Talk:Germanic substrate hypothesis

message: What is the proposed name for the hypothetical language that allegedly affected Germanic in this way? The term "Folkish" is mentioned in the article, but I'm not quite sure what they meant by it-- whether it is the name of the foreign language or for the words derived from the non-IE language.
:I guess "Folkish" might be as good a word as any, since, if the hypothesis is correct, there is no way to tell what the people/language would have been called at the time it was spoken. AFAIK, "Folkish" might be used for both the language and the words derived from it, similar to how "casa", "vaquero", "loco" etc. could be considered "Spanish words in the English language"... =S
:: I suppose it's as good as any – provided one forgets the use Hitler put to the word völkisch. As it stands, I admit it makes me feel very uncomfortable. QuartierLatin1968 16:01, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  Yes, there is that and there are the uses to which the English word "folkish" have been put by racists. --Saforrest 19:55, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: So what? Should the words "Nationalist" and "Socialist" become dirty words because they were used by Nazi's now? Kentynet (talk) 17:09, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Since some scholars have proposed the term "Folkish" for the Germanic substrate language, it probably deserves a mention, along with some of the reasons for why the term has not quite caught on. For example, if you look up "folk" in the appendix of Indo-European word roots in the American Heritage Dictionary (the appendix is an abridged English translation of Pokorny) it gives a pretty strong pedigree for "folk," thus shooting down the main reason for using the term. As for the term's guilt by association, not only with the Nazis, but also with various sorts of neopagans, some of them racist, that could be mentioned as well. However, I don't think we should be using it as the term, since linguists apparently don't. Zyxwv99 (talk) 20:16, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: [Untitled]

message: I just added the cleanup tag ..... I was torn between it and wikify as I think the article is mostly fine it just needs some better formatting and layout.  Dalf | Talk 05:48, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  cleanup tag 

message: The article is over-broad in its statements. The actual substrate is less than one-third, under 30%, as I recall. The word "creole" is not correctly used; it should not be used in this article at all. The Grimm-Verner law does not come into full force until essentially AD 1 (the first Germanic sound shift). --FourthAve 11:57, 12 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Do you have a source for that dating?  I would have thought Grimm-Verner would be considerably earlier.  --Doric Loon 10:35, 8 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Please, the word creole is appropriate, if you consider Vennemanns sub- and superstrat theory. Seen from above, i.e. the semitidic language (in Vennemanns notion), Germanic is creole! According to Grimm-Verner, this law is known to us only since AD 1. Whether it is older is unknown, since there are no older germanic Sprachdenkmäler.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.133.155.70 (talk) 09:43, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Overly broad

message: I don't feel confident enough on this to make major changes to the article, but I suspect that they are needed.  For one thing, the article focusses pretty much on Hawkins.  I suspect the theory is older than Hawkins, certainly older than his 1990 book, and it is championed by others too.  It has been particularly influential in the Netherlands.  There is a group working in Leiden who are well inclined to the theory, and possibly the article should mention them.  It should also mention that the new Etymologisch woordenboek van het Nederlands editied by Marlies Philippa (vol 1: Amsterdam UP 2003) claims to be the first etymological dictionary of any Western European language to take the theory up in its explanations.  This suggests a level of respectability which the theory does not have elsewhere, and that ought to be made clear.  On the other hand, there seems to be a majority of linguists who are sceptical.  Incidentally, the Philippa dictionary suggests that 15% of native Germanic words in Dutch are substrat words, a more modest claim than Hawkins' 30%.--Doric Loon 10:35, 8 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I remain uncomfortable with this article. As for the 1st sound shift, the usual introductions to IE studies generally put it starting at 500 BC with AD 1 as the date it became complete. Elsewhere you read about "pre-proto-Germanic" to get around the arguments about what language they spoke before the 1st sound shift. See my speculations in Globular Amphora culture. --FourthAve 06:31, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Leiden etc

message: This is a fairly good etymology dictionary that could be useful here. - 19:03, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  A link you might like 

