Eupedia Forums
Site NavigationEupedia Top > Eupedia Forum & Japan Forum
Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast
Results 26 to 50 of 70

Thread: Iberian Altaic language

  1. #26
    Moderator Achievements:
    Tagger Second ClassThree Friends25000 Experience PointsVeteran

    Join Date
    21-10-16
    Posts
    1,730
    Points
    27,644
    Level
    51
    Points: 27,644, Level: 51
    Level completed: 9%, Points required for next Level: 1,006
    Overall activity: 9.0%


    Ethnic group
    Multiracial Brazilian
    Country: Brazil



    1 members found this post helpful.


    Quote Originally Posted by Ordas View Post
    Ygorsc, how do you mean there is no Altaic language?
    Regarding Chinese sourses there was a caukasian looking populasion in the Altai befor the Xiong Nu who themselves where a mix Caukasian/N-/E-Asian. There is much evidens of esrly colonisation of Europian populatins in the far east. Taking the language with them, which surely changed through the time. But it would be interesting to know more about these early settlers.
    On the other hand the skytian/sarmatian/saka/hun people reigned over milenia from the black see to korea. So it can be a link to altaian people or language. At least imaginable.

    To me the video sound also very Turkish. But maybee it is just the sound.
    Also the inscription is interesting, similar to Hungarian/Etruscan/or Runik from the stepe.

    Sent from my SM-N950F using Eupedia Forum mobile app
    I mean what most modern linguists say: that the proposed Altaic hypothesis, which posited a common Altaic language family, is now heavily discredited, and in fact the vast majority of mainstream scholars now consider that the Altaic languages are actually a huge Sprachbund of several unrelated language families (or if they're related the connection is so old that it cannot be traced back by comparative linguistics methods anymore). Those unrelated languages were in strong mutual contacts and perhaps also admixture with each other for millennia, so they started to share some words and grammatical features, as it also happened in the Balkan Sprachbund and others. Altaic has been strongly debunked as a real language family with a common proto-language with one only source common to them all.

    There was a Caucasian population in the Altai before the Xiongnu and later the Huns, who also absorbed many West Eurasian populations especially as they expanded westwards to Central Asia and Europe. However, there are too many indications that that Caucasoid movement was associated with the same spread of BA Pontic-Caspian steppe ancestry that also expanded into most of Europe, parts of the Transcaucasian region and into South-Central Asia, a movement clearly associated with the historical or modern presence of Indo-European languages. Just south of the Altai there was a very archaic and very "non-Indo-Iranian" branch of PIE-derived languages (Tocharian, which was actually two highly divergent languages, Tocharian A and Tocharian B) as late as the Early Middle Ages, which was long after the expansion of more East Asian-like populations in that region (Xiongnu, Huns, Turks, Mongols and so on). Old Chinese is also full of clearly ancient Indo-European loanwords, which also indicate that Indo-European languages must've been brought to the vicinity of the early Chinese civilization in the BA and/or IA.

    In any case, there was no single population bringing "Proto-Altaic" language to anywhere, because that language most probably never existed. The so-called Altaic peoples owe their ancestry and language to diferente ancient populations.

  2. #27
    Moderator Achievements:
    Tagger Second ClassThree Friends25000 Experience PointsVeteran

    Join Date
    21-10-16
    Posts
    1,730
    Points
    27,644
    Level
    51
    Points: 27,644, Level: 51
    Level completed: 9%, Points required for next Level: 1,006
    Overall activity: 9.0%


    Ethnic group
    Multiracial Brazilian
    Country: Brazil



    1 members found this post helpful.
    Quote Originally Posted by Carlos View Post
    ^^
    To Ygorcs Regarding the topic of the Caucasus dances, I have gone to another topic in the same thread, it has nothing to do with my opinions about the possible Altaic origin of the Iberian. There are two themes: I have seen dance dances such as La Jota and sevillanas in the dances of the Caucaso and if you hurry me to flamenco. A part Altaico as a possible origin of the Iberian.


    You will say what you want but I have the feeling that in all this linguistics there must be a monopoly where someone or a small group are the ones who direct and the rest are heretics, as I would say as a small mafia. Of course I have almost no idea of ​​linguistics or dances or almost anyone, but I want to continue almost like this to not be conditioned and see things from a primary point of a true ignorant in the field and see things being a virgin, And I like it or not, the popular Spanish dances come from the Caucaso in its base and the Iberian does not discover its origin because someone or some sector does not want it because in the dates that we are already had to be resolved the origin of the Iberian, as well that I intend to continue with my virginal techniques.
    Well, that's your right, but then if that's what you really wish you shouldn't have started a thread asking to be informed of opinions and knowledge on the topic you're speculating about, because any new information about these matters will taint the "purity" of your ignorance, isn't that so?

  3. #28
    Regular Member Achievements:
    Veteran10000 Experience Points
    Carlos's Avatar
    Join Date
    26-09-11
    Posts
    1,795
    Points
    24,492
    Level
    47
    Points: 24,492, Level: 47
    Level completed: 95%, Points required for next Level: 58
    Overall activity: 68.0%

    Y-DNA haplogroup
    E-BY7449*>YF66572
    MtDNA haplogroup
    J1c5c1

    Ethnic group
    España
    Country: Spain



    ^^
    Believe it or not, I do not ask about what the patriarchs think that they should handle all this and that they have the Iberian on stand back, I want to know their opinion, not others by their mouths.

  4. #29
    Moderator Achievements:
    Tagger Second ClassThree Friends25000 Experience PointsVeteran

    Join Date
    21-10-16
    Posts
    1,730
    Points
    27,644
    Level
    51
    Points: 27,644, Level: 51
    Level completed: 9%, Points required for next Level: 1,006
    Overall activity: 9.0%


    Ethnic group
    Multiracial Brazilian
    Country: Brazil



    1 members found this post helpful.
    Well, then I'm out. Thanks for explaining. I'm not fond of opinions that are based on mere feeling/intuition, unsubstantiated speculation or "I think so because, well, because I just think so" (that's what we call achismo and not opinião in Portuguese). It seems like a nice fantasy is better than some hard facts and scientific knowledge (which, falsifiable though it is, is much better than personal guesses) for some. Fine enough.

