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. I can only compare resources. The morpheme –man, as quoted by supporters of the PIE, yet seems to refer to thinking, not sex. It is common lore that masculinity is not strictly synonymous with pensiveness. ;)
Words for children would have varied in Sanskrit. The culture has been publicized as rigidly stratified, in status and ancestry. “Children of men” made another name, napraja. The notion is unlikely to have regarded speciate or sexual differentiation.
Vir or andros, child or rebionok, woman or kobieta ― the words do not resemble one 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. The similarities in form are characteristic of urban or other developments and do not decide on language 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.
Whatever the finds, the fact will remain that people speak languages as the tongues are, without looking up to any “parent languages”. Within evolutionary approaches, languages may have emerged independently, owing to human cognitive advancement. Much language knowledge has become shared among humans, also owing to intellectual progress, as in terms on architecture.
Why derive European vocabularies from Sanskrit, while Sanskrit might have absorbed loan words?
There is no evidence for the Proto-Indo-European. The Rosetta Stone was absolutely unique for Ancient Egyptian hieroglyphs, the Demotic, and Ancient Greek. It yet allowed translation, not an etymological study to provide for a PIE. Finally, Marco Polo was probably not the first visitor to the Far East.
Whenever possible, 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, without written matter. The picture on the left shows an archaeological find dated with pollen. Palynology is less likely to work for written resources.
Oldest does not mean wisest
Able to appraise linguistic craft and inspiration ― see The conscious mind of Emily Dickinson ― I appreciate modern languages as some progress since the Antiquity. I would not have a share in the enthusiasm about deriving language roots. In ancient times, 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. Intellectually, people were not more sophisticated than today. One needs to be very selective, seeking wisdom in olden times.
Compare A New People Come.
However, supporters of the Proto-Indo-European “family” have gone into making out religion, too. There is not a PIE root for the name “Earth”.
Deriving the humanity from the outer space, again, would not make much difference on contemporary standards of living. Space 1999 would show reading Proto-Sanskrit accurately … ;)
My YouTube: Sanskrit Readout
The holocaust in the clip is not the Holocaust.