Old European (Vinca) language and culture in early layers of Serbian and Irish language and culture

Many years ago I noticed strange similarities between Irish and Serbian mythology, language, toponymes and hydronymes. This was a mystery because according to history, these two peoples never lived in the same area of Europe at the same time, and therefore should not have been able to influence each other. And yet the number of similar or identical cultural, religious and linguistic characteristics kept growing. Also, people between the Balkans and Ireland did not share these cultural traits. This meant that there was no cultural diffusion. The conclusion was that these two people (Serbian and Irish) must have lived together somewhere at some point in history in order to mix their languages and cultures so much.
While trying to uncover potential meeting point, I first looked at Viking invasions from the south Baltic. While there were many things pointing to a substantial West Slavic presence among the Danish Vikings who settled in England and Ireland, this all happened too late in order to explain hundreds of old Irish words and names which were identical to the Serbian ones. Not only were these words the same, they came in clusters and could often have a root in only one of languages with complex words being present in both. It also could not explain the early medieval Irish personal names which had meaning in Serbian. It also could not explain all the grammatical constructs which were identical in Irish and in Serbian. Vikings just didn't have that big a cultural influence to force the Irish to accept Slavic grammar.
I then looked at the Anglo – Saxon period and discovered that there was a significant West Slavic (Wendish) presence in the Angles alliance. They settled in large areas of England, and there was a possibility that some unrecorded Angles settlements did appear in Ireland in the early medieval time with significant West Slavic population. But again this could not explain all the grammatical constructs which were identical in Irish and in Serbian. If there were Angles settlements in Ireland in the early medieval time, they again just didn't have that big a cultural influence to force the Irish to accept Slavic grammar. Also there was a problem of even earlier archaeological finds, linked to the iron age, which had Serbian and Slavic characteristics. There were too many old customs, legends, sacred sites which had their counterparts in Slavic countries and particularly Balkan South Slavic countries.
So I looked at Rome, and Roman invasions of Britain and wandered was this maybe the source of common cultural characteristics between the Irish and the Serbs. But Romans never entered Ireland and there is no known record of Irish mercenaries in the Roman army, so that removed a possible connection once again.
So I looked at Iron Age period and found many things which pointed to a significant cultural influx from the south Baltic. There was a great similarity between Lusatian culture in the south Baltic and the Iron Age cultures in Ireland and England, and it seems that the Iron Age was brought to Ireland on the spears and swords of the people from south Baltic. This was a good starting point. The warrior elite from the Baltic could have brought with them their beliefs, their language and their customs, and forced them on the people they encountered in Ireland. But that would not explain the huge number of toponymes and hydronimes in the Balkans which have no meaning in Slavic languages but do have meaning in Irish. And these toponymes and hydronimes come in clusters and are tightly connected with the location of the Balkan tumulus culture sites. Also this would not explain the presence of all the words, and grammatical constructs which only exist in Irish and in certain dialects of south Slavic languages and particularly in some old dialects of Serbian. This also would not explain all the base words in South Slavic languages which can be broken down and explained using Irish. For this to be possible, Irish speaking people had to be present in the Balkans in great numbers for a very long time during the Iron Age and even during the Bronze Age.
So I looked at Celts as a possible cultural link between the two people. They were the rulers of central Europe, precisely the area between the Baltic and the Balkans. That would have given them the ability to influence both the Irish and the people who would later become the Western Slavs. But Celts never had any significant long term presence in the Balkans. They came through the Balkans on the way to Asia Minor in the 3rd century bc. But their main strongholds were in the area above Danube. The area below Danube was the land of the Illyrians. Illyrians and Celts were by some people linked and called Celto – Illyrians. This certainly was a good lead. If Illyrians actually spoke the same or similar language to the Celts, then that would explain all the similarities between the Irish and Serbian languages but only if we accept that both the Irish and Serbian languages are direct descendants of the Celto Illyrian language and that Celtic and Illyrian were the same language.