  5. #30
    Regular Member Achievements:
    Veteran5000 Experience Points
    Boreas's Avatar
    Join Date
    02-05-15
    Location
    Istanbul
    Posts
    690
    Points
    6,058
    Level
    23
    Points: 6,058, Level: 23
    Level completed: 2%, Points required for next Level: 492
    Overall activity: 3.0%

    Y-DNA haplogroup
    R-YP346
    MtDNA haplogroup
    J1b1b1

    Ethnic group
    Rumî
    Country: Turkey



    @Ygorcs about Altaic

    I know that there is no Ural-Altai Language family believer much,now. Even my cousion put names his some Ural and Altay. In addtion, Korean-Japanese brach is seperated as Northeast Asiatic Languages from extended Altai Family.

    Now I learnt that
    Mongolian and Turkic are seperated families in some researchers' opinion. Even Northeast Asiatics are too; Korean and Japanese seperated families too

    How mess it is...

  6. #31
    Moderator Achievements:
    Tagger Second ClassThree Friends25000 Experience PointsVeteran

    Join Date
    21-10-16
    Posts
    1,730
    Points
    27,644
    Level
    51
    Points: 27,644, Level: 51
    Level completed: 9%, Points required for next Level: 1,006
    Overall activity: 9.0%


    Ethnic group
    Multiracial Brazilian
    Country: Brazil



    2 members found this post helpful.
    Quote Originally Posted by Boreas View Post
    @Ygorcs about Altaic

    I know that there is no Ural-Altai Language family believer much,now. Even my cousion put names his some Ural and Altay. In addtion, Korean-Japanese brach is seperated as Northeast Asiatic Languages from extended Altai Family.

    Now I learnt that
    Mongolian and Turkic are seperated families in some researchers' opinion. Even Northeast Asiatics are too; Korean and Japanese seperated families too

    How mess it is...
    Probably some of those families have totally separate origins and only shared some features because of long mutual contact in Northeast Asia, but maybe some others (maybe some pairs like Japanese-Korean or Turkic-Mongolian) have extremely old connections and diverged so long ago, maybe even during Upper Paleolithic times, that their relationship cannot be established for certain anymore. I think it's not that surprising that the "Altaic" regions might in fact harbor several distinct language families. It's a huge area with a very complex ancient genetic history as the recent papers on Siberia have demonstrated. The "Altaic" term probably lumped together several languages and language families that were just not well studied and understood enough for their "incompatibilities" to become clear enough. When they were better studied, the hypothesis fell. I also think the same "understudy bias" happens even today with the African languages, all of them lumped together in just a few language families even though some of the supposed branches within each of those language families are extremely unlike each other and only share a few common features like phonological or typological similarities that may well be a result of prolonged contact, stratum influences or even chance, and not a common linguistic origin that could be unambiguously traced by linguists.

  7. #32
    Regular Member Achievements:
    Tagger Second Class1 year registered1000 Experience Points
    Ordas's Avatar
    Join Date
    29-08-17
    Location
    Austria
    Posts
    39
    Points
    1,638
    Level
    11
    Points: 1,638, Level: 11
    Level completed: 30%, Points required for next Level: 212
    Overall activity: 0%

    Y-DNA haplogroup
    N1a1a1a1a4a2 -A9416
    MtDNA haplogroup
    J1c6

    Ethnic group
    Hungarian
    Country: Afghanistan



    Quote Originally Posted by Ygorcs View Post
    I mean what most modern linguists say: that the proposed Altaic hypothesis, which posited a common Altaic language family, is now heavily discredited, and in fact the vast majority of mainstream scholars now consider that the Altaic languages are actually a huge Sprachbund of several unrelated language families (or if they're related the connection is so old that it cannot be traced back by comparative linguistics methods anymore). Those unrelated languages were in strong mutual contacts and perhaps also admixture with each other for millennia, so they started to share some words and grammatical features, as it also happened in the Balkan Sprachbund and others. Altaic has been strongly debunked as a real language family with a common proto-language with one only source common to them all.

    There was a Caucasian population in the Altai before the Xiongnu and later the Huns, who also absorbed many West Eurasian populations especially as they expanded westwards to Central Asia and Europe. However, there are too many indications that that Caucasoid movement was associated with the same spread of BA Pontic-Caspian steppe ancestry that also expanded into most of Europe, parts of the Transcaucasian region and into South-Central Asia, a movement clearly associated with the historical or modern presence of Indo-European languages. Just south of the Altai there was a very archaic and very "non-Indo-Iranian" branch of PIE-derived languages (Tocharian, which was actually two highly divergent languages, Tocharian A and Tocharian B) as late as the Early Middle Ages, which was long after the expansion of more East Asian-like populations in that region (Xiongnu, Huns, Turks, Mongols and so on). Old Chinese is also full of clearly ancient Indo-European loanwords, which also indicate that Indo-European languages must've been brought to the vicinity of the early Chinese civilization in the BA and/or IA.

    In any case, there was no single population bringing "Proto-Altaic" language to anywhere, because that language most probably never existed. The so-called Altaic peoples owe their ancestry and language to diferente ancient populations.
    Ygorcs: thank you for your reply. Do you have any online source for the altaic language issue? I would be interested, how they prove it.
    I am on the same opinion in most what you wrote, but I doubt the IE language of the first W-eurasian settlers in the altai region. There is no proof they spoke IE language. It is possible(?) IE language and ural-altaic languages have a very ancient common root. That would explain the similarities too. Also there is no proof the Skytians spoke IE language.
    I must admit I have the same feeling as Carlos, that in linguistics and archeology there is a strong tendency to prove, "everything" is IE origin. Which in most cases is not proved just hypothesis, but spread, as if it were proved. So what I mean is the tendencies today are not really scientific. In science there is still too much politics and to little struggle for truth. Everybody should accept if something is proved without a doubt but if it's just a hypothesis or theory, it should be seen as such and investigate all alternative theories to get a good picture of the whole. Still I'm very interested in the "no altaic language family" issu. If you have any links please let me know.

    Sent from my SM-N950F using Eupedia Forum mobile app

  8. #33
    Regular Member Achievements:
    Veteran10000 Experience Points
    Carlos's Avatar
    Join Date
    26-09-11
    Posts
    1,795
    Points
    24,492
    Level
    47
    Points: 24,492, Level: 47
    Level completed: 95%, Points required for next Level: 58
    Overall activity: 68.0%

    Y-DNA haplogroup
    E-BY7449*>YF66572
    MtDNA haplogroup
    J1c5c1

    Ethnic group
    España
    Country: Spain



    WE ARE NOT COMING FROM LATIN - Carme Jiménez Huertas

    Ever since I met Carme Jiménez, I have not stopped wondering how it is possible that until now I have not heard of the theory that questions the fact that Latin is the mother of Romance languages. Listening to her is suddenly bumping into common sense.

