PDA

View Full Version : How to divide Slavs from Balts, and vice-versa before 6th century?



RajvoSa
12-02-18, 18:33
How to divide Slavs from Balts, and vice-versa before 6th century, i mean in genetical and (archeological) sense?
Their R1a is almost the same mutations. This ones which have Balts usually have the Slavs as well. And opposite.

Discuss.

Milan.M
12-02-18, 20:19
I think that in genetic sense we can distinguish the Slavs from Balts because Slavs have I2a din and in Baltic is almost absent.
R1a Z280 is both Baltic and Slavic.
R1a M458 can be find mostly among Slavs but also among Balts.
I2a din spread from the west Ukraine,north Romania,Moldova and areas around but in the Iron age in my opinion.

As for archeology is really hard to answer.

I would say Slavic homeland is this in orange,Chernyakov culture my opinion,the old Getae

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/2/23/Chernyakhov.PNG


Some other maps i found

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/f/fa/Origins_300BC.png
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/b/be/Western_Ukr.png/1024px-Western_Ukr.png

RajvoSa
12-02-18, 23:32
I think that in genetic sense we can distinguish the Slavs from Balts because Slavs have I2a din and in Baltic is almost absent.
R1a Z280 is both Baltic and Slavic.
R1a M458 can be find mostly among Slavs but also among Balts.
I2a din spread from the west Ukraine,north Romania,Moldova and areas around but in the Iron age in my opinion.

Yes, but point is that I2 (maybe) didn't participate even in the Slavic ethnogenesis, at the beginnings.
Some historians and archeologists support a theory that actually Slavs are result of the contact of Baltic and Sarmatian cultures, that's why is it hard to explain by archeology. Me personally don't support this theory, but this is one of possible hypothesis, i can't claim how much accurate it is.
As well, Chernyakov culture is used to have hard Sarmatian influence.

qtr
15-02-18, 19:32
How to divide Slavs from Balts, and vice-versa before 6th century, i mean in genetical and (archeological) sense? Their R1a is almost the same mutations. This ones which have Balts usually have the Slavs as well. And opposite. Discuss. You can't. Ethnicity is very new identification. Also around that time when slavs migrated to Balkans, modern balts(latvian-lithuanians - around 6th BC they were same) finished arrival from Belarus and Russia(while galindians went to settle near Moscow, so migrations happened back and forth), which before emergence of slavs were completely baltic. So you can't really distinguish balts from modern slavic speaking balts. To make matters worse, vikings invaded eastern side of Baltic sea around 6th BC, and assimilated into locals and later mix of locals and vikings established trade colonies in Russia(Rus is viking name), so this also contributed to movements of populations. Even with the influx of so called slavs to Balkans, there was high probability for local population to switch ethnicity many times. Bulgarians were not slavs at that time, but they became slavs, because of local population. This did not happen to Magyars. A lot of greeks became slavs after 6th century up to that point, that before Greece became independent in 19th century, greeks in countryside used slavic language. So, it would be easier to establish answer to a question - what is considered slav and what is not, before dividing anything ;)

RajvoSa
15-02-18, 19:50
You can't. Ethnicity is very new identification. Also around that time when slavs migrated to Balkans, modern balts(latvian-lithuanians - around 6th BC they were same) finished arrival from Belarus and Russia(while galindians went to settle near Moscow, so migrations happened back and forth), which before emergence of slavs were completely baltic. So you can't really distinguish balts from modern slavic speaking balts. To make matters worse, vikings invaded eastern side of Baltic sea around 6th BC, and assimilated into locals and later mix of locals and vikings established trade colonies in Russia(Rus is viking name), so this also contributed to movements of populations. Even with the influx of so called slavs to Balkans, there was high probability for local population to switch ethnicity many times. Bulgarians were not slavs at that time, but they became slavs, because of local population. This did not happen to Magyars. A lot of greeks became slavs after 6th century up to that point, that before Greece became independent in 19th century, greeks in countryside used slavic language. So, it would be easier to establish answer to a question - what is considered slav and what is not, before dividing anything ;)

Thanks, but when you are saying "So you can't really distinguish balts from modern slavic speaking balts",i can't understand. Who are Slavic-speaking Balts?

Wonomyro
15-02-18, 20:15
Today Slavs is a language family, not a distinct ethnicity nor a genetic profile. However, they could have represented a single ethnicity shortly before the beginning of the Migration Period. By that time Balts were Balts and Slavs were Slavs. It is very likely that large number of Balts early became the part of the Slavic language community.

It is another question whether the 5-9th century Slavs realy called themselves - Slavs or they were identifying themselves with another ethnonym(s).

RajvoSa
15-02-18, 21:21
Today Slavs is a language family, not a distinct ethnicity nor a genetic profile. However, they could have represented a single ethnicity shortly before the beginning of the Migration Period. By that time Balts were Balts and Slavs were Slavs. It is very likely that large number of Balts early became the part of the Slavic language community.

It is another question whether the 5-9th century Slavs realy called themselves - Slavs or they were identifying themselves with another ethnonym(s).

So, you think Actually that Slavs are formed from the early Balts or..?

Ygorcs
15-02-18, 21:33
I think that in genetic sense we can distinguish the Slavs from Balts because Slavs have I2a din and in Baltic is almost absent.
R1a Z280 is both Baltic and Slavic.
R1a M458 can be find mostly among Slavs but also among Balts.
I2a din spread from the west Ukraine,north Romania,Moldova and areas around but in the Iron age in my opinion.

As for archeology is really hard to answer.

I would say Slavic homeland is this in orange,Chernyakov culture my opinion,the old Getae
I find it somewhat unlikely that Chernyakov was Proto-Slavic. I'd place Slavic exactly to the east of Chernyakov bordering on it and on the steppes, roughly between southeastern Poland, northern Ukraine and southern Belarus. Chernyakov culture lasted long enough for us to have historic documents about people who lived there, and the references are mostly to peoples who apparently spoke Daco-Thracian and East Germanic, mainly Gepids and Goths. It also fits neatly with the descent of East Germanic tribes from present-day Poland, near the Vistula, to Western Ukraine and then Moldavia (somewhat similar to your 2nd map). There are also apparently more old Slavic toponyms and hydronyms in that area, spanning from northwest Ukraine to westernmost Russia. I'm not sure, but I also believe that in the Chernyakov area you can see find some trees that do not have a native name in Proto-Slavic, but the terminology for trees and animals of Proto-Slavic fits very well the natural environment of the area to the east, near the Pripyat marshes, but still close enough to be influenced by Iranic tribes of the steppe, just to their north. Proto-Slavs having their homeland in Chernyakov area would place them together with East Germans and Daco-Thracians, I'd expect much more Germanic and Daco-Thracian influence or lexical similarity than it really had.

qtr
16-02-18, 03:54
I can't post links as I've not posted enough - that means also images, so bear with me :D

First of all - all the maps(about topic) on eupedia are complete BS, that even wiki are better.



There is a mix up about slavic, that was created by proto-baltic-slavic term. Let me make it clear - there are NO proto-baltic-slavic - at best proto-slavs were balts. How they became slavs - that's an interesting question. Unfortunatelly - no one cares to think and acts like indian people, who still argue, that IE people did not invade India. FFS!

Balts have a lot longer history than slavs - all that area, where slavs originated, is full of baltic hydronyms - not slavic. The main earliest distinction between balts and slavs is that slavs have mix of baltic and iranian linguistical base. That means - they were baltic, before influx of iranians. That all colerates to history of iranian influx and that slavs were mixed people. Let's look at SLAVIC area of origin in map(it is Belarus in center), where all the map of Dnipro river water basin is dominated by baltic toponymy, and there are actually NO SLAVIC toponyms - only few iranian:

s14.postimg.org/esxe8mqcx/hydronyms.jpg



As I see it, the task, that OP wants has to be divided in finding baltic groups first - because balts existed long before slavs. So, if you want to find what really makes slavs differ from balts, you have to find what was before slavs first:
upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/8/8d/Map_Corded_Ware_culture-en.svg/640px-Map_Corded_Ware_culture-en.svg.png

Corded ware culture is what created Balts - they are same age. It looks like, that it also created or influenced Germanic hybrid culture with I1(and possibly R1b) and slight R1a mix(honestly, this is not the topic, that interested me much), that made germans IE speaking with 1/3 of unknown noIE language base.

This is the baltic toponymy map from the book of Marija Gimbuta book Balts(1963). As you can see, it does not include baltic toponyms in southern Finland and also newest ones in that might be in Germany:
g10.picoodle.com/ltd/img10/5/10/4/atasas/f_3p2w_a06_u7fu6.jpg

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toponyms_of_Finland:
"A few notable place names – such as a few major hydronyms Päijänne, Saimaa, Imatra and Keitele which are thought to be among the oldest toponyms – still lack a sound derivation from existing languages despite of different approaches."
Yeah, only Saimaa is baltic name for family. I actually found one more clearly lithuanianish like name in Finnish hydronyms, but Saimaa is quite big lake and southern Finland is known for corded ware, so no bother.

From wiki: "The term Pomerania Balts, or rather Western Balts, refers to Baltic people, who as early as the bronze age may have inhabited parts of the southern coast of the Baltic Sea, an area now known as Pomerania. According to Marija Gimbutas, the Baltic culture of the Early and Middle Bronze Age covered a territory which, at its maximal extent, included "all of Pomerania almost to the mouth of the Oder, and the whole Vistula basin to Silesia in the south-west" before the spread of the Lusatian culture to the region and was inhabited by the ancestors of the later (Baltic) Old Prussians"
Note: Lusatian culture was not slavic.

upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/4/4b/Vistula_river_map.png/444px-Vistula_river_map.png

Even though if Marija Gimbutas mentioned, that Vistula basin was Baltic(before Lusatian and gots moved in), it is not represented in her hydronym map.

There were some mentions that some name places in Germany might actually be with Baltic origin, but that's somewhat raises question about rather short inhabitation of those lands by baltic people, but I think, that with what we have it is already enough - with exception of Balkans, most of the lands where Slavic people expanded were baltic before.

qtr
16-02-18, 05:41
Thanks, but when you are saying "So you can't really distinguish balts from modern slavic speaking balts",i can't understand. Who are Slavic-speaking Balts?

In 20th century western part of modern Belorussia still had lithuanian speaking people. They now all speak belarussian... oh wait - they, just like rest of belorussian speak russian. Why I am mentioning Belorussia - because latvians and lithuanians were different baltic people who originated from territory of modern Belorussia and Russia - they had blue eyes and blonde hair(ironically also slavic... and scythian steppe people had the same traits, as well as hellenic people who invaded greeks). Earlier baltic people(pre latvian-lithuanian) - that included also prussians came from different stock(they had brown/green eyes and brown hair) and different direction - from Dacia. Before y-dna was thing, it was noticed that there are many cranial and teeth similarities with people from Dacia/Thracia. Also this might be most probable travel path from Black Sea, which gotic people did in opposite direction.

As I mentioned earlier, maps on eupedia are kinda BS, because most of the earliest slavic tribe maps were multi-etnic at best. Everywhere - especially in Balkans. In 9th century modern Belorussia territory and some parts of Russia were mainly lithuanian. They became slavic with the help of church(and then only in 15th century), as religion at that time was main identity of groups. Kievan Rus(Rjuriks said that they were rus, but not slavic) was scandinavian ruler country, but with acception of orthodoxy, that brought church, it became slavic country. Muscovites on other hand is completelly different story - before invading anyone else, they had a very large part of muslim population(there are even some strange orthodox church hats with inscriptions, that says Allah is great) with large turkic influences in language, so nothing is cut in stone.

There are a lot of christian terms in latvian, that came from orthodox church - they started proselytizing there before catholic church. They might have even built church for curonians. There are ideas, that if it was not for german invasion, most probably latvians would speak some slavic church dialect. Anyway, it is the main reason why N1c livonians were assimilated in latvians - because latvians cooperated with germans and latvian(with high influence of finnish) became lingua franca for church.

TL:TR: Eastern slavs with R1a are most probably slavic speaking balts, who became slavs over last 1000 years. I have seen mention where Kievan Rus was called eastern baltic... instead of eastern slavic, because it was populated mainly by baltic people, when Rjurik established it.

Sile
16-02-18, 06:14
I think that in genetic sense we can distinguish the Slavs from Balts because Slavs have I2a din and in Baltic is almost absent.
R1a Z280 is both Baltic and Slavic.
R1a M458 can be find mostly among Slavs but also among Balts.
I2a din spread from the west Ukraine,north Romania,Moldova and areas around but in the Iron age in my opinion.
As for archeology is really hard to answer.
I would say Slavic homeland is this in orange,Chernyakov culture my opinion,the old Getae
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/2/23/Chernyakhov.PNG
Some other maps i found
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/f/fa/Origins_300BC.png
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/b/be/Western_Ukr.png/1024px-Western_Ukr.png
The map is old and wrong , below is the correct one......gottones = Goths..........Veleti = slavs ( became known as wends once they reached Mecklenburg )
Venedi = west balts ..........same as Aestii
https://s20.postimg.org/chg0tngst/balt_slav.jpg (https://postimages.org/)
.
Veleti where on the upper vistula river.
.
Venedi where not on the Vistula, but on the nogat river and the baltic sea
.
Gotones occupied both sides of the lower Vistula and the baltic sea.

Wonomyro
16-02-18, 09:42
So, you think Actually that Slavs are formed from the early Balts or..?

Do you mean early Slavs? Balts were probably their major component. During the Migration Period and later Slavs asimilated more Balts.

RajvoSa
16-02-18, 12:37
I can't post links as I've not posted enough - that means also images, so bear with me :D

First of all - all the maps(about topic) on eupedia are complete BS, that even wiki are better.



There is a mix up about slavic, that was created by proto-baltic-slavic term. Let me make it clear - there are NO proto-baltic-slavic - at best proto-slavs were balts. How they became slavs - that's an interesting question. Unfortunatelly - no one cares to think and acts like indian people, who still argue, that IE people did not invade India. FFS!

Balts have a lot longer history than slavs - all that area, where slavs originated, is full of baltic hydronyms - not slavic. The main earliest distinction between balts and slavs is that slavs have mix of baltic and iranian linguistical base. That means - they were baltic, before influx of iranians. That all colerates to history of iranian influx and that slavs were mixed people. Let's look at SLAVIC area of origin in map(it is Belarus in center), where all the map of Dnipro river water basin is dominated by baltic toponymy, and there are actually NO SLAVIC toponyms - only few iranian:

s14.postimg.org/esxe8mqcx/hydronyms.jpg



As I see it, the task, that OP wants has to be divided in finding baltic groups first - because balts existed long before slavs. So, if you want to find what really makes slavs differ from balts, you have to find what was before slavs first:
upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/8/8d/Map_Corded_Ware_culture-en.svg/640px-Map_Corded_Ware_culture-en.svg.png

Corded ware culture is what created Balts - they are same age. It looks like, that it also created or influenced Germanic hybrid culture with I1(and possibly R1b) and slight R1a mix(honestly, this is not the topic, that interested me much), that made germans IE speaking with 1/3 of unknown noIE language base.

This is the baltic toponymy map from the book of Marija Gimbuta book Balts(1963). As you can see, it does not include baltic toponyms in southern Finland and also newest ones in that might be in Germany:
g10.picoodle.com/ltd/img10/5/10/4/atasas/f_3p2w_a06_u7fu6.jpg

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toponyms_of_Finland:
"A few notable place names – such as a few major hydronyms Päijänne, Saimaa, Imatra and Keitele which are thought to be among the oldest toponyms – still lack a sound derivation from existing languages despite of different approaches."
Yeah, only Saimaa is baltic name for family. I actually found one more clearly lithuanianish like name in Finnish hydronyms, but Saimaa is quite big lake and southern Finland is known for corded ware, so no bother.

From wiki: "The term Pomerania Balts, or rather Western Balts, refers to Baltic people, who as early as the bronze age may have inhabited parts of the southern coast of the Baltic Sea, an area now known as Pomerania. According to Marija Gimbutas, the Baltic culture of the Early and Middle Bronze Age covered a territory which, at its maximal extent, included "all of Pomerania almost to the mouth of the Oder, and the whole Vistula basin to Silesia in the south-west" before the spread of the Lusatian culture to the region and was inhabited by the ancestors of the later (Baltic) Old Prussians"
Note: Lusatian culture was not slavic.

upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/4/4b/Vistula_river_map.png/444px-Vistula_river_map.png

Even though if Marija Gimbutas mentioned, that Vistula basin was Baltic(before Lusatian and gots moved in), it is not represented in her hydronym map.

There were some mentions that some name places in Germany might actually be with Baltic origin, but that's somewhat raises question about rather short inhabitation of those lands by baltic people, but I think, that with what we have it is already enough - with exception of Balkans, most of the lands where Slavic people expanded were baltic before.

"Baltic" is term invented in 19th century to describe Letto-Lithuanians. I think it's not accurate to say "There was no Balto-Slavic community, since Slavs were Balts before they "become" Slavs. Slavic linguistical structure is definitly different from the Baltic one, in morphology and many other things. One more thing is also important, that in proto-Slavic, there are words who are directly inherited from the proto-Indo-European but not from the Balto-Slavic, or, in your interpretation proto-Baltic. Linguistis are still arguing about the situation about Balto-Slavic community, and did it exist. In reallity, most linguists are agree that there was 3 dialects in Baltic cultures, and those are: West Baltic (Old Prussian) - dead language, East Baltic (Letto-Lithuanians) and Slavic, or according to Toporov, proto-Slavic is peripheral Baltic dialect. But to claim "Slavs were Balts before they become Slavs" is not accurate, becouse ethnicity surely didn't exist in this time and, the thing that should be discovered by linguist is: "Who influenced the modern Slavic language, if it was before in the "borders" of Baltic cultures. Iranians didn't, since there are just 30 loanwords from Iranic languages in proto-Slavic, and they're mostly about religion things, such as proto-Slavic "bog" which cognate with Persian "baga" and similar things. The Slovenian linguist F. Bezlaj gave a statement that people mentioned in history as "Veleti" influenced the peripheral Baltic dialect and the proto-Slavic starting to have inovations, and that proto-Slavic is the "Veletized" peripheral Baltic. And this agree with the "Veleti" invasion on the culture present-day called "Zarubintsy culture", often described as proto-Slavic.

RajvoSa
16-02-18, 12:41
TL:TR: Eastern slavs with R1a are most probably slavic speaking balts, who became slavs over last 1000 years. I have seen mention where Kievan Rus was called eastern baltic... instead of eastern slavic, because it was populated mainly by baltic people, when Rjurik established it.

With what R1a, Z280 or M458? Almost all Eastern Slavs are R1a? Even almost all Slavic population is R1a, West Slavs R1a-M458, and eastern ones Z280. There are only exception about South Slavs who are mainly I2a-Din. Actually Slavs does't have other haplogroup than R1a. That formed Slavs, i didn't get your point indeed.

RajvoSa
16-02-18, 12:43
Do you mean early Slavs? Balts were probably their major component. During the Migration Period and later Slavs asimilated more Balts.

Something made them clearly different from the Balts. The question is what? "Veneti" people?

RajvoSa
16-02-18, 12:52
In 20th century western part of modern Belorussia still had lithuanian speaking people. They now all speak belarussian... oh wait - they, just like rest of belorussian speak russian. Why I am mentioning Belorussia - because latvians and lithuanians were different baltic people who originated from territory of modern Belorussia and Russia - they had blue eyes and blonde hair(ironically also slavic... and scythian steppe people had the same traits, as well as hellenic people who invaded greeks). Earlier baltic people(pre latvian-lithuanian) - that included also prussians came from different stock(they had brown/green eyes and brown hair) and different direction - from Dacia. Before y-dna was thing, it was noticed that there are many cranial and teeth similarities with people from Dacia/Thracia. Also this might be most probable travel path from Black Sea, which gotic people did in opposite direction.

As I mentioned earlier, maps on eupedia are kinda BS, because most of the earliest slavic tribe maps were multi-etnic at best. Everywhere - especially in Balkans. In 9th century modern Belorussia territory and some parts of Russia were mainly lithuanian. They became slavic with the help of church(and then only in 15th century), as religion at that time was main identity of groups. Kievan Rus(Rjuriks said that they were rus, but not slavic) was scandinavian ruler country, but with acception of orthodoxy, that brought church, it became slavic country. Muscovites on other hand is completelly different story - before invading anyone else, they had a very large part of muslim population(there are even some strange orthodox church hats with inscriptions, that says Allah is great) with large turkic influences in language, so nothing is cut in stone.

There are a lot of christian terms in latvian, that came from orthodox church - they started proselytizing there before catholic church. They might have even built church for curonians. There are ideas, that if it was not for german invasion, most probably latvians would speak some slavic church dialect. Anyway, it is the main reason why N1c livonians were assimilated in latvians - because latvians cooperated with germans and latvian(with high influence of finnish) became lingua franca for church.

TL:TR: Eastern slavs with R1a are most probably slavic speaking balts, who became slavs over last 1000 years. I have seen mention where Kievan Rus was called eastern baltic... instead of eastern slavic, because it was populated mainly by baltic people, when Rjurik established it.

The Lithuanian linguist, in this work gave a hypothesis that Baltic and Slavic languages were always separated: http://www.lituanus.org/1973/73_1_02.htm

Sile
16-02-18, 19:48
Something made them clearly different from the Balts. The question is what? "Veneti" people?
These Venedi/Veneti on the baltic sea belong to west-baltic cairns culture and also through recent russian papers as part of flat-bed culture.
they where absorbed into gothic society by 200AD and the remainder eventually became known as the warmians ( old prussians - baltic people , not german and not slav). Warmians and venedi have been in the same spot since 350BC

qtr
16-02-18, 22:00
"Baltic" is term invented in 19th century to describe Letto-Lithuanians. I think it's not accurate to say "There was no Balto-Slavic community, since Slavs were Balts before they "become" Slavs. Slavic linguistical structure is definitly different from the Baltic one, in morphology and many other things. One more thing is also important, that in proto-Slavic, there are words who are directly inherited from the proto-Indo-European but not from the Balto-Slavic, or, in your interpretation proto-Baltic. Linguistis are still arguing about the situation about Balto-Slavic community, and did it exist. In reallity, most linguists are agree that there was 3 dialects in Baltic cultures, and those are: West Baltic (Old Prussian) - dead language, East Baltic (Letto-Lithuanians) and Slavic, or according to Toporov, proto-Slavic is peripheral Baltic dialect. But to claim "Slavs were Balts before they become Slavs" is not accurate, becouse ethnicity surely didn't exist in this time and, the thing that should be discovered by linguist is: "Who influenced the modern Slavic language, if it was before in the "borders" of Baltic cultures. Iranians didn't, since there are just 30 loanwords from Iranic languages in proto-Slavic, and they're mostly about religion things, such as proto-Slavic "bog" which cognate with Persian "baga" and similar things. The Slovenian linguist F. Bezlaj gave a statement that people mentioned in history as "Veleti" influenced the peripheral Baltic dialect and the proto-Slavic starting to have inovations, and that proto-Slavic is the "Veletized" peripheral Baltic. And this agree with the "Veleti" invasion on the culture present-day called "Zarubintsy culture", often described as proto-Slavic.


1. I am aware of history about term balts. If we don't name balts as balts and slavs as slavs, there might be completelly different picture - not this chauvinistical idea, that slavic evolved in empty place out of nowhere. People and history are connected and so are slavs. I feel we are having off-topic, because you wanted to distinguish baltic R1a from slavic, right? And let's leave out other haplogroups out of this. No Ia2 or other halpogroups, as R1a is already enough.

2. Morphology means little when different cultures collide. French morphology has nothing to do with german, even if french people were franks, who were germanic. What is the point of comparing morphology, if morphology is one of the weakest structural points of language - it is vocabulary that persist, even when the structure of original language dies out. Are you claiming that all slavic languages have the same morphological structure of language? Are you claiming that swedes uses articles for words, just like germans do? I have studied german, but hell no - no way german has the same morphology as english!!! Not to mention, that there are some distinct ways of pronounciation of sounds.
It is not like there are no excellent examples of how things happened to other people, like Twa pygmies in Kongo basin who uses bantu morphology, but they have distinct vocabulary for all things hunting and gathering related. That and bigger presence of B y-dna distinguishes them from bantu, even if they look alike now. Can we agree on this logic, that morphology of language matter less than vocabulary?

3. " In reallity, most linguists are agree..."
Science is not democracy that solves everything by voting - either someone is right and rest - are not. This is how science works.
What I have read is that there is actually wide variety of ideas and one of them is that prussian was dialectual continuity between slavic and eastern baltic. I do not want to touch this topic, as that requires further discussion what prussians had common with slavic from their early beginnings and what was later additions, but yes - prussians looks like documented link, that is most closest to slavic lingustics.
To be fair - there is no prussian language, but prussian languages. Only few of them had vocabulary written down. Actually, prussians were also very distinct culturally with distinct religious beliefs - they even practised urnfield culture, so it might be possible, that some groups assimilated into prussian. Assimilation works both ways.
I can only comment about living baltic languages and it is complicated already, as they became east baltic around 15th century, when so called non east baltic languages died out. Besides - naming someone east baltic, does not mean that there were no other dialects of baltic people to the east of them - we just do not know about them, as we have no language examples from pomeranian balts or other balts who are lost without name or mentions in history. The whole magic about baltic, is that it is not that much researched and I had a lot of reads from russian scientists in 90ties, that makes obsolete almost everything what is still published as norm and honestly - I am waiting when Putin will die(all for the love of read!) and russians will become normal people who will not be afraid to look at their history as it is. So should you. ;)

4. Ok. Let's not touch languages, ethincities, if that is so confusing. To say what is accurate, we have to establish if so called baltic-slavic community(or whatever is meant by that) existed as long as baltic. I don't see YES to that question as answer. Because different cultures that are identifiable as baltic already existed and one of them later became proto slavic.

Let me also reply to Milan.M map Nr.2. His map at 300BC pictured proto-slavs around where was Milograd culture long after proto-balts went out and settled as different tribes. Actually it was not only dating that was wrong.
commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Baltic_cultures_600-200_BC_SVG.svg
YES - they all are baltic.

5. Look, I see the confusion there already. We are actually talking about DIFFERENT THINGS. Can we for the sake of argument STAY AWAY from southern slavs? I do understand, that you are insterested in this topic, but 6th century AD was just start of slavic appearance in balkans and slavs had not yet assimilated Balkan people into their own, so they had no Ia2 or other haplogroups, that were strictly Balkan.

6. There are more influences of iranian languages(and by iranians I do mean - steppe nomads of iranian descent, not the ones, that dwelve in Persia) - don't let wiki page fool you, as it has mash of statements from various times. Iranian inluences on slavic has virtually not researched and you should look into future, that there will be new findings, because osetians(as last remnants of scythians) still exist and despite living among so many differently speaking people they still have many exciting similarities with slavic.

7. Zarubnitsy culture is waaaaay before linguistical proto-slavic - it would take them some centuries to even become proto-slavic.
If you are mentioning Veleti invasion - that's fine by me(although that might be a very large time offset, but whatever), that you agree that someone invaded baltic people who lived in proto-slavic area, as that solves question why you can't distinguish R1a of baltic and slavic.

qtr
16-02-18, 22:12
The Lithuanian linguist, in this work gave a hypothesis that Baltic and Slavic languages were always separated: link was deleted, because still no 10 posts

Hypothesis is interesting thing, but let's agree that if hypothesis is hypothesis for last 45 years it is still not proof.

I don't know if that is something that has to do with your native language, but in English your statement that Baltic and Slavic were always separated logically makes no sense, because neither Slavic nor Baltic *always* existed ;)

Ygorcs
16-02-18, 23:16
There is a mix up about slavic, that was created by proto-baltic-slavic term. Let me make it clear - there are NO proto-baltic-slavic - at best proto-slavs were balts. How they became slavs - that's an interesting question. Unfortunatelly - no one cares to think and acts like indian people, who still argue, that IE people did not invade India. FFS!

I agree with much of what you say, but there seem to be some personal preferences or opinions interfering in your reasoning. I mean, logically if you say that there were just Balts, not Proto-Balto-Slavic (PBS by the way is just a hypothetical language, not one ethnicity), and that Proto-Slavs were Balts and eventually became Slavs... well, then Slavs are just as ancient as Balts, aren't they?

You just said that Slavs are just an offshoot of Balts, so they come from the same culture and were just much more innovative in language and mixed in genetics (due to their own very rapid and huge expansion) than their forefathers, whereas the other Balts remained more or less stuck in their core homelands. Slavs wouldn't suddenly become an entirely new thing just because they expanded and also changed their phonetics more than other Balts, or because they were under more direct influence from Iranic steppe languages.

But what you say is nothing but confirming the Proto-Balto-Slavic hypothesis, just replacing the word "Balto-Slavic" with "Baltic". It's well accepted nowadays that Slavic was probably the descendant of a southern, more phonologically and gramatically innovative dialect of a Baltic language. That probably explains why most ancient hydronyms in the very places that look like they were the Urheimat of Proto-Slavs look Baltic.

The Slavic language was probably a very divergent "new" dialect (think of something like African-American Vernacular dialect in relation to British English) that eventually gained much prestige and made people shift to its innovative changes, but the "Para-Slavic" languages (Balto-Slavic languages most closely related to Proto-Slavic) were still more "Baltic-like" and simply converged with Proto-Slavic, much like Aragonese and Leonese have been converging into Castillian for many centuries in a gradual and even natural process made easier due to their similarities. It is even possible, as some linguists believe, that one totally unified Proto-Slavic never existed, and that dialectal Slavic forms always existed because they were adopted en masse by people who spoke originally other similar languages, each with their own substrate influences.

Ygorcs
16-02-18, 23:27
Something made them clearly different from the Balts. The question is what? "Veneti" people?

I'd bet more on much more "international" cultural influences from being a "border" culture (that's what the region stretching Ukraine/Russia/Belarus always was) than on any heavy intermixing with other peoples. Proto-Slavs were probably for centuries bordering on Scytho-Samartian, Germanic and Daco-Thracian regions and much more subject to their influences, being more southerly nations full of "innovations" and prestige goods from the Mediterranean world and Central Asia. Being a border region, they must've had more intermixing with other non-Balto-Slavic peoples, but I doubt they were really very influenced (genetically) by Iranic peoples of the steppe. The few ancient DNA of Iron Age Scythians that have been analyzed, if I'm not mistakn, didn't look very "Slavic", at least if you consider just the haplogroups that are clearly associated with all the lands where Slavic migration really made a big impact.

