Here's a basic overview of my understanding.

Since the corded ware language must have been neither centum nor satem, post-corded ware descendant languages must have innovated it independently from both Greek, and Tocharian.

Is that logic right?

I'd be thankful if u people answer me.

I am an Indian, so I know the India side of this debate fairly well. One of the "big questions" here is why we never recorded history or treated it like a science, despite being one of the oldest civilizations on Earth and being relatively very advanced in fields like Grammar/Linguistics or Mathematics or Philosophy. This was not due to a loss of material or inability to keep record, since we preserved much older texts just by oral recitation (c.f - the Rigveda dated to approximately 1200-1500 BCE~ preserved down to the last pitch accent). In fact, our preservation of the Rigveda was so good that modern linguistics relied heavily on it to reconstruct Proto-Indo-European (spoken approx in 3500-4500 BCE). Around 65% of the PIE cognates are reconstructed with the aid of Sanskrit. Now, our scribes managed to preserve enough of Classical Sanskrit literature as well, quite faithfully. It seems as if our Purāṇas combined with our dynastic vaṃśāvalī-s (pseudo historical records of kings) served a quasi-historical role but we never developed the science of historiography. Why?

Note: There is one exception here. Kashmir is the only state in India that does have a fairly faithful historiographic tradition, (c.f - Kalhana, Jonaraja and the Rājātaraṅgini). Any thoughts on this?

Coming to Iran, I know a small bit of Iranian history but not enough. From what I know, our Iranic cousins & neighbors do not have any historical chronicles either (say from the Achaemenid Period). Why is this so? Why do we rely so heavily on Greek or Chinese or Islamic era chronicles for Indo-Iranian history? Is this possibly due to some ancestral cultural attitudes as the Indo-Iranians had almost an identical religion and language when they split apart. Possibly some common revulsion to history as too materialistic? I don't know, so I ask you all and hope I get some good answers.

Cheers.

I am curious why these two IE families share a few distinctive features, and if it's more than a coincidence.

Both retain a lot of interesting PIE features: Sanskrit/Avestan and Latvian retain a lot of the grammar in particular, and both families are highly fusional and affixing. They also both have retroflex consonants as a result of sandhi processes - specifically, because of the RUKI rule (which is also a feature of Armenian). They also both retained the syllabic consonants present in PIE which are not attested in many other daughter languages: syllabic [r] or [ɾ] are present in Sanskrit as well as a couple Slavic languages, syllabic [l] is present in Sanskrit as well, and syllabic [v] or [ʋ] can be found in Russian (but this wasn't in PIE).

I think the most interesting point however is the genetic link: The Y-DNA haplogroups R1a and some of the L haplogroup subclades are shared by North Indian, Iranian, and Eastern European ethnicities. The R-haplogroup correlation seems pretty strong to me especially.

I think I'm definitely not an expert and probably just grasping at straws, but I would love to see whether or why these groups are related, or why these commonalities exist.

Ancient Persian and Sanskrit langauges from 500 BCE have enough similarity, through which we can estimate that a Single Indo Iranian Language existed approximately 3500 years ago.

The next language branch closes to Iranian is Slavic, so how long ago do we think Iranian and Slavic were one language before they started to diverge?

I recently got interested the subject of Aryan migrations/invasions and would like to learn more about the subject. Unfortunately due to many political reasons, many articles, videos etc (understandably) will spend 90% of the time talking about debunked Aryan races, British imperialism, WWII, current politicisation of the question in India etc. While all of this is very interesting in itself, it’s pretty hard to actually find some good info about these peoples. I do understand that most of the evidence is linguistic and not archaeological which makes it hard for direct evidence to get by. Are there any non-academic sources that objectively discuss discuss the topic without going to the politics of the question?

Hello! I may need some external perspectives on a dilemma I've had a for a while. Due to having loads of free time, I can seriously get back to language learning. The problem is choosing which languages to focus on and I'm having a hard time regarding my choice of an Indo-Iranian language.

Before I get started, here's some info about me: I have a lot of experience learning languages but only Indo-European (Germanic, Romance, Balto-Slavic) and Uralic ones. I've never learned any Indo-Iranian language before and I know only some general basics about them. Now, to my dilemma. I'm very interested in...

Sanskrit. For many reasons and I really have no excuse to skip that one but due to it being a classical language and quite different, I'm thinking about studying a modern related language beforehand, but I have no clue which one is the closest to Sanskrit. Any idea?

Bengali. I want to read Bengali literature, I love how the writing system looks, I heard it might be quite helpful in understanding some other North Indian languages, and its grammar seems to be easy to me (due to it being genderless, for instance, and I prefer such languages). However, I'm very scared of not finding enough resources and opportunities to practice.

Persian. I want to read classical Persian literature, I may need it for a personal project, I'm fascinated by the Persian world, the language is apparently very approachable to a foreigner. However, the script creeps me out, and just like with Bengali, I'm afraid of not finding enough online resources.