    Although Carme, is not the only linguist who defends that our language does not come from Latin. There are authors who defend this theory for less than a century! But apparently, there is a systematic deafness of the academic world to this "seemingly rare" theory. No wonder, to recognize something like this would highlight our entire linguistic system and the centennial belief in an initial postulate (that Latin is the mother tongue) that has never been objectively revised. Were the inhabitants of the Iberian Peninsula mute before the arrival of the Romans ...?

    We hide with something similar to the deceptive Darwin and the supposed evolution of the species. Here we also still lack the "missing link". They have always told us that our language is the result of a "degeneration" of the Latin language in the vulgar language; on the other hand, a term clearly derogatory. But there is already too much evidence to show that vulgar Latin did not exist. If it had existed, we should have found many more "intermediate links" written between that "degenerate" Latin and the Romance languages. However, it is not like that. This should make us reflect ... do not you think?

    Carmen Jiménez is a writer and philologist specializing in linguistics, and also a Latin teacher! He knows very well what he is talking about. He has faced the academicist cast of historical grammar for maintaining this theory, as well as for his research on the Iberian language, published in ibers.cat. But he has not given up on the effort and has just published his research in the book We do not come from Latin, in which he tells us a somewhat different grammatical story ...
    His next dream now is to create a multidisciplinary team to definitively decipher the Iberian language (which already preexisted here since the seventh century BC long before the arrival of the Romans) and with it, the key to the entire linguistic framework. I recommend not only the interview, but also your book, which has fascinated me.

    Subsequent updates
    Both the criticisms and the praise that Carmen J. Huertas has received after the publication of this video and her book are unmentionable. It does not deserve too much to entertain in answering criticism, especially if they have no substance, but I add here one of the writings in response to a fierce criticism from the University of the Basque Country, and probably well paid, because the minions do not sharpen knives unless let the gold shine. Here Carmen's response to the comment by Ander Ros Cubas.
    After the impact caused by the first edition of the book "We do not come from Latin", Carme J. Huertas published in March 2016 a second edition, revised and expanded, which presents new research hypotheses. In addition to an in-depth review of the contents, three chapters on lexicology, etymology and toponymy are added. Another important change has been the incorporation of the Romanian language in the study. The hypothesis of a mother tongue prior to the so-called romanization acquires much more solidity and consistency. In this book a new research hypothesis is presented that defends that the Romance languages ​​share a linguistic typology that refers us to a common mother tongue of agglutinating character much older than Latin. Recent research shows that linguistic change at the level of morphosyntactic structures is a very slow process. Cognitive linguistics assumes a symbolic basis for grammatical constructs, expressed through compositional formantes that have survived in the lexicon of current romances. The evidence is more and more conclusive: this process does not pass through Latin. In this edition the Romanian language has been incorporated. The romanization agents that we find in the rest of the countries where Romance languages ​​are spoken, did not occur in Romania, so the hypothesis that Romance languages ​​do not come from Latin acquires greater solidity and consistency.

    https://timefortruth.es/2013/10/10/n...menez-huertas/

    (Includes video)

    Do the sister languages resemble each other but do not resemble the mother?

    In Spain there is currently no chair on the Iberian. - It asks: How is it possible?

  9. #34
    Elite member Achievements:
    Three FriendsVeteran25000 Experience Points

    Join Date
    25-10-11
    Location
    Brittany
    Age
    70
    Posts
    4,434
    Points
    41,056
    Level
    62
    Points: 41,056, Level: 62
    Level completed: 55%, Points required for next Level: 594
    Overall activity: 22.0%

    Y-DNA haplogroup
    R1b - L21/S145*
    MtDNA haplogroup
    H3c

    Ethnic group
    more celtic
    Country: France



    1 members found this post helpful.
    @Carlos
    What are your arguments here? A conspiracy of academics?
    When I look at romances languages and Latin I see immediatly the common origin. If you rely on today structures of languages compared to ancient ones, you are stroke by the differences, but the community of primary lexicon are very evident taken in account the phonetic evolutionS (local). The question of structure is linked I think to western substrata very different from the first PIE pop's. At first sight, roughly said, the eastern pops of the IE dispersion kept more ancient structures spite local evolutions; here we deal with languages shifts for a part; from another parts, languages during their life can internally change for diverse reasons without question of substratum; more adequation sometimes.
    Some confusion arises among people when we speak of "classical" written languages:
    - these written languages are everytime more conservative than the spoken tongue, and concerning strcutures, very often (not always, sure, in the cas of Greek and Latin) they are frozen forms (epitaphs) or very free and stylistic poetic forms.
    - basic folks latin language was very soon different enough I think from the classical written latin.
    - the basic tongue WAS NOT WRITTEN, so you cannot evaluate it so easily.
    - but even with these cautions, some ancient texts show already some evolution from Latin, when Roman Empire falled definitely down.
    We see already last latin incorporating a lot of Celtic and maybe fewer Germanic words without speaking of other languages words; but this doesn't change the fact that the basis of Romance languages is Latin;
    With these reasonings, we can also say that Breton and Welsh and Gaelic aren't Celtic languages!
    Even farther, I could say French dialects of the 1900's were not dialects of true French, based AND on Old French AND to modern school teached French.
    The true question is: is a language ONE language or SEVERAL social koînes ???
    Iberia "Latin" is the result of diverse ethnic substrata and some compartimenting and isolation by distance (The most of them gave birth in northern mountainous regions when mozarabic was definitely erased.
    Have you heard popular today french compared to academic upper classes French? The SAME WITH ENGLISH

    Just my point.

  10. #35
    Elite member Achievements:
    Three FriendsVeteran25000 Experience Points

    Join Date
    25-10-11
    Location
    Brittany
    Age
    70
    Posts
    4,434
    Points
    41,056
    Level
    62
    Points: 41,056, Level: 62
    Level completed: 55%, Points required for next Level: 594
    Overall activity: 22.0%

    Y-DNA haplogroup
    R1b - L21/S145*
    MtDNA haplogroup
    H3c

    Ethnic group
    more celtic
    Country: France



    "gave birth": "got birth"

  11. #36
    Regular Member Achievements:
    Tagger Second ClassThree Friends1 year registered1000 Experience Points
    Archetype0ne's Avatar
    Join Date
    11-06-18
    Posts
    242
    Points
    1,528
    Level
    10
    Points: 1,528, Level: 10
    Level completed: 89%, Points required for next Level: 22
    Overall activity: 11.0%

