Eupedia Forums
Site NavigationEupedia Top > Eupedia Forum & Japan Forum
Page 2 of 7 FirstFirst 1234 ... LastLast
Results 26 to 50 of 154

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

  1. #26
    Regular Member Achievements:
    1000 Experience Points1 year registered

    Join Date
    23-10-17
    Posts
    62
    Points
    1,598
    Level
    11
    Points: 1,598, Level: 11
    Level completed: 16%, Points required for next Level: 252
    Overall activity: 0%


    Country: Bosnia & Herzegovina



    Quote Originally Posted by Ygorcs View Post
    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"?

  2. #27
    Regular Member Achievements:
    1000 Experience Points1 year registered

    Join Date
    23-10-17
    Posts
    62
    Points
    1,598
    Level
    11
    Points: 1,598, Level: 11
    Level completed: 16%, Points required for next Level: 252
    Overall activity: 0%


    Country: Bosnia & Herzegovina



    1 out of 1 members found this post helpful.
    Quote Originally Posted by qtr
    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. :)

  3. #28
    Regular Member Achievements:
    31 days registered100 Experience Points

    Join Date
    08-02-18
    Posts
    25
    Points
    152
    Level
    2
    Points: 152, Level: 2
    Level completed: 2%, Points required for next Level: 98
    Overall activity: 23.0%


    Country: Australia - Coral Sea Islands



    1 out of 1 members found this post helpful.
    Quote Originally Posted by RajvoSa View Post
    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.
    Last edited by qtr; 19-02-18 at 02:09.

  4. #29
    Regular Member Achievements:
    31 days registered100 Experience Points

    Join Date
    08-02-18
    Posts
    25
    Points
    152
    Level
    2
    Points: 152, Level: 2
    Level completed: 2%, Points required for next Level: 98
    Overall activity: 23.0%


    Country: Australia - Coral Sea Islands



    Quote Originally Posted by RajvoSa View Post
    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

  5. #30
    Regular Member Achievements:
    31 days registered100 Experience Points

    Join Date
    08-02-18
    Posts
    25
    Points
    152
    Level
    2
    Points: 152, Level: 2
    Level completed: 2%, Points required for next Level: 98
    Overall activity: 23.0%


    Country: Australia - Coral Sea Islands



    Quote Originally Posted by Ygorcs View Post
    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.

  6. #31
    Moderator Achievements:
    1 year registeredTagger Second ClassThree Friends25000 Experience Points
    Awards:
    Most Popular

    Join Date
    21-10-16
    Posts
    1,725
    Points
    26,601
    Level
    50
    Points: 26,601, Level: 50
    Level completed: 6%, Points required for next Level: 949
    Overall activity: 5.0%


    Ethnic group
    Multiracial Brazilian
    Country: Brazil



    1 out of 1 members found this post helpful.
    Quote Originally Posted by qtr View Post
    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.

  7. #32
    Regular Member Achievements:
    1000 Experience Points1 year registered

    Join Date
    23-10-17
    Posts
    62
    Points
    1,598
    Level
    11
    Points: 1,598, Level: 11
    Level completed: 16%, Points required for next Level: 252
    Overall activity: 0%


    Country: Bosnia & Herzegovina



    Quote Originally Posted by qtr View Post
    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.

  8. #33
    Regular Member Achievements:
    1000 Experience Points1 year registered

    Join Date
    23-10-17
    Posts
    62
    Points
    1,598
    Level
    11
    Points: 1,598, Level: 11
    Level completed: 16%, Points required for next Level: 252
    Overall activity: 0%


    Country: Bosnia & Herzegovina



    Quote Originally Posted by qtr View Post
    Proto-slavic language is considered to be started in 8-9th century
    Please, don't spread disinformations on such serious forum, picture down:



    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!

  9. #34
    Regular Member Achievements:
    1000 Experience Points1 year registered

    Join Date
    23-10-17
    Posts
    62
    Points
    1,598
    Level
    11
    Points: 1,598, Level: 11
    Level completed: 16%, Points required for next Level: 252
    Overall activity: 0%


    Country: Bosnia & Herzegovina



    Quote Originally Posted by Ygorcs View Post
    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.

  10. #35
    Regular Member Achievements:
    1000 Experience Points1 year registered

    Join Date
    23-10-17
    Posts
    62
    Points
    1,598
    Level
    11
    Points: 1,598, Level: 11
    Level completed: 16%, Points required for next Level: 252
    Overall activity: 0%


    Country: Bosnia & Herzegovina



    Quote Originally Posted by qtr View Post
    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!

