Recent Focused Series »

Indo-European Origins
Siberia
Northern California
The Caucasus
Imaginary Geography
Home » Cultural Geography, Europe, Genetics, Linguistic Geography, Population Geography, Russia, Ukraine, and Caucasus, The Caucasus

Is the Georgian language related to Basque, another European “outlier”?

Submitted by on January 20, 2012 – 5:54 pm 139 Comments |  
[This post is written in collaboration with Martin W. Lewis]

The history of the Georgian language reveals some interesting patterns of cross-cultural interaction. Georgian can be traced back to a ancestral language— Proto-Kartvelian—that it shares with its close relatives: Mingrelian, Svan and Laz. Spoken in the second millennium BCE, Proto-Kartvelian must have interacted closely with Proto-Indo-European, the ancestral tongue to most European languages, as well as those of Iran and northern India. This connection is indicated by the so-called ablaut patterns (like the English sing-sang-sung), which Proto-Kartvelian probably borrowed from Proto-Indo-European, alongside many specific words. The most notable among these loanwords is the reconstructed Proto-Kartvelian m.k.erd ‘breast’, which is said to be a cognate to the Indo-European kerd ‘heart’ (cf. the Latin cardio—and even the English heart).

While the connection of Georgian to Indo-European languages is solid, if distant, several scholars have searched for linkages to other languages, most notoriously Basque, a non-Indo-European “outlier” language in Europe. To this day, no proven connection has been demonstrated between Basque and any currently spoken languages; as a result,  Basque remains a perfect isolate, an “orphan” language with no ties to any language family. But the idea that Basque might be related to some other languages, in particular Georgian and other  languages of the Caucasus, has ignited a lot of interest among Vasconists (i.e. scholars of Basque) and Caucasianists alike.

The search for a connection between Caucasian languages and Basque dates to the work of Hugo Schuchardt in the early twentieth century. Schuchardt was chiefly interested in finding a North African connection for Basque, but in a 1913 paper he cited some parallels between Basque and the languages of the Caucasus. The Dutch linguist Christian Cornelius Uhlenbeck explored the same connection in a series of papers beginning in the early 1920s (e.g. “De la possibilité d’ une parenté entre le basque et les langues caucasiques”, published in the Revista Internacional de los Estudios Vascos) and continuing through 1940s. The Italian linguist Alberto Trombetti wrote an entire book in 1925 based on a long list of supposed Caucasian-Basque cognates. The Georgian linguist Nikolai Marr published several articles comparing the languages of the Caucasus and Basque, but Marr is now generally considered to have been more a myth-maker than a scientist (in a curious twist of fate, his teachings were declared anti-Marxist in an article published in the Soviet newspaper Pravda under the signature of Joseph Stalin himself, but this article was most likely inspired by the writings of Marr’s most energetic opponent, Arnold Chikobava). The French Indo-Europeanist (and Caucasianist) Georges Dumézil devoted a chapter of his 1933 book to putative cognates found among Basque and the Northern Caucasian languages. René Lafon, a French scholar of Basque, produced a long series of articles, published in 1930s through 1960s, arguing for a Basque-Caucasian link. This idea was further explored by the Norwegian Caucasianist Hans Vogt and the German linguist Karl Bouda, although they achieved very different results: Vogt’s conclusions were largely negative, whereas Bouda is perhaps the most enthusiastic of the proponents of a Caucasian-Basque link. Bouda’s papers from the late 1940s and early 1950s provide a most extensive list of cognates, including some 500 items.

The original inspiration for the Georgian- (or more generally Caucasian-) Basque link came from the existence of the ancient Kingdom of Iberia in the Caucasus (its self-designation was Kartli, hence “Kartvelian”), basically located in present-day eastern Georgia. Another supposed link involves the existence of the Basque place-name ending in -adze, similar to Georgian surnames ending in -dze or -adze (prevalent in western Georgia). (The most common surnames ending in -(a)dze are Kapanadze, Maisuradze and Giorgadze; one may also recall in this connection the names of the former Georgian president Eduard Shevardnadze and of the iconic ballet choreographer Giorgi Balanchivadze, better known as George Balanchine.) However, this suffix literally means ‘son’ in Georgian, so the connection to Basque toponyms is hardly substantiated.

As mentioned above, various scholars have proposed a number of putative cognates, but most of them have simply listed Basque words and morphemes that bear a vague resemblance to words and morphemes in one Caucasian language or another (including Georgian). Representative examples include: the Basque word etxe ‘house’ is matched with the word ča ‘hut’ in Lak (Northeast Caucasian); and the Basque ahari  ‘ram’ is matched with words meaning ‘small lamb’ in three Northeast Caucasian languages (Chechen Eaxar, Ingush häxar and Batsbi axrab). Many of the proposed cognates require a leap of imagination to see the sound correspondences at all, as is the case with the Basque haragi ‘meat’ matched with the Circassian l« ‘meat’; the Basque hotz ‘cold’ matched with the Abkhaz sw ‘freeze’; Basque larri ‘anxious’ matched with Avar erize ‘be afraid,’ and so on. Among the specifically Georgian-Basque cognates that suffer from the same problem is the Georgian bza ‘box tree,’ matched with the Basque ezpel ‘box tree.’ These lists of putative cognates typically pair Basque words with words in some particular Caucasian language (or closely related languages). Yet, these works do not demonstrate a connection between Basque and the ancestral languages of Northwest, Northeast or South Caucasian languages, let alone a connection between Basque and the ancestral language of all Caucasian languages.

And since the search for a Caucasian-Basque link involves some forty Caucasian languages, it is not surprising that some resemblances can be found, if only by chance. Such a possibility is enhanced if one allows rather loose parallels in sound and meaning, as has indeed often been the case.

But the Caucasian-Basque hypothesis was fueled not only by questionable lexical cognates, but also by a number of typological similarities. Georgian, for example, shares with Basque its ergative case system, an elaborate scheme of verbal agreement, as well as such other characteristics as agglutinative morphology, Subject-Object-Verb order, vigesimal number system (base 20), and the presence of distributive numerals. A full discussion of such similarities would be too long and too technical to be included here, but some points of commonality do deserve discussion.

Let us briefly consider the ergative case system shared by Georgian and Basque. In English, word order encodes who did what to whom: John kissed Mary and Mary kissed John differ by who initiated the action and to whom it was applied, which we deduce solely from the word order.  But many, if not most, languages use some overt morphological marking to encode the same thing. Noun case is one such type of marking: in a case language such as Latin or Russian, the equivalents of ‘John kissed Mary’ and ‘Mary kissed John’ differ not so much by word order but by the forms of the nouns ‘John’ and ‘Mary’. In scores of languages, Latin and Russian included, the subject of a sentence – here, the one who did the kissing – appears in one form, called “nominative”, whereas the object – here, the one who is kissed – appears in another form, called “accusative”. Since “who did what to whom” can be deduced from the forms of the nouns, word order in many case languages is much freer than it is in English.

However, not all languages that rely on case use the same nominative-accusative model employed by Latin and Russian. Both Georgian and Basque follow a different model, known as “ergative-absolutive” (after the names of the two main cases). In this model, the subject appears in the so-called “ergative” case – but only if an object is also present. If there is no object, as in for example ‘John left’, the subject appears in a different form called “absolutive”. This latter form is also used for objects.

Here are some illustrative examples from Georgian. In the sentence (1a), which has both a subject and an object (it is thus called a “transitive sentence”), the subject bich’ ‘boy’ is marked with the ergative suffix -ma, and the object dzaghl  ‘dog’ is marked with the absolutive suffix -i. In the sentence (1b), which has a subject but no object (and is thus an “intransitive sentence”), the subject is not marked by the ergative suffix -ma, but rather by the absolutive suffix -i.  In effect, the object in (1a) and the subject in (1b) are in the same form.

(1) Georgian

(1a)

bich’-ma       dzaghl-i       bagh-shi          da-mal-a.

boy-ERG         dog-ABS         garden-DAT-in hid.AOR

‘The boy hid the dog in the garden.’

(1b)

dzaghl-i           bagh-shi                     da-i-mal-a.

dog-ABS         garden-DAT-in            hid.AOR

‘The dog hid in the garden.’

The same thing is true of Basque: the ergative suffix -k attaches to subjects but only if an object is also present (as in (2a)); if there is no object, the subject appears in the absolutive case, which is marked by the absence of the ergative suffix -k.

(2) Basque

(2a)

ehiztari-a-k              otso-a                        harrapatu     du.

hunter-DEF-ERG        wolf-DEF.ABS            caught              has

‘The hunter has caught the wolf.’

(2b)

otso-a                         etorri              da

wolf-DEF.ABS            arrived             is

‘The wolf has arrived.’

But the ergative case system is not the only typological similarity between Georgian and Basque. Both of these languages require its verbs to agree not only with subjects (as in the English I play vs. He plays), but also with objects. Both the ergative case system described above and the pluripersonal agreement (i.e. agreeing with both subjects and objects) appear exotic to a speaker of any major European language, so it is tempting for us to look for a familial connection between Georgian and Basque.

But one particular quirk throws the relationship in doubt. While both Georgian and Basque employ the ergative case model and pluripersonal agreement, only Basque follows the ergative model for its agreement, selecting the same agreement morphemes for intransitive subjects (i.e. subjects that occur with no object in sight) and for objects, whereas agreement with transitive subjects (i.e. subjects that occur with an object in the same sentence) is marked by a different set of morphemes. In contrast, Georgian follows the nominative-accusative model for its agreement: agreement with subjects is marked by one set of morphemes, regardless of whether an object appears in the same sentence or not, while agreement with objects is done by another set of morphemes. In other words, for the purposes of selecting a case suffix, Georgian treats subjects differently depending on whether the object is present or not, whereas for purposes of agreement on the verb, all subjects are created equal. Basque, on the other hand, relies on the ergative-absolutive model more extensively. Thus, the apparent typological resemblance between Georgian and Basque – their ergative case system and the pluripersonal agreement – does not hold up on a closer inspection.