message: Some words mentioned in the table are found in Marathi,an Indo-European language from india.A few examples are as below:
1.Sea-Shiv(There is a legend that Lord Shive emerged from ocean,hence sagar-samudra-sea
2.King--(ki-ng),ng(serpent),there were naga kings in ancient india
3.Wife-Bie
4.Sword-(Tal-wor)
5.ship-shid
6.sail-vail
7.west-w(est)
8.east-e(ast)
9.north-n(orth)
10.bride-vride/vadhu
11.groom-varo
12.drink-dravya
This may throw more light on this hypothesis.
dbkasarDbkasar
:Do you have any sources for these? - The Great Gavini spricht mit mir 17:58, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Maybe not - the comment on your user page about you adding a theory to English language that it is a dialect of Marathi suggests that you might not be a reliable source. - The Great Gavini spricht mit mir 15:50, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Substrate hypothesis

message: Look for saganet and read some oldest sagas. I find information that its close to substratum. There is 25000 scaned pages. Lokk for Sagaszczaszczij Licozhron: (its top text) bozirca tejsza sacja odhroniat ot rozzicji. Mostly not jet documented. Site is java based do not give links to given page.Ciosek 21:06, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Do you know the old Icelandic txt 

message: I've changed the claim that more than half of the cases were lost as compared to e. g. Sanskrit and Lithuanian.  The latter languages have eight cases; the Germanic language or languages that emerged from whatever the formative process was contained at least four distinct cases (nominative, genitive, dative, and accusative), some still do. I remember having read about other cases in Anglo-Saxon; but I don't know to what extent these 'cases' really were different 'forms' and not just 'functions'. However, the n-g-d-a distinctions were fairly uniform; are preserved in full in modern Icelandic and to a slightly lesser degree in German; and cannot sensibly be believed to have been innovations spreading over the Germanic tribes after the formation of the language. Proto-IE may have had more than 8 distinct cases, but the two mentioned languages don't.
I am rather doubtful about the following suggestion:
:(However, other Indo-European languages attested much earlier than the Germanic languages, such as Hittite, also have a reduced inventory of noun cases. It is not certain whether Germanic and Hittite have lost them, or whether they never shared in their acquisition.)
even as a 'not completely excluded' hypothesis.  In fact, I'd very much like to see some source; for based on the given argument itself, IMO it were rather completely excluded.  Hittite and a few other languages, such as Luwian, are classified as Anatolian.  The Anatolian languages in general are believed to have splinted off from the other IE languages/dialects rather early; clearly well before the oldest found samples of Anatolian languages, which are dated from the middle of the second millenium b.Cr. This is no real proof that there were not later innovations of cases in the IE main group, which however never spread to the 'proto-proto-Germanic' group; but I beleve the case forms that did survive have been clearly recognised to correspond to certain forms in the neighbouring IE groups (e.g., Germanic dative pl. with Russian instrumental?). Moreover, Hittite also had other 'simplifications' (or alternatively 'non-complexifications') in noun declension, as a much simpler gender system; and Germanic hasn't.
Does anyone know more about this? Else, I'll remove the quoted parenthesis after a while. JoergenB 18:56, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The claim being made in the article is simply wrong. Beyond the nominative, genitive, dative and accusative cases, Germanic possessed the vocative, locative and instrumental cases in e/o-stems, and the ablative was still productive as a source of adjectives and adverbs, if no longer an active case. Who writes these bloody articles, anyways?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.75.168.38 (talk) 20:10, 21 April 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Usually – all too frequently fairly clueless, unfortunately – hobbyists, as scholars and even students rarely bother. I have simply removed the statement as it was – ancient – blatant OR that was not supported by the quotes in the footnotes. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 15:02, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

text: However, I'm pretty sure you're mistaken in your statement about the locative. As far as I have been able to find out, it was nowhere preserved as a distinct case form in Germanic, and is found only in scattered traces. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 15:15, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Case reduction speculation 

