Indo-European languages tree

[Crux]

http://www.public.iastate.edu/~cfford/Indoeuropean%20language%20family%20tree.jpg
If it isn't, can you please explain why ?

[Osweo]

...Almost.

Later. :p

[Cail]

It's not 100% correct.

Anatolian should branch off much lower, it has diverged from the rest of IE pretty early.

Italo-Celtic and Germano-Balto-Slavic should be combined in "Western IE", this is of the same level as Armeno-Graeco-Aryan ("Eastern IE").

Italo-Celtic connection is of lower level than Germano-Balto-Slavic (it is not even clear if it is genetic, or just areal).

Old Prussian should not be on the same sub-branch as Lithuanian and Latvian, but rather on the 3rd separate branch (see pic).

Dunno why have they placed Tocharian on Italo-Celtic branch, it's accurate position on IE tree is not clearly established.

Low German, Frisian and English should form an Ingvaeonic sub-branch of western-Germanic.

Western and Eastern Slavic branches are not genetic, they form a dialect continuum and should not be separated.

I think i'll just draw a proper pic, wait 5 min.

[Cail]

Or a little more, i've decided to make a more detailed one :D.

[Cail]

http://img85.imageshack.us/img85/4404/123if.jpg

(red means strong areal connections, question marks denote that relation is only hypothetical).

[Cail]

Some interesting things i haven't included here (because of lack of space/time) are -

a) Later reconvergention of western and northern Germanic at some stage.
b) Secondary divergention of Celtic (Insular vs Continental sprachbunds).
c) Frygian sub-branch (somewhere in the Eastern-IE subbranch and Paleo-Balkanic sprachbund, unclear where exactly).
d) Exact relations between Illyrians, Albanians and Dacians (not included here) are unknown.

[Loki]

Nice map Cail. One thing though: Why do you include Dutch under "Continental" and not "Ingvaeonic"?

[Cail]

Nice map Cail. One thing though: Why do you include Dutch under "Continental" and not "Ingvaeonic"?

Because it is so. Dutch's (to be exact, most of it - Low Franconian dialect group, others maybe be of creole origin) closest relative is Hochdeutsch and its dialects (with which it forms a continuum); relations to Frysk (Frisian) and Plattdüütsch (Low German) are of reconvergential nature plus common archaisms (including lack of High German shifts), but genetically they belong to different sub-groups.

[Loddfafner]

I was under the impression that Lithuanian was the closest European tongue to Sanskrit.

[Monolith]

(red means strong areal connections, question marks denote that relation is only hypothetical).
Thanks for the effort. :thumb001: Though I have one objection and I'm convinced you know what's it about. ;)

[Cail]

I was under the impression that Lithuanian was the closest European tongue to Sanskrit.

Nope, that's bullshit and pseudo-science. The origins of this myth are that Lithuanian is probably the most archaic living Indo-European language, and Sanskrit is sometimes regarded as the most archaic recorded Indo-European language (which is actually not entirely true, Hittite is. And Avestan and ancient Greek follow Rigvedic Sanskrit by a couple of centuries).

But both of them are very different from the original proto-Indo-European, or, a fortiori, from each other.

[Cail]

Thanks for the effort. :thumb001: Though I have one objection and I'm convinced you know what's it about. ;)


d) Exact relations between Illyrians, Albanians and Dacians (not included here) are unknown.

;)

[Electronic God-Man]

I was under the impression that Lithuanian was the closest European tongue to Sanskrit.

I'm not so sure that it is so closely related in reality. I think Lithuanian has just retained a lot of the archaic words and structure from Indo-European, which makes the words look very similar between Lithuanian and Sanskrit.

If that makes any sense...I'm no linguist. :coffee:

On a barely related note I thought this Lithuanian song sounded oddly Eastern.
xboEFjJtOlQ

[Electronic God-Man]

The origins of this myth are that Lithuanian is probably the most archaic living Indo-European language, and Sanskrit is sometimes regarded as the most archaic recorded Indo-European language

Well, I wasn't so far off anyway. :D

[Cail]

IOn a barely related note I thought this Lithuanian song sounded oddly Eastern.