This was already getting very controversial, as this would mean that there is a cultural continuity in the area between the Baltic and the Balkan lasting for more than 2500 years. This would mean that there is an underlying Celtic cultural layer in the Slavic culture and that the Slavic culture was created as a fusion of the Celtic and Skito Sarmatian cultures? The similarities between the Irish and Serbian cultures would then be the Celtic layer, and that would allow us to decipher the Celtic language from Irish and Slavic languages. This was very exciting. But there were things that could not be explained with the Celtic connection.
First it could not explain the amount of the words, customs, legends from old Rome and old Greece which could not be explained through Old Greek and Latin but could using Irish and Serbian language and culture. The only way this was possible was that somehow these cultural influences came to Italy and Greece from the Balkans at the time before the formation of both Kingdome of Rome and the Classical Greece. And there were plenty of ancient historical texts, as well as archaeological data that pointed to exactly that was the case.
The latest archaeological data from Serbia confirms that iron was invented in the Balkans. The earliest iron metallurgical centre in the world, dated to 14th–13th century b BC, was found in south eastern Serbia in the hill fort settlement on the hill called Hisar. This site belongs to the earliest proto Illyrian period.
So there was a culture in the Balkans powerful enough to influence Rome, Greece and Celtic central Europe. This had moved the meeting point where the future Irish and Serbs lived together to the Balkans in the end of the second and the beginning of the first millennium BC and identified the Illyrian culture as the root culture for both the Irish and the Serbs. But this culture also greatly influenced Old Rome and Greece which was evident from the amount of cultural characteristics and linguistic traces in both cultures which were in all the ancient texts attributed to the mysterious Pelasgians who even more mysteriously disappeared from the face of the earth together with their Illyrian and Celtic neighbors. These Pelasgians, Illyrians and Celts now turned out to be alive and well in the Irish, South and Western Slavs….This was getting really interesting.
But then I came across the story about Vinca metallurgical revolution which happened in the 4th millennium BC. At the same time when they were making lots of Copper and Bronze weapons, Vinca people were creating a first organized religion. When you have well-armed religious fanatics you can be sure that a religious war is not far behind. And that is exactly what seemed to have happened in the second half of the 4th millennium BC. Vinca culture suddenly disappeared from the Balkans, but Vinca artifacts started appearing all over Europe, Asia and North Africa. And all of a sudden all these great civilizations started appearing everywhere, all based on the same symbols, the wolf, the eagle and other birds, the snake, the bee, the bull, the double axe, the mother goddess earth, the father sky, the son sun and daughter moon, the bird people and wolf people. The Vincans went out of the Balkans and took over the world, wielding their metal spears, swords and axes and carrying their wolf totems before them. They also took with them their language whose traces can be now found in all the Indo European languages.
But they did not all leave. Some stayed at home and they later morphed into Illyrians. Those who went north eventually became Celts and Germans. Those who reached Britain and Ireland eventually became Gaels.
Later the descendants of the Vincans returned, in waves from all sides, bringing with them new cultural and linguistic characteristics which they acquired over the centuries while mixing with the indo European peoples they had conquered. These new cultural and linguistic layers were deposited on top of the old European strand of Vinca culture which was created from the mix of Vincans and the other old European cultures. Steppe people came from the east, Asia minor and Mesopotamians from the south east, North African people from the south, Atlantic people from the west. And the Vinca culture slowly disappeared.
The isolation of the Irish at the end of Europe, and the sheer number and military strength of the mountain people of the Balkans and the Central European mountains helped them to preserve this Vinca cultural and linguistic layer to this day, albeit covered with thick layers of Gaelic and Slavic and many other cultures and Languages.
Comparing these two languages I believe that I have now uncovered this culture and language of old Europe.
I also believe that in this old language I have discovered gives us a possibility to reconstruct the oldest language spoken in Europe, the language before the language. I believe that I have discovered how the first language was formed in Europe from natural sounds, and how this earliest human language was preserved and conserved in the Irish and Serbian languages and their base words syllables and sounds.
To support my theory, I have accumulated a lot of material which I am translating into English. I am planning to make it available as soon as possible. The work is however in progress and I am writing this to invite everyone who might be interested to help me to continue this investigation as this is becoming too big and too important for just one man.
I hope this does not sound too mad or pretentious. You have to believe me that I am pinching myself every day, as it is hard to believe that anyone can be so lucky to stumble across something like this…