Although the common presence of non-Indo-European grammatical properties (together with putative cognates) has been enough to persuade some linguists that there must be a connection between Georgian and Basque, this is a dangerous assumption, as typological resemblances have rarely been useful in proving common descent from an ancestral language. As a result, most linguists today – including most notably R.L. Trask, Luis Michelena, V.A. Chirikba – reject the idea of a Georgian- (and more generally, Caucasian-) Basque link.

Moreover, genetic studies to date have not found any link between the Basques and the peoples of the Caucasus. For example, Bertorelle et al. (1995) conclude that “a genetic test of this hypothesis, based on classical markers [i.e. blood groups and protein electromorphs], did not show any particular genetic link between Caucasians and Basques”. This conclusion is further supported by the work of Nasidze and Salamatina (1996), who found that “Georgians seem to be genetically differentiated in relation to European populations, again as shown by classical markers”. Nor was mitochondrial DNA any help, as Comas et al. (2000), who studied a 360-base-pair stretch in HVR I of the mtDNA control region, concluded that “the putative linguistic relationship between Caucasian groups and the Basques, another outlier population within Europe for classical genetic markers, is not detected by the analysis of mtDNA sequences”.

The negative findings of modern scholarship have not, however, prevented certain schools of populist nationalism from propounding an “Iberian” theory of pre-history based on the supposed kinship of Basque and Georgian. A website called “Iberia Forever”, dedicated to the “spiritual mission of Georgia”, claims that “According to the latest studies of modern Kartvelologists (Jan Braun, and others), the view is gaining ground on Basque being a fourth Kartvelian language”. Another Georgian site follows the discredited work of Nikolai Marr in arguing that “the Georgians and the Basques (in Spain) are the sole survivors [of the proto-Iberians], though the extinct Etruscans in Italy may have belonged to a kindred family”. Such claims are taken much further in an imaginative YouTube video modestly entitled “Iberian Heritage: Let the Truth Speak for Itself” (see the image to the left).  Such ideas occasionally filter into the mainstream media.  A 2003 Washington Times article, for example, begins by noting that

“It may come as a surprise that the Georgians of the former Soviet Union and the Basques of ancient Iberia, now Spain and Portugal, have a common ancestry, but early Greeks and Romans called those Georgians and Basques Iberians.”

The search for common ancestry among seemingly disparate ethnic groups is understandable, and is beneficial insofar as it draws people to the study of history, geography, linguistics, and genetics. But it is the responsibility of scholars to occasionally throw cold water on fond dreams that do not withstand scrutiny.

 

******************************

Bertorelle G, Bertranpetit J, Calafell F, Nasidze I, & Barbujani G. (1995) “Do Basque- and Caucasian-speaking populations share non-Indoeuropean ancestors?” European Journal of Human Genetics 3:256–263.

Comas D, Calafell F, Bendukidze N, Fañanás L, & Bertranpetit J (2000) “Georgian and Kurd mtDNA Sequence Analysis Shows a Lack of Correlation Between Languages and Female Genetic Lineages” American Journal of Physical Anthropology 112:5–16.

Nasidze IS, Salamatina NV. (1996) “Genetic characteristics of the Georgian population”. Gene Geogr 10:105–112.

 

Previous Post
«
Next Post
»

Subscribe For Updates

It would be a pleasure to have you back on GeoCurrents in the future. You can sign up for email updates or follow our RSS Feed, Facebook, or Twitter for notifications of each new post:
        

Commenting Guidelines: GeoCurrents is a forum for the respectful exchange of ideas, and loaded political commentary can detract from that. We ask that you as a reader keep this in mind when sharing your thoughts in the comments below.

  • Luis Aldamiz

    Nice article again. Thanks, Asya.

    Etorri is to come, not to arrive (= heldu): “otsoa heldu da”, alt. translate as “the wolf has come”.

    Also ‘harraptu’ and ‘etorri’ are infinitve forms (to catch, to come) and while translation requires them to become perfect ones (caught, come) because it is present perfect what the simplest nonsynthetic verbal construct indicates in Basque, it’s a bit odd to see that in the grammatical description. I’d write as:

    wolf-DEF.ABS            to come             is

    And it is “to come” because it is etorri (inf.) and not the verbal root etor which is used in other constructions like etor dezakegu (we could come).

    “Many of the proposed cognates require a leap of imagination”…

    Truly.

    “the Basque hotz ‘cold’ matched with the Abkhaz sw ‘freeze’”

    Specially knowing that the closest sounding word in Basque “su” means fire!

    “Basque larri ‘anxious’ matched with Avar erize ‘be afraid,”

    Larri is more like severe, serious, important and is used often with injuries or illnesses, also sins in religious or moralist speak. However it has other meanings, notably difficulty, complication, and by extension: vomit, human pregnancy, etc. As verb larritu is to feel scared, to feel sick, to be advanced in a pregnancy or even to grow. The closest potential cognate I can imagine is maybe larre: prairie, grass field (cf. Larrea surname and variants: Larrañaga, Larrauri, Larraskitu, etc.) or maybe larru (skin, leather).

    Something that amazes me often is how ignorant can be linguists sometimes. Establishing links between any two languages should demand intense collaboration by fluent speakers, yet it is often done single-handedly by linguists speaking a third language with barely a dictionary and often a bad one.

    In this case one could easily have imagined a different connection (even if equally unlikely) with Navarrese surnaem Erice, possibly from ehiz (to hunt) or eri (illness) or eritzi, variant of the more common iritzi (opinion).

    Personally I’ve looked now and then into the matter with very modest means and gradually I have come to the opinion that actually Indoeuropean (at PIE level) is the closest surviving relative of Basque, even if a very distant one. A more remote relative of both could well be NE Caucasian (which could in turn be related to Sumerian, via Hurro-Urartean, I guess). But on Kartvelian and NW Caucasian I have no opinion, just that they do not seem particularly close to anything else.

    I presume that, ultimately, all West Eurasian languages (excepted maybe Uralic, of Siberian-East Asian possible affinity, and Afroasiatic, of quite certain African origin) may share a most remote common ancestor c. 48 Ka ago, but that connection is now so extremely blurred by time that can’t be reconstructed anymore.

    • http://www.pereltsvaig.com Asya Pereltsvaig

      Dear Luis:

      Thank you for your comments and corrections to Basque examples. Also, very interesting notes on various potentially related words.

      More generally, I must note that I am a skeptic when it comes to mega- and macro- language families, such as the ones that would unify Indo-European languages with, say, Afro-Asiatic, or Kartvelian, or something else. Some of these proposals are so far-fetched that they are not accepted by linguists other than those who originally proposed them. I have a chapter dedicated to this issue in my forthcoming “Languages of the World: An Introduction” (with Cambridge University Press).

      Still, I would not go as far as saying that linguists are “ignorant”, as you say. There are people who, for reasons more to do with the ego and academic politics, would do shoddy work, but generally speaking historical linguistics has very deep roots and very well-thought-out methodologies. The problem is that these methodologies work best on certain time depths and do not extend well beyond that. Still, there is no shortage of people who are trying… And it should be noted that new methodologies that involve more mathematics and statistics are being developed as we speak. So we might still learn much about long-range language relationships…

      And speaking of Hurro-Urartean, I believe Martin will address this issue in his Monday post, so stay tuned!

      • http://forwhatwearetheywillbe.blogspot.com/ Maju

        “Something that amazes me often is how ignorant can be linguists sometimes” (my words) is not the same at all as “saying that linguists are “ignorant”, as you say” (your heavily distorted attribution).

        In regard to macro-families and such, all I can say is that if all non-Africans come from a single migratory event maybe some 90 Ka ago, as is generally admitted nowadays, all non-African languages should stem from a single ancestral language. That’s self-evident. Another thing is whether we can still appreciate the remnants of that ancestral ‘proto-Eurasian’ language, or even some of its descendant regional ancestors as my speculative ‘proto-Western’.

        But I do hope that statistical inference can at least establish something: the power of computers is very impressive: tasks that in the past would be deemed impossible or almost whole-life endeavors can today, with the adequate hardware, software and planning, be done in days or even hours. 

        “And speaking of Hurro-Urartean, I believe Martin will address this issue in his Monday post, so stay tuned!”

        I will.

        • http://www.pereltsvaig.com Asya Pereltsvaig

          It is most likely the case that all humans derive from the same group of Behaviorally Modern Humans, ergo all human languages are related. So what? The problem is not whether all human languages (or some subset thereof) are related, but rather exactly how they are related. For example, it is not evident that Basque (or more generally, Vasconic languages, believed to be have once been a much larger family) are related to Indo-European languages, beyond the evident fact that they derive from the same proto-Human language and perhaps the same proto-Out-of-Africa language, though even the latter is not necessarily true. The problem is that these sorts of hypotheses cannot be either proven or disproven. As I’ve pointed out, existing methods of comparative reconstruction cannot work on such time-depths as 90,000 years or even 50,000 years. Much before that, the signal gets so blurred as to be meaningless. Languages change so much in that time span that we can’t reliably reconstruct what they used to be like.

