Search results

To my knowledge, there is no such a priori hierarchy. All that matters is: in which language we can find semantically and phonologically most plausible original? Very often it is some Germanic language stage, although Baltic loanwords are also numerous, considering that they are temporarily more...

I continue here, because the linguistic thread is locked. Wrong again: no Samoyed people have that much N1c, only N1b. Source: Tambets et al. 2004: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1181943/ You should understand that genome-widely Finns have only few percents Asian genes – that is a...

That is actually totally erroneous: Nganasans have N1b 91 %! And none N1c. Nenets don't have that much N1c, either.

Actually I found all your points. It’s not my fault if you forgot to write down some of your points. :) We mainly agree here. Except this point: Uralic did not necessarily evolve from an earlier language with Altaic roots. Even the Altaic languages do not share common protolanguage, but the...

Very interesting suggestion! However, Proto-Finnic *rakta would be rauta only in (West) Finnish, while it would have been preserved as **rakta in Karelian and Vepsian. Because we have rauta in all Finnic languages, this explanation is not so good. Also meaning 'red' in Sanskrit is not as close...

That is utter nonsense! No true historical linguist claims that Hungarian has more similarities with Turkic than Finnic or other Uralic languages. Read this and then present your counter-evidence, if you can: http://www.elisanet.fi/alkupera/Hungarian.pdf Sorry, but your opinion is...

N is too wide and too old stage to be compared to Uralic languages. N has dispersed to different subhaplogroups during the Ice Age, but dispersal of Late Proto-Uralic only occurred during the Early Northern Bronze Age. Therefore the distinction that Samoyeds have N1b and others have N1c cannot...

There probably was an old Uralic word for 'forest', but still, Proto-Finnic speakers acquired a new word. There could be many reasons for borrowing such a word: bilingualism (they borrowed also other "futile" words for relatives and body parts, which tells about intense contact and/or wide...

There are few words denoting to animal husbandry and agriculture in Proto-Uralic: http://www.sgr.fi/susa/92/hakkinen.pdf Page 28, 3.5. It is possible, or they were Turkic (ethnonymic and even genetic connection to the madjars of Kazakhstan). However, it is not reasonable to think any...

1. There are rather old loanwords between Permic and Ugric languages 2. There are grammatical innovations shared by Permic and Hungarian 3. Proto-Uralic was spoken in Europe Based on these, it is more economical to think that Ugric languages spread from the west to the east. Yes, we do know...

No, but it tells us that the deepest taxonomic gap (between Finno-Permic and Ugro-Samoyedic) was located in Europe. That is one hint towards the area of dispersion of Late Proto-Uralic in Europe, but of course not the only one. We cannot speculate with some hypothetical, lost Uralic languages...

It is possible to recognize some similar words based on regular sound changes, like Fi., Est. kala ~ Hu. hal ‘fish’. But many words are totally unrecognizable for the laymen, like Fi. hiiri ~ Hu. egér ‘mouse’ (regular cognates). Finnish and Estonian are closely related, like Germanic...

Wow, Moesan already presented many up-to-date links, but I will still answer to some commentators. Actually that is not the case. Historical linguists agree with the Pontic Steppe theory, because it is based on linguistic evidence. Few computational phylogeneticists have supported the outdated...

Wiik’s Uralic substrate in Germanic has been disproved already at the 90’s. Besides, we know that: 1. there is a substrate in Germanic, but it has nothing in common with the Uralic languages – neither on the level of words nor phonotactics 2. Proto-Uralic only spread from the Volga-Kama region...

Uralic substrate in Germanic has been totally disproved; unfortunately the debate was mainly in Finnish. Besides, we know that: 1. There is a substratum in Germanic, and it has nothing in common with the Uralic languages; 2. The Uralic language only spread from the Volga-Kama region around 2000...

1. It is not valid to talk about Finns as a homogeneous group. West and East Finns are very different, and Finns have many genetic roots. 2. It is not possible to talk about Finns before the Finnic language arrived from Estonia at the Iron Age, and in Estonia I1 is rare. Therefore at least most...

Haplotype tree of N1c1a (M178) All the main branches are preliminary included, except the Savonian: http://www.elisanet.fi/alkupera/N1c1tree.pdf

Good point, even Altaic has not been proven to be a family, much less the Ural-Altaic. These languages are typologically similar, but they lack shared concrete language material. Typology alone cannot testify about relatedness, but it can testify about areal closeness. Even IE and Uralic...

True. But all the words denoting to the "original" environment are not necessarily old, because words disappear and get replaced. There are no more mountain words in Proto-Indo-European than there are swamp words, sea words etc. On this basis we cannot claim that the speakers of the...

When doing palaeolinguistic analysis, only words with very specific meanings are relevant. There is no basis to claim that words for 'mountain' would testify for the mountainous homeland, or that words for 'ice' and 'snow' would testify for northern or mountainous homeland. There are probably no...