    Y-DNA haplogroup
    J2b2-L283-Cluster A

    Country: Albania



    Quote Originally Posted by MOESAN View Post
    @Carlos
    What are your arguments here? A conspiracy of academics?
    When I look at romances languages and Latin I see immediatly the common origin. If you rely on today structures of languages compared to ancient ones, you are stroke by the differences, but the community of primary lexicon are very evident taken in account the phonetic evolutionS (local). The question of structure is linked I think to western substrata very different from the first PIE pop's. At first sight, roughly said, the eastern pops of the IE dispersion kept more ancient structures spite local evolutions; here we deal with languages shifts for a part; from another parts, languages during their life can internally change for diverse reasons without question of substratum; more adequation sometimes.
    Some confusion arises among people when we speak of "classical" written languages:
    - these written languages are everytime more conservative than the spoken tongue, and concerning strcutures, very often (not always, sure, in the cas of Greek and Latin) they are frozen forms (epitaphs) or very free and stylistic poetic forms.
    - basic folks latin language was very soon different enough I think from the classical written latin.
    - the basic tongue WAS NOT WRITTEN, so you cannot evaluate it so easily.
    - but even with these cautions, some ancient texts show already some evolution from Latin, when Roman Empire falled definitely down.
    We see already last latin incorporating a lot of Celtic and maybe fewer Germanic words without speaking of other languages words; but this doesn't change the fact that the basis of Romance languages is Latin;
    With these reasonings, we can also say that Breton and Welsh and Gaelic aren't Celtic languages!
    Even farther, I could say French dialects of the 1900's were not dialects of true French, based AND on Old French AND to modern school teached French.
    The true question is: is a language ONE language or SEVERAL social koînes ???
    Iberia "Latin" is the result of diverse ethnic substrata and some compartimenting and isolation by distance (The most of them gave birth in northern mountainous regions when mozarabic was definitely erased.
    Have you heard popular today french compared to academic upper classes French? The SAME WITH ENGLISH

    Just my point.
    Common origin and direct descent are not the same thing. Carlos is right to some extent...
    For all we know proto-Latin an proto-Iberian could have been related Millenia earlier than the mainstream rhetoric suggests, when the term "Latin" was not even a thing(the term, not Proto-Latin as a language per se). Hence, the commonplace misconception that all romance languages must derived from Latin, rather than Romance languages and Latin being connected at a stem level, before a posteriori differentiation.

    I mean, don't get me wrong, I would have called Medieval French "Vulgar Latin" too if I was the Pope, and wrote a bunch of books.

    How old is Rome? How old is "Latin" ?, for how long have people been living and speaking in Iberia?


    IMO Carlos indignation is warranted. We are not talking about facts anymore, but rather interpretations of the facts, namely opinions. So people better quit this holier than thou rhetorics.
    “Man cannot live without a permanent trust in something indestructible in himself, and at the same time that indestructible something as well as his trust in it may remain permanently concealed from him.”

    Franz Kafka

  12. #37
    Regular Member Achievements:
    Veteran10000 Experience Points
    Carlos's Avatar
    Join Date
    26-09-11
    Posts
    1,795
    Points
    24,492
    Level
    47
    Points: 24,492, Level: 47
    Level completed: 95%, Points required for next Level: 58
    Overall activity: 68.0%

    Y-DNA haplogroup
    E-BY7449*>YF66572
    MtDNA haplogroup
    J1c5c1

    Ethnic group
    España
    Country: Spain



    1 members found this post helpful.
    A database recently completed and carried out by four universities and the Ministry of Economy allows interpretation of more than 3,000 Iberian, Celtiberian and Tartessian texts

    If Javier Velaza, professor of Latin and dean of the Faculty of Philology of the University of Barcelona, had climbed in 219 before Christ to the walls of Sagunto during his siege by the Carthaginians, he could have gone in the correct Iberian its besieged inhabitants. These -who would have understood his words- could have responded by throwing an arrow at him or, exalted by his speech, turn him into the warrior that would lead them to victory. Velaza is one of the few experts in the world who is able to pronounce the Iberian (as he does with the Celtiberian or the Tartessian), but he does not understand anything of what he says. Or almost.

    Now, a powerful database (hesperia.ucm.es) puts at the disposal of those interested everything that linguists have unraveled from the Tartessian, Celtiberian, Iberian and Proto-Basque languages (known as Paleohispanic languages). This computer translator is about to be finished after 20 years of work (started by the recently deceased Javier de la Hoz), and will allow closer to the interpretation of the more than 3,000 existing texts. Includes photographs of the inscriptions and the coordinates of their location. Also, at the end of February, the book Paleohispania Languages and Epigraphies (Oxford University Press) will open these investigations to the English speakers. The Ministry of Economy and the specialists of four universities (Basque Country, Complutense of Madrid, Barcelona and Zaragoza) have made this possible.

    To this surprising situation has come -part of the works of the historian Manuel Gómez Moreno or the linguist Jürgen Untermann- for the discovery in 1992, during the dredging of the port of Huelva, of six small pieces of pottery written in an unknown language, in addition of the discovery in Sagunto of a rudimentary Rosetta stone. However, experts do not like this term because they do not know if the words in Latin and Iberian correspond.


    In any case, what is certain is that an element linked to the languages ​​that were spoken in the Iberian Peninsula between the 8th and 2nd centuries BC: all used related writing systems even if they did not understand each other. It was not properly an alphabet, but a system that specialists call semisilabarios. Broadly speaking, it would be a mixture of alphabet (with vowels and consonants), as well as a list of labial, dental and velar occlusive syllables. That is, a hypothetical Iberian scholar trying to memorize it - and if he had the same sequence as the Latino, who did not have it - would have to repeat something like: a, ba, be, bi, bo, bu, da, de, di , do, du ...

    The history of this writing starts in the eighth century BC in what is now Huelva. Afterwards, they borrowed from neighboring towns, such as those who inhabited the Algarve or the Tartessians to record a hundred funeral steles.


    Almost three centuries later, in the coastal strip that extends from the French Roussillon to Almeria, began to write a completely different language: the Iberian, but curiously also used almost the same signs. These facts mislead the experts, because it is contrasted that some words in Iberian ended in d, a sound that does not exist in the signatory (da, de, di, do ...). So the conclusion is that they copied the Huelva system and adapted it to their needs: they invented the final d, for example.

    Some 2,300 inscriptions have been found, including in 1923 the so-called Arquitrabe de Sagunto, a parallelepiped block broken by its center and incomplete. It has two lines, the first in Latin and the bottom in Iberian.


    In the peninsular center another language was spoken: the Celtiberian language, whose translation is more advanced since it is an Indo-European language and easily comparable with other more known ones (such as the Celtic, the Welsh, the Germanic ...). More than 800 entries have been discovered. This town wrote on bronze and the most famous text of those that have survived is included in the so-called Bronzes de Botorrita. There are four plates, three of them in Celtiberian and one in Latin that are related to a judicial process.


