Which is more European ? Finno-ugric languages or Indo-European languages?

[koni]

You confused Finno-ugric and the Uralic term . Finno-ugric is a proven language family, while Ugric is a wider only hypotiethic term.

I am not confused about language classification. Both Finno-Ugric and Uralic languages come from the Mesolithic peoples that have settled around all Atlantic coast from Iberia to northern Europe and entered to Siberia that is the reason why these two regions have a similar name.

It seems who is confused about your own origin here is you!

 

[gyms]

Jaska: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.

2 out of 7

 

[arvistro]

What were other 5?

 

[gyms]

What were other 5?

Very good question,but nobody knows.Quite bad.

 

[Taranis]

Am I allowed to say that this thread is a train wreck? :grin:

Both language families - Uralic and Indo-European - are likely not native to the biggest part of Europe. If the Kurgan model is correct, you might argue that the Proto-Indo-European homeland was peripherically in Europe, but Indo-European languages are certainly later introduction in much of Europe, since Proto-Indo-European itself only dates from the Copper Age /Bronze Age.

For the Uralic languages, they are probably older. Not necessarily though, I'm merely going by the vocabulary here: Proto-Uralic was a hunter-gatherer language, while Proto-Indo-European has terminology for . In my opinion, its more likely that Proto-Uralic was spoken approximately contemporary to the Neolithic in Europe, perhaps even later (for example, Akio 2004/2006 postulates that the expansion of Uralic into northern Scandinavia occured only during the iron age!). In any case, basically all words that relate to pastoralism (eg. Finnish "porsas" - pig, "nauta" - cattle, and metalworking eg. Finnish "rauta" - iron, "kulta" - gold) are borrowed from Indo-European sources.

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")...

I am sorry to say it, but THAT is complete nonsense. The Hittites wrote in the cuneiform script, which they had adapted from the Babylonians (where it was first used to write Sumerian, later Akkadian). Why on Earth would a place in the Middle East (Kadesh was located in what today is Syria) have an Indo-European origin (let alone Slavic, a language family that did not even exist at that point - Proto-Slavic is much younger!). Why would there have been Slavic speakers in the 13th century BC in the Middle East?! That makes no sense.

I say that the place name "Kadesh" is almost certainly Semitic in origin, from the root *q-d-š ("holy", "sacred"). It is related with Arabic "Al-Quds" ("The Holy", the Arabic name of Jerusalem), and Hebrew "kodesh" (קודש), which also means "holy".

So, no authors claim that Sanskrit is a Gypsy language. This is your personal claim.

On the Gypsi (Sinti/Roma) languages, they are indeed part of the Indo-Iranic (and also Indic) languages, however the Gypsies were relatively recent (Middle Ages) immigrants in Europe, and their languages are not particularly representative of Vedic Sanskrit. To claim they are would be equal to saying that modern Greek is identical to Mycenaean Greek (spoken approximately contemporary to Vedic Sanskrit), which it obviously isn't.

The closest to Sanskrit that we actually know are the Indo-Iranic loanwords found in Hurrian (they come from a language that was extremely similar), and Hurrian was also probably a contemporary of Vedic Sanskrit.

 

[Vedun]

"I am sorry to say it, but THAT is complete nonsense. The Hittites wrote in the cuneiform script, which they had adapted from the Babylonians (where it was first used to write Sumerian, later Akkadian). Why on Earth would a place in the Middle East (Kadesh was located in what today is Syria) have an Indo-European origin (let alone Slavic, a language family that did not even exist at that point - Proto-Slavic is much younger!). Why would there have been Slavic speakers in the 13th century BC in the Middle East?! That makes no sense.

I say that the place name "Kadesh" is almost certainly Semitic in origin, from the root *q-d-š ("holy", "sacred"). It is related with Arabic "Al-Quds" ("The Holy", the Arabic name of Jerusalem), and Hebrew "kodesh" (קודש), which also means "holy"."

Your claim is totally wrong. Simply because the city of Kadesh was never an "Arabic", "Jewish" or "Phoenician" city at the time of Hittites... It was part of the Hittite empire. The term DEZA देश is a Sanskrit, Hittite (desh) & Slovene (dežela) term and means a "country" and not "Holy". It is a typical occult nonsense, which came from modern Biblical "historians" and remained intact (uncorrected) until today... That's why is Kadesh = "country/land of Kad/Hat/Hittites" & Hatusha = Hatesha or Hateza or Kadesh (land of Hittites)... Another transliteration of Kadesh was Kanesha, language of Nesha (Hittites).
The reality is the Biblical names derived from much older non-semitic names before them; this includes names of "Abraham, Noah, David, Jesus, Christ, Sarah, Solomon, Hiram Abiff, Rephaim, Nachash, Adonai, YHWH, Joseph, Moses" , etc etc. Kadesh was NOT a city of Hebrews and Hattusa/Hatuša, Neša weren't either... Hittite history is still part of the "Biblical" (Israeli) occult history, and wrong point of view, which is part of the occult history...

