Actually, if "pre-Proto-Germanic" seems odd and perhaps redundant, it's not my fault; linguistics uses such terms. But I want to discuss the origin of the Germanic languages. Given the evidence of later migration from the south during the Nordic Bronze Age, combined with numerous loanwords from Proto-Celtic into the Germanic languages, I've concluded that the Germanic languages are not descended from one of the original Indo-European languages spoken in Scandinavia by the descendants of the Battle-Axe People. Material continuity is low.

Now its pretty clear they came from Weimar- Dresden area perhaps as part of Unetice culture

>>17836786
According to? STJ?
>>17836742 (OP)
the last major study on Germanics basically killed the PPG>PG>germanics languages hypothesis. even their genetics changed, BAC were complete cavemen with no relevance that even your y survived

>>17836815
My problem with linguistics and archegeneticists is that they're both just idiots who feign cooperation but ultimately are just deliberately conflicting arguments. Besides, whether GAC was relevant or not, whether they were the original Germanic peoples or not, is irrelevant, but nothing changes that Pre-Proto-Germanic is the oldest reconstructed common ancestor for the Germanic peoples.

>>17836825
No. The study (related source) categorically concluded that Germanic languages are no older than the Early Iron Age. It's even questionable whether Battle Axe Cave Man (BACM) actually spoke Germanic.
>Pre-Proto-Germanic
Obscure linguists shouldn't meddle in genetics, and their obscure booklets don't hold the primacy of truth. Furthermore, as far as I know, at no point is it stated that PPG is as old as the Bronze Age.
Proto-Germanic was a hybrid language mixing Indo-European (R1b & to a lower extent R1a) & Pre-Indo-European (Mesolithic I2 & Neolithic G2a and I1) elements. This hybridization would have taken place during the Iron Age and given birth to the first Proto-Germanic civilization.

>>17836842
Forgot the source
https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/2024.03.13.584607v1

>>17836742 (OP)
>combined with numerous loanwords from Proto-Celtic into the Germanic languages
The Negau helmet has a German name from the 4th century BC and a bunch of Celtic names. We'll never know anything more about it. Supposedly the Nazis abandoned the site after finding the helmet- despite sending men across the world as far as Tibet and into the USSR during the invasion to make archaeological finds. The allies after the war had nothing to say of it.

>>17836842
>was a hybrid language mixing Indo-European
How come it has umlaut?, because its mixed with Finnish and swedish

>>17836866
Celts influenced the "superior" Nordics in everything

>>17836742 (OP)
Vanir were I1 and entered proto-Germanic in situ from pre-IE maritime traders rather than Latvian HG contra McColl at the Willerslev lab.

>>17836926
Possibly-it's hard to know. Latin split from Celtic in the 900-800s BC but it still looks like Celtic in many ways. What is strange is that nobody talks about Germans until really the 200s BC, a few brief mentions by Greeks as early as the 400s BC, but their language is so distinct that it looks like they split from Celtic much earlier. 2000 BC, maybe even 3000 BC.Greek and Latin are positively conservative compared to Germanic.

>>17836971
Your dates are incredibly flawed.
Proto-Celtic is no less ancient than 900 BC, at least that's what the latest study says. Italic arrived in... surprise, Italy around 1500-1600 BC. What's more, what exactly is strange? Maybe because they didn't have writing? Or maybe because there were no colonies? No one talked about the Balts or Finns until after the Romans, but that doesn't have much significance.

>>17836742 (OP)
So what is the relationship between the BAC and the Germanic people? Therefore, the Larpagans don't need to do mental gymnastics about "native vs. foreign" if the language isn't even the same. Is your theory that the Germanic people are actually Urnfield? Is that it?

>>17836983
>Proto-Celtic is no less ancient than 900 BC
That's what I just said. Celtic diffuses post BAC.
>Italic arrived in... surprise, Italy around 1500-1600 BC
That would be quite the surprise. I've never seen this stated. The earliest metal finds in the area of Rome go back to the BAC period, 1100-900 BC. Where did you get the 1600 idea from? I'm looking for my article moving it back to 1100 but it'll take a few minutes.
>What's more, what exactly is strange
You're saying that just because there isn't writing that it doesn't mean it doesn't exist- but this contradicts your point that Germanics can't be that old. No one is arguing that Celtic is older than 900 BC, I literally stated the opposite since Latin has to derive out of Celtic around that time.