That's because of the music probably. It is not traditional Lithuanian or smth, just some pseudo-oriental folk perfomer.

Actually usually Lithuanian sounds like this (i don't know this band, just found it in YouTube) -

LCNMJkHtM4g
iueunmdN5j0

Btw i am amazed that i don't know it, pretty amazing sound. I'm going to dl their albums :D.

[Monolith]

;)
Ah, no, I actually agree with that. :) I object to using the term "Serbo-Croatian", "Croato-Serbian" or any other similar misnomer. While the standard languages in Croatia and Serbia are both based on a single dialect, albeit on a different regional variants (western and eastern, respectively) of it, I don't think that's sufficient to classify Croatian and Serbian as a single language because e.g. Croatian language also includes two major dialects (kajkavian and čakavian), both absent in Serbian. Needless to say, they aren't even near to being as intelligible with eastern štokavian (Serbian) as western štokavian (Croatian) is.

[Cail]

Ah, no, I actually agree with that. :) I object to using the term "Serbo-Croatian", "Croato-Serbian" or any other similar misnomer. While the standard languages in Croatia and Serbia are both based on a single dialect, albeit on a different regional variants (western and eastern, respectively) of it, I don't think that's sufficient to classify Croatian and Serbian as a single language because e.g. Croatian language also includes two major dialects (kajkavian and čakavian), both absent in Serbian. Needless to say, they aren't even near to being as intelligible with eastern štokavian (Serbian) as western štokavian (Croatian) is.

Yes, you're right ofc. These three (Kajkavian, Štokavian, Čakavian) would be classified as different languages probably if not for the historical/political situations, they're more different, then, for example, Ukrainian-Belorussian is. I meant "Serbo-Croatian continuum", because saying "Serbian" and "Croatian" languages separately is also incorrect (since there are no two such languages, buch abovementioned three instead).

[Osweo]

Damn, I was SO looking forward to helping out... :tsk: Bloody Cail!

[Monolith]

Yes, you're right ofc. These three (Kajkavian, Štokavian, Čakavian) would be classified as different languages probably if not for the historical/political situations, they're more different, then, for example, Ukrainian-Belorussian is.
Indeed, though kajkavian and čakavian are closer to each other than they are to štokavian, as they're both pretty archaic, especially čakavian. In fact, there's an interesting anecdote from my early childhood, that supports this fact. When I was a child, I used to spend my summer holidays on a čakavian-speaking island, and while I, as a kajkavian speaker, was able to understand the local children with little or no effort, that was not the case with my one year older štokavian-speaking cousin. :)


I meant "Serbo-Croatian continuum", because saying "Serbian" and "Croatian" languages separately is also incorrect (since there are no two such languages, buch abovementioned three instead).
Yes, that's correct as far as it concerns dialectology. However, when it comes to sociolinguistics, all three dialects of Croatian undoubtedly form a single language, as their speakers accept all of them as parts of their language. There's a similar parallel with Serbian torlak dialect.

[Cail]

There's a similar parallel with Serbian torlak dialect.
Torlaks generally do not identify as Serbs, but rather as "locals", with clear distinction from other Slavs. Their dialect is not much closer to Serbian than it is to Bulgarian. Serbian linguists classify it as Serbian, Bulgarian - as Bulgarian (both are obviously politically biased), while in fact it's just a part of dialect continuum, and you can't draw a clear border.

[Monolith]

Torlaks generally do not identify as Serbs, but rather as "locals", with clear distinction from other Slavs. Their dialect is not much closer to Serbian than it is to Bulgarian. Serbian linguists classify it as Serbian, Bulgarian - as Bulgarian (both are obviously politically biased), while in fact it's just a part of dialect continuum, and you can't draw a clear border.
So I've heard.