    Likewise, two other languages ​​have been detected with the same alphabet in the Peninsula: the Lusitanian language, with only six inscriptions on rock, and the proto-words, to which perhaps a few texts written in a variant of the Iberian sign correspond. Almost everything can be pronounced, but little translated. Velaza highlights, however, the important advances that have been made in the last ten years. "Computer science will help us, although it is not enough. But the future is exciting, "he concludes. In fact, the professor already pronounces it.

    https://elpais.com/cultura/2019/02/2...i0x695vVKMXYy0

  13. #38
    Regular Member Achievements:
    Veteran10000 Experience Points
    Carlos's Avatar
    Join Date
    26-09-11
    Posts
    1,795
    Points
    24,492
    Level
    47
    Points: 24,492, Level: 47
    Level completed: 95%, Points required for next Level: 58
    Overall activity: 68.0%

    Y-DNA haplogroup
    E-BY7449*>YF66572
    MtDNA haplogroup
    J1c5c1

    Ethnic group
    España
    Country: Spain



    http://hesperia.ucm.es/

    Map of Paleohispanic coins and inscriptions, classified according to epigraphic and linguistic zones.


  14. #39
    Moderator Achievements:
    Tagger Second ClassThree Friends25000 Experience PointsVeteran

    Join Date
    21-10-16
    Posts
    1,730
    Points
    27,644
    Level
    51
    Points: 27,644, Level: 51
    Level completed: 9%, Points required for next Level: 1,006
    Overall activity: 9.0%


    Ethnic group
    Multiracial Brazilian
    Country: Brazil



    Carlos, you need to decide what you want: if Iberian was Altaic (whatever that is, because Altaic was never proven to have a common proto-language well accepted by the academia), then it cannot be a language directly related to Latin; and if it was related to Latin (no proof of that at all, we know some numerals in Iberian - completely unlike those of Latin or any IE language), then it cannot have been Iberian. It can't be the new panacea, a one-size-fits-all language.

    As for the other points, I think Moesan already addressed them very well. All the trends of Romance languages were already seen in some Latin inscriptions written in less formal sociolects, and in any case the formalized written Classical Latin was a form of Latin that reflected how the language was spoken around 200-150 B.C. And even in that time it was the sociolect of the elite, which in most societies is more conservative than the sociolect of the ordinary poor people. By the time of the Late Roman Empire there had been centuries of linguistic evolution. It's a total fallacy to claim that morphosyntactic changes need a lot of time to happen. That's not true, languages can have fast and strong pulses of change followed by relative stasis and vice-versa, there isn't a definite rule for that, and we have the textually documented transition from early Middle English to Modern English and from Old Norse to modern Scandinavian languages to prove that large syntactic and morphological changes can happen within some centuries if they're given a "stimulus" (like a phonetic change that in turn destabilizes a certain morphological pattern and ultimately renders it unreliable or even useless, as it happened in Old English and also in Vulgar Latin).

  15. #40
    Moderator Achievements:
    Tagger Second ClassThree Friends25000 Experience PointsVeteran

    Join Date
    21-10-16
    Posts
    1,730
    Points
    27,644
    Level
    51
    Points: 27,644, Level: 51
    Level completed: 9%, Points required for next Level: 1,006
    Overall activity: 9.0%


    Ethnic group
    Multiracial Brazilian
    Country: Brazil



    Quote Originally Posted by Ordas View Post
    Ygorcs: thank you for your reply. Do you have any online source for the altaic language issue? I would be interested, how they prove it.
    I am on the same opinion in most what you wrote, but I doubt the IE language of the first W-eurasian settlers in the altai region. There is no proof they spoke IE language. It is possible(?) IE language and ural-altaic languages have a very ancient common root. That would explain the similarities too. Also there is no proof the Skytians spoke IE language.
    I must admit I have the same feeling as Carlos, that in linguistics and archeology there is a strong tendency to prove, "everything" is IE origin. Which in most cases is not proved just hypothesis, but spread, as if it were proved. So what I mean is the tendencies today are not really scientific. In science there is still too much politics and to little struggle for truth. Everybody should accept if something is proved without a doubt but if it's just a hypothesis or theory, it should be seen as such and investigate all alternative theories to get a good picture of the whole. Still I'm very interested in the "no altaic language family" issu. If you have any links please let me know.

    Sent from my SM-N950F using Eupedia Forum mobile app
    Sorry, I read about that subject a long time ago, now I just won't remember the links and the titles of the articles I read. But it should be very hard to find studies on the Altaic language hypothesis (or debunking it) on the internet, that's how I found good sources about it, too.

    I think there is quite a lot of scientific evidences to back the hypothesis of IE as the language of Afanasievo and also the language of Scytho-Sarmatians, especially now that we have ancient DNA and we know that there is a direct and close relationship between those later cultures and the earlier Pontic-Caspian populations that also seem to have participated strongly in the diffusion of IE languages (besides, we actually do have ancient texts written in Iranic Central Asian languages in áreas that were named "Scythian" or related terms by other peoples). It's of course just a matter of probability, not certainty, but probable is better than nothing.

  16. #41
    Elite member Achievements:
    Three FriendsVeteran25000 Experience Points

    Join Date
    25-10-11
    Location
    Brittany
    Age
    70
    Posts
    4,434
    Points
    41,056
    Level
    62
    Points: 41,056, Level: 62
    Level completed: 55%, Points required for next Level: 594
    Overall activity: 22.0%

    Y-DNA haplogroup
    R1b - L21/S145*
    MtDNA haplogroup
    H3c

    Ethnic group
    more celtic
    Country: France



    Quote Originally Posted by Carlos View Post








    I have always seen the oriental or Altaic trace in the current Iberians; although almost as pure as that is not that there are many but there are.
    There is not a specific Altaic type. Only mixtures. By the way, the special "pseudo-finnic" looks of some individuals in Mediterranean pops are the traces of some ancient HG pops (rather the later ones, rather from East Europe, with these traits I 'm tempted to put on the "brnnoid" 's account. I think these traits were rather rare among the first south-occidental HGs, more common among the last ones (EHG?).