message: Any more candidates for distinctively, if not uniquely, Germanic roots? I'm thinking of English "middle" with its cognates and relatives. (I'm aware of other Germanic parallels but not non-Germanic ones).
:I think it's en extended form from mid-, related to Latin medio-, Greek meso- and similar, apparently PIE with derivations also found in Sanskrit, Celtic and Armenian according to Elof Hellquist ... 惑乱 分からん 18:07, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: More Words

message: In reviewing the article, I note what seems to be a major problem with the argument.  That is, the discussion of how the development of proto-Germanic from proto-Indo-European may have been influenced by one or more archeological cultures.  This is problematic because there is no reason to assume a correlation between language and material culture.  The ambitious, and potentially very useful, project which has been outlined by some users in this discussion page is really a project to define with precision the characteristics which make proto-Germanic appear to stand somewhat apart from other Indo-European languages.  To the extent there are differences, it is logical to consider one or more language substrates as a cause.  It may be that thorough research will make it possible to set forth the characteristics one would expect to be found in the hypothetical substrate(s).  These characteristics could then be compared to characteristics of known languages and language groups to determine whether any candidates possess the predicted characteristics.  It is extremely unlikely, however, that the success of such a project would make it possible to correlate proto-Germanic to an archeological culture.  Imagine, for example, how difficult it would be for a future archeologist to determine what languages were spoken in Europe during the late 20th and early 21st centuries (ignoring, for the purpose of this exercise, archeological evidence of writing or other recorded language).
Bob99 17:40, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think you quite understand the principle. Look, most historical linguists, arguing from comparable, analogous cases where the ancestor language is known, consider proto-languages as reflecting some linguistic reality: a speech form spoken in a specific place/region in a specific period of time by a delimited linguistic community. (Given that truly multilingual settlements such as Kupwar in India are rare, it's fair to assume that at least a single settlement, if not a whole region, has a dominant native language, even if other languages are spoken in the settlement/region, as well.) If we knew nothing about the history of English, we could advance various different arguments, independently of each other converging in a high probability that the ancestor of all Modern English dialects (Scots as well as Yola, Fingalian and certain traditional English dialects excluded) was spoken somewhere in the British Isles (more precisely Britain, more precisely England, even more precisely London?) in the mid-2nd millennium AD. Then we can go look for an archaeological correlate that fits the place, time period and aspects reconstructed of the original culture. Similarly, if we knew nothing about Latin and Italic and only about Medieval Romance, we could still produce various reasons why it is likely that Proto-Romance was spoken somewhere in Italy (we might guess Central Italy just because of its, well, central location, and happen to be right) about 2000 BP, and go look which archaeological culture fits the bill. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 23:10, 19 July 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Fundamental Question 

message: I think this talk page needs to be archived as Talk:Germanic substrate hypothesis/archive01, and whoever does it, leaves a note at the top of the page as well on the comment line.
Creole is still controversial. --MarkTwainOnIce 06:27, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Archive? 

message: This, generally, is a low quality page, which in my opinion needs considerable re-working. The Germanic substrate hypothesis was inaugurated (chiefly) by Feist on rather dubious grounds, and has developed all sorts of speculation, little of which is verifiable. The references given here are not, generally, made to the major substrate studies, but instead to low-quality assessments. One would expect at least a reference to Meillet's General Characteristics of the Germanic Languages, Feist's earlier works (in German), and more recently Boutkan and others who have written on this issue in specialist linguistics journals/books.
Bernard Mees, University of Melbourne
:Everything you say is 100% true. Unfortunately, relatively few articles on Wikipedia come anywhere near the standard we would expect from a "normal" encyclopedia, not to mention academic papers. The system of every user being able to delete or add whatever he wants makes Wikipedia an ideal place to find an enormous mass of trivia, and an ideal place for arguments that often stem from nationalism.  So you critic is spot on, and unfortunately its implications are just as valid for the whole project as for this article. JdeJ (talk) 10:54, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: To the OP, if you have access to these works please feel free to edit the article with them as sources. If you're unhappy with the quality or reliability of an article on Wikipedia you have only yourself to blame. ;-) Nagelfar (talk) 05:59, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Quality/references 

