How to divide Slavs from Balts, and vice-versa before 6th century?
- Thread starter RajvoSa
- Start date
So, how is your quote from Matasovic actually contradicting my text?
There is A PROBLEM of ancient similarities between Uralic and IE. I've read about number 8000 - don't remember if that is years ago or BC, but that precedes anything else that IE might have contacted and kept liguisticaly. There is also European substratum, that might be in some cases from older societies, but that is still much younger contact for IE.
Yeah, there is also other problem, where modern Baltic was also influenced by Mari languages(and younger Uralic substratum from Livones or South Estonians) - especially if it comes to Latvian-Lithuanian(which some insists, that it has to be named proto-Baltic), as a carriers of Mari N1a into modern Baltic.
And then - there is that problem with Uralic people - Udmurt, Mordvians, Mari - all of whom seems to have received their names from Scythians(who, it seems, were oblivious of ancient Slavic omni-presence), who were in their imminent neighborhood before Slavic came into existence. And then we have this ridiculous discussion how Slavic are speaking Vedic...
PS I start to see some strange trend:
Turks seems to have some problems with their ancient roots, who were not Turkish
Magyars seems to have some problems with their ancient roots, who were not Magyar
Indians in India seems to have some problems with their ancient roots, accepting that R1a is not coming from India
Slavs, especially in Balkans seems to have some problems with their roots, especially accepting more ancient history of Balts
F@ck this interesting thing about genes. I now wonder what is in the minds of people that makes this world...
>Yeah, there is also other problem, where modern Baltic was also influenced by Mari languages
What? Baltic languages weren't influenced by Mari languages, the only visible influence on Baltic languages from Uralic languages is on Latvia from Finnic speakers like Livonians/Estonians or before they even differentiated as evidenced by loanwords/hydronyms in Latvian territory and some speculate stressing of the words but that's highly controversial or rather ongoing debate. In Lithuanian it's virtually non existent or non existent at all.
"as a carriers of Mari N1a into modern Baltic."
N1 in Balts has nothing to do with Mari's, virtually of it comes from a clade around from around 600BC N-L1025, which we can assume was somewhere around vicinity of Baltic sea or somewhere close to it, not from Mari's
Moreover judging by the number of loanwords Baltic speakers had the most intense contacts were with Finnic speakers then Mordvinic speakers but the number drops very significantly to dozens, in Mari there are like few less than 5 don't remember the exact number of words but most of scholars like Riho Grünthal said it's likely they were mediated trough other Uralic dialects. Moroever there were no archaeological cultures associated with Balts anywhere near close Mari people. While on the other hand we can strongly assume based on archaeology that early Balts were within vicinity of Finnic speakers and somewhat close to Mordvinic speakers. Because we know they that both Balts as attested by numerous hydronyms and Mordvins historically were near Oka basin.
What? Baltic languages weren't influenced by Mari languages, the only visible influence on Baltic languages from Uralic languages is on Latvia from Finnic speakers like Livonians/Estonians or before they even differentiated as evidenced by loanwords/hydronyms in Latvian territory and some speculate stressing of the words but that's highly controversial or rather ongoing debate. In Lithuanian it's virtually non existent or non existent at all.
"as a carriers of Mari N1a into modern Baltic."
N1 in Balts has nothing to do with Mari's, virtually of it comes from a clade around from around 600BC N-L1025, which we can assume was somewhere around vicinity of Baltic sea or somewhere close to it, not from Mari's
Moreover judging by the number of loanwords Baltic speakers had the most intense contacts were with Finnic speakers then Mordvinic speakers but the number drops very significantly to dozens, in Mari there are like few less than 5 don't remember the exact number of words but most of scholars like Riho Grünthal said it's likely they were mediated trough other Uralic dialects. Moroever there were no archaeological cultures associated with Balts anywhere near close Mari people. While on the other hand we can strongly assume based on archaeology that early Balts were within vicinity of Finnic speakers and somewhat close to Mordvinic speakers. Because we know they that both Balts as attested by numerous hydronyms and Mordvins historically were near Oka basin.
