Which is more European ? Finno-ugric languages or Indo-European languages?
- Thread starter Stears555
- Start date
- Status
Oriental, as you see what is Poenician Legend and Greek Mythology about the origin of the word Europe to Iberians pre roman people is nothing but letters. The language spoken by the ancestors of the Portuguese people were of the nature of letters. On the other hand, if you look carefully at the picture showing the Indo-European expansion theory you can notice the so called centum-satem isogloss separating Greek, Italic and Germanic at the left side and Baltic, Slavic and others not less important Indo-European classified languages because when east the Bronze Age European people reached that area the Iberians was already there. Meanwhile, before those eastern Bronze Age horse war like warriors reached the area the Global Iberian Megalithic culture (Bell Beaker folks) had taken place. So, Slavic languages are nothing but the result of Iberians migrations as the Caucasus Iberians and Siberians.
To show the Slavic link is the well known biggest European Volga river and the Portuguese Vouga river.
Summing all it up and joining what Plato have said about the Atlanteans (but forgetting for the moment the sunken continent). He told us about an ancient people from the Herculus columns that had spread to Greece, India, and Egypt (forget the dates he has said (several millennia before), because who tells a story add a point as we used to say). In other words, without the Arrábida Paradigm you are not able to tell about any language origin because you will ever need a language of the nature of letters, the most archaic European Portuguese megalithic ancestral language. By the way the Iberian Mesopotamia Almendres Megalithic site is the place where the most ancestral lineages of power have studied. And when they started to forget letters meaning they speak about legends and myths. That is all for now, have a good night.
To show the Slavic link is the well known biggest European Volga river and the Portuguese Vouga river.
Summing all it up and joining what Plato have said about the Atlanteans (but forgetting for the moment the sunken continent). He told us about an ancient people from the Herculus columns that had spread to Greece, India, and Egypt (forget the dates he has said (several millennia before), because who tells a story add a point as we used to say). In other words, without the Arrábida Paradigm you are not able to tell about any language origin because you will ever need a language of the nature of letters, the most archaic European Portuguese megalithic ancestral language. By the way the Iberian Mesopotamia Almendres Megalithic site is the place where the most ancestral lineages of power have studied. And when they started to forget letters meaning they speak about legends and myths. That is all for now, have a good night.
Last edited:
Wow, Moesan already presented many up-to-date links, but I will still answer to some commentators.
http://www.elisanet.fi/alkupera/Problems_of_phylogenetics.pdf
http://www.elisanet.fi/alkupera/UralicEvidence.pdf
I can assure you that great majority of Indo-Europeanists agree with the Pontic Steppe homeland – and all of those who have studied and understood the arguments.
http://www.sgr.fi/sust/sust264/sust264_hakkinenj.pdf
Besides, nowadays Finno-Ugric isn’t distinguished from Uralic, because the earliest dialect boundary did not separate Samoyedic from all the rest but Ugro-Samoyedic from Finno-Permic.
http://www.elisanet.fi/alkupera/UralicEvidence.pdf
And no sane linguist questions the existence of Uralic language family, if you mean Marcantonio's weird views. I suggest you read some critique pointed at her "studies":
http://www.elisanet.fi/alkupera/Family.html
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 Anatolian hypothesis, but you can see that it is easy to disprove:Stears555 said:
http://www.elisanet.fi/alkupera/Problems_of_phylogenetics.pdf
http://www.elisanet.fi/alkupera/UralicEvidence.pdf
I can assure you that great majority of Indo-Europeanists agree with the Pontic Steppe homeland – and all of those who have studied and understood the arguments.