          • http://forwhatwearetheywillbe.blogspot.com/ Maju

            I’m just an amateur and I only seldom explore linguistics (slippery terrain and an attractor for angry stubborn commenters, typically linguists with academic seal of approval) but, for whatever is worth, here there is my little “Greensbergian” approach to the Basque-PIE connection, which was something that was initially quite unexpected for me but that gradually dawned as possible, while studying pan-European alleged wanderworts and Caucasian hypothetical connections. I got 20/111 most likely cognates (in a shortened Swadesh list), plus other 13-14 that could or not be cognates. And there are some linguists around (both by the name Arnaud incidentally) who also claim the same (scroll down in my entry for their links). I could not find closer affinities with either Dravidian nor NE Caucasian.

            “I’ve pointed out, existing methods of comparative reconstruction cannot work on such time-depths”…

            I guess that only Greensberg-like methodologies can, with all the uncertainties implicit (but statistic likelihoods bears some weight, right?)

          • http://www.pereltsvaig.com Asya Pereltsvaig

            The issue is not statistical likelihoods but showing how putative cognates can be derived via a set of regular (i.e. recurrent) sound changes. This is the only solid methodology that proves anything. But when it comes to long-range relationships, this is rarely done, because it cannot be very reliably done with the paucity of material that we typically have to work with. You may find professional linguists who insist on using solid methodologies and “throw cold water on fond dreams that do not withstand scrutiny”, as Martin beautifully put it, angry or stubborn, but that’s what science is all about and that’s what keeps it from becoming a “slippery terrain” indeed. I am afraid that both some “linguists with academic seal of approval” and amateurish commentators (of which linguistics indeed attracts more than its fair share) have sinned in this respect. But some dreams are just too attractive to give up, aren’t they?!

            You may also find the following post interesting in this connection: http://languagesoftheworld.info/uncategorized/amateurish-linguistics-why.html)

          • http://forwhatwearetheywillbe.blogspot.com/ Maju

            I’m aware that there’s lots of horrible amateur linguistics and I hope not to be just another one. You talk about regular sound shifts (which is a debatable idea because it implies a fixed original and a fixed destiny language instead of flowing dialect continua (spelling?), a much more likely reality but less prone to regularity).

            Whatever the case yo can see in my list of proposed cognates that PIE *h₃- seems to persist in Basque as h, at least in initial position. This was not a sought finding but something I eventually noticed.

            But of course it could well be 20-35 coincidences out of 111. I would not claim it’s set on stone, I leave that part of linguistic wrestling to professional linguists and I have already mentioned that Arnaud Fournet developed a very similar hypothesis before I (unknowingly) reached to the same conclusions).

            To be two to agree is not to be two to be right but…

  • http://www.pereltsvaig.com Asya Pereltsvaig

    Maju: I am starting a new thread to avoid too much indentation.

    You are absolutely correct that the 25-30 putative cognates may turn out to be coincidences.  As you might know, Benedict (1990) claimed to have found 45/100 cognates between Japanese and Austronesian. Then Robbeets (2005) claimed to have found 45/100 cognates between Japanese and Altaic. Not only is it a weird situation in and of itself, but it turns out that 21 items in those lists were overlapping! And that’s exactly why regular sound correspondences are so important…

    As for your statement that regular sound shifts is a “debatable idea because it implies a
    fixed original and a fixed destiny language instead of flowing dialect
    continua”, I am not sure what you mean? After all, if one works with different dialects that’s no different from working with different languages: one way or another there should be regular sound correspondences within a language/dialect, because sound change is regular and takes place over the whole lexicon (where the right conditions obtain).

    • http://forwhatwearetheywillbe.blogspot.com/ Maju

      “…it turns out that 21 items in those lists were overlapping!”

      What do you mean by that? Repeated words? I don’t think that’s my cases (I used a standard Swadesh lista after expurging the less likely meaningful words, like ‘mum’, ‘dad’ and all the neolithic vocabulary).

      But I’m not really willing to defend my incursion in linguistics beyond what I already did: it’s just an exercise that might or not have an interest. The world will continue spinning on its axis whether I’m right, wrong or both.

      “I am not sure what you mean?”

      Languages are not standarized forms but dialect continua (continuums?) There is no one Spanish but dozens, maybe hundreds or more, and it was even worse before TV standarization. However there’s only one standard Spanish accepted by the Royal Academy of the Spanish Language. And it is so even if I have massive trouble understanding people from Cádiz (pronounced locally as /ka-i/) , almost as much as understanding people from Paris or Milan, who supposedly speak distinct languages.

      Similarly there’s not one Basque, even if there’s only one standard Basque, and even if mutual intelligibility between Bizkaiera and Xiberuera may not be such an issue (nowadays), dialectal differences do exist and sometimes intelligibility is debatable. Anecdotally, years ago I showed a friend from Ondarroa, native Basque speaker, the transliteration of an Iberian text in Ibero-Jonian and asked him for his opinion (as it does sound Basque-like, yet it’s not Basque) and he said laughing “not from Ondarroa but maybe from Lekeitio” (which is the neighboring town but where they speak “very strange”).

      For example it is very likely that even in the original urheimat of Samara valley, Indoeuropean had more than one version (so not one PIE but several) but certainly it was the case for sure as soon as some offshoots migrated to other regions like Altai or Ukraine. That may explain for example the dual proto-number-one in PIE: *sem/*oynos and many other issues.

      I though a lot about that because words with written h in modern Basque are so because the h is pronounced in the North and there’s a theory (Mitxelena’s I believe) that proposes, based on some Roman-era inscriptions that it comes from a *k (or *g) original sound. However there are also inscriptions that indicate the opposite transition h>k. For example Akerbeltz (the black billy goat, which was apparently a god or an attribute of Goddess Mari) was written Aherbelts in Roman era Aquitaine (‘Aherbelts Deo’). So it’s possible that kh depending on dialect or even individual speech without regularity.

      I was in the past awaken to this notion of dialect continua instead of homogeneous languages, which I believe is avant guard in linguistics, by a direction to a site that discussed German dialect continua in an extensive and detailed manner. I can’t find that site right now but I think that the author may be the same as in this online essay (or at least the content looks similar). Discussing German is of course beyond my knowledge anyhow but I do think that the idea is very much valid and if German, which occupies not such a large area, used to be mutually unintelligible across long distances, what to say about PIE as soon as it expanded a bit? Or any other language, for example real (Vulgar) Latin…

      “because sound change is regular and takes place over the whole lexicon”…

      That’s not necessarily true, specially if words migrate in different moments or through different ways. This can be seen in Latin loanwords to Basque: cella > gela but coelum > zeru. Why? Probably they were incorporated in two different periods: the first corresponds to a more classical Latin and the later to a proto-Romance Vulgar Latin of the Christian period.

      I already mentioned the existance of apparent bidirectional hk sound change, strongly suggestive of a sound that has been bimodal, depending on dialect or even individual speech (today for example the letter J is sometimes pronounced in Basque as /j/ and sometimes as /x/, as in Spanish and there is no pattern: how regular is that?! Not regular at all. Real languages are sometimes quite chaotic.

      PD- In Andalusia there is both the “defect” of pronouncing c/z as /s/ (the most common one) along with the opposite “defect” of pronouncing s as /θ/. How can that be if sound changes “must” be regular? They are not, not always at least.

      • http://www.pereltsvaig.com Asya Pereltsvaig

        I will have to disappoint you: dialect continua is not an avant-guard idea in linguistics, as you suggest (in fact, it’s one of the first things I talk about in my “Languages of the World” book). It is true that languages diversify in time and space via dialects which then become languages. However, when applied to historical linguistics and comparative reconstruction, if you have a dialect continuum, you didn’t go far enough into the past. That’s really at the core of the problem that I alluded to in the post: comparing words in (some dialect of) modern Basque with words in (some dialect of) some modern Caucasian language misses the point that we are looking for closer similarities between words in the (carefully reconstructed) older stages of these (or their proto-) languages. Indeed, since it is obvious that neither the Basques lived near the Caucasus nor Georgians in Spain in documented history, we must be looking at the similarities between proto-languages (as spoken before the beginning of documented history), whereas any close similarities in modern languages must be accidental, since the languages must have changed over that much time. But this is exactly the kind of work that has not been done.

        As for your counterexamples to the principle that sound change blindly applies across the lexicon, I think you yourself answer your objection: a rule can only apply to words already in the lexicon at the time the sound change occurs. Newer words would not exhibit the pattern. Similarly, another rule may have precedence in application and hence the rule in question may not show any effect in certain (well-defined) cases. A classical example of that is the apparent exceptions to Grimm’s Law, which as it later turned out fell under the domain of Werner’s Law (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Werner%27s_Law).

  • Samuel

    Serious academians cannot link language to another’s language to create a connection. It is well known that texts surrounding the Georgian history, culture, and peoples have been tampered with for more than a century. There is an incentive to create a European link between them and Europeans in general. It is well know that the Basque actually share more in common with northwest Caucasians rather than Georgians, who are called TRANS-Caucasians for a reason (i.e. they are not native to the area and settled in the Caucasus proper). This can be related to the mad dash to link Ossetians to Persians (which is silly, as their history is quite obvious versus that of Persians. Language? Not really a good way to make a connection).

    • http://www.pereltsvaig.com Asya Pereltsvaig

      Before you reject 200+ years of serious scholarship, perhaps it is helpful to consider how languages are used to draw connections before groups. Century-old texts have nothing to do with it. The links are made based on how the languages are spoken today (in parallel to how DNA of now-living people is used to tell the story of the past). Since language is in the heads of the speakers, it is not really possible to temper with it.

      As you can see from our posts, a connection between Basques and *any* Caucasians cannot be made, while a connection between Ossetians and Persians can. If that tells something that is not patently obvious, that makes it the more interesting.

