Is the Indo-European language family made up?
.everyoneloves__top-leaderboard:empty,.everyoneloves__mid-leaderboard:empty,.everyoneloves__bot-mid-leaderboard:empty{ margin-bottom:0;
}
Question Which European Languages are not Indo-European? on History.SE got this peculiar comment from user mathreadler:
None of them are. Indo-European is completely made-up language family by Britons who wanted India to have excuse to be part of Europe in some sense so they could use the massive population as power of social influence
Is it really so? Or if not, is there an account available online where a linguistic layman may rear about how this notion came about and how it was refuted?
indo-european history language-families
asked May 23 at 14:19
PavelPavel
1691 silver badge6 bronze badges
|
show 3 more comments
Question Which European Languages are not Indo-European? on History.SE got this peculiar comment from user mathreadler:
None of them are. Indo-European is completely made-up language family by Britons who wanted India to have excuse to be part of Europe in some sense so they could use the massive population as power of social influence
Is it really so? Or if not, is there an account available online where a linguistic layman may rear about how this notion came about and how it was refuted?
indo-european history language-families
asked May 23 at 14:19
PavelPavel
1691 silver badge6 bronze badges
6
See en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indo-European_studies#History for starters.
– Mark Beadles
May 23 at 14:34
2
See also the Wikipedia article about William Jones to understand where this specific perception (might) originate from.
– Michaelyus
May 23 at 14:41
21
This is political nonsense. Hindutva operatives are spreading a silly meme that says India was the source of all knowledge and language, because Sanskrit. They're on a par with the American know-nothings who talk about Noah's Ark with dinosaurs. Be careful; ignorance is dangerous.
– jlawler
May 23 at 16:07
15
That's just nationalists projecting hard. Because they cannot comprehend that anyone would study history just to get close to the objective truth, when they meet a theory they don't like, in their mind it can only be because scholars of those other nation are distorting history to put forth the superiority of the wrong nation.
– jick
May 23 at 17:36
2
@KilianFoth, not every known language. Some languages like Pictish are known to have existed but are so scantily documented that there's not much consensus about if it was Indo-European or not. Or have I misunderstood what you're saying?
– Wilson
May 24 at 10:27
|
show 3 more comments
Question Which European Languages are not Indo-European? on History.SE got this peculiar comment from user mathreadler:
None of them are. Indo-European is completely made-up language family by Britons who wanted India to have excuse to be part of Europe in some sense so they could use the massive population as power of social influence
Is it really so? Or if not, is there an account available online where a linguistic layman may rear about how this notion came about and how it was refuted?
indo-european history language-families
asked May 23 at 14:19
PavelPavel
1691 silver badge6 bronze badges
Question Which European Languages are not Indo-European? on History.SE got this peculiar comment from user mathreadler:
None of them are. Indo-European is completely made-up language family by Britons who wanted India to have excuse to be part of Europe in some sense so they could use the massive population as power of social influence
Is it really so? Or if not, is there an account available online where a linguistic layman may rear about how this notion came about and how it was refuted?
indo-european history language-families
indo-european history language-families
asked May 23 at 14:19
PavelPavel
1691 silver badge6 bronze badges
asked May 23 at 14:19
PavelPavel
1691 silver badge6 bronze badges
asked May 23 at 14:19
PavelPavel
1691 silver badge6 bronze badges
asked May 23 at 14:19
PavelPavel
1691 silver badge6 bronze badges
asked May 23 at 14:19
PavelPavel
1691 silver badge6 bronze badges
1691 silver badge6 bronze badges
6
See en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indo-European_studies#History for starters.
– Mark Beadles
May 23 at 14:34
2
See also the Wikipedia article about William Jones to understand where this specific perception (might) originate from.
– Michaelyus
May 23 at 14:41
21
This is political nonsense. Hindutva operatives are spreading a silly meme that says India was the source of all knowledge and language, because Sanskrit. They're on a par with the American know-nothings who talk about Noah's Ark with dinosaurs. Be careful; ignorance is dangerous.