Yes, Proto-Uralic expanded from the easternmost Europe, around Volga-Kama region, but its ancestor seems to have developed around South Siberia.Stears555 said:
http://www.sgr.fi/sust/sust264/sust264_hakkinenj.pdf
Besides, nowadays Finno-Ugric isn’t distinguished from Uralic, because the earliest dialect boundary did not separate Samoyedic from all the rest but Ugro-Samoyedic from Finno-Permic.
http://www.elisanet.fi/alkupera/UralicEvidence.pdf
Uralic language family was proved already 100 years ago, when Samoyed was included. There is no varying views about which languages are Uralic and which are not, if you meant that.Stears555 said:
And no sane linguist questions the existence of Uralic language family, if you mean Marcantonio's weird views. I suggest you read some critique pointed at her "studies":
http://www.elisanet.fi/alkupera/Family.html
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).oriental said:
Finnish and Estonian are closely related, like Germanic languages to each other. But Hungarian is about as far from them as Persian is from English.
Actually the deepest taxonomic gap is at the Ural mountains, but just some centuries ago it was in Europe, because Ugric language Mansi was still spoken in Europe. Pre-Hungarian was spoken around the Urals before it moved to the steppe and spread westwards between several Turkic languages. Hungarian is rather closely related to Mansi and Khanty:Aberdeen said:
http://www.elisanet.fi/alkupera/Hungarian.pdf
That idea was born dead. Protolanguage is a logical inevitability, even if it was born as an admixture of two different language. Protolanguage cannot be explained away. Protolanguage is always born in a narrow homeland, even if it is born from such admixture.gyms said:
You see, if two languages mix in one area, the result is different than that if the same two languages mix in some other area. Then there are two different protolanguages which have the same parent languages. If one of them replaces the other, one protolanguage expands and another retreats.
Aberdeen
Regular Member
- Messages
- 1,835
- Reaction score
- 380
- Points
- 0
- Ethnic group
- Scottish, English and German
- Y-DNA haplogroup
- I1
- mtDNA haplogroup
- H4
Thanks for the information, Jaska, but I don't think where the Mansi were a few centuries ago or 2000 years ago really tells us much about where the Uralic body of languages originated. If we go back far enough, Uralic languages seem to have a strong connection to the Y subclade N1c, and one of the mysteries about Hungarian is that it's spoken by people among who N1c is rare. Anyway, geneticists generally seem to think Y haplotype N arced from southeast Asia west and north across Siberia and into Europe, so I do think there's a good chance Proto-Uralic started in Siberia. However, as several people have pointed out to the OP, that sort of distinction between European and Asian populations becomes less meaningful the further back we go. If there is an "European" genetic group it would be Y haplotype I, and it developed from Middle Eastern IJ. And the closer we get to later periods, the less we can match haplotypes to language, so that by the time of the Iron Age we have Magyars from west of the Urals who aren't N1c speaking a Uralic language.
Once again:
According to the most recent archaeological researches,"The chronology of the finds from the southern Urals and the Dnieper region suggests a relatively rapid migration of the ancient Hungarians no earlier than the beginning of the 9th century, as was earlier suggested by Soviet-Russian and Ukrainian research.http://www.academia.edu/1899093/The_...garian_history
Based on our time to most recent common ancestor data, the L1034 marker arose 2,500 years before present. The overall frequency of the L1034 is very low among the analyzed populations, thus it does not necessarily mean that proto-Hungarians and Mansi descend from common ancestors. It does provide, however, a limited genetic link supporting language contact. Both Hungarians and Mansi have much more complex genetic population history than the traditional tree-based linguistic model would suggest.
http://dienekes.blogspot.se/2014/09/...een-mansi.html
Furthermore, the conquerors had been almost constantly on the move from the distant east for at least two generations before they entered the Carpathian Basin (Türk, 2011); the existence of a large or even a moderate sized agricultural population in their society during this time is next to inconceivable. Still further evidence against the argument that the conquerors were made up of the members of two different peoples comes from physical anthropologists. One of these is Erzsébet Fóthi who, after studying tenth century skeletal remains for several decades, came to the conclusion that the conquerors constituted a single people rather than one in which the elite was ethnically different from the rest of the population.
http://ahea.net/sitefiles/file/journals/201311/Dreiszigerfinal.pdf
(Erzsébet Fóthi analized 475 male and 374 female conqueror skulls from 9-11 century.)
