Page 1 of 9 123 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 85

Thread: [split] proto-Indo-Iranian, Avestan and Sanskrit: Age & Separation Date

  1. #1
    Registered Users
    Posts
    778
    Sex

    Netherlands Kenya

    [split] proto-Indo-Iranian, Avestan and Sanskrit: Age & Separation Date

    Quote Originally Posted by Coldmountains View Post
    I was not claiming that Proto-Indo-Iranian finally diverged in 2500 into fully formed and distinct Proto-Iranics and Proto-Indo-Aryans rather that there was an initial split around 2200-2500 B.C (rather 2500 B.C considering absence of Ruki law in Nuristani) with lot of contact between these groups untill they finally migrated into Central Asia. But like mentioned before ratha originally was rather used for wheel what also Iranica seems to agree with.
    Oh I think I must've misunderstood some of your comments such as this one then. My bad!

    Quote Originally Posted by Coldmountains View Post
    So i would date the earliest split of Proto-Indo-Iranians to around 2500 B.C (with Proto-Nuristani maybe diverging a bit earlier but staying closer to Proto-Indo-Aryan) in disintegrating eastern Fatyanovo-Balanovo and early Abashevo around the Middle Volga with close contacts between Proto-Iranics, Proto-Indo-Aryans, Proto-Nuristani and other extinct branches in Abashevo for the next 500 years before the migration into Central Asia and South Eurasia really started.

  2. The Following 6 Users Say Thank You to CopperAxe For This Useful Post:

     Alain (02-10-2021),  AlluGobi (03-26-2021),  Coldmountains (02-07-2021),  NK19191 (06-03-2021),  Ryukendo (02-07-2021),  whynot (03-21-2021)

  3. #2
    Registered Users
    Posts
    778
    Sex

    Netherlands Kenya
    What is the linguistic and genetic legacy of interactions between Iranic steppe nomads of the iron age and Uralic people who lived in proximity to them from the Volga to the Altai?

    Since Uralic seems to have a multi-layered Indo-Iranian substratum, what are the various linguistic terms linked to iron age steppe contacts and how does it vary across the Uralic languages?

    And then from a genetic perspective, what about ancestry? Are there any Uralic people with some scythian in them? Udmurts seem like a good candidate. I know this is a bit of a complicated one due to various overlapping components as well as admixture from Turkic peoples during the middle ages but if anyone has taken a look at it I would love to hear your findings.

  4. #3
    Registered Users
    Posts
    1,630
    Sex

    Aside: RUKI sound law is where s changes to sh after R, W, K, Y.

    @Coldmountains:

    About the absence of RUKI in Nuristani, Wikipedia citing Hegedus states:

    - The reflex of the Proto-Indo-European sequence *ḱs coalesced into a Nuristani *c (pronounced [t͡s]), thus in this context the Ruki law fails to operate. Thus, the word for bear, reflecting Proto-Indo-European h₂ŕ̥tk̂os is Sanskrit rkṣa "bear", Avestan arša but shows a dental affricate in most Nuristani languages as ic or oc.
    - Proto-Indo-European sequences *ks and *kʷs become Nuristani *č. Thus Proto-Indo-European *ksu-ró "razor" reflects as kṣurá in Sanskrit, and churi ("sickle") in Kati, and čūr ("large knife") in Waigali.
    - Various cases where the Ruki law failed to operate after *i and *u in Nuristani exist. Hegedűs notes that these all seem to trace back to PIE etyma where the *us and *is sequences were earlier in fact *uHs and *iHS, meaning the laryngeals seem to have blocked the operation of Ruki. For example, PIE *muHs "mouse" > Sanskrit mūṣ-, Avestan mūš, but Kati mussā, Prasun mǖsu, while the Waigali word is of dubious etymology, and the Ashkun form shows a variation in articulation due to secondary phenomena.
    - Proto-Indo-European *rs and *ls merge into a Nuristani *ṣ, thus after *r we do actually see proper Ruki-like behavior in Nuristani.
    It seems like what happened is that Nurstani did undergo RUKI, but there were elements that blocked RUKI in some contexts that did not operate in other IIrs.