– jlawler
May 23 at 16:07
15
That's just nationalists projecting hard. Because they cannot comprehend that anyone would study history just to get close to the objective truth, when they meet a theory they don't like, in their mind it can only be because scholars of those other nation are distorting history to put forth the superiority of the wrong nation.
– jick
May 23 at 17:36
2
@KilianFoth, not every known language. Some languages like Pictish are known to have existed but are so scantily documented that there's not much consensus about if it was Indo-European or not. Or have I misunderstood what you're saying?
– Wilson
May 24 at 10:27
|
show 3 more comments
6
See en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indo-European_studies#History for starters.
– Mark Beadles
May 23 at 14:34
2
See also the Wikipedia article about William Jones to understand where this specific perception (might) originate from.
– Michaelyus
May 23 at 14:41
21
This is political nonsense. Hindutva operatives are spreading a silly meme that says India was the source of all knowledge and language, because Sanskrit. They're on a par with the American know-nothings who talk about Noah's Ark with dinosaurs. Be careful; ignorance is dangerous.
– jlawler
May 23 at 16:07
15
That's just nationalists projecting hard. Because they cannot comprehend that anyone would study history just to get close to the objective truth, when they meet a theory they don't like, in their mind it can only be because scholars of those other nation are distorting history to put forth the superiority of the wrong nation.
– jick
May 23 at 17:36
2
@KilianFoth, not every known language. Some languages like Pictish are known to have existed but are so scantily documented that there's not much consensus about if it was Indo-European or not. Or have I misunderstood what you're saying?
– Wilson
May 24 at 10:27
6
6
See en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indo-European_studies#History for starters.
– Mark Beadles
May 23 at 14:34
See en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indo-European_studies#History for starters.
– Mark Beadles
May 23 at 14:34
2
2
See also the Wikipedia article about William Jones to understand where this specific perception (might) originate from.
– Michaelyus
May 23 at 14:41
See also the Wikipedia article about William Jones to understand where this specific perception (might) originate from.
– Michaelyus
May 23 at 14:41
21
21
This is political nonsense. Hindutva operatives are spreading a silly meme that says India was the source of all knowledge and language, because Sanskrit. They're on a par with the American know-nothings who talk about Noah's Ark with dinosaurs. Be careful; ignorance is dangerous.
– jlawler
May 23 at 16:07
This is political nonsense. Hindutva operatives are spreading a silly meme that says India was the source of all knowledge and language, because Sanskrit. They're on a par with the American know-nothings who talk about Noah's Ark with dinosaurs. Be careful; ignorance is dangerous.
– jlawler
May 23 at 16:07
15
15
That's just nationalists projecting hard. Because they cannot comprehend that anyone would study history just to get close to the objective truth, when they meet a theory they don't like, in their mind it can only be because scholars of those other nation are distorting history to put forth the superiority of the wrong nation.
– jick
May 23 at 17:36
That's just nationalists projecting hard. Because they cannot comprehend that anyone would study history just to get close to the objective truth, when they meet a theory they don't like, in their mind it can only be because scholars of those other nation are distorting history to put forth the superiority of the wrong nation.
– jick
May 23 at 17:36
2
2
@KilianFoth, not every known language. Some languages like Pictish are known to have existed but are so scantily documented that there's not much consensus about if it was Indo-European or not. Or have I misunderstood what you're saying?
– Wilson
May 24 at 10:27
@KilianFoth, not every known language. Some languages like Pictish are known to have existed but are so scantily documented that there's not much consensus about if it was Indo-European or not. Or have I misunderstood what you're saying?
– Wilson
May 24 at 10:27
|
show 3 more comments
2 Answers
2
active
oldest
votes
The claim cited in the quote is definitely wrong. The existence of language families is inferred from the data on extant and ancient languages, and there is a rigorous methodology used in this inferential process. So, it does not matter who looks at the data, experts from all over the world should come to an agreement on the existence and membership of a language family.
There are some fringe cases (e.g., very large and deep language families like Nostratic, or single languages with disputed family affiliations) but Indogermanic is a clear and fully accepted grouping.
