The language of old Europe

[Corybobory]

Are people who spoke these languages still with us? Can they disagree too, or are they all dead?

What?  No, of course they're not all dead, there's a few million first nations people in Canada, of which a very tiny percentage speak a fraction of the languages that were once spoken.  The genes live on, the languages have died. Languages, genes, completely independent. You cannot forensically look at a human body and say 'oh he's clearly a French speaker'.

I was a student in a school that was about 1/3 native, and I guarantee you not one of my classmates was a speaker of Nuuchahnulth, while many of their great grandparents certainly were!

[dublin]

Corybobory

You have the same situation in Ireland, where despite Irish being obligatory subject in Schools very few people actually speak it. We are talking about process of forced assimilation, through political, economic and cultural pressures. With mass media we are bound to loose many more languages. But What about 100 years ago? Before television, radio, newspapers, rock and roll...Was the situation the same as now? Did they speak their languages then. If a ruling elite wants to eradicate a language, it is possible to do it. Look at Hungary where they banned use of Slavic languages in 17th century under punishment, and now we have majority R1a, old Slavic population speaking Hungarian and feeling Hungarian. Yet before 17th century, you can not find anyone speaking Hungarian in Hungary except small ruling elite. A lot of the language that I am talking about is almost extinct in Ireland and in the Balkans. But it has been documented in 19th and 20th century, so it has been preserved for future generations. In 50 years time we wont have any of the small languages left. They will all die out. People will be assimilated because they want to be assimilated, or because they have no choice but to be assimilated. I am not saying that the line that divides languages and the one that divides genes is the same and static, i never claimed that. Just that languages are originally product of genetically homogeneous, family related group of people. And that we can uncover who made which language by doing some linguistic archaeology coupled with genetic research.

Lx

Ehhh? The daughter marker of R1b (R1b1) has been found in modern humans all around modern France and Spain during the last Ice Age, the last point of which ended 10,000 years ago. That places a clear massive string of R1b DESCENDANTS in a period that ended at 8,000BC. There are more holes in this argument than Swiss cheese. Is your argument that the pre-Ice age DNA was wiped out? Well, I'm here (R1b1b2a1a2f3) at least.

Can you give me link to data that shows that there are any ancient remains carrying R1b haplogroup from 8000 bc from western Europe. The data i have is that the oldest R1b was found in bell beaker remains:

Early papers publishing results on European-wide Y-DNA marker frequencies, such as those of Semino (2000) and Rosser (2000), correlated haplogroup R1b-M269 with the earliest episodes of European colonization by Anatomically Modern Humans (AMH). The peak frequencies of M269 in Iberia (especially the Basque region) and the Atlantic façade were postulated to represent signatures of re-colonization of the European West following the Last Glacial Maximum.[81][82] However, even prior to recent criticisms and refinements, the idea that Iberian R1b carrying males repopulated most of western Europe was not consistent with findings which revealed that Italian M269 lineages are not derivative of Iberian ones.[83]
More recently, data and calculations from Myres (2011),[84] Cruciani (2010),[85] Arredi (2007)[86] and Belaresque (2010)[87] suggest a Late Neolithic entry of M269 into Europe.
These hypotheses appear to be corroborated by more direct evidence from ancient DNA. For example, Early Neolithic Y-DNA from Spain did not reveal any R1b, but rather E-V13 and G2a,[87] whilst a similar study from a French pre-Beaker Neolithic site revealed haplgroup G2a and I-P37.[88] It is only later, from a German Bell Beaker site dated to the third millennium BCE, that the first evidence for R1b is detected. Ancient Y-DNA results for the remains of Beaker people from Iberia have yet to be obtained.
Whilst Cruciani, Belaresque and Arredi support a spread of R1b from South-Eastern Europe, Klyosov (2012) postulates that "Western European" R1b-L150 entered Europe from Northern Africa, via Iberia, coincident with the spread of the Bell Beaker culture.[89]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beaker_culture

Where were R1b before that period. This is a bit of a mystery. This is a simplified diagram that Dr. Michael Hammer presented at the FTDNA conference late last year, representing spread of R1b into Europe:



But i actually believe that this is wrong and that you could be partially right about the existence of R1b in western Europe much earlier than 3 millennium bc. But not in western Europe of today, but in western Europe which today lies under hundred meters of sea, off the coast of western Europe.

The main question about the above diagram of R1b expansion into Europe, is how do we know they came from Asia minor over Balkans and not from central Asia via Black Sea steppe, which is much more logical route if the oldest R1b people are found at the edge of the European Steppe, and if they came from Asia? Or, which is also not possible, that R1b people entered Europe from North Africa via Iberian peninsula, the western Atlantic, via Ireland and Britain, to Germanic lands of lowlands and Frisland?

If this is diagram of the spreading of the Bell beaker culture:



Why and how did they draw the diagram posted earlier, showing the entry point into Europe to be the Balkans? Is this based on some clairvoyant knowledge or wish, rather then facts? The spreading of Bell beakers from North Africa, West of Europe, then to the north west of Europe and finally into Central and Eastern Europe seems much more likely. At least it is possible that the expansion took place from both sides, from Atlantic coast and from Black Sea steppe, at different periods in history.

How can we explain this discrepancy between the archaeological, genetic, linguistic data, which all show concentration of R1b genes, languages and culture diminishing from west to east, and your map which shows that they entered Europe from the Balkans? Wouldn't have they left some trace from Bosporus to Germany?

Here is a map showing distribution of R1b genes in the world:



Data says no traces of Bell Beaker people in the Balkans. And this is the reason why. Look at the geography of the Balkans. Lots of rivers, lots of mountains, lots of bad people with lots of weapons. Very bad for people on horses and later chariots. This is why they all stayed east and north of Carpatian mountains and Danube. This is why old Balkan cultures survived until today. This is why you have an island of I2a in the sea of R1 (A and B). So I really doubt that there was any Balkan rout into Europe. If R1b people came from Armenia, then they came via Black sea steppe, like Huns after them. But they could equally have come into Europe from Central Asia, via Asia minor, via north Africa to west of Europe as well as via Black Sea steppe. Maybe the original Bell beakers came via the sea. And the later waves came via the steppe with the steppe people invasions of the migration period. Not everyone had to come at the same time. The fact that the concentration is the highest in the West of Europe surely points to the fact that R1b people have been in that part of Europe the longest?

But where could R1b people have come to western Europe so early after the last glacial maximum? From Africa. R1 haplogroup, the father group of both R1a and R1b, came into Euroasia before last glacial maximum. When they came to Europe is debated, by i believe well before last glacial maximum. Where and when did the split occur, we don't know for sure, but it is quite possible that that too happened before the last glacial maximum. When Ice started advancing, the human population moved partially to Spain, partially to the Balkans, and partially to Black sea region. These became centers of linguistic and cultural changes. Did the people from Spain reach North Africa 10,000 bc? Quite possibly. They had tools and knowledge to build rafts and boats. Sea level was 110 meters lower. So it is possible that some of the Early Europeans escaped to north Africa. But It is also very likely that some early R1b people were already in North Africa at that time. This is attested by huge presence of R1b, R1a genes in Africa and cultural and linguistic similarities between Berbers and the Irish. Look at these links:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kabyle_people

The Kablye Berbers in the atlas mountains of Morocco are known for having red hair. The Kablye are a very big ethnic group they are one of the biggest Berber speaking ethnic groups. Berbers take up most of northwest Africa and if Arab Muslim didn't invade north Africa, Berber language would probably have been spoken in much of north Africa Today.

There are some Kablye tribes with 18% blonde hair, so obviously they did get their red hair and pale skin from Europeans originally but when and from which Europeans is still debated.

Riffian people are another Berber ethnic group and they also are known for European features like Kablye.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Riffian_people

Look at the percentage of R1b people in populations of Africa:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haplogroup_R1b_(Y-DNA)

When did R1b and R1a get there? Were they there before last glacial maximum? Were they among the people who lived in green Sahara between 7th and 4th millennium BC? And did they get back to western Europe as the ice started to retreat? If they did, they probably lived in now submerged lands off the western coast of Europe. And if so, our chances of finding any early genetic material is very small as it is lying under 100 meters of water. Did R1b emerge in what today is dry western Europe from wetlands which now form the coastal waters of western Europe?  Most people at that time lived in coastal areas, because the availability of food was the greatest. And as water rose, population moved further and further east, until they reached the land that is still dry land today. This happened sometime before 3000 bc. Is the maximum frequency of R1b in Ireland, England, western France and Western Iberia proof of that? Quite possibly.

Once established in north west Europe, they mixed in central Europe with R1a, I2 and N populations forming Celts, Germanics, Norse, Western Slavs. Then they could have moved toward south of Europe and the Balkans. These invasions are well documented with Celtic invasion of the Balkans and Asia minor one of the ways of spreading the genes below Danube. If R1b genes in the south east are older then the ones in the north west, this does not necessarily mean that the spreading was from south east to north west. At the time of Celtic and migration period invasions, whole clans went together, including women and children. No one stayed at home. So it is entirely possible that some clans with the oldest genes just moved south and settled in the Balkans and in Asia minor during Celtic invasions of the south eastern Europe. And maybe the oldest clans never left central Asia until the migration period and only then moved to south of Europe with Huns, Tatars and Slavs. And maybe some of them moved down to Asia minor and later entered Europe with Turks? It is also possible that a lot of R1b people came to Europe with Macedonians and Romans and settled in the Balkans, bringing old R1b subclades with them. We can't exclude any of these migration options.

How is this possible if the main body of the R1b people came through the Balkans? And how did they enter western Europe through the wall of R1a people living above Danube all the way to Baltic?

Did R1b people prosper because they were nomads, shepherds and they survived the sudden climate changes which devastated agricultural population of Europe several times over?