Ygorcs
16-02-18, 23:59
With what R1a, Z280 or M458? Almost all Eastern Slavs are R1a? Even almost all Slavic population is R1a, West Slavs R1a-M458, and eastern ones Z280. There are only exception about South Slavs who are mainly I2a-Din. Actually Slavs does't have other haplogroup than R1a. That formed Slavs, i didn't get your point indeed.

That's not true. R1a and its several clades are indeed dominant among Slavs, but it's impossible that Slavs didn't have any other haplogroup besides R1a. Not even the IEs who gave them their language had only one haplogroup, and the Slavs were placed exactly on a region subject to many successive migrations back and forth. In no Slavic nation, even those probably more related to the "original" Slavs like those in northern Ukraine or southern Belarus, "almost all population" is R1a. At most 2/3 of the male population belongs to R1a, but in general it's more like 50%.

RajvoSa
17-02-18, 00:30
These Venedi/Veneti on the baltic sea belong to west-baltic cairns culture and also through recent russian papers as part of flat-bed culture.
they where absorbed into gothic society by 200AD and the remainder eventually became known as the warmians ( old prussians - baltic people , not german and not slav). Warmians and venedi have been in the same spot since 350BC

then "Veleti".

RajvoSa
17-02-18, 00:46
1. I am aware of history about term balts. If we don't name balts as balts and slavs as slavs, there might be completelly different picture - not this chauvinistical idea, that slavic evolved in empty place out of nowhere. People and history are connected and so are slavs. I feel we are having off-topic, because you wanted to distinguish baltic R1a from slavic, right? And let's leave out other haplogroups out of this. No Ia2 or other halpogroups, as R1a is already enough.

2. Morphology means little when different cultures collide. French morphology has nothing to do with german, even if french people were franks, who were germanic. What is the point of comparing morphology, if morphology is one of the weakest structural points of language - it is vocabulary that persist, even when the structure of original language dies out. Are you claiming that all slavic languages have the same morphological structure of language? Are you claiming that swedes uses articles for words, just like germans do? I have studied german, but hell no - no way german has the same morphology as english!!! Not to mention, that there are some distinct ways of pronounciation of sounds.
It is not like there are no excellent examples of how things happened to other people, like Twa pygmies in Kongo basin who uses bantu morphology, but they have distinct vocabulary for all things hunting and gathering related. That and bigger presence of B y-dna distinguishes them from bantu, even if they look alike now. Can we agree on this logic, that morphology of language matter less than vocabulary?

3. " In reallity, most linguists are agree..."
Science is not democracy that solves everything by voting - either someone is right and rest - are not. This is how science works.
What I have read is that there is actually wide variety of ideas and one of them is that prussian was dialectual continuity between slavic and eastern baltic. I do not want to touch this topic, as that requires further discussion what prussians had common with slavic from their early beginnings and what was later additions, but yes - prussians looks like documented link, that is most closest to slavic lingustics.
To be fair - there is no prussian language, but prussian languages. Only few of them had vocabulary written down. Actually, prussians were also very distinct culturally with distinct religious beliefs - they even practised urnfield culture, so it might be possible, that some groups assimilated into prussian. Assimilation works both ways.
I can only comment about living baltic languages and it is complicated already, as they became east baltic around 15th century, when so called non east baltic languages died out. Besides - naming someone east baltic, does not mean that there were no other dialects of baltic people to the east of them - we just do not know about them, as we have no language examples from pomeranian balts or other balts who are lost without name or mentions in history. The whole magic about baltic, is that it is not that much researched and I had a lot of reads from russian scientists in 90ties, that makes obsolete almost everything what is still published as norm and honestly - I am waiting when Putin will die(all for the love of read!) and russians will become normal people who will not be afraid to look at their history as it is. So should you. ;)

4. Ok. Let's not touch languages, ethincities, if that is so confusing. To say what is accurate, we have to establish if so called baltic-slavic community(or whatever is meant by that) existed as long as baltic. I don't see YES to that question as answer. Because different cultures that are identifiable as baltic already existed and one of them later became proto slavic.

Let me also reply to Milan.M map Nr.2. His map at 300BC pictured proto-slavs around where was Milograd culture long after proto-balts went out and settled as different tribes. Actually it was not only dating that was wrong.
commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Baltic_cultures_600-200_BC_SVG.svg
YES - they all are baltic.

5. Look, I see the confusion there already. We are actually talking about DIFFERENT THINGS. Can we for the sake of argument STAY AWAY from southern slavs? I do understand, that you are insterested in this topic, but 6th century AD was just start of slavic appearance in balkans and slavs had not yet assimilated Balkan people into their own, so they had no Ia2 or other haplogroups, that were strictly Balkan.

6. There are more influences of iranian languages(and by iranians I do mean - steppe nomads of iranian descent, not the ones, that dwelve in Persia) - don't let wiki page fool you, as it has mash of statements from various times. Iranian inluences on slavic has virtually not researched and you should look into future, that there will be new findings, because osetians(as last remnants of scythians) still exist and despite living among so many differently speaking people they still have many exciting similarities with slavic.

7. Zarubnitsy culture is waaaaay before linguistical proto-slavic - it would take them some centuries to even become proto-slavic.
If you are mentioning Veleti invasion - that's fine by me(although that might be a very large time offset, but whatever), that you agree that someone invaded baltic people who lived in proto-slavic area, as that solves question why you can't distinguish R1a of baltic and slavic.

I never said that Balts are not formed before the Slavs. But point is that the statement in serious science can't be: "proto-Slavs were Balts". No they weren't, since the Slavs are not only Z280 but also R1a-M458 which is also here charaterized as proto-Slavic!

You said in previous post that every East Slav with R1a is assimilated Balt, literally, that's why i, by the way, mentioned I2a Southern Slavs.

About your photo, yes, they're all Baltic. But how do you know that Slavs are from some of these cultures? Proto-Slavic homland is not still identified.

About langauge, Baltic and Slavic are clearly 2 different branches today.

If you took example: Lithuanian word for "blood" is "krajaus", while the all Slavs in world have the unique word for this "krv", as there are many other words. Slavic morphological difference is not result of innovations, but of some other influence.

In my opinion, R1a-M458 people (NON-GERMANIC) invaded southern peripheral Baltic speakers and mix of these 2 people, as well of their influence rised up proto-Slavs. R1a-M458 was surely one independent individue.

So in short: R1a-M458 (Veleti??) + R1a-Z280 (peripheral Baltic speakers) = proto-Slavs. That's my opinion which have logic according to historical context.

RajvoSa
17-02-18, 00:48
Hypothesis is interesting thing, but let's agree that if hypothesis is hypothesis for last 45 years it is still not proof.

I don't know if that is something that has to do with your native language, but in English your statement that Baltic and Slavic were always separated logically makes no sense, because neither Slavic nor Baltic *always* existed ;)

Everything is still hypothesis about Balto-Slavic langauges, even today. there are no final solution about this :)

Linguists are still arguing about that.

about second thing, yes, i made bad sentence, but you got my point.

RajvoSa
17-02-18, 00:52
well, then Slavs are just as ancient as Balts, aren't they?

Does (mostly probably) R1a-M458 "Veleti" were Balts, or they were an individual "ethnicity"?

RajvoSa
17-02-18, 02:14
Hypothesis is interesting thing, but let's agree that if hypothesis is hypothesis for last 45 years it is still not proof.

I don't know if that is something that has to do with your native language, but in English your statement that Baltic and Slavic were always separated logically makes no sense, because neither Slavic nor Baltic *always* existed ;)

See it in this way:

X+Y=Z
x=a+b+c

a) Lithuanian
b) Latvian
c) Prussian
Y) Proto-Slavic

You are calling "Z" as Baltic, but more accurate is Balto-Slavic. Add the term whatever you want, the fact will stay the same.

a,b,c are called together "Baltic" . So if you write X+Y=Z or a+b+c+ Y = Z, the thing stay the same. "Y" is the special branch in comparison to a,b,c (Lithuanian, Latvian Prussian).

Baltic languages form a distinct branch of language, to which the Praslovenian is related but does not belong to it. In fact, there are many more languages: Lithuanian, Latish, Žudski, Latgal, Prussian, Jatvežski, Goledski, Scalvin and they are "brothers" form the Baltic linguistic brotherhood. Slavic language is not their brothers, but "nephew". So.. it is reason why is extremly incorrect to say that Baltic = Slavic. :)

qtr
19-02-18, 00:23
I never said that Balts are not formed before the Slavs. But point is that the statement in serious science can't be: "proto-Slavs were Balts". No they weren't, since the Slavs are not only Z280 but also R1a-M458 which is also here charaterized as proto-Slavic!

You said in previous post that every East Slav with R1a is assimilated Balt, literally, that's why i, by the way, mentioned I2a Southern Slavs.

About your photo, yes, they're all Baltic. But how do you know that Slavs are from some of these cultures? Proto-Slavic homland is not still identified.

About langauge, Baltic and Slavic are clearly 2 different branches today.

If you took example: Lithuanian word for "blood" is "krajaus", while the all Slavs in world have the unique word for this "krv", as there are many other words. Slavic morphological difference is not result of innovations, but of some other influence.

In my opinion, R1a-M458 people (NON-GERMANIC) invaded southern peripheral Baltic speakers and mix of these 2 people, as well of their influence rised up proto-Slavs. R1a-M458 was surely one independent individue.

So in short: R1a-M458 (Veleti??) + R1a-Z280 (peripheral Baltic speakers) = proto-Slavs. That's my opinion which have logic according to historical context.

M458 is completely different thing. You should have started with that. I must ask some questions first, though:
1) why would anyone assume, that M458 evolved or occupied for a very long period very confined space in the backyard of balts, when there were vast steppes out there?
2) why would anyone assume, that M458 were linguistically proto-slavic all their existence(in that confined space), which is much younger development, than when they split off from northern(originally) brethrens? Linguistically, slavic language is very young(with some exceptions, one of the youngest in Europe), younger than germanic - not to mention baltic. Is there some reason why slavic should be older than germanic?
3) are there any studies that were focused of nongermanic, nonceltic(both of them are mainly R1b, especially after germans had to make their 1000+ year long "drag nach osten" from celtic area) genetical substratum which was prevalent in *so called* iranian tribes - scythians? I would think that scythians used as much proto-IE language, as balts or other unknown IE speakers of that time.
4) M458 is also significantly presented in Caucasus populations.


Blood is actually example what I would use why slavic and baltic are close and why this word is not unique to slavic, because this word has the same base as lithuanian. You just confused yourself, that vowels are sounding different, but I am speaking native language where different vowels can be used for the same word and it will still be same word. Or even worse - some words that are reversed means same - like new and young, which seems recognisable, but are more changed than version of lithuanian jaun - nauj(both are roots, as endings are not essential for comparision, when they are not present in one language).

So far you can use it as a rule, that if two completelly different people groups meet, their language mix is simplified version of both. Language only over time becomes complex. Slavic shows same hybrid signs as german(and by german I mean - germanic languages) - total collapse of morphology and structure of original IE language to simpler forms of both - and not because they contacted balts, as they either spoke same language continium or had similar dialect. Germans after collapse of their original IE language over time developed something that enriched their language structure, but slavic languages just did not had that much time to do so and to me they look like simplified baltic languages. Not that many differences and I speak fluently one baltic and one slavic language.

If you are making claims, that difference in resulting baltic hybrid of slavic languages are not result of innovations(but were brought unchanged from some other language), that means, that you are claiming that slavic languages were like that from protoIE and I would like to hear explanation for that claim. Also, no linguists support that as of now, as proto-slavic-baltic language models(there are more than one and I am only supporting one) were built to explain why linguistical similarities between baltic and slavic are so close. And baltic languages have all the vocabulary base, morphology and syntax, that are lost in slavic.

qtr
19-02-18, 01:55
See it in this way:

X+Y=Z
x=a+b+c

a) Lithuanian
b) Latvian
c) Prussian
Y) Proto-Slavic

You are calling "Z" as Baltic, but more accurate is Balto-Slavic. Add the term whatever you want, the fact will stay the same.

a,b,c are called together "Baltic" . So if you write X+Y=Z or a+b+c+ Y = Z, the thing stay the same. "Y" is the special branch in comparison to a,b,c (Lithuanian, Latvian Prussian).

Baltic languages form a distinct branch of language, to which the Praslovenian is related but does not belong to it. In fact, there are many more languages: Lithuanian, Latish, Žudski, Latgal, Prussian, Jatvežski, Goledski, Scalvin and they are "brothers" form the Baltic linguistic brotherhood. Slavic language is not their brothers, but "nephew". So.. it is reason why is extremly incorrect to say that Baltic = Slavic. :)

If we are talking germanic language group with english, german, danish then slavic languages are not as far from baltic as germanic languages differ among themselves.
If we are talking about different groups of R1a in historical populations - same thing.


Let me picture something more accurate:
a) medieval danish-saxon germanic
b) medieval english used in medieval England
c) medieval english used in medieval Scotland
Y) jamaican english

qtr
19-02-18, 02:42
I'd bet more on much more "international" cultural influences from being a "border" culture (that's what the region stretching Ukraine/Russia/Belarus always was) than on any heavy intermixing with other peoples. Proto-Slavs were probably for centuries bordering on Scytho-Samartian, Germanic and Daco-Thracian regions and much more subject to their influences, being more southerly nations full of "innovations" and prestige goods from the Mediterranean world and Central Asia. Being a border region, they must've had more intermixing with other non-Balto-Slavic peoples, but I doubt they were really very influenced (genetically) by Iranic peoples of the steppe. The few ancient DNA of Iron Age Scythians that have been analyzed, if I'm not mistakn, didn't look very "Slavic", at least if you consider just the haplogroups that are clearly associated with all the lands where Slavic migration really made a big impact.

Proto-slavic language is considered to be started in 8-9th century and that is WAY AFTER the date, that proposed this author to discuss the topic: 6th century. We just can't speak about slavs, proto-slavs and proto-slavic language from that period. Only because of that - IMO OP is just tr00lling, that he is mentioning slavs or proto-slavs. At best we can discuss about groups that were participating in future slav creation.

I am not pushing agenda, that Golden Horde replaced russians with tatars and mongols, why would you insist, that assimilation of local populations by so called slavic did not exist? There are theories, that propose, that goths took with them local population(which is logical, because your relatives are also relatives from mother side - not only y-dna father side), when they moved to Crimea. Russian historians have published papers, that vikings with prussians colonized and created Novgorod among finnish people. Why would you think, that different groups of people did not mix up in ancient times, if they do now? What has changed so much? Even if we are beating bush about proto-slavs, we still use common internet for that.

And only because we call scythians iranians, doesn't mean, that they came all the way from Iran, but had similar nomad culture, what we think invaded India and Iran and also moved back and forth. Quite possibly they were as much Iranians, just like Magyars are related genetically to Finnish.

Ygorcs
19-02-18, 03:52
Proto-slavic language is considered to be started in 8-9th century and that is WAY AFTER the date, that proposed this author to discuss the topic: 6th century. We just can't speak about slavs, proto-slavs and proto-slavic language from that period. Only because of that - IMO OP is just tr00lling, that he is mentioning slavs or proto-slavs. At best we can discuss about groups that were participating in future slav creation.

I am not pushing agenda, that Golden Horde replaced russians with tatars and mongols, why would you insist, that assimilation of local populations by so called slavic did not exist? There are theories, that propose, that goths took with them local population(which is logical, because your relatives are also relatives from mother side - not only y-dna father side), when they moved to Crimea. Russian historians have published papers, that vikings with prussians colonized and created Novgorod among finnish people. Why would you think, that different groups of people did not mix up in ancient times, if they do now? What has changed so much? Even if we are beating bush about proto-slavs, we still use common internet for that.

And only because we call scythians iranians, doesn't mean, that they came all the way from Iran, but had similar nomad culture, what we think invaded India and Iran and also moved back and forth. Quite possibly they were as much Iranians, just like Magyars are related genetically to Finnish.

Your date estimates are off. By the 9th century there were already different Slavic dialects verging on different sister languages, as can be attested from the first texts in Cyrillic, which already have typical sound rules that only pertain to South Slavic, not to other branches, thus indicating that the dialects had already been diverging for some time. By the 10-11th century the first documents in Slavic languages already show clearly distinct, though still very close, languages, so Proto-Slavic was certainly much older. Most linguists do consider that Proto-Slavic was probably spoken between the early centuries AD and 600 AD. Clearly distinct dialects do not evolve in just a few decades.

As for the rest of your comment, honestly I didn't understand what you mean, because your comments have little to do with what I said in my previous message.

I never told, for example, that different groups of people do not mix. I just said that Slavs came mainly from the "Balto-Slavic" that you for some reason prefer to call "Balts" even if they also included the language and much of the culture of future Slavs. Also, I never said that Scythians came from Iran and don't know where you took that information to feel the need to oppose to it.

I said that the REAL ANCIENT DNA of Scythians has already been analyzed and they definitely look like many modern people of Southern Russia or Ukraine, but they were clearly distinct from other Slavic natiions, so if they did mix heavily with Proto-Slavs then "strangely" those early Slavs didn't carry much Scythian genetic influence to other places they migrated to. Unlikely. People mix, but you can't simply assume that such a mixing occurred to explain why Slavs were so different from other Balts, and anyway cultural mixing is even more probable and numerous than genetic mixing especially in the last milennia with populations already relatively numerous and, thus, less easy to absorb entirely.

Actually, the example of the Golden Horde that you mentioned is very useful for me, because if you look at Tatar, Chuvash or Bashkir autosomal DNA and Y-DNA haplogroups nowadays you'll soon find out that they look nothing "much" Northeastern Asian and definitely very unlike Eastern Turks, what clearly indicates that they mixed a lot - and that can clearly seen in how their DNA looks nothing like that of those who remained closer to the Turkic homeland. Now, Slavs, instead, absorbed all the local peoples where they migrated to, much like those of the Golden Horde, but there is still nothing particularly "Scythian Iron Age Steppe" in the admixtures that seem to have come from the Slavic expansion. Instead, what they really look like is very close to that of people that were Baltic-speaking in the past or now.

Finally, I also didn't understand why you're talking about Vikings in Rus' and their foundation of Novgorod. That happened centuries AFTER the Slavic migrations started and when the Vikings came Proto-Slavic had already been expanding and even diverging into many different dialects for a long time, so it has nothing to do with their ethnogenesis.

Anyhow, if you have evidences of the occurrence of actual and very intense intermixing (I don't deny that some interbreeding and assimilation must've happened, of course), not just cultural influence, I'll be glad to receive them because Slavic ethnogenesis would be even more interesting if that had indeed occurred. That would also make some sense since Proto-Slavic probably appeared right to the north of where Sarmatians, Alans and Goths lived in the Late Antiquity.

RajvoSa
19-02-18, 14:15
If we are talking germanic language group with english, german, danish then slavic languages are not as far from baltic as germanic languages differ among themselves.
If we are talking about different groups of R1a in historical populations - same thing.


Let me picture something more accurate:
a) medieval danish-saxon germanic
b) medieval english used in medieval England
c) medieval english used in medieval Scotland
Y) jamaican english

As I understood, you want to equalize Slavic branch with Baltic, and begin to call it Baltic, but you don't have proofs for such hypothesis. It's clear like a day that Slavic lang. family is totally different language family to begin with it, and never was alike Lithuanian or Latvian, even the greatest Baltic nationalist never claimed just things. Since those Baltic cultures established, in that time, those 2 dialects (But also west Baltic - Prussian) were separated, and if you don't admit that Slavic language was never alike Lithuanian and Latvian, there is no any purpose to continue this discussion, otherwise linguists wouldn't call it Balto-Slavic but simply Baltic.


Let me picture something more accurate

Your comparison is not accurate at all. Firstly, you need to learn about Balto-Slavic differences to claim something that "proto-Slavic" was Baltic. No one serious linguist would conclude something like that and never was in history. 2 Russian linguists, Toporov and Ivanov claimed that proto-Slavic was peripheral Baltic dialect, but alsodifferent from the modern northern Baltic descedants (Lithuanian, Latvian) and this is not even questionable. Those are facts. So these 2 languages already have been separated under Baltic cultures, and if you want do deny these conclusions from the linguists, you need to post here a proofs.

I have proofs;

Some linguists claims that Baltic and Slavic were always separated, and their arguments are:

The arguments of the first type are:

Different fate of Indo-European / * a / , / * o / , / * a / and / * o / : / * a / , / * o / given / * o / in the Slavic, but / * a / in the Baltic, the difference / * a / and / * o / is preserved in the Baltic, but disappears in the Slavonic.
The Praindo-European / * sr / is preserved in the Baltic, but is transformed into / str / in Slavic, although several similar changes in the Baltic make it possible to assume that in the case of / * sr / we are dealing with archaism.
In the Baltic, the suffix -mo is used in ordinal numerals, whereas in the Slavic suffix -wo is used .
The suffix of the Baltic verbs is 1 liter. units hours nast. at. -mai , while in the Slavic it is not so (now this objection is under discussion).
In the Baltic often uses the infix -sto- , while in the Slavic it is absent.
In the pobaltic did not differ forms of units. h. and many others. h. in the verbs of 3 liters, while in the Proto-Slavic this difference persisted.
The Baltic suffix of adjectives -inga is not used in Slavic languages.
Baltic diminutive suffix -l- not used in Slavic languages (though, perhaps, it corresponds to the Russian suffix caressing -ul- : grandma , grandpa , etc...).
The Slavic suffix of the verbal nouns -tel- ( učitelj, graditelj ) is not used in the Baltic languages.
The pre- Indo-European suffix -es was in the Proto-Slavic ( teles, skies ), but is not used in the Baltic languages.
The Slavonic suffix of participles -lo is not used in the Baltic languages.
In the Proto-Slavic law operates an open syllable, which is absent in the Baltic (including the Prabalese) languages.
Slavic languages ​​retained the primordial European aorist by -s- (a sigmatic aorist), whereas in the Baltic languages ​​its traces were not found. (This claim is disputed.)
The pre-Slavic quantitative numerals of the large quantitativ ( five, six, ... , etc.) have the suffix -t , while in the Baltic languages ​​there are no traces of it.
The absence in the Baltic languages ​​of Meie's law, associated with satematic reflexes and the operation of the law "hands". The law of "hand" operated before the beginning of the satemization of languages, hence it is possible to see in this the division of languages ​​before the beginning of the processes of satemization.

RajvoSa
19-02-18, 14:26
Proto-slavic language is considered to be started in 8-9th century

Please, don't spread disinformations on such serious forum, picture down:

http://i64.tinypic.com/zy5wkm.png

This "pre-Slavic" or whatever you want to call him was already divided from Baltic-speakers!

I wouldn't speak about Germanic language if i am not well informed!

RajvoSa
19-02-18, 14:28
Your date estimates are off. By the 9th century there were already different Slavic dialects verging on different sister languages, as can be attested from the first texts in Cyrillic, which already have typical sound rules that only pertain to South Slavic, not to other branches, thus indicating that the dialects had already been diverging for some time. By the 10-11th century the first documents in Slavic languages already show clearly distinct, though still very close, languages, so Proto-Slavic was certainly much older. Most linguists do consider that Proto-Slavic was probably spoken between the early centuries AD and 600 AD. Clearly distinct dialects do not evolve in just a few decades.

As for the rest of your comment, honestly I didn't understand what you mean, because your comments have little to do with what I said in my previous message.

I never told, for example, that different groups of people do not mix. I just said that Slavs came mainly from the "Balto-Slavic" that you for some reason prefer to call "Balts" even if they also included the language and much of the culture of future Slavs. Also, I never said that Scythians came from Iran and don't know where you took that information to feel the need to oppose to it.

I said that the REAL ANCIENT DNA of Scythians has already been analyzed and they definitely look like many modern people of Southern Russia or Ukraine, but they were clearly distinct from other Slavic natiions, so if they did mix heavily with Proto-Slavs then "strangely" those early Slavs didn't carry much Scythian genetic influence to other places they migrated to. Unlikely. People mix, but you can't simply assume that such a mixing occurred to explain why Slavs were so different from other Balts, and anyway cultural mixing is even more probable and numerous than genetic mixing especially in the last milennia with populations already relatively numerous and, thus, less easy to absorb entirely.

Actually, the example of the Golden Horde that you mentioned is very useful for me, because if you look at Tatar, Chuvash or Bashkir autosomal DNA and Y-DNA haplogroups nowadays you'll soon find out that they look nothing "much" Northeastern Asian and definitely very unlike Eastern Turks, what clearly indicates that they mixed a lot - and that can clearly seen in how their DNA looks nothing like that of those who remained closer to the Turkic homeland. Now, Slavs, instead, absorbed all the local peoples where they migrated to, much like those of the Golden Horde, but there is still nothing particularly "Scythian Iron Age Steppe" in the admixtures that seem to have come from the Slavic expansion. Instead, what they really look like is very close to that of people that were Baltic-speaking in the past or now.

Finally, I also didn't understand why you're talking about Vikings in Rus' and their foundation of Novgorod. That happened centuries AFTER the Slavic migrations started and when the Vikings came Proto-Slavic had already been expanding and even diverging into many different dialects for a long time, so it has nothing to do with their ethnogenesis.

Anyhow, if you have evidences of the occurrence of actual and very intense intermixing (I don't deny that some interbreeding and assimilation must've happened, of course), not just cultural influence, I'll be glad to receive them because Slavic ethnogenesis would be even more interesting if that had indeed occurred. That would also make some sense since Proto-Slavic probably appeared right to the north of where Sarmatians, Alans and Goths lived in the Late Antiquity.

Main statements of linguists are that ancestor of modern Baltic speakers, and ancestors of modern Slavic speakers divided from each other somewhere about 1500 BC. This man is claiming that they separated in 5-6th century AD.

About other things, you explained well. :good_job:

RajvoSa
19-02-18, 14:49
why would anyone assume, that M458 were linguistically proto-slavic all their existence(in that confined space)

Maybe is not linguistically, but genetically it is. And even M458 is described here, on Eupedia, as proto-Slavic branch. This is not questionable that proto-Slavs are R1a-M458 + R1a-Z280. Even the administrator of Family Tree DNA proved it many times.



And baltic languages have all the vocabulary base, morphology and syntax, that are lost in slavic.

Yes. But there are many things in Slavic which never appeared in Baltic languages. Such as suffix "-elj" ("učitelj" (teacher), "graditelj" (builder), "branitelj" (defender)) and many other suffix, which i explained in post above, which linguists can't explain, and me myself also. By the way suffix "-elj" is typical for all Slavic countries, from Macedonia to the Russia, while it is unexistant among Baltic languages. Relations between Baltic and Slavic are not explained well yet! There are many mysterious things about it. You can't compare it with differentiations among Germanic languages, that would be totally nonsense!

arvistro
23-02-18, 15:10
If you say there was one proto-language that unites Baltic and Slavic, then it becomes fruitless to argue whether it should be called Baltic, Slavic or Balto-Slavic.
Both modern Baltic and modern Slavic languages have went through quite some changes since those days.

arvistro
23-02-18, 15:16
Maybe is not linguistically, but genetically it is. And even M458 is described here, on Eupedia, as proto-Slavic branch. This is not questionable that proto-Slavs are R1a-M458 + R1a-Z280. Even the administrator of Family Tree DNA proved it many times.




Yes. But there are many things in Slavic which never appeared in Baltic languages. Such as suffix "-elj" ("učitelj" (teacher), "graditelj" (builder), "branitelj" (defender)) and many other suffix, which i explained in post above, which linguists can't explain, and me myself also. By the way suffix "-elj" is typical for all Slavic countries, from Macedonia to the Russia, while it is unexistant among Baltic languages. Relations between Baltic and Slavic are not explained well yet! There are many mysterious things about it. You can't compare it with differentiations among Germanic languages, that would be totally nonsense!
Suffix -elis is normal for Latvian.
Ziemelis - winter wind. Ziema - winter.

exceededminimumso..
23-02-18, 16:00
Suffix -elis is normal for Latvian.
Ziemelis - winter wind. Ziema - winter.

Lithuanian too https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/bernelis etc

Dibran
23-02-18, 21:56
Maybe is not linguistically, but genetically it is. And even M458 is described here, on Eupedia, as proto-Slavic branch. This is not questionable that proto-Slavs are R1a-M458 + R1a-Z280. Even the administrator of Family Tree DNA proved it many times.


Yes. But there are many things in Slavic which never appeared in Baltic languages. Such as suffix "-elj" ("učitelj" (teacher), "graditelj" (builder), "branitelj" (defender)) and many other suffix, which i explained in post above, which linguists can't explain, and me myself also. By the way suffix "-elj" is typical for all Slavic countries, from Macedonia to the Russia, while it is unexistant among Baltic languages. Relations between Baltic and Slavic are not explained well yet! There are many mysterious things about it. You can't compare it with differentiations among Germanic languages, that would be totally nonsense!


Eupedia is not an academically supported site. And yes, it is QUESTIONABLE considering there are NO ancient DNA samples for M458. Who its dominant in today is irrelevant. Where are your ancient samples proving its unquestionable connection to Slavic? Because no ancient DNA has been found. It has already been made clear to you. Even Caucasus populations have it. The Dargins for instance, on the Southern end of the Caucasus has 22% R1a-M458. The damn Turkic Nogai also have old basal M458. Using your reasoning all E-V13 is Albanian because its dominant in Albanians. See how silly that sounds?

Until ancient DNA surfaces for M458, your words are just words without legs.

Ygorcs
23-02-18, 22:22
Main statements of linguists are that ancestor of modern Baltic speakers, and ancestors of modern Slavic speakers divided from each other somewhere about 1500 BC. This man is claiming that they separated in 5-6th century AD.

