The Uralic languages thread

[Rethel]

The N haplogroup people started migrating westwards from East Siberia 8-10.000 years ago (check my map from a previous post),

1. This is fictional dating, not accurate any more anyway.
2. They were still the same people, not different.

so approximately 5000 years before the Proto-Uralic languages have formed.

1. But what if this dating is fictional?
2. Why 5000 years cancel something?
3. Indoeuropeans came to Europe 5000 years ago, but we are still IEs, and we will be as such 5000 in the future. So? what the problem?
4. Proto-Uralic it is simply hypothetical last common stage of toung used by N-men.
5. As Szegedist pointed out, there are some problems witn this family, and since today.
6. I think, that Uralo-Altaic hypothesy can be more accurate in remodel version as traditional.
7. And there can play a great role N folk.

There is no scientifically accepted theory how did the Pre-Proto-Uralic language sounded like, and to which other languages was it related to.

Ok, but he had his previous stages, as every language, and his speakers.
Whatever they speak earlier, they are still the same people. Uralic deffinitly
is not OE, and came to Europe quite recently. Maybe european dialects are
influenced by local languages, maybe they pidgined together, but the core is
N-speak and came with them. How modern version of speech was transformed
we will never know, but we know, were people came from, and even, if they
would originally speak in Ugabuga, then they are still the same people.

In prehistory many languages started out as language isolates from one another, as many groups lived in seclusion from one another for large periods of times. The same thing can be presumed about Proto-Uralic, as it shows no similarity to Paleosiberian or Altaic languages in vocabulary.

All languages came from two-three dozens of isolated languages.
So it doesn;t bother me at all. What I am interested is, which people
originally speak which proto-language adn where they came from.
N-folk had to speak some language in Manchuria, and it is very
very probable, that it was a pre-version of Uralic, no matter how
many time passed, and even if he mutated under way to Österland
and Pannonia.

And returning to the Kama theory, she is very weak, and unprobable
in the time which you propose, becasue firstly, then lived other people,
secondly, there is no agreement to existing one uralic proto-langauge
and thirdly, N peope does not came here so early. I agree with XXth
century estimations, that for example Finns came to Finland at beast
3000/2000 years ago, but they could be preceded by some pioneers
even 1000 years earlier, which did not lived in coherent settlement.

[Szegedist]

Uralo Altaic theory has been disproven and rejected by all scholars , as no "common words " (which are not loanwords ) were found, and there are very few similarities

.we might as well make a language category called Ugro-Indoeuropean.

[Dunai]

1. This is fictional dating, not accurate any more anyway.
2. They were still the same people, not different.



1. But what if this dating is fictional?
2. Why 5000 years cancel something?
3. Indoeuropeans came to Europe 5000 years ago, but we are still IEs, and we will be as such 5000 in the future. So? what the problem?
4. Proto-Uralic it is simply hypothetical last common stage of toung used by N-men.
5. As Szegedist pointed out, there are some problems witn this family, and since today.
6. I think, that Uralo-Altaic hypothesy can be more accurate in remodel version as traditional.
7. And there can play a great role N folk.



Ok, but he had his previous stages, as every language, and his speakers.
Whatever they speak earlier, they are still the same people. Uralic deffinitly
is not OE, and came to Europe quite recently. Maybe european dialects are
influenced by local languages, maybe they pidgined together, but the core is
N-speak and came with them. How modern version of speech was transformed
we will never know, but we know, were people came from, and even, if they
would originally speak in Ugabuga, then they are still the same people.



All languages came from two-three dozens of isolated languages.
So it doesn;t bother me at all. What I am interested is, which people
originally speak which proto-language adn where they came from.
N-folk had to speak some language in Manchuria, and it is very
very probable, that it was a pre-version of Uralic, no matter how
many time passed, and even if he mutated under way to Österland
and Pannonia.

And returning to the Kama theory, she is very weak, and unprobable
in the time which you propose, becasue firstly, then lived other people,
secondly, there is no agreement to existing one uralic proto-langauge
and thirdly, N peope does not came here so early. I agree with XXth
century estimations, that for example Finns came to Finland at beast
3000/2000 years ago, but they could be preceded by some pioneers
even 1000 years earlier, which did not lived in coherent settlement.

I see your English haven't improved one bit since we debated last time, before the site crashed. I can barely understand what you write, like reading an autistic kid (seriously). But from what I managed to deduce from your incoherent text, there are plenty of flawed, unscientific guessing going on from your side. While I presented maps and texts with quotations, accepted by wikipedia standard, you still haven't presented anything except your own gibberish.

There is no hypothesis that links Proto-Uralics with East Siberians or Chinese, as linguistically this language has no relatedness to either Paleosiberian or Han Chinese. What is so hard for you to understand that the linguistics scientific world found no connection? Haplogroup distribution doesn't equate linguistic distribution, this is well known by any educated person. The N1c1a haplogroup, which was characteristic of the Uralics was a later mutation of N1c, spread from South Siberia to North Europe between 4000-8000 years ago:

"N1c1a (M178)
The subclade N-M178[Phylogenetics 3] is defined by the presence of markers M178 and P298. N-M178* has higher average frequency in Northern Europe than in Siberia, reaching frequencies of approximately 60% among Finns and approximately 40% among Latvians, Lithuanians & 35% among Estonians (Derenko 2007 and Lappalainen 2008).