      • Samuel

         That’s ridiculous. I can take two languages from any random area, and find some words that may or may not share some similarities and then declare publicly that yes, somehow back in time, these two languages stemmed from the same root. Are you hearing yourself? The Ossetian language does not have enough of a Persian influence to be considered “Persian” or “Iranian”, but you CAN link them otherwise to the south Caucasian languages like Armenian, Azeris (although these people have been severely Turkified), and Kartvelian to a major extent. I am unsure as to how you are arriving to these conclusions but must imagine that you’ve been reading the modern literature that’s been getting churned out from Tehran as of late. Pity, really. The rest of your site is rather decent but I am seriously questioning the validity of your rationale with this article.

        • http://www.facebook.com/people/James-T-Wilson/682045086 James T. Wilson

          To demonstrate that a language is a member of a language family, it is not enough to show a few similar words.  English and Japanese, for instance, now share quite a number of words, because of the century-long American influence on Japan.  Japanese, however, is clearly not a member of the Germanic language family, which includes English, both because its grammar is completely different from those of the Germanic languages and because earlier stages of the language show far fewer, not more similarities.  Afrikaans and English, however, are related, sharing most fundamental grammatical features and becoming more similar when one looks at texts from longer ago.  Ossetian is an Iranic language, sharing its basic grammar with the Iranic languages and a great deal of its core lexicon.

          • Samuel

             It’s extremely frustrating reading this drivel over and over that has been repeated for years. Even Ossetians deny this. Let’s leave it at “we disagree”. I will repeat once more not only as an academic but also as someone who has visited Ossetia and have Ossetian friends: they are not Iranic by any means, and neither is their language! I dare you to ask them and see what they themselves say.

          • http://www.facebook.com/people/James-T-Wilson/682045086 James T. Wilson

            A Navajo might tell me that the gods turned two ears of corn in to their first ancestors, First Man and First Woman.  A linguist or anthropologist would probably tell me that they migrated in the fourteenth and fifteenth centuries from Canada, where the rest of the speakers of Athabaskan languages still reside.  Must I accept the Navajo version, because it is “what they themselves say”?

          • http://www.facebook.com/scusiani Sergo Cusiani

            The term “Ossetia” derives from Georgian definition of Oseti – lands of Osses, or Ovses, or Yasses, as there were several definition of Alanians. Alanian (Ossetian) language belongs to Indo-Iranian family. Ossetians call themsalves as Iron, which means Arian man (compare with Iran, which also means Arian man).

            75% of Ossetian words originate from Iranian language.
            Examples: -khur- sun (ossetian), -khor- sun (persian), -sær- head, in both languages; -særdar- person in chief in both languages.
            Though, I do not know, how mush Persian differs from abcient Iranian. Probably it altered too much.

            Generally, present Ossetians, especially to the North, prefer speaking Russian rather than Ossetian. They have been brought up as new Russians, thus giving less care of their true history. You can not name even a single school, where any subject is learnt in Ossetian! For many of them connection to Persian can be a surprise, because they are not supposed to learn their history in Russian schools!

          • http://www.pereltsvaig.com Asya Pereltsvaig

            Thank you for your comment, Sergo! Spot on!

          • http://www.facebook.com/trwier Thomas Wier

            Samuel, I live myself in Tbilisi, where I work as an academic. I think your mistake is in assuming that linguistic histories are isomorphic to other kinds of cultural histories. First off, native speakers of *any* language cannot tell you the history of their language any more than you can identify who your 100-times-great-grandfather was — these connections have been lost to the conscious history of the people. Secondly, Ossetian has indeed changed over many centuries since it broke away from its closest eastern Iranian language, Yagnobi (you are correct that is not strictly Persian), but its connections to the greater Indo-Aryan family are demonstrable through the comparative method: Ossetian has thousands of cognate words to other Iranian languages, even though much of its grammar has been restructured and looks more similar to neighboring Caucasian languages.

          • http://www.pereltsvaig.com Asya Pereltsvaig

            Thanks, Thomas!

          • http://www.facebook.com/who7cares Nina Kavjaradze-Barbosa

            They would say that Samachablo is their land too, but that’s another lie. They appeared in the Caucasian Mountains in around 11th century or so… And where they have been before?

          • http://www.pereltsvaig.com Asya Pereltsvaig

            Well-said, James! I am almost ready to believe that you are a (closet) linguist! :)

          • http://www.facebook.com/people/James-T-Wilson/682045086 James T. Wilson

            If it hadn’t appeared to me that contemporary linguistics was all about teaching computers to speak like Noam Chomsky, I am sure I would be one today, Asya.  As it is, I am merely a dilettante.

          • http://www.pereltsvaig.com Asya Pereltsvaig

            Oh, it’s not, it’s not! :-)

    • Martin W. Lewis

      The general understanding is that the term “trans-Caucasus” simply means “the other side of the Caucasus” from the perspective of Moscow, just as “cis-Caucasus” means “this side of the Caucasus” from the same perspective. 

      The question of who is “native” to a given area becomes increasingly problematic the longer one looks back in time. Linguistic analysis, and genetics ever more so, indicates that people have been moving around and intermarrying with each other for a long time. Linguistic relationships definitely show historical connections, but they don’t always specify what kind of connections.  All of this makes for wonderful historical puzzles, the answers to which we can often only catch glimpses of, rather then see in full.  

    • http://forwhatwearetheywillbe.blogspot.com/ Maju

      “It is well know that the Basque actually share more in common with northwest Caucasians”…

      North East Caucasians AFAIK. NW Caucasian languages are so cryptic in their phonetics that it’s truly difficult to make any associations.

      That does not mean that Kartvelian is immigrant to the region. It might be but we do not have the evidence (for example a related language from elsewhere). If it’s immigrant then it must have arrived so long ago that it does not really matter.

      Ossetian is indeed related to Persian, Kurdish and other Iranian languages, as all these southern Iranian peoples coalesced after migration of Scythian-like nomads to the area: Medes, Persians, Parthians… Iranian is the last IE branch to occupy the IE-Kurgan urheimat before the Turks (Turkic peoples) took over some 2000 years ago.

    • http://www.facebook.com/who7cares Nina Kavjaradze-Barbosa

      And Ossetians are ??? Native Caucasians? It’s a lie. get lost.

  • V Gog

    Giorgi natroshvili ibero – evropuli megacivilizacia
    http://www.youtube.com

  • V Gog

    This is the Ibero – European civilization

  • Saba

    If we remember Georgian history, we will see that Iberian people used to live in Caucasus region who were called Georgians (Iberians, იბერიელები, ქართველები) and Qartli kingdom was differently called Iberia, so, it was time from the III century before Christ to II ad or more.. We can suppose Iberians to move to the place where Spain is located and this kind of Georgian, Iberian tribe continued living there, where the language style remained but changed as they lived closed to Spain. So many other things should have been mentioned in this article, but I understand it to be difficult on internet, but one more thing to be noted in this connection is tradition. We can see the similarity between Georgian and Basque culture and traditions, how they live in villages, both are very hospitable and love receiving guests! If anybody is really interested in discussing about this with me and learn more about it, please let me know on skype: sabchika-13 or add me on email: [email protected]

    • http://www.facebook.com/people/James-T-Wilson/682045086 James T. Wilson

      One would think that living in villages could arise independently based on economic needs and geographic limitations.  Mayans and Romans lived in cities (at least their elites did), but I assume we would not posit a common origin for them of the sort you are describing.  As to hospitality, I have yet to come across a group that does not see hospitality as characteristic of itself, often as opposed to some supposedly aloof other group.

      Do we have any evidence of the local words that were hellenized as “Iberia” in these two cases?

      • Saba

        I would like to reply as I am a bit surprised.. there is no doubt to exist so many similarities between the two cultures. I should like to make it clear, Mr James, you are able to find some information if its accessible to you, mostly books about Georgian and Basque people’s origin are not easy to be accessed. I can suggest you to find a book by Vasil Kiknadze. He was a Georgian who accidentally got in Basque country and wrote a book about them. In his book he writes many other things which could also be mentioned by me as I don’t think only tradition and lifestyle to be similarity between Georgian and Basque nations. One more thing to be noted is that there is one mountain named “ARCHANDA” which in Georgian means “can’t be appeared” (it’s hard somebody to appear by a person’s eye). There are too many examples to prove the opinion. But nothing is fully proved! When I said similarities to exist between lifestyle in villages, I meant what people do there and what people do here in Georgia. making wine, sheep-breading and so many other things are similar, so that Vasil Kiknadze thought it was another Georgia, and  So to cut a long story short, I would add that there is no chance that only two Iberias exist, One is Georgia and second is Basque country. I wanted to add more things but as I mentioned in the last, its not possible on internet!      

        • http://www.facebook.com/people/James-T-Wilson/682045086 James T. Wilson

          There are, indeed, similarities, at least in my brief experience of Georgia and the Basque country.  I would be more convinced of the evidentiary nature of the similarities, however, if the two peoples did not live in such geographically similar areas.  Both Georgia and the Basque country are mountainous and they are at about the same latitude and generally in the Mediterranean cultural area.  Are there cultural similarities that are not shared by other peoples from the mountainous regions of Southern Europe, most of whom also raise sheep and make wine?

          My point regarding the name Iberia, is that we see it in Greek first in both places.  In order to demonstrate a relationship between these two peoples, you would need to show that it was a native term in both places.  For instance, someone who didn’t know better might posit a relationship between the inhabitants of the US state of Georgia and the Republic of Georgia, but of course, the native term for the Republic is the quite different Sakartvelo.  Similarly, one might posit a relationship between the Welsh (called wealh in some medieval English texts) and the Romanians (called Walachi in some medieval texts), except that both of these are terms that foreigners called these peoples and that they did not use of themselves.

