RugbyRebels

So Indo-European languages, spoken by more than half the world's people, are thought to have possibly originated in the region known today as Anatolia, Turkey, between an estimated 6,000 and 9,500 years ago. They are spoken as a first language in most countries of Southern Asia and Europe, as well as the Americas, Australasia and various African countries due to more recent colonization. Ironically, the language of modern Turkey is among the exceptions. Turkish is a Central Asian language, distantly related to Mongolian, Japanese & Korean. The ancient Hittites of Turkey are known to have spoken an Indo-European language (as do the Kurds), while one of the oldest cities in the world, Catal Huyuk, is located in Central Anatolia and dates back to the time of the Sumerian & Indus Valley civilizations of Iraq and India during the Bronze Age. It is believed that Southern Asia was invaded from the Caucasus region in prehistoric times, thus bringing the Indo-European Sanskrit language to the Indian sub-continent (India means River in Sanskrit), and also Iran, which takes its names from the 'Aryan' conquerers. The light-skin and blue eye mutations are also believed to have occurred around the Black Sea region many thousands of years ago. 9/12 most-spoken languages in the world are from the Indo-European family (English, Spanish, Portuguese, French, German, Hindi, Bengali, Punjabi, & Russian), the exceptions being Mandarin Chinese, Arabic and Japanese. Urdu was the language of the military in Pakistan and contains many words from Turkic and Arabic (Urdu actually translates to 'Military' in Turkic), but it too has a Indo-European basis. Further trivia: Portuguese is the most spoken language in South America, only Guyana in South America speaks English, Mexico has more than double the population of any other Spanish-speaking nation, and there are more Spanish-speakers in the US than there are English-speakers in Canada.

http://www.smithsonianmag.com/ist/?next ... E9qOkM3.01

Sardo. Closest thing to Latin in use today

morepork wrote:Sardo. Closest thing to Latin in use today

Which version? Proper Latin or the watered-down Ecclesiastical hogwash?

EDIT: Being an isolated language, Basque is also an interesting case. IIRC it's utterly unrelated to anything in Europe, or the world for that. Perhaps even more interesting is the ancient Etruscan language (people living north of Rome). They spoke a language that was closely related to the languages spoken by some proto-Germans up round Switzerland, and the people on one of the small Ionian islands. Good luck trying to figure out how that pattern emerged.

Yes, I spent a year in the Basque Country (Vitoria, Spain), and whereas Catalan is undoubtedly very close to Spanish and French, Euskera sounds more like Georgian. It pre-dates both the Celts and Romans, and also the Moors, of course. That's because the Basques were always a very difficult people to conquer; at least in Spain, anyway. I've heard it described as the 'Russian front' of the Roman Empire. They still look and behave a little differently too. Not the friendliest place I've ever lived in, but I guess they have their reasons. Finnish, Estonian and Hungarian are other non-European languages within the European region, and are all thought to be of Uralic origin (in modern day Russia). But Euskera doesn't fit into that category either. While Spanish appeared to be the commonly-spoken language in Vitoria, learning Euskera was mandatory in schools.

zer0 wrote:

morepork wrote:Sardo. Closest thing to Latin in use today

Which version? Proper Latin or the watered-down Ecclesiastical hogwash?

EDIT: Being an isolated language, Basque is also an interesting case. IIRC it's utterly unrelated to anything in Europe, or the world for that. Perhaps even more interesting is the ancient Etruscan language (people living north of Rome). They spoke a language that was closely related to the languages spoken by some proto-Germans up round Switzerland, and the people on one of the small Ionian islands. Good luck trying to figure out how that pattern emerged.

Proper. Some of the oldest dialects still in use.

rowan wrote:Yes, I spent a year in the Basque Country (Vitoria, Spain), and whereas Catalan is undoubtedly very close to Spanish and French, Euskera sounds more like Georgian. It pre-dates both the Celts and Romans, and also the Moors, of course. That's because the Basques were always a very difficult people to conquer; at least in Spain, anyway. I've heard it described as the 'Russian front' of the Roman Empire. They still look and behave a little differently too. Not the friendliest place I've ever lived in, but I guess they have their reasons. Finnish, Estonian and Hungarian are other non-European languages within the European region, and are all thought to be of Uralic origin (in modern day Russia). But Euskera doesn't fit into that category either. While Spanish appeared to be the commonly-spoken language in Vitoria, learning Euskera was mandatory in schools.