In the book "The Secrets of the Irish Landscape" we read that according to the dendrochronological research done in Ireland on Irish bog Oaks, during the period between 2354 bc and 2345 bc the oaks completely stopped growing and showed bark changes which indicate that they were submerged in water. It seems that it started to rain and it didn't stop for 10 years. This caused complete failure and disappearance of the existing stone age culture due to crop failure. After the rain stopped we see the old culture being replaced by the beaker culture in a sharp artifact cut. Interestingly in the annals of four masters we find this:

The Age of the World, 2545. Rudhruidhe, son of Parthalon, was drowned in Loch Rudhruidhe, the lake having flowed over him; and from him the lake is called.

The Age of the World, 2546. An inundation of the sea over the land at Brena in this year, which was the seventh lake eruption that occurred in the time of Parthalon; and this is named Loch Cuan.

http://www.ucc.ie/celt/online/T100005A/

The Ussher chronology is a 17th-century chronology of the history of the world formulated from a literal reading of the Bible by James Ussher, the Archbishop of Armagh (Church of Ireland). The chronology is sometimes associated with young Earth creationism, which holds that the universe was created only a few millennia ago by God as described in the first two chapters of the Biblical book of Genesis.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ussher_chronology

The reason why i am mentioning Ussher chronology is that in his list of dates the date for the biblical flood to 2348 bc, right in the middle of the above major weather event.

http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/am/v1/n1/world-born-4004-bc

But the bible and the Irish are not the only ones to record this event.

In Chinese records we read that after there were 9 years of rain after 2346 bc.

Mayans talk about big floods and rain in 236o.

Something major weather wise has happened in the middle of the 3rd millennium bc. Did that wipe out the original agricultural R1a and I2 agricultural population from the north of Europe, freeing the land for the expansion of the first wave of R1b shepherds?

The same thing happened around 800 BC, when all the bog bodies were deposited across northern Europe, because of the sudden change of climate to wet and cold climate, which devastated local agricultural population again.

In Serbia, R1a, I2, R1b, E1b people have been living side by side for millenniums. R1a and I2 predominantly in valleys and agricultural flat lands working the land, and R1b in the mountains minding their flocks. E1b on the coast. There was never any animosity among them because there was no competition for resources. I believe that we had the same situation in the rest of Europe, but the balance was destroyed not by war but by climate change.

R1a tribe, people which since at least early neolithic lived in Eurasia, still lives there today. On it's fringes it mixed with other tribes and produced mixed tribes with many mixed languages. These languages we today classify as Indoeuropean, but the common link between them is R1a language. R1b shares the most basic common roots with R1a as they both belong to the same paternal genetic and therefore linguistic branch. They share the natural language, the earliest language based on natural sounds.
The important thing is that R1a, R1b, I2, J, E1b languages, which contributed in creation of all modern Indoeuropean languages are also pre Indoeuropean. Indoeuropean means post mix in third millenium bc, pre Indoeuropean is pre mix in third millenium bc. For relatively pure R1a languages, Slavic languages, it is all one and the same language from beginning of language to today, with more or less foreign elements added to it. For relatively pure R1b language, Gaelic language, it is pretty much unchanged since at least 8000 bc but with noticeable components from I2 and R1a language added to it. The core is however the same, unchanged. For Balkan south Slavic languages, the situation is the same as far as R1a language part is concerned. But South Slavic languages are a mix of R1a and I2 languages, which occurred a lot earlier than 3000 bc. Western dialects of Croatian and Serbian preserve a lot of this oldest I2a language, which is mostly covered with R1a language. The same language can be found in traces in Irish. Later this old Balkan language was mixed with R1b and E1b languages. In western Europe things were a lot more turbulent, as can be seen from numerous changes in languages of western Europe through history. These changes are not present in Slavic languages (R1a) or in Irish Gaelic (R1b) which are pretty much unchanged. We can see this from the fact that there were very little changes in these languages since the first written records were made in these languages to today. These are very conservative old languages. Between them we have an ever changing see of western European languages. 

Each of these original languages which contributed to the creation of the Indoeuropean language family is also pre Indoeuropean. No need to wander what the language of the pre Indoeuropeans was. Each tribe spoke their own language in their own territory. Look at the genetic map of Eurasia and all becomes clear at once.

I hope this clarifies my understanding of what Indoeuropean is. Next i would like to give a quick summary of what i mean by early human language, and how i believe it was developed from natural sounds.

[Daniel]

If you are implying that i could be racist let me tell you this: I don't know what my haplogroup is, i don't know what haplogroup any of my family members and friends belong to. And i don't care. Genes are not something we choose. They determine a lot of who we are, but we should strive to be as best human being as possible regardless of what tribe we come from. I was brought up not to care what culture, religion or nationality someone belongs to, and to take difference as positive and enriching.

Great! That sounds like a good attitude (similar to mine).
So your motives aren't problematic. But I'm still very concerned about the association you're trying to draw logically. Languages and genetics are simply different things, and while sometimes you will obviously find correlations (skin color, for example, will give you SOME information statistically), it won't actually be precise or reliable enough to tell you anything important. There's nothing wrong with considering genetic data (in fact, I think it's a good idea among many, many other things), but there is something wrong in founding an argument about linguistics on that. If you don't understand why, then you have some background reading to do. Language, at least as far as all linguists are concerned, is not something you can study by looking at genetics, archaeological evidence or other areas. All of these types of evidence can work together and build a powerful theory, but one is not a substitute for another, and language, when the data is available, can be very useful in that.
Genetic differences are relatively minor and have a very large time depth. Languages change faster than that. In my (admittedly newly exposed) perspective, any theory that compares Irish and Serbian directly (without instead discussing Slavic and Celtic, at the VERY least) is absurd. If you would like me to sympathize with your concerns about Indo-European and understand your perspective, you'll at least need to address that.
Maybe you're just using random examples (eg, Serbian), and I've mistaken them for central claims (eg, about Slavic and Indo-European).

If you ever want to get published or present at a conference (or, yes, just post effectively on a relatively informal forum!), you will need to learn how to effectively and convincingly summarize your work into an abstract form. It's not easy, and no one is holding that against you.

But, no, I won't be reading hundreds of pages on a theory that doesn't make sense to me from the start. If you can address some of these fundamental questions we have and then it starts to seem more reasonable, then, sure, I'll put some more time into it. Questioning things is great. But in doing so, you must realize that you're probably going to be wrong most of the time, or at least that you won't be more right. (You might discover that one theory is wrong only to come up with a different but equally wrong theory.)



---

Your discussion of genes and families:
The scale of study is hugely important and possibly problematic here. You might be able to do what you're talking about with a massive computer simulation that can actually track things like fatherhood and differentiate siblings who move to different places, but that would involve entire genomes, not just two different genetic types. Two genetic types are going to tell you almost nothing about language. In fact, you will find lots of false positives out there, even if you are right about the subset you're looking at. Look at neighboring groups with their own languages in the two regions-- you'll find that those people actually share these same two genetic markers but that they don't share languages. The resolution for two values is not large enough to then start comparing something as diverse as languages.

Serbia is the best example, where we have every haplogroup known to man, all sharing the same language. But with different local dialects and customs, which you can identify as links to old cultures belonging to the original genetic tribe from which particular local family or clan came from.

Whoa! Present-day minor cultural variation is due to ancient genetic and historical factors? This not only seems implausible (or at least unreliable) to me, but it seems to go against your theory that there are clear genetic indicators correlated with all speakers of Serbian.

I use genetics as a tool to track spread of cultures and languages.

To me this seems like a very bad idea. Or at least it is a bad idea if it is your only source of data. As I've said, there is simply not enough data in the genetic data to deal with the minor variations in Slavic and Celtic dialects you're talking about.

So far i think it works. I know everyone cringes when they hear genes and cultures mixed together, but just because someone abused something in the past, doesn't mean that we should never use it again. Just because someone killed someone with a knife, should we never use knife again?

Not at all. But there are two reasons people cringe:
1. It was used for bad motives.
2. It was bad science to begin with. The bad motives clouded their judgment and biased their science.
Just because someone used a certain method for bad purposes does not mean it's appropriate for good purposes.

Rather than your "knife" example, consider something like extreme torture. If it really is bad (in addition to be used for bad purposes), it should be avoided. I'm not claiming that relating genes and language is pure evil (like extreme torture), but that it may just be a bad methodology. That's all that would matter scientifically; you're right that misuse is irrelevant-- I agree completely.

So the problem then is that you're basing your theory on the idea that genes and language are reliably related. Fine if so. Then don't try to work out the Serbian issue right now. Instead, try to establish some basis for genes+language claims!

Tribes develop from families, and families propagate genes. This is a fact and can not be ignored.

True, but irrelevant.

Look at Slavs. From Central Europe to Siberia, they can all more or less understand each other.

Hm?
(And so are you now talking about Slavic as a whole? Still some big issues open!)

They are all more or less R1a.

That certainly doesn't cause anything. If anything, it's just a fortunate coincidence for a researcher. That's not a good feeling, that your research program is based on what you hope is a coincidence.

Their cultures are also very similar, and all that after crusades, conversions, occupations, exterminations, communism, nazism, huns, avars, mongols, turks, germans, austrians, hungarians, vikings and all the other invaders and conquerors.

Sure.

After thousands of years, over two continents, the language and culture is the same where the population is the of the same genetic type (R1a). All this without schools and without books to codify the language.

Perhaps. But so what? What does this say about Proto-Indo-European, in a case where there was a lot of migration?

Let's look at a simple, established fact:
Proto-Indo-European was spoken somewhere probably by a relatively homogenous group at the time. About 6000-8000 years later (or, looking back, about 3000 years later), those people had spread and their languages were then spoken by people who were genetically and obviously physically very different. Compare the red-haired Irish to the blonde-haired Scandinavians, to the dark-haired and darker skinned Italians, and then the very, very different looking Indians. They all speak related languages.

