Who knows

They literally are! R, M, & N paternal genetics groups all seem to have developed around the same time in the same location. They each had slightly different migrations around the Eurasian continent and even back migrations to Africa. they also took on various different phenotypic appearances according to admixture and environmental factors.

@@Persian341 God Knows !!!

Oh God, yes please 😛

Could be interesting since theres some similarities and the theory of eskimo-uralic

@@Nakkisesonki yeah and the theory makes some sense

@@Nakkisesonkilol

@@polishhussarmapping258nope proto indo European and proto Uralic are related tho stop with the north east Asian supremacy nonsense we wuzing all the Time

Oikein hyvää

Also pronounces are similar. For example English "me" and Mokshan "mon", Latin "tu" and Mokshan "ton". I also found word ved' wich is similar to "water" There are really much similarities

Not really. I'd say they are about as related to each other as english and russian. Their common ancestor might have been spoken a very long time ago.

The patrilineal ancestors are Ancient North Eurasians from tens of thousands of years ago. We can also consider that both Proto-Indo-European and Proto-Uralic were spoken more than 6,000 years ago.

​@@Lausanamo I agree.

Both are related close

​@@Lausanamo they are as related as Chinese and Arabic. So not very close at all.

Kakteksa and ükteksä were actually developed from the root words kakte (2) and ükte (1) and teksä/teksa means without. As in a reference to them being "one or two away from ten"

Those might be borrowings or coincidences. The grammar structure is too different and 50-100 similar words isn't enough at all.

I'm sort of bummed we didn't get to see the pronouns because there are a lot of curious connections there between PIE and PU. Stems for first and second person pronouns in PU correspond closely to the oblique first and second person pronouns in PIE: PU nom sng/PU nom pl/PIE: *minä me me *tinä te te~twe Nominative PIE pronouns don't line up but other people (Lehmann) have commented that these were likely later innovations, i.e. the language that preceded PIE could have likely been pro-drop so it wouldn't need nominatives or would use them infrequently enough to make them prone to replacement. It's even more encouraging when you consider that pronouns are typically very conserved.

​@@user-xg9yg8kg7iThe grammar is different from English, not so much from other languages still using lots of cases etc. though. Pronouns and some basic structures including forming negatives are similar as well, you can even intuitively recognize the person in the sentence (we, you, they, us etc) if you know a few Indo-European languages.

Finnish has also similarities with Turkish: Olla - olmak ("to be") Ken/kuka - kim ("who") Sinä - sen ("you" sing.) Having a few words sounding similar and meaning the same doesn't necessarily mean, that these languages are related. PIE was a language with 3 genders, 3 numerals, no vowel harmony. Proto-Uralic on the other hand had vowel harmony, 2 numerals, no genders. So, not even a similarity in grammar was there between them.

@@theguybehindyou7418 PIE and PU never actually existed. In reality, there were whole language spectrums, with the single related languages on the ends probably just as similar as Swedish is to Persian now. I do believe that the ancestors of those two groups (IE and U) were distant cousins, because the similarities just go too deep to be random. It's not just a few words.The only problem is that we would have to go so far back that we will probably never know for certain.

I would love if these appeared in the channel as well.

They were on there if I remember

@@danielhilderbrand7393 Yes, some, but not all of them. Most native languages from South America haven't been covered yet

@@matthiasdvorsakhillebrand2393 I think she deleted them.

Also ħulhneħ - uolë, uihrom - uikräm, kludhi - keulë, sue - su, uesti - uesim, kekluus - keulëtë, ʕʷeuis - keui, bēuˀgt - pukä. There is actually a surprising amount of similarities.

yea!@@amabarbigrl

​@@amabarbigrli think and ōkt'ow - kakteksa have some similar.

These similarities can’t all be due to loans from PIE -> PUR

A bit

​@@Nwk843Proto-Indo-European did not sound like Latin

@@Nwk843Why are you so rude? He just posted his opinion. He didn’t even say anything controversial.

Proto-Indo-European sounds like the mother of my language

@@Nwk843 I dont think he stated that Latin is not IE, only that maybe could seems strange that we could resemble so much latin in PIE, as if the reconstruction could have been forced by the old languages that are better recorded. Not so strange in some cases anyway, Gallic was very similar to Latin that I found italo-celtic connection plausible. Germanic is aberrant in some way, even Greek but you can find some ancient Greek in PIE instead of German sound.

There are linguists who think that the the Indo-Europeanness of some Uralic elements are because of contact between the speakers of Pre-Proto-Tocharian and Pre-Proto-Uralic. Before that contract, (pre-)proto-Uralic was probably even less Indo-European than it already is.

We arent

the proto languages gotta have ancestors

Proto-Indo-European is a language isolate. If it is related to Proto-Uralic it is from too long ago to have retained any similarities.

​@@kriwientWho knows?

Hungarian is different because of foreign (mainly Slavic, Iranic and Turkic) influences and isolation, it literally has it's own branch in Ugric languages which includes Mansi, Szekely and Hungarian

@@x-error404alphaepicfellsan9 yes by the way székely is not a language, it's just a dialect of Hungarian, mainly known for their special phrases. (It's even closer to Hungarian than Csángó, which is also considered as a dialect)

Not sure: there is even an Indo-Uralic proposition, based on similar lexics.

@@Ghusich There are propositions of every single language family being connected. Just because those two are the only language families you know doesn't mean that those are the only propositions.

@@tommytowner792 I don't know what d'you mean saying _those two are the only language families you know_ - Indo-Uralic is a strong movement among modern linguists, seemes to be far more progressive than Uralo-Altaic or Indo-Altaic hypotheses. And all the three branches are believed to be core-Nostratic.

@@Ghusich According to who? According to your Indo-European masters?

@@tommytowner792 Taneli Europæus, Vilhelm Thomsen, etc. and their followers from many countries, including linguistically Finno-Ugric countries. That's about Indo-Uralic. Then, do you personally reject the Nostratic theory at all? We can _reject_ , but we need _explain_ the similarities within the Indo-European, Altaic, Uralic, Kartvelian, Dravidian and even Afroasiatic languages.

Found you, Ygor Gof*ckho, the evil Uqora

Because obviously they are not completely different

Cause they are not proto-Uralic here, just Finno-Ugric of the late stage with some western innovation. Only numbers 2 and 5 have attested Uralic cognates.

Numbers can be understood as a hungarian Kakta - kettő Kolme - három Nelja - négy Witte - öt Kutte - hat

@@Ghusich Number 7 also has cognates in Samoyedic languages, so it too goes back to Proto-Uralic.

@@closetmonster5057 But it can be a borrowing from some Indo-European source.

he made a vid about Proto-Turkic

I dont think it could be reconstructed, if exist.

"Proto-Altaic" doesn't exist, what exists are Proto-Turkic, Proto-Mongolic, Proto-Tungusic, Proto-Japonic and Proto-Korean. These languages don't share a common origin

They never claimed that Indo-Uralic was true, which I doubt is even hypothesized.