Regarding the transitional dialects, there's a difference between Torkak and and other transitional dialects inside the Central South Slavic continuum, because Torlak connects the said continuum with the East South Slavic one.

[Cail]

Regarding the transitional dialects, there's a difference between Torkak and and other transitional dialects inside the Central South Slavic continuum, because Torlak connects the said continuum with the East South Slavic one.
That's exactly what i said :). Torlak connects "Serbo-Croatian" subcontinuum, to "Bulgaro-Macedonian" one. Though, to be exact, it's not unique in that part, certain "Macedonian" dialects do the same.

[Birka]

Nope, that's bullshit and pseudo-science. The origins of this myth are that Lithuanian is probably the most archaic living Indo-European language, and Sanskrit is sometimes regarded as the most archaic recorded Indo-European language (which is actually not entirely true, Hittite is. And Avestan and ancient Greek follow Rigvedic Sanskrit by a couple of centuries).

But both of them are very different from the original proto-Indo-European, or, a fortiori, from each other.


Here is link from another thread on Apricity showing a closeness of the Balto-Slavic languages to ancient Thracean. I did not ever hear of this link. A long time ago, my father (second generation Lithuanian American) had told me of a theory he once heard that the Lithuanian people were somehow related or connected to some Greek predecessors. I do not know where he got that story, but this Thracean language connection is interesting.

http://groznijat.tripod.com/thrac/thrac_9.html

On another note, I have read many sources about the Lithuanian language having many words in common with ancient Sanskrit. Unfortunately my hard drive crashed a short while ago and I lost all those links. I do remember that one of the proponents of the Lithuanian-Sanskrit connection was a highly respected English linguist.

[Cail]

Here is link from another thread on Apricity showing a closeness of the Balto-Slavic languages to ancient Thracean. I did not ever hear of this link. A long time ago, my father (second generation Lithuanian American) had told me of a theory he once heard that the Lithuanian people were somehow related or connected to some Greek predecessors. I do not know where he got that story, but this Thracean language connection is interesting.

http://groznijat.tripod.com/thrac/thrac_9.html

Yep, i personally support that theory (Thracian being related to Balto-Slavic), there are many similarities. There is not much data on Thracian, but what evidence we have makes it credible. Thracians probably (though it's only speculations) split from Balto-Slavs after they (Thraco-Balto-Slavs) split from Germanic (common proto-Corded, look at the map on the 1st page), because Thraco-BS similarities are significantly more profound than Thraco-Germanic ones.

Greeks aren't related to Thracians though (not that closely i mean), they're from completely different I-E. branch.


On another note, I have read many sources about the Lithuanian language having many words in common with ancient Sanskrit. Unfortunately my hard drive crashed a short while ago and I lost all those links. I do remember that one of the proponents of the Lithuanian-Sanskrit connection was a highly respected English linguist.

These theories were popular in XIXc. or so, before the advent of real historical linguistic (using scientific methods). Actually, Baltic and Indic languages aren't closer than Germanic and Armenian for example (Baltic and Germanic being from western I-E branch, Indic and Armenian - from eastern).
There are many similarities indeed, as all I-E languages have them, and Lithuanian and Sanskrit both are pretty archaic languages (Lithuanians does so thanks to being extremely conservative). But there is no real relation apart from both being I-E.

[Birka]

A very interesting link about the Lithuanian and Sanskrit language connection, or not.

http://www.lituanus.org/1982_1/82_1_01.htm

[Óttar]

I don't see Portuguese on the original tree.

[Hrolf Kraki]

http://img85.imageshack.us/img85/4404/123if.jpg

(red means strong areal connections, question marks denote that relation is only hypothetical).

Why do you have Anatolian branching before Indo-European? (By the way, did you mean PIE?)

EDIT: Ah ok, I think I see what you're doing. Indo-European isn't a language so you should erase the "Indo-European" label before the fork in the tree. List PIE at the very tip top.

[Guapo]

http://img85.imageshack.us/img85/4404/123if.jpg

(red means strong areal connections, question marks denote that relation is only hypothetical).
Serbo-Croatian as one language? I'm surprised the Croats here aren't whining about it.