Even a layman should be able to see the impressive correspondences layed out in this wikipedia article on Indo-European vocabulary. Contrast this with data from a non-Indogermanic language like Turkish, Japanese, or Tamil for an unrelated language.
answered May 23 at 15:45
jknappenjknappen
13.5k2 gold badges32 silver badges60 bronze badges
add a comment
|
The Indo-European family is completely made up, yes. But not for the reason cited in that comment. And the fact it's made up doesn't mean it's not real.
Sciences often posit the existence of things we can't actually directly observe, just because these things explain what we can observe. In Ancient Greece, some simple thought experiments showed that atoms must exist, even though you can't see an atom. (Later, we invented microscopes and other proofs, which allow us to observe them directly).
And Proto-Indoeuropean has been posited as an ancient language, not because any of us have ever heard or spoken it, but because it explains some of our observations of the languages of Europe and parts of Asia. (Later, perhaps someone will invent a time-machine of some sort that will allow us to observe Proto-Indoeuropean more directly.)
The Indo-European family is just the group of languages that we suppose have derived from Proto-Indoeuropean.
answered May 23 at 14:33
WilsonWilson
2,6177 silver badges24 bronze badges
12
PIE is reconstructed to be accurate. When you say "made up" it can refer to a product of imagination and not something based on real data and scientific observation.
– Midas
May 23 at 19:34
2
You could say that PIE is only made up to the extent that we're wrong about it.
– curiousdannii
May 24 at 0:49
3
@Midas, I am using the phrase "made up" to mean invent, imagine, concoct, and my point was that PIE has essentially been made up to fit the data on what it could have been like. That doesn't seem to be what the quote in the OP meant by "made up" though!
– Wilson
May 24 at 7:37
6
@curiousdannii - it's the old, "All models are wrong, some models are useful" trope.
– Andrew Alexander
May 24 at 15:19
2
@AndrewAlexander exactly. It's like Newtonian mechanics. It's 100% "wrong" in the strict sense, but it presents a relatively simple model that is "good enough" 99% of the time.
– Robert Columbia
May 24 at 15:48
|
show 2 more comments
Your Answer
StackExchange.ready(function() {
var channelOptions = {
tags: "".split(" "),
id: "312"
};
initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);
StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function() {
// Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled) {
StackExchange.using("snippets", function() {
createEditor();
});
}
else {
createEditor();
}
});
function createEditor() {
StackExchange.prepareEditor({
heartbeatType: 'answer',
autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
convertImagesToLinks: false,
noModals: true,
showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
reputationToPostImages: null,
bindNavPrevention: true,
postfix: "",
imageUploader: {
brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"u003ecc by-sa 4.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
allowUrls: true
},
noCode: true, onDemand: true,
discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
});
}
});
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2flinguistics.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f31548%2fis-the-indo-european-language-family-made-up%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
2 Answers
2
active
oldest
votes
2 Answers
2
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
The claim cited in the quote is definitely wrong. The existence of language families is inferred from the data on extant and ancient languages, and there is a rigorous methodology used in this inferential process. So, it does not matter who looks at the data, experts from all over the world should come to an agreement on the existence and membership of a language family.
There are some fringe cases (e.g., very large and deep language families like Nostratic, or single languages with disputed family affiliations) but Indogermanic is a clear and fully accepted grouping.
Even a layman should be able to see the impressive correspondences layed out in this wikipedia article on Indo-European vocabulary. Contrast this with data from a non-Indogermanic language like Turkish, Japanese, or Tamil for an unrelated language.
answered May 23 at 15:45
jknappenjknappen
13.5k2 gold badges32 silver badges60 bronze badges
add a comment
|
The claim cited in the quote is definitely wrong. The existence of language families is inferred from the data on extant and ancient languages, and there is a rigorous methodology used in this inferential process. So, it does not matter who looks at the data, experts from all over the world should come to an agreement on the existence and membership of a language family.
There are some fringe cases (e.g., very large and deep language families like Nostratic, or single languages with disputed family affiliations) but Indogermanic is a clear and fully accepted grouping.
