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

Status
Not open for further replies.

Stears555

Regular Member
Messages
154
Reaction score
1
Points
0
About the Finno-Ugric and IE language groups.

Just some Hard-facts: Finno-Ugric language group was born in N-Eastern Europe, until the roots of ancient IE language groups go back to Asian continent. In the Eurasian
supercontinent, there are more native speakers of IE languages in the ASIAN continent than in Europen continent. (Just remember the large IE speaking populations of India Pakistan Iran)
However, the 97% of Finno-ugric speaking people live in Europe. Therefore to call finno-ugric languages as "asian languages" is laughable illogical, unscientific and
misleading.


TYPE IN ENGLISH WIKIPEDIA:"Proto Indo Europeans"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proto-Indo-Europeans

and see the maps about original ancient IE people!France Britain Italy haven't signifficant proto indoeuropean genes.The Germanic people have also very very low ratio of ancient IE haplogroup markers (R1a),only Eastern Europeans have high ratio of original proto IE haplogroups markers.Western European languages belongs to IE language group,but in very very distant way.(Have you ever heard about Language-shift? The IE linguistic effect spreaded as a lingua franca between many many populations during thousands of years)The real genetical IE people equal with the Eastern European people: and it represent lower culture,technology&lower scientific
economic development in European continent.
 
Do not forget: According to linguist scholars, the closest relatives of ancient Sanskrit language are the gypsy languages. Deal with the reality! :)))
 
Last edited:
Gypsies originally came from Rajastan, India.
 
Gypsies originally came from Rajastan, India.
That's true, but the language they speak is Indo-European, Indo-Aryan to be specific. Indo-European languages are far from exclusive to Europe, especially today, when they're the dominant languages of the Americas, Africa and Oceania.
The arguable international language, English, is Indo-European.
 
The vast majority of Europeans (and many west Asians) speak IE languages, and proto-IE probably developed on the steppes of southern Russia/Ukraine. We don't know for sure where the proto version of Uralic languages developed, but Asia is a good bet. In any case, it's very much a minority linguistic group, one that has very few speakers outside the small populations that use Uralic languages as their native languages. So, not really important except to a few small populations.
 
The vast majority of Europeans (and many west Asians) speak IE languages, and proto-IE probably developed on the steppes of southern Russia/Ukraine. We don't know for sure where the proto version of Uralic languages developed, but Asia is a good bet. In any case, it's very much a minority linguistic group, one that has very few speakers outside the small populations that use Uralic languages as their native languages. So, not really important except to a few small populations.

The russia-ukraine theory is a very well spread and popular theory amongs amateurs due to the internet, however it is not such popular amongst the academic scholars linguists. The asian (Iran or Turkey) theory is more popular amongst academics linguists. But, there is no discussion amongst scholars about the North Eastern European origin of Finno-Ugric languages.
 
The russia-ukraine theory is a very well spread and popular theory amongs amateurs due to the internet, however it is not such popular amongst the academic scholars linguists. The asian (Iran or Turkey) theory is more popular amongst academics linguists. But, there is no discussion amongst scholars about the North Eastern European origin of Finno-Ugric languages.

If you wish to learn something about the steppe hypothesis, which is now accepted by most actual academics who've studied the origins of the Indo-Europeans, I would suggest reading "The Horse, the Wheel and Language" by David Anthony. Other hypotheses about a different place of origin for the Indo-Europeans are now largely considered to be "fringe" by the academic community. As for Uralic languages, they're found on both sides of the Urals and while some scholars have suggested a place of origin along the Oka River, this seems unlikely, given that the oldest and most diverse forms of Uralic are found in Siberia. Therefore, some scholars, such as Peter Hajdu, have suggested that a Siberian origin for Proto-Uralic seems more likely.
 