Now you might argue something is wrong with that hypothesis. If that's the case, then, well, good luck! There's essentially definitive evidence for IE languages being related, although many details are unclear. Nothing in historical linguistics is ever certain, but the field may as well collapse if the major IE languages don't actually work out as Jones proclaimed 250 years ago. Sanskrit is related to Greek and Latin. Therefore, there is no clear relationship between genes/appearance and language. Often, there might be a relationship. But it's not reliable. And that's where you're left.

Another area where a lot of research has been done is with the so-called Khoisan languages (a disputed group, really). The genetic and linguistic relationships are intertwined but not strongly correlated. It's possible to figure out the relationships, but they're things like "group X stopped speaking their language 1000 years ago and then they picked up a language from group Y". That research is specifically about disentangling genes and language! Something to read about.




By the way, your posts are being flagged by our spam filter (because of how many links they contain, I think). There's nothing wrong with your posts and the moderators will approve them as soon as we see them. Just in case you were wondering.
(We're developing a new spam filter, which will be customized to eventually not target established members.)

[lx]

<Looks around for answers to freknu's questions> 
Yes, there's a decided attempt to not face them, from what I can see.

[dublin]

lx

do you even know what freknu asked?

me:

Also the whole term "Indoeuropen" needs to be seriously reevaluated, as latest genetic data are connecting Indo European directly with R1a haplogroup and to lesser Extent R1b haplogroup only.

freknu's question: Like lx, I fail to see why it needs reevaluation?

Both Irish and Serbian (South Slavic) languages  have very large layer of paleolithic language, and have preserved the oldest language roots. You can build "PIE" roots using roots found in Serbian and Irish. This is how old this stuff is.

Freknu's question: You can build PIE roots from all IE languages. What is this supposed paleolithic substratum and why must it be pre-IE paleolithic?

I am currently trying to answer these two questions first as they are important to set frame of reference for further discussion. You don't have to agree with me. But you have my answer. I will clarify few more things in reply to djr33 tomorrow.

So please read and feel free to make comments. I will address his other questions later.

[lx]

Let's make my questions even more direct:
1) provide a list of Serbian and/or Irish words which you claim to be of a pre-PIE paleolithic substratum.
2) explain why you believe these words are of a pre-PIE paleolithic substratum.

This is what I was referring to.
I see you're pretty read up on genetic migratory patterns, though you come to some conclusions that I've seen debated, about R1b being strictly linked to the first PIE speakers that came into Europe. I understand the scene needs to be set (and in fact I did ask earlier to stick to less fringe topics and set a basis to lead out to the new ideas) but even if we say the underlying migratory theories you're citing are correct, this still has no bearing on how you translate this to languages. That's why people are saying you're dodging the question and not providing any evidence.

Freknu's questions get right to the point. You seem to have a theory you want to prove, but haven't got the evidence just yet. Herein lies the problem.

[freknu]

You begin with the central claim (or claims) of your theory (or theories), and work outwards from there — make your claim and incrementally explain it.

You do not begin with the periphery and work towards the centre — drowning the reader with "irrelevant" data that won't make any sense at all (if ever) until you make it to the final and central points (if you ever get there to begin with).

As has been pointed out already, the link between genetics and language is more artificial than Donald Trump's hairpiece.

My central inqury was and still is:

• provide a list of Serbian and/or Irish words which you claim to be of a pre-PIE paleolithic substratum.
• explain why you believe these words are of a pre-PIE paleolithic substratum.

[dublin]

djr33

Great! That sounds like a good attitude (similar to mine).

Great. So we can talk about languages, genes, customs and cultures calmly, impartially and without preconceptions rooted in bigotry. I hope. We can accept facts when they are presented to us and use logic and not emotions to evaluate each other's arguments.

Freknu and Lx

I am going to continue my conversation with djr33. I believe that my answers to him, also answer your questions. So here we go:

I said:

I use genetics as a tool to track spread of cultures and languages.

Then you said:

To me this seems like a very bad idea. Or at least it is a bad idea if it is your only source of data. As I've said, there is simply not enough data in the genetic data to deal with the minor variations in Slavic and Celtic dialects you're talking about.

And I agree with you 100%. You can not use genetics to determine a language of a population. I started this research about 20 years ago. I know I am old. This was before public internet, discussion boards and genetic data. I started by trying to understand very peculiar local customs, traditions and dialect characteristics of the South East Serbia, the Southern Carpatian region. They use "Celtic" standing crosses to mark the border between villages, their language is one of the oldest and most conservative dialects of Serbian language and it contains some constructs that, as far as I am aware, only exist in Irish. This was the start.
Most of my research is in the area of anthropology, archaeology and ethnography. Linguistics is a crucial part of this research. Languages, part of languages, survive when one language replaces another. As I said, when two languages merge, smaller or bigger percentage of the less dominant language survives inside the new mixed language. Sometimes we can clearly see the layers of the previous languages, because a lot of both languages which went into the mix was preserved, like in English, or German, or French. But sometimes only a fraction of the less dominant language will survive. Like in Hibernian English. A slang word, a name of a plant or an animal breed, a name of an archaic tool or custom, a name of an ancient god or a demon, a grammatical construct, toponimes and hidronimes. If the population that originally carried the swallowed language is also completely swallowed or destroyed, we will have problems finding these bits of old language (or languages) in the mass of the new language because we will have no reference language. But if only part of the population carrying the less dominant language was assimilated into the new culture and language, and the other part still lived somewhere where they still spoke their original language (or an evolved variation of it), and still had preserved their old customs and traditions, then the situation is completely different. You can literally overlay two languages and cultures together and spot the similarities straight away. If you then compare your results with a third language and culture, which is directly related to the dominant language and culture from the mix you are investigating, picture becomes even clearer. You can tell exactly what came from where. This is what I did with Serbian (South Slavic languages) and Irish. South Slavic languages are the most conservative and the oldest dialects of Slavic language. Church Slavonic was based on south Slavic dialect of the population which lived around Thessaloniki in the 9th century.

Old Church Slavonic, also known as Old Church Slavic (often abbreviated to OCS; self-name словѣ́ньскъ ѩзꙑ́къ, slověnĭskŭ językŭ) was the first Slavic literary language. The 9th century Byzantine Greek missionaries Saints Cyril and Methodius are credited with standardizing the language and using it in translating the Bible and other Ancient Greek ecclesiastical texts as part of the Christianisation of the Slavic peoples. It is thought to have been based primarily on the dialect of the 9th century Byzantine Slavs living in the Province of Thessalonica (now in Greek Macedonia).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Old_Church_Slavonic

This language is still spoken in south of Serbia. And actually even older dialects exist in the Balkans still today. Irish is also very conservative language. But it is actually a conglomerate of old Irish (R1b) language and I2 and R1a languages. In early medieval Irish texts (before Vikings, Normans and British) there are references to a peculiar "Iron" language which half of Ireland spoke and which was not like "our" language (Gaelic). Eventually Gaelic language prevailed and non Gaelic population was subdued and absorbed or exterminated. But part of their language and culture was also preserved in Irish language and culture, as well as in toponimes and hidronimes. If you compare Irish language, culture and toponimes and hidronimes, with South Slavic and Germanic languages, culture and toponimes and hidronimes, you can clearly see which parts come from these languages (a very large part) and which part comes from the original Gaelic (R1b) language.

I started looking at genetic data only a few years ago. The available data is still very limited particularly data coming from "interesting" parts of the world, like north Africa, central Asia, even Balkans. People have no money to do expensive genetic tests. So when we say "15%" of population has R1a haplogroup, that means 15% of 0.01 percent of the population...Not something i would like to use as my main argument for anything. As more an more people get tested, data becomes "statistically" more reliable. But you know what they say about "lies, damn lies and statistics"?

Now why do I then use genetic types to name languages? Because I can not use names like Irish or Slavic or Celtic to identify the language through time that spans millenniums. Languages like everything else get born (or created in case of slang languages) and then they evolve. As I said already, natural languages are born within genetically compact families. So originally every language was linked to some genetic type. I am talking about original languages, from the times of Cro Magnons. By the time people recolonized Ireland after the last glacial maximum, the language that particular tribe spoke was already old, but still descendant of same language the original population of the dominant genetic type within the tribe once invented. The megalithic R1b inhabitants of Ireland had a language, before Celts were Celts and Irish were Irish and part of that language is in Celtic languages and in modern Irish. The Celtic languages are Indoeuropean, and R1b as part of R1b language went into creation of the Celtic languages. But Celtic languages are also R1a, and I2 as part of these languages went into creation of Celtic languages too. We have the same situation with Serbian, Slvic, Scythian, Vedic...All of them are stages of the evolution of one language. R1a language. But what are we going to call that language before it became Vedic language? You can call it Proto Indo European. However this language has been through history directly linked to R1a population as all ancient dna from burial sites are confirming. The direct ancestor of this language is the language spoken by the direct genetic ancestors of the R1a Proto Indo Europeans, Slavs. Indo European languages were created by mixing of R1a language (and it's dialects) and other pre merge, pre Indo European people like R1b people, E1b people, various Asian people. This is, i have to repeat it again, the reason why we need redefining of what Indoeuropean, proto Indoeuropean and pre Indoeuropean means. I believe, based on archaeological, historical, ethnological, anthropological, linguistic and genetic data that i have collected and correlated, that R1a people were proto Indoeuropeans, the core component of all Indoeuropean languages, and what makes them related to each other.

This is the diagram of the distribution of R1a in Eurasia and north Africa:



Here is what Eupedia says about R1a haplogroup:

Haplogroup R1a probably branched off from R1* around the time of the Last Glacial Maximum (19,000 to 26,000 years before present). Little is know for certain about its place of origin. Some think it might have originated in the Balkans or around Pakistan and Northwest India, due to the greater genetic diversity found in these regions. The diversity can be explained by other factors though. The Balkans have been subject to 5000 years of migrations from the Eurasian Steppes, each bringing new varieties of R1a. South Asia has had a much bigger population than any other parts of the world (occasionally equalled by China) for at least 10,000 years, and larger population bring about more genetic diversity. The most likely place of origin of R1a is Central Asia or southern Russia/Siberia.