        • http://www.facebook.com/trwier Thomas Wier

          Saba, please forgive me, but your reasoning is faulty. Your etymology of the mountain is not a true etymology but a so-called ‘folk-etymology’, an etymology that nonscientists come up with when they want to explain a word’s origin. The similarity of არჩანდა to the phrase არ ჩანდა “it did not appear” is an accident, in the same way that English ‘dog’ accidentally sounds the same and means the same as the Australian aboriginal Mbabaram word ‘dog’. Such accidental homophonies happen all the time across languages; they are no meaningful.

    • http://www.pereltsvaig.com Asya Pereltsvaig

      Dear Saba,
      The scenario you describe is not impossible in theory, but there is no evidence—linguistic, genetic or otherwise—to support it. And as James T. Wilson pointed out, traditions are a rather vague, mushy thing to go by. Too many groups have roughly the same traditions, especially when things like hospitality or living in villages counts as tradition…

      • Saba

        Dear Asya, I fully understand you, I understand that my opinion to not be proved, but as for traditions, as I remember, I mentioned that In his book he writes many other things which could also be mentioned by me as I don’t think only tradition and lifestyle to be similarity between Georgian and Basque nations. So there must be and is so many other connections, but I am a bit really dilettante as I am 18 years old and just got into the university! But, if we say traditions, there are the same as here, I mean same style of everything, you should read the book of Vasil Kiknadze, Its amazingly the same, I understand that culture can be some kind of similar for many nations, but this is an exception and I don’t say that with only culture we should decide that the Basque and Georgian people are connected. And one more thing, Iberia was only considered to be in only the location where Georgia exists. And Georgians were and are called Iberians! And don’t think that every caucasian nation is Iberian!!! Its a big mistake, They really look like us (Georgians) but Georgia is Iberia and Basque, we can see that only 2 Iberias exist and they are the countries I am trying to catch a likeness…As for a Basque person named Jose, I won’t have a respond for him as he needs to read more books and to be a bit more educated… sorry brother, that’s my opinion!

        • http://www.pereltsvaig.com Asya Pereltsvaig

          Jose’s comment is indeed rude and we don’t condone that. As for your point about Iberia, geographical names do seem to “migrate” from place to place: sometimes connections exist and in other cases they don’t. Guinea is a case in point: http://geocurrents.info/historical-geography/the-many-meanings-of-%E2%80%9Cguinea%E2%80%9D

          • saba

            Yes, I understand, and I have never tried to disagree that opinion, We just are able to have opinions only, nothing more until something becomes proved! So, I don’t really know anything about Guinea but I really think that mentality and temperament are the same, you may think that there can be so many nations who’s mentality looks like ours but that’s not closed to truth! I think that there was a migration but from where to where I really don’t know, but the fact that Georgia had been Iberia before makes me think that people moved from here! But yes, of course I can’t say this is true, but I just think so!

          • http://www.pereltsvaig.com Asya Pereltsvaig

            Opinions are all nice, but as you can see even from the comments in this thread, opinions can be radically oposite, and it’s difficult to have a meaningful discussion based solely on opinions not confirmed by any evidence. More generally, things like mentality and temperament are very difficult to handle scientifically and objectively, which is why we are more interested in things like language, DNA, and so on — more easily quantifiable and comparable…

          • Saba

            Yes and the languages have similarities and I am sure you know more than me about linguistic connections between Georgian and Basque countries but I mean that there is really no nation out of Caucasus region which is so closed to Georgian mentality, the more, Every nation is quite different than Georgia at all. We have very different values than everybody, but there is one nation near Spain and France and I call it Basque country which is almost Georgian and as I am really young, I got so interested in Basque people!

          • http://www.pereltsvaig.com Asya Pereltsvaig

            There are linguistic similarities for sure, but alas linguistic similarities alone tell us nothing. Very often languages that have no common history would have a certain grammatical similarity. For example, Japanese and Navajo are both head-final (for example, the object appears before the verb), but it’s no evidence of any historical connection between the two people. Thus, some similarities speak for common origin and others do not. We will be posting more about this in the coming week, in connection to the origins of the Indo-European language family, so stay tuned!

          • http://www.facebook.com/scusiani Sergo Cusiani

            Not sure about Guinea, though the name was written in modern history, thus it is easy for tracing. Probably names migrating theory is true with Guinea and New Guinea, but the two countries have nothing in common either in culture or origin. Certainly it were not Greeks who gave the name Iberia to what we know as modern Georgia. Old Armenian name for Georgian is Ivir (modern Vra). Armenia bordered Iberia (Iveria) so that hardly Armenians needed Strabo to name their neighbors. The idea of Greeks giving the mane to a land in Europe after Caucasian Iberia could be probable had Iberia been the only name common to both Iberias. There are about 200 similar words in Basque and Georgian, including toponyms like Archanda, names Usmendi, Arismendi, Boqueria (Bokeria). Examples of similar words in modern Europian languages is a bad example because Georgians and Basques had no contacts in recent milleniums, and words, as you know, are not birds to fly on seasonal migration schedule.

  • Jose

    I am a Basque and have done research into my background. I do not respect Georgian people and do not consider them “Iberian” and neither do my fellow people. I want them to know this. 

    • http://www.pereltsvaig.com Asya Pereltsvaig

      I am really surprised and alarmed at how much hatred and vile language a purely scientific question can generate… (This is in reference to various comments in the Caucasus series, not just this one). If people don’t respect the others, how can they expect to be respected back? Just a thought…

    • http://www.facebook.com/scusiani Sergo Cusiani

      If you are a Basque, then I am the Emperor of China! I do not care of your racist opinion, because Iberia is the ancient name of Georgia since thousand years B.C., and officially had retained this name till the 19th century, which means, my country was Iberia during 1000 years after the crash of your Iberia!

    • http://www.facebook.com/scusiani Sergo Cusiani

      Haes? Es incha?
      I bet, you are an Armenian!!! Nothing to to with Basques or Iberia!!!

      • http://www.facebook.com/who7cares Nina Kavjaradze-Barbosa

        You read my mind, or vice versa, i have read yours…, since it’s true. “Jose” is not Basque and his name is not Jose.

    • http://www.facebook.com/who7cares Nina Kavjaradze-Barbosa

      you are not Basque. You are either ossetian, russian or armenian. you won’t fool Georgian and Basque people, so mind your business and ….

  • Apsuwa

    “The history of
    the Georgian language reveals some interesting patterns of
    cross-cultural interaction. Georgian can be traced back to a ancestral
    language…”

    Any source for this please? I havent heard of an ancient writing in Proto-kartvelian from 2nd millenium BC. Earliest record which can be attributed to a Kartvelian presence is march of 10000s. Which speaks of a Kardus nation south of Armenian highlands.

    • http://www.facebook.com/scusiani Sergo Cusiani

      Apsua,

      1) Kartvelians (Georgians) live to the North of Armenia, not to the South.

      2) Armenian lands were first mentioned in the Bible, where the Jews described Mount Ararat as Mount Armenia. No Armenia had ever been known before.

      3) Kartvelian nations you are concerned about are Colchis and Iberia, the latter neighboring Urartu (presently occupied by Armenia). The area you occupy now is a part of Colchis. But do not worry too much: Abkhazian language is also considered in relation with Basque.

    • http://www.facebook.com/who7cares Nina Kavjaradze-Barbosa

      Another Georgian Happiness APSUA! Go back to “aul” and sing your apsua songs! please, do a mankind such a huge favor!

  • http://www.facebook.com/scusiani Sergo Cusiani

    Mount Archanda (Artxanda) near Bilbao. -tx- in Basque is pronounced same as -ch- in English. I asked a colleague girl, what does it mean in Basque. She originates from Bilbao, but no one there knows the meaning: “It is Basque name, but must be very ancient word”.

    “Ar chanda” in Georgian means “(It, he, she) could not bee viewed”. Another example, a family name Arismendi, “ar ismendi” in Georgian meants “you did not listen”. One more Basque family name Usmendi – “usmendi” in Georgian means “you listened”.

    It was said, in Basque country there are many names for hills, valleys, villages, rivers, et.c., having exact phonetics in Georgian.

  • http://www.facebook.com/scusiani Sergo Cusiani

    As for similarities caused by the same living environment, not only Basques an Georgians live in the same environment on Earth. More over, adjacent neighbours of the Georgians do not even share a single tradition with the Georgians despite similar environment, and some of them living on Georgian territory, modern or ancient! You know why? Because they are antagonists from cultural and ethnical point of view!

    Now, could anyone explain, please, Why so distant Basques and Corsicans sing such a rich polyphony, as even the Georgians can hardly distinguish them from Georgian traditional songs?
    “The theory of same living environments causing similarities in culture” went broke!!!

  • http://www.facebook.com/trwier Thomas Wier

    I want to back up Asya’s general point while correcting a few misconceptions that even professional linguists sometimes have about Georgian. First, contrary to the above, it is not accurate to call Georgian ‘ergative’. Georgian has two conjugations of intransitive predicates, and both the case-marking of overt arguments and the agreement morphology of these verbs differ between the two. Thus, by definition, it could not be ergative, since intransitive predicates do not behave uniformly. Because this was the most widely cited feature that the two languages putatively share in common, the single biggest reason to see any connection is lost. Secondly, as Asya has pointed out here and in other posts, the reason to believe two languages are related does not come from the surface resemblance of any two sets of words. As any historical linguist can tell you, chance similarity of words in any two languages of the world occurs all the time; what determines genetic relationship is systematic sound-correspondences. To my knowledge, no one has ever posited any such systematic correspondences between Basque and Georgian. Because of this, Western scholars of Kartvelian and the Caucasus are in general agreement that connections to any languages of western Europe are crackpot, and do not merit serious consideration.

