>>533254 >No Date given >No PIE >Greek and Albanian on same branch >not Greek and Armenian >Balto-Slavic >Indo-Aryan >No Italo-Celtic >Celtic not extending further south & south-east >Indo-Iranian in the heart of Anatolia Why? What Indo-Iranian language existed there? >Armenian extending so far west Why? Armenian isn't attested that far west AFAIK. Phrygian & Pontian and much later, Galatian were spoken in those parts of Anatolia as far back as records go. >Albanian all up in Greece and Italy and Sicily Why? There is no evidence to suggest Albanian had such a large range. Thracian-Illyrian might have, but not 'Albanian'. For one thing, there is no 'Albanian' substratum in Greek... despite the fact we've identified Paleo-Balkan substratum in Greek.
>Greek Ionian Coast Greek spread to Anatolia happened very late, c. 1000 BC. Prior to that we have evidence of small settlements, trade, and war, nothing that warrants painting the Ionian coast as 'Greek' especially in the context of an 'origin'.
>>534803 '2000 years ago' is wrong. There was no Kurdish or other Iranian population in Byzantine Anatolia, nor are there records of any Iranian speakers in Anatolia in Roman, Greek, or Hittite records.
They began to spread into modern Turkey/Byzantine Anatolia when the southern and eastern holdings were lost to the muslims.
Kurds were a tiny crappy minority in north western Iran and northern Iraq even then, and they proliferated into modern Turkey only by helping the Turks massacre the Armenians in the 20th century.
Pretty much all of the pink/salmon colored area in >>533414 was Armenian in the middle ages. I can't say what was dominant in antiquity, but it wasn't Kurdish or any sort of Persian.
>>534827 Well, there certainly were Iranic speakers both in the Armenian highlands and Anatolia from the Achaemenid period and on (the Byzantines used Iranian-speaking mercenaries as well), in fact even more West than that but yeah, they weren't in compact groups like contemporary Kurds. They resembled more the Greek and Roman settlement starting from the Hellenistic period, though they were fewer in number and had less impact.
>>534865 Of course there was colonization or whatever you want to call it, but it'd be like saying that the range of Greek spanned from Spain to India.... and I'm glad you agree that those pockets of settlements are meaningless in the context of this thread.
>>533380 it also has the times backward. celts game before italics who came before germanics who came before slavics, not the other way around. and didn't just settle where they are now, and germanics didn't initially settle in SE england, that's the 5th century CE, the picture is retarded
>>535284 Germanic and Balto-Slavic may share very old roots, or Germanic and Celtic, but Baltic languages probably existed, or a pro-Baltic language, in 1000s BC. Proto-Germanic is probably younger than that iirc.
Slavics entered into things later but probably existed for a while or something before being distinguished or noticed by relevant civilizations.
>>533254 This graphic is retarded. First off the timing is all wrong. Celtic comes before Italic which comes before Germanic which comes before Slavic. Secondly the British isles were colonized by Celts in recorded history after their linguogenesis. The indo-iranians Came from the steppes, the slavs came from farther north east, Germanic should not contain england and should contain more of Scandinavia. The tocharians migrated from the steppes.
All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective parties. Images uploaded are the responsibility of the Poster. Comments are owned by the Poster.
This is a 4chan archive - all of the shown content originated from that site. This means that 4Archive shows their content, archived. If you need information for a Poster - contact them.
If a post contains personal/copyrighted/illegal content, then use the post's [Report] link! If a post is not removed within 24h contact me at firstname.lastname@example.org with the post's information.