    What do you think about this? Is this something pushing the estimate down?
    Quoted from this Forum:

    "Which superman haplogroup is the toughest - R1a or R1b? And which SNP mutation spoke Indo-European first? There's only one way for us to find out ... fight!"

    " A Basal Eurasian and an Aurignacian walk into a bar... "

    " No, you are in the wrong... I really hope that you are not jumping on my thread with intent to harass me, just like other "receiving comitee", that unites in classic bullying unity, which makes me sad about such people, deprived of love etc.... "

  5. The Following 6 Users Say Thank You to Ryukendo For This Useful Post:

     AlluGobi (03-26-2021),  Coldmountains (02-07-2021),  DMXX (02-07-2021),  Megalophias (02-07-2021),  pegasus (02-07-2021),  whynot (03-21-2021)

  6. #4
    Registered Users
    Posts
    4,743
    Sex
    Y-DNA (P)
    R2a*-M124 (L295-)
    mtDNA (M)
    D4j5*

    Quote Originally Posted by CopperAxe View Post
    The earliest camel bones in Indo-Iranian contexts are the camel bones at places such as Arkaim and then later with the Andronovo do we see wide scale domestication of the animal.
    if you're referring to the Arkaim site, correct - But this was within the timeframe of the Andronovo horizon's existence circa 2000 B.C. (i.e. several centuries after Sintashta's founding), per Kuz'mina.
    You'll find other articles or books refer to that site as "Andronovo ... East of the Urals".

    Within Sintashta specifically, the only BMAC-related material evidence that I remember reading about included household utensils and BMAC-inspired pottery. I don't recall seeing any mention of camel bones or figurines alongside those findings.

    [Edit]: Playing Devil's advocate with my own proposal now I've re-reviewed the above link.
    Petrovka II, the oldest site outside of Sintashta-Petrovka proper (1900 B.C.), had camel bones. Petrovka II was not a part of Andronovo (i.e. Alakul-Federovo). Half of Sintashta's been washed away, so a refutation of the idea that camels might've existed there isn't possible.
    Last edited by DMXX; 02-07-2021 at 08:17 PM. Reason: edit

  7. The Following 4 Users Say Thank You to DMXX For This Useful Post:

     AlluGobi (03-26-2021),  Megalophias (02-07-2021),  NK19191 (06-03-2021),  Ryukendo (02-07-2021)

  8. #5
    Registered Users
    Posts
    4,743
    Sex
    Y-DNA (P)
    R2a*-M124 (L295-)
    mtDNA (M)
    D4j5*

    Quote Originally Posted by Ryukendo View Post
    Aside: RUKI sound law is where s changes to sh after R, W, K, Y.

    @Coldmountains:

    About the absence of RUKI in Nuristani, Wikipedia citing Hegedus states:

    It seems like what happened is that Nurstani did undergo RUKI, but there were elements that blocked RUKI in some contexts that did not operate in other IIrs.

    What do you think about this? Is this something pushing the estimate down?
    That's right.

    Also worth noting that the Ruki rule doesn't cleanly apply across all IIr languages - There are some instances of non-compliance in both Avestan and Sanskrit IIRC.

    I don't think it can be treated like a 'hard delineator', the same way several isoglosses clearly distinguish Tocharian from 'classical' PIE, for instance.

    As I recall, the Ruki rule also isn't found uniformly within Balto-Slavic, with the latter branch demonstrating greater overall compliance.

    I'm going on memory, so can fish up some links tomorrow if they're sought.

  9. The Following User Says Thank You to DMXX For This Useful Post:

     Ryukendo (02-07-2021)

  10. #6
    Gold Class Member
    Posts
    4,515
    Location
    Shangri La

    Afghanistan Jammu and Kashmir United States of America Canada
    Quote Originally Posted by Ryukendo View Post
    Aside: RUKI sound law is where s changes to sh after R, W, K, Y.

    @Coldmountains:

    About the absence of RUKI in Nuristani, Wikipedia citing Hegedus states:



    It seems like what happened is that Nurstani did undergo RUKI, but there were elements that blocked RUKI in some contexts that did not operate in other IIrs.