>>17836815
>the last major study on Germanics basically killed the PPG>PG>germanics languages hypothesis.
You don't even know what these terms mean. Stop talking. Nothing was debunked. You are just confused by linguistic lingo.

>>17836992
>So what is the relationship between the BAC
What do you mean when you use that? I've been using it to mean Bronze Age Collapse.

>>17837004
I didn't "say" anything
just read the latest study.
Besides, the italics separated long, long before "900," this is a Yoruba fact.
See Bossong, Georg (2017).
>The Evolution of ItalicIn Klein, Jared; Joseph, Brian; Fritz, Matthias (eds.). Handbook of Comparative and Historical Indo-European Linguistics. Vol. 2.
Furthermore, Koch also places Proto-Italic in 1500~1000 BC, his problem is the lack of definition of what Proto-Italic is, and I'll say it in advance, it wasn't the Villanovan culture, and The Urnfield/Tumulus - Terramare.
Anyway, Some people, even wikicope, cite the "Proto-Villanovan" culture as the Vector for the spread of the Italic Languages, but this is ridiculous cope when the Appenine Culture (1500-1200bc) exists.

connections are way too abundant for Terramare to not descend from Tumulus in some way.

>You're saying that just because there isn't writing that it doesn't mean it doesn't exist-
Yes, so, you agreed here. End of the problem, otherwise, you should deny the existence of many ancient peoples, including the Italo-Celtic or proto-celtics, since they were not created until the Middle Iron Age. Or or I can go much further and even cite the PIE or PPG itself that the OP is talking about, and I will respect his thread, as the subject is PPG, not Celts and Italians.

>>17836842
>>17836825
>>17836815
I think it's necessary to step in and explain what a fancy term like "Pre-Proto-Germanic" even means.
First of all, it is not the same thing as the "Pre-" which Robert Beekes made frequent use of by referring to "Pre-Greek", an unknown language spoken by the natives of Greece before the IE Greek speakers came. So most importantly PPGmc does not refer to an EEF or HG language.

PPGmc is not even a (single) language per se—that is, a reconstructible synchronous language stage. PPGmc is a continuum of languages spoken between the PIE stage and Proto-Germanic stage, encompassing everything from dialectal late PIE in the bronze age all the way up to PG.
Proto languages are stages reconstructed by attestations and the comparative method. PPGmc is the "Germanic dark ages" where we have no way to reconstruct a synchronized language stage because there's nothing to compare with between PG and PIE. All that can be seen are the series of sound changes that must have occurred after PIE and up to PG.

Every IE branch has one of these continuums: Pre-Proto-Indo-Iranian, Pre-Proto-Greek, Pre-Proto-Celtic, etc. This is just common terminology used by linguists.

>>17837064
One last thing, In fact, the Proto-Italics before they moved to Italy... Although there must have been Proto-Italics in both Italy and Pannonia at the same time, if the Terramare culture was the vector for Italic dissemination, which is plausible.
There are many archaeological parallels that support this theory. And the last article on IE languages in the Mediterranean, while not necessarily arguing for this idea, clearly used similar dates for a Proto-Italic coming from the Danube.
Anyway, let's respect the OP.
The topic here is Germanic.

>>17837068
>semantics
So?

>>17837013
That wasn't an argument.
PG is at most 900 BC old, and there's no evidence that BAC spoke PPG. Furthermore, I want an article that says the PPG were as old as the Bronze Age. You realize that from Finland to Norway there was a cultural and partially genetic continuum, right, faggot? What makes you think they were Germanic? The Bell Beakers are the parents of the Germanic, not the CWC.
>>17837068
>PPGmc is not even a (single) language per se
I wonder when stating the obvious to make your argument more formal became a source of pride.
Your argument boils down to: every language has an archaic form. Anon, did I deny that? See what my problem with PPG is.
>>17837020
BAC= battle axe culture
The neanderthals who lived in Scandinavia before the Germanics

>>17837064
>italics separated long, long before "900," this is a Yoruba fact
What?
>See
I can't find what you're looking at. Are you wasting my time?
>Furthermore, Koch also places Proto-Italic in 1500~1000 BC,
Based on what?
>it wasn't the Villanovan culture, and The Urnfield/Tumulus - Terramare.
None of those are cultures.

Truth be told, I'm having trouble even validating that there would have been Romans in 900 BC. I can't find the article and none of the three """""scholarly""""" (sic) articles attach confident dates to findings. Losers. I'll keep trekking.

