Oldest Records of Indo-European Languages 

I agree, it is very important to distinguish text/writings from the oral tradition, however well and accurately handed down we might believe the words of the oral stories to be. Personally, I am very doubtful that over a thousand years of oral tradition preserved the original words and meanings exactly, however strict the priesthood were about preserving it.

Oldest physical text of rigveda dates from 1200 CE (not BCE) Thats 800 years ago. Not 100bc

@@tvesarathavrtraghna3688 the oldest surviving manuscript is circa 1200CE but there's reasonably wide scholarly consensus that it would have first been written down around the turn of of the first millenia

@allyburnett7189 show me who said this. We didn't even have the proper script to write them down prior to the devanagari script.

So, you’re not convinced by the argument in support of the claim at 4:42?

The quality of the video is rather low, indeed.

Greeks learnt from the Phoenix Ian's. They were the panic of India who left India went across the world. Made many monuments never could they find a home of their own. Very wicked. In india they were called asuras.

@@kanaka228 Greeks weren't anymore wicked than anyone else. The Greek philosophers were unparalleled in their time.

isn't minoan pre-greek?

@@FutureHH Linear B as far as I know was used by early Greeks using a modified Linear A script that was used by the Minoans. The Minoans influenced early Greek civilization. Minoan is indeed pre-Greek and pre-indo-european.

Because he is lowering voice, which should never be done.

My ancestors heard the next video I played after this one.

y'all need to get your hearing checked

​@@ShamanKish the audio can be made louder in post

​@@schubi42 she loudness also depends on the hardware you're using and the level of noise in the place where you're listen the video

Did I miss a mention of Luwian from 1400 BC?

@@pattheplanter Yes, you did. It seems you have messed things up!

@@DemetriosKongas Timestamp?

@@pattheplanter Historical time, among other things, helps put things into perspective.

@@DemetriosKongasRight, you are just messing about in a language you hardly understand.

It will always be guesswork but I have seen reasonable arguments made for Panini being active around 350 BC; Pantanjali around 150 BC.

Huch, the audio is excellent! You may want to check your equipment?

can't confirm, sounds fine to me

Nice artifact. Finnish kampa 'Comb' was loaned from Proto-Germanic '*kambaz' or some of it's immediate descendant languages -> 'Camb', 'comb' etc. Similar, ancient Proto-Germanic loans to Proto-Finnic: - keihäs ('spear', 'javelin') as ''*kaihas' to PF from PG *gaizaz - lammas ('sheep', 'lamb') from PG *lambaz Also, Finnish Hammas ('tooth'): PF '*hambas' is ancient loan from Proto-Balto-Slavic '*źámbas', from Proto-Indo-European '*ǵómbʰos'. That PIE word means 'tooth' and is direct cognate predecessor of 'comb'. Kampa -> 'tooth/teeth used to brush hair'. Many, many really ancient loan words from Indo-European languages remain pretty close to their original loan form in contemporary Finnish. One of best known examples is PF (and contemporary) kuningas ('king'), originally from PG '*kuningaz'. In contemporary Germanic languages it appears as king, kung, könig etc. Finnish 'kunkku' displays analogical shortening what has happened in Germanic languages. Even Finnish äiti 'mother' is ancient loan from Germanic languages, something that tells a story of prolonged, intimate, and peaceful contacts between languages of entirely different language families. Such words of close family relations are typically last ones to get loaned from other languages. Finnish, The freezer language it is. For Proto-Germanic particularly.

Speaking is different from writing.

Yes, and much later in time.

Wikipedia says Sanskrit has first language speakers 😅

Sanskrit is not dead its minority language now Still their is active news paper, news media of sankrit Village known as mattur all people in their speak sankrit

Latin isn't dead, it just diverged into multiple different languages. Had only a single branch survived, it would have still been called Latin.

The outright horrendous quality of Indian education wouldn't be that scary if there weren't 1 billion of you.

Another imperialising myth, this time for those North Indians who lay claim to the whole of India. Sanskrit was not the "mother" of the Dravidian or the Munda languages which the indigenous people of the subcontinent speak, let alone those of the "regions around it." At most it was their wicked step-mother.

There are many Indo-European languages in Europe and the language family may have arisen in southeastern Europe. Race is an irrelevant category. Conflating linguistic history and genetics is dangerous business. My commute follows parts of the Trail of Tears, a daily reminder that ethnicity and language are not the same thing, and that the violence of racism is real and has enduring consequences. The unfounded notion that Proto-Indo-European represents some kind of special European identity has no currency in the field of historical linguistics: the immense damage this idea has done must never be forgotten, and we all have a duty to reject this claim whenever we encounter it.

@@erikcarlson9250 Well said Sir. 👏👏👏👏👏👏👏👏

If you go back in time greater parts of the land spoke the same language. In the viking age all scandinavians spoke the same language, in the bronce age all north west europeans spoke the same language (Don't know how I know, but I do). At some time all of Europe spoke the same language. It must have been really long ago because the differences in european languages are very big.@@thomasnoaotearoa

​@@thomasnoaotearoaUralics are in no way pre Indo European.

@@thomasnoaotearoa Uralic is not indigenous to Northern Europe at all. My understanding is the timeline goes like this. The first inhabitants were Scandinavian hunter gatherers. Who were a mixture of western hunter gatherers from the south and eastern hunter gatherers from the north. They were not Uralic people's at all as they lacked the Uralic identified N1c haplogroup and had no Asian autosomal DNA. Then the Anatolian farmers (Not Uralic) show up in southern Scandinavia and coexist with the hunter gatherers to their north. Soon after Indo Europeans of the corded ware culture show up probably speaking a form of pre proto Germanic. They spread throughout the whole of Scandinavia including the areas of Finland and over time gradually assimilate the hunter gatherers and farmer's. Then a Sami like reindeer herders migrate into northern Scandinavia by way of Siberia and coexist with Indo European peoples and probably assimilate some of these Indo European DNA into their very much wholly Asian genetic profile. Finally Finnic speaking people's show up not too long after. They arrived very much genetically European like after absorbing Indo Iranian and Balto Slavic people's on their long migration from Siberia. The Finnic people's then proceed to assimilate the remaining Indo Europeans (most probably Germanic) in Finland and consolidate into modern day Finnish people. They are genetically very much European, but with low single digit Asian dna. The Finnish are typified by their majority (N1c) Asian male originated haplogroup that came from China. If Indo European is not indigenous to Scandinavia, then Uralic is DEFINITELY not.