Secondly

"Why would there have been Slavic speakers in the 13th century BC in the Middle East?!"

Because in old Akkadian remained many Slavic & Sanskrit words. (world was never isolated at that time) And indeed, this has 0 to do with Biblical history...

"
The closest to Sanskrit that we actually know are the Indo-Iranic loanwords found in Hurrian (they come from a language that was extremely similar), and Hurrian was also probably a contemporary of Vedic Sanskrit."

Closest to Rig Vedic Sanskrit is not Hurrian, but Lithuanian, Slovene, Croatian & Serbian, Ukrainian, Persian and Greek...

Hurrian (S transmuted into "H; Surian; current territory of Syria) was a Mesopotanian, partially Semitic(Ugaritic), ergative-agglutinative language language, Sanskrit is "Indo European"... so your claim is incorrect already from the orthodox/official point of view...

 

[Aberdeen]

If, as Taranis says, all the Uralic words used to describe pastoral and mining activity are borrowed from the Indo-Europeans, I think that's pretty good evidence that Uralic speaking people were probably living in some place that wasn't suitable for pastoralism until some of them migrated to an area near the Indo-Europeans after the IE languages or at least the IE proto-language had developed. If Uralic developed in Siberia, it would have experienced its first major population expansion after some Uralic speakers crossed the Ural Mountains and came into contact with Indo-Europeans, since pastoralism would support a much larger population than hunting and gathering. Perhaps the Magyars were originally Indo-European but got absorbed by the Uralic people who wanted to learn pastoralism.

 

[Taranis]

Your claim is totally wrong. Simply because the city of Kadesh was never an "Arabic", "Jewish" or "Phoenician" city at the time of Hittites...
It was part of the Hittite empire. The term DEZA देश is a Sanskrit, Hittite (desh) & Slovene (dežela) term and means a "country" and not "Holy"..

I did not say Arabic, Hebrew or Phoenician, but from a Semitic language, which was spoken in Syria at the time (Ugaritic, see below). I cited examples from Arabic and Hebrew because these are related, modern languages to the Semitic languages attested from that time period (Ugaritic, Eblaite and Akkadian).

You are also overlooking another very important Semitic language, Aramaic, which was the lingua franca of the Near East for a long period of time, and which replaced Akkadian as the main language in Mesopotamia (before, itself, being replaced by Arabic).

It is a typical occult nonsense, which came from modern Biblical "historians" and remained intact (uncorrected) until today....

Mind your words, I'm not writing "occult nonsense".

That's why is Kadesh = "country/land of Kad/Hat/Hittites" & Hatusha = Hatesha or Hateza or Kadesh (land of Hittites)... Another transliteration of Kadesh was Kanesha, language of Nesha (Hittites).
The reality is the Biblical names derived from much older non-semitic names before them; this includes names of "Abraham, Noah, David, Jesus, Christ, Sarah, Solomon, Hiram Abiff, Rephaim, Nachash, Adonai, YHWH, Joseph, Moses" , etc etc. Kadesh was NOT a city of Hebrews and Hattusa/Hatuša, Neša weren't either... Hittite history is still part of the "Biblical" (Israeli) occult history, and wrong point of view, which is part of the occult history...

I'm not the one who is invoking the bible here. Also, you have thoroughly demonstrated to me that you have no understanding of the Bible or of the Old Testament, because you deliberately use Greek words there:

Christ - Χριστος means "annointed", it is the Greek translation of Hebrew "mashiakh" (משיח), from which the English "messiah" derives.

Because in old Akkadian remained many Slavic & Sanskrit words. (world was never isolated at that time) And indeed, this has 0 to do with Biblical history...Closest to Rig Vedic Sanskrit is not Hurrian, but Lithuanian, Slovene, Croatian & Serbian, Ukrainian, Persian and Greek...

Really, no offense, but I'm not going to argue with you here because that is just complete nonsense. Do you really think that ancient Babylonians were time travellers who adopted words from languages that were spoken only 2000-3000 years later?