According to the most recent archaeological researches,"The chronology of the finds from the southern Urals and the Dnieper region suggests a relatively rapid migration of the ancient Hungarians no earlier than the beginning of the 9th century, as was earlier suggested by Soviet-Russian and Ukrainian research.http://www.academia.edu/1899093/The_...garian_history
Based on our time to most recent common ancestor data, the L1034 marker arose 2,500 years before present. The overall frequency of the L1034 is very low among the analyzed populations, thus it does not necessarily mean that proto-Hungarians and Mansi descend from common ancestors. It does provide, however, a limited genetic link supporting language contact. Both Hungarians and Mansi have much more complex genetic population history than the traditional tree-based linguistic model would suggest.
http://dienekes.blogspot.se/2014/09/...een-mansi.html
Furthermore, the conquerors had been almost constantly on the move from the distant east for at least two generations before they entered the Carpathian Basin (Türk, 2011); the existence of a large or even a moderate sized agricultural population in their society during this time is next to inconceivable. Still further evidence against the argument that the conquerors were made up of the members of two different peoples comes from physical anthropologists. One of these is Erzsébet Fóthi who, after studying tenth century skeletal remains for several decades, came to the conclusion that the conquerors constituted a single people rather than one in which the elite was ethnically different from the rest of the population.
http://ahea.net/sitefiles/file/journals/201311/Dreiszigerfinal.pdf
(Erzsébet Fóthi analized 475 male and 374 female conqueror skulls from 9-11 century.)
[h=1]Y-SNP L1034: limited genetic link between Mansi and Hungarian-speaking populations.[/h]Fehér T1, Németh E, Vándor A, Kornienko IV, Csáji LK, Pamjav H.
[h=3]Author information [/h]
[h=3]Abstract[/h]Genetic studies noted that the Hungarian Y-chromosomal gene pool significantly differs from other Uralic-speaking populations. Hungarians show very limited or no presence of haplogroup N-Tat, which is frequent among other Uralic-speaking populations. We proposed that some genetic links need to be observed between the linguistically related Hungarian and Mansi populations.This is the first attempt to divide haplogroup N-Tat into subhaplogroups by testing new downstream SNP markers L708 and L1034. Sixty Northern Mansi samples were collected in Western Siberia and genotyped for Y-chromosomal haplotypes and haplogroups. We found 14 Mansi and 92 N-Tat samples from 7 populations. Comparative results showed that all N-Tat samples carried the N-L708 mutation. Some Hungarian, Sekler, and Uzbek samples were L1034 SNP positive, while all Mongolians, Buryats, Khanty, Finnish, and Roma samples yielded a negative result for this marker. Based on the above, L1034 marker seems to be a subgroup of N-Tat, which is typical for Mansi and Hungarian-speaking ethnic groups so far. Based on our time to most recent common ancestor data, the L1034 marker arose 2,500 years before present. The overall frequency of the L1034 is very low among the analyzed populations, thus it does not necessarily mean that proto-Hungarians and Mansi descend from common ancestors. It does provide, however, a limited genetic link supporting language contact. Both Hungarians and Mansi have much more complex genetic population history than the traditional tree-based linguistic model would suggest.
PMID: 25258186 [PubMed - as supplied by publisher]
[h=3]Author information [/h]
- 1Network of Forensic Science Institutes, Institute of Forensic Medicine, DNA Laboratory, PO Box 216, 1536, Budapest, Hungary.