[Monolith]

Ahem.. Be sure to read the entire thread.

[Cail]

Why do you have Anatolian branching before Indo-European? (By the way, did you mean PIE?)

EDIT: Ah ok, I think I see what you're doing. Indo-European isn't a language so you should erase the "Indo-European" label before the fork in the tree. List PIE at the very tip top.

"Indo-European" here means a genetic taxon, much like other smaller taxons like "Germanic" or "Indo-Iranic", just of a different level. Anatolian branches off from the main branch, in the same manner as, for example, Balto-Slavic branches from Germanic before it's later split to west-Germanic, north-Germanic et cetera. Had it not gone extinct, we could now probably observe two related taxons (Indo-Europeans and Anatolian, both being a part of a larger "Indo-Hittite" taxon).

[Cail]

Serbo-Croatian as one language? I'm surprised the Croats here aren't whining about it.

Well, it was not meant as a single language, but rather as a smaller sub-continuum of a larger southern-Slavic one. I'd subdivide it to three poles with transitional local variants. You could've read about that in this thread later :).

[NationalConservative]

An there wis nae Scots includet in thon tree an aw in the Germanic section? Frisien cud be kent by a Dutchie gey weel.

[Ibericus]

Why there is no Catalan in romance ? It has more speakers than danish, norwegian, latvian, lithuanian, icelandic,

[Osweo]

An there wis nae Scots includet in thon tree an aw in the Germanic section? Frisien cud be kent by a Dutchie gey weel.
It cun't though. Not near as easy as Scotch-English for Englishmen.

[NationalConservative]

It cun't though. Not near as easy as Scotch-English for Englishmen.

A'v lairnt bittie Dutchie an Auld English that baith haes the alike soonds an Eddy Izzard spake tae a Frisien fermer in Auld English an thay cud ken ilk ither fair weel, sae there is nae doot that a Dutchie cud ken Frisien weel. He wad jist struggle wi a puckle wirds as a Sassenach, lik me, wad gin A spake tae thaim in Scots an that happens maist o the time.

[SilverKnight]

Why there is no Catalan in romance ? It has more speakers than danish, norwegian, latvian, lithuanian, icelandic,

yea, and other important romance languages such as Portuguese, Aragonese, and Galician are also missing , so that tree is incomplete

I think this one is much complete

http://img94.imageshack.us/img94/3968/indoeuro02c.jpg (http://img94.imageshack.us/i/indoeuro02c.jpg/)

[Lithium]

Is there such language as macedonian or in the past "ancient macedonian" ?

[Cail]

yea, and other important romance languages such as Portuguese, Aragonese, and Galician are also missing , so that tree is incomplete

I think this one is much complete

http://img94.imageshack.us/img94/3968/indoeuro02c.jpg (http://img94.imageshack.us/i/indoeuro02c.jpg/)

That tree is bullshit, since it does not at all represent relations between branches. Some Romance languages are not included in my tree, because i didn't aim to include all relevant languages, just language families (languages are given as an example).

Catalan in particular would've been in Occitano-Romance branch of Romance, together with Provençal and other langues d'oc.

[Cail]

Is there such language as macedonian or in the past "ancient macedonian" ?

Modern Macedonian is one of the literary standards based on particular areas of southern-Slavic dialect continuum. It has no relation to ancient Macedonian (apart from both being Indo-European).

Ancient Macedonian most probably was a Hellenic language (related to Greek). The degree of relatedness is not clear. Some linguists argue that it was just one of the many Ancient Greek dialects (like Dorian, Ionian et cetera), while others think that it was a more distantly related language. There are also theories of non-hellenic Macedonian (f.e. it being more closely related to Thracian or Illyrian), but they are not supported by mainstream linguistics.

[Lithium]

I think that the modern macedonian is bulgarian dialect :D

[Ushtari]

Albanian was proven to be a indo-european language 1854 by Franz Bopp.