    What do you think about this? Is this something pushing the estimate down?


    There are many theories but in context of Hegedus's models and Fatyanovo samples , early Bronze Age splits make sense now . The paper was from almost a decade ago but resonates better now.


    (1) Vedic vs. (Old & Young) Avestan: 80.5% cognates within 100 semantic units, which
    means ca. 1560 years of divergence. Taking in account the arithmetic average of the dating of
    Vedic and Avestan, 1200 BC and 800 BC respectively, as the starting point, we obtain
    (1200+800)/2 = 1000, i.e. 1000 BC. Substracting 1560 years of divergence from the ‘mean
    value’ 1000 BC, we come to the dating to 2560 BC of separation of the ancestors of Vedic
    and Avestan.


    (2) Vedic vs. Nuristani (in average): 66.5% cognates within 100 semantic units, i.e. c. 2240
    years of divergence. Subtracting 2240 years from the starting point c. 400 AD (arithmetic
    average of 1200 BC for Vedic and 20th cent. AD for Nuristani), we come to the dating to
    1840 BC of separation of the ancestors of Vedic and Nuristani.

    (3) Avestan vs. Nuristani (in average): 48.5% cognates within 100 semantic units, i.e. 3230
    years of divergence. Subtracting 3230 years from the starting point c. 600 AD (arithmetic
    average of 800 BC for Young Avestan and 20th cent. AD for Nuristani), we come to the
    dating to 2630 BC of separation of the ancestors of Vedic and Nuristani

  11. The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to pegasus For This Useful Post:

     Coldmountains (02-07-2021),  Ryukendo (02-07-2021),  whynot (02-08-2021)

  12. #7
    Registered Users
    Posts
    1,630
    Sex

    Quote Originally Posted by pegasus View Post
    There are many theories but in context of Hegedus's models and Fatyanovo samples , early Bronze Age splits make sense now . The paper was from almost a decade ago but resonates better now.


    (1) Vedic vs. (Old & Young) Avestan: 80.5% cognates within 100 semantic units, which
    means ca. 1560 years of divergence. Taking in account the arithmetic average of the dating of
    Vedic and Avestan, 1200 BC and 800 BC respectively, as the starting point, we obtain
    (1200+800)/2 = 1000, i.e. 1000 BC. Substracting 1560 years of divergence from the ‘mean
    value’ 1000 BC, we come to the dating to 2560 BC of separation of the ancestors of Vedic
    and Avestan.


    (2) Vedic vs. Nuristani (in average): 66.5% cognates within 100 semantic units, i.e. c. 2240
    years of divergence. Subtracting 2240 years from the starting point c. 400 AD (arithmetic
    average of 1200 BC for Vedic and 20th cent. AD for Nuristani), we come to the dating to
    1840 BC of separation of the ancestors of Vedic and Nuristani.

    (3) Avestan vs. Nuristani (in average): 48.5% cognates within 100 semantic units, i.e. 3230
    years of divergence. Subtracting 3230 years from the starting point c. 600 AD (arithmetic
    average of 800 BC for Young Avestan and 20th cent. AD for Nuristani), we come to the
    dating to 2630 BC of separation of the ancestors of Vedic and Nuristani
    Whats the source?

    So Abashevo is honestly pushing it, its a little too young... Anyone familiar with Lexicostatistics (or who just is familiar with Sanskrit and Avestan in general) can chime in on how different e.g. Avestan and Vedic are? Are they as different as say two Romance languages?
    Quoted from this Forum:

    "Which superman haplogroup is the toughest - R1a or R1b? And which SNP mutation spoke Indo-European first? There's only one way for us to find out ... fight!"

    " A Basal Eurasian and an Aurignacian walk into a bar... "

    " No, you are in the wrong... I really hope that you are not jumping on my thread with intent to harass me, just like other "receiving comitee", that unites in classic bullying unity, which makes me sad about such people, deprived of love etc.... "

  13. #8
    Moderator
    Posts
    2,669
    Sex
    Ethnicity
    Pashtun/East-Slavic
    Y-DNA (P)
    R1a-Z93

    Quote Originally Posted by Ryukendo View Post
    Aside: RUKI sound law is where s changes to sh after R, W, K, Y.

