Seeing language from the DNA

[jdean]

Yes indeed we disagree. But that doesn't mean:
a. you are per definition right, which implicates "please, try hard to understand" or "misunderstand". I can understand and at the same time disagree. How much space is there to disagree with you?

but you aren't really arguing with Jaska, you are arguing against an entire discipline that stretches back into the 18th C.

Historical linguistics

Ok you make it a bit over the top jdean....

It are just some observations of a humble historian.

Admitted that branche is already somewhat older

But we aren't arguing against history, hows about maths (likely a study as old as history), what's the probability your concerns of the last couple of days trumps theory over 200 yrs old ?

[Orentil]

This is getting all much to theoretical for me. Let's make a thought experiment and assume e.g. that one day we will find near the old place Vercellae, the battlefield of the Romans and the Cimbri a mass grave and would be sure that these are remains of fallen Cimbri.
As you know all very well it is still discussed if the Cimbri were a Germanic speaking tribe or Celtic speaking and the few names we have will never solve the riddle.
Let's assume in a Case A that the remains will turn out to belong overwhelming to haplogroup I1 and R1b-U106 with smaller amounts of R1b P312. Or in a second Case B that the remains are overwhelming R1b P312 and no or only small amounts of I1 and R1b U106. In case A, the PCA pointing into direction of later Danish people, in case B to Iron Age France.
Could this find solve the riddle of the language of the Cimbri, can we see the language from the DNA, at least with a reasonable probability? (Let's keep it simple and forget about a Nordwestblock language for the moment).

I at least would think that it could help in the discussion of the origin and language of the Cimbri, knowing that of course the scientific discussion would never ever stop ;-)

[jdean]

This is getting all much to theoretical for me. Let's make a thought experiment and assume e.g. that one day we will find near the old place Vercellae, the battlefield of the Romans and the Cimbri a mass grave and would be sure that these are remains of fallen Cimbri.
As you know all very well it is still discussed if the Cimbri were a Germanic speaking tribe or Celtic speaking and the few names we have will never solve the riddle.
Let's assume in a Case A that the remains will turn out to belong overwhelming to haplogroup I1 and R1b-U106 with smaller amounts of R1b P312. Or in a second Case B that the remains are overwhelming R1b P312 and no or only small amounts of I1 and R1b U106. In case A, the PCA pointing into direction of later Danish people, in case B to Iron Age France.
Could this find solve the riddle of the language of the Cimbri, can we see the language from the DNA, at least with a reasonable probability? (Let's keep it simple and forget about a Nordwestblock language for the moment).

I at least would think that it could help in the discussion of the origin and language of the Cimbri, knowing that of course the scientific discussion would never ever stop ;-)

I'm guessing autosomal DNA would also have to be thrown into the equation ?

[Rodoorn]

This is getting all much to theoretical for me. Let's make a thought experiment and assume e.g. that one day we will find near the old place Vercellae, the battlefield of the Romans and the Cimbri a mass grave and would be sure that these are remains of fallen Cimbri.
As you know all very well it is still discussed if the Cimbri were a Germanic speaking tribe or Celtic speaking and the few names we have will never solve the riddle.
Let's assume in a Case A that the remains will turn out to belong overwhelming to haplogroup I1 and R1b-U106 with smaller amounts of R1b P312. Or in a second Case B that the remains are overwhelming R1b P312 and no or only small amounts of I1 and R1b U106. In case A, the PCA pointing into direction of later Danish people, in case B to Iron Age France.
Could this find solve the riddle of the language of the Cimbri, can we see the language from the DNA, at least with a reasonable probability? (Let's keep it simple and forget about a Nordwestblock language for the moment).

I at least would think that it could help in the discussion of the origin and language of the Cimbri, knowing that of course the scientific discussion would never ever stop ;-)

Imo it is like stating that all NE Dutch BB were R1b P312 without any remains

[Rodoorn]

Yes indeed we disagree. But that doesn't mean:
a. you are per definition right, which implicates "please, try hard to understand" or "misunderstand". I can understand and at the same time disagree. How much space is there to disagree with you?

but you aren't really arguing with Jaska, you are arguing against an entire discipline that stretches back into the 18th C.