If contacts between Finno-Ugrian and Indo-European are studied within the context of the generally accepted Uralian–Western Siberian homeland theory, it is painfully evident that these language contacts cannot be reconciled with this ancestral homeland concept.

http://finnugor.elte.hu/?q=fgriea

http://www.questia.com/library/journal/1G1-200343837/the-so-called-uralic-original-home-urheimat-and

http://homepage.univie.ac.at/johanna.laakso/Padova2006/

More recently, the conventional framework of Uralic studies has been challenged
from two points of view. On the one hand, the so-called Roots Group,
led by Kalevi Wiik (e.g. 2004) and anticipated by János Pusztay (1996), has
proposed that the Uralic comparative corpus, or at least a considerable part of
it, should be explained as the result of areal convergence, rather than genetic divergence.
If this were the case, there would have been no single coherent Proto-
Uralic language, but, rather, two or more regional proto languages and centres
of expansion.

http://www.sgr.fi/sust/sust258/sust258_janhunen.pdf
 
If contacts between Finno-Ugrian and Indo-European are studied within the context of the generally accepted Uralian–Western Siberian homeland theory, it is painfully evident that these language contacts cannot be reconciled with this ancestral homeland concept.

http://finnugor.elte.hu/?q=fgriea

http://www.questia.com/library/journal/1G1-200343837/the-so-called-uralic-original-home-urheimat-and

http://homepage.univie.ac.at/johanna.laakso/Padova2006/

More recently, the conventional framework of Uralic studies has been challenged
from two points of view. On the one hand, the so-called Roots Group,
led by Kalevi Wiik (e.g. 2004) and anticipated by János Pusztay (1996), has
proposed that the Uralic comparative corpus, or at least a considerable part of
it, should be explained as the result of areal convergence, rather than genetic divergence.
If this were the case, there would have been no single coherent Proto-
Uralic language, but, rather, two or more regional proto languages and centres
of expansion.

http://www.sgr.fi/sust/sust258/sust258_janhunen.pdf


Uralic is larger context than the Finno-ugric group. Finno - ugric language family is part of the Uralic languages.
 
If you wish to learn something about the steppe hypothesis, which is now accepted by most actual academics who've studied the origins of the Indo-Europeans, I would suggest reading "The Horse, the Wheel and Language" by David Anthony. Other hypotheses about a different place of origin for the Indo-Europeans are now largely considered to be "fringe" by the academic community. As for Uralic languages, they're found on both sides of the Urals and while some scholars have suggested a place of origin along the Oka River, this seems unlikely, given that the oldest and most diverse forms of Uralic are found in Siberia. Therefore, some scholars, such as Peter Hajdu, have suggested that a Siberian origin for Proto-Uralic seems more likely.

Prove it by modern books of academics linguists (university professors). It is rather your whish than the real stance of the majority of scholars.
 
Last edited:
Prove it by modern books of academics linguists (university professors). It is rather your whish than the real stance of the majority of scholars.

Suppose you address what Anthony and Hajdu have written about these subjects, with references to academics who live somewhere other than in your fantasies?
 
Suppose you address what Anthony and Hajdu have written about these subjects, with references to academics who live somewhere other than in your fantasies?

Finno ugric languages are part of larger uralic linguistic group. They did not mention exactly the finno-ugric group, just the so called uralic. As for the IE languages: their asian origin is clear. Ancestors of Western Europeans learned it with language shift. Originally the proto IE language agglutinative language with complex grammar, Due to the language-shift , the proto IE transformed into synthetic language, which is a clear proof for its type of fast spread: IE languages were adopted AS DEALER LANGUAGES, its grammar simplified such ratio, that the new speakers (who adopted it) slowly transformed it into a synthetic language.


What is important: Western Europeans are not descendant of original proto-IE people. Today nobody believes in scientific cirlces in the "Aryan" conquest theory and similar fairy tales.
 
There is really only one answer to the question of the thread title. WHO CARES?

However, I'm all for trying to educate the masses.

Those interested in Indo-European should start with the academic Journal of Indo-European Studies. There are forty two volumes, since it has been published since 1971.
http://www.jies.org/docs/jies_index/mainindex.html

Google scholar anything by J.P. Mallory
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/J._P._Mallory

As Aberdeen mentioned, The Horse, The Wheel and The Language by David Anthony is also essential reading...
http://books.google.co.in/books?id=...&resnum=4&ved=0CCUQ6AEwAw#v=onepage&q&f=false
You can't disagree with it until you've read it.
Be advised, it's a monster of a book.

There, that should keep you busy for a couple of months.
 
There is really only one answer to the question of the thread title. WHO CARES?

However, I'm all for trying to educate the masses.

Those interested in Indo-European should start with the academic Journal of Indo-European Studies. There are forty two volumes, since it has been published since 1971.
http://www.jies.org/docs/jies_index/mainindex.html

Google scholar anything by J.P. Mallory
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/J._P._Mallory

As Aberdeen mentioned, The Horse, The Wheel and The Language by David Anthony is also essential reading...
http://books.google.co.in/books?id=...&resnum=4&ved=0CCUQ6AEwAw#v=onepage&q&f=false
You can't disagree with it until you've read it.
Be advised, it's a monster of a book.