>as the subject is PPG, not Celts and Italians

We can use Romans and Greeks as relatives for anticipated IE separation. They're close neighbors and we have way larger data sets for them than Germans.

>>17837095
>The neanderthals
Those were wiped out in 60,000 BC, I thought? The inhabitants were surely Germanic, for who else would have resided there? Other than the Greeks.

>>17837095
Literally just read the Wikipedia article and stop using specialized linguist terms incorrectly. I do not care what you want to argue about in the thread. Just learn what these words even mean before spewing nonsense.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Germanic_parent_language

>>17837095
By the way, to devastate, defeat, and glorify myself, I must reiterate that the Proto-Germanic people were not genetically similar to the BAC. There was a rupture so complex that you losers would not be able to understand it. There were at least three IE migrations in Scandinavia, the fusion of the latter formed Germanic.
Let this god here explain:
but from the recent Germanic languages and genetics paper>>17836850
the origin came from a kind of merging between the I1 and U106 groups, at least some of which had already occured in the bronze age or the late neolithic (which is also technically the bronze age) and not in central Europe. Based on that paper it was more in Scandinavia and Frisia than anywhere further south or east, but proto-Germanic is likely from the Jastorf period as they had fully merged by then.

>>17837107
You are not up to date with contemporary knowledge and are stuck in your "linguistic terms", mortal loser, do you really think I'm discussing whether the PPG was real or not? My point was WHO and WHEN it was said. Shut up, your defeat has already been destined here. I always win

>>17836926
This
There's no "proto-germanic", Germanic culture was fake as "Scythian culture".
The Germans do not call themselves German, they call themselves Deutsch. This word is a Celtic endonym. It has nothing Germanic. Even before Christianity the local Germans no longer believed in the ancient Scandinavian mythology, it had heavily merged with Celtic belief and custom.
>>17836742 (OP)
BAC weren't related to Germanics and literally worshipped another religion, more IE like, instead these of this shamanic shit that Europeans are worshipping instead of Abrahamism, and both are terrible and viral.
And according so some linguistics, German language has at least, 30% HG substrate

>>17837131
>My point was WHO and WHEN it was said
PPGmc was spoken from ~200 AD all the way back to the Bronze Age up to PIE. It's not a language. It's a continuum of ambiguous stages which are not reconstructible in a synchronous way.

>>17837146
>literally worshipped another religion
What's your evidence? Or what makes you think this?

>>17837171
>PPGmc was spoken from ~200 AD all the way back to the Bronze Age
See here>>17837123

>>17837177
They worshipped the sun and there's evidence from odin.

>>17837218
There's no*
Actually, we even some proto-thors and Jormungandr, but nothing like odin

>>17836850
It says PG is from a people in Sweden who formed around 4000 years ago (800 years after Battle Axe culture arrived).

>>17837214
>See here>>17837123
The post has no bearing on what I just said.

>>17836742 (OP)
A feature of the Nordic Indo-Europeans that the Neolithic EEF blondes was their nautical bent. Much Germanic ship-vocabulary is from a non-IE substrate, and Nordic IEs quickly re-oriented themselves towards the sea ;)
GAC themselves were highly expansionist and mobile, and expanded INTO Yamnaya and Usatovo territory in its late phases and btfo both several times.
GAC groups survived the Corded-ware migration in Poland as well, which IEs copied their achievement, since houses, weapons, words, clothing and etc
Yeah, Definetly not the "Cucked darkskinned/haired graincels" you guys love to talk about.
Furthermore, the pre "Aryans" (GAC culture) the corded ware (ancestral to most indo europeans) mixed with were lighter and fairer than the yamnaya themselves, and they preferred the women of the GAC culture over other farmer groups.
If you are European you really ought to defend your ancestors, the pre-IE farmers as well as the Indo-europeans, from the slander of people like this.
The most blonde CWC, was those who mixed with EEFgods

>>17837261
I meant
"A feature of the Nordic Indo-Europeans certainly came from"

>>17837243
you just refuse to understand

>>17836742 (OP)
Pre-Germanic born out of a Proto-Finnic substrate in Scandinavia, according to Schrijver