message: Hello! I'm afraid the article is wrong in stating that the etymology of Russian "medved" ("bear" from Proto-Slavic *medvědь) is "the one who knows where honey is." All etymological dictionaries I have consulted so far (including Dersten's and Varmer's) state rather clearly that the term once meant "honey-eater" and has a nice parallel in Sanskrit /madh(u)vád-/ "honey-eater", from Proto-Indo-European */medh-u-h1ed-i-/ (PIE */medhu-/ "honey, mead", PIE */h1ed-/ "to eat").--Pet'usek [petrdothrubisatgmaildotcom] 19:40, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I think the berloga stuff is dubious, and looks much more like a borrowing than anything else, there are a lot of Scandinavian +lag meaning "(place to) lay down" or "lay", such as "förlag" (publisher), "samlag" (coitus), or +laga, "pålaga" (additional taxation), "inlaga" (argumenting text) etc. etc.. I think "bærlaga" or "bærlag" was a viking word for "bears lair", and the "bærlag(a)" > "berloga" is just a phonetical adaption to Russian. Rursus dixit. (mbork3!) 14:27, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

text: Note however that there are also similar words in other Slavic languages "barłóg" in Polish, "barlaga" in Hungarian (most likely taken from Slavic), brlog in Slovenian - meaning it can't be simply borrowing from Russian. Also, in Polish we have "leże" and " ż" and "g" are transferable, "legnąć" "leżeć" (compare: "Legnica"), "polegnąć" 31.1.86.213 (talk) 20:44, 12 April 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  The unbearable "bear" of the Slavs ;) 

message: I believe this article should be merged with Germanic substrate hypothesis, since they cover the same topic. 惑乱 分からん * \)/ (\ (< \) (2 /) /)/ * 18:56, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. Since no objections have been raised for almost a year, I'll do the moving. Improvements can be applied in context. Eklir (talk) 18:33, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Non-Indo-European roots of Germanic languages]] - Merge proposal 

message: I think some examples given for seafaring may be wrong. Keel is quilla in Spanish (pronounced keellya), mast is mástil, ..... Unless they have a Germanic origin in Spanish (it may be, there are a few Spanish words of Germanic origin, via the Visigoths or even old Germanic French loans), the hypothesis of no relation with non Germanic languages doesn´t hold true for these examples.--Xareu bs (talk) 17:22, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Real Academia Española (http://www.rae.es/rae.html) traces these words to French. See quilla and maste (older form). A French dictionary I found traces quille and mât to Germanic languages. 惑乱 Wakuran (talk) 21:29, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Seafaring words 

message: |There is a good section on the Slavic influences in proto-Germanic: Proto-Slavic_borrowings#Slavicisms_in_Germanic, with words relating to craftsmanship. A good number of German surnames also extend from Slavic influence: Any name ending in 'ow, 'witz, 'itz, 'in can be generally said to have Slavic roots.
Perhaps this goes toward the theory that there was a common Balto-Germano-Slavic group at one point, as it is true that genetically the historical proto-Germanic populations came from the same genetic R1a stock of most Slavs and Balts.| CormanoSanchez (talk) 01:58, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The correlation of genes with languages is far too weak to base subgrouping hypotheses on it. In fact, by acknowledging – as you do – extensive contact influence between Germanic and Slavic (as well as Germanic and Baltic), you erode the whole basis for claiming a descendance-based subgroup (as opposed to a language area). No doubt Germanic, especially East Germanic, had considerable contact with Baltic and Slavic already in the first few centuries AD, first in Poland (likely in the Vistula Basin), and later in the Ukraine (Gothic–Slavic contacts, mainly). No unambiguous evidence that supports a Germanic-Balto-Slavic subgroup remains when we subtract all possible loans. In any case, lexical parallels are poor evidence for subgrouping, especially since they are often not clearly old, and historical phonology and morphology reveal little if any connection between Germanic and Balto-Slavic. I'd say Germanic and Balto-Slavic are about as different as it gets with regard to historical phonology and morphology – also considering that the traditionally adduced (but really quite isolated anyway) -m-/-bʰ- dative/instrumental plural isogloss is highly suspect anyway. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 23:27, 19 July 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Slavic influence in proto-Germanic 