Punjabi. I'm fascinated by it, I'm interested in Sikhism, it has loads of native speakers. Nonetheless, same issue with resources.

For some reason, I absolutely don't want to learn Hindi, so that rules out this common option.

Do you guys have any advice? Which of these languages (or perhaps another one of the same family) is the most approachable to a person who knows, amongst others, French, English, German, and Russian? And which one may help learn others? Thanks a lot!

The changes to words which happened at thes stages are found cool by me, but i havent been able to find large amt of info/research on them.

https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/-%CE%AF%CF%83%CE%BA%CE%BF%CF%82

What is the equivalent suffix in Iranian and Indian languages please?

So to simplify it,

1. A group of people known as Indo-Iranians split from PIE
2. Then they go towards Central Asia
3. They become wandering herders and develop a unique proto culture
4. They encounter BMAC? Or were they the founders of BMAC? Who were the BMAC people anyway? Were they related to the Iranian Agriculturalists (which were the ancestors of Elamites and Dravidians of The Indus Valley)

There was Indian participation in the Khilafath movement and a general engagement with Arab nationalism, but general information of social, cultural or political relations between either nationalists or other elites is almost non-existent. I don't mean medieval relations. Early 20th C is what I am curious about.

Hello everyone,

These people basically had one of the best rivers in this region, with Volga and Dnipro rivers, in their homeland. Usually, migration tends to happen towards favorable climates. But why did the Indo-Iranians and Tocharian peoples migrate towards deserted Central Asia and cold Siberia, than founding agricultural centers around these river valleys?

I was discussing PIE with a Hindu Nationalist and most of their arguments were quite bullshit as expected. However, one problem they brought up does seem to be an unanswered question to me. Namely, why did interaction between Indo-Iranian and Uralic result exclusively in borrowings from the former to the latter? As far as I know there are indeed no Uralic borrowings in Indo-Iranian. They shared this video, which explains the concept.

Regardless, I don't think this is too consequential for historical linguistics anyway. By no means does it negate all the sound change evidence for the mainstream consensus.

Hi,

This question has been on my mind for some time, but I struggle to find sources that detail with Jainism through a comparative approach or speak of its development (Maybe I'm not searching with the correct keywords.) Is Jainism a development from within Hinduism? Does its mythology share genetic (in the linguistic sense) affinity with Indo-European myths? Is it a "reform" movement? Or is Jainism a sort of pre-Indo-European tradition that was influenced and influenced hinduism during its development, especially in southern parts of India? The older sources I find do mention Jainism as rooted in pre-aryan traditions, but I can't find anything newer that talks about this. I'd also appreciate sources if it takes too long to write a response.

Anyone who's studied an Indo-Aryan language has probably encountered this. Sanskrit has them, and so do many modern Indian languages (I learned about them from Bengali). It is what it sounds like: it's an "R"- alveolar tap or trill - but it's inexplicably referred to as a "vowel." Most languages even lump it together with other vowels in their writing systems.

Example: In Bengali, the character we use is ঋ. At the beginning of words, it's pronounced [ɾi], as in ঋত্বিক (Ritvik, given name). When it follows a consonant, it's sometimes [ɾi], as in বৃষ্টি (Br̥ṣṭi, [bɾiʃʈi], "rain") but other times is just [i], as in বৃদ্ধা (Br̥ddhā, [bid^h :a], "old woman").

WTF is the origin story of this crazy phoneme? What was its original phonetic value in Sanskrit? Why is it called a "vowel" when it is usually a cluster, or a syllabic consonant? Does it come from Sanskrit, or even further back from a proto-language, like Proto-Indo-Aryan? Any answer to these questions would be appreciated.

The Iranian - Indian Cooperation V2

Greetings to the Iranian foreign ministry. We're hopeful that Iran is successful in its political goals in its region and hope for a more stable Middle East through Iran. We're looking to further the relationship between Iran and India through a Defensive Agreement between India and Iran. Though it perhaps was not necessary, you willingly allowed India to fight alongside Iran through its Operation!. Thanks to Iran allowing India to fight along Iran in this operation. They've acquired experience in combat, one that could be of great asset.

Additionally, Iran, thankfully, has agreed to India constructing its Port that would provide a better avenue for oil to reach India, reducing reliance on Pakistan. Allowing India to focus on more important goals, domestically. And with the Chabahar port, all involved parties would be looking for a greater means of economic benefit, especially for Afghanistan. A nation, whose stability is reliant on the determined will of Iran in dealing with fanaticism & in which India is willing to help assist on, if possible.

We're eager consequently, to put into the consideration to the Foreign Ministry of Iran, into the thought of a Mutual Defensive Cooperation between India and Iran. We're in the belief that this would be a great stepping stone for future military treaties between Iran and India.

Sincerely, Ministry of Foreign Affairs: Subrahmanyam Jaishankar.

There was Indian participation in the Khilafath movement and a general engagement with Arab nationalism, but general information of social, cultural or political relations between either nationalists or other elites is almost non-existent. I don't mean medieval relations. Early 20th C is what I am curious about.