 Rwy'n credu bod hi'n ddiddordeb ni'n gell i chi ystafell? Mae'n o'r hyn o gweld ychydig. Rhyw oherwydd gilydd eich bod yn fwyaf yw gyflotengwyd i ysgrifenedig. Rhyw oherwydd i chi'n digwydd i'ch eich cefnod o ymgylchedd, rwy'n teimlo arwain gyda chi yn brifau llwy ffawr, ac yna, ddi'ch wneud i'n cael ei gweithio i fan y cyfrif ysgrifenedig, mae'n rakio i'ch cyllideb i'r gweithio. Rydyn geroedd ar y cysylltiadauRo까 i gael y gallwn tyfu roedd y cwylio'r cyffredinol yn ddod o'r ffordd o'r pethau cyfnod o'r teoriad yng Nghymru, oedd yn rhoi'r cyffredinol o'r ddod o'r rhaglen o'r langwygiad yw yn argyrchol a'r cyffredinol. Rwy'n credu i'n rhaid i'n ddod o'r ymddi Aslip, sy'n ddod i'r hyn o'r ddod i'r gyffredinol, Felly efallai yn ôl i ddim yn gweithio'r ddefnyddio? Rhaid i ddim yn gweithio. Aslwp yn ymgyrchu i'r llwyfodol yn llwyddiant yn Llyfrgellach Llyfrgell, oherwydd yn rhagor, sy'n gychwyn gyda'r rhain o'r rhagor bwrdd Cymru. Felly, mae'r 150 o ffyrdd o'r rhagor yn llwyddiant o'r rhagor o'r rhagor i'n gwneud ei ddau sy'n cynnangodd o gwylltau llyfrgellol yn llwyddiant yn llwyddiant yn llwyddiant yn llwyddiant yn llwyddiant, Mae'r llyfr o gwbl i'r ysgol o'r llangwyd yn oed yn bwysig. Mae'r llyfr yn gwybodol yn ysgol a'r genatul yn gyneymol, yn gyntaf hyn i'r adeiladau yn yng Nghwylirau Cymru. Mae'r llyfr yn gwybodol yn dda. Felly dyma'r ddechrau'r bwysig, ond rydych chi'n rhai o'r cyffredig o bobl yn gwybodol o'r llyfr o'r llyfr o'r llyfr o'r llyfr o'r llyfr o'r cwysig. Felly, mae'n gweithio'r ffordd o'r ffordd. Mae'n gweithio'r byw, i fi i'w ddarluniau i ddoll, i'w fudio'r tyllion yma i ddraesio eu wasfyrddau o'r rhagleniaeth yng Nghymru, i'w gweithio i fynd i'r gaelio'r lleydd iawn o gwneud o'r rhagleniau lloghau ymddai a'r lleyddau. Mae'n gweithio i'w ddod yn ei gweithio i'r lleyddiau'r rhagleniau lloghau i ddod, oherwydd mae'n gweithio. Bydd ydych yn ei gweithio i ddweud yma, dwych. Ploeddon ni'n ddweud yw yng Nghymru yn ymgyrch yn ymgyrch yn fawr yng nghymru â ymgyrch yn y ddweud yng nghymru, sy'n y 19th ymgyrch yn ei ddweud ychydig i gyfnodd yn gwneud y dyma sy'n cael ei ddweud ymgyrch yn ymgyrch yn ymgyrch maen nhw i'r llwyll gwyllian o'r eu lleologaeth o'r ffordd o'r Llywodraethol gyda'r hyn. Dyma'r ffordd o'r subtext iawn o'r 19th yma a'r 20th dyn nhw, ac mae'n lleologaeth a'r rhain o'r llwyll, ac mae'r hynny yn amlwgol i'r homoddiad ar y Llywodraeth o'r Ysgol Cymru a'r 19th yma yn ysgolol a'r Ysgol yn y Deyrnas Gwysig. o'r pwntig ar gyfer gydag Gordon Child yn Maria Gimboutis. Rwy'n meddwl i'n meddwl i'n meddwl i'r gwrth o'r pwntig yng Nghymru, oherwydd o'r prysgau Cogonethau, oherwydd o'r prysgau Cogonethau o'r llai bronzau bryddolion ysgrifennu i'r gweithgrannu i'r pwntig. Rwy'n meddwl i'r prysgau Cogonethau i'r Gwentyn Atkinson i'r Rhyslgrwy. Rwy'n meddwl i'r Prysgau Llywodraeth i'r Perol Tfag, i'r cyflwyno cyflwyno o'r berthynas, oherwydd o'r gweithio'r modl fydd yn ymgyrchol. Rwy'n meddwl i'n meddwl i'r prysgau Cogonethau, i'r modl yn ymgyrchol, i'r modl yn ymgyrchol, i'r modl yn ymgyrchol, i'r modl yn ymgyrchol. Rwy'n meddwl i'r modl, rydym wedi strategies, ond i'w'r gweith Davies. Rwy'n meddwl i'r meddwl i'w ffyrdd! Byddwn i'n meddwl i'r lefach – efallai bod yn ymgyrchol y ni, a'r cyflwyno cyflwyno a'r cyflwyno, a'i allaniaeth gyda'r cyflwyno, ein pethau neu ddiwedd yn ein cyflwyno, sydd ar dechrau'n detall i'r seffŬ ar gyfer? A oedd, ond i'n meddwl i'r gweithio Cogonethau yn y cyflwyno cyflwyno, according to Anthony to quote from his front cover, the front cover of his book, Bronze Age Riders from the Eurasian Steps how they shaped the world, they had the kind of the sports car's of the Bronze Age which overalled all of the sedentary agricultural people and gradually spread, there's just one slight problem with this in that it's increasing the apparent that the adjacent culture has already had wheels, This is a point which Jean-Paul de Moules points out in his book that as far as the cultures to the west, the Cucutenian, the Tripoli cultures, but actually the first wheel and wagon technology appears to the east in the Maïcop culture of the northern Caucasus. Mae'r ddweud i'ch gyrdoddau, roeddoedd yn gael y ddweud efallai ei ddweud a'r gwaith gweld dradolol iawn. gymryd ddweud i'r cyffredin ychydig yw wisem mudau'r cyfrifiad yw rhanig. Mae Copwch yn gweithio, a gyda'r gweithio gyda'r mynd iddiad a'i gwirlo trwy eucamp, coi'r prif o gwirlo sydd o'r ston dwyfio a'r grwp ddweud o'r regd yma yn Messiopatamio yma, ac mae'r cyflawni arfer 500 yma yn 3,700 BC-E ac 3,200 BC-E yn llwydech chi'n meddwl i'r cyflawni a'r cyflawni ar y brifhau cyflawni ar y dyfodol yw'r cyflawni'n gwahanol i'r ystod. If, as Anthony