About other things, you explained well. :good_job:

Thanks. Yes, there is no doubt that the separation between Proto-Baltic and Proto-Slavic was relatively early, with most estimates ranging between 1,000 and 1,500 BC, even if they clearly came from the same IE ancestral language and probably arose from the same Corded Ware horizon. But still I think many people get confused at this because of the very late appearance of Proto-Slavic as one common lanuage that gave us all the modern Slavic languages, which suggests to many that,, no, the immediate ancestor of Proto-Slavic can't be that old. It shouldn't be that confusing. We have many examples of one daughter language replacing all the other daughter languages that belonged to the same branch. Latin superseded all other Italic languages. Later Celtic languages, associated with the Hallstatt and especially La Tene cultures, most probably replaced all other earlier Celtic or maybe Para-Celtic languages that also derived from Proto-Italo-Celtic. That same way, the most probable thing is that Proto-Slavic was just the "Latin of Eastern Europe" that for some reason became a prestigious lingua franca and the main language of immigrant armies and bands. There were certainly other languages similar to it in an "Old Slavic family", but they were easily replaced by a very closely related and much more useful language, (Late) Proto-Slavic.

RajvoSa
23-02-18, 22:41
Suffix -elis is normal for Latvian.
Ziemelis - winter wind. Ziema - winter.

Yes, but "-elis" and "-elj" are totally different suffix, even if they sound similar. And suffix "-elj" is using in Slavic languages for nouns.

About your post above, i agree with you.

RajvoSa
23-02-18, 22:43
Eupedia is not an academically supported site. And yes, it is QUESTIONABLE considering there are NO ancient DNA samples for M458. Who its dominant in today is irrelevant. Where are your ancient samples proving its unquestionable connection to Slavic? Because no ancient DNA has been found. It has already been made clear to you. Even Caucasus populations have it. The Dargins for instance, on the Southern end of the Caucasus has 22% R1a-M458. The damn Turkic Nogai also have old basal M458. Using your reasoning all E-V13 is Albanian because its dominant in Albanians. See how silly that sounds?

Until ancient DNA surfaces for M458, your words are just words without legs.

What i said wrong? I didn't say that M458 is only Slavic, but i said that R1a-M458 and R1a-Z280 formed the proto-Slavs (possible with I2a, but it's unproved). So what, are you claiming that this is wrong constatation?

RajvoSa
23-02-18, 22:52
Thanks. Yes, there is no doubt that the separation between Proto-Baltic and Proto-Slavic was relatively early, with most estimates ranging between 1,000 and 1,500 BC, even if they clearly came from the same IE ancestral language and probably arose from the same Corded Ware horizon. But still I think many people get confused at this because of the very late appearance of Proto-Slavic as one common lanuage that gave us all the modern Slavic languages, which suggests to many that,, no, the immediate ancestor of Proto-Slavic can't be that old. It shouldn't be that confusing. We have many examples of one daughter language replacing all the other daughter languages that belonged to the same branch. Latin superseded all other Italic languages. Later Celtic languages, associated with the Hallstatt and especially La Tene cultures, most probably replaced all other earlier Celtic or maybe Para-Celtic languages that also derived from Proto-Italo-Celtic. That same way, the most probable thing is that Proto-Slavic was just the "Latin of Eastern Europe" that for some reason became a prestigious lingua franca and the main language of immigrant armies and bands. There were certainly other languages similar to it in an "Old Slavic family", but they were easily replaced by a very closely related and much more useful language, (Late) Proto-Slavic.

Exactly! Cyrill and Methodious also surely contributed that Slavic became "lingua franca" of Eastern Europe, since the Slavic was one of rare Christianity-adopted languages, prayers were translated to Slavic languages by Cyrill and Methodious and therefore mass adopted Slavic as main language. But the fact is that East Slavs, West Slavs and South Slavs surely spoke Slavic language a long before Cyrill and Methodious, apostoles of Slavs.

arvistro
25-02-18, 21:22
Yes, but "-elis" and "-elj" are totally different suffix, even if they sound similar. And suffix "-elj" is using in Slavic languages for nouns.

About your post above, i agree with you.
What is totally different about
- el(is) and - elj? :)

RajvoSa
26-02-18, 00:16
What is totally different about
- el(is) and - elj? :)

I am not a linguist, but some of them somehow know how to distinguish ancient Slavic and Baltic languages, and some of them have their arguments such as:



Different fate of Indo-European / * a / , / * o / , / * a / and / * o / : / * a / , / * o / given / * o / in the Slavic, but / * a / in the Baltic, the difference / * a / and / * o / is preserved in the Baltic, but disappears in the Slavonic.
The Praindo-European / * sr / is preserved in the Baltic, but is transformed into / str / in Slavic, although several similar changes in the Baltic make it possible to assume that in the case of / * sr / we are dealing with archaism.
In the Baltic, the suffix -mo is used in ordinal numerals, whereas in the Slavic suffix -wo is used .
The suffix of the Baltic verbs is 1 liter. units hours nast. at. -mai , while in the Slavic it is not so (now this objection is under discussion).
In the Baltic often uses the infix -sto- , while in the Slavic it is absent.
In the pobaltic did not differ forms of units. h. and many others. h. in the verbs of 3 liters, while in the Proto-Slavic this difference persisted.
The Baltic suffix of adjectives -inga is not used in Slavic languages.
Baltic diminutive suffix -l- not used in Slavic languages (though, perhaps, it corresponds to the Russian suffix caressing -ul- : grandma , grandpa , etc...).
The Slavic suffix of the verbal nouns -tel- ( driver, teacher, builder ) is not used in the Baltic languages.
The pre- Indo-European suffix -es was in the Proto-Slavic ( teles, skies ), but is not used in the Baltic languages.
The Slavonic suffix of participles -lo is not used in the Baltic languages.
In the Proto-Slavic law operates an open syllable, which is absent in the Baltic (including the Prabalese) languages.
Slavic languages ​​retained the primordial European aorist by -s- (a sigmatic aorist), whereas in the Baltic languages ​​its traces were not found. (This claim is disputed.)
The pre-Slavic quantitative numerals of the large quantitativ ( five, six, ... , etc.) have the suffix -t , while in the Baltic languages ​​there are no traces of it.
The absence in the Baltic languages ​​of Meie's law, associated with satematic reflexes and the operation of the law "hands". The law of "hand" operated before the beginning of the satemization of languages, hence it is possible to see in this the division of languages ​​before the beginning of the processes of satemization.

RajvoSa
26-02-18, 14:16
Do you mean early Slavs? Balts were probably their major component. During the Migration Period and later Slavs asimilated more Balts.

So you basically think that all those pred. early Slavic tribes were Balts? Even if Balts are never called under this name before 19th century?

I think the most accurate term is Balto-Slavic.

arvistro
28-02-18, 11:40
I am not a linguist, but some of them somehow know how to distinguish ancient Slavic and Baltic languages, and some of them have their arguments such as:



Different fate of Indo-European / * a / , / * o / , / * a / and / * o / : / * a / , / * o / given / * o / in the Slavic, but / * a / in the Baltic, the difference / * a / and / * o / is preserved in the Baltic, but disappears in the Slavonic.
The Praindo-European / * sr / is preserved in the Baltic, but is transformed into / str / in Slavic, although several similar changes in the Baltic make it possible to assume that in the case of / * sr / we are dealing with archaism.
In the Baltic, the suffix -mo is used in ordinal numerals, whereas in the Slavic suffix -wo is used .
The suffix of the Baltic verbs is 1 liter. units hours nast. at. -mai , while in the Slavic it is not so (now this objection is under discussion).
In the Baltic often uses the infix -sto- , while in the Slavic it is absent.
In the pobaltic did not differ forms of units. h. and many others. h. in the verbs of 3 liters, while in the Proto-Slavic this difference persisted.
The Baltic suffix of adjectives -inga is not used in Slavic languages.
Baltic diminutive suffix -l- not used in Slavic languages (though, perhaps, it corresponds to the Russian suffix caressing -ul- : grandma , grandpa , etc...).
The Slavic suffix of the verbal nouns -tel- ( driver, teacher, builder ) is not used in the Baltic languages.
The pre- Indo-European suffix -es was in the Proto-Slavic ( teles, skies ), but is not used in the Baltic languages.
The Slavonic suffix of participles -lo is not used in the Baltic languages.
In the Proto-Slavic law operates an open syllable, which is absent in the Baltic (including the Prabalese) languages.
Slavic languages ​​retained the primordial European aorist by -s- (a sigmatic aorist), whereas in the Baltic languages ​​its traces were not found. (This claim is disputed.)
The pre-Slavic quantitative numerals of the large quantitativ ( five, six, ... , etc.) have the suffix -t , while in the Baltic languages ​​there are no traces of it.
The absence in the Baltic languages ​​of Meie's law, associated with satematic reflexes and the operation of the law "hands". The law of "hand" operated before the beginning of the satemization of languages, hence it is possible to see in this the division of languages ​​before the beginning of the processes of satemization.

This is a good list. Satemization in Baltic and Slavic acts weird.
There is an interesting article by Kourtlandt where he explains differences by different IE substrate languages that Baltic and Slavic absorbed while expanding. Will put a link if I find one.

arvistro
28-02-18, 13:56
Actually found something else. Might have been wrong on post above.
Anyway this is also an interesting article:
http://www.baltistica.lt/index.php/baltistica/article/download/2283/2249

RajvoSa
28-02-18, 14:42
Actually found something else. Might have been wrong on post above.
Anyway this is also an interesting article:
http://www.baltistica.lt/index.php/baltistica/article/download/2283/2249

It seems like a helpful link, will read when i have enough time. Thank you!

Ygorcs
01-03-18, 13:32
Actually found something else. Might have been wrong on post above.
Anyway this is also an interesting article:
http://www.baltistica.lt/index.php/baltistica/article/download/2283/2249
I found this article quite interesting, but it also comes up with some (to me) strange historic premises, for example Kortlandt clearly assumes that Balto-Slavic has nothing to do with Corded Ware but came from the south/southwest with the other Western IE branches superseding IE Corded Ware languages. He also tells a lot about the still not totally accepted (but IMO very fascinating) hypothesis of a Temematic IE language roughly between Germanic and Balto-Slavic. But shouldn't we talk of it only much later as perhaps an offshoot of an earlier branch, since that supposed territory is right well in the Globular Amphora territory, which clearly must've been non-IE speaking? He also makes very specific assumptions (and I honestly don't think we have so much archaeological proofs for that yet) about the routes of dispersal of Western European IE families, placing the future language families veeeery early on near their Iron Age main territories, what to me sounds as suspiciously too simple and straightforward, especially because it does not fit well with the evidences of intense transformations in West/Central Europe with the Bell Beaker and CWC and later Unetice, Urnfield and other cultures. I sincerely can't reconcile with an assumption that even before their total divergence into many language families Italic and Venetic would already be near Italy, Celtic already near Southern Germany, Balto-Slavic already near the Pripyat marshes and so on, exactly as we saw them in the Iron Age.

arvistro
02-03-18, 14:48
I sincerely can't reconcile with an assumption that even before their total divergence into many language families Italic and Venetic would already be near Italy, Celtic already near Southern Germany, Balto-Slavic already near the Pripyat marshes and so on, exactly as we saw them in the Iron Age.
Agree on this. Usually it would not work like this.
Probably there were quite a lot more now dead IE languages in Europe like Temematic, etc.

As to Balto-Slavic in particular, idea of it to expand at the expense of some IE languages (rather than non-IE languages) I could agree with. Had they expanded with CW, then a lot more non-IE words would be absorbed, we could speak of strong non-IE substrate in Slavic/Baltic. But we dont have that. We have strong non-IE substrate in Germanic (at least there is this theory), but not for Balto-Slavic.

RajvoSa
02-03-18, 14:52
Agree on this. Usually it would not work like this.
Probably there were quite a lot more now dead IE languages in Europe like Temematic, etc.

As to Balto-Slavic in particular, idea of it to expand at the expense of some IE languages (rather than non-IE languages) I could agree with. Had they expanded with CW, then a lot more non-IE words would be absorbed, we could speak of strong non-IE substrate in Slavic/Baltic. But we dont have that. We have strong non-IE substrate in Germanic (at least there is this theory), but not for Balto-Slavic.


Yes. But still, those differences are interesting. In declination, morphology and other things. Linguist should study and determinate it in future. :) Until now we have only assumptions.

lyakh
07-03-18, 23:50
I think that Balts did not have M458 (at least its young and most frequent today clades like L1029 or L260) about 1500 ybp. Y-DNA of Balts was N and R1a-Z280 (especially Z92?). West and South Slavs have no or really little R1a-Z280-Z92. Maybe Z92 people among East Slavs are slavicised Balts? Ancient Balts should not also have I2-Din. In Latvia I2*/I2a is only about 1% of male population, while in Lithuania it is 6%. Modern Lithuanians may have relatively large Slavic ancestors. On the other hand, proto-Slavs could not carry Y-DNA N (which is common in Balts).

Ygorcs
08-03-18, 01:06
Agree on this. Usually it would not work like this.
Probably there were quite a lot more now dead IE languages in Europe like Temematic, etc.

As to Balto-Slavic in particular, idea of it to expand at the expense of some IE languages (rather than non-IE languages) I could agree with. Had they expanded with CW, then a lot more non-IE words would be absorbed, we could speak of strong non-IE substrate in Slavic/Baltic. But we dont have that. We have strong non-IE substrate in Germanic (at least there is this theory), but not for Balto-Slavic.

Exactly. I'm still very open to the idea of an association of Balto-Slavic (and maybe also the first steps of Indo-Iranian or pre-Indo-Iranian) with Corded Ware, but the territory of CWC was huge and I don't think the dating for a common origin of Baltic and Slavic languages, as late as 1,500 BC, fits well the notion that all CWC languages were Balto-Slavic or very similar to it. It's most probable, in my opinion, that Balto-Slavic represents yet another among many east-to-west expansions from present-day Russia, sweeping over other Indo-European languages of the CWC culture and other cultures including non-IE ones like Globular Amphora (probably the "west" and "central, non-Balto-Slavic CWC were languages with more non-IE substrate, since the eastern parts of CWC were almost certainly much less settled by Neolithic agriculturalists and were thus certainly much more thinly inhabited).

RajvoSa
09-03-18, 13:52
I think that Balts did not have M458 (at least its young and most frequent today clades like L1029 or L260) about 1500 ybp. Y-DNA of Balts was N and R1a-Z280 (especially Z92?). West and South Slavs have no or really little R1a-Z280-Z92. Maybe Z92 people among East Slavs are slavicised Balts? Ancient Balts should not also have I2-Din. In Latvia I2*/I2a is only about 1% of male population, while in Lithuania it is 6%. Modern Lithuanians may have relatively large Slavic ancestors. On the other hand, proto-Slavs could not carry Y-DNA N (which is common in Balts).

I share your opinion about M458 among Balts, but, it's almost sure that Slavic language comes from R1a-Z280 people, since it's very similar with Baltic. The question will still be: Which language was spoken by M458 people?!

Abouz Z92, there are some samples even among South Slavs, especially in Serbia.

RajvoSa
09-03-18, 13:53
Exactly. I'm still very open to the idea of an association of Balto-Slavic (and maybe also the first steps of Indo-Iranian or pre-Indo-Iranian) with Corded Ware, but the territory of CWC was huge and I don't think the dating for a common origin of Baltic and Slavic languages, as late as 1,500 BC, fits well the notion that all CWC languages were Balto-Slavic or very similar to it. It's most probable, in my opinion, that Balto-Slavic represents yet another among many east-to-west expansions from present-day Russia, sweeping over other Indo-European languages of the CWC culture and other cultures including non-IE ones like Globular Amphora (probably the "west" and "central, non-Balto-Slavic CWC were languages with more non-IE substrate, since the eastern parts of CWC were almost certainly much less settled by Neolithic agriculturalists and were thus certainly much more thinly inhabited).

Do you think those languages (Baltic and Slavic) were divided already in 1500 BC ? Or perhaps later?

Zeus10
11-03-18, 18:21
How to divide Slavs from Balts, and vice-versa before 6th century, i mean in genetical and (archeological) sense?
Their R1a is almost the same mutations. This ones which have Balts usually have the Slavs as well. And opposite.

Discuss.

You can't. What joins Slavs and Balts, under the same family, is the affinity of their languages not the genes. Even within Slavs, there is little resemblance in their genes, but almost identical languages. The Slavic languages used today among the Slavic people is undoubtedly dedicating their origin, to the OLD CHURCH SLAVONIC, the language of the theocratic elite, who were the masters of those large communities, who later will become Slavic nations. It's nothing ethnic, nothing genetic connecting what we call Slavic nations today. Some Medieval sources, say that Slavs, or otherwise known as Sclavonians, were slaves(servants) from different origins of the Byzantine Masters. The theory, which makes them a big branch of IE people, migrating in different direction all over Europe, is not correct.

RajvoSa
11-03-18, 22:14
You can't. What joins Slavs and Balts, under the same family, is the affinity of their languages not the genes. Even within Slavs, there is little resemblance in their genes, but almost identical languages. The Slavic languages used today among the Slavic people is undoubtedly dedicating their origin, to the OLD CHURCH SLAVONIC, the language of the theocratic elite, who were the masters of those large communities, who later will become Slavic nations. It's nothing ethnic, nothing genetic connecting what we call Slavic nations today. Some Medieval sources, say that Slavs, or otherwise known as Sclavonians, were slaves(servants) from different origins of the Byzantine Masters. The theory, which makes them a big branch of IE people, migrating in different direction all over Europe, is not correct.

Slavic urhemeit was somewhere in the triangle eastern Poland, western Ukraine and South-West Belarus. South Slavic languages are result of migrations of those Slavs, and they were moved by Avar Khaganate. The East Slavic language is the result of well-known East Slavic expansion to the Finnic populations where they mixed with them.

/Serg/
11-03-18, 23:01
Some Medieval sources, say that Slavs, or otherwise known as Sclavonians, were slaves(servants) from different origins of the Byzantine Masters.
The origin of the word is just "Sloboda", a village or place to live in ("s-" as a prefix, "life" as a root of word, this gives a village).


The theory, which makes them a big branch of IE people, migrating in different direction all over Europe, is not correct.
Although you're right about the whole Europe, there are many facts of archeology about Eastern Europe, Baltic Region and Northern India, which would help to trace our origins and roots. I tried to clarify it in the neighbour thread, https://www.eupedia.com/forum/threads/28906-New-migration-map-of-haplogroup-R1a1a

There are many artifacts which proves that ancestors of Northern Indians, Balts and Slavs started from the agricultural areas near the northern bank of the Black Sea, when it was a freshwater lake, then came to the North to establish a Dnieper-Donetsk agriculture, which includes cities Kiev and Zhitomir ("Key" was a name of the knight who was the governor, "zhito" means wheat), and then, — as bricks and big white "Russian" stoves has been invented, — continued to move to the North, i.e. to the sourthern bank of the Baltic Sea, when others came to the East, i.e. to the country now known as Russia.

There was a huge role of Scandinavian people to establish a state. "Varyagi" or just warriors, came from the far far North, probably from Sweden. They were part of Kiev city inhabitants and known as "Varangian Guards". Living in Russia you could read folk tales about them. Some names, including Igor (Ingvar) and Olga (Helga), are Scandinavian ones.

As years passed by, most of Russians and Balts in those areas became a mixture of Slavonic and Finno-Ugric people, except for Estonians who are 100% Finno-Ugric people. There are many folks inside the country who still speaks in Finno-Ugric languages, especially in villages. Mari music is a gem for those Russians who can play musical instruments.

Northern India was conquered by people who started from the same region, the fruitful, rich, fertile banks of the Black Sea. Both Krishna and Arjuna spoke in "Old Church Slavonic", also known as... Sanskrit.

LeBrok
12-03-18, 05:27
"zhito" means wheat nope, zhito is rye in english not wheat. Rye was a pretty late invention/domestication, mostly suitable for Northern European climate. Unheard of in North India.

Both Krishna and Arjuna spoke in "Old Church Slavonic", also known as... Sanskrit. lol, this is simply nuts! Could you site same sentence in old church Slavonic and Sanskrit? Just for the heck of it.

/Serg/
12-03-18, 21:21
Could you site same sentence in old church Slavonic and Sanskrit

Numericals, for example:
First — "perviy" — "purva"
One — "odin" — "adi"
Two — "dva/dve/dvoe" — "dva/dve/dvaya"
Three — "tri/troe/tretiy/troyka" — "tri/traya/treba/trika"
Four — "chetyre/chetvero" — "chatur/chatvara"
Ten — "desyatero" — "dashatara"

Verbs:
To be — "byt" — "bhu"
To stand — "stoyat" — "stha"
To dry — "sushit" — "shush"
To cook — "varit/pech" — "var/pach"
To fall — "padat" — "pad"
To cry — "revet" — "rav"
To swim to — "proplyvayet" — "praplavate"
To swim across — "pereplyvat" — "pariplavate"

So...
234 — "dwesti tridsat chetire" — "dwishata tridasha chatwari"
There is your home, there is my home — "Tot vash dom, aetot nash dom" — "Tat vas dham, etat nas dham".

Although in old church language the sentence should be "To vash dom, se nash dom".

— from:
http://новости.ru-an.info/новости/что-мы-знаем-о-санскрите-и-почему-он-так-похож-на-русский-язык/
http://www.econet.ru/articles/70238-sanskritolog-durga-prasad-shastri-vy-govorite-na-izmenennoy-forme-sanskrita
https://www.kramola.info/video/zamalchivaemaja-istorija/russkij-jazyk-iznachalen-po-otnosheniju-k-sanskritu
https://www.kramola.info/books/letopisi-proshlogo/o-srodstve-yazyka-slavyanskago-s-sanskritskim
http://www.krivandino.ru/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=120&Itemid=59

LeBrok
12-03-18, 21:35
Numericals, for example:
First — "perviy" — "purva"
One — "odin" — "adi"
Two — "dva/dve/dvoe" — "dva/dve/dvaya"
Three — "tri/troe/tretiy/troyka" — "tri/traya/treba/trika"
Four — "chetyre/chetvero" — "chatur/chatvara"
Ten — "desyatero" — "dashatara"

Verbs:
To be — "byt" — "bhu"
To stand — "stoyat" — "stha"
To dry — "sushit" — "shush"
To cook — "varit/pech" — "var/pach"
To fall — "padat" — "pad"
To cry — "revet" — "rav"
To swim to — "proplyvayet" — "praplavate"
To swim across — "pereplyvat" — "pariplavate"

So...
234 — "dwesti tridsat chetire" — "dwishata tridasha chatwari"
There is your home, there is my home — "Tot vash dom, aetot nash dom" — "Tat vas dham, etat nas dham".

Although in old church language the sentence should be "To vash dom, se nash dom".

— from:
http://новости.ru-an.info/новости/что-мы-знаем-о-санскрите-и-почему-он-так-похож-на-русский-язык/
http://www.econet.ru/articles/70238-sanskritolog-durga-prasad-shastri-vy-govorite-na-izmenennoy-forme-sanskrita
https://www.kramola.info/video/zamalchivaemaja-istorija/russkij-jazyk-iznachalen-po-otnosheniju-k-sanskritu
https://www.kramola.info/books/letopisi-proshlogo/o-srodstve-yazyka-slavyanskago-s-sanskritskim
http://www.krivandino.ru/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=120&Itemid=59
I hope that by now you have realized that these are two separate languages. You know, such close similarities of basic vocabulary exist throughout all IE language family. Same roots, but separate languages. Most likely a common ancestor of these two languages and all IE was Yamnaya culture.

/Serg/
12-03-18, 21:48
Most likely a common ancestor of these two languages and all IE was Yamnaya culture.

Yes, it's proven by archaeologists.

Yamnaya started when water from Mediterranean Sea broke through Bosfor and raise the water level in Black Sea. People who already had an overpopulation in the region (the land was very fruitful, plus they had an ability to drink cow milk, as can still) starten to move away from their ancestral fatherland.

9854

Ygorcs
13-03-18, 01:07
Yes, it's proven by archaeologists.

Yamnaya started when water from Mediterranean Sea broke through Bosfor and raise the water level in Black Sea. People who already had an overpopulation in the region (the land was very fruitful, plus they had an ability to drink cow milk, as can still) starten to move away from their ancestral fatherland.

9854

This has not been proven by archaeologists at all. It's still a (very plausible and sensible) hypothesis, with genetic and cultural consequences that haven't been sufficiently demonstrated, but anyway it has nothing to do with Yamnaya. Instead it's related to the development of much earlier cultures. The Black Sea Deluge hypothesis is dated to have taken place some 7,600 years ago, i.e. around 5,600 BC.

That was more than 2 milennia before the earliest attestations of undeniably Yamnaya culture by 3,300 BC. You're missing a lot of time of certain cultural, social and economic changes, and also migrations of people. Not even the most likely direct ancestors that contributed to the formation of Yamnaya, Sredny Stog and Khvalynsk, existed by 5,600 BC.

There may be some association of the very distant ancestors of Yamnaya (some of them, certainly not all) and those peoples who once inhabited the Black Sea territory, but it's at best a very indirect relationship with a gap of 2,300 years between the two cultures, a gap which needs to be detailed and explained.

qtr
13-03-18, 09:30
Northern India was conquered by people who started from the same region, the fruitful, rich, fertile banks of the Black Sea. Both Krishna and Arjuna spoke in "Old Church Slavonic", also known as... Sanskrit.

You must be joking. Erm... Right?

qtr
13-03-18, 09:34
This post is just so I'm able to post links

qtr
13-03-18, 10:46
I hope that by now you have realized that these are two separate languages. You know, such close similarities of basic vocabulary exist throughout all IE language family. Same roots, but separate languages. Most likely a common ancestor of these two languages and all IE was Yamnaya culture.

Yamna might be only R1a related and not even origin. While QR - I mean P might have origins in China, but R and Q would have split around area of lake Baikal, where Q was still present and Ket people were speaking Amerindian related language. IE(that includes also R1b) origins most likelly might come nearer to that direction and away from Europe, where R1a originated.

qtr
13-03-18, 11:00
Please, don't spread disinformations on such serious forum, picture down:

http://i64.tinypic.com/zy5wkm.png

This "pre-Slavic" or whatever you want to call him was already divided from Baltic-speakers!

I wouldn't speak about Germanic language if i am not well informed!

PLEAS put links to wiki, if you use it as a source. Now, I will do this dis FOR YOU:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proto-Slavic

here is the problem with the wiki text:
you gave 2 conflicting dating systems for something that has nothing to do with slavic, but proto slavic, which is fictional.
According to:
1st dating system you can't talk about slavic, because slavic did not exist prior 6th AD
2nd dating system it says same but with different words: "As there are no dialectal distinctions reconstructible from this period or earlier, this is the period for which a single common ancestor (that is, "Proto-Slavic proper") can be reconstructed."

So, both of them are mentioning time period, which was NOT slavic. You can't mark people who spoke baltic, germanic, celtic or greek as slavic, because they were not slavs at proto-slavic period. What is it so hard to comprehend here?



So, to answer your question in TOPIC:

"How to divide Slavs from Balts, and vice-versa before 6th century?"

You can't divide Slavs from Balts, because they did not exist before 6th century. Balts did exist prior 6th century without *any* Slavs around.

qtr
13-03-18, 12:53
Frankly, I'm done with this topic.

I've only recently found this link, and blog solves all the answers I wanted to find:
http://eurogenes.blogspot.co.uk/2017/09/the-beast-among-y-haplogroups.html
https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-SF74a3xkvg4/WdDa0l5addI/AAAAAAAAGH0/BM8SEreRWfMF_tpH2pfEpd20-68zOE90gCLcBGAs/s1600/R1a-M417_The_Beast.png

I had a further read in link:
http://eurogenes.blogspot.co.uk/2017/05/late-pie-ground-zero-now-obvious.html(it also contains other information, that might be interesting)
https://4.bp.blogspot.com/-Cm2ZmG_5dhU/WRQ-RSfQ5qI/AAAAAAAAFkw/bLIS_RotnxscfkTwq_KVdlbAzXPeN58UQCLcB/s1600/PIE_Baltic.png
What it says, is that Baltic region(5800 years ago?) had already earliest R1a variants. R1a1 is R-SRY1532.2(https://www.eupedia.com/genetics/phylogenetic_trees_Y-DNA_haplogroups.shtml#R1a) - it is ancestor of ALL discussed R1a variants. That also includes ancestors of M458, so I would abandon any ideas about Slavic as paralel development, as it is unsound. Since Slavic language(and language is the only thing that differ it from other groups) is very young development, it is most probably, that ancestors of R1a spoke either Baltic or proto-Baltic language(or whatever it means). The problem with term proto-Baltic is that it is very wrong, as there was nothing prior Baltic language in Baltic area and Proto-Baltic = Proto-Indo-European(or because it looks like originated in Europe - Proto-European).


Note that M558 which is currently regarded as "Baltic" is present not only in Baltic region, but also exactly in the same mentioned places (from previous picture) of oldest samples of R1a and M417 and also Z93:
https://2.bp.blogspot.com/-6MK86Zivymg/UzcNpXfknGI/AAAAAAAACdc/awhkG33kX1Y/s1600/R1a-Z282+maps+small.png


There is also very big problem of Baltic substratum in Balkans, that raises question if Thracian-Dacian and Illirian ancestors were originally speaking in Baltic language, which with more work in this area might be true. I've mentioned before, that modern Latvians and Lithuanians share teeth characteristics with people from Balkans - this is usually one of the answers to people in Latvia or Lithuania why they have bad teeth and prominent fangs and why I have urge to suck blood(ok, that is made up).

As for most of Slavic languages - main Slavic language spread happened in very recent times - with Church Slavonic. It made Slavic speaking not only Baltic and Finnish people, but also Greek and that is why we have now Slavic speaking Macedonians in FYMR(and why usage of Macedonian name is pain for Greeks, just as it was for Baltic people in the case of German Prussians), as their ancestors in Aleksander time certainly did not spoke Slavic, but Greek(if we regard ancient non-slavic Macedonian as Greek). Magyars in Panonia with R1a are not exception - people in Pannonia spoke Slavic(who replaced Avars) right before arrival of Magyars or whatever groups of people who settled in that region.