Even a layman should be able to see the impressive correspondences layed out in this wikipedia article on Indo-European vocabulary. Contrast this with data from a non-Indogermanic language like Turkish, Japanese, or Tamil for an unrelated language.
answered May 23 at 15:45
jknappenjknappen
13.5k2 gold badges32 silver badges60 bronze badges
add a comment
|
The claim cited in the quote is definitely wrong. The existence of language families is inferred from the data on extant and ancient languages, and there is a rigorous methodology used in this inferential process. So, it does not matter who looks at the data, experts from all over the world should come to an agreement on the existence and membership of a language family.
There are some fringe cases (e.g., very large and deep language families like Nostratic, or single languages with disputed family affiliations) but Indogermanic is a clear and fully accepted grouping.
Even a layman should be able to see the impressive correspondences layed out in this wikipedia article on Indo-European vocabulary. Contrast this with data from a non-Indogermanic language like Turkish, Japanese, or Tamil for an unrelated language.
answered May 23 at 15:45
jknappenjknappen
13.5k2 gold badges32 silver badges60 bronze badges
The claim cited in the quote is definitely wrong. The existence of language families is inferred from the data on extant and ancient languages, and there is a rigorous methodology used in this inferential process. So, it does not matter who looks at the data, experts from all over the world should come to an agreement on the existence and membership of a language family.
There are some fringe cases (e.g., very large and deep language families like Nostratic, or single languages with disputed family affiliations) but Indogermanic is a clear and fully accepted grouping.
Even a layman should be able to see the impressive correspondences layed out in this wikipedia article on Indo-European vocabulary. Contrast this with data from a non-Indogermanic language like Turkish, Japanese, or Tamil for an unrelated language.
answered May 23 at 15:45
jknappenjknappen
13.5k2 gold badges32 silver badges60 bronze badges
edited May 23 at 15:53
answered May 23 at 15:45
jknappenjknappen
13.5k2 gold badges32 silver badges60 bronze badges
answered May 23 at 15:45
jknappenjknappen
13.5k2 gold badges32 silver badges60 bronze badges
answered May 23 at 15:45
jknappenjknappen
13.5k2 gold badges32 silver badges60 bronze badges
13.5k2 gold badges32 silver badges60 bronze badges
add a comment
|
add a comment
|
The Indo-European family is completely made up, yes. But not for the reason cited in that comment. And the fact it's made up doesn't mean it's not real.
Sciences often posit the existence of things we can't actually directly observe, just because these things explain what we can observe. In Ancient Greece, some simple thought experiments showed that atoms must exist, even though you can't see an atom. (Later, we invented microscopes and other proofs, which allow us to observe them directly).
And Proto-Indoeuropean has been posited as an ancient language, not because any of us have ever heard or spoken it, but because it explains some of our observations of the languages of Europe and parts of Asia. (Later, perhaps someone will invent a time-machine of some sort that will allow us to observe Proto-Indoeuropean more directly.)
The Indo-European family is just the group of languages that we suppose have derived from Proto-Indoeuropean.
answered May 23 at 14:33
WilsonWilson
2,6177 silver badges24 bronze badges
12
PIE is reconstructed to be accurate. When you say "made up" it can refer to a product of imagination and not something based on real data and scientific observation.
– Midas
May 23 at 19:34
2
You could say that PIE is only made up to the extent that we're wrong about it.
– curiousdannii
May 24 at 0:49
3
@Midas, I am using the phrase "made up" to mean invent, imagine, concoct, and my point was that PIE has essentially been made up to fit the data on what it could have been like. That doesn't seem to be what the quote in the OP meant by "made up" though!
– Wilson
May 24 at 7:37
6
@curiousdannii - it's the old, "All models are wrong, some models are useful" trope.
– Andrew Alexander
May 24 at 15:19
2
@AndrewAlexander exactly. It's like Newtonian mechanics. It's 100% "wrong" in the strict sense, but it presents a relatively simple model that is "good enough" 99% of the time.
– Robert Columbia
May 24 at 15:48
|
show 2 more comments
The Indo-European family is completely made up, yes. But not for the reason cited in that comment. And the fact it's made up doesn't mean it's not real.
Sciences often posit the existence of things we can't actually directly observe, just because these things explain what we can observe. In Ancient Greece, some simple thought experiments showed that atoms must exist, even though you can't see an atom. (Later, we invented microscopes and other proofs, which allow us to observe them directly).