  11. #36
    Elite member Achievements:
    Veteran10000 Experience Points
    arvistro's Avatar
    Join Date
    06-08-14
    Posts
    1,004
    Points
    13,128
    Level
    34
    Points: 13,128, Level: 34
    Level completed: 69%, Points required for next Level: 222
    Overall activity: 7.0%


    Country: Latvia



    1 out of 1 members found this post helpful.
    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.

  12. #37
    Elite member Achievements:
    Veteran10000 Experience Points
    arvistro's Avatar
    Join Date
    06-08-14
    Posts
    1,004
    Points
    13,128
    Level
    34
    Points: 13,128, Level: 34
    Level completed: 69%, Points required for next Level: 222
    Overall activity: 7.0%


    Country: Latvia



    Quote Originally Posted by RajvoSa View Post
    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.

  13. #38
    Regular Member Achievements:
    1000 Experience Points1 year registered

    Join Date
    14-05-17
    Posts
    347
    Points
    2,478
    Level
    14
    Points: 2,478, Level: 14
    Level completed: 10%, Points required for next Level: 272
    Overall activity: 3.0%


    Country: Lithuania



    Quote Originally Posted by arvistro View Post
    Suffix -elis is normal for Latvian.
    Ziemelis - winter wind. Ziema - winter.
    Lithuanian too https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/bernelis etc

  14. #39
    Regular Member Achievements:
    Three FriendsRecommendation Second Class10000 Experience PointsVeteran
    Dibran's Avatar
    Join Date
    25-09-16
    Posts
    796
    Points
    12,168
    Level
    33
    Points: 12,168, Level: 33
    Level completed: 32%, Points required for next Level: 482
    Overall activity: 99.1%

    Y-DNA haplogroup
    R1a-L1029*
    MtDNA haplogroup
    H11a2*-146+

    Ethnic group
    Albanian/Gheg/Dibran/Okshtun
    Country: United States



    Quote Originally Posted by RajvoSa View Post
    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.

  15. #40
    Moderator Achievements:
    1 year registeredTagger Second ClassThree Friends25000 Experience Points
    Awards:
    Most Popular

    Join Date
    21-10-16
    Posts
    1,725
    Points
    26,601
    Level
    50
    Points: 26,601, Level: 50
    Level completed: 6%, Points required for next Level: 949
    Overall activity: 5.0%


    Ethnic group
    Multiracial Brazilian
    Country: Brazil



    1 out of 1 members found this post helpful.
    Quote Originally Posted by RajvoSa View Post
    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.
    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.

  16. #41
    Regular Member Achievements:
    1000 Experience Points1 year registered

    Join Date
    23-10-17
    Posts
    62
    Points
    1,598
    Level
    11
    Points: 1,598, Level: 11
    Level completed: 16%, Points required for next Level: 252
    Overall activity: 0%


    Country: Bosnia & Herzegovina



    Quote Originally Posted by arvistro View Post
    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.

  17. #42
    Regular Member Achievements:
    1000 Experience Points1 year registered

    Join Date
    23-10-17
    Posts
    62
    Points
    1,598
    Level
    11
    Points: 1,598, Level: 11
    Level completed: 16%, Points required for next Level: 252
    Overall activity: 0%


    Country: Bosnia & Herzegovina



    Quote Originally Posted by Dibran View Post
    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?

  18. #43
    Regular Member Achievements:
    1000 Experience Points1 year registered

    Join Date
    23-10-17
    Posts
    62
    Points
    1,598
    Level
    11
    Points: 1,598, Level: 11
    Level completed: 16%, Points required for next Level: 252
    Overall activity: 0%


    Country: Bosnia & Herzegovina



    Quote Originally Posted by Ygorcs View Post
    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.

  19. #44
    Elite member Achievements:
    Veteran10000 Experience Points
    arvistro's Avatar
    Join Date
    06-08-14
    Posts
    1,004
    Points
    13,128
    Level
    34
    Points: 13,128, Level: 34
    Level completed: 69%, Points required for next Level: 222
    Overall activity: 7.0%


    Country: Latvia



    Quote Originally Posted by RajvoSa View Post
    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? :)

  20. #45
    Regular Member Achievements:
    1000 Experience Points1 year registered

    Join Date
    23-10-17
    Posts
    62
    Points
    1,598
    Level
    11
    Points: 1,598, Level: 11
    Level completed: 16%, Points required for next Level: 252
    Overall activity: 0%


    Country: Bosnia & Herzegovina



    1 out of 1 members found this post helpful.
    Quote Originally Posted by arvistro View Post
    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:


