Confrontation between Iranists (Indo-Europeanists) and Türkists in light of the DNA-Genealogy

[Proto-Shaman]

About confrontation between “Iranists” and “Türkists”.

"For more than a hundred years the “Iranists, or more commonly” Indo-Europeanists” on one side, and Turkologists on the other side, completely deny the contribution of the opponent's linguistic group into the Eurasian linguistic landscape in antiquity (from the beginning of our era and older), asserting that in the Europe and Asia was either a continuous “Indo-Iranian” substrate, or conversely continuous Türkic substrate. They do not compromise. Examples are given below.

And the explanation is quite simple. Both sides are right, but on their own half. The two major Eurasian haplogroups, R1a and R1b, diverged (or rather, formed and diverged) 20-16 thousand years ago, evolved linguistically from the common Nostratic languages, respectively into the Pra-Aryan (later called “Proto-Indo-European”) and the Proto-Türkic, and then into Türkic. And because the paths of the haplogroups R1a and R1b carriers in Eurasia significantly transversed in the same territories, often with a gap of a millennia or two (R1a migrations are older in Europe, R1b migrations are older in Asia), they left “substrates” superimposed one on another, and intertwined in many ways. Since the agglutinative Türkic languages are probably less subjected to temporal changes than the flexive Indo-European languages, the Turkologists explain with ease almost all “Iranisms” from the Türkic languages. They are finding in works of the Classical writers many examples of Türkisms, in the proper names and in the names for the objects, and in separate terms. The Iranists in response brush them aside, and cite their own versions, in accordance with which certainly no Türkisms existed in the Eurasia during the past era and even more so before that. Or they ignore it, or undertake repressive measures in science. Any Turkologist can cite many examples of that kind.

This article introduces the problem, to show that many thousands years ago have existed both the Aryan, that is Proto-Indo-European languages, and the Proto-Türkic (or Türkic) languages. They simply were carried by different tribes, the first by the tribe R1a1, the second by R1b1, and perhaps by the kindred tribes Q and N. This concept, naturally, awaits deeper linguistic studies. But the beginning, as can be seen, is established.

The next section relays the story about of opposition between “Iranists” and “Türkists”. Actually, the opposition does not exists literally, it is rather a figure of speech. Too unequal were both sides to call it an “opposition”. But this figure of speech reflects the essence of the problem. Ever since the beginning of the 1950s, the official historical science postulated that the Scythians were “Iranian speaking”. The issue was not to be discussed any more. Any arguments and scientific evidence on the subject were not acknowledged by the official science (and that the official science exists is beyond discussions), or reacted to with dead silence for at least 60 years."



Anatole A. Klyosov: Journal of Russian Academy of DNA Genealogy (ISSN 1942-7484), 2010, Vol. 3, No 1, pp. 3 - 58

[Petros Houhoulis]

I've told you before that the Turanists' original Y-DNA was C, which exists all the way from Turkey to Japan. R1a and R1b do not exist in Korea and thus the spread of the Altaic languages in Korea and Japan cannot be explained with R1a or R1b.

Furthermore, there are Scythian inscriptions, and all of them are IndoEuropean. If some of the words can be explained as Turanic loan words, it means that some of the Scythians were indeed Turanic speakers, but most were not. It would not be a surprise to have some Turanic language spread all the way to Scythia. If some of the C gene reached Turkey, certainly some of it went as far as Scythia.

[Proto-Shaman]

I've told you before that the Turanists' original Y-DNA was C, which exists all the way from Turkey to Japan. R1a and R1b do not exist in Korea and thus the spread of the Altaic languages in Korea and Japan cannot be explained with R1a or R1b.

Furthermore, there are Scythian inscriptions, and all of them are IndoEuropean. If some of the words can be explained as Turanic loan words, it means that some of the Scythians were indeed Turanic speakers, but most were not. It would not be a surprise to have some Turanic language spread all the way to Scythia. If some of the C gene reached Turkey, certainly some of it went as far as Scythia.

Standard hardcore Indo-Europeanists argumentation, though Native American R1 is not Indo-European at all. I also recommend you following article: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paleol...tinuity_Theory

HOW CAN TURKIC ORIGINAL Y-DNA BE C, WHEN ITS THE HAPLOGROUP OF TUNGUSIC-NA-DÉNE PEOPLES!

[Petros Houhoulis]

Standard hardcore Indo-Europeanists argumentation, though Native American R1 is not Indo-European at all. I also recommend you following article: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paleol...tinuity_Theory

Whether R1 in Asia is IndoEuropean or not is truly irrelevant. All genes have succumbed to the initial cultures of other genes. In Greece and Turkey, the majority are between J2, E1b1b, J1, and many other genes, none of which spoke originally either the IndoEuropean Greek or the Altaic Turkish. The vast majority of the population in Hungary has zero N genes, and yet their language is Uralic like the Finns' language. Just because an offshoot of R1 spread over to the Americas, and adopted a foreign language and culture, does not mean that the original R1 was not IndoEuropean.