And Proto-Indoeuropean has been posited as an ancient language, not because any of us have ever heard or spoken it, but because it explains some of our observations of the languages of Europe and parts of Asia. (Later, perhaps someone will invent a time-machine of some sort that will allow us to observe Proto-Indoeuropean more directly.)
The Indo-European family is just the group of languages that we suppose have derived from Proto-Indoeuropean.
answered May 23 at 14:33
WilsonWilson
2,6177 silver badges24 bronze badges
12
PIE is reconstructed to be accurate. When you say "made up" it can refer to a product of imagination and not something based on real data and scientific observation.
– Midas
May 23 at 19:34
2
You could say that PIE is only made up to the extent that we're wrong about it.
– curiousdannii
May 24 at 0:49
3
@Midas, I am using the phrase "made up" to mean invent, imagine, concoct, and my point was that PIE has essentially been made up to fit the data on what it could have been like. That doesn't seem to be what the quote in the OP meant by "made up" though!
– Wilson
May 24 at 7:37
6
@curiousdannii - it's the old, "All models are wrong, some models are useful" trope.
– Andrew Alexander
May 24 at 15:19
2
@AndrewAlexander exactly. It's like Newtonian mechanics. It's 100% "wrong" in the strict sense, but it presents a relatively simple model that is "good enough" 99% of the time.
– Robert Columbia
May 24 at 15:48
|
show 2 more comments
The Indo-European family is completely made up, yes. But not for the reason cited in that comment. And the fact it's made up doesn't mean it's not real.
Sciences often posit the existence of things we can't actually directly observe, just because these things explain what we can observe. In Ancient Greece, some simple thought experiments showed that atoms must exist, even though you can't see an atom. (Later, we invented microscopes and other proofs, which allow us to observe them directly).
And Proto-Indoeuropean has been posited as an ancient language, not because any of us have ever heard or spoken it, but because it explains some of our observations of the languages of Europe and parts of Asia. (Later, perhaps someone will invent a time-machine of some sort that will allow us to observe Proto-Indoeuropean more directly.)
The Indo-European family is just the group of languages that we suppose have derived from Proto-Indoeuropean.
answered May 23 at 14:33
WilsonWilson
2,6177 silver badges24 bronze badges
The Indo-European family is completely made up, yes. But not for the reason cited in that comment. And the fact it's made up doesn't mean it's not real.
Sciences often posit the existence of things we can't actually directly observe, just because these things explain what we can observe. In Ancient Greece, some simple thought experiments showed that atoms must exist, even though you can't see an atom. (Later, we invented microscopes and other proofs, which allow us to observe them directly).
And Proto-Indoeuropean has been posited as an ancient language, not because any of us have ever heard or spoken it, but because it explains some of our observations of the languages of Europe and parts of Asia. (Later, perhaps someone will invent a time-machine of some sort that will allow us to observe Proto-Indoeuropean more directly.)
The Indo-European family is just the group of languages that we suppose have derived from Proto-Indoeuropean.
answered May 23 at 14:33
WilsonWilson
2,6177 silver badges24 bronze badges
edited May 23 at 14:43
answered May 23 at 14:33
WilsonWilson
2,6177 silver badges24 bronze badges
answered May 23 at 14:33
WilsonWilson
2,6177 silver badges24 bronze badges
answered May 23 at 14:33
WilsonWilson
2,6177 silver badges24 bronze badges
2,6177 silver badges24 bronze badges
12
PIE is reconstructed to be accurate. When you say "made up" it can refer to a product of imagination and not something based on real data and scientific observation.
– Midas
May 23 at 19:34
2
You could say that PIE is only made up to the extent that we're wrong about it.
– curiousdannii
May 24 at 0:49
3
@Midas, I am using the phrase "made up" to mean invent, imagine, concoct, and my point was that PIE has essentially been made up to fit the data on what it could have been like. That doesn't seem to be what the quote in the OP meant by "made up" though!
– Wilson
May 24 at 7:37
6
@curiousdannii - it's the old, "All models are wrong, some models are useful" trope.