You can find results of my research here:

Main vinca (old Europe culture discussion thread):

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2056938477

These are some side archaeology threads which contain information on specific topics and also contain linguistic discussions related to the subjects in question:

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2057129408
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2057088700
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2057082812

These are all side threads. The content from these threads will eventually end up on Vinca thread, when i get to the particular theme these side threads are covering.

You do realise that Irish and Serbian are both Indo-European languages, right? As such they already share IE language and mythology, as do all IE descendents.

Old European refers to the Pre-IE/Pre-Uralic paleolithic languages in Europe that no longer exist (even though Basque is often regarded as a possible descendent). Thus you cannot use Old European hydronyms in analysing IE languages, or vice versa.

Hypotheses of explicit phonosemantics will also be met with a great degree of scepticism.

As such there is very little of your hypotheses that I can in all honesty take seriously.

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.

Can you explain what you mean here? I don't get the connection between the gene markers and why that means the term Indo-European needs evaluating. Are you connecting that to the Irish-Serbia thing? Irish populations have large distributions of both R1a and R1b. Yeah, the comment warrants a further explanation.

I would just like a confirmation on that before we go on to address how on earth it is possible to discern paleolithic elements in these languages.

Yes I do realize this. However certain things found in Irish and Serbian do not exist in any other Indo European languages, and are clearly pre Indo European.

Such as? and why?

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.

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.

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

Actually you can. Languages don't replace each other, they are layered on top of each other. Comparing Irish and Serbian, which are very distant languages which should not have but do have a lot of common vocabulary and grammar, you can find these old layers. If you connect them to archaeology and ethnology, you can actually date them.

What are these toponyms and why must they be Old European?

A lot of "Pre Indo European" hydronimes and toponimes, god names have clear etymologies in Serbian. How do you explain this?

Data mining.

I don't mind skepticism. I approach everything with skepticism myself. But outright dismissing is what you seem to be showing ...

You have presented no evidence.

How can you know that what I am presenting is without value, without actually reviewing any of the material i listed? Not a very scientific approach, don't you think?

It is your duty to prove it reliable and relevant.

It seems that you are not informed about the latest research in the area of voice analysis. There has been a lot of research done in this field as i discovered yesterday. It seems that i am on the right track here...They already use vowels to automatically detect emotions in speech analysis engines...

Voice analysis and intonation is not the same as language. A strawman argument.

Phonosemantics (the association of sounds with meanings) is intriguing but requires a very high burden of proof.

Indo-European research is very well established. Anything against that would also require a high burden of proof.

So as lx said, before getting into any details, I think it would be important to figure out exactly what you are claiming and how high the burden of proof is.

The Italo-Celtic hypothesis suggests that those two groups split off at the same time. There's evidence for it.
The Balto-Slavic subgroup is also one of the best established (after only Indo-Iranian).
Germanic also goes somewhere within those groups, at least in contact with both if not closely related to one of them.
So saying that Irish (Celtic) and Serbian (Slavic) are most closely related goes against a lot of established research.

There are two possibilities which you cannot dismiss easily:
1. Coincidence. If you look at the dozen Slavic languages and handful of Celtic languages you may be able to find two that seem very similar. But that's not surprising. Here you must show that the similarities are beyond what would be expected by chance.
2. Shared history. With languages innovating all the time, it's very possible that Proto-Indo-European had these features and they were only preserved in a couple cultures/languages.

You might enjoy this paper:
http://hdl.handle.net/2142/13178

A lot of claims, hypotheses, and speculation, but little if any evidence.

However certain things found in Irish and Serbian do not exist in any other Indo European languages ...

Such as?

... and are clearly pre Indo European.

Why?

Both Irish and Serbian (South Slavic) languages  have very large layer of paleolithic language ...

Such as and why?

I don't honestly have time to read through all of the material you posted on the chance you might be right.

Well you will miss a lot of interesting reading, and i really couldn't be bothered repeating what i already said.

Further, the preliminary arguments you posted are both contradictory to common understanding.

I know. I didn't start this thread because i wanted to "join the gang" and repeat "official" well known and "agreed" dogma. I started it because I believe that I have discovered something new, which doesn't fit into the "common understanding", because common understanding was developed before all the advances in genetics and new archaeological discoveries.

...and it is not plausible to me.

Why? Because it does not confirm to what you believe in, or because there is something wrong with my arguments?

DNA is not related to language.

I beg to differ. I believe that tribes are are carriers of languages. Tribes are family related, therefore genetically related groups. So languages and genes are quite well correlated.

The reason why we have Common language, customs, between Ireland and Serbia, is because of old European R1a and I2 genes found in Ireland and language and culture they carried with them and R1b genes in Serbia and language and culture they carried with them. The reason why we have common language and customs between Slavs and Germanics is because of their common R1a and I genes and language and culture they carried with them. And so on.

The only reason i can use modern Serbian to give etymology for Vedic, Greek, Germanic, Celtic god names, which have no etymologies in Sanscrit, old Greek, Germanic of Gaelic,  is because these goods were originally named in R1a or I2 language, preserved by R1a and I2 population of Ireland and Balkans...There is no other explanation for this. .Too many "coincidences" to be coincidences. Especially because Serbian and Irish language based etymologies solve some very old "mysteries" of the ancient world and make sense of a lot of "nonsense" in the old belief systems...

I would again ask you to read through the material i posted links for. It is customary for any scientific paper review to actually read the paper first, then ask questions...

jkpate

Their claim is completely different from yours. You are claiming that specific vowel categories are cross-linguistically associated with emotional states: one vowel category is associated with one emotional state or a group of emotional states. They are claiming that people pronounce all vowels with more variation and higher formant values when they have high arousal emotions: when people are excited, they speak with more extreme tongue movements, and with their tongue closer to the roof and front of their mouth.