Simple facts my dear. You are the one who is hanging around an senseless "Nostratic theory" which does not make sense. It would be the same as If I dared to suggest that all of the Balkan languages have a common origin because of their similarities, known as the "Balkan sprachbund":

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Balkan_sprachbund

The Balkan sprachbund or language area is the ensemble of areal features—similarity in grammar, syntax, vocabulary and phonology—among the languages of the Balkans. Several features are found across these languages though not all need apply to every single language. The languages in question may be wholly unrelated as modern forms in that they belong to various branches of Indo-European (such as Slavic, Greek, Romance, Albanian and Indo-Aryan) or even outside of Indo-European (such as Turkish). Some of the languages use these features for their standard language (i.e. those whose homeland lies almost entirely within the region) whilst other populations to whom the land is not a cultural pivot (as they have wider communities outside of it) may still adopt the features for their local register; this in turn is viewed as non-standard by their respective peoples away from the region.^{[clarification needed]}
While they share little vocabulary, their grammars have very extensive similarities; for example they have similar case systems and verb conjugation systems and have all become more analytic, although to differing degrees.

Yet, their commonalities are due to the aerial diffusion of language, not a common origin...

...You should keep your "Nostratic" nonsense to yourself!

[Proto-Shaman]

As I have mentioned before, it is also worth reading following article:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paleol...tinuity_Theory

Next time, please read before posting bullshit.. seriously.

Just because an offshoot of R1 spread over to the Americas, and adopted a foreign language and culture, does not mean that the original R1 was not IndoEuropean.

This is by far the most sickest statement I have ever read in this forum Even the so called hypothetical "Proto-Indo-Europeans" emerged by approximately 4000-5000 BC Haplogroup R1 originated by approximately 10500-23700 BC

Indo-Europeans in Native North American pre-history....... Jesus Christ... the Apache chief would give you a big clap...

Simple facts my dear. You are the one who is hanging around an senseless "Nostratic theory" which does not make sense. It would be the same as If I dared to suggest that all of the Balkan languages have a common origin because of their similarities, known as the "Balkan sprachbund":

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Balkan_sprachbund

...You should keep your "Nostratic" nonsense to yourself!

My dear, my dear, my dear. First of all, mr. Klyosov is likely ten times more credible than you, I suppose :icon_wink: 2ndly "Indo-European" itself is just a second floor theory.

"... according to the current state of research Indo-European still remains a hypothetical construct fraught with uncertainties."

From German Wikipedia:
http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deutsche_Sprachgeschichte

And last but not least:

The truth has nothing to do with the number of people who are convinced of it. - French writer, 1868 - 1955.

[Mortimer]

indo-europeanists are a bunch of faggot white supremacists.

[Proto-Shaman]

Mr. Klyosov further writes:

"Amazingly, all four main hypotheses localizing the “Indo-European homeland”, namely “Circumpontic localization”, “Kurgan”, “Anatolian”, and “Neolithic gap” turned out to be wrong at their core. They could not explain the direction of “Indo-Europeans”, including the path towards the India; they could not explain the timing of their movement and what preceded that movement; they were unable to point the location of the “pra-homeland” and where from the “Pra-Indo-Europeans” appeared there, especially since (the fallacious) notion of “primordial homeland” does not contain the previous localization, which is fundamentally wrong; they could not explain the prolonged contact of the “Proto-Indo-Europeans” with other language families (Kartvelian, North Caucasus, Semitic, Pra-Türkic), which clearly occurred in the 3rd and 2nd millenniums, when the carriers of the haplogroup R1a1 reached the Caucasus about 4,500 years ago, reached the Near East around 3,800-3,600 years ago, and reached the territories of the ancient Pit Grave Culture, Andronovo Culture, and Central Asia, with their probable Türkic-lingual population (haplogroup R1b1) approximately 4,000-3,600 years ago."

[Mortimer]

Mr. Klyosov further writes:

cool. good that some writers opposse the white supremacist indo-european studies

[Proto-Shaman]

cool. good that some writers opposse the white supremacist indo-european studies

Since about 30 years their numbers are growing exponentially, which is of course appreciated.

[Mortimer]

i think indo-europeans dont even exist, it should be reviewed critically if indo-europeans exist, indo-european ur-race sounds like a white supremacist theory which was proposed in early european science when all were racist dominated studies, and it is carried in milder form today