/Serg/ mentioned about similarities of Sanskrist and Slavic... well, actually some of his provided examples sound more modern Baltic than Slavic, but I assume, that he does not know Latvian or Lithuanian and want to judge about this topic purely with knowledge of russian and nothing more. Baltic forms are regarded as more archaical and Sanskrit contains them, but Slavic languages do not contain those forms, that were preserved in Sanskrit same way as they are preserved in Baltic. Besides - Sanskrit was long out of use and heavily changed(from classical, where those archaical forms are preserved) before Slavic emerged, so hardly Sanskrit could be regarded as something that formed Slavic and Slavic, as we established did not appear in 2000BC. So, what /Serg/ is citing is at best classical Sanskrit, which was also influenced by other Aryan languages. And btw - classical Sanskrit evolved from Aryam(Vedic Sanskrit) and that language evolved from Avestan, so we come full circle to Indo-Iranian languages, which influenced each other which were influenced by local languages - mainly Dravidian.

If Slavic languages contain any archaical forms, that can be regarded as Slavic(because they are not Germanic or Celtic), then they are also found in Baltic. It does not work around other way.

If Prussian would emerge from time capsule and spoke to modern Baltic speakers, they would regard it as Slavic without blinking an eye, because they are not really well in these linguistic topics(as I am). But, since Prussian is not Slavic, but is just a variation of Baltic, so are Slavic, who are not developed far from Baltic languages as are Germanic or Celtic. In linguistics we can at best speak about Slavic branch of Baltic languages, as dialect forms, that were between Slavic and Baltic languages have died out, but if they were still alive and in use, this would be no topic to discuss about. And I must mention again - modern Baltic languages appeared in Baltic region only 1500 years ago. If we strictly have to speak about Baltic languages as regional languages, then Baltic became extinct in 16th century when Prussian, Curonian and other local Baltic languages died out. Latvian and Lithuanian can be regarded as Russian and Belorussian, as these countries is where they came from originally.

qtr
13-03-18, 13:12
Btw, since author is from Balkan area, I have question:

How nonslavic R1a differs from slavic in Balkans?
I would be interested about:
Albanians or how they are called in native - Shqiptarët
Greeks or Ellines
Romanians


This is very important question, before dwelling into battle of dividing slavic from baltic. Those people in Balkans most probably have more common R1a y-dna(not to mention - R1b) among themselves, than rest of slavic and baltic among themselves. And I am also interested how would you divide macedonian slavs from greeks. Just curious.

If they are very similar to each other, why would you even suggest, that I would look on balts and neighbouring slavs as if they are genetically different people? Even if some, like /Serg/ are with limited knowledge and brain power... still, they are retards of mine or finnish - not yours ;)

qtr
13-03-18, 13:50
from the same blog:
http://eurogenes.blogspot.co.uk/2017/11/ancient-genomes-from-ne-europe-suggest.html

So, if we put together, then Uralic people and other who represent N1c came to Europe 3500 years ago. R1a was present in Baltic 5800 years ago or maybe even more, so at least 2300 years prior N1c appeared in Europe.

RajvoSa
13-03-18, 14:38
You can't divide Slavs from Balts, because they did not exist before 6th century. Balts did exist prior 6th century without *any* Slavs around.

Only in your fairytale. First Baltic text is recorded in 14th century, and you are speaking about some Baltic language. I am sorry to you, Slavic didn't come from Baltic. And even modern Baltic languages themself are not familiar, Latvian and Lithuanian. They have many disagreements. Also is mostly possible that modern Baltic languages are just intermediate between dead language - West Baltic and Slavic. Your claims are clear nonsense without proofs. While linguists are arguing still about it, you think you are sure, while you aren't. You say : "Balts did exist prior 6th century without *any* Slavs around. Based on what? Who are Balts now? In genetical sense they're half Finno-Ugric half Indo-European, while West and East Slavs aren't in such combination. This propaganda that Balts were already "formed" when Slavs arrived is nonsense.

You said: "because they did not exist before 6th century."

Really? How then Zarubintsy culture si directly connected with proto-Slavs? Read here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zarubintsy_culture

Now, you should try to change wikipedia, becouse they don't agree with you that Slavs are from 6th century, but from 3rd century BC. :) Evil wikipedia.

RajvoSa
13-03-18, 16:11
Btw, since author is from Balkan area, I have question:

How nonslavic R1a differs from slavic in Balkans?
I would be interested about:
Albanians or how they are called in native - Shqiptarët
Greeks or Ellines
Romanians


This is very important question, before dwelling into battle of dividing slavic from baltic. Those people in Balkans most probably have more common R1a y-dna(njot to mention - R1b) among themselves, than rest of slavic and baltic among themselves. And I am also interested how would you divide macedonian slavs from greeks. Just curious.

If they are very similar to each other, why would you even suggest, that I would look on balts and neighbouring slavs as if they are genetically different people? Even if some, like /Serg/ are with limited knowledge and brain power... still, they are retards of mine or finnish - not yours ;)

Macedonians are mainly slavicized natives. Why is that weird for you? While my country for example mainly descent from Slavic migrations to Balkan (I2a + R1a) and our ancestral clades are today in Western Ukraine which proves Slavic migrations to Balkan.

qtr
13-03-18, 18:27
First Baltic text is recorded in 14th century, and you are speaking about some Baltic language..

So, what is the issue there? Are you arguing, that Baltic languages did not exist before 14th century because of writing? Well, so were most of modern languages, who had their writing established only by 18th century - it is not news.

No one argues, that there are a lot of finnish genes in modern baltic people, as there was a massive influx of finnish people and quite a lot of them were assimilated into Baltic people. Most of that influx happened after 6th AD, so Baltic people of 6th AD had a lot less N1c than now, however most modern south slavic people probably had none R1a and also did not used slavic language, unlike baltic who used baltic, when they branched off PIE.

I have no problems regarding finnish part, as I believe in only one solution(and that is not gas camera - I'm not that evil) for them on my quest to reunite baltic with slavic, as this stupid russian evilmongery and lie distribution business has to stop and if it ends with russian dissolution, as they are doing now with belorussians(which is also part of my heritage), then why would I care? That is my fairytale, after all - who really cares, if that is your nightmare, if you act as indians, who have problems accepting, that India was invaded by people from steppes of Europe and which also created caste system as a result. Well - segregation is not good, but neither is extermination of locals, what some IE tribes practiced towards early noneuropean looking Uralic people, for example.

As for wiki - it says exactly, that I mentioned, that there are no slavic language prior 6th century. And we can only argue about language here - nothing else. if you don't like your own sources or actually don't understand them - just don't use them. No one forces you to do so.



Before Zarubnitsy culture was Milograd culture(it is souther orange), which was baltic:

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/4/4e/Baltic_cultures_600-200_BC_SVG.svg/585px-Baltic_cultures_600-200_BC_SVG.svg.png

Listen, wiki does not say that Zarubintsy culture was slavic or even proto slavic. It says, that it is connected to proto-slavic. From what I understand it is still baltic, just as Milogrady culture is baltic. Let me explain how it is connected to proto-slavic. Zarubnitsy culture is connected to Kiev culture, as Kiev culture is descendant of Zarubnitsy culture(maybe, possibly).
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/f/ff/East_Europe_Archaeological_Kievan-Chernyakhov.jpg/640px-East_Europe_Archaeological_Kievan-Chernyakhov.jpg
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kiev_culture

English wiki says, that: "It is widely considered to be the first identifiable Slavic (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slavic_peoples) archaeological culture"
According to wiki rules, this is very bad text, as widely in russian wiki version translates 4+ versus 2(and I mentioned before - science is not a democracy - either those 4+ are dead wrong or 2 and I would not put my money on most scientists, that they are right):

"В вопросе этнической принадлежности носителей киевской культуры нет единства мнений. В. Н. Даниленко, П. Н. Третьяков, В. Д. Баран (https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%91%D0%B0%D1%80%D0%B0%D0%BD,_%D0%92%D0%BB%D0%B0 %D0%B4%D0%B8%D0%BC%D0%B8%D1%80_%D0%94%D0%B0%D0%BD% D0%B8%D0%BB%D0%BE%D0%B2%D0%B8%D1%87), Р. В. Терпиловский и ряд других исследователей относят её к славянам (https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%A1%D0%BB%D0%B0%D0%B2%D1%8F%D0%BD%D0%B5)[3] (https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%9A%D0%B8%D0%B5%D0%B2%D1%81%D0%BA%D0%B0%D1%8F_% D0%B0%D1%80%D1%85%D0%B5%D0%BE%D0%BB%D0%BE%D0%B3%D0 %B8%D1%87%D0%B5%D1%81%D0%BA%D0%B0%D1%8F_%D0%BA%D1% 83%D0%BB%D1%8C%D1%82%D1%83%D1%80%D0%B0#cite_note-3), предполагая, что на основе киевской возникают последующие славянские культуры раннего средневековья: пеньковская (https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%9F%D0%B5%D0%BD%D1%8C%D0%BA%D0%BE%D0%B2%D1%81%D 0%BA%D0%B0%D1%8F_%D0%BA%D1%83%D0%BB%D1%8C%D1%82%D1 %83%D1%80%D0%B0) и колочинская (https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%9A%D0%BE%D0%BB%D0%BE%D1%87%D0%B8%D0%BD%D1%81%D 0%BA%D0%B0%D1%8F_%D0%BA%D1%83%D0%BB%D1%8C%D1%82%D1 %83%D1%80%D0%B0). В. В. Седов (https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%A1%D0%B5%D0%B4%D0%BE%D0%B2,_%D0%92%D0%B0%D0%BB %D0%B5%D0%BD%D1%82%D0%B8%D0%BD_%D0%92%D0%B0%D1%81% D0%B8%D0%BB%D1%8C%D0%B5%D0%B2%D0%B8%D1%87) и И. П. Русанова считают её балтской (https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%91%D0%B0%D0%BB%D1%82%D1%8B)[4] (https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%9A%D0%B8%D0%B5%D0%B2%D1%81%D0%BA%D0%B0%D1%8F_% D0%B0%D1%80%D1%85%D0%B5%D0%BE%D0%BB%D0%BE%D0%B3%D0 %B8%D1%87%D0%B5%D1%81%D0%BA%D0%B0%D1%8F_%D0%BA%D1% 83%D0%BB%D1%8C%D1%82%D1%83%D1%80%D0%B0#cite_note-4). При этом Седов рассматривает славянство колочинской культуры как результат взаимодействия с пеньковской, а киевскую культуру как субстрат для пеньковской и колочинской культур. "

So, NO - we can't still consider Kiev culture as slavic - not in my dreams or even nightmares. Choose what you want.

I will use map for later connected cultures:
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/0/07/East_europe_5-6cc.png/778px-East_europe_5-6cc.png?uselang=ru


Kievan culture branches into two:
1. Kolochinskaya culture, which is related to penkovka culture, though it countains also baltic, so it is not real culture, but mix in process. I sure would not call them slavic and neither you or anyone else.
2. Penkovka culture or as we know about them from history - as antes. Yellow on this map. This is the culture, where it is identified as slavic people and I would agree, and we would end this discussion with some result. However, this is what russian wiki says about antes(both sources seems like very recent - 2012, which means, that they also are more trueful, than older unprecise sources):


1. Специалист по археологии древних славян И. П. Русанова (https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%A0%D1%83%D1%81%D0%B0%D0%BD%D0%BE%D0%B2%D0%B0,_ %D0%98%D1%80%D0%B8%D0%BD%D0%B0_%D0%9F%D0%B5%D1%82% D1%80%D0%BE%D0%B2%D0%BD%D0%B0) отрицала славянскую атрибутацию пеньковской культуры, поскольку пеньковские древности совершенно не похожи на памятники достоверно славянской пражско-корчакской культуры. По её мнению местное население носящее название «анты» возможно уже с VI в. говорило на славянском языке, но сохраняло еще свои этнографические особенности, а в VII веке уже полностью растворилось в славянской среде[10] (https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%90%D0%BD%D1%82%D1%8B#cite_note-10).
(Possibly, that nonslavic antes, who wildly differ from venedi(which are considered really slavic culture) spoke in slavic language from 6th AD already, but were different from slavic and by 7th AD were fully dissolved in slavic environment)


2. По мнению кандидата исторических наук Алексахи А. Г. эта точка зрения подтверждается на основании критерия бездиалектности славянского языка, из которого следует, что никакая археологическая культура, синхронная пражской, не может быть славянской. По его мнению анты были западными балтами, но были ассимилированы славянами лишь в VI веке[11] (https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%90%D0%BD%D1%82%D1%8B#cite_note-11)[12] (https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%90%D0%BD%D1%82%D1%8B#cite_note-12).
(It says, that on the basis of nondialectial nature of slavic language no archeological culture, that is sinchronous with Prague-Korchak Culture can be slavic. He has an opinion, that antes were western baltic, that were assimilated by slavic only in 6th century).

So, what it follows, is that we can for sure say, that only Prague-Korchak culture(in map it is orange Venedi) was slavic(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prague-Korchak_culture) and rest were baltic, who were assimilated by slavs.

Here is the thing about Prague culture. It is late 5th century(most probably all the other cultures on this map also have the same dates) - more like 6th century culture and it collerates with proto-slavic ideas hypothesis. But from what I read in wiki, name of Veneds most certainly point to prussian Baltic origin(even in lithuanian name of water of vanduo), and if that is true, that more likelly means, that originally veneds were baltic as it is unlikely, that slavs might have tribe name of nonslavic origin, as their own and had venedi bay in southern shores of Baltic sea, as all the bays in the area were baltic up to invasion of Germans, who were employed by Bohemian king Ottokar I. Linguisticaly it makes more sense that slavic have much more linguistical similarities with prussians, than rest of baltic, because rest of baltic encountered slavs much later. Prague culture was also influenced by goths and when they left it did not need to migrate to become slavic. Quite possibly, that proto-slavs are very late development of gothidfied prussians, as I have read before that prussian people could talk and understand each other - also people who were considered slavic, it is only currently hard to understand why, because we do not have live prussian language to compare and live venedians as well for that matter. Also, if we take into account, that prussians had words, that sound very slavic to rest of baltic, slavic might be just dialect of prussians which developed even more differences after visit of goths. I only claimed that eastern slavs are balts so far, but with venedo prussian branch as proto-slavs, slavic languge is baltic as well. Very f*cked up baltic language, but still - it is baltic.



https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%AD%D1%82%D0%BD%D0%BE%D0%B3%D0%B5%D0%BD%D0%B5%D 0%B7_%D1%81%D0%BB%D0%B0%D0%B2%D1%8F%D0%BD_%D0%BF%D 0%BE_%D0%B4%D0%B0%D0%BD%D0%BD%D1%8B%D0%BC_%D0%B0%D 1%80%D1%85%D0%B5%D0%BE%D0%BB%D0%BE%D0%B3%D0%B8%D0% B8

This is the list of approved cultures, as slavic:

Корчакская (https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%9A%D0%BE%D1%80%D1%87%D0%B0%D0%BA%D1%81%D0%BA%D 0%B0%D1%8F_%D0%BA%D1%83%D0%BB%D1%8C%D1%82%D1%83%D1 %80%D0%B0) • Пражская (https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%9F%D1%80%D0%B0%D0%B6%D1%81%D0%BA%D0%B0%D1%8F_% D0%BA%D1%83%D0%BB%D1%8C%D1%82%D1%83%D1%80%D0%B0) • Суковско-дзедзицкая (лехитская) (https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%A1%D1%83%D0%BA%D0%BE%D0%B2%D1%81%D0%BA%D0%BE-%D0%B4%D0%B7%D0%B5%D0%B4%D0%B7%D0%B8%D1%86%D0%BA%D 0%B0%D1%8F_%D0%BA%D1%83%D0%BB%D1%8C%D1%82%D1%83%D1 %80%D0%B0) • Ипотешти-кындештская (https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%98%D0%BF%D0%BE%D1%82%D0%B5%D1%88%D1%82%D0%B8-%D0%BA%D1%8B%D0%BD%D0%B4%D0%B5%D1%88%D1%82%D1%81%D 0%BA%D0%B0%D1%8F_%D0%BA%D1%83%D0%BB%D1%8C%D1%82%D1 %83%D1%80%D0%B0) • Волынцевская (https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%92%D0%BE%D0%BB%D1%8B%D0%BD%D1%86%D0%B5%D0%B2%D 1%81%D0%BA%D0%B0%D1%8F_%D0%BA%D1%83%D0%BB%D1%8C%D1 %82%D1%83%D1%80%D0%B0) • Роменско-борщёвская (https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%A0%D0%BE%D0%BC%D0%B5%D0%BD%D1%81%D0%BA%D0%BE-%D0%B1%D0%BE%D1%80%D1%89%D1%91%D0%B2%D1%81%D0%BA%D 0%B0%D1%8F_%D0%BA%D1%83%D0%BB%D1%8C%D1%82%D1%83%D1 %80%D0%B0) • Новгородских сопок (https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%9A%D1%83%D0%BB%D1%8C%D1%82%D1%83%D1%80%D0%B0_% D0%BD%D0%BE%D0%B2%D0%B3%D0%BE%D1%80%D0%BE%D0%B4%D1 %81%D0%BA%D0%B8%D1%85_%D1%81%D0%BE%D0%BF%D0%BE%D0% BA) • Рюсенская (сербо-лужицкая) (https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%A0%D1%8E%D1%81%D0%B5%D0%BD%D1%81%D0%BA%D0%B0%D 1%8F_%D0%BA%D1%83%D0%BB%D1%8C%D1%82%D1%83%D1%80%D0 %B0) • Лука-райковецкая (https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%9B%D1%83%D0%BA%D0%B0-%D1%80%D0%B0%D0%B9%D0%BA%D0%BE%D0%B2%D0%B5%D1%86%D 0%BA%D0%B0%D1%8F_%D0%BA%D1%83%D0%BB%D1%8C%D1%82%D1 %83%D1%80%D0%B0) • Фельдбергская (https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%A4%D0%B5%D0%BB%D1%8C%D0%B4%D0%B1%D0%B5%D1%80%D 0%B3%D1%81%D0%BA%D0%B0%D1%8F_%D0%BA%D1%83%D0%BB%D1 %8C%D1%82%D1%83%D1%80%D0%B0) • Карантанская (https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%9A%D0%B0%D1%80%D0%B0%D0%BD%D1%82%D0%B0%D0%BD%D 1%81%D0%BA%D0%B0%D1%8F_%D0%BA%D1%83%D0%BB%D1%8C%D1 %82%D1%83%D1%80%D0%B0)


Related, but still - under question(which actualy means - should not be considered as slavic, but these are cultures, that are identified as the ones, that participated in ethnogenesis of slavs):
Чернолесская (https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%A7%D0%B5%D1%80%D0%BD%D0%BE%D0%BB%D0%B5%D1%81%D 1%81%D0%BA%D0%B0%D1%8F_%D0%BA%D1%83%D0%BB%D1%8C%D1 %82%D1%83%D1%80%D0%B0) • Милоградская (https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%9C%D0%B8%D0%BB%D0%BE%D0%B3%D1%80%D0%B0%D0%B4%D 1%81%D0%BA%D0%B0%D1%8F_%D0%BA%D1%83%D0%BB%D1%8C%D1 %82%D1%83%D1%80%D0%B0) • Поморская (https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%9F%D0%BE%D0%BC%D0%BE%D1%80%D1%81%D0%BA%D0%B0%D 1%8F_%D0%BA%D1%83%D0%BB%D1%8C%D1%82%D1%83%D1%80%D0 %B0) • Подклёшевых погребений (https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%9A%D1%83%D0%BB%D1%8C%D1%82%D1%83%D1%80%D0%B0_% D0%BF%D0%BE%D0%B4%D0%BA%D0%BB%D1%91%D1%88%D0%B5%D0 %B2%D1%8B%D1%85_%D0%BF%D0%BE%D0%B3%D1%80%D0%B5%D0% B1%D0%B5%D0%BD%D0%B8%D0%B9) • Пшеворская (https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%9F%D1%88%D0%B5%D0%B2%D0%BE%D1%80%D1%81%D0%BA%D 0%B0%D1%8F_%D0%BA%D1%83%D0%BB%D1%8C%D1%82%D1%83%D1 %80%D0%B0) • Зарубинецкая (https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%97%D0%B0%D1%80%D1%83%D0%B1%D0%B8%D0%BD%D0%B5%D 1%86%D0%BA%D0%B0%D1%8F_%D0%BA%D1%83%D0%BB%D1%8C%D1 %82%D1%83%D1%80%D0%B0) • Почепская (https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%9F%D0%BE%D1%87%D0%B5%D0%BF%D1%81%D0%BA%D0%B0%D 1%8F_%D0%BA%D1%83%D0%BB%D1%8C%D1%82%D1%83%D1%80%D0 %B0) • Киевская (https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%9A%D0%B8%D0%B5%D0%B2%D1%81%D0%BA%D0%B0%D1%8F_% D0%B0%D1%80%D1%85%D0%B5%D0%BE%D0%BB%D0%BE%D0%B3%D0 %B8%D1%87%D0%B5%D1%81%D0%BA%D0%B0%D1%8F_%D0%BA%D1% 83%D0%BB%D1%8C%D1%82%D1%83%D1%80%D0%B0) • Черняховская (https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%A7%D0%B5%D1%80%D0%BD%D1%8F%D1%85%D0%BE%D0%B2%D 1%81%D0%BA%D0%B0%D1%8F_%D0%BA%D1%83%D0%BB%D1%8C%D1 %82%D1%83%D1%80%D0%B0) • Колочинская (https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%9A%D0%BE%D0%BB%D0%BE%D1%87%D0%B8%D0%BD%D1%81%D 0%BA%D0%B0%D1%8F_%D0%B0%D1%80%D1%85%D0%B5%D0%BE%D0 %BB%D0%BE%D0%B3%D0%B8%D1%87%D0%B5%D1%81%D0%BA%D0%B 0%D1%8F_%D0%BA%D1%83%D0%BB%D1%8C%D1%82%D1%83%D1%80 %D0%B0) • Пеньковская (https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%9F%D0%B5%D0%BD%D1%8C%D0%BA%D0%BE%D0%B2%D1%81%D 0%BA%D0%B0%D1%8F_%D0%BA%D1%83%D0%BB%D1%8C%D1%82%D1 %83%D1%80%D0%B0) • Именьковская (https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%98%D0%BC%D0%B5%D0%BD%D1%8C%D0%BA%D0%BE%D0%B2%D 1%81%D0%BA%D0%B0%D1%8F_%D0%BA%D1%83%D0%BB%D1%8C%D1 %82%D1%83%D1%80%D0%B0) • Браслетообразных сомкнутых височных колец (https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%9A%D1%83%D0%BB%D1%8C%D1%82%D1%83%D1%80%D0%B0_% D0%B1%D1%80%D0%B0%D1%81%D0%BB%D0%B5%D1%82%D0%BE%D0 %BE%D0%B1%D1%80%D0%B0%D0%B7%D0%BD%D1%8B%D1%85_%D1% 81%D0%BE%D0%BC%D0%BA%D0%BD%D1%83%D1%82%D1%8B%D1%85 _%D0%B2%D0%B8%D1%81%D0%BE%D1%87%D0%BD%D1%8B%D1%85_ %D0%BA%D0%BE%D0%BB%D0%B5%D1%86) • Псковских длинных курганов (https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%9A%D1%83%D0%BB%D1%8C%D1%82%D1%83%D1%80%D0%B0_% D0%BF%D1%81%D0%BA%D0%BE%D0%B2%D1%81%D0%BA%D0%B8%D1 %85_%D0%B4%D0%BB%D0%B8%D0%BD%D0%BD%D1%8B%D1%85_%D0 %BA%D1%83%D1%80%D0%B3%D0%B0%D0%BD%D0%BE%D0%B2) • Смоленско-полоцких длинных курганов

(https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%9A%D1%83%D0%BB%D1%8C%D1%82%D1%83%D1%80%D0%B0_% D1%81%D0%BC%D0%BE%D0%BB%D0%B5%D0%BD%D1%81%D0%BA%D0 %BE-%D0%BF%D0%BE%D0%BB%D0%BE%D1%86%D0%BA%D0%B8%D1%85_% D0%B4%D0%BB%D0%B8%D0%BD%D0%BD%D1%8B%D1%85_%D0%BA%D 1%83%D1%80%D0%B3%D0%B0%D0%BD%D0%BE%D0%B2)I APOLOGISE IF YOU DO NOT UNDERSTAND CYRILIC AND RUSSIAN, BUT READING WIKIPEDIA IN ENGLISH DOES NOT REALLY GIVE YOU MUCH KNOWLEDGE ABOUT SLAVIC TOPIC. Despite not being russian, I do read russian and actually my only source about baltic are in russian, and I trust them when they come out with sensational breakthroughs, as much of the history are lies, that includes any slavic sources, that were redacted couple of times, just like Bible. Spread of slavic languages truly bloomed only in 9th century, after "work" of Cyril and Methodius.

Something similar happened to Livonia, where lettish language was used as liturgical language in southern part of Livonia and made into demise at least two finnish tribes: livonian and south estonians in modern Latvia, not to mentioning that there were settled captured votians and other people(even russians) who dissolved into latvians.


TL;TR You can search for other solutions for the rest of your life, but you will come to this eventually: Proto-slavic language is prussian branch, which developed with the help of goths.

RajvoSa
13-03-18, 20:42
So, what is the issue there? Are you arguing, that Baltic languages did not exist before 14th century because of writing?

No, but that ethnicity for sure didn't exist. Word Balt was started to use in 19th century for Letto-Lithuanians.

Even if we come to conlusion (somehow) that proto-Balto-Slavic language is equal term to proto-Baltic, than you need to understand some things. So, if this theory (hypothesis) is true than we have such situation; Baltic continuum of languages (not an ethnicity Balts). So this continuum of languages was made from 3 dialects: West Baltic (dead), East Baltic (Letto-Lithuanian) and Slavic (which can be call alternatively South Baltic dialect. But that what today means BALTS are exclusively Letto-Lithuanian dialect, and their dialect is defined as Baltic in 19th century. So when you see "Baltic" cultures, what do you mean? That Slavs come from Lithuanians and Latvians? That they spoke their dialect or what? It would be retarded claim. West Balts are one, East Balts are second and the Slavs (alternatively South Balts) are third thing. So your claim "There are no Slavs before 6th century" is nonsense. You are using (incorrect) term Baltic languages, for Balto-Slavic which would be more correct. Since Baltic languages are, i must say again modern Lithuanian and Latvian, who were always different dialects than the Slavic one. So this is the thing of terminology, and you are using the term "Balt", then i can use the term "North Slavs" for Balts, and it would not change anything. The sense is same.


Spread of slavic languages truly bloomed only in 9th century, after "work" of Cyril and Methodius.

I see you are proving your unknowledge. When Cyril and Methodius started to work, there was already many many dialects of Slavic languages. South Slavs already had their dialect, West Slavs already had their dialects, and East Slavs already had their dialects (which was quite similar to the West Slavic one). You are delusional if you are thinking that Cyril and Methodious made half Europe to speak Slavic. It's funny.


You can search for other solutions for the rest of your life, but you will come to this eventually: Proto-slavic language is prussian branch, which developed with the help of goths.

Hahahah. It's incorrect and supported just by few linguists. Main modern statement is that Slavic is Southern Baltic dialect (dialect of Baltic continuum not of the ethnicity Balts - modern Letto-Lithuanians).

For example, you can read it from Frederik Kortlandt, from Toporov, from Ivanov etc...

Part of Kortlandt's work:

There is little or no evidence for a period of common West and East Balticinnovations after the period of common Balto-Slavic developments before theseparation of Slavic from the Baltic languages. The terms “Proto-Baltic” and “ProtoBalto-Slavic”refer to the same thing, and Slavic may alternatively be called “SouthBaltic”. The opposite view is taken by Miguel Villanueva Svensson (2014) and EugenHill (2016). Here I specify the differences which underlie the disagreement.

Part of Villanueva's work (who thiks otherwise):

According to Villanueva (2014: 173), the “most serious problem for Baltic unityis the apparent existence of non-trivial isoglosses between East Baltic and Slavic (e.g.thematic genitive singular, “nine”, ”third”, etc.)”. He opposes gen.sg. Lith. vil̃ko andOCS vlъka < *-ãd to OPr. deiwas (2014: 163). In fact, the ending Lith. -o, Slavic -arepresents *-ōd and can be identified with the Latin ablative ending -ōd, not **-ād, forwhich there is no evidence whatever. The Lithuanian reflex is -o because the endingwas unstressed in all accent classes (cf. Kortlandt 2009: 6, 46). Prussian added ananalogical -s to the Balto-Slavic ending in accordance with the other flexion types, allof which had a genitive in -s (cf. Vaillant 1958: 30, Kortlandt 2009: 192). The originalending was preserved in the Old Prussian proverb Deues does dantes, Deues doesgeitka ‘God give teeth, God give bread’ (cf. Sjöberg 1969) and in the Basle epigramnykoyte pēnega doyte ‘you do not want to give money’, where an emendation to -an or-as is unsatisfactory (cf. Kortlandt 2009: 215f.). There is no ancient isogloss betweenEast Baltic and Slavic here.The words for ‘nine’ and ‘third’ indeed support the view that Balto-Slavic splitinto three identifiable branches, with East Baltic as an intermediate dialect betweenWest Baltic and Slavic. OPr. newīnts ‘ninth’ shows that the substitution of de- for neinLith. deviñtas and OCS devętъ belongs to the dialectal Balto-Slavic period. Thesame holds for the subsequent development of *eu to *iou before consonants in EastBaltic and Slavic (cf. Kortlandt 2009: 45f., Derksen 2010). Similarly, OPr. tīrts ‘third’,acc. tīrtian, tirtien, Vedic tṛtī́yas for earlier *triyo-, is archaic in comparison with Lith.trẽčias and OCS tretii, which have tre- from *treies ‘three’. Another commondevelopment of East Baltic and Slavic not shared by West Baltic is the elimination of-s- in the pronominal dat.sg. and loc.sg. forms Lith. tãmui, tamè, tái, tojè, OCS tomu,tomь, toi, OPr. stesmu, stessiei, Vedic tásmai, tásmin, tásyai, tásyām


slavic languge is baltic as well

Slavic language is from Baltic continuum, not Baltic language (modern Letto-Lithuanian family).


Before Zarubnitsy culture was Milograd culture(it is souther orange), which was baltic:

Who proclaim it as Baltic? You, or some relevant archeologists? Names? Quotations?

Those are official informations about Milograd culture:

"The Milograd culture (also spelled Mylohrad, also known as Pidhirtsi culture on Ukrainian territory) is an archaeological culture, lasting from about the 7th century BC to the 1st century AD. Geographically, it corresponds to present day southern Belarus and northern Ukraine, in the area of the confluence of the Dnieper and the Pripyat, north of Kiev. Their ethnic origin is uncertain."

