IE, Genetic Data, Languages of Anatolia

Glen Gordon glengordon01 at
Wed Feb 3 01:31:22 UTC 1999

>>But then, come to think of it, is there an Anatolian version of *?ekwos ?

>-- yes.  Hieroglyphic Luwian "Azuwa".  Cognate with Lithuanian
>asvienis, Vedic asva, etc.

Yes, of course. My brain froze and I couldn't recall the Anatolian side
of the cognate at all. Thanx. Anyways then, we can say with some degree
of certainty that IE (Indo-Anatolian) speakers spoke of horses. I guess
the contention Miguel has is whether these horses were domesticated or

Then again, if Miguel admits that there were no horses at the time and
location he specifies, one would think it makes for an even flimpsier
theory, alongside all the other innumerable linguistic problems it
presents, if it were true. I can't think of anything that specifically
disproves anything that Miguel is saying but I find it less and less
likely as we talk further of it.

I don't see why the agriculturalists that moved into Europe and who show
up in genetic data of what's-his-name-Sforza have to be speaking
Indo-European of all things. Indo-European just can't have been in the
Balkans or Anatolia at such an early date. I reason that the most likely
language candidate of these budding agriculturalists would be a language
closely related to North-East Caucasian. As Indo-European spread across
Europe later on, it would have wiped out almost all traces of the
earlier non-Indo-European languages.

The conversation regarding the linguistic side of this debate is perhaps
relatable to the topic ensued by Larry Trask and Bengtson on the
Nostratic list concerning the Dene-Caucasian theory and Basque's
relation to it, however, what's known is that Anatolia had many
languages and to single out IE as the one that escaped (even amidst the
unlikelihood of it being there in the first place) and as the one that
noblely brought agriculture to the barbarians seems misguided.

Glen Gordon
glengordon01 at

Kisses and Hugs

More information about the Indo-european mailing list