R1a is thought to have been the dominant haplogroup among the northern and eastern Indo-European speakers who evolved into the Indo-Iranian, Mycenaean Greek, Thracian, Baltic and Slavic branches.

I would say that R1a haplogroup was also very influential in creation of western European languages by mixing with R1b, I1,I2, N, E1b, J...haplogroups.

http://www.eupedia.com/europe/Haplogroup_R1a_Y-DNA.shtml
http://www.eupedia.com/europe/origins_haplogroups_europe.shtml#R1a

[dublin]

I believe, based on the same data, that R1b and E1b languages were Afro Asiatic languages or Afro Atlantic or Central Asia, North Africa, Atlantic languages. They contributed in the creation of Indoeuropean languages by mixing with proto Indoeuropean R1a language. R1b and E1b languages also formed other languages by mixing with other genetic language groups such as J, G and C in Africa and Asia.

Look at Basque language. Non Indo European language, and one of few almost pure R1b, pre Indoeuropean mix, languages left. Everyone expected Basque people to have one of the old European, pre Indoeuropean, haplogroups. The fact that Basque people have, with Irish, the highest percentage of R1b people, came as a shock. First this was used as a proof that R1b was the original hunter gatherer type of Europe. But we know now that this is not true. What is special about Basque people is that they did not mix their language with R1a languages, and so have not become Indoeuropean. Irish on the other hand, another R1b language, did mix extensively with R1a and I2 languages and became Indoeuropenised. Both R1a and R1b share common language roots, as both genetic types which are carriers of the languages share common genetic progenitor R1, same father. But long period of separation and extensive mixing of R1b with other non R1 languages in central Asia and Africa, change R1b languages so much, that when they finally entered Europe in Neolithic, they only partially resembled R1a languages, and partially had Afro Asiatic characteristics. This Afro Asiatic influence is evident in Irish, even though it is still debated: 

The concept of the Insular Celtic languages being descended from Hebrew was part of Medieval superstition, but the hypothesis that they had features from an Afro-Asiatic substratum (Iberian and Berber languages) was first proposed by John Morris-Jones in 1900.[2] Some well-known linguists have been adherents such as Julius Pokorny,[3] Heinrich Wagner,[4] and Orin Gensler.[5] There has been further work on the theory by Shisha-Halevy [6] and Theo Vennemann.
The theory has been criticised by Graham Isaac[7] and by Kim McCone.[8] Isaac alleges, that the twenty points identified by Gensler are trivial, dependencies or vacuous, but without giving an rationale. Thus he considers the theory to be not just unproven but wrong.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Insular_Celtic_languages#Possible_Afro-Asiatic_substratum

Celtic languages – Irish, Scots Gaelic and Welsh – incorporate grammatical traits found in Afro-Asiatic tongues that are otherwise unrelated, according to research published last week in Science magazine.

Other Celtic languages that were spoken in continental Europe and have since died out did not have these grammatical quirks. Afro-Asiatic languages are currently spoken in countries across Northern Africa and the Near East. This points to the possibility that there was early contact between Celtic and North African populations in the British Isles.

Orin Gensler, of the Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology in Germany, said the similarities would be explained if, when Afro-Asiatic people learnt Celtic from the new immigrants, they “perpetuated aspects of their own grammar into the new language”. Gensler has studied many grammatical features found in both Celtic and Afro-Asiatic languages. He found many of the shared features were rare in other languages.

Linguists have discovered surprising differences between Celtic languages and related languages such as French, while seeing striking resemblances between Celtic and Afro-Asiatic languages that are spoken in countries including Morocco, Tunisia and Algeria.

Gensler examined features of the languages such as the order of words in a sentence. In Gaelic and Welsh the standard sentence structure is verb subject-object, which is a rare sequence. This is also the case in many Afro-Asiatic languages. Celtic languages that used to be spoken in  continental Europe had the verb in the final or middle position.

Berniece Wuethrich, author of the Science article, said: “The only other non-linguistic evidence that could point towards this connection is in blood type, but it is not definitive. Irish and British people have different proportions of blood types to most Europeans. Where there are comparable proportions is in the Atlas mountains in Northern Africa, home of the Berber people.” Berber is a branch of the Afro-Asiatic language group.

Geneticists say there is no evidence of North African ancestors in Irish genes. “There is no particular correspondence between northwest Africa and this island but that is not to say we won’t find something,” said Dr Dan Bradley of the department of genetics at Trinity College. “There is no good genetic evidence to support what the linguists are saying. You have to keep an open mind though.”

While in general clues about the identity of prehistoric inhabitants are gleaned from archeological remains and DNA, linguists say that certain elements of a language can preserve information about ancient times.

It is widely known that when the Celts invaded Ireland there were people already here. Man is first believed to have arrived on Irish shores about 9,000 years ago – the earliest-known archeological evidence for human habitation dates to 7,000BC.

Archeologists are not sure of the origins of prehistoric immigrants to Ireland. A team of scientists in Dublin and Belfast, including Bradley, is studying the genes of modern Irish people to find evidence of these origins, a project which is partly funded by the government’s millennium fund

These oddities of grammar still persist in the English language spoken in Ireland. They do have a slightly different way of composing a sentence.

 ’ What would you be wanting with your Guinness?’

Instead of

‘What do you want with your Guinness?’

So who do you think brought these Afro Asiatic characteristics to Irish? I believe R1b population with their languages.


Germanic peoples speak Germanic languages, and it has long been recognized that a substantial pre-Indo- European component exists in those languages. Piergiuseppe Scardigli estimates that a full 40% of the basic ancient Germanic vocabulary is not Indo-European, but rather comes from some other source. This includes such basic words as land, rain, path, silver, and word (Scardigli, Der Weg zur deutschen Sprache). Edgar Polomé finds it "obvious" that Germanic retains traces of the language spoken by the pre-Indo-European inhabitants of Denmark and northern Germany (Polomé The non-Indo-European component of the Germanic lexicon).


Are there any linguistic links between Berber and German? Berber, the simplest and most conservative Afro Asiatic language, like the related Semitic languages, uses vowel mutation to express a change of meaning. Thus amagur (camel) becomes imugar (camels). This same feature is characteristic of Germanic languages as well; thus English man/men, foot/feet, write/wrote, etc. In The Loom of Language, Bodmer observes that Germanic and Semitic share this distinctive feature (Bodmer, The Loom of Language) which is, needless to say, uncommon in other Indo-European languages. Based on its traces in Germanic, Eric Hamp reconstructs the pre-Indo-European language of northern Europe as one in which there was a four-vowel system with no distinct "o," and which used the same words for deictic and relative pronouns (Markey and Greppin, When Worlds Collide: Indo-Europeans and Pre-Indo-Europeans- The Bellaio Papers). Berber also has a four-vowel system with no "o" and uses the same words for deictic and relative pronouns.


Many pre-Indo-European root words surviving in Germanic can be traced back to an Afro-Asiatic source (the parent language family of Berber as well). An excellent example is the word silver, which comes from Berber azerfa. This term was apparently spread throughout Western Europe by the Beaker Folk, who traded in silver (Cardona, Indo-European and Indo-Europeans). Berber (Afro Asiatic) words in Germanic include:

EARLY GERMANIC ~ AFRO-ASIATIC (Proto-Berber)

baus (bad, evil, useless; German böse) ~ ba's (calamity, misfortune)
ela (eel) ~ 'il (snake)
gawi (district; German Gau) ~ gawad (land, with epenthesis)
kelikn (loft, upper story) ~ qal'a (fortress, hill, citadel [Skomal, 223ff])
land (land, country) ~ lha'nt (grassland, with collective suffix)
paþa (path) ~ put (to step along)
preu (awl, piercing tool) ~ par (to separate, cut apart, make an opening)
regen (rain; German Regen) ~ rayyn (well-watered, with noun suffix)
sek (to cut, mow; English sickle) ~ tsîk (to pluck up)
silver (silver) ~ azerfa (silver)
summer (summer) ~ asammar (hot weather)
werð (word) ~ werd (to call out)

Germans are not the only West European nation deeply influenced by Berber culture. Celtic is especially rich in Afro Asiatic vocabulary. Even a common Irish word like aue, "grandson," cognates with Berber aouwi, "son." This is, by the way, the root of the Irish prefix Ó, still found in Irish names like O'Reilly this most common "Irish" word is actually Afro Asiatic and has cognates in Berber! Irish tribal names like Uí Máine, Uí Faoláin, and Uí Néill, seem to have been patterned after the Afro Asiatic collective prefix found in Berber Ait Frah, Ait Ouriaghel, and Aït Ndhir (Adams Hamito-Semitic and the Pre-Celtic Substratum in Ireland and Britain). According to world-renowned scholar Julius Pokorny, it is "from every point of view impossible" that the Celts were the earliest inhabitants of Ireland; the Berbers came first (Pokorny, The pre-Celtic inhabitants of Ireland). He reminds us that the Megalithic inhabitants of Éire were long- headed Mediterraneans, who "still form the principal element in the population of North Africa." There are many customs in common between Celts and Berbers, Pokorny assures us, including "queer sexual morals" (Pokorny The pre-Celtic inhabitants of Ireland). Welsh scholars have also affirmed "the kinship of the early inhabitants of Britain to the North African white race" (Sergi, The Mediterranean race), while the linguistic evidence of nouns, verbs, infixed pronouns, pre-verbs, consonant quality, and lenition of consonants all proves "close relations between Berber and Insular Celtic" (Pokorny, The pre-Celtic inhabitants of Ireland).


Especially in their syntax, Celtic, Spanish, Basque, Portuguese, French and English have all been deeply affected by this same "Atlantic" substratum, which Gessman calls "almost certainly Hamitic" (Gessman, The Tongue of the Romans).