There, that should keep you busy for a couple of months.

Do not read any outdated ideas before the 2000s.
 
Which is more European? Finno-Ugric languages or Indo-European languages?

This question makes me think, What is heavier? A pound of iron or a pound of wood? But without the unit kilo measure. For me, any native European language is equally European the only difference is the language classification. For instance, I don't see what makes any native language more European than the unclassified Basque language. If we know what linguistic divergence means, then we have to consider that all languages came from the Iberian peninsula.
 
Finno ugric languages are part of larger uralic linguistic group. They did not mention exactly the finno-ugric group, just the so called uralic. As for the IE languages: their asian origin is clear. Ancestors of Western Europeans learned it with language shift. Originally the proto IE language agglutinative language with complex grammar, Due to the language-shift , the proto IE transformed into synthetic language, which is a clear proof for its type of fast spread: IE languages were adopted AS DEALER LANGUAGES, its grammar simplified such ratio, that the new speakers (who adopted it) slowly transformed it into a synthetic language.


What is important: Western Europeans are not descendant of original proto-IE people. Today nobody believes in scientific cirlces in the "Aryan" conquest theory and similar fairy tales.

You haven't read either author, have you? Hajdu was Hungary's most famous linguist, and he wrote extensively about all branches of the Uralic language group, including Finno-Ugric. However, he's also one of the few specialists in Uralic languages to actually study the Siberian Uralic languages, and he concluded that Proto-Uralic probably arose in Siberia.
David Anthony is an American academic with doctorates in anthropology and archeology who's familiar with the latest views among the linguists with respect to the Indo-Europeans. His massive 2007 tome is the best summary of who the Indo-Europeans were and how they were able to spread their language group to half the world's population. And if you had any understanding of the subject, you wouldn't be under the misunderstanding that we're trying to relate modern IE languages to modern genetic groups. No doubt some of the European haplotypes were found among the Proto-Indo-Europeans, but that's only part of the story.
 
Do not read any outdated ideas before the 2000s.

The Horse, The Wheel and The Language was published in 2007 and Anthony has been publishing continuously since then. If you had ever even looked at the book, much less read it, you would know that.

J.P. Mallory has been publishing continuously.

The Journal of Indo-European Studies is a pre-eminent academic journal on the subject. If you knew anything about scholarship you would know that it is important to have a grasp of where the discipline has been in order to totally understand new developments and/or criticisms. Feel free to concentrate on all of the editions since 2000, however. That should still keep you busy.

Opinions which are not based on the scholarship in a field are useless. Since you obviously haven't read any of the pertinent papers or books, I will leave readers to decide the weight to be given to yours.
 
The Horse, The Wheel and The Language was published in 2007 and Anthony has been publishing continuously since then. If you had ever even looked at the book, much less read it, you would know that.

J.P. Mallory has been publishing continuously.

The Journal of Indo-European Studies is a pre-eminent academic journal on the subject. If you knew anything about scholarship you would know that it is important to have a grasp of where the discipline has been in order to totally understand new developments and/or criticisms. Feel free to concentrate on all of the editions since 2000, however. That should still keep you busy.

Opinions which are not based on the scholarship in a field are useless. Since you obviously haven't read any of the pertinent papers or books, I will leave readers to decide the weight to be given to yours.

IE language are not the original language of Western Europeans. Proto IE people are not ancestors of Western Europeans. Deal with it.
 
IE language are not the original language of Western Europeans. Proto IE people are not ancestors of Western Europeans. Deal with it.

Are you completely unable to follow what's been explained to you? As Angela already explained in one of your other threads, the people of western Europe are a mixture of the various waves of Paleolithic, Mesolithic and Neolithic settlers of Europe, as well as the Bronze Age IE invaders. It's not necessary to have a particular haplotype in order to speak a particular language.
 
Are you completely unable to follow what's been explained to you? As Angela already explained in one of your other threads, the people of western Europe are a mixture of the various waves of Paleolithic, Mesolithic and Neolithic settlers of Europe, as well as the Bronze Age IE invaders. It's not necessary to have a particular haplotype in order to speak a particular language.
Does the ANE component mainly represent bronze age IE migration?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

This thread has been viewed 102198 times.

Back
Top