You are refering to something I did cover already.
N-VL29, that Lithuanians have it at 93% among N is shared with Mari. I clearly refered to period of history before arrival of Lithuanians in Lithuania. You should, too
Yeah, I'm using a bit loose terminology, but ancient Mari is closest to core of Finnic languages. I find it funny, that talking about contacts of Baltic and Finnic, that happened ~3000BP, people can distinguish Mordvian influences even before Mordvians came into existence... Also, I was not referring to Modern Mari and Mordvian influences, so you should not, too.
There is no such Mordvin language, but there exists Mordvin LANGUAGES - Erzya and Moksha are most used. So, a million dollar question for you: From which ones - Erzya or Moksha Lithuanians have those loanwords?
You are refering to something I did cover already.
N-VL29, that Lithuanians have it at 93% among N is shared with Mari. I clearly refered to period of history before arrival of Lithuanians in Lithuania. You should, too
Yeah, I'm using a bit loose terminology, but ancient Mari is closest to core of Finnic languages. I find it funny, that talking about contacts of Baltic and Finnic, that happened ~3000BP, people can distinguish Mordvian influences even before Mordvians came into existence... Also, I was not referring to Modern Mari and Mordvian influences, so you should not, too.
There is no such Mordvin language, but there exists Mordvin LANGUAGES - Erzya and Moksha are most used. So, a million dollar question for you: From which ones - Erzya or Moksha Lithuanians have those loanwords?
First of all none of Balts carry N-VL29 , all N1 in Balts is downstream from it from a younger clade it as I've mentioned above under N-L1025, I don't think you grasp this. Moreover there's no evidence of contacts between Balts and Mari people. Other thing N1 in Baltic states shows up around 700-500BC as seen in Genetic prehistory of Baltic sea region, where they find no N1 Baltic until 500BC, the upcoming Estonian study also find N1 appearing around 700-500BC in Estonia. Earliest sample with N1 in Balts is from 350-650AD and based on some models shows up minor Finland_Karelia like admixture. Again pointing that Finnic like population was vector of N1c in Balts not Mari like. Second thing I didn't say Mordivian is language I said Mordvinic speakers later reffered to them as Mordvins both Erzya and Moksha fall under this umbrella term. As evidenced that Baltic loanwords are only found loanwords are only in Finnic and Mordvinic, while Mari is closely related to Mordvinic it's more eastern branch and it doesn't show any hard evidence for contact with early Baltic speakers. Quote from Baltic loanwords in Mordvinic by Riho Grünthal:
"Traditionally, it ismaintained that the Mordvinic languages share more vocabulary and grammatical features with the Finnic languages than with more eastern Uralic languages,such as Mari, the Permic languages, Hungarian, Ob-Ugric, and the Samoyediclanguages (Bartens 1999: 13; Bereczki 1988: 314; Hajdú 1962: 94–97, 1981: 54;Häkkinen 1997: 162–210; Terho Itkonen 1997: 247–260; Keresztes 1987: 32–43)"
"More generally speaking, there are very few Mari words that are supposed to beBaltic borrowings. None of these etymologies is plausible (Mägiste 1959)"
Also what Erzya and Moksha loanwords in Lithuanian are you talking about? As far as I'm aware there are none and I've read about this subject thoroughly unless you have some sort of secret information.
LOL, I'm sorry couldn't hold myself
Your problem is that you even don't know what means term "proto-language".
Linguists (whose job is that about what we are talking now) agreed that there was one unique Balto-Slavic stage inside Indo-European family of languages. Of course you can't understand that, because you are just looking from the point of archaisms, (which means actually nothing in genetical classification of languages).
So, there was no "Balts", there was Balto-Slavs, just with terminological substitution where Balto-Slavs=Balts, which is very rude used by Latvians and Lithuanians when Baltic and Slavic unity is questioned.
So ancestors of Letto-Lithuanians, ancestors of Prussians AND ancestors of Slavs were part of some Satem Indo-European trunk? From which "Baltic" Slavic descended????? History didn't record such language!
