Just because you disagree with a theory, it doesn't mean the entire "official" reconstruction is wrong. I'm pretty sure there were no dental fricatives, for instance. Seems more like a late Centum dialect then PIE.
I have simplified a bit the PIE I have reconstructed adapting it to latin alphabet (plus some greek and germanic characters) and also trying to fit metrics: since I am a linguist and a musician this was relatively spontaneous. The bases of my comparative theory differ a lot from the official ones we studied so far because it is the result of a new research I am compiling since many years.
AELBHIS EAHV GAELIS for example is from what is more or less officially-traditionally reconstructed as ALBHO- meaning bright-white-luminescent-fluorescent hence latin ALBUS, white, and english albino, album, alb etc. and from the same stem in Germanic ALBIZ or ALBAZ meaning ghostly luminescent white hence ælfr in Norse meaning elf, or the name Alberich = rich in-of ghostly luminescent white,
EAHV means "horse" from the apparently disturbed tradition of PIE EQU- (equus, hyppos etc.) sometimes explained with laryngeals, GAELIS genitive of GAEL hence germanic KALIZ (coldness) and KALDAZ (cold), old english ceald, cool, latin gel-are, gel-um, gelid-us, zero grade g(-)lacius etc.
SCEABH TIS AHVIS means "drop of the liquid" AHVIS is the genitive of AHV meaning liquid hence AQUA, avon (celtic loan) and many results among indoeuropean languages, August Schleicher's AVIS meant bird, from hypothetical PIE stem awi- it was probably AVEIS nominative, aviary, avian, aviculture from latin avis (bird).
It is obviously a matter that cannot be discussed in a couple of lines but I'll try to explain in a few words my point of view: I have reconstructed PIE not as a common mother language, but as a language spoken by a culture disappeared around 10th millennium BC, this idiom would have had a large and crucial influence on many languages all over the world: probably-apparently a cultural hegemony rather than a political one.
Once I had received the classic official formation supposed to qualify me to analyze languages I ran into the academic popular doubts on the whole "indoeuropean" theory: the Kurgans and laryngeals along with all the rest "were" highly speculative, incoherent and-or disconnected to archaeology, so like all of us who came to that "theoretical ambiguous point" I had to try to find a new path to examine the problem searching and exploring a completely different approach.
As a researcher I "collected" and studied "what is not similar" among indoeuropean languages rather than the opposite and on the other hand I looked for linguistic and cultural traces and even a kind of substratum engrams of the hypothetical proto ethnos in non-indoeuropean areas and cultures. First of all I had the feeling that all what I knew concerning PIE language looked scarcely "natural" and "human":
a natural language is a constantly changing stream flowing regularly and irregularly, analogic and dislogic, quick and narrow at some stages, slow and large at some other ones, if it has had a quite stable period this must have happened in a time when there was a quite articulated oral or even written culture.
I also studied the formation of pidgins and various patoises in order to find out the rules or better the theories and the processes than normally are leading actors and main factors in the natural birth of this peculiar kind of languages that have a very "irregular" diachronic development. The following very plain example may partially clearify my theory:
let's immagine that we are in the year 5000 AC: english, french and spanish are unknown dead languages that disappeared since a few millenia, all the relics of western cultures have disappeared and we know almost nothing of what happened in Europe, America and Africa before. Many pidgins developped from english(and-or)french(and-or)spanish are spoken all over the world and these are the hypothetical "modern" languages of the year 5000.
We would find many similarities among these languages and we would probably reconstruct a common language incredibly far from the real ones and we would place this idiom rather close to us in the recent millenia, immagine the confusion when you have an english french-borrowed word in a pidgin and also its equivalent directly from french:
it would be extreemly difficult to locate the common area where the originary language was spoken and the non-affinities of languages would be almost ignored while their are the relics of the pre-colonial languages.
Indoeuropean languages look more like pidgins developped from a separated language and preserving various substrative clear aspects and also other linguistic families (hamito-semitic, uralic, etc.) have important traces of this hypothetical extinct language-culture,
that would be why all the IE families appear more or less exactly close and far from the originary one and none of them seems the direct descendant (eventhough we should probably discuss the Hittites "quaestio" and some other sub-families who may look in a more distant position).
So indoeuropean languages would be the ones that were heavely influenced, not at all the direct descedants but traces of this idiom are easy to find in different amounts all over the planet and even where linguistic relics are impossible to detect we can encounter cultural similarities that may be the last signs of the hypothetical influence.
It is also plausible that contacts took places in different places, times and ways, if this civilization was occupying a large territory and-or if they had commerces over the sea they probably settled colonies that eventually started developping their own "hypolects" (sub-dialects) at early stages etc.
