Talk:Indo-European

message: The infobox sucks.  You are reducing Europe's most influential tribes (namely the Italic tribes) into one particular dialect of one particular tribe and tossing them into a group with other cultures who for the most part weren't even Indo-European!!  Of course being that this is an English article, "Celtic" and "Germanic" peoples remain independently categorized.  Seems a little propagandist. Anyway, following this ridiculous logic why not just categorize all the barbarian tribes as Celts?  Seriously people, this is rather sad. 72.209.44.108 16:11, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Latins?????

message: I object to the fact that Indo-Europeans really existed.
Not only are they a theory that was created by linguists, but there has been no proof (other than linguistic theories) to support it.
On the other hand, there has been ample Archaeological and Anthropological facts to support just the opposite, that a Indo-European nomadic tribe never existed.
Also, the indo-european theory is based on the fact that the human race was created by monogenesis. There is another school of thought that supports polygenesis (that the human race evolved in different parts of the planet at the same time)
The indo-european theory is just not viable under the polygenesis theory (the one I am supporting)
However neither the monogenesis or the polygenesis theory have been proven without a shadow of a doubt, so I cannot prove for certain that indo-europeans never existed until that matter is cleared up.
However the indo-european theory has been changed many times since its original conception. 
It has been thrown back from 1200 bc, to 1800 to 3000. 
Greek Mythology does not mention in any place that a nomadic tribe conquered them or that they conquered the native tribes when they moved into the Aegean territory, on the contrary, they mention that they (The Greeks) always lived there.
There are so many facts to discredit the theory that I wonder why it still survives. DB0 16:03, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Ummm, please get your facts straight. The Mycenaens were Indo-European AND Greek. Before entering the Balkans, the Greeks seperated into the Mycenaens, who migrated to the south, c. 2000 BC, and the Dorians, who remained in the northern part of the Balkans. Approximately 1000 years later, the Dorians joined them, or rather, carried out an invasion on them and plunged Greece into a "dark age". Nonetheless, their linguistic influence was low, and both Modern and Ancient Greek are descended from primitive Mycenaean. Dorian dialects still exist, with a small number of speakers.  ~ Eiríkr Rauði 12:38, 30 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Indo-European existence 

message: I have removed this paragraph:
: These kings were ragarded as being able to "reach out and defend their 
: people". This is an important fact, as the word reach is the only 
: Germanic word to maintain a very well-known Indo-European root, 
: meaning king, that can be seen in Latin rex, Irish rí, and 
: Sanskrit raj.
It's silly, I've seen no evidence that "reach" is from the PIE for "king", and there are plenty of other Germanic words that are descended from the root in question. Crculver 17:59, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: And rightly so. Judging from the style of it and the kind of article this is, I suspect it was written by User:Kenneth Alansson who has been banned for adding (and highly aggressively defending) pseudo-scientific utter nonsense. Fedor 13:07, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Silly paragraph removed 

message: " the Proto-Indo-Europeans, possibly originating from somewhere around the Black Sea region from the 5th millennium BC onward."
I think this theory is very likely to be nonsence.
: Nonetheless, it is the most widely accepted hypothesis. The only real alternative, Renfrew's theory of an origin in Anatolia, is held by few and is becoming increasingly abandoned. Wikipedia's goal is to represent the current thought in scholarship. Why do you protest the common theory, and do you hold the qualifications necessary to back up your assertion? Crculver 20:26, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: The last time I checked, Anatolia was in the Black Sea Region, namely directly under it. So I don't sea how Renfrew's views are contradictory to the commonly held view, or how it is becoming 'abandoned'. Fedor 10:00, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  Oops, I misread the poster above in thinking that "north of the Black Sea" was written. That is the mainstream view, with an origin south of the Black Sea being proposed by Renfrew and held by ever less. Sorry for the misreading. However, the anonymous poster who began this thread didn't offer anything constructive. Crculver 10:16, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  True. And I do not wish to contend what the mainstream believes, but wonder how they can pin-point it so exactly. Sounds a bit speculative to me, maybe that is what the previous poster hooked on. In any case, the present formulation is good as it covers both views, mainstream's and Renfrew's. Fedor 11:16, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  hi 