[h=3]Abstract[/h]Genetic studies noted that the Hungarian Y-chromosomal gene pool significantly differs from other Uralic-speaking populations. Hungarians show very limited or no presence of haplogroup N-Tat, which is frequent among other Uralic-speaking populations. We proposed that some genetic links need to be observed between the linguistically related Hungarian and Mansi populations.This is the first attempt to divide haplogroup N-Tat into subhaplogroups by testing new downstream SNP markers L708 and L1034. Sixty Northern Mansi samples were collected in Western Siberia and genotyped for Y-chromosomal haplotypes and haplogroups. We found 14 Mansi and 92 N-Tat samples from 7 populations. Comparative results showed that all N-Tat samples carried the N-L708 mutation. Some Hungarian, Sekler, and Uzbek samples were L1034 SNP positive, while all Mongolians, Buryats, Khanty, Finnish, and Roma samples yielded a negative result for this marker. Based on the above, L1034 marker seems to be a subgroup of N-Tat, which is typical for Mansi and Hungarian-speaking ethnic groups so far. Based on our time to most recent common ancestor data, the L1034 marker arose 2,500 years before present. The overall frequency of the L1034 is very low among the analyzed populations, thus it does not necessarily mean that proto-Hungarians and Mansi descend from common ancestors. It does provide, however, a limited genetic link supporting language contact. Both Hungarians and Mansi have much more complex genetic population history than the traditional tree-based linguistic model would suggest.
PMID: 25258186 [PubMed - as supplied by publisher]
""Do not forget: According to linguist scholars, the closest relatives of ancient Sanskrit language are the gypsy languages. Deal with the reality!))""
deal with reality you are an idiot.
Reap what you sow
Read books about it: https://www.google.com/search?tbm=b...=en&tbm=bks&tbs=cdr:1,cd_min:2000,cd_max:2099
"Read books about it" which books? There is no claim in those books that Sanskrit is a "Gypsy" language. This is your invention. I suppose you have tried to "conclude" that on the racial "facts", of Hindus, being more 'darker skinned' than you are? Regards to these books (i am guessing you want to start with David Mayall (who is seeking the roots of Gypsy people)? In fact you have never even read few pages out of them, and you are already making "conclusions". If I would ask you to give me a Synopsis out of this book, you would avoid to answer me...
If you would know and study ANY Indo European language, then you would know that Gypsy (Romani) languages belong to the major Indo European (I would add also Russian or Asian) family. Gypsy is a special "Hindu" - Indo Aryan "dialect", some claim it is related to it (i do not share this opinion, I rather call it the language of Kashmir (there is another Kush (current Ethiopia) in Africa, which was probably their ancient homeland, before they've moved to Kashmir(nearby India), from where they brought the so called "Egyptian" linguistic traces)...
Every single Indo European language is related to Sanskrit, for example, germanic Man, shares similarities with Sanskrit word Manu. In Slavic we do not have this similarity with Sanskrit. We use the form Človek or Čovjek or CheloVek, which means "Forhead era", which derives from the story about Svetovid(=Slavic Shiva), and origins of Man (Manu), which came from his (Shiva's) forhead and fell to the ground (Prthvi; Prst in Slovene; Earth); This was the story about Mangalaloka (=planet Mars; currently Hindus sent their 1st successful mission to planet Mars (called Mangalayan; from Sanskrit मंगल mangala, "Mars" and यान yāna, "craft, vehicle")...
Sanskrit was an artificially created liturgical Vedic language which derived from many "winds"(especially from "Indo European" language, & partially from the Sumerian, Tamil(Dravidic) languages) ...Gypsy languages officially belongs to the Indo European family, as part of Hindu dialects.
But if you want to discuss about the Sanskrit (especially old Rig Vedic; sanskrit was evolving through thousands and thousands of years) and today's closest to it are Lithuanian, Slovene and Greek, Hindu contains about ca 11% of the original Sanskrit words. Hittite was also quite related to it ("Hittitologists" have erroneusly transliterated/translated many Hittite words ; for example the Battle of Kadesh; Kadesh was the Hittite (Kad) - Desh (Deza in Sanskrit) or Dežela in Slovene; "land")... Sanskrit is the most developed, precise, SCIENTIFIC ancient language on this planet. I've intentionally mentioned it derived from many winds, because you can use at least 5-20 words for 1 meaning... all those words do not necessary use the same "IE" source, several words (later!) derived from Pali, Kirata (Nepal tribes), Punjabi, Bengal, Akkadian,...
