Iberian Altaic language

CanalPatrimonio_Museo_Ibero_Jaen_2.jpg


IMGP4604.jpg


jaen-1a.jpg


0cd44fa334fe3c2020577ac21738af5f--fantasy-men-male-faces.jpg


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 "br?nnoid" 's account. I think these traits were rather rare among the first south-occidental HGs, more common among the last ones (EHG?).
 
^^

220px-Gabriel_Rufi%C3%A1n_%28cropped%29.jpg

Gabriel Rufián

150px-Gabriel_Rufi%C3%A1n_2015_%28cropped%29.jpg


Y90BtmJ.jpg


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?
 
hqdefault.jpg

Juanito Valderrama

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

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

220px-Gabriel_Rufi%C3%A1n_%28cropped%29.jpg

Gabriel Rufián

150px-Gabriel_Rufi%C3%A1n_2015_%28cropped%29.jpg


Y90BtmJ.jpg


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.
 
hqdefault.jpg

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:



 
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
 
@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= /[FONT=Liberation Serif, serif]Ʒ[/FONT]/ surely through a [dj]=/[FONT=Liberation Serif, serif]ɟ[/FONT]/ - the evolution towards Scot ‘ch’ = /[FONT=Liberation Serif, serif]χ[/FONT]/ 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]:/[FONT=Liberation Serif, serif]ʃ[/FONT]/ 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”.
 
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
 
^^
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.
 
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:
^^
ok I've put it in favorites. I have read something, I will continue later because these days I am very thick.
 
Hello Carlos, dear friend.
You have sensitivity for poetry Carlos. There is nothing more relaxing than standing on the seashore listening to the noise of the waves, watching the sea lick the sand at the same time as it destroys the castles that, jokingly, we built before the tide went up. But it is almost a metaphor of life. The sea and the tide remind us that nothing is eternal and that we can always begin to rebuild what has been destroyed by time. Beautiful poem what you posted earlier. It reminds me of one of the elements I love most in nature: water and sea. The other element I love is the mountains. I was born among them, and they always arouse my curiosity to know what is up there and also what is on the other side of them. I grew up climbing the mountains that surround my city. For me flat land, only if it is beside the sea.
Warm greetings.
 
^^
Thank you. It is a poem by Gioconda Belli.

I have recorded my poems I even started but I left it, I always leave everything, it is the problem that has qualities for almost everything, in the end you play many things but you do not stay in any.
 
Learn easy iberian in 1 minute



Hypothesis of the origin of the Iberian language.
(I expose this theory I have not given birth to it or say that I believe it or not)

He says there was a language spoken in central Europe, France, Spain, British Isles and North Africa.

In 100 km you could write differently.

The Latin in its beginning was a dialect of the Iberian that finally was the dialect that most influenced in all the variants of the Iberian.
 
magic linguistic! with this very open minded method we can put things to tell us everything and its opposite.
 
^^^^

Does not have a glimpse of credibility?
 
Sorry, but I agree with Moesan, the video sounds like absolutely pseudo-scientific rubbish. The method if basically: aita > aisa > caisa > casa. Where dos the "c" come from? What are other words where the same change happened? Why did [ai] turn into [a] and not into [e] as it often happened in the evolution of Iberian languages, or actually why did it change at all? Where are ther other examples of words to prove that that was a really consistent sound change, not just a random ad hoc explanation to fit "casa" and "aita" together? Then he goes on to say that the vowels could normally shift completely (e.g. mol, mul, mil - all arguably the same word), so that it's no wonder that with that rationale you can derive lots of supposedly "plausible" cognates: you just have to add or change a consonant, extract a vowel or shift it around for no good reason besides the intention to make two words similar each other and then conclude "hey that proves that the so-called Romance languages actually come from Iberian" (hmm, no, even if they were really sound-alikes that would still be no scientific evidence).

It seems to me yet another example of "sound-alike mass comparison" linguistics, which lacks any scientific method and credibility. Romance languages are Romance and derive from Latin not just because of lexical correspondences, but because their structure clearly derives from Italic languages and from a dialect closely related to Classical Latin. It's about the structure of the language, its morphology and syntax, its affixes and ways to make noun and adjectival derivation and so on, not just about similar words. Besides, there's the issue that the Romance languages are unquestionably Indo-European, the connection is very uncontroversial, while Iberian does not look Indo-European at all. As Moesan said, this is kind of "magic linguistics": it will tell you exactly what you already wanted to be true, it stretches the evidences to fit the preconceived narrative.
 
Well there was definitely Yamnaya ancestry in the Bronze Age Iberians, which by definition is full of EHG ancestry, which originated in ancient Russia. It's not all that far fetched, but the earlier people were a hybrid of European hunter-gatherers and western Middle Eastern people. I've also seen some fringe linguists look at parallels between Turkic and Basque. Although I know nothing on the topic to comment. If the Iberian languages date prior to the Bronze Age, logic would dictate it was a family of languages who arrived from the Mediterranean. Otherwise, could it have been a contemporary of languages on the steppes? Why not?
 
Well there was definitely Yamnaya ancestry in the Bronze Age Iberians, which by definition is full of EHG ancestry, which originated in ancient Russia. It's not all that far fetched, but the earlier people were a hybrid of European hunter-gatherers and western Middle Eastern people. I've also seen some fringe linguists look at parallels between Turkic and Basque. Although I know nothing on the topic to comment. If the Iberian languages date prior to the Bronze Age, logic would dictate it was a family of languages who arrived from the Mediterranean. Otherwise, could it have been a contemporary of languages on the steppes? Why not?

I find it unlikely that Turkic has an EHG origin. The westernmost likely homeland of Turkic is east of the Urals, around the upper Irtysh river, but its most likely earliest location is really in the region between the Ob and Yenisei, in or just north of the Altai and Sayan mountains. Therefore, very far away from the EHG lands, and I don't think the pre-Yamnaya-related people there had much EHG at all. West of the Volga and the Urals the WSHG were already dominant in the Chalcolithic/Early Bronze Age, let alone to the east of that. I tend to associate EHG more with Uralic and Indo-European (IMHO it still looks plausible that PIE was a Caucasian-influenced "Southern EHG" branch, whereas Uralic was a Siberian-influenced "Northern EHG", the two probably being diverged from each other since Paleolithic times).

In my opinion, those fringe linguists tend to be a little too dazzled by the linguistic parallels that inevitably appear when you have two strongly agluttinative language families with hundreds of affixes, a few of which will inevitably look faintly similar or even coincidentally very close to each other. But that is not enough to make a genealogical connection between any two languages. Agluttinative languages abound everywhere. It's also not quite certain that Iberian and Basque belonged to the same language group, or if they were unrelated or then belonged to very distinct branches of a much older language Family (maybe an EEF one, with a lot of time for linguistic divergence?)
 
Imagine if Yamnaya was part of the Dene-Caucasian family, now that would be a twist and a half! It actually almost makes sense too if you can assume Afanasevo spoke some kind of proto-Dene-Yenesian-Sino-Tibetan... (I don't at all believe this by the way, but recently I have been floating the idea that PIE had nothing to do with Yamnaya and was Anatolian, and spread with the Dudesti-Vinca wave into the Balkans before spreading to the Steppe with the interactions between Cucuteni-Trypillia and Sredny-Stog).

Nothing directly Yamnaya derived (unlike with Corded Ware) has been shown to be Indo-European, just a reminder!
 

This thread has been viewed 32389 times.

Back
Top