Hurrian (S transmuted into "H; Surian; current territory of Syria) was a Mesopotanian, partially Semitic(Ugaritic), ergative-agglutinative language language, Sanskrit is "Indo European"... so your claim is incorrect already from the orthodox/official point of view...

Hurrian was not related with Sanskrit by itself, but it had loanwords from Vedic Sanskrit (most notably terminology relating to horse training). Hurrian, as you say, was an ergative-agglutinative language (unlike the Semitic languages and also unlike the Indo-European languages), and it would be an isolate language if not for Urartian, which was spoken in the iron age in the Lake Van area (in what is now eastern Turkey). Together, the two form the Hurro-Urartian languages.

Now, Ugaritic and Urartian are completely unrelated. Ugarit was a city state in the area of modern Syria (trade partner of the Hittite Empire, and destroyed alongside the Hittite Empire during the Bronze Age collapse), and they spoke a Semitic language (indeed closely related with Phoenician and Hebrew - the later city states of the Phoenicians were in the same general area as Ugarit was).

If, as Taranis says, all the Uralic words used to describe pastoral and mining activity are borrowed from the Indo-Europeans, I think that's pretty good evidence that Uralic speaking people were probably living in some place that wasn't suitable for pastoralism until some of them migrated to an area near the Indo-Europeans after the IE languages or at least the IE proto-language had developed. If Uralic developed in Siberia, it would have experienced its first major population expansion after some Uralic speakers crossed the Ural Mountains and came into contact with Indo-Europeans, since pastoralism would support a much larger population than hunting and gathering. Perhaps the Magyars were originally Indo-European but got absorbed by the Uralic people who wanted to learn pastoralism.

I gave the word for "pig" (Finnish "porsas") as an example, which has cognates in Baltic (Lithuanian "paršas"), Celtic (Old Irish "orc"), Germanic (German "Ferkel") and Latin ("porcus"). I was mainly talking about the Finnic (including Finnish and Estonian) branch of the Uralic languages here. Hungarian is sitting at the very different position inside the Uralic languages and is not closely related with the other two. The Magyars were also comparably late immigrants into Europe (late first millennium AD, clearly historic times), and the modern Hungarian language as a result has a large share of Turkic, Slavic and Germanic loanwords picked up much later. Finnish and Hungarian only share their "core" hunter-gather vocabulary (an example for an ancient, Uralic cognate, is the word for 'fish' - Finnish "kala", Hungarian "hal").

 

[Stears555]

MY NEW THREAD about the close Gypsy-SANSKRIT REALTIONS:



http://www.eupedia.com/forum/threads/30537-Gypsy-languages-are-the-direct-descendant-of-ancient-SANSKRIT-quot-Aryan-quot-language

 

[LeBrok]

MY NEW THREAD about the close Gypsy-SANSKRIT REALTIONS:



http://www.eupedia.com/forum/threads/30537-Gypsy-languages-are-the-direct-descendant-of-ancient-SANSKRIT-quot-Aryan-quot-language

You finally showed your sole full of hatred. You are banned as a racist.

 

[arvistro]

Very good question,but nobody knows.Quite bad.

Then it is actually 2 out of 2 known. Unless it is definately known that the rest 5 are not n1c1.

 

[Vedun]

I

I'm not the one who is invoking the bible here. Also, you have thoroughly demonstrated to me that you have no understanding of the Bible or of the Old Testament, because you deliberately use Greek words there:

Christ - Χριστος means "annointed", it is the Greek translation of Hebrew "mashiakh" (משיח), from which the English "messiah" derives.


Really, no offense, but I'm not going to argue with you here because that is just complete nonsense. Do you really think that ancient Babylonians were time travellers who adopted words from languages that were spoken only 2000-3000 years later?