Here is a list of common Basque and Berber words:

English, Berber, Basque

tree ...saGar (pl.).. SAGAR (*)
Basque "sagar" actually means "apple"

to arrive ...fel.... HEL
Basque "(h)el-"

to attach...aGi ....ATXI
Basque "atxiki" (to add, to stick)

beef ....esu (t-esu-t "cow") ...ZEZEN
Basque "zezen" means 'bull'

wood.... saRir ....ZUR
Basque "zur"

to run fast .... azl ZAL
(no such word in Basque, but compare Basque "zaldi", 'horse')

to say ...... enn ERRAN, ESAN
Basque "esan", "erran" probably from earlier "esran"

to sleep..... eTTes ETZAN (to lie)
Basque "etzan"

sheet ......axawlil OIHAL
Basque "oihal" (cloth)

child .....araw (H)AUR
Basque "(h)aur"

enemy .....henGa ETSAI
Basque "etsai"

to sneeze .....usraG urtzinz
Basque "usin"

to do .....eG / ekn- EGIN
Basque "-gin-" (to do, make)

String.....ehed HEDE
Basque "hede"

gazelle ....ahenkoD AHUNTZ (goat)
Basque "ahuntz"

drop.... eTTeb ITOITZ
Basque "itoi"

seeds ....âllun ALE
Basque "ale"

to throw .....enDw ANDEatu
the Basque word for 'to throw' is "-gotz-"

milk ....ax ESNE
Basque "esne"

master..... mess messaw MAISU
Basque "maisu" means "teacher"

sick ..... iran -urn- ERI
Basque "eri"

name ......isem IZEN
Basuqe "izen"

smell ..... ûxem USAIN USNA
Basque "usain", from an earlier *usani

shadow ..... têle ITZAL
Basque "itzal"

nail...... êsker AZAZKAL
Basque "atzazal" means "finger nail", and it's a compound of "atz-" (finger) + "azal" (skin, bark).

Gold ......ûreR URRE
Basque "urre"

to milk ......eZZeG JEIXI JAITZI
Basque "jaitzi"

to chose .....ebres BEREXI
not a Basque word ("berezi" means 'special')

to find..... eGraw AURKItu
Basque "aurkitu"

valley.... eRahar HARAN
Basque "(h)aran"

calf .....ahRu ARATXE
The Basque word for 'calf' is actually "txahal", which requires an earlier *zanal or *sanal.

Linguist Jaime Martín, claims in his book "An enigma untangled: the origin of Basque" that he had found similarities between Dogon languages of Mali with Basque.

On linguistic structures, Dogon and Basque concur in sentence placement order, with the subject at the beginning, the verb at the end – which is the biggest difference from Romance languages – and the direct object in the middle. Also, demonstratives (this, that) go after the verb, as opposed to Latin and Spanish, where it goes before. “I was surprised”, he confesses. They differ in that Basque maintains declinations while Dogon does not have them.

As far as vocabulary goes, he compared 2,274 from both languages and found 1,633 similar pair, which represents 70% of the total.

According to the author, comparative linguistics from a %50 of similarity one can talk about a relationship between two languages.

Ten examples of almost identical words: bede/bide (path in Dogon and Basque, respectively); soro/soro (agricultural land); beri/bero (hot); gara/garai (high); bana/banandu (to separate); gogoro/gogortu (to hold on); kwiye/kuia (pumpkin); pipilu/pipil (bud); togi/toki (place); kose/gose (hunger).

He also found Basque words made up of two Dogon terms, such as “senide” (brother), which is “sani de” in Dogon. Furthermore, he noticed that most of the words were older in Dogon that in Basque. All that has taken him to the conclusion that the Basque language originates from Dogon.

Therefore, according to this professor, the Basque language, which has been the subject of multiple theories about his origin, none of them conclusive, would have an African origin.

He is not the first comparing Basque with other languages; as Martin points out, Koldo Mitxelena – the most famous Basque linguist – denied the correlation between Basque with African languages.

Another well-known linguist, Antonio Tovar, carried out a comparative study among Basque, Berber, Copto and Egyptian and three other Caucasian languages.

Tovar only found up to 7% of similitude with Berber, very little, but pointed out how similar Basque sentence structure was to other languages.

What is interesting is that Mali is part of west Africa where we find a lot of R1b haplogroup. Fulani of Mali, a nomadic, herders tribe who also live in Niger, and Chad, have a high frequency of R1b1c. The also carry the European version of lactose persistence at a pretty high frequency, especially for Africa, of 37%. Lactose tolerance is almost directly linked with R1b herders population. If you look at these maps you will see that they are quite similar:

Lactose tolerance map. Red is most tolerant.



R1b distribution:



There is a great chance that lactose tolerance is passed on through a genetic block related to original R1b herders.

When and how did dairy herding reach these parts of Africa? Or maybe the real question is how did dairy herders reach Europe from Africa?



So to recapitulate this. I did not base my conclusions on Genetics. I used genetics as one of, the last and least used, tool. But you can not exclude genetics from this conversation. I agree with the existence of proto Indoeuropean people but I believe they are R1a people today known as Slavs. I agree that there is such a thing as Indoeuropean people but only as a mix of original proto Indoeuropean R1a people with Afro Asiatic people R1b, E1b, old European people such as I, G, J, and Central Asian and Indian people. I believe that pre Indoeuropean languages are the original languages that formed Indoeuropean languages by mixing together. Some of these pre Indoeuropean languages survive pretty unchanged (Slavic in R1a, Basque in R1b) some preserved quite a lot of pre mix structure and vocabulary (Gaelic), and some are mix of original languages with varying percent of the original languages (the rest of European and Indo Iranian languages).

Serbian language and other South Slavic languages, have preserved a lot of the oldest pre mix (pre Indoeuropean) language roots and their meanings. These roots are used for building syllables and words. They are very much pre Indoeuropean. They come to us straight from at least Cro Magnon times. The vowels i presented are the core languages roots. "GL-LG" root is one of the oldest consonant roots of human language. It defines the length of your tong inward and outward. It defines binary code which can be used to describe any amount of information. Pronounced fast it creates "glg" sound which if pronounced sharp becomes "klick" sound, found in most primitive klick languages of Africa. I will after this go back to vowels and add few more things that made me conclude what i concluded about vowels and their meaning. I will also give examples of pre-Indoeuropean words from Irish and Serbian and explain why I believe they are pre Indoeuropean (older than 3000 bc). 

Until then stay happy.

[dublin]

R1b in Africa:

http://www.eupedia.com/forum/threads/26626-R1b-in-Africa

"Celtic" torques from west Africa:





They are called manilas and come from west africa

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manillas


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Torc

Interesting and not really talked about...Who came from where?

African bracelet money







http://coincoin.com/I062.htm

A man holding exactly the same torcs can be seen on a relief showing Scythians bringing presents to Persian king.



How do we explain this? Who came to Africa and when and brought these torques with them? Copper production originated in the Balkans with Vinca culture 5000 bc. Gold production originated int the Balkans too at the same time.  The oldest golden treasure in the world, dating from 4,600 BC to 4,200 BC was found in Varna, Bulgaria. The oldest silver artifacts date from ancient Sumer about 4000 bce. Sumer is culturally directly linked with Vinca. So metal production, and torques were brought to West Africa from Europe or middle East.
So who and when brought torques to Africa? And how and when did R1b end up there in such numbers? Did the root go from Ireland along the Atlantic coast to west Africa? Or the other way round?

[Daniel]

Great. So we can talk about languages, genes, customs and cultures calmly, impartially and without preconceptions rooted in bigotry. I hope. We can accept facts when they are presented to us and use logic and not emotions to evaluate each other's arguments.

Absolutely. I never intended to imply anything else. However, we still seem to disagree about the validity of using genetic data for this purpose. That's a purely scientific concern. I'm not unwilling to be wrong about this, if your arguments are convincing.

I started by trying to understand very peculiar local customs, traditions and dialect characteristics of the South East Serbia, the Southern Carpatian region. They use "Celtic" standing crosses to mark the border between villages, their language is one of the oldest and most conservative dialects of Serbian language and it contains some constructs that, as far as I am aware, only exist in Irish. This was the start.

The simplest hypotheses:
1. It's just by chance. It seems important because you noticed it. But if I asked you "Would you believe that two Indo-European languages/cultures have striking chance similarities not due to historical relationship?" would you be willing to believe that? I mean, would you believe that out of the several hundred modern IE languages that such a pair exists among those. The fact that you noticed this makes it seems much more statistically relevant than it is: with a level of significant set at, say, .05, the chance of finding one major coincidence among all of the IE languages is remarkably high. You must show that something more is going on.
2. Let's assume these are related historically. What reason do you have to think that they were not there in the original language (PIE) and lost in all of the others? That's the standard default assumption for shared features in languages. For example, very few modern languages preserve the instrumental case, but that doesn't make researchers assume that those languages are older or more closely related than the others; it just means that it was lost elsewhere. In fact, this is necessarily the case within the subfamilies of Slavic and Celtic already! So why not the others too?

In fact, for both possibilities I would imagine there are very compelling examples to be found that do work out that way.

Therefore, you have a hypothesis based on suggestive evidence (in your opinion), but even if you can somehow work out a way to defend it, should you? Is it a better hypothesis than what already exists?


It would help me if you could provide a very short, very simple timeline of what you think the evolution of the IE languages looked like. Did PIE exist within that? What existed after, and what before?

Most of my research is in the area of anthropology, archaeology and ethnography. Linguistics is a crucial part of this research. Languages, part of languages, survive when one language replaces another. As I said, when two languages merge, smaller or bigger percentage of the less dominant language survives inside the new mixed language.

So maybe you can be right without challenging the PIE hypothesis in any way: you're hypothesizing a substratum that was spoken in modern Serbia and Ireland. That's possible. What you're seeing is the result of IE being adapted into the existing regions, and the same with the genetics. I'd be much more likely to accept this argument, although it's still very tentative.