>>17837123
So, if early Germanic tribes (e.g., Jastorf culture) developed in northern Germany and southern Scandinavia starting around 500 BC, That means they overlapped in time with the late Lusatian culture, especially in areas like Brandenburg and Saxony.
>>17836786
Correct

https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/2024.03.13.584607v1

The latest germanic paper clearly states Germanic origins in Scandinavia and Northern Germany, with a mixed three way ancestral profile of Battle Axe R1a-Z284 carrying "West Scandinavians", "South Scandinavian" R1b-U106 Bell Beaker/Single Grave peoples and finally a last group who kick-started the Nordic Bronze Age, "East Scandinavian" I1 carriers from Finland or the Baltics that had some unknown Hunter-Gatherer ancestry. Mind you, despite being from the east and arriving circa 2000 BC, they lacked balto-slavic drift. As such we can safely assume that Germanic was merely a local development of IE in Scandinavia of a mixed Bronze Age era IE ancestry

>>17837146
>cope
Germanic substrate hypothesis no longer holds much water. prior to Grimm’s law it was probably the most archaic IE language on Earth

>>17837319
Like i said here>>17837123
Thank you

>>17837319
This makes sense to me, as every single early germanic person in the samples looks Scandinavian-like. Germans and austrians for example can be modeled as a a mixture of Scandinavian plus something more southern and eastern.

>its le earliest language dude
Read again, tards

>>17837328
Battle Axe lasted in Norway and north-central Sweden. Actually in both these places, there are regions where R1a-z284 is more common than R1b-U106. Battle Axe had the smallest influence true, but it was there.

Watch Vargs
>Falls in love with paganism
>Insults his Catholic grandmother and calls her a desert slave
>Creates an account on Xiiter
>Joins groups and follows people named "Aryan____" (including Indians)
>Insults Christianity 4 times a week
>Learns to use G25
>Becomes an amateur haploautist
>Superior Germanics, dude

Meanwhile, in reality
>Germanic is at most 500 KEK years old
>Without genetic continuity and with at least three waves of genetic overlap
>Muh Arjan n Shiet while there are haplos no IE and pops with 66% steppe were killed. >1/3 of the area is Celtic
>Celtic names
>Celtic clothing
>Celtic weapons
>Celtic mythology
>fled the Huns as women
>the most matriarchal people in Europe who let their children fight
>allied with Asians against Europeans
>in the Middle Ages, copied Mediterranean architecture

>>17837281
The posts discusses some genetics and migrations. It's just irrelevant information that has no bearing on the linguistic concept of "Pre-Proto-Germanic". You need to understand what PPGmc even is first

>>17837344
the study rules out BAC as the source for Proto-Germanic. This is my point
They probably doesn't even spoke Germanic

>>17837359
Germanic is just a scandinavian Indo-european dialect that underwent Grimm's law. If Germanic is = Grimms law than there is nothing to wonder about. It developed during the NBA, but only came to credence more recently. Paleo-germanic is simply Germanic before Grimms law, so the NBA language.

>>17837370
Let's try again...
PG is at most 500 years old. Who spoke PPG is irrelevant, but it wasn't the GAC, and Germanic didn't exist in the Bronze Age. Did you manage to understand it? Instead of talking to yourself?

>>17837377
>BAC*

>>17836742 (OP)
>Pre-proto-germanic
something between PIE and proto-germanic. look through the phonetics and such. compare a proto germanic word with its' PIE counterpart and fill in the gaps and you'll get what you're looking for.

>>17837668
The question is:
Who spoke the PPG? Genetics says the Germanic languages is older as 500 BCE

>>Pre-proto-germanic
>caring about pre-proto-snownegro
fucking kek

>>17837794
germanic peoples as we know them mainly originated in the north from what we know, such as denmark, southern vicinity of schleswig-holstein and southern scandinavia. at least that's what we can tell from what the artifacts have to offer. they apparently had a population boom and had groups migrating south with the relatively warmer period, pushing the celtic peoples who had settled the area south and-or mingling with them.
having said that, what i mentioned took place as early as the 6th century bc, around which proto-germanic seems to appear. so before which point PPG would have been in use. it was either the group that lived in the area sandwiched between the proto-germanics and the proto? celts. considering how proto-germanic and proto-celtic resembled each other, although not a whole lot, one could make the assumption that said people in the region were the ones who spoke PPG.
again, we aren't too sure as to who it was, and can only say the area in which the hypothetical group in question would have lived.

as i type this i can't help but get the feeling that you were asking about the ancestors of the proto germanic people during the nordic bronze age rather than the people who inhabited the region later inhabited by the germanics.

>>17838012
Better arguments here>>17837123
"Being Germanic", it's a new thing, not more old than 500 BCE according to this study BAC was irrelevant