Link here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milograd_culture

I came here and opened a thread searching for someone who will post just proven things. You are posting your personal assumptions, and i respect this, but i don't respect that you are representing it as official and real. While nobody proved it yet. Do you see that even Balts (Letto-Lithuanians) on this forum don't have such statements as you have?

RajvoSa
13-03-18, 21:05
The reason for archaic nature of modern Baltic languages in comparison to Slavic ones:

40% of both Latvians and Lithuanians have ancient haplogroup R1a, which resided in the Baltics since 7000 years ago, and since 5000-4500 years ago it became Indo-European, after a new wave of R1a bearers (R1a-Z645) have arrived from Europe to territories from Black Sea to Baltic Sea. They spoke IE languages, and their northern branch (R1a-Z645-Z280) stayed on the Russian Plain (up to the North), and their southern branch (R1a-Z645-Z93) went to the East, and finally reached India, with their IE, pre-Sanskrit language. Naturally, their Northern branch spoke the same language, when they split.

Ygorcs
13-03-18, 21:33
"The problem with term proto-Baltic is that it is very wrong, as there was nothing prior Baltic language in Baltic area and Proto-Baltic = Proto-Indo-European(or because it looks like originated in Europe - Proto-European)." >>> That isn't correct. There was no "proto-European", because it was exactly the same as "Proto-Indo-European", which geographically and historically speaking was just as relevant to Central Asian branches (like Indo-Iranian and Indo-Aryan probably were in their beginning) as to European ones. "Indo-European" refers to the modern distribution of the IE languages, not to the geographic origins of that PIE language.

Besides, Proto-Baltic is an adequate term because it was not simply Common PIE, it was the northern or northeastern dialect/language derived from the Common PIE once spoken more or less regularly in the steppes, before the differentiation of dialects led to sister languages. Proto-Baltic is the direct descendant of PIE much like Proto-Greek is the direct descendant of PIE, and a "Baltic language" proper never existed, as it immediately split into various other languages, particularly because linguists consider that West Baltic and East Baltic are so distinct fom each other that their time of divergence is probably very early, diverging right from Proto-Baltic, and not from a later language among other Baltic languages. But, in the end, this is all like splitting hairs. What you call "Baltic" is what most linguists call "Proto-Baltic" because they can't see the existence of one definite and sole "Baltic language" afterwards, instead of a branch of closely related Baltic languages.

qtr
13-03-18, 22:34
"The problem with term proto-Baltic is that it is very wrong, as there was nothing prior Baltic language in Baltic area and Proto-Baltic = Proto-Indo-European(or because it looks like originated in Europe - Proto-European)." >>> That isn't correct. There was no "proto-European", because it was exactly the same as "Proto-Indo-European", which geographically and historically speaking was just as relevant to Central Asian branches (like Indo-Iranian and Indo-Aryan probably were in their beginning) as to European ones. "Indo-European" refers to the modern distribution of the IE languages, not to the geographic origins of that PIE language.

Besides, Proto-Baltic is an adequate term because it was not simply Common PIE, it was the northern or northeastern dialect/language derived from the Common PIE once spoken more or less regularly in the steppes, before the differentiation of dialects led to sister languages. Proto-Baltic is the direct descendant of PIE much like Proto-Greek is the direct descendant of PIE, and a "Baltic language" proper never existed, as it immediately split into various other languages, particularly because linguists consider that West Baltic and East Baltic are so distinct fom each other that their time of divergence is probably very early, diverging right from Proto-Baltic, and not from a later language among other Baltic languages. But, in the end, this is all like splitting hairs. What you call "Baltic" is what most linguists call "Proto-Baltic" because they can't see the existence of one definite and sole "Baltic language" afterwards, instead of a branch of closely related Baltic languages.

I have read, that US linguists do not use term Indo-Europeans, but instead use Eurasians, as there are still a lots of IE speaking people outside India and Europe. I could just start with counting armenians, kurdish, all indo-iranyans in Iran and Afganistan, even Pakistan(but I regard it as Indian region), so term Indo-European is really bad or - terrible to describe modern and not to mention - ancient distribution of IE languages.

1. No. There really do not exist term of proto-Balts in relation to PIE. If you reacted to this, you clearly have no clue about topic.
The only proto-balts you will get will be about much much later proto-Latvian-Lithuanian baltic language, that will be called proto-Baltic. And to make matters worse it is also very misleading, because by proto it is meant as pre Latvian-Lithuanian baltic languages(not that very different, but still), that existed before Latvian-Lithuanian influx. As for your understanding of PIE, I'm aware of that and this is actually what I meant, that PIE = proto-Baltic, and if you will prove otherwise, well... we will have a Nobel prize award(of how it is possible to break science) to Brasilian ;)

2. Proto-Greeks were not even PIE, but semitic at best. If you insist, that all pre-hellenic greeks were PIE, you have no idea about topic.

3. There is no Common PIE the way you describe it. Balts has nothing in common with germanic nonPIE lingual ancestry, because germanic language contain 30% of nonPIE lexicon and lingists are pulling hairs from their shiny heads to understand from where it comes. Also nothing in common with nonPIE greek, and neither with any other nonPIE ancestry of indo-iranian, who has heavy dravidian or even Indus valley civilisation extinct language influences. There is nothing more proto-PIE, than Baltic, because they are most archaic - to all languages, including recent development of slavic, which is not archaic as baltic is. If you can't understand what means archaic, well - Baltic languages are relic to ALL IE languages. I'm not saying, that they have not changed, but the closest to PIE you will have is any Baltic language.

4. I do not know anything about timing calculations that are made about divergence of Western and Eastern Baltic and I would like to have that data for me, if you can provide. Although - you are also not correct about understanding what are West and East balts, as the process between West and Eastern Balts is not divergence, but actually completelly opposite. I can only give you timings for divergence between modern latvian and lithuanian and it is ~1500 ya.

5. I can call Baltic anything, that can be shuffled under continuous Baltic dialect continium and where it can be proven as such. Slavic, also some other extinct language groups quite comfortably fit under this description, so it is just a matter of technical definition. From my experience we will come to this - eventually.

6. I do not care what most linguists call something, as you can't solve in these matters something by mere voting... What matters to me - if that is logical and if that actually makes sense. Don't get the wrong idea - I do actually read what linguists write(too much, actually), but as I mentioned - they have to have some sense and leave no unfinished questions to their ideas.

RajvoSa
13-03-18, 23:53
It is enough to look at the phonetic character of some words in the early proto-Slavic period, which is not directly testified:


"noć" (Old C. S.) - "naktis" (=Lith.)
"vuk" (Old C. S.) - "vilkos" (Lith. "vilkas")
"sin" (Old C. S.) - "suunus" (=Lith.)

After all, many linguists claim that there are almost no joint conclusions linking the Lithuanian-Latvian group with the prussian, which would not encompass the Slavic group. Only the loss of special forms for the third person of the plural could be counted here, but this line is most likely acquired through language contact after these languages have already been differentiated.

qtr
14-03-18, 00:27
No, but that ethnicity for sure didn't exist. Word Balt was started to use in 19th century for Letto-Lithuanians.

Even if we come to conlusion (somehow) that proto-Balto-Slavic language is equal term to proto-Baltic, than you need to understand some things. So, if this theory (hypothesis) is true than we have such situation; Baltic continuum of languages (not an ethnicity Balts). So this continuum of languages was made from 3 dialects: West Baltic (dead), East Baltic (Letto-Lithuanian) and Slavic (which can be call alternatively South Baltic dialect. But that what today means BALTS are exclusively Letto-Lithuanian dialect, and their dialect is defined as Baltic in 19th century. So when you see "Baltic" cultures, what do you mean? That Slavs come from Lithuanians and Latvians? That they spoke their dialect or what? It would be retarded claim. West Balts are one, East Balts are second and the Slavs (alternatively South Balts) are third thing. So your claim "There are no Slavs before 6th century" is nonsense. You are using (incorrect) term Baltic languages, for Balto-Slavic which would be more correct. Since Baltic languages are, i must say again modern Lithuanian and Latvian, who were always different dialects than the Slavic one. So this is the thing of terminology, and you are using the term "Balt", then i can use the term "North Slavs" for Balts, and it would not change anything. The sense is same.



I see you are proving your unknowledge. When Cyril and Methodius started to work, there was already many many dialects of Slavic languages. South Slavs already had their dialect, West Slavs already had their dialects, and East Slavs already had their dialects (which was quite similar to the West Slavic one). You are delusional if you are thinking that Cyril and Methodious made half Europe to speak Slavic. It's funny.



Hahahah. It's incorrect and supported just by few linguists. Main modern statement is that Slavic is Southern Baltic dialect (dialect of Baltic continuum not of the ethnicity Balts - modern Letto-Lithuanians).

For example, you can read it from Frederik Kortlandt, from Toporov, from Ivanov etc...

Part of Kortlandt's work:

There is little or no evidence for a period of common West and East Balticinnovations after the period of common Balto-Slavic developments before theseparation of Slavic from the Baltic languages. The terms “Proto-Baltic” and “ProtoBalto-Slavic”refer to the same thing, and Slavic may alternatively be called “SouthBaltic”. The opposite view is taken by Miguel Villanueva Svensson (2014) and EugenHill (2016). Here I specify the differences which underlie the disagreement.

Part of Villanueva's work (who thiks otherwise):

According to Villanueva (2014: 173), the “most serious problem for Baltic unityis the apparent existence of non-trivial isoglosses between East Baltic and Slavic (e.g.thematic genitive singular, “nine”, ”third”, etc.)”. He opposes gen.sg. Lith. vil̃ko andOCS vlъka < *-ãd to OPr. deiwas (2014: 163). In fact, the ending Lith. -o, Slavic -arepresents *-ōd and can be identified with the Latin ablative ending -ōd, not **-ād, forwhich there is no evidence whatever. The Lithuanian reflex is -o because the endingwas unstressed in all accent classes (cf. Kortlandt 2009: 6, 46). Prussian added ananalogical -s to the Balto-Slavic ending in accordance with the other flexion types, allof which had a genitive in -s (cf. Vaillant 1958: 30, Kortlandt 2009: 192). The originalending was preserved in the Old Prussian proverb Deues does dantes, Deues doesgeitka ‘God give teeth, God give bread’ (cf. Sjöberg 1969) and in the Basle epigramnykoyte pēnega doyte ‘you do not want to give money’, where an emendation to -an or-as is unsatisfactory (cf. Kortlandt 2009: 215f.). There is no ancient isogloss betweenEast Baltic and Slavic here.The words for ‘nine’ and ‘third’ indeed support the view that Balto-Slavic splitinto three identifiable branches, with East Baltic as an intermediate dialect betweenWest Baltic and Slavic. OPr. newīnts ‘ninth’ shows that the substitution of de- for neinLith. deviñtas and OCS devętъ belongs to the dialectal Balto-Slavic period. Thesame holds for the subsequent development of *eu to *iou before consonants in EastBaltic and Slavic (cf. Kortlandt 2009: 45f., Derksen 2010). Similarly, OPr. tīrts ‘third’,acc. tīrtian, tirtien, Vedic tṛtī́yas for earlier *triyo-, is archaic in comparison with Lith.trẽčias and OCS tretii, which have tre- from *treies ‘three’. Another commondevelopment of East Baltic and Slavic not shared by West Baltic is the elimination of-s- in the pronominal dat.sg. and loc.sg. forms Lith. tãmui, tamè, tái, tojè, OCS tomu,tomь, toi, OPr. stesmu, stessiei, Vedic tásmai, tásmin, tásyai, tásyām



Slavic language is from Baltic continuum, not Baltic language (modern Letto-Lithuanian family).



Who proclaim it as Baltic? You, or some relevant archeologists? Names? Quotations?

Those are official informations about Milograd culture:

"The Milograd culture (also spelled Mylohrad, also known as Pidhirtsi culture on Ukrainian territory) is an archaeological culture, lasting from about the 7th century BC to the 1st century AD. Geographically, it corresponds to present day southern Belarus and northern Ukraine, in the area of the confluence of the Dnieper and the Pripyat, north of Kiev. Their ethnic origin is uncertain."

Link here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milograd_culture

I came here and opened a thread searching for someone who will post just proven things. You are posting your personal assumptions, and i respect this, but i don't respect that you are representing it as official and real. While nobody proved it yet. Do you see that even Balts (Letto-Lithuanians) on this forum don't have such statements as you have?


I am curious about Southern baltic language term use in your argument, but I explicitly mentioned, that recent historians called Kievan Rus(which contains southern areal of Baltic, as well) as Eatern Baltic state, because Lithuanian is considered Eastern Baltic.
Besides, I explained about not my research actually, but ideas I've picked up, how prussians were linked to slavs, whic does not make slavic as southern baltic, but creole of western baltic, and it still does not make any paralel existence of slavic language.

No, Im using correct term of Baltic languages, which explicitly mean - anything that used Baltic and continued to use it till now or until extinction. We have a huge misunderstansding, because I suppose, that all of these theories about baltic-slavic relations are outdated and are not supported by historical and linguistical evidence(following picture is 100 years old and you are trying to shuffle slavic as one of those):

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/b/bd/Balto-Slavic_theories.svg/546px-Balto-Slavic_theories.svg.png

And I am with Влади́мир Никола́евич Топоро́в, who says, that slavic branched off from baltic and proto-baltic-slavic theory is not supporting this idea of a very authoritative baltic linguist, but insist on using outdated version... so I have a problem with wiki interpretation, which I would not use, without considering a very notable update.

Also another thing. Western baltic does not exist - there are at least couple of groups of languages, that are related to each other and who for the sake of simplicity are called as western. Yes, I am aware, that wiki says otherwise(again), but wiki is not authority in these matters at all.

I need to understand your measurement of half of Europe, but thanks to church slavonic, Rus was made into slavic speaking region, where slavic population was in tiny minority among more numerous finnish and baltic tribes. With church slavonic all of rural greeks became slavic speaking just as well as nonslavic people of Balkans, who were orthodox christians. Just like slavic and baltic people of eastern germany were assimilated into german, because in those ages the only identification of people was religion branch and what language used church, that was the language they used, or are you implying that common folks influenced language of church liturgy?


"It's incorrect and supported just by few linguists." - What about this: "In linguistics nothing can be solved by voting, but by research."

About Villanueva:
Oh, we are dwelling into something, that what I've noted, that eastern slavs were assimilated balts. Not all of them were eastern balts, though - some of them were even more eastern, than eastern balts and some, like galindians were colonists from west of eastern balts. Also, I would need to understand to which specific time period Villanueva is refering to. It should be noted, that eastern slavs were hit by church slavonic very heavily - I must wonder, if that author is even aware of what could happen as a result of mix of eastern baltic(all that is used for church in eastern slavic comes from church slavonic) and church slavonic in eastern slavic languages? Also, if you did not understand what I wrote there, that actually contradicts anything you are mentioning as unified slavic language and proto-language, because most of that is influences of preslavic eastern baltic substratum on eastern slavic, which are not present in other slavic languages, but we are still talking proto-slavic, as slavic, that originated from one slavic group, right? Btw, I've not considered option, that slavic might be evolved as paralel multiple slavic languages, whic Villanueva argument seems like actually makes as a case.


Well, I do not see any problems regarding Milograd culture. Wiki has used unprecise terminology, which is open to strange interpretations, but it is Baltic with unknown ethnic origin - as we do not know name for ethnicity of Milograd culture. Unless we are ready to accept their identification as Neuri or baltic name would be Nauri, which comes from Narew name of Bug river tributary.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neuri
http://www.suduva.com/virdainas/galindai.htm

I still don't see how you can nitpick Milograd culture, just by using as a base, what is written in wiki, without consulting actual sources, as more recent sources still classifies younger cultures as baltic, where also Milograd culture is regarded as baltic.

What is the point of mentioning other people and by baltic ethnicity? What's the use for this kind of argument? Only thing what I can come up, is that they are not as many and most probably they have nothing to say, where I have ;)

qtr
14-03-18, 00:28
No, but that ethnicity for sure didn't exist. Word Balt was started to use in 19th century for Letto-Lithuanians.

Even if we come to conlusion (somehow) that proto-Balto-Slavic language is equal term to proto-Baltic, than you need to understand some things. So, if this theory (hypothesis) is true than we have such situation; Baltic continuum of languages (not an ethnicity Balts). So this continuum of languages was made from 3 dialects: West Baltic (dead), East Baltic (Letto-Lithuanian) and Slavic (which can be call alternatively South Baltic dialect. But that what today means BALTS are exclusively Letto-Lithuanian dialect, and their dialect is defined as Baltic in 19th century. So when you see "Baltic" cultures, what do you mean? That Slavs come from Lithuanians and Latvians? That they spoke their dialect or what? It would be retarded claim. West Balts are one, East Balts are second and the Slavs (alternatively South Balts) are third thing. So your claim "There are no Slavs before 6th century" is nonsense. You are using (incorrect) term Baltic languages, for Balto-Slavic which would be more correct. Since Baltic languages are, i must say again modern Lithuanian and Latvian, who were always different dialects than the Slavic one. So this is the thing of terminology, and you are using the term "Balt", then i can use the term "North Slavs" for Balts, and it would not change anything. The sense is same.



I see you are proving your unknowledge. When Cyril and Methodius started to work, there was already many many dialects of Slavic languages. South Slavs already had their dialect, West Slavs already had their dialects, and East Slavs already had their dialects (which was quite similar to the West Slavic one). You are delusional if you are thinking that Cyril and Methodious made half Europe to speak Slavic. It's funny.



Hahahah. It's incorrect and supported just by few linguists. Main modern statement is that Slavic is Southern Baltic dialect (dialect of Baltic continuum not of the ethnicity Balts - modern Letto-Lithuanians).

For example, you can read it from Frederik Kortlandt, from Toporov, from Ivanov etc...

Part of Kortlandt's work:

There is little or no evidence for a period of common West and East Balticinnovations after the period of common Balto-Slavic developments before theseparation of Slavic from the Baltic languages. The terms “Proto-Baltic” and “ProtoBalto-Slavic”refer to the same thing, and Slavic may alternatively be called “SouthBaltic”. The opposite view is taken by Miguel Villanueva Svensson (2014) and EugenHill (2016). Here I specify the differences which underlie the disagreement.

Part of Villanueva's work (who thiks otherwise):

According to Villanueva (2014: 173), the “most serious problem for Baltic unityis the apparent existence of non-trivial isoglosses between East Baltic and Slavic (e.g.thematic genitive singular, “nine”, ”third”, etc.)”. He opposes gen.sg. Lith. vil̃ko andOCS vlъka < *-ãd to OPr. deiwas (2014: 163). In fact, the ending Lith. -o, Slavic -arepresents *-ōd and can be identified with the Latin ablative ending -ōd, not **-ād, forwhich there is no evidence whatever. The Lithuanian reflex is -o because the endingwas unstressed in all accent classes (cf. Kortlandt 2009: 6, 46). Prussian added ananalogical -s to the Balto-Slavic ending in accordance with the other flexion types, allof which had a genitive in -s (cf. Vaillant 1958: 30, Kortlandt 2009: 192). The originalending was preserved in the Old Prussian proverb Deues does dantes, Deues doesgeitka ‘God give teeth, God give bread’ (cf. Sjöberg 1969) and in the Basle epigramnykoyte pēnega doyte ‘you do not want to give money’, where an emendation to -an or-as is unsatisfactory (cf. Kortlandt 2009: 215f.). There is no ancient isogloss betweenEast Baltic and Slavic here.The words for ‘nine’ and ‘third’ indeed support the view that Balto-Slavic splitinto three identifiable branches, with East Baltic as an intermediate dialect betweenWest Baltic and Slavic. OPr. newīnts ‘ninth’ shows that the substitution of de- for neinLith. deviñtas and OCS devętъ belongs to the dialectal Balto-Slavic period. Thesame holds for the subsequent development of *eu to *iou before consonants in EastBaltic and Slavic (cf. Kortlandt 2009: 45f., Derksen 2010). Similarly, OPr. tīrts ‘third’,acc. tīrtian, tirtien, Vedic tṛtī́yas for earlier *triyo-, is archaic in comparison with Lith.trẽčias and OCS tretii, which have tre- from *treies ‘three’. Another commondevelopment of East Baltic and Slavic not shared by West Baltic is the elimination of-s- in the pronominal dat.sg. and loc.sg. forms Lith. tãmui, tamè, tái, tojè, OCS tomu,tomь, toi, OPr. stesmu, stessiei, Vedic tásmai, tásmin, tásyai, tásyām



Slavic language is from Baltic continuum, not Baltic language (modern Letto-Lithuanian family).



Who proclaim it as Baltic? You, or some relevant archeologists? Names? Quotations?

Those are official informations about Milograd culture:

"The Milograd culture (also spelled Mylohrad, also known as Pidhirtsi culture on Ukrainian territory) is an archaeological culture, lasting from about the 7th century BC to the 1st century AD. Geographically, it corresponds to present day southern Belarus and northern Ukraine, in the area of the confluence of the Dnieper and the Pripyat, north of Kiev. Their ethnic origin is uncertain."

Link here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milograd_culture

I came here and opened a thread searching for someone who will post just proven things. You are posting your personal assumptions, and i respect this, but i don't respect that you are representing it as official and real. While nobody proved it yet. Do you see that even Balts (Letto-Lithuanians) on this forum don't have such statements as you have?


I am curious about Southern baltic language term use in your argument, but I explicitly mentioned, that recent historians called Kievan Rus(which contains southern areal of Baltic, as well) as Eatern Baltic state, because Lithuanian is considered Eastern Baltic.
Besides, I explained about not my research actually, but ideas I've picked up, how prussians were linked to slavs, whic does not make slavic as southern baltic, but creole of western baltic, and it still does not make any paralel existence of slavic language.

No, Im using correct term of Baltic languages, which explicitly mean - anything that used Baltic and continued to use it till now or until extinction. We have a huge misunderstansding, because I suppose, that all of these theories about baltic-slavic relations are outdated and are not supported by historical and linguistical evidence(following picture is 100 years old and you are trying to shuffle slavic as one of those):

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/b/bd/Balto-Slavic_theories.svg/546px-Balto-Slavic_theories.svg.png

And I am with Влади́мир Никола́евич Топоро́в, who says, that slavic branched off from baltic and proto-baltic-slavic theory is not supporting this idea of a very authoritative baltic linguist, but insist on using outdated version... so I have a problem with wiki interpretation, which I would not use, without considering a very notable update.

Also another thing. Western baltic does not exist - there are at least couple of groups of languages, that are related to each other and who for the sake of simplicity are called as western. Yes, I am aware, that wiki says otherwise(again), but wiki is not authority in these matters at all.

I need to understand your measurement of half of Europe, but thanks to church slavonic, Rus was made into slavic speaking region, where slavic population was in tiny minority among more numerous finnish and baltic tribes. With church slavonic all of rural greeks became slavic speaking just as well as nonslavic people of Balkans, who were orthodox christians. Just like slavic and baltic people of eastern germany were assimilated into german, because in those ages the only identification of people was religion branch and what language used church, that was the language they used, or are you implying that common folks influenced language of church liturgy?


"It's incorrect and supported just by few linguists." - What about this: "In linguistics nothing can be solved by voting, but by research."

About Villanueva:
Oh, we are dwelling into something, that what I've noted, that eastern slavs were assimilated balts. Not all of them were eastern balts, though - some of them were even more eastern, than eastern balts and some, like galindians were colonists from west of eastern balts. Also, I would need to understand to which specific time period Villanueva is refering to. It should be noted, that eastern slavs were hit by church slavonic very heavily - I must wonder, if that author is even aware of what could happen as a result of mix of eastern baltic(all that is used for church in eastern slavic comes from church slavonic) and church slavonic in eastern slavic languages? Also, if you did not understand what I wrote there, that actually contradicts anything you are mentioning as unified slavic language and proto-language, because most of that is influences of preslavic eastern baltic substratum on eastern slavic, which are not present in other slavic languages, but we are still talking proto-slavic, as slavic, that originated from one slavic group, right? Btw, I've not considered option, that slavic might be evolved as paralel multiple slavic languages, whic Villanueva argument seems like actually makes as a case.


Well, I do not see any problems regarding Milograd culture. Wiki has used unprecise terminology, which is open to strange interpretations, but it is Baltic with unknown ethnic origin - as we do not know name for ethnicity of Milograd culture. Unless we are ready to accept their identification as Neuri or baltic name would be Nauri, which comes from Narew name of Bug river tributary.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neuri
http://www.suduva.com/virdainas/galindai.htm

I still don't see how you can nitpick Milograd culture, just by using as a base, what is written in wiki, without consulting actual sources, as more recent sources still classifies younger cultures as baltic, where also Milograd culture is regarded as baltic.

What is the point of mentioning other people and by baltic ethnicity? What's the use for this kind of argument? Only thing what I can come up, is that they are not as many and most probably they have nothing to say, where I have ;)

qtɾ
14-03-18, 01:08
and Slavic (which can be call alternatively South Baltic dialect.
I am curious about Southern baltic language term use in your argument, but I explicitly mentioned, that historians called Kievan Rus(which contains southern areal of Baltic, as well) as Eatern Baltic state, because Lithuanian is considered Eastern Baltic.
Besides, I explained about not my research actually, but ideas I've picked up, how prussians were linked to slavs, whic does not make slavic as southern baltic, but creole of western baltic, and it still does not make any paralel existence of slavic language.


So when you see "Baltic" cultures, what do you mean?
No, Im using correct term of Baltic languages, which explicitly mean - anything that used Baltic and continued to use it till now or until extinction. We have a huge misunderstansding, because I suppose, that all of these theories about baltic-slavic relations are outdated and are not supported by historical and linguistical evidence that has moved forward for the past 100 years.

And I am with Влади́мир Никола́евич Топоро́в, who says, that slavic branched off from baltic and proto-baltic-slavic theory is not supporting this idea of a very authoritative baltic linguist, but insist on using outdated version... so I have a problem with wiki interpretation, which I would not use, without considering a very notable update.


You are delusional if you are thinking that Cyril and Methodious made half Europe to speak Slavic.

I need to understand your measurement of half of Europe, but thanks to church slavonic, Rus was made into slavic speaking region, where slavic population was in tiny minority among more numerous finnish and baltic tribes. With church slavonic all of rural greeks became slavic speaking just as well as nonslavic people of Balkans, who were orthodox christians. Just like slavic and baltic people of eastern germany were assimilated into german, because in those ages the only identification of people was religion branch and what language used church, that was the language they used, or are you implying that common folks influenced language of church liturgy?



It's incorrect and supported just by few linguists.
What about this quote: "In linguistics nothing can be solved by voting, but by research."


Villanueva
Oh, we are dwelling into something, that what I've noted, that eastern slavs were assimilated balts. Not all of them were eastern balts, though - some of them were even more eastern, than eastern balts and some, like galindians were colonists from west of eastern balts. Also, I would need to understand to which specific time period Villanueva is refering to. It should be noted, that eastern slavs were hit by church slavonic very heavily - I must wonder, if that author is even aware of what could happen as a result of mix of eastern baltic(all that is used for church in eastern slavic comes from church slavonic) and church slavonic in eastern slavic languages? Also, if you did not understand what I wrote there, that actually contradicts anything you are mentioning as unified slavic language and proto-language, because most of that is influences of preslavic eastern baltic substratum on eastern slavic, which are not present in other slavic languages, but we are still talking proto-slavic, as slavic, that originated from one slavic group, right? Btw, I've not considered option, that slavic might be evolved as paralel multiple slavic languages, whic Villanueva argument seems like actually makes as a case.


Their ethnic origin is uncertain.
Well, I do not see any problems regarding Milograd culture. Wiki has used unprecise terminology, which is open to strange interpretations, but it is Baltic with unknown ethnic origin - as we do not know name for ethnicity of Milograd culture. Unless we are ready to accept their identification as Neuri(they were mentioned by Herodotus) or baltic name would be Nauri, which comes from Narew name of Bug river tributary.

I still don't see how you can nitpick Milograd culture, just by using as a base, what is written in wiki, without consulting actual sources, as more recent sources still classifies younger cultures as baltic, where also Milograd culture is regarded as baltic.


Do you see that even Balts (Letto-Lithuanians) on this forum don't have such statements as you have?
Listen, I would like to have some proper thinking slavic person to chat, as well, but hardly any professor comes here... :/
so, can you just stop being irritated - and you will get exactly the same attitude from me ;)

RajvoSa
14-03-18, 15:46
And I am with Влади́мир Никола́евич Топоро́в, who says, that slavic branched off from baltic and proto-baltic-slavic theory is not supporting this idea of a very authoritative baltic linguist, but insist on using outdated version... so I have a problem with wiki interpretation, which I would not use, without considering a very notable update.

Nom you are not with him. Since you claim that Slavic basically is originally form of Prussian, while he claim that Slavic is not from Prussian, neither from East Baltic dialect, but that was one individual dialect, he claimed that this dialect was in the southern Baltic area (different from West and East Baltic who will evolve later to individual language family. That is the theory of Toporov, and if this theory is correct, again we have Balto-Slavic language community, but not just Baltic. :D :D


Just like slavic and baltic people of eastern germany were assimilated into german, because in those ages the only identification of people was religion branch and what language used church, that was the language they used, or are you implying that common folks influenced language of church liturgy?

Many people were assimilated, but what is your point there?


Rus was made into slavic speaking region, where slavic population was in tiny minority among more numerous finnish and baltic tribes.

Rus area spoke the language who mainly originate from the Slavic tribes "Vyatichi" and "Polyani" who are originally West Slavic tribe and migrated in Eastern Europe, and force their language. Is it so hard to research this?


I've not considered option, that slavic might be evolved as paralel multiple slavic languages, whic Villanueva argument seems like actually makes as a case.

Well, unlike you i see it as option, becouse no one proved him wrong. If his theory is correct, then East Baltic dialect is result of intermediate of West Baltic and Slavic. Also there is an example in Baltic and Slavic languages which can actually separate them ("Balto-Slavic split period")

Devet (OCS) - Devintas (Lit.)

For example, this comparation proves that they are both from the one ancestral language and that they evolved as paralels. There are many arguments who still go on the "Balto-Slavic" theory side, but you proclaim something as definitly, while it is not. That's the problem. Not your opinion, but your proclamation.