So, no authors claim that Sanskrit is a Gypsy language. This is your personal claim.
If you would know and study ANY Indo European language, then you would know that Gypsy (Romani) languages belong to the major Indo European (I would add also Russian or Asian) family. Gypsy is a special "Hindu" - Indo Aryan "dialect", some claim it is related to it (i do not share this opinion, I rather call it the language of Kashmir (there is another Kush (current Ethiopia) in Africa, which was probably their ancient homeland, before they've moved to Kashmir(nearby India), from where they brought the so called "Egyptian" linguistic traces)...
Every single Indo European language is related to Sanskrit, for example, germanic Man, shares similarities with Sanskrit word Manu. In Slavic we do not have this similarity with Sanskrit. We use the form Človek or Čovjek or CheloVek, which means "Forhead era", which derives from the story about Svetovid(=Slavic Shiva), and origins of Man (Manu), which came from his (Shiva's) forhead and fell to the ground (Prthvi; Prst in Slovene; Earth); This was the story about Mangalaloka (=planet Mars; currently Hindus sent their 1st successful mission to planet Mars (called Mangalayan; from Sanskrit मंगल mangala, "Mars" and यान yāna, "craft, vehicle")...
Sanskrit was an artificially created liturgical Vedic language which derived from many "winds"(especially from "Indo European" language, & partially from the Sumerian, Tamil(Dravidic) languages) ...Gypsy languages officially belongs to the Indo European family, as part of Hindu dialects.
But if you want to discuss about the Sanskrit (especially old Rig Vedic; sanskrit was evolving through thousands and thousands of years) and today's closest to it are Lithuanian, Slovene and Greek, Hindu contains about ca 11% of the original Sanskrit words. Hittite was also quite related to it ("Hittitologists" have erroneusly transliterated/translated many Hittite words ; for example the Battle of Kadesh; Kadesh was the Hittite (Kad) - Desh (Deza in Sanskrit) or Dežela in Slovene; "land")... Sanskrit is the most developed, precise, SCIENTIFIC ancient language on this planet. I've intentionally mentioned it derived from many winds, because you can use at least 5-20 words for 1 meaning... all those words do not necessary use the same "IE" source, several words (later!) derived from Pali, Kirata (Nepal tribes), Punjabi, Bengal, Akkadian,...
So, no authors claim that Sanskrit is a Gypsy language. This is your personal claim.
Last edited:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/kent/voices/language.shtml
Nobody stated that sanskrit is gypsy language (it is impossible because sanskrit is older)
Butlinguistic fact: Gypsy languages are closest to ancient sanskrit.
Now hear some ancient IE gypsy songs : ))))
Enjoy their culture and ancient language:
How old are you? 12?
"Butlinguistic fact: Gypsy languages are closest to ancient sanskrit."
You are full of shit. If you want to write and post "funny" racial comments, about Aryan (Scholars) Vedic people, and equating them with Gypsies, go write your comments on some Biblical channel (I know that Hungarians are big Judaical-Christian enthusiasts, fundamentalists) or go to some Hungarophilic nationalistic forum...
Again, gypsy is not the closest lanugage to the ancient Sanskrit language... When you already know so "much" about the Sanskrit (i guess you have studied it), then you can probably answer to my question, what was called the first (ancient) Sanskrit language...?
"Enjoy their culture and ancient language:"
I am enjoying every culture of all people as long as it stays in the context of some normal frames... (which do not harm other people)
I could find similar funny picture or video even from your country and post a mockery here... Go ahead, make fun of black people too... They are probably also 'primitive' from your perspective.
And you know what? Christianity, Islam and Judaism are 3 most primitive religions and "cultures" on this planet. Not because of "funny" songs, but because they stole and absorbed pre-Abrahamic traditions... That's why are primitive(pagan), non-genuine copies.
"Butlinguistic fact: Gypsy languages are closest to ancient sanskrit."