    • http://www.facebook.com/trwier Thomas Wier

      To clarify my point about the verb morphology, Georgian is properly called a ‘split-S’ language since one category of intransitive verbs (unaccusatives) behaves like the object of transitive verbs, while the other category of intransitive verbs (unergatives) behaves like the subject of transitives. This is not a new discovery for Kartvelologists, but nonspecialists have often formed theories based on faulty information. (Even some specialists, such as Hewitt.)

      • http://www.pereltsvaig.com Asya Pereltsvaig

        Indeed, Georgian is a split-S language, but isn’t Basque also?

        • http://www.facebook.com/trwier Thomas Wier

          I am by no means an expert on Basque, but AFAIK it is not a split-S language, at least in the normal sense of that term.

          • http://www.pereltsvaig.com Asya Pereltsvaig

            AFAIK, in Basque the subjects of unaccusatives behave like objects of transitives, and the subjects of unergatives behave like subjects of transitives, which is exactly how you described Georgian. Of course, in Georgian it doesn’t apply to agreement, does it? Whereas in Basque agreement and case align exactly the same…

          • http://www.facebook.com/trwier Thomas Wier

            No, unaccusatives have a clearly distinct conjugation pattern in the present: imaleba ‘he is hiding’ vs. malavs ‘he is hiding it’ vs. (a possible but not actual unergative) *malobs ‘he is a hider, recluse’

          • http://www.pereltsvaig.com Asya Pereltsvaig

            I don’t follow?

          • http://www.facebook.com/trwier Thomas Wier

            Sorry, it’s complicated: that means that unaccusatives have an overtly different agreement suffix -a (3SgPres) compared to unergatives, which have the same -s (3SgPres) as transitives. There are other differences between the conjugations too (most unaccusatives are also telic, whereas most unergatives are atelic) but I think the contrast is in principle distinct from that aspectual one.

          • http://www.pereltsvaig.com Asya Pereltsvaig

            Thanks for the clarification, Thomas. Well, one of the theories of unaccusativity relates it to aspect/telicity, so the distinction may not be orthogonal after all.

  • me1212

    is there none native Georgian speaper?

  • Guest

    basque language, toponyms and lexical structures are pure armenian !! moreover, the ancestor, according to basque mythology, is Haytor, which means the grandson of Armenian, Hay is armenian, so armenians call themselves and Tor is grandson from armenian

    • http://www.pereltsvaig.com Asya Pereltsvaig

      Such things hardly constitute confincing arguments for language relatedness…

      • Naira Vanbeginne

        ???? the lexical structure, phonetic structure, more than 800 root-words, shared system of declension??? These are not arguments? :D

        • http://www.pereltsvaig.com Asya Pereltsvaig

          As I mentioned before, lexical similarities without sound correspondence disprove rather than prove your theory. As for the other stuff, why don’t you give specific examples, so we can judge their validity?

          • Naira Vanbeginne

            I gave u the researches by prominent researches !!! read them and there u can find not only sound correspondence but also the lexical structure, phonetic structure, more than 800 root-words, shared system of declension

  • Naira Vanbeginne

    basque toponyms, more than 800 root-words, lexical structures are pure armenian !!
    moreover, the basque ancestor, according to basque mythology, is Haytor, which
    means the grandson of Armenian, Hay is armenian, so armenians call
    themselves and Tor is grandson from armenian

  • Guest

    At the end of the last century, the English scientist Edward Spencer Dodgson accidentally made ​​a very interesting discovery. Being already quite famous baskologom Dodgson decided to broaden his outlook, and study Armenian and enrolled himself in Paris’ Ecole Speciale “in class the famous philologist-orientalist Auguste Career. The result was quite unexpected: after only two months of courses Dodgson noticed that many Armenian words almost identical to Basque.

    • http://www.pereltsvaig.com Asya Pereltsvaig

      As fascinating as this story is, such similarities are hardly proof of relatedness. Armenian is definitely an Indo-European language and Basque is definitely not….

      • Naira Vanbeginne

        To the Armenian language the standard approach can’t be applied, and
        it’s wrong to treat it just as an Indo-European language .. It is not
        right to say that all Armenians have IE genes or apply Armenian language
        in a standard approach as an IE language. When there was Armenia and
        Armenian language there was no such a term – IE languages. Now they just
        put Armenian in that standard approach in order to rechange the history
        of Armenian people as it has been done for centuries.

  • Naira Vanbeginne

    In Basque language the name of their ancestor Haytor means “Received
    from Haya” which correlates to Armenian ’hay tor’ (“a Grandson of
    Armenian”). Joseph Karst also mentioned this fact. The ancestor of
    Armenians, Hayk, indeed, had a grandson, whose name was Pask (in some
    Armenian dialects Bask). The first time the possible relationship
    between Armenian name Pask and etnoname of Basques was indicated by N.
    Marr. It’s interesting that the Basque term for thoroughbred
    ‘haytoren seme’ means “the son of Haytor”.

  • Naira Vanbeginne

    All georgian words close to Basque language have the same meaning in Armenian and they are borrowings from Armenian

  • Naira Vanbeginne

    he founders of Basque national
    historiography Esteban de Garibay, Andres de Posa and Baltasar de Echave
    considered Armenia as homeland of Basques. The Armenian origin of
    Basques was strongly supported by several prominent researchers, such as
    Joseph Karst Gaspar Eskolano, Edward Spencer Johnson, and Bernardo
    Estornes Lasa

    • http://www.pereltsvaig.com Asya Pereltsvaig

      Oh and that’s evidence for a linguistic connection HOW?!

  • Naira Vanbeginne

    In 1920s Basque philologist Bernardo
    Estornes Lasa, a prominent scientist and academician, was collecting
    Basque folklore items in Rapcal valley, in the eastern part of province
    Navarra. In the village Isaba, Estornes Lasa wrote down a local legend
    according to which the village Isaba was founded by the Armenians, the
    first inhabitants of Navarra and the ancestors of Basque people.

    The legend says that the leader of
    Basques was called Haytor who arrived from Armenia with his seven sons
    and in their honour founded seven settlements in Navarra. It also said
    that the ancestor of Basques knew the secret of processing metal.
    Later, an ancient manuscript was found in the archives of the village,
    an ancient historical chronical, which confirmed the spoken legends.
    Highly notable that in Basque language Isaba is translated as “The trace
    of ancestors”. Although this can seem absolutely incredible, but the
    fact remains the fact, in village Isaba exists a road, which has the
    name Erminia (Armenia), in honour of the first colonizers of Navarra.

    • http://www.pereltsvaig.com Asya Pereltsvaig

      Quite possibly some group came to the Basque areas from the Caucasus (where Armenia is now) but it probably had nothing to do with the present-day Armenians, at least not linguistically.

      • Naira Vanbeginne

        ure replies have no sense and based on quite possble, maybe and so on

  • Naira Vanbeginne

    Some examples on Armenian – Basque similarities

    BS.’elki’(exit)-ARM.’elk’(exit)

    BS.’ete’(if)-ARM.’ete’(if)

    BS.’jaraunsi’(to inherit)-ARM ‘jarangel’(to inherit)

    BS.’muruncha’(snarl)-ARM.’merenchots’(snarl)

    BS.’murtsa’(fist)-ARM.’murts’(fist)

    BS.’orma’(wall)-ARM.’vorm’(wall)

    BS.’tegi’(place)-ARM.’tegh’(place)

    BS.’toil’(weak)-ARM.’tuil’(weak)

    BS.’laino’(size,breadth)-ARM.’lain’(broad)

    BS.’irurden’(third)-ARM.’erordn’(third)

    BS.’astadun’(weighty)-ARM.’hastatun’(strong, steadfast)

    BS.’astatu’(to prove)-ARM.’hastatel’(to prove) .

    • http://www.pereltsvaig.com Asya Pereltsvaig

      Such similarities by themselves show nothing as long as no regular sound changes emerge.

      • Naira Vanbeginne

        Reread ure article, it says nothing

  • Naira Vanbeginne

    In the Armenian Highlands and in the land
    of Basques there are enourmous amounts of toponyms, which sometimes get
    to the level of simple repetition, such as

    Ashtarak (a town in Armenia) – Astarak (a settlement in south of France).

    Goris (a city in southeast Armenia) – Goris (a settlement in Gascony).

    Deba (a river in north Armenia) – Deba (a name of a river in Gascony).

    Shubria (the ancient name of Sasun province) – Shuberoa (tha name to Basque province in France).

    Araks (a famous river in Armenia) – Arakses (a famous river in Gascony).

    Aran (the name of terrain in Armenia) – Aran (Wide-spread toponym in Gascon-speaking part of Catalonia).

    Karkar (area in Western Armenia) – Karkar (famous toponym in Gascony), etc.

    Basques call themselves ‘euskaldun(ak)’,
    which derives from the root word ‘eusk’, in different dialects it has
    different forms – eusk, usk, esku, asketic. The word is etymologically
    linked with Armenian word ‘voski’ “gold”, with the variations: iski, veske, aske, ioski. The
    Armenian word voski “gold” is the root of the proper name ‘Voskan’,
    which means “one who owns gold” and it reminds the ethnic name of
    Basques ‘baskon’, and in latin sources fixed as ‘Vaskon’. In Armenian –
    Araratyan Kingdom (“Urartian kindom”), the southeastern coast of the
    lake Van, which was the crandle of Armenian people, is called
    ’Khubushkia’ which means “valley of usks” that is to say “valley of
    gold “. In medieval Armenian sources Khubushkia, “valley of usks” or ”
    golden valley” was renamed into ‘Hayots dzor’ which means “Armenian
    valley”. On the other hand, the Ushkiani mountains are mentioned in
    “Urartian” inscriptions on the northeastern coast of lake Urmia. In the
    time of Strabo, the Ushkiani mountains were already identified as
    ‘Armenian mountains’, but in Armenian sources they are known as
    ‘Voskean’ -”golden”.