does, he dogmatically insists that it's the wheeled vehicle, which is the vector for the spread of Indo-European languages into Europe, this process can't really start before right at the end of the fourth millennium. Now, it's very clear where the words for wheel come from in Indo-European. There's a root, qual, which means to turn or to go around, and this is reduplicated in Greek as cwklos, cwklos in Germanic, which gives us wheel in English, cwklos in Indo-Aryan, cwklos in Turkarian, but we also find it without reduplication, so the Slav language is in Russian as they call it, in Latin we've got callus, so the meaning is either to go round or to go round and round, and actually Perilsweig and Lewis, they base their entire arguments on an unpublished, note the word unpublished study from 2006 by Donald Ringe, who claims that this reduplication is so rare that it could only have happened once and obviously this is a piece of Indo-European intellectual property. Now, if you actually look at the comparative evidence, which is quoted by Gamkralidzian Divanov, you can see that this is nonsense, and in fact, just to give you a quick quote, they say, for the typology of reduplication in the formation of the term for wheel and wheeled wagon, look at Georgian borbal, circle wheel from Borbar, Hebrew gilgal, galgal wheel, Georgian gorgal, wheeled circle, Sumerian gigir, the phonetic similarity of the Sumitic and Indo-European forms is striking. Sumerian gigir is phonetically not far removed from these forms, which points to historical lexical connections. Now, Anthony then goes on to build this theory of expansion of Indo-European on a series of words which, according to him, conclusively prove that the Indo-Europeans own the intellectual property to wheels and wagons. So, they've got the word for a ywgwm, ywgwm in Latin, ywgwau in Sanskrit, which is derived from words, which mean to unite, bind, join. According to them, this couldn't possibly have anything to do with the Sumerian word for ywgwb, which is ywgwg, ywgwm, ywgwg. We've also got a zhugon in Greek. There's a word in Acadian, zhungku, which means to bind, to subject to the ywgwg. And then, obviously, in Indo-European, we actually have multiple roots for a wheel. So, we've got rata in Latin, which you get rhad in German, rata in a charity in Sanskrit. And this is identified as coming from a word meaning to run. Sorry, Semitic words for to run. Well, we've got redlu in Acadian. In Hebrew, he's running, rats, rats, rata. Obviously, nothing to do with each other because they're so phonetically distinctive. So, in fact, pretty much most of the words which he cites as confirming the Indo-European nature of the word wheel have cognates in Semitic. And actually, one of my research areas is the Italian linguist Alfredo Trombetti. In 1915, he showed that there was a root quail, which means to turn, and by extension, wheel or round object. He showed that this root was present from, all the way from West Africa to Siberia. In fact, this is a huge family of related words, which I had time, I'd show you. Which also, we also find in cropping up repeatedly in words for worm, knee, guts, are all sorts of curved things. So, an antonies actually completely silent on this, despite the fact that he puts Gamkralidzi and Ivanov into his bibliography. Mallory also mentions this. So, it becomes clear that he doesn't believe in reading his own bibliography. But he's defended by Perold Zweig and Lewis on the basis of this unpublished study by Rhinj, unpublished, which was still not in the public domain after 11 years, and they just dismiss any notion of borrowings. So, even going to, even specifying what they call a wheel line, 3500 BC, before which there could have been no dissemination of Indo-European languages. And this falls straight into a vicious circle of reasoning, according to which a late breakup for Indo-European implies hyper-accelerated linguistic change, which in turn implies a late breakup date. The Italian linguist, Mario Alinez, used a rather, I think, a great term. He's called this linguistic creationism. And so, Anthony has got proto-Indo-European differentiating into Italian, Germanic in a few hundred years. Unfortunately, this means that his model can't account for Greek, which appears in exactly the wrong place to fit his model, or I'll just quote him here. The people who imported Greek or proto-Greek into Greece might have moved several times, perhaps by sea from the western Pontic steppes to south-eastern Europe to western Anatolia to Greece, making their trail hard to find. The EHS, what do you call it, 2-3 transition about 2400 to 2200 BC, has long been seen as a time of