  17. #42
    Regular Member Achievements:
    Veteran10000 Experience Points
    Carlos's Avatar
    Join Date
    26-09-11
    Posts
    1,795
    Points
    24,492
    Level
    47
    Points: 24,492, Level: 47
    Level completed: 95%, Points required for next Level: 58
    Overall activity: 68.0%

    Y-DNA haplogroup
    E-BY7449*>YF66572
    MtDNA haplogroup
    J1c5c1

    Ethnic group
    España
    Country: Spain



    ^^


    Gabriel Rufián





    Evidently it must be mixtures like all in Europe. But there are individuals who seem to have very strong characteristics of what was supposed to be some of their ancestral origins. This type Gabriel Rufián looks very oriental. Also in Andalusia when someone comes out with this aspect is often called in terms of affectionate "chino" Chinese and are fully Andalusian as far as the memory comes. I think that this aspect more oriental between the Iberians is given from the east to Andalusia; although at present there are cases so sporadically pronounced, it is not frequent but it is seen. Euro-Asian, Euro-Altaic, Euro-Turkish?

  18. #43
    Regular Member Achievements:
    Veteran10000 Experience Points
    Carlos's Avatar
    Join Date
    26-09-11
    Posts
    1,795
    Points
    24,492
    Level
    47
    Points: 24,492, Level: 47
    Level completed: 95%, Points required for next Level: 58
    Overall activity: 68.0%

    Y-DNA haplogroup
    E-BY7449*>YF66572
    MtDNA haplogroup
    J1c5c1

    Ethnic group
    España
    Country: Spain




    Juanito Valderrama

    creo que se ve oriental y no hace falta mucha imaginación.

    <font style="vertical-align: inherit;"><font style="vertical-align: inherit;">

  19. #44
    Moderator Achievements:
    Tagger Second ClassThree Friends25000 Experience PointsVeteran

    Join Date
    21-10-16
    Posts
    1,730
    Points
    27,644
    Level
    51
    Points: 27,644, Level: 51
    Level completed: 9%, Points required for next Level: 1,006
    Overall activity: 9.0%


    Ethnic group
    Multiracial Brazilian
    Country: Brazil



    Quote Originally Posted by Carlos View Post
    ^^


    Gabriel Rufián





    Evidently it must be mixtures like all in Europe. But there are individuals who seem to have very strong characteristics of what was supposed to be some of their ancestral origins. This type Gabriel Rufián looks very oriental. Also in Andalusia when someone comes out with this aspect is often called in terms of affectionate "chino" Chinese and are fully Andalusian as far as the memory comes. I think that this aspect more oriental between the Iberians is given from the east to Andalusia; although at present there are cases so sporadically pronounced, it is not frequent but it is seen. Euro-Asian, Euro-Altaic, Euro-Turkish?
    All these people just have small and relatively tighter eyes, those are not "East Asian" traits (let alone "Altaic" specifically), their eyes don't even seem to have epicanthic folds. Their "Asian-like" looks look much more Finnic than "Altaic" (i.e. Northeast Asian).

    AFAIK the eastern part of Iberia, especially around modern Catalonia (where Iberian was spoken), is the part of Iberia with more steppe ancestry, thus with more EHG, too. Like Moesan, since these traits look quite Finnic - and not East Asian-like -, and they also happen in low but non-negligible propotions in Scandinavia and other parts of North Europe, I'd bet on their occasional appearance in Iberia being a result of sporadic expression of genes that were present in the EHG via the mixed steppe populations. It's a more parsimonious explanation than a significant partly East Asian influx into Iberia that was never caught in any samples of Western Europe, especially considering that the Iberians were a powerful nation, not some isolated tribe in a remote refuge área.



    With East Asian epicanthic fold and without it.

  20. #45
    Moderator Achievements:
    Tagger Second ClassThree Friends25000 Experience PointsVeteran

    Join Date
    21-10-16
    Posts
    1,730
    Points
    27,644
    Level
    51
    Points: 27,644, Level: 51
    Level completed: 9%, Points required for next Level: 1,006
    Overall activity: 9.0%


    Ethnic group
    Multiracial Brazilian
    Country: Brazil



    Quote Originally Posted by Carlos View Post

    Juanito Valderrama

    creo que se ve oriental y no hace falta mucha imaginación.

    <font style="vertical-align: inherit;"><font style="vertical-align: inherit;">
    I think people with those smallish and tight eyes tend to look slightly "Asian-ish" when they get old and the upper eyelids became more flaccid and fall slightly onto the eyeball. He doesn't seem to have had a true epicanthic fold either when he was younger:




  21. #46
    Regular Member Achievements:
    Tagger Second Class1 year registered1000 Experience Points
    Ordas's Avatar
    Join Date
    29-08-17
    Location
    Austria
    Posts
    39
    Points
    1,638
    Level
    11
    Points: 1,638, Level: 11
    Level completed: 30%, Points required for next Level: 212
    Overall activity: 0%

    Y-DNA haplogroup
    N1a1a1a1a4a2 -A9416
    MtDNA haplogroup
    J1c6

    Ethnic group
    Hungarian
    Country: Afghanistan



    1 members found this post helpful.
    Quote Originally Posted by Ygorcs View Post
    Sorry, I read about that subject a long time ago, now I just won't remember the links and the titles of the articles I read. But it should be very hard to find studies on the Altaic language hypothesis (or debunking it) on the internet, that's how I found good sources about it, too.

    I think there is quite a lot of scientific evidences to back the hypothesis of IE as the language of Afanasievo and also the language of Scytho-Sarmatians, especially now that we have ancient DNA and we know that there is a direct and close relationship between those later cultures and the earlier Pontic-Caspian populations that also seem to have participated strongly in the diffusion of IE languages (besides, we actually do have ancient texts written in Iranic Central Asian languages in áreas that were named "Scythian" or related terms by other peoples). It's of course just a matter of probability, not certainty, but probable is better than nothing.
    I had read some papers about these Altaic language hypothesis, but there are a few theories with more ore less differences. These are all hypotheses, no final proof. One group didn't accept the arguments of the other and vice versa. It's like kindergarten.
    Regarding aDNA, if you assume some Haplogroups sugest Languge affinity, than if you go upstream thr Haplo tree you have to come to a proto language. So y- haplo K should carry the proto language for Haplo N, O, R, P, Q wich is Paleo Sibirian-, NativeAmerican-, IE-, Uralic-, Altaic-,East Asian-languages. If you don't link languages and DNA Haplos than you can't use the argument of aDNA for proof of IE languages. For me there is enough proof for an Altaic language family. You could also split the IE language family into Romance, Iranian, German, etc language families if you look at the differences. It's just the same with Turkic, Mongolian and Tungusic.