Unity of Baltic is basical myth, which made by ignorant pseudo-linguists, who have no idea about what are they talking about.
Let me summarize this: There is NO unity of Baltic languages which would exclude the ancestors of Slavs. Who cares for your archaic bullshits, that's what linguistical science says! It supports Balto-Slavic theory, as a dialect of Indo-European.
He is contradicting your pseudo-scientifical myth about unity of "Balts", as a one clear proto-language, which never existed, and you simply can't deal with that. Did you noticed that he is using always "Balto-Slavic" terminology? Why?? Does he have some pan-Slavic agenda against Latvians and Lithuanians? Or is just compentent about question and is using right terminology.
By the way, i noticed big conspiracy among Baltocentrists... There is conspiracy; Balts don't want to be together with Slavic imperialists, and in every way are sabotaging the Balto-Slavic reconstruction.
)))You're showing your insecurities , about this Balto-Slavic unity, what is clear Balto-Slavic languages share set linguistic features and vocabulary and are the most related languages. The question originally asked was how can we divide Slavs from Balts before 6th century, we can clearly do that based on archaeology and linguistics. Slavic languages differentiated as late as 10th century, before they were basically same with slight dialectal variation. You're arguing semantics, what where it's called Balto-Slavic, Baltic or etc because it your hurt feelings. What is clear all Slavic languages descend archaeologically speaking from a very late culture, and linguistically too because all Slavic languages spoken today are descendant from one particular dialect which was spoken very late. Also you're quoting one specific linguist Kortlandt he's absolute authority over this subject there are different views also. Other thing is we don't know how many other dialects were erased over this broad horizon, while take for example Dnieper-Dvina culture or Yukhnovo, Upper Oka. While archaeologically they're closest to East Baltic culture like Brushed-Pottery over which various Letto-Lithuanian tribes later formed, we can't say for certain for what Dnieper-Dvina spoke in Late Bronze age/Early Iron age or Yukhnovo etc who lived in vicinity with Finnics more to the east of today's Balts, what we can do be best is base our reconstructions on attested languages, just because they weren't recorded doesn't mean they didn't exist, I hope you grasp this, because you complain about "History didn't record such language!" you do grasp that Proto-Balto-Slavic or is also not recorded but a reconstructed language based on what data we have of surviving languages and attested languages . Even when Baltic loanwords are analyzed in Proto-Finnic or later stages, often terminology such like North Baltic appears because in works from Petri Kallio, Santeri Juntilla, because some features can't be explained neither by East-Baltic or West-Baltic nor Slavic. It's possible that earlier stages Baltic and Slavic or Balto-Slavic languages were part of broader continuum, but only specific dialects survived.
I don't contradict any of these statements, just those like this user "laint", who is spreading his bullshits here every time he posts. He is more clever than any of modern linguists and he claims like whole question is solved. He has some kind of hatred toward Turks, Russians, and Indians. So, that's the reason why he is spreading constant bullshits about those nations, and their linguistic groups.
What I'm saying, Balto-Slavic unity Baltic-Slavic is semantics over terminology even Toporov or Kortlandt as late as 2018 said Slavic could be described basically as South-Baltic, a more neutral name is considered Balto-Slavic, obviously because of different agendas and complex histories of these communities. I'd like to hijack a comment from a Russian member ahvalj, on other forum I won't name it since I don't know if it's not against rules to promote other websites.
"Imagine the Romance language area, from Portugal to the Black sea, where once a single language (with local differences) was spoken. Now imagine only two–three cores remain alive, perhaps Spanish (~East Baltic), Catalan (~West Baltic) and Romanian (~Slavic), with no intermediate dialects between West and East and no Latin as a common written language, just naturally developing dialects of illiterate people. This area split around 400 C. E. after the dissolution of the empire, so imagine that one language (Romanian~Slavic) gets attested 1600 years later, i. e. now, and two others some more centuries later, i. e. sometime in the 25th century. What you'll see is the approximate analogy to the Balto-Slavic situation."