Historical linguistics

Ok you make it a bit over the top jdean....

It are just some observations of a humble historian.

Admitted that branche is already somewhat older

But we aren't arguing against history, hows about maths (likely a study as old as history), what's the probability your concerns of the last couple of days trumps theory over 200 yrs old ?

You have to improve your sidekick remarks jdean

[Anglesqueville]

Rodoorn, a question: let's admit for a moment that you are right and that historical linguistics has no real power to address questions of localization of prehistoric languages. In your opinion, are other disciplines better equipped than it for this? Or are these questions inherently idle and beyond any scientific inquiry?

[Rodoorn]

Rodoorn, a question: let's admit for a moment that you are right and that historical linguistics has no real power to address questions of localization of prehistoric languages. In your opinion, are other disciplines better equipped than it for this? Or are these questions inherently idle and beyond any scientific inquiry?

No they aren't! There is a source (/evidence) or there isn't regardless the discipline.

[Rodoorn]

Rodoorn, a question: let's admit for a moment that you are right and that historical linguistics has no real power to address questions of localization of prehistoric languages. In your opinion, are other disciplines better equipped than it for this? Or are these questions inherently idle and beyond any scientific inquiry?

A quest for a source (in most scientific disciplines called evidence or facts) is imo not idle, but quit basic.

I know no historian for example who doesn't underline the need for good and reliable sources.

Imo nothing idle let alone beyond any scientific inquiry.

To say it in other words: history writing without qualified sources is like a historic novel.

[Kale]

Just to get some perspective. Where and when do you consider it possible (let's say with >1% probability) (by whatever standard of evidence you like) that for, let's take the most common and familiar subject of debate, PIE (take that loosely so as not to get sidetracked on the nitty gritty of what that constitutes) was spoken?

[Rodoorn]

Just to get some perspective. Where and when do you consider it possible (let's say with >1% probability) (by whatever standard of evidence you like) that for, let's take the most common and familiar subject of debate, PIE (take that loosely so as not to get sidetracked on the nitty gritty of what that constitutes) was spoken?

Good question Kale. I can't.

Well.... yes I can but that has the status of a wild guess.

PS: ok an educated guess!

[Kale]

Just to get some perspective. Where and when do you consider it possible (let's say with >1% probability) (by whatever standard of evidence you like) that for, let's take the most common and familiar subject of debate, PIE (take that loosely so as not to get sidetracked on the nitty gritty of what that constitutes) was spoken?

Good question Kale. I can't.

Well.... yes I can but that has the status of a wild guess.

Sweet, that means my newfound theory that PIE emerged on Easter Island is just as valid as anybody else's! I'll spread the word that you consider it on equal footing

[Rodoorn]

Just to get some perspective. Where and when do you consider it possible (let's say with >1% probability) (by whatever standard of evidence you like) that for, let's take the most common and familiar subject of debate, PIE (take that loosely so as not to get sidetracked on the nitty gritty of what that constitutes) was spoken?

Good question Kale. I can't.

Well.... yes I can but that has the status of a wild guess.

Sweet, that means my newfound theory that PIE emerged on Easter Island is just as valid as anybody else's! I'll spread the word that you consider it on equal footing

I corrected it to educated guess, but without evidence it the Easter Island is as much valid  as every place on earth.

Or would you state that we don't need sources/evidence/ facts any longer?

Everything if fact free?

Who talked about nihilism?

[AimSmall]

I knew it!

[Rodoorn]

I knew it!

hahahah yes reptiles hahahahahah

[Kale]

I corrected it to educated guess, but without evidence it the Easter Island is as much valid  as every place on earth.

Or would you state that we don't need sources/evidence/ facts any longer?

Everything if fact free?

Who talked about nihilism?

There is no evidence of human occupation of Easter Island until well after the fall of Rome.
Earlier occupation is a requirement for Easter Island to have sourced PIE.
What are the odds we find sufficiently early occupation? <1%?
If <1%, Easter Island =/= homeland of PIE (by >99% confidence threshold)