    • http://www.pereltsvaig.com Asya Pereltsvaig

      Exactly the same toponyms tell us nothing. In fact, if the languages were related, we’d expect toponyms that are similar-sounding but not exactly the same, as each language underwent its own set of sound changes, which toponyms undergo as well as other words in the language. So the examples you provide disprove rather than prove your point that Armenian and Basque are related.

      • Naira Vanbeginne

        Asya? Exactly the same toponyms tell us nothing !!! These are ure words , right? Are u a professional??? Everything is important, toponyms, language, origin (genome) and only Armenian shared these all components with Basque, by the way, ure article is not accurate and it doesn’t have spreadout research, it’s one-lined

        • http://www.pereltsvaig.com Asya Pereltsvaig

          Of course, exactly the same toponyms (or any words for that matter) are not evidence of relatedness—you can read about this in detail in just about any introductory historical linguistics book. Essentially, for two words to match exactly between languages that split centuries if not millenia ago would mean that these languages underwent no sound changes in this time, something that is unheard of. Or possibly that toponyms are impervious to sound changes, another proposition that’s falsified by everything we know about language change. So no need to be rude or question my professionalism. If I asked for specific arguments (not names of people who maybe an authority to you, but not to me), you can provide such arguments or leave the discussion, but to make NINE near-identical and rude comments, that’s professional? Or you are above the same standards that apply to any civilized discussion?!

  • Naira Vanbeginne

    In conclusion, there was a
    genetic study done in different regions of Armenia, that detected that
    the characteristic genetic code prevalent in Welsh, Basques and Irish,
    called the Atlantic Modal Haplotype, is also present in Armenian
    population of Syunik and Artsax. These are two Armenian provinces
    predominantly isolated in the mountains, which precluded genetic
    admixture with neighboring ethnic groups and nations». The Armenian
    modal haplotype is also the modal R1b3 haplotype.

    For a proximate examination of European
    affiliations to Armenians, you may also refer to a study done by Michael
    E. Weale, Rolf F. Jager and Neil Bradman in 2001 called “Armenian Y
    chromosome haplotypes reveal strong regional structure within a single
    ethno-national group, revealing prevalent link between Welsh, Basques
    and Irish to the Armenian populace in Syunik and Karabakh. You may
    access this study by contacting:

    Departments of Biology and Anthropology,

    University College London, University of London,

    Darwin Bdg, Gower St, London WC1E 6BT, UK

    e-mail: [email protected],

    Tel.: +44-207-4043040, Fax: +44-207-4042081

    • http://www.pereltsvaig.com Asya Pereltsvaig

      Thanks for the link. As it turns out the structure of Armenian gene pool is very complex and there are some genetic connections to peoples of Atlantic Europe (some Indo-European, others not). Still, it tells us nothing about the linguistic classification of Armenian.

      • Naira Vanbeginne

        still not? LOL study the links between Armenian language with Noxchi, Gerogian, Albanian languages, u wil see what language is the mother language to the others. U’re weak point u just give the study of of person and u don’t know georgian, albanian, armenian, that’s why ure article is not accurate

  • Naira Vanbeginne

    To the Armenian language the standard approach can’t be applied, and
    it’s wrong to treat it just as an Indo-European language .. It is not
    right to say that all Armenians have IE genes or apply Armenian language
    in a standard approach as an IE language. When there was Armenia and
    Armenian language there was no such a term – IE languages. Now they just
    put Armenian in that standard approach in order to rechange the history
    of Armenian people as it has been done for centuries.

    • http://www.pereltsvaig.com Asya Pereltsvaig

      Again, the information from genes and linguistic information need not coincide: languages do not spread or diversify in complete parallel to population groups. There’s no linguistic evidence for treating Armenian as anything but an Indo-European language (which has obviously been in contact with other languages in the Caucasus, but that does not change where it came from). Very obvious parallel: the fact that you had been friends with certain people and might have adopted their habits and traits does not change the basic fact that your parents are your parents (and your siblings, if you have any, are your siblings). Moreover, you statement “When there was Armenia and
      Armenian language there was no such a term – IE languages” is meaningless: there was no term “dinosaur” when dinosaurs lived, so what?!

      • Naira Vanbeginne

        ure example shows non professional way of discussion :) Now they just
        put Armenian in that standard approach in order to rechange the history
        of Armenian people as it has been done for centuries.

  • Naira Vanbeginne

    About caucasian link I can add the following : I think that Vainax (Caucasian) people emigrated from the Armenian Highlands, and
    their language was originated in the Armenian Highlands. There is some
    investigation on this topic, Marr and some others mentioned it, but it’s
    not enough: the investigation should be done in Armenian-Vainach
    parallels: two people have the same pantheon of ancient gods, they both
    have the same ansestors in their generation tree, Armenians have the
    story of “Brave Nazar”, Ingush people have the same one named “Brave
    Nazai”, both have the same myth about Milky Way.
    As u know from official documents, Armenian is an EL, but it is not in
    any subgroup. It is incorrect to put Armenian only in EL group because
    it has linguistic and phonetic basis also with the language of people of
    Noxchi or Vainakh. The language of Noxchi is not examined carefully yet. And that is very
    pity. Some years ago chechen, ingush and armenian linguists and
    historians worked together on Noxchi-Armenian historical connections.
    Unfortunately, the war in Chechnya stopped their cooperation and I hope
    one day they will go on with their research. But even what they found
    out was amazing: there are a number of similar toponyms, Moreover,
    according to their investigation Nakh-Dagestani language was formed in
    the Armenian Highlands ! In their investigation u can also find about
    the stages of emigration from the Armenian Highlands to Caucasus… U can
    find the information in the sources of the Ministry of the Chechen
    Republic for National Policy, Press and Information

    • http://www.pereltsvaig.com Asya Pereltsvaig

      Thank you for your comment. There is actually a great deal of linguistic work on Vainakh (Chechen and Ingush), some of it by our esteemed colleague Johanna Nichols. However, it is pretty clear that whatever linguistic similarities exist between Armenian and Vainakh languages is due to contact, not common descent. Moreover, cultural similarities like the ones you mentioned need not tell us anything about linguistic descent.

      • Naira Vanbeginne

        Here, u’re wrong, Armenian and Noxchi language also shared a number of grammatical, linguistic and phonetic background, To the Armenian language the standard approach can’t be applied, and
        it’s wrong to treat it just as an Indo-European language .

      • Naira Vanbeginne

        Ure comment – it is pretty clear that whatever linguistic similarities exist between
        Armenian and Vainakh languages is due to contact, not common descent !!! Would u be so kind to tell me how u made up that it is due to contact, not common descent? Amazing way of thinking, lol but, anyway, not professional, I mean not enough work done in correspondence with Vainakh and Armenian, but again u mentioned one Johanna Nichols, unlikely, even i think that Vainach-Armenian connection is not examined carefully but obviously it is examined more than ure sources. U put the research of one person to the top and neglect more than 10 diferent researches done by different linguists who came to the same concluson? is it professional? Moreover, the fact u don’t know Armenian obviously shows that ure comments are of no value.

  • Naira Vanbeginne

    Armenian and Basque languages have lexical, phonetic and grammatical similiarites, including a shared systems of declension, conjugations and others.

    • http://www.pereltsvaig.com Asya Pereltsvaig

      Do you have specific examples, or just a general statement that is in all likelihood false?

      • Naira Vanbeginne

        of course i have specific examples, read the researches of

        Esteban de Garibay, Andres de Posa and Baltasar de Echave, English lingust Edward Spencer Dodgson, Basque philologist Bernardo Estornes Lasa, Joseph Karst, Michael E. Weale, Rolf F. Jager and Neil Bradman, Robert Dezelus !!!! good luck

  • Guest

    In order to improve the knowledge about the Basque-Armenian theory, it
    should be proposed the challenge of acquiring the Proto-Basque and
    Proto-Armenian languages, which would be free of Latin and Iranian
    influences, so that the experts can get to know the original
    Basque-Armenian language.
    In the grammatical field, can be noted the
    absence of word gender in both languages, the positioning of the
    article after the word as well as the usage of the same desinence to
    build the plural form (-k) in both Euskara and Eastern Armenian.

  • narimkn

    In the grammatical field, can be noted the
    absence of word gender in both languages, the positioning of the
    article after the word as well as the usage of the same desinence to
    build the plural form (-k) in both Euskara and Eastern Armenian.

    • http://www.pereltsvaig.com Asya Pereltsvaig

      The absence of gender can hardly be taken as evidence of relatedness as most of the world’s languages lack gender… The coincidence of just one morpheme isn’t very strong evidence either. So all in all, there’s precious little evidence of a familial relationship. Armenian is undoubtedly an Indo-European language and Basque as undoubtedly is not…

      • Guest

        but in your article you didn’t mention even not 10% of linguistic similarities between georgian and basque language. in case of Armenian it is much more ! have you ever made a research on Basque -Armenian? if not than your studies looked like ordered , it is just to put basque language into georgian scope :D

      • narimkn

        but in your article you didn’t mention even 10% of linguistic similarities between georgian and basque language. in case of Armenian it is much more ! have you ever made a research on Basque -Armenian? if not than your studies looked like ordered , is seems for you it is just to put basque language into georgian scope :D

        • http://www.pereltsvaig.com Asya Pereltsvaig

          You must have misunderstood my post: I never claimed that Basque and Georgian are related. Quite the opposite, I think the evidence does not support that hypothesis at all. Nor do I think there is enough evidence to support the link between Armenian and Basque either. And yes, I’ve studied enough historical linguistics and theoretical linguistics to make that determination.

          P.S. Please do not post the same comment twice.