Or other somewhat opposing view like Toporov, who suggested that Proto-Slavic languages formed from peripheral Baltic dialects. But the situation is we're dealing is we're dealing with pre-illiterate societies and languages that weren't attested so can just make guesses on what data was attested or survived to this day. This question will not likely be answered soon or if it's gonna be answered at all, because again we're dealing with semantics and because even then Balto-Slavic unity isn't as defined by some strict criteria, one linguist thinks it's because they descent from a same proto-language, other thinks it's because they shared a lot of contact and we're close to each other for different periods of times thus explaining in part some parallels and shared innovations, some go as far to say that one branch gave birth to another like in case of Toporov and etc. It's much more complex this question is far from being settled and this is just touching linguistics, if we're going to touch archaeology it also becomes entirely different thing. We can say pretty much with certainty that Corded Ware brought it over, in which culture Proto-Balto-Slavic language differentiated from it's PIE root? In which cultures the supposed split appeared and later different dialect like East-Baltic, West-Baltic, Proto-Slavic and possibly some other dialect continuum which never survived to see it's attestation formed? While it's "somewhat" settled on which cultures were Baltic archaeologically speaking if we go down do late BA/Early Iron age, situation is vastly different if comes to Slavic, I've seen so many suggestions in which culture the supposed Proto-Slavic dialect was spoken that it becomes even murkier, from Kiev culture, to Prague-Korchak, Zarubintsy, Chernyakhov and etc.
Oh, no. You forgot Slavs from Balkans...
However, that is not truth - I have no hatred, I just don't understand what is the fuss.
IMO, answer to topic is found, but we can chat and I need some entertainment sometime.
I don't think you grasp, N also is a clade and that N-L1025 also can have downstream clades - they are not constricted on how many child branches they can have, so 93% of Lithuanian N can belong to N-VL29 and also it will be the same to say, that 93% of N of Lithuanian belongs to N-L1025. Clade is just another word for branch. Lets not make it more complex than it is already
Here is a text from wiki I'm refering, why I'm calling it Mari, because Mordvins share it at lesser frequency:
I don't have a link to Kasperaviciute published data on 2004, but you can find them a lot easier, where 93% of Lithuanians share same clade as Mari. There is also similar publication on Latvian and Estonian data, but Estonians have different proportions, but again quote from wiki(which is not reliable source, but in this case it is solely used to identify clade):
Baltic-Uralic mixed cultures expanded up to Mari territory. Also, Mari(before known as Cheremis) inhabited a lot bigger territory than Mari-El republic covers now - actually native Mari speakers still live outside Mari-El, too. Besides, there is a question of Meryan as westward expansion of Mari, which is very close to modern Baltic speakers. So if we are discussing such ancient times, then Mari did not exist at that time and neither any of modern Baltic nations - that is true, but their ancestors did exist and they mingled. I'm using Mari solely because that is more closer as a top branch of Finnic and reusing naming seems like logic choice. Think of it as a clade but in linguistics.
I, honestly, don't understand why everyone is so fixed on loanwords - also I did not even mention them. Loanwords do not change language - grammar does!
Common Latin changed into different languages, English changed from its original form - and it is impossible to claim, that Latvian and Lithuanian ancestor languages did not change even after they were influencing Uralic on Volga basin for a very long time, unlike other Baltic languages in Baltic region. And language of Latvian and Lithuanian ancestors should have changed, compared to other Baltic languages, as a mixed R1a-N1a group - actually it is different from substrate of more archaic local Baltic.
PS This clearly is an off-topic, but I'm ready to post anything for amusement of OP - even discuss N1a in R1a topic... :]
"I don't think you grasp, N also is a clade and that N-L1025 also can have downstream clades - they are not constricted on how many child branches they can have, so 93% of Lithuanian N can belong to N-VL29 and also it will be the same to say, that 93% of N of Lithuanian belongs to N-L1025. Clade is just another word for branch. Lets not make it more complex than it is already "
Juggling buzzowords won't make you any righter. You still don't understand that Mari are upstream and carry older branches which isn't found among Balts.