I would firmly add that this has nothing to do with atlantinean theories that are merely fantasies to me, although Plato's tale and the rig-veda war between devas and asuras for example may be usefull to reconstruct the common epic memory of a very important absolutely human (no magic, no sci-fi) civilisation that may have taken place in what we still strangely call Paleolithic.
As you can understand it takes more than a book to demonstrate my theory and to propose evidences. I will publish my work in 2011, 2012 I think, I can't make it before, but in case you are interested we can discuss it.
Wow, amazing read! I have a (very amateur) interest in linguistics, especially the comparative stuff which I've read about where I can, and I have to say, these 18 posts were very enlightening! As ever, it seems it's not as simple as it may first sound, one massive, identical proto-civilisation, which is what the PIE theory seems at first to suggest.
Anyway, I've been listening to this song a while, and though I liked the tune I was unsure of the meaning of the PIE or indeed how serious a reconstruction it is, but now I find song more enjoyable. Like listening to ancient, long-lost echoes of a heritage so many of us (though, technically, not myself) share.
I'd be very interested to read your work once you do get round to it; I've yet to read any serious publications/theses about this area, and this sounds like a good place to start as any!
@jaeghon I really am interested in seeing your work published, perhaps even a translation of the song lyrics! Send me a message sometime, it'd be awesome to discuss language reconstruction(and perhaps even conlanging) with someone that's actually done quite a lot in that department.
Just because you disagree with a theory, it doesn't mean the entire "official" reconstruction is wrong. I'm pretty sure there were no dental fricatives, for instance. Seems more like a late Centum dialect then PIE.
vaguelyhumanoid 1 year ago
Your work is good but definitely not Proto-IndoEuropean.
Your language bears little resemblance to Latin and Greek , forget Sanskrit, to be called Proto-IndoEuropean.
Did u mean to say Proto-Germanic?
SuperSangfroid 1 year ago
very creative
eslubin 1 year ago
(1 of 18)
Hello,
I have simplified a bit the PIE I have reconstructed adapting it to latin alphabet (plus some greek and germanic characters) and also trying to fit metrics: since I am a linguist and a musician this was relatively spontaneous. The bases of my comparative theory differ a lot from the official ones we studied so far because it is the result of a new research I am compiling since many years.
jaeghon 2 years ago
(2 of 18)
AELBHIS EAHV GAELIS for example is from what is more or less officially-traditionally reconstructed as ALBHO- meaning bright-white-luminescent-fluorescent hence latin ALBUS, white, and english albino, album, alb etc. and from the same stem in Germanic ALBIZ or ALBAZ meaning ghostly luminescent white hence ælfr in Norse meaning elf, or the name Alberich = rich in-of ghostly luminescent white,
jaeghon 2 years ago
(3 of 18)
EAHV means "horse" from the apparently disturbed tradition of PIE EQU- (equus, hyppos etc.) sometimes explained with laryngeals, GAELIS genitive of GAEL hence germanic KALIZ (coldness) and KALDAZ (cold), old english ceald, cool, latin gel-are, gel-um, gelid-us, zero grade g(-)lacius etc.
jaeghon 2 years ago
(4 of 18)
SCEABH TIS AHVIS means "drop of the liquid" AHVIS is the genitive of AHV meaning liquid hence AQUA, avon (celtic loan) and many results among indoeuropean languages, August Schleicher's AVIS meant bird, from hypothetical PIE stem awi- it was probably AVEIS nominative, aviary, avian, aviculture from latin avis (bird).
jaeghon 2 years ago
(5 of 18)
It is obviously a matter that cannot be discussed in a couple of lines but I'll try to explain in a few words my point of view: I have reconstructed PIE not as a common mother language, but as a language spoken by a culture disappeared around 10th millennium BC, this idiom would have had a large and crucial influence on many languages all over the world: probably-apparently a cultural hegemony rather than a political one.
jaeghon 2 years ago
(6 of 18)
Once I had received the classic official formation supposed to qualify me to analyze languages I ran into the academic popular doubts on the whole "indoeuropean" theory: the Kurgans and laryngeals along with all the rest "were" highly speculative, incoherent and-or disconnected to archaeology, so like all of us who came to that "theoretical ambiguous point" I had to try to find a new path to examine the problem searching and exploring a completely different approach.