    Sent from my KFAUWI using Eupedia Forum mobile app

  22. #47
    Elite member Achievements:
    Three FriendsVeteran25000 Experience Points

    Join Date
    25-10-11
    Location
    Brittany
    Age
    70
    Posts
    4,434
    Points
    41,056
    Level
    62
    Points: 41,056, Level: 62
    Level completed: 55%, Points required for next Level: 594
    Overall activity: 22.0%

    Y-DNA haplogroup
    R1b - L21/S145*
    MtDNA haplogroup
    H3c

    Ethnic group
    more celtic
    Country: France



    @ArchetypeOne

    What have I in old Iberia?
    -traces of Ancient languages like Lusitanian (IE, close to both Italic and Celtic, surely more archaic), non-IE Iberian and not some supposed Romance Iberian, proto-Basque, Tartessian, Celtic of Iberia (until in N-Tartessos), and Latin, and toponymy more or less easy to interpret.
    -History says Romans began to settle in Iberia since the 3th Cy (206 BC at least, to expel Carthaginians), before that Greeks, Phoenicians then Carthaginians had already colonies. Concerning Etruscans, I don’t know if they settled seriously Iberia coasts.
    -I have no remembrance of the mention of an Italic language there before Romans.
    So if someone can produce seriously this late evidence it would be interesting.


    -I noticed some peculiarities of current West-Romances languages. Someones are limited in space, other more spred but rather spotty, others seems to cover a wide area in West, encompassing France and North-Italy.
    - the ‘j’ or short latin ‘i’ became a [zh] sound= /Ʒ/ surely through a [dj]=/ɟ/ - the evolution towards Scot ‘ch’ = /χ/ began surely around the Basque country before to reach Central Castilla around the 15th/16th Cies. The between evolution stage seems shared with French and N-Italian dialects; (France S-Poitou dialects (in ancient N-Aquitaine) show a tendancy towards this too with a back position of [sh]:/ʃ/ and [zh] giving a back [sh] and an breathed [h], roughly said).
    - other phonetic evolutions of Iberian Romance dialects are shared inequally by diverse dialects of Southern France, someones linked rather with Basques and Gascons, other linking allover N-Spain, SW-France and N-Corsica, other only Galico-Portuguese with Gascon, even others linking in some way Castillan to N-W French dialects (the misgeneration of L- in PL-, KL-, FL-) but also to some Italian dialects, according tosomeones…
    - nothing among these traits seem tied to a linguistic system, rather they seem the result of a mix of phonetical tendancies, so more to populations pronounciation habits than to their languages : pop substrata more than linguistic substrata, maybe some limited linguistic superstrata effects (Roman troops of diverses places).
    &: the initial [w-] to [gw-] mutation, occurred on Germanic loanwords in ‘w-’, I think since the High Middle Ages, in Iberia (North only at those times?) and in France and N-Italy, but not in N- & N-E France and in Wallonia, this mutation recalls the same one among Brittonic Celtic dialects. What is interesting is that it didn’t concern the *W- in the Romance lexicon of France, N-Italy or in Iberia. What would prove that EVEN THE WORDS OF CELTIC ORIGIN, in French at least, have been retained through Late Latin, the Latin speakers of Italy pronouncing them [v-] since sometime (cf French (gaulish) ‘verne’, ‘vergne’ = marsh, swamp , and Welsh+Breton ‘gwern’, same meaning + alder trees. It seems it concerned descendants of people in a ‘sprachbund’ where Celtic was spoken; is this to say it’s intimately linked to Celtic, I don’t think: it’s linked to the people who spoke this Celtic; Gaelic of Ireland, a bit outside the play field, did not know this evolution. It is not only a transmission from North into Iberia, because it concerned the Arabic words like ‘oued’ /’wed’ which became ‘guad’ in Spanish, even if the reconquistadors were from North for a big part. ATW I don’t see a link with a Romance language, because it did not occurred in other Romance dialects and standard languages (S-Italy, Romania, Wallonia).
    It’s very difficult to disentangle what is pop substrata from what is convergence evolutions. Some time ago, I was weighting the possibility that Iberia Romance would have been introduced from France. But I think it was naive of me.
    Sorry for a long post. To resume, before I see some solid proofs of diverse pre-latin Romances tongues outside Rome area, I ‘ll still believe that THE BASIS of our tongues came with the Roman armies and traders. So maybe in more than a time and layer, with local differences arising here and there before other layers of Latin came over and over. But not from some Osco-Ombrian or other Italic group. The standard Italian we see now shows rather a Latin source if not “Roman”, and the strangeness we see in some of our original Romance words roots were for the most passed through the Latin “mixer”.

  23. #48
    Regular Member Achievements:
    3 months registered10000 Experience PointsThree Friends
    Awards:
    Most Popular
    Duarte's Avatar
    Join Date
    08-01-19
    Location
    Belo Horizonte
    Posts
    706
    Points
    22,979
    Level
    46
    Points: 22,979, Level: 46
    Level completed: 43%, Points required for next Level: 571
    Overall activity: 54.0%

    Y-DNA haplogroup
    R1b-DF27-FGC35133
    MtDNA haplogroup
    B2

    Ethnic group
    Brazilian
    Country: Brazil



    Hello Carlos.
    I miss you (estou com saudade de você), my friend. Below I put the latest video of the Canadian linguist Paul talking about the influence of the Arabic language in the vocabulary of Portuguese language and of Spanish language also. I hope that you and the readers of your thread enjoy too.
    A big hug for you and for all his readers. It’s very cool.
    Greetings from Brazil.
    Duarte.
    https://youtu.be/-3QML3tfBNQ

  24. #49
    Regular Member Achievements:
    Veteran10000 Experience Points
    Carlos's Avatar
    Join Date
    26-09-11
    Posts
    1,795
    Points
    24,492
    Level
    47
    Points: 24,492, Level: 47
    Level completed: 95%, Points required for next Level: 58
    Overall activity: 68.0%

    Y-DNA haplogroup
    E-BY7449*>YF66572
    MtDNA haplogroup
    J1c5c1

    Ethnic group
    España
    Country: Spain



    ^^
    Greetings. It is mutual.


    Why did not you tell me you were building
    That sand castle?

    It would have been so beautiful
    To be able to enter through its small door,
    Going through its salty corridors,
    Waiting for you in the pictures of shells,
    Talking to you from the balcony
    With mouth full of white and transparent foam
    Like my words,
    Those light words that I tell you,
    That they do not have more than the weight
    Of the air between my teeth.

    It is so beautiful to contemplate the sea.

    The sea would have been so beautiful
    From our sandcastle,
    Claiming time
    With tenderness
    Honda and deep water,
    Rambling on about the stories they told us
    When, children, we were a single pore
    Open to nature.