"mashiakh" is the orignal 'Egyptian' term which has influences in "Indo European" language. In old Egyptian language was spoken as "Mesu-Kah" (Mesu-Ka) which means "Descendant /(godly) Son in Spirit". Su was a Son and Mes (MS) was the 'ancestry' (dynasty, family)... - Moses (MSS) (which is a title and not the real name of "Moses") derives directly from the Egyptian meaning, like Ramses(Ramoses) or Tut-moses and means "Ra in Flesh" (incarnated Ra (god) into flesh(Meat; Meso)... hence "son of god" (incarnated god into a human (flesh))... From which comes also Egyptian - KRST (of Osiris & Horo (Horos /Horus)... & Horus was not the original Egyptian god (but Scythian & eastern Slavic god Hors or Horo) and Amon was also not the original god of Egypt, but a Chaldean or Babylonian & Dogonic god Nommo, Amu,... And Vedic Asuras("not Surya" - not the "sun"(lord of the Underworld) became later "god"(&dynasty) of Egyptian Aser or Greek "Osiris"... And Krst came from Sanskrit Krishna(soft spoken "t"; Krstna; Krsna) which does not means "Black one" (which is a Hindu invention), but "Incarnated on" (god), Incarnated god into a Flesh (a pharaoh (god in flesh)..."Christ"... And the Greek appendix "OC" was added to the Egyptian title "Krst", becoming "KPCTOC"... or Kristos, later Christ. And Joseph, the "father" of Christ simply came from Egyptian SEB or SEV(Seva; Shiva) (which is another Egyptian occult invention / replacement for Osiris's "father", representing a "light" or "life" (Jiva; Živa; जीव) and his (fake) mother became NUT or NUV (which is Slavic Nav and Norse Niflheim; from which derives later Biblical term "Nephilim" (where V or F or Ph are the same thing)... simply means "Shadowy one/Astral one/Ghostly one" (which has no meaning in Hebrew(Hybrid/Nibiru)...That's why "Moses" was a Hykso (Akkadian) priest (and the story about the "Exodus" came directly from Manetho's history about the conquest of Egypt by the Hyksos... At that time was Egypt in ruins, separated in several provinces, states and have had many kings (lords). "Moses" real name was Aserseb (Osiris Joseph in current English), "step father Joseph-of Osiris"... Osiris was his Lord(god); hence he was pronounced as "MSS"... His brotherhood combined a Monotheistic Satanic/Sethanic & Osirian cult, that's why he-Akkadian ("Moses") was always portayed with Horns of Seth(later "satan")...
That's why so called "Theologists" never understood the meanings behind the "Horns of Moses" and the meaning of "mashiakh" (which is not the original Hebrew term and never was) and claim it is the "misinterpretation of the Bible"...like the rest of so called "Biblical historical" names...

 

[Jaska]

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.

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.

And no, we don't know that Late Proto-Uralic was spoken in Europe.

Yes, we do know that:
http://www.sgr.fi/susa/92/hakkinen.pdf
Use Google translator, so you will know, too!

And there's a difference between a subclade and a haplogroup.

Yes?

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.

No phobias involved, only scientific results:
1. Samoyed and Hungarian share least common words with other Uralic languages.
2. Still, phonologically they both are descendants of East Uralic dialect, together with Mansi and Khanty.

Of these two levels the lexical level is prone to false divergence, while the phonological level is more reliable. Please read this, and look at the family tree at page 5:
http://www.elisanet.fi/alkupera/Problems_of_phylogenetics.pdf

Conservativity cannot tell anything about the original homeland. Usually the peripheral, not the central, branches are conservative. It is widely agreed that within the Uralic family, Samoyed, Finnic and Sámi are the most conservative branches.

At the moment linguistic results show that Late Proto-Uralic was located in Europe, but Pre-Proto-Uralic was located in Southern Siberia. How can you deny the linguistic results?

You confused Finno-ugric and the Uralic term . Finno-ugric is a proven language family, while [corrected:] Uralic is a wider only hypotiethic term.

Uralic is not hypothetical at all. Nowadays it is synonymous with Finno-Ugric, because Samoyed is now seen to group together with Hungarian, Mansi and Khanty as an East Uralic branch. Earlier Samoyed was seen to be the first branch to split off, based merely on the lexical level (= words). Recent phonological and methodological analyses have shown, that lexical level alone is misguiding and unreliable.

Both Finno-Ugric and Uralic languages come from the Mesolithic peoples that have settled around all Atlantic coast from Iberia to northern Europe and entered to Siberia that is the reason why these two regions have a similar name.

However, those Mesolithic people in the Atlantic coast did not speak Uralic-related languages. Their languages were totally different, as can be seen in the Palaeo-European substrata of the western Indo-European languages. Uralic language originally comes from Asia.

 

[Jaska]

If, as Taranis says, all the Uralic words used to describe pastoral and mining activity are borrowed from the Indo-Europeans, I think that's pretty good evidence that Uralic speaking people were probably living in some place that wasn't suitable for pastoralism until some of them migrated to an area near the Indo-Europeans after the IE languages or at least the IE proto-language had developed.

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.

Perhaps the Magyars were originally Indo-European but got absorbed by the Uralic people who wanted to learn pastoralism.

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 population as one-rooted. Magyars, like every other people, were formed with many different genetic roots, and all of these roots except one propably originally spoke non-Uralic languages.