– Andrew Alexander
May 24 at 15:19
2
@AndrewAlexander exactly. It's like Newtonian mechanics. It's 100% "wrong" in the strict sense, but it presents a relatively simple model that is "good enough" 99% of the time.
– Robert Columbia
May 24 at 15:48
|
show 2 more comments
12
PIE is reconstructed to be accurate. When you say "made up" it can refer to a product of imagination and not something based on real data and scientific observation.
– Midas
May 23 at 19:34
2
You could say that PIE is only made up to the extent that we're wrong about it.
– curiousdannii
May 24 at 0:49
3
@Midas, I am using the phrase "made up" to mean invent, imagine, concoct, and my point was that PIE has essentially been made up to fit the data on what it could have been like. That doesn't seem to be what the quote in the OP meant by "made up" though!
– Wilson
May 24 at 7:37
6
@curiousdannii - it's the old, "All models are wrong, some models are useful" trope.
– Andrew Alexander
May 24 at 15:19
2
@AndrewAlexander exactly. It's like Newtonian mechanics. It's 100% "wrong" in the strict sense, but it presents a relatively simple model that is "good enough" 99% of the time.
– Robert Columbia
May 24 at 15:48
12
12
PIE is reconstructed to be accurate. When you say "made up" it can refer to a product of imagination and not something based on real data and scientific observation.
– Midas
May 23 at 19:34
PIE is reconstructed to be accurate. When you say "made up" it can refer to a product of imagination and not something based on real data and scientific observation.
– Midas
May 23 at 19:34
2
2
You could say that PIE is only made up to the extent that we're wrong about it.
– curiousdannii
May 24 at 0:49
You could say that PIE is only made up to the extent that we're wrong about it.
– curiousdannii
May 24 at 0:49
3
3
@Midas, I am using the phrase "made up" to mean invent, imagine, concoct, and my point was that PIE has essentially been made up to fit the data on what it could have been like. That doesn't seem to be what the quote in the OP meant by "made up" though!
– Wilson
May 24 at 7:37
@Midas, I am using the phrase "made up" to mean invent, imagine, concoct, and my point was that PIE has essentially been made up to fit the data on what it could have been like. That doesn't seem to be what the quote in the OP meant by "made up" though!
– Wilson
May 24 at 7:37
6
6
@curiousdannii - it's the old, "All models are wrong, some models are useful" trope.
– Andrew Alexander
May 24 at 15:19
@curiousdannii - it's the old, "All models are wrong, some models are useful" trope.
– Andrew Alexander
May 24 at 15:19
2
2
@AndrewAlexander exactly. It's like Newtonian mechanics. It's 100% "wrong" in the strict sense, but it presents a relatively simple model that is "good enough" 99% of the time.
– Robert Columbia
May 24 at 15:48
@AndrewAlexander exactly. It's like Newtonian mechanics. It's 100% "wrong" in the strict sense, but it presents a relatively simple model that is "good enough" 99% of the time.
– Robert Columbia
May 24 at 15:48
|
show 2 more comments
Thanks for contributing an answer to Linguistics Stack Exchange!
- Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!
But avoid …
- Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.
- Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.
To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2flinguistics.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f31548%2fis-the-indo-european-language-family-made-up%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
6
See en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indo-European_studies#History for starters.
– Mark Beadles
May 23 at 14:34
2
See also the Wikipedia article about William Jones to understand where this specific perception (might) originate from.
– Michaelyus
May 23 at 14:41
21
This is political nonsense. Hindutva operatives are spreading a silly meme that says India was the source of all knowledge and language, because Sanskrit. They're on a par with the American know-nothings who talk about Noah's Ark with dinosaurs. Be careful; ignorance is dangerous.
– jlawler
May 23 at 16:07
15
That's just nationalists projecting hard. Because they cannot comprehend that anyone would study history just to get close to the objective truth, when they meet a theory they don't like, in their mind it can only be because scholars of those other nation are distorting history to put forth the superiority of the wrong nation.
– jick
May 23 at 17:36
2
@KilianFoth, not every known language. Some languages like Pictish are known to have existed but are so scantily documented that there's not much consensus about if it was Indo-European or not. Or have I misunderstood what you're saying?
– Wilson
May 24 at 10:27