message: King = shortening of OE cyn(n)-ing, that is, someone associated with a people (a kin). Or does whatsisname consider kin (and the suffix -ing, meaning someone associated with or son of) to be a non-Indo-European word too? (it did say that the words listed were only a sample, after all...) Gott wisst (talk) 07:57, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Forget it, the point's already been made somewhere on this discussion... Also, I think the word "wife" has a cognate in Sanskrit... Can't remember what though. Gott wisst (talk) 07:01, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: IIRC, the Sanskrit cognate to wife was rather strained both semantically and phonetically (i.e. differing from other ognates in several regards). 惑乱 Wakuran (talk) 16:29, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  King should be in controversy list? 

message: The article presents the argument that Hittite can be a used as a counterexample which could invalidate the hypothesis that the paucity of noun cases in Germanic is the result of pidginization. But the Hittites' kingdom was the result of the conquest of a non-Indo-European civilization called the Hatti, and Hittite had many Hatti and Hurrian loanwords; if that were so, wouldn't it suggest that Hittite could also have undergone grammatical simplification as the result of this inter-linguistic contact? AllGloryToTheHypnotoad (talk) 15:05, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm no linguist, but yeah, it seems a plausible explanation to why Hittite lacked several grammatical functions present in Sanskrit and Ancient Greek. 惑乱 Wakuran (talk) 15:12, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Hittite comparison 

message: Would people please ponder the Paleolithic Continuity Theory, in the context of European Y-chromosomal lineages (like Haplogroup R1b (Y-DNA).  As sketched somewhat simplistically here:
http://www.classicbattletech.com/forums/index.php/topic,56103.msg1523343.html#msg1523343
the geographic distributions of R1b / Centum-IE & R1a / Satem are strikingly strongly similar.  This seemingly suggests, that the ancient Ice Age "super-ancestor" R1* = PIE, and that when these Paleolithic "proto-IE" peoples became isolated, for many millennia, during the depths of the last Ice Age (20-15 Kya), R1b / Centum-IE & R1a / Satem-IE evolved from that 'R1* / proto-IE common culture.
In this cultural context, the I1a Y-chromosomal lineages could correlate to the Germanic Substrate.  If so, then the archaic "proto-Germanic" peoples were non-IE.  That the Germanic Substrate creole (1) contains more words of IE origin; (2) and even words of both C-IE & S-IE forms; can be quickly explained, as resulting from (1) R1b & R1a clans containing more members, then as now; and (2) I1a clans living along the "cline" between C-IE (west) & S-IE (east).  (Could that cline have come about specifically b/c the I1a clans were hemmed-in, in-between both those groups, roughly from the Rhine to the Oder, and thereby became a "buffer" between them ?)  Such would also indicate, that this creolization came about after the split between R1b / Centum-IE & R1a / Satem — to wit, after the end of the last Ice Age (ie, Paleolithic period), which would be in the Mesolithic, when epi-Paleolithic peoples repopulated Europe.
Other simple suggestions
(1) Bow (ship) = Bow (arrow) = Bough (tree limb)
(2a) King = Kin-ig (cf. fog --> foggy), where the *ig ending means "full of or characterized by".  Thus, the "king" is he who characterizes a clan of kin.
(2b) Knight = Kin-ig-et (cf. wallet, baguette), where the *et ending is a diminutive (or, essentially the same suggestion, some other such suffix)  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.235.27.79 (talk) 08:19, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  PLC 