 

[arvistro]

Jaska, there is one question I wanted to ask you. I read Finnic metsu was loan from Baltic medis/mežs, both meaning forest.
This seems strange for couple of reasons:
A) it seems wierd that FU folk that knew forest better than IE folk would borrow term for it
B) suggested etimology medis/mežs is from 'in between'.
So newcommers to the forest without proper term for it themselves would teach forest veterans to call this green thing 'in between'...
Can you comment on this? You have more knowledge on subject and being Latvian FU/IE interactions is an interesting topic for me.

 

[Jaska]

Jaska, there is one question I wanted to ask you. I read Finnic metsu was loan from Baltic medis/mežs, both meaning forest.
This seems strange for couple of reasons:
A) it seems wierd that FU folk that knew forest better than IE folk would borrow term for it

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 bilingualism); different type of forest; some new forest-based economy etc.

B) suggested etimology medis/mežs is from 'in between'.
So newcommers to the forest without proper term for it themselves would teach forest veterans to call this green thing 'in between'...

Etymological dictionaries tell that the word means 'forest, wood' in Latvian and Lithuanian, so that is good enough. It's a different question from which IE root the Baltic word was originally composed, but it doesn't affect the etymology presented for the Finnic word.

 

[arvistro]

OK, thanks makes sense.

 

[Vedun]

English word for a pine or Latin "pinus" tree derives from the old Hunnic/Hungarian word "Fen-Fa" (="pine tree") (FNF) fenyőfa. The lingual root is (PN; BN; VN) "pen" or "fen" or "phen" or "ben" or "ven" ("Fin"); with the lack of R. It shared the similarity with the root "BR" or (BOR; P(o)r(iede; PRiede)); into KieFer (KieBer; KiBor) Borea... (nothern forests(pine trees), wind); hence "medis/mežs" (MDS; MTjs) (forest) is called as mänty or mänd (pine tree) (the lingual root is MNT) in Finnish (Venic) & Esti/ Estonian...

 

[Taranis]

English word for a pine or Latin "pinus" tree derives from the old Hunnic/Hungarian word "Fen-Fa" (="pine tree") (FNF) fenyőfa. The lingual root is (PN; BN; VN) "pen" or "fen" or "phen" or "ben" or "ven" ("Fin"); with the lack of R. It shared the similarity with the root "BR" or (BOR; P(o)r(iede; PRiede)); into KieFer (KieBer; KiBor) Borea... (nothern forests(pine trees), wind); hence "medis/mežs" (MDS; MTjs) (forest) is called as mänty or mänd (pine tree) (the lingual root is MNT) in Finnish (Venic) & Esti/ Estonian...

You're completely wrong, and your post is - no offense - gloating with errors:

The development *f > *p is improbable (I can't think of a single example off the top of my head, while the reverse is fairly common). Additionally, Hunnic (Turkic?) and Hungarian (Uralic) had nothing to do with each other, and additionally, the word "pinus" is attested in Latin long (centuries) before the Huns or the Magyars show up in Europe. If anything a borrowing would have to be in the opposite direction, and I'd like to know how you want to prove that one for Hunnic... good luck.

The word "boreal" is derived from Greek ("βορεας" or "boreas") and means "northern" or "northern wind". The association with forest is a modern coinage ("boreal forest"), it has nothing to do with the Latin word "pinus".

To me, it seems you're just trying to dismantle words based on superficial similarity (other people over here have done that before, I've nicknamed that "magic word dismantlement"), but that's not how it works: when a sound change happens its always regular, exceptionless (if there are apparent exceptions there's always specific rules that enforce it, such as "only between vowels" or "only at the start of a word") and it applies to all words in a vocabulary.

 

[Vedun]

"Hunnic (Turkic?) and Hungarian (Uralic) had nothing to do with each other". (Hunnic is old Hungarian). Hunnic and Turkic languages are more similar than is Finnic to Hungarian... Majority of professors who study & speak Hungarian languages i spoke to, told me that Hungarian has more similarities with Turkic languages than with Finnic for example (both Finnic & Hungarian are much more distal than are are Irish and Russian for example; (I understand Hungarian a little bit too, and the so called common "Ugro Finnic" language is more or less an artificial nonsense, in reality has Hungarian more similarities with Turkic languages than with Estonian or Finnic). Turkic & Hungarian are actually derivatives of old Sumerian language; but old Sumerian, Turkic, Hungarian/Hunnic languages were also influenced by "IE" languages...