0

Proto-Indo-Uralic is possibly an ancient language that was spoken around ten thousand years ago. I have heard that this has evidence but it hasn’t been proven. So, is there any real evidence (archaeological, comparative etc.) for the existence of such a protolanguage?

Sir Cornflakes
  • 30,154
  • 3
  • 65
  • 128
Number File
  • 1,561
  • 1
  • 8
  • 22
  • 2
    This question has a lot of overlap with that one: https://linguistics.stackexchange.com/questions/34326/could-proto-indo-uralic-be-reconstructed?rq=1 – Sir Cornflakes Feb 17 '20 at 18:58
  • Not really, that is about reconstruction. This is about proof of existance – Number File Feb 17 '20 at 19:07
  • 1
    Note that I did not cast a "close as duplicate" vote, I just want to have the link to the other question here (and prominently in the sidebar). – Sir Cornflakes Feb 17 '20 at 19:12
  • 2
    Reconstruction and proof of existence for an unattested language are very closely related. Because we have no attestation, any proof must be purely implied, and the best way to show that it should exist is that existence would explain something, usually correspondences. Those correspondences might also imply a form they might have both come from. – matan-matika Feb 17 '20 at 19:39
  • That seems true. But there could be archaeological finds that support PIU. – Number File Feb 17 '20 at 22:20
  • 1
    They wouldn't support it, they'd simply be consistent with it. But since languages leave no archaeological traces, they can't support any particular language family. – jlawler Feb 17 '20 at 22:57
  • These are just two sides of the same question. If there's evidence it can be (at least partially) reconstructed. If it can be reconstructed there must be evidence. – curiousdannii Feb 17 '20 at 23:01
  • This question is asking for the evidence that is not yet enough to reconstruct or otherwise prove the supposed genetic relationship. So it's only identical to the other Q if it can be reconstructed--but it cannot, sofar. This Q says as much; could use a supporting reference though. – vectory Feb 18 '20 at 16:21
  • For claims that there is evidence, Kloekhorst, Pronk et al. attempt to surmise somany (https://brill.com/view/title/55752), see e.g. the open access chapter by Peyrot (https://brill.com/view/book/edcoll/9789004409354/BP000013.xml). I'm affraid summing these up any further would be prohibitively difficult, or trivializing. – vectory Feb 18 '20 at 17:00

0 Answers0