message: Shouldn't this article be renamed to "Pre-Germanic substrate hypothesis" or "Non-Indo-European substrate hypothesis? After all, the whole point of the hypothesis is that the Germanic languages allegedly developed on a non-Germanic substrate. 109.130.162.203 (talk) 16:12, 17 July 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: A fair question. I assume the logic here is the same as that behind Goidelic substrate hypothesis. If a change is to be undertaken, I would suggest "Pre-Germanic substrate" (either with of without "hypothesis") analogous to Pre-Greek substrate. It seems to get more hits on GoogleBooks, at least. --Aryaman (talk) 18:54, 17 July 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: It's a substrate to germanic, that is, something that an indo-germanic language absorbed to become germanic. So it is a germanic substrate.--Wendy.krieger (talk) 10:35, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Is "Germanic substrate hypothesis" the right name? 

message: PIE has a decimal system, with words for ten and hundred.  However, some of the descendent groups seemed to have adopted other counting systems.  These may have come from the substrate, but with IE names.   For example, celtic 20, and welsh 20-by-fives (with eg, three-fifteen = 18) etc.  Another number system that makes its way into IE is sixty (cf 'shock = 60' from persian 'sixty'.
We see in germanic, in eg Norse, gothoc and Western, a use of a number system of the order of six scores, or 120 in number, eg E.V. Gordon "old norse" § 107 gives hundrað as 120, and 200 as hundrað ok átta tigir.  OE has words like hundteontig (100), and hundendleoftig (110= elefty), and hundtwelftig (120), but nimbers past this are in hundreds.  Gothic also has a word 'teentywise' for describing hundreds of five score.
Putting reckoning by six-scores as particularly germanic, then the source is evidently not Indo-European but somewhere else, eg a substrate.--Wendy.krieger (talk) 12:35, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: On the other hand one can argue that a system based around 12 is more practical than one based around 10, as groups of twelve can be easily divided into 2 halves, 4 thirds, 3 quarters, whereas base 10 only divides into 5 halves and 2 fifths.  60 is even better, as it allows for fifths as well.  It is entirely possible the counting system was innovated without a substrate.  Ekwos (talk) 19:44, 19 December 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Twelfty and Germanic 

message: The example with 'ūp' may be not relevant: this situation can be found in a few other examples, like 'at', -t in Nom.-Acc. Sg. in Neutra ('þat'), etc, and in all the three cases the voiceless stops can be better derived from i.-e. sandhi forms 'ūb', 'ad' and 'tod' passed through a normal consonant shift.
--Ahvalj (talk) 15:33, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Funny, I was just about to mention the same point – years ago, I independently came to the same conclusion that it is highly likely that *ūp simply reflects the final voicing sandhi rule that can be reconstructed for Proto-Indo-European (mainly based on Indo-Iranian and Italic evidence, with other branches such as Celtic and Germanic perhaps providing more indirect confirmation), especially considering Latin sub (besides super) which patently displays the same voicing (just like Latin ab besides *apó). Therefore, one would reconstruct *(H)ub besides *(H)upó (which is also reflected in Germanic). --Florian Blaschke (talk) 13:08, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

text: Actually, it is not even clear how an alleged exception to the sound shift is relevant to the hypothesis – surely nobody intends to ascribe both the sound shift and its occasional absence to the effect of the substratum, I would suppose at least. Therefore, I have removed the example completely. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 13:34, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  ūp 

message: Not sure why predominantly modern Greek forms are used, instead of ancient Greek... AnonMoos (talk) 20:29, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Good point. I would even be inclined to use "u" rather than "y" to Romanise υ in order to make the etymological connection clearer. Instead we have "i" for η, which is pointless. We should really have a Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Greek to clarify such cases.—Greg Pandatshang (talk) 23:50, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Greek forms in table

message: The map is nice and informative. But it includes Tocharians(?), in central Europe(?). This must be explained, and references must be given. By the way, many scientists believe that Tocharians come from the urnfield culture in central Europe - so it really is attractive. But without references to their arguments it must be removed.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.133.155.68 (talk) 10:56, 31 July 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  The map