Yes, but the point is that vowels carry emotional content in words. If you look at what I wrote about vowels, i also said that different pronunciation of the same vowel will gradate the emotional message from positive to negative. But the message type will be the same. Maybe I discovered something they did not know. I contacted them and am waiting for a reply.

I would really like if you concentrated your comments on concrete examples of sound analysis i have presented so far, and let me know what you think about them.
I know this is very very different from everything you heard before, but I believe that it deserves fair trial and examination. I can't find any hole in my vowel analysis, but maybe i did not see something that you will. Maybe we will all go away laughing at how silly it all is, but maybe not.

Let me continue with the core language analysis:

I already said this:

Sound "g" is root sound of following Serbian words:

"grlo" - throat
"glas" - voice
"gutati" - swallow
"gristi" - bite

These are all characteristics of living beings. This connects sound "g" with meaning "alive".

It is also root sound of these words:

"glava" - head
"glagol" - word, language
"glagolati" - talk
"glagoljica" - letters, writing, alphabet

But also

"gledati" - to look
"gluv" -  deaf, root of word "gluvati" which become slušati - to losten
"gladan" - hungry
"glabati" - eat hungrily
"glodati" - gnaw, chew

and so on.


Sound "g" is the sound you make with the end of you tong deepest down in your throat ("grlo" in Serbian).
Sound "l" is one of few frontal sounds you can make with the tip of your tong by touching your teeth.
"gl" sound combination slides the whole tong against the top of our mouth, from it's root, deep inside of us, to its tip, at the place where we stop and the rest of the world starts.
"gl" sound combination carries outward direction, from us to the world. Serbian word "glasati" means to let sound out, to talk.
"lg" sound combination slides the whole tong against the top of our mouth in the opposite direction, and therefore carries inward direction, from the world to us. Serbian word "lgati" which today means "to lie" probably originally meant to "listen, decode, to understand" therefore to "misinterpret, to lie".

gl+lg = gllg = glglglg = glagol, glagolati = conversation, communication, language.

h,g,k,j are all deep throat consonants produced with the same position of speech apparatus. s,z,t,n are all tip of the tong consonants produced with the same position of speech apparatus.

Now look at these words for language:

Albanian - fjalë - outward movement. Not rolling, more controlled, probably newer in origin

Eglish - tong - inward movement. Not rolling, more controlled, probably newer in origin

Latin - lingua- inward movement from tip to root of the tong.

Modern Serbian and other Slavic languages - jezik - equivalent of glg, language, Not rolling, more controlled, probably newer in origin

Irish - Gaeilge - glg - language
Irish - teanga (tong) - inward movement from tip to root of the tong. Not rolling, more controlled, probably newer in origin
Irish - béarlagair - slang (remember word lagati, to lie)

Basque - hizkuntza. equivalent in meaning with glgl = glagol = language

Not rolling, more controlled, probably newer in origin

Danish - sprog - inward movement from tip to root of the tong. Not rolling, more controlled, probably newer in origin

Dutch - spraak - inward movement from tip to root of the tong. Not rolling, more controlled, probably newer in origin
German - Sprache - inward movement from tip to root of the tong. Not rolling, more controlled, probably newer in origin
Norwegian -  språk - inward movement from tip to root of the tong. Not rolling, more controlled, probably newer in origin
Swedish - språk - inward movement from tip to root of the tong. Not rolling, more controlled, probably newer in origin
Estonian - keel - outward movement, rolling, old
Finnish - kieli - outward movement, rolling, old
French - langue - inward movement from tip to root of the tong, rolling, old

Greek - glossa, glota - equivalent to Serbian glas, voice, outward movement, rolling, old
Hungarian - nyelv - equivalent to lgl - language. Not rolling, more controlled, probably newer in origin
Icelandic - tungumál - equivalent to llgll - language. Not rolling, more controlled, probably newer in origin
Lithuanian - kalba, outward movement, rolling, old
Mongolian - khel - outward movement, rolling, old
Romaian - limbaj - inward movement. Not rolling, more controlled, probably newer in origin
Welsh - iaith - outward movement. Not rolling, more controlled, probably newer in origin

We see the same pattern repeated in words for language.

But in Serbian we have all these other words which are describing head and all the functions performed by the head used in communication. How many languages do we have which have the same cluster of words?

Look at Greek which has glossa, glota for language.
head - kefáli
throat - laimós
voice - foni
swallow - chelidóni
look - matiá, vlémma
listen - akoúo

Where did Greeks get their words glossa, glota from? Their Pre Indoeuropean northern neighbors from the Balkans?