"I don't have a link to Kasperaviciute published data on 2004, but you can find them a lot easier, where 93% of Lithuanians share same clade as Mari. There is also similar publication on Latvian and Estonian data, but Estonians have different proportions, but again quote from wiki(which is not reliable source, but in this case it is solely used to identify clade)"
You're quoting a 15 year old study they couldn't test very downstream branches/clades back then, going by your logic everyone who has N is Chinese because that's where oldest clades and basal clades are found. I think you need to a lot more studying to do on DNA. In other thread you said you don't care autosomal DNA and all that matters is Y-DNA. If you make such claims you're and trying to argue about ancient history from a genetic points of view you should just stop already. Your reasoning was "because the main tendency is that neighbours have the same,".
"Baltic-Uralic mixed cultures expanded up to Mari territory. Also, Mari(before known as Cheremis) inhabited a lot bigger territory than Mari-El republic covers now - actually native Mari speakers still live outside Mari-El, too. Besides, there is a question of Meryan as westward expansion of Mari, which is very close to modern Baltic speakers. So if we are discussing such ancient times, then Mari did not exist at that time and neither any of modern Baltic nations - that is true, but their ancestors did exist and they mingled. I'm using Mari solely because that is more closer as a top branch of Finnic and reusing naming seems like logic choice. Think of it as a clade but in linguistics."
What Balto-Uralic mixed cultures? How very close Mari is to modern Baltic speakers what the hell are you even talking about? Becaues they're neither close in terms of autosomal ancestry, nor linguistically the they belong to completely different language group.
"I, honestly, don't understand why everyone is so fixed on loanwords - also I did not even mention them."
You don't understand a lot of things it seems, loanwords are very useful in helping to follow contacts between peoples and see sound change laws, some loanwords if it concerns some technology even allow to pin point the time frame of supposed contacts.
Also you obviously did mention loanwords in your previous post.
"So, a million dollar question for you: From which ones - Erzya or Moksha Lithuanians have those loanwords?" Post 144.
So again I'm asking what are those loanwords? Because you dodged this question again.
"Juggling buzzowords won't make you any righter. You still don't understand that Mari are upstream and carry older branches which isn't found among Balts.
"I don't have a link to Kasperaviciute published data on 2004, but you can find them a lot easier, where 93% of Lithuanians share same clade as Mari. There is also similar publication on Latvian and Estonian data, but Estonians have different proportions, but again quote from wiki(which is not reliable source, but in this case it is solely used to identify clade)"
You're quoting a 15 year old study they couldn't test very downstream branches/clades back then, going by your logic everyone who has N is Chinese because that's where oldest clades and basal clades are found. I think you need to a lot more studying to do on DNA. In other thread you said you don't care autosomal DNA and all that matters is Y-DNA. If you make such claims you're and trying to argue about ancient history from a genetic points of view you should just stop already. Your reasoning was "because the main tendency is that neighbours have the same,".
"Baltic-Uralic mixed cultures expanded up to Mari territory. Also, Mari(before known as Cheremis) inhabited a lot bigger territory than Mari-El republic covers now - actually native Mari speakers still live outside Mari-El, too. Besides, there is a question of Meryan as westward expansion of Mari, which is very close to modern Baltic speakers. So if we are discussing such ancient times, then Mari did not exist at that time and neither any of modern Baltic nations - that is true, but their ancestors did exist and they mingled. I'm using Mari solely because that is more closer as a top branch of Finnic and reusing naming seems like logic choice. Think of it as a clade but in linguistics.
"What Balto-Uralic mixed cultures? How very close Mari is to modern Baltic speakers what the hell are you even talking about? Becaues they're neither close in terms of autosomal ancestry, nor linguistically the they belong to completely different language group.
"I, honestly, don't understand why everyone is so fixed on loanwords - also I did not even mention them."