    Now the water has taken away your sandcastle
    At high tide.

    He has taken the towers,
    The pits,
    The little door where we would have passed
    At low tide,
    When reality is far
    And there are sand castles
    On the beach.

  25. #50
    Moderator Achievements:
    Tagger Second ClassThree Friends25000 Experience PointsVeteran

    Join Date
    21-10-16
    Posts
    1,730
    Points
    27,644
    Level
    51
    Points: 27,644, Level: 51
    Level completed: 9%, Points required for next Level: 1,006
    Overall activity: 9.0%


    Ethnic group
    Multiracial Brazilian
    Country: Brazil



    Quote Originally Posted by Ordas View Post
    I had read some papers about these Altaic language hypothesis, but there are a few theories with more ore less differences. These are all hypotheses, no final proof. One group didn't accept the arguments of the other and vice versa. It's like kindergarten.


    For me there is enough proof for an Altaic language family. You could also split the IE language family into Romance, Iranian, German, etc language families if you look at the differences. It's just the same with Turkic, Mongolian and Tungusic.

    Sent from my KFAUWI using
    Eupedia Forum mobile app
    Well, of course it's not hard science, and it hasn't been definitely established, but on one side you have the majority opinion of mainstream scholars in linguistics, on the other you have proponentes of a hypothesis discredited by most reliable and not too speculative methods of comparative linguistics and debunken by the majority of linguists. Basically, the very hypothesis of an Altaic language family started on weak grounds, because it assumed that Uralic was linked to Turkic and other language families of Northeast Asia, but it was soon discarded that Uralic was part of that hypothetical language family.

    The main problem with the Altaic hypothesis is that it simply doesn't resist when you apply to it the same requirements that are applied to other well attested language families like Sino-Tibetan, Indo-European or even the most elusive of all (because it's probably the oldest split of all), Afro-Asiatic. Comparative linguistics do not work in an uncontroversial way for the hypothetical Altaic languages, especially if you include the most "unlikely" members of it, like Korean and Japanese (let alone Uralic, which is rightfully often excluded even by the modern proponents of Altaic).

    Unlike virtually any language family, in which the languages become more similar the further back you go in the evidences of their evolution, the Altaic languages become more different from each other in their ancient stages than they are nowadays. That's a classic clue that these are not phylogenetically related languages, but distinct language families that formed a strong Sprachbund and mutually shared areal features and loanwords. The very "basis" of the Altaic hypothesis is pretty weak because it can be explained away easily as a Sprachbund effect much like many common features developed after the Iron Age in different European language groups, namely: Altaic languages are supposed to have a common origin because they're all very aggluttinative (not exactly a rare feature crosslinguistically), they are mostly SOV and most of them have vowel harmony. Those are very generic similarities, not really specific features that are very unlikely to be developed independently "by random chance". Even vocabulary-wise the extremely generous (some would say excessively speculative) pro-Altaic analysis by Starostin estimates "only" 16-22% of lexical correspondence in the 110 most common words.

    Take a look at the reconstruction efforts by Starostin and Blazek (and not just in Altaic, but in many other hypotheses their work is often considered a bit too self-confident and bold, too devoid of scientifically healthy caution, for example with reconstructions of "macro-families" supposed to have been spoken dozens of thousands of years ago out of very thin and unreliable evidence). The reconstruction has been widely criticized by linguists because of many mistakes: incorrect or distorted meanings to "force" similar-sounding words to be hypothetical cognnates; incorrect words in some languages, period, using words that sound similar to those of other language families, but actually never meant that; assuming as cognates similar-sounding morphological particles (e.g. case affixes) even though they have completely different functions. The are also few regular sound correspondences that work consistently and that have been accepted extensively by other scholars.

    Comparisons with Romance, Germanic and so on are untenable. Those language families are clearly related even by having a simple glance at the most basic parts of the speech: pronouns, numerals, basic verbs and nouns, etc. The assumed relationship between the Altaic subfamilies would have to be much, much older (not the 4k-5.5k assumed for most IE branches) to account for how different they are and how hard it is to find regular sound correspondences and a numerous enough quantity of consistent morphological and syntactic correspondences between them. And that would still not explain why on Earth for instance Turkic and Mongolic are much more similar now than 1000 or 2000 years ago (using either written attestation or linguistic reconstructions), exactly the contrary of Romance vs. Germanic or Iranian vs. Greek.

    As for aDNA, I'm pretty sure that you understand that it is much more probable to make a link between a language expansion and specific, "recent" subclades of Y-DNA haplogroups than between languages . Using the uncontroversially accepted methods of historical linguistics, the furhest ago you can go tracing back the origins of languages is about 10-15 kya, if that, so anything further back will be just unrecoverable even linguistically, let alone any relationship with changes in genetics or culture. But here we're not talking about very basal haplogroups like R, Q or N here, but about things like R1a-Z93, with a much more recent, chronologically and geographically defined origin and expansion in the aDNA record and associated with much more recent and therefore much more traceable historic events. We're talking of movements and changes that happened a mere 1500-2000 years ago, in historic times, with written documentation about some facts, and not about genetic and linguistic processes 30,000 or 40,000 years ago. The further back you go the more likely that genetics and linguistics become disjointed, but if you have a lot of contemporaneous (i.e ancient) genetic and linguistic evidence and the facts are still reasonably close to us historically to be plausibly linked to some sequence of known historic facts, then the likelihood that those dynamics between language and genetics became totally unrecoverable is lower.

    Additionally, I did not correlate languages with Y-DNA haplogroups alone, but with all the genetic evidences: autosomal DNA, Y-DNA, Mt-DNA... and that all fits together with the historic (documented), archaeological and linguistic evidences, too. I would never make any conclusion about the most probable linguistic affinity of a population based only on their Y-DNA haplogroups, even if really specific and nearly contemporaneous (in origin) subclades. It's the combination of many lines of evidence (and not just many genetic evidences via different data, but also evidences provided by other sciences) that substantiates that claim, and it's of course not certain, but it is more plausible and reasonable, because that hypothesis (Scythians being mostly - not necessarily exclusively - IE speakers who then got gradually Turkified beginning some 2200 years ago and especially in the Late Antiquity i.e. 1400-1800 years ago) is the one that best fits the many data that have been collected.

    If you want to know why I concluded that, and based on several lines of evidence combined in the way that seemed most reasonable way, I explain it extensively in my Quora answer about this very same issue: https://qr.ae/TWXm4Q
    Last edited by Ygorcs; 09-03-19 at 02:14.

Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 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
  •