      • narimkn

        the terms given to body of languages in recent 2 centuries are not only not accurate but also non-scientific, for example the term semitic was given 200 years ago by the historian August Ludwig von Schlözer and by Eichhorn, Johann Gottfried, a protestant theologian and orientalist who made such a non-scientific conclusion based on the Bible tales. Actually the same is about the Armenian language, they put it into the scope of IE languages just to avoid any scientific research on studies connected Armenian and other languages ! Here is the vivid example…Asya has never studied Armenian, moreover her knowledge in Basque is average but she refused any linguistic connection between Armenian and Basque languages… there is nothing to be proud of if you are making researches on the falsificated terms and on the falsifications , in general

  • narimkn

    the terms given to body of languages in recent 2 centuries are not only not accurate but also non-scientific, for example the term semitic was given 200 years ago by the historian August Ludwig von Schlözer and by Eichhorn, Johann Gottfried, a protestant theologian and orientalist who made such a non-scientific conclusion based on the Bible tales. Actually the same is about the Armenian language, they put it into the scope of IE languages just to avoid any scientific research on studies connected Armenian and other languages ! Here is the vivid example…Asya has never studied Armenian, moreover her knowledge in Basque is average but she refused any linguistic connection between Armenian and Basque languages… there is nothing to be proud of if you are making researches on the falsificated terms and on the falsifications , in general

    • http://www.pereltsvaig.com Asya Pereltsvaig

      The validity of the Semitic language family has been proven beyond reasonable doubt. Whether they used the term “Semitic” or not, the linkages between Semitic languages were discovered and described by medieval scholars, not the scholars whom you mentioned in your comment.

      Moreover, none of the serious scholars who worked on historical linguistics did so to conceal relationships between languages or avoid further study. That’s a most ridiculous claim that can only come from an ideological driven person ascribing the same kind of agenda to others.

      Finally, you know nothing about my background or work, but you make offensive claims about my competence. You are not allowed to do so on this site. Last warning before you’ll be banned from commenting altogether.

      • narimkn

        Can you mention those scholors who you think proved anything beyond reasonable doubt? they all made their researches on the term first brought to the linguistics by the people mentioned by me and those people are not even scholars but the term was accepted cuz it was needed to do more falsifications !

        • http://www.pereltsvaig.com Asya Pereltsvaig

          So what evidence do YOU have that Semitic is not a valid language family?

          P.S. If I were to stoop to your level, I’d ask for your real name and professional qualifications…

          • narimkn

            the term SEMITIC is not accurate, it is made up by the people who had nothing to do with linguistics in general, that’s why there are a lot of problems with the studies of phoenician language which has nothing to do with so-called semitic languages but they put it into that scope and that’s why the numerous researchers are not able to get the point !!! we all need to understand that the body of these languages are older than the terms IE or semitic or Ibero-Caucasian

          • http://www.pereltsvaig.com Asya Pereltsvaig

            “Semitic” is just a label. It’s no more or less accurate than “chair” or “dog”. Is “dog” an accurate label for a dog? This is a non-question.

            ” the body of these languages are older than the terms IE or semitic or Ibero-Caucasian” whatever you mean by that… “body of language”?! older?! older than terms?

            Anyway, I am not interested in continuing this pointless discussion. It’s pretty clear from your comments so far that you are driven by an ideological agenda and not scientific quest for knowledge. We are not interested in ideological agendas at GeoCurrents. Please familiarize yourself with our comments policy before posting additional comments.

          • narimkn

            but many researchers, you as well, by taking that label into consideration refused to make a research on Armenian-Basque connections … by reading your comments I also had an oppinion that you are driven by an ideological agenda cuz for you only your point of view is correct, you don’t even understand what is the body of languages and why it is older than any kind of made up terms

          • http://www.pereltsvaig.com Asya Pereltsvaig

            It’s not MY opinion. It’s a general opinion of scholars. You have any evidence to falsify this? Then provide it. Especially as we’ve now deduced that you are an expert in Armenian and Basque dialects! and you can start by providing your real name. Otherwise, your further comments will be blocked.

      • Guest

        Asya, I mentioned that you refuses any possible linguistic connection between Basque and Armenian ! But I don’t understand why ! Do you know Armenian?

        • http://www.pereltsvaig.com Asya Pereltsvaig

          Please stop posting twice!

      • narimkn

        Asya, I mentioned that you refused any possible linguistic connection between Basque and Armenian ! But I don’t understand why ! Do you know Armenian?

        • http://www.pereltsvaig.com Asya Pereltsvaig

          I don’t speak it, but I’ve studied its grammar and history.

          • Guest

            it’s not enough, to understand the connection of Armenian and Basque one needs to study all the dialects in both Armenian and Basque

          • http://www.pereltsvaig.com Asya Pereltsvaig

            And you know ALL the dialects of both languages? You’ve published some work on the matter?

          • narimkn

            no, I am still studying but unlike you i don’t refuse smth which is more than possible .. I don’t understand how one can refuse smth without having any basic knowledge in it, it’s redicilous

          • http://www.pereltsvaig.com Asya Pereltsvaig

            I have more than basic knowledge of linguistics, as you can see from my personal website (I assume you know how to use Google search!). As for you, I am not sure who you are or what you might know. But I can tell that you’d fail my intro to linguistics course with expressions like “body of language” and saying that one language is “older” than another. So please keep your evaluations such as “ridiculous” to yourself.

          • narimkn

            one language is “older” than another?? I never mentioned it ! :D good luck in your refusal policy, like many other researchers who made all their researches on falsifications are not able to go even a bit ahead ! what i wish to mention is – ARMENIAN IS NOT IE LANGUAGE AND PHOENICIAN IS NOT SEMITIC… The terms are not accurate

          • http://www.pereltsvaig.com Asya Pereltsvaig

            If you’d like to claim that Armenian is not an IE language, please show us some adequate evidence to support that (ditto for Phoenician and Semitic languages). Otherwise, do not waste my precious time.

          • Guest

            200 years ago Armenian is not mentioned as IE and Phoenician is not mentioned as “semitic” but protestant theologian Eichhorn, Johann Gottfried made those made-up terms into linguistics and professional linguists like you accepted them, other professional linguists don’t accept them … some needed to a scope, it seems

          • narimkn

            200 years ago Armenian is not mentioned as IE and Phoenician is not mentioned as “semitic” but protestant theologian Eichhorn, Johann Gottfried made those made-up terms into linguistics and professional linguists like you accepted them, other professional linguists don’t accept them … some needed a scope, it seems

          • http://www.pereltsvaig.com Asya Pereltsvaig

            As I mentioned above, I am not interested in your personal commentary, only in hard evidence. Yeah, at some point people figured out that Armenian is an IE language and provided solid evidence to support this, which you cannot disprove (or you would have done so already instead of all this BS). Just like the laws of Newtonian physics were discovered at some point, but it doesn’t make them any less valid that people didn’t know about their existence.

            One last time: evidence for your claims or get lost!

          • narimkn

            my evidence is more than hard, how can one accept a non-scientific term in linguistics made by a a protestant theologian and try to make a research on it?

          • http://www.pereltsvaig.com Asya Pereltsvaig

            Labels themselves are arbitrary and hence don’t matter as long as we know what they mean. Just as “dog” is no better or worse term for dog than “chien” — and what does it matter who invented the term “Semitic”? You seem to be really hung up on the fact that a PROTESTANT THEOLOGIST did, but why not? Would it be better if he were Catholic or Eastern Orthodox or something? Linguists worry about facts, not labels.

          • narimkn

            :D you didn’t get the point again, I refused to accept the term made by non – linguist but a protestant theologian …

          • http://www.pereltsvaig.com Asya Pereltsvaig

            You can come up with your own term if you don’t like this one. You might yourself a bit lonely when it comes to discussions though… hahaha!

          • narimkn

            your scope is the following – Armenian is IE language so it has nothing to do with Basque :D it makes all kind of discussions impossible, but it never means that you are right, indeed

          • http://www.pereltsvaig.com Asya Pereltsvaig

            “scope”???

            It is my CONCLUSION that Armenian is an IE language and has nothing to do with Basque. Based on my study of the issue and other people’s work. I am still waiting for your evidence that this conclusion is wrong. But my patience is dwindling.

          • narimkn

            hahahhaha several linguists proved that Armenian and basque languages have a lot to do with each other :D but you don’t want to accept their theories, you are sure you are cleverer

          • http://www.pereltsvaig.com Asya Pereltsvaig

            I won’t believe anything until I see the evidence. You may provide it or we can end this pointless discussion.

          • Ilya Zlatanov

            I can prove you that
            English and French languages “have a lot to do with each other”, as English and
            German, too. Both statements are somehow true, so what? There are several types
            of similarities between languages, that’s why there are several directions of research:
            linguistic genealogy, linguistic typology, areal linguistics. Each of them has
            its own objectives and tasks. What exactly is your point?

          • Guest

            So, it seems you don’t have even any idea about the researches done on this subject. :( BUT YOU REFUSE !! Read the works of the following prominent linguists, they have a lot of proofs : Dezelus, Esteban de Garibay, Andres de Posa and Baltasar de Echave, Joseph Karst, Gaspar Eskolano, Edward Spencer Dodgson, and Bernardo Estornes Lasa, Vahan Sargsyan, Jose Maria Satrustegui… Good luck

          • http://www.pereltsvaig.com Asya Pereltsvaig

            It’s not me but you who REFUSES (to provide evidence for your claims). I never refused to consider it, but all the evidence that I’ve considered so far led me to believe that Armenian is an IE language. The folks you mentioned haven’t convinced me otherwise. Good bye!

          • narimkn

            it’s not enough, to understand the connection between Armenian and Basque one needs to study all the dialects of both Armenian and Basque