I still don't see how you can nitpick Milograd culture, just by using as a base, what is written in wiki, without consulting actual sources, as more recent sources still classifies younger cultures as baltic, where also Milograd culture is regarded as baltic.

You should say: "My opinion is that Milograd is Baltic culture" but you wrote here as it is Baltic culture definitly, while no one in the world arhceologist didn't prove yet.


so, can you just stop being irritated - and you will get exactly the same attitude from me ;

Unlike you, i post here an assumptions, hypothesis about the Balto-Slavic languages which problem is not solved yet, while you are posting your personal assumptions and proclaim it as official.

Yetos
14-03-18, 19:44
Maybe Yodization? i and j

compare the sound of

Germania
Germanja

RajvoSa
14-03-18, 21:26
Maybe Yodization? i and j

compare the sound of

Germania
Germanja

Well, today, the language difference is clear. It's easy to differ Baltic branch from Slavic. The question is about ancient times.

Yodization came with Cyrill and Methodius to Slavic languages most likely.

Ygorcs
14-03-18, 22:14
I have read, that US linguists do not use term Indo-Europeans, but instead use Eurasians, as there are still a lots of IE speaking people outside India and Europe. I could just start with counting armenians, kurdish, all indo-iranyans in Iran and Afganistan, even Pakistan(but I regard it as Indian region), so term Indo-European is really bad or - terrible to describe modern and not to mention - ancient distribution of IE languages.

I never heard that term in reference to Indo-European speakers instead of merely "people who live in Eurasia", but anyway I think that term is even worse than Indo-Europeans, because the term "Eurasians" by definition is already used and perfectly adequate to describe all the peoples who live in Eurasia, that is, anywhere in Europe or Asia, and of course a huge percentage of the Eurasians - "people from Eurasia" - do not speak any Indo-European language. Any term for the Indo-European language will necessarily be partial, because of the huge expanse of that language family, but people simply need to accept a convenient, even if imperfect, term if they want to dig deeper into what really matters, because if Indo-European gets called "Euriranindiamericentralasian" or "Washynkpathakan" it will still be just a name given to the Indo-European language family, nothing else. There is not that much in a name in this case, it's just the result of a scientific agreement, exactly like "Afro-Asiatic" and many others.

As for your point 4, you can search it for yourself, it shouldn't be difficult using Google, but I can just stress that I don't make these things up... but I'd like to know why you are so sure that West and East Balts had no process of divergence even if very early in their history, but just "actually completelly opposite". Well, if you say that what happened was completely the opposite, i.e. that they converged, that logically means that before that convergence they were different branches - no convergence can happen between two things that are already the same thing -, and since both of those branches came from PIE we can only conclude, logically, that even if a later process of convergence took place those languages had first a process of divergence, gradually splitting into different branches before they again got closer and closer to each other. Those processes are not mutually exclusive.

Ygorcs
14-03-18, 22:21
2. Proto-Greeks were not even PIE, but semitic at best. If you insist, that all pre-hellenic greeks were PIE, you have no idea about topic..

No, dear, despite your aggressive and impolite self-confidence, it is you who have no idea about the topic since you are confusing even very basic terms and even wanting to redefine simple convenient premises to understand this topic better. When someone talks about "Proto-Greeks" he is not talking about people who lived in Greece before the Hellenes arrived, okay? Proto-Greeks can't have been "Semitic at best" because by definition Proto-Greek is the intermediate stage between PIE and Mycenaean Greek, regardless of who spoke it originally. As you know, people can very easily shift their language and be assimilated to other language group, muuuuch more easily than they can change their genetic makeup. That observation is so basic that I'm a bit ashamed to have to explain it to you. Proto-Greek refers to the IE language that is the ancestor of the Greek language that came to be spoken in Greece in the Bronze Age, not to pre-hellenic "Greeks".

You are confusing linguistics and genetics, and that can only lead to a lot of confusion. The origins of a language are not identical to the origins of the people who, centuries or even milennia later, were speaking the later forms of that language. If you want to talk about the pre-Greek-speaking demographic situation of Greece, you shouldn't think of Proto-Greek, but about Pre-Hellenic/Pre-Greek populations of modern Greece. These are two totally different concepts. Those who were effectively Proto-Greek, i.e. were speakers of an IE language that eventually became Greek, certainly lived nowhere in Greece when Proto-Greek split off from PIE.

I'd suggest you to get off your high heels because your confidence is making you underestimate what other people are saying and you end up saying platitudes or even basic misunderstandings as if you were somehow giving us a very relevant lesson and impressive corrections. Or at least pay a bit more of attention on what other people are saying, especially at the true, widely accepted meaning of the words that they are using.

Ygorcs
14-03-18, 22:44
3. There is no Common PIE the way you describe it. Balts has nothing in common with germanic nonPIE lingual ancestry, because germanic language contain 30% of nonPIE lexicon and lingists are pulling hairs from their shiny heads to understand from where it comes. Also nothing in common with nonPIE greek, and neither with any other nonPIE ancestry of indo-iranian, who has heavy dravidian or even Indus valley civilisation extinct language influences. There is nothing more proto-PIE, than Baltic, because they are most archaic - to all languages, including recent development of slavic, which is not archaic as baltic is. If you can't understand what means archaic, well - Baltic languages are relic to ALL IE languages. I'm not saying, that they have not changed, but the closest to PIE you will have is any Baltic language

You're trying to use the degree of phonological or grammatical conservativeness of a language to prove that it is the ultimate origin of that language, the "most " of all even though several other languages also descend from that same language? Is, for example, Icelandic the ultimate origin of the Germanic languages, or maybe we should now state, instead of simply calling Proto-Germanic, that we can safely bet that Proto-Germanic = (Old) Icelandic? Or can we safely trust that everything in Icelandic is just a preserved "relic" of Proto-Germanic, because it chaged less than other languages? Of course not, Icelandic also went through its own path of development.

That's almost insane, one claim has nothing to do with the other. You're too lured by the archaic characteristics of Baltic languages, so much that you must think that it must mean something essential, fundamental - but it doesn't. Baltic is a branch like others derived from that pre-expansion Common PIE ("common" refers to a language still without many divergent dialects spoken in a wide area subject to many distinct foreign influences). It simply changed less than the others, there is no "mystery" there nor some "fundamental hidden truth" there. Baltic tongues look more like PIE. That claim and "PIE is Proto-Baltic" have nothing to do with each other, one does not derive logically from the other at least if you know the basics of linguistics.

Your reference to non-IE substrates in other IE branches means nothing because I was talking about the Common PIE which was obviously spoken as such only before the wide expansion of PIE dialects in other parts of Europe and Asia. The substrates coming from non-IE languages are a result of centuries or even milennia of interaction with other peoples in that long process of expansion of IE-speaking tribes, when we can safely argue that Common PIE was a thing of the past and we were seeing increasingly divergent dialects spliting off from PIE and into related, but distinct languages. In the case of Germanic, it had as much as 3,000 years to incorporate that non-IE substrate that is not found in the Baltic branch, from the times of the first arrival of PIE speakers in Central Europe to the times that Proto-Germanic was still spoken even as late as circa 1 AD.

It's simply ludicrous to claim that "there is nothing more proto-PIE (proto-proto-Indo-European, what does that even mean?!?!) than Baltic". "Proto-PIE" is no adjective to be quantified if one given branch is "more" or "less" PIE, it simply derives from PIE or not, and the latter history of the development of the daughter branches' lexicon, syntax and phonology is a different matter, it's not about PIE any more. Baltic is simply more conservative and, because of that, seemingly more archaic than other IE branches, and that's all. That tells us nothing really reliable about the origin of PIE, much less it is enough to claim, as you do without virtually any support from actual scientists on that topic, that PIE is [I]exactly Proto-Baltic.

For starters, if PIE was identical to Proto-Baltic, we'd see all the innovations and peculiarties of Baltic in most of the Indo-European branches, because these would all be directly descended from that Proto-Baltic - and, sorry, we just don't see that pattern, and even the earliest common stages of Baltic language have many grammatical, lexical and phonological characteristics that are only theirs or only shared with a few other IE branches, mainly Slavic and, much more seldom, Indo-Iranian and possibly Daco-Thracian.

Ygorcs
14-03-18, 22:53
As for your understanding of PIE, I'm aware of that and this is actually what I meant, that PIE = proto-Baltic, and if you will prove otherwise, well... we will have a Nobel prize award(of how it is possible to break science) to Brasilian ;)
Why the irony? Now I am REALLY interested to read your explanation for that, and I hope you don't shy away from making what you really wanted to mean very clearly (no matter how bigoted or ridiculous it probably is), lest I think even worse of you even from this short exchange of messages that we've had until now. I'll be waiting.

lyakh
15-03-18, 00:51
In ancient remains of Balts from Latvia and Lithuania CTS1211 was found:

Spiginas2, 2130-1750 BC, Baltic_EBA, R1a-Z280>CTS1211+
Spiginas25, 800–545 BC, Baltic_BA, R1a-Z280>CTS1211+

Kivutkalns222, 805–515 BC, Baltic_BA, R1a-Z280>CTS1211>YP1034>Y13467+
Kivutkalns19, 730-400 BC, Baltic_LBA, R1a-Z280>CTS1211>YP1034>Y13467+
Kivutkalns209, 405-230 BC, Baltic_IA, R1a-Z280>CTS1211>YP1034>Y13467+

So CTS1211 not always is Slavic, it can be Baltic also.

I am interested if CTS3402 clade has Baltic branches which are absent in Slavs.

I suppose that Trzciniec culture may be the source of Balto-Slavic ethnos.

RajvoSa
15-03-18, 01:48
In ancient remains of Balts from Latvia and Lithuania CTS1211 was found:

Spiginas2, 2130-1750 BC, Baltic_EBA, R1a-Z280>CTS1211+
Spiginas25, 800–545 BC, Baltic_BA, R1a-Z280>CTS1211+

Kivutkalns222, 805–515 BC, Baltic_BA, R1a-Z280>CTS1211>YP1034>Y13467+
Kivutkalns19, 730-400 BC, Baltic_LBA, R1a-Z280>CTS1211>YP1034>Y13467+
Kivutkalns209, 405-230 BC, Baltic_IA, R1a-Z280>CTS1211>YP1034>Y13467+

So, most of the CTS1211 (if not all of them) are found in Baltic area? Or am i wrong?


I suppose that Trzciniec culture may be the source of Balto-Slavic ethnos.

Well, here we don't have problem about proto Balto-Slavic area, but an individual ethnicities of both. For example, this guy "qtr" proclaimed officially that there was no Slavic language before 5th century, and that everything which is related to them before 5th century is actually Baltic. But also..... many other nonsenses such as that Cyrill and Methodious imposed Slavic language to Balts in Eastern Europe and then they became Slavs, also that Milograd Culture is Baltic archeology and many others proclamations...

lyakh
15-03-18, 15:57
5 ancient samples from Baltic countries were tested for Y-DNA and the result was in all of them CTS1211+. It does not mean that all CTS1211 is Baltic. Some branches of CTS1211 (like CTS3402?) appear to be Slavic, not Baltic. I suppose that CTS1211 was present in ancient time in what is today Belarus and northern Ukraine. That CTS1211 could be proto-Slavic.

Balts (not only Lithuanians and Latvians, but also extinct West Balts) carried very large amount of Y-DNA N, especially subclade M2783, which has TMRCA (according to YFull) of 2700 ybp.

Zeus10
15-03-18, 16:12
Northern India was conquered by people who started from the same region, the fruitful, rich, fertile banks of the Black Sea. Both Krishna and Arjuna spoke in "Old Church Slavonic", also known as... Sanskrit.
How could I possibly have a constructive debate, with someone who claims, O.CH.S is the Sanskrit? O.CH.S is the mother language of all Slavic people and has nothing to with IE migration nonsense. Period.

RajvoSa
15-03-18, 17:22
5 ancient samples from Baltic countries were tested for Y-DNA and the result was in all of them CTS1211+. It does not mean that all CTS1211 is Baltic. Some branches of CTS1211 (like CTS3402?) appear to be Slavic, not Baltic. I suppose that CTS1211 was present in ancient time in what is today Belarus and northern Ukraine. That CTS1211 could be proto-Slavic.

Balts (not only Lithuanians and Latvians, but also extinct West Balts) carried very large amount of Y-DNA N, especially subclade M2783, which has TMRCA (according to YFull) of 2700 ybp.

Milograd culture area should be tested really.

qtr
16-03-18, 13:58
5 ancient samples from Baltic countries were tested for Y-DNA and the result was in all of them CTS1211+. It does not mean that all CTS1211 is Baltic. Some branches of CTS1211 (like CTS3402?) appear to be Slavic, not Baltic. I suppose that CTS1211 was present in ancient time in what is today Belarus and northern Ukraine. That CTS1211 could be proto-Slavic.

Balts (not only Lithuanians and Latvians, but also extinct West Balts) carried very large amount of Y-DNA N, especially subclade M2783, which has TMRCA (according to YFull) of 2700 ybp.

1. I did not test those.
2. According to that blog, it was ancient DNA(no idea - extracted from dead people? with the site names - it looks like so), so it is not about modern living DNA, which is different thing. It just established that R1a in it's earliest forms were present between Baltic and Black seas 5000+ years ago already. It also points out, that R1a originated in Europe and not in Iran, as current history teaches us. R1b were first ones who split off from R1. Where are the most ancient R1 samples is still open question - keeping in mind, that there also exists R2, which is most SE Asia - India etc.
3. N arrived in Europe(over Ural mountains) 2300+ years later than R1a appeared in Europe. Author of this topic was interested how to distinguish R1a in slavic and baltic, not N or I2, as that is completely different topic, and he should have made an different topic if he was interested in that. Or are you with mentioning N implying something very rude, same as author?

qtr
16-03-18, 15:11
instead of simply calling Proto-Germanic, that we can safely bet that Proto-Germanic = (Old) Icelandic?
Icelandic derived from Norwegian. I don't care how germanic languages are called - if you say, they should be scandinavian, because they originated in scandinavia I'm fine with that.

This is not about the naming, but placement - we can call them Q W R T Y or whatever, but if Q group shows all signs, that it is derived from W group, then it becomes branch of W group. Why would anyone assume, that IE language and any other model is set in stone? There exist views, that Basque is isolate of IE, even if it is today proclaimed as not belonging to IE, that does not mean, that they are not going to be in future.


13-03-18, 21:33 much like Proto-Greek is the direct descendant of PIE
Clearly this is a contradiction, because Proto-greek is not direct descendant of PIE, but it is hybrid language of unknown languages and PIE. It still does not make it false, if we declare, that most archaic language group was closest to PIE. Yeah, but you are right - can't use IE as name for current language family, so let's rename it to: European-Indian language, so it reflects from where it came, as for some people it is too confusing.


and, sorry, we just don't see that pattern, and even the earliest common stages of Baltic language have many grammatical, lexical and phonological characteristics that are only theirs or only shared with a few other IE branches, mainly Slavic and, much more seldom, Indo-Iranian and possibly Daco-Thracian.
How you are so sure about earliest stages of Baltic languages? Did you study them? Even Italic languages share at least some things with Baltic, just like ALL of IE language groups, if we come to that. However with Dacian-Thracian it is under question if these similarities were something more in the past - like to the proposals, like: were Dacian-Thracian Baltic?

RajvoSa
16-03-18, 16:28
1. I did not test those.
2. According to that blog, it was ancient DNA(no idea - extracted from dead people? with the site names - it looks like so), so it is not about modern living DNA, which is different thing. It just established that R1a in it's earliest forms were present between Baltic and Black seas 5000+ years ago already. It also points out, that R1a originated in Europe and not in Iran, as current history teaches us. R1b were first ones who split off from R1. Where are the most ancient R1 samples is still open question - keeping in mind, that there also exists R2, which is most SE Asia - India etc.
3. N arrived in Europe(over Ural mountains) 2300+ years later than R1a appeared in Europe. Author of this topic was interested how to distinguish R1a in slavic and baltic, not N or I2, as that is completely different topic, and he should have made an different topic if he was interested in that. Or are you with mentioning N implying something very rude, same as author?

There is no need to explain or ask for Y-DNA difference between Balts and Slavs indeed. It's clear that among both, Lithuanians and Latvians, is presented somewhere about 40% N and 40% R1a. In genetical sense they are half Finno-Ugric and half Indo-European, while haplogroup N is not significant among Slavic-speaking populations (except Russians, but even they are half percent in comparison to Balts - 23%). But those are obvious facts and really there is no need to open such threads while it is obvious. More interesting is this topic.

Dibran
16-03-18, 16:43
1. I did not test those.
2. According to that blog, it was ancient DNA(no idea - extracted from dead people? with the site names - it looks like so), so it is not about modern living DNA, which is different thing. It just established that R1a in it's earliest forms were present between Baltic and Black seas 5000+ years ago already. It also points out, that R1a originated in Europe and not in Iran, as current history teaches us. R1b were first ones who split off from R1. Where are the most ancient R1 samples is still open question - keeping in mind, that there also exists R2, which is most SE Asia - India etc.
3. N arrived in Europe(over Ural mountains) 2300+ years later than R1a appeared in Europe. Author of this topic was interested how to distinguish R1a in slavic and baltic, not N or I2, as that is completely different topic, and he should have made an different topic if he was interested in that. Or are you with mentioning N implying something very rude, same as author?

European clades of R1a originate in Europe. Earliest M420 samples, ancestor of all modern R1a is coming from Iran. So it would be incorrect to say R1a originated in Europe, as its not the same as further downstream subclades that fall under R1a1a specifically(which is from Europe). So the earliest ancestor M420 is coming from Iran.

RajvoSa
19-03-18, 19:16
So, NO - we can't still consider Kiev culture as slavic - not in my dreams or even nightmares.

Kiev culture is widely considered as Slavic. There is almost no doubt about this fact. You're the first one "scientist" who thinks otherwise. Next your proclamation will be that Prague-Korchak culture is Germanic.

RajvoSa
04-05-18, 18:43
Frankly, I'm done with this topic.

I've only recently found this link, and blog solves all the answers I wanted to find:
http://eurogenes.blogspot.co.uk/2017/09/the-beast-among-y-haplogroups.html
https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-SF74a3xkvg4/WdDa0l5addI/AAAAAAAAGH0/BM8SEreRWfMF_tpH2pfEpd20-68zOE90gCLcBGAs/s1600/R1a-M417_The_Beast.png

I had a further read in link:
http://eurogenes.blogspot.co.uk/2017/05/late-pie-ground-zero-now-obvious.html(it also contains other information, that might be interesting)
https://4.bp.blogspot.com/-Cm2ZmG_5dhU/WRQ-RSfQ5qI/AAAAAAAAFkw/bLIS_RotnxscfkTwq_KVdlbAzXPeN58UQCLcB/s1600/PIE_Baltic.png
What it says, is that Baltic region(5800 years ago?) had already earliest R1a variants. R1a1 is R-SRY1532.2(https://www.eupedia.com/genetics/phylogenetic_trees_Y-DNA_haplogroups.shtml#R1a) - it is ancestor of ALL discussed R1a variants. That also includes ancestors of M458, so I would abandon any ideas about Slavic as paralel development, as it is unsound. Since Slavic language(and language is the only thing that differ it from other groups) is very young development, it is most probably, that ancestors of R1a spoke either Baltic or proto-Baltic language(or whatever it means). The problem with term proto-Baltic is that it is very wrong, as there was nothing prior Baltic language in Baltic area and Proto-Baltic = Proto-Indo-European(or because it looks like originated in Europe - Proto-European).


Note that M558 which is currently regarded as "Baltic" is present not only in Baltic region, but also exactly in the same mentioned places (from previous picture) of oldest samples of R1a and M417 and also Z93:
https://2.bp.blogspot.com/-6MK86Zivymg/UzcNpXfknGI/AAAAAAAACdc/awhkG33kX1Y/s1600/R1a-Z282+maps+small.png


There is also very big problem of Baltic substratum in Balkans, that raises question if Thracian-Dacian and Illirian ancestors were originally speaking in Baltic language, which with more work in this area might be true. I've mentioned before, that modern Latvians and Lithuanians share teeth characteristics with people from Balkans - this is usually one of the answers to people in Latvia or Lithuania why they have bad teeth and prominent fangs and why I have urge to suck blood(ok, that is made up).

As for most of Slavic languages - main Slavic language spread happened in very recent times - with Church Slavonic. It made Slavic speaking not only Baltic and Finnish people, but also Greek and that is why we have now Slavic speaking Macedonians in FYMR(and why usage of Macedonian name is pain for Greeks, just as it was for Baltic people in the case of German Prussians), as their ancestors in Aleksander time certainly did not spoke Slavic, but Greek(if we regard ancient non-slavic Macedonian as Greek). Magyars in Panonia with R1a are not exception - people in Pannonia spoke Slavic(who replaced Avars) right before arrival of Magyars or whatever groups of people who settled in that region.


/Serg/ mentioned about similarities of Sanskrist and Slavic... well, actually some of his provided examples sound more modern Baltic than Slavic, but I assume, that he does not know Latvian or Lithuanian and want to judge about this topic purely with knowledge of russian and nothing more. Baltic forms are regarded as more archaical and Sanskrit contains them, but Slavic languages do not contain those forms, that were preserved in Sanskrit same way as they are preserved in Baltic. Besides - Sanskrit was long out of use and heavily changed(from classical, where those archaical forms are preserved) before Slavic emerged, so hardly Sanskrit could be regarded as something that formed Slavic and Slavic, as we established did not appear in 2000BC. So, what /Serg/ is citing is at best classical Sanskrit, which was also influenced by other Aryan languages. And btw - classical Sanskrit evolved from Aryam(Vedic Sanskrit) and that language evolved from Avestan, so we come full circle to Indo-Iranian languages, which influenced each other which were influenced by local languages - mainly Dravidian.

If Slavic languages contain any archaical forms, that can be regarded as Slavic(because they are not Germanic or Celtic), then they are also found in Baltic. It does not work around other way.

If Prussian would emerge from time capsule and spoke to modern Baltic speakers, they would regard it as Slavic without blinking an eye, because they are not really well in these linguistic topics(as I am). But, since Prussian is not Slavic, but is just a variation of Baltic, so are Slavic, who are not developed far from Baltic languages as are Germanic or Celtic. In linguistics we can at best speak about Slavic branch of Baltic languages, as dialect forms, that were between Slavic and Baltic languages have died out, but if they were still alive and in use, this would be no topic to discuss about. And I must mention again - modern Baltic languages appeared in Baltic region only 1500 years ago. If we strictly have to speak about Baltic languages as regional languages, then Baltic became extinct in 16th century when Prussian, Curonian and other local Baltic languages died out. Latvian and Lithuanian can be regarded as Russian and Belorussian, as these countries is where they came from originally.

The major problem is that people got confused with term "Balt". Real term for it is Balto-Slavic, since there was no any Slavs or Balts mentioned in any papers and sources, and there was just mass of people who even most probably didn't have self-awareness. One part of them left from this area and become known as Slavs, and other part stayed, preserved archaic features of language etc.. and was named later as Balts. The term "Balt" in scientific papers such as this map literally means: Balto-Slavs since those people were most probably common ancestors of both ethnicities and didn't have any name. So your claims as "Slavs were Balts" have no sense.

Srbadija
04-05-18, 20:25
I have read, that US linguists do not use term Indo-Europeans, but instead use Eurasians, as there are still a lots of IE speaking people outside India and Europe. I could just start with counting armenians, kurdish, all indo-iranyans in Iran and Afganistan, even Pakistan(but I regard it as Indian region), so term Indo-European is really bad or - terrible to describe modern and not to mention - ancient distribution of IE languages.

1. No. There really do not exist term of proto-Balts in relation to PIE. If you reacted to this, you clearly have no clue about topic.
The only proto-balts you will get will be about much much later proto-Latvian-Lithuanian baltic language, that will be called proto-Baltic. And to make matters worse it is also very misleading, because by proto it is meant as pre Latvian-Lithuanian baltic languages(not that very different, but still), that existed before Latvian-Lithuanian influx. As for your understanding of PIE, I'm aware of that and this is actually what I meant, that PIE = proto-Baltic, and if you will prove otherwise, well... we will have a Nobel prize award(of how it is possible to break science) to Brasilian ;)

2. Proto-Greeks were not even PIE, but semitic at best. If you insist, that all pre-hellenic greeks were PIE, you have no idea about topic.

3. There is no Common PIE the way you describe it. Balts has nothing in common with germanic nonPIE lingual ancestry, because germanic language contain 30% of nonPIE lexicon and lingists are pulling hairs from their shiny heads to understand from where it comes. Also nothing in common with nonPIE greek, and neither with any other nonPIE ancestry of indo-iranian, who has heavy dravidian or even Indus valley civilisation extinct language influences. There is nothing more proto-PIE, than Baltic, because they are most archaic - to all languages, including recent development of slavic, which is not archaic as baltic is. If you can't understand what means archaic, well - Baltic languages are relic to ALL IE languages. I'm not saying, that they have not changed, but the closest to PIE you will have is any Baltic language.

4. I do not know anything about timing calculations that are made about divergence of Western and Eastern Baltic and I would like to have that data for me, if you can provide. Although - you are also not correct about understanding what are West and East balts, as the process between West and Eastern Balts is not divergence, but actually completelly opposite. I can only give you timings for divergence between modern latvian and lithuanian and it is ~1500 ya.

5. I can call Baltic anything, that can be shuffled under continuous Baltic dialect continium and where it can be proven as such. Slavic, also some other extinct language groups quite comfortably fit under this description, so it is just a matter of technical definition. From my experience we will come to this - eventually.

6. I do not care what most linguists call something, as you can't solve in these matters something by mere voting... What matters to me - if that is logical and if that actually makes sense. Don't get the wrong idea - I do actually read what linguists write(too much, actually), but as I mentioned - they have to have some sense and leave no unfinished questions to their ideas.

Me, as somebody who is studying linguistic know some things. That what you are calling "Balts" and "Baltic" is actually Balto-Slavic, since both ethnicities have origin from that. Imagine that there is group of people, let's call it "A", without identity and self-awareness. Then, one big group of people separated from "A", picked up other cultures such as Sarmatian, and meet the Romans and they described them as "Slavs". Other group stayed to live in swamps and also preserved archaic features of language, and later is called "Balts". It is fruitless would you call it "Baltic" or anything else. Baltic could be the term for many languages from this language. If you look from this perspective the Slavs at best could be called as "South Balts" but never Prussians as you said. In general, modern Balts are Eastern Balts and have nothing to do with your view of term "Balts". So, today, Slavs are Slavs, originally from proto-Slavs, and Balts are Balts originally from proto-Balts, and never in drems you shouldn't think that Slavic language developed from modern Baltic "Eastern Baltic". So, the term Balts today means Eastern Balts, and no Slavs doesn't originate from it. That what you are calling for some reason Balts should be called Balto-Slavic. Regards.

Tomenable
04-05-18, 20:35
Balts or Slavs?:

Spiginas2 (1 sample), Lithuania, 2130-1750 BCE, R1a-Z280>CTS1211
Turlojiske3 (1 sample), Lithuania, 1010–800 BCE, R1a-Z92>Y4459>YP617
Kivutkalns (3 samples), Latvia, 805–230 BCE, R1a-Z280>CTS1211>YP1034>Y13467

Srbadija
04-05-18, 23:56
Balts or Slavs?:

Spiginas2 (1 sample), Lithuania, 2130-1750 BCE, R1a-Z280>CTS1211
Turlojiske3 (1 sample), Lithuania, 1010–800 BCE, R1a-Z92>Y4459>YP617
Kivutkalns (3 samples), Latvia, 805–230 BCE, R1a-Z280>CTS1211>YP1034>Y13467

What is the point of these results?

Tomenable
05-05-18, 11:13
What is the point of these results?

According to some theories, during the Bronze Age Balts did not live in what is now Latvia and Lithuania, but in the forest zone of Russia and Belarus (see for example the map below). But we have R1a from Bronze Age Baltic states, and autosomally they were like modern Balts?:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trzciniec_culture

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/a/a1/Balto-Slavic_lng.png/800px-Balto-Slavic_lng.png

Srbadija
05-05-18, 14:47
According to some theories, during the Bronze Age Balts did not live in what is now Latvia and Lithuania, but in the forest zone of Russia and Belarus (see for example the map below). But we have R1a from Bronze Age Baltic states, and autosomally they were like modern Balts?:


Even if they lived, they were expelled or assimilated by Eastern Slavs.

Point is: What we define as modern term "Balts" (Letto-Lithuanians) and what for Baltic continuum (Balto-Slavs hypothetical community)?

laint
11-12-18, 11:48
I'm studying linguistic about the same as proper linguists would do, even if that is not my main speciality and have to do some extensive research into this topic, as my main thesis is related of pattern searching in linguistics for AI, however modern linguists would not agree neither with you, nor OP.


Language in time and space. On the problem of the Slavic Glottogenesis (2004) pp93-96 by V. V. Martynov. His main research interests were Slavic languages, comparative linguistics, formalisation of semantics.


Поэтапно снимая пласты славянской лексики и частично грамматики, возникшие в результате конвергентных процессов, мы все ближе подходим к первичному ингредиенту, который неизбежно оказывается балтийским. Балтийский характер первичного ингредиента праславянского языка доказывается путем исследования дивергентных процессов и прежде всего мощного инновационного процесса суффиксальной именной деривации, проходившей в протобалтийском и составившем основные формантно-функциональные ресурсы праславянского именного словообразования. Сопоставляя конвергенцию и дивергенцию в их определяющих, диагностирующих факторах, мы неизменно приходим к выводу о дочернем характере протославянского языкового состояния сравнительно с протобалтийским.

In short: conclusion is that whole tree of Proto-Slavic languages are daughter offshot of Proto-Baltic and not some language group of their own.
Actually 1st edition of book was out in 1983, so this is not something new - I think, that the problem of this discussion is that neither OP nor any others here does have any idea what Baltic languages are and how they differ from Slavic. This is not that hard task - it requires only learning one of Baltic languages, to see, that Slavic is rather simplified version of Baltic language - more or less same vocabulary and more simplified rules of more complex Baltic grammar. Even wiki has some notes, that current model of Baltic-Slavic is not correct model, that Slavic should be placed as branch under Baltic - clearly it has not branched off from modern Baltic languages, but some other, who are now extinct, but that is not really an issue - there are many dead Baltic languages to whom we know name, but there were even more Baltic languages who went extinct and no sources have left even their names.

hrvat22
11-12-18, 13:55
I'm studying linguistic about the same as proper linguists would do, even if that is not my main speciality and have to do some extensive research into this topic, as my main thesis is related of pattern searching in linguistics for AI, however modern linguists would not agree neither with you, nor OP.