    @Coldmountains:

    About the absence of RUKI in Nuristani, Wikipedia citing Hegedus states:



    It seems like what happened is that Nurstani did undergo RUKI, but there were elements that blocked RUKI in some contexts that did not operate in other IIrs.

    What do you think about this? Is this something pushing the estimate down?
    I don't understand much about linguistics so just can summarize and paraphrase, what i find from other sources. Nuristani not just seems to differ from common Indo-Iranian based on the ruki law but also based on other linguistic features. It seems to be a basal Aryan language, which was in close contact with the ancestor of Vedic-Aryan, in my eyes . Edelmann wrote in russian quite lot about the basal nature of Nuristani languages.



    The main distinctive genetic features of N.I.: 1. Early loss of aspiration by common Aryan voiced aspirates (i.e. transition * bh> * b, * dh> * d, * gh> * g, similar to Iranian, but different from Indo-Aryan) and their coincidence with voiced non-aspirated ones. II. Loss of aspiration by deaf aspirates, which had not yet been phonologized in the general Aryan state by the time N.Ya. (i.e. * p (h)> * p, * t (h)> * t, * k (h)> * k, in contrast to Iranian and Indo-Aryan languages). III. Reflection of the late Obshearyan velar * k, * g, * kh as * k, * g, and the affricate * č, * ǰ, * ǰh as * č, * ǰ (similar to Iranian development, but somewhat different from Indo-Aryan). IV. Reflection of late Aryan affricates * ć, * j * jh (reflexes of Indo-European palatal * k ', * g', * g'h) in the form of affricates * c, * Ʒ (> Ʒ, z, as well as a reflection of the combination Indo-European * k't> * ćt as * ct> st (as opposed to Iranian and Indo-Aryan languages) V. Preservation of Indo-European * s after * u (as opposed to Iranian and Indo-Aryan languages, where it becomes š). These signs indicate that the Nuristan group separated from the pan-Aryan group relatively early, retaining some archaisms and developing a number of their own innovations. This happened at a time when the Indo-Iranian group itself had not yet split into Indo-Aryan and Iranian branches.

    ...
    Indirect evidence of the distinction between these two series in general Aryan (Indo-Iranian and Nuristani) 61 is the continuation of the action in that period of Bartholomew's law, although in its functioning, inherited from the Indo-European stereotypes of the implementation of the middle consonant groups: a ringing - with aspirated voiced (from I.e. voiced) ~ deaf - with unaspirated voiced (from and.-e. deaf glottalized), see [19, I, p. 32-35].

    Separation of Nuristan languages ​​from other Aryan languages ​​(practically - from Indo-Iranian, since no intermediate links and traces of other groups of Aryan languages ​​are currently found) 5. was marked by loss they contain signs of voiced aspiration and unification of both series by the tone of voiced occlusive unaspirated: * b, * d, * g. In this case, the action of Bartholomew's law is transformed and then dies out: productive formations reveal the construction of the corresponding consonant groups according to the type of combinations of voiced unaspirated with voiceless (e.g. ap * g + t> ki), which becomes here it is universal, and only the previously frozen lexemes give examples of "voiced" combinations such as ap. * gh + t> gd. Indo-Iranian languages, however, retained the opposition of these series longer. It continued in Old Indian almost unchanged: bh, dh (> A), gh ~ b, d, g - and with it the corresponding action of Bartholomew's law. In Iranian languages, the neutralization of this opposition was non-simultaneous, multidirectional and gave unequal results by genetic group. Aspiration was lost in the western group voiced stop and unification of both series took place according to the type of voiced unaspirated: * b, * d, * g, and accordingly - according to Bartholomew's law - the transformation of intervocal consonant combinations into voiceless ones, as in Nuristan languages. In the eastern group, where the spirant realization of the aspirated * v (or w), * d, * y prevailed, unification took place by assimilating them voiced unaspirated, and accordingly - according to Bartolomé's law - consonant combinations with them were reflected as voiced (with a late change by analogy with them and combinations with voiceless consonants). In the language of Dvesti, traces of the still not unified operation of Bartholomew's law (in frozen or already incomprehensible forms) are preserved, but on the whole phonetics is being rebuilt according to the "Western Iranian" type

