William Jones was a reported hyperpolyglot. He learned Greek, Latin, Persian, Arabic, Hebrew, and basic Chinese, says Wikipedia to add he knew thirteen languages thoroughly, and another twenty-eight reasonably well.
Altogether, Mr. Jones remains described as having had at least reasonably good knowledge of 41 tongues. Such a reasonably good acquaintance should have encompassed the words woman, man, child, and house. Let us compare these words in Latin, Greek, English, Russian, Polish, German, French, and Sanskrit.
Is there a root PIE vocabulary?
I do not know Sanskrit at all. I can only compare resources. The morpheme -man, as quoted by supporters of the PIE, seems to refer to thinking, not sex.
Words for children would have varied in Sanskrit. The culture has been publicized as strictly stratified, in status and ancestry. “Children of men” made another name, napraja. The notion is unlikely to regard speciate sexual differentiation.
Vir or andros, child or rebionok, woman or kobieta ― the words have nothing to do one with another, and they are the basic vocabulary. In all languages, these are the words hardly ever to change. Polish and Russian could make a group. We may compare the words muzshtschina and mężczyzna. There is not much point deriving Polish from Russian or Russian from Polish, however. We can compare rebionok and dziecko.
Domus, do, and dom, or house and Haus, show geographic affinity. It is characteristic of urban or other developments and does not decide on grouping.
Language groups or families
Language groups work better than language families. ‘Families’ derive languages one from another. This might not work, as in the Polish and Russian examples above. Proto-languages are mostly constructs: there is no written evidence for them.
The natural fact will remain that people speak tongues as the languages are, and do not look up to any ‘parent tongues’. With evolutionary approaches, languages do not have to come all from one. They may have emerged independently, owing to human cognitive advancement.
Why derive European vocabularies from Sanskrit, while Sanskrit might have absorbed loan words?
Sanskrit is dated thousands of years B.C. There is no writing in wood, papyrus, parchment or paper preserved from those times. Stone inscriptions are too short and too scarce to work etymologies. The Rosetta Stone was absolutely unique, yet it allowed translation, not etymological study. Finally, Marco Polo was not probably the first visitor to the Far East.
Written resources should be carbon-dated. There is no philological method to affirm the original beyond evidence. Writings were copied in Antiquity, the Middle Ages and later, hand style and pen craft.
Radiocarbon results happen to be misunderstood. A website shares a story about a find from 9.5 thousands of years ago. It is … a piece of wood from an underwater site. There is much such wood world-round. It does not prove writing. The picture on the left shows an archeological find dated with pollen. Palynology is naturally less likely to work for books.
Oldest does not mean wisest
In Antiquity, people were mostly illiterate, lived without running water, and had many health problems. The lifestyle diseases of the present day are those the Ancients could have never gotten as … they could never live that long. One needs to be very selective, seeking wisdom in those times.
Contemporary supporters of the PIE, professing the Proto-Indo-European ‘family’, have gone into making out religion, too. There is not a PIE root even for the name of our planet.
Space 1999 would show reading Proto-Sanskrit accurately … ;)
The holocaust in the clip is not the Holocaust.