Whilst in Georgia a few years ago, there was talk of cultural and language links with the Basques. Even to yet seen that much real research into it, to be fair so could just be urban myth.

It shouldn't surprise anybody really. Didn't some "amazing" study a couple of years back indicate most Irishmen could trace their roots back to Turkey? Well, it would be pretty hard to enter Europe from Africa without going through Anatolia - unless, of course, they hopped across the Strait of Gibraltar, as some of the predecessors to the Celts in Britain & Ireland are thought to have done. Besides, the people of Turkey today likely have very little in common with the ancient Anatolians. Speaking of the Celts, they were a Germanic people who spread all over Europe a few thousand years ago, settling in northern Spain (Galicia is named after them), for example, as well as Turkey - where they were the first to make Ankara (Angora) their capital. The fair-skinned Laz people of the Black Sea region were once thought to be of Celtic extraction, though linguistically they are actually related to Georgians. Laz are also the butt of many jokes in Turkey, sadly, thought they don't seem to mind.

If you haven't seen it, try to catch The Incredible Human Journey series Alice Roberts recently reshown on the Beeb - very good. IIRC Only really South-Eastern Europeans came directly from the Fertile Crescent, and in through Turkey, most came via the Russian Steppes and down into Western Europe - almost none came over the Straights of Gibraltar prior to the Moorish invasion of the Iberian Peninsular. Current Turks bear next to no relation whatsoever to those who crossed through to SE Europe from Turkey.
Again, IIRC.

Which Tyler wrote:If you haven't seen it, try to catch The Incredible Human Journey series Alice Roberts recently reshown on the Beeb - very good. IIRC Only really South-Eastern Europeans came directly from the Fertile Crescent, and in through Turkey, most came via the Russian Steppes and down into Western Europe - almost none came over the Straights of Gibraltar prior to the Moorish invasion of the Iberian Peninsular. Current Turks bear next to no relation whatsoever to those who crossed through to SE Europe from Turkey.
Again, IIRC.

That series looks interesting. If there's one thing the Beeb does well, it's non-political documentaries. I'll check it out when I have time. Cheers.

Which Tyler wrote:If you haven't seen it, try to catch The Incredible Human Journey series Alice Roberts recently reshown on the Beeb - very good. IIRC Only really South-Eastern Europeans came directly from the Fertile Crescent, and in through Turkey, most came via the Russian Steppes and down into Western Europe - almost none came over the Straights of Gibraltar prior to the Moorish invasion of the Iberian Peninsular. Current Turks bear next to no relation whatsoever to those who crossed through to SE Europe from Turkey.
Again, IIRC.

In fairness the Turkomans were fairly late entrants to the party in that region. The whole migration of peoples and the subsequent compression in Europe is fascinating, its just a shame that there are so many gaps in our knowledge.

The Turkmen began to make real inroads into Turkey after the Selcuks inflicted a stunning defeat on the Byzantine Empire at the Battle of Manzikert in 1071 - just five years after the Normans had prevailed at the Battle of Hastings, interestingly. Within a couple of centuries they had crossed the Dardanelles into Europe and captured much of the Balkans, though it would not be until 1453 that they would actually take Constantinople itself. Meanwhile the Selcuks had been decimated by the Mongols, allowing the Ottomans to replace them as the dominant tribe and unite the rest of the Turks behind them. They also absorbed other conquered peoples into their emptire, so that even by 1453 the Turkmen were a minority within their own empire. The majority of the populace in Western Turkey by then was of predominantly Balkan, Greek and Circassian stock. The majority of the populace in Eastern and Southern Turkey remained of Kurdish, Armenian and Arabic stock, though they never regarded themselves as 'Turks' - and still don't. DNA testing has proved that the majority of those who regard themselves as Turks today are of predominantly European stock. The Turkic component is probably no more than 10 or 15% on average. And although the Turkic language remains, it has absorbed a great deal of Arabic and Farsi, inspite of efforts to 'cleanse' it of these two influences at the dawn of the Turkish Republic a century ago.

Bulgarian are thrilled to have been occupied by Turks for 500 years (battle of Nicopolis 1396 marks the end of Bulgarian Resistance).

I must say, from what I have read, it was probably better being colonised by ottomans than by the French or Brits in the 19th century.