message: There is good map. But there are several mistakes:
1) Corsica and Sardinia were not Indo-European up to 1000 BC, because its population (Corses and Sardes) are described by ancient authors as relatives of non-Indoeuropean Hispanic Iberes. Romanisation of these islands was made to 1st cent. AD.
2) Eastern Spain was home of non-Indoeuropean Iberes and this area was romanisated up to 1st cent. AD.
3) In Scandinavia Northern Bronze Age culture which associated with Indo-Europeans spread to Norway and more large part of Sweden.
4) Estonia had no significant Indo-European population and generally border between Finnic and Baltic populations was Daugava (Dvina River) in today Latvia.
5) It is believed that in migration in Europe Indo-Europeans is divided to 2 branch: northern (Paleoeuropeans - ancesors of Celts, Illyrians, Italics, Venets, Germans, Slavs and Balts) and southern (ancesors of Greeks, Thracians, Phrygyans and Armenians). Border between these two branch was Carpatian mountains.
6) Up to 1000 BC nor Crete nor Cyprus were not Indo-European which is fixed in historical accounts.
7) It is believed in Kurgan hypothesis and is evidenced from historical and linguistical data that Anatolians came from Agean Sea basin (for example Carians).
8) Armenian Highlands was not Indo-European up to 800 BC. Its population were predominantly Caucasian-speaking Hurrians and Urartians.
9) About Tocharians: from linguistical data is known that Tocharians is strongly contacted with Finno-Ugric tribes. From this and archeological accounts it is believed that ancesors of Tocharians were population of Fatyanovo culture (central Russia). When and by which way Tocharians came to Sinkiang (Western China) is not known, but because slightly linguistical contacts between Tocharian and Iranic languages proposed that migration went through forest zone (not steppe).
Generally I think that it will better correct map.
Dmitry Krotko (til@bigmir.net).
:Good points, and I'll try to take them into consideration  when I update the map. Of course, it can only ever be very approximate in any case (except for your point (9) which is news to me; do you have a reference? I am also not familiar with your terminology in (5).) thanks, dab (ᛏ) 18:08, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: There has indeed a case been made for early contacts between Tocharian and Uralic speakers, based on loanwords, which would also explain the unusual (for an Indo-European lanugage) sound changes of Early Tocharian, especially the merger of all stop rows into one voiceless unaspirated one (see Kallio 2004 in the Mémoires de la Société Néophilologique de Helsinki 63). However, there is no need to place the region of contact in Europe. Considering Proto-Uralic homeland hypotheses#Europe vs. Siberia, Pre-Proto-Uralic was likely spoken west of Lake Baikal in about 3000 BC and spread west into Europe from there in the 3rd millennium BC, placing it in the immediate neighbourhood of the Afanasevo culture, which was most probably Indo-European-speaking and has been specifically linked to Tocharian. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 14:22, 28 January 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Notes for map of Indo-European expansion 

message: I think I originally started this page as an overview of the articles linked by . By now, it has become difficult to keep it aligned with its sub articles, and I propose cutting it down to a disambiguation page (along the lines of English or German), i.e. linking to Indo-European languages, Proto-Indo-European language and Proto-Indo-Europeans (of course without loss of data, exporting everything not already covered there). dab (ᛏ) 18:13, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: did it. dab (ᛏ) 16:34, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: back to dab page

message: I've re-pointed or removed the links to this page from all but three of the hundreds of pages that used to point to it.  The three that remain are
* Persian people—currently locked for editing; note on Talk page
* History of Azerbaijan—currently locked for editing; note on Talk page
* List of religions—in a sentence I don't understand, refers to a standard monotheistic Indo-European belief system; note on Talk page
I'm declaring it done for now. Dpv 23:06, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Disambiguation Link Repair