they split, and in Dutch, it’s actually SK > SX >S.

But add more words, and things will clear up. Note, a Nominative form is actually outside this question, since you asked about sound correspondences, and here we have morphology, which is different.

Now, this kind of thing, if repeated often enough, will bring out the splits provided there is a common ancestral tongue the languages descend from, and may also give the illusion of splits when it comes to languages that influenced each other long ago, without ever being the same. I’d say Indo-European could be in the risk zone for it. I e for an illusory history of common descent, when it was more like common developments of non-identic languages affected mutually borrowed words in the same way.

English and Icelandic have a closer distance than English and Italian.

The distance between English and Icelandic is: 42,8 (meaning proximity is 57,8).
The distance between English and Italian is: 52,5 (meaning proximity is 47,5).
The distance between English and Polish is: 59,0 (meaning proximity if 41,0).
The distance between English and Persian is: 77,3 (meaning proximity is 22,7).
The distance between English and Finnish is: 85,6 (meaning proximity is 14,4).

These results come from an online calculator for comparing the relatedness of languages.[1] Let me analyse.

Italian and English are both Indo-European and part of the West European Sprachbund.
Polish and English are both Indo-European and part of the European Sprachbund, of which the West European one is a subset, but Polish is not West European.
Persian and English are both Indo-European. Persian is neither part of the West European or of the European Sprachbund.

How can I show that English and Icelandic share a common ancestor? Is there a bridge?

The distance between English and Swedish is: 31,0 (meaning the proximity is 69,0).
The distance between Icelandic and Swedish is: 20,0 (meaning the proximity is 80,0).

I can do even better, there is a bridge between English and Swedish:

The distance between Dutch and English is: 21,8
The distance between Dutch and Swedish is: 20,7

There is no similar bridge between English and Italian, English and Polish and English and Persian, one that would be closely related to both, even if they are less closely related to each other. And no one pretends that English is related to Finnish (not even Tove Jansson).

However, English and Persian by 77,3 % distance comes closer to English and Finnish by 85,6 than to English and Italian by 52,5.

Nevertheless, there are words that can trace splits even between Finnish and English. Kuningas is related to king. Because borrowed words will also follow sound correspondences due to sound changes in each language. The article King of the Romans[2] is in Finnish Roomalaisten kuningas[3]

Footnotes

[1] online genetic proximity calculator
[2] King of the Romans - Wikipedia
[3] Roomalaisten kuningas – Wikipedia

16.VIII.2025

Hans-Georg Lundahl

For those that did not understand all of the context, Germanic is a “branch of Indo-European” … English, Dutch, German, Swedish, Danish, Norwegian and Icelandic all belong to it. The first three are called West Germanic, the other four North Germanic.

Italian is part of Romance, descendant of Italic, other “branch of Indo-European”, Polish of Slavic, again another “branch of Indo-European,” Persian of Indo-Iranian, again another “branch of Indo-European” while Finnish is part of Uralic which is NOT Indo-European.

Between French and Spanish, the distance was actually closer, under 30 %, and not too dissimular between French and Portuguese, but there were clearly bridges (French, Provençal, Catalan, Spanish, Portuguese, the distance is always less than 20 %).