Adder wrote:Bulgarian are thrilled to have been occupied by Turks for 500 years (battle of Nicopolis 1396 marks the end of Bulgarian Resistance).

I must say, from what I have read, it was probably better being colonised by ottomans than by the French or Brits in the 19th century.

The original Bulgars were ethnically akin to the Huns, I believe, and may have been named after the Volga River, whence they came. Their language was replaced by Slavic some time in the Middle Ages. They fought many battles with both the Byzantines and the Ottomans. The Byzantine Emperor Basil II 'the Bulgar Slayer' defeated the Bulgars at the Battle of Kleidion, blinded 99 of every 100 captives, and sent them all back to Bulgaria, where the khan Samuel died of a stroke upon sighting them. As for the Ottomans, many communities throughout the Balkans region apparently welcomed them as liberators from the oppression of Christianity.

English Spanish Sanskrit Hindi
one uno eka ek
two dos dvi do
three tres tri tiin
four cuatro catur charr
five cinco pancan panch
six seis sas chaii
seven siete sapta sath
eight ocho astan aath
nine nueve navan nau
ten diez dashan das

morepork wrote:Sardo. Closest thing to Latin in use today

Isn't Latin still the official language of the Vatican City, btw? Not that anyone is born and raised there or anything...

rowan wrote:

morepork wrote:Sardo. Closest thing to Latin in use today

Isn't Latin still the official language of the Vatican City, btw? Not that anyone is born and raised there or anything...

Nope, never was either.

The Vatican City State was sleazed into existence by Mussolini in 1929. It has no declared official language but its official document have always been in Italian.

The Holy See, on the other hand, being the sovereign entity of the Roman cafflick church does use Latin as its official language.

Quite why a cannibalistic sacrifice cult should have diplomatic recognition as a sovereign entity is beyond me, but that's the world we live in.

Lizard wrote:

rowan wrote:

morepork wrote:Sardo. Closest thing to Latin in use today

Isn't Latin still the official language of the Vatican City, btw? Not that anyone is born and raised there or anything...

Nope, never was either.

The Vatican City State was sleazed into existence by Mussolini in 1929. It has no declared official language but its official document have always been in Italian.

The Holy See, on the other hand, being the sovereign entity of the Roman cafflick church does use Latin as its official language.

Quite why a cannibalistic sacrifice cult should have diplomatic recognition as a sovereign entity is beyond me, but that's the world we live in.

Sounds about right, except that Latin is listed at its official language everywhere I look, including Wiki. I actually went there about 12 years ago and got a bird's eye view of the old pope, John Paul, as he just about ran me over in his pope mobile in St Peter's Square. It was a stinking hot day and he sat there at the top of the steps speaking in numerous different languages. Pretty sure it was Latin at the start. At one point he broke into English and welcomed a rugby team from Ireland. That was the only part of the whole hour-long speech that I actually understood. Amazing endurance - and it was just a few months later that he kicked the bucket.

There are rumors that John Paul was a rugby player himself (before he was pope, of course). Not sure how true that is, since he was Polish. This fascinating list of famous ruggers, which includes James Joyce, Che, GW & Meatloaf says the pope did not play and the rumor is false, unsurprisingly. http://wesclark.com/rrr/famous.html

Sauce: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Languag ... tican_City

What a lot of shit the church is. All that dress up and a sovereign state as well.

This is a pretty good series. Doesn't go into great depth on the origins of languages but gives an interesting overview. Seems Celtic was the most widespread language on the European continent prior to the Roman Empire, for instance, being spoken as widely as Spain, Turkey and Britain. German apparently originated in Scandinavia, though the Finns - like the Hungarians - speak an Uralic language with origins in Siberia. Hindi and Urdu are actually the same language, according to this video series, as are Farsi, Dari of Afghanistan and Tajiki of Tajikistan. Arabic and Hebrew are very similar, of course, though Yiddish is a German dialect not related to Hebrew at all, despite having incorporated many loan words. Chinese and Japanese are not related either, though the latter has borrowed extensively from the former. Meanwhile, Swahili is a Bantu language and the Zanzibar dialect was chosen for most of East Africa, thus it contains many Arabic words. Swahili itself comes from the Arabic word Sahil - which means coast (we also use it in Turkish). Fascinating topic!