You are full of shit. If you want to write and post "funny" racial comments, about Aryan (Scholars) Vedic people, and equating them with Gypsies, go write your comments on some Biblical channel (I know that Hungarians are big Judaical-Christian enthusiasts, fundamentalists) or go to some Hungarophilic nationalistic forum...
Again, gypsy is not the closest lanugage to the ancient Sanskrit language... When you already know so "much" about the Sanskrit (i guess you have studied it), then you can probably answer to my question, what was called the first (ancient) Sanskrit language...?
"Enjoy their culture and ancient language:"
I am enjoying every culture of all people as long as it stays in the context of some normal frames... (which do not harm other people)
I could find similar funny picture or video even from your country and post a mockery here... Go ahead, make fun of black people too... They are probably also 'primitive' from your perspective.
And you know what? Christianity, Islam and Judaism are 3 most primitive religions and "cultures" on this planet. Not because of "funny" songs, but because they stole and absorbed pre-Abrahamic traditions... That's why are primitive(pagan), non-genuine copies.
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, so we have to play with the survived languages only.Aberdeen said:
So far there is no single Y-chromosomal haplogroup which would be common in every Uralic branch. N1c1 is common elsewhere in the family (2 out of 4 ancient Hungarian nobility samples were N1c1), but N1b is the only haplogroup shared by all the Samoyedic peoples.Aberdeen said:
We must remember that languages did not spread to their present areas at once, but along many consequent steps. For example Tundra Nenets spoken north of the Volga-Kama region (he original homeland of Late Proto-Uralic) did not spread right there, but in several steps:
1. From Volga-Kama to the east to Sayan Mountains (Pre-Proto-Samoyedic)
2. From Sayan Mountains to the north between Yenisei and Ob (Proto-North-Samoyedic)
3. From Lower Yenisei Valley to the west (Proto-Nenets)
4. From Lower Ob to the west (Tundra Nenets)
All these linguistic stages can be connected to different composition of haplogroups. That is the reason why we cannot any more trace which haplogroup spread the Proto-Uralic language.
We cannot guess the linguistic homeland on the basis of haplogroups, but just the opposite: we must find the linguistic homeland on the basis of linguistic evidence, and only after that we can look if any survived haplogroup matches our result. It is a possibility that the haplogroup which spread the Proto-Uralic language has since then disappeared.
We know that Late Proto-Uralic was spoken in Europe, but its ancestor language seems to have been spoken in Siberia.
Aberdeen
Regular Member
- Messages
- 1,835
- Reaction score
- 380
- Points
- 0
- Ethnic group
- Scottish, English and German
- Y-DNA haplogroup
- I1
- mtDNA haplogroup
- H4
No, the location of the Marsi a few centuries ago doesn't tell us that the division between Finno-Permic and Ugric occurred in Europe. It tells us that the Marsi migrated westward, as so many groups from Siberia did. And no, we don't know that Late Proto-Uralic was spoken in Europe. And there's a difference between a subclade and a haplogroup. All we know for certain is that Samoyed is the most conservative Uralic language, and some linguistic experts think that proves that Uralic probably developed in Siberia. Finnish linguists generally disagree, apparently because they have the same phobia about possibly speaking an "Asian" language that the original poster seems to have.
Aberdeen
Regular Member
- Messages
- 1,835
- Reaction score
- 380
- Points
- 0
- Ethnic group
- Scottish, English and German
- Y-DNA haplogroup
- I1
- mtDNA haplogroup
- H4
Regardless of whether I'm correct in thinking that the Uralic languages probably originated in Siberia, the only thing that really matters is that all Europeans are a mixture of Asian and Middle Eastern people, and their ancestors originally came from Africa. So the Rasta men of Jamaica are correct in saying that if you want to speak authentically about life, you have to cite Africa as the source.
You confused Finno-ugric and the Uralic term . Finno-ugric is a proven language family, while Ugric is a wider only hypotiethic term.
- Status
This thread has been viewed 102541 times.