radical change in Greece when new people might have arrived. But the resolution of this problem is outside the scope of his book. So, you know, this is nonsense. You know, he's launching this model, but then he can't even explain how Greek gets to Greece and then says, I will actually, that's not something I need to discuss. Now, the other thing is equally deficient on explanations about how Germanic got to the Germanic area. He just says, oh, there's a group of pastoralists moving up the Danube in the right direction, so they presumably got there in the end. The odd man out in the European family is Anatolian, which, according to Anthony, is seriously deficient in wheel vocabulary. Indeed, according to him, the proto-Hittites fled the Pontic steppes via the Balkans for a wheel-free space in Anatolia, except that they do actually have a word for wheel horchi, which looks suspiciously like a borrowing from the Semitic root gur, which, by the way, is also borrowed into Basque as Gordi, and that's not exactly what you'd expect from a Corgan theory. The Hittites also used the Sumerogram for chariot, so we don't know what the actual phonetics was. And in fact, Gamchalidzi and Ivanov, to quote them again, they say, For a number of early Indian traditions, there's a characteristic ritual and mythological role for the wheel and its deification as a symbol of the sun which is worshipped as a deity. The ritual symbolism of the wheel is quite clear in old Hittite tradition, so obviously the Hittites had no knowledge of wheels or anything. Now, when we lift the veil on Indian languages only a few centuries later, we find that the languages we can observe, Hittite, Greek, arguably Indo-Aryan, are already fully differentiated and identifiable in their current form and are all located in areas close to the homelands which can be identified for them in historic times. Now, nor are there any cases of any brand new but deeply differentiated branches of Indo-European emerging over the last 3,000 years. In fact, the oldest observable branch, Hittite, is actually the most aberrant. Now, my own work, which unfortunately I don't have time to cite, has been devoted to show how conservative these daughter families are, notably that lexical replacement occurs almost entirely through internal borrowing and tends to cluster at the start of the development of a daughter language and isn't a smooth and continuous process. Sorry, I've just got lost here. So, this is pretty much a blatant violation of what Donald Ringe's termed the uniformitarian principle, which says that if you have a period which you can't observe, the behavior must be the same as the period which you can observe. And all that Perilsweig and Lewis do is to try and prop up this edifice by quoting from Andrew Garrett's work, who basically has a very selective interpretation of the evidence. He just poured potents to a small number of highly conserved morphological features between a hypothetical reconstruction of Proto-Indo-European and the early daughter languages, for example, the endings of the present tense of the verb in Hittite and Sanskrit and Greek. But this is actually self-contradictory, firstly because it argues for a low break-up date based on morphological similarities between Hittite, which separates at an early stage, and other Indo-European languages. And it still fails to explain the extensive lexical differences between the daughter families of Indo-European, just as a last point. I think the linguistic evidence does show that men spoke about things that were round or went round long before any wagon appeared on the Pontic steppes. Indeed, there's no reason why the extensive shared vocabulary for such concepts shouldn't date back to the Paleolithic. Now, while this notion may seem too far removed from the current paradigm to be credible, it seems to me that any explanation of the diffusion of Indo-European based on wheel technology must account for such phenomena as grooved tracks on the moors of northern Germany dating back to 4600 BC, stone wheels in Malta and Sicily from the 5th millennium BC, and the advent of wheel spun pottery in Iraq and also in Pakistan. Again, late 6th, certainly mid 5th millennium BC, not to mention the evidence that the slow wheel or the tournet goes back probably 500, 600 years earlier to the late Samara period. So, this idea that Proto-Indo-European remained unified until right at the end of the 4th millennium needs a radical revision. I haven't had a chance really to talk about the Paleolithic continuity theory, but I think a first step is really to get rid of this low break update. That's really what I had to say, so thank you very much.