The concept of proposing unknown substratums to explain change (or similarities across a region) was common practice for a while. Why did sound X develop? Simple, there must have been a language spoken there that had sound X. It makes sense. However, recent approaches have questioned this, and even come up with the term "substratomania" to confront the problematic assumption in the literature. Certainly sometimes there are substratums to be discovered. But it's not as reliable as you might think.

In fact, this sounds more and more like the conclusion you should be reaching, assuming that your argument holds up. That's a whole different conversation we can have, although most of it will just be guessing and imagining.

OCS... This language is still spoken in south of Serbia

Huh? I took a class on Slavic linguistics (specifically historical development from PIE) and I don't think this fits in with that. OCS is dead, while I have heard that Bulgarians consider it "Old Bulgarian" because it evolved into that. Certainly dialects that descended from OCS (or it's spoken form, more specifically) might exist in Serbia, but don't confuse that with them necessarily being special or "old"-- all languages are equally old, given that each has an ancestor and so forth, at least for tens of thousands of years.

I started looking at genetic data only a few years ago. The available data is still very limited particularly data coming from "interesting" parts of the world, like north Africa, central Asia, even Balkans. People have no money to do expensive genetic tests. So when we say "15%" of population has R1a haplogroup, that means 15% of 0.01 percent of the population...Not something i would like to use as my main argument for anything. As more an more people get tested, data becomes "statistically" more reliable. But you know what they say about "lies, damn lies and statistics"?

Another reason to be more skeptical of this. If you are going to rely on data, you better be able to rely on statistics. If not, that's even worse

Now why do I then use genetic types to name languages? Because I can not use names like Irish or Slavic or Celtic to identify the language through time that spans millenniums. Languages like everything else get born (or created in case of slang languages) and then they evolve.

That appears to me to represent fundamental misunderstandings that, for example, the class I teach is intended to correct. While some of this may just be your background and lack of familiarity with technical terms, "slang languages" is very concerning because of (what I think are) the implications of that. All languages are "slang" languages; some just happen to be socially perceived as "standard" and thereby valued. There is nothing whatsoever about the linguistic forms themselves that can be evaluated in such a way. Therefore, in historical linguistics, the standardization is all but irrelevant, except to the extent that it is a factor in determining the size and distribution of certain dialects.

As I said already, natural languages are born within genetically compact families.

Sometimes. That's not entirely reliable. Intermarriage is very commonly practiced in some parts of the world (such as Australia, the Americas, and perhaps old Europe).

There are no easy boundaries for dialects and languages. Family "trees" are likely more accurately represented by the gradient "wave model", where every individual essentially acts as a drop of water in the ocean, with what we identify as languages forming "waves".

So originally every language was linked to some genetic type.

That's possible. It's far from a clearly necessary assumption!

But what are we going to call that language before it became Vedic language? You can call it Proto Indo European. However this language has been through history directly linked to R1a population as all ancient dna from burial sites are confirming. The direct ancestor of this language is the language spoken by the direct genetic ancestors of the R1a Proto Indo Europeans, Slavs. Indo European languages were created by mixing of R1a language (and it's dialects) and other pre merge, pre Indo European people like R1b people, E1b people, various Asian people. This is, i have to repeat it again, the reason why we need redefining of what Indoeuropean, proto Indoeuropean and pre Indoeuropean means. I believe, based on archaeological, historical, ethnological, anthropological, linguistic and genetic data that i have collected and correlated, that R1a people were proto Indoeuropeans, the core component of all Indoeuropean languages, and what makes them related to each other.

That may be entirely true. But (read Anthony (2007) The Horse, the Wheel and Language) the Indo-Europeans spread by conquering diverse populations. Whatever their original genetic makeup was, it is now very mixed in the daughter languages. (And the opposite can happen where a population loses its language.) Again, genes and languages are not necessarily correlated!!



Ok, that's one of the three posts. I'm running out of time at the moment, so I'll try to look through the others later. Feel free to reply to this now.



---

Edit: ok, third post is short--

... A man holding exactly the same torcs can be seen on a relief showing Scythians bringing presents to Persian king. ...

Interesting. Again, see my alternative explanations above (coincidence, lack of loss).

But evidence like this sometimes exists and can be legitimately confusing. The question is whether it overwhelms the other evidence so that we reject a theory like PIE.

An example that comes to mind is something I saw somewhere (you may be able to find it by searching-- it was on a forum I wasn't previously familiar with, I just stumbled across it) about depictions (carvings, statues) of elephants by the Mayans. How can that possibly be explained? Not surprisingly, a lot of crazy theories followed in the thread. "It's proof that X!!!!" Something about the Basques was mentioned I think... bringing elephants to the Mayans. I don't recall. Crazy stuff.
The point is that weird data does come up, but there is usually a rational explanation. If you can't find an obvious way to explain it, then maybe it's non-obvious and complicated, but something that doesn't contradict existing theories. The problem with theories is that with enough imagination we can theorize just about anything and even come up with some way to make almost any two theories [at least data!] compatible (even if they seem incompatible). So... that's why science is hard, and why scientists exist. I'm not suggesting you give up at all, but do consider, to the greatest extent you can, alternative theories! Getting excited by a theory is one of the most dangerous things you can do in science-- but we like the idea, we're tired of not knowing, and we just want it to be right. The scientist's dilemma. (And why won't everyone just believe us for once!?)

[freknu]

You still haven't answered my questions, and from your wall of text I can find only one Irish word and no Serbian words.

Ir. ó "grandchild, descendant" < OIr. úa < aue < PC. *awyos < *PIE. awos- "grandfather; descendant"
cf. PG. *awô *awōN, Lat. avus, Ind. āyā, PSl. *uj, Serb-Cro. ujāk

Just because it worries me I'm going to deal with Germanic as well.

PG. *bausuz "inflated, swollen; evil" < PIE. *bhes- "to blow; to inflate, swell"
cf. Grk. psyche

PG. *ēlaz "eel" < PIE. *ēl- "line, strip"
cf. OInd. ālī, Grk. olinge

PG. *gawi < *gaawja "riverlands" < *awjō "island" < *agwjō < *ahwō < PIE. *akwa- "water"

PG. *landaN "land" < PIE. *lendh- "land, heath"
cf. OIr. land "open space", Rus. ljádá "land covered with young trees", Alb. lendina "meadow"

PG. *paþaz "path" < PIE. *pent- "to go, walk; way, path"
cf. Lat. pons, pontis, OCS. pǫtь, Grk. pontos, Skr. patha

PG. *preunaz "awl" < PIE. *breu- "protrusion, tip, edge" < *bhares- "point, stubble"
cf. Lit. briauna, Alb. brez, breth, Lat. fastus, Rus. borščь

PG. *regnaz "rain" < PIE. *reǵ- "damp; rain"
cf. Lat. rigō, irrigō, Alb. rrjeth, rrjedh, Lit. roki

PG. *sumaraz "summer" < PIE. *sem- "summer, year"
cf. OInd. samā, Arm. am, OIr. samrad, Cymr. hafod, Gaul. samon

PG. *wurdaN "word" < PIE. *wrdho- "word" < PIE. *wer- "to speak"
cf. Lat. verbum, Skr. vrata, Hit. werija, Av. urvāta, OInd. vrāta, Grk. eiro, Rus. vru, OCS. rota

Got. kēlikn "tower" < Gaul. cēlicnon < PIE. *kel- "to tower; hill; protrusion"
cf. Grk. kolonos, Lat. celsus, collis, PG. *hulliz, PSl. *cьlnъ

OHG. sihhila < Lat. secula "sickle" < Lat. secō "to cut" < PIE. *sēk- "to cut"
cf. PG. *sagô, *sagō, *sahsaN, *sīþaN, *seglaN, Lat. secō, scissor, sectiō, saxum, sīgnum, OCS. sěčivo, sekyra, MIr. arasc, tescaid, airsce, Lit. išsēkti

However, you still have not provided a list of Serbian and Irish words you believe to be of a pre-PIE substratum and why you believe this. The recent posts you have made is random and circumstantial at best, and more importantly, assumptive.

• provide a list of Serbian and/or Irish words which you claim to be of a pre-PIE paleolithic substratum.
• explain why you believe these words are of a pre-PIE paleolithic substratum.

[Daniel]

The middle post, to which I didn't reply yet, is too much at the moment. Those are kinds of examples I would use to discuss chance similarities, which is to say they're examples of most likely bad science. (Of course we can't be sure about that, but it's more likely wrong than right, based on available evidence. Intriguing, certainly.)

Among many other things you should look at, here's an explanation of why finding some examples is not evidence of much:
http://www.zompist.com/chance.htm



At this point, I'll let freknu's question take over. It's really what matters here, anyway: the actual vocabulary in question.

I would appreciate reading a, say, 200-300 word abstract of your claims that states very clearly what you're claiming and which theories are maintained and which must be abandoned. At this point I'm lost.


This, in particular, is so extreme that I don't even know where to start. I suppose a proper answer is "maybe", but I'd guess not. The time depth involved in what you're talking about is just way too much. The English word "click", for example, has nothing whatsoever to do with the phonemes used in the Khoisan languages of Africa...

Serbian language and other South Slavic languages, have preserved a lot of the oldest pre mix (pre Indoeuropean) language roots and their meanings. These roots are used for building syllables and words. They are very much pre Indoeuropean. They come to us straight from at least Cro Magnon times. The vowels i presented are the core languages roots. "GL-LG" root is one of the oldest consonant roots of human language. It defines the length of your tong inward and outward. It defines binary code which can be used to describe any amount of information. Pronounced fast it creates "glg" sound which if pronounced sharp becomes "klick" sound, found in most primitive klick languages of Africa. I will after this go back to vowels and add few more things that made me conclude what i concluded about vowels and their meaning. I will also give examples of pre-Indoeuropean words from Irish and Serbian and explain why I believe they are pre Indoeuropean (older than 3000 bc). 