Miroslava Derenko and her colleagues noted that there are two subclusters within this haplogroup, both present in Siberia and Northern Europe, with different histories. The one that they labelled N3a1 first expanded in south Siberia (approximately 10,000 years ago on their calculated by the Zhivotovsky method) and spread into Northern Europe where its age they calculated as around 8,000 years ago. Meanwhile, the younger subcluster, which they labelled N3a2, originated in south Siberia (probably in the Baikal region) approximately 4,000 years ago (Derenko 2007)."

Proto-Uralics were Europo-Mongoloid people, as the Siberian Mongoloids mixed with West Eurasian hunter-gatherers, which were Europid. Proto-Uralic may have also been born from the mixing of the two people. But since we have no evidence what was the language of either West Eurasian hunter-gatherers, and N1c haplogroup carriers from Siberia, thus there can be no scientific hypothesis yet about the origins of Proto-Uralic. Uralo-Altaic by recognized linguists is considered pseudoscience, I won't even waste my time with it.

[Rethel]

Uralo Altaic theory has been disproven and rejected by all scholars , as no "common words " (which are not loanwords ) were found, and there are very few similarities

The same as there is no common words between
Amerindian langauges or Papuan ones, but they're
certainly related, becasue only one small group of
people founded them. The uralo-altaic languages
appiered in history vary late, so, we do not know
how they were mutating. Can be of course, that
some sublanguage cant be related, and are couple
of different proposals, which are the part of this
group and which are not, but proven manchurian
origin of Ugrofinians gave some hard ground to
disscuss this proposal once again in new light.

.we might as well make a language category called Ugro-Indoeuropean.

Even in reconstructing protougrofinian are many
indoeuropeisms, what can suggest some relation.
The best shot is pidgination on IE ground newly
arrived pre-Uralian speakers, which mutated into
protoUgrofinian with IE substrate. The only logical
possibility, especially, that in whole area between
Kvenland and Yugra uralic tribes and tounges are
full of ancient IE borrowings, names and myths.
It doesn;t work in opposite way, unfortunantly.

[Harkonnen]

The only possible way would be,
if Uralic slangs would be a pidgin
betwenn altayan/paleosyberian
and IE. But it is hard to proof.
But in this case R would be still
of IE provenance and a N of the
manchurian, so nothing's change.

Actually Proto-Indo-European is a pidgin language between Uralic-like language and a Northwest Caucasian language

ABSTRACT: There have been numerous attempts to find relatives of Proto-Indo-European, not the least of which is the Indo-Uralic Hypothesis. According to this hypothesis, Proto-Indo-European and Proto-Uralic are alleged to descend from a common ancestor. However, attempts to prove this hypothesis have run into numerous difficulties. One difficulty concerns the inability to econstruct the ancestral morphological system in detail, and another concerns the rather small shared vocabulary. This latter problem is further complicated by the fact that many scholars think in terms of borrowing rather than inheritance. Moreover, the lack of agreement in vocabulary affects the ability to establish viable sound correspondences and rules of combinability. This paper will attempt to show that these and other difficulties are caused, at least in large part, by the question of the origins of the Indo-European parent language. Evidence will be presented to demonstrate that Proto-Indo-European is the result of the imposition of a Eurasiatic language — to use Greenberg’s term — on a population speaking one or more primordial Northwest Caucasian languages.


https://www.academia.edu/10261406/Th...November_2016_

[Rethel]

Actually Proto-Indo-European is a pidgin language between Uralic-like language and a Northwest Caucasian language

It can't be for very simple reason: is too much complex and developed.
This what you can observe is degradation of language - not otherwise.
It is the case with almost all IE languages across the World, that they
are going to be less developed, having more primitive forms.

Pidgin languages are usually agglutinative or analitic,
and this is exactly the case with uralic languages.

[Rethel]

I see your English haven't improved one bit

But your copyied form other websites texts are perfect

If this is your level of argumentation, then I will not bother further.
Keep your blind faith in more or less ridicule theories, which will be
changed in near or farer future. Brain is not needed for that

p.s.
You certainly are not a Hungolian, so you
must not be afraid of Asian Race, really

[Harkonnen]

Uralic is basically what archaic Pre-Proto-Indo-European language was like before it mixed with Caucasus languages

In PIE, the terminative suffix no longer exists as a part of the grammar, so the opposition is not aspectual, but one of actionality. It is quite logical that IE root variants correspond to a sequence of root + suffix in Uralic, because Uralic has preserved both the old number of syllables and the old agglutinating system better. In PIE, the morphemes have simply merged. In other words, we see here an example of the evolution from an agglutinating language towards an inflecting one.

https://www.academia.edu/377087/Inte...?auto=download

Archaic IE was agglunative language

[Dunai]

But your copyied form other websites texts are perfect

If this is your level of argumentation, then I will not bother further.
Keep your blind faith in more or less ridicule theories, which will be
changed in near or farer future. Brain is not needed for that

p.s.
You certainly are not a Hungolian, so you
must not be affraid of Asian Race, really

Of course when you fail to present counter-arguments supported by well-accepted sources than you choose to leave on the back-door. In each of our previous debates you have done so, therefore I'm not surprised.

[Harkonnen]

It can't be for very simple reason: is too much complex and developed.
This what you can observe is degradation of language - not otherwise.
It is the case with almost all IE languages across the World, that they
are going to be less developed, having more primitive forms.

Pidgin languages are usually agglutinative or analitic,
and this is exactly the case with uralic languages.

Dude you are confused; Uralic languages are archaic and simple. It is IE languages which are more complex (evolved, degraded whatever) Uralic has even preserved the old IE agglunativity.