あなたは単独のコメントのスレッドを見ています。

残りのコメントをみる →

[–]ADSRelease 18ポイント19ポイント  (39子コメント)

That accounts for MOST languages from Ireland to India. Not just those two.

[–]Drooperdoo [スコア非表示]  (1子コメント)

I was going to say the exact same thing. It's specious reasoning, because every language (with the exception of Hunagrian, Finnish and Basque) between India and Wales is based on the same proto-Indo-European language. And none of the other languages have a "Hindu" accent.

So it's a coincidental resemblance. Kind of like how Civil War general Robert E. Lee and Bruce Lee have the same surname--but aren't related. Lee/Lee? MUST be from the same ancestry.

Except, they're not.

"Welsh accents kind of sound vaguely like Hindu accents. So there MUST be a reason!"

Except, there isn't.

  • Footnote: Languages are ever-changing, ever-shifting. English has had 27 vowel changes and accent shifts just within the last few hundred years. The nincompoop assumption that modern Indians have the exact same accent as Indo-Europeans from 9,000 BC is hilariously off-base. Likewise, that the modern Welsh accent is identical to the Welsh accent of 5,000 years ago. Man! How are people this uninformed about linguistics writing articles about it? For extra credit: French, at the time of Napoleon, sounded more like Spanish or Italian. So the French accent (like all other languages) has morphed phenomenally over just a few centuries.

[–]ADSRelease [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

It's degrees or chance, kinda. Like it's less random than completely separate things being similar things but still random since there are woman other relat d things that don't sound similar. Yes. (People seem to be struggling to understand this point.)