jaeghon 2 years ago
(7 of 18)
As a researcher I "collected" and studied "what is not similar" among indoeuropean languages rather than the opposite and on the other hand I looked for linguistic and cultural traces and even a kind of substratum engrams of the hypothetical proto ethnos in non-indoeuropean areas and cultures. First of all I had the feeling that all what I knew concerning PIE language looked scarcely "natural" and "human":
jaeghon 2 years ago
(8 of 18)
a natural language is a constantly changing stream flowing regularly and irregularly, analogic and dislogic, quick and narrow at some stages, slow and large at some other ones, if it has had a quite stable period this must have happened in a time when there was a quite articulated oral or even written culture.
jaeghon 2 years ago
(9 of 18)
I also studied the formation of pidgins and various patoises in order to find out the rules or better the theories and the processes than normally are leading actors and main factors in the natural birth of this peculiar kind of languages that have a very "irregular" diachronic development. The following very plain example may partially clearify my theory:
jaeghon 2 years ago
(10 of 18)
let's immagine that we are in the year 5000 AC: english, french and spanish are unknown dead languages that disappeared since a few millenia, all the relics of western cultures have disappeared and we know almost nothing of what happened in Europe, America and Africa before. Many pidgins developped from english(and-or)french(and-or)spanish are spoken all over the world and these are the hypothetical "modern" languages of the year 5000.
jaeghon 2 years ago
(11 of 18)
We would find many similarities among these languages and we would probably reconstruct a common language incredibly far from the real ones and we would place this idiom rather close to us in the recent millenia, immagine the confusion when you have an english french-borrowed word in a pidgin and also its equivalent directly from french:
jaeghon 2 years ago
(12 of 18)
it would be extreemly difficult to locate the common area where the originary language was spoken and the non-affinities of languages would be almost ignored while their are the relics of the pre-colonial languages.
jaeghon 2 years ago
(13 of 18)
Indoeuropean languages look more like pidgins developped from a separated language and preserving various substrative clear aspects and also other linguistic families (hamito-semitic, uralic, etc.) have important traces of this hypothetical extinct language-culture,
jaeghon 2 years ago
(14 of 18)
that would be why all the IE families appear more or less exactly close and far from the originary one and none of them seems the direct descendant (eventhough we should probably discuss the Hittites "quaestio" and some other sub-families who may look in a more distant position).
jaeghon 2 years ago
(15 of 18)
So indoeuropean languages would be the ones that were heavely influenced, not at all the direct descedants but traces of this idiom are easy to find in different amounts all over the planet and even where linguistic relics are impossible to detect we can encounter cultural similarities that may be the last signs of the hypothetical influence.
jaeghon 2 years ago
(16 of 18)
It is also plausible that contacts took places in different places, times and ways, if this civilization was occupying a large territory and-or if they had commerces over the sea they probably settled colonies that eventually started developping their own "hypolects" (sub-dialects) at early stages etc.
jaeghon 2 years ago
(17 of 18)
I would firmly add that this has nothing to do with atlantinean theories that are merely fantasies to me, although Plato's tale and the rig-veda war between devas and asuras for example may be usefull to reconstruct the common epic memory of a very important absolutely human (no magic, no sci-fi) civilisation that may have taken place in what we still strangely call Paleolithic.
jaeghon 2 years ago
(18 of 18)
As you can understand it takes more than a book to demonstrate my theory and to propose evidences. I will publish my work in 2011, 2012 I think, I can't make it before, but in case you are interested we can discuss it.
jaeghon 2 years ago
Wow, amazing read! I have a (very amateur) interest in linguistics, especially the comparative stuff which I've read about where I can, and I have to say, these 18 posts were very enlightening! As ever, it seems it's not as simple as it may first sound, one massive, identical proto-civilisation, which is what the PIE theory seems at first to suggest.
0m12 2 years ago
Anyway, I've been listening to this song a while, and though I liked the tune I was unsure of the meaning of the PIE or indeed how serious a reconstruction it is, but now I find song more enjoyable. Like listening to ancient, long-lost echoes of a heritage so many of us (though, technically, not myself) share.
I'd be very interested to read your work once you do get round to it; I've yet to read any serious publications/theses about this area, and this sounds like a good place to start as any!
0m12 2 years ago
@jaeghon I really am interested in seeing your work published, perhaps even a translation of the song lyrics! Send me a message sometime, it'd be awesome to discuss language reconstruction(and perhaps even conlanging) with someone that's actually done quite a lot in that department.
sourmelee 1 month ago
Is the "ahvis" like the "avis" as in Sleicher's fable?
I'm only a dabbler in linguistics, but I like this song!
glassminimalist 2 years ago
Doesn't look at all PIE to me. What phonology are you using>
Naiant 2 years ago