    Эдельман Д. А. Ещё раз об этапах филиации арийской языковой общности / Вопросы языкознания, 1992, № 3
    http://www.philology.ru/linguistics4/edelman-99a.htm

  14. The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to Coldmountains For This Useful Post:

     Monody (06-13-2021),  Ryukendo (02-07-2021),  whynot (02-08-2021)

  15. #9
    Registered Users
    Posts
    1,630
    Sex

    Quote Originally Posted by Coldmountains View Post
    Afaik there are no Finno-Ugrian loanwords into Proto-Indo-Iranian or it closest descendants. Is this still up to date or are there also influences from Finno-Ugrian into Indo-Iranian? I am asking this because as far as i understand now Proto-Fino-Ugrian spread with highly militaristic metal workers of ST and not with some "undeveloped" HGs of North Eurasia like often assumed in the past. So the lack of Finno-Ugrian loanwords can not just be explained by Indo-Iranians being "higher developed".

    Parpola prosed that Indra is derived from Finno-Ugrian Inmar, what would be a great plot twist, but afaik no other experts seem to support this theory and so i am quite sceptical about this so far. Or are there other experts also deriving Indra from Finno-Ugrian influences?
    For what its worth, Holopainen points to the fact, in his thesis, that there just doesn't seem to be very much done on this topic, and says that it should receive more attention.
    Last edited by Ryukendo; 02-08-2021 at 03:41 AM.
    Quoted from this Forum:

    "Which superman haplogroup is the toughest - R1a or R1b? And which SNP mutation spoke Indo-European first? There's only one way for us to find out ... fight!"

    " A Basal Eurasian and an Aurignacian walk into a bar... "

    " No, you are in the wrong... I really hope that you are not jumping on my thread with intent to harass me, just like other "receiving comitee", that unites in classic bullying unity, which makes me sad about such people, deprived of love etc.... "

  16. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Ryukendo For This Useful Post:

     altvred (02-09-2021),  Coldmountains (02-08-2021)

  17. #10
    Gold Class Member
    Posts
    4,515
    Location
    Shangri La

    Afghanistan Jammu and Kashmir United States of America Canada
    Quote Originally Posted by Ryukendo View Post
    Whats the source?

    So Abashevo is honestly pushing it, its a little too young... Anyone familiar with Lexicostatistics (or who just is familiar with Sanskrit and Avestan in general) can chime in on how different e.g. Avestan and Vedic are? Are they as different as say two Romance languages?
    https://www.researchgate.net/publica...n_Indo-Iranian

    As a speaker of languages from both groups, I think Avestan and Sanskrit would be more diverged than two Romance languages. Proto Nuristani and Sanskrit split in Central Asia and Iranic somewhere in far Eastern Europe. I should add, the few Nuristani results I have seen are identical to Kalash genetically, so this also ties in nicely with the 1800 BC split.
    Last edited by pegasus; 02-09-2021 at 07:30 AM.

  18. The Following 10 Users Say Thank You to pegasus For This Useful Post:

     Alain (02-09-2021),  altvred (02-09-2021),  Coldmountains (02-09-2021),  CopperAxe (02-09-2021),  DMXX (02-09-2021),  Helves (02-09-2021),  Michał (02-09-2021),  Observer (02-17-2021),  Ryukendo (02-09-2021),  whynot (03-21-2021)

Page 1 of 9 123 ... LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 0
    Last Post: 09-20-2020, 05:03 PM
  2. Proto-Indo-Aryans vs. Proto-Iranics
    By Mingle in forum Southern
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: 10-06-2019, 08:11 PM
  3. Replies: 2
    Last Post: 11-17-2017, 06:13 AM
  4. [Split] The Nature of Prehistoric Indo-Iranian Interactions
    By Arbogan in forum History (Ancient)
    Replies: 17
    Last Post: 08-19-2015, 06:56 PM
  5. Proto Indo-Iranian autosomal approximation
    By newtoboard in forum Autosomal (auDNA)
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 04-27-2013, 01:32 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •