Talk:Cardial

The end of Tommian

Meanwhile, I have grown sceptical of connections between Y-DNA haplogroups and language families, as mismatches are far too common (such as the Basques and R1b). Hence, I decided last week that the "Tommian" language family probably never existed, and I considered breaking it up such that the name "Tommian" would refer only to one of the language groups encompassed in the old concept. Since then, the guy whom the thing was named for has turned out to be a fraud, and hence I deleted the "Tommian" pages. Razaric is now a stand-alone family without known external relatives. Whether Kreluri will stand or fall, is entirely open. Also, it has turned out that Proto-Kartvelian probably was a typical nominative-accusative language; ergativity in Kartvelian languages seems to be a rather late innovation, as the ergative markers in the languages are not cognate (only the closely related pair Mingrelian-Laz shares the same ergative suffix), and verb morphology is thoroughly nom-acc. So there goes the notion of a great Para-Kartvelian language family in Neolithic Europe. It no longer makes sense to me. ..WeepingElf (talk) 10:22, 7 May 2018 (PDT)

The rebirth of Tommian as Mirian

I am not sure whether this family will indeed be related to Kartvelian, but I have restored Tommian as Mirian. --WeepingElf (talk) 12:24, 8 May 2018 (PDT)

Para-Kartvelian family

It seems to me that the Proto-Kartvelian appeared in northern Anatolia where they contacted the proto-Indo-European peoples and adopted ablaut, and moved on to the Caucasus later. Possibly entering an environment with ergative languages adopted a split ergativity. What you say is very important, the verb shows that it was nom-acc, I realized. Personally I think that the verb is a fossilized marker of the ancient language, and that also happens with the reconstruction of the Proto-Indo-European verb.

Note: The Spanish and the Aragonese, and the Iberorromance in general, show similar ergativity in some expressions, that is why in Spanish it is rare to use the passive voice, this may be due to the influence of the Basque language. Maybe possibly this could be the first stages of contact.

On the other hand, I think that Mirian is a good idea but maybe it was not para-kartvelian. Personally I liked it when at the beginning of the description you relates it to eteonoric in some words, think that! Possibily the para-kartvelian family would be small groups of people, not far from the Balkans.

I'm rethinking Huamish, maybe I'll modify it because I do not like how it fit. I originally thought of doing a para-kartvelian language for cardial, in the case of that, Huamish would be his descendant and also related it to argaric (*bast-uli, the suffix *-uli presumably of para-kartvelian origin, but now I think it could be proto-Basque * -ela), but now I do not think that cardial had a large population impact on the peninsula. The suffix *-oli, *-uli, -*eli, can be find around all tribes of the Iberian penisula, but I think that this would be para-basque. I do not know how to improve it. --Spinovenator (talk) 15:09, 10 May 2018 (PDT)

Mirian is pretty much an open issue still. Is it related to Kartvelian? Is Razaric a part of it? These two questions are ones where I don't know how to answer them. The Kartvelian verb is quite purely nom-acc, and the ergatives in the Kartvelian languages are not cognate; hence it is parsimonious to think of Proto-Kartvelian as a nom-acc language and that the individual Kartvelian languages developed ergativity as an areal or substratal trait. And it may be that this substratum, not Kartvelian, was the "original" language of the G2a Y-DNA haplogroup (if there is such a thing at all, I have since grown sceptical of haplogroup/language connections!), and the LBK people spoke a sister of that. Also, it is uncertain whether the Cardial people spoke a language related to the LBK.

I more and more lean to breaking this thing up entirely, with one family in LBK central Europe, and a completely different language family in the Neolithic British Isles. If the LBK language is unrelated to Kartvelian, then Eteonoric may be a branch of it! After all, the survival of an LBK-descended language in the eastern Alps is more likely than that of a Mesolithic one. My realization that Proto-Kartvelian probably was a nom-acc language has done much to dispel the Kartvelophilia I entertained when I began with all this. (Also, if the Cardial was not Para-Kartvelian, their language may have been Vasconic. There apparently is evidence in Sardinian place name of a Vasconic language in Sardinia, and the Basque-Iberian question must still be regarded open. While Basque has not been very helpful in understanding Iberian, the two languages do show some affinity.) --WeepingElf (talk) 12:09, 14 May 2018 (PDT)