'Ershver tooni monhrr!'The ice age 'superlanguage' Europeans spoke 15,000 years ago

[Vesuvian Sky]

Hungarian
apa: father
atya: father
apai: paternal
anya: mother



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Etruscan_language#Other

Well after all, it is the Proto-Eurasian language.

Mario Alinei has often brought up the similarities between Hungarian and Etruscan:

Etrusco: una forma arcaica di ungherese, 2003, Il Mulino. The Etruscan language as an archaic form of Hungarian.

His stance though has to do more with viewing things in relation to Paleolithic continuance:

The Paleolithic Continuity hypothesis reverses the Kurgan hypothesis and largely identifies the Indo-Europeans with Gimbutas's "Old Europe." PCT reassigns the Kurgan culture (traditionally considered early Indo-European) to a people of predominantly mixed Uralic and Turkic stock. This hypothesis is supported by the tentative linguistic identification of Etruscans as a Uralic, proto-Hungarian people that had already undergone strong proto-Turkish influence in the third millennium BC, when Pontic invasions would have brought this people to the Carpathian Basin. A subsequent migration of Urnfield culture signature around 1250 BC caused this ethnic group to expand south in a general movement of people, attested by the upheaval of the Sea Peoples and the overthrow of an earlier Italic substrate at the onset of the "Etruscan" Villanovan culture.

[Szegedist]

Well after all, it is the Proto-Eurasian language.

Mario Alinei has often brought up the similarities between Hungarian and Etruscan:



His stance though has to do more with viewing things in relation to Paleolithic continuance:

The Hungarian language has been the interest of many linguists in the past. From Etruscan, to Sumerian, some Native American languages, Japanese, etc.

What is funny is when people accuse us of trying to invent history for ourselves, but if you look at the people behind theories, 90% of the time they are foreigners.
In my opinion, more research needs to be done.

[Vesuvian Sky]

I wonder if in prehistoric times the word father (pater, pitar, etc) meant what it is today. I don't think in those times people were living in a traditional family setting meaning: mother, father, daughter, son. It just might be that there is an even older word.

The pre-historic speakers of PIE are believed to have followed the Omaha kinship system:

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

This is in accordance with Gimbutas' notion that they were patrilineal. Though there is some debate about this apparently:

http://www.ling.upenn.edu/~rnoyer/co...PIEKinship.pdf

If we consider though the archaeology of the pre-historic Pontic Caspian steppe graves of the Yamna culture (considered to be late PIE), most single inhumation graves ('kurgans') feature males burials rather then female. This would also be in line with the concept of PIE society being patrilineal/Omaha and possessing the connotations that the terms 'mother' and 'father' still have today.

[Vesuvian Sky]

The Hungarian language has been the interest of many linguists in the past. From Etruscan, to Sumerian, some Native American languages, Japanese, etc.

What is funny is when people accuse us of trying to invent history for ourselves, but if you look at the people behind theories, 90% of the time they are foreigners.
In my opinion, more research needs to be done.

If one looks hard enough, commonalities can be found among most of the Eurasiatic languages. That was the premise of course behind Greenberg's work. Interesting is the First rule of Geography which can be applied here:

Everything is related to everything else, but near things are more related than distant things

This is known as Tobler's law:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tobler'...w_of_geography

Of course there are rules and exceptions to this and one could make the argument that Hungarian's position being surrounded by a sea of IE languages is indeed one such exception. The other way though to look at it is that Hungarian/Uralic languages are going to have some relation to PIE any way since they are both 'Eurasiatic' which goes back to Greenberg's research (Proto-Nostratic). The problem is of course figuring out how these languages came to be and when exactly they arrived where they are today, their origins etc.

[rashka]

Serbs also use the word sister or brother for their cousins.

[rashka]

The pre-historic speakers of PIE are believed to have followed the Omaha kinship system: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Omaha_kinship
This is in accordance with Gimbutas' notion that they were patrilineal. Though there is some debate about this apparently:

http://www.ling.upenn.edu/~rnoyer/co...PIEKinship.pdf

If we consider though the archaeology of the pre-historic Pontic Caspian steppe graves of the Yamna culture (considered to be late PIE), most single inhumation graves ('kurgans') feature males burials rather then female. This would also be in line with the concept of PIE society being patrilineal/Omaha and possessing the connotations that the terms 'mother' and 'father' still have today.

That's an interesting link. Proto-Indo-European Language and Society:Kinship Terminology - Rolf Noyer
I found some cognates in Serbian which I will write here.

*snus-ó-s ‘brother’s wife’ = ‘son’s wife’ (Sp nuera)
SERBIAN: SNAHA, SNAJKA, SNAŠA, SNA

*nep-ōt-s ‘brother’s son’ = ‘grandson’ (Sp nieto)
SERBIAN: nećak, bratanić, bratanac

*daih₂wér- ‘husband’s brother’ (L lēvir)
SERBIAN: DEVER

*h₁ien-h₂ter- ‘husband’s brother’s wife’
SERBIAN: JETRVA

*g̑lh̥ ₃-uo-s ‘husband’s sister’
SERBIAN: ZAOVA -From OCS *zlъva, proto-slavic *zъly



*suék̑-ur-o-s ‘husband’s father’ (Sp suegro)
SERBIAN: SVEKAR

*suek̑-r-úh₂-s ‘husband’s mother’
SERBIAN: SVEKRVA

≠ ? *suesr-ios ‘sister’s son’
SERBIAN: sestrić

? *h₂euh₂- ‘mother’s brother’
SERBIAN: UJAK

? *suek̑-ur-ó-s ‘wife’s brother’ (cf. *suék̑-ur-os ‘husband’s father’)
SERBIAN: šura(k)

In a patrilocal system the groom literally ‘led away’ the bride from her
family to his. To express ‘get married’ from the woman’s point of view it
was necessary to use a middle-passive form of the same verbs.
*h₂ued(h₂)- ‘to marry (a woman)’ > WED, Skt vadʰū́-
*g̑emH- ‘to marry (a woman)’, γαμέω (GAMETE)
SERBIAN: UDA

[Jaska]

In all the news the same error is repeated: they talk about meanings, not words. They have no method which could prove that any single concrete word was inherited from the Ice Age super-protolanguage.
http://www.elisanet.fi/alkupera/Review_Pagel2013.pdf

[Agron]

Ah I see. Sounds like the phonological aspects aren't there but some grammatical. Yeah that is rather dubious. Usually, the best evidence for close genetic relationships is determined when both the grammatical and phonological are there.

I kinda feel these days a stronger case for Etruscan can be made for a Neolithic invader languages from e. Anatolia/Caucuses based on phonological aspects of some kinship terms but also given what we know regarding genetics of Tuscany.

Here's something interesting I just caught:

Etruscan
apa: father
apana: paternal
ati, ativu: mother

Hurrian
attardi: ancestor
attai:father
ašti: woman

Euskara
ama: mother

in albanian we have the words ëma for mother and atë for father.