Language in time and space. On the problem of the Slavic Glottogenesis (2004) pp93-96 by V. V. Martynov. His main research interests were Slavic languages, comparative linguistics, formalisation of semantics.


In short: conclusion is that whole tree of Proto-Slavic languages are daughter offshot of Proto-Baltic and not some language group of their own.
Actually 1st edition of book was out in 1983, so this is not something new - I think, that the problem of this discussion is that neither OP nor any others here does have any idea what Baltic languages are and how they differ from Slavic. This is not that hard task - it requires only learning one of Baltic languages, to see, that Slavic is rather simplified version of Baltic language - more or less same vocabulary and more simplified rules of more complex Baltic grammar. Even wiki has some notes, that current model of Baltic-Slavic is not correct model, that Slavic should be placed as branch under Baltic - clearly it has not branched off from modern Baltic languages, but some other, who are now extinct, but that is not really an issue - there are many dead Baltic languages to whom we know name, but there were even more Baltic languages who went extinct and no sources have left even their names.

If Sanskrit has similarities with Slavic language does it mean that carriers of that old Slavic language coming from Baltic to India?

https://cache.eupedia.com/images/content/R1a_migration_map.jpg

Expansion of R1a people starts from Russian steppes to Baltic and towards India. Source of their language is in the Russian steppes not in Baltic therefore source of the Slavic language is in the area of Russia.

laint
12-12-18, 07:31
If Sanskrit has similarities with Slavic language does it mean that carriers of that old Slavic language coming from Baltic to India?

https://cache.eupedia.com/images/content/R1a_migration_map.jpg

Expansion of R1a people starts from Russian steppes to Baltic and towards India. Source of their language is in the Russian steppes not in Baltic therefore source of the Slavic language is in the area of Russia.

Sanskrit is constructed language - never been used by any nation or folk as primary language. Sanskrit shares part of vocabulary with living IE languages - the other part is mainly mix of nonIE languages, that were fused into Aryan and Sanskrit is used to identify which are those ancient words, that modern IE languages are still using. 2000BC Sanskrit language grammar have some archaical features, that some of IE languages use, but Sanskrit has never been used by Z93 in Europe nor any other IE people in Europe - it is development of IE in South Asia and compared to proto-IE, even modern Lithuanian is more archaic, even if it lacks some grammar forms still preserved in Sanskrit and other IE languages. Anyway - leave Sanskrit out of this - if you will find how Slavic languages got their vocabulary in Europe, then you will know how Aryan languages got it. IMO, involvement of Aryan languages means also discussing Harrapan, Dravidian, even Elamian and other now vanished language influences, that has to be deconstructed to understand how they sounded before. That is rather very large and unnecessary task for this topic.

Origin of Slavic people east of Baltic people has never been in consideration.
There are also no proposals, that Slavic people originated in steppes.

Spot that is shown as origin of Z93 on map is located exactly over water basin of Oka, that from immemorable times has been inhabited by Baltic tribes. However oldest Z93 are found in more to the east in Sintashta, so map is not correct there.

Baltic people did not originated in Baltic states, but on Dnieper water basin where they populated this area from earliest times of R1a. Oldest findings of R1a and also oldest findings of R1a-M417 are located in north eastern Ukraine in Dnieper water basin area, which without interruptions has been Baltic populated area, until it got converted to Slavic.


Slavic languages belong to one of youngest IE branch.
Baltic languages belong to most oldest IE branch.
Do the math: Slavic can't be as old as Baltic or even older, so it is...

hrvat22
12-12-18, 19:56
Sanskrit is constructed language - never been used by any nation or folk as primary language. Sanskrit shares part of vocabulary with living IE languages - the other part is mainly mix of nonIE languages, that were fused into Aryan and Sanskrit is used to identify which are those ancient words, that modern IE languages are still using. 2000BC Sanskrit language grammar have some archaical features, that some of IE languages use, but Sanskrit has never been used by Z93 in Europe nor any other IE people in Europe - it is development of IE in South Asia and compared to proto-IE, even modern Lithuanian is more archaic, even if it lacks some grammar forms still preserved in Sanskrit and other IE languages. Anyway - leave Sanskrit out of this - if you will find how Slavic languages got their vocabulary in Europe, then you will know how Aryan languages got it. IMO, involvement of Aryan languages means also discussing Harrapan, Dravidian, even Elamian and other now vanished language influences, that has to be deconstructed to understand how they sounded before. That is rather very large and unnecessary task for this topic.

Origin of Slavic people east of Baltic people has never been in consideration.
There are also no proposals, that Slavic people originated in steppes.

Spot that is shown as origin of Z93 on map is located exactly over water basin of Oka, that from immemorable times has been inhabited by Baltic tribes. However oldest Z93 are found in more to the east in Sintashta, so map is not correct there.

Baltic people did not originated in Baltic states, but on Dnieper water basin where they populated this area from earliest times of R1a. Oldest findings of R1a and also oldest findings of R1a-M417 are located in north eastern Ukraine in Dnieper water basin area, which without interruptions has been Baltic populated area, until it got converted to Slavic.


Slavic languages belong to one of youngest IE branch.
Baltic languages belong to most oldest IE branch.
Do the math: Slavic can't be as old as Baltic or even older, so it is...


Sanskrit (/ˈsænskrɪt/ (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Help:IPA/English); IAST (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IAST): saṃskṛta, Sanskrit: संस्कृतम्, also [sə̃skr̩t̪əm] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Help:IPA/Sanskrit)) is a language of ancient India (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_India) with a documented history of about 3,500 years.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sanskrit

Who and from where 3500 years ago brought Slavic words to India and Sanskrit?

markod
12-12-18, 21:06
Sanskrit is constructed language - never been used by any nation or folk as primary language. Sanskrit shares part of vocabulary with living IE languages - the other part is mainly mix of nonIE languages, that were fused into Aryan and Sanskrit is used to identify which are those ancient words, that modern IE languages are still using. 2000BC Sanskrit language grammar have some archaical features, that some of IE languages use, but Sanskrit has never been used by Z93 in Europe nor any other IE people in Europe - it is development of IE in South Asia and compared to proto-IE, even modern Lithuanian is more archaic, even if it lacks some grammar forms still preserved in Sanskrit and other IE languages. Anyway - leave Sanskrit out of this - if you will find how Slavic languages got their vocabulary in Europe, then you will know how Aryan languages got it. IMO, involvement of Aryan languages means also discussing Harrapan, Dravidian, even Elamian and other now vanished language influences, that has to be deconstructed to understand how they sounded before. That is rather very large and unnecessary task for this topic.

Origin of Slavic people east of Baltic people has never been in consideration.
There are also no proposals, that Slavic people originated in steppes.

Spot that is shown as origin of Z93 on map is located exactly over water basin of Oka, that from immemorable times has been inhabited by Baltic tribes. However oldest Z93 are found in more to the east in Sintashta, so map is not correct there.

Baltic people did not originated in Baltic states, but on Dnieper water basin where they populated this area from earliest times of R1a. Oldest findings of R1a and also oldest findings of R1a-M417 are located in north eastern Ukraine in Dnieper water basin area, which without interruptions has been Baltic populated area, until it got converted to Slavic.


Slavic languages belong to one of youngest IE branch.
Baltic languages belong to most oldest IE branch.
Do the math: Slavic can't be as old as Baltic or even older, so it is...

I think Witzel gave a percentage of words with non-IE etymologies in Rig-Vedic Sanskrit of 3%. That would definitely make it the most IE language.

Identifiable Baltic isn't older than around 3500 years.

laint
13-12-18, 00:12
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sanskrit

Who and from where 3500 years ago brought Slavic words to India and Sanskrit?

There are no Slavic, nor any other language words in Sanskrit. Roots of those Sanskrit language words can be matched to words in other languages, sometimes only similarities as even roots has to be changed to match those words.

laint
13-12-18, 00:42
I think Witzel gave a percentage of words with non-IE etymologies in Rig-Vedic Sanskrit of 3%. That would definitely make it the most IE language.

Identifiable Baltic isn't older than around 3500 years.

It really depends what texts are compared. The problem there is that we don't know what language was spoken in Indus Valley and which words of that extinct language were similar to IE. Also, IE language that went to India had already influences from others, like Uralic(some of those are calculated as far back as 8000 years), so 97% pure IE vocabulary in Rig-Vedic is rather impossible already.

That hype about Sanskrit and Rig-Vedic script started in 18th century. The numbers I have about first hymns in Rigvedic - Out of 62 word roots in total, most - 52 were similar to words in Latvian. Lithuanians could compare 38 word roots, English, Greek, Latin and German - 8-12 woord roots. I don't have data about Slavic languages, but most probably - less than in Lithuanian even if most Slavic roots that are found in Sanskrit can also be found in Baltic languages.


Identifiable compared to what? If people are excited that they think, that Slavic is recorded in Sanskrit, then - Uralic people have some Baltic words from even older than 3500 year old contacts between them and Baltic has been in heartland of IE languages more than others, so 3500 is not really that final age.

However, let's concentrate on topic about Slavic existence before 600AD and that does not even go so far back in history from that point.

hrvat22
13-12-18, 06:49
There are no Slavic, nor any other language words in Sanskrit. Roots of those Sanskrit language words can be matched to words in other languages, sometimes only similarities as even roots has to be changed to match those words.


The striking similarities in Sanskrit and Russian indicate that during some period of history, the speakers of the two languages lived close together.

https://www.rbth.com/blogs/2014/11/01/sanskrit_and_russian_ancient_kinship_39451

http://www.sutrajournal.com/sanskrit-in-croatia-from-sarasvati-to-hrvati-by-james-cooper


The linguistically proven facts show the amazing affinity of Russian and Sanskrit (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sanskrit)languages, obviously pointing out that these two languages must have lived closed together in some periods of antiquity.

https://1000petals.wordpress.com/2013/08/18/amazing-affinity-of-russian-and-sanskrit/


Who and from where 3500 years ago brought Slavic words to India and Sanskrit?

Bogomir
13-12-18, 19:22
Hi everybody. Thanks for yourvaluable discussion.
There are indices that Komarov(or Komarev) people came from Srubna culture. Which at the time, extended up tothe Ural in so called Srubna- Alakulskaya(Andronovo) contact zone. Currently published Muradyim/Kazburun (1890-1750 BCE)haplogroups shows very heterogenous mtdna population with several R1a1a1 Y member,two of those most probably to be R1a-Z280. I found it interesting for geneticancestry specially for population later called “South Slavic”.
Tomenable,
Do we have any genetic data forKomarov culture?

RajvoSa
16-12-18, 23:40
It really depends what texts are compared. The problem there is that we don't know what language was spoken in Indus Valley and which words of that extinct language were similar to IE. Also, IE language that went to India had already influences from others, like Uralic(some of those are calculated as far back as 8000 years), so 97% pure IE vocabulary in Rig-Vedic is rather impossible already.

That hype about Sanskrit and Rig-Vedic script started in 18th century. The numbers I have about first hymns in Rigvedic - Out of 62 word roots in total, most - 52 were similar to words in Latvian. Lithuanians could compare 38 word roots, English, Greek, Latin and German - 8-12 woord roots. I don't have data about Slavic languages, but most probably - less than in Lithuanian even if most Slavic roots that are found in Sanskrit can also be found in Baltic languages.


Identifiable compared to what? If people are excited that they think, that Slavic is recorded in Sanskrit, then - Uralic people have some Baltic words from even older than 3500 year old contacts between them and Baltic has been in heartland of IE languages more than others, so 3500 is not really that final age.

However, let's concentrate on topic about Slavic existence before 600AD and that does not even go so far back in history from that point.

Kortlandt:

I assume that Balto-Slavic splitted into three branches: West Baltic, East Baltic and Slavic

What it means? It means that early proto-Slavic existed in 2000 BC together with proto-east Baltic and proto-West Baltic. What it means further? That proto-Baltic in general never existedy which is confirmed also by words of linguist Rick Derksen:


I am not convinced that it is justified to reconstruct the proto-Baltic stage. The term "proto-Baltic" is used for convenience's sake.

It means that Baltic is not older than Slavic, all human languages are really equal old. The thing that Baltic is more "archaic" than Slavic is of different matter. Baltic is more archaic than Slavic (and in general than all IE languages except Greek) phonologically. It is called "word final syllables" and it is famous Greek and Baltic "-as" at the end of word and it is lost in Slavic languages. On the other side, Slavic is more archaic than Baltic in verbal system. For example, in Baltic languages (both Prussian and Letto-Lithuanian) there is no differentiation between 3rd. singular and 3rd. plural. For example, in English is:

"He writes", "They write". In Baltic languages: "He writes", "They writes". 3rd. singular and 3rd plural are always the same, and in this segment Slavic is more archaic.

In short, there was Balto-Slavs, until the Slavs in 1500 BC splitted according to glottochronology (perhaps with Komarov culture), and those who left were later called Balts. So, it is not wrong to say that Balts are basically just conglomerate of non-Slavic speaking Balto-Slavs.

Nomenclature is irrelevant here, if you go by nomenclature in linguistics, proto-Baltic should be in the end proto-Indo-European, and of course, Balts don't have much to do with ancient cultural space of proto IE (including Yamnaya culture), but the reconstruction of "their" proto-laguage, will lead us directly to Yamnaya.

Wonomyro
17-12-18, 02:23
There are seven Croatian personal names recorded in the 10th century work "De administrando imperio". It is believed that the names are of non-Slavic origin. However some think that the names are actualy Baltic.


According to the legend preserved in the work, they [Croats] were led by five brothers Κλουκας (Kloukas), Λόβελος (Lobelos), Κοσέντζης (Kosentzis), Μουχλώ (Mouchlo), Χρωβάτος (Chrobatos), and two sisters Τουγά (Touga) and Βουγά (Bouga),[10][11]
(...)
The origin of the names of five brothers and two sisters are a matter of dispute. They are often considered to be of non-Slavic origin,[31] and genuine names, as the anonymous Slavic narrator (probably a Croat) couldn't invent the non-Slavic names of their ancestors in the 9th century.[144] J.J.
(...)
Mikkola considered them to be of Turkic origin,[145][146] Vladimir Košćak of possible Iranian-Alanic origin,[147] while Alemko Gluhak saw parallels in Slavic Old Prussian and Baltic languages.[148] Henri Grégoire rejected Turkic origin, and related them to Slavic place names which previously were part of White Croatia,[149] while Josip Modestin connected their names to toponyms from Lika, where early Croats settled.[150] According to Gluhak, names Kloukas, Lobelos, Kosentzes and possibly Mouchlo don't seem to be part of Scythian or Alanic name directory.[151]


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Origin_hypotheses_of_the_Croats

Other medieval Croatian names are typical Slavic.

It is worth noting that the most common Croatian R1a subclade is R1a-Z280 (CTS1211).

Srbadija
17-12-18, 11:13
There are seven Croatian personal names recorded in the 10th century work "De administrando imperio". It is believed that the names are of non-Slavic origin. However some think that the names are actualy Baltic.

Baltic unity about names is also questionable, in the same meaning as the west and east baltic languages itself. Most of basical words are different, names for plants, rivers and other things are very different. The same thing is with names, IMHO. I think, if you research West Baltic (recorded) names, and compare it with East Baltic (Letto-Lithuanian), i think you would not find even 1 same name. This group is not like others (Germanic, Slavic, Romance). The Baltic group is very specific group. Some scholars see them as two separated branches.


"The Baltic languages are generally thought to form a single family with two branches, Eastern and Western. However, these two branches are sometimes classified as independent branches of Balto-Slavic."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baltic_languages#Branches

Hammarstorm Harald classified West and East Baltic as separate branches of Balto-Slavic.


It is worth noting that the most common Croatian R1a subclade is R1a-Z280 (CTS1211).

Indeed. It was perhaps the main haplogroup among the Proto-Slavs.

Wonomyro
17-12-18, 15:45
The legend is probably recycled a much older folk tale. The names of characters suggest that Croats might have been speakers of an extinct Balto-Slavic dialect before they started to speak Slavic.

Contemporary 9th century names of the rulers suggest Germanic influences (Suffix -mir).

IMO, The language shift to Slavic could have occurred in Ukraine (Cherniakov zone).

Notes by A. Gluhak on the names mentioned in the legend:


Κλουκας (Kloukas)

(...) several Prussian and Latvian personal names and toponyms with root *klauk-, which relates to sound-writing verbs *klukati (peck) and *klokotati (gurgle).

Λόβελος (Lobelos)

(...) many Baltic personal names with root *lab- and *lob- e.g. Labelle, Labulis, Labal, Lobal, which derive from *lab- (good) or lobas (bays, ravine, valley)

Κοσέντζης (Kosentzis)

(...) also noted Baltic names with root *kas- which probably derives from kàsti (dig), and Thracian Kossintes, Cosintos, Cositon

Μουχλώ (Mouchlo)

(...) noted Lithuanian muklus and Latvian muka which refer to the mud and marshes, and Prussian names e.g. Mokil, Mokyne

Τουγά (Touga)

(...) noted Old Norse-Germanic *touga (fog, darkness), which meaning wouldn't be much different from other names with Baltic derivation.

Βουγά (Bouga)

(...) noted Proto-Slavic word *buga which in Slavic languages mean "swamp" like places, and the river Bug itself derive from.



https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_Croats

Srbadija
17-12-18, 16:32
The legend is probably recycled a much older folk tale. The names of characters suggest that Croats might have been speakers of an extinct Balto-Slavic dialect before they started to speak Slavic.

Contemporary 9th century names of the rulers suggest Germanic influences (Suffix -mir).

IMO, The language shift to Slavic could have occurred in Ukraine (Cherniakov zone).

Notes by A. Gluhak on the names mentioned in the legend:

Κλουκας (Kloukas)

(...) several Prussian and Latvian personal names and toponyms with root *klauk-, which relates to sound-writing verbs *klukati (peck) and *klokotati (gurgle).

Λόβελος (Lobelos)

(...) many Baltic personal names with root *lab- and *lob- e.g. Labelle, Labulis, Labal, Lobal, which derive from *lab- (good) or lobas (bays, ravine, valley)

Κοσέντζης (Kosentzis)

(...) also noted Baltic names with root *kas- which probably derives from kàsti (dig), and Thracian Kossintes, Cosintos, Cositon

Μουχλώ (Mouchlo)

(...) noted Lithuanian muklus and Latvian muka which refer to the mud and marshes, and Prussian names e.g. Mokil, Mokyne

Τουγά (Touga)

(...) noted Old Norse-Germanic *touga (fog, darkness), which meaning wouldn't be much different from other names with Baltic derivation.

Βουγά (Bouga)

(...) noted Proto-Slavic word *buga which in Slavic languages mean "swamp" like places, and the river Bug itself derive from.



https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_Croats

It is questionable how reliable are this sources. (Proto) Slavic language itself lost word final sylablles ("-as", "os", "-is") under the influence of Srubnaya culture (Timber-grave culture), which was, most likely, Indo-Iranian culture. This culture, mostly probably, influenced pre-Slavic (or early proto-Slavic) culture complex called Chernoles-Komarov. And those cultures existed about 18th century BC until 12th century BC. Much more earlier than the Croats as a tribe existed. So this: Kloukas, Lobelos, Kosentzis is very questionable.


Κλουκας (Kloukas)


By the way, by some kind of logic, what about Slavic word "kljucati", or "kljukati". And, yes, in Lithuanian is not "klokotati", but "kliukseti".

So why the candidates for etymology are so much Baltic words, when so much Slavic words are in option; klokotati, kljucati, kljukati... etc...


noted Proto-Slavic word *buga which in Slavic languages mean "swamp" like places, and the river Bug itself derive from.

Bug river is from old Germanic "baug-s" which meant something winding or bent. Slavs adopted the word Baug from the Goths (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Goths), who previously lived (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wielbark_culture) in large numbers near the river.

Wonomyro
17-12-18, 17:20
It is questionable how reliable are this sources. (Proto) Slavic language itself lost word final sylablles ("-as", "os", "-is") under the influence of Srubnaya culture (Timber-grave culture), which was, most likely, Indo-Iranian culture. This culture, mostly probably, influenced pre-Slavic (or early proto-Slavic) culture complex called Chernoles-Komarov. And those cultures existed about 18th century BC until 12th century BC. Much more earlier than the Croats as a tribe existed. So this: Kloukas, Lobelos, Kosentzis is very questionable. Many formerly Baltic teritories became Slavic since around 500 AD.
By the way, by some kind of logic, what about Slavic word "kljucati", or "kljukati". And, yes, in Lithuanian is not "klokotati", but "kliukseti". So why the candidates for etymology are so much Baltic words, when so much Slavic words are in option; klokotati, kljucati, kljukati... etc... "Klokotati" is actualy a modern Croatian word (onomatopoeia). There is another modern Slavic (Czech) word - "kluk" (boy).
Bug river is from old Germanic "baug-s" which meant something winding or bent. Slavs adopted the word Baug from the Goths (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Goths), who previously lived (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wielbark_culture) in large numbers near the river. Touga could be related to another river Daugava.

Srbadija
17-12-18, 17:48
Many formerly Baltic teritories became

According to Baltic hydronyms described by Toporov and Ivanov? Those toponyms are still "horse in vacuum", nothing more. Why not include Slavs in those archaic hydronyms?

For example, you have "Jelgava" city in Latvia. Also, you have river "Jihlava" in Czechia. So, if Toporov (for example) didn't know that Slavs lived there (In Czechia), how would he classified river "Jihlava"??? I guess it would be today classified as "Baltic hydronym" as all in Eastern Europe which ends in "-ava", "-eva"... etc... The question is why? Why not drag Slavs into this hydronyms?

For example, see this text:


"Fully sharing the opinion of Rassadin about Prague culture as the first archeological manifestation of the Slavic ethnos itself, as well as about its Kiev origins, it is necessary to consider the preceding Venetian ethnos of the carriers of the Late Zarubine and Kiev cultures as Slavic, and not Balto-Slavic. The ethnogenesis of the Western Balts, a well-documented chain of archaeological cultures (the Mazury-Warmian group of the Lusatia culture — the culture of the Western Baltic kurgans — the rich culture and the related groups of soil burials — the commonness of the caged ceramics), did not have a relationship. Moreover, the formation of the Eastern Balts (Lithuanians and Latvians) can be explained by the impulse from the cultures of perched ceramics. [17] Thus, all cultures that have continuity with cultures of historical Balts of the XIII century. (Kurshey, Zemgals, Latgals, Zhemayts, Lithuania, Yatvyagov, etc.), are derived directly from the culture of the Western Baltic kurgans that originated in the 1st millennium BC. under the influence of common fields of burial urns. Those cultures that are not derived from it, there is no reason to consider the Baltic cultures - contrary to the concept of the “Dnieper Balts”, which is still widespread among archaeologists. The only basis for it is the similarity of hydronymy at the site of these cultures with the Baltic one, but an alternative explanation has already been proposed for it above. hitherto widespread among archaeologists. The only basis for it is the similarity of hydronymy at the site of these cultures with the Baltic one, but an alternative explanation has already been proposed for it above.


If the undifferentiated Balto-Slavic unity ever existed (with which not all linguists agree), then the Lusatian culture seems to be the best match for it, and the beginning of its disintegration corresponds to the isolation of the Pomorian and Mazury-Warmian groups of this culture.In this case, the ethnonym "Veneta" at an early stage of its existence could relate to ancestors not only of the Slavs, but also of the Balts. "

Lenab
17-12-18, 17:49
Goths were Eastern Germanic that's Baltid

Lenab
17-12-18, 17:51
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AWlYP4eOZ40 Do Germans have some Slavic descent??? UNTOLD SLAVIC HISTORY

Srbadija
17-12-18, 18:01
Goths were Eastern Germanic that's Baltid

So what? Goths were Goths. They were Germanic (mainly).

Lenab
17-12-18, 18:07
So what? Goths were Goths. They were Germanic (mainly).
So they had integrated with Slavs to make them East Germanic please watch the video the original Germans were North like Saxons Vikings etc

Lenab
17-12-18, 18:08
So it mentions the Sorbs as well :D

exceededminimumso..
22-12-18, 15:44
λουκας (Kloukas), Λόβελος (Lobelos), Κοσέντζης (Kosentzis) sound so blatantly Greek that I'm wondering if I'm not missing something glaringly obvious

Milan.M
22-12-18, 16:50
It really depends what texts are compared. The problem there is that we don't know what language was spoken in Indus Valley and which words of that extinct language were similar to IE. Also, IE language that went to India had already influences from others, like Uralic(some of those are calculated as far back as 8000 years), so 97% pure IE vocabulary in Rig-Vedic is rather impossible already.

That hype about Sanskrit and Rig-Vedic script started in 18th century. The numbers I have about first hymns in Rigvedic - Out of 62 word roots in total, most - 52 were similar to words in Latvian. Lithuanians could compare 38 word roots, English, Greek, Latin and German - 8-12 woord roots. I don't have data about Slavic languages, but most probably - less than in Lithuanian even if most Slavic roots that are found in Sanskrit can also be found in Baltic languages.


Identifiable compared to what? If people are excited that they think, that Slavic is recorded in Sanskrit, then - Uralic people have some Baltic words from even older than 3500 year old contacts between them and Baltic has been in heartland of IE languages more than others, so 3500 is not really that final age.

However, let's concentrate on topic about Slavic existence before 600AD and that does not even go so far back in history from that point.




According to Matasovic


Thirdly, the number of words that may be of substratum origin, and that are preserved only in Balto-Slavic, is very limited (perhaps as fewas 14, but probably not more than 20). It is significantly smaller than the number of words of substratum origin that can be attributed to Proto-Celtic,or to Insular Celtic (see EDPC), and it is also much smaller than the number of substratum words in Greek, for example.18 This is probably due to the fact that, during the Balto-Slavic period, speakers of that proto-language were surrounded by speakers of other, more peripheral Indo--European dialects (especially Germanic and Celtic) that were exposed to more intensive contacts with speakers of non-IE languages. Consequently,during the period when Balto-Slavic separated from the other NW European dialects as an individual idiom, borrowing from non-IE substrata was minimal.

Milan.M
29-12-18, 16:57
I'm studying linguistic about the same as proper linguists would do, even if that is not my main speciality and have to do some extensive research into this topic, as my main thesis is related of pattern searching in linguistics for AI, however modern linguists would not agree neither with you, nor OP.


Language in time and space. On the problem of the Slavic Glottogenesis (2004) pp93-96 by V. V. Martynov. His main research interests were Slavic languages, comparative linguistics, formalisation of semantics.


In short: conclusion is that whole tree of Proto-Slavic languages are daughter offshot of Proto-Baltic and not some language group of their own.
Actually 1st edition of book was out in 1983, so this is not something new - I think, that the problem of this discussion is that neither OP nor any others here does have any idea what Baltic languages are and how they differ from Slavic. This is not that hard task - it requires only learning one of Baltic languages, to see, that Slavic is rather simplified version of Baltic language - more or less same vocabulary and more simplified rules of more complex Baltic grammar. Even wiki has some notes, that current model of Baltic-Slavic is not correct model, that Slavic should be placed as branch under Baltic - clearly it has not branched off from modern Baltic languages, but some other, who are now extinct, but that is not really an issue - there are many dead Baltic languages to whom we know name, but there were even more Baltic languages who went extinct and no sources have left even their names.
I think that major question to me is where proto-Baltic was spoken,because almost certainly it wasn't where it is in present day.
Because there is many isoglosses shared only between Baltic and South-Slavic,which suggest close interaction between this two dialects.

I have read for example about Dnieper Balts

The Dniepr Balts were studied by the archaeologist Marija Gimbutas (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marija_Gimbutas), Lithuanian (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lithuania) linguist Kazimieras Būga (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kazimieras_B%C5%ABga), and by Russian scientists Vladimir Toporov (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vladimir_Toporov), O.Trubachev (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oleg_N._Trubachev), who analysed hydronyms (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hydronym) at the higher Dnieper (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dnieper) basin. They have found nearly 800 hydronyms (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hydronym) of possibly Baltic (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baltic_languages) origin.

Wonomyro
29-12-18, 18:10
λουκας (Kloukas), Λόβελος (Lobelos), Κοσέντζης (Kosentzis) sound so blatantly Greek that I'm wondering if I'm not missing something glaringly obvious

I've seen many Lithuanian names ending with -as and -is. E. g. Arvydas Romas Sabonis:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arvydas_Sabonis

Wonomyro
29-12-18, 18:42
I think that major question to me is where proto-Baltic was spoken,because almost certainly it wasn't where it is in present day.
Because there is many isoglosses shared only between Baltic and South-Slavic,which suggest close interaction between this two dialects.

I have read for example about Dnieper Balts


The Dniepr Balts were studied by the archaeologist Marija Gimbutas, Lithuanian linguist Kazimieras Būga, and by Russian scientists Vladimir Toporov, O.Trubachev, who analysed hydronyms at the higher Dnieper basin. They have found nearly 800 hydronyms of possibly Baltic origin.


That's interesting.


Lithuanian linguist Kazimieras Būga

How would he explain a meaning/origin of his surname? We have Bouga in the list:


According to the legend preserved in the work, they [Croats] were led by five brothers Κλουκας (Kloukas), Λόβελος (Lobelos), Κοσέντζης (Kosentzis), Μουχλώ (Mouchlo), Χρωβάτος (Chrobatos), and two sisters Τουγά (Touga) and Βουγά (Bouga),...

Is it just a coincidence?

Srbadija
31-12-18, 12:00
I've seen many Lithuanian names ending with -as and -is. E. g. Arvydas Romas Sabonis:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arvydas_Sabonis

Almost all of them are on "-as" "-is".

Lithuanian language preserved word-final syllables just like Greek. But those names are obviously more like Greek.