    1. 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.
    2. 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.
    3. In the Baltic, the suffix -mo is used in ordinal numerals, whereas in the Slavic suffix -wo is used .
    4. 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).
    5. In the Baltic often uses the infix -sto- , while in the Slavic it is absent.
    6. 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.
    7. The Baltic suffix of adjectives -inga is not used in Slavic languages.
    8. Baltic diminutive suffix -l- not used in Slavic languages (though, perhaps, it corresponds to the Russian suffix caressing -ul- : grandma , grandpa , etc...).
    9. The Slavic suffix of the verbal nouns -tel- ( driver, teacher, builder ) is not used in the Baltic languages.
    10. The pre- Indo-European suffix -es was in the Proto-Slavic ( teles, skies ), but is not used in the Baltic languages.
    11. The Slavonic suffix of participles -lo is not used in the Baltic languages.
    12. In the Proto-Slavic law operates an open syllable, which is absent in the Baltic (including the Prabalese) languages.
    13. 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.)
    14. 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.
    15. 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.

  21. #46
    Regular Member Achievements:
    1000 Experience Points1 year registered

    Join Date
    23-10-17
    Posts
    62
    Points
    1,598
    Level
    11
    Points: 1,598, Level: 11
    Level completed: 16%, Points required for next Level: 252
    Overall activity: 0%


    Country: Bosnia & Herzegovina



    Quote Originally Posted by Wonomyro View Post
    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.

  22. #47
    Elite member Achievements:
    Veteran10000 Experience Points
    arvistro's Avatar
    Join Date
    06-08-14
    Posts
    1,004
    Points
    13,128
    Level
    34
    Points: 13,128, Level: 34
    Level completed: 69%, Points required for next Level: 222
    Overall activity: 7.0%


    Country: Latvia



    1 out of 1 members found this post helpful.
    Quote Originally Posted by RajvoSa View Post
    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:


    1. 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.
    2. 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.
    3. In the Baltic, the suffix -mo is used in ordinal numerals, whereas in the Slavic suffix -wo is used .
    4. 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).
    5. In the Baltic often uses the infix -sto- , while in the Slavic it is absent.
    6. 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.
    7. The Baltic suffix of adjectives -inga is not used in Slavic languages.
    8. Baltic diminutive suffix -l- not used in Slavic languages (though, perhaps, it corresponds to the Russian suffix caressing -ul- : grandma , grandpa , etc...).
    9. The Slavic suffix of the verbal nouns -tel- ( driver, teacher, builder ) is not used in the Baltic languages.
    10. The pre- Indo-European suffix -es was in the Proto-Slavic ( teles, skies ), but is not used in the Baltic languages.
    11. The Slavonic suffix of participles -lo is not used in the Baltic languages.
    12. In the Proto-Slavic law operates an open syllable, which is absent in the Baltic (including the Prabalese) languages.
    13. 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.)
    14. 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.
    15. 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.

  23. #48
    Elite member Achievements:
    Veteran10000 Experience Points
    arvistro's Avatar
    Join Date
    06-08-14
    Posts
    1,004
    Points
    13,128
    Level
    34
    Points: 13,128, Level: 34
    Level completed: 69%, Points required for next Level: 222
    Overall activity: 7.0%


    Country: Latvia



    0 out of 1 members found this post helpful.
    Actually found something else. Might have been wrong on post above.
    Anyway this is also an interesting article:
    http://www.baltistica.lt/index.php/b...load/2283/2249

  24. #49
    Regular Member Achievements:
    1000 Experience Points1 year registered

    Join Date
    23-10-17
    Posts
    62
    Points
    1,598
    Level
    11
    Points: 1,598, Level: 11
    Level completed: 16%, Points required for next Level: 252
    Overall activity: 0%


    Country: Bosnia & Herzegovina



    Quote Originally Posted by arvistro View Post
    Actually found something else. Might have been wrong on post above.
    Anyway this is also an interesting article:
    http://www.baltistica.lt/index.php/b...load/2283/2249
    It seems like a helpful link, will read when i have enough time. Thank you!

  25. #50
    Moderator Achievements:
    1 year registeredTagger Second ClassThree Friends25000 Experience Points
    Awards:
    Most Popular

    Join Date
    21-10-16
    Posts
    1,725
    Points
    26,601
    Level
    50
    Points: 26,601, Level: 50
    Level completed: 6%, Points required for next Level: 949
    Overall activity: 5.0%


    Ethnic group
    Multiracial Brazilian
    Country: Brazil



    Quote Originally Posted by arvistro View Post
    Actually found something else. Might have been wrong on post above.
    Anyway this is also an interesting article:
    http://www.baltistica.lt/index.php/b...load/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.

Page 2 of 7 FirstFirst 1234 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •