Indo-European, linguistic contnuity and new Y-haplos tree

[MOESAN]

I had put this link in a thread in Linguistics about First Slavic evidence, but I put it here as a new thread because it is very "revolutionary" and concerns as well History, Linguistics and genetis, so History!
I have to read it again so surprising the theory is, concerning Human male lineages story, PIE/IE languages (Slavic as the "father") and more.



https://doi.org/10.11114/ijsss.v6i1.2809

[halfalp]

Is this Ironic? Not sure to get it.

[MOESAN]

Is this Ironic? Not sure to get it.

Ironic? Maybe. But have you followed the link and read the paper (mentioned to me by Academia Edu)?

[halfalp]

Ironic? Maybe. But have you followed the link and read the paper (mentioned to me by Academia Edu)?

I did have read the Abstract, but surely it doesn't matter that much to go further. To be honest, i'm a little bit tired of people tryharding thee IE topic. And i'm even more tired of " PC Steppe hypothesis failed " when literally everyone saying this, have such a weak counter hypothesis.

[MOESAN]

I was stupefied firstable. But I never discard new theories, even if they seem very unreliable, as in this case. I 'll read the paper again, spite I fear my thought is already made, as yours. It seems there is a school of thinking among Russians which goes very far.

[Pax Augusta]

Everything written by Alinei and Benozzo is unreliable.
I can honestly see nothing credible in the approach taken by this study.

I was stupefied firstable. But I never discard new theories, even if they seem very unreliable, as in this case. I 'll read the paper again, spite I fear my thought is already made, as yours. It seems there is a school of thinking among Russians which goes very far.

Moesan, it's not really new. It's based on the Paleolithic Continuity Theory, that doesn't work on both a linguistic and a genetic level.

[halfalp]

I dont think new theories are needed, but more like " deepening " things up. But like IE studies is such a toxic topic, like not a few times ago V.Narasimhan publish his study, and even if it's absolutely not the conclusions and that such conclusions is highly tied to sampling bias, an entire board of OOI hypothesis guys did Fiesta about it.

It's even impossible on some forums talking this matter without an individuality trying to manipulate the subject towards his own nation. Whether it's Spain, Russia, Iran, Turkey, India...

As for haplogroups, is it even honnest to try to dismiss the R1b / R1a link? Probably we could " deepening " things, but the overall idea match up too much details.

[MOESAN]

Everything written by Alinei and Benozzo is unreliable.
I can honestly see nothing credible in the approach taken by this study.





Moesan, it's not really new. It's based on the Paleolithic Continuity Theory, that doesn't work on both a linguistic and a genetic level.

Yes, I knew for Alinei whose I never accepted the theories. I said "new", thinking in the genetic part which was unknown to me (I knew of other theories supported by people like Grigoryev but had never read something like this one). I avow I'm often enough amazed by Russian scholars, not about their collections of data/facts but by the conclusions they take from them.

[Pax Augusta]

Yes, I knew for Alinei whose I never accepted the theories. I said "new", thinking in the genetic part which was unknown to me (I knew of other theories supported by people like Grigoryev but had never read something like this one). I avow I'm often enough amazed by Russian scholars, not about their collections of data/facts but by the conclusions they take from them.

I do agree with halfalp that IE studies is such a toxic topic.


Please note that Anton Perdih is a former member of the Faculty of Chemistry and Chemical Technology at the University of Ljubljana.

[MOESAN]

I do agree with halfalp that IE studies is such a toxic topic.


Please note that Anton Perdih is a former member of the Faculty of Chemistry and Chemical Technology at the University of Ljubljana.

No, I don't think IE studies are a toxic topic, it's very interesting when you look at it by some distance and with "cool blood"; it's part of our history, all of us. It's rather some people who are intoxicated (prejudices and ignorance?), I think? Some of them will never acquire any knowledge spite numerous readings, sometimes.

Chemical technology and chemistry? Could help for molecular studies? But not for linguistic! I cited Russians and Chinese because it seems the paper does often allusions to works of some of them. I avow I have not had time to read accutely the paper yet.

[halfalp]

No, I don't think IE studies are a toxic topic, it's very interesting when you look at it by some distance and with "cool blood"; it's part of our history, all of us. It's rather some people who are intoxicated (prejudices and ignorance?), I think? Some of them will never acquire any knowledge spite numerous readings, sometimes.

Chemical technology and chemistry? Could help for molecular studies? But not for linguistic! I cited Russians and Chinese because it seems the paper does often allusions to works of some of them. I avow I have not had time to read accutely the paper yet.

If you think about it for a second, when someone is saying " i want a new theory, or another view " on an hypothesis that is already pretty established. This person clearly has some kind of bias or prejudice towards the said hypothesis. I kinda link when new datas are coming refine an hypothesis, like the input of Baikal_Neolithic / WSHG in peripheric PC Steppe.

But if someone feels the need of a totally new hypothesis, then he feels some kind of prejudice. That is not an hazard that those kind of prejudice always concerns individuals of certain Nationalities, because it touches Pride, History, Established Notions... But what can we do about it, we have the same dilema as Western Europeans in the matter of IE studies.

[ntindeo]

Administratorii se straduie sa ma excluda pe mine sau pe altii cu conturi adevarate, iar la miile de conturi false nu au nici o reactie.

Editare.
Bravos.