Broadly speaking, your approach is based on a biased sample of evidence. You gather many kinds of convenient evidence while not addressing those facts that do not support your point. You're using selective evidence to try to show that your point is correct, while the extreme lengths you need to go to for this is most likely an indication that either the evidence isn't there or your hypothesis is actually incorrect. Drawing together so many facts "and this... and this!" makes your argument appear to be solid because you have so much evidence, but that's just because the small percentage of evidence that happens to support your claims appears large when you take that percentage from as diverse sources information about lactose tolerance and click phonemes.

And yet science has no way of definitively proving that you're wrong on this one, partly because of the lacking evidence in this case. You're welcome to continue, but I can't see myself believing this theory based on the evidence you have provided, which I assume is the best evidence out there.

[dublin]

djr33

We can't talk about this, if the only argument you are going to use against my examples is chance, coincidence...How many coincidences do we need to start considering some other explanation? If you have the same toponimes, hidronimes, grammatical structures, words and customs, traditions, and we know that for instance Celts lived in South of Serbia for a very long time how is this a coincidence? More troubling are all Serbian words, toponimes, hidronimes, grammatical structures, words and customs, traditions in Ireland, and that they are only explicable using Serbian language and additional set of customs. And we have no documented influx of Serbians (Balkan of Baltic) or Slavs into Ireland. And no late Celtic migration into Ireland either, which could have brought to Ireland things Celts picked from Slavs. This points at much older, common stuff. But then we come to the question: Why is the key to understanding this old stuff found only in Serbian?

The concept of proposing unknown substratums to explain change (or similarities across a region) was common practice for a while.

I am not proposing any new unknown language. Just saying that Indoeuropean as we see it today (or as you see it) is a mix of R1a proto Indoeuropean language and R1b and other Afroasiatic languages or old European (G, J, I2) languages. And these old, pre mix, pre Indoeuropean languages, are still here. You just have to look at the whole Indoeuropean term differently. Then it is easy to explain why we have certain language traits in only one part of Indoeuropean territory and not in others. It is not that everyone except Serbian and Irish forgot to use a certain grammatical construct, It is that it only developed where and when Serbs and Irish came in contact. No need to push this ridiculous thing about 99% of Indoeuropeans forgetting pert of their language, and only one percent still clinging to it. These local differences are due to local mixes of local R1a dialect and what ever local R1b or other Afroasiatic or old European dialect they mixed with on that territory. 

I took a class on Slavic linguistics (specifically historical development from PIE) and I don't think this fits in with that.

I speak the local dialects I talk about. If you take old church Slavonic and give it to anyone in south of Serbia, Macedonia or Bulgaria, they will be able to read and understand most of it. Again PIE = old R1a language whose direct descendant is Slavic family. 

Certainly dialects that descended from OCS (or it's spoken form, more specifically) might exist in Serbia, but don't confuse that with them necessarily being special or "old"-- all languages are equally old, given that each has an ancestor and so forth, at least for tens of thousands of years.

So you agree with me that languages survive for a long time. That is great. People in Eurasia actually spoke before Indoeuropeans appeared. When I say old, I mean probably older than R1a languages, or as old as them but from a different genetic family - I2. There are a lot of language traits in Serbian (South Slavic) dialects which are not found in other Slavic dialects, and which are specific to the I2 territory and tribes and families that come from that area. Some of these traits are also found in Irish language. This territory also shares common cultural traits and customs with the Irish which are not found in Eastern Serbia for instance where R1b and R1a mix is dominant. And Celts never lived in that area. That was the land of Illyrians.

Another reason to be more skeptical of this. If you are going to rely on data, you better be able to rely on statistics.

The way I do it is that I look at everything else first, then check various genetic data, to see what comes out. A lot of times you see genetic patterns which closely follow the linguistic and cultural ones.

I am not the first to link genes to cultures. Lactose tolerance is directly linked with Linear Pottery culture and their descendants.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linear_Pottery_culture

It has been suggested that the Funnelbeaker culture was the origin of the gene allowing adults of Northern European descent to digest lactose. It was claimed that in the area formerly inhabited by this culture, prevalence of the gene is virtually universal.[2] A paper published in 2007 by Burger et al. [3] indicated that the genetic variant that causes lactose persistence in most Europeans (-13,910*T) was rare or absent in early farmers from central Europe. A study published by Yuval Itan and colleagues in 2010 [4] clearly shows this. A study published in 2009, also by Itan et al.,[5] suggests that the Linear Pottery culture (also known as Linearbandkeramik or LBK), which preceded the TRB culture by some 1,500 years, was the culture in which this trait started to co-evolve with the culture of dairying.
Ancient DNA extracted from three individuals ascribed to a TRB horizon in Gökhem, Sweden, were found to possess mtDNA haplogroups H, J, and T.[6]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Funnelbeaker_culture

Funnel beaker people built megalithic tombs, henges a lot earlier then they appeared in England and Ireland. So they brought the the culture, and probably language, with them. Bell beaker people then inherited the genes from them, as it takes only one parent to pass the lactose tolerance to children. So R1b Bell Beaker man having children with Lactose tolerant woman will produce lactose tolerant children, and the other way round. This is why we have such high concentration of lactose tolerance gene in the genetically mixed north west of Europe.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lactase_persistence

That appears to me to represent fundamental misunderstandings that, for example, the class I teach is intended to correct. While some of this may just be your background and lack of familiarity with technical terms, "slang languages" is very concerning because of (what I think are) the implications of that. All languages are "slang" languages; some just happen to be socially perceived as "standard" and thereby valued. There is nothing whatsoever about the linguistic forms themselves that can be evaluated in such a way. Therefore, in historical linguistics, the standardization is all but irrelevant, except to the extent that it is a factor in determining the size and distribution of certain dialects.

Every language is slang, created. Agreed. Certain groups introduce slang to distinguish themselves from the rest of the tribe.  Language evolves through slang.  But some languages, the oldest ones, are created from natural sounds, like the ones i posted in my opening post, and some are partially or completely artificial. The reason oldest languages are built from natural sounds is because when they were built there was no grammar or language to give meaning to non natural sounds. I will elaborate on that in my next post.

Broadly speaking, your approach is based on a biased sample of evidence. You gather many kinds of convenient evidence while not addressing those facts that do not support your point. You're using selective evidence to try to show that your point is correct, while the extreme lengths you need to go to for this is most likely an indication that either the evidence isn't there or your hypothesis is actually incorrect. Drawing together so many facts "and this... and this!" makes your argument appear to be solid because you have so much evidence, but that's just because the small percentage of evidence that happens to support your claims appears large when you take that percentage from as diverse sources information about lactose tolerance and click phonemes. And yet science has no way of definitively proving that you're wrong on this one, partly because of the lacking evidence in this case.

We have surviving religious customs, traditions, language and associated symbols that go back to at least 10,000 bc. They are linked to the fire worship, and particularly fire bird worship, and are tightly linked to R1a Arian people. I call them Arian because the symbols which are related to this culture are bird (eagle), swastika and god Agni, Fire, Triglav Trimurti. The root terms of this fire cult, the symbol names, god names, practice names, of which most either have no Etymology in their related languages, or have etymology which has nothing to do with their function, or is completely opposite to their function, have clear etymology in the language you get as overlap of Irish and Serbian. If such complex things as whole belief systems can survive so long (12000 years at least), language or some of it's parts, can survive even longer.

I would really appreciate some argument against what i said, or agreement with me. Not we can't prove you are wrong but that does not mean you are right. What does that mean anyway? That I am right but you will refuse to accept it? I don't expect people to agree with me. I appreciate your critique and freknu's questions and comment very much. I never claimed to be all knowing. I came here so you can point at the mistakes i made. But actually point at them and say: this is wrong because...And not this is wrong because i can't believe it is right.

freknu

Thank you for your analysis. I will talk about it more in my next post. Sorry have to rush.

[Daniel]

We can't talk about this, if the only argument you are going to use against my examples is chance, coincidence...How many coincidences do we need to start considering some other explanation?

But that's the entire point. The fact that the data is intriguing does not mean that there is an equally intriguing explanation. It might just be chance. There's nothing wrong with me saying that it is possibly chance, but you're right that it doesn't start a very interesting discussion. The issue here is plausibility and burden of proof. Your ideas are pretty out there (non-mainstream) and, you must admit, not obvious in the larger picture. If there is some simpler explanation, then it must be considered.

If you have the same toponimes, hidronimes, grammatical structures, words and customs, traditions, and we know that for instance Celts lived in South of Serbia for a very long time how is this a coincidence? More troubling are all Serbian words, toponimes, hidronimes, grammatical structures, words and customs, traditions in Ireland, and that they are only explicable using Serbian language and additional set of customs. And we have no documented influx of Serbians (Balkan of Baltic) or Slavs into Ireland. And no late Celtic migration into Ireland either, which could have brought to Ireland things Celts picked from Slavs. This points at much older, common stuff. But then we come to the question: Why is the key to understanding this old stuff found only in Serbian?

You're already assuming that your questions are well-formed. Coincidences do occur. Remnant traditions that have disappeared in other groups do occur. Ancient contact was possible. Certainly the answer isn't just "they aren't similar", but it's far from a necessary logical conclusion that we must abandon existing theories!

I am not proposing any new unknown language. Just saying that Indoeuropean as we see it today (or as you see it) is a mix of R1a proto Indoeuropean language and R1b and other Afroasiatic languages or old European (G, J, I2) languages. And these old, pre mix, pre Indoeuropean languages, are still here. You just have to look at the whole Indoeuropean term differently. Then it is easy to explain why we have certain language traits in only one part of Indoeuropean territory and not in others. It is not that everyone except Serbian and Irish forgot to use a certain grammatical construct, It is that it only developed where and when Serbs and Irish came in contact. No need to push this ridiculous thing about 99% of Indoeuropeans forgetting pert of their language, and only one percent still clinging to it. These local differences are due to local mixes of local R1a dialect and what ever local R1b or other Afroasiatic or old European dialect they mixed with on that territory. 

