u/Easy-Policy-7404

On the Dene-Yeniseien Wiki, Vajda said he was open to other language families being connected.

I know Dene-Caucasian is pretty much long range pseudo-science at this point, but i looked at some vocabulary between sino-tibetan languages and na-dene and yeniseien, and found that Sino-Tibetan has some very similar typology to Yeniseien, and a bit of Na-Dene. I dont have any examples off hand because im writing this kinda on a whim, but some swadesh words from proto-tibeto-burman and old Chinese, and noticed words for body parts seem to look superficially similar to Dene-Yeniseien reconstructions. Maybe its a complete coincidence or maybe im seeing something that's not really there. Sino-Tibetan is very agglutinative and I believe Na-Dene and Yeniseien are supposed to be more synthetic, meaning the morphological evidence doesn't hold up. But damn, its hard to ignore their typology. Maybe they aren't related, but simply shared a convergence zone in the distant past?

I've heard some theories like, potentially more agglutinative features, lack of laryngeals, (if you believe in the caucasian substrate hypothesis) maybe ergative alignment and lack of a feminine marker. What other things can we infer about it? Id like to hear

After studying some Proto Indo European morphology and phonology, I realized how unique and strange the language is. It doesn't seem demonstrably similar to any other language family besides its own sub branches. And the family that is often discussed as maybe being related, (Uralic) can be easily explained by influence from late Indo european dialects rather than a genetic connection. And when PIE is lumped into Eurasiatic, its often the black sheep of the bunch. Its typology matches those of siberia albeit very loosely. (Not saying i believe in any of these fringe theories)

But one conclusion i dont see get explored is the possibility that maybe PIE's distant relatives were the paleo europeans whos' languages are lost to time. Explaining why PIE is, so weird. Maybe paleo laplandic / paleo lakelandic, or even the numerous substrate languages could be related. What do you think?

Which language family is closest to Uralic?

I know hypothetical personal names in PIE are probably pretty difficult or impossible to reconstruct, but we can get a vague idea of some titles / epithets that could have been used. (the intelligent one / the high one / the bearer etc.) Post your constructed names in the comments!

Ive been noticing more criticism to the idea of Omotic being a branch of Afroasiatic over the years. And after doing some reading, I've become quite skeptical myself. A lot of commonly sited Afroasiatic features like pharyngeals, feminine *t, and pronoun stems are absent from the Omotic branch. With most of the evidence coming from vocabulary that looks afroasiatic. But a lot of the shared vocabulary looks very similar to Cushitic words. Possibly suggesting contact, or a closer relationship. However, the strongest evidence for the Afroasiatic relationship is more morphological sided than vocabulary sided, as morphological parelels cant be well explained with contact. But somehow Omotic seems to be the exception to the rule.

If Omotic isnt a branch of Afroasiatic, that could do a blow to the horn of africa homeland theory, given Omotic was hypothesized to be a basal split. What do you think?

Ive been noticing more criticism to the idea of Omotic being a branch of Afroasiatic over the years. And after doing some reading, I've become quite skeptical myself. A lot of commonly sited Afroasiatic features like pharyngeals, feminine *t, and pronoun stems are absent from the Omotic branch. With most of the evidence coming from vocabulary that looks afroasiatic. But a lot of the shared vocabulary looks very similar to Cushitic words. Possibly suggesting contact, or a closer relationship. However, the strongest evidence for the Afroasiatic relationship is more morphological sided than vocabulary sided, as morphological parelels cant be well explained with contact. But that cant be excused for Omotic.

If Omotic isnt a branch of Afroasiatic, that could do a blow to the horn of africa homeland theory, given Omotic was hypothesized to be a basal split. What do you think?

I'm not trans, and im completely comfortable with my gender assigned from birth. But I have been thinking of trying HRT or something similar to make myself look a bit more feminine. Although I'm worried about the risks and side effects that come with taking these kinds of things. And im pretty uneducated. I dont even know how to get my hands on something either. And im worried about any of my family or friends knowing about me doing this. Any tips?

Why is it that language families like indo european, uralic, turkic mongolic tungusic, and some other languages of the northern hemisphere all share "m-" for I, "t- / s-" for thou, and "k-" for interrogative?

I dont think I believe in the Eurasiatic or the Nostratic hypothesis. But I have a hard time believing these aspects were borrowed, as pronouns aren't likely to be transmitted between languages. And the idea of these similarities being produced by chance also seems unlikely, because these features aren't typologically common in other languages. What is the consensus on this?

The most recent effort to demonstrate a language relationship with the modern standard of evidence was Dene-Yeniseien. But the similarities between these two language families isn't as obvious as other, more younger relationships. The same could also be said with Afroasiatic, possibly the oldest family we will ever prove. Which is so ancient, there are no proven sound correspondences nor true confirmed cognates. (With pronouns and body parts sited as possible cognates) And is provable due to many non obvious similarities.

I feel like we've hit a point where most of the obvious language relationships have already been demonstdated. And if any others in the future get proven, it will be not so obvious. Would you agree?