Wonomyro
31-12-18, 12:41
Almost all of them are on "-as" "-is". Lithuanian language preserved word-final syllables just like Greek. But those names are obviously more like Greek. In what way are the names "more like Greek" except that they were written in Greek?

RajvoSa
31-12-18, 16:36
I think that major question to me is where proto-Baltic was spoken,because almost certainly it wasn't where it is in present day.
Because there is many isoglosses shared only between Baltic and South-Slavic,which suggest close interaction between this two dialects.
I have read for example about Dnieper Balts
Proto-Baltic wasn't spoken anywhere, because such language never existed. There are Baltic languages and they are those languages who originate from Proto-Balto-Slavic stage but didn't become Slavic. Nomenclature in classification of languages is totally irrelevant.

Milan.M
31-12-18, 18:08
Proto-Baltic wasn't spoken anywhere, because such language never existed. There are Baltic languages and they are those languages who originate from Proto-Balto-Slavic stage but didn't become Slavic. Nomenclature in classification of languages is totally irrelevant.
If you don't understand the question let me simplified it to you.Where the language that become known as Baltic was spoken?
Because there is isoglosses shared only between Baltic and South-Slavic,which suggest the two dialects had contacts among them.

exceededminimumso..
01-01-19, 19:45
That's interesting.



How would he explain a meaning/origin of his surname? We have Bouga in the list:



Is it just a coincidence?

http://lkiis.lki.lt/pavardziu-duomenu-baze

Most likely comes from bugus, baugus, "easily scared, scary"

RajvoSa
01-01-19, 20:22
If you don't understand the question let me simplified it to you.Where the language that become known as Baltic was spoken?
Because there is isoglosses shared only between Baltic and South-Slavic,which suggest the two dialects had contacts among them.

Baltic languages can be described as Baltic perhaps about 1500 year BC, when actually probably predcessor of proto-Slavic separated from Balto-Slavic continuum. The rest of 2 dialects automatically became proto-Baltic (which means that unified Proto-Baltic stage is not justified to reconstruct, because it includes development of Slavic languages).

Milan.M
03-01-19, 17:56
Baltic languages can be described as Baltic perhaps about 1500 year BC, when actually probably predcessor of proto-Slavic separated from Balto-Slavic continuum. The rest of 2 dialects automatically became proto-Baltic (which means that unified Proto-Baltic stage is not justified to reconstruct, because it includes development of Slavic languages).
http://www.kroraina.com/slav/trubachev_praslav_chlenenie.png

This is a scheme of Berstein and Trubachev between the connection of Balto-Slavic languages,you can see South-Slavic resp for Slovenian,Serb-Croat,Bulgarian and Macedonian more closer to Baltic.While Baltic neighbors like Polish,other west Slavs much further,east Slavic dialects still bit further than South-Slavic are.

JajarBingan
22-01-19, 15:43
It's going to be hard imo.
And the reason for that are the Hunter Gatherers from Ukraine and Latvia.
We already know from examples in Western Europe that those were predominantly blue-eyed and dark skinned. They passed those traits to farmers who contributed the light skin into the mix.
Now the ones in Latvia have light skin and blue eyes. And Balts have one of the highest incidence of light eyes today.
Now with Ukrainians it gets trickier. They are also at least as fair eyed as Western Euros, but the Hunter Gatherers from Ukraine are basically all brown-eyed and with light skin.
I'll leave it to you to tell me where Slavs were hanging around, but my guess is somewhere where there was a noticeable presence of blue eyes. In the vicinity of Ukraine, that's either Globular Amphora Culture in Poland (which got the blues from their local hunter gatherers) or in the Baltics.

Weeehsko
27-01-19, 19:11
I think this talk about Balto-Slavic unity is very, very controversal, bordering on pseudoscience. I mean, if all areas preceding to Slavic cultures are full of clearly Baltic hydronyms, with Baltic characteristical suffixes (Milograd culture, Dnieper-Dvin, Upper Oka, Yukhnovska, etc....)... It actually means that Baltic type of speech was formed very before proper proto-Slavic existed. Then, about what "Balto-Slavic unity" are we talking about?

laint
27-02-19, 16:24
Baltic languages can be described as Baltic perhaps about 1500 year BC, when actually probably predcessor of proto-Slavic separated from Balto-Slavic continuum. The rest of 2 dialects automatically became proto-Baltic (which means that unified Proto-Baltic stage is not justified to reconstruct, because it includes development of Slavic languages).

LOL, I'm sorry couldn't hold myself :D

laint
27-02-19, 17:31
According to Matasovic

So, how is your quote from Matasovic actually contradicting my text?


There is A PROBLEM of ancient similarities between Uralic and IE. I've read about number 8000 - don't remember if that is years ago or BC, but that precedes anything else that IE might have contacted and kept liguisticaly. There is also European substratum, that might be in some cases from older societies, but that is still much younger contact for IE.

Yeah, there is also other problem, where modern Baltic was also influenced by Mari languages(and younger Uralic substratum from Livones or South Estonians) - especially if it comes to Latvian-Lithuanian(which some insists, that it has to be named proto-Baltic), as a carriers of Mari N1a into modern Baltic.

And then - there is that problem with Uralic people - Udmurt, Mordvians, Mari - all of whom seems to have received their names from Scythians(who, it seems, were oblivious of ancient Slavic omni-presence), who were in their imminent neighborhood before Slavic came into existence. And then we have this ridiculous discussion how Slavic are speaking Vedic... :D



PS I start to see some strange trend:
Turks seems to have some problems with their ancient roots, who were not Turkish
Magyars seems to have some problems with their ancient roots, who were not Magyar
Indians in India seems to have some problems with their ancient roots, accepting that R1a is not coming from India
Slavs, especially in Balkans seems to have some problems with their roots, especially accepting more ancient history of Balts

[email protected] this interesting thing about genes. I now wonder what is in the minds of people that makes this world...

teftelis
27-02-19, 19:22
>Yeah, there is also other problem, where modern Baltic was also influenced by Mari languages

What? Baltic languages weren't influenced by Mari languages, the only visible influence on Baltic languages from Uralic languages is on Latvia from Finnic speakers like Livonians/Estonians or before they even differentiated as evidenced by loanwords/hydronyms in Latvian territory and some speculate stressing of the words but that's highly controversial or rather ongoing debate. In Lithuanian it's virtually non existent or non existent at all.

"as a carriers of Mari N1a into modern Baltic."

N1 in Balts has nothing to do with Mari's, virtually of it comes from a clade around from around 600BC N-L1025, which we can assume was somewhere around vicinity of Baltic sea or somewhere close to it, not from Mari's

Moreover judging by the number of loanwords Baltic speakers had the most intense contacts were with Finnic speakers then Mordvinic speakers but the number drops very significantly to dozens, in Mari there are like few less than 5 don't remember the exact number of words but most of scholars like Riho Grünthal said it's likely they were mediated trough other Uralic dialects. Moroever there were no archaeological cultures associated with Balts anywhere near close Mari people. While on the other hand we can strongly assume based on archaeology that early Balts were within vicinity of Finnic speakers and somewhat close to Mordvinic speakers. Because we know they that both Balts as attested by numerous hydronyms and Mordvins historically were near Oka basin.

laint
27-02-19, 20:34
>Yeah, there is also other problem, where modern Baltic was also influenced by Mari languages

What? Baltic languages weren't influenced by Mari languages, the only visible influence on Baltic languages from Uralic languages is on Latvia from Finnic speakers like Livonians/Estonians or before they even differentiated as evidenced by loanwords/hydronyms in Latvian territory and some speculate stressing of the words but that's highly controversial or rather ongoing debate. In Lithuanian it's virtually non existent or non existent at all.

"as a carriers of Mari N1a into modern Baltic."

N1 in Balts has nothing to do with Mari's, virtually of it comes from a clade around from around 600BC N-L1025, which we can assume was somewhere around vicinity of Baltic sea or somewhere close to it, not from Mari's

Moreover judging by the number of loanwords Baltic speakers had the most intense contacts were with Finnic speakers then Mordvinic speakers but the number drops very significantly to dozens, in Mari there are like few less than 5 don't remember the exact number of words but most of scholars like Riho Grünthal said it's likely they were mediated trough other Uralic dialects. Moroever there were no archaeological cultures associated with Balts anywhere near close Mari people. While on the other hand we can strongly assume based on archaeology that early Balts were within vicinity of Finnic speakers and somewhat close to Mordvinic speakers. Because we know they that both Balts as attested by numerous hydronyms and Mordvins historically were near Oka basin.

You are refering to something I did cover already.

N-VL29, that Lithuanians have it at 93% among N is shared with Mari. I clearly refered to period of history before arrival of Lithuanians in Lithuania. You should, too ;)


Yeah, I'm using a bit loose terminology, but ancient Mari is closest to core of Finnic languages. I find it funny, that talking about contacts of Baltic and Finnic, that happened ~3000BP, people can distinguish Mordvian influences even before Mordvians came into existence... Also, I was not referring to Modern Mari and Mordvian influences, so you should not, too.

There is no such Mordvin language, but there exists Mordvin LANGUAGES - Erzya and Moksha are most used. So, a million dollar question for you: From which ones - Erzya or Moksha Lithuanians have those loanwords?

teftelis
27-02-19, 21:20
You are refering to something I did cover already.

N-VL29, that Lithuanians have it at 93% among N is shared with Mari. I clearly refered to period of history before arrival of Lithuanians in Lithuania. You should, too ;)


Yeah, I'm using a bit loose terminology, but ancient Mari is closest to core of Finnic languages. I find it funny, that talking about contacts of Baltic and Finnic, that happened ~3000BP, people can distinguish Mordvian influences even before Mordvians came into existence... Also, I was not referring to Modern Mari and Mordvian influences, so you should not, too.

There is no such Mordvin language, but there exists Mordvin LANGUAGES - Erzya and Moksha are most used. So, a million dollar question for you: From which ones - Erzya or Moksha Lithuanians have those loanwords?

First of all none of Balts carry N-VL29 , all N1 in Balts is downstream from it from a younger clade it as I've mentioned above under N-L1025, I don't think you grasp this. Moreover there's no evidence of contacts between Balts and Mari people. Other thing N1 in Baltic states shows up around 700-500BC as seen in Genetic prehistory of Baltic sea region, where they find no N1 Baltic until 500BC, the upcoming Estonian study also find N1 appearing around 700-500BC in Estonia. Earliest sample with N1 in Balts is from 350-650AD and based on some models shows up minor Finland_Karelia like admixture. Again pointing that Finnic like population was vector of N1c in Balts not Mari like. Second thing I didn't say Mordivian is language I said Mordvinic speakers later reffered to them as Mordvins both Erzya and Moksha fall under this umbrella term. As evidenced that Baltic loanwords are only found loanwords are only in Finnic and Mordvinic, while Mari is closely related to Mordvinic it's more eastern branch and it doesn't show any hard evidence for contact with early Baltic speakers. Quote from Baltic loanwords in Mordvinic by Riho Grünthal:

"Traditionally, it ismaintained that the Mordvinic languages share more vocabulary and grammatical features with the Finnic languages than with more eastern Uralic languages,such as Mari, the Permic languages, Hungarian, Ob-Ugric, and the Samoyediclanguages (Bartens 1999: 13; Bereczki 1988: 314; Hajdú 1962: 94–97, 1981: 54;Häkkinen 1997: 162–210; Terho Itkonen 1997: 247–260; Keresztes 1987: 32–43)"

"More generally speaking, there are very few Mari words that are supposed to beBaltic borrowings. None of these etymologies is plausible (Mägiste 1959)"

Also what Erzya and Moksha loanwords in Lithuanian are you talking about? As far as I'm aware there are none and I've read about this subject thoroughly unless you have some sort of secret information.

Srbadija
01-03-19, 00:58
LOL, I'm sorry couldn't hold myself :D

Your problem is that you even don't know what means term "proto-language".

Linguists (whose job is that about what we are talking now) agreed that there was one unique Balto-Slavic stage inside Indo-European family of languages. Of course you can't understand that, because you are just looking from the point of archaisms, (which means actually nothing in genetical classification of languages).


Kortlandt: "Essential point is that Balto-Slavic split into three branches: West Baltic (=Prussian) , East Baltic (that later splitted into Latvian and Lithuanian) and Slavic"

So, there was no "Balts", there was Balto-Slavs, just with terminological substitution where Balto-Slavs=Balts, which is very rude used by Latvians and Lithuanians when Baltic and Slavic unity is questioned.

So ancestors of Letto-Lithuanians, ancestors of Prussians AND ancestors of Slavs were part of some Satem Indo-European trunk? From which "Baltic" Slavic descended????? History didn't record such language!

Unity of Baltic is basical myth, which made by ignorant pseudo-linguists, who have no idea about what are they talking about.

Let me summarize this: There is NO unity of Baltic languages which would exclude the ancestors of Slavs. Who cares for your archaic bullshits, that's what linguistical science says! It supports Balto-Slavic theory, as a dialect of Indo-European.


So, how is your quote from Matasovic actually contradicting my text?

He is contradicting your pseudo-scientifical myth about unity of "Balts", as a one clear proto-language, which never existed, and you simply can't deal with that. Did you noticed that he is using always "Balto-Slavic" terminology? Why?? Does he have some pan-Slavic agenda against Latvians and Lithuanians? Or is just compentent about question and is using right terminology.


By the way, i noticed big conspiracy among Baltocentrists... There is conspiracy; Balts don't want to be together with Slavic imperialists, and in every way are sabotaging the Balto-Slavic reconstruction. :))))

teftelis
01-03-19, 12:41
You're showing your insecurities , about this Balto-Slavic unity, what is clear Balto-Slavic languages share set linguistic features and vocabulary and are the most related languages. The question originally asked was how can we divide Slavs from Balts before 6th century, we can clearly do that based on archaeology and linguistics. Slavic languages differentiated as late as 10th century, before they were basically same with slight dialectal variation. You're arguing semantics, what where it's called Balto-Slavic, Baltic or etc because it your hurt feelings. What is clear all Slavic languages descend archaeologically speaking from a very late culture, and linguistically too because all Slavic languages spoken today are descendant from one particular dialect which was spoken very late. Also you're quoting one specific linguist Kortlandt he's absolute authority over this subject there are different views also. Other thing is we don't know how many other dialects were erased over this broad horizon, while take for example Dnieper-Dvina culture or Yukhnovo, Upper Oka. While archaeologically they're closest to East Baltic culture like Brushed-Pottery over which various Letto-Lithuanian tribes later formed, we can't say for certain for what Dnieper-Dvina spoke in Late Bronze age/Early Iron age or Yukhnovo etc who lived in vicinity with Finnics more to the east of today's Balts, what we can do be best is base our reconstructions on attested languages, just because they weren't recorded doesn't mean they didn't exist, I hope you grasp this, because you complain about "History didn't record such language!" you do grasp that Proto-Balto-Slavic or is also not recorded but a reconstructed language based on what data we have of surviving languages and attested languages . Even when Baltic loanwords are analyzed in Proto-Finnic or later stages, often terminology such like North Baltic appears because in works from Petri Kallio, Santeri Juntilla, because some features can't be explained neither by East-Baltic or West-Baltic nor Slavic. It's possible that earlier stages Baltic and Slavic or Balto-Slavic languages were part of broader continuum, but only specific dialects survived.

Srbadija
01-03-19, 17:25
You're showing your insecurities , about this Balto-Slavic unity, what is clear Balto-Slavic languages share set linguistic features and vocabulary and are the most related languages. The question originally asked was how can we divide Slavs from Balts before 6th century, we can clearly do that based on archaeology and linguistics. Slavic languages differentiated as late as 10th century, before they were basically same with slight dialectal variation. You're arguing semantics, what where it's called Balto-Slavic, Baltic or etc because it your hurt feelings. What is clear all Slavic languages descend archaeologically speaking from a very late culture, and linguistically too because all Slavic languages spoken today are descendant from one particular dialect which was spoken very late. Also you're quoting one specific linguist Kortlandt he's absolute authority over this subject there are different views also. Other thing is we don't know how many other dialects were erased over this broad horizon, while take for example Dnieper-Dvina culture or Yukhnovo, Upper Oka. While archaeologically they're closest to East Baltic culture like Brushed-Pottery over which various Letto-Lithuanian tribes later formed, we can't say for certain for what Dnieper-Dvina spoke in Late Bronze age/Early Iron age or Yukhnovo etc who lived in vicinity with Finnics more to the east of today's Balts, what we can do be best is base our reconstructions on attested languages, just because they weren't recorded doesn't mean they didn't exist, I hope you grasp this, because you complain about "History didn't record such language!" you do grasp that Proto-Balto-Slavic or is also not recorded but a reconstructed language based on what data we have of surviving languages and attested languages . Even when Baltic loanwords are analyzed in Proto-Finnic or later stages, often terminology such like North Baltic appears because in works from Petri Kallio, Santeri Juntilla, because some features can't be explained neither by East-Baltic or West-Baltic nor Slavic. It's possible that earlier stages Baltic and Slavic or Balto-Slavic languages were part of broader continuum, but only specific dialects survived.

I don't contradict any of these statements, just those like this user "laint", who is spreading his bullshits here every time he posts. He is more clever than any of modern linguists and he claims like whole question is solved. He has some kind of hatred toward Turks, Russians, and Indians. So, that's the reason why he is spreading constant bullshits about those nations, and their linguistic groups.

teftelis
01-03-19, 18:08
I don't contradict any of these statements, just those like this user "laint", who is spreading his bullshits here every time he posts. He is more clever than any of modern linguists and he claims like whole question is solved. He has some kind of hatred toward Turks, Russians, and Indians. So, that's the reason why he is spreading constant bullshits about those nations, and their linguistic groups.

What I'm saying, Balto-Slavic unity Baltic-Slavic is semantics over terminology even Toporov or Kortlandt as late as 2018 said Slavic could be described basically as South-Baltic, a more neutral name is considered Balto-Slavic, obviously because of different agendas and complex histories of these communities. I'd like to hijack a comment from a Russian member ahvalj, on other forum I won't name it since I don't know if it's not against rules to promote other websites.


"Imagine the Romance language area, from Portugal to the Black sea, where once a single language (with local differences) was spoken. Now imagine only two–three cores remain alive, perhaps Spanish (~East Baltic), Catalan (~West Baltic) and Romanian (~Slavic), with no intermediate dialects between West and East and no Latin as a common written language, just naturally developing dialects of illiterate people. This area split around 400 C. E. after the dissolution of the empire, so imagine that one language (Romanian~Slavic) gets attested 1600 years later, i. e. now, and two others some more centuries later, i. e. sometime in the 25th century. What you'll see is the approximate analogy to the Balto-Slavic situation."

Or other somewhat opposing view like Toporov, who suggested that Proto-Slavic languages formed from peripheral Baltic dialects. But the situation is we're dealing is we're dealing with pre-illiterate societies and languages that weren't attested so can just make guesses on what data was attested or survived to this day. This question will not likely be answered soon or if it's gonna be answered at all, because again we're dealing with semantics and because even then Balto-Slavic unity isn't as defined by some strict criteria, one linguist thinks it's because they descent from a same proto-language, other thinks it's because they shared a lot of contact and we're close to each other for different periods of times thus explaining in part some parallels and shared innovations, some go as far to say that one branch gave birth to another like in case of Toporov and etc. It's much more complex this question is far from being settled and this is just touching linguistics, if we're going to touch archaeology it also becomes entirely different thing. We can say pretty much with certainty that Corded Ware brought it over, in which culture Proto-Balto-Slavic language differentiated from it's PIE root? In which cultures the supposed split appeared and later different dialect like East-Baltic, West-Baltic, Proto-Slavic and possibly some other dialect continuum which never survived to see it's attestation formed? While it's "somewhat" settled on which cultures were Baltic archaeologically speaking if we go down do late BA/Early Iron age, situation is vastly different if comes to Slavic, I've seen so many suggestions in which culture the supposed Proto-Slavic dialect was spoken that it becomes even murkier, from Kiev culture, to Prague-Korchak, Zarubintsy, Chernyakhov and etc.

laint
03-03-19, 23:59
I don't contradict any of these statements, just those like this user "laint", who is spreading his bullshits here every time he posts. He is more clever than any of modern linguists and he claims like whole question is solved. He has some kind of hatred toward Turks, Russians, and Indians. So, that's the reason why he is spreading constant bullshits about those nations, and their linguistic groups.

Oh, no. You forgot Slavs from Balkans...

However, that is not truth - I have no hatred, I just don't understand what is the fuss.


IMO, answer to topic is found, but we can chat and I need some entertainment sometime.

laint
04-03-19, 01:25
First of all none of Balts carry N-VL29 , all N1 in Balts is downstream from it from a younger clade it as I've mentioned above under N-L1025, I don't think you grasp this. Moreover there's no evidence of contacts between Balts and Mari people. Other thing N1 in Baltic states shows up around 700-500BC as seen in Genetic prehistory of Baltic sea region, where they find no N1 Baltic until 500BC, the upcoming Estonian study also find N1 appearing around 700-500BC in Estonia. Earliest sample with N1 in Balts is from 350-650AD and based on some models shows up minor Finland_Karelia like admixture. Again pointing that Finnic like population was vector of N1c in Balts not Mari like. Second thing I didn't say Mordivian is language I said Mordvinic speakers later reffered to them as Mordvins both Erzya and Moksha fall under this umbrella term. As evidenced that Baltic loanwords are only found loanwords are only in Finnic and Mordvinic, while Mari is closely related to Mordvinic it's more eastern branch and it doesn't show any hard evidence for contact with early Baltic speakers. Quote from Baltic loanwords in Mordvinic by Riho Grünthal:

"Traditionally, it ismaintained that the Mordvinic languages share more vocabulary and grammatical features with the Finnic languages than with more eastern Uralic languages,such as Mari, the Permic languages, Hungarian, Ob-Ugric, and the Samoyediclanguages (Bartens 1999: 13; Bereczki 1988: 314; Hajdú 1962: 94–97, 1981: 54;Häkkinen 1997: 162–210; Terho Itkonen 1997: 247–260; Keresztes 1987: 32–43)"

"More generally speaking, there are very few Mari words that are supposed to beBaltic borrowings. None of these etymologies is plausible (Mägiste 1959)"

Also what Erzya and Moksha loanwords in Lithuanian are you talking about? As far as I'm aware there are none and I've read about this subject thoroughly unless you have some sort of secret information.

I don't think you grasp, N also is a clade and that N-L1025 also can have downstream clades - they are not constricted on how many child branches they can have, so 93% of Lithuanian N can belong to N-VL29 and also it will be the same to say, that 93% of N of Lithuanian belongs to N-L1025. Clade is just another word for branch. Lets not make it more complex than it is already ;)

Here is a text from wiki I'm refering, why I'm calling it Mari, because Mordvins share it at lesser frequency:


N1a1a1a1a1a-CTS2929/VL29 Found with high frequency among Lithuanians (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lithuanians), Latvians (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Latvians), Estonians (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Estonians), northwestern Russians (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russians), Swedish Saami (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saami_people), Karelians (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karelians), Nenetses (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nenets_people), Finns (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Finnish_people), and Maris (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mari_people), moderate frequency among other Russians (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russians), Belarusians (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Belarusians), Ukrainians (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ukrainians), and Poles (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poles), and low frequency among Komis (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Komi_people), Mordva (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mordva), Tatars (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tatars), Chuvashes (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chuvashes), Dolgans (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dolgans), Vepsa (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vepsians), Selkups (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Selkups), Karanogays (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nogais), and Bashkirs (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bashkirs)[3] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haplogroup_N-M231#cite_note-Ilumae2016-3)


I don't have a link to Kasperaviciute published data on 2004, but you can find them a lot easier, where 93% of Lithuanians share same clade as Mari. There is also similar publication on Latvian and Estonian data, but Estonians have different proportions, but again quote from wiki(which is not reliable source, but in this case it is solely used to identify clade):



N1a1a1a1a2-Z1936,CTS10082 Found with high frequency among Finns (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Finns), Vepsa (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vepsians), Karelians (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karelians), Swedish Saami (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saami_people), northwestern Russians (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russians), Bashkirs (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bashkirs), and Volga Tatars (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Volga_Tatars), moderate frequency among other Russians (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russians), Komis (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Komi_people), Nenetses (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nenets_people), Ob-Ugrians (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ob-Ugrians), Dolgans (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dolgans), and Siberian Tatars (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Siberian_Tatars), and low frequency among Mordva (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mordva), Nganasans (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nganasans), Chuvashes (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chuvash_people), Estonians (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Estonians), Latvians (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Latvians), Ukrainians (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ukrainians), and Karanogays (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nogais)[3] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haplogroup_N-M231#cite_note-Ilumae2016-3) 

Baltic-Uralic mixed cultures expanded up to Mari territory. Also, Mari(before known as Cheremis) inhabited a lot bigger territory than Mari-El republic covers now - actually native Mari speakers still live outside Mari-El, too. Besides, there is a question of Meryan as westward expansion of Mari, which is very close to modern Baltic speakers. So if we are discussing such ancient times, then Mari did not exist at that time and neither any of modern Baltic nations - that is true, but their ancestors did exist and they mingled. I'm using Mari solely because that is more closer as a top branch of Finnic and reusing naming seems like logic choice. Think of it as a clade but in linguistics. ;)

I, honestly, don't understand why everyone is so fixed on loanwords - also I did not even mention them. Loanwords do not change language - grammar does!
Common Latin changed into different languages, English changed from its original form - and it is impossible to claim, that Latvian and Lithuanian ancestor languages did not change even after they were influencing Uralic on Volga basin for a very long time, unlike other Baltic languages in Baltic region. And language of Latvian and Lithuanian ancestors should have changed, compared to other Baltic languages, as a mixed R1a-N1a group - actually it is different from substrate of more archaic local Baltic.


PS This clearly is an off-topic, but I'm ready to post anything for amusement of OP - even discuss N1a in R1a topic... :]

teftelis
04-03-19, 12:18
"I don't think you grasp, N also is a clade and that N-L1025 also can have downstream clades - they are not constricted on how many child branches they can have, so 93% of Lithuanian N can belong to N-VL29 and also it will be the same to say, that 93% of N of Lithuanian belongs to N-L1025. Clade is just another word for branch. Lets not make it more complex than it is already ;)"

Juggling buzzowords won't make you any righter. You still don't understand that Mari are upstream and carry older branches which isn't found among Balts.

"I don't have a link to Kasperaviciute published data on 2004, but you can find them a lot easier, where 93% of Lithuanians share same clade as Mari. There is also similar publication on Latvian and Estonian data, but Estonians have different proportions, but again quote from wiki(which is not reliable source, but in this case it is solely used to identify clade)"

You're quoting a 15 year old study they couldn't test very downstream branches/clades back then, going by your logic everyone who has N is Chinese because that's where oldest clades and basal clades are found. I think you need to a lot more studying to do on DNA. In other thread you said you don't care autosomal DNA and all that matters is Y-DNA. If you make such claims you're and trying to argue about ancient history from a genetic points of view you should just stop already. Your reasoning was "because the main tendency is that neighbours have the same,".

"Baltic-Uralic mixed cultures expanded up to Mari territory. Also, Mari(before known as Cheremis) inhabited a lot bigger territory than Mari-El republic covers now - actually native Mari speakers still live outside Mari-El, too. Besides, there is a question of Meryan as westward expansion of Mari, which is very close to modern Baltic speakers. So if we are discussing such ancient times, then Mari did not exist at that time and neither any of modern Baltic nations - that is true, but their ancestors did exist and they mingled. I'm using Mari solely because that is more closer as a top branch of Finnic and reusing naming seems like logic choice. Think of it as a clade but in linguistics. ;)"

What Balto-Uralic mixed cultures? How very close Mari is to modern Baltic speakers what the hell are you even talking about? Becaues they're neither close in terms of autosomal ancestry, nor linguistically the they belong to completely different language group.

"I, honestly, don't understand why everyone is so fixed on loanwords - also I did not even mention them."

You don't understand a lot of things it seems, loanwords are very useful in helping to follow contacts between peoples and see sound change laws, some loanwords if it concerns some technology even allow to pin point the time frame of supposed contacts.

Also you obviously did mention loanwords in your previous post.

"So, a million dollar question for you: From which ones - Erzya or Moksha Lithuanians have those loanwords?" Post 144.

So again I'm asking what are those loanwords? Because you dodged this question again.

laint
05-03-19, 00:44
* Mari N1a are downstream to the same ancestors as Lithuanian N1a - they have their own clades, that might not have been researched yet, so you have an idea fix, that they are upstream unchanged. It is thou, that have no understanding on how thou dna works!

* Are you claiming to be an alien and your DNA is working differently?



* 15 years old study is fresh - still fresherr than the topic we are on. 15 years ago there were no downstream clades - not because they could not test them, but because they were not classified as such.

* Yes, N in Europe comes from China. Do you have other suggestions?

* Is this becoming something about my persona? I'm afraid I am not interested in thou, even if I have plenty of free time that I'm using on this. ;)



* Cultures =/= languages. English is not that hard to understand.



* We can argue about usability of loanwords, but how they are making structural language changes, which makes them apart from other languages, who might be using exactly the same loanwords?


* You brought loanwords in - not me. So, which ones? Again - I have no need to bring them in, because I did not made that claim. Just support your claim and bring them in - Moksha, Soksha, Erzya or others - I do not care.




I feel like this is more as an attack on my person, than even what I've written. You have no idea who I am and what are my skills and you are offering me to study. Are you providing those studies? Are you the teacher? Mind your manners, please.

teftelis
05-03-19, 08:35
15 years in genetic field isn't fresh, genetics have come a long way since then don't act stupid and I brought up studies to inform yourself better on the current views in archaeology not your own opinions. Another point is still that you don't get it, if Mari like population was the source of N1 in Baltics you'd expect to see at least some older branches in Balts like the Mari people have, but all of it some from a young clade dated to around 600BC, all Mari are upstream of it. Also you still brought up loanwords by yourself in 144# post mentioning Erzya and Moksha loanwords in Lithuanian and still haven't answered which are those yet. Moreover N-VL29 in Mari's is at very low frequency it's even more common in Nenets or Saamis than in Mari'sagain rather pointing origin of N1 in Balts else from elsewhere than from Maris, N-VL29 comes in dead in last in frequency. As per Ilumae et al. (2016) data. 93% of Lithuanians don't share the same clade as Maris, you have no idea what you're talking about.

10792