I'm totally lost. As I said, a clear 200-300 word abstract on exactly what you do want to claim would help.
You seem to be taking on the absolute most extreme position possible-- not just not fully supported by the evidence, but among those positions, the one that is least supported. A substratum theory might not be entirely reliable, but it's compatible with everything you're saying and compatible with existing theories. So far you have offered absolutely nothing in support of your theory in contrast to a substratum theory, for example, so I don't understand why you're claiming what you are.

I speak the local dialects I talk about.

Oh no! 
You're necessarily biased then. (If I told you that American English was really cool because X, you'd be right to wonder about my biases too!)
Whatever else goes on with this research, I urge you strongly to consider:
1. How this might be affecting you.
2. Whether someone else who knows what you know but isn't directly part of it would come to the same conclusions you have.
If nothing else, you're putting much more emphasis on the implications of this evidence than anything else. Your entire theory of, well, everything, is starting from the two dialects you just happen to speak. That's a big warning sign. It doesn't mean you're wrong. It just means that you're likely to have a biased perspective.

If you take old church Slavonic and give it to anyone in south of Serbia, Macedonia or Bulgaria, they will be able to read and understand most of it.

Really? I'm interested in that detail. How literally do you mean this? Certainly the script isn't familiar.

Again PIE = old R1a language whose direct descendant is Slavic family. 

Not sure what you mean by "old R1a language", but... yeah, that's exactly what every book out there says: PIE split and the daughters became Slavic and other subfamilies (including Celtic). So again, it's very hard to figure out whether what you're saying makes any sense if it isn't clear what you're accepting and rejecting.

So you agree with me that languages survive for a long time.

That entire statement is completely incoherent!!
The problem is the definition of "language". What is a "language" such that it can "survive" for some period of time. Is it a mental object? If so, it can't really outlive a single person, so, no, not a long time. Is it a social communication system? If so, then, sure, dialects and individual internal languages interact in a complex network and eventually "languages" are preserved for hundreds and thousands of years, but they are constantly changing, and they vary across individuals.
The very idea of an "old language" is completely incoherent even though people seem to like using it. For example, Basque is not "an old language". That's like telling me that a particular region of water in the ocean is very old. Things move around, but it's really odd to actually talk about age. Unless language developed independently in different regions tens of thousands of years ago (and that's not what we're talking about here), the entire topic is unfounded. But, ok, sure, languages are old. They have histories. Yes.

People in Eurasia actually spoke before Indoeuropeans appeared.

Absolutely, and obviously. There is a huge amount of evidence to that effect including written records-- Akkadian, Dravidian, Basque, Estrucan, Iberian. Etc.
If you think your theory is better than existing theories because it is based on that, then you must re-evaluate existing theories.

When I say old, I mean probably older than R1a languages, or as old as them but from a different genetic family - I2.

As I said, that's a completely incoherent point.
I think you mean to say something about either location ("has been in a certain location a long time") or our analysis ("we can analyze as going back to a certain time depth"), but neither of those is particularly significant in the big picture.

There are a lot of language traits in Serbian (South Slavic) dialects which are not found in other Slavic dialects, and which are specific to the I2 territory and tribes and families that come from that area. Some of these traits are also found in Irish language.

It's completely absurd to think that Serbian is not part of Slavic. It's unclear to me how you can balance Serbian as slavic with Serbian is as special and connected to Irish. Beyond that, however you do manage to work that out, I cannot see why it's any less plausible to work it out within PIE rather than just within Slavic.

This territory also shares common cultural traits and customs with the Irish which are not found in Eastern Serbia for instance where R1b and R1a mix is dominant. And Celts never lived in that area. That was the land of Illyrians.

So you keep saying. But why must your conclusion be the right one? Why not just deep shared history? In 3000 years the world might change significantly. Perhaps only Zimbabwe and Canada will remain democracies. But you wouldn't want to posit a theory that they were mysteriously related countries in contrast to all other countries. You would want to realize that the other countries also shared this (actively or passively) and lost it. Simple enough.

The way I do it is that I look at everything else first, then check various genetic data, to see what comes out. A lot of times you see genetic patterns which closely follow the linguistic and cultural ones.

Eyeballing data is bad!!
Create a hypothesis, look at all of the data (or a random sample thereof) and use a statistical method to test it. If you can blindly support your theory without hand-picked supportive data, then you can feel confident. If you can only support it by eyeballing and selectively interpreting evidence, something is wrong. Or at least you haven't yet reached a reliable level of analysis. You're still in the "what if" stage of research, which is where it all starts.

I am not the first to link genes to cultures. Lactose tolerance is directly linked with Linear Pottery culture and their descendants.

Sure. But how reliable is this? Is it reasonable to then assume that it has anything to do with language?
There's a huge danger in the field of citation misuse. "Someone said something similar once!" It all builds up. Where did the citations start? Was it well founded at that point? Clearly you must recognize this, given the vast amount of research on PIE that you are flatly rejecting!

Every language is slang, created. Agreed.

Then why say it?
Everyone is stupid because we're not smarter than we are.
Everyone is intelligent because we're not dumber than we are.
Meaning comes out of contrast. "Slang" here is now meaningless.

Certain groups introduce slang to distinguish themselves from the rest of the tribe.  Language evolves through slang.

=Language evolve through speaking. Yes!!

But some languages, the oldest ones, are created from natural sounds, like the ones i posted in my opening post, and some are partially or completely artificial.

Ack! 
This sounds, honestly, truly insane. What is this even meant to imply?
What defines "natural" and what defines "artificial"?
Do you believe that a god created some good languages and some bad ones? Or maybe some cultures found good languages by chance and others didn't do a good job?
How else could you explain this?
Really worrying ideas! Do you understand the implications of what you're suggesting?
If one of the students in my class said something like that (I've heard worse probably) I'd immediately try to correct them.
There is no objective criteria from which we can determine which languages are natural or artificial (or good or bad or whatever). The fact that you're suggesting we could is a clear indication of very very bad science.
But I'll hear you out: what's your theory on that one?

The reason oldest languages are built from natural sounds is because when they were built there was no grammar or language to give meaning to non natural sounds. I will elaborate on that in my next post.

Ooh. I think I might get what you're saying a bit.
The first languages (maybe several hundred thousand years ago?) were simple pointing and grunting, with little conventional/abstract grammar. This would be, among other things, considered an iconic system-- surface-level. Instinctual.
Then over a long time, languages have built up systematicity and arbitrary conventions, disconnected from what one could "guess" and so forth.

That's a reasonable assumption, though it is controversial. Some people (like Chomsky) would argue that it was more of an abrupt change, that Human Language (as it is used today) was developed with a small change in the brain and that earlier, iconic forms of communication are simply not the same thing. Language is what it is because of these properties, so it isn't a question of being "more evolved" or not. Complicated area.

Regardless, here's the problem with your claims about this: the time depth is massively different. Many historical linguists believe with some certainty that about 10,000 years is the limit of how far back we can go reliably in a language due to the extent of changes and the speed at which borrowing occurs, etc. So whatever happened before that is masked. Even if we double or triple that, we're still not back far enough to be at a kind of language like you're describing. The very shortest window for human language to be like it is now is 40,000 years ago. The window is something like between 40,000 and 2 million years-- not before 2 million years (physiologically) and not after 40,000, because every human on earth shares the capability so clearly it must have evolved when humans were still one group. I'd guess it's more like 100,000+ to 2 million, but anyway, it's not shallow enough to apply to the kinds of dates you're talking about.

We have surviving religious customs, traditions, language and associated symbols that go back to at least 10,000 bc. They are linked to the fire worship, and particularly fire bird worship, and are tightly linked to R1a Arian people. I call them Arian because the symbols which are related to this culture are bird (eagle), swastika and god Agni, Fire, Triglav Trimurti. The root terms of this fire cult, the symbol names, god names, practice names, of which most either have no Etymology in their related languages, or have etymology which has nothing to do with their function, or is completely opposite to their function, have clear etymology in the language you get as overlap of Irish and Serbian. If such complex things as whole belief systems can survive so long (12000 years at least), language or some of it's parts, can survive even longer.

In language, frequent lexical items retain irregularities longer. "Be" is irregular in so many languages because of this. Something like religion is so central to a culture that it might preserve that rather than something less important like specific linguistic properties.
Alternatively, some of what you're describing is really not specific. Worshipping fire? That's more logical than worshipping sky-dwelling gods. It's so obvious that it almost supports itself just by default. So along with preserving it over time by habit/culture, that doesn't seem to be the kind of thing that would really show arbitrary cultural conventions being retained for a long time.

I would really appreciate some argument against what i said, or agreement with me. Not we can't prove you are wrong but that does not mean you are right. What does that mean anyway? That I am right but you will refuse to accept it? I don't expect people to agree with me. I appreciate your critique and freknu's questions and comment very much. I never claimed to be all knowing. I came here so you can point at the mistakes i made. But actually point at them and say: this is wrong because...And not this is wrong because i can't believe it is right.

Well, I've tried to provide some details above.
Why is alchemy wrong, as opposed to chemistry?
It would be very easy to point out a simple problem with your argument or to agree with you if most of our standard assumptions were in place. For example, if everything else was equal, and you said "I think Serbian is a Celtic language" I'd say you're wrong. Simple, no real argument to be made there. I could show you some sound changes confirming it for example. Or if you said "I think Serbian is an East Slavic language" I could equally well show you why that analysis doesn't make sense, given standard assumptions.
But you're not saying anything so concrete. What kind of evidence would disprove your theory? That's important. Falsifiability! If your theory is meaningful then there should be hypothetically some kind of evidence you'd accept against it. What would that be? Then we can discuss whether it exists. At the moment it's simply at the stage of being unbelievable. It appears to explain less than existing theories, less coherently, and based on problematic evidence.