You don't understand a lot of things it seems, loanwords are very useful in helping to follow contacts between peoples and see sound change laws, some loanwords if it concerns some technology even allow to pin point the time frame of supposed contacts.
Also you obviously did mention loanwords in your previous post.
"So, a million dollar question for you: From which ones - Erzya or Moksha Lithuanians have those loanwords?" Post 144.
So again I'm asking what are those loanwords? Because you dodged this question again.
* Mari N1a are downstream to the same ancestors as Lithuanian N1a - they have their own clades, that might not have been researched yet, so you have an idea fix, that they are upstream unchanged. It is thou, that have no understanding on how thou dna works!
* Are you claiming to be an alien and your DNA is working differently?
* 15 years old study is fresh - still fresherr than the topic we are on. 15 years ago there were no downstream clades - not because they could not test them, but because they were not classified as such.
* Yes, N in Europe comes from China. Do you have other suggestions?
* Is this becoming something about my persona? I'm afraid I am not interested in thou, even if I have plenty of free time that I'm using on this.
* Cultures =/= languages. English is not that hard to understand.
* We can argue about usability of loanwords, but how they are making structural language changes, which makes them apart from other languages, who might be using exactly the same loanwords?
* You brought loanwords in - not me. So, which ones? Again - I have no need to bring them in, because I did not made that claim. Just support your claim and bring them in - Moksha, Soksha, Erzya or others - I do not care.
I feel like this is more as an attack on my person, than even what I've written. You have no idea who I am and what are my skills and you are offering me to study. Are you providing those studies? Are you the teacher? Mind your manners, please.
* Are you claiming to be an alien and your DNA is working differently?
* 15 years old study is fresh - still fresherr than the topic we are on. 15 years ago there were no downstream clades - not because they could not test them, but because they were not classified as such.
* Yes, N in Europe comes from China. Do you have other suggestions?
* Is this becoming something about my persona? I'm afraid I am not interested in thou, even if I have plenty of free time that I'm using on this.
* Cultures =/= languages. English is not that hard to understand.
* We can argue about usability of loanwords, but how they are making structural language changes, which makes them apart from other languages, who might be using exactly the same loanwords?
* You brought loanwords in - not me. So, which ones? Again - I have no need to bring them in, because I did not made that claim. Just support your claim and bring them in - Moksha, Soksha, Erzya or others - I do not care.
I feel like this is more as an attack on my person, than even what I've written. You have no idea who I am and what are my skills and you are offering me to study. Are you providing those studies? Are you the teacher? Mind your manners, please.
15 years in genetic field isn't fresh, genetics have come a long way since then don't act stupid and I brought up studies to inform yourself better on the current views in archaeology not your own opinions. Another point is still that you don't get it, if Mari like population was the source of N1 in Baltics you'd expect to see at least some older branches in Balts like the Mari people have, but all of it some from a young clade dated to around 600BC, all Mari are upstream of it. Also you still brought up loanwords by yourself in 144# post mentioning Erzya and Moksha loanwords in Lithuanian and still haven't answered which are those yet. Moreover N-VL29 in Mari's is at very low frequency it's even more common in Nenets or Saamis than in Mari'sagain rather pointing origin of N1 in Balts else from elsewhere than from Maris, N-VL29 comes in dead in last in frequency. As per Ilumae et al. (2016) data. 93% of Lithuanians don't share the same clade as Maris, you have no idea what you're talking about.
TetaEglantina
Regular member
- Messages
- 816
- Reaction score
- 138
- Points
- 43
- Y-DNA haplogroup
- i2a WHG
I think that in genetic sense we can distinguish the Slavs from Balts because Slavs have I2a din and in Baltic is almost absent.
R1a Z280 is both Baltic and Slavic.
R1a M458 can be find mostly among Slavs but also among Balts.
I2a din spread from the west Ukraine,north Romania,Moldova and areas around but in the Iron age in my opinion.
As for archeology is really hard to answer.
I would say Slavic homeland is this in orange,Chernyakov culture my opinion,the old Getae
Some other maps i found
I2 was picked up in the west, not east. R1a came from the east